EVE Search - Why do I still have toes?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Why do I still have toes?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
PotatoOverdose Caldari Royal Black Watch Highlanders Warped Aggression	Posted - 2011.07.26 13:17:00 - [91] With our current knowledge it is possible to say the following. 1) Quantum Mechanics does not explicitly forbid a wormhole from existing. In other words wormholes do not contradict the current known laws of physics, but they've also never been observed. 2) If a wormhole exists, it could in theory connect any two points of space-time. The concept of space-time is rather important here. A wormhole could, hypothetically connect point A in our solar system in the year 2011 with point B in the Andromeda galaxy in the year 35863487. Note that this would be a one-way wormhole from Point A to point B and no information (or anything else) could travel from B to A. Given the above, one could assume (or modify eve lore) that the original EVE wormhole linked terran space from w/e year to EVE space hundreds of billions of years later, which explains why you still have toes. Maybe.
Edel Held	Posted - 2011.07.26 13:20:00 - [92] Originally by: BellaDonna Nyghtshade BWAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAh I'm glad I made you happy =)
Edel Held	Posted - 2011.07.26 13:23:00 - [93] Originally by: PotatoOverdose With our current knowledge it is possible to say the following. 300bil years - I wonder if its even possible for the stars to live that long?
De'Veldrin Minmatar Norse'Storm Battle Group Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.07.26 14:00:00 - [94] Originally by: Edel Held Originally by: PotatoOverdose With our current knowledge it is possible to say the following. 300bil years - I wonder if its even possible for the stars to live that long? According to my old astronomy text, stars typically live from roughly 3x10^6 upwards to about 2x10^12 years. (3 million to about 2 trillion years, give or take), so yes, it is possible that some stars could survive that long, but they would be the smallest and dimmest of the lot (roughly half the size of the sun or smaller). Fortunately, the Universe is constantly making new stars, so unless the universe went out completely, there'd be some crop of stars to look at, even if they weren't the same ones. (Putting aside the idea that we live in an ever expanding universe that will eventually suffer from a thermo-dynamic heat death for the sake of the argument about an in-game universe)
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.26 14:20:00 - [95] Originally by: PotatoOverdose The concept of space-time is rather important here. A wormhole could, hypothetically connect point A in our solar system in the year 2011 with point B in the Andromeda galaxy in the year 35863487. Note that this would be a one-way wormhole from Point A to point B and no information (or anything else) could travel from B to A. I think it's science fiction to assume that wormholes can be used to travel into the future, in theory it may be possible to use relativistic time dilation to travel back in time, but that would not work for traveling into the future.
Nerodon Gallente Incapsulated Reality	Posted - 2011.07.26 16:09:00 - [96] Originally by: dexington Originally by: PotatoOverdose The concept of space-time is rather important here. A wormhole could, hypothetically connect point A in our solar system in the year 2011 with point B in the Andromeda galaxy in the year 35863487. Note that this would be a one-way wormhole from Point A to point B and no information (or anything else) could travel from B to A. I think it's science fiction to assume that wormholes can be used to travel into the future, in theory it may be possible to use relativistic time dilation to travel back in time, but that would not work for traveling into the future. If you consider the limits of information travel (Which is basically the light speed barrier), in theory, faster than light communication is impossible due to causality violations (This can happen in many ways, such as Ship goes into wormhole, and comes back to tell the tale). Maybe the wormhole moves its travelers instantaneously, but must project them at a future time relative to the distance in order to preserve causality. That would be the effective equivalent of moving at light speed to the destination, which could take a VERY long time depending on where you want to go, as well as compensate for the ever accelerating expansion of the universe. This may be science fiction, but would make sense, without going into heavy math.
Ingvar Angst Amarr Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United	Posted - 2011.07.26 16:43:00 - [97] Originally by: Nth Ares What a thread. Has anyone paused to consider that the numbers might be a typo? 6.7 billion years, not 67? 35 billion, not 350? There could also be some linguistic confusion as to what the term "billion" means. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales. Million would make a lot more sense.
