Borrowed a lot from the Traveller RPG

12/11/03 2:15:55 AM

Of all the sources of inspiration...

...available in the world, I highly doubt that some RPG played by people who should consider going outside more was one of them

Post #130,240

by orion

12/11/03 10:28:34 AM

Importance of RPGs

A lot of ideas came up in RPGs before they got used in movies and tv shows.

One would argue that The Lord of the Rings, King Authur, and other books inspired the Chainmail, D&D, and AD&D RPG to be made. Then D&D and AD&D inspired a movie named "Dungeons and Dragons" to be made. Not bad for a game that geeky people play indoors a lot and don't go out much. :)

I have to say that we played Traveller not just in homes, but at gaming stores, fast food places, camp grounds, picnics, BBQs, and other locations. Over the years we found that technology that we invented and thought of as original turned up in movies and TV shows 10 years or more later. I must admit that some of our ideas took an existing idea and improved on it. Like Star Trek Tholian web became personal web armor and a gun that could encircle something and crush it to the size of a ping-pong ball. All they used it in Star Trek for was two Tholian ships trying to trap the Enterprise in an energy web. Never advanced it any farther than that. One day I assume they will take it to the level of personal web armor and the web gun. That was 1986 when we thought of the idea and the GM used it in the game. We also had Nanosuits, Planet Buster Missiles, Guided Mis-Jumps, Masers, EMP pistols, Light Blades, Psionic Daggers, Mini-Mines (can be set to blast, shrapnel, or fire), Molecule Suits, and Space/Vac-Suits so high tech that it was like wearing a excercise suit. More but I can't think of it right now.

We had all kinds of things from alien space stations to Space Casinos carved out of a large asteroid to time travel to spywork and all kinds of other stuff. Forget the game modules, we invented our own. One day we could be nuking a planet, and the next we could be rescuing a kidnapped Princess. ;)

Post #130,280

12/11/03 11:27:05 AM

LOTR inspired by AD&D?

Wow. Be still, my beating heart.

--

"There's nothing more nervous than a million dollars. It does not speak French, it does not speak English, it does not speak German and it moves very fast."

-- Jean Chretien

Post #130,284

by jake123

12/11/03 11:31:32 AM

No, the other way around

It weasels ("one would argue") but LOTR etc "inspired" games "to be made".

A better, clearer sentence would have been:

"The Chainmail, D&D, and AD&D games were inspired by fantasy novels and stories such as LOTR, King Arthur, and others."

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #130,427

by orion

12/11/03 10:37:26 PM

Thanks for the clarification

I need to improve on my sentence structure.

Post #130,322

12/11/03 1:14:17 PM

Nothing you say

can deflect my unswerving belief that people who role-play are sad gits who should consider getting a life.

Post #130,328

by JayMehaffey

12/11/03 1:27:53 PM

The great thing

The great thing about RPGs is that I have several lives to choose from.

Jay

Post #130,333

by bepatient

12/11/03 1:38:45 PM

Right...

...you would rather not bother exersizing your brain by using such thing as an imagination...opting instead to let your computer do all that work...leaving you free to simply hold your joystick.

Signed.

A former git.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

It goes in, it must come out._{Teslacle's Deviant to Fudd's Law}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #130,355

by inthane-chan

12/11/03 2:57:17 PM

/me wonders what pwhysall would say about Grognards...

Me, I generally reserve that blanket statement for the 'con goers. I like to excercise my imagination occasionally, but not so much that it takes over my life.

I have a red sign on my door. It says "If this sign is blue, you're going too fast."

Post #130,440

by static

12/12/03 5:57:56 AM

There is little that is original in that sort of thing.

I have most issues of Aurealis, an Australian science-fiction and fantast magazine. And by most issues, I mean the first 19 plus the latest, #31. With an average of 6 stories each issue, that's a lot of ideas! With so much TV amd movie science fiction in existence, rest assured that there are lot of ideas that are recycled, borrowed, re-used and re-invented.

Take FTL - about the only truly original idea in the last few decades was Douglas Adam's Improbability Drive. Virtually all others are merely "double talk" drives of some sort, dressed up in all clever ways.

Wade.

Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed

Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please

-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne.

Post #130,476

by orion

12/12/03 1:36:59 PM

Drives

Traveller has a Jump Drive, it takes one week to navigate in Jump Space to travel 1 to 6 parsecs based on the drive factor. A Mis-Jump by being too close to a gravity source can go as far as 36 parsecs. Jump Space is just another dimension, like Hyper Space. FTL travel is acheived by jumping into a higher dimension and taking a shortcut which lasts about one week.

Warp Drive I am fuzzy on. Originally they called it Time Warp drives. So I guess it warps time and space to travel faster than light?

Quantium Slipstream drives, hard to figure out without understanding the Quantium Theory.

Starbust drives, FarScape has these. Basically a Jump or Hyper Space drive.

Wormholes, rips in time and space. Star Trek DS9 and FarScape had these. Find a stable one and be ready to make lots of money off of it.

Dimensional Portals, we used this in Traveller. Ship creates a Portal that links to a Portal somewhere else and just passes through it. Sort of like a Stargate.

Stargates, use another dimension to link Stargates together.

Post #130,486

12/12/03 2:03:28 PM

Re: Drives

There is nothing to figure out, Norm - that's why it's called fiction.

It's BS.

-drl

Post #130,581

by orion

12/13/03 3:31:53 PM

What once was fiction, can become fact.

Remember when people wrote stories about using rockets to go to the moon? It turned from fiction to a fact.

Star Trek had removable disks for computers, the floppy disk was born. Star Trek had communicators, and the cell phone was born.

I really believe that some day, some one will figure out a way to get a FTL travel in a starship. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but one day in the future. We got plenty of ideas in fiction, now to work out the facts.

Post #130,584

by SpiceWare

12/13/03 4:28:58 PM

very good point

where would we be if nobody considered "what if"?

Darrell Spice, Jr.                      [link|http://www.spiceware.org/cgi-bin/spa.pl?album=./Artistic%20Overpass|Artistic Overpass]\n[link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore

Post #130,589

12/13/03 5:55:06 PM

We would be nowhere

..if the methods of science were abandoned, by forgetting what is known in favor of what we wish were known.

-drl

Post #130,596

by orion

12/13/03 6:41:15 PM

Sometimes what we know is a lie

like the flat Earth fact that used to be popular.

Post #130,603

12/13/03 6:56:57 PM

Re: Sometimes what we know is a lie

That's is just a stupid, trivial thing to say, and it pisses me off. No one can be this lazy.

-drl

Post #130,613

by orion

12/13/03 7:20:36 PM

Prove the universe

give 30 examples. This was on an Astronomy test of mine in college. Our instructor disagreed with the book and explained why most things in it were wrong.

