Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Magnus Nordir
Caldari Nordir Industries
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 09:57:00 -
[1]
OK, so we have articles on FTL and communication that border between technobabble and handwavium, and by the looks of it the New Eden's engineers have solved the problem of consciousness transfer and mind upload with cloning - although why a society that knows about genetic engineering can't grow it's own bodies and needs biomass, or simply upload minds to portable supercomputers is never explained. I guess they got laughed at by real scientists so much they never even bothered to explain tractor beams and mining lasers. That's two pieces of entirely unrealistic technology right there. Every highschool physicists could name a half a dozen physical laws they violate. And I'm not even going to get into the whole space submarines thing.
CCP, can we have more technobabble for the stuff you never even bothered explaining? It's entertaining to nitpick. --------------------------- Only those who surrender are lost |
Alexeph Stoekai
Stoekai Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 10:31:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Magnus Nordir by the looks of it the New Eden's engineers have solved the problem of consciousness transfer and mind upload with cloning - although why a society that knows about genetic engineering can't grow it's own bodies and needs biomass
Producing clones from biomass is probably much faster - and probably cheaper - than growing a body from scratch. It's also possible that it's easier to install the required modifications and implants in a biomass clone than in one that first has to be grown to adulthood (even if it's sped up) and then surgically modified.
Originally by: Magnus Nordir or simply upload minds to portable supercomputers is never explained.
Only one man in the background has ever had his consciousness transferred to a machine - Todo Kirkinen, founder of Zainou. He's mentioned as being "the first man to have his mind transferred into a machine", but whether this means that he is the only one so far, or simply the first of a number of such uploadings is unsaid. What I believe though is that it's a big mess of a process, not to mention being horribly expensive compared to cloning, and possibly outlawed under CONCORD's anti-AI laws. In the end it wouldn't really offer many great advantage over cloning. If you're shot down you'd still have to pass on the consciousness if you mean to continue.
Originally by: Magnus Nordir I guess they got laughed at by real scientists so much they never even bothered to explain tractor beams and mining lasers.
Presumably, tractor beams operate on the same technology that makes linear deck layouts possible - artificial gravity. A mining laser could simply be an industrial laser fired down a tractor beam, causing dislodged rock to be caught and dragged towards your ship.
Originally by: Magnus Nordir That's two pieces of entirely unrealistic technology right there. Every highschool physicists could name a half a dozen physical laws they violate.
I'm sorry, you're complaining that a Science-Fiction universe has unrealistic technology? You're joking!
Originally by: Magnus Nordir And I'm not even going to get into the whole space submarines thing.
At some point you'll have to realize that EVE is a game first, setting second (or, like, fifth?). Massive changes can be made, mechanics introduced or removed, without a single word from the fiction side looking to explain it. Live with it.
-----
|
Magnus Nordir
Caldari Nordir Industries
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 14:32:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Alexeph Stoekai I'm sorry, you're complaining that a Science-Fiction universe has unrealistic technology? You're joking!
At some point sci-fi turns so ridiculous it becomes pure fiction. Eve has passed that point before it was even released, and I'm not complaining about that, I'm just pointing it out. Science fiction isn't about unrealistic technology, it's about plausible but unrealised technology. FTL, artificial gravity and tractor beams are neither plausible, realistic, or possible. --------------------------- Only those who surrender are lost |
Alexeph Stoekai
Stoekai Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 14:51:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Magnus Nordir
Originally by: Alexeph Stoekai I'm sorry, you're complaining that a Science-Fiction universe has unrealistic technology? You're joking!
At some point sci-fi turns so ridiculous it becomes pure fiction. Eve has passed that point before it was even released, and I'm not complaining about that, I'm just pointing it out. Science fiction isn't about unrealistic technology, it's about plausible but unrealised technology. FTL, artificial gravity and tractor beams are neither plausible, realistic, or possible.
