Game News 3069 - You feel indifferent here

[shardspin]

Would you bother to actually read and think? I am not always in the mood to do it for others.

 

[The Vanished One]

A sentient core would have the wits to take a path through the gravity well of the planet to have a pleasant landing.

It would still be too big to just sit on top of another planet. Again, imagine Mars landing -very- slowly on the Earth. Then what? Gravity would rip both apart anyway, and try to make the new planet round. You can't have objects so big just one over the other.

Your idea of mars landing on earth is actually very like todays mostly accepted theory of the creation of the moon.

I -know- this. When I said "imagine" I meant it. I wasn't implying that it's unrealistic at all.

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.

Often only part of the evidence is important. As for the "infinite situations", please make an example, because those I thought about are all out of context.

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.

My point with fossils is that we don't have available skeletons of all existing species in short intervals (let's say a decade) in the Earth's history, yet those we have allowed scientists to build a well supported theory of evolution. I don't assume every solar system has the same life cycle, because my knowledge is limited to high school level (or slightly better, I'm a first year student in physics) theories on star formation and life, and planet formation. However I ask you to make examples of different observed life cycles for different solar system. The planets specifically, as I already know something about stars.
As for you comments on images of distant stars being somehow unreliable because they depict the past, problems with light, waves and methods of measurement we don't understand, provide relevant examples. I assume the context is always observation of stars and galaxies, and as far as I know our observation methods are efficient. I think you are talking about things like redshift and gravitational lensing, which are understood and often helpful in astronomy and astrophysics. We have data and pictures of stars in different stages of their lives. On these, among the other things, we build a theory that describes star formation. What's wrong?

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.

I can't have the truth, this knowledge is good enough for me. It is far more likely to be true than mysterious "important distortions". Will it be proven wrong one day? Big deal. Research goes on. In the meantime, I choose to believe that this is the best available explanation, since there aren't many grounds to claim that it's largely or completely wrong.

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.

You described what I said. Theory is based on observations of facts that happen (what I called -- perhaps inappropriately -- "evidence"), if good allows predictions and is not proven wrong, if bad is (hopefully soon) proven wrong. I guess I wasn't clear enough. What you call "evidence" in the previous quote I assume is simply the lack of a refutation.

You can believe in whatever you want.

But you shouldn't misrepresent science, as I believe you are doing -- perhaps unintentionally and in good faith, but still.

You are almost there.

You seem to suggest that it's acceptable in any sense of the word to believe in anything you can't disprove, is this you're saying?

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.

The Earth's core is several orders of magnitude too hot for life to survive there. To think that it's sentient means to do science fiction and disregard a large part of science. I can write any number of "theories" to explain anything, each one of them based on just a single assumption, that of an ad-hoc being or intelligence that does what I want. Science does better, as it searches the actual explanation for things. Just because we're not yet sure about how solar systems formed, it doesn't mean we won't be one day. Centuries ago we didn't understand the arrangement of our own solar system, and today we send probes across it.
Also, you are biased, and refuse to even consider scientific explanations as valid. This sentence, "instead of saying that there is gravitation everywhere and somehow somethings escaped greater gravitational pulls or just started to move someday", and to compare well founded hypotheses to fiction, is clearly a misrepresentation of what scientists really say, and you know it.

 

[Jasede]

We do know that there are several types of deep sea fish that survive in to us extrmely hot temperatures; isn't it feasible something may survive in the earth's core too if things can live inside Mars or even the hostile, ultra-pressured deep sea?

Before we explored the deep sea, the theory was that there would be extremely little life - the pressure and temperature were simply regarded as too high. But now that we start to do it, albeit very slowly, we find tons of fascinating, highly specialized life.

I am really not sure of I understand shardspin right, but he doesn't seem nearly as dumb as some here said.

He is using the "But we can't -know- that mushrooms aren't actually aliens in disguise?" argument, which is silly, but I think he does so for a reason.

We don't really know how gravity works, at all. Again, I might be not up to date anymore, but from what I remember from school, we have at this moment absolutely no concrete idea how gravity works (for example), although we have a nifty theory about hyperbolic geometry and bending fabric of space - but I think he is trying to say that while we achieved this theory through observation, speculation and what little we already know for sure (keeping in mind, however, that we also once knew "for sure" that apples fall downwards when dropped, a theory that turned out to be only true in certain circumstances) we can use this method for other things to and get results which would be called ridiculous. (Though the flaw in this is that we aren't scientists.)

I read your account of scientific method, and can't we apply the same thing to a sheerly hypothetical core of the earth?

We can observe movement of the earth - a sign of life. We have a different explanation for it in accepted theories (one that does seem fairly correct) but maybe we mistake cause for effect? Maybe the earth does move because its core wants to, and that's how gravity comes to be? Little sentient cores in everything? Of course we never observed these - but their effects we sure did. (Keeping in mind we have never ever "seen" or measured "gravity rays")

The earth, or its core, seem to respond to stimuli, too: tectonics is a big one, obviously, and then there's all the things that happen outside of the core, which might be caused by it, who knows?

Propagation... well, this is a tricky one. We haven't really seen two horny earth cores mate yet.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Yeah, um... gravity is not a characteristic exclusive to cosmic bodies. Any object with mass has gravity. And we know pretty well how it works.

We can observe movement of the earth - a sign of life.

Movement = sign of life?

 

[Jasede]

Don't take everything too seriously. I'm just playing, as you ought to know by now. I'm very interested in shardspin's next post, and your replies. There's a lot of potential in this thread and if at all, I'd like to make certain it'll be fulfilled.

 

[Secretninja]

Quit feeding the trolls.

 

[The Vanished One]

We do know that there are several types of deep sea fish that survive in to us extrmely hot temperatures; isn't it feasible something may survive in the earth's core too if things can live inside Mars or even the hostile, ultra-pressured deep sea?

Before we explored the deep sea, the theory was that there would be extremely little life - the pressure and temperature were simply regarded as too high. But now that we start to do it, albeit very slowly, we find tons of fascinating, highly specialized life.

-10000 m under the sea level: pressure: more than one hundred million Pa.
-Inner core: pressure: more than three hundred billion Pa.

We don't really know how gravity works, at all.

It is easy to pick one of the most difficult problems in physics as an example. Also, I hope that by "at all" you don't mean that we can't describe it, because last I heard general relativity was still going strong.

We can observe movement of the earth - a sign of life. We have a different explanation for it in accepted theories (one that does seem fairly correct) but maybe we mistake cause for effect? Maybe the earth does move because its core wants to, and that's how gravity comes to be? Little sentient cores in everything? Of course we never observed these - but their effects we sure did. (Keeping in mind we have never ever "seen" or measured "gravity rays")

Your "theory" doesn't explain how the cores produce and control gravity, and still doesn't explain what gravity is. It is useless.

The earth, or its core, seem to respond to stimuli, too: tectonics is a big one, obviously, and then there's all the things that happen outside of the core, which might be caused by it, who knows?

Is plate tectonics not good enough for you? Can you do better? By saying that mother Earth is alive and reacts to stimuli?

Don't take everything too seriously. I'm just playing, as you ought to know by now. I'm very interested in shardspin's next post, and your replies. There's a lot of potential in this thread and if at all, I'd like to make certain it'll be fulfilled.

So I did all the above work for nothing. Well, posting it anyway.

 

[Jasede]

It's not for nothing - it's very interesting to read your views even if I may not fully support the viewpoint I described.

 

[getter77]

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

Hush, you are derailing this thread.

Well, be that as it may:

v1.6:
* Added to the documentation (e.g. factions)
* Added 2 more graphics
* Now pressing "M" (or clicking the messages area) will try and dock the messages window when it is open
* Day & night durations have been increased
* Locator's background is now dark gray (instead of black) -- good for underground locator use
* Fixed a bug that caused newly programmed FPGAs to not show

 

[The Vanished One]

Well, perhaps shardspin will reply one day. Hope we have entertained you, Jasede :wink:

Anyway, did someone try the game? Is it any good? I have no time to play it (and unfortunately I can't stand roguelikes, no matter how good) but at least we could have a little discussion on it after so much thread derailment.

 

[Jasede]

I wish I could contribute more to the thread at hand, but I have to admit a thing that is perhaps a little sad and narrow-minded:

I really can not bring myself to try new roguelikes anymore. Do others have such a problem too?

For me it's two big reasons why not: first, I seem to be much more reluctant now to learn new keyboard bindings and control schemes than I was say five years ago, and secondly and mainly: ADOM, Nethack and Crawl are very, very good already, and control perfectly, especially ADOM (which also happens to look gorgeous in its simple ASCII splendor) and it's very hard for me to justify trying something else when there's still ADOM to conquer.

 

[getter77]

I wish I could contribute more to the thread at hand, but I have to admit a thing that is perhaps a little sad and narrow-minded:

I really can not bring myself to try new roguelikes anymore. Do others have such a problem too?

For me it's two big reasons why not: first, I seem to be much more reluctant now to learn new keyboard bindings and control schemes than I was say five years ago, and secondly and mainly: ADOM, Nethack and Crawl are very, very good already, and control perfectly, especially ADOM (which also happens to look gorgeous in its simple ASCII splendor) and it's very hard for me to justify trying something else when there's still ADOM to conquer.

These things happen from time to time----my own Roguelike backlog is many dozens deep. There's no "solutions" per se other than perhaps dialing it down a bit to play one of the older/beginner/lighter Roguelikes that don't really have any special controls to learn versus the likes of ADOM and Nethack then clicking back up to the stock standards. Or you might try the likes of UnNethack and Elona for the ole "similar but different" angle.

All about enjoying the games, whatever they might be at a given time.

 

[Elwro]

Will there be a Linux version? I just felt the need to try the game, but I only have Linux at work.

 

[JarlFrank]

I wish I could contribute more to the thread at hand, but I have to admit a thing that is perhaps a little sad and narrow-minded:

I really can not bring myself to try new roguelikes anymore. Do others have such a problem too?

For me it's two big reasons why not: first, I seem to be much more reluctant now to learn new keyboard bindings and control schemes than I was say five years ago, and secondly and mainly: ADOM, Nethack and Crawl are very, very good already, and control perfectly, especially ADOM (which also happens to look gorgeous in its simple ASCII splendor) and it's very hard for me to justify trying something else when there's still ADOM to conquer.

Yeah. There are few roguelikes which I tried and truly enjoyed, ADOM and Dwarf Fortress adventure mode being two of them. And those are already so *perfect* that most others seem inferior and I don't even bother trying. And, as you say, ADOM is actually the only game that manages to make ASCII look really *good*. I don't know why, it just does.

 

[shardspin]

Was a bit busy in the last days, so I did not have the time to read the thread again (and post of course).

A sentient core would have the wits to take a path through the gravity well of the planet to have a pleasant landing.

It would still be too big to just sit on top of another planet. Again, imagine Mars landing -very- slowly on the Earth. Then what? Gravity would rip both apart anyway, and try to make the new planet round. You can't have objects so big just one over the other.

Your idea of mars landing on earth is actually very like todays mostly accepted theory of the creation of the moon.

I -know- this. When I said "imagine" I meant it. I wasn't implying that it's unrealistic at all.

Both objects would propably eventually become one or be ripped apart. But this process would take thousands of years if there is no considerable impact caused by a harsh landing. Anyways, it would be enough time for it to become a game scenario even if spotting such a big object would be quite easy...

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.

Often only part of the evidence is important. As for the "infinite situations", please make an example, because those I thought about are all out of context.

I wrote "propably infinite number of possible situations" because it is a very debatable question I think. If you consider the idea of very small particles (or atoms) swinging around and generally moving and interacting in any way possible, you will find a very high number of possible situations and outcomes. So one could argue that it is either an infinite or a very high finite number of situations. Therefore any possible interactions and thus possible observations which are based on this system might be either infinite or finite.

And in comparison to "normal" physics the actual number of observation in the discussed context is considerably smaller.

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.

My point with fossils is that we don't have available skeletons of all existing species in short intervals (let's say a decade) in the Earth's history, yet those we have allowed scientists to build a well supported theory of evolution. I don't assume every solar system has the same life cycle, because my knowledge is limited to high school level (or slightly better, I'm a first year student in physics) theories on star formation and life, and planet formation. However I ask you to make examples of different observed life cycles for different solar system. The planets specifically, as I already know something about stars.
As for you comments on images of distant stars being somehow unreliable because they depict the past, problems with light, waves and methods of measurement we don't understand, provide relevant examples. I assume the context is always observation of stars and galaxies, and as far as I know our observation methods are efficient. I think you are talking about things like redshift and gravitational lensing, which are understood and often helpful in astronomy and astrophysics. We have data and pictures of stars in different stages of their lives. On these, among the other things, we build a theory that describes star formation. What's wrong?

The theory of evolution is the worst you could have picked because it is propably the most controversial theory in mainstream science; controversial mainly because it is completely speculative and we will not have proof for macroscopic evolution any time soon and supported mainly because it is the only real "rational" but not really scientifical (as in empirical) explanation. It is of course interesting to think about but it is still "speculative science" or "science fiction".

Stars and planets in different stages of their life?

I don't assume every solar system has the same life cycle, [...]

So if you do not assume the life cycle is universal, what can you deduce from an image of the stage of its development?

I ask you to make examples of different observed life cycles for different solar system. The planets specifically, as I already know something about stars.

There is of course not an observed life cycle because of the time frame. But there are solar systems which do not have an asteroid belt. And if you look at the theory of the development of our planets and solar system you will see that the existence of an asteroid belt (or its corresponding earlier stage of development) is a necessity for the further development of planets.

As for you comments on images of distant stars being somehow unreliable because they depict the past, problems with light, waves and methods of measurement we don't understand, provide relevant examples.

The main problem with light is that we use a wave model to describe its phenomena and it generally fits but we also say that there is no aether or another medium for light waves, which actually swings and thus enables the light's wave propagation. This is like saying "We have this car here, and everything we have done so far with it confirms that it behaves just like a car, but it does not actually have wheels."
There is also dispersion which is not explained through our current wave models. We observe its effect but we do not actually know why or when this happens. And I guess that for light waves that travel a very long time velocity dependence might have devastating effects on observations.
I am not up to date on this but we might also still think that quantums travel randomly.

He is using the "But we can't -know- that mushrooms aren't actually aliens in disguise?" argument, which is silly, but I think he does so for a reason.

It is a bit more sophisticated than that. The main difference is that you could experiment on the mushroom, but you could not experiment on a solar system light years away. This is actually what any physics professor should mention in his first lecture regarding astrophysics.

There are reasons for me why I should "believe" or rather accept the theory of mechanics or thermodynamics, because I can question these things myself by experimenting. But I do not think that accepting something just because it was said by some guy who has an academic title is a good idea.

The point of the whole thought experiment with the sentient core was to ridicule the way of working in astrophysics (and to a point in geophysics, which has similar problems but not to the same extent) and the perception of this parts of science by its fanatical believers. If you look at the theory objectively there is nothing which distinguishes the method by which it was conceived from the usual approach of comparable theories. As Jasede pointed out, there are observations which would fit the theory. And this is essentially the same life cycle of a "normal" theory with the obvious difference that it was not a scientific publication.

But the reaction towards it, clearly show what I personally suspect when I'm looking at lectures from less traditionalistic science countries. Students today are not taught the scientific method but rather to learn to believe and use its results, which I suppose is a result of capitalism. Just look at the reactions. No one so far could fulfill my request for scientific evidence for the theories accepted today (and no one will be able to because there is no evidence).

The people that choose to substitute their religion or belief system for science do not understand that if they choose to do so they must inevitably disregard a lot of what science today says. Because you can either believe in the scientific method or some stuff by quasi-gurus called scientist. But not both.

 

[The Vanished One]

Both objects would propably eventually become one or be ripped apart. But this process would take thousands of years if there is no considerable impact caused by a harsh landing. Anyways, it would be enough time for it to become a game scenario even if spotting such a big object would be quite easy...

After this, I'm sure you don't understand physics. Again, imagine Mars being gently put over the Earth. How much do you believe it would sink into the surface? And do you believe it would take thousands of years? Because I'm pretty sure both planets would -immediately- be torn apart by each other's gravity in a very catastrophic way. Even if each has been held together until they touch each other -- which in itself is improbable. You have no sense of scale, the massive gravity of the bodies involved would force them to become a single elliptical body very soon.
Also, even if we concede this absurd scenario of two massive planet just one sitting on the other, the combined gravity would make it a non-survivable place. If you don't understand why -- and perhaps you don't -- imagine the effects on the atmosphere and waters of both planets, on its inhabitants etc.

I wrote "propably infinite number of possible situations" because it is a very debatable question I think. If you consider the idea of very small particles (or atoms) swinging around and generally moving and interacting in any way possible, you will find a very high number of possible situations and outcomes. So one could argue that it is either an infinite or a very high finite number of situations. Therefore any possible interactions and thus possible observations which are based on this system might be either infinite or finite.

And in comparison to "normal" physics the actual number of observation in the discussed context is considerably smaller.

Just this? There are many atoms, so science doesn't work?

The theory of evolution is the worst you could have picked because it is propably the most controversial theory in mainstream science; controversial mainly because it is completely speculative and we will not have proof for macroscopic evolution any time soon and supported mainly because it is the only real "rational" but not really scientifical (as in empirical) explanation. It is of course interesting to think about but it is still "speculative science" or "science fiction".

I will admit that using fossils as an example had a second goal, that is, hearing what you have to say about evolution.
And this is it. No sir, the theory of evolution is not controversial at all, it is a well established, well supported and as of yet unrefuted theory that is coherent with all the available data and explains its subject matter very well. There is no controversy, nearly all scientists accept it (see below). People that oppose it do so based on misrepresentation, distortion of facts, or outright lies.
You don't have to believe me, I can give you some links. All these people are very critical of creationists, but sure you aren't one I hope, so you shouldn't be offended.

-on the number of scientists not accepting evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM -- this is a christian, btw.
-these are against creationists; they cover a large number of arguments used against evolution, and show why they are wrong. Should suffice to question your claim that evolution is "controversial" or "speculative", and prove you wrong about what you say on macroevolution.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... 53A6F002CC
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... 305829426D
http://www.youtube.com/user/AndromedasW ... 29EDAE7DC3
The authors are intelligent people and their videos are very interesting and useful. Plus, they are entertaining. Please do watch at least part of them in the next weeks, and please don't discuss evolution any further until you have done so.

So if you do not assume the life cycle is universal, what can you deduce from an image of the stage of its development?

It seems that you are confusing "solar system" ("planetary system", to be more exact -- I was imprecise) with "star system". Wikipedia should be enough to clear your doubts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_system
Our understanding of physics and the images of stars we have are enough to predict a star's life cycle. Mass is the key factor.
If you don't believe this, I don't know what to say to you. I'd like to hear why won't you just accept that it is possible.

There is of course not an observed life cycle because of the time frame.

And yet you claimed, "You cannot assume every solar system has the same life cycle, in fact most are totally different."

And if you look at the theory of the development of our planets and solar system you will see that the existence of an asteroid belt (or its corresponding earlier stage of development) is a necessity for the further development of planets.

Links? Last time I studied this, the asteroid belt is not a planet itself mainly because of the presence of Jupiter. Also, you said that there are other solar systems without an asteroid belt, links?

The main problem with light is that we use a wave model to describe its phenomena and it generally fits but we also say that there is no ether for light waves, which actually swings and thus enables the light's wave propagation. This is like saying "We have this car here, and everything we have done so far with it confirms that it behaves just like a car, but it does not actually have wheels."

This looks like rubbish to me, I'd like you to explain it better or provide links. The wave model is only used to describe part of the phenomena. Quantum theory, with the wave-particle duality, goes beyond. You are stuck in the XIX century.

There is also dispersion which is not explained through our current wave models. We observe its effect but we do not actually know why or when this happens.

Explain better.

And I guess that for light waves that travel a very long time velocity dependence might have devastating effects on observations.

You guess it might? And of course no astronomer, astrophysicist or physicist has ever thought about it before and found obvious problems with using telescopes to see far away. If you're talking about thing like redshift and similar effects, as I said they are known and often useful. If you are talking about imaginary unknown effects that somehow render all observation useless, talk with a real scientist -- he might be able to convince you that we can trust that what we see is real.

I am not up to date on this but we might also still think that quantums travel randomly.

Do you know what "quantum" means?

It is a bit more sophisticated than that. The main difference is that you could experiment on the mushroom, but you could not experiment on a solar system light years away.

And you conclude that observation, and theories based on known physics, are useless?

There are reasons for me why I should "believe" or rather accept the theory of mechanics or thermodynamics, because I can question these things myself by experimenting.

But you don't or can't, you accept that you're being told the truth. But when it comes to distant stars, or simply to things you're ignorant about or that are too counterintuitive for you, somehow all scientists are wrong. You really need an education. Science is coherent, you can't choose to only accept parts of it at your discretion.

But I do not think that accepting something just because it was said by some guy who has an academic title is a good idea.

a) see above. b) yes, it is a good idea, because he did study the subject very well and is trying to improve our knowledge of it. Do not believe everything you are told, but don't deny everything either. It is not "some guy" we are talking about, you arbitrarily deny large portions of science apparently only because you don't understand them. Who do you think you are, to believe so adamantly that you are right and mankind's finest minds are wrong?
There is no conspiracy, scientists don't fabricate things out of thin air. There are dishonest scientists, but then there are dishonest medics, law enforcement officers, military officers, politicians, priests etc. There is no place in science for idle speculation, even daring hypotheses must be well grounded.

ridicule the way of working in astrophysics (and to a point in geophysics, which has similar problems but not to the same extent) and the perception of this parts of science by its fanatical believers. If you look at the theory objectively there is nothing which distinguishes the method by which it was conceived from the usual approach of comparable theories.

You haven't ridiculed anything, because you haven't understood anything of either astrophysics or geophysics. You don't know enough of either, you are unable to look at them objectively. You are again comparing this fictional core theory to real science, which is extremely wrong. Please, question this absurd preconception of yours. It is very stupid. Also, there are no "fanatical believers" of science among those that really accept it, because there is no place in science for fanatical belief. If you believe so, you are misinformed.

But the reaction towards it, clearly show what I personally suspect when I'm looking at lectures from less traditionalistic science countries.
Students today are not taught the scientific method but rather to learn to believe and use its results, which I suppose is a result of capitalism. Just look at the reactions. No one so far could fulfill my request for scientific evidence for the theories accepted today (and no one will be able to because there is no evidence).

Who are you, where do you live, what have you studied and where? You make me angry. Instead of telling you to go to hell I have spent -hours- to reply to your posts. And how you smugly disregard me, claiming that I have given you no evidence, whereas even with my modest knowledge I have found many errors in your posts, some of whose at least you have to acknowledge immediately, and the rest of whose you won't accept based on preconceptions alone.
I'm no scientist, I don't have a handy list of basic books and complete references to post. You want more evidence? Go into a library, start reading books, try to question your preconceptions as I try to do with mine.

Because you can either believe in the scientific method or some stuff by quasi-gurus called scientist. But not both.

What did science do to you? Just tell me why you insist that scientists are somehow all liars. Why?

 

[KKKthulhu.]

3059 rocked.

I can't get into this game because the graphics are so horrible. If there's a patch that restores 3059's graphics then I'll consider.

 

[getter77]

Just now noticed at the top of the game's website:

"v2.0 Announcement: I am going to improve the graphics and add more jobs! Thank you for all your feedback!
"

Good stuff. Perhaps some Codexers put forth some of the nifty ideas that will come to pass?

 

[Secretninja]

Instead of telling you to go to hell I have spent -hours- to reply to your posts.

EXACTLY. This is what trolls do. This one is particularly creative, and could use his argument in different threads "lol the electrons where in different orbits that time so it was a different ending for Fallout 3".
For future reference, if any person who spews so much bullshit on why scientific theories and laws hold no more merit or justification than a silly sci fi snippet from a non story driven game, call him dumb and leave.
@shardspin: If you actually believe the nonsense you are saying, drop out of your university right now. You obviously do not have the mental capacity to take what gems of knowledge and what piles of nonsense your professors are able to give you and tell the difference. Or go to a school that has less dumbfucks in charge.

 

[getter77]

Back to damning of science:

v2.0 (Major Release):
* Many graphical improvements and additions, including particle effects, lighting, texturing and anti-aliasing
* Torches and orbs glow light, and you can now sneak in the shadows at night
* Night options (e.g. always/never/cycle nighttime)
* New "protect item" job -- everyone is after you, can you survive?
* Changed the storyline to more accurately portray my original intention
* Strong attackers can now destroy trees and walls to get to you!
* Now your player slides along walls to make moving in tight quarters easier
* Increased the size of Information Window
* Now the Earth's Crystal's direction will be revealed at the completion of every job
* Item's tab will now be properly named "Store" or "Pile", depending on what you are looking at
* Item's tab now displays number of items listed
* Added an option on the game's menu to show/hide the messages window
* Now every zone that could have a zone entrance, does
* Labels now exist for common armor types listed on the Item's tab
* Now the last window position is saved and restored upon restarting 3069
* BALANCING: Slightly reduced the sell-back rate on items
* BALANCING: Programming is now more difficult to accomplish successfully
* BUG FIXED: Messages being lost when closing the messages window
* BUG FIXED: Killing/damaging yourself in a liquid caused faction changes
* BUG FIXED: Could not teleport into liquids
* BUG FIXED: Could walk through walls/trees next to liquids
* BUG FIXED: Jobs had level 0 targets
* BUG FIXED: You could not destroy terrain job targets in a town
* BUG FIXED: Target was not refreshed when dropping an item
* BUG FIXED: Invisibility was unreliable when attacking a friendly target
* BUG FIXED: Could not pickup items that were on a just destroyed/mined target
* BUG FIXED: Job item was not detected as a job item if you were holding it when reloading 3069
* BUG FIXED: Some mixed ETU's recharge cost were negative
* BUG FIXED: Cave passages were being replaced by ruins and floors
* BUG FIXED: Liquids were being generated and spread on zone borders without slowing effects

 

[The Vanished One]

Well, the game looks better now, and apparently it has been improved upon a lot. Also, I like the fact that the story makes more sense now, and is much more believable. Sure, that a crystal could generate a planet is weird, but hey, it's science fiction.
I might try it if I can find some time in the next month, will post some impressions if I ever get around to doing that.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Haha, hilarious

Just a quick question and few facts if Shardspin is still around:

1) Earth's iron/nickel core is responsible for magnetism. If Earth's core is something else, what produces magnetism?

2) Moon was created when a large asteroid struck Earth when it was forming. Mars had nothing to do with it.

3) The "life" observed in the bottoms of oceans and inside volcanoes is bacteria-level, mostly single cell organism. These are not "sentient", by any stretch of the word.

4) Movement of ground is caused by tectonic plates and their movements are well predicted - movement has nothing to do with sentience

 

[getter77]

Well, the game looks better now, and apparently it has been improved upon a lot. Also, I like the fact that the story makes more sense now, and is much more believable. Sure, that a crystal could generate a planet is weird, but hey, it's science fiction.
I might try it if I can find some time in the next month, will post some impressions if I ever get around to doing that.

According to legends through the grapevine, v2.5ish or some such will also shoot for sound in the game along with who knows what else. I'm keen to see how the release pace holds up in terms of development from here as 2.0 arrived pretty speedily in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Lord Rocket]

OK, trolls aside, has anyone actually bothered to play this and could they tell me if it has anything to offer someone who didn't like 3059 very much?

 

[haraw]

yeah, sorry for offtopic, but is this worth playing?