Alright... you called me out on my science knowledge vs yours. I've run a nuclear reactor in my spare time, what have you done on the topic? Time to dance buddy boy.
>The sun is a star. They are not separate things.
You deleted this post... so I'll skip down to the next.
>A star is a massive, luminous ball of plasma. The nearest star to Earth is the Sun, which is the source of most of the energy on Earth. Other stars are visible in the night sky, when they are not outshone by the Sun.
First off the fact that you're invoking Earth in an argument about DR should be a hint that something is wrong. However as has been pointed out, we're talking about how people interact and perceive something, not what it actually is. There is helium in the Sun, there is helium in a balloon, but you wouldn't say that helium is the same. Position and proximity matter.
That said... your science here is basically correct. Just your argument is moronic.
>light is just electro magnetism on a visable sepctrum. light it's self is energy, and therfore mass. Which should reflect heat, impact or some type of blinding affect.
Typos aside, yes... light is part of the EM spectrum. However it isn't only the visible portion, it also includes UV, near IR, and IR.
Light is not energy. Light is photons, which can possess energy. Let me repeat light =/= energy.
Furthermore energy =/= mass. Energy and mass can be converted to one another, but they are not at all the same thing. I can convert hydrogen and oxygen gas into water. They are not however water. There is a conversion process involved.
Finally the argument that starlight should reflect heat, impact or a blinding effect is... well, not really relevant to the science involved. See next point.
>Thats just how I understand it, I really am curious as to why its referred to cold. IF its light from a star, then the magnetism and everything else are there, just on a slight level simmilar to the light.
At least you have the sense to admit you don't know what you're talking about (I wish you'd kept that...). As for why it's cold, Armifer answered that.
A starlight sphere is a two inch frozen ball of... magic. If it reflects starlight, that's fine. There's no reason at all to assume that it has anything beyond the essence of starlight in a the sense of dragonrealms cosmology.
It is at this point that the following statements were made:
>You're grasp of basic physical phenomenon appears cursory at best, please refrain from citing it as a means for argument in a fantasy based world. It grates my senses. (Feigerz)
>As a scientist by trade that description of light hurts on many levels. (me)
And nothing more. However you had this to say to me.
>Actually if you dont know that Light is the visable spectrum of elctro magnetism you are not very good at your job. They were discovering the significance of this right around the time einstein released his theories is 1905. His fameous equation which equates that energy is mass and mass is energy. Energy will become mass if it eceeds light speed. Which throws the big bang into full swing.
>You bashing on what I said, you are argueing with enistein himself.
Where to start... first of all, my statement consisted of just what I said. So your entire statement starts out as an utterly baseless assumption about my knowledge, beyond the fact that you believe yourself to be correct. I said nothing about the EM spectrum, nothing about the duality of energy/matter, nothing about Einstein and so forth. That aside... let's rock.
We've already established that light is more than just the visible region of the EM spectrum. So that's -1 point for you there. -2 for thinking I implied something I did not. You get a point for having the 1905 date correct for Einstein's formula, and -10 for misspelling his name. Who exactly "they" are is left vague as is "Discovering the significance of this". I'll give you a point for effort given that x-rays were discovered in 1895 and gamma rays in 1900.
Alright now onto the meat. E=MC^2 does NOT state that energy = mass (If nothing else there is a coefficient there). It states that they can be converted, and it's used in many places such as binding energies, and relativistic effects.
Really what you should be looking at for this argument is relativistic mass, energy, velocity, time and so forth. Your basic physics equations all actually have a relativistic factor in them that most people never see, since the correction is so small at any speeds most people ever encounter as to not matter. Generally this correction factor is called gamma and is defined as gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2 The reason you cannot exceed the speed of light according to Einstein is at that point the energy needed to accelerate any mass becomes infinite (Which falls right out of the formulas, you start getting division by zero and good stuff like that).
Since I can't format on these forums very well I'll give you this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_relativistic_equations
Though it has a ton more that aren't terribly relevant to this discussion.
Also you state that energy will become mass if it exceeds the speed of light. Einstein was expressing why you cannot exceed the speed of light, not what happens if you do.
If you really want to educate yourself here's a few places to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass?energy_equivalence
As for the Big Bang, yes, a lot of the theory for that comes out of applying general relativity to cosmology.
... Moving on to your responses to Feigerz:
>Let me guess, your the guy who will argue that the sky is in fact, not blue. Grate your own senses. Just because I have an understanding of what a Star and its light are, is not a reason for you to get all ignorant is it?
Again... you're taking an awful lot away from what amounts to "Hey buddy, FYI your science is wrong, please don't apply it to this argument".
>And the visable light from a STAR is the light from FUSION, Dont argue unless you have something worth saying please.
::Facepalm:: The conditions in a star case fusion, yes. When two elements fuse their net mass reduces slightly, this is the difference in binding energy. This energy is then released, which can manifest as light (Among other things). Also you're the one who brought this up, so I dunno why you're attacking him.
For more on the topic see:
http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/binding_energy/binding_energy.html
>Light, or visible light, is electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength that is visible to the human eye (about 400?700 nm), or up to 380?750 nm.[1] In the broader field of physics, light is often used to refer to electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths, whether visible or not.
>Light can exhibit properties of both waves and particles (photons). This property is referred to as wave?particle duality. The study of light, known as optics, is an important research area in modern physics.
One of your few correct statements, and clearly quoted directly from another site as opposed to your own knowledge - based on the incorrect formatting of non standard characters and the lack of typos.
>Sorry I have to hit this one more time. Basic? Your telling me that wave and particle physics are basic? And in this FANTASY based world the GM's work very hard to instill a quality of realism which has beat any other game I have heard of or tried.
>If your calling one of the most complex theories ever set forth and proved by mathmatics basic, your grasp of physics and science is rudimentary at best.
It depends on what you call basic. Most of this is taught at a high school level, at most undergrad. However if you wish to invoke it in your arguments, you really should understand it.
Furthermore Einstein isn't the be all and end all. His work was groundbreaking, but much of it is slowly being questioned. He went to his grave insisting quantum mechanics was wrong (Thus this quote "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."). And I'll cut off that line of thinking there as I really don't want to get into another quantum debate right now, let alone on these forums with someone of your clearly superior debating skills and scientific knowledge.
As for realism in DR... yes and no. DR tries to be logical, not realistic. When you start taking the Astral Plane to work, get back to me with this argument please.
>can you seriously be any more ignorant?
A very valid question for me to ask of you. However I prefer to ask if you can be any more of an arrogant hypocritical jerk.
And just for kicks I'll throw this out there one more time: Dragonrealms does not always match real world science. Nor should it.
Disclaimer: I take the blame for any scientific errors in this post. I'm not perfect, and we're talking about trying to distill a very complex and evolving field into forum post.
-- Mozzik, the Fateweaver
Caelumia says, "I love the tools even more."