You may enjoy Hard SF, but that doesn't mean you can just write off everything else as unworthy of calling itself Science-Fiction. -----
|
Radgette
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 15:16:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Magnus Nordir
Originally by: Alexeph Stoekai I'm sorry, you're complaining that a Science-Fiction universe has unrealistic technology? You're joking!
At some point sci-fi turns so ridiculous it becomes pure fiction. Eve has passed that point before it was even released, and I'm not complaining about that, I'm just pointing it out. Science fiction isn't about unrealistic technology, it's about plausible but unrealised technology. FTL, artificial gravity and tractor beams are neither plausible, realistic, or possible.
yes and at one point the facts stated the earth was flat, the sun went round the earth and a bunch of other nonsense we "knew" was true
but we advanced to a point where we realised our preconceptions were wrong and while yes utilising todays limited knowledge of the universe and how things work the things you mentioned are impossible but so was going faster than the speed of sound and other such things we now take for granted.
believeing that science is 100% fact is as silly as believing the earth is flat. it's approximations and understandings based on a humans imperfect knowledge of the world surrounding him and is subject to change as humanity evolves.
|
bff Jill
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 16:51:00 -
[6]
i always figured mining lasers charged the bits of rocks they broke off during the pewpewpewing stage, and then these charged rocks, naturally went back up the beam, as its charge was manipulated to attract the rocks, in the sucking stage.
FTL also makes perfect sense. At least the warp engines do. According to some article i read a long time ago the warp engines just make a super vacuum. As we all know, the speed of light changes depending on what its moving through. The commonly quoted number is its speed in a vacuum, but it moves slower through atmosphere, through water, through dusty parts of the universe.
Obviously, a super vacuum, that has less in it than a total vacuum (perhaps having negative stuff in it as oposed to just not having any stuff like a regular vacuum), increases the speed of light, and thus increases the speed you go if you were traveling at a fraction of c.
The ability to generate 'negative stuff', probably has something to do with their antigravity too, and tractor beams, and all ofthat.
Im sure negative stuff can account for a great number of technological mysteries in EVE.
|
Zaq Phelps
Ad idem
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 17:30:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Zaq Phelps on 02/03/2010 17:30:36
Originally by: Magnus Nordir
Originally by: Alexeph Stoekai I'm sorry, you're complaining that a Science-Fiction universe has unrealistic technology? You're joking!
At some point sci-fi turns so ridiculous it becomes pure fiction. Eve has passed that point before it was even released, and I'm not complaining about that, I'm just pointing it out. Science fiction isn't about unrealistic technology, it's about plausible but unrealised technology. FTL, artificial gravity and tractor beams are neither plausible, realistic, or possible.
Artificial gravity implausible? The groundwork for it is laid out in modern quantum physics afaik. The faster something travels the more mass it gains (which is the basis for the lightspeed barrier). If you were to accelerate a small particle to very near the speed of light, it's mass becomes huge. Since gravity is simply the attractive force between two objects (increasing with the mass of said objects), then you could conceivably create artificial gravity inside the decking of ships/stations by installing cylindrical shaped particle accelerators in the floor. All you have to do after that is figure out how to focus the gravitational field.
|
Mephiston Lucius
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 17:40:00 -
[8]
meh why u even playing a "sci-fi" game i wonder.. ohh if u were playing wow u probably goin to ask why elfs exist or orcs or other planes.. thats sooo unrealistic!!! :)
only few century ago ppl thought "human never ever can fly" "earth a disc" "earth center of universe" etc.. stop lookin universe with small mind pls..
|
Magnus Nordir
Caldari Nordir Industries
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 19:29:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Magnus Nordir on 02/03/2010 19:30:56 To the idiots comparing belief in a flat earth to the current knowledge system that forms the hypothetical foundation of the implausibility of FTL travel: Congratulations, you're comparing a belief based on a made up story to observable scientific evidence. Rebuking said evidence would basically prove every discovery in physics (and a whole lot of discoveries in other fields of science) in the last 200 years wrong. Now stop comparing the scientific method to cultist dogma because you don't want your fantasy "sci"-fi universe ruined. The backstory team already ruined it for you by making it this ridiculous.
