New efforts!

[Azrael]

I liked Energy Transfer's animation (especially after I saw how weak-looking the old one was), but ... yeah, it was too long.

I wonder if the problem of corpse-blasting could have been "fixed" by simply having the damage start earlier in the animation (say, have the Energy damage be a DoT over the length of the animation, while the physical damage is delivered all at once with the punch at the end).

But I don't think they changed ALL the animations, did they?  Just Energy Transfer.

Cool idea.  Dot then boom(!) for the gift at the end of the animation.

Wish they'd beefed up the dot damage as well.

Loved whirling hands ballet animation and the booshakka protracted energy transfer.

Glowing hands looked m'awesome as well.

Azrael.

[Fireheart]

What is corpse-hitting?

Corpse-hitting, or corpse-blasting refers to when you wind up your killer-move and the opponent dies before your casting-time/animation completes, causing you to waste all of that time and energy on a corpse.

Be Well!
Fireheart

[Arcana]

Most likely because I'm used to using general terminology so people other than the well educated can understand the concept of the meaning.

Just for insulting my physics model though I'll have to give you a direct Einstein breaker. Direct in that; the effect comes from the source of the dispute.

A Photon. I say, there is no max speed in the universe, Einstein says there is and it's the speed a photon travels, I can provide evidence on multiple counts of data collected in scientific experiments (a lot not even run by me and not trying to prove my theory but exactly the opposite) that support my statement. Yet Einstein followers can support their statement too with findings produced by experiments which they specifically designed to prove such (see the difference here?).

Yeah, the difference is once again you don't know what you're talking about.  Einstein doesn't say there's "a max speed in the universe."  A consequence of relativity is that all massless particles move at exactly the speed of light, and no particles with intrinsic mass greater than zero can move at the speed of light.  It is presumed that since any massive particle that is moving less than the speed of light must accelerate under force if its speed increases, special relativity proscribes that since the amount of energy required to accelerate to the speed of light is unbounded that's impossible.

But relativity doesn't prohibit a few cases of superluminal velocity.  For example, relativity places limits on particles moving within spacetime.  It does not place limits on how the geometry of spacetime can change.  So spacetime itself can expand at apparent relative velocities higher than the speed of light, and the current model of cosmological inflation requires this.  This does not contradict general relativity.  A similar principle governs the so-called Alcubierre warp drive equations.  They theoretically allow an object to travel from one point in the universe to another faster than light could under normal circumstances, by altering the geometry of space so that the space around the object translates to the desired location at superluminal speed.  Since the object itself always moves locally at less than the speed of light, this also doesn't contradict relativity.  In fact, it requires relativity to be true to work.

In either case, relativity also doesn't restrict apparent motion at faster than the speed of light.  In fact, some of the lorentz effects of special relativity and the principle of constancy of the speed of light create such effects, such as directed superluminal jets.  Those effects always occur exactly as the laws of physics predict.

You can't provide evidence from confirmed scientific experiments that contradict relativity, because there aren't any.  If you think you can, that's either because you can't tell the difference between crackpottery and genuine science, you misread the research, your information is out of date, or you read someone else's summary of the research who is just as good as you are at misunderstanding it.  Superluminal jets have simple geometric explanations.  Superluminal neutrinos turned out to be experimental error.  The Pioneer deviations disappeared with more precise modeling of the thermodynamics of the probe.  If you had anything that wasn't rubbish, you would have presented it by now.

[Arcana]

I respect the way you approach those conversations.  I really do.  But it is understandable why the rest of us stopped looking at them in a way that is to be taken seriously.

Honestly, I sometimes wish I could do likewise.  But I gotta be me.

https://images.weserv.nl/?url=thegunwire.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2Fdavis-jr-sammy-photo-sammy-davis-jr-6233615.jpg

[Shibboleth]

Shades of Timecube.

