Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Population wise it would take a VERY long time, but overall tech wise how long will it be before humanity surpasses SW?

Assuming that:

Humanity survives for a VERY long time
Humanity is not sent back to the stone age via some nuclear war or something like that
Humanity is not taken over by machines/aliens/etc.
Humanity continues to advance and doesn't stagnate

Also, just because humanity might not be able to replicate some technologies after X years doesn't mean that they're behind if their other techs are developed far enough.

1. It would not take that long for population. If anything that would be the easiest part. We added our latest billion people in only twelve years (from '86-98).
2. Overall tech will never "catch up" because the tech level shown is simply magic.
3. Forcefield against Arthur C. Clarke quotes.
4. If we go with interstellar travel then we'll have to wait for a major breakthrough in energy production (although I did see a cool idea about warping space to work around the c barrier) and then the whole propulsion deelie.
5. Robotics-wise, it is extremely possible that we could catch up- in some areas- with the more primitive droids they have by the end of . Mostly we've gotta wait for the singularity.
6. Lightsabers are for pretend.
7. The pictured form of space combat is unlikely.

Some thoughts.

there's no way anyone anywhere would be able to harness the lightsaber...there's no way light can bend in the way it would for a lightsaber to work like it does in george lucas' envisioning.

"hyperspace travel" is only a theory, and there seems to be no evidence that it'll work anytime soon, seeing as theoretical physicists have worked out it would take the power of several thousand stars the size of ours to power such a mode of travel.

i don't think deep space travel as we imagine it would be possible. what people don't seem to take into account is in the depths of space there are particles and rocks that travel at the speed of light that would not only pierce the hull of whatever vehicle may be used to space travel, but it would also therefore likely kill the inhabitants of the vehicle.

there's no evidence to suggest that human kind will leave this solar system any time within the next several thousand years...

You can purchase plans for a lightsaber on Amazon. I couldn't find the plutonium for step 2.

Just head to your corner drug store. Plutonium's been available for retail consumption since the early 80''s.

Actually a lot of it is much more feasible than is typically thought. Lightsabers, for instance, could easily be magnetically confined plasma. The only thing holding us back from replicating that today is the insane energy densities needed to put that much energy in a handle.

Check out the book "The Science of Star Wars"

Still, its probably tens of thousands of years.

Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
Actually a lot of it is much more feasible than is typically thought. Lightsabers, for instance, could easily be magnetically confined plasma. The only thing holding us back from replicating that today is the insane energy densities needed to put that much energy in a handle.

Check out the book "The Science of Star Wars"

Still, its probably tens of thousands of years.

The physical characteristics of a plasma blade are much different than a lightsaber, as well as its effect on anything it touches.

As to hyperspace travel, there have been some new theories introduced involving using some kind of ridiculous energy to create a black hole, but these are...Theories.

All in all, we're millions of years away from any kind of star wars technology, if possible at all.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Just head to your corner drug store. Plutonium's been available for retail consumption since the early 80''s.

not in the UK...on the western continent maybe

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
The physical characteristics of a plasma blade are much different than a lightsaber, as well as its effect on anything it touches.

As to hyperspace travel, there have been some new theories introduced involving using some kind of ridiculous energy to create a black hole, but these are...Theories.

All in all, we're millions of years away from any kind of star wars technology, if possible at all.
thank you

someone who talks sense. what star wars is is sci-fi...and that it shall stay.

people probably said that about robots at one point.

... and in-door plumbing. ermm

point is, its pointless to say that something is impossible technology wise. nothing is possible. their can be a humugeous breakthrough tomorrow in some technology and we can all be traveling to moon and back in space corvettes by the end of 2010, or some new energy source can be discovered, or aliens could come... etc. etc. considering that our advancement rate of technology has like... tripled in the last hundred years, compared to the thousands we've been on this planet i think its futile to try to predict what science can and can not achieve in any sort of time frame.

meant to say impossible thee. and there.

A reasonably entertaining read. The part about the Force is pure BS though. Something to the effect of 'Luke couldn't have moved the X-Wing by himself but he could have an implant that sent the command to robots that did it for him.' Totally missed the point and ignored context.

THE FORCE could be described as a insainly powerful Magnetic Field that would allow a user to pick up objects but it would have to be a magnetic implant somewhere in the hands. also FORCE LIGHTNING could be done if there was a way to put a tesla coil into you without killing you lol.

anyway. THE FORCE as envisioned by LUCAS is B.S.

but anything else such as STAR DESTROYERS and stuff can be done in the next thousand or five hundred years I would say.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington


All in all, we're millions of years away from any kind of star wars technology, if possible at all.

Now THIS part is quite wrong. Think about how much we've improved in the last 100 years. Now think about how the technological advancement will most likely rise exponentially. Now take our 100 years of advancements, multiply it by 10,000, and then somehow include the exponential factor. Also take into account how far we've advanced in the past million years, and take into account the fact that we didn't advance at a very rapid rate for 99.99+% of those years. Now add in 1 million years where we advance at a rate = or > our current rate. How much we can accomplish if we survive for a million years is simply unimaginable.

Also, "any kind"? We're already equal on many, and close to equalling on others, such as lasers.

In terms of say, infantry/vehicle weapons/armor, we can probably surpass them within the century (although it may take longer to build an AT-AT's equivalent in power), as this is the area in which we are the closest to them.

Star Wars has really advanced medical technology, so it might take a few centuries to surpass.

FTL speed may very well be impossible, so if so then probably never, unless if we find a way to create wormholes/bend space and time. If it is possible, then it's actually possible that it would take a few thousand years to surpass.

Space ship technology can very well be passed within the millennium.

The Force is of course impossible, but it isn't technology.

Lightsabers could very well be possible in a century or two.

Oh, and @Red Nemesis, the population of Coruscant alone is over 1 trillion.

And also, even if humanity can't replicate all technologies (like FTL travel), if the other technologies have surpassed SW by a huge amount then you could conclude that overall humanity would have surpassed SW. The thread doesn't say "surpass in ALL areas".

Originally posted by CadoAngelus
there's no way anyone anywhere would be able to harness the lightsaber...there's no way light can bend in the way it would for a lightsaber to work like it does in george lucas' envisioning.

"hyperspace travel" is only a theory, and there seems to be no evidence that it'll work anytime soon, seeing as theoretical physicists have worked out it would take the power of several thousand stars the size of ours to power such a mode of travel.

i don't think deep space travel as we imagine it would be possible. what people don't seem to take into account is in the depths of space there are particles and rocks that travel at the speed of light that would not only pierce the hull of whatever vehicle may be used to space travel, but it would also therefore likely kill the inhabitants of the vehicle.

there's no evidence to suggest that human kind will leave this solar system any time within the next several thousand years...

There aren't any "rocks" or particles travelling at light speed. Where did you learn your science? Also, not leaving the solar system within the "next several thousand years" is a laughable statement.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Now THIS part is quite wrong. Think about how much we've improved in the last 100 years. Now think about how the technological advancement will most likely rise exponentially. Now take our 100 years of advancements, multiply it by 10,000, and then somehow include the exponential factor. Also take into account how far we've advanced in the past million years, and take into account the fact that we didn't advance at a very rapid rate for 99.99+% of those years. Now add in 1 million years where we advance at a rate = or > our current rate. How much we can accomplish if we survive for a million years is simply unimaginable.

Also, "any kind"? We're already equal on many, and close to equalling on others, such as lasers.

In terms of say, infantry/vehicle weapons/armor, we can probably surpass them within the century (although it may take longer to build an AT-AT's equivalent in power), as this is the area in which we are the closest to them.

Star Wars has really advanced medical technology, so it might take a few centuries to surpass.

FTL speed may very well be impossible, so if so then probably never, unless if we find a way to create wormholes/bend space and time. If it is possible, then it's actually possible that it would take a few thousand years to surpass.

Space ship technology can very well be passed within the millennium.

The Force is of course impossible, but it isn't technology.

Lightsabers could very well be possible in a century or two.

Oh, and @Red Nemesis, the population of Coruscant alone is over 1 trillion.

And also, even if humanity can't replicate all technologies (like FTL travel), if the other technologies have surpassed SW by a huge amount then you could conclude that overall humanity would have surpassed SW. The thread doesn't say "surpass in ALL areas".

Theory of Relativity. Even if we had the capabilities to travel the speed of light, assuming we had a ridiculously large energy source, no human could survive the journey. Your body weight goes up exponentially with speed and at the speed of light, you'll blow up into pieces.

Lightsaber technology is impossible because light is constant. It doesn't randomly "bend", it goes on infinitely.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Theory of Relativity. Even if we had the capabilities to travel the speed of light, assuming we had a ridiculously large energy source, no human could survive the journey. Your body weight goes up exponentially with speed and at the speed of light, you'll blow up into pieces.

Lightsaber technology is impossible because light is constant. It doesn't randomly "bend", it goes on infinitely. Unless ofcourse we come up with a method to reflect it back to its source and in a repeating cycle with a combination of mirrors. >_>

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Theory of Relativity. Even if we had the capabilities to travel the speed of light, assuming we had a ridiculously large energy source, no human could survive the journey. Your body weight goes up exponentially with speed and at the speed of light, you'll blow up into pieces.

Lightsaber technology is impossible because light is constant. It doesn't randomly "bend", it goes on infinitely.

They could very well figure out some sort of way to keep you front being torn apart, very much like they prevent fighter pilots from dying of suffocation/g force.

It doesn't have to be light just because it's called lightsaber. It could be superheated plasma or something. Also, maybe they can figure out a way to artificially bend light.

Originally posted by mattatom
Unless ofcourse we come up with a method to reflect it back to its source and in a repeating cycle with a combination of mirrors. >_>

Which is fine I suppose, if you're forgetting the properties of a lightsaber in regards to combat and how unlikely it is for light to do anything remotely similar.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Which is fine I suppose, if you're forgetting the properties of a lightsaber in regards to combat and how unlikely it is for light to do anything remotely similar. Indeed. Though no i'm not forgetting, and I understand how light works. I just don't see how we have the technology to do this, yet, if ever. So i wandered into fiction.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
There aren't any "rocks" or particles travelling at light speed. Where did you learn your science? Also, not leaving the solar system within the "next several thousand years" is a laughable statement.

He isn't wrong, you're confuzed. Read:


The highlighted portion is where your confusion is. In the depths of space there are particles and rocks. People don't seem to take into account that travel at the speed of light would pierce the hull of whatever vehicle may be used to space travel with those particles and rocks. The sentence is clear but the only way your reading (that Cado thinks there are rocks going c) makes any sense is if we assume that he is dumb. Understanding is increased if we do not, so I will not.

Cade, you are quite right. Running into something while going c would be devastating; hence the deflector dish in Star Trek.



Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Now THIS part is quite wrong. Think about how much we've improved in the last 100 years. Now think about how the technological advancement will most likely rise exponentially. Now take our 100 years of advancements, multiply it by 10,000, and then somehow include the exponential factor.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/c/6/3c61f664e4b9ae0ea85f89dff6b52548.png
P = principal amount (initial investment)
r = annual nominal interest rate (as a decimal)
n = number of times the interest is compounded per year
t = number of years
A = amount after time t


If we use arbitrary units for advancement then you get an idea of how quickly this grows:
http://www.hsc.csu.edu.au/maths/images/mc_images/FM2Q2AC.gif



Poor argument. The advancement of all but the last ten thousand years or so has been negligible. You are completely right, but discussing the largely stagnant (although extremely successful) lifestyles of tribal peoples is a waste of time in terms of technological achievement. Restrain yourself to the past 10,000 years and your point holds however (for now).

Except not. There are limits to the physical capabilities of technology. It is likely that the limits (of transistors, no matter how small, for example) will be reached long before we reach Star Wars levels, let alone Star Trek. It requires a paradigm shift that simply cannot be predicted to arise before we can match them. Although I suspect that such a shift is coming we cannot predict it based on past performance.



Elaborate. In which areas of laser application are we nearing equality?


You don't seem to understand the ridiculous levels of power in walker weaponry. Stardestroyer.net calls the energy output necessary to take out Alderann "522600 times the power output of Earth's sun!" TCW ICS puts the energy in 1 shot from a Republic gunship at 5x10^9 joules per shot. That is 112,500,000,000th of the yearly electricity production in the US as of 2005. Or 1/3000th of the total human energy consumption per second. That is fantastic.

Their weapons are incredibly powerful, many orders of magnitude greater than our own: that antipersonnel turret puts out 3521126 times more energy than an AK47 bullet.

We're screwed in that area.


Really? Cybernetics, prosthetics and an equivalent to bacta (the Vita-Chamber of Star Wars) are going to be equalled in the next few hundred years? Really? Hell, the US couldn't even do stem cell research for the past 8 years. You really think we're going to integrate organs and mechanics? Think of the protests! Think of the OUTRAGE! Think of the children!


I read something about finding low-energy pathways (regions of space where gravity is less due to conflicting pulls) with calculus, which would save on gas usage. Another idea was "bending space" in front of the ship while leaving it normal behind it, maintaining c internally but traveling faster relative to the outer universe. That would require wtfsad levels of power though, and as known now the speed limit is unbreakable in every circumstance.


Doubtful.
1. At present there is no incentive to do so.
2. The ships shown are dangerously fragile, it is unlikely we'll ever see a functional, utilized x-wing.
3. Energy production is a factor again.
4. Heat dispersal

K.

Nah. Sabers are totally broken. Plasma doesn't act like that, neither does light. Even if it did it wouldn't do the things asked of it. There is absolutely nothing real behind sabers.



Population growth is seemingly limitless, as disease and famine are nearly absent (in SW) and even Earth (in your setup) is freed from those restraints. From My Ishmael:

Bear in mind that each planet would carry 6 billion people.

It wouldn't take long at all, given that:
Humanity survives for a VERY long time
Humanity is not sent back to the stone age via some nuclear war or something like that
Humanity is not taken over by machines/aliens/etc.
Humanity continues to advance and doesn't stagnate

90% (at least) of humanity is involved in a culture that must expand its population in order to survive. Therefore these numbers actually apply instead of illustrate the ridiculousity (i know) of our patterns.



I'd say our best bet is in robotics (Data > C3PO) and medicine (we do have stem cells, after all). Space travel is beyond the pale and they simply use magic for power output.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
He isn't wrong, you're confuzed. Read:


The highlighted portion is where your confusion is. In the depths of space there are particles and rocks. People don't seem to take into account that travel at the speed of light would pierce the hull of whatever vehicle may be used to space travel with those particles and rocks. The sentence is clear but the only way your reading (that Cado thinks there are rocks going c) makes any sense is if we assume that he is dumb. Understanding is increased if we do not, so I will not.

Cade, you are quite right. Running into something while going c would be devastating; hence the deflector dish in Star Trek.

We could invent sensors that alerts any dangerous obstacles and moves around it, sort of like some cars that are out, although it will obviously have to be far more advanced.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis




http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/c/6/3c61f664e4b9ae0ea85f89dff6b52548.png
P = principal amount (initial investment)
r = annual nominal interest rate (as a decimal)
n = number of times the interest is compounded per year
t = number of years
A = amount after time t


If we use arbitrary units for advancement then you get an idea of how quickly this grows:
http://www.hsc.csu.edu.au/maths/images/mc_images/FM2Q2AC.gif

And...

Originally posted by Red Nemesis






Poor argument. The advancement of all but the last ten thousand years or so has been negligible. You are completely right, but discussing the largely stagnant (although extremely successful) lifestyles of tribal peoples is a waste of time in terms of technological achievement. Restrain yourself to the past 10,000 years and your point holds however (for now).

Except not. There are limits to the physical capabilities of technology. It is likely that the limits (of transistors, no matter how small, for example) will be reached long before we reach Star Wars levels, let alone Star Trek. It requires a paradigm shift that simply cannot be predicted to arise before we can match them. Although I suspect that such a shift is coming we cannot predict it based on past performance.


That's my entire point. If, according to you, only the last 10,000 years really mattered (which isn't entirely true, aka fire/tools), that means that we've accelerated so far in really only 10,000 years worth of growth. Now imagine a million, only now that we actively research technology, more or less ALL of those years would see inventions. So take how far we've advanced in 1 million (aka really 10,000) and change it to 1 million (aka really 1 million).

I don't get it. Who's to say that there's a limit to technology before Star Wars? Oh, and by "let alone Star Trek" that implies that ST tech is greater.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis



Elaborate. In which areas of laser application are we nearing equality?


K, change that, maybe not "nearing", but we are more than capable of surpassing it. Blaster technology is superior to our firearms, but not to the point of thousands or even several hundred years. They both have the same function, blaster tech just has greater firepower, ammo, and maybe range. Not some super weapon that we cannot invent.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis


You don't seem to understand the ridiculous levels of power in walker weaponry. Stardestroyer.net calls the energy output necessary to take out Alderann "522600 times the power output of Earth's sun!" TCW ICS puts the energy in 1 shot from a Republic gunship at 5x10^9 joules per shot. That is 112,500,000,000th of the yearly electricity production in the US as of 2005. Or 1/3000th of the total human energy consumption per second. That is fantastic.

Their weapons are incredibly powerful, many orders of magnitude greater than our own: that antipersonnel turret puts out 3521126 times more energy than an AK47 bullet.

We're screwed in that area.



112...TH? I'll assume that's a typo.

Oh, and I mean infantry/vehicle firepower and armor. The former could be surpassed within the century (not guaranteed, but it's possible, since some of the suits that the US is designing are already ahead of plastoid armor that stormtroopers use in many ways). The latter might take far longer, but we can do it, unlike your statement that we will never do it/not in a million+ years. Do you seriously think that it would take us over a million years to make a blaster? Seriously?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis


Really? Cybernetics, prosthetics and an equivalent to bacta (the Vita-Chamber of Star Wars) are going to be equalled in the next few hundred years? Really? Hell, the US couldn't even do stem cell research for the past 8 years. You really think we're going to integrate organs and mechanics? Think of the protests! Think of the OUTRAGE! Think of the children!



Prosthetics are already made, albeit primitive ones. Considering the rate in which tech/science advances, arms that are just like a normal human's could be accomplished in under "millions of years". I think you seriously underestimate science/tech advancement. Bacta is indeed conceivable.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis


Doubtful.
1. At present there is no incentive to do so.
2. The ships shown are dangerously fragile, it is unlikely we'll ever see a functional, utilized x-wing.
3. Energy production is a factor again.
4. Heat dispersal

K.

Nah. Sabers are totally broken. Plasma doesn't act like that, neither does light. Even if it did it wouldn't do the things asked of it. There is absolutely nothing real behind sabers.



Population growth is seemingly limitless, as disease and famine are nearly absent (in SW) and even Earth (in your setup) is freed from those restraints. From My Ishmael:

Bear in mind that each planet would carry 6 billion people.

It wouldn't take long at all, given that:
Humanity survives for a VERY long time
Humanity is not sent back to the stone age via some nuclear war or something like that
Humanity is not taken over by machines/aliens/etc.
Humanity continues to advance and doesn't stagnate

90% (at least) of humanity is involved in a culture that must expand its population in order to survive. Therefore these numbers actually apply instead of illustrate the ridiculousity (i know) of our patterns.



I'd say our best bet is in robotics (Data > C3PO) and medicine (we do have stem cells, after all). Space travel is beyond the pale and they simply use magic for power output.

There's often an incentive that comes along to build big stuff capable of blowing things up. It's our nature as humans. And if we actually put our effort into making one, we can. Of course, it's unlikely that future space ships would look like that of Star Destroyers, but we can make space ships. The US is already developing space lasers and space planes, many scheduled to release in as little as 30 years.

If coruscant alone has trillion+, and the republic had over a million worlds...

plus, trillions (I read) were said to have died in the YV war. Since casualties in a war are almost always far below the total population, trillions dying implyes at least a (whatever number comes after)llion.

What about blasters/handheld?
What about vehicles?
Star Destroyers can be surpassed if we try.
Heck, even Hyperdrive can be surpassed in a few milenia IF it is possible.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
He isn't wrong, you're confuzed. Read:


The highlighted portion is where your confusion is. In the depths of space there are particles and rocks. People don't seem to take into account that travel at the speed of light would pierce the hull of whatever vehicle may be used to space travel with those particles and rocks. The sentence is clear but the only way your reading (that Cado thinks there are rocks going c) makes any sense is if we assume that he is dumb. Understanding is increased if we do not, so I will not.

Cade, you are quite right. Running into something while going c would be devastating; hence the deflector dish in Star Trek.




http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/c/6/3c61f664e4b9ae0ea85f89dff6b52548.png
P = principal amount (initial investment)
r = annual nominal interest rate (as a decimal)
n = number of times the interest is compounded per year
t = number of years
A = amount after time t


If we use arbitrary units for advancement then you get an idea of how quickly this grows:
http://www.hsc.csu.edu.au/maths/images/mc_images/FM2Q2AC.gif



Poor argument. The advancement of all but the last ten thousand years or so has been negligible. You are completely right, but discussing the largely stagnant (although extremely successful) lifestyles of tribal peoples is a waste of time in terms of technological achievement. Restrain yourself to the past 10,000 years and your point holds however (for now).

Except not. There are limits to the physical capabilities of technology. It is likely that the limits (of transistors, no matter how small, for example) will be reached long before we reach Star Wars levels, let alone Star Trek. It requires a paradigm shift that simply cannot be predicted to arise before we can match them. Although I suspect that such a shift is coming we cannot predict it based on past performance.



Elaborate. In which areas of laser application are we nearing equality?


