|
Post by cowgirl on Aug 19, 2012 19:30:32 GMT
But what about Space Magic? You can't use science to explain Star-child!
|
|
|
Post by Reaper_Armada on Aug 19, 2012 23:29:16 GMT
But what about Space Magic? You can't use science to explain Star-child! Hey thats my mum your talking about! Nup wrong. The Crucible used Dark Energy. Its still technically a "theory", but so is everything else really and it all still works. Its ovservable through its effects in space but we can't capture any of it. Same as Dark Matter. Without it, scientists believe the universe wouldn't work or exist.
|
|
|
Post by cowgirl on Aug 20, 2012 7:17:10 GMT
But what about Space Magic? You can't use science to explain Star-child! Hey thats my mum your talking about! Nup wrong. The Crucible used Dark Energy. Its still technically a "theory", but so is everything else really and it all still works. Its observable through its effects in space but we can't capture any of it. Same as Dark Matter. Without it, scientists believe the universe wouldn't work or exist. So in the end, i guess it doesn't mater that the ending was the way it was, with the reapers destroyed and the mass relays destroyed (Or did the EC even mater at the end anymore? x.x) . The Dark Energy there is still out there and we are still screwed!
|
|
|
Post by Emberblaque on Aug 20, 2012 7:45:05 GMT
There is inconsistency in your explanation. If Element zero is just an element consisting of neutrons there wouldn't be any Protons to repel the positrons (or any to attract the electrons, and so no orbitals). Actually in my first example I assumed that the circuits were composed of normal matter, that is, composed of atoms with nuclei containing protons. Later I described what would happen if the circuits were composed of "element zero": And if the circuits are somehow composed of "element zero" they would attract neither electrons nor positrons, unable to conduct electricity, or "positricity," at all. Which is, essentially, to say that they have no orbitals. My theory was that gravity is a negative energy (which sounds crazy) and so electrons, which are negative, transform into non-neutral-gravitons/dark-gravitons which are also negative (similar to the reasoning behind the creation of photo-electrons from which I assume light is also negative). Gravity, I find, is the most confusing constant known. Gravitons must be present in all particles except maybe in Neutrinos and Higgs boson etc. Element zero deposits in the nervous system would effectively allow manipulation of gravity (how we are able to generate "positricity" in our nervous system didn't make sense though) through the generation of gravitons and non-neutral-gravitons/dark-gravitons or possibly just gravitons and anti-gravitons/itself. Gravity is a force, a vector quantity, energy is a scalar quantity. It doesn't make sense in the way that it wouldn't if you were to ask a stranger for directions and they told you how many miles it was to your destination but not what direction it was in. So it makes no sense to call gravity an energy. I also don't understand how it's a constant. A constant is one invariable quantity. Gravity is described in many approximations of varying accuracy, all of which presumably contain one or many equations, which themselves contain many constant and variable terms. Perhaps you were thinking of the gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s^2)? That value is approximately constant, it's how most people are physically familiar with the concept of gravity, although it does actually vary with altitude, and would be different on the surface of planets with masses different than Earth's. Gravitons are force carrier particles (if they exist), so to say that they are present within particles is not meaningful, particles would not be composed of gravitons. They only compose gravitational fields. Photons are also force carrier particles, but they instead compose electromagnetic fields, so it's also not meaningful to say that they have a charge. Charges determine the magnitude of the electromagnetic force, which the photons carry, that would be like saying a graviton has mass. Imagine the particles carrying the forces producing forces themselves, it'd be a recursive nightmare of particle physics. I still don't see the link between "element zero"-like substances and the manipulation of gravity, I know very little about neutrinos or the Higgs boson, and I have never heard of "non-neutral gravitons/dark-gravitons" or "anti-gravitons." Would you mind me asking you what is the best sci-fi book, or series of books, you have ever read, in your opinion, as I wish to read it. I haven't read very much science fiction literature, mostly short stories. My favorite is absolutely "There Will Come Soft Rains" by Ray Bradbury. And I always thought "Super-Toys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss was a nice story. Probably not the answer you're looking for, it has nothing to do with superluminal travel.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfrahm on Aug 20, 2012 13:24:03 GMT
I also don't understand how it's a constant. A constant is one invariable quantity. Sorry,I meant it as a constant factor in this universe, as in it simply being. It's a redundant statement. Gravitons are force carrier particles (if they exist), so to say that they are present within particles is not meaningful, particles would not be composed of gravitons. They only compose gravitational fields. Meant to say something along the lines of "generate/form gravitons" and not so much "are formed of them". Photons are also force carrier particles, but they instead compose electromagnetic fields, so it's also not meaningful to say that they have a charge. "...compose electromagnetic fields...";I fail to understand. Could you explain what you mean by that? that would be like saying a graviton has mass. Imagine the particles carrying the forces producing forces themselves, it'd be a recursive nightmare of particle physics. Sorry, that is not what I meant to say. I intended to say mass is independent of gravity, but the more mass (Higgs boson) the more Gravitons generated/formed by it. I still don't see the link between "element zero"-like substances and the manipulation of gravity "Element Zero"/Neutronium being mass only "substances" have "no charge"(I'm not 100% sure) and so no electromagnetic field. The more mass (Higgs boson) the more Gravitons that can be generated by it. I know very little about neutrinos or the Higgs boson I know less. I have never heard of "non-neutral gravitons/dark-gravitons" or "anti-gravitons." You wouldn't (There is no name for them yet). They are effectively repulsive Gravitons. I haven't read very much science fiction literature, mostly short stories. My favorite is absolutely "There Will Come Soft Rains" by Ray Bradbury. And I always thought "Super-Toys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss was a nice story. Probably not the answer you're looking for, it has nothing to do with superluminal travel. Exactly the answer I was looking for. Thanks. I'm running out of books.
|
|
|
Post by Emberblaque on Aug 20, 2012 22:38:03 GMT
"...compose electromagnetic fields...";I fail to understand. Could you explain what you mean by that? I mean charged particles exchange photons, this is what produces the electromagnetic force. And electromagnetic fields describe the direction and magnitude of that force at each point in a space.
|
|
|
Post by Shockmatter on Aug 23, 2012 2:54:29 GMT
One word. Space Nazi's. Just watched Iron Sky. It was very entertaining. But in Mass Effect I feel like a galactic hero against an unsurmountable unstopable space monster force while in Halo I feel like the saviour of humanity and the inheritor of an ancient race and warrior Gods. I've been dying to see Iron Sky for months but noooo they don't wanna release it in America. In terms of scope, Mass Effect takes the cake. I discovered the series via an ad for Mass Effect 2 that blew my mind. *The one where Shep gets vented into space* After that I went out and got the first game, *with bonus disc * There are many science things I can list from the series, Element Zero, Mass Effect Fields, Biotics, Omnitools, etc. With Halo I don't see much of that technological advancement. I mean come on, 500 years into the future and we still don't have shields on our warships? Humans don't find any intelligent life UNTIL the Covies show up? And the UNSC apparently had 500+ colonies, that's a **** ton more than the Systems Alliance had. I, for one, think the Mass Effect Series in general is better than the Halo franchise. They both have strengths and weaknesses but ME is the champ. All in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfrahm on Aug 23, 2012 15:27:00 GMT
With Halo I don't see much of that technological advancement. I mean come on, 500 years into the future and we still don't have shields on our warships? I agree. Concerning 500 years in the future... I don't see how shields could work anyway (possibly nanobots). There will always be those who attempt to inhibit technological advancement. I mean come on! We should already be in the space age! Just look at this Project OrionWhy are we being kept here?
|
|
|
Post by Emberblaque on Aug 23, 2012 21:10:07 GMT
I remember reading that the Air Force stopped funding Project Orion mostly because they couldn't think of a reason to move that much payload into orbit. Besides the fact that they gave an ultimatum to the people running the project that if they couldn't secure funding from NASA as well, then they would drop the project. The Partial Test Ban Treaty had just been signed, and NASA decided to take a non-nuclear approach to spacecraft propulsion, a PR conscious civilian space agency as they are, and thus it was cancelled.
I'm still proud of it as an achievement for our species though. Like if we ever absolutely need to get to another star system, we have one crude way to do it. Pretty snazzy interplanetary travel times as well, especially for 50-year old technology. I wonder how much more efficient it could be with a few modern materials and some electronics to replace all that mechanical stuff for the bombs.
