Eterna5 wrote...
This has to be the most pointless thing I've read here.
mmm buddah23 wrote...
If they consulted scientis, FTL would never be in any game, if you travel FTL speeds and collide with a marbel sized object, the resulting explosion would be larger than 100 nuclear bombs. SO no.
tractrpl wrote...
aberdash wrote...
Maybe you should learn to read others posts before posting.tractrpl wrote...
Yes I did. You said there was only one FTL method known by connecting two distant points in space. This is clearly a totally different method. One that's actually more plausible than the one you mentioned to boot.
The only theory of "ftl" that some scientists think would work that I know of is somehow bending space enough that one point connects to another.
Yep, I read that right. Connecting two points together is totally different than creating a warp field.
tractrpl wrote...
Rombomm wrote...
Actually Mass Effect has pretty good science if you assume the Mass Effect is real.
Yes, but assuming Eezo is real. Eezo, if it exists, could make Alcubierre drives possible, and thus FTL travel possible.
IanPolaris wrote...
tractrpl wrote...
aberdash wrote...
Maybe you should learn to read others posts before posting.tractrpl wrote...
Yes I did. You said there was only one FTL method known by connecting two distant points in space. This is clearly a totally different method. One that's actually more plausible than the one you mentioned to boot.
The only theory of "ftl" that some scientists think would work that I know of is somehow bending space enough that one point connects to another.
Yep, I read that right. Connecting two points together is totally different than creating a warp field.
Actually it's not. It's pretty much the same thing, i.e. using negative stress-energy curvature solutions to Einstein's Equation (in GR). Such solutions do exist in nature and do permit phenomena that seem to violate the speed of light but in fact don't.
-Polaris
IanPolaris wrote...
tractrpl wrote...
Rombomm wrote...
Actually Mass Effect has pretty good science if you assume the Mass Effect is real.
Yes, but assuming Eezo is real. Eezo, if it exists, could make Alcubierre drives possible, and thus FTL travel possible.
Dark Energy (which effectively has negative mass) does seem to really exist. It's just very badly understood. That in no way makes EEZO real, but it does at least add a needed shred of plausibility to the idea that a "Mass Effect" might exist and for sci-fi that's enough.
-Polaris
Modifié par tractrpl, 24 avril 2012 - 04:09 .
Vormaerin wrote...
You don't need scientists, militarists, or engineers. You just need consistency.
The idea that a spacefaring military would automatically grow out of our Navy is not a given. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a unified service or using a different rank structure than the one we have. The Navy's current rank structure is barely a hundred years old, even if you ignore the assorted tweaks its had since then. Why would it need to be the same in another hundred years.
Heck, you don't even have to have a rank structure. You could have a system built around MOS based paygrades (Ashley is B2, IIRC, Shepard is N7, Vega is N6, etc) and billets (ie jobs like Chief Engineer, CO, XO, etc).
The only problem with ME is lack of internal consistency. Biotics do some stuff in some places, but can't do that same stuff in others. Ashley's changes in rank don't follow any rules that are explained. And so on.
tractrpl wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
tractrpl wrote...
aberdash wrote...
Maybe you should learn to read others posts before posting.tractrpl wrote...
Yes I did. You said there was only one FTL method known by connecting two distant points in space. This is clearly a totally different method. One that's actually more plausible than the one you mentioned to boot.
The only theory of "ftl" that some scientists think would work that I know of is somehow bending space enough that one point connects to another.
Yep, I read that right. Connecting two points together is totally different than creating a warp field.
Actually it's not. It's pretty much the same thing, i.e. using negative stress-energy curvature solutions to Einstein's Equation (in GR). Such solutions do exist in nature and do permit phenomena that seem to violate the speed of light but in fact don't.
-Polaris
No, it's completely different. One is a wormhole, which are gravitational singularities, the other is not. It is not necessary to bend space and time into a singularity with Alcubierre Drives. It's like saying a planet is pretty much the same as a black hole. Yes they both bend spacetime, but that's where the similarities end.
tractrpl wrote...
It's been my observation that whenever sci-fi writers fail to ask for help from scientists, crap shoots like ME3's ending almost always result.
Lord Phoebus wrote...
They should have had a scientific consultant (actually they should have had a theoretical physicist, material scientist, aerodynamicist, zoologist and biomedical engineer consutling) as well as a military consultant. At the very least they should have had someone checking for internal consistency between what is presented in game, what has been presented in the prequels to the game and what is written in the codex.
tractrpl wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
tractrpl wrote...
Rombomm wrote...
Actually Mass Effect has pretty good science if you assume the Mass Effect is real.
Yes, but assuming Eezo is real. Eezo, if it exists, could make Alcubierre drives possible, and thus FTL travel possible.
Dark Energy (which effectively has negative mass) does seem to really exist. It's just very badly understood. That in no way makes EEZO real, but it does at least add a needed shred of plausibility to the idea that a "Mass Effect" might exist and for sci-fi that's enough.
