Yeah, that one time. Caught me by surprise, actually - and with rising wind, it took me hours to get back to the ground.
(Great example to illustrate what a theory is, and the correspondence principle)
Nope, they arrested and tried him because he was advancing his theories as fact, while the very conservative Church and science establishment of he time wanted actual proof, not just even very strong evidence. They actually used the Heliocentric model for putting the Gregorian calendar together, because it was damn more efficient.
The Church only officially accepted the Heliocentric model once proof was given by Foucault, but neither them or AFAICT major scientists called the Heliocentric model bull at the time.
Then they released him when he went back and said that it was actually a model.
Then they arrested him again and imprisoned him because he basically wrote a book calling the Pope a retard, who didnât take it well.
But this more detailed article may interest you for not only the Galileo affair but the whole context.
What I donât understand is, why didnât you choose plate tectonics as your example? Isnât it, like, the example of a theory that was laughed at and is now wildly accepted?
Galileo was never laughed at. He was taken quite seriously, which is exactly why he was asked to stop teaching that Jupiter had moons, was brought before the inquisition, and was tortured.
He was later sentenced to a lifetime of house arrest for criticizing the reigning pope, and insinuating that he was stupid.
The fact that you think laughing at someone and torturing them are the same thing makes me more than a little concerned, quite frankly.
But then again, you apparently think gravity doesnât make things fall down, because once upon a time, thousands of years ago, learned people believed the Earth was flat.
But instead of having an equal discussion with that person you chose to decisively go the ⌠[quote=âZen, post:101, topic:2104â]
nip this ignorance in the bud
[/quote]
curb stomp road of discussion.
This isnât the way here. This isnât constructive. Trying to discredit a person instead of disproving his statements isnât supporting the quality of the discussion nor of the community.
You are implying most of what you claim is happening here. Yes heâs backing up his opinions and facts with him having expertise in the field. This being true doesnât matter because even if this backup wasnât, it does not change the value of the opinion/fact nor does it yours. I suggest rather collecting proof pointing against his points instead of personally attacking him.
No. But a misunderstanding is going on here. Or I wished it was still a misunderstanding, now itâs just some ⌠urgh âŚ
No he does not. Please no more kerosene/solid fuel/nuclear warheads.
You do realize there is no proof whatsoever this individual is an expert. Heck, anyone can say they are an expert on a forum. Whatâs more, even if this person was an âexpertâ this does not mean that a game has to be scientifically designed according to an expert; if it was the spaceships we presently see zipping around in game and shooting one another would not even exist. Think it is time to chill and let people come up with some innovative ideas to make the game interesting and funâŚbecause if we adhere to science 100%, this game will fail. Whatâs more, if someone doesnât like the idea of asteroids breaking up, fineâŚbut some people think it adds to immersion and will make for some really good gameplay and footage.
I honestly was considering on jumping on the bandwagon of nearly incomprehensible bullshit. But then I thought of the grenadeastroids.
This is what lomsor means. Youâre actively trying to pull a me. Stop fanning the flames instead of discussing. Itâs stupid and all this bitching is going to do is get a thread locked.
That being said, Kichae was merely pointing out that without a enormous amount of energy, it WOULD be heavily unrealistic to explode/break apart an asteroid in the classic sense. Scarring it, sure. But splitting it down the middle or something of the lines requires a lot of energy.
Iâm legitimately interested, no malice intended.
Do you want a picture of me next to my degree, holding my thesis, and a screenshot of a paystub from the observatory I work at? Because I can do that if youâd like.
And some people think it destroys immersion utterly. Namely me. If you want to shoot at things, thatâs what the other space ships are for, no?
Well, back on subjectâŚyes, I believe asteroids, smaller ones can be broken up quiet easily and would definitely add to the game, especially when we are talking about a game that has already moved beyond what is presently possible -scientifically. And after flying through asteroid fields that have destructible asteroids and ones that do not, I have to say the fields with destructible asteroids are much more fun, immersive and realistic.
And this is what a few of us have been saying against you guys. Youâre being hyper hypocritical stating that Kichae is trying to talk down to you guys. While you ironically or not, do the exact same fucking thing. So cut the shit already.
Lots of experts have been wrong. In fact history is littered with so called experts being outright wrong. Whatâs more, it defies common sense that small asteroids cannot be broken up - nuke a few and see what happens. Of course we donât have to go to that extreme but Kinetic energy would make fast work of small asteroids 10~30 meters; you know, the kind of Kinetic weapons wielded by spaceships in a space gameâŚafter all that is what we are talking about.
Kreydis, was just talking about my personal experience with kichae. Used the word realistic once and was then shown by kichae that I was wrong. Turns out that he knows his shit, so itâs better to avoid any use of this specific term whenever Kichae is around and use things like âmore enjoyableâ or âprobably more funâ. Realism is Kichaeâs turf.
You ought to hold off from posting when youâre feeling emotional because it tend to make you say things that make no sense. In the history of the world, yes, lots of experts have been wrong. But what are you comparing against? How many experts have been wrong in comparison to the number of non-experts that have been wrong? Itâs pretty much the definition of expertise that people that possess it are wrong much less often than people pulling facts out of their black holes.
The whole subject is silly, itâs perfectly acceptable that it is realistic that asteroids of a certain size are hard to break up. Itâs also perfectly acceptable that breaking up asteroids could be good for gameplay. Finally it is perfectly acceptable to hold a differing opinion and to realise that neither you or the person who holds that different opinion will have much influence at all over the game design of Infinity Battlescape.
âA new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with itâ
Look, this whole thing started with âOnly because you donât know anything about asteroidsâ, it was meant clearly to belittle and summarily dismiss. And sure you could make the argument it was merely a statement but it may not be exactly accurate given I have been an avid fan of all things space for well over 30 years. Or are we going to dismiss supporters summarily because they are not astronomers? I certainly hope not. Anyway, I think there is a better way to respond to people than being summarily dismissive and I think Kichae would and should be a highly valued contributor. But some decorum might serve him and this forum better.
If you would do any research, which is one of the qualities I find to be inherent to any valued poster, you will that on this forum he already is valued depending on whom you ask.
I plan to elaborate later but Iâm trying to get through a long week and a 14 hour day of work and classes first, so please bare with me for a lack of explanation for awhile.
One of the qualities I find to be inherent to any valued poster is validating credentials and not basing opinions on hearsay or word of mouth.This is why I did go over the info he forwarded me and checked said personâs credentials and place of employment; unfortunately, I do not see his name on the faculty list at the observatory - a surprise to be sure given his claim âIâm an astronomer atâŚâ Of course Kichae could be part time but I did not see his name in the part time facility or adjunct faculty or anywhere else for that matter. Perhaps the official website in question hasnât been updated in the last 7 months? If this is indeed the case, he should contact them and make sure he is included on the list of faculty members.
So Iâm going to pose a question to the floor of this ⌠debate ⌠if thatâs what you call it, and ask everybody involved two questions. Because clearly, this train ainât stopping.
What is is that you are actually arguing for?
Is it, if you ask your self, really worth it having an internet cock fight over a few rustled feathers?
Donât even think of replying to anything above the line below this sentence.
So back on topic ⌠which derailed after this post, letâs continue the discussion.
##Damage to Asteroids:
What do you think? Is it worth it from a gameplay element to have explody rocks? Is it even technically feasible?
