I guess the simple answer would be coincidence. Otherwise I guess TIM has a hot spot for Shepard sensitive stars and likes to move the bases to and from there.
It makes me wonder though. Since stations or things of that size can apparently move, I wonder why no one bothered to make some sort of super ship (Colossus class?) that had a mass accelerator that ran the length of the super ship.
money i suppose
Its just a handwaved solution to the problem.
The 'problem' of not building 'colossal' ships?
Let's do a simple bit of math. A hypothetical ship twice the length of a dreadnought would also need to be at least twice the width and depth. So we're looking at at least 8 times the mass right off the bat. (And that's with me very, very generously ignoring the square-cube law. It could well be far more.)
According to the codex, the amount of eezo required is exponentially related to the ship's mass. We're never told what this rate is, but let's assume a modest rate of x^2. This one 'colossal' ship requires 64 times as much eezo as a regular dreadnought. Which is about as many dreadnoughts as every dreadnought from every species combined, I believe.
With a smaller rate of x^1.5, it's still 22 dreadnoughts. Still three times as big as the entire human dreadnought fleet.
If we're going for broke with a 5 km long ship (which seems to be the your line of thinking with the idea of 'one-shotting a Reaper'), that's 125 times the mass, minumum. With a rate of x^2, that's 15625 dreadnoughts worth of eezo required. Or 1400 dreadnoughts with a rate of x^1.5.
A hypothetical ship twice the length of a dreadnought would also need to be at least twice the width and depth.
Why.
The same reason a pencil becomes easier to snap the longer it is, even though it's just as thick.
A long, thin ship would be incredibly fragile. Even a turn could be enough to rip it in half.
First of all, big things being capable of moving is not really what I'd call a technology. That's just...common sense. Big things obey the laws of physics just like small things. Of course big things are theoretically mobile given enough applied force.
.....
I mean, can you really not think of a single reason why building a 'colossal' ship might not be a feasible idea? You say nobody 'bothered' to do it as if such a thing is akin to walking down the street and buying a load of bread.
Not to mention that 'colossal' is relative. The current biggest ships are 1 km long and you're wondering why nobody builds a 5 km ship. So if the biggest ship was 5 km long, would you be claiming that everyone should be building 25 km long ships? 125 km long? How big is big enough for you not to be thinking that it's obvious we need to build them way bigger?
Slippery Slope Fallacy!
The 'problem' of not building 'colossal' ships?
Let's do a simple bit of math. A hypothetical ship twice the length of a dreadnought would also need to be at least twice the width and depth. So we're looking at at least 8 times the mass right off the bat. (And that's with me very, very generously ignoring the square-cube law. It could well be far more.)
According to the codex, the amount of eezo required is exponentially related to the ship's mass. We're never told what this rate is, but let's assume a modest rate of x^2. This one 'colossal' ship requires 64 times as much eezo as a regular dreadnought. Which is about as many dreadnoughts as every dreadnought from every species combined, I believe.
With a smaller rate of x^1.5, it's still 22 dreadnoughts. Still three times as big as the entire human dreadnought fleet.
If we're going for broke with a 5 km long ship (which seems to be the your line of thinking with the idea of 'one-shotting a Reaper'), that's 125 times the mass, minumum. With a rate of x^2, that's 15625 dreadnoughts worth of eezo required. Or 1400 dreadnoughts with a rate of x^1.5.
It would help if you explained your variables. And it would help if you explained their exponents. And finally, your 'simple' math isn't providing any equations for mass, or length, or volume. You're not using any formula. I obviously can't make a counter-claim without a viable formula to run an equation with. But you haven't provided any. So I'm going to remain skeptically ambivalent until you provide a proper equation to how you came to your conclusion. It's not a solution yet, since no equation has been solved, and no formula to base the equation off of provided, with no explanation of variables provided.
You want an 'equation' for length, huh? An 'equation' for mass?
You want an 'equation' for length, huh? An 'equation' for mass?
Indeed. It's simple geometry for length, and simple physics for mass.
I want an equation and a formula to support it to explain your conclusion. As a 'physicist' you should have little effort providing either.
Also, don't forget to define your variables, and define the exponents for the variables. Tell me where you are getting them.
My expertise is actually chemistry, not physics. But I don't think you have much of a grasp of how this sort of thing works.
You don't use 'equations' for length. Or mass. They're known. I'm not looking for them. I know them.
Length = length, I guess?
My expertise is actually chemistry, not physics. But I don't think you have much of a grasp of how this sort of thing works.
You don't use 'equations' for length. Or mass. They're known. I'm not looking for them. I know them.
Length = length, I guess?
Indeed. You use a formula for mass. And you use the distance formula to find length. This is the distance formula:
Distance (length) is equal to the square root of the square of the value between x2 and x1 added to the square of the value between y2 and y1. That's for determining the 3 dimensional length between two points by making a right triangle and determining the horizontal and vertical value between the points.
Counters all the times you've said you were a physicist then. I'll take your admittance as being a chemist about as seriously as I do for all your other qualifications.
And if you know the mass and the length, put them into a formula. And put them into an equation using said formula. And explain any and all variables and their exponents.
That's just silly.
I know the length. I don't need to find it using two other lengths and an unnessary calculation.
