*related=http://videosift.com/video/Stargate-Studios-Set-extension-and-Virtual-Planes-Demo

That's not what I was saying at all though perhaps I explained poorly.

So imagine you are in a 0 gravity environment. You have 2 balls (lol) one has a mass of 1 kg the other a mass of 100kg. You throw both equally hard. What happens?

One ball travels away from you at 100x less the velocity of the other. This is intertia, it is an effect of mass not gravity. Gravity is an additional force but it's absence would not change the fact that a big heavy space suit requires a significant force to move at a usefully velocity in the 1st place.

It was perhaps misleading to use the example of a fulcrum (lever) but in this context it's quite illustrative. If it was 0 gravity you could apply a tiny force to a massive object and just wait however long it takes to get it where you want (like an infinitely long lever). When gravity becomes a factor duration becomes more and more of a concern (like the fulcrum of the lever gets shorter and shorter).

Concequence: the lower the gravity the easier (less work/deltaV) it is to move an object. However a massive object still requires a proportional large force to move in a useful way (in this case fast enough to overcome 0.16g for long enough to get upright).

I'm not saying gravity has no effect (quite the opposite) I'm saying big heavy thing requires big heavy force to shift even in reduced gravity environments.


As for bases on the moon, mars, stargates, ueo's, void whales, phobos being hollow (phobos is some crazy shit), hexagon on Saturn etc. Etc. I'm not outright dismissive, but to treat it as anything but food for thought/entertainment is a little worrying to say the least. What do you have to go on there other than the testimony of other people who claim to have been involved or whatever?

There's no hard data avaliable to the likes of you and I on such things. Many of these ideas cannot be entirely refuted, but nor can they be confirmed either. That puts us squarely in the realm of superstition and religion.

I'm a part time discordian/khaos magus/git wizard so I do have more time than most for superstition and flights of fantasy but I steer well clear of treating any of that kind of think as objective fact.

The realms of materialism and idealism should stay entirely separate except when they converge and compliment each other e.g. If I can imagine a black swan and then go out and find one (after performing the necessary experiments to disprove any other possible explanations for why it might seem black) then I can tell others that black swans are definitely a real thing. The same cannot be said for say the flying spaghetti monster or the chocolate tea pot orbiting the sun even though believing in such things makes my life more interesting under certain circumstances (and such liberated thought processes can eventually lead to as yet undiscovered ideas which may indeed prove to be "true" or helpful).

"Given all theories of the universe are absurd, it is better to speak in the language of one which Is patently absurd so as to mortify the metaphysical man." -Alaistair Crowley

Translation: if your going to indulge stuff like this don't take it or yourself too seriously or you will go mental!

Praise be to pope Bob!
23

any creator who only reveals himself to certain people and not others is a dick and not worth following or caring about. Any person who "thinks" god has been revealed to them and uses that as an assertion of authority over those who haven't had similar "revelations" are not just dicks, they deserve to be locked up.

I'm still ignoring shiny but I'm assuming he's making all the same tired arguments about god revealing himself as he always does. I'm sure he's also still quoting the bible as an authoritative source.

As Matt has continued to point out, secular morality has proven itself better than biblical morality.

God and religion are two separate things. always have, always will be. The question of the existence of a creator is largely irrelevant. If a creator exists and I'm doing things contrary to what this creator wishes me to do, tough. If this creator has a problem with it, it can come down here and tell me directly instead of using a ancient book as it's main source of communication. God is either a dick or incompetent for using such an inefficient means of communicating its wishes. Even if a creator did manifest itself physically and declared its undisputed existence, this creator would have a lot of angry people (and that includes people who DO believe in a creator) on its hands demanding some answers and rightfully so. The threat of eternal damnation just really isn't that effective of a means of ensuring compliance. Again. secular morality beats biblical morality.

Even if a creator does not exist it still doesn't change anything. Even if it was possible to scientifically prove a creator doesn't exist. It doesn't change shit. Countless people will still continue believing it. A creator may not exist, but Religion ain't going anywhere for a long time. There isn't a magic set of words that magically convince someone to not believe in an imaginary god. This ain't the TV show Stargate and there is no "Ark of Truth" and in my opinion, it would be immoral to use such a device if it existed. (great googely boogely that was such a horrible tv movie).

If we want a free society, people have to make their own conclusions. By and large, all atheists and agnostics support Freedom of Religion. They just want religion out of government. You can be religious, but government has to be secular.

science is agnostic to the existence of a creator. It doesn't care if a creator exists. If the evidence is there. then the evidence will point to it. If there is no evidence then it doesn't exist. Even if there is evidence and we just haven't found it yet, we still have to err on the side treating it as if it doesn't exist. Theists make the claim the a creator exists. You have to back that shit up. The burden is on you to prove it exists. Not only that, but you have a double burden. Not only do you have to prove a creator exists, you have prove that this creator wants you to do X, Y, and Z. None of which has been done.

And guess what, not all atheists/agnostics believe/disbelieve the same thing. just because you trot out some non-believer that says things that other non-believers don't agree with doesn't mean a thing. Yeah, atheists and agnostics like to squabble over the definitions of atheist and agnostic and the myriad of combinations of both words. So what? it doesn't remove the theist's double burden of proof, Yes, there are some atheists out there who don't just want separation of church and state, they would eliminate all forms of religion if they could. Shock, someone in a group is taking things a little far. ZOMG! THAT NEVER HAPPENS ANYWHERE!! It STILL doesn't remove the theist's double burden of proof.

Matt has argued this countless times. you make a claim? you gotta back it up. You may wish to quibble over the semantics of what an atheist is or isn't. I too don't strictly agree with his definition of atheism. But he has declared his views on the subject countless times: He used to be a Christian, but he decided that he needed to know that what he was preaching was actually rational and Christianity could not meet the burden of proof in his eyes. So he is not making the claim that god doesn't exist, because he cannot prove that. The problem is, Christians, or any other religion for that matter cannot prove any of their claims either, thus, there is no reason to believe them or consider them trustworthy.

You want to quibble over whether or not that's an atheist or an agnostic, be my fucking guest but it's just a distraction that doesn't change the end result. Matt (and myself) do not accept the claim that a creator exists, nor do we accept the claim that even if a creator exists, that this creator follows the Christian belief system (or any other belief system for that matter). And the reason that we can't accept any of these claims is because of the lack of evidence and not meeting the burden of proof

...I just realised...Corin used his real freakin name in Stargate!! Woaaaa </keanu>

and then I went and re-watched stargate SG1. Thanks TheSluiceGate, not like I had better things to do for the next 3 days.

Best space battles from the Stargate TV series has been added as a related post - related requested by kulpims on that post.

If you must choose, Star Trek is more cerebral and more adult oriented.

I think it was in Trekkies that it was said "Star Trek is for adults, but kids can see it, while Star Wars is for kids, but adults can see it".

I love both in their own way and I don't think they're mutually exclusive at all, just like Babylon 5 is fucking awesome too, Farscape is also good. Sci-fi is where it's at, muthafucka!

Stargate can suck a dick though.

dag would always hog donkey kong down at the local cafe with a full roll of quarters on the marquee...

damn what was that place called

(hahah i dont remember if thats true about dag) I was definitely guilty at times of racking up a line of quarters )

my favorites were donkey kong, stargate, qix, defender, Assault (I could play forever on a quarter)

>> ^Buck:

she's so hot.


Yeah, even those two guys are hitting on her.

I wonder what the guys say about the series.

Stargate!

Also just realized he played Conan and was in Stargate Atlantis - not to mention Baywatch. Whoop's didn't mean to mention Baywatch.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0597388/

>> ^spoco2:

My prediction:
This will be unoriginal, tired shit.
It just looks like it's going to tread the same path as many before it.
Also, if you can't be bothered to bring out a trailer with music different to a trailer that JUST CAME OUT mere months ago, then sorry, but that smacks of laziness all around.


I think you are right, unless they can find some other, different story they can tell about the cylons that makes them scary again, and not whiney, vagina robots. My vote would be a splinter of cylons that manage to get off the planet before getting boxed. These cylons are crazy fanatic about organic life in general, they want to see the eradication of every non-cylon based lifeform, a world of chrome and steal! These relentless, inorganic pursuers stop at nothing to not only destroy human existence, but all existence as we know it. It is the only interesting story you can tell after trying to wipe out humanity, trying to wipe out all existence. Start it off with, instead of the decimation of our home world like the new ones, start with its eradication...deathstar. That could actually be your main plot device for the first couple of seasons, trying to kill the planet smasher.

Anyway, it think way to much about battlestar and how I would make the newish ones better (after season 3, I pretend they don't exist), as well as what I would do for a spinnoff in the same universe. I ended up with a show that would feel more like Stargate Atlantis (humans going around trying to stop cylons from blowing up alien worlds) than what we know as battlestar today, but I think you could make it interesting.

tell the air force to get working on the stargate!

Damn Syfy goons... cancelling Stargate. Look what you did to him!

Which Stargate series?