Sometimes I wish I was dumb, that way I could enjoy the garbage that passes for science fiction these days.
As I said, I don't mean to bad-mouth eve in any way. I love the game mechanics it offers, and while immersing in the backstory is impossible for me or anyone who passed highschool physics, I just ignore it, as do most people who don't bother with RP. It's simple, I treat it as a game and not a serious sci-fi piece. --------------------------- Only those who surrender are lost |
Alexeph Stoekai
Stoekai Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 20:24:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Alexeph Stoekai on 02/03/2010 20:25:09
Originally by: Magnus Nordir immersing in the backstory is impossible for me or anyone who passed highschool physics
Please stick to speaking for yourself. If you can't suspend disbelief for a moment to enjoy a setting, that's your problem. -----
|
|
Lucius Vindictus
Amarr Knighthood of the Merciful Crown
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 20:26:00 -
[11]
EVE is a science fiction universe, and a game at the same time. Inevitably a lot of game mechanics have to be put in place to keep the game fun, while they might not be 100% realistic. Remember that this is a game and not a simulator. You may think you come across as a genius of the highest order, but the truth is it looks rather petty to me come here to point out the obvious.
Mining lasers may not be the most realistic concept I have ever heard of, but it sure beats taking a mining drill and physically "drill" each asteroid separately. If I wanted EVE to become my second job I'd cancel my subscription and demand CCP to pay me instead.
Just use your imagination a little more.
|
Magnus Nordir
Caldari Nordir Industries
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 21:27:00 -
[12]
Coincidentally, the "fiction" part in science fiction refers to the fictional narrative, not fictional implausible technology.
I have a very active imagination, but I do admit it fails me when trying to imagine conditions that are by their nature unknowable - such as violating causality, travelling faster than light, a magical device that allows coherent beams in the visible light spectrum to exhibit effects of gravity, and spaceships in a vacuum that handle like submarines until the magical warp drive is activated.
Seriously CCP, just replace your "scientific articles" page with a simple disclaimer "it's magic". That would make it more believable because I wouldn't even attempt to rationalise it with traditional physics.
And no, I'm not claiming to be a genius or trying to be arrogant - I am in fact claiming the exact opposite, anyone with a basic grasp in physics is able to spot the obvious, gaping holes in the "science" of eve. If they want to make the setting more immersive, that should be fixed first. I don't have a problem with a non-immersive setting as the game mechanics and socialising with other players are immersive enough by themselves. --------------------------- Only those who surrender are lost |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 21:50:00 -
[13]
Magnus Nordir said "or simply upload minds to portable supercomputers is never explained." Some of the story's talk about that. I think they might have been in Eon. It talks about a group of people that give up bodies and live in computers. It went on about what they lost and gained and the hybrid people that where part in computers and part in bodies.
______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
Stitcher
Caldari ForgeTech Industries
|
Posted - 2010.03.02 23:41:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Magnus Nordir I have a very active imagination, but I do admit it fails me when trying to imagine conditions that are by their nature unknowable - such as violating causality, travelling faster than light, a magical device that allows coherent beams in the visible light spectrum to exhibit effects of gravity, and spaceships in a vacuum that handle like submarines until the magical warp drive is activated.
Clarke's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
You can't understand it because the technology is far beyond our present scientific understanding. It uses rules we aren't aware of yet. - Verin "Stitcher" Hakatain. |
unloadedx16
Woopatang Primary.
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 01:38:00 -
[15]
Edited by: unloadedx16 on 03/03/2010 01:42:46 Faster than light travel is impossible but I read somewhere that it has not been dis-proven to be able to 'bend space-time' thus allowing an object to essentially travel faster than light. For this one would need antimatter or something idk I forgot.
|
ShahFluffers
Gallente Vitharr's Vengeance
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 02:54:00 -
[16]
Originally by: unloadedx16 Edited by: unloadedx16 on 03/03/2010 01:42:46 Faster than light travel is impossible but I read somewhere that it has not been dis-proven to be able to 'bend space-time' thus allowing an object to essentially travel faster than light. For this one would need antimatter or something idk I forgot.
