55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Salient Archer]

Supernovas
Produces the same destructive power of 10^162 Gigaton of TNT
The full strength of the blast has a range of 10au depending on the size of the star, but the remnant shockwave and radiation has a travel distance of around 50au with dissipating intensity over distance.

The Sol System Relay
The Sol Relay approximately is 39au from our star.

The Mu Relay
It was estimated that the Mu Relay was much closer to the star that went supernova (possibly as close at 13au based on in-game star charts) but just to be lenient to naysayers lets say it was still 39au from the blast center.

Due to It’s distance from the blast center it was hit with approximately only 10 Gigaton of TNT and as a result was not damaged but was flung out of it’s orbit. Although it could have been as high as 10^6 Gigaton.

The Citadel
As stated in Mass Effect Revelation The Citadel is made from the same materials as the Mass Relays. The presidium and each arm also contains pods that produce mass effect fields that protect the wards by keeping the outer skin separate from the rest of the structures, which protects it from intense external damage. It stands to reason the Citadel (with it’s arms closed) could also sustain external hits of a Gigaton or greater.

In essence; the Citadel would have to incur a massive internalized explosion, where it is most vulnerable. To be lenient lets place the explosion at no greater than 1 Gigaton as it's clearly shown that parts of the citadel have survived

Kinetic Barriers
The shielding afforded by kinetic barriers protects against fast moving projectiles but they do not protect against extremes of temperature, toxins, or radiation.

Could Shepard outrun the blast?
The Presidium Is 7.6 kilometers in diameter, the explosion presented in the destruction cinematic has an estimated radius of 19 kilometers. To out run an explosion of this size the average person would need either a head start of 1 hour 11 minutes and 15 seconds to escape the blast or be capable of running at 900kph for the 1 minute and 19 seconds shown between the tube destruction and the central explosion. Last time I checked Shepard does not have the Speed Force as a power.



The Human Body
At 537 degrees celsius (1000 Fahrenheit) the human skin catches fire.
At 982 degrees celsius (1800 Fahrenheit) human bones can turn to ash
The blast that would have destroyed the Citadel would have to produce temperatures in excess of 8,000,000 degrees celsius (14,400,032 Fahrenheit) vaporizing anyone inside the blast zone.

If Shepard is shown to be breathing on earth how did he get there?....
Well it wouldn't be by falling there, that's for sure...

If the Citadel was parked about 238,855 miles (384,000km) from Earth (using the moons orbital distance as a frame of reference) it would take Shepard at least 13+ hours to reach earths outer atmosphere if he was able to propel himself at a direct vector and at the safe orbital re-entry speed of 17,500 mph (28,163 kph). This could become problematic without an envirosuit as the human respiratory system can only last up to 90 seconds within a vacuum. 



Now assuming he can survive temps of up to 11,726 degrees Celsius (21,138 fahrenheit) during the re-entry stage he would now have scrubbed off most of his speed due to air friction. He still needs to be able to survive the extreme drop to the ground. During this stage he should reach his max terminal velocity speed of 126mph (203kph) once he enters past the thermosphere, making his fall last around around 1.6 hours before the ground breaks his fall. However the air from 9 kilometers and up has an average tempt of around -35 degrees celsius causing Shepard to suffer from both Hypothermia and Hypoxia making him totally incapable of controlling his fall.

But yet we see this....





Also, here' a very in-depth rubble comparison of the ending scene done by Gunslinger_ruiz: http://social.biowar...3/2140#11951474

Also lets look at the phrase everyone uses in defence of this idiotic 'Shepard survivng the citadel blast idea'

Q: Did anyone on the Citadel survive?

A: Yes. We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay, that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died....

So they didn't want us to feel it would be BETTER for everyone on the Citadel if they just died. They never say that they didn't die. Last time I checked I do feel that people not being dead IS better than being dead. This is a very non-comital statement that actually doesn't say anything we can't already work out ourselves.

...The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers... -

True, once again this never says that Shepard made it to one or if anyone even used one. It just states that they're there to be used.

even if it blows up, millions might survive. You should assume that everyone plot-important on the Citadel survived...

Keyword in that snipet is MIGHT. Once again very little commitment is being made in this answer. Also if you think about it "Everyone plot-important on the Citadel survived", never actually says that they were on the Citadel at the time of the explosion... just saying!

[Dam0299]

@Salient Archer, That picture made me lol more then it should have, thanks .

Modifié par Dam0299, 13 juillet 2012 - 12:35 .

[natalZ]

Nice post Saliant, very nice post.

[Salient Archer]

@Dam0299, It's a natural reaction. I still chuckle at it from time to time.

[The Heretic of Time]

UltimateTobi wrote...

You don't like the IT, hence you mark all evidences as unsolid.

You want to believe in IT, hence you mark all the straw grasping as solid evidence.

For us, we have many solid evidences; proof, if you want to call it that way.

No you don't.

And since when do theories need proof? They wouldn't be theories anymore if they got proved.

Seems someone doesn't understand the meaning of the word theory.

A theory is a general explanation for a specific (natural) phenomenon that is backed up by (scientific) proof and evidence.

For example, Darwin's theory of evolution is proven through scientific evidence and therefor is officially a scientific theory that has been tested and proven.

A theory, in it's true meaning, can't be an acceptable theory without evidence. When many people (like you) talk about "theories", they're really just talking about a hypothesis, an assumption at most.

Don't ask me what "proof", or better, evidences we have. You have a chance at looking a ton up on the very first post.

I did check most of the first post, I was not impressed. It is obvious that what you guys are doing is grasping at straws.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 13 juillet 2012 - 12:38 .

[CoolioThane]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

UltimateTobi wrote...

You don't like the IT, hence you mark all evidences as unsolid.

You want to believe in IT, hence you mark all the straw grasping as solid evidence.

For us, we have many solid evidences; proof, if you want to call it that way.

No you don't.

And since when do theories need proof? They wouldn't be theories anymore if they got proved.

Seems someone doesn't understand the meaning of the word theory.

A theory is a general explanation for a specific (natural) phenomenon that is backed up by (scientific) proof and evidence.

For example, Darwin's theory of evolution is proven through scientific evidence and therefor is officially a scientific theory that has been tested and proven.

A theory, in it's true meaning, can't be an acceptable theory without evidence. When many people (like you) talk about "theories", they're really just talking about a hypothesis, an assumption at most.

Don't ask me what "proof", or better, evidences we have. You have a chance at looking a ton up on the very first post.

I did check most of the first post, I was not impressed. It is obvious that what you guys are doing is grasping at straws.

FOR US. Jesus Christ, it's like you don't ****ing listen. We have this interpretation of the game, which is also a lot better than the endings if you take them at face value. 

"You don't" yet another dismissal without evidence.

"It's obvious...grasping at straws" - Disparaging, dismissive and pathetic. It's what we expect from you now, and to be honest, it's sad. You hate the endings, and now you hate on our interpretation of the ending...did you get beaten as a kid because you seem really ****ing angry and miserable, bro. 

[Lordjedidiah]

@Heretic_Hanar, You just invalidated your own opinion by being biased against IT.
Just saying, that to one person the things IT has found can be damning, but to another who is biased against it, doesn't like it or just doesn't want it to be true it is obviously not convincing or even relevant. Thus this one would like to merely say, stop arguing against something you don't approve of. You're not convincing anyone but yourself in this matter, it is merely pointless for you to continue. ._.

[Lord Goose]

Q: Did anyone on the Citadel survive?

A: Yes. We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay, that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died....

So they didn't want us to feel it would be BETTER for everyone on the Citadel if they just died. They never say that they didn't die. Last time I checked I do feel that people not being dead IS better than being dead. This is a very non-comital statement that actually doesn't say anything we can't already work out ourselves.

