Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kyra Felann
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 21:01:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Joe Skellington Edited by: Joe Skellington on 29/12/2009 13:51:33 G-Force: The unit of measure used is the g- the acceleration due to gravity. 1. The g-force acting on a stationary object resting on the Earth's surface is 1 g (upwards) and results from the resisting reaction of the Earth's surface bearing upwards equal to an acceleration of 1 g, and is equal and opposite to standard gravity, defined as 9.80665 metres per second squared, or equivalently 9.80665 newtons of force per kilogram of mass. 2. The g-force acting on an object in any weightless environment such as free-fall in a vacuum is 0 g.
There is no gravity in space, so I think your argument is invalid.
You looked up just enough on Wikipedia or wherever to show you don't know what you're talking about. There is gravity pretty much everywhere.
Not only that, but humans are unable to physically distinguish acceleration due to gravity from other forms of acceleration. If you were in a rocket accelerating very fast, it would feel exactly like you were standing on earth and were much heavier than normal.
Also, from your very same quote, you only feel weightless in orbit because you're freefalling, not becuase "there's no gravity in space". Our ships aren't ever freefalling. You probably think satellites orbit instead of falling to Earth because there's no gravity in low Earth orbit--if there were no gravity, why would they orbit at all, instead of flying off into space?
I got a C in university Physics, but even I know your post is wrong.
|
Catherine Frasier
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 21:07:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Joe Skellington I was quoting an aviation "expert"
Yes, he is clearly an "expert".
Originally by: Joe Skellington I don't think he explained it well, in essence he said there was no g-force in space.
It's not that he explained badly, it's that he's wrong (and confused). G-force is the name used for the acceleration an object experiences relative to it being in free-fall. So if you are in free-fall (free-fall meaning moving under the influence of gravity alone) then, obviously, you experience no g-force ("weightlessness").
However, being "in space" and being in a freely falling state are not the same thing.
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 21:10:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Benedict Carol nor should there be sound in space (jump gates making sound ftl).
For the 50 zillionth time (read the backstory, people), your pod synthesizes sounds so you don't go insane from hours, days, weeks of complete silence.
|
Kola XXX
Lush Blue Garden
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 21:17:00 -
[64]
God controls speed, gravity and time ... no just kidding, he's fake. |
Drakarin
Gallente The Abyssmal Spire Independent Faction
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 21:19:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Kyra Felann
Originally by: Joe Skellington Edited by: Joe Skellington on 29/12/2009 13:51:33 G-Force: The unit of measure used is the g- the acceleration due to gravity. 1. The g-force acting on a stationary object resting on the Earth's surface is 1 g (upwards) and results from the resisting reaction of the Earth's surface bearing upwards equal to an acceleration of 1 g, and is equal and opposite to standard gravity, defined as 9.80665 metres per second squared, or equivalently 9.80665 newtons of force per kilogram of mass. 2. The g-force acting on an object in any weightless environment such as free-fall in a vacuum is 0 g.
There is no gravity in space, so I think your argument is invalid.
You looked up just enough on Wikipedia or wherever to show you don't know what you're talking about. There is gravity pretty much everywhere.
Not only that, but humans are unable to physically distinguish acceleration due to gravity from other forms of acceleration. If you were in a rocket accelerating very fast, it would feel exactly like you were standing on earth and were much heavier than normal.
Also, from your very same quote, you only feel weightless in orbit because you're freefalling, not becuase "there's no gravity in space". Our ships aren't ever freefalling. You probably think satellites orbit instead of falling to Earth because there's no gravity in low Earth orbit--if there were no gravity, why would they orbit at all, instead of flying off into space?
I got a C in university Physics, but even I know your post is wrong.
There IS gravity in the solar system, but in the void between systems or on the outer edge of our own, there's very little if any, because gravity requires matter to bend space-time, or some sort of energy to do so in the same way.
|
Joe Skellington
Minmatar JOKAS Industries Revival Of The Talocan Empire
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 21:29:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Kyra Felann
I got a C in university Physics, but even I know your post is wrong.
I guess that makes YOU the "expert".
|
stoicfaux
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 21:45:00 -
[67]
Edited by: stoicfaux on 31/12/2009 21:47:31
Originally by: Hythloday Edited by: Hythloday on 30/12/2009 18:53:19 Eve-O forums: Where people can have a discussion about physics, while completely disregarding the fact that spaceships in Eve traverse through a luminous space aether rather than a vacuum.
No, Eve space really reall could be a vacuum. RL engines need reaction mass in order to generate thrust. Since Eve ships don't appear to have fuel tanks, seem to infinite endurance, and decelerate when the engines are off, it's pretty obvious that Eve's ships use a different method of movement.
How about: the engines warp space in order to move. The ship is pulled forward or stretched into this warped space thus creating movement. When the engines are off, the ships no longer move.
But wait, there's more! When ships collide and bounce off of each other, they should drift forever after bouncing. Since they don't, then that means that Eve engines warp space even when they're off. So ships have to manipulate the warp field to move otherwise they're stuck in place.
However, given that a few days of acceleration can produce tremendous velocities, why aren't there reaction mass based space vehicles that can be used to travel quickly to or through deadspace regions or to create bookmarks in deep space?
Meh. Eve's physics have not been well thought out. It's just about impossible to apply any kind of "realistic" pseudo-science to Eve. Just get used to the idea. I, for one, am at peace with the idea that a beam of light from a BattleTech small laser (that has enough energy to slag 187.5 kilos of uber-armor) that stops at exactly 90 meters and won't even sunburn an unprotected human at 91 meters. Eve is in the same category as Battletech's physics.
----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Nietzsche, and PvP" |
LittleTerror
Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 21:47:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Drakarin
Originally by: LittleTerror
Originally by: Drakarin
Originally by: LittleTerror Fairly rapidly yes but in our perception of time? In the 70 - 80 years we live no.
What?
No.
Physics don't change from the start. The universe itself would never have expanded the way it did given this luminous essence or whatever, and if it had, the planets would have long since been annihilated by the stars. Galaxies would have crumbled into each other. Everything would be a total mess. It's completely implausible in every way.
Hummm hehe...
Umm, yes you're right but what if life began shortly after the formation of the universe and is only now just beginning to get technical enough to ask the questions we do here today?
Don't forget we are only 1 million if that years old as a species, in the last 100 years how far have we come in advancement in technology while almost completely ignoring the question why the **** is it we are here with all this ****?
If it requires constant energy to maintain movement even in space, then even for a planet moving at several thousand kilometers an hour, it would not take very long for it to slow to a complete halt, however the main issue is, it won't just "suddenly" stop, the speed would gradually reduce, and as a product of this, the planets orbit would move closer and closer to the sun. This would increase planetary temperature very fast, start to burn off the atmosphere we absolutely must have to survive, and make adapting to weather that changes radically every couple of months nigh impossible.
I'm sorry, but it's absolutely impossible to maintain a universe given the set of circumstances.
In fact, pretty much any law of physics as we understand them now can't be tweaked at all, everything from having weak gravity to the speed of light, if any of it was changed even slightly things would be completely whack.
I love science fiction, but to a degree. I don't think messing with fundamental laws of physics for the ENTIRE set of universe it takes place in makes any sense.
Not impossible...
If you read what I said many of the earth based limits do not apply in space ei. friction and an ever downward force called gavity... Remember a planet creates its own gravity or indent into space due to its mass. So it would then take a massive amount of time for a planet to slow down enough to fall into star.
You people are just not getting what I'm saying damn me for thinking out side of mainstream science... |
LittleTerror
Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 21:54:00 -
[69]
Edited by: LittleTerror on 31/12/2009 21:54:30
Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: LittleTerror Well i will look at it yes
That's excellent!
Originally by: LittleTerror i don't see it working since the moon would have been long gone and so would this planet...
Well, it does "work". The "problem" is that it's happening very slowly, right now the Moon is receding at about 3.8 centimetres every year. The other "problem" is that this rate is not constant, a billion years ago the rate of recession was less than half what it is now.
Then if this is true someone or something pushed it perhaps millions of years ago as in a meteor or commit smashing into it giving it enough movement to begin an outward spin away from the earth... |
stoicfaux
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 21:58:00 -
[70]
Originally by: LittleTerror
If you read what I said many of the earth based limits do not apply in space ei. friction and an ever downward force called gavity... Remember a planet creates its own gravity or indent into space due to its mass. So it would then take a massive amount of time for a planet to slow down enough to fall into star.
You people are just not getting what I'm saying damn me for thinking out side of mainstream science...
