New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112
Results 331 to 355 of 355

Thread: Psionic Bias?

  1. - Top - End - #331
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Volkov's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2009

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by Optimystik View Post
    While I generally agree with this, in this case it's different. It's not just a matter of "we haven't figured it out yet." It's mathematically impossible.

    E=mc˛. Even if you eliminate mass, the highest speed you can get to is c - the speed of light. Even getting there would require an undefined amount of energy, never mind exceeding it.

    To change it, we have to change the math itself.

    EDIT: While we're on the topic of approaching singularities, it seems like this thread has hit one...
    Either that or something has to prove the equation wrong or utilize a special circumstance where the equation doesn't apply (none exist as far as we know)
    "No extra charge!"

  2. - Top - End - #332
    Banned
     
    The Big Dice's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In a box of dice
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lycanthromancer View Post
    Technically you can slow light down, if only via refraction.

    However, it IS possible.

    If you could slow light down enough, then you could go faster than light. For a given value of 'light'.
    There's a few theories on how it might be possible to go faster than light. But one of the biggest problems is fuel. We just don't have a way to provide enough accelleration to get to the kind of speeds required.

    That and the faster something moves in relativistic terms, the more mass it has. Until it reaches infinite mass at the speed of light. Scientists and engineers just don't have a way of coping with that.

  3. - Top - End - #333
    Banned
     
    Optimystik's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Dice View Post
    There's a few theories on how it might be possible to go faster than light. But one of the biggest problems is fuel. We just don't have a way to provide enough accelleration to get to the kind of speeds required.

    That and the faster something moves in relativistic terms, the more mass it has. Until it reaches infinite mass at the speed of light. Scientists and engineers just don't have a way of coping with that.
    See my link - with the "Alcubierre Drive" the ship doesn't move at all - rather, it moves a bubble of space around it.

    Professor Farnsworth was right after all

  4. - Top - End - #334
    Eldritch Horror in the Playground Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by Optimystik View Post
    That's the fiction portion again.

    But it's not as crazy as you think!
    Ah, Alcubierre drives.

    Though now I'm reminded of another quote, this one by Rod Serling (of Twilight Zone fame): “Fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science fiction is the improbable made possible.”

  5. - Top - End - #335

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by Optimystik View Post
    See my link - with the "Alcubierre Drive" the ship doesn't move at all - rather, it moves a bubble of space around it.

    Professor Farnsworth was right after all
    Problem is, you cannot control where or when the bubble stops moving, at least as far as your link and science cares. Not that pratical.

  6. - Top - End - #336
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lycanthromancer View Post
    I know I don't like yuri. [/rimshot]
    You're missing out, man. Some of it is so bad it's hilarious.

    Also, that was terrible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Artanis View Post
    Somebody that pisses off a Warlock is going to go down fast. But with a Warlock, death will be a mercy because the Warlock is a secondary controller, and en route to killing you he'll first cripple you, then blind you, then set you on fire, then steal your girlfriend.
    "There is no overkill, there is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload.'" - Howard Tayler

  7. - Top - End - #337
    Banned
     
    Lycanthromancer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackfang108 View Post
    You're missing out, man. Some of it is so bad it's hilarious.
    Not interested. Check my sig for details.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackfang108 View Post
    Also, that was terrible.
    Thank you.

  8. - Top - End - #338
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    or y'know...you can always just shorten space itself, don't have to go faster than light, just shorten the distance required to get to your destination.

  9. - Top - End - #339
    Banned
     
    Optimystik's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oslecamo View Post
    Problem is, you cannot control where or when the bubble stops moving, at least as far as your link and science cares. Not that pratical.
    Hence the "fiction" pa-

    I'm just going to get a stamp made with "FICTION!" on it, and save myself some typing

    And anyway, we were talking about how to theoretically achieve FTL. Who said anything about stopping? Stopping is for girly-men who cannot subsist on space ether and their own chest hair!

  10. - Top - End - #340
    Banned
     
    Lycanthromancer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by Optimystik View Post
    Hence the "fiction" pa-

    I'm just going to get a stamp made with "FICTION!" on it, and save myself some typing

    And anyway, we were talking about how to theoretically achieve FTL. Who said anything about stopping? Stopping is for girly-men who cannot subsist on space ether and their own chest hair!
    Eww.

    I mean, I'm all for chest hair, but...

    ...eww.

  11. - Top - End - #341
    Banned
     
    Optimystik's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    I think this topic has run its course.

    Um... Psionics is a-okay! Or something.

  12. - Top - End - #342
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lycanthromancer View Post
    Technically you can slow light down, if only via refraction.

