X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Jun 10 2003, 04:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Jun 10 2003, 04:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--SiLeNcEr-7+Jun 10 2003, 10:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SiLeNcEr-7 @ Jun 10 2003, 10:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As I said, it was explained in the first movie, the machines turn the dead into goo and feed it to the living (eww), the machines don't use nuclear reactors for the same reason they don't use coal plants, the resouces are depleted. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A human does not produse that much nutrients to feed a person more then a couple weeks. The human body is not a perfect machine and energy is lost as heat. Food is energy, if you use the law of conservation of energy in chemical reactions every amount of energy you take is then lost from the system so even if the human body is flawlessly efficient which it is far from your still going to loose your source of food. So therfore they cannot do that more then a couple times.
Lets say they have fusion now. H2O + electralosis = Hydrogen, use that as fuel as nuclear fuel. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> the machines are *very* efficient with energy, they capture the heat lost by people and turn that into energy. But you're right, if they use all the energy for themselves, they can't melt the bodies down and feed them to the living (no energy left in the bodies).
And i dont care what you say about the Twins. They rock, and morpheus is bald and he didnt kill them they're still alive (they did the phase thing, can't be hurt whlie in that).
BTW, Killer-Olie thinks this is going to be the end of matrix Revolutions:
PulseTo create, to create and escape.Join Date: 2002-08-29Member: 1248Members, Constellation
Apparently they <i>are</i> very energy efficient, so they can find very efficient way to keep themselves and thier "human sustinace" machines working, and the humans can easily provide them with enough energy, and in case you didn't notice, a lot of people die every day, they could split this among the living, recycle it until it is gone, and repeat, as for the H2O->Hydrogen thing, eventually you will have no water and huge amounts of useless byproducts, gee, wasn't <i>that</i> helpful, with the humans they could theoretically go on forever.
<!--QuoteBegin--SiLeNcEr-7+Jun 10 2003, 11:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SiLeNcEr-7 @ Jun 10 2003, 11:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...So they collect and convert the "lost" heat energy... durrr... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Its impossible to collect 100% dosent matter if they are really efficient if they still apply by the laws of physics and therefore have friction and will have heat lost. The law of thermodynamics would pwn the machines.
Also heat dosent = electricity. The only way we have of doing that is by using diffrence in heat. Like since warm water rises faster then colder we can turn turbines which turn generators. That is how we get energy into heat. If everything is the same temperature we can't do that. Humans don't really produce heat rapidly so we probably wouldnt even be able to brake the static friction to even turn a turbine.
So if I were them I would use fusion power. If they are half smart enought to make a near perfect engine then fusion should be easy as pie.
<!--QuoteBegin--X_Stickman+Jun 10 2003, 11:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (X_Stickman @ Jun 10 2003, 11:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But, let's face it, sitting and watching some mad machines operating a fusion reactor for 2 hours wouldn't be a good movie <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> yeah it wouldn't, if i would have done the plot I would have made it so they were trying to get information and figuring out something that only humans could.
also as far as nuclear power. According to E=mc^2, for every kilogram of mass you multiply it light's speed squared. 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s = 8.987551787 x 10^16 joules to put that into perspective 5.46 x 10^13 Joules was equal to the bomb that droped on Hiroshima. So they would have alot more energy then with people.
PulseTo create, to create and escape.Join Date: 2002-08-29Member: 1248Members, Constellation
If they are really advanced they could find a way to directly convert heat, and if friction makes them "lose" heat, whats to stop them from collecting it again? Face it: Matrix = Bulletproof.
<!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Jun 10 2003, 11:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Jun 10 2003, 11:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--SiLeNcEr-7+Jun 10 2003, 11:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SiLeNcEr-7 @ Jun 10 2003, 11:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...So they collect and convert the "lost" heat energy... durrr... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Its <b>impossible</b> to collect 100% dosent matter if they are really efficient if they still apply by the laws of physics and therefore have friction and will have heat lost. The law of thermodynamics would pwn the machines. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> When a scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
A more correct statement would be "<i>It isn't possible <b>yet</b> to collect 100% dosent matter if they are really efficient if they still apply by the laws of physics and therefore have friction and will have heat lost. The law of thermodynamics would pwn the machines.</i>"
Those laws only exist untill we find a way around them. Which will happen eventually.
PulseTo create, to create and escape.Join Date: 2002-08-29Member: 1248Members, Constellation
Maybe a coma <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> My dreams don't usually last for more than 30 minutes.
So then you have an engine converting heat lost in the friction of an engine that lost the friction of an engine to convert the heat of an engine... it just goes on forever your just really bulky and probably even more inefficient. Also if you move you are loosing heat. Sometimes it also escapes to the universe and into the ground.
AgentOrange, if they could break the laws of physics then they don't need humans.
The laws of physics CAN be broken we just haven't found a way yet. Remember when the atom was the smallest thing and we were SO sure of it. Or when earth was flat, there was no way we were wrong there. I'm just saying that it's entirely possible that we just havn't found the right way yet.
But lets end this soon and keep this on topic <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> I already said fast and the furious.
