Quote:
v.v|
Originally Posted by Lord_Nightblade
According to what? No one in that universe ever said that a frigate operates with the same engine as a carrier. In fact, we only see the engine of one ship, and it's an engine that was deliberately made much larger than it needed to be to move a ship of that size, which was done at a HUGE cost in materials. They've never shown the engines of other ships, not yet anyway. So how do you know that every ship in that galaxy uses the same sized engine?
|
#1. Yes, the drive was over sized, but...
#2. The drive was also used it's fuel more efficiently than a drive of similar size.
#3. While it is the case that we have not seen other ships and such. We know what it does. You could hypothetical get the mass of the two ships to be exactly the same regardless of its actual weight/size and as such they could use the exact same engines to reach the same speeds.
There are however some things to do with the size of the drives and ships... It some sort of limitation that I can't quite remember, plus there is an overall limit to the size of ships enforced by the relays so the City Ship regardless of how much you could alter its mass could never use the relays.
Quote:
it's not a flawed analogy. We're trying to figure out complexity and Arcanaville brings up something as irrelevant as 1 building is less than 1% the volume of the other and trying to say that's why it is less complex and that it was impossible for a structure to exist on Earth, ignoring the fact that I already said it wasn't possible.|
Originally Posted by Lord_Nightblade
You seriously think that Arcana's attempt to explain why you're wrong by using your flawed analogy means that she only cares about volume in relation to complexity? Seriously?
|
It's also not possible for a human to go the speed of light so Einstein's analogy is wrong obviously.
Quote:
Which analogy would that be?
|
Originally Posted by Durakken
It's also not possible for a human to go the speed of light so Einstein's analogy is wrong obviously.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
English does not borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and rifles through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
Quote:
i suspect i've spotted the term that's being misapplied when used in reference to Durakken.|
Originally Posted by Lord_Nightblade
You seriously think that Arcana's attempt to explain why you're wrong by using your flawed analogy means that she only cares about volume in relation to complexity? Seriously?
|
Seriously, there's no point in discussing/debating/arguing anything with him when he's made up his mind about something no matter how wrong his assumptions are. Most of the time he doesn't even bother moving the goalposts, he just starts trying to use more and more bizarre and nonsensical analogies and similes as justification. At least when someone moves the goalposts it means they realized their original assumption was incorrect and just won't admit it. When someone just keeps using more and more contorted and bizarre logic to justify the same error it means there's no possibility of progress or learning on their part. Just let it go.
Dr. Todt's theme.
i make stuff...
Quote:
...what? According to who? No one ever said that. The engine allows the ship to run at FTL faster than most ships, but that has to do with the build-up of an electro-static charge in the core that doesn't have to be discharged as often as it does in ships the same size with smaller cores.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
v.v
#1. Yes, the drive was over sized, but... #2. The drive was also used it's fuel more efficiently than a drive of similar size. |
Quote:
| #3. While it is the case that we have not seen other ships and such. We know what it does. You could hypothetical get the mass of the two ships to be exactly the same regardless of its actual weight/size and as such they could use the exact same engines to reach the same speeds. |
Goodbye, I guess.
@Lord_Nightblade in Champions/Star Trek Online
nightblade7295@gmail.com if you want to stay in touch
Quote:
No. This statement is a complete LIE.
|
Originally Posted by Durakken
No that is what was Galadiman is saying with his arguments.
|
Arc #6015 - Coming Unglued
"A good n00b-sauce is based on a good n00b-roux." - The Masque
Quote:
It is said somewhere in one of the things that discuss the core that it is better than even a core of that size even, but we can't talk about it, even though we are allowed to according to what was said of the rules, but apparently not according to dif mods. Whatever.|
Originally Posted by Lord_Nightblade
...what? According to who? No one ever said that. The engine allows the ship to run at FTL faster than most ships, but that has to do with the build-up of an electro-static charge in the core that doesn't have to be discharged as often as it does in ships the same size with smaller cores.
|
ZephyrWind, The one where he somehow rides a bicycle at light speed. I'm pretty sure that was originally Einstein's but I've heard it from several scientists so it could be someone else's.
Schismatrix, I have not moved the goal post and again with the insults.
Bigger devices and structures require additional components JUST to deal with their bigness, ON TOP OF replicating the functionality of the smaller devices.
Additional structural reinforcement is required. More control system components are required. Additional utility systems are required.
You CANNOT just scale up a spaceship and expect it to work. Nor can you just pull apart a bunch of smaller spaceships and assemble the parts together and have it work.
A city size spaceship that does the same job as a flotilla of smaller spaceships will ALWAYS be more complex than the flotilla. Because it has to deal with issues of scale.
And I am speaking as someone that actually HAS the words "Construction Engineer" in his job title.
And there was another good point brought up. It costs geometrically MORE money to build bigger than building a bunch of smaller things. Money the Quarian fleet does not have. They barely get by scavenging stuff.
-np
I see myself as witty, urbane, highly talented, hugely successful with a keen sense of style. Plus of course my own special brand of modesty.
Virtue: Automatic Lenin | The Pink Guy | Superpowered | Guardia | Guardia Prime | Ultrapowered
Quote:
It was a theory, not an analogy (if it did indeed have anything to do with Einstein and general relativity at all). No wonder this thread is going in circles.
|
Originally Posted by Durakken
ZephyrWind, The one where he somehow rides a bicycle at light speed. I'm pretty sure that was originally Einstein's but I've heard it from several scientists so it could be someone else's.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
English does not borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and rifles through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
Quote:
I'm gonna say I'll listen to a posed theoretical experiment by Einstein, but I won't really say I would give a posed experiment by Durakken the same level of credence or logical weight.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
ZephyrWind, The one where he somehow rides a bicycle at light speed. I'm pretty sure that was originally Einstein's but I've heard it from several scientists so it could be someone else's.
|
Also, NinjaPirate summed it up well enough; I believe it's what we have been saying this whole thread. Sometimes, titles have meanings.
In what field is your background, Durakken?
Arc #6015 - Coming Unglued
"A good n00b-sauce is based on a good n00b-roux." - The Masque
Quote:
No, it wasn't. As I said in my post, the engine is more efficient in ways that have nothing to do with fuel economy.
|
Originally Posted by Durakken
It is said somewhere in one of the things that discuss the core that it is better than even a core of that size even, but we can't talk about it, even though we are allowed to according to what was said of the rules, but apparently not according to dif mods. Whatever.
|
Goodbye, I guess.
@Lord_Nightblade in Champions/Star Trek Online
nightblade7295@gmail.com if you want to stay in touch
Quote:
You're welcome.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
Thank you clarifying that you intend to say nothing with a lot of words.
|
Quote:
| It is impossible, on Earth, to create a structure that is just super sized for all sorts of reasons, but those reasons do not exist in space because the force that cause all or most of them, gravity, does not act on them or has so little impact that it is more or less a waste of time to account for. |
Quote:
| Let's be clear. i asked what the heck you are talking about when you say complex, and your answer was "I'm being vague" and "One of the building of the analogy has more volume than this other one." |
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
This is why your made up definition of complexity is worthless. Although the windshield is a very low complexity item of a car, removing it ought to make the car slightly less complex. There is now one less thing that needs to be maintained. You automatically lose the windshield wipers, the wiper water reservoir, the windshield defroster, etc. But even if you ignore all those things, there's now one less thing that can break. The assembly of the car takes at least one less step. The car is now in fact less complex of a machine. In terms of operation, only by a very tiny amount, but its non-zero.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
To me removing a windshield doesn't make the car less complex, but if to you it does, ok.
|
This also tells me that among other things, you're not that familiar with automobiles.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
Einstein's "analogy" was a thought experiment that showed that if the speed of light was not constant, different observers in the universe could observe the same region of space and witness apparently different laws of physics. Einstein believed this was impossible, and thus conjectured that, in this case, all inertial witnesses observe the laws of electromagnetics identically and thus must always measure the speed of light in a vacuum to be identical. This is the relativity principle that forms the basis of special relativity.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
It's also not possible for a human to go the speed of light so Einstein's analogy is wrong obviously.
|
Its the (Lorentzian) consequences of this principle that places limits on the speed of an object under normal acceleration.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
OMG, there was so much mathematical and engineering pwnage in the last 3 posts, it brings a tear to my eye.
Arc #6015 - Coming Unglued
"A good n00b-sauce is based on a good n00b-roux." - The Masque
Quote:
Since this is the only relevant post of the 3 posts I'm going to ignore the other 2...|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
This is why your made up definition of complexity is worthless. Although the windshield is a very low complexity item of a car, removing it ought to make the car slightly less complex. There is now one less thing that needs to be maintained. You automatically lose the windshield wipers, the wiper water reservoir, the windshield defroster, etc. But even if you ignore all those things, there's now one less thing that can break. The assembly of the car takes at least one less step. The car is now in fact less complex of a machine. In terms of operation, only by a very tiny amount, but its non-zero.
This also tells me that among other things, you're not that familiar with automobiles. |
You still haven't answered what I asked directly. I can now guess that what you mean by complex is simply "more parts."
So back to building analogy... you seem agree with me. The 1000 10x10x10 buildings would be more complex than the 100x100x100 building which is created using more structural supports than the single building that is impossible and slightly less complex than it that is simply a scaled up version of one of those 10x10x10 buildings which it is not more complex than.
Now, I'm going to predict that you disagree, largely because you don't understand what I said, because your more likely to do that than agree at this point or disagree because your just want to disagree.
I don't agree that complex means just more parts though... rather it is most likely the case that more parts = more complex, but it is not necessarily the case. A giantic building size cube of legos is not more complex than, say, perfectly recreated scale city scape made of only lego. And in this way we can see that it is not just the parts but also perhaps form...and/or function.
Also like I said before. I would not consider a 6 foot person more complex than 5 foot person, despite the 6 foot person having many more parts than the 5 foot.
A six foot person should have the exact same number of parts as a 5 foot person.
Now a six footed person would have more parts than a 5 footed person. They both should probably talk to their mothers about living so close to a nuclear power plant, though.
@Mental Maden @Maden Mental
"....you are now tackle free for life."-ShoNuff
Quote:
So cells get larger by the person, eh? That's a new one... Or are we not counting cells as parts?
|
Originally Posted by MentalMaden
A six foot person should have the exact same number of parts as a 5 foot person.
Now a six footed person would have more parts than a 5 footed person. They both should probably talk to their mothers about living so close to a nuclear power plant, though. |
Quote:
Its tempting to post a face palm here, even though I know I'd be flirting with a temp ban.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
You still haven't answered what I asked directly. I can now guess that what you mean by complex is simply "more parts."
|
How you got from:
Quote:
| Actually, I said I was using the obvious engineering one, which is admittedly ill defined in the mathematical sense, but is colloquially very well understood to mean the relative magnitude of the number of individual systems and more importantly the number of possible interactions between them. Technically, the concept of engineering complexity is studied as either the net entropy of the engineering model, or conversely the network complexity of the systems topology, given the standard definition of network complexity. |
Also, if you ever apply for an engineering job of any kind, please please please make sure your employer is allowed to google search for these posts before making their decision. I believe you owe it to society. Not only are you way out in outer space, you seem to have no idea just how far beyond Pluto you are. You are so far out there that not only would I fire anyone saying this, I would fire anyone agreeing with this, and the parents of anyone agreeing with this for not bringing their child up right. There's literally no wiggle room here.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Durakken
So cells get larger by the person, eh? That's a new one... Or are we not counting cells as parts?
|
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
Apparently we aren't counting jokes either, I guess. But I'll take a stab at it.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
So cells get larger by the person, eh? That's a new one... Or are we not counting cells as parts?
|
For the most part the difference in the number of cells to make say a 6 foot person compared to the 5 foot person isn't really making the system as a whole more complex, because they are essentially carrying out the same exact tasks without taxing the system or requiring extra 'stuff' i.e. muscles, bones, arteries, etc to make things work.
@Mental Maden @Maden Mental
"....you are now tackle free for life."-ShoNuff
Quote:
... a thousand words, check.
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Softcapping an Invuln is fantastic. Softcapping a Willpower is amazing. Softcapping SR is kissing your sister.
|
Hey, Arcana...
You're arguing with Durakken.
He's the one who seriously argued to me that manufacturing costs for electronics drop 50%... every single year. (Of course, that thread is gone, but he never did address my assertion that Apple should sell first-gen iPods, because they would cost only pennies to manufacture...)
I know more about engineering than he does, and my field of studies is in the social sciences.
Comrade Smersh, KGB Special Section 8 50 Inv/Fire, Fire/Rad, BS/WP, SD/SS, AR/EM
Other 50s: Plant/Thorn, Bots/Traps, DB/SR, MA/Regen, Rad/Dark - All on Virtue.
-Don't just rebel, build a better world, comrade!
Quote:
(Using Durakken Logic: )|
Originally Posted by Durakken
Since this is the only relevant post of the 3 posts I'm going to ignore the other 2...
You still haven't answered what I asked directly. I can now guess that what you mean by complex is simply "more parts." So back to building analogy... you seem agree with me. The 1000 10x10x10 buildings would be more complex than the 100x100x100 building which is created using more structural supports than the single building that is impossible and slightly less complex than it that is simply a scaled up version of one of those 10x10x10 buildings which it is not more complex than. Now, I'm going to predict that you disagree, largely because you don't understand what I said, because your more likely to do that than agree at this point or disagree because your just want to disagree. I don't agree that complex means just more parts though... rather it is most likely the case that more parts = more complex, but it is not necessarily the case. A giantic building size cube of legos is not more complex than, say, perfectly recreated scale city scape made of only lego. And in this way we can see that it is not just the parts but also perhaps form...and/or function. Also like I said before. I would not consider a 6 foot person more complex than 5 foot person, despite the 6 foot person having many more parts than the 5 foot. |
"Excellent. You seem to agree with all of us." If you take a thing, and increase its size by several orders of magnitude, generally speaking, within the known laws of our current physical universe, and any close analogue to our current physical universe that does not completely ignore its basic tenets, the larger thing will be significantly more complex than the smaller structure, due to the necessities brought upon it by such physical realities as heat dispersion, materials stress limits, inefficiencies of scale, increased need for interrelated subsytems, and other systemic limits imposed by physical realities.
Furthermore, a large single entity that is designed to do a task will generally be significantly more complex than a large number of smaller independent entities that is effectively able to do the same task, due to similar necessities as stated above. Though some tasks are better handled on a large scale, small indepedent entities can generally handle many tasks more effectively than large entities due to difficulties as above as well as coordination requirements, safety and redundancy concerns, and the need for systemwide security to prevent total systems collapse, among a possible litany of others.
The above examples are by no means comprehensive, and by necessity omit the vast repositories of knowledge that have been dedicated over the centuries to the study of the scaling of systems both small-to-large and large-to-small.
Many of these repositories of knowledge are available on a large, ever-growing, (and ever-complexifying[sic]) network of informational databases and information collections known as The Intenet.
I'm glad we could have this discussion. Have a great day.
Arc #6015 - Coming Unglued
"A good n00b-sauce is based on a good n00b-roux." - The Masque
Goodbye, I guess.
@Lord_Nightblade in Champions/Star Trek Online
nightblade7295@gmail.com if you want to stay in touch