Jump to content

Sunanta

Members
  • Posts

    95
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by Sunanta

  1. (Running 1.0.0.8 RC24 with the probe speed update) I can't seem to get shuttles to RTB after they've deployed their mining drones without going through an extra, unrelated step. **DELETED** [ 11-10-2002, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]
  2. quote:Originally posted by Dredd: Not rubbish. It had a deeper, though pessimistic, theme of moral relativityIt was pessimmistic about moral relativity?! Wow... talk about politically incorrect--and true. I may see it just for that.
  3. Jam-resistant missles would be a real plus, "jammable," perhaps, but able to continue to track and seek targets for a number of seconds before being confused by an ECM... [ 03-29-2002, 16:03: Message edited by: Sunanta ]
  4. I dunno--the C&C Renegade demo seems quite fun to me...
  5. Star Trek is a morality play in addition to a TV series...
  6. I'll have to say the Megaron for the carriers. Just look at its turning stats and fighters. Its sharp lines are even kinda klingon, and with a little imagination one might say that it even looks like a mini-firestorm. [ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]
  7. I'm leaning towards AW, since it'd be kind of nice to use commander's village as a sort of 3d forum.
  8. Gotta go with the Garid; red is good...
  9. On the issue of prayer in schools, it is clearly unconstitutional. The government may not respect the establishment of religion- all religion, not just one or a few in particular. Just as the government cannot build a non-denominational place of worship, it cannot use taxpayer dollars to pay for time in school devoted to religion. Even if prayers are rotated so as to respect all major religions, religion itself is still incorporated into the school. There should not be a time set aside for whatever prayers one might offer either. If someone wants to pray, so be it; they can do it in their spare time. Whether a student choses to (and to whom to) pray is their buisiness, not the school's. As for government employees wearing religious items on their person: I have no problem with that. So long as they aren't actively proselytizing on the job, their right to free expression is protected by the first amendment. The government may not prevent one of their employees from saying or wearing whatever they wish so long as it does not interfere with their job. The right of free expression, in my opinion, is more important than the principle of the seperation of church and state (related though they may be), which in itself is quite important. [ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]
  10. Jaguar, the constitution is routinely interpreted by the supreme court to mean things outside the breadth of the language used. And yes, the constitution does apply everywhere- it does now. Before the supreme court effectively ruled that it applied to the states as well, it did not. This seemed reasonable at the time simply because that is what the constitution appeared to say (i.e. "Congress shall make no law...). It is also how the constitution was applied during the time of the founding fathers.
  11. The current interpretation of the seperation of church and state is essentially that the government may not sanction the advancement of religion (in particular or as a group). This is, of course, much broader than what the 1st amendment literally says. The problem with taking the constitution word for word is that it is quite limited in that sense. The founding fathers designed the government to be flexible, so that it might keep pace with the progress of society. The constitution, for example, was considered to apply only to the federal government in the 18th and 19th centuries. The first amendment does specify congress as the lawmaking body it pertains to, after all. It was not until the supreme court ruled otherwise (even though the constitution appears only to apply to the federal government in many places) that the states were also prevented from infringing on these collection of rights that they often previously ignored. The spirit of the 1st amendment is that religion and government should remain seperate institutions. Many of the extreme liberal persuasion take that to mean that the government cannot give the appearence of sanctioning religion at all. They do have a point. If you walk past a house and a cross is prominently displayed on it, you would probably assume that those who lived there are Christian. If you then passed a state building with a cross displayed on it, you might suspect a religious tilt there as well. The state, which is supposed to be seperate from religion, should not have a religious tilt. While the display of the Ten Commandments is a ways away from this, it is essentially the same thing, but scaled down. The people who oppose any religion whatsoever in government might argue that one thing leads to another; a small thing like a poster of the Ten Commandments could lead to something much more prominent. The conservatives might then say that a large cross on a public building would cost the government money, and spending money on anything of the sort is explicitly prohibited in the 1st amendment, so an allowance for the display of religious documents would never escalate to that level. Assume the government does not pay for it, however. Say some rich guy donates the money for the symbol. Then what? This is why I believe that the extreme liberals have a point, just as I think the conservatives have one as well (I'd be out there marching with everyone else- conservative and liberal alike should the ACLU try to take away my weekends ). [ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]
