What's with all of the female units?

[ThunderTitan]

Well this thread went places...

[Mirez]

I kinda liked the talking about t-rex. Much better than the complaining about the female units.

[ThunderTitan]

Speciesm >>> sexism.

[Kalah]

Well this thread went places...

Best joke of the year: ThunderTitan commenting on a discussion going off-topic ...

[Mlai]

Come to think of it, a Stone Age faction would be kind of cool. T. Rexes... Sabertooth Tigers... Neanderthals...

Has anyone ever suggested one?

[ThunderTitan]

Come to think of it, a Stone Age faction would be kind of cool. T. Rexes... Sabertooth Tigers... Neanderthals...

Has anyone ever suggested one?

No, because T-Rexes weren't around during the stone age...

Plus, it's too close to the Barbarian town as a concept...

Best joke of the year: ThunderTitan commenting on a discussion going off-topic ...

Well they usually don't go places without some friendly help from your truly.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

I'll explain 1 time why you're not worth answering.

You behave like an arrogant know-it-all; you keep arguing against things you know little facts about. If shown that you're wrong, you don't go and do the 15 mins of research required. No, you either ask others to do it for you, or you twist the argument into another direction so that it seems as if you're not wrong (unless the other person goes and does another 15 mins of research on the other thing you're now talking about).

No Mlai, nobody ever showed me to be wrong. You just make a claim (that the creatures depicted in Heroes V wouldn't be able to fly) without even bothering to explain why that was. You should have looked up the facts before posting an argument based upon them.

I am not required to look up the neccesary facts in order to disprove myself Mlai just because you oh great knower have deigned to post something.

Example: When shown that the Gauls at the Battle of Allia were actually better equipped than the Romans, you try to imply that the Gauls' large shields are not part of personal armour. The entire reason the Battle of Allia was raised in the first place, was for you to try to showcase that less-armoured barbarians defeated better-armoured Romans.

Or, if you know you're proven wrong, you quickly ignore the fact altogether.

Except that I was never considering shields to be armour in the first place. And the Romans also have shields, just somewhat smaller one's already.

Example: The fact that the Raider dwelling does indeed have a LARGE SHIELD.

The dwelling itself? Or the creature depicted in the creature recruitment window?

This is another example of a discussion being led awry by your tangents.

What exactly are you trying to say about bumblebees? How exactly are you saying that they violate the aerodynamic theory? And I suppose you want to include hummingbirds with the bumblebees?

If I'm to guess at what you're trying to say, you think that anything with small wings but "flaps fast" violates the aerodynamic theory? But first, how does that even have anything to do with HOMM flying creatures???

I am trying to saying that according to the old understanding of aerodynamics bumblebees simply couldn't fly. They had to revise their understanding of the theory in order to accomadate bumblebees.

Griffins and Angels certainly can never "flap that fast," so what does it even matter what bumblebees can do???

You can say Pixies can. But I already excluded pixies from the debate because they have fairy dust.

Because it has to do with my knowledge of the general principles of how creatures fly. Principles not violated (to my knowledge) by any winged creature depicted in the game. Your job (not mine) is to point out precisely why you're right about the impossibility of said creatures flying.

This is so whacked-up it's almost funny. The reason the square-cube-law doesn't apply underwater is because water has a relatively high density, and therefore provides a lot of buoyancy. Air on the other hand has a relatively low density, and therefore provides very little buoyancy. On top of which there are not many materials less dense for pressure than air.

It does apply just to a lesser extent.

Earth has an even higher density than water. Consequently creatures tunneling through the earth should be practically immune to the square-cube law because earth would be even more buoyant than water.

No the reason that land-creatures have such a problem with a square-cube law is that they are standing on a solid surface, which does not absorb much of their weight. That is why large creatures (like elephants) have cushioned feet.

Or Mr Rex can't lift much more than his own weight, something which humans can do, up to double their own weight or more (the ILBE of the USMC allowed the carriage of up to about 120 lb, which is, I figure, maybe 80% or more the weight of the average marine).

While that is about the square-cube law it is not relavant to what I am talking about about. I am talking about the ability of a creature's bones to hold it's weight without snapping.

A human cannot exceed 8 feet without serious bone-problems and difficulty with walking. This is because the basic bone-structure of a human isn't capable of supporting a larger frame. As the Square Cube Law article in TvTropessays.

In other words, you can't just scale something up (or down) and expect it to still work. An elephant can't survive a fall of more than a few feet, but it's hard for a cat to be hurt much by a fall of the same height, and insects are pretty much invulnerable to injury from a fall. A 50 foot (15.2m) man with the same body structure as a five foot (1.52m) man would immediately collapse and his bones shatter under his own weight, and he would quickly overheat and die of heatstroke, if his heart didn't burst first from the pressure of trying to pump blood through his enormous body. Conversely, a man shrunken to the size of an ant could fall from any height (even ignoring the additional effect air resistance would have on smaller objects) and could pick up objects and jump distance much larger, compared to his size, than a normal man could; but his greater surface area for his size would result in him freezing to death before long, not to mention that his shrunken brain would be too small to coordinate anything more complex than breathing and eating.

