Game News 3069 - You feel indifferent here

[Helton]

You guys had better cool down your arguing or you'll both be invisible and good riddance not like either of you ever contributed anything anyways :self-righteous:

 

[Clockwork Knight]

* Jobs to kill people/monsters now say "Kill" instead of "Destroy".

I don't consider that a fix

more like a downgrade

 

[The Vanished One]

* Jobs to kill people/monsters now say "Kill" instead of "Destroy".

Bah, they're already dumbing it down.

 

[shardspin]

It is actually not anti-science to propose the earth's core as a living, thinking object capable of moving through space and finding its way back to other "remains of earth". Nobody would support such a theory of course but most of the theories concerning creation or development of star systems or planets are closer to religion or story telling than to science anyways.

 

[DraQ]

It is actually not anti-science to propose the earth's core as a living, thinking object capable of moving through space and finding its way back to other "remains of earth". Nobody would support such a theory of course but most of the theories concerning creation or development of star systems or planets are closer to religion or story telling than to science anyways.

 

[shardspin]

This reaction nicely demonstrates the problems of science today.

 

[DraQ]

This reaction nicely demonstrates the problems of science today.

Yes, one of the main problems science has is uneducated retards calling it stupid.

 

[shardspin]

Okay then, please list scientific evidence of accepted theories today regarding the subject matter.

 

[The Vanished One]

It is actually not anti-science to propose the earth's core as a living, thinking object capable of moving through space and finding its way back to other "remains of earth".

Even if we did accept such possibility as a plot device, there is still the problem that in this game's setting all of the other pieces of Earth have already fallen on this other planet, and are now a "valuable commodity" instead of having, you know, melted the surface and completely submerged it, etc.

most of the theories concerning creation or development of star systems or planets are closer to religion or story telling than to science anyways.

You need an education.

please list scientific evidence of accepted theories today regarding the subject matter.

What "scientific evidence of accepted theories" is I don't know, but here are your accepted theories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_formation
Partly observation, partly hypothesis (but well supported ones).

 

[shardspin]

It is actually not anti-science to propose the earth's core as a living, thinking object capable of moving through space and finding its way back to other "remains of earth".

Even if we did accept such possibility as a plot device, there is still the problem that in this game's setting all of the other pieces of Earth have already fallen on this other planet, and are now a "valuable commodity" instead of having, you know, melted the surface and completely submerged it, etc.

No relation to my post. But still, smaller parts would travel in the gravity created by the earths core, parts that are too small would be evaporated in the atmosphere and parts big enough to melt the surface would accrete to the core.

The point is there is no scientific evidence and you can postulate whatever you want as long as it fits some obsverations. There will only be scientific evidence if we are around long enough to actually observe the whole processes. We do not even know the material of the earth's core (or any parts of the earth we didn't actually have the chance to dig into which is only a few kilometers)

 

[Secretninja]

Shardspin, you sir, are dumb.

 

[shardspin]

Care to elaborate?

Addition to my last post (was in a bit of a hurry): The theories would also only be actually proven scientifically correct if we could mirror the results in our own experiments. And if we do not find a way to approximate behaviour of solar systems or planets (to declare computer simulations as solid proof is not entirely possible) the only chance is obviously to create the real stuff ourselves which is a bit beyond our reach.

 

[Jasede]

How dare you suggest that SCIENCE sometimes contains mere theories that require belief since no proof has been produced yet?

Edit: Realtalk here, does your argumentation always just go:

A: "Huh, you disagree. You are dumb."
B: "Care to tell me why? Here's A and B and C, maybe we could debate these points?"
A: "You are so dumb."

Edit 2: You said it yourself earlier, someone: these explanations are hypothetical. They are based on what we know and see so far and conjecture. There is no proof yet, just flotsam and jetsam from which we try to weave some understanding. (Unless of course I'm utterly not up to date, and these theories have actually been proven by now...) (Incidentally, that's also how religions came to be - making sense of the flotsam and jetsam of information that we deal with on a daily basis - making sense of it all.)

 

[Secretninja]

I am pretty sure you asked for scientific proof that the earths core is not a sentient being. But I could have just been in the stupors of a MINDFUCK from all the nonsense you spewed forth.

 

[shardspin]

Well, can you prove or disprove it?

But my question also referred to any other theory of creation of planets or solar systems.

I know what one can prove about the earth's core, I would be interested to hear what you think you can prove.

(Incidentally, that's also how religions came to be - making sense of the flotsam and jetsam of information that we deal with on a daily basis - making sense of it all.)