Our ignorence of the universe is showing, we don't even know how to counter the bone loss in Astronaughts yet.

Would you have believed in black holes before someone caught a nearby star falling into one? There are some things we cannot see in the universe. We only percive three dimensions and often ignore time, a fourth one. How can we tell if there other dimensions if we are closed-minded?

Can't see it, it does not exist. That kind of thinking could be wrong.

It is not being lazy, it is keeping an open mind, and seeing if the rules are wrong.

Post #130,616

12/13/03 7:27:24 PM

Re: Prove the universe

You aren't keeping an open mind, you're impersonating a wheel of cheese.

-drl

Post #130,619

by orion

12/13/03 7:39:35 PM

Chedar or Swiss? :)

Post #130,588

12/13/03 5:53:20 PM

Nope - essential difference

Some things simply require better production and technology. Going to the Moon was possible as soon as Newton wrote F = GMeMm/r^2. Cell phones and communicators were possible as soon as Maxwell proved that light is an electromagnetic phenomenon. Going faster than light is, and will always be, impossible, as impossible as adding 2+2 and getting 5. That is simply how it is. It is built into the nature of space and time, the way the integers are built into coconut trees.

I find the attitude that "science is what I believe can be, rather than what is and what is not" sort of offensive.

BTW I love Star Trek - I just pretend it happens in a Universe in which c=infinity.

-drl

Post #130,598

by orion

12/13/03 6:44:43 PM

12/13/03 6:50:20 PM

We don't know what is and what is not

we can only theorize and hope we find facts and proof to back up those theories.

My last instructor told me that science is all theories, nothing is a fact and that when 99.1% or more of the time you can predict something via a theory, that theory is valid.

What if Einstien was wrong? He was wrong about the Quantium Theory, IIRC.

Besides most of those drives use another dimension to take a shortcut, rather than exceed the speed of light.

Edited by orion Dec. 13, 2003, 06:50:20 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #130,601

12/13/03 6:55:23 PM

Wrong

(and I really am not interested in what your "instructor" said - if he told you that he's an idiot)

Progress in science is not based on wishful thinking - it's based on accumulating facts by long hard struggle.

One of those facts is - given the simplest assumptions about space and time - assumptions taken from the simplest observations about the world - then space and time are related by a parameter that is either finite or not - and the only way to find out which, is to look. When you look, it turns out to be finite. There is no doubt, none whatsoever - about this. NO DOUBT. It is as real as rain.

Not you, not anyone or any thing, will ever go faster than this limiting speed. And if you insist on believing that it will, then you are rejecting science and its methods, and you should not pay lip service to it ever again. You should crawl up a tree and live like the monkeys do, without science.

-drl

Post #130,695

by orion

12/14/03 10:40:19 AM

My Instructor has a PHD

I doubt he is an idiot.

One of the things they taught us in Peak Learning is to ignore the rules, as the rules can interfer with learning.

Post #130,699

12/14/03 10:57:34 AM

That doesn't exclude him from being an idiot, Norm.

And generally, you have to know the rules in order to ignore them.

Post #130,700

by orion

12/14/03 11:02:38 AM

Explain to me

how an idiot can earn a PHD and teach a class and know the material they are teaching?

Post #130,702

12/14/03 11:11:49 AM

Re: Explain to me

George Bush graduated from Yale and Harvard! You know what his makes him? RICH!

-drl

Post #130,602

12/13/03 6:56:11 PM

That's still wishful thinking.

Norm, none of those drives exist.

They don't use any dimension other than your imagination.

The "science is all theories" argument is most often proffered by people who really mean "vague idea" when they say "theory".

Yes, science is all theories. Do you understand just how much of what we currently know about the universe (and use - this computer, the internet, Big Macs, etc) would have to be astonishingly, tragically wrong for FTL travel to be possible?

Don't make me stick the fizzy cysts on you.

Post #130,608

by orion

12/13/03 7:11:25 PM

They don't exist, yet

but they could be one day if the theory is proven factual.

What if the whole world as we knew it was a lie? What if all we know is yet another "Flat Earth" theory? All I am saying is "What if?"

What if Columbus believed the Flat Earth theory and never sailed over the ocean?

What if Newton ignored the Apple?

What if Einstien believed his teachers that he was dumb?

What would science be like if people didn't ignore the rules and instead went to discover the truth? Yes believe in a Flat Earth, never sail off of it. Speed of sound, can never be broken. Never can we reach the moon. People will never fly in planes. Never wonder why things fall and hit you on the head. Believe every negative thing that people say about you. Really sick and sad world if everyone did that. Sicker and sader than it is now.

Post #130,612

12/13/03 7:19:44 PM

Re: They don't exist, yet

I swear, you make people want to jump into a volcano.

You haven't thought for even 2 minutes about what I said - you just blurt out whatever comes to mind without thought or effort. You have become without any doubt the laziest, most thoughtless person I've ever encountered online.

You and that other person make it seem as if St. Louis is filled with idiots.

-drl

Post #130,618

by orion

12/13/03 7:38:20 PM

Your thinking is limited

all I was saying is "What if" not saying that it is a fact to go faster than light, just saying "What if we could?", that is all.

Suggested reading:
[link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738205257/102-9349839-2001726?v=glance|http://www.amazon.co...-2001726?v=glance]

[link|http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/warps.html|http://www.hawking.o...ctures/warps.html]

Apparently Hawking agrees with me that today's science fiction is often tomorrow's science fact.

Angels of a triangle are always 180 degrees, right? At one time it was thought so, until proven otherwise:

Here is one of the short-cuts I talked about:

Not proven yet, but proof that it is a theory.

Post #130,623

12/13/03 7:47:45 PM

Re: Your thinking is limited

And what I'm telling you, is that it is impossible for reasons that have *nothing to do* with particular theories - that is is *built into* the very nature of space and time.

As to Hawking - he's referring to global solutions to general relativity employing what is called a "Euclidean analytic continuation", which *is* nothing but a rank speculation - but how would it be possible to explain this to you, who is too lazy to spend 2 minutes of real thought on anything?

(For those who are curious, a "Euclidean analytic continuation" involves allowing time to be purely imaginary, so the metric becomes "Euclidean" (+1 +1 +1 +1), instead of the normal "Lorentzian" metric (+1 +1 +1 -1). Needless to say I think such an idea is hogwash. Time is real.)

-drl

Post #130,624

by orion

12/13/03 7:51:40 PM

Re: Your thinking is limited

What are those natures of space and time that make distant space travel impossible? Is it proven or more theories?

Post #130,629

12/13/03 8:12:53 PM

Re: Your thinking is limited

I'll just tell you the results.

1) I can get anywhere in the Universe as fast as I like, measured by my watch, if I have enough energy at my disposal.

2) I'm off to the Andromeda galaxy! I arrive in 2 weeks...

....two weeks later....

3) Oh this is lovely. But I gotta get back. Can't wait to have a beer with my homies...

4) Where the frick is Earth? It's moved a lot. (long search ensues...)

5) Good old earth! - hey the continents look different - why is there an ocean covering Florida now? And where are the icecaps? And for that matter where is New York? Where are all the people? Dead and gone! Evovled into something else! Not only are all my buds and family long gone, my species is extinct.

6) Oh shit, 4 million years have passed in the month that I was away! All my homies are long dead! My country is dead! The geography of my planet isn't even the same!

So as long as you are willing to cut all ties with home, you can go whereever you want. But the very nature of space and time guarantee the "time dilation" effect, and there is no way around it. There are no warps, there are no holes to jump into, there are no magic space bullets. If you go far away, it's goingt to take a long, long time on a clock on the wall of the place you left, no matter how short it may seem as measured by *your* watch.

-drl

Post #130,633

by orion

12/13/03 8:24:39 PM

Time is relative

I understand that. What I don't understand is why alternative ways of space travel are proven impossible? Like cutting through another dimension. Can you prove that other dimensions do not exist?

If so you just proved that there is no Heaven or Hell and theology is all shot up. :) How does that affect your religious views?

Is it impossible to travel outside of time and space, where time and space have no effect? Thus no time dilation effect.

Is it impossible to create a wormhole, one end in 2003, and the other in the next galaxy 4 million years later and pass through it? Then come back to 2003?

Theories mind you, not facts. But can you disprove them?

Post #130,640

12/13/03 9:15:08 PM

Re: Time is relative

I *gave* the proof - it's just high-school algebra combined with simple assumptions, that, if not true, would land us in a world where acid would be needed to find the bathroom, and so are ruled out because our local experience is otherwise.

In other words we see here physics in action - the assumptions are not dreamed up, they are based on what we observe. The assumption is a translation into math of an observed fact.

Space travel or not, it is extremely remarkable that something as complex as simultaneity boils down to a single number that is the same everywhere. In hindsight, we can see that its "real" meaning is a *universal rate* rather than a velocity per se. C is the rate at which matter is experienced.

It should be noted that the word causality hasn't been mentioned yet. That is extra, so C is even simpler than the idea of cause and effect.

-drl

Post #130,648

by orion

12/13/03 9:54:02 PM

So this proof

proves that other dimensions do not exist? I must have missed that part.

What we have seen of it is finite.

This book [link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738205257/102-9349839-2001726?v=glance|http://www.amazon.co...-2001726?v=glance]
says it is not constant.

Of course he might be right:
[link|http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm|http://www.scienceda.../991005114024.htm]

[link|http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s347215.htm|http://www.abc.net.a...eline/s347215.htm]

[link|http://www.kottke.org/02/08/speed-light-not-constant|http://www.kottke.or...ight-not-constant]

[link|http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html|http://www.space.com...nging_010815.html]

Even if C is not infinite, could it be possible to take a shortcut to another dimension to shorten the time needed to take the trip? All you've proven, and based on assumptions, is that C is not infinite. This does not disprove the existence of other dimensions to circumvent time-space through.

Post #130,651

12/13/03 10:04:48 PM

Re: So this proof

Even if there were "other dimensions", so what? The dimensions that need to take a shower are space and time.

BTW there are other dimensions, they are called matter and antimatter. Doesn't change the need to take a shower.

-drl

Post #130,696

by orion

12/14/03 10:52:34 AM

Other dimensions

Yes there is a theory that says there is an antimatter universe, just because we cannot see it does not mean it does not exist.

An extra dimension in space could help us move in 3D space by using 4D or even 5D space to find a shortcut between two points in 3D space.

I don not understand your need for time and space to take a shower, that term has no meaning to me. What does take a shower mean in a scientific or technical term anyway? I only assume that it means time and space get screwed up somehow and need to be corrected. If the 4D or 5D dimension of space is still relative to time, there should not be an issue unless there is a gravity difference in the other dimension or you get close to or travel at the speed of light. You would also need good navigation to make sure that you come out of the other dimesion and do not end up inside of a planet, star, or asteroid, etc.

Post #130,703

12/14/03 11:17:54 AM

Re: Other dimensions

This isn't how it works, that is, the world has a "nearness" quality. Even if somehow extra dimensions are allowed, you still have a footprint in the usual ones, and that can't just reappaer somewhere else without violating the "nearness" law - to go from A to B you must pass through the intervening space and time between A and B, regardless of what is going on in "other dimensions".

Antimatter not interacting with matter, looks exactly like matter. Nothing makes it "invisible".

-drl

Post #130,726

by orion

12/14/03 6:45:35 PM

Unless you moved out of the sphere of the 3rd dimension

Imagine a 2D space, you move a rectangle out of it into 3D space. You move the rectangle above the plane it was on, and it appears to other rectangles that it vanished. It is now on another plane inside of 3D space, which intersects with the first plane in another part, and the rectangle appears on the other side of the first plane by travelling through a second plane in 3D space that is warped to the other side of the first plane, but has a much shorter path to travel.

Now move it up a dimension, you leave the 3D cube/sphere into a 4D Tesseract and go into the next Cube/Sphere that intersects with the first cube/sphere in a different location. The small cube appears to other cubes to vanish on one side and reappear on the other side. By moving from cube to cube, it can vanish, find a shortcut, and reappear.

Imagine it is a game of Chutes and Ladders. :)

Carl Sagan explained it in the Cosmos series, but I see it has fallen off the PBS.org site. It was an Apple passing through a 2D space, making it look like a shapeshifter and vanishing at the end.

Post #130,941

by Ashton

12/16/03 3:09:58 AM

Language and math are endless fun, no?

But the idea of 'science' includes several requirements which militate against overactive imaginations and the infiinite number of what-if?s these can generate, even running on empty.

'Science' -in brief- is not required to disprove legions of (or a one of) fanciful musings: the method is to devise experiments as may lend credence to a hypothesis (or may render it moot). If you cannot devise such an experiment, accomplish same - and others reproduce your work: you haven't contributed an iota to 'science'; only to -

Wishful Thinking. 5\ufffd per kilo.

Then too.. mindless dismissal of 'science-in-words' as merely 'theory' and thus meaningless re the environment in which our bodies find themselves - violates another idea of A. Einstein:

Things should be made as simple as possible. But not simpler.

As to 21st Century Nintendo-science - -

Ashton

(as to your example - I expect many here have read and enjoyed Flatland. Norman - it was a story. It was imaginary. (A tesseract is an invention of the human nervous system, as is all math a similar contrivance of that peculiar nervous system and the metaphors it generates - not one of which IS 'Reality'.))

Post #130,996

by orion

12/16/03 12:21:44 PM

The point you have missed

is that I never said it was reality and I asked desitter to prove that other dimensions do not exist. He was not able to prove that other dimensions did not exist. The only thing that he proved, so to speak, was that C was finite, based on assumptions and experience.

All I have been saying is "What if?" all along. Some people apparently cannot stand people who challange the imagination to think of things that other people might think of as impossible. Case in point the "Flat Earth" theory that almost 99.9% of the planet believed in except for a few Vikings and Columbus. Oh don't sail too far, or you'll fall off the edge of the world! At the time they belived in their science as much as we belive in our modern science. They apparently were wrong and didn't know it. How do we know if there is another Flat Earth theory that we hold as true, but we could be mistaken in? At one time we calculated the age of the universe, and then found a way to figure out the age of stars. Found that some stars were older than the universe was supposed to be, and had to make corrections. Science is not perfect, we are learning new things each day. Maybe one day someone will prove one of the dimensional theories.

Post #131,008

12/16/03 12:49:02 PM

Re: The point you have missed

What? I gave up on this thread when you failed to see what I was saying, time and again.

I know you can move a "rectangle" off the plane into three dimensions. I explicitly stated that continuity and locality apply to the part that is fixed in 4-d - the real object - you're confusing a coordinate system for the real object. A thing is not a rectangular subset of a coordinate system.

-drl

Post #131,079

by orion

12/16/03 7:52:16 PM

I usually ignore things that don't make sense

what you had posted did not make one bit of sense to me, based on things that I read about or learned from somewhere else.

Perhaps if you were to provide a link to a creadible source that can explain it without using such terms as "take a shower" which are confusing anyway, maybe I'll understand it better?

Post #131,084

12/16/03 8:12:44 PM

make sense out of things you can't ignore

-drl

Post #131,193

by boxley

12/17/03 11:12:10 AM

lets review taking a shower

turn on water, adjust temerature, step under the water and start washing and rinsing. This occupies both time and space and the world of physics. With extra dimensions that you were thinking of wont get your ass clean before the water turns on. You cant step under the water without getting your exterior wet and you will yelp if the water is too hot or too cold. That is the point doc was trying to make.
thanx,
bill

stick a spork in it.

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Post #131,266

by orion

12/17/03 5:04:54 PM

Still confused

what changes the temp of the water? Why is there a need to take a shower, what gets us dirty? Why isn't there a shower in other dimensions? How come moving off a 2D to a 3D dimension doesn't require something to take a shower? What is the "dirt" made out of, and why is it so bad?

Still I have not seen any proof from anyone on the need to take a shower, or whatever. What theories, or facts is this based on?

Post #131,269

12/17/03 5:20:30 PM

Re: Still confused

The point is Norm, things in the *real world* occupy all the "dimensions" that God allows. Right now I can just assign coordinates for extra dimensions to everything, and call it higher dimensions - but they would have no physical meaning. The real dimensions are always present *in the thing itself*.

-drl

Post #131,306

by orion

12/17/03 10:43:17 PM

Funny that you mention God

If everything occupies all the dimensions that God created/allowed, that includes Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory. How come we cannot see those dimesions as well?

Here is an explination of the fourth dimension:
[link|http://www.hypermaths.org/quadibloc/math/fdiint.htm|http://www.hypermath...c/math/fdiint.htm]

It does not mention having to take a shower.

Apparently we may be living in four dimesions:
[link|http://www.fractalwisdom.com/FractalWisdom/fourth.html|http://www.fractalwi...isdom/fourth.html]

How about Anti-deSitter space? ;)
[link|http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/terning/Physics/extradim.html|http://t8web.lanl.go...ics/extradim.html]

Of the many theories on extra dimesions that I have read, I have not encounted anything about having to take a shower. Nor have you shown me any theories or proof that a shower needs to be taken.

Post #131,291

by boxley

12/17/03 8:32:08 PM

Okay you asked for it :-)

try not showering for a week or two until your wife serves proof on your smelly behind, that would be empirical evidence.
couldnt resist,
thanx,
bill

stick a spork in it.

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Post #131,308

by orion

12/17/03 10:45:12 PM

Still doesn't answer my questions

and it is a poor anology as the human body creates its own dirt via sweat and oils. Does time/space also sweat and produce oils that need to be washed off? If so, what is thw water of the shower that washes them off?

Post #131,311

by boxley

12/17/03 11:03:35 PM

stopped showering for 2 weeks and find out

physics is about observing and measuring. If you quit showering for two weeks the physical world will observe and measure you and you can log the events. Unknown dimensions are not physics because if you can neither observe or measure that moves the discussion to religion and faith. You can worship that other dimensions exist and have faith that they are there but physics physical science must be observable and measurable.
thanx,
bill

stick a spork in it.

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Post #131,327

by orion

12/18/03 7:54:14 AM

Observable and measurable

I guess that rules out dark matter because you cannot observe it and measure it. Yet people still have theories about it, and can show some gravity effects that it might exist out there.

Can't see a black hole either unless it is taking something inside of it. Does not mean they do not exist.

I like it how you and deSitter can just avoid answering my questions. I guess they will never be answered?

Post #131,328

12/18/03 8:06:19 AM

Question cannot be answered as posed.

Some things cannot be reduced to simple terms that you will understand.

Post #131,395

by orion

12/18/03 2:10:22 PM

More like

they don't want to answer the questions and are avoiding them.

Then teach me the complex terms, if they cannot be made into simple terms. I wasn't the one using a shower example. Tell me exactly what it is, and explain to me what those complex terms mean.

Post #131,401

12/18/03 3:05:01 PM

Re: More like

Dark matter is a stop-gap to account for the incomplete theory of gravity. When the correct theory of gravity is widely known, the need for dark matter will go away.

In fact, this is a commonplace in science - a matter of fact that is subject to interpretation. For example - at one time it was believed by people that time was absolute, and that the electron had to shrink in the direction of motion by a factor

L' = sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) L

Now that the electron behaved this way is a fact - but this theory did not make internal sense. The physical hypotheses involved raised more questions than they answered. Then along came Einstein, showed that time was not absolute, and that this contraction was merely an effect of perspective in 4-d - that the idea of length is dependent on two measurements at different places, and in general, at different times - and so length in itself has no meaning for a moving object, only for a stationary one.

The facts were the same, but the interpretation was completely different, and in the new theory, the interpretation was simple and direct and involved no further unnecessary hypotheses. Whenever the facts seem to be tripping over the theory, the theory probably needs modification.