You don't seem to understand the ridiculous levels of power in walker weaponry. Stardestroyer.net calls the energy output necessary to take out Alderann "522600 times the power output of Earth's sun!" TCW ICS puts the energy in 1 shot from a Republic gunship at 5x10^9 joules per shot. That is 112,500,000,000th of the yearly electricity production in the US as of 2005. Or 1/3000th of the total human energy consumption per second. That is fantastic.

Their weapons are incredibly powerful, many orders of magnitude greater than our own: that antipersonnel turret puts out 3521126 times more energy than an AK47 bullet.

We're screwed in that area.


Really? Cybernetics, prosthetics and an equivalent to bacta (the Vita-Chamber of Star Wars) are going to be equalled in the next few hundred years? Really? Hell, the US couldn't even do stem cell research for the past 8 years. You really think we're going to integrate organs and mechanics? Think of the protests! Think of the OUTRAGE! Think of the children!


I read something about finding low-energy pathways (regions of space where gravity is less due to conflicting pulls) with calculus, which would save on gas usage. Another idea was "bending space" in front of the ship while leaving it normal behind it, maintaining c internally but traveling faster relative to the outer universe. That would require wtfsad levels of power though, and as known now the speed limit is unbreakable in every circumstance.


Doubtful.
1. At present there is no incentive to do so.
2. The ships shown are dangerously fragile, it is unlikely we'll ever see a functional, utilized x-wing.
3. Energy production is a factor again.
4. Heat dispersal

K.

Nah. Sabers are totally broken. Plasma doesn't act like that, neither does light. Even if it did it wouldn't do the things asked of it. There is absolutely nothing real behind sabers.



Population growth is seemingly limitless, as disease and famine are nearly absent (in SW) and even Earth (in your setup) is freed from those restraints. From My Ishmael:

Bear in mind that each planet would carry 6 billion people.

It wouldn't take long at all, given that:
Humanity survives for a VERY long time
Humanity is not sent back to the stone age via some nuclear war or something like that
Humanity is not taken over by machines/aliens/etc.
Humanity continues to advance and doesn't stagnate

90% (at least) of humanity is involved in a culture that must expand its population in order to survive. Therefore these numbers actually apply instead of illustrate the ridiculousity (i know) of our patterns.



I'd say our best bet is in robotics (Data > C3PO) and medicine (we do have stem cells, after all). Space travel is beyond the pale and they simply use magic for power output.

very nice read. I miss physics. When I asked my college to let me take quantum physics, they laughed. Douchebags.


I rather enjoyed this theory.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
We could invent sensors that alerts any dangerous obstacles and moves around it, sort of like some cars that are out, although it will obviously have to be far more advanced.
I'm not sure you understand physics as it pertains to the speed of light. I would say it is absolutely impossible to invent sensors that can operate FASTER than the speed of light, which is required to even consider detecting objects and avoiding them in time.




You DO understand the law of diminishing returns right? We've caught up with technology as of today. What the star wars technology requires is not only unsustainable, but impractical.


Great, now all we have to do is find self re-generating power cells!




Again, NO. Even if the technological capabilities existed, and they won't for tens of thousands of years, if ever, they are extremely inefficient in regards to energy consumption. It's completely unsustainable.




I think you overestimate human capacity. Prosthetics are one thing. But healing matter? Come on.




You're appealing to human sentiment rather than logic or common sense. We aren't anywhere near the capability of replicating pretty much ANYTHING from the star wars universe.


What the hell does this even mean? If we try? That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. I'm sure if we try, we could destroy planets with a single fart. Hyperdrive? Lol! Good luck.

LMAO...

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
He isn't wrong, you're confuzed.

The highlighted portion is where your confusion is. In the depths of space there are particles and rocks. People don't seem to take into account that travel at the speed of light would pierce the hull of whatever vehicle may be used to space travel with those particles and rocks. The sentence is clear but the only way your reading (that Cado thinks there are rocks going c) makes any sense is if we assume that he is dumb. Understanding is increased if we do not, so I will not.

Cade, you are quite right. Running into something while going c would be devastating; hence the deflector dish in Star Trek.

cheers for the elaborate explaination nemesis...and for the backup


Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
We could invent sensors that alerts any dangerous obstacles and moves around it, sort of like some cars that are out, although it will obviously have to be far more advanced.
something this technologically advanced would be metally unfathumable. dust, particules and rocks scattered about space are extrmeley random. and they would move. any debris from super novas or other, perhaps undiscovered, deep space occurances would make it extremely difficult for a computer system to track such a thing...

@DS

So in other words, it would take us tens of thousands of years to invent blasters (or some gun that equals/surpasses it)???

...

haha...wtf?

Let me ask you: what is your invisionment of our technology...let's say, 2,000 years in the future? What do you think we would've invented?

can i point out that the title of this post is poor grammar? It should say "as far as technology is concerned." Anything that ends in "wise" is incorrect english:

i.e.

Strength-wise, force-wise, knowledge-wise.

Originally posted by truejedi
can i point out that the title of this post is poor grammar? It should say "as far as technology is concerned." Anything that ends in "wise" is incorrect english:

i.e.

Strength-wise, force-wise, knowledge-wise.

Yes, you can. As long as you don't forgot to use correct grammar yourself.

Or else you would be called a hypocrite. And that's my thing.

i think it is okay to point it out as long as I don't hate on the person who did it, even if i slip up from time to time.

Suffice it to say, that I TRY to follow grammatical rules, but i don't worry about it that much.

It was just too much when it was in a thread NAME.

Originally posted by truejedi
can i point out that the title of this post is poor grammar? It should say "as far as technology is concerned." Anything that ends in "wise" is incorrect english:

i.e.

Strength-wise, force-wise, knowledge-wise.

Maybe we are finally moving into Newspeak, what with the first Ingsoc president and all.

But srsly, Orwell has grammar rules on Newspeak and -wise is the proper form in newspeak. Isn't that trippy?

(Have you ever read Player Piano by Vonnegut? It uses the -wise a lot, mostly as satire though.)

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
...Or else you would be called a hypocrite. And that's my thing.

lulz

Originally posted by truejedi
can i point out that the title of this post is poor grammar? It should say "as far as technology is concerned." Anything that ends in "wise" is incorrect english:

i.e.

Strength-wise, force-wise, knowledge-wise.
Knowledge wise, probably not that far from...we're finding out new things about science and technology all the time - whether the concept is fesible or not is a different sotry.

Force-wise, never ever not in a millium years - unless you're one to believe these secret government programmes that had during the cold war (that they're too embarrased to mention happened) with telekinesis and mind powers - lol

Strength-wise, i'm not sure how you mean strength. Physical individuals, so how strong we'll become physically, mentally, or humanity as a whole, whereby we invent more powerful and more energy exsorstive weapons. Or even technology...?

Originally posted by CadoAngelus
Knowledge wise, probably not that far from...we're finding out new things about science and technology all the time - whether the concept is fesible or not is a different sotry.

Force-wise, never ever not in a millium years - unless you're one to believe these secret government programmes that had during the cold war (that they're too embarrased to mention happened) with telekinesis and mind powers - lol

Strength-wise, i'm not sure how you mean strength. Physical individuals, so how strong we'll become physically, mentally, or humanity as a whole, whereby we invent more powerful and more energy exsorstive weapons. Or even technology...?

I think you totally misinterpreted his post.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
He isn't wrong, you're confuzed. Read:


The highlighted portion is where your confusion is. In the depths of space there are particles and rocks. People don't seem to take into account that travel at the speed of light would pierce the hull of whatever vehicle may be used to space travel with those particles and rocks. The sentence is clear but the only way your reading (that Cado thinks there are rocks going c) makes any sense is if we assume that he is dumb. Understanding is increased if we do not, so I will not.



Thanks for pointing that out Red. Though,his lack of proper punctuation caused the confusion. However, with that being said, I interpreted his sentence exactly as he'd written it. No, I didn't think he was stupid, but possibly ignorant of certain aspects of science/space. Ignorance is a far cry from stupidity. We are ALL ignorant of many things. So, implying that one might be ignorant is by no means an insult. I still laugh at "several thousand years" though. Cado, once again, no insult intended.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
I think you totally misinterpreted his post.

possibly, and probably - i was half asleep when i replied to that post.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Thanks for pointing that out Red. Though,his lack of proper punctuation caused the confusion. However, with that being said, I interpreted his sentence exactly as he'd written it. No, I didn't think he was stupid, but possibly ignorant of certain aspects of science/space. Ignorance is a far cry from stupidity. We are ALL ignorant of many things. So, implying that one might be ignorant is by no means an insult. I still laugh at "several thousand years" though. Cado, once again, no insult intended.

no offense taken...

i do admittedly have some flaws in my English grammar, but as long as people are able to understand or at least relay their understanding onto others my job is done...lol

also, "several thousand years" makes you laugh because...? i'm intreged

Originally posted by truejedi
can i point out that the title of this post is poor grammar? It should say "as far as technology is concerned." Anything that ends in "wise" is incorrect english:

i.e.

Strength-wise, force-wise, knowledge-wise.

Sorry, I'm not that good at grammar

Space travel is the key. I've read a lot of theories on how it can be done, generating enough gravity to bend space between two points light years apart seems to be the popular theory. I also read that NASA and/or the Air force are working on gravity generating devices.

Originally posted by CadoAngelus
lulz


Knowledge wise, probably not that far from...we're finding out new things about science and technology all the time - whether the concept is fesible or not is a different sotry.

Force-wise, never ever not in a millium years - unless you're one to believe these secret government programmes that had during the cold war (that they're too embarrased to mention happened) with telekinesis and mind powers - lol

Strength-wise, i'm not sure how you mean strength. Physical individuals, so how strong we'll become physically, mentally, or humanity as a whole, whereby we invent more powerful and more energy exsorstive weapons. Or even technology...?

what the hell does any of this mean? I corrected his grammar, and pointed out that those 3 things are poor grammar. What were you doing?

Originally posted by Allankles
Space travel is the key. I've read a lot of theories on how it can be done, generating enough gravity to bend space between two points light years apart seems to be the popular theory. I also read that NASA and/or the Air force are working on gravity generating devices.

Which would take an unrealistic amount of energy. Not to mention, it's not even clear as to what effect this would have on a human body.

Originally posted by truejedi
what the hell does any of this mean? I corrected his grammar, and pointed out that those 3 things are poor grammar. What were you doing?
Originally posted by CadoAngelus
i was half asleep when i replied to that post.

i didn't take into account that you were correcting him lol...i went off on a rant about it...but i still stick to my opinions on how advanced we are in those three areas...even if i look like a div because it didn't understand what you were doing lol...

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Which would take an unrealistic amount of energy. Not to mention, it's not even clear as to what effect this would have on a human body.
i don't think there's a current technological equivilent or theory for an inershal-damper is there...so yeah. if the people manning a space vehicle didn't splat against the walls when the vehicle went into "hyper space" or "faster than light travel" they would definately splat against the walls when the vehicle stopped at it's destination...lol

We could sometime in the future have the ability to simulate certain Force powers, such as TK and Mind Tricks, much easier than we can go FTL. Although pre-cog is probably impossible or close to impossible.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
We could sometime in the future have the ability to simulate certain Force powers, such as TK and Mind Tricks, much easier than we can go FTL. Although pre-cog is probably impossible or close to impossible. It depends on what you mean by mind tricks. Now as far as someone waving their hands, and magically forcing someone to do what they want, is IMPOSSIBLE.