[JoshexProxy]

Yeah, the difference is once again you don't know what you're talking about.  Einstein doesn't say there's "a max speed in the universe."  A consequence of relativity is that all massless particles move at exactly the speed of light, and no particles with intrinsic mass greater than zero can move at the speed of light.  It is presumed that since any massive particle that is moving less than the speed of light must accelerate under force if its speed increases, special relativity proscribes that since the amount of energy required to accelerate to the speed of light is unbounded that's impossible.

But relativity doesn't prohibit a few cases of superluminal velocity.  For example, relativity places limits on particles moving within spacetime.  It does not place limits on how the geometry of spacetime can change.  So spacetime itself can expand at apparent relative velocities higher than the speed of light, and the current model of cosmological inflation requires this.  This does not contradict general relativity.  A similar principle governs the so-called Alcubierre warp drive equations.  They theoretically allow an object to travel from one point in the universe to another faster than light could under normal circumstances, by altering the geometry of space so that the space around the object translates to the desired location at superluminal speed.  Since the object itself always moves locally at less than the speed of light, this also doesn't contradict relativity.  In fact, it requires relativity to be true to work.

In either case, relativity also doesn't restrict apparent motion at faster than the speed of light.  In fact, some of the lorentz effects of special relativity and the principle of constancy of the speed of light create such effects, such as directed superluminal jets.  Those effects always occur exactly as the laws of physics predict.

You can't provide evidence from confirmed scientific experiments that contradict relativity, because there aren't any.  If you think you can, that's either because you can't tell the difference between crackpottery and genuine science, you misread the research, your information is out of date, or you read someone else's summary of the research who is just as good as you are at misunderstanding it.  Superluminal jets have simple geometric explanations.  Superluminal neutrinos turned out to be experimental error.  The Pioneer deviations disappeared with more precise modeling of the thermodynamics of the probe.  If you had anything that wasn't rubbish, you would have presented it by now.

so then why is it when I propose that something has engaged a motion of greater than the speed of light everyone says "impossible, because Einstein"?

actually I have a lot that's not rubbish, but I don't go around actively smearing that over the internet. I might in the future but not yet. For now I save the stuff I deem of no consequence to my theory (aka people wouldn't be able to figure out my theory just from reading it) for the internet.

the mathematical finding is one of those, I'm just really lazy with references (I have 0 on the document at present) and have to perform one more test of the system in order to produce a certain number which I do believe is not what we thought it was.

[Vee]

and have to perform one more test of the system in order to produce a certain number which I do believe is not what we thought it was.

is there an italian bistro involved? i swear i only had the tomato soup.

[Vee]

Ok it occurred to me the previous post was a little too inside baseball even by my standards, so here's the combination of Douglas Adams stuff I was opaquely referencing.

From Life, the Universe and Everything

The Bistromatic Drive is a wonderful new method of crossing vast interstellar distances without all that dangerous mucking about with Improbability Factors.
Bistromathics itself is simply a revolutionary new way of understanding the behaviour of numbers. Just as Einstein observed that time was not an absolute but depended on the observer's movement in space, and that space was not an absolute, but depended on the observer's movement in time, so it is now realized that numbers are not absolute, but depend on the observer's movement in restaurants.
The first non-absolute number is the number of people for whom the table is reserved. This will vary during the course of the first three telephone calls to the restaurant, and then bear no apparent relation to the number of people who actually turn up, or to the number of people who subsequently join them after the show/match/party/gig, or to the number of people who leave when they see who else has turned up.
The second non-absolute number is the given time of arrival, which is now known to be one of those most bizarre of mathematical concepts, a recipriversexcluson, a number whose existence can only be defined as being anything other than itself. In other words, the given time of arrival is the one moment of time at which it is impossible that any member of the party will arrive. Recipriversexclusons now play a vital part in many branches of maths, including statistics and accountancy and also form the basic equations used to engineer the Somebody Else's Problem field.
The third and most mysterious piece of non-absoluteness of all lies in the relationship between the number of items on the bill, the cost of each item, the number of people at the table, and what they are each prepared to pay for. (The number of people who have actually brought any money is only a sub-phenomenon in this field.)
The baffling discrepancies which used to occur at this point remained uninvestigated for centuries simply because no one took them seriously. They were at the time put down to such things as politeness, rudeness, meanness, flashiness, tiredness, emotionality, or the lateness of the hour, and completely forgotten about on the following morning. They were never tested under laboratory conditions, of course, because they never occurred in laboratories-not in reputable laboratories at least.
And so it was only with the advent of pocket computers that the startling truth became finally apparent, and it was this:
Numbers written on restaurant bills within the confines of restaurants do not follow the same mathematical laws as numbers written on any other pieces of paper in any other parts of the Universe.
This single fact took the scientific world by storm. It completely revolutionized it. So many mathematical conferences got held in such good restaurants that many of the finest minds of a generation died of obesity and heart failure and the science of maths was put back by years.
Slowly, however, the implications of the idea began to be understood. To begin with it had been too stark, too crazy, too much what the man in the street would have said, "Oh yes, I could have told you that," about. Then some phrases like "Interactive Subjectivity Frameworks" were invented, and everybody was able to relax and get on with it.
The small groups of monks who had taken up hanging around the major research institutes singing strange chants to the effect that the Universe was only a figment of its own imagination were eventually given a street theatre grant and went away.