Edel Held	Posted - 2011.07.26 17:32:00 - [98] Originally by: De'Veldrin According to my old astronomy text, stars typically live from roughly 3x10^6 upwards to about 2x10^12 years. (3 million to about 2 trillion years, give or take), ... Thank you for the answer =) Maybe that text is too old to be relevant? 'cos 2trills is kinda too much for me =)
De'Veldrin Minmatar Norse'Storm Battle Group Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2011.07.26 17:51:00 - [99] Originally by: Edel Held Originally by: De'Veldrin According to my old astronomy text, stars typically live from roughly 3x10^6 upwards to about 2x10^12 years. (3 million to about 2 trillion years, give or take), ... Thank you for the answer =) Maybe that text is too old to be relevant? 'cos 2trills is kinda too much for me =) It is entirely possible. My last university astronomy course was in 1997. After all, our observable universe is only 13-ish billion years old, so star ages in the trillions are most likely based on the mathematical models available at the time the text was published.
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.26 17:54:00 - [100] Originally by: Nerodon Originally by: dexington Originally by: PotatoOverdose The concept of space-time is rather important here. A wormhole could, hypothetically connect point A in our solar system in the year 2011 with point B in the Andromeda galaxy in the year 35863487. Note that this would be a one-way wormhole from Point A to point B and no information (or anything else) could travel from B to A. I think it's science fiction to assume that wormholes can be used to travel into the future, in theory it may be possible to use relativistic time dilation to travel back in time, but that would not work for traveling into the future. If you consider the limits of information travel (Which is basically the light speed barrier), in theory, faster than light communication is impossible due to causality violations (This can happen in many ways, such as Ship goes into wormhole, and comes back to tell the tale). Maybe the wormhole moves its travelers instantaneously, but must project them at a future time relative to the distance in order to preserve causality. That would be the effective equivalent of moving at light speed to the destination, which could take a VERY long time depending on where you want to go, as well as compensate for the ever accelerating expansion of the universe. This may be science fiction, but would make sense, without going into heavy math. I'm not sure i follow you, wormholes would allow faster then light travel if you compare the wormhole distance from point a to b with the normal distance. I still don't see how that would make you travel into the future.

dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.26 18:09:00 - [101] Originally by: De'Veldrin After all, our observable universe is only 13-ish billion years old, so star ages in the trillions are most likely based on the mathematical models available at the time the text was published. It is probably red or brown dwarfs, of which the smallest are believed to be able to burn for up to 10 trillion years, but they are not you typical star.
PotatoOverdose Caldari Royal Black Watch Highlanders Warped Aggression	Posted - 2011.07.26 18:30:00 - [102] Originally by: dexington Originally by: PotatoOverdose The concept of space-time is rather important here. A wormhole could, hypothetically connect point A in our solar system in the year 2011 with point B in the Andromeda galaxy in the year 35863487. Note that this would be a one-way wormhole from Point A to point B and no information (or anything else) could travel from B to A. I think it's science fiction to assume that wormholes can be used to travel into the future, in theory it may be possible to use relativistic time dilation to travel back in time, but that would not work for traveling into the future. I'm afraid you've gotten it quite backwards. In point of fact traveling into the future is quite trivial. Special Relativity tells us that time dilation occurs at either extreme velocities or locations with excessive gravitational forces in play. Say your Traveling at 0.9c to Alpha Centauri. You would reach it in just over 4 years earth time. But for you in your spacecraft mere weeks would have passed. So from your perspective you get into a rocket on August 1st, 2011, Travel 2 weeks , and arrive on Alpha Centauri on August 1st, 2015. If you were to make the trip at .999999c you could get into your rocket on August 1st, 2011, travel for mere seconds (assuming you can somehow survive the acceleration) and come out on Alpha Centauri August 1st, 2015. You would have traversed 4 years of earth time in seconds which is what most people think of as traveling to the future. Its even easier with a black hole or neutron star. A particle or person near a black hole experiences the passage of time at a slower rate. So if you orbit a blackhole for a month, years may have passed on earth, so when you leave said orbit you will come out far into the future. Traveling BACK in time is more along the lines of science fiction, though theoretically possible depending on the inertial structure of the universe (however this is well beyond our current means to ascertain) and more specifically some form of quantum gravity, but traveling into the future at an accelerated rate happens every day for particles near black holes.