...The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers... -

True, once again this never says that Shepard made it to one or if anyone even used one. It just states that they're there to be used.

even if it blows up, millions might survive. You should assume that everyone plot-important on the Citadel survived...

Keyword in that snipet is MIGHT. Once again very little commitment is being made in this answer. Also if you think about it "Everyone plot-important on the Citadel survived", never actually says that they were on the Citadel at the time of the explosion... just saying!

-Did anyone on the Citadel survive?

Yes. We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay, that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died. The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers - even if it blows up, millions might survive. You should assume that everyone plot-important on the Citadel survived.

-Is it better for Kelly Chambers if we talk her into suicide?

No, see above.

I'm not sure what do you mean. Even if they "might" survive it still opens room for possibility of somebody being alive.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 13 juillet 2012 - 12:49 .

[The Heretic of Time]

So Salient Archer's argument for the IT is that the Mass Effect story is inconsistent with reality and itself and that it simply just plain doesn't make sense? So THAT'S your "evidence"?

"He guys, look at how little sense the whole events of ME3 makes, that means the IT must be true! OMG!"

Yeah, great logic guys. Why don't we just all accept ME3 for what it is; a poorly written story that doesn't make much sense?

[Humakt83]

You people still bother with trolls? Report them.

[UltimateTobi]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

You want to believe in IT, hence you mark all the straw grasping as solid evidence.

That's a draw.

No you don't.

Draw either. You don't think so, I do.

Seems someone doesn't understand the meaning of the word theory.

A theory is a general explanation for a specific (natural) phenomenon that is backed up by (scientific) proof and evidence.

For example, Darwin's theory of evolution is proven through scientific evidence and therefor is officially a scientific theory that has been tested and proven.

A theory, in it's true meaning, can't be an acceptable theory without evidence. When many people (like you) talk about "theories", they're really just talking about a hypothesis, an assumption at most.

Well, English is not my mother tongue.
If I talk about a theory, then I mean a possibility. Otherwhise I'd talk about facts. Don't forget, we're not a science club. But because you know the definition of a theory better than me, I give you a point here.

I did check most of the first post, I was not impressed. It is obvious that what you guys are doing is grasping at straws.

Draw again. It's grasping for straws for you, not for me. That's your point of view.

[FifthBeatle]

Salient Archer wrote...

The Mu Relay
It was estimated that the Mu Relay was much closer to the star that went supernova (possibly as close at 13au based on in-game star charts) but just to be lenient to naysayers lets say it was still 39au from the blast center.

Due to It’s distance from the blast center it was hit with approximately only 10 Gigaton of TNT and as a result was not damaged but was flung out of it’s orbit. Although it could have been as high as 10^6 Gigaton.

[/i]

I don't think it changes your (valid) argument, but the star (or, more accurately, stars) by the Mu Relay only went nova. Which might help explain why it was not damaged, too.

Since I never post (I'm a voyer of the IT thread) I also just want to add that anyone who has invested themselves in the series can't possibly take what happened at the end of the game on its face. It just makes no sense whatsoever. Not just the plot holes and visual clues, but, more importantly, the overall themes of the game. 

Everyone please keep up the good work!

[CoolioThane]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

So Salient Archer's argument for the IT is that the Mass Effect story is inconsistent with reality and itself and that it simply just plain doesn't make sense? So THAT'S your "evidence"?

"He guys, look at how little sense the whole events of ME3 makes, that means the IT must be true! OMG!"

Yeah, great logic guys. Why don't we just all accept ME3 for what it is; a poorly written story that doesn't make much sense?

Because we don't all have the same opinion as you, you arrogant wanker.

Bashing someone's opinion is just pathetic.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Lord Goose wrote...

I'm not sure what do you mean. Even if they "might" survive it still opens room for possibility of somebody being alive.