-Polaris
What are you talking about? Dark Energy takes up 70% of the energy density of the entire universe! Of course it's real. I never said Eezo is real. I said if IT WAS real, then such a substance could be used to make FTL travel possible in real life. We don't know all the answers until a consistent theory of quantum gravity is understood. It might be possible to create pockets of negative energy (anti-gravity) near a ship in certain situations. If it is possible, then FTL travel could happen, possibly sooner than you think.
Modifié par IanPolaris, 24 avril 2012 - 04:39 .
Vormaerin wrote...
tractrpl wrote...
It's been my observation that whenever sci-fi writers fail to ask for help from scientists, crap shoots like ME3's ending almost always result.
I trust that since you made a completely specious empirical assertion like that, you don't count yourself as a scientist. Because I sure wouldn't want to see the science that kind of methodology produces.
tractrpl wrote...
Vormaerin wrote...
You don't need scientists, militarists, or engineers. You just need consistency.
The idea that a spacefaring military would automatically grow out of our Navy is not a given. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a unified service or using a different rank structure than the one we have. The Navy's current rank structure is barely a hundred years old, even if you ignore the assorted tweaks its had since then. Why would it need to be the same in another hundred years.
Heck, you don't even have to have a rank structure. You could have a system built around MOS based paygrades (Ashley is B2, IIRC, Shepard is N7, Vega is N6, etc) and billets (ie jobs like Chief Engineer, CO, XO, etc).
The only problem with ME is lack of internal consistency. Biotics do some stuff in some places, but can't do that same stuff in others. Ashley's changes in rank don't follow any rules that are explained. And so on.
You shouldn't underestimate scientists. I mean Republicans repeatedly doubt scientists, and what good has that accomplished? Scientists are perfect for damn near any situation, even on non science tasks. They are good at analyzing a situation and exploring multiple possiblilities, doing a risk analysis on all the different scenarios and finding out which is the most plausible. It's been my observation that whenever sci-fi writers fail to ask for help from scientists, crap shoots like ME3's ending almost always result.
vania z wrote...
Should developers consult scientists?
Modifié par T1l, 24 avril 2012 - 04:34 .
vania z wrote...
Well, we are in ME forums so I thought it's obvious I was talking about ME, sorry if I didn't make it clear:)metawanderer wrote...
I believe it depends on the game. Star Wars obviously should not need much real science but something like Mass Effect or even Deus Ex needs to have their lore grounded in real science in order for the fiction of the world to be believable.
IanPolaris wrote...
tractrpl wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
tractrpl wrote...
Rombomm wrote...
Actually Mass Effect has pretty good science if you assume the Mass Effect is real.
Yes, but assuming Eezo is real. Eezo, if it exists, could make Alcubierre drives possible, and thus FTL travel possible.
Dark Energy (which effectively has negative mass) does seem to really exist. It's just very badly understood. That in no way makes EEZO real, but it does at least add a needed shred of plausibility to the idea that a "Mass Effect" might exist and for sci-fi that's enough.
-Polaris
What are you talking about? Dark Energy takes up 70% of the energy density of the entire universe! Of course it's real. I never said Eezo is real. I said if IT WAS real, then such a substance could be used to make FTL travel possible in real life. We don't know all the answers until a consistent theory of quantum gravity is understood. It might be possible to create pockets of negative energy (anti-gravity) near a ship in certain situations. If it is possible, then FTL travel could happen, possibly sooner than you think.
Who taught your physics? Dark Energy ==/== Dark Matter. Dark Matter does indeed take up the vast majority of the known "mass" of the universe (and it's closer to 90%+ actually). Dark ENERGY is something different and has been implicitly confirmed to exist by studying early universe models. It explains why the universe is a lot older than the old expansion models predicted. In essence Dark Energy (which does seem to exist) acts much like a negative "mass" repelling matter from each other (like a hypothethical cosmological constant). They are NOT the same thing.
-Polaris
tractrpl wrote...
An exageration, yes. But it's been my observation that MANY sci-fi series that don't hire scientists end up this way.
tractrpl wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
tractrpl wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
tractrpl wrote...
Rombomm wrote...
Actually Mass Effect has pretty good science if you assume the Mass Effect is real.
Yes, but assuming Eezo is real. Eezo, if it exists, could make Alcubierre drives possible, and thus FTL travel possible.
Dark Energy (which effectively has negative mass) does seem to really exist. It's just very badly understood. That in no way makes EEZO real, but it does at least add a needed shred of plausibility to the idea that a "Mass Effect" might exist and for sci-fi that's enough.
-Polaris
What are you talking about? Dark Energy takes up 70% of the energy density of the entire universe! Of course it's real. I never said Eezo is real. I said if IT WAS real, then such a substance could be used to make FTL travel possible in real life. We don't know all the answers until a consistent theory of quantum gravity is understood. It might be possible to create pockets of negative energy (anti-gravity) near a ship in certain situations. If it is possible, then FTL travel could happen, possibly sooner than you think.