TK is not just a possibility, it's a certainty. Humans perform it on their own body every time they perform a physical action. Decision (thought) --> (telekinesis) Movement (matter). I decide to walk from A to B, and my body follows the command of my mind. Even assuming what Science tells us is true and accepting all of the indirect processes that result in our movement, an original application of telekinesis is still required.

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
TK is not just a possibility, it's a certainty. Humans perform it on their own body every time they perform a physical action. Decision (thought) --> (telekinesis) Movement (matter). I decide to walk from A to B, and my body follows the command of my mind. Even assuming what Science tells us is true and accepting all of the indirect processes that result in our movement, an original application of telekinesis is still required.

Wow you're confused. You're claiming that the ability to move one's self with one's mind is on the same level as moving objects not directly tied to your brain. Hilarious.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
It depends on what you mean by mind tricks. Now as far as someone waving their hands, and magically forcing someone to do what they want, is IMPOSSIBLE.

tell Derren Brown that...

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Wow you're confused. You're claiming that the ability to move one's self with one's mind is on the same level as moving objects not directly tied to your brain. Hilarious.

It proves (by that, I mean non philosophically of course, as we are relying on a correlation here (albeit an absurdly strong one)) that the movement of matter can be triggered by thought. Whether or not it's possible to do that to objects not directly tied to your brain is an uncertainty at this point, but the existence of telekinesis, and thought producing physical effects is not.

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
It proves (by that, I mean non philosophically of course, as we are relying on a correlation here (albeit an absurdly strong one)) that the movement of matter can be triggered by thought. Whether or not it's possible to do that to objects not directly tied to your brain is an uncertainty at this point, but the existence of telekinesis, and thought producing physical effects is not.

No, it proves body parts directly tied to the brain can be controlled by the brain. That is ALL.

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
It proves (by that, I mean non philosophically of course, as we are relying on a correlation here (albeit an absurdly strong one)) that the movement of matter can be triggered by thought. Whether or not it's possible to do that to objects not directly tied to your brain is an uncertainty at this point, but the existence of telekinesis, and thought producing physical effects is not.

I think you need to go and take Biology 101.

We can move our limbs because our brain sends commands to the muscles via the nervous system. It does not correlate to "thinking" about moving an inanimate object and suddenly making it move. Unless we somehow figure out some kind of "bluetooth" brain (a laughable concept), TK isn't happening. Not to mention such a brain would only work on similarly equipped objects.

What if we could have a device that acts as like a third limb and has a special nerve that connects to your brain? And your brain can send signals to it, like "move that rock". So the device projects a force field around the rock and moves it.

It's plausible.

You guys are incompetent.

Originally posted by Autokrat
We can move our limbs because our brain sends commands to the muscles via the nervous system.

Explain this in entirely precise, singular, literal terms, and then illustrate how cause and effect takes place, again, in precise terms, without some application of TK (thought causing physical change), because it would appear you're not looking at this as precisely as required.

"TK is not just a possibility, it's a certainty. Humans perform it on their own body every time they perform a physical action. Decision (thought) --> (telekinesis) Movement (matter). I decide to walk from A to B, and my body follows the command of my mind. Even assuming what Science tells us is true and accepting all of the indirect processes that result in our movement, an original application of telekinesis is still required."

As you can see, I am open to there being an extremely indirect application of telekinesis that causes the end result, but the fact remains that even if that were the case, a series of physical processes would have to take place that at the very core of things would have required a trigger following the original decision to make a voluntary movement. Whatever that trigger was, by definition it meets the concept behind telekinesis (thought causing physical change). At some point, thought would have had to have generated physical change for your original decision to cause the end product of the intent behind that decision.

Again, that's assuming that our bodies don't simply move entirely randomly and that it's entirely coincidental that they behave in accordance with our intentions.

Here, working under the above assumption, let's identify the steps that would be involved.

A - Deciding to make a physical motion.

B - All physical motions following that decision that lead to the intended physical motion.

C - Final, originally intended physical motion.

What you are essentially not addressing is how A ---> B. You are not addressing precisely how the physical changes associated with B are caused by the thought based decision associated with A, and not acknowledging how the necessary step between the two meets the definition of telekinesis.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You guys are incompetent.

And you're MEAN!

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You guys are incompetent.

what point are you trying to make?

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
And you're MEAN!

actually, DS is better than some other posters here, such as (insert names here)...

It means neither you nor Nebaris are making any real points here.

Nebaris? How do you know it's Nebaris? Guy's been around for an entire month and hasn't talked about Bane (I don't think so) yet...

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
What if we could have a device that acts as like a third limb and has a special nerve that connects to your brain? And your brain can send signals to it, like "move that rock". So the device projects a force field around the rock and moves it.

It's plausible.

you honestly believe that? there's no such thing as telekinesis, and if you honestly believe there is, i'd like to see some hardcore evidence of this "telekinesis" in action...

everyone so far that has said the brain can only send messeges to things attached to it have a grasp on the real world...

now, the closest thing to this i can think of is: an implant being placed in the brain of a scientist that allowed him to control - very basically may i add - a mechanic arm across the internet...THAT is it...

Define "send messeges", and if it's an entirely physical thing, as I would imagine you're alluding to, a link between the original thought to do something, and the very immediate physical change that occurs, would have to exist if we were to assume a causal relationship between decision and motion, in which case telekinesis would be required by definition.

Disregarding what Science may suggest which I am personally rather dismissive of in the first place, it's entirely possible that the only reason we can apply telekinesis on our own bodies is because our senses essentially originate and extend outwards from our body, and that our thoughts and senses are extremely interconnected and interdependent and as such our application of telekinesis (an extension of our ability to think) has to act in accordance with our senses and their "location" with respect to the physical world. Thoughts?

Neb, this is why you fail so much.
We do not "apply telekinesis" to our own bodies.
First, Definitions:

Merriam Webster Online:
the production of motion in objects (as by a spiritualistic medium) without contact or other physical means
Dictionary.com:
n. The movement of objects by scientifically inexplicable means, as by the exercise of an occult power.
Macmillan Online:
the power to move or change the shape of objects using your mind



It seems that you are not looking at this as specifically as is required.

Telekinesis has a necessarily metaphysical connotation (as evidenced by def. 2). The attempt to muddy the waters with the mind-body problem is an admirable gambit, but ultimately futile. We understand the mechanisms of movement quite well. There is no need to invoke 'GodMagic does is' because there is nothing for Godmagic to do.

The pertinent quote:


If you want to discuss the motivations and factors deciding the specific voluntary actions then feel free. There are vast bodies of writing for each of a dazzling array of camps on the mind-body problem. Calling voluntary actions telekinesis, however, is disingenuous and inaccurate. They do not fit the common usage (of external metaphysical manipulation) and are sufficiently quantified such that invoking supernaturalism to explain their mechanics is silly.



Also:


http://listicles.thelmagazine.com/wp-content/upload/facepalmrobotnik.png
http://listicles.thelmagazine.com/wp-content/upload/ironhide_facepalm.jpg
Both Dr. Robotnik and Ironhide are disappointed.

Whom is Ironhide?

And no.

Exercising some required concision, what your point of distinction appears to be is as follows:

1. Telekinesis as per one of many applicable definitions of the word is of a metaphysical nature.

2. Science is able to explain this specific relationship between thought and matter.

3. Ergo, thought creating physical effects it is not an application of telekinesis.

Problems:

1. You're treating one of many definitions of the word "telekinesis" as either an absolute definition or at the very least one that definitively applies in this situation, which you are not in a position to do.

2. You have not explained in clear, precise, concise and literal terms how science is able to explain this fundamental link between thought and matter.

Jim, this is why you get flamed so much.

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
Whom is Ironhide?

God damnit.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
God damnit. Seconded.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
God damnit.

i think a "Holy Shit" is in order as well...

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
Exercising some required concision, what your point of distinction appears to be is as follows:

1. Telekinesis as per one of many applicable definitions of the word is of a metaphysical nature.

2. Science is able to explain this specific relationship between thought and matter.

3. Ergo, thought creating physical effects it is not an application of telekinesis.

Problems:

1. You'are treating one of many definitions of the word "telekinesis" as either an absolute definition or at the very least one that definitively applies in this situation, which you are not in a position to do.

2. You have not explained in clear, precise, concise and literal terms how science is able to explain this fundamental link between thought and matter.

okay, seems we're loosing ourselves in a battle of the big words...telekinesis is defined as minipulation of an object or thing that is not in contact with the body...therefore, suggesting that moving an arm or leg in a partcular way is biology, not supernatural telekinesis...

...

Except that I am. Telekinesis as you've defined it is not idiomatic. You are ignoring the connotation of external metaphysical manipulation that goes with the word. There is a reason that superheroes' powers lists do not include TK unless they are able to move things with their mind.



I gave you a link. It isn't my job to teach you biology. There are people that get paid large sums of money to do that and I refuse to do it for free. If you want to languish in ignorance feel free. I can lead you to the information but I can't force it down your throat.


1. lolwut? The only ppl that say that to me are you and DS.
2. Thanks for giving me an easily reportable post for socking.
3. STFU
4. *facepalm*

Nebaris, I agree with my sworn enemy. You are as dumb as they come.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Which would take an unrealistic amount of energy. Not to mention, it's not even clear as to what effect this would have on a human body.

I'm not even saying that we will find a way to travel through space, but these guys seem to on the right track (at least given what we presently know about distorting space).

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Except that I am.

Except that y NO

You are not.

My argument essentially states: if we were to assume a causal relationship between the decision to make a physical motion, and the physical motion to take place, then by definition, telekinesis is required (thought creating material change) to meet this assumption.

Your counter argument assumes a definition of the word "telekinesis" THAT I WAS NOT EVEN USING!!! to establish that telekinesis (per your definition) is not required. By adjusting the definition that I was using and then assuming that definition when addressing the form of my argument you are not only committing a straw man fallacy but the rarely used fallacy of equivocation!

It isn't my job to read your links. As per the rules of debate, it is your job to present the evidence that you are using in accordance with the debating principles of relevance and accessibility. I do not have to go out of my way to filter through whatever you're linking me to (I didn't click it) to uphold my part in this debate.

Good day!

I stand by what I was saying earlier. It's entirely possible that we can only apply telekinesis on our own bodies because our ability to think (which telekinesis is an application of) is interconnected and interdependent with our senses and our bodies represent the physical location and source of our senses. Valid thoughts on the matter?

Originally posted by Allankles
I'm not even saying that we will find a way to travel through space, but these guys seem to on the right track (at least given what we presently know about distorting space).

Yes, because you have ANY kind of credibility here..

Respond to my rebuttal Beef.

Yeah... that's what I thought. Concession accepted.

Poor Nebaris. After 100 bans he still can't win an argument.

According to whom?

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
According to whom?

According to everyone on this forum who is familiar with you

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Yes, because you have ANY kind of credibility here..

And.. you pointed out something obvious that had nothing to do with what I posted.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Which would take an unrealistic amount of energy. Not to mention, it's not even clear as to what effect this would have on a human body.

I wasn't looking for an argument. I'm hoping you can avoid being an idiot in this thread. I'm actually concerned for you.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
According to everyone on this forum who is familiar with you

And whom might they be?

In the perfect world, arguing here is not about winning and humiliating the other guy, it's about sharing what you know and have learned and in turn learn stuff from others, while trying to broaden your way of thinking and forming coherent, logical arguments. People actually rarely win or lose arguments here. Srsly, what makes someone the 'winner'?

Here are a few useful tips that will allow you to be seen (mostly by yourself) as the top dog.


First, you can win an argument when you are able to annoy the other guy long enough (by verbally assaulting him, ignoring everything he says or just repeating the same argument over and over again) so he will be the coward and add you to their ignore list, making him the loser.

You could also just type a lot of crap. It doesn't have to be coherent, logical or factual, it just has to be plenty enough to make your lazy opponent sigh at reading it and he will forfeit, thus making you the winner.

You also win an argument when you strategically choose an opponent who doesn't have enough time to spend on the internet, thus he will not respond often and seem lost for words, which makes him lose the argument.

Last and most used are the winning phrases like, 'you're too stupid to argue with, you lose' which shares a close resemblance to 'you're not worth my time, I'll let someone else take care of you' or you could also use the 'I win because I have already won more arguments than you did (you don't need to take in account actual victories for this though)' phrase, or sometimes words are not even required, a well coordinated facepalm in response a good argument will also make the job quick and effective.

These are all handy options to win an argument here, because luckily there is no anonymously voted referee who is able to declare someone the winner of an argument.

This is why you fail. This is also why DS thinks that subjectivism is fawking retarded. This is not a case of syntactical or connotational or grammatical imperialism. Words have meaning. Using them contrary to their meaning does not mean that we simply disagree on usage or that there is some ambiguity that lends your position credibility.

It means that you are attempting to ignore the connotation (and hell, even the denotation) of the word in question. 'Telekinesis' is used idiomatically to refer to psychic and/or metaphysical manipulation of the outside world. Defining it as any execution of meditated thought is simply an intellectually dishonest manipulation of the term. The SAT would define your error by noting that 'calling intentional movement telekinesis is not idiomatic.'

Neb, you're wrong. Telekinesis does not mean mere movement caused by thought. It includes a mystical aspect, and implies manipulation of the world around oneself.

No. There are many applicable definitions of the word and the only absolute meaning is that it has to involve material change being generated without the use of physical force. Aside from that one absolute, definitions vary in the specifics.

For example:

"The ability to move objects solely with the power of the mind."

Where's the necessary implication that it has to be of an entirely metaphysical nature or that it can only be applied onto the outside world?

This is still ignoring the original point as well: thought can generate material change; whether you want to label it telekinesis or magic or whatever.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
In the perfect world, arguing here is not about winning and humiliating the other guy, it's about sharing what you know and have learned and in turn learn stuff from others, while trying to broaden your way of thinking and forming coherent, logical arguments. People actually rarely win or lose arguments here. Srsly, what makes someone the 'winner'?


I think some posters are still young or think young, and it shows. Certainly when I still posted at places like SD or netscape posters seemed far more poised/diplomatic and smart and a good deal of them were older, - 20, 30 even 50 years my senior.

Overall KMC isn't so bad, I ve seen worse. I've seen guys transform on KMC like AC Styles, and a few others. But guys like AC were smarter than average, age is bound to wisen you.

Yet again you ignored the usage. From your own site:



The reason that Nicky was unable to reach the altidudinally gifted book was that she could not reach it with her body. A workaround for that would be the skill of telekinesis, a skill that she does not possess.

Unless you want to imagine that Wilma is taunting her paraplegic friend by pointing out her infirmity then telekinesis cannot be defined as you have suggested.

Originally posted by Allankles
I think some posters are still young or think young, and it shows. Certainly when I still posted at places like SD or netscape posters seemed far more poised/diplomatic and smart and a good deal of them were older, - 20, 30 even 50 years my senior.

Overall KMC isn't so bad, I ve seen worse. I've seen guys transform on KMC like AC Styles, and a few others. But guys like AC were smarter than average, age is bound to wisen you.

Really? Most other forums I go to still argue Revan is the most powerful sith and smartest, without proving it. They argue that he is the heart of the force.

OMG I can NOT believe that you would go so far as to use urbandictionary as a source in this argument. We're done. It's reasons like this that are largely why Darth Sexy and Ushgurak flame you all the time.

If this goes to a new page then I commend you on your use of formatting to tell half truths.You fail.

I accept your concession though.

(Reported for socking and trolling.)

I will never concede.

The distinction Nicky draws between telekinesis and the movement of her own body can be attributed to her misunderstanding or neglectful thinking as to what exactly enables her body to follow the commands of her mind. It doesn't mean that the definition can't be used in such a manner however.

Here's another one.

"the movement of a body caused by thought or willpower without the application of a physical force"

1st definition:
The movement of objects by scientifically inexplicable means, as by the exercise of an occult power.

2nd definition:
1. the movement of a body caused by thought or willpower without the application of a physical force
2. the ability to cause such movement

'Body' is used to refer to an object, as in 'a body at rest tends to remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.' You are also failing to read the entire sentence: "without the application of a physical force." There is a definite physical force involved in the motion of the human body- electrical signals transmitted through nerves.

You lose.

Originally posted by Allankles
And.. you pointed out something obvious that had nothing to do with what I posted.



I wasn't looking for an argument. I'm hoping you can avoid being an idiot in this thread. I'm actually concerned for you.

Says the forum idiot.

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
OMG I can NOT believe that you would go so far as to use urbandictionary as a source in this argument. We're done. It's reasons like this that are largely why Darth Sexy and Ushgurak flame you all the time.
Actually, me, Ush, and everyone else flame YOU all the time.

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
No. There are many applicable definitions of the word and the only absolute meaning is that it has to involve material change being generated without the use of physical force. Aside from that one absolute, definitions vary in the specifics.

For example:

"The ability to move objects solely with the power of the mind."

Where's the necessary implication that it has to be of an entirely metaphysical nature or that it can only be applied onto the outside world?

This is still ignoring the original point as well: thought can generate material change; whether you want to label it telekinesis or magic or whatever.

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
OMG I can NOT believe that you would go so far as to use urbandictionary as a source in this argument. We're done. It's reasons like this that are largely why Darth Sexy and Ushgurak flame you all the time.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! this made me piss myself...Omiverseria/Nebaris/Whatever...you gave Nemesis the source of Urbandictionary and you flame him after he uses it and takes heed in your outburst earlier - about how it's not your job to read sources posted by him, though you'll find that most people don't want to spend days trying to explain high school education to people again - something tells me you enter arguments for the sake of the argument and perhaps to make yourself look like a fool in front of everyone? not to educate or otherwise help people understand your view point...

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
There is a definite physical force involved in the motion of the human body- electrical signals transmitted through nerves.

Prove it (defaulting on "what science says" equates to an appeal to authority).

If there were to be a causal relationship between thought and matter, then it's far more likely that what we wish to happen simply happens directly rather than through a number of processes to which we don't have any natural understanding of.

I win.

Also, even assuming that the movement of the body were caused by electrical signals transmitted through the nerves, what causes this to happen? And if your answer to that were another physical process, what causes that to happen? I think you'll find that at some point, material change would have had to occur without the original application of physical force. So even assuming the unproven science you're referencing, an original application of non physical force would have still been required to have the eventual result of moving the body.

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
Also, even assuming that the movement of the body were caused by electrical signals transmitted through the nerves, what causes this to happen? And if your answer to that were another physical process, what causes that to happen? I think you'll find that at some point, material change would have had to occur without the original application of physical force. So even assuming the unproven science you're referencing, an original application of non physical force would have still been required to have the eventual result of moving the body.

**** me ahaha...are you trying to say the mains power that runs through my house is telekinetic too...watch out

Ignore Nebaris everyone. There's a reason he's been the laughing stock of KMC for 3 years and counting.

Blasters are highly likely. In fact the US goverment has just built some sort of "laser turret" that is able to heat up missles so they explode.

Originally posted by ares834
Blasters are highly likely. In fact the US goverment has just built some sort of "laser turret" that is able to heat up missles so they explode.

Exactly. So are prosthetics (which already exist in primitive forms), droids/ai, space colonization, and a host of other stuff

the only mainstream star wars tech that is far beyond what we can currently do is FTL travel blasters and repulsor lifts are already becoming a reality.

Originally posted by CadoAngelus
HAHAHAHAHAHA! this made me piss myself...Omiverseria/Nebaris/Whatever...you gave Nemesis the source of Urbandictionary and you flame him after he uses it and takes heed in your outburst earlier - about how it's not your job to read sources posted by him, though you'll find that most people don't want to spend days trying to explain high school education to people again - something tells me you enter arguments for the sake of the argument and perhaps to make yourself look like a fool in front of everyone? not to educate or otherwise help people understand your view point...

I figured somebody would pick up on this.

Neb, you've been 3rd party pwnt.

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
Prove it (defaulting on "what science says" equates to an appeal to authority).

If there were to be a causal relationship between thought and matter, then it's far more likely that what we wish to happen simply happens directly rather than through a number of processes to which we don't have any natural understanding of.

I win.

Your desperate attempts to label my arguments fallacious are growing more and more feeble. Incidentally, as none of the flaws you've cited have actually been valid (your accusation of equivocation would be more accurately levied at, ironically, you) you are guilty of a fallacy yourself (again, ironically). By accusing me of fallacious arguments you've actually been using an ad hominem fallacy. You've yet to articulate exactly how any of my points are invalid (because you can't).

Compounding the irony is that beyond your inadvertent use of ad hominem you have used another logical fallacy. This one is the argument from ignorance. Your assertion that "it's far more likely" for your assertion to be true fits the wikipedia example (cited above) almost exactly.

Moreover, we do have an incredible understanding of the mechanics of neurotransmission. We know how signals work and how it works.

Originally posted by Mr Omiverseria
Also, even assuming that the movement of the body were caused by electrical signals transmitted through the nerves, what causes this to happen? And if your answer to that were another physical process, what causes that to happen? I think you'll find that at some point, material change would have had to occur without the original application of physical force. So even assuming the unproven science you're referencing, an original application of non physical force would have still been required to have the eventual result of moving the body.

You are now arguing first cause. As I see no reason to double as a biology teacher, I can't see why I should be a philosophy teacher.

For a place to start your investigation, determinism would disagree with you.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Really? Most other forums I go to still argue Revan is the most powerful sith and smartest, without proving it. They argue that he is the heart of the force.

KMC is above average when it comes to SW. With the exception of a few malcontents, this place is ok.

How so?

1. I was addressing the argument specifically, and not the person presenting it.

2. I wasn't saying it to be insulting, but as a supplement to my explanation to act as a point of reference that might further enhance not only your understanding of the situation but that of anybody who might be reading this.

3. I didn't say anything along the lines of "your entire argument is wrong because you committed ," but only the aspects of your argument that the fallacy specifically applied.

So how was I committing an ad hominem fallacy exactly?



"Your counter argument assumes a definition of the word "telekinesis" THAT I WAS NOT EVEN USING!!! to establish that telekinesis (per your definition) is not required. By adjusting the definition that I was using and then assuming that definition when addressing the form of my argument you are not only committing a straw man fallacy but the rarely used fallacy of equivocation!"

^ Articulation of exactly how you've been committing mentioned fallacies. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

defaulting on "what science says" equates to an appeal to authority

This statement was made in advance of any such usage of the appeal to authority fallacy, and by definition the fallacy would apply in such a usage.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The argument from personal incredulity fallacy involves simply believing something because it "seems" likely without actually having any real reason to believe such a thing. I was operating under a hidden premise because I didn't think that there was a necessity for it to actually be stated.

If there were to be a causal relationship between thought and matter, then it's far more likely that what we wish to happen simply happens directly rather than through a number of processes to which we don't have any natural understanding of.

The reasoning being that, under the assumption that our mind causes the material change that occurs in our body, and given that it is entirely intentional, it's far more probable that our mind carries out its intent in a manner that our mind actually understands such an intent would be carried out rather than through a series of processes to which it has no necessary understanding of. Our minds aren't naturally born with the immediate understanding of the biology behind our body, so given that humans are capable of movement before going on to gain such understanding, it's likely that our intentional control over our bodies is carried out in a manner that our mind can naturally understand. In simple terms: any action that intentionally causes a certain effect is more likely to be caused in a manner that is reflective of that intention, and the understanding of the mind behind that intention.

That isn't to say it's impossible that our minds' decisions to move our bodies can be executed in a manner that our minds cannot understand, but simply that it's unlikely. Such an element of randomness would be similar to that of there *not* being a causal relationship between our decisions and our actions.



Which the definition never denied in the first place.

And again, I feel no real obligation as a debater to go out of my way to find out information that you are expected to be able to present in an accessible and relevant manner in the first place.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Really? Most other forums I go to still argue Revan is the most powerful sith and smartest, without proving it. They argue that he is the heart of the force.
Same. The force.net isn't bad, but most other sites like TOR are shitty.

Neb, you're repeating yourself.

In order of your points:

Pointing out what you imagine to be fallacies without elaborating on where the logic breaks down is simply a smear tactic. You fail.

Where you do articulate the "fallacious" points you are wrong. Equivocation would be twisting a word to fit one's argument. How might this be done? One might start by ignoring idiomatic usage and even explicitly stated characteristics of the word. This sounds a hell of a lot more like you than it does me. You fail.

The next point is not repetition, but it is silly. You claim that the body most likely works in a way that it understands. Do you intend to ascribe understanding to manta rays when their hearts beat? Do you intend to classify as sentient plants that follow the sun's rays (as do sunflowers)?

Your assertion is made without regard, and in opposition to established medical fact. I have provided you with these facts. That you would rather pretend that you are right than expand your understanding of the universe illustrates most effectively the futility of speaking with you. You fail.

(For those keeping score at home, Nebaris gave me a big 'NO U,' a tactic that generally signals total mental shutdown. He repeated his erroneous assertions in the hope that repetition would establish validity. Unfortunately for him, it did not and does not. An interesting note is that he ended with another instance of equivocation, hoping to drag the argument anywhere but the usage and definition of the term 'telekinesis.' He even tried to invoke a bastardized form of the cosmological argument to somehow prove free will over determinism. This backfired when I pointed out that the motivations of an action do not change what the action itself is (what precipitates movement does not change what we call movement itself). Had I chosen to rebut the point, rather than the attack, the most expeditious avenue that I can see is to point out that the largest concession possible to the argument from First cause is mere Deism, the first domino. (Which of course does nothing to debunk the mechanical nature of immediate decisions.))

I find it frustrating when arguments have to end for a reason other than the points (like idiocy) so I have endeavored to explain exactly where Neb failed. If there is any confusion left from his distortion of the language feel free to PM me and I'll do my best to clear things up.

The goal is to get back on topic now. Since the Mods have seemingly refused to ban him I suggest that we add him to ignore?

__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
_____________________
Anyways, I don't see how you guys think that medical technology is anywhere near SW levels. Admittedly, I've not kept up with the latest crazy stuff in medicine (since I refuse to follow such a career) but surely our tech is still lightyears behind an industry capable of rebuilding a quadriplegic lava victim?

Wouldn't it be better to put him on ignore? He hasn't made a convincing argument in all of his time here.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Anyways, I don't see how you guys think that medical technology is anywhere near SW levels. Admittedly, I've not kept up with the latest crazy stuff in medicine (since I refuse to follow such a career) but surely our tech is still lightyears behind an industry capable of rebuilding a quadriplegic lava victim?

I think the closest we've come to anything like this is a mixture of: prosthetic limbs, miniaturized medical life support machines, breathing apparatus built into a helmet, and a catheter bag...

as for the rest of the technology:
- anyone who seriously argues the case for the creation of a lightsaber EVER has something wrong - or their heads are in the clouds...

- flying cars are beyond comprehension - as the amount of thrust and power needed to run something like it as far off the ground as they do in SW is ridiculous

- blasters are unlikely - though it has been proven that lasers with intent to harm someone are not such a fantasy

- lifts and turbo lifts are a grey area for me...you don't really see enough in the saga and i've only really read a handful of books that include the lifts and basically nothing explains or tries to explain how they work

- "hyperspace" as we know it is too resource draining to realistically consider it - i think scientists have worked out it would take the equivalent power of several thousand suns, the size of ours, to achieve such speeds and even then: it's been mentioned about inertia and how it's unknown about the effects of light travel on the human body, and i've mentioned the existence of tiny particles and rocks that are randomized but scattered throughout space, and the likelihood of fly straight through them while traveling light speed is highly likely

- AI of that level is impossible i think. I don't even like to refer to it as AI, I don't believe a machine could learn to be self aware in the way that we think...I refer to it as VI (Virtual Intelligence)...

- and i can't think of anything else right now lol...mental block

Originally posted by ares834
Same. The force.net isn't bad, but most other sites like TOR are shitty. Lucasforums is even worse.

LULZ kria said ancient sith PAWN so tat means PT jedi are w3aker in sab3rs.

Anyways i have almost completely given up on debating SW.

Nem, I consider myself a patient and generous individual, and usually I would consider providing you with some online tuition in the fields of logic and debating but I absolutely REFUSE to teach a student who's clearly not willing to learn.

You imply that I haven't managed to explain exactly how you've been committing the mentioned fallacies when the explanations are right there for everyone to see.

"Your counter argument assumes a definition of the word "telekinesis" THAT I WAS NOT EVEN USING!!! to establish that telekinesis (per your definition) is not required. By adjusting the definition that I was using and then assuming that definition when addressing the form of my argument you are not only committing a straw man fallacy but the rarely used fallacy of equivocation!"

In short, you were saying that my argument that "telekinesis would be required for the movement of our bodies if there were to be a causal relationship between thought and matter" was wrong by pointing out how that is not the case when using a definition of telekinesis that I was not using. This meets the fundamental nature of the fallacy of equivocation, as well as the straw man fallacy by attacking this argument of your own construction based on a distorted meaning of the word "telekinesis".

"(defaulting on "what science says" equates to an appeal to authority)"

"what science says" can be better termed as what scientific authorities say, which fully meets the definition of the appeal to authority fallacy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equivocation is not about using words incorrectly. Equivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are committing another straw man argument by neglecting to mention that my argument revolves around "decision" and then posting the heart beating example. We don't decide for our hearts to beat or for our body to function, it fortunately just does. When we make a movement, it is entirely intentional and decided.

My point was that the effect of any cause that has intent would more likely than not be realised in a manner that the mind behind the intent can understand. I fully intend to stand up and I perform this action willingly and consciously knowing that I can. If we were to assume that my decision is the original cause and me standing up is the final effect, it's simply more probable that my thought was used to directly carry out its intent in a manner that it understands, rather than in a manner that it doesn't understand that has the random (with respect to our intention) effect of carrying out our mind's wish. If you can't understand the logic behind that probability than I can't do anything further to help you. Logic at its very core cannot be explained, only understood
(I can prove this in a manner that I would go about proving the existence of an indivisible unit of time, space, or matter; involves ---> ---> , and how can never be achieved with the presence of ).

( can be substituted for and for )

(( ---> ---> ))

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debating is about reaching an agreed truth. If you want your perception of the truth to be agreed upon, than you are fully obligated to present the evidence that explains your perception of the truth in an accessible and relevant manner.

edit - I succeed.

edit 2 - I didn't miss anything did I?

I can also prove that there's a limit to how quickly matter can move across space and can define this speed.

As for the validity of my usage of the word "telekinesis" I will again refer you to the urban dictionary and the internet which I think you'll find happen to agree with me on the matter.




















Kidding of course, my usage has been more than verified by a valid source, whereby even assuming the processes that lead up to the body's movement and that all involve an application of physical force, an original application of non physical force would still be required.

Originally posted by CadoAngelus
I think the closest we've come to anything like this is a mixture of: prosthetic limbs, miniaturized medical life support machines, breathing apparatus built into a helmet, and a catheter bag...

as for the rest of the technology:
- anyone who seriously argues the case for the creation of a lightsaber EVER has something wrong - or their heads are in the clouds...

- flying cars are beyond comprehension - as the amount of thrust and power needed to run something like it as far off the ground as they do in SW is ridiculous

- blasters are unlikely - though it has been proven that lasers with intent to harm someone are not such a fantasy

- lifts and turbo lifts are a grey area for me...you don't really see enough in the saga and i've only really read a handful of books that include the lifts and basically nothing explains or tries to explain how they work

- "hyperspace" as we know it is too resource draining to realistically consider it - i think scientists have worked out it would take the equivalent power of several thousand suns, the size of ours, to achieve such speeds and even then: it's been mentioned about inertia and how it's unknown about the effects of light travel on the human body, and i've mentioned the existence of tiny particles and rocks that are randomized but scattered throughout space, and the likelihood of fly straight through them while traveling light speed is highly likely

- AI of that level is impossible i think. I don't even like to refer to it as AI, I don't believe a machine could learn to be self aware in the way that we think...I refer to it as VI (Virtual Intelligence)...

- and i can't think of anything else right now lol...mental block

So in other words:

We can't ever even come close to Star Wars, even though we're already close to it in many aspects.

We can't even invent blasters/a gun of that level, even though our guns are already very close to them in terms of power.

SW level AI is impossible, even though we've advanced extremely far in that area in just 50 or so years, so in billions/trillions/quadrillions of years we can't even invent a battle droid, whose "intelligence" is about the level of a wild animal.

Lifts are unlikely to ever be built, so in millions of years we can't even get a thing to lift off the ground like that.

Flying cars are "beyond comprehension (wtf?)" because obviously in billions of years we can't even invent cars that fly (and we can comprehend a billion years).

Whoever thinks that lightsabers are possible are crazy, so in billions of years (if we survive that long) we can't even invent a super powered glow stick.

Nebaris is an idiot.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
So in other words:

We can't ever even come close to Star Wars, even though we're already close to it in many aspects. right

correct

You got it.

absolutely

possibly

Yes, very crazy.

I believe that is everyone's reaction to your arguements.

People who say blasters are an impossability are wrong. Very wrong. The American Government has already developed a "laser cannon" that can take out missles. It is only a matter of time untill we have the technology to compress into a far smaller size. Of course, whether the gun is effective enough for its most likely absurdly high cost is a very diffrent subject.

Nah. Our guns have nowhere near the energy output of a blaster rifle. Also, blasters are not realistic depictions of real world fisix so we have no way to replicate them.

The talk of a combat laser ignores the massive power requirements and (presently) bulky delivery method. Is it possible to advance lasers to a combat application? Possibly. Is it likely? No. Why not? Because lasers would not kill unless they hit a vital area. They would burn a hole through someone, relegating them to ceremonial executions, torture and construction applications.


Nope. SW level AI is indistinguishable (HK47) from true sentience. This is beyond all known media and methods of computation. True AI (link and link) would require a "technological singularity" to be actualized. Under the current paradigm it is (to my knowledge) theoretically impossible.


Repulsorlifts? Machines that work by reflecting gravity? Unlikely. As it is we do not fully understand gravity's mechanics, and we are therefore unable to manipulate it. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, there is no incentive to develop it. (Although, tbh, this technology is one of the more likely ones if we assume unidisturbed continuation of civilization and the industrial and scientific revolutions .)


See, now you're not even trying. You're just stating the oppositions' assertions and pretending like you can counter them.

Why do you think that this situation is unlikely? Why do you think humanity would attempt to develop flying cars? What technologies do you see today that could lead into such an invention?

If your point is merely that flying cars are physically possible then I refer you to the mechanics of thrust and gravity. Flying cars are dependent upon another magic-tech invention.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If you want to say that we could develop flying cars, given an unspecified number of prior advances of similarly vague and similarly science fiction-ey inventions, then yes. They are possible. But to suggest that we are anywhere close now or that they are a likely occurrence at all is simply false.


Lightsabers do not behave in accordance with any presently known natural phenomena. They are physically impossible under our current understanding of the natural laws.

A 'rolleyes smilie' is not a rebuttal to a position.

Guys, plz dnt quote him, it makes it harder to ignore.

Honestly, I do need keep track of all that kinda stuff. I do know that we are no where near as advanced as SW technololgy. HWKA seems to be getting mad because people are not agreeing with him. He just calls everyone wrong, and instead of proving it he tries to make everyone seem like jokes.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Honestly, I do need keep track of all that kinda stuff. I do know that we are no where near as advanced as SW technololgy. HWKA seems to be getting mad because people are not agreeing with him. He just calls everyone wrong, and instead of proving it he tries to make everyone seem like jokes. The quintessential defense of an insecure little boy. Very succinct definition of him.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
So in other words:

*We can't ever even come close to Star Wars*, even though we're already close to it in many aspects.
*in very many ways, yes*...depends who you are...


NO! see Nemesis' above post


okay, when an android/robot can tell the difference between the rock falling off a cliff, and itself falling off a cliff...come back.


repulsalifts!!! dude, ****ing read it before you comment...read Nemesis' post above


now i can see where you're coming from...you're working purely on speculation. you shouldn't, there's no room in technicle science for speculation. gravity and thrust are major key factors in the working of "fly cars". see Nemesis' above post


this "super powered glowing stick", as you so call it, is - depending who you are - either light or plasma. 1) light is not controllable in the way a lightsaber exibits. 2) plasma does not and doesn't show evidence of acting like a lightsaber blade does.


bash

*sigh*

It is true that blasters probably won't be used, heck there's a chance that we might not even use directed energy weapons at all (although strangely in another thread Lucien said that it was strange that the Halo humans still use projectile weapons in the 26th century, even though that's very possible). However, we can most definitely produce a handheld weapon of some sort that would surpass that of blasters. Will it be called a "blaster"? Probably not. But we CAN invent more powerful weapons than a blaster. If you still disagree, then let me ask you: how advanced do you think our handheld weapons will be in, say, 2000 years? Please give a description of how powerful they could conceivably be via 2000 years of advancement.

You have yet to explain how AI is impossible. To think that we cannot invent AI at least at the level of a battle droid (whose "intelligence" is laughable) in millions of years is not realistic. Let me ask you: how advanced do you think AI will be in a million years (if we survive that long and are still advanced)?

We don't yet no if "anti-gravity" is possible. If it is, then we can make one. If not, then obviously we can't, however we can make devices that function similarly to repulserlifts.

So in billions of years we won't have the tech to make a car fly? Now will they actually become a common transportation method? Probably not, due to many negative factors of the sky being filled with flying cars, but we do have the potential to make one. We probably won't (or at least won't make them widespread), but we can. They are not "beyond comprehension".

Who says that it's light or plasma? And how do you know that we can't figure out some way to control light/plasma in some strange way?
It could be some strange new element that scientists invent.

Oh, and true, we obviously won't actually use lightsabers for combat, that's ridiculous. However, it isn't entirely far-fetched to say that they are possible. Are they? Maybe, maybe not, but so say that they may be possible in millions of years is not "crazy".

Oh, and Lucien, you are a hypocrite. Please don't bash me about "bashing" (ie being a bit sarcastic) others, when you go out and call people idiots and come up with strange logic to support it (oh the Empire wins cause they simply divide their small forces around the globe and attack all of the many nuclear countries at once and win EASILY, and of course I'm ignoring something called the OCEAN, their lack of transports, their not-unlimited supplies, air strikes, artillery strikes, the nuclear nations' NAVIES, overwhelming numerical disadvantage, and many others, but who cares? Later: hey, it's a spite against the Empire! How dare you!). Then, when I come up with a large, LOGCIAL argument to support my logical conclusions, often times you ignore it. Tell me: when have I EVER started bashing someone FIRST before they did? I'm waiting...

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Oh, and Lucien, you are a hypocrite. Please don't bash me about "bashing" (ie being a bit sarcastic) others, when you go out and call people idiots and come up with strange logic to support it (oh the Empire wins cause they simply divide their small forces around the globe and attack all of the many nuclear countries at once and win EASILY, and of course I'm ignoring something called the OCEAN, their lack of transports, their not-unlimited supplies, air strikes, artillery strikes, the nuclear nations' NAVIES, overwhelming numerical disadvantage, and many others, but who cares? Later: hey, it's a spite against the Empire! How dare you!). Then, when I come up with a large, LOGCIAL argument to support my logical conclusions, often times you ignore it. Tell me: when have I EVER started bashing someone FIRST before they did? I'm waiting...

Oh my god. Are you still going on about this? Srsly man.

I just wanted the Canadian to see this, so he knows that he sent HWKA straight to the psychiatrist.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Oh my god. Are you still going on about this? Srsly man.

I just wanted the Canadian to see this, so he knows that he sent HWKA straight to the psychiatrist. He's still going on about that? I am flattered. Truly. Never before have I remained such a focal point in someone's mind over an internet argument. 10 bucks says he's had dreams of throttling me.

To think I'm costing that kid's family money in psychiatric treatment. "Tell me, He, did this avatar touch you? Did he remind you of your father? All work and no play makes He a dumb boy? Did he come home covered in soot and reeking of gin? Did he call you names like 'troll' and 'idiot'? How did that make you feel?"

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Oh my god. Are you still going on about this? Srsly man.

I just wanted the Canadian to see this, so he knows that he sent HWKA straight to the psychiatrist.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
He's still going on about that? I am flattered. Truly. Never before have I remained such a focal point in someone's mind over an internet argument. 10 bucks says he's had dreams of throttling me.

To think I'm costing that kid's family money in psychiatric treatment. "Tell me, He, did this avatar touch you? Did he remind you of your father? All work and no play makes He a dumb boy? Did he come home covered in soot and reeking of gin? Did he call you names like 'troll' and 'idiot'? How did that make you feel?"

*sigh* see? You completely ignored my argument and just said that it was bull without saying why.

Oh, and you guys started it. NOT me. I was simply debating when you all of the sudden started bashing me.

What'd he say? All I see beside his name is "Yada Yada Yada Lobster Bisque."

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
*sigh* see? You completely ignored my argument and just said that it was bull without saying why.

Oh, and you guys started it. NOT me. I was simply debating when you all of the sudden started bashing me.

He replied this to both of our posts. Meaning, he actually thinks we're arguing want to argue about the topic with him.

So what have we learned? We have learned that not responding to someone's arguments is automatically saying that they're bs.

So I have counted 2 off topic posts (in the strict, non-rules lawyerly way of being a d-bag) that have not even referenced my post. (Unless he really did and just happened to also rant about his Lucien fetish.)

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
He replied this to both of our posts. Meaning, he actually thinks we're arguing want to argue about the topic with him.

So what have we learned? We have learned that not responding to someone's arguments is automatically saying that they're bs.

You did quote it (or at least the last part to Lucien) and then said "what's your problem you're wrong" but never said HOW I'm wrong.

Why can't you guys have a little humanity?

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
You did quote it (or at least the last part to Lucien) and then said "what's your problem you're wrong" but never said HOW I'm wrong.

Why can't you guys have a little humanity?

I haven't talked about the topic ONCE in this entire thread.

Prove that I said you're wrong, quote me and put the words in italic. If you can't do that, then you're a goddamn liar. It's very hard to be nice to people who tell lies about you.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
So I have counted 2 off topic posts (in the strict, non-rules lawyerly way of being a d-bag) that have not even referenced my post. (Unless he really did and just happened to also rant about his Lucien fetish.)
*3 posts

Lobster bisque.....
:::drool:::

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
*sigh*
indeed

anyway, i've noticed it with every return argument you give me...you keep speculating the amount of time it would take the human race to evolve to a level of technological advancement similar to star wars...nowhere do you prove that we have the ability to exponentially expend our "know how" in the periods of time you list...hmmm


can we actually create weapons with a destructive capacity higher than a blaster from star wars? if there any proof that we have the ability to evolve that "know how" over however many years?

i can't say how technologically advanced we'll be in 2000years, because 1)i'm not a time traveller, 2)i don't think even top theoretical or quantum physical scientists could even predict that...


intelligence is generally defined by sentience. sentience is the ability to feel or perceive subjectively...philosophy defines rules to how to identify sentience: the ability to feel pain and pleasure.

now you could argue that computers/robots today have the ability to identify objects and relay them back to testing scientists to suggest a level of learning, which can be argued to be a contributing factor towards intelligence, but tell me (going back to my example): if a computer witnesses a rock being dropped off a cliff and saw the end result, it would no doubt see that the rock could not stay intact when i hit the ground, but intelligence would allow a human to see that dropping himself/herself off a cliff would kill him/her, the robot wouldn't...


Gravity is a constant. The only way to simulate gravity is to create a centrifuge, and since the lifts in star wars don't rotate extremely fast...something tells me they don't follow this rule.


a flying car from star wars no...there's nothing to say that aerodynamics would enter the equation, as the shape of the "flying cars" in star wars are very similar to that of our cars...but Gravity and Thrust enter majorly into how the "car" would work.


it's called a "light"saber funny enough...and others argue that it's actually plasma. nevertheless, i know we wouldn't figure out a way to control light because there is no proven way - theoretical or known - to manipulate light...

as for plasma, anything we or scientists know about the behavior of plasma would know that it's not possible to control plasma that way...


it's amazingly crazy and anyone who thinks it isn't crazy should pop-off to a nice little psychiatrist and ask them about their connection to the real world...see above comment


this doesn't look like it's aimed at me so, i'll ignore it lol

Originally posted by CadoAngelus
indeed

anyway, i've noticed it with every return argument you give me...you keep speculating the amount of time it would take the human race to evolve to a level of technological advancement similar to star wars...nowhere do you prove that we have the ability to exponentially expend our "know how" in the periods of time you list...hmmm


can we actually create weapons with a destructive capacity higher than a blaster from star wars? if there any proof that we have the ability to evolve that "know how" over however many years?

i can't say how technologically advanced we'll be in 2000years, because 1)i'm not a time traveller, 2)i don't think even top theoretical or quantum physical scientists could even predict that...


intelligence is generally defined by sentience. sentience is the ability to feel or perceive subjectively...philosophy defines rules to how to identify sentience: the ability to feel pain and pleasure.

now you could argue that computers/robots today have the ability to identify objects and relay them back to testing scientists to suggest a level of learning, which can be argued to be a contributing factor towards intelligence, but tell me (going back to my example): if a computer witnesses a rock being dropped off a cliff and saw the end result, it would no doubt see that the rock could not stay intact when i hit the ground, but intelligence would allow a human to see that dropping himself/herself off a cliff would kill him/her, the robot wouldn't...


Gravity is a constant. The only way to simulate gravity is to create a centrifuge, and since the lifts in star wars don't rotate extremely fast...something tells me they don't follow this rule.


a flying car from star wars no...there's nothing to say that aerodynamics would enter the equation, as the shape of the "flying cars" in star wars are very similar to that of our cars...but Gravity and Thrust enter majorly into how the "car" would work.


it's called a "light"saber funny enough...and others argue that it's actually plasma. nevertheless, i know we wouldn't figure out a way to control light because there is no proven way - theoretical or known - to manipulate light...

as for plasma, anything we or scientists know about the behavior of plasma would know that it's not possible to control plasma that way...


it's amazingly crazy and anyone who thinks it isn't crazy should pop-off to a nice little psychiatrist and ask them about their connection to the real world...see above comment


this doesn't look like it's aimed at me so, i'll ignore it lol

First of all, I apologize if I offended you or anything.

Second of all, many of your arguments revolve around "oh it's too difficult to produce X amount of energy required or it isn't areodynamic or light doesn't work that way and we don't know how to influence it NOW, and since we don't have the tech to do it now, we can't make it." Well people 100 years ago claimed that a flying machine would never be made and I even believe that some scientists "mathematically proved" that humans ever flying is impossible. But that's because although they didn't have the ability to create it then, they thought that it is impossible, which is false. And yes, a robot could be made to tell that dropping off a cliff would kill itself, all it has to do is to calculate the impact of the fall based on the height of the cliff and other stuff.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
I haven't talked about the topic ONCE in this entire thread.

Prove that I said you're wrong, quote me and put the words in italic. If you can't do that, then you're a goddamn liar. It's very hard to be nice to people who tell lies about you.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Oh my god. Are you still going on about this? Srsly man.

I just wanted the Canadian to see this, so he knows that he sent HWKA straight to the psychiatrist.

As a response to my rebuttal against Lucien, you said the above, which doesn't give a logical argument as to why I am wrong (not about the main topic, but about this sub topic involving Lucien all of the sudden bashing me for no reason. Then I respond to his bashing, and you read it and say that I'm crazy without providing a reason as to why Lucien is justified in bashing me.

HWKA, you are asking every one to speculate. Why are you arguing when you are wanting us to speculate?

By which you mean: Magic that science will make for me.

Given our current understanding of the universe these things are not possible.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
By which you mean: Magic that science will make for me.
lol...you love using magic as that unknown thing don't you

Yes. Yes I do.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Our technology = magic by medieval standards. If you were to ask a medieval serf if we'll ever invent a flying machine, he'll laugh at you.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
As a response to my rebuttal against Lucien, you said the above, which doesn't give a logical argument as to why I am wrong (not about the main topic, but about this sub topic involving Lucien all of the sudden bashing me for no reason. Then I respond to his bashing, and you read it and say that I'm crazy without providing a reason as to why Lucien is justified in bashing me.

The **** dude. If we're gonna talk about this 'sub-topic' again, then I have enough to cover my ass. I was saying that you were stupid (stubborn) enough to keep clinging on to this particular subject which should be dropped and forgotten.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Our technology = magic by medieval standards. If you were to ask a medieval serf if we'll ever invent a flying machine, he'll laugh at you.

that's a good point...but star wars defies the laws of physics. and "ye canny change the laws o' physics cap'in"...

It is not a good point. It does not remove the laws of physics from the equation nor does it release ideas from the requirements of basic plausibility.

So, Red, your claim is:

Flying cars are beyond comprehension and cannot at all be built.

...

Please prove the above statement more than "oh well it requires too much energy!!!" well people back then would say that getting a rocket to lift off Earth would require too much energy.

Also, how does the defying laws of physics part have anything to do with my argument?

Blasters don't defy the laws of physics.
Nor do flying cars (again, I never said that they'd be used, just that we CAN make them, ie it is possible)
Nor does AI
Lightsabers might, but that's really the only one.

lightsabers don't really deny phsyics. They just require an as of yet undiscovered property of light. There would have to be a way to solidify and focus the laser, or perhaps a force-field (not unheard of) workin in CONJUNCTION with a laser.

Its not possible now, and we don't have any idea HOW to make those things happen, but it doesn't mean its impossible. Just means its unknown as of now.

Kinda like time travel defied the KNOWN laws of physics 20 years ago, but now with wormholes, scientists are taking a serious look at the possibilites.

Known laws of physics are subject to change as we develop better technology to examine the earth, elements, universe etc.

No.
From the wookiee:


Things that don't mean what they think they mean.
Things that don't mean anything at all.

A high energy level in relation to what? This passage describes light emission. This is how florescent bulbs work. Besides the (rather important) question of how the light was made coherent, nothing here explains how such beams could reach deadly levels of energy.

All light behaves as both a wave and a particle. Ascribing a "high damage rating" (which is also gibberish, btw) to this fact would also give the halogen bulbs at school a "high damage rating."


Gibberish.


Light is not matter. Light is not made out of particles. It is made out of photons. Heat is a measure of kinetic energy in particles. Light therefore cannot be hot.

"Intense energy particles" is insufficiently exact. Gas "processed into a compressed beam of intense energy particles" would simply be plasma. The article differentiates between plasma based blasters and the "more deadly" variety.

These energy particles are, to the best of my knowledge, imaginary. This leaves us to discuss only the laser weapons that are considered "inferior."

Lasers today can be incredibly powerful:
http://www.unl.edu/diocles/diocles.shtml
(I went in here and it was weigh kewl.)

The facility took an entire room. A large room. If we pretend for a moment that there are no major barriers to linear miniaturization (I don't know for a fact either way) then it may become possible for lasers to apply these massive amounts of power in combat. There is still the problem of energy (power consumption for this machine is gargantuan) as well as tactical use; a laser hit would be a local, self cauterizing wound. The weapon would simply be too precise.

Moreover, as the energy achieved is due to "stretched, amplifies pulses" being "compressed back into short, powerful pulses" it is entirely possible that this method of amplification is not conducive to miniaturization. (The design itself may prevent combat application.)

So, to recap:
1. Laser weaponry as described by Star Wars is gibberish.
2. Plasma weapons ("blasters" are pseudoscience and therefore gibberish.
3. We have powerful lasers today, but they require massive quantities of power. This level of power is not available on a battlefield.
4. Realistic laser weaponry would not be tactically or militarily useful.
5. The current method of light amplification may in fact make militarization impossible. (Diocles is in a cleanroom- "up to the 10,000 level."




Flying cars are not currently possible, nor shall they be.
http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Flight/intermediate/forces-01.html
The principles of aviation disbar any automobile from liftoff, and unless you'd like to redefine "flying car" to include personal aircraft (a poor decision, especially considering the limited weight parameters of ultralight aircraft, the closest parallel in size currently imaginable).


Excuse me? Back when? No one that has studied rocketry, hell, even the people that invented modern rocketry were thinking of going to the moon:



These people are working long before atomic fission became prevalent, and therefore could not count upon it as a source of energy. And they were still right.




AI is presently impossible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence#Problems

The Turing test is basically proof that we aren't there yet. As is, AI is totally reliant on an idea known as the singularity. This singularity is at present (and inevitably until its actual execution) utopian wishful thinking. We cannot predict the existence or timeframe of a paradigm shift.

So no. We are not "close" to star wars tech.


TJ, if you want to posit a hitherto unknown property of light then feel free. I will continue to work within the bounds of evidence and plausibility. And I will hope to Yahwe that you are right so I get a lightsaber of my own.

Why are we arguing the pseudo-science of a mythos packed full of people who draw on a metaphysical enegery source to preform miracles?

Originally posted by Autokrat
Why are we arguing the pseudo-science of a mythos packed full of people who draw on a metaphysical enegery source to preform miracles? We're all just that devoid of a life.

Originally posted by truejedi
...Kinda like time travel defied the KNOWN laws of physics 20 years ago, but now with wormholes, scientists are taking a serious look at the possibilites...

wormholes are only theoretical. i think the basis for quantum physical science is: if you can imagine it, it's possible or at least plausible.

since we have no evidence wormholes actually exist and if they do if they work how we foresee them, there's nothing to suggest time travel is even possible...but with quantum physics, you can pretty much imagine anything and theories an argument for it's existence

Next year, technology will be at SW level, just you wait!

Originally posted by Morridini
Next year, technology will be at SW level, just you wait!

lol, nice and optimistic there...like it