I dont know about you, but an area open to space only a few hundred meters from ground zero does not sound like a secure bunker to me.

Also you consistently refuse to comment on the fact that barriers do not block heat and as such shepard in the location we see him in should be vaporized from heat alone.

[Salient Archer]

Lord Goose wrote...

Q: Did anyone on the Citadel survive?

A: Yes. We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay, that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died....

So they didn't want us to feel it would be BETTER for everyone on the Citadel if they just died. They never say that they didn't die. Last time I checked I do feel that people not being dead IS better than being dead. This is a very non-comital statement that actually doesn't say anything we can't already work out ourselves.

...The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers... -

True, once again this never says that Shepard made it to one or if anyone even used one. It just states that they're there to be used.

even if it blows up, millions might survive. You should assume that everyone plot-important on the Citadel survived...

Keyword in that snipet is MIGHT. Once again very little commitment is being made in this answer. Also if you think about it "Everyone plot-important on the Citadel survived", never actually says that they were on the Citadel at the time of the explosion... just saying!

-Did anyone on the Citadel survive?

Yes. We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay, that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died. The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers - even if it blows up, millions might survive. You should assume that everyone plot-important on the Citadel survived.

-Is it better for Kelly Chambers if we talk her into suicide?

No, see above.

I'm not sure what do you mean. Even if they "might" survive it still opens room for possibility of somebody being alive.

I never said it doesn't. I just mean that the answer given about the situation doesn't actually commit to it one way or another. Here's the same statement, now with All-New Commitment™  
"The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers - even if it blows up, people WILL survive, possibly millions"

[paxxton]

BREAKING NEWS!!! The links to my ME3 theories are again available in my sig. Thanks Arian for the advice!

Modifié par paxxton, 13 juillet 2012 - 12:52 .

[The Heretic of Time]

CoolioThane wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

So Salient Archer's argument for the IT is that the Mass Effect story is inconsistent with reality and itself and that it simply just plain doesn't make sense? So THAT'S your "evidence"?

"He guys, look at how little sense the whole events of ME3 makes, that means the IT must be true! OMG!"

Yeah, great logic guys. Why don't we just all accept ME3 for what it is; a poorly written story that doesn't make much sense?

Because we don't all have the same opinion as you, you arrogant wanker.

Bashing someone's opinion is just pathetic.

If your opinion or logic is retarded than I'm free to criticize it as much as I like. If you can't back your opinion or logic up with solid arguments and you can't handle some critique than that's your problem.

[UltimateTobi]

paxxton wrote...

BREAKING NEWS!!! The links to my ME3 theories are available in my sig. Thanks Arian for the advice!

Welcome back paxx! Welcome back to the theorists.

[paxxton]

UltimateTobi wrote...

paxxton wrote...

BREAKING NEWS!!! The links to my ME3 theories are available in my sig. Thanks Arian for the advice!

Welcome back paxx! Welcome back to the theorists.

Thanks but I've never really left.  Just that the BSN sig doesn't have enough space for my links. Had to compact them. 

[Dam0299]

@Heretic_Hanar, you are firm in what you think is true, I can respect that. However what I find rather childish is your need to insult, you can just as easily argue against something without the need to call things "Retarded". That in itself makes it difficult to take you seriously.

[Lord Goose]

I dont know about you, but an area open to space only a few hundred meters from ground zero does not sound like a secure bunker to me.

1. If the decision room was ground zero of explosion, why it is not completely obliterated by blast?



As you can see, docking point of the Crucible is still in place, and in one piece, despite other parts of Citadel being clearly damaged.

2. The decision room was some sealed and secret part of the Citadel, which was never found during millenia of exploits. I do not see a good reason, why it should have no defence at all. It might not be just kinetic barriers. I just do not like to make suggestion about exact defences, just the fact that they could have been where is enough for me.