I was just trying to make a post explaining that most people substitute science (or rather the results of science) for religion but decided otherwise because I was referring to a bit of trivia I could not find proof for now. (Mostly Leibniz' connection to christian faith and his legacy for the history of science)

 

[FeelTheRads]

How dare you suggest that SCIENCE sometimes contains mere theories that require belief since no proof has been produced yet?

Yeah, uhm, theories usually have calculations or a logical reasoning behind them.
You can't simply go "OMG, I THOINK TEH EARTH CORE IZ ALIVE! ITZ SCIEFINTIC THOERY CUZ U CANT PROOF OTHERWAIZ!!!!"

 

[shardspin]

Yeah, uhm, theories usually have calculations or a logical reasoning behind them.
You can't simply go "OMG, I THOINK TEH EARTH CORE IZ ALIVE! ITZ SCIEFINTIC THOERY CUZ U CANT PROOF OTHERWAIZ!!!!"

But my question also referred to any other theory of creation of planets or solar systems.

The theory is also usually "first", you then derive the calculations from your theory.

But you are getting closer to the point I am making.

 

[The Vanished One]

You said it yourself earlier, someone: these explanations are hypothetical. They are based on what we know and see so far and conjecture. There is no proof yet, just flotsam and jetsam from which we try to weave some understanding.

There is a long way between idle speculation and a reasonable hypothesis that tries to account for all the evidence. By the tone of your post, you seem to imply that the work of real scientists in this field carries the same weight as any other explanation anyone could come up with.

(Unless of course I'm utterly not up to date, and these theories have actually been proven by now...)

As far as I know, theories are never "proven" in science; rather, they are a comprehensive explanation of observed facts and stand until proven wrong. Only mathematics can afford invulnerable proofs. I might be imprecise here, you should ask an expert.

edit: typo

 

[The Vanished One]

But still, smaller parts would travel in the gravity created by the earths core, parts that are too small would be evaporated in the atmosphere and parts big enough to melt the surface would accrete to the core.

And again, everything would fall of the new world and nothing would survive. Imagine Mars "landing" on the Earth.

The point is there is no scientific evidence and you can postulate whatever you want as long as it fits some obsverations.

No, no, no. A hypothesis that can stand on its own merits can not be just postulates based on part of the evidence. All evidence must be considered, and if enough evidence to disprove the hypothesis is found, it will be abandoned. Theories often can't explain ALL evidence, but this is why scientific research is ongoing.

There will only be scientific evidence if we are around long enough to actually observe the whole processes.

No. Evidence remains. Fossils? Light from distant stars/galaxies? Stars and planets in different stages of their life? And of course, the knowledge we already have allows us to predict things we can't see, with varying degrees of certainty of course, but this still isn't unfounded assumptions. Does any murder remain unsolved if there are no witnesses?

We do not even know the material of the earth's core (or any parts of the earth we didn't actually have the chance to dig into which is only a few kilometers)

The Earth's layers are known thanks to seismic waves, without the need of excavations. The layers' composition can be inferred (again, with varying degrees of certainty, the core is probably nickel and iron), but I'm not prepared on this, I don't exactly know how. I choose to believe that there is no scientific conspiracy in place to lie to me about the earth's composition, and that what they tell me is very likely -- if not certain for the upper layers.

How dare you suggest that SCIENCE sometimes contains mere theories that require belief since no proof has been produced yet?

Again, scientific theories are based on evidence, not made up first and proven later. You are talking about hypotheses, or conjectures. And usually accepted hypotheses are more than just words that are to be believed based on faith alone. Also, belief in reasonable hypothesis =/= belief in random fantasies.

Well, can you prove or disprove it?

Can you prove or disprove that there is an alien teapot orbiting the Sun? So we should all believe in it, of course.

The theory is also usually "first", you then derive the calculations from your theory.

No, evidence is first, theories must be built on evidence.

 

[getter77]

Science aside, game is now up to v1.5

* Fixed a crash when trying to build things without a proper selection.
* Made the Information Window taller -- allows for more information to be displayed without scrolling.
* The Messages window is now easier to read (changed colors).
* "Show Information Window" option has been renamed to "Dock Information Window".
* Mining is slightly less lucrative.
* Improved the mining messages.
* Improved the "you have reached your item carrying capacity" messages.
* Added a line in the documentation about using the Locator to find your dead body (and loot).

 

[someone else]

Science aside, game is now up to v1.5.

Hush, you are derailing this thread.

 

[shardspin]

But still, smaller parts would travel in the gravity created by the earths core, parts that are too small would be evaporated in the atmosphere and parts big enough to melt the surface would
accrete to the core.

And again, everything would fall of the new world and nothing would survive. Imagine Mars "landing" on the Earth.

A sentient core would have the wits to take a path through the gravity well of the planet to have a pleasant landing.
Your idea of mars landing on earth is actually very like todays mostly accepted theory of the creation of the moon. And as you can see at night the moon (and earth) is still around.

The point is there is no scientific evidence and you can postulate whatever you want as long as it fits some obsverations.

No, no, no. A hypothesis that can stand on its own merits can not be just postulates based on part of the evidence. All evidence must be considered, and if enough evidence to disprove the hypothesis is found, it will be abandoned. Theories often can't explain ALL evidence, but this is why scientific research is ongoing.

Every observation or evidence as you like to call it we have made so far is inherently only a part of evidence because we can only approximate the propably infinite number of possible situations. Therefore I described every group of observations as "some" observations, of course I meant every observation we have made so far in this context.

There will only be scientific evidence if we are around long enough to actually observe the whole processes.

No. Evidence remains. Fossils? Light from distant stars/galaxies? Stars and planets in different stages of their life? And of course, the knowledge we already have allows us to predict things we can't see, with varying degrees of certainty of course, but this still isn't unfounded assumptions. Does any murder remain unsolved if there are no witnesses?

Fossils have no meaning in our context. You cannot assume every solar system has the same life cycle, in fact most are totally different. Using light from different solar systems is flawed because it shows only a "snapshot" which has in most cases passed already a long time ago and we do not have information about the later stages of development . There is also alot of the "mechanics" of light or waves for that matter we do not understand or someone even bothers to find an explanation for. I find it personally highly questionable to base a whole branch of science mainly on a method of measurement we do not completely understand.

We do not even know the material of the earth's core (or any parts of the earth we didn't actually have the chance to dig into which is only a few kilometers)

The Earth's layers are known thanks to seismic waves, without the need of excavations. The layers' composition can be inferred (again, with varying degrees of certainty, the core is probably nickel and iron), but I'm not prepared on this, I don't exactly know how. I choose to believe that there is no scientific conspiracy in place to lie to me about the earth's composition, and that what they tell me is very likely -- if not certain for the upper layers.

There is a difference between assuming and knowing. We assume that the Earth consists of the materials we think it does. We cannot know unless we really dig into it. Our "knowledge" is based as you said on seismic waves and on experiments reproducing the assumed conditions at a given depth. But who can say that we have already encountered every "element" there is, or that our assumptions on the conditions are right and we are not missing an important distortion that only occurs when the conditions are present on a large scale. The mass of the inner core is "known" through calculations of gravitational and rotational effects. We then deduce its composition based upon the abundance of the materials in asteroids, from which we assume the core and earth has formed.

How dare you suggest that SCIENCE sometimes contains mere theories that require belief since no proof has been produced yet?

Again, scientific theories are based on evidence, not made up first and proven later. You are talking about hypotheses, or conjectures. And usually accepted hypotheses are more than just words that are to be believed based on faith alone.

There are countless (dead) theoretical physicists who would disagree with you. They predicted effects which would only later be encountered specifically because people looked for it because of the theory. Therefore giving "evidence" to their theory.
Let me explain the way of working:
experiment -> observations -> theoretical model -> predictions based upon the model -> different experiment where the new model is applicable -> either "evidence" or not
You can try and think about what parts of this way of working astrophysics can only hope to approximate.

Also, belief in reasonable hypothesis =/= belief in random fantasies.

You can believe in whatever you want. Even scientists.

Well, can you prove or disprove it?

Can you prove or disprove that there is an alien teapot orbiting the Sun? So we should all believe in it, of course.

You are almost there.

You said it yourself earlier, someone: these explanations are hypothetical. They are based on what we know and see so far and conjecture. There is no proof yet, just flotsam and jetsam from which we try to weave some understanding.

There is a long way between idle speculation and a reasonable hypothesis that tries to account for all the evidence. By the tone of your post, you seem to imply that the work of real scientists in this field carries the same weight as any other explanation anyone could come up with.

Just for the sake of argument: there is no observation which disputes the theory of a sentient core and the theory would explain why there is actually material around in our solar system instead of saying that there is gravitation everywhere and somehow somethings escaped greater gravitational pulls or just started to move someday.

 

[FeelTheRads]

We know we have reached a new low when the movement of cosmic bodies is explained by sentient cores.

You are an imbecile!

 

[shardspin]

You seem to be a genius who has a very clear understanding of the reasons behind moving objects, please enlighten me.

(I at least realize that this theory is just another way of saying "I dont know")

 

[FeelTheRads]

No, that's not what theories do.

And this one is not saying "I don't know", it's saying "I'm in a dire need of euthanasia."

Btw, when did it became a theory?

behind moving objects, please enlighten me.

I hear it's got something to do with that big bang stuff.