    However, it IS possible.

    If you could slow light down enough, then you could go faster than light. For a given value of 'light'.
    That's backwards. Light having different speeds in different media is what causes refraction when it encounters an interface at an angle. Note that light is not the fastest thing in a given medium. There is even a light equivalent to a 'sonic boom'.

    Generally, what people mean by 'faster than light' is 'faster than 299,792,458 ms-1', the speed of light in a vacuum.

    The mass of an object is given by the equation (iirc):

    m = m0 / sqrt(1 - v2/c2)

    i.e. if the rest mass is other than zero, the mass of an object moving at the speed of light will be infinite (this equation cannot be used to find any information about what happens when the rest mass is zero)

    In any event, the bottom line is that faster-than-light travel is not "just an engineering challenge" in the same way that supersonic travel was. Even then, some engineering challenges aren't necessarily surmountable - for example, the Death Star's superlaser required about a thousand times more energy than its own estimated rest-mass converted into energy (and would have produced a much less spectacular bang).
    Last edited by lesser_minion; 2010-04-05 at 10:00 AM.

  13. - Top - End - #343
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lycanthromancer View Post
    Not interested. Check my sig for details.
    Actually, I was taking that into account. I'm talking about the SFW parts. (seriously, bad writing, worse voice acting. Add popcorn and booze to taste.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Artanis View Post
    Somebody that pisses off a Warlock is going to go down fast. But with a Warlock, death will be a mercy because the Warlock is a secondary controller, and en route to killing you he'll first cripple you, then blind you, then set you on fire, then steal your girlfriend.
    "There is no overkill, there is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload.'" - Howard Tayler

  14. - Top - End - #344
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Ashiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Dice View Post
    That's funny, because the only reason I've seen for people to support the psionics rules is them saying "Because I like them." There might be valid mechanical reasons for that, or there might be power gaming reasons for it. But neither has a leg to stand on in the face of setting verisimilitued and internal consistency if the GM say no psionics.
    If you're going to respond to my posts; read them. I've been supporting the psionics rules on grounds of mechanical adaptability, their fluff versatility, their balance, and intuitive nature and easy-of-use functions. Not merely "cause I like 'em". That's pretty disrespectful too.

    That said, I've never attacked the system itself. I don't have a problem with that at all. My problem is entirely about aesthetics of setting. And if a player doesn't like the organisations and structures of a campaign setting enough to be willing to go along with them, why is that player going to have any respect for the GM or the other players at the table?
    I'm not certain what you're suggesting here. It's entirely possible to dislike in-game organization and structures (say like the Zhentarim in the Forgottem Realms, or Drow) but have the utmost respect for the DM and other players; so I'm really confused here.

    If you don't like the Zhentarim or playing Evil characters, or playing parties with "magic classes only" for a Magic-School style game or something, then just don't play. If you and your DM can work out some way to fit something want to play in, then that's great. If you don't like the subject matter, simply bow out and wait for another game.

    I'd see that as player entitlement and the worst kind of browbeating brinksmanship. After all, if I join a new group, I don't go trying to throw my weight around and change the established order of how they do things at their table. That's just disrespectful. Rules be damned, there are things like manners and respect to consider here.
    Re-read my post. I was very specific with what I said. I said that if the answer was "no" for "no legitimate reason", then I would walk. I would walk because arbitrary stuff like that bothers me a lot, and has nothing to do with the game itself. If they could somehow show me that the rule-choice here was hazardous to their game (for balance or mechanical reasons), then I would find something else to play.

    Players are also entitled to having fun too dagnamit. I DM virtually all the games I participate in; often because no one else around feels up to DMing (try as I do to encourage them); and from the standpoint of a DM I say that it is not all about me nor all of my "intricate laid out plots". DMs exist to serve the players; and sometimes that service also requires you to say "no". However, I'm not going to tell someone "no" for no reason. If you do, I will loose respect for you. It's just how it is.

    Respect and manners goes both ways.

    What if the concerns aren't fluff related at all, but instead are setting related? I tend to go with guilds who regulate and monopolise the use of arcane magic, while churches do the same for divine magic. They are usually not monolithic multinationals, working on the principle of power isn't for sharing unless people want to pay our prices or it's a matter of national security. And then you come along demanding to play a Psion, even though I've made it clear that I'm not using those rules, nor am I using anything from Forgotten Realms or Eberron.
    All of the above is fluff. All of it. All those regulated guilds and monopolies are fluff-aspects of the game. Fluff is not the enemy. If players are capable of playing wizards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, or whatever, then it's not difficult to fit a Psion into the game as a type of sorcerer. If your game theme is "no casters", then that's a different thing entirely.

    If you're not using Psionics because you're not familiar with it, then now's a good time to become so. If you say no arbitrarily without reason, then that's a big red-flag to me that it's going to be a great game of "my-rules & railroads" the whole time (when I was hoping to play D&D). If you won't use logic or reasoning behind your DMing judgments, then why should I assume you will with other things; and why should I play in your game?

    I would politely let you know that I changed my mind; bow out of the game; and then find something else to do; or another game.

    Causing a scene and having a tantrum about it makes you a problem player in my book, especially if you're the new guy. If you're going to make waves over certain books not being used at the table, what else are you going to make waves over?
    I'm not certain what sort of toddlers you are talking about; but bowing out of a game to find another doesn't require tantrums and scenes. A simple "Sorry, I don't think this is the type of game I'm looking for" would suffice. Maybe I'd stick around and watch for a while to see if the red-flag was merely an anomaly; or find out a bit more about the game before committing myself to playing.

    What other things would I make waves over? Well here is a list for you.
    • The DM having a female wizard of mine be dominated an anally raped, and then rolling some dice behind the screen and declaring that she's enjoying it. (Yes this happened)
    • The DM picking on one person or intentionally killing off PCs because they feel like it.
    • The DM throwing in more random encounters because he thought a deity shared by another player and I's PCs was stupid. (Happened as well; was Eliastree from the Forgotten Realms, and always interrupted our characters when we spoke of her with random encounters.)
    • The DMing making up rules on the fly to be a jerk. (Happened. I described my cleric holding up her shield and attempting to goad opponents into attacking her instead of the squishier allies. He rolls against my AC and misses, then rolls damage against my shield as if it were a sunder-attempt, using "Well it would hit your shield". Also, called-shots.)
    • The DM looking for players invites me to a game. I ask up front if it's fine if I play a Psion (since I hadn't played one in a long time). He says sure, he totally allows psionics. Later as I'm presenting my 1st level human psion made to the DM's specifications. The DM then declares that because psionics are overpowered, he is adding a will-save to disbelieve them to every psionic power; but he's using the recharge magic varient for core casters. (Actually happened. I explained how Psionics wasn't unbalanced and that his ruling made no sense even fluff-wise; and he ended up lifting his will-save penalty; but I bowed out because...well because that's seriously messed up; and totally dropped my confidence in him as a DM.)


    Ultimately, I'm not certain what you're trying to prove here. Twisting my words, attacking my character, and suggesting that I'm going to throw tantrums and what-not aren't very respectful either.
    You are my God.

  15. - Top - End - #345

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by Volkov View Post
    Either that or something has to prove the equation wrong or utilize a special circumstance where the equation doesn't apply (none exist as far as we know)
    By that logic, we just haven't discovered magic yet. (wasn't there a Simpsons episode along those lines?)

    @Asheil
    Does your DM play FATAL by any chance? I feel sorry for you.
    Last edited by Tinydwarfman; 2010-04-05 at 03:58 PM.

  16. - Top - End - #346
    Eldritch Horror in the Playground Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinydwarfman View Post
    By that logic, we just haven't discovered magic yet. (wasn't there a Simpsons episode along those lines?)
    Clarke's Law?

  17. - Top - End - #347

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Glyphstone View Post
    Clarke's Law?
    'Indistinguishable from magic', not actually magic. Magic breaks the Laws of Physics, science works from within them.

  18. - Top - End - #348
    Eldritch Horror in the Playground Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinydwarfman View Post
    'Indistinguishable from magic', not actually magic. Magic breaks the Laws of Physics, science works from within them.
    But to someone uneducated, or sufficient ignorant, they'll be functionally identical. "Magic" is an incredibly vague term in that case...teleportation or personal flight are both magic spells, but they've also got significant presence in science fiction as technology-based. Violating the laws of thermodynamics with, say, a Fireball spell could be harder.

    If you just define 'Magic' as 'Impossible Things', then yes, we will never discover magic...but then it becomes a cyclical argument.

  19. - Top - End - #349
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Ashiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinydwarfman View Post
    @Ashiel
    Does your DM play FATAL by any chance? I feel sorry for you.
    Actually no. I've never played FATAL but I've heard it was terrible. Unfortunately, I'm actually listing things from different games with different DMs. Those are games that I walked from; and would walk from again. I have no luck with finding games as a player; but I've been DMing for 10 years almost exclusively.

    I don't even think I hold DMs to a high standard. I always try to make characters who get along with party members; I prefer playing NG/LG characters (not in the Lawful Stupid way); write my characters according to the fluff the DMs provide whenever possible; try to keep things pretty simple; and I tend to attempt to follow plot-hooks and what-not. It's just the few games I've been in that were great games, only lasted for a few sessions because of various out of game issues such as work schedules or school.
    Last edited by Ashiel; 2010-04-05 at 04:14 PM.
    You are my God.

  20. - Top - End - #350

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Glyphstone View Post
    But to someone uneducated, or sufficient ignorant, they'll be functionally identical. "Magic" is an incredibly vague term in that case...teleportation or personal flight are both magic spells, but they've also got significant presence in science fiction as technology-based. Violating the laws of thermodynamics with, say, a Fireball spell could be harder.

    If you just define 'Magic' as 'Impossible Things', then yes, we will never discover magic...but then it becomes a cyclical argument.
    Magic on it's own is a vague term, but most settings expand on what exactly their magic is. Many versions involve creating new matter from nothing, however others treat it like science. It all really depends on the setting.

  21. - Top - End - #351
    Eldritch Horror in the Playground Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinydwarfman View Post
    Magic on it's own is a vague term, but most settings expand on what exactly their magic is. Many versions involve creating new matter from nothing, however others treat it like science. It all really depends on the setting.
    That's fair. I was just taking issue with your response to Volkov, seeming to interpret him as saying "if we haven't disproved it, then it's possible", and saying "then we just haven't discovered something impossible yet" as a counter.
    Last edited by The Glyphstone; 2010-04-05 at 04:23 PM.

  22. - Top - End - #352
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by Optimystik View Post
    While I generally agree with this, in this case it's different. It's not just a matter of "we haven't figured it out yet." It's mathematically impossible.

    E=mc˛. Even if you eliminate mass, the highest speed you can get to is c - the speed of light. Even getting there would require an undefined amount of energy, never mind exceeding it.

    To change it, we have to change the math itself.
    Not exactly. First of all, c is the speed of light in a vacuum. The speed of light through other media is slower. In fact, this is an important fact which leads to something useful phenomena such as Cherenkov radiation. Moreover, even then nothing actually says that you can't get to c. The key is that objects with positive rest mass cannot accelerate to c in real space. That's not due to an undefined energy level being required but rather an infinite energy level. In any event, none of this rules out other forms of FTL travel. For technical reasons warp drives are extremely unlikely. But wormholes are not severely implausible given our current knowledge level.

    Disclaimer: I'm a math grad student not a physicist so I could have details wrong.
    Last edited by JoshuaZ; 2010-04-05 at 09:58 PM.
    My homebrew:

    Spoiler
    Show


    Completed:
    ToB disciplines:

    The Narrow Bridge
    The Broken Blade

    Prestige classess:
    Disciple of Karsus -PrC for Karsites.
    The Seekers of Lost Swords and the Preserver of Future Blades Two interelated Tome of Battle Prcs,
    Master of the Hidden Seal - Binder/Divine hybrid
    Knight of the Grave- Necromancy using Gish



    Worthwhile links:

    Age of Warriors

  23. - Top - End - #353
    Banned
     
    Optimystik's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Psst - Ix-nay on the ATAL-Fay in the layground-Pay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinydwarfman View Post
    'Indistinguishable from magic', not actually magic. Magic breaks the Laws of Physics, science works from within them.
    And science fiction is the middle ground - starting within the laws of physics, and then diverging to either a small or large degree depending on the subject matter at hand.

    Psionics, on the other hand, doesn't do this; they handwave away most effects with "ectoplasm" which might as well be "mana" for all the scientific implication it has.

  24. - Top - End - #354
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2008

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    I originally made this post in order to get some explanation on why Psionics tend to get flak for reasons that I am unaware of. I'm not exactly sure how Sci-Fi vs. Magic came into play.

    I am just more confused than when it began.

  25. - Top - End - #355
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Starbuck_II's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Psionic Bias?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zergrusheddie View Post
    I originally made this post in order to get some explanation on why Psionics tend to get flak for reasons that I am unaware of. I'm not exactly sure how Sci-Fi vs. Magic came into play.

    I am just more confused than when it began.
    Apparently, Psionics gets flak because it seems Sci-Fi. But since no one can sanely define Sci-Fi. Magic and psionics seem indisguishable.

    One person thought: Sci-Fi is where we could be.
    But then since we haven't proven how anyone can use psionics yet: that means Sci-Fi is more magic than psionics.
    With started argument that they are the same.
    Meaning, Fantasy should have both but that brung the people who don't like psionics in their fantasy because of Nar-wals*.

    *(okay I tuned out that argument but I think uniciorns and nar-wals were involved. If they weren't, they should have been).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •