Magic and Technology of MGLN

[arkhangelsk]

Originally Posted by tshouryuu

Since you put it that way, the hypothesis is useless and untestable since the only way to do test is if we have a mage wearing a barrier jacket and we either:

Crappy understanding of the scientific method. It is certainly desirable to be able to perform actual experiments, but there are entire observational sciences like astronomy.

* tshouryuu drools at the silly thought of launching Fate at a wall, in her barrier jacket then strip her to make a complete medical check to see how much damage she suffers. *

You are sick.

To show my hypothesis is false, all I need is for one screen shot that shows a mage impacting against a wall or something with a visible barrier/field activated behind the mage, since mages slamming into buildings/walls at great speed without visible barriers/fields activated makes up half of my observations.

I'll tell you some good news. Technically speaking, it'll be nice support for my theory, but this wouldn't falsify your theory because it still indeed might have been what happened the other times.

The bad news is that you are still getting your procedure wrong. You need to show why your theory, which includes at least as much fantasy as Tk3997 and much more than mine, is a superior explanation.

Originally Posted by Wild Goose

Now, this isn't to say that it can't happen; there are historical examples of militaries adopting foreign concepts. Delta Force was heavily inspired by the SAS, and SEAL Team Six adopted the MP5 due to input from GSG-9. The British were the people who came up with the idea of snipers (though it was E.J. Land who refined the concept into today's Marine Scout Sniper). However, these examples are exceptions. In the casaes of beckwith and Marcinko, they got away with teh cross british contamination due to their backers - Chief of staff, and Planning Hean & CNO respectively.

I'll disagree, real life miltitaries have stolen a lot from each other over the years despite their ideological differences. There's almost always some years of lag, and generally each nation has its "slant" on an idea, but mutual flow does happen.

Remember the Dreadnought? It is not only a new ship, it also represents a new concept of battleship gunnery layout. Soon after it was built, everyone changed the heavy gun layouts on their battleships to look like Dreadnoughts "all-big" layout". The battlecruiser Invincible, similarily, inspired a lot of foreign followers.

Or how about the tank. First made demi-practical by the British, it spread around the world. To take just a small, well-known portion of the Tank concept exchange, the T-34 inspired the Panther. The Soviets went to APFSDS with the 115mm gun, and even though it wasn't a stunning success (fin stab wasn't stable enough back then), the West eventually did the same.

If we get away from technology, even conceptually, there was a lot of trading around. The pair replaced the trio Vic-formation as the usual smallest fighter unit worldwide. Modern armored warfare theory is a collaborative effort between at least British, German and Soviet thinkers, and probably there are others that I just don't remember at the moment (say the Americans, but I just can't remember a great American theorist's name - though certainly even if they didn't make up any theories, they did put the existing theories to great practical use in Desert Storm).

A lot of modern unit hierarchy came from the French, includes the corps and battalion.

What most militaries AFAIK try to do is educate you with their moral ethos. No one ever says they should be unwilling to learn from your allies and enemies.

[tshouryuu]

Originally Posted by arkhangelsk

Crappy understanding of the scientific method. It is certainly desirable to be able to perform actual experiments, but there are entire observational sciences like astronomy.

Since I'm have crappy understanding of the scientific method, mind telling me how should I go about doing it. You reject my observations but now tell me to use observational methods... explain to me how to resolve this conflict if you will.

Iirc, astronomy seems to be proving Newton's law of gravity wrong since there seems to be a discrepancy between the Newtonian prediction and the observed precession of the orbit of Mercury.

Originally Posted by arkhangelsk

You are sick.

Thank you. And you either can't read, don't understand or have no sense of humor at all since I included the word silly. Silly: Lacking seriousness or responsibleness; frivolous

Originally Posted by arkhangelsk

I'll tell you some good news. Technically speaking, it'll be nice support for my theory, but this wouldn't falsify your theory because it still indeed might have been what happened the other times.

The bad news is that you are still getting your procedure wrong. You need to show why your theory, which includes at least as much fantasy as Tk3997 and much more than mine, is a superior explanation.

Humor me then. All you have been doing is saying its wrong. Show me that I'm wrong. Prove to me that its wrong. When I said field, you kept harping on the physical jacket. You have been absolutely unwilling to argue based on the parameters that I set. You have being arguing on something different on what I've been talking about. I have asked if the hypothesis could be correct and all you did was said no based on completely different parameters.

[Wild Goose]

@ark: Regards the militaries and learning from each other: for every example of such thinking and sharing, you then get cases like one DefenseTech staffer who recounted his experiences in the Army. He had a K-bar and found it useful and carried it everywhere... and was told by his Platoon Sergeant to get rid of it because it was a Marine knife, and Army doesn't use Marine things.