Given the thickness of the bones of a T-Rex relative to their body are pretty much the same as a human; then T-Rex should not be able to walk around on land at all. The T-Rex is pretty much the 50ft man in the example.

Not only is T-Rex 20 ft in height (human limit is 8 ft) but also 50ft long, all of these supported on two feet that are merely scaled up versions of human feet in size. I'm pretty sure the equivilant weight of a relatively 2D human is far above 20ft (but I don't know how the formula works).

The question then is what was T-Rex's secret? What was the qualitive advantage that dinasaur bones had over the bone's of any present creature than allowed such a creature to exist?

Or are the dinasaur fossils essentially a collection of forgeries and no dinosaurs ever actually lived at all? Just the original forger didn't know the Square-Cube law.

Maybe a subtle art of communication would do wonders for you, not only in this thread. Can you give it a thought?

I have Asperger's Syndrome. Understanding such social subtleties is rather beyond my abilities.

It's not like I get my kicks trying to embarrass the guy. I liked his conjectures on DE religion and culture. A lot. And also I agree with the Death Of Author concept.

But after having to read through similar debate tactics used by Intelligent Designers and Global non-Warmers against true scientists, I get riled up real quick.

I've bolded your problem Mlai. There are no such thing as true scientists. Not even I am such an individual as you like to point out.

All science is a collection of fallable human knowledge, it's not some kind of evangelical sect with entry requirements by which you have to sign under the dotted line that certain things are the case ofterwise you 'aren't a true scientist'.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

I'll explain 1 time why you're not worth answering.

You behave like an arrogant know-it-all; you keep arguing against things you know little facts about. If shown that you're wrong, you don't go and do the 15 mins of research required. No, you either ask others to do it for you, or you twist the argument into another direction so that it seems as if you're not wrong (unless the other person goes and does another 15 mins of research on the other thing you're now talking about).

No Mlai, nobody ever showed me to be wrong. You just make a claim (that the creatures depicted in Heroes V wouldn't be able to fly) without even bothering to explain why that was. You should have looked up the facts before posting an argument based upon them.

I am not required to look up the neccesary facts in order to disprove myself Mlai just because you oh great knower have deigned to post something.

Example: When shown that the Gauls at the Battle of Allia were actually better equipped than the Romans, you try to imply that the Gauls' large shields are not part of personal armour. The entire reason the Battle of Allia was raised in the first place, was for you to try to showcase that less-armoured barbarians defeated better-armoured Romans.

Or, if you know you're proven wrong, you quickly ignore the fact altogether.

Except that I was never considering shields to be armour in the first place. And the Romans also have shields, just somewhat smaller one's already.

Example: The fact that the Raider dwelling does indeed have a LARGE SHIELD.

The dwelling itself? Or the creature depicted in the creature recruitment window?

This is another example of a discussion being led awry by your tangents.

What exactly are you trying to say about bumblebees? How exactly are you saying that they violate the aerodynamic theory? And I suppose you want to include hummingbirds with the bumblebees?

If I'm to guess at what you're trying to say, you think that anything with small wings but "flaps fast" violates the aerodynamic theory? But first, how does that even have anything to do with HOMM flying creatures???

I am trying to saying that according to the old understanding of aerodynamics bumblebees simply couldn't fly. They had to revise their understanding of the theory in order to accomadate bumblebees.

Griffins and Angels certainly can never "flap that fast," so what does it even matter what bumblebees can do???

You can say Pixies can. But I already excluded pixies from the debate because they have fairy dust.

Because it has to do with my knowledge of the general principles of how creatures fly. Principles not violated (to my knowledge) by any winged creature depicted in the game. Your job (not mine) is to point out precisely why you're right about the impossibility of said creatures flying.

This is so whacked-up it's almost funny. The reason the square-cube-law doesn't apply underwater is because water has a relatively high density, and therefore provides a lot of buoyancy. Air on the other hand has a relatively low density, and therefore provides very little buoyancy. On top of which there are not many materials less dense for pressure than air.

It does apply just to a lesser extent.

Earth has an even higher density than water. Consequently creatures tunneling through the earth should be practically immune to the square-cube law because earth would be even more buoyant than water.

No the reason that land-creatures have such a problem with a square-cube law is that they are standing on a solid surface, which does not absorb much of their weight. That is why large creatures (like elephants) have cushioned feet.