If I don't know the first length, why should I know the other two?
You clearly don't have much of a clue what you're doing.
That's just silly.
I know the length. I don't need to find it using two other lengths and an unnessary calculation.
If I don't know the first length, why should I know the other two?
You clearly don't have much of a clue what you're doing.
You're cherry picking the argument for an admittedly superfluous yet valid point and claiming that it defeats my argument and then making an ad hominem against me. Getting into semantics does not defeat my argument and your refusal to submit to affirming your prior claim with evidence is not helping your claim.
You still haven't provided me with your equation, your formula, or your definitions for your formula. Stay on task David. Otherwise, your math is to be disregarded as you can't follow the scientific method (which is utterly reprehensible for a supposed scientist) and you have lost the argument.
Is Bobvid's resume undergoing another metamorphosis?
It is. I'm not a chemist, but I know plenty enough about physics to make an educated estimation of what it entails. Master physics, and you've mastered the macro-scale universe.
Bob on the other hand is lying to cover his ass.
I'm thinking you 'know' how to look up formulas and crunch them (at least the easy ones) and very little else.
Not much other explanation for how you'd be so dependant on them. The idea of needing a formula for 'length' is ludacris, not to mention laughably recursive. As I pointed out, your formula requires two lengths. Do those two lengths each need a formula themselves? Do the lengths in each of those formulas need a formula?
You're really just wasting my time here. I think you should go play scientist somewhere else.
I'm thinking you 'know' how to look up formulas and crunch them (at least the easy ones) and very little else.
Not much other explanation for how you'd be so dependant on them. The idea of needing a formula for 'length' is ludacris, not to mention laughably recursive. As I pointed out, your formula requires two lengths. Do those two lengths each need a formula themselves? Do the lengths in each of those formulas need a formula?
You're really just wasting my time here. I think you should go play scientist somewhere else.
I am looking up the formulas. I have one on one of my sheets for calling for Artillery right here in my office. All formula's are easy. They tell you what numbers to plug in where and what variables you have to account for. Mathematics is remarkably easy when you have such formula's. That said, it's an empirical claim. It is fully, 100% proven. I don't need to be an expert to make a statement proven correct by an expert. Does me not being an expert somehow make my evidence any less correct when it is empirically correct? If the answer is no, then my point stands because you cannot disprove my claim as it is an empirical statement. If the answer is yes, then you're arguing against me and not my evidence and my point stands because you haven't defined (nor can you define) how evidence is any less evidence (when it has already been proven) because the person presenting evidence isn't an expert in the field of mathematics.
Again though, you're wasting your own time by spending it attacking me instead of actually providing the evidence I asked for. It's like talking to a brick wall. No matter how you try to discredit me by calling me an idiot David, it only goes back on you for not actually providing evidence for a claim and decrying my claim based on a slippery slope fallacy for a length you have yet to define along with a mass you have yet to define, along with an equation you have yet to define, along with a formula you have yet to define, along with the variables in the formula you have yet to define, along with the exponents you have yet to define. Along with your blatant dismissal of the scientific method, you're neglecting and even criticizing arithmetic and physical concepts that define the natural universe since it gets in the way of how much you think you know.
Really, it's a shame how I play scientist better than you actually perform as one, what with all the dismissal of science and the personal attacks based on semantic slippery slope fallacies? I suppose in science, you only use normative statements and claims?
I'll waste your time if I want to. I'm under no obligation to you. As long as I'm not wasting my time, I don't care. If I'm wasting your time, by all means leave. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. I'm sorry you wasted your time making big fabrications and untrue claims. You really should have used real science, like geometry and physics, in your nonsense. Then it wouldn't be so nonsensical. I'm not sorry that you got upset when someone called you out on your nonsense. Never let your nonsense interfere with science David.
Indeed. You use a formula for mass. And you use the distance formula to find length. This is the distance formula:
Distance (length) is equal to the square root of the square of the value between x2 and x1 added to the square of the value between y2 and y1. That's for determining the 3 dimensional length between two points by making a right triangle and determining the horizontal and vertical value between the points.
I still don't get why the ship has to be twice as wide.
But then I am just a humble chartered engineer.
Because David the chemist, the physicist, the military officer, the political scientist, the computer programmer, the computer engineer, the psychologist, the psychiatrist, the sociologist, the literary critic, the literary expert, the video game maker, the video game summer camp runner, the economist, the biologist, the physiologist, the mechanical engineer, the ballistic engineer told you so, and he threw some numbers that he didn't define the meaning too at you. How dare you demand evidence with your 'formulas' and 'equations' that you probably just looked up on the internet!
Although, I would like to see your own evidence now. Just to make sure that one side isn't full of crap.
Evidence of what?
Can you tell me how it is possible? No one has conclusively argued effectively for their side of the argument. All I did was deconstruct David's.
Maybe Mirando had signed a non-disclosure agreement not to reveal the whereabouts of Cronos Station. They could have explained it as that and no one would have blinked an eyelid.
Maybe Mirando had signed a non-disclosure agreement not to reveal the whereabouts of Cronos Station. They could have explained it as that and no one would have blinked an eyelid.
I think galactic space court might let that one slide.
Retour en haut