Nightmask wrote:glitterboy2098 wrote:if things truely were "just a fantasy world" where the rules of the world have no connection to reality...why then all the science based material? crush depths for people and subs? genetics? things following thermodynamics? hell, even magic follows conservation of energy!
rifts is a science fiction setting with fantasy elements. it sometimes plays fast and loose with the science, but it's there.
I never said the science isn't there,
your own words belie that assertion..
nightmask wrote:Finally it's all irrelevant, it's meaningless to try and apply any of that to Rifts Earth. Palladium defines all the variables including the ones that have never and can never exist on this Earth such that events like Atlantis magically appearing and even the ice caps melting (if they did) don't have an impact on the Earth's axial tilt or cause significant problems. It's a fantasy world, those Real World models have no bearing at all on it, it's one of those points where one needs to stop insisting 'that's what I'm sure would happen in the real world' when you aren't certain of it and it's not the real world in any case for it to matter.
science is those "real world models" we keep applying, nightmask.
given magic can suspend physical laws and change them as it sees fit it's not unrealistic to think that magic reshapes even the laws regarding the conservation of energy and matter.
conservation of energy: energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed into different forms. magic energy (PPE) canonically cannot be created or destroyed, and you convert it into the effect you desire.
conservation of energy. it frequently bends conventional physical laws and a few quantum mechanical ones, but the basics still apply.
But I still find it amazing how on your side you insist that all the variables are the same between Rifts Earth and ours even when you acknowledge an entire continent materialized out of nowhere in the middle of an ocean. You think that didn't change SOMETHING? Like oh ocean currents, the mass of the Earth and bring about a minute shift in its center of mass, and so on? It's a lot more unrealistic to insist that there's no difference at all between the two planets when the entire premise of Rifts has things changing all over the place.
actually, i've never said it didn't have an effect. quite the opposite:
since earth's climate is pretty much the same in rifts as it in in real life, with only a few variations, that means that any new factors have only minor impact on the system. and occams razor ("Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities") tells us that these changes have to be fairly simple.
atlantis appears pretty much right in the middle of the major atlantic currents and trade winds. right in the sargasso sea and in the place you have the most doldrums. it's shape would not majorly alter these currents and winds either, since so little of it's landmass intersects with them.
as for the mass of the continet..we don't know how the continent related to earth after the atlantian rift event and before it's return. was it gone completely? did it exist in a pocket dimension seperate from earth? did it exist as a "fold" in space, much like the yucatan? iessentually, was it's mass still effecting the earth during it's time "missing" (like the yucatan in WB1:VK), or did it dissappear entirely?
this is one sitaution were canon doesn't have a definitive answer we can extroplate from.
Those Rifts are introducing matter and energy all over the place and allowing it to exit in others, changing the variables all the time.
and yet you've apparently ignored our pointing out the canon limits on rifts. like no water or air passing through. hell, according to the adventuers guide's detailed section on them, you don't even get gravity, heat or radiation through them.
and unless they open up into a neutron star, a rift a mile high max isn't going to let in enough matter to effect much. (not to mention the fact that there is just as much activity in the "way from earth" sense as well.)
So I simply can't fathom how anyone can insist that there can only be one possible outcome and how it must be certain when even the real life scientists who work with these things for a living don't and will make it clear that they're just predictions based on the best information that they've got at the time and if there are errors in any of that information or their predictive equations the end result will be very different. I can't see how anyone here can claim to know more than the actual people who do this work for a living, to the point of being certain of things they make clear you can't be certain about.
funny, so far you've been the only one claiming to know more than the experts. you've argued that their conclusions are based on what are in your own opinion 'unreliable' facts and figures, you've argued that their methods are merely guessing and 'speculating', and you've claimed that they never anticipated various real world factors. and no scientist has ever claimed to be infallable..so far your the only one making the claim that they do.
You're the one who brought up a principle of logic. The fact that you don't recognize the actual definition of what constitutes what's "valid" or not only goes to show the depth of your ignorance (not calling you stupid, just that you clearly don't know). Maybe you're 14, maybe you didn't go to college, maybe you snoozed during that class... I don't know. But to deny something that should be recognized as a "fact" even by your ridiculous standards is where I draw the line.
