|
Post by Omicron on Dec 3, 2017 13:25:36 GMT
Alright, quick rephrase: I don't think we should try to replicate the example (which was clearly made to have the food creatures seem as sad as possible (also, we don't even know if they are even capable of suffering, so maybe they aren't even that sad after all)) step by step, but I merely thought creating creatures purely for food isn't bad. They probably don't even need brains, just a kind of cancer-like blob of bacon important nutrients that keeps growing and which you can just cut slabs of meat off of. Also, lordclassyus , while I still think trying to rebuild forests using genetically engineered trees is a bad idea, as even a couple seeds escaping can have it sprout in another ecosystem and cause the extinction of other species, I do think your idea of using it for lumber mills is a pretty good idea. We could probably add a kind of way where they can only reproduce when helped by humans or something to stop it from escaping.
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Dec 3, 2017 9:39:45 GMT
I think that, while we shouldn't try to create animals to just throw in the environment to, taking lordclassyus 's example, create a lot of trees quickly or something, as the ecosystem will probably not like it. However, I do think we should try to create one or two actual creatures, purely "FOR SCIENCE". We should just try not to have them cause damage if they escape. This can be done by just giving it a couple major flaws (I.E. give them horrible endurance so they can't run from predators, or make sure that they can't digest unprocessed food or something). Also, I agree with using it for medical stuff Last of all, I also think we should use it for our food supply. taking February Steam of Foushoo 's example, I don't think this is a badd thing, as the meat production these days create a lot of pollution, and that could probably be solved by bio-engineering a couple creatures that efficiently create food (without doing trivial things like moving)
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Dec 3, 2017 9:26:03 GMT
Wow this is much more complex than I thought I'll try to give as much detail as I can.
The smaller moons are not the same size: Moon 1 is 382km, Moon 2 is 325km. As for the big moon, its size is 1937km.
For the velocity, Moon 1 goes to 6.42 km/s , Moon 2 is 4.50 km/s and Moon 3 is 3.99 km/s. As for the distance
I'm not sure what you mean by "periodic differences". Do you mean orbital period or rotational period?
"Periodic difference" means how the difference in how far the 2 objects are in the circle. Taking the earlier example, , the first waves have a periodic difference of 0, while the second ones have one of 0,5. (It doesn't count for the third circle however, as they have a different velocity, so for your tides question this shouldn't be important) (Also, we still need the distance from the planet)
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 27, 2017 15:54:03 GMT
Omicron I may be wrong but by newton's law, if it is 2 times as big and 2 times as far away shouldn't the gravitic pull be half as strong? (Because you consider the square of distance). Ah yes, I just realized: The formula I thought of was E g=GmM/r, but that one was for energy The formula for gravitational pull is F g=GmM/(r 2), so... oops... Edited the earlier comment.
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 27, 2017 13:00:14 GMT
Well let's say a planet as 3 moons, two small ones and one big. They are all tidally locked and have a circular orbit, the bigger moon orbiting the slowest and being the farthest. So what would happen to the tides? I don't think we have enough information to answer this question. For example, we know the bigger moon is further away, but how much? And how much bigger is he? For example, if it's four times as big as the others, but twice as far away, the moon's gravitational pull on the planet would be just a big as either of the smallest. Information I think we still need: - How big is the bigger moon?
- Are the smaller moons the same size?
- If so, how big are the smaller moons?
- If no, how big are each?
- What are the velocities of the moons?
- If they are at the same velocity, what are the periodic differences between the moons? (I.E. moon 1 and moon 2 are exactly opposite from eachother, Δλ would be 0,5, or if they are about 1/3 of the circumference between them, Δλ would be 1/3)
These questions can all be answered relatively to each other. (I.E. saying moon 1 is 2 times as fast as moon 2, and moon 3 1/3 as fast as moon 2)
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 26, 2017 21:57:21 GMT
Actually, speaking of which, how did the swear censor Belgium come around? Somewhere in the book series "Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy", they said something along the lines of Belgium being one of the worst swearwords imaginable, which, totally coincidentally, was the same word as the "Earthian" country. (Also, quick message to the mods: Foushou deleted his post, and therefore Aquos 's response (and Quantum's response to him) are now the source of the video)
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 26, 2017 8:41:55 GMT
I think it will probably be something along the likes of interfering sound waves: (From: Wikipedia) Some images to explain it a bit better: or , with the waves being the tides.
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 25, 2017 10:39:26 GMT
Due to my evidently lacking knowledge on the subjects arising here, I'm going to leave it up to you guys to duke it out... I don't think anyone can be "knowledgeable" on a topic like this, as it's all merely speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 24, 2017 21:52:20 GMT
Really? Would it be possible? For a given definition of “tribe,” I think dolphin pods and insect colonies might count. (However, I looked it up, and all definitions of culture contain the word "human" or "people" at least once, so let's just ignore that part)source: Google dictionary So yeah, ant colonies do count.
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 24, 2017 20:07:02 GMT
Edit: also, I think I thought of a new rule. A sapient species must be curious. You can't really advance much if you don't ask to yourself 'how could I do this?' or 'why does this happen?'. But wouldn't that respond more to some kind of "laws of intelligence"? A creature might be "aware", but just not curious enough to advance from a technological standpoint EDIT: For example, take the Neanderthals. They weren't very curious and/or intelligent (which ended up being their downfall), but they were "sapient"
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 24, 2017 20:05:16 GMT
is it supposed to be blank? No, unless serialkiller changed it of course. However, it used to be a picture containing the text "It's calm down time".
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 24, 2017 15:09:39 GMT
yet you agree that humans were not the strongest of animals? In the rule itself, I mean that humans cannot be extremely smart, extremely strong, and extremely anything but smart. Because of the ecological niche that humans fit into (or any other sapient), they focus on evolving intelligence. But... a very strong animal =/=an "overpowered" animal. Strength doesn't determine a lot in the animal world. Also, it isn't really an exact measurement, as, for example, the crocodile has very strong jaws. Should it therefore be a "strong animal"? (also, I still stand by my point: Humans are extremely enduring, and therefore "extremely anything but smart") Second of all, I stand by rule 3. Something large in terms of elephant size or onwards cannot have a brain full of knowledge to act upon (the very definition of sapience). Elephants, my example, have larger brains than humans, yet they lack the efficiency and intelligence of a human brain. This is not say elephants are dumb, just not suited to that ecological niche. Still, just because it probably won't happen doesn't mean it can't happen. The "intelligence" of a creature is, if I remember correctly, determined by relative size of the brain. Therefore, while elephants may have a large brain, relatively speaking, it's pretty small. Last of all, the argument about how all your arguments specifically apply to people still stands.
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 24, 2017 11:57:04 GMT
I kind of feel like these are the laws to reach "human-like" sapience. What I mean, is that sapient creatures that can't craft things (for example), would probably still be able to make communities or something.
Second of all, rule #2 is, false. Human's might not have been the strongest animals, but they were the ones with the most endurance (seriously, there were hunting tactics which consisted of just chasing an animal until it dropped dead from exhaustion), and the ones that had the most energy "to spare", or so to speak. (as walking on 2 legs is very energy-efficient.) This meant that it should probably be replaced with something along the lines of "It shouldn't consume all its energy". An apex predator, for example could probably gain sapience too, as he'll have enough energy to spare to support a big brain.
On to rule #3: probably just probability speaking, but, while it's not very probable, a massive, intelligent creature could probably technically exist. The same applies to rule #4
(also, requesting evidence for a discussion like this might not be the best idea, as, unless we find aliens or something, the only evidence that can be used is "pro-human").
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 24, 2017 11:48:31 GMT
Oh, nice! I love dwarf fortess and I was wondering if I would be able to create a eusocial RTS-type species later on in-game i.e "creature" stage. Definitely looking forward to giving this game to my great great grandchildren, lmao. Something like the Zerg from StarCraft?
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 23, 2017 16:08:09 GMT
Use of large fonts is a breach of civil conduct. Proceed on alternate course immediately. Uh... Serious question: Then why do we have the ability to?
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 18, 2017 8:12:27 GMT
I'd probably make some kind of sea goliath creature. A microbial member? (at time of post) That must mean you are new! Welcome! He's been here for almost a year though...
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 15, 2017 9:38:13 GMT
Omicron : That's what the "Triggers" part of the description of a tech is about. For example: Irrigation Requires: Agriculture Effects: Allows for irrigation canals to be dug to extend the range of fresh water for farming. Triggers: Farming a lot. Farming near rivers or coasts. So if your society farms a lot and/or farms near water, they would have an increased likelihood of discovering irrigation. I guess you could say that, but I was mostly talking about other technologies, not "general processses", or whatever we're going to call it.
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 15, 2017 9:36:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 14, 2017 8:57:04 GMT
I just realized that maybe having "boost trigger"s would be a logical addition too. For example, using Lanky's idea as example, fish traps could be discovered before "land traps". However, having your tribe know the basics of land traps would probably improve the chances of someone deciding that they should put a trap in a nearby body of water, and therefore discovering the "fish traps" tech. This could also work the other way around, with knowing what a fish trap is boosting the chances of discovering the "land traps" tech.
Some more examples, taking earlier posts as inspiration: "Stone axes" and "flintknapping": knowing you can shape wood using a piece of rock improves the chances of having a villager realize he could probably try to shape stone using a piece of wood, and vice versa "Weaponry use" and "tools": "Huh, maybe I could use this sharp stick I use to skin stuff to stab someone" (or of course the other way around)
They could also only be one way, for example having the "fishing rod" tech boost the chances of discovering the "fish traps" tech, but not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by Omicron on Nov 13, 2017 12:43:48 GMT
1. It is unheard of on earth for metal tools to ever come before stone tools naturally (thus stone tools must somehow lead toward metal tools in a tree). However, this doesn't mean stone tools have to lead to metal. For example, the species might live somewhere where chunks of iron can be found, and later they found that heating it up first made it easier to bend them or something. 2. The Wheel, in the case of earth civilizations, has never come into being without beasts-of-burden and existence of Agriculture(thus the wheel must somehow arise from beasts-of-burden and agriculture). This is, again, more likely a coincidence than something else, as the wheel just adds the same benefits as beasts-of-burden do, (they both allow for transporting heavy/many objects without having the "master" do a lot,) and therefore probably emerged around the same kinds of colonies. (nomads) It's just that beasts-of-burden are (apparently) "easier" to find out about. (I agree on the rest though)
|
|