167 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Honestly a mobile space station that can use mass relays and ftl is one of the easier ME details to swallow...

[Thermopylae]

I go by this, our portrayals of "space travel" in fiction are essentially navy boats in space with flashy light cannons and the natives we meet are strangely coloured humans that potentially evoke themes belonging to other terrestrial species and generally contain properties of a recognizable personhood. We are like Neolithic people making up stories where the heroes have spears that are like lightning and they sail (drive in) really fast canoes that can travel in the sky. Of course when you play Mass Effect you are immersed in a multimedia experience of sight and sound and react to the reality as portrayed. The narratives do contain experiences and issues common to the human condition or at least the originating society (ies), members of the groups who will purchase this commodity. 

 

I just assume Miranda informs the player on a need to know basis, pretty much how I would inform Miranda as an overly connected ex-Cerberus ? person, no matter how awesome her other assets are. (creepy) He he he.

[Reorte]

I don't mind a bit of nonsense invention to set up a universe that can do things we've not got a clue to do and are probably impossible in reality. FTL, whether by warp drive, hyperspace, or eezo, slips through that gap. It's when that's used as an excuse for introducing any other old nonsense that I start to get annoyed.

[Bob from Accounting]

Let me be the person to assure everyone here that FTL travel and communications are still very, very much on the table for modern physicists. A certainty? Not by a long shot. But a very real possibility? You bet.

 

If FTL travel and communications were proven to be fundamentally impossible, that fact would be in the very first paragraph of every textbook and article on the subject in existence. Guess what? It ain't.

 

Einstein and Schrödinger were the two big proponents of no FTL causality, and since, the evidence has generally shifted away from them on that issue, mostly by John Bell's work in the 1960's.

 

In other words, deriding fiction's use of such concepts as 'nonsense' is really not particularly wise.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Let me be the person to assure everyone here that FTL travel and communications are still very, very much on the table for modern physicists. A certainty? Not by a long shot. But a very real possibility? You bet.

 

If FTL travel and communications were proven to be fundamentally impossible, that fact would be in the very first paragraph of every textbook and article on the subject in existence. Guess what? It ain't.

 

Einstein and Schrödinger were the two big proponents of no FTL causality, and since, the evidence has generally shifted away from them on that issue, mostly by John Bell's work in the 1960's.

 

In other words, deriding fiction's use of such concepts as 'nonsense' is really not particularly wise.

 

The concept for which it is used certainly is.

 

Let me be the person here to assure everyone that David's assurances are about as helpful as a bail bond loan assurance/insurance building with bars over the windows. 

 

There have also been repeated claims that Bell's arguments are irrelevant because they depend on hidden assumptions that, in fact, are questionable—though none of these claims have ever achieved much support. For example, E.T. Jaynes claimed in 1989 that there are two hidden assumptions in Bell's theorem that could limit its generality. According to him:

 

Bell interpreted conditional probability P(X|Y) as a causal inference, i.e. Y exerted a causal inference on X in reality. However, P(X|Y) actually only means logical inference (deduction). Causes cannot travel faster than light or backward in time, but deduction can.

 

Bell's inequality does not apply to some possible hidden variable theories. It only applies to a certain class of local hidden variable theories. In fact, it might have just missed the kind of hidden variable theories that Einstein is most interested in.

 

A large problem David, is your argument again: You're creating one out of nothing, and making a claim against it and the people you're ascribing it towards.

[Bob from Accounting]

You might want to change up the text a bit when you copy and paste directly from Wikipedia. You'll have a slightly higher chance of fooling me.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

You might want to change up the text a bit when you copy and paste directly from Wikipedia. You'll have a slightly higher chance of fooling me.

 

It's not meant to fool you.

 

It's meant to prove you wrong. Which is superfluous, since I can do that by simply telling everyone the flaws in your argument, the holes in your logic. 

 

Did you know you can't dismiss evidence that has been validated just because the person presenting it in context isn't an expert or professional?

 

Try defeating the claim, not attacking me (or anyone else).

[Bob from Accounting]

It doesn't prove me wrong.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

It doesn't prove me wrong.

