EVE Search - The Unlikely Collapse of Civilization in EVE

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lanithro	Posted - 2004.08.30 01:25:00 - [31] Uhm, read the whole story: Quote: EVE closed while the EVE gates were still under construction. This didn't seem to affect the gates at all and they functioned properly from the start. But then, after seven decades of working flawlessly, a disaster struck: some unexplained phenomenon engulfed the EVE gates, creating a severe magno-gravity disturbance, rendering the gates inoperable and reduced the prosperous New Eden system to rubbles. The EVE gate in New Eden still exists, but any ship that tries to go near it is destroyed by the malevolent gravity-storms. The effects of Eve's closure were sudden and dramatic. All the bases and settlements in the world of EVE, which had largely been dependent on the industrial infrastructure of the New Eden system or even that of the old world, now found themselves cut off and isolated by the catastrophe. As most of the colonies had only been settled a few years or decades previously, very few of them were self-sufficient. One by one they died out, killed off by a lack of oxygen, water and food. The few who survived slowly lost their knowledge and hi-tech industries, because they lacked the tools to replenish and maintain them. Most colonies were dependend on the New Eden system as they only had been founded some decades ago. New Eden was destroyed, and alot of colonies couldn't survive on their own. When that just happend, alot of colonies tried to fulfil their basic needs: shelter, food and creating offspring. They didn't had time to concentrate on teaching their children to use a super advanced dishwasher, nor the equipment to maintain all that 79th century high tech stuff. After a few generations, knowledge starts to fade. Even now alot of people don't know how something works, and frankly they don't care, as long as it works. Those colonies have existed for thousands of years as an agricultural society, and gradually started to re-discover technology. The crowning of the Amarr Emperor is just a mile stone in the history of the races, that's why it's in the timeline. They could of have put the re-invention of green ketchup in it, but who cares? Evolution is alot more then just inventing technology, you can't and may not underestimate the complexity of the social and economical challenges that accompagny it. 21th Century Earth could already have hybrid cars or effecient solar power driven equipment for decades, but the OPEC countries that benefit from the sales of oil hold the development of technology back. The religious aspect is not to be underestimated aswell. Sects or religious leaders could hold back technology and development for hundred of years. Let's not jump to conclusions to quick shall we? * Entor'on Morkdat!! * Imperial Knight of Sarum
Lanithro	Posted - 2004.08.30 01:25:00 - [32] Uhm, read the whole story: Quote: EVE closed while the EVE gates were still under construction. This didn't seem to affect the gates at all and they functioned properly from the start. But then, after seven decades of working flawlessly, a disaster struck: some unexplained phenomenon engulfed the EVE gates, creating a severe magno-gravity disturbance, rendering the gates inoperable and reduced the prosperous New Eden system to rubbles. The EVE gate in New Eden still exists, but any ship that tries to go near it is destroyed by the malevolent gravity-storms. The effects of Eve's closure were sudden and dramatic. All the bases and settlements in the world of EVE, which had largely been dependent on the industrial infrastructure of the New Eden system or even that of the old world, now found themselves cut off and isolated by the catastrophe. As most of the colonies had only been settled a few years or decades previously, very few of them were self-sufficient. One by one they died out, killed off by a lack of oxygen, water and food. The few who survived slowly lost their knowledge and hi-tech industries, because they lacked the tools to replenish and maintain them. Most colonies were dependend on the New Eden system as they only had been founded some decades ago. New Eden was destroyed, and alot of colonies couldn't survive on their own. When that just happend, alot of colonies tried to fulfil their basic needs: shelter, food and creating offspring. They didn't had time to concentrate on teaching their children to use a super advanced dishwasher, nor the equipment to maintain all that 79th century high tech stuff. After a few generations, knowledge starts to fade. Even now alot of people don't know how something works, and frankly they don't care, as long as it works. Those colonies have existed for thousands of years as an agricultural society, and gradually started to re-discover technology. The crowning of the Amarr Emperor is just a mile stone in the history of the races, that's why it's in the timeline. They could of have put the re-invention of green ketchup in it, but who cares? Evolution is alot more then just inventing technology, you can't and may not underestimate the complexity of the social and economical challenges that accompagny it. 21th Century Earth could already have hybrid cars or effecient solar power driven equipment for decades, but the OPEC countries that benefit from the sales of oil hold the development of technology back. The religious aspect is not to be underestimated aswell. Sects or religious leaders could hold back technology and development for hundred of years. Let's not jump to conclusions to quick shall we? * Entor'on Morkdat!! * Imperial Knight of Sarum
Lanithro Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2004.08.30 01:25:00 - [33] Uhm, read the whole story: Quote: EVE closed while the EVE gates were still under construction. This didn't seem to affect the gates at all and they functioned properly from the start. But then, after seven decades of working flawlessly, a disaster struck: some unexplained phenomenon engulfed the EVE gates, creating a severe magno-gravity disturbance, rendering the gates inoperable and reduced the prosperous New Eden system to rubbles. The EVE gate in New Eden still exists, but any ship that tries to go near it is destroyed by the malevolent gravity-storms. The effects of Eve's closure were sudden and dramatic. All the bases and settlements in the world of EVE, which had largely been dependent on the industrial infrastructure of the New Eden system or even that of the old world, now found themselves cut off and isolated by the catastrophe. As most of the colonies had only been settled a few years or decades previously, very few of them were self-sufficient. One by one they died out, killed off by a lack of oxygen, water and food. The few who survived slowly lost their knowledge and hi-tech industries, because they lacked the tools to replenish and maintain them. Most colonies were dependend on the New Eden system as they only had been founded some decades ago. New Eden was destroyed, and alot of colonies couldn't survive on their own. When that just happend, alot of colonies tried to fulfil their basic needs: shelter, food and creating offspring. They didn't had time to concentrate on teaching their children to use a super advanced dishwasher, nor the equipment to maintain all that 79th century high tech stuff. After a few generations, knowledge starts to fade. Even now alot of people don't know how something works, and frankly they don't care, as long as it works. Those colonies have existed for thousands of years as an agricultural society, and gradually started to re-discover technology. The crowning of the Amarr Emperor is just a mile stone in the history of the races, that's why it's in the timeline. They could of have put the re-invention of green ketchup in it, but who cares? Evolution is alot more then just inventing technology, you can't and may not underestimate the complexity of the social and economical challenges that accompagny it. 21th Century Earth could already have hybrid cars or effecient solar power driven equipment for decades, but the OPEC countries that benefit from the sales of oil hold the development of technology back. The religious aspect is not to be underestimated aswell. Sects or religious leaders could hold back technology and development for hundred of years. Let's not jump to conclusions to quick shall we? * Entor'on Morkdat!! * Imperial Knight of Sarum