But I suppose if you want to make the entire thing more efficient, you should just run with it, and consider things like Project Daedalus and more recently Project Icarus. They kick it up a notch and use an inertial confinement fusion reactor and a magnetic nozzle to direct exhaust. Gets rid of the need for shaped charges and all of the extra polyethylene reaction mass. And I mean, they're fuel pellets instead of giant bombs. Far more speculative of course. We're certainly making progress however.
|
|
|
Post by Reaper_Armada on Oct 8, 2012 23:37:28 GMT
One word. Space Nazi's. Just watched Iron Sky. It was very entertaining. But in Mass Effect I feel like a galactic hero against an unsurmountable unstopable space monster force while in Halo I feel like the saviour of humanity and the inheritor of an ancient race and warrior Gods. I've been dying to see Iron Sky for months but noooo they don't wanna release it in America. In terms of scope, Mass Effect takes the cake. I discovered the series via an ad for Mass Effect 2 that blew my mind. *The one where Shep gets vented into space* After that I went out and got the first game, *with bonus disc * There are many science things I can list from the series, Element Zero, Mass Effect Fields, Biotics, Omnitools, etc. With Halo I don't see much of that technological advancement. I mean come on, 500 years into the future and we still don't have shields on our warships? Humans don't find any intelligent life UNTIL the Covies show up? And the UNSC apparently had 500+ colonies, that's a **** ton more than the Systems Alliance had. I, for one, think the Mass Effect Series in general is better than the Halo franchise. They both have strengths and weaknesses but ME is the champ. All in my opinion. Concerning the 500+ colonies. I was reading a piece of published information in a proper document so its content are valid that the UNSC only had a human presence on 17 inner colonies worlds. This means while their may have been 800 colonisable areas (asteroids, moons etc.) they only had settlments on 17 planets. There was probably an equal if slightly less number in the outer colonies for occupied planets.
|
|
|
Post by Shockmatter on Oct 10, 2012 19:02:42 GMT
17 inner colonies sounds about right. But as far as I know )I haven't read all the comics) The only inner colony incursions were Reach and Earth right? If humanity was near extinction I believe there would have had to be a boat-load of colonies that could sustain our (hundreds of billions?) population.
|
|
|
Post by Emberblaque on Oct 11, 2012 7:07:40 GMT
17 inner colonies sounds about right. But as far as I know )I haven't read all the comics) The only inner colony incursions were Reach and Earth right? If humanity was near extinction I believe there would have had to be a boat-load of colonies that could sustain our (hundreds of billions?) population. The other colonies in the Epsilon Eridani and Sol systems, Chi Rho, Actium, and Skopje. UNSC colonies have ridiculously low populations. Reach only had 703 million inhabitants, even though the colony is 190 years old, and appears to be the second most populous UNSC world.. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Also sometimes they've erroneously given "small" colonies absurdly high populations. Halo's notoriously inconsistent. The people who came up with all of these numbers cared less about them than you do.
|
|
|
Post by harbinger87 on Oct 17, 2012 19:53:53 GMT
The main threat in halo in all actuality was the flood, it was the one thing that could not be stopped, not even by the covenant and its fleets of extreme size. The forerunners even failed...but the Flood has always existed since the beginning of time in the halo universe, so while the game focuses on the Holy War, the whole universe focuses on sentient life's struggle to survive against an almost unstoppable enemy, we see this reoccur in Mass Effect. halo is a veteran franchise and the flagship of microsofts game fleet, for good reason. But I'd say the general role you play in each game and the circumstances your facing in each game allow you to experience being a hero in different ways. I love both franchises but halo moreso cause its just..halo.
|
|
|
Post by xphoenixsquadx on Oct 19, 2012 0:23:27 GMT
a flood controlled harbinger...... the possiblities are endless
|
|
|
Post by xphoenixsquadx on Oct 24, 2012 11:40:37 GMT
Further note, there would be an unlikely chance that the reapers would be able to take a UNCS inner colony being that most are defended by orbital defence station which can fire every five seconds. Firing a 3000 ton round at 12000 kilometers per second. There is a very high percent chance of one shot one kill against reaper ships
|
|