Who taught your physics? Dark Energy ==/== Dark Matter. Dark Matter does indeed take up the vast majority of the known "mass" of the universe (and it's closer to 90%+ actually). Dark ENERGY is something different and has been implicitly confirmed to exist by studying early universe models. It explains why the universe is a lot older than the old expansion models predicted. In essence Dark Energy (which does seem to exist) acts much like a negative "mass" repelling matter from each other (like a hypothethical cosmological constant). They are NOT the same thing.
-Polaris
Who taught you YOUR physcs?
Did I say Dark Matter == Dark Energy? Dark Matter does NOT take up 70% of the energy density of the cosmos, Dark Energy does. Dark Energy is may or may not be negative matter. Most scientists seem to think it's the vacuum energy of spacetime itself, although it could be negative mass, no one's sure. Dark Energy is an observed phenomena but no one know what it is. Much like in the 1800s scientists knew that electricity was, and could even use it, but they did not know what it was made up of.
Modifié par IanPolaris, 24 avril 2012 - 04:43 .
IanPolaris wrote...
tractrpl wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
tractrpl wrote...
aberdash wrote...
Maybe you should learn to read others posts before posting.tractrpl wrote...
Yes I did. You said there was only one FTL method known by connecting two distant points in space. This is clearly a totally different method. One that's actually more plausible than the one you mentioned to boot.
The only theory of "ftl" that some scientists think would work that I know of is somehow bending space enough that one point connects to another.
Yep, I read that right. Connecting two points together is totally different than creating a warp field.
Actually it's not. It's pretty much the same thing, i.e. using negative stress-energy curvature solutions to Einstein's Equation (in GR). Such solutions do exist in nature and do permit phenomena that seem to violate the speed of light but in fact don't.
-Polaris
No, it's completely different. One is a wormhole, which are gravitational singularities, the other is not. It is not necessary to bend space and time into a singularity with Alcubierre Drives. It's like saying a planet is pretty much the same as a black hole. Yes they both bend spacetime, but that's where the similarities end.
Who taught you your GR! Wormholes are NOT gravitational singularities! In fact a true singularity prohibits the existance of a wormhole (if you don't have a rotating gravitational source you have NO valid wormhole solution). Where did you learn your physics??!? Actually a planet or other gravitational spherical source IS like a non-rotating blackhole. For the same "mass" the Einstein Equation solutions for both are the same. The point is that both warp drive and wormholes come from the same scientific principles applied much the same way, and both require the same thing (energy with a negative stress-energy curvature tensor) to be stable!
-Polaris
IanPolaris wrote...
That is one estimate. Dark Energy is very much cutting edge astrophysics and 70% of the estimated energy density is NOT the same thing as saying it doesn't have 'effectively' negative mass because it does. Those are DIFFERENT things and I was very careful and you frankly were not.
-Polaris
tractrpl wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
tractrpl wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
tractrpl wrote...
aberdash wrote...
Maybe you should learn to read others posts before posting.tractrpl wrote...
Yes I did. You said there was only one FTL method known by connecting two distant points in space. This is clearly a totally different method. One that's actually more plausible than the one you mentioned to boot.
The only theory of "ftl" that some scientists think would work that I know of is somehow bending space enough that one point connects to another.
Yep, I read that right. Connecting two points together is totally different than creating a warp field.
Actually it's not. It's pretty much the same thing, i.e. using negative stress-energy curvature solutions to Einstein's Equation (in GR). Such solutions do exist in nature and do permit phenomena that seem to violate the speed of light but in fact don't.
-Polaris
No, it's completely different. One is a wormhole, which are gravitational singularities, the other is not. It is not necessary to bend space and time into a singularity with Alcubierre Drives. It's like saying a planet is pretty much the same as a black hole. Yes they both bend spacetime, but that's where the similarities end.
Who taught you your GR! Wormholes are NOT gravitational singularities! In fact a true singularity prohibits the existance of a wormhole (if you don't have a rotating gravitational source you have NO valid wormhole solution). Where did you learn your physics??!? Actually a planet or other gravitational spherical source IS like a non-rotating blackhole. For the same "mass" the Einstein Equation solutions for both are the same. The point is that both warp drive and wormholes come from the same scientific principles applied much the same way, and both require the same thing (energy with a negative stress-energy curvature tensor) to be stable!
-Polaris
Schwarzschild wormholes ARE singularities. The only other theoretical wormholes that I know of use string theory, and I am not well versed in String Theory, but I'm rather disinclined to believe in string theory.
tractrpl wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
That is one estimate. Dark Energy is very much cutting edge astrophysics and 70% of the estimated energy density is NOT the same thing as saying it doesn't have 'effectively' negative mass because it does. Those are DIFFERENT things and I was very careful and you frankly were not.
-Polaris
Dark Energy is hardly cutting edge physics. It's an unknown but measurable quantity, much like electromagnetism in the 1800s. They knew it existed, but didn't know what it was made of. This is essentially the same here, except that we haven't found any way to use Dark Energy in the same way that the scientists of the 1800s could use electromagnetism, even though they didn't understand it, really. Dark Energy is not a theory, it is a measured quantity, and a measurement that has been refined numerous times. We know it exists, we just don't know what it is.
Retour en haut