Jagaroth	Posted - 2004.11.02 22:21:00 - [34] Edited by: Jagaroth on 02/11/2004 22:25:08 Originally by: Wyckoff When has collective humanity really taken such a dramatic technological turn-around? Even the Dark-ages of Europe only refer to the loss of a strong central government and the relatively fair legal system. Technology (with the notable exception of Cement, pavement and useful applications of Tar...all of which were forgotten and only relearned in the 19th and twentieth centuries) kept moving forward. Umm, no. How can you compare a medieval city in, say 1200AD, with Rome in 200BC and say that there was no loss of technological expertise? The post-Roman Dark Ages (5-6th centuries AD) and the medieval period which followed were not just a loss of central government. They are so-called because they are 'dark' to historians. We don't really know what happened in that time because the written records were destroyed (or were never created). Knowledge of civil fundamentals like agriculture, engineering, medicine, and the arts all faded. This was a regression. There were cultural renaissances at various times: Charlemagne, Alfred and others began to tie society together 500 years after the legions left. If I recall correctly there was another renaissance in the twelfth century and then finally the one which led to the discovery of America, Industrial Revolution, the age of empires etc etc. It took 1000 years to return to the point where European civilisatian had been when the western Roman Empire collapsed. However, I would take exception to the contention that the Romans were only prevented from entering an early industrial revolution by their own conservatism. The Industrial Revolution came about for a number of reasons... It's a bit difficult to cover them neatly here, but the Romans did not have the necessary prerequisites and I would posit that it was the development of these elements by other cultures in the intervening time that allowed Europe to start industrialisation. Turning to EvE... I think it's entirely plausible. The large Roman population of Europe took a signigificant hit from the fall of Rome. If we translate that to post new-Eden worlds and imagine much smaller dependent human colonies being cut off from Earth it is entirely logical to conclude that they would have collapsed to a pre-industrial state very quickly unless there were extremely fortuitous extenuating circumstances. Survivors would have been reduced to an Adam and Eve status - survival priorities would be food, water and shelter; not the preservation of the technology necessary to make micro warp drives and nanoelectric co-processors. Recovering an advanced space-faring society within 8000 years is not bad going considering the odds. ------
Jagaroth	Posted - 2004.11.02 22:21:00 - [35] Edited by: Jagaroth on 02/11/2004 22:25:08 Originally by: Wyckoff When has collective humanity really taken such a dramatic technological turn-around? Even the Dark-ages of Europe only refer to the loss of a strong central government and the relatively fair legal system. Technology (with the notable exception of Cement, pavement and useful applications of Tar...all of which were forgotten and only relearned in the 19th and twentieth centuries) kept moving forward. Umm, no. How can you compare a medieval city in, say 1200AD, with Rome in 200BC and say that there was no loss of technological expertise? The post-Roman Dark Ages (5-6th centuries AD) and the medieval period which followed were not just a loss of central government. They are so-called because they are 'dark' to historians. We don't really know what happened in that time because the written records were destroyed (or were never created). Knowledge of civil fundamentals like agriculture, engineering, medicine, and the arts all faded. This was a regression. There were cultural renaissances at various times: Charlemagne, Alfred and others began to tie society together 500 years after the legions left. If I recall correctly there was another renaissance in the twelfth century and then finally the one which led to the discovery of America, Industrial Revolution, the age of empires etc etc. It took 1000 years to return to the point where European civilisatian had been when the western Roman Empire collapsed. However, I would take exception to the contention that the Romans were only prevented from entering an early industrial revolution by their own conservatism. The Industrial Revolution came about for a number of reasons... It's a bit difficult to cover them neatly here, but the Romans did not have the necessary prerequisites and I would posit that it was the development of these elements by other cultures in the intervening time that allowed Europe to start industrialisation. Turning to EvE... I think it's entirely plausible. The large Roman population of Europe took a signigificant hit from the fall of Rome. If we translate that to post new-Eden worlds and imagine much smaller dependent human colonies being cut off from Earth it is entirely logical to conclude that they would have collapsed to a pre-industrial state very quickly unless there were extremely fortuitous extenuating circumstances. Survivors would have been reduced to an Adam and Eve status - survival priorities would be food, water and shelter; not the preservation of the technology necessary to make micro warp drives and nanoelectric co-processors. Recovering an advanced space-faring society within 8000 years is not bad going considering the odds. ------
Jagaroth No Quarter. C0VEN	Posted - 2004.11.02 22:21:00 - [36] Edited by: Jagaroth on 02/11/2004 22:25:08 Originally by: Wyckoff When has collective humanity really taken such a dramatic technological turn-around? Even the Dark-ages of Europe only refer to the loss of a strong central government and the relatively fair legal system. Technology (with the notable exception of Cement, pavement and useful applications of Tar...all of which were forgotten and only relearned in the 19th and twentieth centuries) kept moving forward. Umm, no. How can you compare a medieval city in, say 1200AD, with Rome in 200BC and say that there was no loss of technological expertise? The post-Roman Dark Ages (5-6th centuries AD) and the medieval period which followed were not just a loss of central government. They are so-called because they are 'dark' to historians. We don't really know what happened in that time because the written records were destroyed (or were never created). Knowledge of civil fundamentals like agriculture, engineering, medicine, and the arts all faded. This was a regression. There were cultural renaissances at various times: Charlemagne, Alfred and others began to tie society together 500 years after the legions left. If I recall correctly there was another renaissance in the twelfth century and then finally the one which led to the discovery of America, Industrial Revolution, the age of empires etc etc. It took 1000 years to return to the point where European civilisatian had been when the western Roman Empire collapsed. However, I would take exception to the contention that the Romans were only prevented from entering an early industrial revolution by their own conservatism. The Industrial Revolution came about for a number of reasons... It's a bit difficult to cover them neatly here, but the Romans did not have the necessary prerequisites and I would posit that it was the development of these elements by other cultures in the intervening time that allowed Europe to start industrialisation. Turning to EvE... I think it's entirely plausible. The large Roman population of Europe took a signigificant hit from the fall of Rome. If we translate that to post new-Eden worlds and imagine much smaller dependent human colonies being cut off from Earth it is entirely logical to conclude that they would have collapsed to a pre-industrial state very quickly unless there were extremely fortuitous extenuating circumstances. Survivors would have been reduced to an Adam and Eve status - survival priorities would be food, water and shelter; not the preservation of the technology necessary to make micro warp drives and nanoelectric co-processors. Recovering an advanced space-faring society within 8000 years is not bad going considering the odds. ------
Nero Scuro	Posted - 2004.11.04 20:39:00 - [37] You all seem to be missing a pretty vital point here. The chances of finding a planet that humans could live on without the use of technology is about as likely as winning the lottery 74 times in a row while learning that this world is a computer program designed by evil robots and in the 'real' world you are destined to save humanity, and you must voyage into the 'fake' world and have cool kung-fu fights with the human personification of malicious pieces of computer code for the hell of it. While juggling 9 chainsaws with nothing but your nose. So, not very likely at all. These are the factors that a planet has to have EXACTLY the same as good 'ole Earth if you don't want to die of radiation poisoning/freezing/boiling/suffocating/internal implosion and other various assorted nasty things... A - Has to be rock with a molten core. So it has to be the right age. Wrong age and you don't get a crust forming and/or volcanos/mountains/plate tectonics/continents/oceans. And this is the least of your problems. B - Has to have a metal, magnetic core. No magnetic field and you can't use compasses! Oh, and you don't have an aptmosphere either and die of radiation poisoning... C - Has to have air. NOT oxygen. Breathing pure oxygen has nasty side-effects... AND there are plenty of other nasty things that could easily kill people over time that could be present in only trace elements. For a preferable breathable aptmosphere, you'd need an oxygen/carbon dioxide rich planet with trace elements of argon, nitrogen, hydrogen and some other crap thrown in there. I forget exactly, but it isn't exactly likely you'll just find the right mix lying around... D - Water. Duh... And by water I mean free flowing water. Water that isn't frozen or all gas. But it does have to evaporate at least a little, or you don't end up with clouds (which protect us) and quite a few nasty radions will get through from whatever sun is hangin' over head which is not nice. Radiation poisoning rears it's ugly head again... E - Speaking of suns, you have to be around the right type (one that produces radiation that is neccesary for plant growth but won't kill you). No plants and you die, because you have no air. Oh, the sun also has to be the right age/size/luminosity/etc. And you have to be the right distance from it. Given the possible distances you could be from it, this is probably the least likely of them all to get right... F - And no, you can't terraform a planet in 74 years. So, given the number of planets in EVE, there isn't really a chance in hell that one could support human life without technology. So if people were cut off from home, and couldn't make their own air, they were screwed. And if they could make their own air, they had to keep the machines that made it running without replacements or probably any large scale manufacturing capabilities. You'd have to spend the next couple of thousands years living in a radiation bunker eating nothing but algae (no large, complicated, multicelluar plants, bucco! That'd require nitrogen, which you don't have! Well, not unless your unlucky. Keeping machinery running around large quantaties of nitrogen would NOT be fun), living in fear every day that you will no longer be able to breath. So, no. No reason at all why technology went a little backwards... Unless you count all the death. And inability to do some little things, like breath. ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun!
Nero Scuro	Posted - 2004.11.04 20:39:00 - [38] You all seem to be missing a pretty vital point here. The chances of finding a planet that humans could live on without the use of technology is about as likely as winning the lottery 74 times in a row while learning that this world is a computer program designed by evil robots and in the 'real' world you are destined to save humanity, and you must voyage into the 'fake' world and have cool kung-fu fights with the human personification of malicious pieces of computer code for the hell of it. While juggling 9 chainsaws with nothing but your nose. So, not very likely at all. These are the factors that a planet has to have EXACTLY the same as good 'ole Earth if you don't want to die of radiation poisoning/freezing/boiling/suffocating/internal implosion and other various assorted nasty things... A - Has to be rock with a molten core. So it has to be the right age. Wrong age and you don't get a crust forming and/or volcanos/mountains/plate tectonics/continents/oceans. And this is the least of your problems. B - Has to have a metal, magnetic core. No magnetic field and you can't use compasses! Oh, and you don't have an aptmosphere either and die of radiation poisoning... C - Has to have air. NOT oxygen. Breathing pure oxygen has nasty side-effects... AND there are plenty of other nasty things that could easily kill people over time that could be present in only trace elements. For a preferable breathable aptmosphere, you'd need an oxygen/carbon dioxide rich planet with trace elements of argon, nitrogen, hydrogen and some other crap thrown in there. I forget exactly, but it isn't exactly likely you'll just find the right mix lying around... D - Water. Duh... And by water I mean free flowing water. Water that isn't frozen or all gas. But it does have to evaporate at least a little, or you don't end up with clouds (which protect us) and quite a few nasty radions will get through from whatever sun is hangin' over head which is not nice. Radiation poisoning rears it's ugly head again... E - Speaking of suns, you have to be around the right type (one that produces radiation that is neccesary for plant growth but won't kill you). No plants and you die, because you have no air. Oh, the sun also has to be the right age/size/luminosity/etc. And you have to be the right distance from it. Given the possible distances you could be from it, this is probably the least likely of them all to get right... F - And no, you can't terraform a planet in 74 years. So, given the number of planets in EVE, there isn't really a chance in hell that one could support human life without technology. So if people were cut off from home, and couldn't make their own air, they were screwed. And if they could make their own air, they had to keep the machines that made it running without replacements or probably any large scale manufacturing capabilities. You'd have to spend the next couple of thousands years living in a radiation bunker eating nothing but algae (no large, complicated, multicelluar plants, bucco! That'd require nitrogen, which you don't have! Well, not unless your unlucky. Keeping machinery running around large quantaties of nitrogen would NOT be fun), living in fear every day that you will no longer be able to breath. So, no. No reason at all why technology went a little backwards... Unless you count all the death. And inability to do some little things, like breath. ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun!
Nero Scuro Caldari Murder of Crows E N I G M A	Posted - 2004.11.04 20:39:00 - [39] You all seem to be missing a pretty vital point here. The chances of finding a planet that humans could live on without the use of technology is about as likely as winning the lottery 74 times in a row while learning that this world is a computer program designed by evil robots and in the 'real' world you are destined to save humanity, and you must voyage into the 'fake' world and have cool kung-fu fights with the human personification of malicious pieces of computer code for the hell of it. While juggling 9 chainsaws with nothing but your nose. So, not very likely at all. These are the factors that a planet has to have EXACTLY the same as good 'ole Earth if you don't want to die of radiation poisoning/freezing/boiling/suffocating/internal implosion and other various assorted nasty things... A - Has to be rock with a molten core. So it has to be the right age. Wrong age and you don't get a crust forming and/or volcanos/mountains/plate tectonics/continents/oceans. And this is the least of your problems. B - Has to have a metal, magnetic core. No magnetic field and you can't use compasses! Oh, and you don't have an aptmosphere either and die of radiation poisoning... C - Has to have air. NOT oxygen. Breathing pure oxygen has nasty side-effects... AND there are plenty of other nasty things that could easily kill people over time that could be present in only trace elements. For a preferable breathable aptmosphere, you'd need an oxygen/carbon dioxide rich planet with trace elements of argon, nitrogen, hydrogen and some other crap thrown in there. I forget exactly, but it isn't exactly likely you'll just find the right mix lying around... D - Water. Duh... And by water I mean free flowing water. Water that isn't frozen or all gas. But it does have to evaporate at least a little, or you don't end up with clouds (which protect us) and quite a few nasty radions will get through from whatever sun is hangin' over head which is not nice. Radiation poisoning rears it's ugly head again... E - Speaking of suns, you have to be around the right type (one that produces radiation that is neccesary for plant growth but won't kill you). No plants and you die, because you have no air. Oh, the sun also has to be the right age/size/luminosity/etc. And you have to be the right distance from it. Given the possible distances you could be from it, this is probably the least likely of them all to get right... F - And no, you can't terraform a planet in 74 years. So, given the number of planets in EVE, there isn't really a chance in hell that one could support human life without technology. So if people were cut off from home, and couldn't make their own air, they were screwed. And if they could make their own air, they had to keep the machines that made it running without replacements or probably any large scale manufacturing capabilities. You'd have to spend the next couple of thousands years living in a radiation bunker eating nothing but algae (no large, complicated, multicelluar plants, bucco! That'd require nitrogen, which you don't have! Well, not unless your unlucky. Keeping machinery running around large quantaties of nitrogen would NOT be fun), living in fear every day that you will no longer be able to breath. So, no. No reason at all why technology went a little backwards... Unless you count all the death. And inability to do some little things, like breath. ___ The world isn't going to end; we're not that lucky...
Kyt Kraiten	Posted - 2004.11.05 09:11:00 - [40] Originally by: Nero Scuro F - And no, you can't terraform a planet in 74 years. not with current technology at least. but then again, their technology was considerably more advanced and so they might have. Quote: So, given the number of planets in EVE, there isn't really a chance in hell that one could support human life without technology. we know for a fact that matar is a natural abundant earth like planet. that makes one. it is likely that other 'prime' worlds have similar conditions. you arbitrarly make up the odds on finding an earth like planet. where do you get these odds from? you have no possible way of verifying them. you only have the full data of one solar system. so from that we can only conclude that the chances of finding an earth like planet are 1:1, or, 100%. If and when we have full planetary information from other solar systems (at the moment we can only detect gas giants around other stars, and even then not very accurately), THEN can we begin to determine the odds of finding earth-like planets. Sure, the fact that there is only a limited 'band' in a solar system that could support such a planet (in Sol, that would be roughly from venus to mars), coupled with some of the other points you made, do mean that the actual chances are most likely not 100%, but your estimate is completely random and arbitrary. (not all of which are valid, you hardly need a molten core planet for instance in order for it to be have a breathable atmosphere and one we can colonize without the need of biospheres). a little radiation may in fact be tolerable (the people of hiroshima, while suffering greatly from it, have mostly overcome it), and in the long run, populations may in fact evolve a resistence to it.
Kyt Kraiten	Posted - 2004.11.05 09:11:00 - [41] Originally by: Nero Scuro F - And no, you can't terraform a planet in 74 years. not with current technology at least. but then again, their technology was considerably more advanced and so they might have. Quote: So, given the number of planets in EVE, there isn't really a chance in hell that one could support human life without technology. we know for a fact that matar is a natural abundant earth like planet. that makes one. it is likely that other 'prime' worlds have similar conditions. you arbitrarly make up the odds on finding an earth like planet. where do you get these odds from? you have no possible way of verifying them. you only have the full data of one solar system. so from that we can only conclude that the chances of finding an earth like planet are 1:1, or, 100%. If and when we have full planetary information from other solar systems (at the moment we can only detect gas giants around other stars, and even then not very accurately), THEN can we begin to determine the odds of finding earth-like planets. Sure, the fact that there is only a limited 'band' in a solar system that could support such a planet (in Sol, that would be roughly from venus to mars), coupled with some of the other points you made, do mean that the actual chances are most likely not 100%, but your estimate is completely random and arbitrary. (not all of which are valid, you hardly need a molten core planet for instance in order for it to be have a breathable atmosphere and one we can colonize without the need of biospheres). a little radiation may in fact be tolerable (the people of hiroshima, while suffering greatly from it, have mostly overcome it), and in the long run, populations may in fact evolve a resistence to it.
Kyt Kraiten Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2004.11.05 09:11:00 - [42] Originally by: Nero Scuro F - And no, you can't terraform a planet in 74 years. not with current technology at least. but then again, their technology was considerably more advanced and so they might have. Quote: So, given the number of planets in EVE, there isn't really a chance in hell that one could support human life without technology. we know for a fact that matar is a natural abundant earth like planet. that makes one. it is likely that other 'prime' worlds have similar conditions. you arbitrarly make up the odds on finding an earth like planet. where do you get these odds from? you have no possible way of verifying them. you only have the full data of one solar system. so from that we can only conclude that the chances of finding an earth like planet are 1:1, or, 100%. If and when we have full planetary information from other solar systems (at the moment we can only detect gas giants around other stars, and even then not very accurately), THEN can we begin to determine the odds of finding earth-like planets. Sure, the fact that there is only a limited 'band' in a solar system that could support such a planet (in Sol, that would be roughly from venus to mars), coupled with some of the other points you made, do mean that the actual chances are most likely not 100%, but your estimate is completely random and arbitrary. (not all of which are valid, you hardly need a molten core planet for instance in order for it to be have a breathable atmosphere and one we can colonize without the need of biospheres). a little radiation may in fact be tolerable (the people of hiroshima, while suffering greatly from it, have mostly overcome it), and in the long run, populations may in fact evolve a resistence to it.
Kyt Kraiten	Posted - 2004.11.05 09:16:00 - [43] Originally by: Cen Varis and ps - the Amarr actually were the first back in the race... they were well in advance of every single other race (except jove) and had already build jump capable ships and repaired jump gates and got out to Pator before the minnie even worked out how to rebuild the jumpgates fromt he working examples they had. not entirely true, the ancient stargates in the pator system had been destroyed over the eons by cosmic events and so the minmatar had nothing to go on, HOWEVER, they were in the process of building an entirely new way of FTL travel that hasn't been worked out since, essentially slingshots. the minmatar of that time were the most advanced engineers around and their level of engineering hasn't been reached even today (except perhaps by the jove)
Kyt Kraiten	Posted - 2004.11.05 09:16:00 - [44] Originally by: Cen Varis and ps - the Amarr actually were the first back in the race... they were well in advance of every single other race (except jove) and had already build jump capable ships and repaired jump gates and got out to Pator before the minnie even worked out how to rebuild the jumpgates fromt he working examples they had. not entirely true, the ancient stargates in the pator system had been destroyed over the eons by cosmic events and so the minmatar had nothing to go on, HOWEVER, they were in the process of building an entirely new way of FTL travel that hasn't been worked out since, essentially slingshots. the minmatar of that time were the most advanced engineers around and their level of engineering hasn't been reached even today (except perhaps by the jove)
Kyt Kraiten Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2004.11.05 09:16:00 - [45] Originally by: Cen Varis and ps - the Amarr actually were the first back in the race... they were well in advance of every single other race (except jove) and had already build jump capable ships and repaired jump gates and got out to Pator before the minnie even worked out how to rebuild the jumpgates fromt he working examples they had. not entirely true, the ancient stargates in the pator system had been destroyed over the eons by cosmic events and so the minmatar had nothing to go on, HOWEVER, they were in the process of building an entirely new way of FTL travel that hasn't been worked out since, essentially slingshots. the minmatar of that time were the most advanced engineers around and their level of engineering hasn't been reached even today (except perhaps by the jove)
Kyt Kraiten	Posted - 2004.11.05 09:19:00 - [46] Originally by: Kakita Jalaan Edited by: Kakita Jalaan on 19/08/2004 23:41:03 If the gate closing was a complete surprise, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the colonists were still largely relying on Earth to supply them because it was easier. Why produce stuff yourself, when it is much simpler to have it shipped from completely stocked places on the other side? the collapse of the wormhole/gate was predicted (though i don't think it was predicted the new eden system would be destroyed in the process), and to my understanding therefore, the focus was not on setting up high tech-societies on the other side, but rather setting up basic colonies that could survive but that were not technologically oriented.
Kyt Kraiten	Posted - 2004.11.05 09:19:00 - [47] Originally by: Kakita Jalaan Edited by: Kakita Jalaan on 19/08/2004 23:41:03 If the gate closing was a complete surprise, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the colonists were still largely relying on Earth to supply them because it was easier. Why produce stuff yourself, when it is much simpler to have it shipped from completely stocked places on the other side? the collapse of the wormhole/gate was predicted (though i don't think it was predicted the new eden system would be destroyed in the process), and to my understanding therefore, the focus was not on setting up high tech-societies on the other side, but rather setting up basic colonies that could survive but that were not technologically oriented.
Kyt Kraiten Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2004.11.05 09:19:00 - [48] Originally by: Kakita Jalaan Edited by: Kakita Jalaan on 19/08/2004 23:41:03 If the gate closing was a complete surprise, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the colonists were still largely relying on Earth to supply them because it was easier. Why produce stuff yourself, when it is much simpler to have it shipped from completely stocked places on the other side? the collapse of the wormhole/gate was predicted (though i don't think it was predicted the new eden system would be destroyed in the process), and to my understanding therefore, the focus was not on setting up high tech-societies on the other side, but rather setting up basic colonies that could survive but that were not technologically oriented.
Nero Scuro	Posted - 2004.11.05 11:56:00 - [49] Kyt Kraiten, you don't need to have actually seen other solar systems to know this stuff. Simulations can be run that can mirror a solar system fairly accurately (considering the size of them). Sure, it probably isn't as accurate as actually going to other systems and having a look for ourselves, but it DOES make it painfully obvious that even the smallest change to pretty much anything that CAN change to our planet would probably result in life becoming very dead very fast. The only thing that could realistically survive would be cells. Woopee. Of course, that is just realistically. I don't know how close CCP followed realism, so I have no idea how many worlds they decided to make Earth like. Maybe Matar is the only one, and they just got very (very, very, very, etc) lucky. ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun!
Nero Scuro	Posted - 2004.11.05 11:56:00 - [50] Kyt Kraiten, you don't need to have actually seen other solar systems to know this stuff. Simulations can be run that can mirror a solar system fairly accurately (considering the size of them). Sure, it probably isn't as accurate as actually going to other systems and having a look for ourselves, but it DOES make it painfully obvious that even the smallest change to pretty much anything that CAN change to our planet would probably result in life becoming very dead very fast. The only thing that could realistically survive would be cells. Woopee. Of course, that is just realistically. I don't know how close CCP followed realism, so I have no idea how many worlds they decided to make Earth like. Maybe Matar is the only one, and they just got very (very, very, very, etc) lucky. ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun!
Nero Scuro Caldari Murder of Crows E N I G M A	Posted - 2004.11.05 11:56:00 - [51] Kyt Kraiten, you don't need to have actually seen other solar systems to know this stuff. Simulations can be run that can mirror a solar system fairly accurately (considering the size of them). Sure, it probably isn't as accurate as actually going to other systems and having a look for ourselves, but it DOES make it painfully obvious that even the smallest change to pretty much anything that CAN change to our planet would probably result in life becoming very dead very fast. The only thing that could realistically survive would be cells. Woopee. Of course, that is just realistically. I don't know how close CCP followed realism, so I have no idea how many worlds they decided to make Earth like. Maybe Matar is the only one, and they just got very (very, very, very, etc) lucky. ___ The world isn't going to end; we're not that lucky...
Kyt Kraiten	Posted - 2004.11.05 22:29:00 - [52] Originally by: Nero Scuro Kyt Kraiten, you don't need to have actually seen other solar systems to know this stuff. Simulations can be run that can mirror a solar system fairly accurately (considering the size of them). we have models, but these are hypothetical at best. no astronomer will make any sort of definitive claims about the prevailance of earth like planets in the galaxy though, and given the sheer amount of stars in our galaxy alone (a rather unimpressive galaxy), it should come as no surprise that earth is not the only planet like it around/ Quote: Sure, it probably isn't as accurate as actually going to other systems and having a look for ourselves, but it DOES make it painfully obvious that even the smallest change to pretty much anything that CAN change to our planet would probably result in life becoming very dead very fast. The only thing that could realistically survive would be cells. Woopee. apparantly you've never heard of the ice ages. or the meteor impact that killed off the dinosaurs. i'd say both of these events are a little bit more than the 'smallest change', as you put it. nonetheless, life, while getting a momentary hit, grows afterwards into new forms. in essence, what all biologists agree on, is that one life has gained a foothold, it's practically IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of it. realistically, the only way to destroy life down to the cellular level is to actually disintegrate the planet, and even then it's possible, even likely that some cellular lifeforms (which don't require atmosphere) will survive on the debris. i'm sorry, but if you think that the ecosystem is THAT fragile you've got something coming. ofcourse, then there's the whole crowd of people who go: "look at how well suited life is to earth, if earth had more radiation, higher temperature, less oxygen, more oxygen, blah blah blah, we could not live here." well, duh, ofcourse we couldn't, we evolved in the conditions of this world. if the conditions of this world were different, we would have evolved differently (provided the first lifeforms got started). judging from the fact that even in the harshest climates of our world, (deserts, the arctic, deep sea volcanic rifts), life is abundant, we can conclude that life can in fact exist in the most diverse of environments. people usually though assume that life needs things like oxygen or water. these are just the resources WE needed to evolve. it's quite well possible that other reactions can occur without things like lightning and water to jumpstart life. it's quite well possible that life migrates from one planet to the other through asteroids, as one popular theory suggests happened with earth. in short sir...you are wrong.
Kyt Kraiten	Posted - 2004.11.05 22:29:00 - [53] Originally by: Nero Scuro Kyt Kraiten, you don't need to have actually seen other solar systems to know this stuff. Simulations can be run that can mirror a solar system fairly accurately (considering the size of them). we have models, but these are hypothetical at best. no astronomer will make any sort of definitive claims about the prevailance of earth like planets in the galaxy though, and given the sheer amount of stars in our galaxy alone (a rather unimpressive galaxy), it should come as no surprise that earth is not the only planet like it around/ Quote: Sure, it probably isn't as accurate as actually going to other systems and having a look for ourselves, but it DOES make it painfully obvious that even the smallest change to pretty much anything that CAN change to our planet would probably result in life becoming very dead very fast. The only thing that could realistically survive would be cells. Woopee. apparantly you've never heard of the ice ages. or the meteor impact that killed off the dinosaurs. i'd say both of these events are a little bit more than the 'smallest change', as you put it. nonetheless, life, while getting a momentary hit, grows afterwards into new forms. in essence, what all biologists agree on, is that one life has gained a foothold, it's practically IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of it. realistically, the only way to destroy life down to the cellular level is to actually disintegrate the planet, and even then it's possible, even likely that some cellular lifeforms (which don't require atmosphere) will survive on the debris. i'm sorry, but if you think that the ecosystem is THAT fragile you've got something coming. ofcourse, then there's the whole crowd of people who go: "look at how well suited life is to earth, if earth had more radiation, higher temperature, less oxygen, more oxygen, blah blah blah, we could not live here." well, duh, ofcourse we couldn't, we evolved in the conditions of this world. if the conditions of this world were different, we would have evolved differently (provided the first lifeforms got started). judging from the fact that even in the harshest climates of our world, (deserts, the arctic, deep sea volcanic rifts), life is abundant, we can conclude that life can in fact exist in the most diverse of environments. people usually though assume that life needs things like oxygen or water. these are just the resources WE needed to evolve. it's quite well possible that other reactions can occur without things like lightning and water to jumpstart life. it's quite well possible that life migrates from one planet to the other through asteroids, as one popular theory suggests happened with earth. in short sir...you are wrong.