Yes, this is true. To go at the speed of light would require ginormous amounts of energy... the likes of which is technically impossible (at least, according to our primordial minds ).
However, the EvE fiction gets around this by saying that rather than simply "going faster" warp drives instead "tunnel" their way through space and time (similar to the way you would bore a hole through jello)... essentially meaning that when you warp in EvE you are going through a wormhole of sorts that "bypasses" normal space and time (this is of course on the assumption that you believe the fabric of space and time to be more "fluidic" rather than linear). On this line of thought we should technically call our warp drives "artificial wormhole generators." However, the reason we stick with the term "warp drive" possibly has something to do with the influence of certain shows written by a certain writer named Gene Roddenberry. But I digress.
Now I do understand that even the concept of "wormholes" is fairly iffy as, at the moment at least, they are largely hypothesized and little else. But the math is there and it does not [completely] break down as a normal singularity (black/white hole) does. If you dive even deeper into the concepts underlying "wormholes" things get even stranger... violating all kinds of preconceptions that we possess while still being mathematically possible on the quantum level. _______________________
"Just because I look like an idiot doesn't mean I am one." ~Unknown |
Magnus Nordir
Caldari Nordir Industries
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 10:36:00 -
[17]
Originally by: ShahFluffers Yes, this is true. To go at the speed of light would require ginormous amounts of energy... the likes of which is technically impossible (at least, according to our primordial minds ).
According to the theory of special relativity, it would in fact require an infinite amount of energy to propel an object with mass infinitely close to the speed of light. An object with no mass, on the other hand (such as photons) can exist only at the medium-relative speed of light.
All space-bending, warp-tunnel handwaving explanations are pure fiction and have no basis in scientific fact. And the eve stargate article reads like an episode of "Look around you", sometimes I wonder if the resemblance was intentional. --------------------------- Only those who surrender are lost |
Stitcher
Caldari ForgeTech Industries
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 10:47:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Stitcher on 03/03/2010 10:47:30
Originally by: Magnus Nordir All space-bending, warp-tunnel handwaving explanations are pure fiction and have no basis in scientific fact.
Actually, yes they do. Our present understanding does allow room for the "folding" of 3D space through a higher dimension, even if we currently lack the technology to duplicate or control such "folding" and put it to any practical use.
please don't make me quote Clarke's Law again. - Verin "Stitcher" Hakatain. |
Alexeph Stoekai
Stoekai Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 10:47:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Magnus Nordir
Originally by: ShahFluffers Yes, this is true. To go at the speed of light would require ginormous amounts of energy... the likes of which is technically impossible (at least, according to our primordial minds ).
According to the theory of special relativity, it would in fact require an infinite amount of energy to propel an object with mass infinitely close to the speed of light. An object with no mass, on the other hand (such as photons) can exist only at the medium-relative speed of light.
All space-bending, warp-tunnel handwaving explanations are pure fiction and have no basis in scientific fact. And the eve stargate article reads like an episode of "Look around you", sometimes I wonder if the resemblance was intentional.
I'm curious... is there any science fiction you, with your excellent grasp on high-school physics, find acceptable? -----
|
Magnus Nordir
Caldari Nordir Industries
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 12:58:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Magnus Nordir on 03/03/2010 13:00:59
Originally by: Alexeph Stoekai I'm curious... is there any science fiction you, [...] find acceptable?
There's plenty. At the moment, my favourite authors are Charles Stross, Raymond Kurzweil, Neal Stephenson and Larry Niven.
If your definition of "science fiction" only includes video games and Hollywood space operas: no. --------------------------- Only those who surrender are lost |
|
Alexeph Stoekai
Stoekai Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 13:29:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Magnus Nordir
If your definition of "science fiction" only includes video games and Hollywood space operas: no.