Or Mr Rex can't lift much more than his own weight, something which humans can do, up to double their own weight or more (the ILBE of the USMC allowed the carriage of up to about 120 lb, which is, I figure, maybe 80% or more the weight of the average marine).

While that is about the square-cube law it is not relavant to what I am talking about about. I am talking about the ability of a creature's bones to hold it's weight without snapping.

A human cannot exceed 8 feet without serious bone-problems and difficulty with walking. This is because the basic bone-structure of a human isn't capable of supporting a larger frame. As the Square Cube Law article in TvTropessays.

In other words, you can't just scale something up (or down) and expect it to still work. An elephant can't survive a fall of more than a few feet, but it's hard for a cat to be hurt much by a fall of the same height, and insects are pretty much invulnerable to injury from a fall. A 50 foot (15.2m) man with the same body structure as a five foot (1.52m) man would immediately collapse and his bones shatter under his own weight, and he would quickly overheat and die of heatstroke, if his heart didn't burst first from the pressure of trying to pump blood through his enormous body. Conversely, a man shrunken to the size of an ant could fall from any height (even ignoring the additional effect air resistance would have on smaller objects) and could pick up objects and jump distance much larger, compared to his size, than a normal man could; but his greater surface area for his size would result in him freezing to death before long, not to mention that his shrunken brain would be too small to coordinate anything more complex than breathing and eating.

Given the thickness of the bones of a T-Rex relative to their body are pretty much the same as a human; then T-Rex should not be able to walk around on land at all. The T-Rex is pretty much the 50ft man in the example.

Not only is T-Rex 20 ft in height (human limit is 8 ft) but also 50ft long, all of these supported on two feet that are merely scaled up versions of human feet in size. I'm pretty sure the equivilant weight of a relatively 2D human is far above 20ft (but I don't know how the formula works).

The question then is what was T-Rex's secret? What was the qualitive advantage that dinasaur bones had over the bone's of any present creature than allowed such a creature to exist?

Or are the dinasaur fossils essentially a collection of forgeries and no dinosaurs ever actually lived at all? Just the original forger didn't know the Square-Cube law.

Maybe a subtle art of communication would do wonders for you, not only in this thread. Can you give it a thought?

I have Asperger's Syndrome. Understanding such social subtleties is rather beyond my abilities.

It's not like I get my kicks trying to embarrass the guy. I liked his conjectures on DE religion and culture. A lot. And also I agree with the Death Of Author concept.

But after having to read through similar debate tactics used by Intelligent Designers and Global non-Warmers against true scientists, I get riled up real quick.

I've bolded your problem Mlai. There are no such thing as true scientists. Not even I am such an individual as you like to point out.

All science is a collection of fallable human knowledge, it's not some kind of evangelical sect with entry requirements by which you have to sign under the dotted line that certain things are the case ofterwise you 'aren't a true scientist'.

It doesn't mean however that such things as most scientists accept are necceserily untrue and then any crackpot with a plausible argument is necceserily right just because he's in the minority.

[hatsforclowns]

Here, educate yourself!








(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation)


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_equation)

Earth has an even higher density than water. Consequently creatures tunneling through the earth should be practically immune to the square-cube law because earth would be even more buoyant than water.

Wait, what...did you just say solids have buoyancy?

All science is a collection of falsifiable human knowledge.

That is true science, which is dervied from the scientific principle, which is what a true scientist follows.

[Pol]

[q="Pol"]
Maybe a subtle art of communication would do wonders for you, not only in this thread. Can you give it a thought?[/q]
I have Asperger's Syndrome. Understanding such social subtleties is rather beyond my abilities.

I kinda thought that there will be something. Ok.

[ThunderTitan]

All science is a collection of falsifiable human knowledge.

That is true science, which is dervied from the scientific principle, which is what a true scientist follows.

Keep in mind, he might not be using falsifiable as one would in science.

@Slayer

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable

[q="Pol"]
Maybe a subtle art of communication would do wonders for you, not only in this thread. Can you give it a thought?[/q]
I have Asperger's Syndrome. Understanding such social subtleties is rather beyond my abilities.

You don't actually need to understand them, simply understanding better how to argue logically would do...

I mean i don;t use them on purpose and i'm doing better then you when it comes to people taking my arguments seriously... and i'm TT.

[hatsforclowns]

He didn't even use falsifiable, he used fallable (sic)

[ThunderTitan]

Then you edited it wrong...

You should have at least added a link to falsifiable...

[hatsforclowns]

Then you edited it wrong...

You should have at least added a link to falsifiable...

I guess I forgot the "fixd" part

[ThunderTitan]

No, you should have made it more clear you where making a totally different point...

[MattII]

It does apply just to a lesser extent.

So why are there no birds bigger than 25kg?

Earth has an even higher density than water. Consequently creatures tunneling through the earth should be practically immune to the square-cube law because earth would be even more buoyant than water.

Yep, although the bigger you get, the more earth you have to displace, so there are other practical limitations, plus unles your underside is armoured you do still sort of have to crawl rather than slide.

No the reason that land-creatures have such a problem with a square-cube law is that they are standing on a solid surface, which does not absorb much of their weight. That is why large creatures (like elephants) have cushioned feet.

The ground absorbs all of their weight, which is why they can stand. It's the fact that their bodies are hanging in air that provides the issue.

While that is about the square-cube law it is not relavant to what I am talking about about. I am talking about the ability of a creature's bones to hold it's weight without snapping.

And a normal human's bones can hold rather more that its own weight without snapping.

A human cannot exceed 8 feet without serious bone-problems and difficulty with walking. This is because the basic bone-structure of a human isn't capable of supporting a larger frame. As the Square Cube Law article in TvTropessays.

No, the skeleton is not the primary issue at 8', the heart is a much bigger one since it was never meant to pull blood back up from 6'.

Given the thickness of the bones of a T-Rex relative to their body are pretty much the same as a human; then T-Rex should not be able to walk around on land at all. The T-Rex is pretty much the 50ft man in the example.

Or his leg-bones contain no marrow and are less porous, and still right on the edge of breaking.

Not only is T-Rex 20 ft in height (human limit is 8 ft) but also 50ft long, all of these supported on two feet that are merely scaled up versions of human feet in size. I'm pretty sure the equivilant weight of a relatively 2D human is far above 20ft (but I don't know how the formula works).

Actually, the biggest complete skeleton is 13' high and 42' long, Their feet would also have developed differently, from actual feet rather than from hands as ours did.

The question then is what was T-Rex's secret? What was the qualitive advantage that dinasaur bones had over the bone's of any present creature than allowed such a creature to exist?

High oxygen levels at the apparently played a part, and size is good for intimidation, though not so much for actually hunting.

Or are the dinasaur fossils essentially a collection of forgeries and no dinosaurs ever actually lived at all? Just the original forger didn't know the Square-Cube law.

I can think of a couple of ways dinosaurs could have got away with bones the size of what they've got. No marrow, less porous bones, and possibly more ligaments as well.

I have Asperger's Syndrome. Understanding such social subtleties is rather beyond my abilities.

So have I, quit using it as an excuse for rudeness.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

He didn't even use falsifiable, he used fallable (sic)

They mean more or less the same thing. But fallability is not part of the criterian of science, it is simply the end consequence of falsifiability. To say that science is falsifiable is a bit like saying that science is science.

What I was saying is that 'true science' does not depend upon certain scientific concepts (in this case darwinian evolution or global warming) being infallably true to the extent that present scientific consensus would have them believe.

To use the term true scientist in arguments between rival scientific theories then is to assume that some scientific theories are infallably true, which would mean that they are unfalsifiable and thus aren't scientific theory at all.

But all theories are scientific on the basis that given the right evidence then their rival theories (darwinismvsintelligent design, global warmingvsclimate change skepticism etc) could thus be correct.

So why are there no birds bigger than 25kg?

You mean flying birds. The same reason there aren't 30 ft people. Because they didn't arise for whatever reason.

Yep, although the bigger you get, the more earth you have to displace, so there are other practical limitations, plus unles your underside is armoured you do still sort of have to crawl rather than slide.

Armouring your underside is a pretty easy thing to do.

The ground absorbs all of their weight, which is why they can stand. It's the fact that their bodies are hanging in air that provides the issue.

The ground absorbs practically none of their weight which is why they have specially padded feet. They don't have feet of solid bone which is what your obviously incorrect theory would indicate.

And a normal human's bones can hold rather more that its own weight without snapping.

The weight of a creature increases disproportianately (in a square), which is why it's called the square-cube law.

No, the skeleton is not the primary issue at 8', the heart is a much bigger one since it was never meant to pull blood back up from 6'.

Getting a larger and more powerful heart is an easy thing.

Actually, the biggest complete skeleton is 13' high and 42' long, Their feet would also have developed differently, from actual feet rather than from hands as ours did.

Said person could not actually walk.

I can think of a couple of ways dinosaurs could have got away with bones the size of what they've got. No marrow, less porous bones, and possibly more ligaments as well.

Yes that sort of thing.

[hatsforclowns]

*sigh* I give up

Mlai, any more room around the campfire?

[ThunderTitan]

They mean more or less the same thing. But fallability is not part of the criterian of science, it is simply the end consequence of falsifiability. To say that science is falsifiable is a bit like saying that science is science.

No they're not... did you even read the link i posted?

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

No they're not... did you even read the link i posted?

Yes I did and I know quite well what falsifiability means. Fallability (can be wrong) is sort of the same as falsifiability (there are criteria under which a certain thing could be wrong).