 

Of course not. You haven't proven yourself right yet. 

[DeinonSlayer]

Of course not. You haven't proven yourself right yet.

I forget. Is this the part where he usually says it's everyone elses's job to prove his assertion wrong instead of proving it right, then demands more and more specific evidence be presented against him until ultimately changing the subject?

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

To Massively and David, as I'll say again, they achieve FTL by reducing the mass of the ship to 0. This forms a mathematical paradox, as 0 is known to do when applied to calculations. 

 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I forget. Is this the part where he usually says it's everyone elses's job to prove his assertion wrong instead of proving it right, then demands more and more specific evidence be presented against him until ultimately changing the subject?

 

You know it.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Let me be the person to assure everyone here that FTL travel and communications are still very, very much on the table for modern physicists. A certainty? Not by a long shot. But a very real possibility? You bet.

 

If FTL travel and communications were proven to be fundamentally impossible, that fact would be in the very first paragraph of every textbook and article on the subject in existence. Guess what? It ain't.

 

Einstein and Schrödinger were the two big proponents of no FTL causality, and since, the evidence has generally shifted away from them on that issue, mostly by John Bell's work in the 1960's.

 

In other words, deriding fiction's use of such concepts as 'nonsense' is really not particularly wise.

 

Which is what I've been saying for the last couple of posts. I thought that by using the words "arguably" and "debatable" that I was reflecting on the inconclusive nature of this whole arguement in academic circles. I wasn't asserting that FTL travel was impossible or anything like that, I was merely pointing out that Relativity doesn't seem to apply to the Mass Effect universe; since we have objects with mass traveling at FTL speeds using rockets, no instances of time dilation, or travelers having to deal with different reference frames or issues of causality. In fact, I don't think any one was asserting that travleing at FTL speeds in the real world was impossible.

 

Really my only question David is: are you asserting that Relativity exists in the Mass Effect universe?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

To Massively and David, as I'll say again, they achieve FTL by reducing the mass of the ship to 0. This forms a mathematical paradox, as 0 is known to do when applied to calculations. 

 

Indeed. I'm fine with wonder-tech in my sci-fi, and I'm fine when they try to make it seem as realistic as possible.

 

My beef is where David says that it's within the realm of possibility and reality, and then throws out a bunch of random physics claims that are tangentially related to the topic in an indirect manner.

[Mcfly616]

Whether it moves, or where it moves, or how it moves...


I think the most important question is: does Miranda know exactly what system she was in?



Another way of putting it...is it possible that while at Cronos Station, her exact location was kept from her? I'd say: sure, why not.


Thing is, there's no in-game evidence regarding her ignorance being contradictory.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

Indeed. I'm fine with wonder-tech in my sci-fi, and I'm fine when they try to make it seem as realistic as possible.

 

My beef is where David says that it's within the realm of possibility and reality, and then throws out a bunch of random physics claims that are tangentially related to the topic in an indirect manner.

Well, with eezo, it would be possible. We just can't know how it would work. There is some thought among physicists that a bending space time is theoretically possible. 

Remember, the lenth of the first flight a hundred years ago is less than the wingspan of a 747 now. Give it another 100 then look at the results. 

[DeinonSlayer]

Well, with eezo, it would be possible. We just can't know how it would work. There is some thought among physicists that a bending space time is theoretically possible. 

Remember, the lenth of the first flight a hundred years ago is less than the wingspan of a 747 now. Give it another 100 then look at the results. 

The biggest obstacle seems to be achieving this in a way that maintains the integrity of the 100-something-pound sacks of water these craft are expected to transport.

[ImaginaryMatter]

To Massively and David, as I'll say again, they achieve FTL by reducing the mass of the ship to 0. This forms a mathematical paradox, as 0 is known to do when applied to calculations.

 

I think it's a low, but non-zero mass. From the Codex:

 

"Element zero can increase or decrease the mass of a volume of space-time when subjected to an electrical current. With a positive current, mass is increased. With a negative current, mass is decreased. The stronger the current, the greater the magnitude of the dark energy mass effect. In space, low-mass fields allow FTL travel and inexpensive surface-to-orbit transit."