Commenting while home from work temporarily (exciting time with the particle accelerators!).
As far as I know, we never found the missing matter and every test to find dark matter turned up goose eggs. As in, by all evidence the missing matter simply is not there. I know there's been some work on alternative theories of gravity, such as this one.
I would be very interested if we found that missing matter.
I just have one question: Why does a future Iron Man have to be Tony Stark? As long as the armor is the same and the goals fought for are the same, you could stick just about anyone in that suit.
They don't have to recast or kill him. Just have him hand it off to someone else. It would be easy to justify, after Iron Man 3 and Civil War.
There's also the big problem in the MCU that those other armor characters mostly don't exist. That was made abundantly clear in Iron Man 2. A bunch of people in power armor showing up at any point would need to be explained, and they set it up so that Stark is the explanation. And I bet Stark's ego wouldn't let Iron Man simply vanish. It's his greatest accomplishment.
The only reason there needs to be an Iron Man is because the technology not only exists, but has spread outside of Stark. Technology like that doesn't just go away after it's had such a proven success record. They make more of it.
Yes, there has to be an Iron Man. Because if Stark simply retires, someone else will just pick up the name to use the fame for their own ends.
Deleted my previous post. I'm getting too negative.
But, Sissyl, this is the conclusion from the very first link I posted:
"The results presented here underscore the importance of developing the understanding to identify and optimize neurostimulation protocols. Our results suggest that the time course of both online and offline learning is critical for the observed changes in working memory and procedural flight performance."
Not the entire thing, but the rest of the conclusion was just stating they need to optimize it. But, basically, the people were only learning so fast and this study was figuring out a baseline figure for a nonoptimal version of induced enhanced learning. And reading only the conclusion, you are left with no clue what the actual offline or online learning methods are or how they used neurostimulation; in short, your conclusion that the study says nothing that I said it did is based on almost no information at all.
Your statement that sensory overload says nothing I say it does in relation to limits on neurons processing information reveals how much of your reaction to everything I posted was based on assumption; I stated nothing about it being related to processing limits. I stated both it and another item, sensory gating, in relation to why quantum entangling chemical communications between neurons is a bad idea.
You speak of no longer wanting to play a game. Does this mean you will finally take this conversation seriously? Or are you going to still make assumptions and not bother to pay attention to what I'm saying instead of what you assume I say? If it's the second, please don't bother replying further.
Even this post is more negative than intended. I'm going to take a couple days to focus on more positive things, then see if you replied or not.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
CERN says dark matter is the main carrier of gravity that holds galaxies together. And the National Geographic article makes it pretty clear that dark matter is the carrier of gravity and dark energy is, basically, anti-gravity.
Personally, I think they're all full of crap. I'm more a fan of emergent gravity. Dark matter has the problem that every effort to look for it can't find it, and the combined lack of finding anything suggests it doesn't exist.
I'm not arguing that Star Trek versions of warping space are not flawed beyond reason. I used Star Trek as an example precisely because it is that flawed.
Rrrright. Again, the study you link to says not what you claim. Stress in a cell biological perspective is not in any way connected to stress in a psychological perspective.
That's why I said what I did about "the important information." There is also a massive difference between psychological and physical stress, which is why I talked about "overloading" the mitochondria with information in that last post. I figured someone would confuse psychological stress with physical stress (which are very much not the same thing).
Quantum entanglement allows for one-directional information flows, in a nonrandom fashion. Other aspects of quantum entanglement across time have even been considered for use in time capsules and data storage. Basically, quantum entanglement isn't random in how the particles affect each other.
Based upon that, figuring out the effects of quantum entanglement upon the human brain is a simple matter of some basic knowledge of neurochemistry, an idea of how to best use quantum entanglement to transmit knowledge through time, an idea of what information you are sending so you know what you need to entangle, and a knowledge of how the transmitted information will affect the human brain. Given the brain transmits information either through chemicals (between cells) or electricity (across each cell), and the fact that sensory gating and sensory overload are both issues with the chemical process, it's a simple matter to understand that electricity is the best method of information transference. Beyond that, you just need to look at the physical effects of too much electricity on neurons.
Want links to some of that information? Sensory gating and sensory overload can both be easily googled, and as much as I am loathe to use the site I must admit that Wikipedia has not terrible articles on the subjects.
There is a webcomic I think is worth a read: Flaky Pastry. It has an utterly adorable proposal and a king not willing to let that be a problem for the royal lineage.
I'll let my work know about this. We'll see what binders clear quarantine procedures and donate those.
Didn't fit his character in the movies either. The ending, where he simply announced he is Iron Man? That was very much in character with everything he had done up to that point.
I've always found the movie Stark to be interesting because he is the one character you can measure the personal growth on, yet still very much see shades of who he was originally. But, at his core, Stark is a troll, and even in Civil War we see that evident in some of what he does.
That's also why it is I think that he would choose his successor based purely on how much it would anger whoever was his target of the week.
They could take Stark out of the picture by paralyzing him. I know it's not the kindest of solutions, but I could see it. And knowing Stark, he'd respond by finding someone even more obnoxious to take his place. And every time someone comes to complain at him about Iron Man still being active, he just smirks and reminds them he's still paralyzed, so it's not him in the armor.
I think they were trying to reflect the much different threshold for adulthood in Ancient Greece than today without bogging down the narrative. "Teenager" is a very modern concept.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
It is crap. The Arctic and Antarctica are different in almost every way. About the only similarity is that there's ice.
It would be like using cold weather on Mars to say global warming isn't happening.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
I'd guess video killed an RPG star. I think video games have evolved to a point they are pulling away from TTRPGs. I know several years ago I was gaming with Dungeons and Dragons online and had the pleasure to listen to two youngsters talk about TTRPGs. One guy asked, "do people still play with pen and paper?" the reply was, "yeah but only in poor countries without computers and internet...."
Most "pen and paper" games I've been in these days are played with computers at the table. Tablets make for easy character sheets that save a lot of paper, and laptops can make fantastic DM screens.
I don't think there's many groups left who still use pen and paper.
Viscount of Two Moons Hence wrote:
I can, um, guarantee at least a few of them are NOT used for transportation purposes...
Also, they need to be more durable.
The important information is the role of mitochondria in cell survival and cell death.
Keep in mind that for a brain cell to receive information from the future, one of the parts of the cell we would have to quantum link to itself over time is the mitochondria, due to its role in helping the cell make sense of its surroundings. However, we would also be stressing the mitochondria far beyond what biology has designed it to take, in addition to overloading the cell with far more electricity than it normally handles. Now, we know that if the mitochondria dies, the cell dies. And since we're both overloading it with information and electrocuting it...
Imagine that happening across your entire visual cortex or your hippocampus.
The most likely effect is probably similar to what this device attempted to accomplish, only it would be using the electricity and electrical fields of your own brain through quantum entanglement.
And that's assuming it's even possible to quantum entangle a still-functional cell with itself in the future and that such doesn't result in a new form of schizophrenia.
That's why, even with induced enhanced learning, you're still talking hundreds or thousands of years before the brain is even capable of handling quantum entanglement.
When I asked one of the scientists I worked with about this, they estimated you could safely receive three to five milliseconds of information across the quantum entanglement. But that was pretty much a guess, and not one they'd bet a human life on.
So you're admitting your earlier post is in error. Good to know. Thank you for the conversation, please have a nice day.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Being able to travel faster than light through warping space is very much a theory that's shown up in science. The idea of there being a particle behind gravity actually is part of modern science theory; it's called dark matter instead of gravitons these days. There's a few others as well.
The transporters, though, are pretty much pure magic. If I remember correctly, one of the show's writers even admitted such at one point. They just exist because showing someone taking a shuttle down every episode was, originally, more expensive than the transporter sequence.
Executive meddling is also why the consoles explode.
There's a discussion over whether the movie is hard sci-fi or soft sci-fi, due to some disagreement over whether it relied heavily on scientific theory or dressing an old magic cliche in new clothes.
Trust me, if we got in depth on the quantum mechanics and neurochemistry aspects of it, it would only get more confusing. Then the discussion would be how much of a cell you would have to quantum entangle with itself, only with both ends of the quantum point contact being at two different points in time. And how much of that the cells themselves could handle on both sides of the transmission before dying (creating, in turn, a perceived temporal paradox in which the subject is killed both in the future and the current era at the same time). Something that might not be impossible when you realize quantum mechanics possibly allows for multiple time dimensions, meaning that it could be the future person in one time dimension and the current person in the current time dimension both dying at the same time.
And that's the simple explanation of it.
Aren't sci-fi movies fun?
Did she see her future? If so, that's precognition. If not, then you've invalidated your post here and eliminated all basis for your own argument.
The important aspect of precognition that shows up a lot within fiction is the idea that events are predetermined; that what you see will happen no matter what. It even shows up in real-world religion in the concept of prophesy. And a few soft science fiction stories have used temporal quantum entanglement as an explanation for precognition. Typically the ones that try a "hard" sci-fi explanation for psionics (a.k.a. magic with a new coat of paint).
So, did she see the future, or were you arguing about the wrong movie earlier?
I need a set of movies I can watch with maybe two operating braincells, one of which is probably boozed to the dendrites, and still manage to enjoy it.
And please don't say anything Transformers. Or Michael Bay in particular. If I wanted explosions, I'd go to the experimental chemistry section of the lab.
As John Napier said. The sphere of annihilation was the worst one, in my experience. Easy, easy TPK.
I already provided a link where you can confirm the rate of brain change via induced enhanced learning. You can even check that article's link to the actual study and read the raw data yourself.
The fact that electricity can cause brain death is established medical science. Google it.
The definition of "precognition" can be found in the dictionary.
The bit about drugs causing the ability to speak to the future and alien powers? Lovecraft's works, works by Clark Ashton Smith, the Oracle of Delphi, some Native American traditions, even DnD in some spots...
Oh, and that only seeing one future? That is the textbook sign of precognition and other fantasy methods of seeing the future. It's literally in every fantasy and paranormal movie that deals with seeing the future.
The idea this is using real-world scientific theories is from your own posts on this very thread. If the movie is not using those at all, then you admit you were wrong.
At this point, you have absolutely no evidence outside of personal belief that what I have said is wrong. And I am beginning to wonder if you have completely misinterpreted what I said yet again.
There's a lot more to it, especially with theoretical ideas of how it might interact with the brain, but for the most part any ability to get information from the future would require altering a significant portion of the brain to quantum entangle it with a point in the future. And if they're not all set to exactly the same point, you risk insanity or even brain death.
This isn't an insignificant change. And it's assuming the human brain doesn't already use a form of quantum entanglement (this would nicely solve some mysteries of how it operates, but opens up a lot more headaches).
I managed to introduce a new group of players, with new GM to boot, to a module. I described it as "a fun-filled romp full of surprises" when convincing them to play.
It was Tomb of Horrors.
After the first near-TPK, the paladin sold his soul to Asmodeus for the ability to cast true resurrection three times per day per person. It wasn't enough; they still TPKed.
Six TPKs later and rather than try it again, they hunted down Baba Yaga, used her to come to Earth, kidnapped Albert Einstein, used him to build a magical atomic bomb, and literally nuked the dungeon.
And then the GM gave me a dirty look when I revealed it took my original group ten TPKs the first time we played it.
One thing to be wary of on Nexus is that, sometimes, mods for older games get retired by the mod creators. I've run across this at times with Oblivion and New Vegas. And the links they have for prereqs in those older games are also often out of date, so you need to be familiar with the current Nexus URL methodology.
Neither set of fiction is scientifically accurate. One set is based on a study of language and myth, then writing up what amounts to an entire fictional mythology. The other is based on taking a couple of science theories to their Star Trekian extreme.
Neither one is accurate to science as we know it; one through ignoring it, the other through exaggerating it to the point it's pretty much magic.
I can tell the difference. What I can't grasp is how it is you seem to think that Arrival is anywhere close to accurate for applying those theories. It's about as accurate with those theories as Pokemon is with evolution.
To explain: We have actual data about how long it takes for induced enhanced learning within the human brain, and the requirements for that learning to take. Including the amount of time. And that's primarily for just one tiny subset of experience. This movie involves not only induced enhanced learning to learn a language, but also to restructure the brain to see all relevant quantum states along the temporal axis. That kind of change, by our current data of where the brain functions and how, would require a significant rewiring of multiple areas of the brain, including areas that evolution itself hasn't touched for a couple million years. That kind of change would, even at the accelerated rate we are currently capable of achieving, probably take close to a couple hundred thousand years to avoid overstressing the hardware of the brain and causing brain death.
And it's basically a story about someone taking drugs and gaining precognition and the ability to talk to an alien power. A very common fantasy and weird fiction story, and extremely well-documented in studies of the occult. And well-executed enough that you don't even mind the cliche.
It's a good movie. Well-acted, well-told, and worth watching over again. But it's no more a great treatise on a principle of science than Star Trek or Pokemon are.
Isn't that part of why 3E, 4E, 5E, and Pathfinder are so particular about terminology?
Or didn't feel like cross-referencing eight different books just to adjudicate a single action.
Came up a lot toward the end of 3E, too. I don't think we used anything remotely close to how the ruleset was actually written by the end of that edition.
Crusinos, references would be EXTREMELY interesting. I imagine I would have known of studies like that. Looking forward to learning more.
This is the one where they made the most headway. It's so far produced the best results of this.
Now, before you get too excited, note the amount of practice required afterward for the pilots to get it to set in. The brain can only process information and make adjustments so fast.
However, before you think this can go faster, keep in mind there is a reason that electricity used to be a form of execution. Too much electrical stimulation of the brain will kill you. That was first proved by Thomas Edison, if I remember my history right.
You misread my post. I was using Lord of the Rings to illustrate both the absurdity of your definition and your entire argument.
After all, let's not forget that the concept of magic breaking down to the elements of earth, air, fire, and water comes from very early atomic theory. Just because it has a basis in a scientific theory does not change it being pure magic.
Diplomacy and public relations. My job is to convince people capable of funding their lab experiments that it's a good idea. They also use me as a sounding board for when they have to translate from science-speak to English.
And you would quickly get fired from any lab worth speaking of for ethics violations if you're that willing to risk a human life without having first run through tests using inanimate objects or animals.
This isn't Nazi Germany or Pasteur's labs.