Kyt Kraiten Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2004.11.05 22:29:00 - [54] Originally by: Nero Scuro Kyt Kraiten, you don't need to have actually seen other solar systems to know this stuff. Simulations can be run that can mirror a solar system fairly accurately (considering the size of them). we have models, but these are hypothetical at best. no astronomer will make any sort of definitive claims about the prevailance of earth like planets in the galaxy though, and given the sheer amount of stars in our galaxy alone (a rather unimpressive galaxy), it should come as no surprise that earth is not the only planet like it around/ Quote: Sure, it probably isn't as accurate as actually going to other systems and having a look for ourselves, but it DOES make it painfully obvious that even the smallest change to pretty much anything that CAN change to our planet would probably result in life becoming very dead very fast. The only thing that could realistically survive would be cells. Woopee. apparantly you've never heard of the ice ages. or the meteor impact that killed off the dinosaurs. i'd say both of these events are a little bit more than the 'smallest change', as you put it. nonetheless, life, while getting a momentary hit, grows afterwards into new forms. in essence, what all biologists agree on, is that one life has gained a foothold, it's practically IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of it. realistically, the only way to destroy life down to the cellular level is to actually disintegrate the planet, and even then it's possible, even likely that some cellular lifeforms (which don't require atmosphere) will survive on the debris. i'm sorry, but if you think that the ecosystem is THAT fragile you've got something coming. ofcourse, then there's the whole crowd of people who go: "look at how well suited life is to earth, if earth had more radiation, higher temperature, less oxygen, more oxygen, blah blah blah, we could not live here." well, duh, ofcourse we couldn't, we evolved in the conditions of this world. if the conditions of this world were different, we would have evolved differently (provided the first lifeforms got started). judging from the fact that even in the harshest climates of our world, (deserts, the arctic, deep sea volcanic rifts), life is abundant, we can conclude that life can in fact exist in the most diverse of environments. people usually though assume that life needs things like oxygen or water. these are just the resources WE needed to evolve. it's quite well possible that other reactions can occur without things like lightning and water to jumpstart life. it's quite well possible that life migrates from one planet to the other through asteroids, as one popular theory suggests happened with earth. in short sir...you are wrong.
Nero Scuro	Posted - 2004.11.06 02:41:00 - [55] Quote: given the sheer amount of stars in our galaxy alone There aren't a lot of stars in EVE, though. There is almost certainly another Earth like planet out there in the real universe, but the real universe has so many stars the light from them hasn't even reached us yet because the universe hasn't existed long enough. EVE has like, what, 5000-10,000 stars? A lot for a game, but not that many realistically... Oh, and ice ages and meteor impacts are small fry compared to what COULD easily happen to a planet, but I totally agree, life is very tough. Cells could easily survive even the worst that humans and nature could do to this planet, ranging from total nuclear bombardment to an ice age. But this doesn't really help the colonists in EVE, now does it? Unless you're suggesting the colonists all devolved into cells. And no. While humans can adapt to a huge range of changes in environment, they can't adapt not breathing. Not quickly, and without quite a bit of death, anyway... ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun!
Nero Scuro	Posted - 2004.11.06 02:41:00 - [56] Quote: given the sheer amount of stars in our galaxy alone There aren't a lot of stars in EVE, though. There is almost certainly another Earth like planet out there in the real universe, but the real universe has so many stars the light from them hasn't even reached us yet because the universe hasn't existed long enough. EVE has like, what, 5000-10,000 stars? A lot for a game, but not that many realistically... Oh, and ice ages and meteor impacts are small fry compared to what COULD easily happen to a planet, but I totally agree, life is very tough. Cells could easily survive even the worst that humans and nature could do to this planet, ranging from total nuclear bombardment to an ice age. But this doesn't really help the colonists in EVE, now does it? Unless you're suggesting the colonists all devolved into cells. And no. While humans can adapt to a huge range of changes in environment, they can't adapt not breathing. Not quickly, and without quite a bit of death, anyway... ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun!
Nero Scuro Caldari Murder of Crows E N I G M A	Posted - 2004.11.06 02:41:00 - [57] Quote: given the sheer amount of stars in our galaxy alone There aren't a lot of stars in EVE, though. There is almost certainly another Earth like planet out there in the real universe, but the real universe has so many stars the light from them hasn't even reached us yet because the universe hasn't existed long enough. EVE has like, what, 5000-10,000 stars? A lot for a game, but not that many realistically... Oh, and ice ages and meteor impacts are small fry compared to what COULD easily happen to a planet, but I totally agree, life is very tough. Cells could easily survive even the worst that humans and nature could do to this planet, ranging from total nuclear bombardment to an ice age. But this doesn't really help the colonists in EVE, now does it? Unless you're suggesting the colonists all devolved into cells. And no. While humans can adapt to a huge range of changes in environment, they can't adapt not breathing. Not quickly, and without quite a bit of death, anyway... ___ The world isn't going to end; we're not that lucky...
Kyt Kraiten	Posted - 2004.11.06 10:29:00 - [58] Edited by: Kyt Kraiten on 06/11/2004 10:39:52 Quote: There aren't a lot of stars in EVE, though. There is almost certainly another Earth like planet out there in the real universe, but the real universe has so many stars the light from them hasn't even reached us yet because the universe hasn't existed long enough. EVE has like, what, 5000-10,000 stars? A lot for a game, but not that many realistically... more than plenty for a few earth like planets to exist (especially if one would include planets like mars which could be relatively easy terraformed, especially with future technology). there's certainly a LOT of earth like planets in our own galaxy alone (which contains roughly 300 billion stars). We've allready detected and verified the existence of over 100 planets around other stars, and while current technology means we can't detect anything smaller than massive gas giants, it does show us that indeed, planetary systems are quite common. those gas giants likely have a multitude of moons around them, which could potentially sustain life, and there's likely terrestrial planets in many of those systems aswell. the only real problem that's risen out of these discoveries is that some of these worlds seem to be so massive that they would almost rule out the existence of any other large bodies in the system, and in some/many systems, the gas giants appear to orbit quite closely to the sun. which according to some astronomers is problematic for the formation of terrestrial planets, in that it is believed that these gas giants formed on the outer edges of the planetary/dust disc (the means through which planets are originally formed) and then migrated towards the inner regions of the starsystem, thus destroying/usurping smaller planets (though not neccesarily). ofcourse, the means through which we detect these worlds is relatively primitive and may turn out to be inaccurate, and aside from that, a sampling of just over a 100 worlds isn't all that much considering the huge number of stars in a 250 lightyear radius alone. perhaps once we develop more advanced astrometric technology, we will be able to accurately detect terrestrial planets, and then, and ONLY then, can we begin to make any sort of even semi-accurate guess as to the number of earth-like planets around. Quote: Oh, and ice ages and meteor impacts are small fry compared to what COULD easily happen to a planet, uhm, other than a supernova destroying the planet, there isn't much of anything that outranks a meteor impact. in short, i stick to my conclusion that earth-like planets, including easily terraformable ones are far more common than you imply. and by earth-like i don't ofcourse mean exactly like earth, one may have double the gravity, half the oxygen percentage or other such conditions, and humans would still be able to survive and adapt to it. ______________________________________ Have we sent the 'don't shoot we're pathetic' transmission yet?
Kyt Kraiten	Posted - 2004.11.06 10:29:00 - [59] Edited by: Kyt Kraiten on 06/11/2004 10:39:52 Quote: There aren't a lot of stars in EVE, though. There is almost certainly another Earth like planet out there in the real universe, but the real universe has so many stars the light from them hasn't even reached us yet because the universe hasn't existed long enough. EVE has like, what, 5000-10,000 stars? A lot for a game, but not that many realistically... more than plenty for a few earth like planets to exist (especially if one would include planets like mars which could be relatively easy terraformed, especially with future technology). there's certainly a LOT of earth like planets in our own galaxy alone (which contains roughly 300 billion stars). We've allready detected and verified the existence of over 100 planets around other stars, and while current technology means we can't detect anything smaller than massive gas giants, it does show us that indeed, planetary systems are quite common. those gas giants likely have a multitude of moons around them, which could potentially sustain life, and there's likely terrestrial planets in many of those systems aswell. the only real problem that's risen out of these discoveries is that some of these worlds seem to be so massive that they would almost rule out the existence of any other large bodies in the system, and in some/many systems, the gas giants appear to orbit quite closely to the sun. which according to some astronomers is problematic for the formation of terrestrial planets, in that it is believed that these gas giants formed on the outer edges of the planetary/dust disc (the means through which planets are originally formed) and then migrated towards the inner regions of the starsystem, thus destroying/usurping smaller planets (though not neccesarily). ofcourse, the means through which we detect these worlds is relatively primitive and may turn out to be inaccurate, and aside from that, a sampling of just over a 100 worlds isn't all that much considering the huge number of stars in a 250 lightyear radius alone. perhaps once we develop more advanced astrometric technology, we will be able to accurately detect terrestrial planets, and then, and ONLY then, can we begin to make any sort of even semi-accurate guess as to the number of earth-like planets around. Quote: Oh, and ice ages and meteor impacts are small fry compared to what COULD easily happen to a planet, uhm, other than a supernova destroying the planet, there isn't much of anything that outranks a meteor impact. in short, i stick to my conclusion that earth-like planets, including easily terraformable ones are far more common than you imply. and by earth-like i don't ofcourse mean exactly like earth, one may have double the gravity, half the oxygen percentage or other such conditions, and humans would still be able to survive and adapt to it. ______________________________________ Have we sent the 'don't shoot we're pathetic' transmission yet?
Kyt Kraiten Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2004.11.06 10:29:00 - [60] Edited by: Kyt Kraiten on 06/11/2004 10:39:52 Quote: There aren't a lot of stars in EVE, though. There is almost certainly another Earth like planet out there in the real universe, but the real universe has so many stars the light from them hasn't even reached us yet because the universe hasn't existed long enough. EVE has like, what, 5000-10,000 stars? A lot for a game, but not that many realistically... more than plenty for a few earth like planets to exist (especially if one would include planets like mars which could be relatively easy terraformed, especially with future technology). there's certainly a LOT of earth like planets in our own galaxy alone (which contains roughly 300 billion stars). We've allready detected and verified the existence of over 100 planets around other stars, and while current technology means we can't detect anything smaller than massive gas giants, it does show us that indeed, planetary systems are quite common. those gas giants likely have a multitude of moons around them, which could potentially sustain life, and there's likely terrestrial planets in many of those systems aswell. the only real problem that's risen out of these discoveries is that some of these worlds seem to be so massive that they would almost rule out the existence of any other large bodies in the system, and in some/many systems, the gas giants appear to orbit quite closely to the sun. which according to some astronomers is problematic for the formation of terrestrial planets, in that it is believed that these gas giants formed on the outer edges of the planetary/dust disc (the means through which planets are originally formed) and then migrated towards the inner regions of the starsystem, thus destroying/usurping smaller planets (though not neccesarily). ofcourse, the means through which we detect these worlds is relatively primitive and may turn out to be inaccurate, and aside from that, a sampling of just over a 100 worlds isn't all that much considering the huge number of stars in a 250 lightyear radius alone. perhaps once we develop more advanced astrometric technology, we will be able to accurately detect terrestrial planets, and then, and ONLY then, can we begin to make any sort of even semi-accurate guess as to the number of earth-like planets around. Quote: Oh, and ice ages and meteor impacts are small fry compared to what COULD easily happen to a planet, uhm, other than a supernova destroying the planet, there isn't much of anything that outranks a meteor impact. in short, i stick to my conclusion that earth-like planets, including easily terraformable ones are far more common than you imply. and by earth-like i don't ofcourse mean exactly like earth, one may have double the gravity, half the oxygen percentage or other such conditions, and humans would still be able to survive and adapt to it. ______________________________________ Have we sent the 'don't shoot we're pathetic' transmission yet?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.