Ingvar Angst Amarr Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United	Posted - 2011.07.26 18:46:00 - [103] Potato, that's not travelling into the future. You arrive at the same point in time as everyone else that exists at that point in time. You only travelled at a different relativistic pace, so to speak, which allowed you to appear to live longer compared to everyone else. It's not time travel, you still travelled as linearly as everyone else, the only differences were relative. There is no monocle.
Nimrod Nemesis Amarr Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2011.07.26 18:59:00 - [104] Edited by: Nimrod Nemesis on 26/07/2011 18:59:36 Originally by: De'Veldrin Originally by: Edel Held Originally by: De'Veldrin According to my old astronomy text, stars typically live from roughly 3x10^6 upwards to about 2x10^12 years. (3 million to about 2 trillion years, give or take), ... Thank you for the answer =) Maybe that text is too old to be relevant? 'cos 2trills is kinda too much for me =) It is entirely possible. My last university astronomy course was in 1997. After all, our observable universe is only 13-ish billion years old, so star ages in the trillions are most likely based on the mathematical models available at the time the text was published. Most stars we're aware of are, currently, only a few billion years old (less than a dozen). However, their lifespan is roughly inverse to their mass. The most massive red giants only last a few million years, while a red dwarf (the lowest mass) could hypothetically persist for trillions (yes, trillions) of years and that's a hell of a lot longer than the universe, as we understand it, has existed. The oldest star we are currently aware of is somewhere between 13 and 15 billion years old. It is one such dwarf star, quit a bit smaller than the sun.
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.26 19:01:00 - [105] Edited by: dexington on 26/07/2011 19:02:39 I see what you mean, relativistic time dilation in theory would enable you to travel into the future, but i don't think this would be an assumed effect of traveling through a wormhole. Then again you may be right, we'll probably never how the real answer ;) As for traveling back in time, the same theory is used. If you accelerate one opening of the wormhole to relativistic speed and bring it back, entering the the wormhole using the non accelerated opening would send you back in time.
PotatoOverdose Caldari Royal Black Watch Highlanders Warped Aggression	Posted - 2011.07.26 19:35:00 - [106] Edited by: PotatoOverdose on 26/07/2011 19:41:59 Edited by: PotatoOverdose on 26/07/2011 19:41:01 Edited by: PotatoOverdose on 26/07/2011 19:36:55 Originally by: Ingvar Angst Potato, that's not travelling into the future. You arrive at the same point in time as everyone else that exists at that point in time. You only travelled at a different relativistic pace, so to speak, which allowed you to appear to live longer compared to everyone else. It's not time travel, you still travelled as linearly as everyone else, the only differences were relative. Eh? So your saying if I loop around the solar system at .9999999999999999999999999999c for a few seconds in my time and come out of my looping in the year 10 billion while being only a few seconds older, that doesn't constitute "time travel"? I must admit I'm quite curious about you definition of time travel now. Edit: Traditionally, when one thinks of a time machine, its classically something along the lines of pushing a button and a few seconds later appearing in the distant future (or past). My scenario(s) create this effect (the future part at least) exactly. Originally by: dexington Edited by: dexington on 26/07/2011 19:02:39 As for traveling back in time, the same theory is used. If you accelerate one opening of the wormhole to relativistic speed and bring it back, entering the the wormhole using the non accelerated opening would send you back in time. "It is thought that it may not be possible to convert a wormhole into a time machine in this manner; the predictions are made in the context of general relativity, but general relativity does not include quantum effects." Source. That version of a time machine has generally been refuted iirc. There has been another one posted recently but it requires that the universe have certain inertial properties that we are, as yet, unable to determine.