If there was no gravity, nothing would orbit anything. The planets would fly out into space away from their stars. When they did slow down due to the "ether," they would be all over the place. Being in orbit is the same as falling. Satellites in orbit around the Earth are perpetually falling towards Earth (and perpetually missing.) Gravity and orbits go hand in hand.
This isn't about thinking in/out-side of mainstream science. It's about suspension of disbelief and how much pseudo-make-believe science it requires for the Eve universe to make "sense" without being blatantly Stupid. Getting rid of gravity and orbital mechanics is just too much.
----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Nietzsche, and PvP" |
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 22:01:00 -
[71]
None of you are smart. You just google/wiki words and think your e-professors so please stop embarrassing yourselves.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 22:11:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 31/12/2009 22:13:42
Originally by: Drakarin Acceleration, and gravity, are two separate energies.
Gravity is the effect of an object curving space-time, given Einstein's theory correct.
There is little to no gravity in the void between planets in a solar system.
Check out Einstein's Equivalence Principle. The short version is accelerated motion is indistinguishable from gravity.
I like how they did it in the book Hyperion (actually one of the sequels). The accelerations of some ships was huge and the people in them squished to pulp but then they were resurrected. (great book)
-------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Catherine Frasier
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 22:16:00 -
[73]
Originally by: LittleTerror If you read what I said many of the earth based limits do not apply in space ei. friction and an ever downward force called gavity...
Except that they do apply. Although friction is more significant when there's a dense atmosphere, and although gravity is more obvious when one is closer to a planet they are both still important even "out in space". The gravitational effect of the sun is still felt by bodies way out in the Oort cloud 50,000 AU away.
(I won't even bother with "downward".)
Originally by: LittleTerror damn me for thinking in opposition to mainstream science...
Fixed it for you.
|
LittleTerror
Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 22:16:00 -
[74]
Edited by: LittleTerror on 31/12/2009 22:18:11
Originally by: stoicfaux
Originally by: LittleTerror
If you read what I said many of the earth based limits do not apply in space ei. friction and an ever downward force called gavity... Remember a planet creates its own gravity or indent into space due to its mass. So it would then take a massive amount of time for a planet to slow down enough to fall into star.
You people are just not getting what I'm saying damn me for thinking out side of mainstream science...
If there was no gravity, nothing would orbit anything. The planets would fly out into space away from their stars. When they did slow down due to the "ether," they would be all over the place. Being in orbit is the same as falling. Satellites in orbit around the Earth are perpetually falling towards Earth (and perpetually missing.) Gravity and orbits go hand in hand.
This isn't about thinking in/out-side of mainstream science. It's about suspension of disbelief and how much pseudo-make-believe science it requires for the Eve universe to make "sense" without being blatantly Stupid. Getting rid of gravity and orbital mechanics is just too much.
Still not getting me...
/edit we will never get a warp drive so long as you farts continue to quote wiki or some ****e...
Originally by: Trader20 None of you are smart. You just google/wiki words and think your e-professors so please stop embarrassing yourselves.
I didn't use any such nonsense thank you very much.
|
Catherine Frasier
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 22:26:00 -
[75]
Originally by: LittleTerror /edit we will never get a warp drive so long as you farts continue to quote wiki or some ****e...
Wiki is a convenient, largely non-technical source. If you'd rather we directed you to other sources for the same information that's no problem.
On the other hand, what if we directed you to the wiki entries for the current research into "warp drives"? Is that still creating an obstacle, somehow?
|
LittleTerror
Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 22:34:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: LittleTerror /edit we will never get a warp drive so long as you farts continue to quote wiki or some ****e...
Wiki is a convenient, largely non-technical source. If you'd rather we directed you to other sources for the same information that's no problem.
On the other hand, what if we directed you to the wiki entries for the current research into "warp drives"? Is that still creating an obstacle, somehow?
Look before they went to the moon if they ever did which to be quite honest would take an amazing ammount of work. We did not have a wiki and hundreds of years ago people like you said the moon is made of cheese why? Because it was written as such, now you can quote what ever science you want if it makes you feel more intelligent than me then gg I simple do not give a ****. The fact is it is all theroy, yes there is science with physical back up but when it comes to space no one knows. You just can't possible know until we get out there and actually distort gravity waves for our self.
The stars twinkle due to the atmosphere or is it due to the way the earth bounces around on the universal plane? See no body knows... |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 22:43:00 -
[77]
Originally by: LittleTerror The fact is it is all theroy, yes there is science with physical back up but when it comes to space no one knows.
Now, you do know what a theory is, right? …and you do know that we've been "out there"? ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Catherine Frasier
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 22:43:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Catherine Frasier on 31/12/2009 22:45:59 Edited by: Catherine Frasier on 31/12/2009 22:44:11
Originally by: LittleTerror Look before they went to the moon if they ever did which to be quite honest would take an amazing ammount of work.
Just when I thought you couldn't sink any lower in my estimation...
Originally by: LittleTerror We did not have a wiki and hundreds of years ago people like you said the moon is made of cheese why? Because it was written as such
Again you have completely misunderstood. The reason we know the moon is receding is because we have measured it. If we went by what is written we would still think that the moon was embedded in a crystal sphere around the earth or that it was some kind of god or spirit.
Originally by: LittleTerror The fact is it is all theroy, yes there is science with physical back up but when it comes to space no one knows. You just can't possible know until we get out there and actually distort gravity waves for our self.
That's a very ignorance dense sentence. First enormous mistake is in your understanding (and spelling) of the word theory. A theory isn't a guess, it isn't a hunch, a theory is a strenuously tested and rigorously checked explanation. What's more, we can, have and continue to "distort gravity" and measure the results. That is, as a matter of fact, how we know what we know.
Originally by: LittleTerror The stars twinkle due to the atmosphere or is it due to the way the earth bounces around on the universal plane? See no body knows...
YOU don't know. That doesn't mean nobody knows. The stars "twinkle" due to the atmosphere. They do not "twinkle" when viewed from outside the atmosphere. We know this because we have gone and looked and taken pictures and video to show to everyone else. We know even if you don't.
|
LittleTerror
Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 22:53:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: LittleTerror The fact is it is all theroy, yes there is science with physical back up but when it comes to space no one knows.
Now, you do know what a theory is, right? àand you do know that we've been "out there"?
Oh dear here we go...
Yeah but we still use a rocket to get off the ground hardly earth shattering technology is it?
Originally by: Catherine Frasier Edited by: Catherine Frasier on 31/12/2009 22:44:11
Originally by: LittleTerror Look before they went to the moon if they ever did which to be quite honest would take an amazing ammount of work.
Just when I thought you couldn't sink any lower in my estimation...
Originally by: LittleTerror We did not have a wiki and hundreds of years ago people like you said the moon is made of cheese why? Because it was written as such
Again you have completely misunderstood. The reason we know the moon is receding is because we have measured it. If we went by what is written we would still think that the moon was embedded in a crystal sphere around the earth or that it was some kind of god or spirit.
Originally by: LittleTerror The fact is it is all theroy, yes there is science with physical back up but when it comes to space no one knows. You just can't possible know until we get out there and actually distort gravity waves for our self.
That's a very ignorance dense sentence. First enormous mistake is in your understanding (and spelling) of the word theory. A theory isn't a guess, it isn't a hunch, a theory is a strenuously tested and rigorously checked explanation. What's more, we can, have and continue to "distort gravity" and measure the results. That is, as a matter of fact, how we know what we know.
Originally by: LittleTerror The stars twinkle due to the atmosphere or is it due to the way the earth bounces around on the universal plane? See no body knows...
YOU don't know. That doesn't mean nobody knows. The stars "twinkle" due to the atmosphere. They do no "twinkle" when viewed from outside the atmosphere. We know this because we have gone and looked and taken pictures and video to show to everyone else. We know even if you don't.
The earth might be showing as moving away but it could have been hit but a large rock madam..
I can't be be arsed to multi quote you right now I'm too drunk... |
Drakarin
Gallente The Abyssmal Spire Independent Faction
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 23:04:00 -
[80]
This thread boils down to a few key notes:
Gravity must exist.
Space itself has to be a vacuum or constant thrust is necessary but not provided, so everything would fall apart.
Gravity is the effect of space being curved. If acceleration does this, it constitutes as gravity.
Inertial dampeners ARE necessary for sub-light speed.
|
|
LittleTerror
Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 23:16:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Drakarin This thread boils down to a few key notes:
Gravity must exist.
Space itself has to be a vacuum or constant thrust is necessary but not provided, so everything would fall apart.
Gravity is the effect of space being curved. If acceleration does this, it constitutes as gravity.
Inertial dampeners ARE necessary for sub-light speed.
Ok yeah as sad as we are, yes gravity does exist but I see it as more of a well hole in space which other objects are falling into. It has been almost proven magnetism is very closely linked to gravity and in fact has more control or simply put you can use a magnet to pick something metal up defeating gravity it self.
Think of the earth both top and bottom or north and south poles the effect space the same both ways but. Big but, the waves of gravity flow almost like a magnetic field, they loop over and under in a way we can't see with our eyes, so it looks like a hole inverted outwards so everything goes the center of that hole. |
LittleTerror
Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 23:21:00 -
[82]
This is the only way a warp drive could ever work, outside of this we would become goo in and instant as the ship enters warp. So in the world of everything is possible we must break rules a little *cough* a lot to make this possible. That is how eve warp drives work. |
Catherine Frasier
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 23:48:00 -
[83]
Originally by: LittleTerror The earth might be showing as moving away but it could have been hit but a large rock madam..
That is, in fact, the most likely origin of the moon. How is that an argument?
|
Spurty
Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 00:02:00 -
[84]
Apply real world physics to fun games and you strip the fun out of them.
Imagine no straffging in an fps cause seriously side stepping at full pelt while shooting a gun is a sure fire way to miss a barn door.
Then there is the jumping while carrying a full load of ammo and running at full speed all the time. Ok so day of defeat covered this pretty well minis the jump / dive / prone shoot and spinning on the spot perfectly
but always fun to talk about What if this was reality lol
Originally by: Hurley I WAS NOT QUITTING SoT AND WAS NOT THINKING ABOUT JOINING IT. PL/SoT MADE A MISTAKE AND ARE NOT MAN ENOUGH TO ADMIT IT OR FIX IT.
|
LittleTerror
Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 00:29:00 -
[85]
Edited by: LittleTerror on 01/01/2010 00:29:21
Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: LittleTerror The earth might be showing as moving away but it could have been hit but a large rock madam..
That is, in fact, the most likely origin of the moon. How is that an argument?
Oh how pathetic really, you're just digging a bigger hole for yourself for me to laugh at...
So you're saying the moon came to earth and is now just gonna split off into space again? Sorry can't compute your logic some how because it is utter fail if you want to use real world physics then at least ****ing stick to it... |
Drakarin
Gallente The Abyssmal Spire Independent Faction
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 00:37:00 -
[86]
Originally by: LittleTerror Edited by: LittleTerror on 31/12/2009 23:17:13
Originally by: Drakarin This thread boils down to a few key notes:
Gravity must exist.
Space itself has to be a vacuum or constant thrust is necessary but not provided, so everything would fall apart.
Gravity is the effect of space being curved. If acceleration does this, it constitutes as gravity.
Inertial dampeners ARE necessary for sub-light speed.
Ok yeah as sad as we are, yes gravity does exist but I see it as more of a well hole in space which other objects are falling into. It has been almost proven magnetism is very closely linked to gravity and in fact has more control or simply put you can use a magnet to pick something metal up defeating gravity it self.
Think of the earth both top and bottom or north and south poles the effect space the same both ways but. Big but, the waves of gravity flow almost like a magnetic field, they loop over and under in a way we can't see with our eyes, so it looks like a hole inverted outwards so everything goes to the center of that hole.
What's your point exactly?
Yes, Magnetism is far stronger than gravity and can easily counteract it. This was never a subject of debate.
|
LittleTerror
Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 00:50:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Drakarin
Originally by: LittleTerror Edited by: LittleTerror on 31/12/2009 23:17:13
Originally by: Drakarin This thread boils down to a few key notes:
Gravity must exist.
Space itself has to be a vacuum or constant thrust is necessary but not provided, so everything would fall apart.
Gravity is the effect of space being curved. If acceleration does this, it constitutes as gravity.
Inertial dampeners ARE necessary for sub-light speed.
Ok yeah as sad as we are, yes gravity does exist but I see it as more of a well hole in space which other objects are falling into. It has been almost proven magnetism is very closely linked to gravity and in fact has more control or simply put you can use a magnet to pick something metal up defeating gravity it self.
Think of the earth both top and bottom or north and south poles the effect space the same both ways but. Big but, the waves of gravity flow almost like a magnetic field, they loop over and under in a way we can't see with our eyes, so it looks like a hole inverted outwards so everything goes to the center of that hole.
What's your point exactly?
Yes, Magnetism is far stronger than gravity and can easily counteract it. This was never a subject of debate.
This was a option of debate if you don't want that then don't post about it?
My point is you do not tell me how the laws of physics effect internet spaceships. |
LittleTerror
Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 00:58:00 -
[88]
I think internet space ships was enough give away ^^ |
LittleTerror
Infinitus Odium Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 01:05:00 -
[89]
hahahaha you can just play people with all god knows of ****e and they get defensive it is funny... While I have to wait 5 minutes. Eve players are so playable it becomes a game it is simple ridiculous... |
Krxon Blade
SandStorm.
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 12:03:00 -
[90]
How inertial dampeners work: If the inverting-core acceptor deflects the complex chronotron-feedback analysis, try to provoke a coil-composition reflex and several quantum biosphere resonances, this will create a restricted isovolumic cochrane graviton-prediction, which ought to in fact dampen the polarizing maintenance-filament formulas. Then attempt a minimum abstract component-delay correction phase to input a reversible lucifugal primary ionization perimeter operation to cancel the celestial info-sphere greenhouse effect level-limits. As you are doing this, set in motion six homeostasis global-attractors from the constant chemical cybernetic-induction elliptical-beam, this will dislodge a krypton placebo-molecule from the kinetic synthesis-accelerator, as a consequence affect the electromagnetic fiber-feedback engineering fractal controls, enhancing the parallel decaying energy diffusion force. Now turn on the hypothetical cryogenic quadrant energy matrix and logistical passive inducers to absorb the decayed ardamantium alignment chronicle containment-conduit effects. As you must have deduced by now, this will redirect the xanthous laser alignments authorization breach causing a zonifugal antimatter breakthrough in the enhanced chaotic krell-dechyon diodes, and compute cycles over cycles of the digivax engineering artificial atmosphere history and then instigate a cosmic brain-cell breakdown of the magnetic-flux generator flow confirmation. But do not aim at creating those NavCom neon-resonating memory utilization rectification reports prior to maximizing the modulating secondary matrix production of that CPU examination docking-module of the long-range field communication cyber-diagram, without first sub-spacing the tachyon-static singularity propulsion plasma intensity spectrum-resolution of the lunar-gas short range nucleogenic projection subdivision, or this will resonate a suspension of the hard-paradigm particle phase neutrino-level mopology of those soft-shell shutdown static xenon positron-flux power systems in corroboration with the rotation rate of the neutrino trekno-plasma generation with theoretical synthetic balantidium. As soon as this is accomplished, you must engage the fission navigation life-support nacelle verterons to suppress the soloton shielding-degradation neutron-flux subspace transmission findings so as not to hinder the hybaroxia video-waste specific station graph investigation and the electronic warp techno-special nucleo-centric solar-wave results, so be careful. Verify that the dwarf-analog fusion-fermions statistically linger in stasis, otherwise they will collide together with the nano-stealth boolean cryogenic zero-hypothesis optic bosons, withholding fundamental modulation logic from the critical coefficient-aerodynamics. Now, for phase two, you must formulate a neuroid static cyber-neutrino rotation of the recessive decayed filament-graph-nacelle support procedures, this will trigger a twenty percent upsurge in the subspace corroboration atmosphere-gas concentration but will not injure the ureotelic-navigation secondary-memory resolution of the primary chaotic magnetic-flux logistical alignments. As considered critical by the tectonic bonding dialysis-dilation theory, you ought to fulminate the hybrid-frequency antigen particle-clones or the equivalence principle of the alpha-algorithm will set off a genetic velocity aphelion biomass-convection, endangering the neighboring dioxide codon momentum-enzyme bioelectrodes. Given that according to the theoretical engineering-core diagram, you must definitely polarize the subspace cryogenic component before you quantify all those artificial interlinked nucleo-centric neon-inducers, and activate the plasma antimatter shielding degradation rates, increase the neutron-flux cell-station to ten cycles. So please be advised to repair the robotic gravitons-mass recognition field-emissions prior to geothermaly inducing a ... and crap continues -- Eve battle simulator EVE character creator Eve offline game |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |