Wow, so a thread about Miranda turned into a science fest...and not even a biological or anatomical one at that. I. Am. Disappoint.
But anyway, to add my non scientific mind to the discussion on ship size, I think there was a line of dialogue somewhere that stated that the SR2 was bigger than the SR1, but in order to compensate, the Eezo core was 3x as large.
I could be entirely wrong on that fact though,
Don't post equations if you don't know what they mean.
Oh my God. No.
A space station is not a ship. It doesn't suffer from limitations ships suffer from.
A ship is expected to move at high speeds. The station is probably not. I don't get the feeling that Cerberus would particularly care how fast the station moves so long as it does. The station could easily be moving at slower than light speeds. Speeds a fraction of a percent that spaceships are expected to move at. And thus require engines a producing a fraction of the thrust.
Just because you don't know what the equation means does not mean that he doesn't.
You're grasp of the obvious would be inspiring if it wasn't for the fact that it was obvious that you're making things up.
You mean conservation of momentum?
Thus if the mass is decreased (relativity doesn't apply apparently), momentum is conserved and the ship can go faster than light. MoriginalV<c = MME FieldV>c.
No. No, no, no, no, no.
This is from someone who clearly does not understand either relativity or momentum.
No. No, no, no, no, no.
This is from someone who clearly does not understand either relativity or momentum.
.... *sigh*
I know I explained it quickly and not well but that hardly seems to condemn me to obviously not knowing anything. The notion that you say this in the same style and tone about how people don't understand heroism, (i.e. mock people that they don't understand without offering anything else) seems like this is just another version of you scoffing people for not adhering to your limited view on things.
You don't understand it. It's not a matter of explanation. You're putting out facts that are entirely wrong. Simple as that.
If conservation of momentum worked that way, we could have FTL travel today. According to you, if we have a particle moving at 60% of the speed of the light which hits another particle moving at 50% of the light and transfers all of it's energy in a totally elastic collision, by 'conversation of momentum,' the second particle would now be moving at 110% of the speed of light.
No.
What's most ironic is that you sneer "relativity doesn't apply apparently" when relativity is the reason you're wrong.
You don't understand it. It's not a matter of explanation. You're putting out facts that are entirely wrong. Simple as that.
If conservation of momentum worked that way, we could have FTL travel today. According to you, if we have a particle moving at 60% of the speed of the light which hits another particle moving at 50% of the light and transfer all of it's energy in a totally elastic collision, by 'conversation of momentum,' the second particle would now be moving at 110% of the speed of light.
No.
What's most ironic is that you sneer "relativity doesn't apply apparently" when relativity is the reason you're wrong.
What I meant by that is that Relativity doesn't seem to exist at all in the Mass Effect universe and everything seems to be dictated by... Newtonian mechanics(?). Afterall things with mass can travel faster than light and no one has to deal with that pesky time dilation.
That's kind of the entire point of having FTL travel in the first place, isn't it?
That's kind of the entire point of having FTL travel in the first place, isn't it?
Can you clarify that?
The entire point of having FTL exist, of striving to invent it in the real world is so we can do that. So we can have faster than light travel and not deal with dilation. That's the reason for it to exist. If everything was Newtonian, we obviously wouldn't have FTL travel (as a special, separate from of travel) because we wouldn't need it. The entire concept of FTL would be trivial.
The way FTL works in ME is that the mass effect fields are generated to a point where the ship has NO mass whatsoever. And I'm pretty sure the laws of mechanics don't apply then, as the ship would have volume but no mass.
No. No, no, no, no, no.
This is from someone who clearly does not understand either relativity or momentum.
You?
You don't understand it. It's not a matter of explanation. You're putting out facts that are entirely wrong. Simple as that.
If conservation of momentum worked that way, we could have FTL travel today. According to you, if we have a particle moving at 60% of the speed of the light which hits another particle moving at 50% of the light and transfers all of it's energy in a totally elastic collision, by 'conversation of momentum,' the second particle would now be moving at 110% of the speed of light.
No.
What's most ironic is that you sneer "relativity doesn't apply apparently" when relativity is the reason you're wrong.
Physics fail!
The entire point of having FTL exist, of striving to invent it in the real world is so we can do that. So we can have faster than light travel and not deal with dilation. That's the reason for it to exist. If everything was Newtonian, we obviously wouldn't have FTL travel (as a special, separate from of travel) because we wouldn't need it. The entire concept of FTL would be trivial.
Just because you can travel faster than light doesn't necessarily mean causality suddenly becomes a non-issue. FTL speeds are arguably impossible to achieve because they all arguably violate causality.
Edit: I don't even know why we are talking about this. Mass Effect FTL speeds work by using the field to reduce the mass of objects to a lower but non-zero mass, which is physically impossible. With Relativity it would take an infinite amount of energy just to reach the speed of light. So, the physical laws that dictate our universe don't seem to apply to Mass Effect.
no, the Death Star is considered a space "station". And it's definitely much larger that the Destiny Ascension.....by a huge margin.Technically, the Death Star IS a space ship. Just a huge one. The Citadel races have the Destiny Ascension. The Empire has a mobile moon with a planet destroying superlaser.
I really don't know how much more simply I can explain this.
The entire point of FTL travel is finding a way to get around the apparent limitations of relativity and causality. That is it's sole and only purpose. Saying FTL is a broken concept because it violates causality is utterly nonsensical because by it's very definition, the purpose of FTL is to get around limitations such as causality.
It's absurd gibberish. It's like saying "You can't make an airplane designed to get around gravity because gravity exists.' If gravity didn't exist, we wouldn't be concerned with making airplanes in the first place.
Note that saying 'gravity exists' is not the same at all as saying 'gravity is all powerful and absolutely impossible to circumvent.' The same goes for relativity and causality.
Ssing Star Wars technology as an example for Mass Effect is a bad idea. Seeing as Star Wars is infinitely more advanced and Mass Effect has some semblance of achievable technology.
I'm not comparing technologies, I'm saying space stations can move.
If the Alliance could move Pluto, I don't see how we can really have a problem with Cerberus moving Cronos Station.
When did the Alliance move Pluto?
I really don't know how much more simply I can explain this.
The entire point of FTL travel is finding a way to get around the apparent limitations of relativity and causality. That is it's sole and only purpose. Saying FTL is a broken concept because it violates causality is utterly nonsensical because by it's very definition, the purpose of FTL is to get around limitations such as causality.
It's absurd gibberish. It's like saying "You can't make an airplane designed to get around gravity because gravity exists.' If gravity didn't exist, we wouldn't be concerned with making airplanes in the first place.
Note that saying 'gravity exists' is not the same at all as saying 'gravity is all powerful and absolutely impossible to circumvent.' The same goes for relativity and causality.
The purpose of FTL travel is to travel faster than light. Theoretically obtaining FTL isn't the difficult part, it's violating causality that is troublesome and why there is so much debate about whether or not it is possible. It's debating whether the universe would allow a situation where you can collide into yourself or go back in time, as examples of violating causality. To wit it's not a problem of traveling faster than light, it's a problem of those methods causing unsolvable paradoxes.
Again, we are drifting into some deep theoretical waters here that I nor you, apparently, given your attempts to strawman every argument (and even then poorly), have intimate knowledge of. I simply stated that the rules of Relativity don't seem to apply to Mass Effect, i.e. objects with mass traveling at FTL speeds with nothing more than simple thrust.
You clearly have no clue at all what you're talking about.
If "Theoretically obtaining FTL isn't the difficult part," would you like to explain to me how exactly we're supposed to do it?
You seem to be under the very silly, very ridiculous impression that the universe 'allowing' FTL travel and 'allowing' consequence of causality it may or may not violate are somehow different things. As if it's easy-peasy to scientists to create faster-then-light travel, but then a magical hand pops out of nowhere to stop them the moment the use it in some way that might violate casuality.
No.
Let me assure you that the challenge of overcoming light speed is still an immensely 'real' problem that is completely tied to causality and relativity. They aren't separate.
all im seeing, from both sides, is assumption and rhetoric.
we know its a station.
we know it moves.
it doesnt matter how it moves.
it doesnt matter because it moves.
it matters where it moves.
it matters because of the vastness of space.
if you flew in a plane even yesterday does that mean you know exactly where it is now?
stop bashing david, you're getting off topic and missing the "big picture"/question.
"is there an in game reason for why Miranda never reveals the location of Cronos station much earlier in the game?"
for that answer see above.
You clearly have no clue at all what you're talking about.
If "Theoretically obtaining FTL isn't the difficult part," would you like to explain to me how exactly we're supposed to do it?
You seem to be under the very silly, very ridiculous impression that the universe 'allowing' FTL travel and 'allowing' consequence of causality it may or may not violate are somehow different things. As if it's easy-peasy to scientists to create faster-then-light travel, but then a magical hand pops out of nowhere to stop them the moment the use it in some way that might violate casuality.
No.
Let me assure you that the challenge of overcoming light speed is still an immensely 'real' problem that is completely tied to causality and relativity. They aren't separate.
Tachyons, the Alcubierre drive, wormholes, to name a few, they are all theoretical ways we can travel faster than light. Developing the means to travel faster than light is one step of the problem (and arguably the smaller one), the other is violating causality by creating situations that are logically impossible. And if there are a set of circumstances that must lead to an impossible event then there is an argument that the circumstances must too be impossible (of course there are ways to get around this like parellel universes or even something as simple as causality can be violated). The main point is which you seem to be unaware of is that FTL and the ability it brings to violate causality is an active discussion in academics. Whether or not violating causality limits all such methods or just the ones that would lead to such a violation is still up to debate. What I'm doing here is trying to lay down the arguments in short layman terms. Not state anything conclusive, except for the the point which you seem desperate to try to avoid or strawman. That point being that the laws of Relavtivity do not seem to apply to the Mass Effect Universe.
I'm not even sure what you mean by the last statement since I was explaining how exactly FTL travel is tied to causality.
Honestly, at this point it seems like you are objecting to me pointing out that there is no solid consensus on this subject.
all im seeing, from both sides, is assumption and rhetoric.
we know its a station.
we know it moves.
it doesnt matter how it moves.
it doesnt matter because it moves.
it matters where it moves.
it matters because of the vastness of space.
if you flew in a plane even yesterday does that mean you know exactly where it is now?
stop bashing david, you're getting off topic and missing the "big picture"/question.
"is there an in game reason for why Miranda never reveals the location of Cronos station much earlier in the game?"
for that answer see above.
Well it's not technically an in-game reason, more like in universe, as apparently it was explained in one of the books that the station can move (from a solely in-game perspective it seems as if the station doesn't move at all because it is always orbiting the same unique looking sun). Now we're talking about how much of a hand wave that is (which makes how it moves entirely relevant).
The thing with David is the usual BSN off topic nonsense. He seemed to object to the idea that Relativity doesn't exist in the ME universe and now he's... what, strawmanning(?) the argument to something else entirely. I'm not even sure what, because he seems to be objecting to whatever I say for the sole purpose of objecting to whatever I say even if it means seemingly contradicting his previous statements.
yeah even then im speculating. now that i sit down and mull it over...the real answer is no. no in game reason was ever given.
The thing with David is the usual BSN off topic nonsense. He seemed to object to the idea that Relativity doesn't exist in the ME universe and now he's... what, strawmanning(?) the argument to something else entirely. I'm not even sure what, because he seems to be objecting to whatever I say for the sole purpose of objecting to whatever I say even if it means seemingly contradicting his previous statements.
Disregard what he says. He dismisses biology and physics for other things, like Lazarus. If nothing else, he's being a hypocrite.
Retour en haut