These are differing services, from the same planet, from the same nation, and they're arguing over a KNIFE.

[arkhangelsk]

Originally Posted by tshouryuu

Since I'm have crappy understanding of the scientific method, mind telling me how should I go about doing it. You reject my observations but now tell me to use observational methods... explain to me how to resolve this conflict if you will.

I reject your asinine interpretation of the observation. There's a difference.

Iirc, astronomy seems to be proving Newton's law of gravity wrong since there seems to be a discrepancy between the Newtonian prediction and the observed precession of the orbit of Mercury.

Yes, and the observation helped establish the superiority of relativistic physics.

Thank you. And you either can't read, don't understand or have no sense of humor at all since I included the word silly. Silly: Lacking seriousness or responsibleness; frivolous

You term the thought "silly", yet you drool at it. This tells the reader you enjoy the thought of what you describe, that you WANT to do it. Your described action is not categorized by normal humans as "silly" - it is "inhumane and immoral". A person who wants to do "inhumane and immoral" things can be described by many terms, one of which is sick.

Humor me then. All you have been doing is saying its wrong. Show me that I'm wrong. Prove to me that its wrong. When I said field, you kept harping on the physical jacket. You have been absolutely unwilling to argue based on the parameters that I set. You have being arguing on something different on what I've been talking about. I have asked if the hypothesis could be correct and all you did was said no based on completely different parameters.

Why don't you start proving yourself right?

Originally Posted by Wild Goose

@ark: Regards the militaries and learning from each other: for every example of such thinking and sharing, you then get cases like one DefenseTech staffer who recounted his experiences in the Army. He had a K-bar and found it useful and carried it everywhere... and was told by his Platoon Sergeant to get rid of it because it was a Marine knife, and Army doesn't use Marine things.

These are differing services, from the same planet, from the same nation, and they're arguing over a KNIFE.

I'm not saying interservice rivalry does not exist. But, somehow, I doubt the TSAB has an "interservice rivalry" with Earth.

[Kha]

Well I find non-chalantly running Fate through walls, even for most valid reasons, kinda sick...

I can see that they are hypothetical situations, but I still get unnerved by that. It's almost like trying to run Anita through walls. Why don't you guys use Hayate instead?

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

@ Ark: Requesting summary.

What stance are you taking in Barrier Jackets?
I just want to see straight up what your position is in something ressembling a one line answer, so we know whether or not this roundabouts arguing is actually... you know... getting somewhere.

[arkhangelsk]

Won't mind telling you, but I don't know what you believe is most important. Why don't you put yours down, and I'll write my summary based on what you wrote?

[Wild Goose]

Originally Posted by arkhangelsk

I'm not saying interservice rivalry does not exist. But, somehow, I doubt the TSAB has an "interservice rivalry" with Earth.

My point is that if there can be resistance towards adopting a concept among different services of the same military of the same nation (look at all the fight the Marines put in before finally giving up and setting up MARSOC), the effect will be amplified when you consider TSAB/Earth relations.

Also, note something: whenever militaries have stolen/shared ideas, it's been between equals or people rushing to catch up to a sudden leader in the field (everybody else in the world who can afford to do so is working on creating their own answer to Land Warrior). Rarely has there been a military that has copied an idea from its inferior.

The TSAB would view Non-Administered Earth as its inferior.

Will make bigass post later in the day.

Originally Posted by arkhangelsk

Won't mind telling you, but I don't know what you believe is most important. Why don't you put yours down, and I'll write my summary based on what you wrote?

Could it be that you don't have a stand at all, ark?

[tshouryuu]

Originally Posted by arkhangelsk

I reject your asinine interpretation of the observation. There's a difference.

Which has the same effect of rejecting the observation

Originally Posted by arkhangelsk

Yes, and the observation helped establish the superiority of relativistic physics.

And yet we call newton's law a law...

Originally Posted by arkhangelsk

You term the thought "silly", yet you drool at it. This tells the reader you enjoy the thought of what you describe, that you WANT to do it. Your described action is not categorized by normal humans as "silly" - it is "inhumane and immoral". A person who wants to do "inhumane and immoral" things can be described by many terms, one of which is sick.

Humour is inadvertently cruel. Do you dare to say you never laugh at another person's misfortune? Either real life or fictional? Get off your moral high horse. If you laugh even once, you're also sick. Not as great a degree as I perhaps but still sick.

Originally Posted by arkhangelsk

Why don't you start proving yourself right?

You keep rejecting it. I only asked if its possible if its correct. You seem pretty confident that you're correct so you have to have a good reason. So now I'm asking you to settle this issue so stop dodging. If you can prove me wrong, fine. If you can't, that's fine too.

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

Originally Posted by arkhangelsk

Won't mind telling you, but I don't know what you believe is most important. Why don't you put yours down, and I'll write my summary based on what you wrote?