<!--QuoteBegin--SiLeNcEr-7+Jun 10 2003, 10:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SiLeNcEr-7 @ Jun 10 2003, 10:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> They would't need to pump <i>any</i> energy into us, all they need to do is give us food... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How, pray tell, do they grow the food? Feeding us the dead humans. OK, but that's not nearly enough. Engineering the food? Inefficient at best, costly to the extreme at worst. Foodstuffs are chains of oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon bound together, we merely release the binds, and there energy contained within. It would be far, far easier for the machines to break the binds themselves. If they can build a neural network, then this, surely, isn't beyond them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fact is, if you hate a science fiction film because it doesn't make sense, there is really something wrong in your head. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say I hated it because of it's faults. As I stated, it's a nice premise. But to say there are no plot holes is a stretch, is all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->AND! in the matrix, why aren't the agents 40 foot tall killer evil death machines with big glowy eyes? And the machines should put norton or VAC or sommat on the Matrix servers, cos Neo and his "krew" are just hax0rz <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And why can't the agents shoot straight? I realize it's not exactly hit-scan weapons in the "real world," but you'd think that if we can make aim-bots now, the machines can take it to the next level. Still, if they were a perfect shot every time, there'd be no tension, would there?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...So they collect and convert the "lost" heat energy... durrr... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's kind of defeating the concept of "lost" energy. No machine, no matter how perfect, is 100% efficient. Magnetic levitation, frictionless motion, heat absorbtion shield. No matter how much you try to stop it, some amount of energy will be lost. Which is why you will become an instant trillion-aire if you can produce a perpetual-motion machine that can sustain skeptical analysis under laboratory conditions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...and in case you didn't notice, a lot of people die every day, they could split this among the living, recycle it until it is gone, and repeat...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, this might work, assuming that the machines don't mind a population of humans that is decreasing at an exponential rate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->they couldn't use cows because, like you said, almost all animals and plantlife is dead, as was explained in the first movie<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, some humans survived, so it stands to reason that a few nations kept a "Noah's Ark" of sorts. The machines could just swipe a few cows there.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The laws of physics CAN be broken we just haven't found a way yet. Remember when the atom was the smallest thing and we were SO sure of it. Or when earth was flat, there was no way we were wrong there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The laws of physics can always be re-written, and bent as we know them now, but anything that stands up to scrutiny should be built upon. A true scientist is NEVER sure of anything. The atom the smallest thing? The theory was that every element, every material, could be split into two again, and again, and again, until you ended up with only one bit of the material that still retained the property of the original material, but could not be split again without losing those properties. And few actually declared that the Earth was flat. It was certainly proposed, but was quickly refuted in the early years of the first Millenia using something as simple as an artificial horizon and a sextant. The only reason that the "Earth is flat" theory was popularized was that the church clinged to the notion long after the general population knew otherwise. Scientists know that they never truly know anything about science. They only try to explain things that are observed in controlled experiments.
Anyhow, it's nice to see a few of you thinking and discussing this. But, as someone pointed out, this is science <i>fiction</i>. A certain level of suspension of disbelief needs to be maintained, and it is. It's makes for a good story. But saying that there aren't plot holes gaping large enough to drive a car through would be stretching the truth.
-Ryan!
Being in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it's important. -- Eugene McCarthy
PulseTo create, to create and escape.Join Date: 2002-08-29Member: 1248Members, Constellation
edited June 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How, pray tell, do they grow the food? Feeding us the dead humans. OK, but that's not nearly enough. Engineering the food? Inefficient at best, costly to the extreme at worst. Foodstuffs are chains of oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon bound together, we merely release the binds, and there energy contained within. It would be far, far easier for the machines to break the binds themselves. If they can build a neural network, then this, surely, isn't beyond them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, dead humans <i>are</i> enough, they most likely don't need a quarter of the energy that <i>we</i> need, keep in mind that the humans rarely even move a muscle, thats an incredible amount of energy saved right there, the machines could have messed around with our DNA and created a more efficient human being, so, with that down, machines are recieving more energy than they use, if they didn't they wouldn't have even bothered in the first place. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And why can't the agents shoot straight? I realize it's not exactly hit-scan weapons in the "real world," but you'd think that if we can make aim-bots now, the machines can take it to the next level. Still, if they were a perfect shot every time, there'd be no tension, would there?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They <i>shoot</i> straight, ballistics and movement are whats stopping them, combine that with bullet time and you've got yourself a reason. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's kind of defeating the concept of "lost" energy. No machine, no matter how perfect, is 100% efficient. Magnetic levitation, frictionless motion, heat absorbtion shield. No matter how much you try to stop it, some amount of energy will be lost. Which is why you will become an instant trillion-aire if you can produce a perpetual-motion machine that can sustain skeptical analysis under laboratory conditions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Like I said, they get more than they lose, any lost energy is quickly replaced. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, this might work, assuming that the machines don't mind a population of humans that is decreasing at an exponential rate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It seems you have forgotten that many people are <i>born</i> at the same time. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, some humans survived, so it stands to reason that a few nations kept a "Noah's Ark" of sorts. The machines could just swipe a few cows there. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They obviously didn't have time, and don't forget that Zion operates competlely off of machines (ie. they don't have or need plants for air, don't have or need animals for food). <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyhow, it's nice to see a few of you thinking and discussing this. But, as someone pointed out, this is science fiction. A certain level of suspension of disbelief needs to be maintained, and it is. It's makes for a good story. But saying that there aren't plot holes gaping large enough to drive a car through would be stretching the truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If there are any plot holes at all, they don't have anything to do with the backstory, simple as that, the W bros left it way too open for that, hence people making up any explanation they like, it is 100% impossible to find a plot hole in that.
