|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] | |
| Author | Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
 Wyckoff    |
Posted - 2004.08.19 17:21:00 -
[1] According to the Time-line (with the exception of the Jove), it took a minimum of 8,000 years for history to reemerge after the collapse of the Eve Gate. 8000 years for the Amarr, but longer for others. 8,000 years? Now, I can understand that those colonies not built on habitable planets and being heavily dependent on trade would have withered and died quite quickly. I can even understand that perhaps even a few of the Terran-esque planets that were settled lacked enough of the basic technological advancements to sustain a decent 79th Century lifestyles. But all of them? Did no one keep a basic library? Were they all dependent on Oil from Earth, because I would hope that Solar Power and other renewable energy sources would have caught on by then and that relatively self sufficient communities would naturally arise. The Systems nearest to the Eve Gate were destroyed or badly damaged, fair enough, that explains a dozen or so... but to state that humanity, at the first signs that we were cut off from the rest of Civilized Space, would simply give up on technology, and wander off into the woods certainly sells humanity short. 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. I can allow that the disparate pockets of humanity might individually loose a certain complex technology. Jump Drive technology, maybe even interstellar travel...but unless the folks that migrated through EVE-Gate were comprised totally of 80th Century Amish, Hippies or an artists commune, I just donÆt buy it. Certainly some of these migrates were engineers? Teachers? Certainly technology of the 79th Century was sturdy and long lasting, it probably even had the capabilities of repairing itself. Say we grab a village or two of pre-historic Indus valley mud-hut dwellers and switch them with the population of Small Town 20th Century Where-ever. Now we got a few hundred 20th Century Folks in pre-historic Indus Valley and a few hundred æsavagesÆ in Small Town. If left isolated, in a few generations what would happen? Would the 20th Century Folks simply take over where the mud-hutters left off? Would the Mud Hutters exhibit absolutely none of the traits of humanity (curiosity, intuition, etc) and simple go back to picking weeds and hunting stray cats? Doubtful. I would suspect that the 20th Century Folks would, within a few generations, have created a small town that sported quite a few of the comforts of home: Plumbing, waste-disposal, education, electricity, Postal services, Taxes, and be well on their way to getting back to making weapons of mass destruction. On par with 20th Century lifestyle? No, but also incomparable with 18th Century and certainly not -8,000 B.C. How about the Mud Hut Dwellers? Surrounded by technology and wonders they couldnÆt possibly understand, I doubt they would suddenly figure out how to build a rocket ship. But, IÆm pretty sure they could guess the significance of a flush toilet, mirrors, hinges, nails, glass windows, childrenÆs books, and then how to read language. From there? It might not be 20th Century living, but I doubt that once they see the cornfields, the cattle farms, etc, they will go back to grubbing for bugs and sucking on weeds. So, I just canÆt accept that it took humanity 8,000 years to earn a footnote in a history book, especially when that footnote wasnÆt even the return to interstellar travel and when all the trappings of an advanced civilization were all around them. And unlike the Mud Hut Dwellers, or the 20th Century Small Town Folks, some of these people had the knowledge and the tools to start over. |
 Wyckoff |
Posted - 2004.08.19 17:21:00 -
[2] According to the Time-line (with the exception of the Jove), it took a minimum of 8,000 years for history to reemerge after the collapse of the Eve Gate. 8000 years for the Amarr, but longer for others. 8,000 years? Now, I can understand that those colonies not built on habitable planets and being heavily dependent on trade would have withered and died quite quickly. I can even understand that perhaps even a few of the Terran-esque planets that were settled lacked enough of the basic technological advancements to sustain a decent 79th Century lifestyles. But all of them? Did no one keep a basic library? Were they all dependent on Oil from Earth, because I would hope that Solar Power and other renewable energy sources would have caught on by then and that relatively self sufficient communities would naturally arise. The Systems nearest to the Eve Gate were destroyed or badly damaged, fair enough, that explains a dozen or so... but to state that humanity, at the first signs that we were cut off from the rest of Civilized Space, would simply give up on technology, and wander off into the woods certainly sells humanity short. 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. I can allow that the disparate pockets of humanity might individually loose a certain complex technology. Jump Drive technology, maybe even interstellar travel...but unless the folks that migrated through EVE-Gate were comprised totally of 80th Century Amish, Hippies or an artists commune, I just donÆt buy it. Certainly some of these migrates were engineers? Teachers? Certainly technology of the 79th Century was sturdy and long lasting, it probably even had the capabilities of repairing itself. Say we grab a village or two of pre-historic Indus valley mud-hut dwellers and switch them with the population of Small Town 20th Century Where-ever. Now we got a few hundred 20th Century Folks in pre-historic Indus Valley and a few hundred æsavagesÆ in Small Town. If left isolated, in a few generations what would happen? Would the 20th Century Folks simply take over where the mud-hutters left off? Would the Mud Hutters exhibit absolutely none of the traits of humanity (curiosity, intuition, etc) and simple go back to picking weeds and hunting stray cats? Doubtful. I would suspect that the 20th Century Folks would, within a few generations, have created a small town that sported quite a few of the comforts of home: Plumbing, waste-disposal, education, electricity, Postal services, Taxes, and be well on their way to getting back to making weapons of mass destruction. On par with 20th Century lifestyle? No, but also incomparable with 18th Century and certainly not -8,000 B.C. How about the Mud Hut Dwellers? Surrounded by technology and wonders they couldnÆt possibly understand, I doubt they would suddenly figure out how to build a rocket ship. But, IÆm pretty sure they could guess the significance of a flush toilet, mirrors, hinges, nails, glass windows, childrenÆs books, and then how to read language. From there? It might not be 20th Century living, but I doubt that once they see the cornfields, the cattle farms, etc, they will go back to grubbing for bugs and sucking on weeds. So, I just canÆt accept that it took humanity 8,000 years to earn a footnote in a history book, especially when that footnote wasnÆt even the return to interstellar travel and when all the trappings of an advanced civilization were all around them. And unlike the Mud Hut Dwellers, or the 20th Century Small Town Folks, some of these people had the knowledge and the tools to start over. |
 Wyckoff Amarr |
Posted - 2004.08.19 17:21:00 -
[3] According to the Time-line (with the exception of the Jove), it took a minimum of 8,000 years for history to reemerge after the collapse of the Eve Gate. 8000 years for the Amarr, but longer for others. 8,000 years? Now, I can understand that those colonies not built on habitable planets and being heavily dependent on trade would have withered and died quite quickly. I can even understand that perhaps even a few of the Terran-esque planets that were settled lacked enough of the basic technological advancements to sustain a decent 79th Century lifestyles. But all of them? Did no one keep a basic library? Were they all dependent on Oil from Earth, because I would hope that Solar Power and other renewable energy sources would have caught on by then and that relatively self sufficient communities would naturally arise. The Systems nearest to the Eve Gate were destroyed or badly damaged, fair enough, that explains a dozen or so... but to state that humanity, at the first signs that we were cut off from the rest of Civilized Space, would simply give up on technology, and wander off into the woods certainly sells humanity short. 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. I can allow that the disparate pockets of humanity might individually loose a certain complex technology. Jump Drive technology, maybe even interstellar travel...but unless the folks that migrated through EVE-Gate were comprised totally of 80th Century Amish, Hippies or an artists commune, I just donÆt buy it. Certainly some of these migrates were engineers? Teachers? Certainly technology of the 79th Century was sturdy and long lasting, it probably even had the capabilities of repairing itself. Say we grab a village or two of pre-historic Indus valley mud-hut dwellers and switch them with the population of Small Town 20th Century Where-ever. Now we got a few hundred 20th Century Folks in pre-historic Indus Valley and a few hundred æsavagesÆ in Small Town. If left isolated, in a few generations what would happen? Would the 20th Century Folks simply take over where the mud-hutters left off? Would the Mud Hutters exhibit absolutely none of the traits of humanity (curiosity, intuition, etc) and simple go back to picking weeds and hunting stray cats? Doubtful. I would suspect that the 20th Century Folks would, within a few generations, have created a small town that sported quite a few of the comforts of home: Plumbing, waste-disposal, education, electricity, Postal services, Taxes, and be well on their way to getting back to making weapons of mass destruction. On par with 20th Century lifestyle? No, but also incomparable with 18th Century and certainly not -8,000 B.C. How about the Mud Hut Dwellers? Surrounded by technology and wonders they couldnÆt possibly understand, I doubt they would suddenly figure out how to build a rocket ship. But, IÆm pretty sure they could guess the significance of a flush toilet, mirrors, hinges, nails, glass windows, childrenÆs books, and then how to read language. From there? It might not be 20th Century living, but I doubt that once they see the cornfields, the cattle farms, etc, they will go back to grubbing for bugs and sucking on weeds. So, I just canÆt accept that it took humanity 8,000 years to earn a footnote in a history book, especially when that footnote wasnÆt even the return to interstellar travel and when all the trappings of an advanced civilization were all around them. And unlike the Mud Hut Dwellers, or the 20th Century Small Town Folks, some of these people had the knowledge and the tools to start over. |
 Bhurak |
Posted - 2004.08.19 17:58:00 -
[4] They may not have been dependent upon 'oil', but odds are they were dependent on manufacturing and expertise from the other side. It takes a long time to colonize anything, especially a planet. So there would be little time to set up high tech factories or teaching institutions. So knowledge, research, and manufacturing would suffer that way. In addition, at least the amarr actively hunted down and destroyed tecnology. As well, I doubt they anticipated the collapse of the EVE gate. So they weren't prepared to be cut off from the home systems. That could be another reason. Bhurak Random Miner> Did you how steal my ore, lacked prospects or a bright future the thing you wanted me to take the fight airship to hit you |
 Bhurak |
Posted - 2004.08.19 17:58:00 -
[5] They may not have been dependent upon 'oil', but odds are they were dependent on manufacturing and expertise from the other side. It takes a long time to colonize anything, especially a planet. So there would be little time to set up high tech factories or teaching institutions. So knowledge, research, and manufacturing would suffer that way. In addition, at least the amarr actively hunted down and destroyed tecnology. As well, I doubt they anticipated the collapse of the EVE gate. So they weren't prepared to be cut off from the home systems. That could be another reason. Bhurak Random Miner> Did you how steal my ore, lacked prospects or a bright future the thing you wanted me to take the fight airship to hit you |
 Bhurak Amarr Imperial Shipment |
Posted - 2004.08.19 17:58:00 -
[6] They may not have been dependent upon 'oil', but odds are they were dependent on manufacturing and expertise from the other side. It takes a long time to colonize anything, especially a planet. So there would be little time to set up high tech factories or teaching institutions. So knowledge, research, and manufacturing would suffer that way. In addition, at least the amarr actively hunted down and destroyed tecnology. As well, I doubt they anticipated the collapse of the EVE gate. So they weren't prepared to be cut off from the home systems. That could be another reason. Bhurak Random Miner> Did you how steal my ore, lacked prospects or a bright future the thing you wanted me to take the fight airship to hit you |
Cen Varis |
Posted - 2004.08.19 19:03:00 -
[7] Its not 8000 years... the collapse of the eve gate - 8061 first amarr emperor crowned - 16470 thats 8000 years for a decline, dark age, and rebirth to a complex society - bare minimum of literacy and probably many other things. the "collapse" probably took some time - perhaps 1-2 thousand years? maybe longer? admittedly, tis a damn long time, and actually time for lots of things to happen... perhaps it was decline - rise - decline - rise again? but.. if it was pushed all the way back to real ignorance - please note that "modern man" (as per homo sapiens species) has been around on earth for something the 300,000 years or more... the first remnants of human tools in egypt is some 300,000 years ago! its really amazing hom much huans need literacy and language - if you lose our libraries and technology, even for a few generation, we would have lost a lot. And to be honest, i would say a "primitive society" or non technological one like the Amish etc - one that is technically and socially self sufficient, would have much more chance of surviving a collapse that a modern one. actually though, i doubt that there was a real collapse, more a "backpedal"... if a society is in constant danger of extinction from a hostile environment (alien planets) and has many of the high tech things removed (supy of feul, new parts etc) it would degenerate over a few generation to one able to be supplied from local goods - very few ppl know anything about metalurgy, basic chemistry, farming etc - unless they are specialised for it... and even such simple things as farming, without modern fertilizers etc - farms on an alien planet would probably dissappear rather fast. but please be careful - humanity remained verys static until very recently - only the last 1000 or so years have seen any real technological advance, and for a long long time before that mankind was happy the way it was - surviving and comfortable. Interstellat Cartographic League - Cen Varis |
Cen Varis |
Posted - 2004.08.19 19:03:00 -
[8] Its not 8000 years... the collapse of the eve gate - 8061 first amarr emperor crowned - 16470 thats 8000 years for a decline, dark age, and rebirth to a complex society - bare minimum of literacy and probably many other things. the "collapse" probably took some time - perhaps 1-2 thousand years? maybe longer? admittedly, tis a damn long time, and actually time for lots of things to happen... perhaps it was decline - rise - decline - rise again? but.. if it was pushed all the way back to real ignorance - please note that "modern man" (as per homo sapiens species) has been around on earth for something the 300,000 years or more... the first remnants of human tools in egypt is some 300,000 years ago! its really amazing hom much huans need literacy and language - if you lose our libraries and technology, even for a few generation, we would have lost a lot. And to be honest, i would say a "primitive society" or non technological one like the Amish etc - one that is technically and socially self sufficient, would have much more chance of surviving a collapse that a modern one. actually though, i doubt that there was a real collapse, more a "backpedal"... if a society is in constant danger of extinction from a hostile environment (alien planets) and has many of the high tech things removed (supy of feul, new parts etc) it would degenerate over a few generation to one able to be supplied from local goods - very few ppl know anything about metalurgy, basic chemistry, farming etc - unless they are specialised for it... and even such simple things as farming, without modern fertilizers etc - farms on an alien planet would probably dissappear rather fast. but please be careful - humanity remained verys static until very recently - only the last 1000 or so years have seen any real technological advance, and for a long long time before that mankind was happy the way it was - surviving and comfortable. Interstellat Cartographic League - Cen Varis |
 Cen Varis The Scope |
Posted - 2004.08.19 19:03:00 -
[9] Its not 8000 years... the collapse of the eve gate - 8061 first amarr emperor crowned - 16470 thats 8000 years for a decline, dark age, and rebirth to a complex society - bare minimum of literacy and probably many other things. the "collapse" probably took some time - perhaps 1-2 thousand years? maybe longer? admittedly, tis a damn long time, and actually time for lots of things to happen... perhaps it was decline - rise - decline - rise again? but.. if it was pushed all the way back to real ignorance - please note that "modern man" (as per homo sapiens species) has been around on earth for something the 300,000 years or more... the first remnants of human tools in egypt is some 300,000 years ago! its really amazing hom much huans need literacy and language - if you lose our libraries and technology, even for a few generation, we would have lost a lot. And to be honest, i would say a "primitive society" or non technological one like the Amish etc - one that is technically and socially self sufficient, would have much more chance of surviving a collapse that a modern one. actually though, i doubt that there was a real collapse, more a "backpedal"... if a society is in constant danger of extinction from a hostile environment (alien planets) and has many of the high tech things removed (supy of feul, new parts etc) it would degenerate over a few generation to one able to be supplied from local goods - very few ppl know anything about metalurgy, basic chemistry, farming etc - unless they are specialised for it... and even such simple things as farming, without modern fertilizers etc - farms on an alien planet would probably dissappear rather fast. but please be careful - humanity remained verys static until very recently - only the last 1000 or so years have seen any real technological advance, and for a long long time before that mankind was happy the way it was - surviving and comfortable. Interstellat Cartographic League - Cen Varis |
Wyckoff |
Posted - 2004.08.19 19:12:00 -
[10] Undoubtedly it did take them by surprise when the gate collapsed and the Eve System was destroyed, however, according to the Back Story, the wormhole that was the basis for building the Gates, was never expected to last long from the get-go:
The Gate was completed and opened in 7987, after 200 years of construction. It was destroyed in 8061. That gave folks 74 years of colonization in addition to the 200 years that ships were able to travel through the Wormhole (which opened in 7703). 200 years of exploration and survey. 274 years there were established bases in EVE, equipped to be self-sustaining pending the eventual collapse of the Wormhole.