From the Meaning of Liff

BODMIN - (n.) The irrational and inevitable discrepancy between the amount pooled and
the amount needed when a large group of  people try  to pay  a bill together
after a meal.

SCRANTON - (n.) A  person  who,  after the  declaration  of the  bodmin (q.v.),  always
says,'... But I only had the tomato soup.'

[LateNights]

so then why is it when I propose that something has engaged a motion of greater than the speed of light everyone says "impossible, because Einstein"?

actually I have a lot that's not rubbish, but I don't go around actively smearing that over the internet. I might in the future but not yet. For now I save the stuff I deem of no consequence to my theory (aka people wouldn't be able to figure out my theory just from reading it) for the internet.

the mathematical finding is one of those, I'm just really lazy with references (I have 0 on the document at present) and have to perform one more test of the system in order to produce a certain number which I do believe is not what we thought it was.

Dude, if you constantly have what seems to amount to basic shit explained to you, how the hell do you have the belief you're going to "break science" with a theory you've come up with?

[LateNights]

Ok it occurred to me the previous post was a little too inside baseball even by my standards, so here's the combination of Douglas Adams stuff I was opaquely referencing.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcStRQsOLgjMWllncLDpCmiyxUE_ZBm-AoK8M9ZQZKQUWjJaJ1sgIlpdfa_gQw

His co - author also wrote this book, so it's kinda hard to know what to believe...

[Felderburg]

His co - author also wrote this book, so it's kinda hard to know what to believe...

Well, Douglas Adams is a satirist, so don't believe anything he says :p

[Ulysses Dare]

Dude, if you constantly have what seems to amount to basic pancake explained to you, how the hell do you have the belief you're going to "break science" with a theory you've come up with?

I believe we are witnessing an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

[Arcana]

so then why is it when I propose that something has engaged a motion of greater than the speed of light everyone says "impossible, because Einstein"?

Because a) outside of significant constraints something moving faster than the speed of light does in fact violate relativity either relativity or some other physics constraints related to relativity and b) because the longer more precise refutation generally requires more effort than most people want to expend.

actually I have a lot that's not rubbish, but I don't go around actively smearing that over the internet.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to desecrate the internet with facts and knowledge.  Unfortunately, I don't have your scruples.

[Arcana]

I believe we are witnessing an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

I was actually discussing this basic idea professionally a couple days ago.  This problem plagues IT professionals who are often self-taught and learn things through very sketchy experience.  We recently had a situation where someone was trying to fix a problem and they did X and that was actually the correct solution, but it didn't apparently work so they did Y and then the problem disappeared - because the solution X sometimes takes time to take full effect.  However, this person became convinced that X was wrong and Y was the correct solution.  So the next time they saw the same problem they did only Y, but outside of X, Y completely blew them up.  When they were blamed for the problem they insisted that doing Y was the correct thing because of their prior experience "proving" that Y was correct and X was wrong.

I often say that people like me have jobs because people like that have jobs.