I'm pretty sure your view of Science-Fiction is much more narrow than mine, and while I too deeply enjoy hard sf and cyberpunk it doesn't mean that I write off all the other parts of the genre as pure fantasy.
If you can't see beyond a few cases of unexplained fantastic technology and enjoy a vibrant and multi-faceted setting, I honestly feel a bit sorry for you. -----
|
AlleyKat
The Unwanted.
|
Posted - 2010.03.03 13:50:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Magnus Nordir OK, so we have articles on FTL and communication that border between techno babble and handwavium, and by the looks of it the New Eden's engineers have solved the problem of consciousness transfer and mind upload with cloning - although why a society that knows about genetic engineering can't grow it's own bodies and needs biomass, or simply upload minds to portable supercomputers is never explained. I guess they got laughed at by real scientists so much they never even bothered to explain tractor beams and mining lasers. That's two pieces of entirely unrealistic technology right there. Every high school physicists could name a half a dozen physical laws they violate. And I'm not even going to get into the whole space submarines thing.
CCP, can we have more techno babble for the stuff you never even bothered explaining? It's entertaining to nitpick.
Hmm,
I think that once the author of sci-fi lays down the rules of the sci-fi, it then becomes real and as long as the author does not break those rules then the fictional world they have created remains plausible.
CCP have created this fictional world and the rules that bind it together. Whether you, I or anyone else agrees or disagrees with this structure is irrelevant.
Overintellectulising a subject is interesting when the topic is open to interpretive opinion and conjecture, such as a painting, but not in fiction, unless you are referring to characters and story design/structure.
In addition to this, asking CCP to provide some form of proof to explain their decision-making process for the technical aspects of the background storyline, purely so that you can argue with them, is not going to happen.
CCP have created this world, either you accept that and all they have created, or you donÆt.
AK
|
Stitcher
Caldari ForgeTech Industries
|
Posted - 2010.03.04 01:54:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Alexeph Stoekai I'm pretty sure your view of Science-Fiction is much more narrow than mine, and while I too deeply enjoy hard sf and cyberpunk it doesn't mean that I write off all the other parts of the genre as pure fantasy.
Besides, what's wrong with pure fantasy? - Verin "Stitcher" Hakatain. |
Omgah
The Python Cartel. The Jerk Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.03.04 05:47:00 -
[24]
Techno-babble is lame and unnecessary. Why would you want more of something that's considered babble? It's a bad thing!
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.04 08:14:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Alexeph StoekaiYou may enjoy Hard SF, but that doesn't mean you can just write off everything else as unworthy of calling itself Science-Fiction.[/quote
He's right to an extent--at a certain point, it's not sci-fi, but instead fantasy in space. Just because a setting is set in the future and has spaceships doesn't make it sci-fi. At least some attempt should be made to explain the technology in a semi-plausible way, otherwise it's just fantasy.
If it were "hard sci-fi", there would be no FTL, interstellar travel, artificial gravity, inertia compensators, etc.
|
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2010.03.04 08:14:00 -
[26]
never ever doubt scifi to become real one day. Cell phones and TVs on the wall are all things thought to only be possible on the Star Trek. and now we have em.
Energy Weapons, a long term item in pretty much all scifi. well its not the phasers on the enterprise but the USAF Airborne Laser or "ABL" is a good start even if it takes up most of a Boeing 747.
as for FTL i figure a warp drive will come long before Stargates(EVE or SG Movies/SG1 style).
my support for FTL drives comes from the fact it wasnt long ago that heavier then air power flight was called impossible and the sound barrier was this unbreakable wall. we as humans cannot stand things like that and will seek ways to get around them. everything has a bypass or a different road.
Mining lasers well they are a bit odd but they also have to exist for ease of working in the game world. but there is one theory and that is charging of the particles that get blown out by the laser and then having a collection system on the ship. think of it like an EAC found in some HVAC systems except the negative charge is applied by the laser.