In the case of dark matter, the gravity equations are

Gmn = -8pi Tmn

Tmn represents matter, and Gmn the curvature of spacetime. In order to produce sufficient curvature, you need sufficient matter on the right. Dark matter is backward reasoning - I *assume* I have such and such curvature, then go hunting for the Tmn of matter on the right that will make it so. Of course, this is completely wrong-headed. What is far more likely is that this gravitational theory itself only holds in weak matter, small scale conditions, and that when the corrected form of gravitation is found, the need for extra Tmns will go away. The facts will be the same, but the interpretation will be completely different.

Now do you get it?

-drl

Post #131,419

by orion

12/18/03 4:08:45 PM

12/18/03 4:17:49 PM

Somewhat

and it sort of proves my point that some theories can be wrong, despite seeming to be the truth to some people. Not an absolute truth, and some pieces of the puzel don't quite seem to fit. Much like the reason to take a shower in an extra dimesion does not make sense to me, yet.

It seems like there is something missing in that formula, perhaps gravity and distance, let's get back to basics.

Newtonian formula for gravity is:
g = G(m/r^2)

Where g is the acceleration of gravity, G is the gravitational constant 6.6720∙10-11, m is the mass, and r is the distance to the center of gravity.

It would seem a logical assumption that the curve of spacetime differs on the distance from the center of gravity of the object. I am using a Relativity connection between the curve of spacetime and gravity. The further away, the weaker the curve. Somehow the distance to the center of gravity has to be figured into the formula, also perhaps the distance of the spacetime curve, and gravity itself. Otherwise it makes no logical sense to me.

Gravity between two objects according to Newtonian Physics is:
Fg = (G * Ma * Mb) / r^2

Fg is the force of gravity, G is the gravitational constant, Ma is mass of object A, Mb is mass of object B, and r is the distance between the two objects.

Once again distance works into the formula.

I learned this from High School Physics, got an A out of the class.

More info on Dark Matter:
[link|http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/violence/darkmatter.html|http://csep10.phys.u...e/darkmatter.html]

[link|http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/user/r/e/redingtn/www/netadv/dkmatter.html|http://web.mit.edu/a...adv/dkmatter.html]

[link|http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/dark_matter.html|http://imagine.gsfc..../dark_matter.html]

Of course this all is nice and well, but avoids answering my questions on having to take a shower in the other dimension.

Edited by orion Dec. 18, 2003, 04:17:49 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #131,421

12/18/03 4:16:34 PM

Internet effect?

You keep linking these stupid things off the Net - I'm sitting here giving you first-hand information and all you can do is repeat what you do not understand, make no effort to understand, and then supply links to "the truth".

It's completely hopeless. You are not willing to work. You are the laziest person known to me. Don't bother posting any more to this thread. Don't bother with dimensions or science, you are too lazy to get beyond square 1.

The Internet has made the world even more stupid than it was before. It is a lot of soil covering a few truths - but people aren't digging for those truths, they are adding more dirt to bury them deeper.

-drl

Post #131,423

by orion

12/18/03 4:23:10 PM

12/18/03 4:24:31 PM

You mean NASA is wrong?

That was one of the links I cited. If NASA is wrong, we are wasting our tax dollars supporting them. :)

All I have done is uncover theories and evidence that has shown you something different or shows your thinking is wrong.

You are not making one bit of sense to me. Square 1 might as well be a barrel of fish, the way you explain it.

I gave you Newton's formulas and you call me wrong? I was willing to work with them. I suppose now you are going to say that Newton is wrong, and that gravity does not work that way?

I asked you to cite your sources, and you've given me nothing. I've asked you to provide proof and answer my questions, and yet you are unable to. I have cited my sources, why can't you cite yours?

Edited by orion Dec. 18, 2003, 04:24:31 PM EST

Expand All History

Post #131,431

12/18/03 5:51:39 PM

What is sacred about NASA?

They publish sensations to generate funding, just like the universities do.

Why did you put up Newtonian gravity? That comes out of the Einstein theory as a low-order approximation. If you don't make an effort to understand this most basic fact, what progress can you make with the rest?

-drl

Post #131,449

by orion

12/18/03 8:16:30 PM

Newtonian gravity

I posted it as a back to basics sort of thing because I learned it in High School Phsysics. In order to learn the more complex things, we need to start out simple and work our way up. No way can I go from High School Physics to Graduate Level Physics without learning the steps that got us that far.

It is like me trying to teach Accountants how to program in Visual BASIC so they can write billing formulas, and then all I do is show them the completed EXE or DLL file and then do a memory dump of it. Then I call them all lazy because they don't understand what I am talking about. Then one of them brings up a few Internet links on VB, and I call them stupid for doing so. Then one of them gets a book on Microsoft BASIC for 8-bit computers to learn the Syntax, and I tell them it is the wrong way to learn. I tell them if they don't make the effort to learn the most basic facts about the language, what progress can they make with the rest? See how wrong I am in that example, and maybe you can see how wrong you are in this example.

Post #131,451

12/18/03 8:44:05 PM

Re: Newtonian gravity

Ok, well I'm telling you now, the Newtonian theory is the same as the Einstein one when c->infinity and fields are very weak. The Einstein theory has a 10-component thing called the "metric", and in the low-order limit the only one that is important after a lot of simplification is the g44 term, which amounts to the Newtonian potential. This in fact was the first thing Einstein did to show that his new theory would reproduce the results of the old one - and that's the key point - all the spacecraft ever launched have reached their destinations with Newtonian gravity, because in interplanetary space, where the gravitational field is very weak, and because the ships are going very slowly compared to light, you can replace the complicated 10 functions in the metric to the single Newtonian gravitational potential. All real theories of physics have this nesting quality - the old theory is not "overthrown" or "invalidated", it gets incorporated as a low-order limit of the new theory in case certain things happen.

Sorry, I assumed you knew the general outline of the theory of gravity.

-drl

Post #131,906

by orion

12/22/03 5:34:51 PM

As I said before

I only have High School level Physics knowledge. Not college level. We hardly touched any of Einstien's work except for E=MC^2. I'd like to learn more, but you are mostly going over my head and not making sense to me.

Post #132,715

by ben_tilly

12/30/03 1:49:09 AM

Hopefully at your level

Newton's theory may not be true, but it has to be at least a good approximation. If it wasn't then it wouldn't have stood up to observation for so many centuries.

Therefore any viable replacement must explain not only previous facts, but also why Newton's theory seemed to hold.

In the case of Einstein's theory, in the case of weak gravitational fields and things moving much slower than the speed of light, most of the factors in the theory become very small and drop out. What is left over is Newton's theory.

And, of course, the measurements which tested Newton's theory were things in our Solar System, which are in relatively small gravitational fields, and which move slowly (compared to light). An example of how close Newton's theories are is that the orbit of Mercury turns out to precess an extra 43 arc-seconds a century. That is a third of a percent of the way around a circle. In a century.