Emiko Luan Gallente	Posted - 2011.07.26 20:15:00 - [107] Wow some people honestly still don't know how evolution works in this thread? I personally wish CCP would just come out and say that the new eden cluster is a fluid so we could keep our beloved newtonian physics. on the op New Eden could be in the far "future" relative to our frame of reference, it could be a different universe too (which would explain the space drag, different rules of physics) maybe the excess particles in space feed the stars for longer than our universe's average. Notice though, that the stars in eve are all very small, it could be a long lived dwarf cluster. - @dexington - you should be equally skeptical about any claim you are presented with, else you are a hipocrite, That's why the cat analogy is terrible. If I searched for evidence for one claim, but accepted another without any evidence, that would make me a hipocrite. Unless being a hipocrite isn't a problem for you, but then we get to the issue of trusting people that have unpredictable standards for what reality is. Then again, considering how many people believe they will get double their isk back from people in Jita... --- +Welcome to my world+
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.26 20:45:00 - [108] Edited by: dexington on 26/07/2011 20:45:17 Originally by: Emiko Luan You should be equally skeptical about any claim you are presented with, else you are a hipocrite, That's why the cat analogy is terrible. If I searched for evidence for one claim, but accepted another without any evidence, that would make me a hipocrite. I can't see why that would make anyone a hypocrite, what seems to imply one would be trying to deceive others. Belief is nothing more the accepting a premise, something everyone does every day. That someone accept one thing to be true, does not mean you have to accept "everything" as being true.
Nimrod Nemesis Amarr Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2011.07.26 21:19:00 - [109] Originally by: dexington Edited by: dexington on 26/07/2011 20:45:17 Originally by: Emiko Luan You should be equally skeptical about any claim you are presented with, else you are a hipocrite, That's why the cat analogy is terrible. If I searched for evidence for one claim, but accepted another without any evidence, that would make me a hipocrite. I can't see why that would make anyone a hypocrite, what seems to imply one would be trying to deceive others. Belief is nothing more the accepting a premise, something everyone does every day. That someone accept one thing to be true, does not mean you have to accept "everything" as being true. What the hell is going on in this argument? I don't even... I assume bold has something to do with the flying spaghetti... err, Jesus. Am I getting warmer?
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.26 21:34:00 - [110] Originally by: Nimrod Nemesis Originally by: dexington Edited by: dexington on 26/07/2011 20:45:17 Originally by: Emiko Luan You should be equally skeptical about any claim you are presented with, else you are a hipocrite, That's why the cat analogy is terrible. If I searched for evidence for one claim, but accepted another without any evidence, that would make me a hipocrite. I can't see why that would make anyone a hypocrite, what seems to imply one would be trying to deceive others. Belief is nothing more the accepting a premise, something everyone does every day. That someone accept one thing to be true, does not mean you have to accept "everything" as being true. What the hell is going on in this argument? I don't even... I assume bold has something to do with the flying spaghetti... err, Jesus. Am I getting warmer? I was referring to beliefs in general, not specifically religious beliefs.