I never said it doesn't. I just mean that the answer given about the situation doesn't actually commit to it one way or another. Here's the same statement, now with All-New Commitment™

-Did anyone on the Citadel survive?

Yes.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 13 juillet 2012 - 12:59 .

[The Heretic of Time]

UltimateTobi wrote...

Well, English is not my mother tongue.
If I talk about a theory, then I mean a possibility. Otherwhise I'd talk about facts. Don't forget, we're not a science club. But because you know the definition of a theory better than me, I give you a point here.

That's okay. English isn't my mother language either. So I did not blame you for not knowing the true definition of "theory". Now you know. 

And this is indeed not a science club, but some posters here sure try hard to make the IT look like some kind of smart pseudo-scientific theory, which it really isn't.

Draw again. It's grasping for straws for you, not for me. That's your point of view.

Well grasping at straws isn't really an opinion. You're either grasping at straws or you don't. Based on how most of you try to support this "theory', I can savely say that you are indeed grasping at straws. Well, maybe not YOU specifically (I wouldn't know, I haven't see much of you), but the most fanatic posters here are.

[CoolioThane]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

So Salient Archer's argument for the IT is that the Mass Effect story is inconsistent with reality and itself and that it simply just plain doesn't make sense? So THAT'S your "evidence"?

"He guys, look at how little sense the whole events of ME3 makes, that means the IT must be true! OMG!"

Yeah, great logic guys. Why don't we just all accept ME3 for what it is; a poorly written story that doesn't make much sense?

Because we don't all have the same opinion as you, you arrogant wanker.

Bashing someone's opinion is just pathetic.

If your opinion or logic is retarded than I'm free to criticize it as much as I like. If you can't back your opinion or logic up with solid arguments and you can't handle some critique than that's your problem.

So...all of us are retarded for believing the IT? I think you've just proven yourself to be a nob.

We have backed up all of our theory...I don't understand why you ignore it...or wave your hand and say "POOR WRITING" - That's a retarded point of view.

You're just a nob, mate. Get over yourself please.

[Salient Archer]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

So Salient Archer's argument for the IT is that the Mass Effect story is inconsistent with reality and itself and that it simply just plain doesn't make sense? So THAT'S your "evidence"?

"He(y) guys, look at how little sense the whole events of ME3 makes, that means the IT must be true! OMG!"

Yeah, great logic guys. Why don't we just all accept ME3 for what it is; a poorly written story that doesn't make much sense?

Now who's grasping? My point has nothing to do with writing or even IT. It's just a scientific breakdown of why it isn't possible. To be honest you're just being argumentative for the sake of it. 

So answer this: 

are you
[1] A troll
[2] Feel it's your duty to educate us poor misguided souls
[3] Praying that we can convince you that IT is true
[4] Hurting that ME3 didn't offer you the closure you wanted and can't seem to move on.

I don't really care for your answer, I just want you to think about it.

As for me, I'm off. I might jump back in a week to see how things are doing. Peace out all!

Modifié par Salient Archer, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:06 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Dam0299 wrote...

@Heretic_Hanar, you are firm in what you think is true, I can respect that. However what I find rather childish is your need to insult, you can just as easily argue against something without the need to call things "Retarded". That in itself makes it difficult to take you seriously.

Well no offense but I honestly do think that the IT is retarded. I never believed in IT myself, but at least I respected the IT before the Extended Cut. But with the extended cut not expanding on the IT, I had hoped that most people would have been reasonable enough to drop the IT, because it clearly isn't true. Yet people still insist that their little "theory" is valid even after the EC. Guys, if BioWare had the intention of using the IT, they would already have done so in the Extended Cut. They didn't, so please just drop this sillyness.

I'm sorry, but this kind of behavior seems very similar to the behavior of another specific group of people, a group which I also find very hard to take seriously.

If you want to know which group I'm talking about, click here. That movement is just a plain insult on the scientific community and human intelligence.