Just to give a sense of how science has to work, even decades after there was apparently general consensus on the measurement and its meaning, it was still open to further clarification. See [link|http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/mercury_orbit.html|http://math.ucr.edu/...ercury_orbit.html] which talks about the measurement of the Sun's oblateness and how that might affect this result.

Cheers,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #132,760

by orion

12/30/03 10:01:16 AM

Now that is what I wanted to see

a post that explained something I could understand, and then a link to cite it or back it up. Thanks.

Post #132,792

12/30/03 1:42:55 PM

"If its on the Internet, it must be true!"

And piss on you too.

-drl

Post #132,822

by orion

12/30/03 3:12:57 PM

All I wanted was a reference or citation

it could have been from a book, that I could check out, or a web site, etc. That is the first thing they teach you in college, to use references and cite them in your papers.

Happy New Year to you too. Hope the leg gets better.

Post #132,825

12/30/03 3:20:53 PM

Bull

You wanted an excuse not to think about what I said, because you are lazy and self-indulgent. You are too chicken-shit to flame me directly so you took the first chance to do it sideways.

You are a poster child for modern chemical psychiatry and its effectiveness.

-drl

Post #132,836

by orion

12/30/03 3:51:11 PM

Why did I think about what Ben said?

Maybe because he was able to explain it in a way I could understand it, and provided a reference for me to read to learn more about it. That in itself shows that I am not lazy. I just could not grok what you where posting.

Post #132,867

by ben_tilly

12/30/03 6:12:38 PM

You are both right

Norm is right that the way that I put things had a lot to do with why he understood it. I am confident of this since I thought carefully about how I put things when I said them.

Ross is right that if Noem really tried to understand what you said, then he could have reached the same basic understanding a while ago. What this would have taken is a willingness to accept that Ross knows what he is talking about, and the willingness to skim what was said for the sense of it, skipping details that were too advanced. For instance Ross' explanation used the word metric. Norm would have had to ignore that. A little research on his part wouldn't have helped. I challenge anyone to find a simple definition of a metric that anyone with a highschool education should find clear. I know what it is, and I don't think that I can explain it reliably without having feedback on what part of my explanation has and has not registered. Certainly the usual [link|http://www.npac.syr.edu/projects/bbh/INTRO/section3_3.html|attempts] at a layman's explanation do little except confuse laymen in possibly amusing ways.

A further point of obvious frustration for Ross is Norm's unwillingness to accept the limitations of his own understanding. For instance no number of invocations of the fact that Norm got an A in highschool physics will address the fact that we are talking about material that is well beyond highschool physics. E=mc^2 is all well and dandy, but it isn't anywhere close to the right starting place. And as much as it is tempting to think that science is just free to toss away any theory and reinvent at will, anyone who knows science knows that it does not really work that way. Fiction can casually reinvent basic scientific principles, but science has to base its rules on concrete observations that take real work to understand and aquire.

So you are both right. And are both really frustrating each other. Why not take a break?

Cheers,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #132,882

by orion

12/30/03 7:43:07 PM

I agree, end of discussion

let's make a New Year's Resolution not to talk about it again.

Post #131,432

by admin

12/18/03 5:52:47 PM

Newton was wrong.

That's what relativity is all about. Newton's equations are useful only as an approximation.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #131,427

by ben_tilly

12/18/03 5:27:51 PM

You're wrong about dark matter

Dark matter is a stop-gap to account for the incomplete theory of gravity. When the correct theory of gravity is widely known, the need for dark matter will go away.

No. Dark matter is matter that isn't putting out a lot of light and so is hard to spot and account for. There is no question that dark matter is out there, heck we are standing on some right now, and no amount of knowledge about gravity will ever change that. Some of it we can account for. For instance we can measure how many neutrinos we spot hitting us, and subtract out the ones that might be from the Sun, and get an idea of the density of neutrinos out there. Also we can estimate the amounts of normal matter in our galaxy because we have a pretty good idea of the structure of the local galaxy and we can see from speeds and radius of curvature what the acceleration should be, and then estimate how much weight has to be there that we can't see.

But a lot of forms of dark matter we don't know about. How empty is it, really, between the galaxies? Are there exotic types of dark matter that we haven't accounted for?

Now you're right that better theories would limit how much speculation about dark matter goes on because people want to reach certain magical numbers that fit specific cosmological theories. It is also obvious that our current theories will some day seem as ludicrous as we view the comet theories put forth by Newton's successor. (Note that I don't include the flat earth theory that Norm keeps blathering about because I know enough history to know that nobody believed that in Columbus' day - in fact the premise on which Columbus sailed was just plain wrong.)

But we know that dark matter really is out there, even though we can't see it.

Cheers,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #131,430

12/18/03 5:48:43 PM

Re: You're wrong about dark matter

I don't mean "unseen" or "unaccounted for" - I mean "exotic" dark matter, matter that doesn't show up other than in cosmological speculations (superpartners that don't exist, special open-ended strings that don't exist, etc.)

IOW I don't doubt that the observations are interesting, just that the interpretation is strangely non-scientific. And in any case, there is always Markarian 205 hanging above. Non-recessional redshift would change everything, but everyone is convinced it can't happen on a local level. Needless to say, intepretation of redshifts is critical to rotation studies.

-drl

Post #131,459

by boxley

12/18/03 11:22:03 PM

dark matter is to physicists

what the ethers were to bacteria. They know something is there but put a catchall into describing the symtoms.
thanx,
bill

stick a spork in it.

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Post #131,462

12/18/03 11:34:49 PM

Re: dark matter is to physicists

That's accurate, but DM is more like the homuncular idea of birth.

-drl

Post #131,338

by boxley

12/18/03 9:39:04 AM

can show some gravity effect== observable

stick a spork in it.

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Post #131,378

12/18/03 12:45:38 PM

ICLRPD:Why isn't there a shower in other dimensions? (new thread)

Created as new thread #131377 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=131377|ICLRPD:Why isn't there a shower in other dimensions?]

--

"It\ufffds possible to build a reasonably prosperous society that invests in its people, doesn\ufffdt invade its neighbors, opposes Israel and stands up to America. (Just look at France.)"

-- James Lileks

Post #131,009

12/16/03 12:51:10 PM

Another point

Imagining how the world appears in the 4-dimensions that we are sure of is a hell of a lot more difficult, and requires a great deal more imagination (coupled to something called "work" that is beyond you), than some stupid fantasy about "other dimensions".

-drl

Post #131,005

by a6l6e6x

12/16/03 12:45:16 PM

Are you denying the existence of imaginary numbers?

;)

Alex

A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true. -- Demosthenes, Greek orator (384-322 BCE)

Post #131,325

by Ashton

12/18/03 6:17:19 AM

Nah.. he's imagining the number of existences.

Post #130,620

12/13/03 7:41:51 PM

Are other things impossible too?

For example, does Newton's third law precludes us from ever controlling gravity? If we learn how to do that, drives based on it will violate 3rd law.

Also, could you explain to a non-phisycist (and non-matematician) what part of contemporary physics makes it certain that we will never travel faster than light? And how it is asserted?

--

"There's nothing more nervous than a million dollars. It does not speak French, it does not speak English, it does not speak German and it moves very fast."

-- Jean Chretien

Post #130,627

12/13/03 8:06:22 PM

Re: Are other things impossible too?

Of course no one can say how technology will evolve - it may very well be possible to manipulate gravity. A lot of things about gravity are poorly understood.

Here is a sci.physics.research post where the derivation of the Lorentz transformation is given, based only on the simplest possible assumptions of isotropy and homogeneity:

\n From: Danny Ross Lunsford (mail)\nSubject: Re: Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity \n\n Newsgroups: sci.physics.research\nDate: 2001-12-22 09:38:07 PST \n\nBrian J Flanagan wrote:\n\n> "Danny Ross Lunsford" wrote:\n> \n>>Relativity theory is independent of the nature of particular forces.\n> \n> I'm not sure what you mean by "independent", here. Surely the special\n> theory has much to do with EM (in re: the constancy of c), just as the\n> general theory has much to do with gravitation?\n\nNot at all. In fact the framework of relativity is derives from a \ngroup-theoretic analysis based on very basic and simple assumptions about \nspace, time, and motion, taken from experience. The conclusion is that the \nallowed transformations depend on parameter with the dimensions of a \nvelocity that is either finite or not. In the real world, it turns out to \nbe finite. Of course, it is c. That light goes at this speed is incidental \nto the analysis, which would still be correct if light went at some other \nspeed. Light happens to go at c because the photon is massless.\n\nTo give this derivation, we assume\n\n1) The allowable transformations are linear between frames in uniform \nrelative motion, so that they depend on the relative (vectorial) velocity V\n\n2) That time can enter into the transformations in an essential way, that \nis we do not assume t' = t.\n\n3) That space and time are isotropic, that is, time flows evenly and there \nare no preferred directions.\n\nSpatial isotropy eliminates the directional character of V and so we can \nconcentrate on the simple case of one spatial dimension.\n\nTemporal isotropy implies that what is true of frame A in relation to frame \nB for V, is true of frame B in relation to frame A for -V.\n\nNow, writing\n\nx' = a(V) x + b(V) t\nt' = c(V) x + d(V) t\n\nx = a(-V) x' + b(-V) t'\nt = c(-V) x' + d(-V) t'\n\nso\n\na(V) a(-V) + b(-V) c(V) = 1\nd(V) d(-V) + b(V) c(-V) = 1\na(-V) b(V) + b(-V) d(V) = 0\na(V) c(-V) + c(V) d(-V) = 0\n\nand of course we can replace V -> -V and these still hold. So\n\na(V) b(-V) + b(V) d(-V) = 0\na(V) c(-V) + c(V) d(-V) = 0\n\nso b(V) = c(V).\n\nNow\n\na(V) a(-V) + b(V) b(-V) = 1\na(V) b(-V) + b(V) d(-V) = 0\n\nthus\n\nb(V) [ b(-V)^2 - a(-V)d(-V) ] = b(-V)\n\nand this also holds for V -> -V, which implies either\n\na(V) d(V) - b(V)^2 = 1, b(V) = -b(-V)\n\na(V) d(V) - b(V)^2 = -1, b(V) = b(-V)\n\nThe latter is ruled out by letting V=0 in which case\n\nx = x'\nt = t'\n\nWe can solve the equations now with\n\na(V) = d(V) = a(-V) = d(-V)\n\nand so\n\na(V)^2 - b(V)^2 = 1\n\nand \n\na(0) = 1, b(0) = 0\n\nThe origin x=0, which moves at speed V in the other frame, transforms as\n\nx' = b(V) t\nt' = a(V) t\n\nso\n\ndx'/dt' = V = b(V)/a(V)\n\nso\n\na(V) = 1 / sqrt(1 - V^2)\nb(V) = V / sqrt(1 - V^2)\n\nFinally we dimensionalize time vs. space and replace\n\nV -> V/C\nt -> Ct\n\nand write\n\nx' = 1/sqrt(1 - (V/C)^2) ( x + (V/C) Ct )\n\nCt' = 1/sqrt(1 - (V/C)^2) ( Ct + (V/C) x )\n\nIf we let C go to infinity,\n\nx' = x + Vt\nt' = t\n\nSo either C is finite, or not. Experience shows that it is finite.\n\nOf course, historically relativity emerged from the contradictions in \nelectron theory implied by the tacit, wrong assumptions about the nature of \nsimultaneity.\n\n-drl\n\n

Implicit in this is the assumption of homogeneity, which I should have stated. (All points are equivalent - doesn't matter if you're here or there.)

-drl

Post #140,256

2/6/04 10:47:19 AM

Wow.

I have finally been able to follow through on this.

I'd have to return a few times, but I get the "why not" part, for some definition of get.

I will have to go through this again looking at how assumptions are used...

--

Select [link|http://www.glumbert.com/pictures/Default.asp?index=30|here].

Post #130,631

by boxley

12/13/03 8:18:08 PM

there is 3 ways to defeat gravity

gravity is a wave. There is two physical ways to defeat it and one metaphysical way.
1. provide a counter wave locally stronger than gravity. That is escape velocity.
2. Find an object or construct that is impervious to the wave so the gravitational effects flow around but do not affect the object.
3. Gravity is an artificial construct that your brain uses to maneuver in physical space, just ignore it.
thanx,
bill

"We must face the fact that there is not a single country in the world that measures up to the lofty moral and social standards that are the hallmark of the U.S.A.: even Canada is delinquent and deserves a whiff of grape. There is not a single country in the world which, like the U.S., reeks of democracy and "human rights," and is free of crime and murder and hate thoughts and undemocratic deeds\ufffd. And so, since no other countries shape up to U.S. standards, \ufffd I make a Modest Proposal for the only possible consistent and coherent foreign policy: the U.S. must, very soon, Invade the Entire World!" Murray N. Rothbard

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Post #130,498

by altmann

12/12/03 4:16:56 PM

My Favorite

From Piers Anthony's "Macroscope". You strip naked, let a device reverse the evolutionary process on you, turning you into protoplasmic goo. Then you and the planet you are in orbit around collapse to a singularity and then reappear in another location to reverse the process.

--
Chris Altmann

Post #130,550

by static

12/13/03 4:09:48 AM

Hey - that's more original than usual.

Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle came up with a rather better version than usual of an old friend for The Mote In God's Eye. It involved an "as-yet undiscovered" fifth force and lines of potential between stars. Kind of like the wormhole method, but the transition had to be invoked.

Wade.

Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed

Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please

-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne.

Post #130,506

by Ashton

12/12/03 6:05:43 PM

Funny how you can remember

all this useless trivia in mind-numbing detail, but not learn much new and non-trivial -- like how to find something to get paid for (other than a next re-run of the same kind of automatic script crap as already drove you bonkers, repeatedly.)

What's that about: folks who keep on repeating what doesn't work - in hopes it will turn out differently. Next time?

(And you aren't even studying the crap / your 'edjakayshun assignments' / that might get you precisely another one of these soul-destroying imprisonments in the next-smaller refurbed cubicle: instead, you let self be suckered into repeatedly fixing Cousin Fuckhead's stupid fucking Doze system with 87 Consciousness-destroying games / Perpetually / after he {you report, repeatedly} does regularly, that which you tell him: Don't Do That Anymore!)

As my mater allus used to say,
You can be as easy as an old shoe. And worth as little.

What are old shoes peddling for in the Show Me state?

[publicservicemessage]
ie Get off the trivial-pursuit-of-tediously-inane-messages-into-the-ground route - and get your lazy ass in gear, unless you welcome Permanent Vegetablehood. Which is what it LOOKS LIKE.
[/publicservicemessage]

Post #130,514

by inthane-chan

12/12/03 6:48:36 PM

And funny how you can find the time... (new thread)

Created as new thread #130513 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=130513|And funny how you can find the time...]

I have a blue sign on my door. It says "If this sign is red, you're moving too fast."

Post #130,580

by orion

12/13/03 3:25:25 PM

My brain works that way

sometimes I just can't get the useless nonsense out of my head that I will never get paid for knowing except on the "Beat the Geeks" game show. :)

I am able to still study for college and work on a team and get A's on my papers even if I do take a few hours to fix a relative's computer.

I recnetly did a paper on the planning function of management and I referenced the "Underpants Gnome" episode of South Park on how not to do a business plan. Then I found that the Motley Fool did the same thing, so I cited them to avoid plagerism of the idea. My instructor said it was "Innovative". We also came up with a Business Plan/ Mission Statement and Strategic Plan for a bookstore. One that if we had the money, we could start in real life. I also helped write a team paper on a review of a company, we did Apple and got a 100% on the paper, I contributed to the technology and ebusiness part of the paper.

So step off my nuts! My college work is not suffering because I am using effective time management to do all of this and still find the time to read and post here.

Post #130,540

12/13/03 1:14:17 AM

Clue

It's Not Real.

Post #130,600

by orion

12/13/03 6:49:00 PM

I never said it was real

last I remember we were discussing a sci fi series and a sci fi role playing game and the type of FTL drives that sci fi and the games use. I never said anything about them being real. Just that they have theories on them. Go ask Stephen Hawking, he wrote a book on the physics of Star Trek and Star Wars.

Post #130,604

12/13/03 6:59:18 PM

No He Didn't

At least, not according to [link|http://www.hawking.org.uk/about/aindex.html|his publications list].

Post #130,611

by orion

12/13/03 7:15:11 PM

Looks like he had something to do with it

[link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465005594/qid=1071360821/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-9349839-2001726?v=glance&s=books|http://www.amazon.co...?v=glance&s=books]

Introduction at least.

Post #130,609

by altmann

12/13/03 7:12:52 PM

That was Lawrence M. Krauss

[link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060977108|http://www.amazon.co...tail/-/0060977108]

and Jeanne Cavelos

[link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312263872|http://www.amazon.co...tail/-/0312263872]

I've only read the first one, and while very entertaining, it is also a good example of how far removed from observable reality some of the stuff in Sci- Fi like Star Trek is.

--
Chris Altmann

Post #130,551

by static

12/13/03 4:14:08 AM

You'll like this link.

[link|http://www.projectrho.com/stardrv.txt|http://www.projectrho.com/stardrv.txt]

I don't quite agree with the way he's organised it all, but it seems to be good coverage, none-the-less.

Wade.

Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed

Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please

-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne.

Post #130,591

12/13/03 6:15:40 PM

Why parsecs?

Why not use lightyears?

Heisenberg is the fatal enemy of all FTL drives.

Post #130,599

by orion

12/13/03 6:46:55 PM

Because Marc W. Miller said so in 1975

and so we use parsecs which each hexagon on the map represents. If you bothered to read about the game instead of criticising it you'd know that.

Post #130,642

by jake123

12/13/03 9:18:58 PM

I played a lot of Traveller back in the day

that would be high school.

My friends and I usually formed criminal syndicates, and started pirating.

Traveller was designed specifically to emulate the time of the eighteenth century... when the speed of travel and the speed of communication were the same (starships, square riggers: can you see the difference?).

A fun diversion, but not to be taken too seriously... on either side of the argument:)

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Post #130,646

by orion

12/13/03 9:38:08 PM

Re: I played a lot of Traveller back in the day

Who didn't? :) Traveller made that possible because trading cargo hardly allows one to pay off the loan on the Free Trader. Sooner or later one will start to see more money to be made in smuggling and piracy.

The trick in piracy is to shoot the ships, but leave something salvagable to pirate.

We were Gentlemen of Opportunity, when opportunity presented itself we became whatever we needed to be. Pirates, spies, bounty hunters, mercenaries, merchants, traders, etc.

Post #130,647

12/13/03 9:53:03 PM

Re: I played a lot of Traveller back in the day

Do these games have corrective features? For example, a battle game - say a simulation of Gettysburg - would suck if an obvious strategy that is wildly unrealistic, were possible. So if being a pirate is so good, everyone will become pirates and then being a pirate will have no meaning.

-drl

Post #130,650

by orion

12/13/03 10:03:39 PM

Oh yes

you will run the risk of being busted, and attacking a ship that is heavily armed by those armaments are hidden until you get too close. Plus pirates usually have prices on their heads and have to deal with pirate hunters, bounty hunters, and their own crew turning them in.

There is also the chance of blowing up the other ship, or getting killed when the other ship returns fire. There are ship combat rules to follow. Also person to person combat rules to follow.

Almost everything is a dice roll or GM decision. The GM or Game Master has to decide what is possible or not, and if a dice roll needs to be made to attempt it. Sometimes we fail.

If our group ever gets a game together, I can invite you to watch it. Usually we meet on a weekend, but not recently due to hardly anyone having the time to do so. You can decide for youself if the game is realistic or not. :)

Post #130,653