418 réponses à ce sujet

[sr2josh]

Seboist wrote...

Makai81 wrote...

People, it's called science FICTION 

Proper science fiction has grounding in reality and plausibility unlike space pulp like ME.

Fail Harder.

You obviously don't know anything about real science or Mass Effect.  Go back to the "science-based" Halo.

[adayaday]

David7204 wrote...

Golly, a two percent difference. How long did it take you to look up that equation and copy it?

You can't say "i was wrong" can you?

[LiL Reapur]

Makai81 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Makai81 wrote...

People, it's called science FICTION 

Proper science fiction has grounding in reality and plausibility unlike space pulp like ME.

Fail Harder.

You obviously don't know anything about real science or Mass Effect.  Go back to the "science-based" Halo.

You didn't prove your point though

[dreamgazer]

Makai81 wrote...

People, it's called SCIENCE fiction.

Exactly!

[Seboist]

LiL Reapur wrote...

Makai81 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Makai81 wrote...

People, it's called science FICTION 

Proper science fiction has grounding in reality and plausibility unlike space pulp like ME.

Fail Harder.

You obviously don't know anything about real science or Mass Effect.  Go back to the "science-based" Halo.

You didn't prove your point though

I love how he continues to pwn himself.

Modifié par Seboist, 21 août 2013 - 12:43 .

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

Golly, a two percent difference. How long did it take you to look up that equation and copy it?

About ten minutes when you include cross-referencing Alchera's stats. Still, my point. It'd hurt less to fall to Earth.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 21 août 2013 - 12:43 .

[David7204]

adayaday wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Golly, a two percent difference. How long did it take you to look up that equation and copy it?

You can't say "i was wrong" can you?

Uh, no, I wasn't wrong in the slightest. I said the gravity and atmosphere would probably cancel each other out and the terminal velocity would be about the same. And I was completely correct. A two percent difference is absolutely within a casual estimate of being 'probably about the same.'

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 12:44 .

[o Ventus]

Br3ad wrote...

The doctor says that Miranda had a benign neoplasm, a common cause of which is damaged DNA. In women, this is not unheard of for being a cause of infertility. The way that Miranda exists, is a very easy way to say why Miranda being infertile makes since. What I don't know is why their modern medicine cannot fix the promblem.  

Modern day, 21-century medicine can fix this very issue. It's been happening since at least the 1990's (if not even farther back). The most prohibitive factor today is the cost of such an operation. Last I recall, it could cost upwards of $40,000 or more (in U.S dollars) depending on where you live.

Miranda (assuming romance), on the other hand, should have no trouble accumulating funds for such an operation, what between her own money and the insane amount of credits that Shepard accumulates across 3 games.

[sr2josh]

LiL Reapur wrote...

Makai81 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Makai81 wrote...

People, it's called science FICTION 

Proper science fiction has grounding in reality and plausibility unlike space pulp like ME.

Fail Harder.

You obviously don't know anything about real science or Mass Effect.  Go back to the "science-based" Halo.

You didn't prove your point though

My point is that Mass Effect is science fiction which is an obvious fact.  There are copious amounts of real science in the trilogy such as breatheable/toxic atmospheres, types of stars, black holes along with the science fantasy aspects of element zero, biotics and mass relays.  Anyone that actually paid attention in even elementary science class and has played the trilogy knows that.  That goes without being said but then again this is BSN.

[sr2josh]

Seboist wrote...

LiL Reapur wrote...

Makai81 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Makai81 wrote...

People, it's called science FICTION 

Proper science fiction has grounding in reality and plausibility unlike space pulp like ME.

Fail Harder.

You obviously don't know anything about real science or Mass Effect.  Go back to the "science-based" Halo.

You didn't prove your point though

I love how he continues to pwn himself.

riiiiiiiiiight  

Modifié par Makai81, 21 août 2013 - 12:46 .

[billy the squid]

David7204 wrote...

Thinner atmosphere and also lower gravity. Probably a terminal atmosphere of about the same.

Plenty of skydivers have hit the ground at terminal velocity. They don't get turned into paste. Some have even survived by hitting trees and stuff like that.

If you hit a tree you are not traveling at terminal velocity, you've already deployed a parachute or wing suit to reduce speed and change tragectory. You hit the ground at terminal velocity you're impacting at about 120mph.

This is what happens to a car when it hits a wall at 120mph, the same speed a sky diver is traveling at in free fall at terminal velocity. You going to walk away from that one?

Modifié par billy the squid, 21 août 2013 - 12:50 .

[adayaday]

David7204 wrote...

adayaday wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Golly, a two percent difference. How long did it take you to look up that equation and copy it?

You can't say "i was wrong" can you?

Uh, no, I wasn't wrong in the slightest. I said the gravity and atmosphere would probably cancel each other out and the terminal velocity would be about the same. And I was completely correct. A two percent difference is absolutely within a casual estimate of being 'probably about the same.'

I thought so.

[Reorte]

Oh dear, someone has tried to resort to "It's science fiction!" to justify shoving any old nonsense in. The point about science fiction is that (if it's any good and actually stands any chance of claiming to be that) is that it's SCIENCE fiction. The fiction part isn't supposed to be the science - it's not supposed to be magic by another word.

[LiL Reapur]

Makai81 wrote...

My point is that Mass Effect is science fiction which is an obvious fact.  There are copious amounts of real science in the trilogy such as breatheable/toxic atmospheres, types of stars, black holes along with the science fantasy aspects of element zero, biotics and mass relays.  Anyone that actually paid attention in even elementary science class and has played the trilogy knows that.  That goes without being said but then again this is BSN.

True it is science fiction.....but we want to know the Science behind the fiction not just the fiction aka Synthesis.....

[sr2josh]

Reorte wrote...

Oh dear, someone has tried to resort to "It's science fiction!" to justify shoving any old nonsense in. The point about science fiction is that (if it's any good and actually stands any chance of claiming to be that) is that it's SCIENCE fiction. The fiction part isn't supposed to be the science - it's not supposed to be magic by another word.

Yes dear, most science fiction franchises are like that.  Mass Effect does have elements of real science mixed in with science fantasy which equals science fiction.  The point is that people are criticizing BW for plot elements like Biotics and Mass Relays despite that those are the fantasy aspects of the Mass Effect world while those same individuals ignore the real science facts that go along with the fantasy.  You see the same thing in Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, etc.

[Br3admax]

Science fiction is not the same as fantasy. Fantasy is an entirely different genre. That's like saying Dragon Age is science fiction.

Modifié par Br3ad, 21 août 2013 - 12:55 .

[David7204]

Wow, I like the completely stupid and pointless comparison considering cars are specifically designed to collapse in certain ways on impact to protect their passengers.

The fact that skydivers do not always get turned into paste on impact is beyond debate. Oh wait. Maybe reality doesn't apply to you because it's 'outside of a vacuum?'

Modifié par David7204, 21 août 2013 - 12:57 .

[LiL Reapur]

Br3ad wrote...

Science fiction is not the same as fantasy. Fantasy is an entirely different genre. That's like saying Dragon Age is science fiction.

EXACTLY

[Ravensword]

adayaday wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Golly, a two percent difference. How long did it take you to look up that equation and copy it?

You can't say "i was wrong" can you?

That's as close as David gets to telling anyone that he made an error.

"Damn you for taking the time and effort to disprove my inane ideas!"

Modifié par Ravensword, 21 août 2013 - 12:59 .

[Br3admax]

[quote]David7204 wrote...

Wow, I like the completely stupid and pointless comparison considering cars are specifically designed to collapse in certain ways on impact to protect their passengers.

The fact that skydivers do not always get turned into paste on impact is beyond debate. Oh wait. Maybe reality doesn't apply to you because it's 'outside of a vacuum?'
[/quote]
I know that you are big into just making things up and hating the actual meanings of words, but I'm just going to leave this here.

[quote]
All Knowing Wikipedia wrote...

Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possible worlds or futures.[2] It is similar to, but differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature(though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

Modifié par Br3ad, 21 août 2013 - 01:01 .

[sr2josh]

LiL Reapur wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Science fiction is not the same as fantasy. Fantasy is an entirely different genre. That's like saying Dragon Age is science fiction.

EXACTLY

NOT exactly.  DA is medieval magic with absolutely no science being any significant part of the story.

[Br3admax]

See the above.

[dreamgazer]

I1 Trust wrote...

Makai81 wrote...

People, it's called science FICTION 

More like science fantasy.

More like space opera.

[DeinonSlayer]

Br3ad wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Wow, I like the completely stupid and pointless comparison considering cars are specifically designed to collapse in certain ways on impact to protect their passengers.

The fact that skydivers do not always get turned into paste on impact is beyond debate. Oh wait. Maybe reality doesn't apply to you because it's 'outside of a vacuum?'

I know that you are big into just making things up and hating the actual meanings of words, but I'm just going to leave this here.

All Knowing Wikipedia wrote...

Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possible worlds or futures.[2] It is similar to, but differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature(though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

You realize he's going to go there now and edit it to fit his definition, right?

Oh, wait, this isn't TVTropes.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 21 août 2013 - 01:02 .