[Taceus Jiwede]

so then why is it when I propose that something has engaged a motion of greater than the speed of light everyone says "impossible, because Einstein"?

actually I have a lot that's not rubbish, but I don't go around actively smearing that over the internet. I might in the future but not yet. For now I save the stuff I deem of no consequence to my theory (aka people wouldn't be able to figure out my theory just from reading it) for the internet.

the mathematical finding is one of those, I'm just really lazy with references (I have 0 on the document at present) and have to perform one more test of the system in order to produce a certain number which I do believe is not what we thought it was.

See there is that lack of humility again.  People who have dedicated their entire life to the field say its not possible (yet if ever) and a lot of them(if not all) would probably love to see it happen.  When people say "Why can't things move faster then the speed of light" it isn't "Cause Einstein" its "Cause every top person in their respected field says you still can't.  Some of them agreed with Einstein and some didn't but the ultimate result is so far we have concluded that we can't seem to exceed the speed of light"  These aren't people who scoured the internet and are self taught.  These are people who dedicated EVERYTHING to their career.  Endless amounts of time and money.  People who have worked in this field for 30-40 years maybe even more.  A lot of brilliant minds dared to question the norm and great things happened because of it.  But they built from the knowledge of their predecessor's.  They didn't just straight up make up a whole new system like you seem to be doing. 

And we are suppose to believe that they are wrong.  Even though they have proven to be at least somewhat correct to several people in order to move forward in their career.  And instead believe a person who can't even convince the majority of a forum thread that they aren't completely either full of shit or just straight up wrong.

You speak about this stuff as if you are some kind of Mozart of science.  But without any proof of it.  What are your credentials?  What are your theories?  If you you are so worried about them being stolen patent them or copyright them.  Its not that hard.  Especially if they are valid in anyway.

You want us to believe you have a ground breaking understanding of anything then prove it.  Shit or get off the pot. Because as of now you have only proven that you you seem to have no understanding of Coding, Science, Law, or even the Human Body.  Which is fine.  I don't either.  But notice how I am not claiming that I do.

[Joshex]

Because a) outside of significant constraints something moving faster than the speed of light does in fact violate relativity either relativity or some other physics constraints related to relativity and b) because the longer more precise refutation generally requires more effort than most people want to expend.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to desecrate the internet with facts and knowledge.  Unfortunately, I don't have your scruples.

and there we have it a physical thing moving faster than the speed of light violates relativity (outside of the constraints that we can explain it away with a bend of space time).

Electrons move faster than light inside a nuclear reactor. Does that mean space-time is bent there? or does it mean light slowed down? or does it mean the electrons were actually moving faster than light?

In my perspective Einstein's space-time+gravity theory just lumps everything no one knows squat about (other than how it visibly effects things) into one occurrence. It makes predictions of behavior, but those predictions are not actually predictions at all, they are "readings", observations. it's a generalization, an opinion. it's like refusing to go to comic-con, then assuming everyone that goes to comic-con is there solely for the comics. it's an outside perspective with 0 knowledge of the actual inner happenings other than what you can ascertain from the outside (and maybe you didn't consider everything, like "why are all those people dressed in costumes?",  "must be putting on a show or something...").

an outsider can make predictions based on what they know, but it's not always right even if the predictions they made happen to coincide with the initial data observed. I mean if you have 2+2 as the outside observation what is it going to be? 3? obviously not.

Einstein knew that there were unexplained effects in the universe that added up to certain outcomes, he knew the outcomes before he knew what caused them. And there-in lays the problem. he made up a 'plausible' cause to explain it all (Gravity which is part of mass but connected to space time which exists in the nothing of space and is bent by masses). And with the fact that he started with the physical outcomes what was the prediction going to be? was he going to 'predict' that nothing is as it seems? was he going to say "we aren't actually held to the earth, here watch me fly"?.

my argument here is his explanation. of course [observations of outcomes] + [opinion that hypothetically ends in those outcomes] will always = [visibly correct].