So, for 74 years people poured into EVE. In those 74 years no one thought to bring a How-To book? Certainly by the 74th year there were established centers of learning, industry and commerce that were relatively self-sufficient. No one pours time and money into something without expecting a return. How soon were colonists that arrived in the America wereÆs sending back trade goods to their native Empires? Those nations that poured cash into the New World but the venture never was profitable stopped sending ships and money. I like a good back-story as much as the next person, but this story has been played out too many times (Foundation Stories/ Dragons of Pern/ Robert JordanÆs books/ even some of the crap IÆve written) ItÆs was cool the first time, but then, like finding Bobby in the shower and realizing that his death and that the whole season was just a dreamàouch, I feel like someone was looking for an easy out. Ohàbut donÆt get me wrong. IÆm not just blindly criticizing the story and stating that, as a whole it wonÆt work, IÆm merely requesting that perhaps it be touched up some. Made a bit more plausible. Perhaps there are parts of the story not yet told. Perhaps there are humans that are advanced and that havenÆt tampered with their humanity, ala Jove. And perhaps they simply moved further away from the Eve Gate and the Known Universe because they had both the ability and an idea that being that Close to the Gate was bad. Who knows. |
Wyckoff |
Posted - 2004.08.19 19:12:00 -
[11] Undoubtedly it did take them by surprise when the gate collapsed and the Eve System was destroyed, however, according to the Back Story, the wormhole that was the basis for building the Gates, was never expected to last long from the get-go:
The Gate was completed and opened in 7987, after 200 years of construction. It was destroyed in 8061. That gave folks 74 years of colonization in addition to the 200 years that ships were able to travel through the Wormhole (which opened in 7703). 200 years of exploration and survey. 274 years there were established bases in EVE, equipped to be self-sustaining pending the eventual collapse of the Wormhole.
So, for 74 years people poured into EVE. In those 74 years no one thought to bring a How-To book? Certainly by the 74th year there were established centers of learning, industry and commerce that were relatively self-sufficient. No one pours time and money into something without expecting a return. How soon were colonists that arrived in the America wereÆs sending back trade goods to their native Empires? Those nations that poured cash into the New World but the venture never was profitable stopped sending ships and money. I like a good back-story as much as the next person, but this story has been played out too many times (Foundation Stories/ Dragons of Pern/ Robert JordanÆs books/ even some of the crap IÆve written) ItÆs was cool the first time, but then, like finding Bobby in the shower and realizing that his death and that the whole season was just a dreamàouch, I feel like someone was looking for an easy out. Ohàbut donÆt get me wrong. IÆm not just blindly criticizing the story and stating that, as a whole it wonÆt work, IÆm merely requesting that perhaps it be touched up some. Made a bit more plausible. Perhaps there are parts of the story not yet told. Perhaps there are humans that are advanced and that havenÆt tampered with their humanity, ala Jove. And perhaps they simply moved further away from the Eve Gate and the Known Universe because they had both the ability and an idea that being that Close to the Gate was bad. Who knows. |
Wyckoff Amarr |
Posted - 2004.08.19 19:12:00 -
[12] Undoubtedly it did take them by surprise when the gate collapsed and the Eve System was destroyed, however, according to the Back Story, the wormhole that was the basis for building the Gates, was never expected to last long from the get-go:
The Gate was completed and opened in 7987, after 200 years of construction. It was destroyed in 8061. That gave folks 74 years of colonization in addition to the 200 years that ships were able to travel through the Wormhole (which opened in 7703). 200 years of exploration and survey. 274 years there were established bases in EVE, equipped to be self-sustaining pending the eventual collapse of the Wormhole.
So, for 74 years people poured into EVE. In those 74 years no one thought to bring a How-To book? Certainly by the 74th year there were established centers of learning, industry and commerce that were relatively self-sufficient. No one pours time and money into something without expecting a return. How soon were colonists that arrived in the America wereÆs sending back trade goods to their native Empires? Those nations that poured cash into the New World but the venture never was profitable stopped sending ships and money. I like a good back-story as much as the next person, but this story has been played out too many times (Foundation Stories/ Dragons of Pern/ Robert JordanÆs books/ even some of the crap IÆve written) ItÆs was cool the first time, but then, like finding Bobby in the shower and realizing that his death and that the whole season was just a dreamàouch, I feel like someone was looking for an easy out. Ohàbut donÆt get me wrong. IÆm not just blindly criticizing the story and stating that, as a whole it wonÆt work, IÆm merely requesting that perhaps it be touched up some. Made a bit more plausible. Perhaps there are parts of the story not yet told. Perhaps there are humans that are advanced and that havenÆt tampered with their humanity, ala Jove. And perhaps they simply moved further away from the Eve Gate and the Known Universe because they had both the ability and an idea that being that Close to the Gate was bad. Who knows. |
 Cen Varis |
Posted - 2004.08.19 19:15:00 -
[13]
Thats even more dangerous - if a society is reliant on "self sufficient technology" - take away that technology and the society will collapse REAL fast. Think for a moment if there was a global blackout - all exectricty dissappeared for say, 1 month, world chaos.
umm, they had all that (except electrictiy and WMD) in the Roman times - a few 100 BC, and in 8000 BC we already had domesticated animals and crops - ie real farming and cities in mesopotamia. The had armies, warfare, politics, religion, and all sorts of other fun stuff back then. If you were dumped back then and could somehow majically understand the languages, ou would probably be suprised how similar things were - barring technology. Dont sell our ancestors short. And dont assume that what we have today is easy to get to. Interstellat Cartographic League - Cen Varis |
Cen Varis |
Posted - 2004.08.19 19:15:00 -
[14]
Thats even more dangerous - if a society is reliant on "self sufficient technology" - take away that technology and the society will collapse REAL fast. Think for a moment if there was a global blackout - all exectricty dissappeared for say, 1 month, world chaos.
umm, they had all that (except electrictiy and WMD) in the Roman times - a few 100 BC, and in 8000 BC we already had domesticated animals and crops - ie real farming and cities in mesopotamia. The had armies, warfare, politics, religion, and all sorts of other fun stuff back then. If you were dumped back then and could somehow majically understand the languages, ou would probably be suprised how similar things were - barring technology. Dont sell our ancestors short. And dont assume that what we have today is easy to get to. Interstellat Cartographic League - Cen Varis |
Cen Varis The Scope |
Posted - 2004.08.19 19:15:00 -
[15]
Thats even more dangerous - if a society is reliant on "self sufficient technology" - take away that technology and the society will collapse REAL fast. Think for a moment if there was a global blackout - all exectricty dissappeared for say, 1 month, world chaos.
umm, they had all that (except electrictiy and WMD) in the Roman times - a few 100 BC, and in 8000 BC we already had domesticated animals and crops - ie real farming and cities in mesopotamia. The had armies, warfare, politics, religion, and all sorts of other fun stuff back then. If you were dumped back then and could somehow majically understand the languages, ou would probably be suprised how similar things were - barring technology. Dont sell our ancestors short. And dont assume that what we have today is easy to get to. Interstellat Cartographic League - Cen Varis |
 Wyckoff |
Posted - 2004.08.19 20:56:00 -
[16] Ok, if we going to dwell on semantics, lets say these 8,000 B.C. mud-hut dwellers are Neolithic, pre-literate mud-hut dwellers of the Indus valley. But lets not dwell on specifics (after this post) because this is fiction and none of this is real anywayà Ah, but the difference between 20th Century folks, 8,000 B.C. folks or even Republican Romans is not simply our technologies nor our cultures, but our views of the unexplainable...so it is partially our cultures, and superstitions. Electricity fails in the world for a day and there will be some extremely curious scientists, but how many of us will gnash our teeth and rip out our hair?; a Television is turned on in the Roman Forum, and their are going to be some extremely religious Senators bowing before it. Rome was an extremely stagnant culture with a deep seated fear of change and the unknown. If it couldn't be conquered, as much of the unknown lands were, then it would be ignored lest it lead to change. Change was bad, as it lead down paths to the unknown. Industrialization during the early Roman Empire was wholly possible from an intellectual and technological standpoint. Had they the desire or the cultural drive, they could have had machines that were more than simple trinkets and novelty items; they had the man power, the resources and the technology to start the Industrial Revolution 1600 years early. But they didn't. They didn't like change, so they didn't persue it. Exploring and colonizing a new sector of the universe does not sound like a venture undertaken by a culture unwilling to change. It sounds like a second age of exploration (probably third at that point), full of hardy individuals set for the unknown and looking for adventure. Bam! The gate goes down. You are trapped on the other side of the Universe. I guess it depends where you are. Trapped in a methane oceanic research station 1000 meters beneath the surface, or on a lush Terran world with ten-thousand of your fellow colonists and all the tools to build a new world. Selling my ancestors short would be assuming that one little crisis and they walk away from 16,000 years of history (but, being specific, the Chalcolithic period begins around 6,000 B.C. with the birth of some semblance of historical records, so its more like 14,000 years of History), and 86,000 years of human progress(assuming you start from the beginning of the Middle Paleolithic [78,000 b.c.]). Not to mention that there is no single precedence of an advanced technological civilization (any city-dwellers), within our span of history, to ever diminish in advancement unless it is at the hands of someone who surpasses or supplants them. Once a civilization becomes literate, it never losses that power (yes, there are incidents where minor sub-groups of a civilization have regressed) unless it is too another, stronger, literate power. But, its Science Fiction, so who knows. Maybe the culture of the 79th century ainÆt made of the stern stuff that keeps me coming back to Eve, day in, day out to do battle with the Veldspar God of Doom. Maybe that culture was decadent, corrupt, immoral and all those other things said about failed civilizations by those who conquered them. |
 Wyckoff |
Posted - 2004.08.19 20:56:00 -
[17] Ok, if we going to dwell on semantics, lets say these 8,000 B.C. mud-hut dwellers are Neolithic, pre-literate mud-hut dwellers of the Indus valley. But lets not dwell on specifics (after this post) because this is fiction and none of this is real anywayà Ah, but the difference between 20th Century folks, 8,000 B.C. folks or even Republican Romans is not simply our technologies nor our cultures, but our views of the unexplainable...so it is partially our cultures, and superstitions. Electricity fails in the world for a day and there will be some extremely curious scientists, but how many of us will gnash our teeth and rip out our hair?; a Television is turned on in the Roman Forum, and their are going to be some extremely religious Senators bowing before it. Rome was an extremely stagnant culture with a deep seated fear of change and the unknown. If it couldn't be conquered, as much of the unknown lands were, then it would be ignored lest it lead to change. Change was bad, as it lead down paths to the unknown. Industrialization during the early Roman Empire was wholly possible from an intellectual and technological standpoint. Had they the desire or the cultural drive, they could have had machines that were more than simple trinkets and novelty items; they had the man power, the resources and the technology to start the Industrial Revolution 1600 years early. But they didn't. They didn't like change, so they didn't persue it. Exploring and colonizing a new sector of the universe does not sound like a venture undertaken by a culture unwilling to change. It sounds like a second age of exploration (probably third at that point), full of hardy individuals set for the unknown and looking for adventure. Bam! The gate goes down. You are trapped on the other side of the Universe. I guess it depends where you are. Trapped in a methane oceanic research station 1000 meters beneath the surface, or on a lush Terran world with ten-thousand of your fellow colonists and all the tools to build a new world. Selling my ancestors short would be assuming that one little crisis and they walk away from 16,000 years of history (but, being specific, the Chalcolithic period begins around 6,000 B.C. with the birth of some semblance of historical records, so its more like 14,000 years of History), and 86,000 years of human progress(assuming you start from the beginning of the Middle Paleolithic [78,000 b.c.]). Not to mention that there is no single precedence of an advanced technological civilization (any city-dwellers), within our span of history, to ever diminish in advancement unless it is at the hands of someone who surpasses or supplants them. Once a civilization becomes literate, it never losses that power (yes, there are incidents where minor sub-groups of a civilization have regressed) unless it is too another, stronger, literate power. But, its Science Fiction, so who knows. Maybe the culture of the 79th century ainÆt made of the stern stuff that keeps me coming back to Eve, day in, day out to do battle with the Veldspar God of Doom. Maybe that culture was decadent, corrupt, immoral and all those other things said about failed civilizations by those who conquered them. |
Wyckoff Amarr |
Posted - 2004.08.19 20:56:00 -
[18] Ok, if we going to dwell on semantics, lets say these 8,000 B.C. mud-hut dwellers are Neolithic, pre-literate mud-hut dwellers of the Indus valley. But lets not dwell on specifics (after this post) because this is fiction and none of this is real anywayà Ah, but the difference between 20th Century folks, 8,000 B.C. folks or even Republican Romans is not simply our technologies nor our cultures, but our views of the unexplainable...so it is partially our cultures, and superstitions. Electricity fails in the world for a day and there will be some extremely curious scientists, but how many of us will gnash our teeth and rip out our hair?; a Television is turned on in the Roman Forum, and their are going to be some extremely religious Senators bowing before it. Rome was an extremely stagnant culture with a deep seated fear of change and the unknown. If it couldn't be conquered, as much of the unknown lands were, then it would be ignored lest it lead to change. Change was bad, as it lead down paths to the unknown. Industrialization during the early Roman Empire was wholly possible from an intellectual and technological standpoint. Had they the desire or the cultural drive, they could have had machines that were more than simple trinkets and novelty items; they had the man power, the resources and the technology to start the Industrial Revolution 1600 years early. But they didn't. They didn't like change, so they didn't persue it. Exploring and colonizing a new sector of the universe does not sound like a venture undertaken by a culture unwilling to change. It sounds like a second age of exploration (probably third at that point), full of hardy individuals set for the unknown and looking for adventure. Bam! The gate goes down. You are trapped on the other side of the Universe. I guess it depends where you are. Trapped in a methane oceanic research station 1000 meters beneath the surface, or on a lush Terran world with ten-thousand of your fellow colonists and all the tools to build a new world. Selling my ancestors short would be assuming that one little crisis and they walk away from 16,000 years of history (but, being specific, the Chalcolithic period begins around 6,000 B.C. with the birth of some semblance of historical records, so its more like 14,000 years of History), and 86,000 years of human progress(assuming you start from the beginning of the Middle Paleolithic [78,000 b.c.]). Not to mention that there is no single precedence of an advanced technological civilization (any city-dwellers), within our span of history, to ever diminish in advancement unless it is at the hands of someone who surpasses or supplants them. Once a civilization becomes literate, it never losses that power (yes, there are incidents where minor sub-groups of a civilization have regressed) unless it is too another, stronger, literate power. But, its Science Fiction, so who knows. Maybe the culture of the 79th century ainÆt made of the stern stuff that keeps me coming back to Eve, day in, day out to do battle with the Veldspar God of Doom. Maybe that culture was decadent, corrupt, immoral and all those other things said about failed civilizations by those who conquered them. |
Gaelbhan Wulf |
Posted - 2004.08.19 21:16:00 -
[19] I find my thoughts turning to Lord of the Flies when I think of the backstory, but obviously only as it relates to humans just generally degrading to the point of savageness even in the presence of technology. In order to colonize a planet, you need machinery to get you to and from - obvious. That machinery needs an entire planetary infrastructure to build and upkeep the machines -- look at our own space program. It takes the resources of an entire planet to get a shuttle into space -- that gas, those parts, all that wiring, those come from yet deeper bits of infrastructure that must be built and maintained by yet others. In short, they might have expected the Gate to shut down, but I don't think there is any way for a society to get themselves up to speed in that short of time. 200+ years is hardly enough time to migrate enough material and machinery and skilled labor to be able to sustain themselves beyond a reasonable level --> then we have Lord of the Flies. Humans are human after all, and wars began over the available resources, the ideology of the few vs. the many, etc etc, old story played out time and again. Even in the 200 some odd years of the Gate being open, just how many actually came over? A billion? That's really not a lot of people. Separate them into their distinct regions, and you might have ten thousand in one area. Ten thousand people to take up the replacement of all of their needs? Needs that require a whole planet of skilled labor? I'd say the backstory makes some sense overall. Hardly any need to make it completely self-sufficient, I mean after all, all we have is now anyway. Plenty of current stuff to keep us busy.  ______________________ . . . a devouring fever runs in flame through every vein within me . . ." |
Gaelbhan Wulf |
Posted - 2004.08.19 21:16:00 -
[20] I find my thoughts turning to Lord of the Flies when I think of the backstory, but obviously only as it relates to humans just generally degrading to the point of savageness even in the presence of technology. In order to colonize a planet, you need machinery to get you to and from - obvious. That machinery needs an entire planetary infrastructure to build and upkeep the machines -- look at our own space program. It takes the resources of an entire planet to get a shuttle into space -- that gas, those parts, all that wiring, those come from yet deeper bits of infrastructure that must be built and maintained by yet others. In short, they might have expected the Gate to shut down, but I don't think there is any way for a society to get themselves up to speed in that short of time. 200+ years is hardly enough time to migrate enough material and machinery and skilled labor to be able to sustain themselves beyond a reasonable level --> then we have Lord of the Flies. Humans are human after all, and wars began over the available resources, the ideology of the few vs. the many, etc etc, old story played out time and again. Even in the 200 some odd years of the Gate being open, just how many actually came over? A billion? That's really not a lot of people. Separate them into their distinct regions, and you might have ten thousand in one area. Ten thousand people to take up the replacement of all of their needs? Needs that require a whole planet of skilled labor? I'd say the backstory makes some sense overall. Hardly any need to make it completely self-sufficient, I mean after all, all we have is now anyway. Plenty of current stuff to keep us busy. ______________________ . . . a devouring fever runs in flame through every vein within me . . ." |
 Gaelbhan Wulf Minmatar Doomheim |
Posted - 2004.08.19 21:16:00 -
[21] I find my thoughts turning to Lord of the Flies when I think of the backstory, but obviously only as it relates to humans just generally degrading to the point of savageness even in the presence of technology. In order to colonize a planet, you need machinery to get you to and from - obvious. That machinery needs an entire planetary infrastructure to build and upkeep the machines -- look at our own space program. It takes the resources of an entire planet to get a shuttle into space -- that gas, those parts, all that wiring, those come from yet deeper bits of infrastructure that must be built and maintained by yet others. In short, they might have expected the Gate to shut down, but I don't think there is any way for a society to get themselves up to speed in that short of time. 200+ years is hardly enough time to migrate enough material and machinery and skilled labor to be able to sustain themselves beyond a reasonable level --> then we have Lord of the Flies. Humans are human after all, and wars began over the available resources, the ideology of the few vs. the many, etc etc, old story played out time and again. Even in the 200 some odd years of the Gate being open, just how many actually came over? A billion? That's really not a lot of people. Separate them into their distinct regions, and you might have ten thousand in one area. Ten thousand people to take up the replacement of all of their needs? Needs that require a whole planet of skilled labor? I'd say the backstory makes some sense overall. Hardly any need to make it completely self-sufficient, I mean after all, all we have is now anyway. Plenty of current stuff to keep us busy. ______________________ . . . a devouring fever runs in flame through every vein within me . . ." |
 Kakita Jalaan |
Posted - 2004.08.19 23:36:00 -
[22] Edited by: Kakita Jalaan on 19/08/2004 23:41:03 Difficult to say what would happen... try going camping with a couple friends, say ten or fifteen (I do summer camps for kids every year, and in the beginning it's just us putting up tents and stuff). Even if you know you're going camping you rely heavily on the infrastructure that's all around you. Why carry along enough food for two weeks, when you can easily go shopping every other day (and that's still a haul to make an indy captain proud)? Translates easily into other needed resources. 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? And 200 years or 300 are nothing in terms of terraforming, by the way. @Bhurak: Where does it state the Amarr actively destroyed old tech? I know it is in my expanded Amarr timeline, but I thought that it wasn't explicitly stated elsewhere. edit: One more thing, about passing knowledge on and stuff... Say they didn't have books because they vanished because of electronic means, PDAs and similar stuff. Among the colonists there probably were boatloads of highly trained people, doctors, biologists, scientists, engineers. But if in the second or third generation after the gate closing your primary concern still is raw survival, you don't have much use for tales of quantum physics or neurosurgery when you're sitting around the camp fire. Then, after maybe 200 or 300 years, such accounts of (unfortunately currently not applicable) old knowledge fade into stories and, later, myth. |
Kakita Jalaan |
Posted - 2004.08.19 23:36:00 -
[23] Edited by: Kakita Jalaan on 19/08/2004 23:41:03 Difficult to say what would happen... try going camping with a couple friends, say ten or fifteen (I do summer camps for kids every year, and in the beginning it's just us putting up tents and stuff). Even if you know you're going camping you rely heavily on the infrastructure that's all around you. Why carry along enough food for two weeks, when you can easily go shopping every other day (and that's still a haul to make an indy captain proud)? Translates easily into other needed resources. 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? And 200 years or 300 are nothing in terms of terraforming, by the way. @Bhurak: Where does it state the Amarr actively destroyed old tech? I know it is in my expanded Amarr timeline, but I thought that it wasn't explicitly stated elsewhere. edit: One more thing, about passing knowledge on and stuff... Say they didn't have books because they vanished because of electronic means, PDAs and similar stuff. Among the colonists there probably were boatloads of highly trained people, doctors, biologists, scientists, engineers. But if in the second or third generation after the gate closing your primary concern still is raw survival, you don't have much use for tales of quantum physics or neurosurgery when you're sitting around the camp fire. Then, after maybe 200 or 300 years, such accounts of (unfortunately currently not applicable) old knowledge fade into stories and, later, myth. |
 Kakita Jalaan Viriette Commerce and Holding |
Posted - 2004.08.19 23:36:00 -
[24] Edited by: Kakita Jalaan on 19/08/2004 23:41:03 Difficult to say what would happen... try going camping with a couple friends, say ten or fifteen (I do summer camps for kids every year, and in the beginning it's just us putting up tents and stuff). Even if you know you're going camping you rely heavily on the infrastructure that's all around you. Why carry along enough food for two weeks, when you can easily go shopping every other day (and that's still a haul to make an indy captain proud)? Translates easily into other needed resources. 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? And 200 years or 300 are nothing in terms of terraforming, by the way. @Bhurak: Where does it state the Amarr actively destroyed old tech? I know it is in my expanded Amarr timeline, but I thought that it wasn't explicitly stated elsewhere. edit: One more thing, about passing knowledge on and stuff... Say they didn't have books because they vanished because of electronic means, PDAs and similar stuff. Among the colonists there probably were boatloads of highly trained people, doctors, biologists, scientists, engineers. But if in the second or third generation after the gate closing your primary concern still is raw survival, you don't have much use for tales of quantum physics or neurosurgery when you're sitting around the camp fire. Then, after maybe 200 or 300 years, such accounts of (unfortunately currently not applicable) old knowledge fade into stories and, later, myth. ______________ Join the Family |
 Cen Varis |
Posted - 2004.08.20 08:05:00 -
[25] Kakita - thats sorta what i was thinking too. say a billion or so ppl came through the game and colonised... the vast majority of those colonists would still be in space stations - miners etc - and some terraformers, and perhaps - perhaps some on a "farm world" or two. since the number are so few - nearly everything would be automated to the best possible amount. Now, once your supply of spare parts is gone, and those who were technically in the know dissappeared we would be in real trouble. But still - i really agree that more history would be AWESOME. More maps, details about when planets were colonised etc. 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. I would say that the Amarr started with the best planet, and so didn't slide back do far, and had the most unity/drive of the other races... From other stories posted (cant remember where, but in this forum) the upper class amarr and religious guys used technology and science to awe the commoners... sounds to me that the old "science as magic" was the way it worked - so perhaps there were working electronics etc hidden by the Amarr Holders, and why they were able to jump back to the stars thousands of years before anyone else... Interstellat Cartographic League - Cen Varis |
Cen Varis |
Posted - 2004.08.20 08:05:00 -
[26] Kakita - thats sorta what i was thinking too. say a billion or so ppl came through the game and colonised... the vast majority of those colonists would still be in space stations - miners etc - and some terraformers, and perhaps - perhaps some on a "farm world" or two. since the number are so few - nearly everything would be automated to the best possible amount. Now, once your supply of spare parts is gone, and those who were technically in the know dissappeared we would be in real trouble. But still - i really agree that more history would be AWESOME. More maps, details about when planets were colonised etc. 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. I would say that the Amarr started with the best planet, and so didn't slide back do far, and had the most unity/drive of the other races... From other stories posted (cant remember where, but in this forum) the upper class amarr and religious guys used technology and science to awe the commoners... sounds to me that the old "science as magic" was the way it worked - so perhaps there were working electronics etc hidden by the Amarr Holders, and why they were able to jump back to the stars thousands of years before anyone else... Interstellat Cartographic League - Cen Varis |
Cen Varis The Scope |
Posted - 2004.08.20 08:05:00 -
[27] Kakita - thats sorta what i was thinking too. say a billion or so ppl came through the game and colonised... the vast majority of those colonists would still be in space stations - miners etc - and some terraformers, and perhaps - perhaps some on a "farm world" or two. since the number are so few - nearly everything would be automated to the best possible amount. Now, once your supply of spare parts is gone, and those who were technically in the know dissappeared we would be in real trouble. But still - i really agree that more history would be AWESOME. More maps, details about when planets were colonised etc. 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. I would say that the Amarr started with the best planet, and so didn't slide back do far, and had the most unity/drive of the other races... From other stories posted (cant remember where, but in this forum) the upper class amarr and religious guys used technology and science to awe the commoners... sounds to me that the old "science as magic" was the way it worked - so perhaps there were working electronics etc hidden by the Amarr Holders, and why they were able to jump back to the stars thousands of years before anyone else... Interstellat Cartographic League - Cen Varis |
 Cutter John |
Posted - 2004.08.20 09:52:00 -
[28] Edited by: Cutter John on 20/08/2004 10:02:14 high technology requires an incredible amount of industrial infrastructure to maintain, even now. plus it favors centralized manufacturing.. i.e. their arent microchip factories in every city.. there are a few very large operations, that distribute these over a much broader area. why bother making a microchip company on your planet when you get weekly shipments from new eden? i find it entirely believable that most settlements werent able to maintain their level of tech. right now, how many people do you think could actually even begin to have a tiny idea of how to build a pentium 4? it took a LOT of effort by many many smart people to get chip technology to where it is today. and a LOT of machines. i admit, eventually they might possibly figure out how to make replacements if they had enough time and people.. but what if there were 50 vital things they recieved. suppose they need this little widget to make there fusion reactors work so they can get power, and it needs to be replaced yearly, but its manufactured in new eden and hasnt come in yet, then new eden blows.. now they have a year to try to reverse engineer 5000 years of progress and a very broad manufacturing infrastructure necessary to manufacture this puppy, or figure out an alternate power source. and if they fail... lights out. all of there tech is gone.. worthless piles of scrap metal. hopefully they had the foresight to print out hardcopies of important data.. like how to breed cattle and raise crops by hand. unless they didnt have paper. how much paper did you see in star trek? would they even know what paper was? thats why so many of those colonies failed. centralized manufacturing necessary for technology.. i'd bet most high tech items and spare parts were made in our galaxy or new eden and shipped. its easy to assume that.. look at how easy it is to get around in eve.. even figuring that this is a game and travel times are shortened greatly for gameplay purposes. although i do agree that 8000 years to recover to the point that a written history is maintained is far too long. i would say 1-2000 years would be better. its easier to reinvent.. because you know it can be done. possibly not though.. who knows how far it would decline before it reached a point the tech could be maintained. btw.. i think that one colony was self sufficient enough to survive with most of their tech.. the joves. just my opinion though  My Idea Thread Give Drones Love! |
Cutter John |
Posted - 2004.08.20 09:52:00 -
[29] Edited by: Cutter John on 20/08/2004 10:02:14 high technology requires an incredible amount of industrial infrastructure to maintain, even now. plus it favors centralized manufacturing.. i.e. their arent microchip factories in every city.. there are a few very large operations, that distribute these over a much broader area. why bother making a microchip company on your planet when you get weekly shipments from new eden? i find it entirely believable that most settlements werent able to maintain their level of tech. right now, how many people do you think could actually even begin to have a tiny idea of how to build a pentium 4? it took a LOT of effort by many many smart people to get chip technology to where it is today. and a LOT of machines. i admit, eventually they might possibly figure out how to make replacements if they had enough time and people.. but what if there were 50 vital things they recieved. suppose they need this little widget to make there fusion reactors work so they can get power, and it needs to be replaced yearly, but its manufactured in new eden and hasnt come in yet, then new eden blows.. now they have a year to try to reverse engineer 5000 years of progress and a very broad manufacturing infrastructure necessary to manufacture this puppy, or figure out an alternate power source. and if they fail... lights out. all of there tech is gone.. worthless piles of scrap metal. hopefully they had the foresight to print out hardcopies of important data.. like how to breed cattle and raise crops by hand. unless they didnt have paper. how much paper did you see in star trek? would they even know what paper was? thats why so many of those colonies failed. centralized manufacturing necessary for technology.. i'd bet most high tech items and spare parts were made in our galaxy or new eden and shipped. its easy to assume that.. look at how easy it is to get around in eve.. even figuring that this is a game and travel times are shortened greatly for gameplay purposes. although i do agree that 8000 years to recover to the point that a written history is maintained is far too long. i would say 1-2000 years would be better. its easier to reinvent.. because you know it can be done. possibly not though.. who knows how far it would decline before it reached a point the tech could be maintained. btw.. i think that one colony was self sufficient enough to survive with most of their tech.. the joves. just my opinion though My Idea Thread Give Drones Love! |
 Cutter John TARDZ Gods of Night and Day |
Posted - 2004.08.20 09:52:00 -
[30] Edited by: Cutter John on 20/08/2004 10:02:14 high technology requires an incredible amount of industrial infrastructure to maintain, even now. plus it favors centralized manufacturing.. i.e. their arent microchip factories in every city.. there are a few very large operations, that distribute these over a much broader area. why bother making a microchip company on your planet when you get weekly shipments from new eden? i find it entirely believable that most settlements werent able to maintain their level of tech. right now, how many people do you think could actually even begin to have a tiny idea of how to build a pentium 4? it took a LOT of effort by many many smart people to get chip technology to where it is today. and a LOT of machines. i admit, eventually they might possibly figure out how to make replacements if they had enough time and people.. but what if there were 50 vital things they recieved. suppose they need this little widget to make there fusion reactors work so they can get power, and it needs to be replaced yearly, but its manufactured in new eden and hasnt come in yet, then new eden blows.. now they have a year to try to reverse engineer 5000 years of progress and a very broad manufacturing infrastructure necessary to manufacture this puppy, or figure out an alternate power source. and if they fail... lights out. all of there tech is gone.. worthless piles of scrap metal. hopefully they had the foresight to print out hardcopies of important data.. like how to breed cattle and raise crops by hand. unless they didnt have paper. how much paper did you see in star trek? would they even know what paper was? thats why so many of those colonies failed. centralized manufacturing necessary for technology.. i'd bet most high tech items and spare parts were made in our galaxy or new eden and shipped. its easy to assume that.. look at how easy it is to get around in eve.. even figuring that this is a game and travel times are shortened greatly for gameplay purposes. although i do agree that 8000 years to recover to the point that a written history is maintained is far too long. i would say 1-2000 years would be better. its easier to reinvent.. because you know it can be done. possibly not though.. who knows how far it would decline before it reached a point the tech could be maintained. btw.. i think that one colony was self sufficient enough to survive with most of their tech.. the joves. just my opinion though |
 Lanithro |
Posted - 2004.08.30 01:25:00 -
[31] Uhm, read the whole story:
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:
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:
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
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
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
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]
not with current technology at least. but then again, their technology was considerably more advanced and so they might have.
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]
not with current technology at least. but then again, their technology was considerably more advanced and so they might have.
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]
not with current technology at least. but then again, their technology was considerably more advanced and so they might have.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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/
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]
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/
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]
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/
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]
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]
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]
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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? |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.06 14:52:00 -
[61] We haven't found a single Earth like planet in our *real* galaxy yet. Estimates say that the chances of one existing in every star system are very (very, etc) small. Course, there are lots of star systems, so... But 5000-10,000 star systems is NOT a lot. Chances of realistically finding an Earth like planet in EVE is nigh on nil. Planets around other star systems ARE common, but that doesn't mean Earth like ones are. I don't know WHERE you got that from... There aren't ANY Earth like planets in our own system. Mars is the nearest, and even that is massively different (and lethal). First off, it has a Carbon Dioxide based atmosphere. It has no magnetic field which means no polarisation which means atmosphere can form. Without an atmosphere, radiation bombards the planet. Nothing bigger than cells could survive that, and even then they'd have a hard time of it. Even if it DID have an oxygen atmosphere, its smaller size (and thus greater centrifugal spin), greater gravity and greater surface pressure would result in denser oxygen that we couldn't breath, because we'd need more powerful lungs. Mar's is colder. It has no internal heat either (molten core is far far cooler). Oxygen would become colder, thus making in denser, and it would literally turn to mist. Short of sucking it up of the ground you couldn't breathe it. Also, water oceans would freeze (actually, they'd boil because of the higher pressure, but whatever...). Short of doubling Mar's size, giving it a magnetic AND molten core AND increasing it's surface heat (by moving it closer to the sun or the sun closer to it, neither likely) there is NO way to terraform Mars. Sure, surviving on it WITH TECHNOLOGY is relatively easy, but I never said it wasn't. And doubling the gravity of Earth would have MASSIVE implications to it's structure and atmosphere. I can't be bothered to list them all, but suffice to say we couldn't adapt to it. Oh, and we couldn't survive with half the oxygen we do now. Don't know WHERE you got that from... And there are plenty of things worse than meteor impacts that aren't supernovas. Ion storms, black holes, shifts on axis, shifts in orbit, solar flares, meteor BELTS, radiation storms, the list goes on and on... ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun! |
 Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.06 14:52:00 -
[62] We haven't found a single Earth like planet in our *real* galaxy yet. Estimates say that the chances of one existing in every star system are very (very, etc) small. Course, there are lots of star systems, so... But 5000-10,000 star systems is NOT a lot. Chances of realistically finding an Earth like planet in EVE is nigh on nil. Planets around other star systems ARE common, but that doesn't mean Earth like ones are. I don't know WHERE you got that from... There aren't ANY Earth like planets in our own system. Mars is the nearest, and even that is massively different (and lethal). First off, it has a Carbon Dioxide based atmosphere. It has no magnetic field which means no polarisation which means atmosphere can form. Without an atmosphere, radiation bombards the planet. Nothing bigger than cells could survive that, and even then they'd have a hard time of it. Even if it DID have an oxygen atmosphere, its smaller size (and thus greater centrifugal spin), greater gravity and greater surface pressure would result in denser oxygen that we couldn't breath, because we'd need more powerful lungs. Mar's is colder. It has no internal heat either (molten core is far far cooler). Oxygen would become colder, thus making in denser, and it would literally turn to mist. Short of sucking it up of the ground you couldn't breathe it. Also, water oceans would freeze (actually, they'd boil because of the higher pressure, but whatever...). Short of doubling Mar's size, giving it a magnetic AND molten core AND increasing it's surface heat (by moving it closer to the sun or the sun closer to it, neither likely) there is NO way to terraform Mars. Sure, surviving on it WITH TECHNOLOGY is relatively easy, but I never said it wasn't. And doubling the gravity of Earth would have MASSIVE implications to it's structure and atmosphere. I can't be bothered to list them all, but suffice to say we couldn't adapt to it. Oh, and we couldn't survive with half the oxygen we do now. Don't know WHERE you got that from... And there are plenty of things worse than meteor impacts that aren't supernovas. Ion storms, black holes, shifts on axis, shifts in orbit, solar flares, meteor BELTS, radiation storms, the list goes on and on... ---------------- 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 14:52:00 -
[63] We haven't found a single Earth like planet in our *real* galaxy yet. Estimates say that the chances of one existing in every star system are very (very, etc) small. Course, there are lots of star systems, so... But 5000-10,000 star systems is NOT a lot. Chances of realistically finding an Earth like planet in EVE is nigh on nil. Planets around other star systems ARE common, but that doesn't mean Earth like ones are. I don't know WHERE you got that from... There aren't ANY Earth like planets in our own system. Mars is the nearest, and even that is massively different (and lethal). First off, it has a Carbon Dioxide based atmosphere. It has no magnetic field which means no polarisation which means atmosphere can form. Without an atmosphere, radiation bombards the planet. Nothing bigger than cells could survive that, and even then they'd have a hard time of it. Even if it DID have an oxygen atmosphere, its smaller size (and thus greater centrifugal spin), greater gravity and greater surface pressure would result in denser oxygen that we couldn't breath, because we'd need more powerful lungs. Mar's is colder. It has no internal heat either (molten core is far far cooler). Oxygen would become colder, thus making in denser, and it would literally turn to mist. Short of sucking it up of the ground you couldn't breathe it. Also, water oceans would freeze (actually, they'd boil because of the higher pressure, but whatever...). Short of doubling Mar's size, giving it a magnetic AND molten core AND increasing it's surface heat (by moving it closer to the sun or the sun closer to it, neither likely) there is NO way to terraform Mars. Sure, surviving on it WITH TECHNOLOGY is relatively easy, but I never said it wasn't. And doubling the gravity of Earth would have MASSIVE implications to it's structure and atmosphere. I can't be bothered to list them all, but suffice to say we couldn't adapt to it. Oh, and we couldn't survive with half the oxygen we do now. Don't know WHERE you got that from... And there are plenty of things worse than meteor impacts that aren't supernovas. Ion storms, black holes, shifts on axis, shifts in orbit, solar flares, meteor BELTS, radiation storms, the list goes on and on... The world isn't going to end; we're not that lucky... |
Discorporation |
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:54:00 -
[64]
Habitable moons are a very real possibilty (Titan resembles early earth, and it's right in our solarsystem!).
'S prolly why most of the colonies died out, depending on others for continued safe existence, etc.
Earth-like, probably not. Habitable planets are far more likely.
PUNTASTIC! [Heterocephalus glaber] |
Discorporation |
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:54:00 -
[65]
Habitable moons are a very real possibilty (Titan resembles early earth, and it's right in our solarsystem!).
'S prolly why most of the colonies died out, depending on others for continued safe existence, etc.
Earth-like, probably not. Habitable planets are far more likely.
PUNTASTIC! [Heterocephalus glaber] |
 Discorporation Amarr Evolution Band of Brothers |
Posted - 2004.11.07 14:54:00 -
[66]
Habitable moons are a very real possibilty (Titan resembles early earth, and it's right in our solarsystem!).
'S prolly why most of the colonies died out, depending on others for continued safe existence, etc.
Earth-like, probably not. Habitable planets are far more likely.
PUNTASTIC! |
Kyt Kraiten |
Posted - 2004.11.07 15:51:00 -
[67]
actually, by seeding the icecaps with dark matter, such as genetically engineered moss, we could melt parts of it, thus releasing gasses trapped in the icecaps. this would increase airpressure, thus raising temperature. additionally, solar mirrors could be used to raise the temperature even further. the increased airpressure would also raise effective 'gravity'. i don't know about the magnetic field, i was under the impression it did have one, but i don't see why we wouldn't be able to develop ways around this.
ion storms? are those even real phenomenon? black holes aren't exactly a very common occurance, as for shifts of orbits/etc, these are NOT as big a problem as asteroids can potentially be. life will survive and adapt to shifts, even if they are sudden (though you can't really get a sudden shift without a large impact or a massive gravity source coming very close to the planet, which the results of the gravity would cause more problems than the axis shift). solar flares are only a problem to life if you're actually inside the range of the flare. and if you are, your surface temperature is probably too hot to support life in the first place. radiation storms, again, are not a problem for the continued existence of life. and as for meteor belts, that's the same issue as asteroid impacts. small asteroids may not be much of a problem, but large sized ones ARE. |
Kyt Kraiten |
Posted - 2004.11.07 15:51:00 -
[68]
actually, by seeding the icecaps with dark matter, such as genetically engineered moss, we could melt parts of it, thus releasing gasses trapped in the icecaps. this would increase airpressure, thus raising temperature. additionally, solar mirrors could be used to raise the temperature even further. the increased airpressure would also raise effective 'gravity'. i don't know about the magnetic field, i was under the impression it did have one, but i don't see why we wouldn't be able to develop ways around this.
ion storms? are those even real phenomenon? black holes aren't exactly a very common occurance, as for shifts of orbits/etc, these are NOT as big a problem as asteroids can potentially be. life will survive and adapt to shifts, even if they are sudden (though you can't really get a sudden shift without a large impact or a massive gravity source coming very close to the planet, which the results of the gravity would cause more problems than the axis shift). solar flares are only a problem to life if you're actually inside the range of the flare. and if you are, your surface temperature is probably too hot to support life in the first place. radiation storms, again, are not a problem for the continued existence of life. and as for meteor belts, that's the same issue as asteroid impacts. small asteroids may not be much of a problem, but large sized ones ARE. |
Kyt Kraiten Sebiestor tribe |
Posted - 2004.11.07 15:51:00 -
[69]
actually, by seeding the icecaps with dark matter, such as genetically engineered moss, we could melt parts of it, thus releasing gasses trapped in the icecaps. this would increase airpressure, thus raising temperature. additionally, solar mirrors could be used to raise the temperature even further. the increased airpressure would also raise effective 'gravity'. i don't know about the magnetic field, i was under the impression it did have one, but i don't see why we wouldn't be able to develop ways around this.
ion storms? are those even real phenomenon? black holes aren't exactly a very common occurance, as for shifts of orbits/etc, these are NOT as big a problem as asteroids can potentially be. life will survive and adapt to shifts, even if they are sudden (though you can't really get a sudden shift without a large impact or a massive gravity source coming very close to the planet, which the results of the gravity would cause more problems than the axis shift). solar flares are only a problem to life if you're actually inside the range of the flare. and if you are, your surface temperature is probably too hot to support life in the first place. radiation storms, again, are not a problem for the continued existence of life. and as for meteor belts, that's the same issue as asteroid impacts. small asteroids may not be much of a problem, but large sized ones ARE. |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.07 20:28:00 -
[70]
Dark Matter is simply stuff that we have yet to identify. It has mass and a gravitational force, so we know it's there, but we don't know what it is. Thus the name... Oh, and there isn't enough 'trapped gasses' on Mars to do what you claim. It was just speculation, and would almost certainly fail, if simply because it wouldn't be frozen if it could stay as a gas in the first place. The ice-caps of Mars are tiny and mostly comprised of Nitrogen... Raising air pressure would not raise gravity. Sure, both pressure and gravity can crush things, but it's gravity that affects pressure, not the other way around. And Mars doesn't have a magnetic core, and thus no magnetic field. That means no protection against radiation. At all.
Yes. Nebulae that are either radioactively (unstable, shooting off bits of themselves) or ionically (not posessing enough electrons which causes them to rip them from other atoms/molecules) charged are called Ion/Radiation storms. They could easily wipe out everything on a planet. Cells included. Solar Flares, while relatively small, send out MASSIVE waves of radiation. Without Earth's magnetic field and blankets of oxygen and CFCs protecting us we'd fry. Again, cells included. I wasn't refering to being hit directly by a black hole. Even being hundreds of light years away can have serious affects. Tidal shifts, being pulled off axis/orbit, tectonic crust ruptures, etc, are all viable side-effects.
Early Earth was a seething mass of molten rock. So is Titan. The only moon vaguely close to supporting life is Europa, and that's only if it has a molten core AND liquid oceans BENEATH the surface. There is no proof for this. As far as we know it's just a ball of ice. ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun! |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.07 20:28:00 -
[71]
Dark Matter is simply stuff that we have yet to identify. It has mass and a gravitational force, so we know it's there, but we don't know what it is. Thus the name... Oh, and there isn't enough 'trapped gasses' on Mars to do what you claim. It was just speculation, and would almost certainly fail, if simply because it wouldn't be frozen if it could stay as a gas in the first place. The ice-caps of Mars are tiny and mostly comprised of Nitrogen... Raising air pressure would not raise gravity. Sure, both pressure and gravity can crush things, but it's gravity that affects pressure, not the other way around. And Mars doesn't have a magnetic core, and thus no magnetic field. That means no protection against radiation. At all.
Yes. Nebulae that are either radioactively (unstable, shooting off bits of themselves) or ionically (not posessing enough electrons which causes them to rip them from other atoms/molecules) charged are called Ion/Radiation storms. They could easily wipe out everything on a planet. Cells included. Solar Flares, while relatively small, send out MASSIVE waves of radiation. Without Earth's magnetic field and blankets of oxygen and CFCs protecting us we'd fry. Again, cells included. I wasn't refering to being hit directly by a black hole. Even being hundreds of light years away can have serious affects. Tidal shifts, being pulled off axis/orbit, tectonic crust ruptures, etc, are all viable side-effects.
Early Earth was a seething mass of molten rock. So is Titan. The only moon vaguely close to supporting life is Europa, and that's only if it has a molten core AND liquid oceans BENEATH the surface. There is no proof for this. As far as we know it's just a ball of ice. ---------------- 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 - 2004.11.07 20:28:00 -
[72]
Dark Matter is simply stuff that we have yet to identify. It has mass and a gravitational force, so we know it's there, but we don't know what it is. Thus the name... Oh, and there isn't enough 'trapped gasses' on Mars to do what you claim. It was just speculation, and would almost certainly fail, if simply because it wouldn't be frozen if it could stay as a gas in the first place. The ice-caps of Mars are tiny and mostly comprised of Nitrogen... Raising air pressure would not raise gravity. Sure, both pressure and gravity can crush things, but it's gravity that affects pressure, not the other way around. And Mars doesn't have a magnetic core, and thus no magnetic field. That means no protection against radiation. At all.
Yes. Nebulae that are either radioactively (unstable, shooting off bits of themselves) or ionically (not posessing enough electrons which causes them to rip them from other atoms/molecules) charged are called Ion/Radiation storms. They could easily wipe out everything on a planet. Cells included. Solar Flares, while relatively small, send out MASSIVE waves of radiation. Without Earth's magnetic field and blankets of oxygen and CFCs protecting us we'd fry. Again, cells included. I wasn't refering to being hit directly by a black hole. Even being hundreds of light years away can have serious affects. Tidal shifts, being pulled off axis/orbit, tectonic crust ruptures, etc, are all viable side-effects.
Early Earth was a seething mass of molten rock. So is Titan. The only moon vaguely close to supporting life is Europa, and that's only if it has a molten core AND liquid oceans BENEATH the surface. There is no proof for this. As far as we know it's just a ball of ice. The world isn't going to end; we're not that lucky... |
Kyt Kraiten |
Posted - 2004.11.07 21:12:00 -
[73]
uhm, that's not the dark matter i was talking about. i was talking about 'dark' colored material.
uhm, not true. first of all, the icecaps there are not quite as tiny as you make them out to be, second of all, it has been established through spectrography that BOTH icecaps contain significant amounts of water. thirdly, there most definitely ARE enough trapped gas on mars to do just what i claim.
well duh, i never did claim that.
titan isn't a seething mass of molten rock. he is ofcourse referring to early earth about a billion years after it formed, right before life started.
we do actually have proof that europa has some sort of liquid ocean due to the massive *****s that appear on the surface all across the moon that are consistent with ice moving on a liquid base in conjuncture with jupiters gravity. you make a lot of absolute statements (this is not possible, blah blah). i'm sorry, but you have no basis for being so absolute. you don't know as much as you try to make yourself appear to. ______________________________________ Have we sent the 'don't shoot we're pathetic' transmission yet? |
Kyt Kraiten |
Posted - 2004.11.07 21:12:00 -
[74]
uhm, that's not the dark matter i was talking about. i was talking about 'dark' colored material.
uhm, not true. first of all, the icecaps there are not quite as tiny as you make them out to be, second of all, it has been established through spectrography that BOTH icecaps contain significant amounts of water. thirdly, there most definitely ARE enough trapped gas on mars to do just what i claim.
well duh, i never did claim that.
titan isn't a seething mass of molten rock. he is ofcourse referring to early earth about a billion years after it formed, right before life started.
we do actually have proof that europa has some sort of liquid ocean due to the massive *****s that appear on the surface all across the moon that are consistent with ice moving on a liquid base in conjuncture with jupiters gravity. you make a lot of absolute statements (this is not possible, blah blah). i'm sorry, but you have no basis for being so absolute. you don't know as much as you try to make yourself appear to. ______________________________________ Have we sent the 'don't shoot we're pathetic' transmission yet? |
Kyt Kraiten Sebiestor tribe |
Posted - 2004.11.07 21:12:00 -
[75]
uhm, that's not the dark matter i was talking about. i was talking about 'dark' colored material.
uhm, not true. first of all, the icecaps there are not quite as tiny as you make them out to be, second of all, it has been established through spectrography that BOTH icecaps contain significant amounts of water. thirdly, there most definitely ARE enough trapped gas on mars to do just what i claim.
well duh, i never did claim that.
titan isn't a seething mass of molten rock. he is ofcourse referring to early earth about a billion years after it formed, right before life started.
we do actually have proof that europa has some sort of liquid ocean due to the massive *****s that appear on the surface all across the moon that are consistent with ice moving on a liquid base in conjuncture with jupiters gravity. you make a lot of absolute statements (this is not possible, blah blah). i'm sorry, but you have no basis for being so absolute. you don't know as much as you try to make yourself appear to. ______________________________________ Have we sent the 'don't shoot we're pathetic' transmission yet? |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.08 03:53:00 -
[76]
Don't mix terms. Dark Matter is the stuff I explained. I don't even know what you were talking about...
Firstly, I didn't say there wasn't a lot of water in them, just that it was mostly Nitrogen (and Carbon). Nitrogen is poisones in large quantaties. Secondly, the ice-caps are tiny IN WATER/OXYGEN CONTENT. The only reason people think that there is enough is because it hasn't been proven that there isn't enough, which is apparently proof enough for some people... Thirdly, coming back to your solar mirror idea - the hell? Do you have ANY idea how many mirrors that'd take? Not to mention the fact that without an atmosphere the heat would bounce off these and back out into space... Ironic, really, since you need the heat to make the atmosphere not freeze again, but you need the atmosphere to stop the heat being bounced back off into space...
You said that effective gravity would be raised. No, it wouldn't. Effective pressure would be raised, pressure DOES NOT affect gravity.
Sorry, I was thinking of the wrong moon... Although Titan is nothing like Early Earth either. It has a far lower temperature (Earth is now at the coolest it has EVER been, and Titan is still colder), nearly twice the gravity, half the size, far denser atmosphere, I could go on for HOURS. Literally.
Those *****s ARE formed by Jupiter's gravitational pull, true, but that doesn't mean that there is a liquid ocean beneath. Just that Jupiter has one hell of a strong grav pull... And even if there was liquid oceans, that doesn't help our colonists, does it?
you make a lot of absolute statements (this is possible, blah blah). i'm sorry, but you have no basis for being so absolute. you don't know as much as you try to make yourself appear to. ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun! |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.08 03:53:00 -
[77]
Don't mix terms. Dark Matter is the stuff I explained. I don't even know what you were talking about...
Firstly, I didn't say there wasn't a lot of water in them, just that it was mostly Nitrogen (and Carbon). Nitrogen is poisones in large quantaties. Secondly, the ice-caps are tiny IN WATER/OXYGEN CONTENT. The only reason people think that there is enough is because it hasn't been proven that there isn't enough, which is apparently proof enough for some people... Thirdly, coming back to your solar mirror idea - the hell? Do you have ANY idea how many mirrors that'd take? Not to mention the fact that without an atmosphere the heat would bounce off these and back out into space... Ironic, really, since you need the heat to make the atmosphere not freeze again, but you need the atmosphere to stop the heat being bounced back off into space...
You said that effective gravity would be raised. No, it wouldn't. Effective pressure would be raised, pressure DOES NOT affect gravity.
Sorry, I was thinking of the wrong moon... Although Titan is nothing like Early Earth either. It has a far lower temperature (Earth is now at the coolest it has EVER been, and Titan is still colder), nearly twice the gravity, half the size, far denser atmosphere, I could go on for HOURS. Literally.
Those *****s ARE formed by Jupiter's gravitational pull, true, but that doesn't mean that there is a liquid ocean beneath. Just that Jupiter has one hell of a strong grav pull... And even if there was liquid oceans, that doesn't help our colonists, does it?
you make a lot of absolute statements (this is possible, blah blah). i'm sorry, but you have no basis for being so absolute. you don't know as much as you try to make yourself appear to. ---------------- 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 - 2004.11.08 03:53:00 -
[78]
Don't mix terms. Dark Matter is the stuff I explained. I don't even know what you were talking about...
Firstly, I didn't say there wasn't a lot of water in them, just that it was mostly Nitrogen (and Carbon). Nitrogen is poisones in large quantaties. Secondly, the ice-caps are tiny IN WATER/OXYGEN CONTENT. The only reason people think that there is enough is because it hasn't been proven that there isn't enough, which is apparently proof enough for some people... Thirdly, coming back to your solar mirror idea - the hell? Do you have ANY idea how many mirrors that'd take? Not to mention the fact that without an atmosphere the heat would bounce off these and back out into space... Ironic, really, since you need the heat to make the atmosphere not freeze again, but you need the atmosphere to stop the heat being bounced back off into space...
You said that effective gravity would be raised. No, it wouldn't. Effective pressure would be raised, pressure DOES NOT affect gravity.
Sorry, I was thinking of the wrong moon... Although Titan is nothing like Early Earth either. It has a far lower temperature (Earth is now at the coolest it has EVER been, and Titan is still colder), nearly twice the gravity, half the size, far denser atmosphere, I could go on for HOURS. Literally.
Those *****s ARE formed by Jupiter's gravitational pull, true, but that doesn't mean that there is a liquid ocean beneath. Just that Jupiter has one hell of a strong grav pull... And even if there was liquid oceans, that doesn't help our colonists, does it?
you make a lot of absolute statements (this is possible, blah blah). i'm sorry, but you have no basis for being so absolute. you don't know as much as you try to make yourself appear to. The world isn't going to end; we're not that lucky... |
Kyt Kraiten |
Posted - 2004.11.08 09:11:00 -
[79] Edited by: Kyt Kraiten on 08/11/2004 09:16:44
i was talking about dark colored material, like algae or sand. i probably should have been more clear.
yes, but that's exactly the point. create a denser atmosphere first, then convert that atmosphere.
spectrography analysis suggests that there is plenty.
obviously it'd be a gradual process, so it's not really that ironic in practice. as for the number/size of the mirrors, i agree that it would be an impressive engineering feat, but then, so would be terraforming an entire planet. i'm afraid that the colonization/terraforming of other worlds is going to be neccesary shortly. well, not really afraid.
there is not a single moon in the solar system that is a seething mass of molten rock. maybe you're thinking of IO, which is a solid moon that just happens to have the most volcanic activity of any body in the solar system. (doesn't mean it's surface is molten rock)
on the contrary, titan is very very much like early earth. it's atmospheric makeup is very similar, it's thought to have a liquid ocean of methane (and recent cassini radar data does show unusually flat areas which could indicate just that). earth now is not at it's coolest as it's ever been btw, unless you've forgotten the ice ages. not to mention the 'snowball earth' theory, which i don't put much stock in, but is interesting nonetheless. early earth atmosphere was CONSIDERABLY denser than today's atmosphere, a lot of it has dilluted, got trapped in rock and simply ran off into space. i am not familiar with the mass/gravity of titan so i can't really judge that, size shouldn't really matter (nor two times gravity) when it comes to evolving life. i very much doubt you could go on for hours.
the fact that these are A: really really deep *****s, and B: don't seem to just refreeze over but instead act just like they would if there was a liquid ocean underneath suggests that indeed, there is a liquid ocean underneath. and yes, it would help our colonists because it would supply them with a source of water (provided it's a water ocean). oh, and i don't make many absolute statements, i state possibilities, you state impossibilities. impossibilities tend to become possibilities as science progresses. ______________________________________ Have we sent the 'don't shoot we're pathetic' transmission yet? |
Kyt Kraiten |
Posted - 2004.11.08 09:11:00 -
[80] Edited by: Kyt Kraiten on 08/11/2004 09:16:44
i was talking about dark colored material, like algae or sand. i probably should have been more clear.
yes, but that's exactly the point. create a denser atmosphere first, then convert that atmosphere.
spectrography analysis suggests that there is plenty.
obviously it'd be a gradual process, so it's not really that ironic in practice. as for the number/size of the mirrors, i agree that it would be an impressive engineering feat, but then, so would be terraforming an entire planet. i'm afraid that the colonization/terraforming of other worlds is going to be neccesary shortly. well, not really afraid.
there is not a single moon in the solar system that is a seething mass of molten rock. maybe you're thinking of IO, which is a solid moon that just happens to have the most volcanic activity of any body in the solar system. (doesn't mean it's surface is molten rock)
on the contrary, titan is very very much like early earth. it's atmospheric makeup is very similar, it's thought to have a liquid ocean of methane (and recent cassini radar data does show unusually flat areas which could indicate just that). earth now is not at it's coolest as it's ever been btw, unless you've forgotten the ice ages. not to mention the 'snowball earth' theory, which i don't put much stock in, but is interesting nonetheless. early earth atmosphere was CONSIDERABLY denser than today's atmosphere, a lot of it has dilluted, got trapped in rock and simply ran off into space. i am not familiar with the mass/gravity of titan so i can't really judge that, size shouldn't really matter (nor two times gravity) when it comes to evolving life. i very much doubt you could go on for hours.
the fact that these are A: really really deep *****s, and B: don't seem to just refreeze over but instead act just like they would if there was a liquid ocean underneath suggests that indeed, there is a liquid ocean underneath. and yes, it would help our colonists because it would supply them with a source of water (provided it's a water ocean). oh, and i don't make many absolute statements, i state possibilities, you state impossibilities. impossibilities tend to become possibilities as science progresses. ______________________________________ Have we sent the 'don't shoot we're pathetic' transmission yet? |
Kyt Kraiten Sebiestor tribe |
Posted - 2004.11.08 09:11:00 -
[81] Edited by: Kyt Kraiten on 08/11/2004 09:16:44
i was talking about dark colored material, like algae or sand. i probably should have been more clear.
yes, but that's exactly the point. create a denser atmosphere first, then convert that atmosphere.
spectrography analysis suggests that there is plenty.
obviously it'd be a gradual process, so it's not really that ironic in practice. as for the number/size of the mirrors, i agree that it would be an impressive engineering feat, but then, so would be terraforming an entire planet. i'm afraid that the colonization/terraforming of other worlds is going to be neccesary shortly. well, not really afraid.
there is not a single moon in the solar system that is a seething mass of molten rock. maybe you're thinking of IO, which is a solid moon that just happens to have the most volcanic activity of any body in the solar system. (doesn't mean it's surface is molten rock)
on the contrary, titan is very very much like early earth. it's atmospheric makeup is very similar, it's thought to have a liquid ocean of methane (and recent cassini radar data does show unusually flat areas which could indicate just that). earth now is not at it's coolest as it's ever been btw, unless you've forgotten the ice ages. not to mention the 'snowball earth' theory, which i don't put much stock in, but is interesting nonetheless. early earth atmosphere was CONSIDERABLY denser than today's atmosphere, a lot of it has dilluted, got trapped in rock and simply ran off into space. i am not familiar with the mass/gravity of titan so i can't really judge that, size shouldn't really matter (nor two times gravity) when it comes to evolving life. i very much doubt you could go on for hours.
the fact that these are A: really really deep *****s, and B: don't seem to just refreeze over but instead act just like they would if there was a liquid ocean underneath suggests that indeed, there is a liquid ocean underneath. and yes, it would help our colonists because it would supply them with a source of water (provided it's a water ocean). oh, and i don't make many absolute statements, i state possibilities, you state impossibilities. impossibilities tend to become possibilities as science progresses. ______________________________________ Have we sent the 'don't shoot we're pathetic' transmission yet? |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.08 16:31:00 -
[82]
Convert it? I'm not even going to bother...
It has rivers of molten rock covering it and THE largest and most active volcanoes in the solar system. If that isn't seething, I don't know what is...
I was talking in relative time. The last ice age was what? 100,000 years ago? And Earth has existed for 4 billion...
Sorry? I thought we were talking about supporting HUMANS here...
I could, it just depends how fast you can read...
Uh... those could just as easily be formed by slurry or softer dirt deposits, which are also much more likely to exist.
Oh good! So ASSUMING that it's a water ocean, they're now all Ok, right? So they don't have to worry about is virtually no gravity, no air, sub-artic temperatures, intense radiation for half year and NO HEAT WHATSOEVER (as in, absolute zero) for the other half.
First off, I was talking about the chances of another planet supporting human life without the extensive use of technology. That is what the topic IS about... Secondly, all these planets/moons that COULD support life all require that this and this and this be true, just so that there COULD be a chance of some primitive cells existing or something. I'm being realistic, you're just hoping beyond hope. ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun! |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.08 16:31:00 -
[83]
Convert it? I'm not even going to bother...
It has rivers of molten rock covering it and THE largest and most active volcanoes in the solar system. If that isn't seething, I don't know what is...
I was talking in relative time. The last ice age was what? 100,000 years ago? And Earth has existed for 4 billion...
Sorry? I thought we were talking about supporting HUMANS here...
I could, it just depends how fast you can read...
Uh... those could just as easily be formed by slurry or softer dirt deposits, which are also much more likely to exist.
Oh good! So ASSUMING that it's a water ocean, they're now all Ok, right? So they don't have to worry about is virtually no gravity, no air, sub-artic temperatures, intense radiation for half year and NO HEAT WHATSOEVER (as in, absolute zero) for the other half.
First off, I was talking about the chances of another planet supporting human life without the extensive use of technology. That is what the topic IS about... Secondly, all these planets/moons that COULD support life all require that this and this and this be true, just so that there COULD be a chance of some primitive cells existing or something. I'm being realistic, you're just hoping beyond hope. ---------------- 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 - 2004.11.08 16:31:00 -
[84]
Convert it? I'm not even going to bother...
It has rivers of molten rock covering it and THE largest and most active volcanoes in the solar system. If that isn't seething, I don't know what is...
I was talking in relative time. The last ice age was what? 100,000 years ago? And Earth has existed for 4 billion...
Sorry? I thought we were talking about supporting HUMANS here...
I could, it just depends how fast you can read...
Uh... those could just as easily be formed by slurry or softer dirt deposits, which are also much more likely to exist.
Oh good! So ASSUMING that it's a water ocean, they're now all Ok, right? So they don't have to worry about is virtually no gravity, no air, sub-artic temperatures, intense radiation for half year and NO HEAT WHATSOEVER (as in, absolute zero) for the other half.
First off, I was talking about the chances of another planet supporting human life without the extensive use of technology. That is what the topic IS about... Secondly, all these planets/moons that COULD support life all require that this and this and this be true, just so that there COULD be a chance of some primitive cells existing or something. I'm being realistic, you're just hoping beyond hope. The world isn't going to end; we're not that lucky... |
Kyt Kraiten |
Posted - 2004.11.09 07:30:00 -
[85]
mock me as you must, but surely genetically engineered plant lifeforms might be able to do it.
it DOESN'T have rivers of molten rock covering it.
i was under the impression spectrography results indicated the presence of water in the ice. and if it's in the ice, it's likely to be in a liquid form underneath aswell/
don't be a muppet. i wasn't suggesting europa was terraformable.
you're not being realistic, you're being pessimistic. i'm being optimistic, the truth probably lies in between somewhere. |
Kyt Kraiten |
Posted - 2004.11.09 07:30:00 -
[86]
mock me as you must, but surely genetically engineered plant lifeforms might be able to do it.
it DOESN'T have rivers of molten rock covering it.
i was under the impression spectrography results indicated the presence of water in the ice. and if it's in the ice, it's likely to be in a liquid form underneath aswell/
don't be a muppet. i wasn't suggesting europa was terraformable.
you're not being realistic, you're being pessimistic. i'm being optimistic, the truth probably lies in between somewhere. |
Kyt Kraiten Sebiestor tribe |
Posted - 2004.11.09 07:30:00 -
[87]
mock me as you must, but surely genetically engineered plant lifeforms might be able to do it.
it DOESN'T have rivers of molten rock covering it.
i was under the impression spectrography results indicated the presence of water in the ice. and if it's in the ice, it's likely to be in a liquid form underneath aswell/
don't be a muppet. i wasn't suggesting europa was terraformable.
you're not being realistic, you're being pessimistic. i'm being optimistic, the truth probably lies in between somewhere. |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.09 17:13:00 -
[88]
It's an ELEMENT! Changing it would require taking it apart proton from neutron, and putting it back together again. That is pretty hard, impossible for anything cellular, and would take (even with ADVANCED technology) along time to do on a planetary scale.
Yes it does. And before you ask, lava is molten rock.
Nobody knows and can tell for sure at the moment, so lets just leave that at that.
Then what the hell were you suggesting? My head hurts, now...
So it's a difference of opinion. I can live with that. ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun! |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.09 17:13:00 -
[89]
It's an ELEMENT! Changing it would require taking it apart proton from neutron, and putting it back together again. That is pretty hard, impossible for anything cellular, and would take (even with ADVANCED technology) along time to do on a planetary scale.
Yes it does. And before you ask, lava is molten rock.
Nobody knows and can tell for sure at the moment, so lets just leave that at that.
Then what the hell were you suggesting? My head hurts, now...
So it's a difference of opinion. I can live with that. ---------------- 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 - 2004.11.09 17:13:00 -
[90]
It's an ELEMENT! Changing it would require taking it apart proton from neutron, and putting it back together again. That is pretty hard, impossible for anything cellular, and would take (even with ADVANCED technology) along time to do on a planetary scale.
Yes it does. And before you ask, lava is molten rock.
Nobody knows and can tell for sure at the moment, so lets just leave that at that.
Then what the hell were you suggesting? My head hurts, now...
So it's a difference of opinion. I can live with that. The world isn't going to end; we're not that lucky... |
Dark Shikari |
Posted - 2004.11.11 00:17:00 -
[91] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 11/11/2004 00:20:33 There are more than 5000 stars in EVE. There are only 5000 star systems with jumpgates. But there are most likely billions of others. And the reason we haven't found an earth-like planet is because our tech cannot even find earth-sized planets--the current consensus is that once we can, earth-like planets will pop up all over the place. An Earth-like planet is most likely common--an Earth-like planet with life is what is quite rare. -- The best description of alliances, ever: |
Dark Shikari |
Posted - 2004.11.11 00:17:00 -
[92] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 11/11/2004 00:20:33 There are more than 5000 stars in EVE. There are only 5000 star systems with jumpgates. But there are most likely billions of others. And the reason we haven't found an earth-like planet is because our tech cannot even find earth-sized planets--the current consensus is that once we can, earth-like planets will pop up all over the place. An Earth-like planet is most likely common--an Earth-like planet with life is what is quite rare. -- The best description of alliances, ever: |
 Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion |
Posted - 2004.11.11 00:17:00 -
[93] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 11/11/2004 00:20:33 There are more than 5000 stars in EVE. There are only 5000 star systems with jumpgates. But there are most likely billions of others. And the reason we haven't found an earth-like planet is because our tech cannot even find earth-sized planets--the current consensus is that once we can, earth-like planets will pop up all over the place. An Earth-like planet is most likely common--an Earth-like planet with life is what is quite rare. Listen to EVE-Trance Radio! (DSTrance channel ingame) |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.11 07:21:00 -
[94] Edited by: Nero Scuro on 11/11/2004 07:33:08
Actually, there are 5000 binary star systems in EVE. That's 10,000 stars. And even so, I didn't say the chances of a Earth like planet were low in a galaxy, I said they were low in EVE because it only has 5000 star systems. In a billion star systems, one or two Earth like planets (who knows, maybe more. Predictions vary, although they NEVER say that Earth like planets are in anyway common) star systems would probably exist.
I never said we could. I said that simulations predict that Earth like planets are not common. CERTAINLY not planets that humans could live on without heavy reliance on technology.
Actually, it's the opposite way around. No, really. ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun! |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.11 07:21:00 -
[95] Edited by: Nero Scuro on 11/11/2004 07:33:08
Actually, there are 5000 binary star systems in EVE. That's 10,000 stars. And even so, I didn't say the chances of a Earth like planet were low in a galaxy, I said they were low in EVE because it only has 5000 star systems. In a billion star systems, one or two Earth like planets (who knows, maybe more. Predictions vary, although they NEVER say that Earth like planets are in anyway common) star systems would probably exist.
I never said we could. I said that simulations predict that Earth like planets are not common. CERTAINLY not planets that humans could live on without heavy reliance on technology.
Actually, it's the opposite way around. No, really. ---------------- 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 - 2004.11.11 07:21:00 -
[96] Edited by: Nero Scuro on 11/11/2004 07:33:08
Actually, there are 5000 binary star systems in EVE. That's 10,000 stars. And even so, I didn't say the chances of a Earth like planet were low in a galaxy, I said they were low in EVE because it only has 5000 star systems. In a billion star systems, one or two Earth like planets (who knows, maybe more. Predictions vary, although they NEVER say that Earth like planets are in anyway common) star systems would probably exist.
I never said we could. I said that simulations predict that Earth like planets are not common. CERTAINLY not planets that humans could live on without heavy reliance on technology.
Actually, it's the opposite way around. No, really. The world isn't going to end; we're not that lucky... |
Kyt Kraiten |
Posted - 2004.11.12 19:23:00 -
[97]
not a claim you or anyone else can make as we have only one example. we have a detailed survey of only ONE solar system in which ONE earth like planet is found. ergo, the only odds calculation we can make put the chances of finding earth like planets at 1:1. obviously that's not the correct odds, which suggests what? NOTHING FOOL, we don't have enough data! When we've surveyed a couple of thousand, maybe million, systems, THEN, and ONLY then can we even BEGIN to calculate the odds of finding an earth like planet. cause right now, it's all conjecture. ______________________________________ Have we sent the 'don't shoot we're pathetic' transmission yet? |
Kyt Kraiten |
Posted - 2004.11.12 19:23:00 -
[98]
not a claim you or anyone else can make as we have only one example. we have a detailed survey of only ONE solar system in which ONE earth like planet is found. ergo, the only odds calculation we can make put the chances of finding earth like planets at 1:1. obviously that's not the correct odds, which suggests what? NOTHING FOOL, we don't have enough data! When we've surveyed a couple of thousand, maybe million, systems, THEN, and ONLY then can we even BEGIN to calculate the odds of finding an earth like planet. cause right now, it's all conjecture. ______________________________________ Have we sent the 'don't shoot we're pathetic' transmission yet? |
Kyt Kraiten Sebiestor tribe |
Posted - 2004.11.12 19:23:00 -
[99]
not a claim you or anyone else can make as we have only one example. we have a detailed survey of only ONE solar system in which ONE earth like planet is found. ergo, the only odds calculation we can make put the chances of finding earth like planets at 1:1. obviously that's not the correct odds, which suggests what? NOTHING FOOL, we don't have enough data! When we've surveyed a couple of thousand, maybe million, systems, THEN, and ONLY then can we even BEGIN to calculate the odds of finding an earth like planet. cause right now, it's all conjecture. ______________________________________ Have we sent the 'don't shoot we're pathetic' transmission yet? |
Bhurak |
Posted - 2004.11.12 21:53:00 -
[100] Just a question. It was stated that mitrogen in large quantities was poisonous. Is not our atmosphere 70% nitrogen? Seems to me that a large quantity of nitrogen is relatively benign. I think large quantities of oxygen would be more detrimental. Random Miner> Did you how steal my ore, lacked prospects or a bright future the thing you wanted me to take the fight airship to hit you |
Bhurak |
Posted - 2004.11.12 21:53:00 -
[101] Just a question. It was stated that mitrogen in large quantities was poisonous. Is not our atmosphere 70% nitrogen? Seems to me that a large quantity of nitrogen is relatively benign. I think large quantities of oxygen would be more detrimental. Random Miner> Did you how steal my ore, lacked prospects or a bright future the thing you wanted me to take the fight airship to hit you |
Bhurak Amarr Imperial Shipment |
Posted - 2004.11.12 21:53:00 -
[102] Just a question. It was stated that mitrogen in large quantities was poisonous. Is not our atmosphere 70% nitrogen? Seems to me that a large quantity of nitrogen is relatively benign. I think large quantities of oxygen would be more detrimental. Random Miner> Did you how steal my ore, lacked prospects or a bright future the thing you wanted me to take the fight airship to hit you |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.13 04:48:00 -
[103]
As I have already stated (what, 3 times now?) those are based of simulations. Official Nasa simulations based on basic probability and what we already know about other stars, plus the effects that certain different phenomena would have on a planet.
78% to be accurate, but it's lighter than air so it's mostly in our atmosphere. Mars doesn't really have an atmosphere though, so... ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun! |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.13 04:48:00 -
[104]
As I have already stated (what, 3 times now?) those are based of simulations. Official Nasa simulations based on basic probability and what we already know about other stars, plus the effects that certain different phenomena would have on a planet.
78% to be accurate, but it's lighter than air so it's mostly in our atmosphere. Mars doesn't really have an atmosphere though, so... ---------------- 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 - 2004.11.13 04:48:00 -
[105]
As I have already stated (what, 3 times now?) those are based of simulations. Official Nasa simulations based on basic probability and what we already know about other stars, plus the effects that certain different phenomena would have on a planet.
78% to be accurate, but it's lighter than air so it's mostly in our atmosphere. Mars doesn't really have an atmosphere though, so... The world isn't going to end; we're not that lucky... |
Kyt Kraiten |
Posted - 2004.11.13 09:38:00 -
[106]
|
Kyt Kraiten |
Posted - 2004.11.13 09:38:00 -
[107]
|
Kyt Kraiten Sebiestor tribe |
Posted - 2004.11.13 09:38:00 -
[108]
|
Jagaroth |
Posted - 2004.11.14 16:38:00 -
[109] How about Venus? We can't alter gravity (the principal problem with Mars)but we can alter heat, pressure and the chemical composition of an atmosphere. What do you pie-in-the-sky guys think of doing something with Venus? Or is that even less probable? ------ |
Jagaroth |
Posted - 2004.11.14 16:38:00 -
[110] How about Venus? We can't alter gravity (the principal problem with Mars)but we can alter heat, pressure and the chemical composition of an atmosphere. What do you pie-in-the-sky guys think of doing something with Venus? Or is that even less probable? ------ |
Jagaroth No Quarter. C0VEN |
Posted - 2004.11.14 16:38:00 -
[111] How about Venus? We can't alter gravity (the principal problem with Mars)but we can alter heat, pressure and the chemical composition of an atmosphere. What do you pie-in-the-sky guys think of doing something with Venus? Or is that even less probable? ------ |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.14 22:58:00 -
[112] Venus is even less probable. It has a runaway greenhouse affect, which means that you'd pretty much have to flush the entire atmosphere off the face of the planet and start again. Changing it would certainly be quite a task... But apparently Venus was once quite like Earth, until something went wrong (possibly volcanoes that spewed carbon dioxide into the air, which caused a chain reaction by increasing surface temperature which would then cause more carbon dioxide to be released, which would etc yada yada yada). And Venus' gravity is far worse than Mar's. I think... Maybe it's just surface pressure, I forget... >.> ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun! |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.14 22:58:00 -
[113] Venus is even less probable. It has a runaway greenhouse affect, which means that you'd pretty much have to flush the entire atmosphere off the face of the planet and start again. Changing it would certainly be quite a task... But apparently Venus was once quite like Earth, until something went wrong (possibly volcanoes that spewed carbon dioxide into the air, which caused a chain reaction by increasing surface temperature which would then cause more carbon dioxide to be released, which would etc yada yada yada). And Venus' gravity is far worse than Mar's. I think... Maybe it's just surface pressure, I forget... >.> ---------------- 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 - 2004.11.14 22:58:00 -
[114] Venus is even less probable. It has a runaway greenhouse affect, which means that you'd pretty much have to flush the entire atmosphere off the face of the planet and start again. Changing it would certainly be quite a task... But apparently Venus was once quite like Earth, until something went wrong (possibly volcanoes that spewed carbon dioxide into the air, which caused a chain reaction by increasing surface temperature which would then cause more carbon dioxide to be released, which would etc yada yada yada). And Venus' gravity is far worse than Mar's. I think... Maybe it's just surface pressure, I forget... >.> The world isn't going to end; we're not that lucky... |
Bhurak |
Posted - 2004.11.14 23:26:00 -
[115] surface pressure is about 90 times that of earth. Gravity difference is minor. Surfce temperature is ~480 Centigrade Atmosphere composition 96% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, 0.003% water vapor not much that can be done there i think Random Miner> Did you how steal my ore, lacked prospects or a bright future the thing you wanted me to take the fight airship to hit you |
Bhurak |
Posted - 2004.11.14 23:26:00 -
[116] surface pressure is about 90 times that of earth. Gravity difference is minor. Surfce temperature is ~480 Centigrade Atmosphere composition 96% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, 0.003% water vapor not much that can be done there i think Random Miner> Did you how steal my ore, lacked prospects or a bright future the thing you wanted me to take the fight airship to hit you |
Bhurak Amarr Imperial Shipment |
Posted - 2004.11.14 23:26:00 -
[117] surface pressure is about 90 times that of earth. Gravity difference is minor. Surfce temperature is ~480 Centigrade Atmosphere composition 96% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, 0.003% water vapor not much that can be done there i think Random Miner> Did you how steal my ore, lacked prospects or a bright future the thing you wanted me to take the fight airship to hit you |
Jagaroth |
Posted - 2004.11.16 00:47:00 -
[118] Ah no. I checked up the details. It has very weak gravity despite being the same size as Earth. Something to do with it rotating on its axis only once a year... :( And aside from the gravity, apparently all the oxygen is locked in the rocks... and all the hydrogen flew off into space several billion years ago. But apart from that... ------ |
Jagaroth |
Posted - 2004.11.16 00:47:00 -
[119] Ah no. I checked up the details. It has very weak gravity despite being the same size as Earth. Something to do with it rotating on its axis only once a year... :( And aside from the gravity, apparently all the oxygen is locked in the rocks... and all the hydrogen flew off into space several billion years ago. But apart from that... ------ |
Jagaroth No Quarter. C0VEN |
Posted - 2004.11.16 00:47:00 -
[120] Ah no. I checked up the details. It has very weak gravity despite being the same size as Earth. Something to do with it rotating on its axis only once a year... :( And aside from the gravity, apparently all the oxygen is locked in the rocks... and all the hydrogen flew off into space several billion years ago. But apart from that... ------ |
Kyt Kraiten |
Posted - 2004.11.16 08:35:00 -
[121] there are various designs to terraform venus that could work, though it would take signifcantly longer than to terraform mars. one method to terraform both planets is with self-replicating systems, http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/TerraformSRS1983.htm sagan originally proposed to terraform to terraform venus by seeding it's atmosphere with algae, but since his original proposals more information has been discovered on the planet that would make such an effort futile as it could take as much as a million years to have any success. newer proposals to deal with venus' atmosphere include ablating it away with myriad asteroidal impacts, to freezing it out with solar shields. incidentally nero, i did some checking around, and mars most definitely DOES have a magnetic field. http://www.spacedaily.com/mars/features/mgs-sci97a.html ______________________________________ Have we sent the 'don't shoot we're pathetic' transmission yet? |
Kyt Kraiten |
Posted - 2004.11.16 08:35:00 -
[122] there are various designs to terraform venus that could work, though it would take signifcantly longer than to terraform mars. one method to terraform both planets is with self-replicating systems, http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/TerraformSRS1983.htm sagan originally proposed to terraform to terraform venus by seeding it's atmosphere with algae, but since his original proposals more information has been discovered on the planet that would make such an effort futile as it could take as much as a million years to have any success. newer proposals to deal with venus' atmosphere include ablating it away with myriad asteroidal impacts, to freezing it out with solar shields. incidentally nero, i did some checking around, and mars most definitely DOES have a magnetic field. http://www.spacedaily.com/mars/features/mgs-sci97a.html ______________________________________ Have we sent the 'don't shoot we're pathetic' transmission yet? |
Kyt Kraiten Sebiestor tribe |
Posted - 2004.11.16 08:35:00 -
[123] there are various designs to terraform venus that could work, though it would take signifcantly longer than to terraform mars. one method to terraform both planets is with self-replicating systems, http://www.rfreitas.com/Astro/TerraformSRS1983.htm sagan originally proposed to terraform to terraform venus by seeding it's atmosphere with algae, but since his original proposals more information has been discovered on the planet that would make such an effort futile as it could take as much as a million years to have any success. newer proposals to deal with venus' atmosphere include ablating it away with myriad asteroidal impacts, to freezing it out with solar shields. incidentally nero, i did some checking around, and mars most definitely DOES have a magnetic field. http://www.spacedaily.com/mars/features/mgs-sci97a.html ______________________________________ Have we sent the 'don't shoot we're pathetic' transmission yet? |
Bhurak |
Posted - 2004.11.17 04:04:00 -
[124]
Venus Acceleration due to gravity : 8.83 m/s/s Earth acceleration due to gravity : 9.81 m/s/s 8.83/9.81 = .9 G Gravity difference negligible. Bhurak Random Miner> Did you how steal my ore, lacked prospects or a bright future the thing you wanted me to take the fight airship to hit you |
Bhurak |
Posted - 2004.11.17 04:04:00 -
[125]
Venus Acceleration due to gravity : 8.83 m/s/s Earth acceleration due to gravity : 9.81 m/s/s 8.83/9.81 = .9 G Gravity difference negligible. Bhurak Random Miner> Did you how steal my ore, lacked prospects or a bright future the thing you wanted me to take the fight airship to hit you |
Bhurak Amarr Imperial Shipment |
Posted - 2004.11.17 04:04:00 -
[126]
Venus Acceleration due to gravity : 8.83 m/s/s Earth acceleration due to gravity : 9.81 m/s/s 8.83/9.81 = .9 G Gravity difference negligible. Bhurak Random Miner> Did you how steal my ore, lacked prospects or a bright future the thing you wanted me to take the fight airship to hit you |
Jagaroth |
Posted - 2004.11.17 14:13:00 -
[127] My bad - I meant magnetic field. According to Wikipedia it's slow rotation is unlikely to be sufficient to drive an internal dynamo (despite it having similar core properties to Earth). So it's unshielded, making it a bit difficult to live on however much you change the atmosphere. It's also inordinately difficult to get to - I didn't really follow the physics, but I picked off this rather cool analogy: "One can imagine driving along a road next to a high, steep cliff with another road at the bottom; the journey from Earth to Venus is rather like swerving off the cliff, freefalling for some time, and then trying to land safely and merge with traffic on the lower road." ...So it would be rather hard to send large quantities of equipment that way without a major revolution in interstellar propulsion. ------ |
Jagaroth |
Posted - 2004.11.17 14:13:00 -
[128] My bad - I meant magnetic field. According to Wikipedia it's slow rotation is unlikely to be sufficient to drive an internal dynamo (despite it having similar core properties to Earth). So it's unshielded, making it a bit difficult to live on however much you change the atmosphere. It's also inordinately difficult to get to - I didn't really follow the physics, but I picked off this rather cool analogy: "One can imagine driving along a road next to a high, steep cliff with another road at the bottom; the journey from Earth to Venus is rather like swerving off the cliff, freefalling for some time, and then trying to land safely and merge with traffic on the lower road." ...So it would be rather hard to send large quantities of equipment that way without a major revolution in interstellar propulsion. ------ |
Jagaroth No Quarter. C0VEN |
Posted - 2004.11.17 14:13:00 -
[129] My bad - I meant magnetic field. According to Wikipedia it's slow rotation is unlikely to be sufficient to drive an internal dynamo (despite it having similar core properties to Earth). So it's unshielded, making it a bit difficult to live on however much you change the atmosphere. It's also inordinately difficult to get to - I didn't really follow the physics, but I picked off this rather cool analogy: "One can imagine driving along a road next to a high, steep cliff with another road at the bottom; the journey from Earth to Venus is rather like swerving off the cliff, freefalling for some time, and then trying to land safely and merge with traffic on the lower road." ...So it would be rather hard to send large quantities of equipment that way without a major revolution in interstellar propulsion. ------ |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.18 13:51:00 -
[130] Edited by: Nero Scuro on 19/11/2004 11:20:36 Kyt, Mar's magnetic field still isn't strong enough to stop you getting quite a few more rads than is healthy... It isn't even strong enough to power a (normal) compass. That's like saying the moon has an aptmosphere - true, but it's so small as to be neglible, the same as Mar's magnetic field... And those terraforming techniques are HEAVILY theoretical. True, they could become reality in the (far) future, but you could have said that 'some future stuff will make all your arguments not true!' from the get-go. I mean, you could argue that the people in EVE are genetically altered to breathe other 'airs' or survive harsh gravity and pressure, but that is hardly a solid argument, now is it? ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun! |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.18 13:51:00 -
[131] Edited by: Nero Scuro on 19/11/2004 11:20:36 Kyt, Mar's magnetic field still isn't strong enough to stop you getting quite a few more rads than is healthy... It isn't even strong enough to power a (normal) compass. That's like saying the moon has an aptmosphere - true, but it's so small as to be neglible, the same as Mar's magnetic field... And those terraforming techniques are HEAVILY theoretical. True, they could become reality in the (far) future, but you could have said that 'some future stuff will make all your arguments not true!' from the get-go. I mean, you could argue that the people in EVE are genetically altered to breathe other 'airs' or survive harsh gravity and pressure, but that is hardly a solid argument, now is it? ---------------- 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 - 2004.11.18 13:51:00 -
[132] Edited by: Nero Scuro on 19/11/2004 11:20:36 Kyt, Mar's magnetic field still isn't strong enough to stop you getting quite a few more rads than is healthy... It isn't even strong enough to power a (normal) compass. That's like saying the moon has an aptmosphere - true, but it's so small as to be neglible, the same as Mar's magnetic field... And those terraforming techniques are HEAVILY theoretical. True, they could become reality in the (far) future, but you could have said that 'some future stuff will make all your arguments not true!' from the get-go. I mean, you could argue that the people in EVE are genetically altered to breathe other 'airs' or survive harsh gravity and pressure, but that is hardly a solid argument, now is it? The world isn't going to end; we're not that lucky... |
Bhurak |
Posted - 2004.11.18 23:39:00 -
[133] The reason ther is no magnetic field as far as i can determine is that out planet (surprise surprise) has quite a few unlikely things happen. 1)struck by a mars sized chukc at just the right angle to throw a portion into orbit. 2) this portion formed a large moon 3) this moon helps keep the mantle molten, helping out the internal dynamo really, this planet is quite a marvel Random Miner> Did you how steal my ore, lacked prospects or a bright future the thing you wanted me to take the fight airship to hit you |
Bhurak |
Posted - 2004.11.18 23:39:00 -
[134] The reason ther is no magnetic field as far as i can determine is that out planet (surprise surprise) has quite a few unlikely things happen. 1)struck by a mars sized chukc at just the right angle to throw a portion into orbit. 2) this portion formed a large moon 3) this moon helps keep the mantle molten, helping out the internal dynamo really, this planet is quite a marvel Random Miner> Did you how steal my ore, lacked prospects or a bright future the thing you wanted me to take the fight airship to hit you |
Bhurak Amarr Imperial Shipment |
Posted - 2004.11.18 23:39:00 -
[135] The reason ther is no magnetic field as far as i can determine is that out planet (surprise surprise) has quite a few unlikely things happen. 1)struck by a mars sized chukc at just the right angle to throw a portion into orbit. 2) this portion formed a large moon 3) this moon helps keep the mantle molten, helping out the internal dynamo really, this planet is quite a marvel Random Miner> Did you how steal my ore, lacked prospects or a bright future the thing you wanted me to take the fight airship to hit you |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.19 11:21:00 -
[136]
Exactly. You won't find another planet with all the (unlikely) phenomena of Earth, and therefore you aren't likely to find another planet that could support Terrestrial life (beyond the oh-so resourceful but truthfully quite crappy bacteria). ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun! |
Nero Scuro |
Posted - 2004.11.19 11:21:00 -
[137]
Exactly. You won't find another planet with all the (unlikely) phenomena of Earth, and therefore you aren't likely to find another planet that could support Terrestrial life (beyond the oh-so resourceful but truthfully quite crappy bacteria). ---------------- 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 - 2004.11.19 11:21:00 -
[138]
Exactly. You won't find another planet with all the (unlikely) phenomena of Earth, and therefore you aren't likely to find another planet that could support Terrestrial life (beyond the oh-so resourceful but truthfully quite crappy bacteria). The world isn't going to end; we're not that lucky... |
Justin Cody |
Posted - 2004.12.23 19:03:00 -
[139] This thread has gotten seriously off topic...where's the moderator? |
Justin Cody |
Posted - 2004.12.23 19:03:00 -
[140] This thread has gotten seriously off topic...where's the moderator? |
 Justin Cody Caldari The Priory Shroud Of Darkness |
Posted - 2004.12.23 19:03:00 -
[141] This thread has gotten seriously off topic...where's the moderator? Remind people that profit is the difference between revenue and expense. This makes you look smart. Scott Adams |
Justin Cody |
Posted - 2004.12.23 19:09:00 -
[142] Edited by: Justin Cody on 23/12/2004 19:09:22 and just to clarify things, yes the odds of finding a planet or two that resemble earth in all of its exact specifications are unlikely, but not improbable or impossible. And for the sake of argument here lets not inject too much reality in to this game. I mean we are pilots jacked matrix style in to pods where we float in nutriet baths and have clones aged to perfection stored in vats across the galaxy where even our knowlege, and talents are preserved. As to social evolution...well its sci-fi and the whole premise is a post-apocalyptic recovery (Second Genesis) now thats over and we are expanding (Exodus). The recent tech explosion was only really possible thanks to jove intervention. If we want more detail I suggest we spam CCP with requests for official cannon in serious volume, or at least get a group of dedicated players together and with permission from CCP start making some. |
Justin Cody |
Posted - 2004.12.23 19:09:00 -
[143] Edited by: Justin Cody on 23/12/2004 19:09:22 and just to clarify things, yes the odds of finding a planet or two that resemble earth in all of its exact specifications are unlikely, but not improbable or impossible. And for the sake of argument here lets not inject too much reality in to this game. I mean we are pilots jacked matrix style in to pods where we float in nutriet baths and have clones aged to perfection stored in vats across the galaxy where even our knowlege, and talents are preserved. As to social evolution...well its sci-fi and the whole premise is a post-apocalyptic recovery (Second Genesis) now thats over and we are expanding (Exodus). The recent tech explosion was only really possible thanks to jove intervention. If we want more detail I suggest we spam CCP with requests for official cannon in serious volume, or at least get a group of dedicated players together and with permission from CCP start making some. |
Justin Cody Caldari The Priory Shroud Of Darkness |
Posted - 2004.12.23 19:09:00 -
[144] Edited by: Justin Cody on 23/12/2004 19:09:22 and just to clarify things, yes the odds of finding a planet or two that resemble earth in all of its exact specifications are unlikely, but not improbable or impossible. And for the sake of argument here lets not inject too much reality in to this game. I mean we are pilots jacked matrix style in to pods where we float in nutriet baths and have clones aged to perfection stored in vats across the galaxy where even our knowlege, and talents are preserved. As to social evolution...well its sci-fi and the whole premise is a post-apocalyptic recovery (Second Genesis) now thats over and we are expanding (Exodus). The recent tech explosion was only really possible thanks to jove intervention. If we want more detail I suggest we spam CCP with requests for official cannon in serious volume, or at least get a group of dedicated players together and with permission from CCP start making some. Remind people that profit is the difference between revenue and expense. This makes you look smart. Scott Adams |
Jagaroth |
Posted - 2004.12.30 21:30:00 -
[145] I'd go for that - it would have to be centrally moderated, but I think there are some little touches that the game would benefit from. The one thing I have in mind particularly is the description box for certain planets. Now I can understand that an average icy moon in the back end of beyond should be described as "Moon (Ice)", but when I fly up to New Caldari Prime and see "Planet (Solid)" I get a bit peeved. I can see the cities on the surface!!! So there's a story there and I think the description box for (some of) the planets could be filled in by players. There's a massive number of them, but it would make the game that much more interesting. It would also give CCP an opportunity to add some little clues here and there about "the unlikely collapse of civilisation in EvE". ( back on topic!)------ |
Jagaroth |
Posted - 2004.12.30 21:30:00 -
[146] I'd go for that - it would have to be centrally moderated, but I think there are some little touches that the game would benefit from. The one thing I have in mind particularly is the description box for certain planets. Now I can understand that an average icy moon in the back end of beyond should be described as "Moon (Ice)", but when I fly up to New Caldari Prime and see "Planet (Solid)" I get a bit peeved. I can see the cities on the surface!!! So there's a story there and I think the description box for (some of) the planets could be filled in by players. There's a massive number of them, but it would make the game that much more interesting. It would also give CCP an opportunity to add some little clues here and there about "the unlikely collapse of civilisation in EvE". ( back on topic!)------ |
Jagaroth No Quarter. C0VEN |
Posted - 2004.12.30 21:30:00 -
[147] I'd go for that - it would have to be centrally moderated, but I think there are some little touches that the game would benefit from. The one thing I have in mind particularly is the description box for certain planets. Now I can understand that an average icy moon in the back end of beyond should be described as "Moon (Ice)", but when I fly up to New Caldari Prime and see "Planet (Solid)" I get a bit peeved. I can see the cities on the surface!!! So there's a story there and I think the description box for (some of) the planets could be filled in by players. There's a massive number of them, but it would make the game that much more interesting. It would also give CCP an opportunity to add some little clues here and there about "the unlikely collapse of civilisation in EvE". ( back on topic!)------ |
Erai |
Posted - 2004.12.31 14:48:00 -
[148]
Second that! And to get off topic just a little more again, in the Traveller PnP RPG almost every planet in a galaxy as big as Eve's has at least some kind of specification. Small example here. Without going into what the specs mean exactly, there's a little info about planet mass, population, development, atmosphere, legality and other fluff. I wondered from the start why something like this was not in Eve from the start- semi-random values for every moon or planet, should take no more then 20k of code, I should think (as a non-programmer) But as for the unlikelyness of the collapse of civilisation, yeah, I can see the point- a part of a galaxy with so many planets able to support human life without having been terraformed for a couple of centuries... well, it could happen, but it would be one amazing stroke of luck for us! (I mean, Gallente, Amarr, Udorians, Intaki, Mannar, Caldari, Minmatar, all initially living on Earth-ish planets within what appears to be a few parsecs from each other, then I can see why the Amarr and sisters of Eve are so religious  But I think that backgroundstories for games/ settings like Eve should be built up from a very basic clichÚ- keeps it easy and recognisable for a large group of people. And the story that is being built on Eve's basic foundation is pretty amazingly rich and enjoyable- so I am not complaining ------------------------------------------ My bio |
Erai |
Posted - 2004.12.31 14:48:00 -
[149]
Second that! And to get off topic just a little more again, in the Traveller PnP RPG almost every planet in a galaxy as big as Eve's has at least some kind of specification. Small example here. Without going into what the specs mean exactly, there's a little info about planet mass, population, development, atmosphere, legality and other fluff. I wondered from the start why something like this was not in Eve from the start- semi-random values for every moon or planet, should take no more then 20k of code, I should think (as a non-programmer) But as for the unlikelyness of the collapse of civilisation, yeah, I can see the point- a part of a galaxy with so many planets able to support human life without having been terraformed for a couple of centuries... well, it could happen, but it would be one amazing stroke of luck for us! (I mean, Gallente, Amarr, Udorians, Intaki, Mannar, Caldari, Minmatar, all initially living on Earth-ish planets within what appears to be a few parsecs from each other, then I can see why the Amarr and sisters of Eve are so religious But I think that backgroundstories for games/ settings like Eve should be built up from a very basic clichÚ- keeps it easy and recognisable for a large group of people. And the story that is being built on Eve's basic foundation is pretty amazingly rich and enjoyable- so I am not complaining ------------------------------------------ My bio |
 Erai Minmatar |
Posted - 2004.12.31 14:48:00 -
[150]
Second that! And to get off topic just a little more again, in the Traveller PnP RPG almost every planet in a galaxy as big as Eve's has at least some kind of specification. Small example here. Without going into what the specs mean exactly, there's a little info about planet mass, population, development, atmosphere, legality and other fluff. I wondered from the start why something like this was not in Eve from the start- semi-random values for every moon or planet, should take no more then 20k of code, I should think (as a non-programmer) But as for the unlikelyness of the collapse of civilisation, yeah, I can see the point- a part of a galaxy with so many planets able to support human life without having been terraformed for a couple of centuries... well, it could happen, but it would be one amazing stroke of luck for us! (I mean, Gallente, Amarr, Udorians, Intaki, Mannar, Caldari, Minmatar, all initially living on Earth-ish planets within what appears to be a few parsecs from each other, then I can see why the Amarr and sisters of Eve are so religious But I think that backgroundstories for games/ settings like Eve should be built up from a very basic clichT- keeps it easy and recognisable for a large group of people. And the story that is being built on Eve's basic foundation is pretty amazingly rich and enjoyable- so I am not complaining ------------------------------------------ My bio |
Lygos |
Posted - 2004.12.31 22:01:00 -
[151] Well, I'm can't see much point in focusing on astrogeology or xenochemistry. While the the effect of the amount of surface minerals available to a recovering civilization, perhaps even our own, is stimulating.. I question whether this falls under a discussion on History. When I look at the history of human activity, I try not to dwell on what seems to have been possible from my advanced perspective. I don't think that dialectical shifts occur even today according to what we think is possible. Rather, I believe that both people today and people engaged in mystifying mass endeavors of the past (early 20th century Europe anyone?) are always focusing on what seems necessary. When we say that history is lost, it doesn't mean it ceases to exist and will flower as soon as evidence of it is "discovered." We lose history all the time. Look at the Greek dark ages. We are still a little puzzled by that, and moreso by what emerged immediately after it. History gets forgotten and pieces of it preferenced and heavilly modified to contemporary social necessities. The history of the development of Desire is equally or more important than the development of the expansion of the possible. Certain agendas simply became even more remote for the colonists. They ceased to be colonists when the gate closed within a single generation. There are no colonies if there is no on which to be dependent. Thus they would abandon that focus. No person travels to the stars just to visit. It's likely that the scattered colonies would only consolidate into cohesive empires under threat. You can bet there were pirates well before 8000 years had passed. If history is the collection of ideas as much as the kinetic history of people, extrapolate from today's information explosion to the 79th generation. The milky way civilization(s) were probably losing history even then at a phenomenal pace. Even with technology, the expansion of civilization would mean the vows of even the most organized nations would become like the promises of four year olds. That is, written on the wind. It might well take a few thousand years for a focused enough set of social meta-narratives to grip a society with the fervor necessary to bring about history that seems relative to the contemporary, and rather centralized, eve-bound society. In time, this too shall pass. |
Lygos |
Posted - 2004.12.31 22:01:00 -
[152] Well, I'm can't see much point in focusing on astrogeology or xenochemistry. While the the effect of the amount of surface minerals available to a recovering civilization, perhaps even our own, is stimulating.. I question whether this falls under a discussion on History. When I look at the history of human activity, I try not to dwell on what seems to have been possible from my advanced perspective. I don't think that dialectical shifts occur even today according to what we think is possible. Rather, I believe that both people today and people engaged in mystifying mass endeavors of the past (early 20th century Europe anyone?) are always focusing on what seems necessary. When we say that history is lost, it doesn't mean it ceases to exist and will flower as soon as evidence of it is "discovered." We lose history all the time. Look at the Greek dark ages. We are still a little puzzled by that, and moreso by what emerged immediately after it. History gets forgotten and pieces of it preferenced and heavilly modified to contemporary social necessities. The history of the development of Desire is equally or more important than the development of the expansion of the possible. Certain agendas simply became even more remote for the colonists. They ceased to be colonists when the gate closed within a single generation. There are no colonies if there is no on which to be dependent. Thus they would abandon that focus. No person travels to the stars just to visit. It's likely that the scattered colonies would only consolidate into cohesive empires under threat. You can bet there were pirates well before 8000 years had passed. If history is the collection of ideas as much as the kinetic history of people, extrapolate from today's information explosion to the 79th generation. The milky way civilization(s) were probably losing history even then at a phenomenal pace. Even with technology, the expansion of civilization would mean the vows of even the most organized nations would become like the promises of four year olds. That is, written on the wind. It might well take a few thousand years for a focused enough set of social meta-narratives to grip a society with the fervor necessary to bring about history that seems relative to the contemporary, and rather centralized, eve-bound society. In time, this too shall pass. |
 Lygos Amarr ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate |
Posted - 2004.12.31 22:01:00 -
[153] Well, I'm can't see much point in focusing on astrogeology or xenochemistry. While the the effect of the amount of surface minerals available to a recovering civilization, perhaps even our own, is stimulating.. I question whether this falls under a discussion on History. When I look at the history of human activity, I try not to dwell on what seems to have been possible from my advanced perspective. I don't think that dialectical shifts occur even today according to what we think is possible. Rather, I believe that both people today and people engaged in mystifying mass endeavors of the past (early 20th century Europe anyone?) are always focusing on what seems necessary. When we say that history is lost, it doesn't mean it ceases to exist and will flower as soon as evidence of it is "discovered." We lose history all the time. Look at the Greek dark ages. We are still a little puzzled by that, and moreso by what emerged immediately after it. History gets forgotten and pieces of it preferenced and heavilly modified to contemporary social necessities. The history of the development of Desire is equally or more important than the development of the expansion of the possible. Certain agendas simply became even more remote for the colonists. They ceased to be colonists when the gate closed within a single generation. There are no colonies if there is no on which to be dependent. Thus they would abandon that focus. No person travels to the stars just to visit. It's likely that the scattered colonies would only consolidate into cohesive empires under threat. You can bet there were pirates well before 8000 years had passed. If history is the collection of ideas as much as the kinetic history of people, extrapolate from today's information explosion to the 79th generation. The milky way civilization(s) were probably losing history even then at a phenomenal pace. Even with technology, the expansion of civilization would mean the vows of even the most organized nations would become like the promises of four year olds. That is, written on the wind. It might well take a few thousand years for a focused enough set of social meta-narratives to grip a society with the fervor necessary to bring about history that seems relative to the contemporary, and rather centralized, eve-bound society. In time, this too shall pass. --- T2 Risk | Corp Divisions |
Shira d'Radonis |
Posted - 2005.01.24 18:25:00 -
[154] Well, I think that the Eve Gate clearly had more of an impact than just destroying systems... I mean, it was a tunnel through space. It was very closely woven into the fabric of the universe as are our minds... it is quite possible that the massive universal upheaval caused a great deal of mental lapsing and disorientation that through these societies back into the dark ages... they'd only have the relics left behind to give them an idea of what was before. And if the sort of cosmic mental retardation was severe enough, they might not necessarily be able to read their own language anymore... making all data libraries completely useless and unrecognizable to them. ----------------------------------------------- ôàquod ad ius naturale attinet, omnes homines aequales suntö |
 Shira d'Radonis Amarr Minmatar United Freedom Front Electus Matari |
Posted - 2005.01.24 18:25:00 -
[155] Well, I think that the Eve Gate clearly had more of an impact than just destroying systems... I mean, it was a tunnel through space. It was very closely woven into the fabric of the universe as are our minds... it is quite possible that the massive universal upheaval caused a great deal of mental lapsing and disorientation that through these societies back into the dark ages... they'd only have the relics left behind to give them an idea of what was before. And if the sort of cosmic mental retardation was severe enough, they might not necessarily be able to read their own language anymore... making all data libraries completely useless and unrecognizable to them. ----------------------------------------------- ôàquod ad ius naturale attinet, omnes homines aequales suntö "Our histories, one day, will absolve me..." - Shira d'Radonis |
Shimatu |
Posted - 2005.01.24 22:53:00 -
[156]
i'm not sure, but i dont think they were expecting so much damage... i mean, think what new eden (i think thats the name of the eve-gate system) is like now, 8000 years later. what if they were expecting a nice steady shut down of the wormhole, and instead its ripped apart the whole solar system, full of all of their main bases and everything? 3-I's T2 sales can be found HERE |
 Shimatu Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Dusk and Dawn |
Posted - 2005.01.24 22:53:00 -
[157]
i'm not sure, but i dont think they were expecting so much damage... i mean, think what new eden (i think thats the name of the eve-gate system) is like now, 8000 years later. what if they were expecting a nice steady shut down of the wormhole, and instead its ripped apart the whole solar system, full of all of their main bases and everything? 3-I's T2 sales can be found HERE |
d'hofren |
Posted - 2005.01.28 13:19:00 -
[158] This was a great thread for wasting a friday afternoon, congrats to all. Re: the gates. You only build a road where there is a requirement for travel between two points. I would presume that Jump Gates are similar. There may well be a lot of barren systems in the universe which have little to merit the construction of gates.. I had always presumed that the systems with gates were those thet were either transit routes, rich in minerals or contained habitable planets, moons or structures. |
 d'hofren Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire |
Posted - 2005.01.28 13:19:00 -
[159] This was a great thread for wasting a friday afternoon, congrats to all. Re: the gates. You only build a road where there is a requirement for travel between two points. I would presume that Jump Gates are similar. There may well be a lot of barren systems in the universe which have little to merit the construction of gates.. I had always presumed that the systems with gates were those thet were either transit routes, rich in minerals or contained habitable planets, moons or structures. |
Xavier Cardde |
Posted - 2005.02.04 15:34:00 -
[160]
Nitrogen isnt a trace element... it is the main ingredient in air. |
 Xavier Cardde Deep Core Mining Inc. |
Posted - 2005.02.04 15:34:00 -
[161]
Nitrogen isnt a trace element... it is the main ingredient in air. |
Xavier Cardde |
Posted - 2005.02.04 22:46:00 -
[162]
Yes you will... http://www.futurehi.net/archives/000168.html Read that and you will find that even if a earth type planet happened only once every trillion trillion galaxies there would still be BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of earth type worlds |
Xavier Cardde Deep Core Mining Inc. |
Posted - 2005.02.04 22:46:00 -
[163]
Yes you will... http://www.futurehi.net/archives/000168.html Read that and you will find that even if a earth type planet happened only once every trillion trillion galaxies there would still be BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of earth type worlds |
Justin Cody |
Posted - 2005.02.08 05:13:00 -
[164] Cheers to whomever finds a second world like our own ============= |
Justin Cody Caldari The Priory Shroud Of Darkness |
Posted - 2005.02.08 05:13:00 -
[165] Cheers to whomever finds a second world like our own ============= Remind people that profit is the difference between revenue and expense. This makes you look smart. Scott Adams |
 Leo Claw |
Posted - 2007.01.18 20:39:00 -
[166] Edited by: Leo Claw on 18/01/2007 20:42:01 "Oh how closed minded man is when he tries to think outside the realm of his own known existance" That was said by one of the worlds most remarked sciencists ever to live. Give you a whole quarter if you can guess who? 'Oh boy a whole quarter' lol... The endless possibilities that come to my mind when I think of life, and of course not restricting that life to as we know it, is endless. We tend to think of life as on out own planet, however there are billions of ways life could have evolved on another planet. Methane life, complete Nitrogen based life, even yes Radioactive dependent life. The possibilities are endless. Now going back to the discussion at hand. We are just fully beginning to understand our own life and past. Evolution as we know it has changed so much. It use to be believed that evolution happens over the course of many hundreds, even thousands of years, however, only recently has that understanding changed a little. It's happened with the study of insect and fish life. There are thousands of knew insect life discovered yearly, and hundreds of new fish life as well. At first people thought is because we just haven't discovered everything there is to, how can you with as much life as there is here? However DNA has shown that this might not be the case, it could be evolution at work right in front of our eyes and we just never really seen it. A new theory states that, even though it may have taken thousands of years for the impact of an evolutionary link to effect out whole planets race, that change true only took one birth. What we would call a genetic defect. Eve and the collaspe and rise theory is completely plausible when you take into consideration that EVE even says that all races have differences in their genetic make up, IE evolving to their new environments. It is theory that in a case where were move to a new planet. One that might be able to sustain our life, however not completely. While we lived there with Technologies help we'd be fine. Take that away and force us to have to survive on that planet and we'd downgrade in our evolution first then start to evolve again in a forward motion better suited for that planet. No it would could take some hundread to thousand years for that link to appear. Or maybe it could appear as simple as going to the bathroom, the point is, is we don't know and are truly only begin to scrap the bottom of our own barrel called Earth. The full truth is anything is possible as long as it conforms to physics. |
 Frezik Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire |
Posted - 2007.01.18 22:47:00 -
[167] Edited by: Frezik on 18/01/2007 22:44:38
Energy wouldn't have been a problem. Once you have a cheep, reliable way to escape a planet's gravity well, you open up a lot of renewable energy source. Orbital solar arrays can beam energy down with microwave emitters. Hydrogen harvested from gas giants can be put into fuel cells. Some gas giants (like Jupiter) may have such a strong magnetic field that you can pluck energy out of the air. The problems likely came from a lack of other natural resources, such as metals, without the industrial capacity to get them without trade.
All together? Never, but until the 19th/20th century, humanity was segmented enough that a downfall of one civilization wouldn't affect others. This isn't the same situation today, or what is described in Eve history. The European dark age was hardly the only dark age, though. Greece went through a dark age of its own around 1000 BC. During this time, they lost their original written language (the new one borrowed its alphabet from the Phoenicians), and artwork become much simpler. Edit: woah, didn't catch the major necro-post here. |
 James Duar Merch Industrial |
Posted - 2007.01.19 08:48:00 -
[168] I'd like to contribute a little bit of commentary here. By day, I'm a science student. My degree program is in nanotechnology. That's pretty advanced. I can drive STM tips around and manipulate atoms on the atomic level, synthesize organic compounds and construct enzyme biosensors. The only way I can do any of this, hell, even my professors, can do any of this, is because of all the technology we have already, that can be bought. An STM needs piezoelectric crystals, of a very high grade, that are made in a factory in the US. Synthesizing new compounds requires me to be able to buy high quality precursors which are made from simple oil-derived compounds, it requires glassware, IR spectrometers, NMR scanners which use superconducting coils for their magnets, mass spectrometers. The things I just outlined, are fairly easily accomplished, but they can't be done without all that support technology, and while I know how it works it would take me a life time to even begin to recreate it from scratch. This is the sort of situation I imagine the colonies were in after the EVE gate slapped shut. They had the technology, they had ships, they probably had quite a bit of know-how. But they were still dependant on support technology to make it work. When their warp drives broke they rebuilt them from spare parts. When they ran out of parts they probably went to their labs to try and fix them. They were probably successful, but their resources began to run low. Nano-repairers probably kept working for decades, but eventually they began to wear out, and they realized they just didn't have some seemingly insignificant set of components needed to keep the machine going that normally made more. I would be totally unsurprised if in fact post-collapse technology worked for decades, or even centuries afterwards. But it would've been perilous. Maybe your colony keeps going because you have a fusion reactor and an ocean on your planet. But you don't extensive mining yet. You can't make the alloys and filters needed to purify deuterium and lithium to keep it going. One day a nanoporous filter breaks from wear. The reactor keeps going, but you can't make deuterium for it any more. You have a decades supply of fuel, but you can't make more. The reactor goes dead despite your best efforts. The lights fail. The air turns off. And a colony with a bunch of excellent examples of modern technology dies amidst the chaos. |
 Mekiel Draneri Amarr |
Posted - 2007.01.20 02:20:00 -
[169] Edited by: Mekiel Draneri on 20/01/2007 02:17:34 Tech surviving long after the collapse can be seen on the Caldari timline. It took 314 years for the automatic terraforming process to make the air breathable, 246 of which were after the collapse (unless their methods didnt use tech, which seems unlikely). |
 Deviana Sevidon Gallente easyCredits |
Posted - 2007.01.20 09:53:00 -
[170] A major Necro, but an interesting topic Another problem is the preservation of knowledge over centuries and even millenia. The papers we are using today become in a few decades completely brown and unreadable. magnetic or optical media also do not last forever and of course, you need an electronic device to read their content. If you have a library full of holographic disks, each filled with detailed blueprints, learning materials etc. but all your computers failed due to lack of power or spare parts, then you have a problem. It becomes impossible to access the information stored and you have only what you have stored in your memory or perhaps printed out. What would happen if some parts of our computers fail? Well, we would order a sparepart (mainboard, graphic-card or whatever) and change it. But what would happen if it becomes impossible to order new parts? The Civilisations of EVE had the same problem when, the gate collapsed. Just a few years away from building up self sufficient civilisations, they were thrown into a stone age. Actually some of the more advanced colonies survived the collapse and might even have flourished for a while. The Jovian, the Einheduanni, the Talocan, the Jin-Mei and perhaps more. And while they ancestors of the current 4 large empires were struggling for survival, these civilisations flourished. They might even have tried to help those colonies that collapsed during the EVE-Gate closure, which might have let for example to the legends of divine favour among the Amarr. Eventually even the Civilisations of Talocan and the Jin-Mei failed or they simply moved on to another part of the universe. In the end, only the Jovians and maybe some Einheduanni were left of the first independant EVE-Civilisations. At that time came the rise of the Gallente, Caldari, Minmatar and Amarr. Now the cycle begins anew... Huitzilopochtli did not like my Sig :( |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] | |
Quote:| Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,09s, ref 20251014/0615 EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP. |
| 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. |