  12. $ilk: Ok, as a moderate (perhaps leaning left a bit), I feel compelled to respond to your rant about liberals. Liberalism is the reform mindset and conservatism is the mindset that resists change. Liberalism is not a certain set of views percieved to be liberal, because in 50 years they might be quite conservative. It is merely the position that we can change for the better. I agree that liberals often go too far (such as the ACLU) and often need conservatives to keep them in check, but progress would stop were it not for them. If there were no liberals, we would all probably be living under the dominion of Rome. No change can come about without liberals, for conservatism ideologically resists change. Again, I believe that we need conservatives to prevent the liberals from going too far, but liberals are an integral part of society. [ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]
  13. Aww, shoot. A political thread. Now, so long as greed and entropy exist in any form, socialism will not work. Assume the US suddenly becomes socialist: Assuming there aren't widespread protests, riots, the like, (essentially, no one pays attention to the news), life would seem to go on as usual. Then people discover that they are no longer rewarded for overtime, so they don't show up for it anymore. The airlines find themselves in trouble, because there are not enough pilots to fly the planes. The government reasons that the pilots should be working extra, since they obviously were able to do it under the capitalist system, so they should continue to do so. As an incentive to get back to work, the government has the airlines cut the pilots pay since they are not working as hard as they can. The pilots, unaccustomed to such treatment, strike. Imagine similar occurances in other industries (including the bureaucracy of the government itself). Even the proletariat stop working- they go to their factories or their fields and find no one to work for. The real question now is who can last the longest. The government now has two options: A: Go back to capitalism, or B: Force everyone back to work. It ends there, for if A, socialism obviously ceases to exist, and if B, the same occurs, since public authority is no longer public. I do admit, however, that in a perfect world populated by perfect people, socialism would naturally come about. Otherwise, without popular support, it could never assert itself. People simply don't possess the omnibenevolence socialism requires to sustain itself. I am of the opinion that a little socialism is a good thing (i.e. welfare). I do not, however, believe that total socialism could work due to the aforementioned reasons.
  14. Wow, just saw this thread- can't believe we nearly lost one of our favorite liberals! EDIT: Argh- ensign?! Member 2813?! lol, oh well- guess I better start rackin' up those posts [ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]
  15. Hi Joel. Yep, I really like this sort of discussion. Now, on imaginary mass: Tachyons- ftl particles, must have imaginary mass. They are, like negative matter, seemingly impossibe oddities allowed by relativity. Since there is nothing other than the common sense I blasted a few posts ago preventing their existence, tachyons are possible, though no evidence of them has been found yet. [ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]
  16. quote:Which agrees with the postulation that gravity is resultive rather than causal. That makes sense, though if gravity were causal, there would be little difference. quote:His equations work so long as you do not calculate negative mass. If you WERE to calculate negative mass, it may not invalidate the equation, however, there is no way that we can equate whether or not a negative mass would exert negative gravity, due to a lack of understanding of the reason mass exerts gravity. It would only be logical to assume that if greater mass is accompanied by stronger gravity and less mass is accompanied by weaker gravity, negative mass would be accompanied by negative gravity. quote:The theory of relativity. Essentially, it states that gravity pulls inward at c, effecting all mass and energy. However, for curved space to exist in tandem with gravitational effects, there would have to be pockets where space has zero volume, and as such, does not exist. Also, gravity would have to require a limiter that causes its effects to die out. The curve in space would be that limiter, so the question is akin to "what came first, the chicken or the egg?". Also, what perpetuates gravitational force is not understood. Curved space is a gravitational effect, just as a gravitational effect is curved space. I would assume that Plank length would be the "limiter" you speak of, since that is the smallest meaningful unit of measure. quote:As far as we know, we can only say that time stops at the event horizon. Hawking suggests a more quantum explanation. In either case, singularity is the result of entering into such gravitational distortions. Singularity is the result of these distortions. Time stops only for the observer outside the event horizon. Since all frames of reference are valid (time is relative- theory of relativity), this statement is valid only so long as you do not consider the observer inside the event horizon. For this person, everything would seem normal, since their thought processes would be slowed down (or the universe sped up) accordingly. [ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]
  17. quote:That puts forth two ideas which we do not know are fact: 1: Space is flexible. 2: Gravity is what bends space. Gravity exerts itself on objects of mass and information, or all particles of the universe, possibly. Space, however, is not made up of particles. Gravity is a force much like light, in the manner that it always is singularly directional. Gravity always pulls in to the source, light always travel from the source. In order to gravity to exist negatively, it would have to travel from the source. But before it COULD exist negatively, the median would have to exist (i.e., and object with mass which exerts zero gravitational pull). Ok, I'll try again: The term "force" when referring to the four fundamental forces of nature is just a word that describes an effect which we cannot otherwise explain. Gravity can, however, be explained as geometric distortions in spacetime. I am not saying space is made up of particles (just as a geometric plane is not made of particles). I am speaking in terms of pure geometry. Space is a geometric term described by volume, just as a plane is a term described by area. Space itself is not matter or energy- it is a geometric construct. The very best and most workable theories regarding gravity say that it is the result of 4 dimensional indentations in space. This is a far better explanation than gravity simply being a "force" for which there is no explanation. Gravity does not exert itself on space, it is simply a property thereof in the presence of matter or energy. quote:Furthermore, the idea that gravity effects the contours of space itself is highly flawed. In fact, it may be the opposite: the contours of space is quite possibly what causes matter to attract itself. Therefore, in order for an antigravity device to work, it would be forced to exist in an oppositely contoured area of space AND in our space at the exact same time, which is impossible. The description of space being distorted explains the effects of gravity very well. Einstein himself pioneered this approach by using Riemannian geometry in his theories, which allow for curved space. His theories say that where there's gravity, there's a spacetime distortion. As far as I know, this idea has yet to be refuted, and is taught and honored in scientific circles worldwide. quote:Mathematically speaking, negative gravity is impossible due to the fact that we can't mathematically DEFINE gravity yet. We can only measure it and its effects. And considering that its effects are always inward, there is no way one could postulate an equation for it to travel outward. We do have the field equations of gravity. They do not disallow negative gravity. quote:Negative matter = antimatter, and observed phenomena. Negative mass, is the question, and is impossible. How can an object have mass less than zero? Negative matter is not antimatter. Negative matter is matter with negative mass. Please do not confuse the two, for they are separate concepts. The term for antimatter is antimatter, and the term for matter with negative mass is negative matter. This site (which, not surprisingly, cites people that pioneered the idea) explains in detail the math regarding negative matter. No, there is nothing preventing something from having negative mass. The math allows it, I assure you. Despite Salisbury's excellent post, you will see that at the bottom he realizes that those efforts were to no avail. I applaud him for the attempt, but otherwise it makes little difference. As for gravity and time, it's influence is unmistakable. A black hole is nothing more than an extreme example of this. Gravity warps space to such a degree that when you enter the event horizon (the are where light itself cannot escape), space and time switch roles. You no longer have control over where you are going, though you do have some control over when you get there, just as in normal space, you can, to some extent control where you are going, but you are always advancing in time. In a black hole, you are always advancing in space. This is because gravity warps spacetime to the extent where it is almost "perpendicular" to normal spacetime, so space and time reverse roles. [ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]
  18. Negative gravity is indeed mathematically possible. Despite salisbury's impressive attempt to refute the idea, it nonetheless is at the very least a mathematical curiosity. It may be nothing more than that, but other ideas brushed off as such are now pretty much accepted. When you get right down to it, it's a simple matter of geometry. Space is flexible, therefore there is no reason why it cannot bend in a manner opposite to that caused by gravity. The possibility of negative matter has been put forth previously.
  19. quote:Negative matter would simply be matter not only without mass, but less than without mass. Which is mathematically impossible. The point is that negative matter is mathematically possible. www.concentric.net/~Pvb/negmass.html Though it seems absurd, there is little more than common sense that denies its possibility. If we were to trust our common sense, we would still be in the stone age. If we can trust to any degree the proposition that time itself can slow as we approach light speed and that subatomic particles routinely appear and disappear in different locations without transversing the distance between, then 'negative' matter is not much of a stretch. It is in fact possible to sum up science as "anything not prohibited is compulsory." The concept of negative matter is not prohibited, and though I won't go so far as to say that it therefore must exist, I think it's fair to state that it can. Even basic causality of "this, this, therefore that" or "cause then effect" is not immutable. In the quantum world, effects can precede their cause. To me, that in itself is the most absurd thing of all, yet it happens. quote:We DO now how to replicate gravity, but we don't know why these processes work. We don't know why mass exerts a pull on other objects with mass. Current (and not so current, such as those proposed by Einstein) theories say that mass and energy are/cause a geometric distortion in spacetime. I'm sure most of you are familiar with a picture of a star distorting a sheet. This is gravity. It is simply a geometric anomaly in five dimensional spacetime (4 for space, one for time). [ 09-07-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]
  20. The thing about this sort of discussion is that it can go on forever- games like BCM generally don't have to have a firm grounding in science to be enjoyable. Idle speculation is another thing, though, and there used to be a thread a while ago about the theoretical aspects of technologies depicted in the BC series. It seems to have been deleted, for reasons unknown up to this point (accident? hack? so ludicrous that it was beginning to annoy an admin?). I would have reposted it, since I have it saved, but since it may have been deleted for a very good reason, I've been keeping it to myself.
  21. Heh, I love this type of thread. Here it goes: The only problem is that for an object to exert negative gravity, it must have negative mass (or you would have to generate an extremely powerful "negative energy" field). Though negative mass is theoretically possible (read- allowed by the mathematics of relativity), it would be even harder to find or create than antimatter, which in itself is quite rare. It is, however, theorized that stable wormholes would exist only because of negative gravity holding them open anyway, so the idea is not without merit (indeed, it has been proposed before in this capacity). Wormholes would otherwise collapse shut before anything could traverse them. This is the main problem with wormholes- not the gravity of the component singularities. [ 09-07-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]
  22. For all of you who seem all too quick to bash Intel: Intel's design philosophy simply emphasizes clock speed. For example, having advanced (read- very fast) clock speeds is just as valid a way of speeding up a cpu as having a more efficient pipeline/cache/you name it. The fact that a 1.7 Ghz P4 may be roughly equivilant 1.4 T-Bird in benchmarks does not make the T-Bird more advanced. Intel simply chose to emphasize clock speed, whereas AMD focused on streamlning their microarchitecture. [ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]
  23. Berman has said that the Klingons will have nextgen era foreheads.
  24. First, Gomez, I used the word 'decay' because it means, when referring to entropy, an increase in disorder or an increase in homogeny, rather than 'deteriorate.' This is not necessarily bad thing, just as an increase in disorder in a system of subatomic particles is not necessarily bad. Menchise, that's an intruiging point that I never bothered to think about. Perhaps one could consider socialism and modern democracies to be equally as liberal. Now that I think about it, individualism seems more and more to be a logical element of liberalism. Social Democracy probably assumes a more proper place after a purely capitalist democracy as a stage in political entropy than Communism or plain old Socialism. Social Democracy seems to balance the idea of political equality and socioeconomic equality, rather than taking the latter element of equality to extremes at the expense of other liberal concepts (such as individualism).
×
×
  • Create New...