I saw an article a few weeks back which talked about how (never mind not going to explain it in my own words):

http://www.universetoday.com/128367/laws-cosmology-may-need-re-write/

gee who said that in order to understand the universe we need to understand dark matter? oh that's right it was me. without such, it's an incomplete 'guesswork' model.

[Victoria Victrix]

There is a very limited subset of people who have brilliant creative insights and produce brilliant creative insights without years of study, and who may be self-taught.

Musician-composers.
Fiction writers.
Artists.

Please note that not one of these three is in a field where rigorous application of math, logic, or scientific examination is required.  For everything else, years, even decades, of study is required, because you cannot make postulations without building on previous, proven knowledge, appearances are often deceiving, and "common sense" may not apply. 

[Shibboleth]

There is a very limited subset of people who have brilliant creative insights and produce brilliant creative insights without years of study, and who may be self-taught.

Musician-composers.
Fiction writers.
Artists.

Please note that not one of these three is in a field where rigorous application of math, logic, or scientific examination is required.  For everything else, years, even decades, of study is required, because you cannot make postulations without building on previous, proven knowledge, appearances are often deceiving, and "common sense" may not apply.

Most of the people in the fields above engage in years of study and training/practice, despite the few who appear out of nowhere with an amazing first offering.

[Taceus Jiwede]

There is a very limited subset of people who have brilliant creative insights and produce brilliant creative insights without years of study, and who may be self-taught.

Musician-composers.
Fiction writers.
Artists.

Please note that not one of these three is in a field where rigorous application of math, logic, or scientific examination is required.  For everything else, years, even decades, of study is required, because you cannot make postulations without building on previous, proven knowledge, appearances are often deceiving, and "common sense" may not apply.

I am a musician and composer and I spend 8-10 hours a day every day studying and practicing.  In fact some the greatest creative minds in history would argue talent is nothing more then hard work.  Whether it be Mozart or Twayla Tharp.  The talent in people like Mozart or even today's Joey Alexander is the ability to constantly work.  Something tells me Joey Alexanders parents don't have to tell him to practice 8 hours a day.  He probably just does.  The famous painting of Beethoven shows him writing his symphony in nature with complete ease and effort.  While if you study his actual hand written work it is constantly second guessed and changed.  It is almost unreadable it is has been worked on so much.  It was clearly not effortless.

Mozart once said "It is a mistake to think that the practice of my art has become easy to me. I assure you, dear friend, no one has given so much care to the study of composition as I."

By the time Mozart was 28 his hand's were deformed he had played so much. I would argue no musician is capable of creating something brilliant without years of study. 

A writer once told me.  Creativity equals butt plus chair.  Twyala Tharp has a whole book about how her creative process is nothing more then a daily routine.

I don't believe in "natural geniuses."  Not Mozart, not Joey Alexander, not Einstein.  All of them worked their ass off to get where they were.  Talent is nothing then the love and understanding of a topic.

[Felderburg]

my argument here is his explanation. of course [observations of outcomes] + [opinion that hypothetically ends in those outcomes] will always = [visibly correct].

But... How else would you start to explain things? If you see something that happens and want to explain it, of course you're going to explain it with an opinion that ends in that outcome. No one's going to say the world works in a way that ends with their theory explaining that things fall up. If you see that things always fall down, there's a number of explanations, including gravity as a function of mass, and invisible speedy leprechauns that grab stuff and pull it down. No matter how outlandish, explanations end with a "visibly correct" outcome that matches the observation. Because an explanation that doesn't match the observation is clearly wrong.

And then of course you can test it. And Einstein was not working with observations, as the recent laser beams that found gravity waves experiment shows. He did not have those observations to make a hypothesis about (although you discounted that experiment earlier, so that example likely won't make a difference to you).





Of note: the reason cats knock stuff down is to test gravity. If a cat knocked something down, and it didn't fall, they would be calling the leprechaun supervisors immediately. Fortunately, the leprechauns are very good at their jobs.


Edit:

laser beams that found gravity waves

Well that phrase is just awesome sounding, and it totally makes actual legitimate sense. What a time to be alive.