Lara Dantreb New Horizons	Posted - 2011.07.26 21:47:00 - [111] Originally by: Meryl SinGarda While I am atheist, I have learned never to just accept something without asking more questions. I see people doing this a lot, whether they're religious or not. Stop accepting things as they're fed to you and continue to ask questions. Asking questions and having a different opinion doesn't actually make you look smarter. Almost all serious scientists agree on the age of the universe. It is even possible to make an approximate calculation of the age of the universe for a freshman college student, using the temperature of the cosmic microwave background, as observed by COBE. Asking questions is good, knowledge allows you to ask better questions. No knowledge leaves you into obscurantism and makes you look... dumb
Dalloway Jones	Posted - 2011.07.27 05:27:00 - [112] Originally by: dexington The OP has a point, if you accept the premise that the stars in eve's part of space are 350B years old and the eve population have been living there for just a small procent of that time, which was his original assumption. Then it's more then likely that humans would have evolved into a more adapted being, maybe without feet. Life on earth is estimated to have started some 3.5-4B years ago, simple animals 500M-700M years ago, genus homo some 2-3M years ago. If it took life on earth some 3.5B years to come from simple cells to the humans that populate the earth today, i don't think you should underestimate what 3.5B years of human evolution would turn us into, feet are probably not the only thing that would change. The OP does NOT have a point. Humans aren't going to adapt to not have feet no matter how many billions of years go by. Unless by some freak of nature all of humanity is wiped out by some plague except for a small group of people with an immunity to said plague who also happen to have flippers instead of feet. Please have a small inkling of how evolution works before you say things like 3.5 billions of years from now our feet are going to change. There needs to be some biological advantage to not having feet. Something that would cause people without feet to have a marked advantage over their footed brethren. Something that would cause those with feet to not survive to breeding age or not to be chosen as a mate because of some perceived flaw. Humans would also have to lose their sentience in order for normal rules of evolution to apply.
Klask Atriund	Posted - 2011.07.27 05:37:00 - [113] Don't know if anyone has said this yet but, evolution doesn't work like that
dexington Caldari Baconoration	Posted - 2011.07.27 09:29:00 - [114] Originally by: Dalloway Jones Please have a small inkling of how evolution works before you say things like 3.5 billions of years from now our feet are going to change. There needs to be some biological advantage to not having feet. Something that would cause people without feet to have a marked advantage over their footed brethren. Something that would cause those with feet to not survive to breeding age or not to be chosen as a mate because of some perceived flaw. Humans would also have to lose their sentience in order for normal rules of evolution to apply. You believe that human are at a evolutionary apex, i don't believe we are the last link in the evolutionary chain. Besides saying out feet is going to change, is not the same as saying we are not going to have feet.
Aineko Stryer Minmatar Aineko Accelerando Labs	Posted - 2011.07.27 18:04:00 - [115] Actually there is strong proof, that our genome is actually changing faster, since we¦ve settled down. Especially genes, that influence brain developement seem to change at high speed.
Ingvar Angst Amarr Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United	Posted - 2011.07.27 18:42:00 - [116] Originally by: dexington You believe that human are at a evolutionary apex, i don't believe we are the last link in the evolutionary chain. Besides saying out feet is going to change, is not the same as saying we are not going to have feet. Without a doubt humans will continue to evolve. But you've completely missed the point... there needs to be a reproductive advantage to losing (or turning off) the coding that produces feet, or to changing that coding such that those with "different" feet outbreed those with feet as we know them. If no pressures come along and favor mutations resulting in different feet, those genes won't spread and change the population as a whole. There is no monocle.
Not-Apsalar	Posted - 2011.07.27 18:55:00 - [117] Originally by: Melchiades Seti I chanced to "show info" on a star one day. The game, so rich in detail, had many facts about the sun, including its age. It said 67 billion years. Odd, since the guy who plays me (and holds a certain physical resemblance to me) lives in a universe estimated to be only about 15-16 billion years old. I looked at some more stars. Some were over 350 billion years old! This means I live in a time hundreds of billions of years later than the person who plays me. Why haven't I evolved past the need for toes? I should be many, many times farther evolved than he is beyond an amoeba. Something on which to think in my travels amongst the stars. Do you walk? Yes. You "Walk in Stations". The same humans also live on planets, participate in wars(DUST), etc. Thus, you need toes for agility and balance, like ones that primates developed very early on. If all humans were permanently in pods, humanity would evolve to lose its unnecessary features. Also, I imagine there is a great deal of genetic engineering to control this type of evolution/de-evolution(which is really just DNA mutation).


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

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