So in other words, you don't have a stance. If you had a position, you wouldn't need to wait for me to explain my position to formulate a summary of your position. My position and stance should be irrellevent to the request. You are simply waiting to compile the most effective contradictive, yet reinforcing breakdown as possible to feed into the argument, in order to simply win the argument.

This would be called TROLLING.

While effective in courtrooms for convincing the jurors, this does not pertain to debate here.

If you DO have a position, and my accusation of your trolling is wrong, put up your position, and stick by your position. This is called taking a RISK. And as anyone who's played BURNOUT 3 knows... RISK = REWARD.

In less elegant wording: "Either put up, or shut-up."

I've got no time for feeding trolls.

Spoiler for This is appropriet:

[arkhangelsk]

Originally Posted by tshouryuu

Which has the same effect of rejecting the observation

Not really. The effect is very different. I agree with you Fate survives falls better than she takes cuts. I just disagree with why. If I reject the observation, then I'll say for example that Fate survives falls no better than she takes cuts.

Humour is inadvertently cruel. Do you dare to say you never laugh at another person's misfortune? Either real life or fictional? Get off your moral high horse. If you laugh even once, you're also sick. Not as great a degree as I perhaps but still sick.

In a moment of intellectual honesty, I'll confess that I recently bought a parody comic in which Fate and Nanoha lost to Scarlietti (which is frankly a more plausible result). I suppose I don't have to describe what happened in detail. So I'm a little sick as well, but at least I'm not "drooling" at the thought of doing it myself.

You keep rejecting it. I only asked if its possible if its correct. You seem pretty confident that you're correct so you have to have a good reason. So now I'm asking you to settle this issue so stop dodging. If you can prove me wrong, fine. If you can't, that's fine too.

It is a principle of science that it is impossible to disprove something. However, since you have no proof, your theory is roughly on par with Fate saved herself by farting.

[tshouryuu]

Originally Posted by arkhangelsk

It is a principle of science that it is impossible to disprove something. However, since you have no proof, your theory is roughly on par with Fate saved herself by farting.

No, I'm asking you to prove your stance. since mine is so low on the scale, you must have something better. Prove it.

[Keroko]

No time for a full backlog answer. Shame about the defences in 7. Minor question: Did it say who activated them? The mages or their devices? Could be usefull for OC scenarios.

Originally Posted by arkhangelsk

Why don't you start proving yourself right?

.... Haven't we been doing that all along? Oh well, I'll throw in another example.



Fate gets launched away, thrown into a building, and comes out only a bit shaken, but otherwise unhurt. The fourth scene shows that she hit with enough force to displace the reinforced concrete and bend the windows bellow her point of impact. There was no defencer activating, the only think keeping Fate from becomming a red splat on the wall were the auto-defences of her Barrier Jacket: The standard Field and Barrier.

"But Keroko, there is a dust cloud, its impossible to say that defenses were not activated."

Uh, yes, of course there is a dust cloud, because the dust cloud means that impact has occured. Fate hit that building with nothing but her Barrier Jacket. Period. Result? She came out slightly shaken, but without apparant injury.

Conclusion: Barrier Jackets offer protection above the level of what you and Tk give them. If they can save a mage from getting blown through reinforced concrete, stopping bullets should not be that much of an issue.

[arkhangelsk]

Originally Posted by Keroko

No time for a full backlog answer. Shame about the defences in 7. Minor question: Did it say who activated them? The mages or their devices? Could be usefull for OC scenarios.

Sorry. Nothing on that. At least it shows how fast a defense could activate (and w/o the device saying "Defenser"!), which helps me down here.

Uh, yes, of course there is a dust cloud, because the dust cloud means that impact has occured. Fate hit that building with nothing but her Barrier Jacket. Period. Result? She came out slightly shaken, but without apparant injury.

The dust cloud, unfortunately for you, means that you don't know what impacted first, despite your attempt to win with the power of conviction, because everything is obscured in dust! We will never know whether it is like this:

|( . )(Cloud extent - the dot is Fate)

or like this:

|F )(Cloud extent)

Except that the top diagram is clearly a much more survivable experience, and will also better explain why so much wall is torn down, rather than a deeper penetration. The more likely path is clear.

And even if I accept it was the lower diagram, while it does follow the BJ is bulletproof, it does not follow that they have a bulletproof defence that somehow becomes more effective against high velocity!

[arkhangelsk]

Originally Posted by tshouryuu

No, I'm asking you to prove your stance. since mine is so low on the scale, you must have something better. Prove it.

Why don't you read all my previous posts first?

[Keroko]

Originally Posted by arkhangelsk

Sorry. Nothing on that. At least it shows how fast a defense could activate (and w/o the device saying "Defenser"!), which helps me down here.