*EAC=Electronic Air Cleaner, it has wires that apply a charge to inbound air and anything in said air. plates with the opposite charge are next in line and the dust gets pulled to these plates. after time these plates can be removed and cleaned.
|
Mephiston Lucius
|
Posted - 2010.03.05 03:50:00 -
[27]
u guys wasting your times why bother with someone who accuse other side as "idiots".. go live in your genius world my friend..
|
Cawfield
Gallente Interspatial Logistics Rogue Elements.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 13:27:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Magnus Nordir Edited by: Magnus Nordir on 02/03/2010 19:30:56 As I said, I don't mean to bad-mouth eve in any way. I love the game mechanics it offers, and while immersing in the backstory is impossible for me or anyone who passed highschool physics,
See, there's your problem right there. You only passed high school physics. Now, take a graduate course and learn that everything you know is wrong.
Pee Ess: Those morons who thought the Earth was flat also had "scientific evidence" to back up their claims. Eventually their "science" was proved wrong. All the science of the last 200 years does not always agree, and the more we discover, the more we learn we actually don't know jack.
Stop treating science like a religion. It is a work in progress, not some holy dogma.
|
Verone
Gallente Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 17:19:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Magnus Nordir
Originally by: Alexeph Stoekai I'm sorry, you're complaining that a Science-Fiction universe has unrealistic technology? You're joking!
At some point sci-fi turns so ridiculous it becomes pure fiction. Eve has passed that point before it was even released, and I'm not complaining about that, I'm just pointing it out. Science fiction isn't about unrealistic technology, it's about plausible but unrealised technology. FTL, artificial gravity and tractor beams are neither plausible, realistic, or possible.
That's an extremely arrogant view to have.
The human race barely has an even fundamental grasp of science and physics, and not even a basic knowledge of the universe around us. We like to think we're so intelligent and high and mighty, but the fact is, in the grand scheme of things we're a very primitive and violent race.
If you take our travels into space as a journey to your local store, we haven't even set a foot off our own back doorstep yet. The vast majority of our knowledge is THEORY, not fact.
There's an immense difference between the two.
>>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW <<< |
Sinjin Mokk
Amarr 1st Praetorian Guard
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 15:15:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Sinjin Mokk on 16/03/2010 15:16:44 Ok look at it like this. SF comes in few different kinds. LetÆs look at some popular shows and movies.
ôHardö SF is when you have a story that takes a new idea or scientific principle and says ôWhat if?ö and then follows a speculative idea to a logical conclusion. Shows that used this effectively were some of the older Star Trek, ST: TNG, Space 1999, Doctor Who, Ghost in the Shell and especially Babylon 5.
Then you have what is known as ôSpace Operaö where a grand story is told against a backdrop of interstellar space. You can change the setting to something like Old West America or Feudal Japan with a few cosmetic changes and still have the same basic story. Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica and Firefly/Serenity fit this mold pretty much.
Then you have the bottom rung where itÆs just action/adventure with space ships. Think campy Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon remakes, new BSG/Star Trek or Stargate.
EVE is a good game, because your game experience can cover all of these styles of ôSF.ö If you just want action/adventure, you can join faction war or go pirating. If you want the space opera, there are a lot of groups and corps telling grand stories here in the EVE universe and like CCP says, the story is written by US. If you want hard SF, there are plenty of aspects of industry and exploration that can cover the science. Look at a planet or star or moon sometime. Compare gravity or atmosphere or pressure to earth-normal.
Are there gaps in the explanations on how things work in the EVE universe? Of course there are. Technobable is a cop out. Make a scientifically plausible explanation as to how (like the mining laser in a tractor beam explanation) and follow its application to a logical conclusion.
CCP is doing a good job here. But if there are gaps, I believe they wouldnÆt mind at all if we filled them in.
And yeah. Sticher is right. We have a lloooonngg way to go.
I went to this last night: http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/programs/asimov
It will be a long road, but at least we have taken our first few steps.
S.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |