127 réponses à ce sujet

[Hunt3rW0lf]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

Most of you are grossly over-thinking this.

Many of you are attempting to apply current-state scientific and technological understanding to a 500 year jump in technology. It very well may be that everything currently thought to be true has been completely turned topsy turvy with such a massive jump in technology and understanding, and that our theories and formulas are utterly primitive and outdated.

It's also fiction, but whatever.

Which is why it's a good though experiment, by coming up with some alternate universe and trying to understand it, you can progress your understanding of this universe thereby allowing you to make some of the jumps required for our technology to advance. Most of the time it ends up being wrong but that's what experiments and exploration is for  

[akintu]

 I haven't seen anyone mention the Alcubierre drive.  One thing in particular, I remembered from reading about it a while ago on Wikipedia...

Krasnikov proposed that, if tachyonic matter cannot be found or used, then a solution might be to arrange for masses along the path of the vessel to be set in motion in such a way that the required field was produced. But in this case, the Alcubierre Drive vessel is not able to go dashing around the galaxy at will. It is only able to travel routes which, like a railroad, have first been equipped with the necessary infrastructure. The pilot inside the bubble is causally disconnected with its walls and cannot carry out any action outside the bubble. Thus, because the pilot cannot place infrastructure ahead of the bubble while "in transit", the bubble cannot be used for the first trip to a distant star. In other words, to travel to Vega (which is 25 light-years from the Earth) one first has to arrange everything so that the bubble moving toward Vega with a superluminal velocity would appear and these arrangements will always take more than 25 years.[5]

That paragraph in particular reminded me of the Mass Relay network.  Who knows how the Reapers originally constructed it, but time certainly doesn't seem to be something they lack.

I'm a first year mechanical and energy engineering student, so alot of the stuff in that wikipedia article is a bit beyond me, but thought I'd throw it out for discussion.

Edit- According to the article, the concept requires exotic matter and dark energy to be workable...something eezo is and deals with...

Modifié par alex_ladik, 21 janvier 2010 - 07:00 .

[anexanhume]

TheGuv wrote...

Just as a question, how many people talking about this are physicists?

I'm an electrical engineer.

[Hunt3rW0lf]

That's another incredibly plausible theory given the presence of the Relay network it means the infrastructure is already in place. Although how the mass would be place along the path. Possibly a mass-free zone is created, a high mass pulse then travels along the walls drawing the ship along, similar to a Rail rifle.

[Br0th3rGr1mm]

You pretty much should just toss Newton's Laws and Einsteins theories out the window in light of the ME field theory. There are too many blaring descrepencies to even try and explain both of them with the lore we currently know about. 

The simplest of these descrepencies is how an change in mass could ever allow for faster than light travel.  From any of our relativistic equipations, the math just does not work out (@ m=0, v=c....velocity can never exceed the speed of light).  Most other universes with FTL travel explain it by use of some alternate dimension that superceeds the laws of physics in OUR dimension.  To me, that's actually more believable than what I currently understand about the ME "sciences".

Modifié par Br0th3rGr1mm, 21 janvier 2010 - 07:17 .

[CmdrFenix83]

adam_grif wrote...

This is a followup thread to the one that got killed by the old forums closing down. The question (ideally a dev would answer but there's not much hope of that really) is as follows:

- Does Mass Effect Field technology conserve momentum, and if so, how?


As a little bit of background for those who are curious, momentum is the product of Mass and Velocity. So if you can just use Mass Effect fields to raise and lower the mass of an object (as stated in the codex), then you've altered it's momentum without a proportional change elsewhere. In a closed system (such as the universe) , momentum is always conserved. This is to say that it stays the same overall.

If it is conserved, how? If you use a Mass increasing field, does your velocity drop proportionally to maintain a constant momentum? If you use a Mass decreasing field does your velocity increase proportionally? 

If momentum is not conserved, then we can do something like the following: decrease mass to near zero, accelerate to a very high velocity, increase mass to higher than normal, collide with an object. The problem is that since you can inccrease your momentum trivially like this, you end up gaining a whole bunch of "free energy", that apparently comes from nowhere at all. So to violate CoM is to violate Conservation of Energy, too. You could use it to create perpetual motion machines that generate more energy than they use through this process.

If CoM is preserved, then why don't ships and stuff just use that to accelerate, then drop the fields to slow down when they get to a target? Instant reactionless propulsion system. In fact, missile payloads would be trivially easy to hit their targets / overwhelm GARDIAN systems, becacuse they would just use a small Eezo core to breeze past point defense at high relativistic velocities, then shove it in reverse to overwhelm the barriers (ala disruptor torps) and then detonate.

Discuss.

Silly question.  The short answer is, no ones exactly how Mass Effect technology works.  The Protheans themselves were just barely beginning to understand and unlock it when the Reapers invaded.  The Reapers left this tech behind and usable so that we could spread and develop in the manner they desired without understanding how it works just like they did with the Keepers on the Citadel. 

[TheGuv]

I only asked that question because I was genuinely interested how many fellow mathematicians, physicists and engineers were trawling the thread. Nice to see sci-fi still has the attraction despite some of its cuter, more glaring errors

Incidentally if you ignore what is stated in lore about Mass Effect, Mass Relays are pretty much the definition of what an Alcubierre drive would look like if it were actually built, though the UI from Mass Effect 2 suggests that it's actually a space time tunnel - probably trading on that old white hole -black hole chestnut that is done to death in every sci-fi possible.

What I find endlessly amusing is that the wierdness of sci-fi and philsophy has nothing on how wierd things actually are.

You pretty much should just toss Newton's Laws and Einsteins theories out the window in light of the ME field theory

Newtons Laws don't hold at the quantum level anyway so no problem there, nor do they hold at relativistic velocities.

Modifié par TheGuv, 21 janvier 2010 - 07:23 .

[Acyllius]

I had a thought, I will admit I didn't have time to read the entire thread, but if we use the thought that the mass relays are a tunnel like a "black hole string" that might only be part of the issue.  What if the mass effect drive that is used by a ship is only the key that allows you to use it.  So by using the mass effect field wouldn't an object with no mass not suffer from the deformation effects of the high mass black hole string?  Thus by reducing your mass to 0 and then entering the "black hole tunnel" it would allow the travel we see in the game?  I mean, even the reapers couldn't get back to the galaxy from dark space without the huge citadel mass relay.  Thoughts?  I am not a scientist BTW so be gentle.  heh

Modifié par Acyllius, 21 janvier 2010 - 07:29 .

[Hunt3rW0lf]

Acyllius wrote...

I had a thought, I will admit I didn't have time to read the entire thread, but if we use the thought that the mass relays are a tunnel like a "black hole string" that might only be part of the issue.  What if the mass effect drive that is used by a ship is only the key that allows you to use it.  So by using the mass effect field wouldn't an object with no mass not suffer from the deformation effects of the high mass black hole string?  Thus by reducing your mass to 0 and then entering the "black hole tunnel" it would allow the travel we see in the game?  I mean, even the reapers couldn't get back to the galaxy from dark space without the huge citadel mass relay.  Thoughts?  I am not a scientist BTW so be gentle.  heh

Theoretically, although the creation of black-hole style conditions would not be somewhere you would want to fly a ship into, even if it had no mass... We haven't got close enough to a black hole to understand them to any great level so we don't even no what flying into one would do,

[Acyllius]

I suppose you have a point. Basicly what I gather from this thread is that bioware did some serious research and thinking on how to make this technology pretty damn believable. Kudos for that.

[blank1]

I think their thinking was pretty predictable actually. Certain things are impossible in a closed circuit universe, so come up with some way that defeats the closed circuit... EG mass effect bubbles being an area of space-time that behaves in a way unlike space-time.

[blank1]

Hunt3rW0lf wrote...

blank1 wrote...

The gross assumption being made here is that mass is being reducing in the ME universe in and of itself -- the mass is just being lowered relative to other objects with mass. What I believe mass effect fields do is create a space-time "bubble" where the mass within the sphere is lower relative to normal space, but the sphere is not "normal" space. An ounce is still an ounce inside the sphere of mass effect, but relative to normal space, it is lower. Basically, everything that's possible in the ME universe is because mass effect spheres are abnormal space.

This is a reasonable assumption, but it would still involve the mass of the bubble and everything in it being changed relative to the space outside it.

That's precisely what makes it "possible." There are a number of issues with outright lowering an objects mass, but if you simply create a protected bubble of space where everything in the bubble is of lower mass relative to what's outside, but not in and of itself, conservation of momentum still works... because you're creating a bizarro version of space time in that mass effect bubble. It's the same "different universe where the rules of space-time don't apply" explanation for FTL travel, just more verbose.

[Hunt3rW0lf]

Unfortunately sci-fi needs exceptions to the closed circuit to work, those that integrate it well are often the better ones. Although there are exceptions (Asmiov for instance). A bubble theory is effective as it's more plausible with our current mechanics.

[adam_grif]

I go to sleep and 3 pages spring up.

[quote]wikkedjoker wrote...

I think what the mass relays do is convert you in to energy, as it sends you though a fold in space, a worm hole as it would be.
[/quote]

That is directly contradicted by the codex.

[quote]alex_ladik wrote...

My interpretation was that the "kinetic fields" mentioned referred to
biotic barriers.  But now that you mention it, that may not be correct.
 Barriers could also simply shred incoming projectiles (distortion, as
it is mentioned).

It still seems to me that barriers work by
raising the mass of incoming projectiles resulting in a drop in
velocity.  That may be too great of a leap, but that is how I
interpreted it.
[/quote]

I agree it's possible, but there is no real evidence to suggest that it's how they operate because many of the codex entries are unclear or intentionally vague.

[quote]KBGeller wrote...

I apologize as I skimmed most of the posts, but first I noticed a big
misconception. You can increase mass without increasing velocity
without violation laws of physics.[/quote]

You mean decreasing velocity. But momentum is always conserved, even in relativity. Your mass starts increasing but your velocity stops increasing except in the tiniest fraction. I find it intuitive to think of this as "since velocity can't increase anymore, the energy is going into mass instead of velocity as I apply forces to it", although I can't comment on how accurate this statement is (and it's likely to be an oversimplification / just plain wrong). This also only happens when it's being accelerated, so there are always equal and opposite forces going on to make sure everything stays consistant and is conserved.

This is clearly not in the same league as "apply current, increase mass" or "apply current, decrease mass".


[quote]Another misconception that wasn't
explicitly stated, but may be inferred is that NOTHING, EVER can exceed
the speed of light. EVER. The only way to travel faster than light is
to bend/manipulate spacetime so that when you do travel at some speed,
it APPEARS and I suppose you effectively are traveling faster than
light.[/quote]

I've written essays] on why it's impossible to reach superluminal velocities, so trust me, I know nothing can. But it obviously does in ME, so we have to discuss it in that context.

P.S. even spacetime folding, warp drives and wormholes have fundamental problems with them that means that the only time we'll ever have superluminal velocities is when we compare ourselves to different parts of the universe thanks to spacetime expansion.

[quote]The exiting mass gains potential as it accelerates along the field,
accelerating inordinantly until it eventually exits the field and
regains its original mass at a greatly accelerated rate.[/quote]

But that's the kicker, isn't it? If they're being conserved, then it either wouldn't gain back it's original mass, or if it did it would be forced to have it's velocity lowered, right?

[quote]Alocormin wrote...

Mass Effect fields reduce the effective mass, and they can also increase it somehow.

Eezo
doesn't exist in the real world, so arguing with the reasonability of
anything relating to it is pointless.  Beautiful, right?[/quote]

You have completely missed the point of this thread.

[quote]Of course c is constant, but does light always obey c, even in a vacuum?

http://en.wikipedia...._speed_of_light
http://en.wikipedia....arnhorst_effect
http://news.bbc.co.u...ture/841690.stm[/quote]

Is that a trick question?

There are no perfect vacuums, so light never reaches C. But C is more importantly, the theoretical maximum speed at which causality can propagate. Finding FTL phenomena in phyiscs is a dime a dozen, finding ones that allow causality at speeds greater than C is totally impossible because there are none.

The Variable Speed of Light link only really leaves pure speculation when it's talking about virtual particles, but virtual particles can hardly even be said to exist. They routinely travel faster than light, but they can't have any real impact on anything, and causality still propagates at C.

[quote]TheGuv wrote...

Just as a question, how many people talking about this are physicists? [/quote]

Probably none.

I'm a second year Psychology / Computing / Biology undergrad.

[quote]While playing the game, it always seemed to me that the most logical
way the technology works is by warping space time in front of the ship
traveling so that it may travel at approaching light speeds.[/quote]

Contradicted by canon in the form of the Codex.

[quote]Crawling_Chaos wrote...

Most of you are grossly over-thinking this.



Many of you
are attempting to apply current-state scientific and technological
understanding to a 500 year jump in technology. It very well may be
that everything currently thought to be true has been completely turned
topsy turvy with such a massive jump in technology and understanding,
and that our theories and formulas are utterly primitive and outdated.[/quote]

Thermodynamics and Conservation principles are held in pretty high regard by scientists, and with good reason.

Also, it's a fallacy to assume that technology will improve in certain areas in the future. For all you know, future advances in science will make it harder to achieve high speed space travel, not easier. Consider that before relativity, you could accelerate to infinite speed whenever you wanted, and the energy it took was linear and not really all that high (compared to the ungodly energy requirements set out by GR and SR). Before thermodyanamics, you could build perepetual motion machines. Before Newton, there was no reason why you couldn't just build a reactionless engine.

Physics limits you far more often than it sets you free.

[quote]alex_ladik wrote...

 I haven't seen anyone mention the Alcubierre drive.  One thing in
particular, I remembered from reading about it a while ago on Wikipedia...
[/quote]

Alcubierre drive gets way more attention than it deserves. First of all, it's directly contradicted by canon as the modus operandi of the Mass Relays

[quote]Edit- According to the article, the concept requires exotic matter and
dark energy to be workable...something eezo is and deals with...[/quote]

If my memory serves me correctly, it requires naked singularities, a ring of negative energy that can be turned on and off at will, and more energy than exists in the entire universe.

Someone refined the design to require more workable (but still more than the energy output of our planet) energy requirements. I'm not 100% on the naked singularity, I recall reading that on the Wiki several years ago, not sure if the info was reliable.

But just recently...

http://www.technolog...og/arxiv/23292/

[RevengeofNewton]

adam_grif wrote...

As a little bit of background for
those who are curious, momentum is the product of Mass and Velocity. So
if you can just use Mass Effect fields to raise and lower the mass of
an object (as stated in the codex), then you've altered it's momentum
without a proportional change elsewhere. In a closed system (such as
the universe) , momentum is always conserved. This is to say that it
stays the same overall.

If it is conserved, how? If you use a
Mass increasing field, does your velocity drop proportionally to
maintain a constant momentum? If you use a Mass decreasing field does
your velocity increase proportionally? 

If momentum is not
conserved, then we can do something like the following: decrease mass
to near zero, accelerate to a very high velocity, increase mass to
higher than normal, collide with an object. The problem is that since
you can inccrease your momentum trivially like this, you end up gaining
a whole bunch of "free energy", that apparently comes from nowhere at
all. So to violate CoM is to violate Conservation of Energy, too. You
could use it to create perpetual motion machines that generate more
energy than they use through this process.

If CoM is
preserved, then why don't ships and stuff just use that to accelerate,
then drop the fields to slow down when they get to a target? Instant
reactionless propulsion system. In fact, missile payloads would be
trivially easy to hit their targets / overwhelm GARDIAN systems,
becacuse they would just use a small Eezo core to breeze past point
defense at high relativistic velocities, then shove it in reverse to
overwhelm the barriers (ala disruptor torps) and then detonate.

Discuss.

Physics major here.

The fail is a lot bigger than what you imagine. CoM is preserverd. It cannot not be preserved. Therefore the velocity has to increase. This means that Conservation of Energy is not preserved because the velocity cannot change to make the energy be the same.

Example:
Object mass = 2 kg
Object velocity (relative to itself) = 3 m/s

Momentum: P = mv = 2 kg * 3 m/s = 6 kg m/s
Energy: KE = .5 m*v^2  = .5*2 kg * (3 m/s)^2 = 9 J

If you change the mass to 1 kg, you get
P = 3 kg m/s
KE = 4.5 J

This cannot be. So either something else has to interact witht the system to add the missing energy or the velocity has to change. The velocity has to change to 6 m/s to keep CoM, but it has to change to 4.3 m/s to keep the CoE. An object cannot have two different velocities relative to itself at the same time. Hence, unless they actually come up with a way to add the missing energy, it is epic fail.


But now let's look at things a different way. This is a video game. Even me, a physics major, does not expect a video game to be completely accurate in its dealings with the laws of physics/chemistry/etc. Bioware had a lot of things right with its physics concepts, and I think a video game company should be praised for having those things right, rather than nitpicking over a few, albeit glaring, inconsisties.

[vashts1985]

Hypothetically, yes it would.

M1V1+M2V2 = (M1+M2)Vf

This is your standard equation for a inelastic collision. In an inelastic collision, 2 masses collide and stick together, becoming one mass. when 2 masses collide and stick together, the Velocity of the system decreases due to the conservation of momentum. In order to calculate how much it decreases, we have to know how much momentum exists before the collision

M1V1+M2V2 = P

therefore:

P = (M1+M2)Vf

P represents momentum:

P = MV

therefore:

MiVi = (M1+M2)Vf

or:

MiVi = MfVf

Keep in mind here, that the momentum final is still just considering an increase in mass, because of this, we can say that M1+M2 really is just some increased final mass, and our equation still holds true because due to the conservation of momentum, MV initial = MV final.

From there we can plug in some real numbers. Lets say we have a mass of 10kg
moving at 10m/s. Our mass effect field increases that mass by 10kg, making our final mass a total of 20kg.

(10)(10) = (20)Vf

100 = (20)Vf

100/20 = Vf

Vf = 5m/s


Hypothetically, if Mass Final was a decrease in mass, the same would hold true.

We have a 100kg mass moving at 10m/s. Our mass effect field decreases that mass to 50kg.

(100)(10) = (50)Vf

1000 = (50)Vf

1000/50 = Vf

Vf = 20m/s

[adam_grif]

Thanks for the insight.

But now let's look at things a different way. This is a video game. Even me, a physics major, does not expect a video game to be completely accurate in its dealings with the laws of physics/chemistry/etc. Bioware had a lot of things right with its physics concepts, and I think a video game company should be praised for having those things right, rather than nitpicking over a few, albeit glaring, inconsisties.

Nobody's expecting it to be 100% consistent with real life, especially the gameplay. We generally don't consider gameplay mechanics to be canonical "in universe" benchmarks, otherwise we're forced to accept silliness like people dying and being resurrected by the power of UNITY AND FRIENDSHIP, or shotguns with marginal recoil that somehow send geth of comparable mass to you flying 50 feet backwards at high speeds.



This thread wasn't a nitpick thread, it was trying to derive more information from the universe based on the information we have. It just so happens that it's inconsistent no-matter which option you go with, which is disappointing. There's also another factor to take into consideration - the harder somebody tries to be realistic, the more glaring the parts that aren't realistic become.



As you say, they tried very hard to justify this sort of stuff. Which makes it all the more disappointing that something as big as Conservation of Energy / Momentum could have been overlooked in the design process. Nobody's bothering to ask questions about Conservation of Energy in Dragon Age, for instance, for obvious reasons.

[RevengeofNewton]

vashts1985 wrote...

Hypothetically, yes it would.

M1V1+M2V2 = (M1+M2)Vf

This is your standard equation for a inelastic collision. In an inelastic collision, 2 masses collide and stick together, becoming one mass. when 2 masses collide and stick together, the Velocity of the system decreases due to the conservation of momentum. In order to calculate how much it decreases, we have to know how much momentum exists before the collision

M1V1+M2V2 = P

therefore:

P = (M1+M2)Vf

P represents momentum:

P = MV

therefore:

MiVi = (M1+M2)Vf

or:

MiVi = MfVf

Keep in mind here, that the momentum final is still just considering an increase in mass, because of this, we can say that M1+M2 really is just some increased final mass, and our equation still holds true because due to the conservation of momentum, MV initial = MV final.

From there we can plug in some real numbers. Lets say we have a mass of 10kg
moving at 10m/s. Our mass effect field increases that mass by 10kg, making our final mass a total of 20kg.

(10)(10) = (20)Vf

100 = (20)Vf

100/20 = Vf

Vf = 5m/s


Hypothetically, if Mass Final was a decrease in mass, the same would hold true.

We have a 100kg mass moving at 10m/s. Our mass effect field decreases that mass to 50kg.

(100)(10) = (50)Vf

1000 = (50)Vf

1000/50 = Vf

Vf = 20m/s

Problem. This is not a collision. Collisions have their own mechanics. We're talking about a simple use of EZ on a moving object, which is probably the most applicable situation. The math may work out in a particular collision, but you need to remember that the math needs to work out in ALL situations.

Remember, in physics, it must applicable in all situations. Just because it works in one situation doesn't make it correct. So my point still stands. The math DOES NOT work out in the most applicable situation (a moving object). 

Modifié par RevengeofNewton, 22 janvier 2010 - 03:06 .

[vashts1985]

RevengeofNewton wrote...

vashts1985 wrote...

Hypothetically, yes it would.

M1V1+M2V2 = (M1+M2)Vf

This is your standard equation for a inelastic collision. In an inelastic collision, 2 masses collide and stick together, becoming one mass. when 2 masses collide and stick together, the Velocity of the system decreases due to the conservation of momentum. In order to calculate how much it decreases, we have to know how much momentum exists before the collision

M1V1+M2V2 = P

therefore:

P = (M1+M2)Vf

P represents momentum:

P = MV

therefore:

MiVi = (M1+M2)Vf

or:

MiVi = MfVf

Keep in mind here, that the momentum final is still just considering an increase in mass, because of this, we can say that M1+M2 really is just some increased final mass, and our equation still holds true because due to the conservation of momentum, MV initial = MV final.

From there we can plug in some real numbers. Lets say we have a mass of 10kg
moving at 10m/s. Our mass effect field increases that mass by 10kg, making our final mass a total of 20kg.

(10)(10) = (20)Vf

100 = (20)Vf

100/20 = Vf

Vf = 5m/s


Hypothetically, if Mass Final was a decrease in mass, the same would hold true.

We have a 100kg mass moving at 10m/s. Our mass effect field decreases that mass to 50kg.

(100)(10) = (50)Vf

1000 = (50)Vf

1000/50 = Vf

Vf = 20m/s

Problem. This is not a collision. Collisions have their own mechanics. We're talking about a simple use of EZ on a moving object, which is probably the most applicable situation. The math may work out in a particular collision, but you need to remember that the math needs to work out in ALL situations.

Remember, in physics, it must applicable in all situations. Just because it works in one situation doesn't make it correct. So my point still stands. The math DOES NOT work out in the most applicable situation (a moving object). 

i dont see how the collision matters. if you look at the equation it makes sense in a collision because the math describes what happens in a collision (inelastic that is) simply put, M1V1+M2V2 is true because we have an initial momentum which has to equal a final momentum. because we have 2 objects colliding, we have to split up the initial momentum between them. consider that we have 3 objects colliding (at the same time) sticking together, moving off at a velocity. we would have to revise our original equation.

M1V1+M2V2+M3V3 = (M1+M2+M3)Vf

we could add any number of mass to that equation, and our law of conservation of momentum still holds true.

MiVi=MfVf

so what happens when we consider a one object that increases its mass?
think about that for a second, completely ignoring anything about collisions.
the only reason i chose inelastic collisions as a base (and probably over complicating the matter) is because it A. Proves the law of conservation of momentum to be true (MiVi=MfVf), and B. demonstrates an increase in mass (M1+M2)

initial momentum equals final momentum. always

how is momentum described?

P = MV

so anytime P is constant (initial always equals final) and one of its factors changes, the other will as well, inversely proportional to the change.

V = P/M

because of the law of conservation of momentum, if mass increases, velocity decreases, if mass decreases, velocity increases.

[adam_grif]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...


It's also an EXTREME fallacy to think that current scientific, mathematical, and technological models and understanding has any bearing on something so distant as 500 years into the future.

None of what you've said can be said with ANY degree of certainty (relative to predicting circumstances 500 years into the future), and if you think you CAN make such statements with such certainty then you fail as a student of the sciences.

Physics is absolute, and it's not going to change just because it's The Future ™. Nobody ever said our current understanding was complete, but if you're going to just use the argument "we don't know for sure, therefore it's all possible", then you should just leave this thread right now, because this thread is for serious discussion.

If you're just going to throw your arms up and say "well, maybe not! you don't know for sure", then we can't discuss anything at all.

[Schneidend]

This thread is violating the law of Conservation of Boredom, not to mention the law of Conservation of Who Gives a ****. Eezo is the magical wizard that "did it." End of story.

[adam_grif]

Schneidend wrote...

This thread is violating the law of Conservation of Boredom, not to mention the law of Conservation of Who Gives a ****. Eezo is the magical wizard that "did it." End of story.

Right, because there's a mandate that says you have to read this thread?


I'd rather have oral sex with a power outlet than read another "OH TALI IS SOOOOOOOO HAWT DO YOU THINK SHE'LL BE AN LI" or "Hey gais, does cerberus network card come with standard edition?" thread.

[Acyllius]

Granted, this thread does make my brain explode with all the equations but at least has a measure of intelligence. I agree with the above post.