True, no arguments there. Oh, can I get a full tranlation of those two for OC purposes?

Originally Posted by arkhangelsk

The dust cloud, unfortunately for you, means that you don't know what impacted first, despite your attempt to win with the power of conviction, because everything is obscured in dust! We will never know whether it is like this:

|( F )(Cloud extent)

or like this:

|F )(Cloud extent)

Except that the top diagram is clearly a much more survivable experience. The more likely path is clear.

The dust cloud means impact has occured. We did not see any defence. If the impact was guarded by a Defencer, then the Defencer would have been visible prior to impact (meaning, prior to dust cloud, because dust cloud means object has hit), it wasn't, meaning there is no Defencer present.

Originally Posted by arkhangelsk

And even if I accept it was the lower diagram, while it does follow the BJ is bulletproof, it does not follow that they have a bulletproof defence that somehow becomes more effective against high velocity!

*shrug* I never claimed that anyway, so it doesn't bother me. In fact, I'd say that rounds that can pierce levels of concrete that Barrier Jackets can withstand (lets say one layer for convienience) are capable of piercing Barrier Jackets.

[tshouryuu]

Originally Posted by arkhangelsk

Why don't you read all my previous posts first?

I did. I'm asking you to reiterate your stance in one post clearly.

[arkhangelsk]

Originally Posted by AdmiralTigerclaw

So in other words, you don't have a stance.

You seem to think that this is necessarily a bad thing. You guys have stances. So what? They never make it past the hypothesis stage because they don't have enough evidence that cannot be explained in a more reasonable way. Or worse, they have fundamental flaws and are just cut to mincemeat (take that water stuff).

If you had a position, you wouldn't need to wait for me to explain my position to formulate a summary of your position. My position and stance should be irrellevent to the request. You are simply waiting to compile the most effective contradictive, yet reinforcing breakdown as possible to feed into the argument, in order to simply win the argument.

Even if that's true, if your own theory is strong enough, it will be able to resist such impacts. Now stop whining.

You do realize this is similar to what happens when a person submits his paper / article for scientific peer review, do you? The peer reviewer obviously did not do all the research or the thinking of the guy writing up the article - research on the professional level is so time consuming there's no way the peer reviewer can fully retest someone elses research and do their own work at the same time. Thus, he probably doesn't have a theory on the subject matter of his own - he might never even have thought seriously about the problem before. Instead, he goes through the hypothesis and the assembled evidence+analysis to ruthlessly locate and assault holes - flaws in methodology, clear absurdities with the conclusions, self contradictions, more plausible alternate interpretations ... more or less what I or Tk3997 do to your stuff when you bring it in. And if the flaws exceed a certain count, he simply recommends that it not be published.

If you are thinking that it is no fun to bring theories and I shoot them down, then stop pushing theories until you make them bulletproof!

[AdmiralTigerclaw]

Originally Posted by arkhangelsk

**SNIP TROLLING**

You will post your stance, or you will take your leave.

[Tk3997]

Originally Posted by AdmiralTigerclaw

So in other words, you don't have a stance. If you had a position, you wouldn't need to wait for me to explain my position to formulate a summary of your position. My position and stance should be irrellevent to the request. You are simply waiting to compile the most effective contradictive, yet reinforcing breakdown as possible to feed into the argument, in order to simply win the argument.

This would be called TROLLING.

While effective in courtrooms for convincing the jurors, this does not pertain to debate here.

If you DO have a position, and my accusation of your trolling is wrong, put up your position, and stick by your position. This is called taking a RISK. And as anyone who's played BURNOUT 3 knows... RISK = REWARD.

In less elegant wording: "Either put up, or shut-up."

I've got no time for feeding trolls.

Spoiler for This is appropriet:

Oh stuff Tiger claw he’s absolutely allowed to destroy others theories without purposing his own it’s not his job to prove OTHER Peoples ideas nor dose he need to present his own. After all as he said when REAL scientist criticize an idea you don’t always hear them laying out there own elaborate counter theories do you? This isn’t a game of chicken for god sake you don’t need to take “risks” to prove your right. If your theory is so damn awesome what are YOU scared of if it really is airtight or viable then you should be eager to present it as he won’t be able to counter it. Unless it isn’t and you know that he’ll tear it to shreds like he has the other nonsense here.

If you won't present your supposedly awesome theory for review it's YOUR turn to quit whining and leave. So what's it gonna be give us your awesome theory or GTFO. You're not going to intimidate either of us twit I KNOW you ain't go crap from experience and Ark I'm sure just dosen't care.

IMPORTANT EDIT:

Tigerclaw has admitted in IRC that he has no theory and is merely baiting Ark to get him to "argue straight" apparently outright lies is required for this to be done.