<!--QuoteBegin--SiLeNcEr-7+Jun 10 2003, 12:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SiLeNcEr-7 @ Jun 10 2003, 12:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How, pray tell, do they grow the food? Feeding us the dead humans. OK, but that's not nearly enough. Engineering the food? Inefficient at best, costly to the extreme at worst. Foodstuffs are chains of oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon bound together, we merely release the binds, and there energy contained within. It would be far, far easier for the machines to break the binds themselves. If they can build a neural network, then this, surely, isn't beyond them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, dead humans <i>are</i> enough, they most likely don't need a quarter of the energy that <i>we</i> need, keep in mind that the humans rarely even move a muscle, thats an incredible amount of energy saved right there, the machines could have messed around with our DNA and created a more efficient human being, so, with that down, machines are recieving more energy than they use...
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So one dead body would give enough nutrients to sustain a living human for 40 years? 60? 80? If not, then what? Two bodies? Three? Four? Because there is no possible way for there to be a one-to-one ratio. Which means for every child sustained, how many people must die to feed it as it grows? Dozens, at the least, hundreds of thousands at the other end of the spectrum. Think of it this way. 144 bodies are fed to a dozen children, and the waste is extracted, recycled, cleansed, and fed again, and again. We'll give the machines a break, and say that those 144 people can sustain 12 from birth, through the entire full growth cycle (Neo's growth wasn't stunted, obviously), and through to death. Well, great, from 144 people, to 12. And those 12 are fed to one child, from birth, to growth, to death. A one-to-one ratio (every one person dies feeds another human from birth to death) sounds wonderful in theory, but would be impossible using any science based in THIS particular universe. Which brings me to my next point...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...if they didn't they wouldn't have even bothered in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, this is a work of fiction, and requires suspense of disbelief. The machines never bothered, because this never happened. COULD never have happened.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And why can't the agents shoot straight? I realize it's not exactly hit-scan weapons in the "real world," but you'd think that if we can make aim-bots now, the machines can take it to the next level. Still, if they were a perfect shot every time, there'd be no tension, would there?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They <i>shoot</i> straight, ballistics and movement are whats stopping them, combine that with bullet time and you've got yourself a reason.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ballistics and movements, as well as air friction and dynamics are among the thing that I was mentioning when I said "you'd think that if we can make aim-bots now, the machines can take it to the next level." How hard is it to predict movements of slow humans. And I'm not talking about Neo moving super-fast. I'm talking about Agents firing at members of Morpheus's group and missing far, far, far too often for beings that are supposed to be able to process information incredibly fast. As in, fast enough to dodge bullets fast.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's kind of defeating the concept of "lost" energy. No machine, no matter how perfect, is 100% efficient. Magnetic levitation, frictionless motion, heat absorbtion shield. No matter how much you try to stop it, some amount of energy will be lost. Which is why you will become an instant trillion-aire if you can produce a perpetual-motion machine that can sustain skeptical analysis under laboratory conditions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Like I said, they get more than they lose, any lost energy is quickly replaced.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whu-? I'm speechless. What can I say? You didn't make a point here, really. Just said that they get more they lose. Which is a scientific impossibility (again, going back to the generator that can churn out more energy than is put into it, whether it be nuclear, chemical, or otherwise) I might add, but it would be interesting to hear you expand on that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, this might work, assuming that the machines don't mind a population of humans that is decreasing at an exponential rate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It seems you have forgotten that many people are <i>born</i> at the same time.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I haven't. It goes back to what I pointed out earlier. Every person <i>born</i> at the same time requires that much more <i>food</i>, taking nourishment from its siblings. Every person dead can feed only a fraction of the next generation, even assuming that the wastes are recycled ad infinitum. Every generation born will be a bit smaller, or fed less and less until they begin to die of malnourishment. And if you haven't yet discovered the power of the exponential rate yet, then you are in for an awakening. Tell you what...I'll give you a post-dated check for $10 million now, if you'll just give me one penny today, double it tomorrow, and double it the next day, and so on, for the entirety of a month.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, some humans survived, so it stands to reason that a few nations kept a "Noah's Ark" of sorts. The machines could just swipe a few cows there. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They obviously didn't have time, and don't forget that Zion operates competlely off of machines (ie. they don't have or need plants for air, don't have or need animals for food). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.intothematrix.com/' target='_blank'>The humans knew it was coming.</a> Some nation out there had to have some foresight.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyhow, it's nice to see a few of you thinking and discussing this. But, as someone pointed out, this is science fiction. A certain level of suspension of disbelief needs to be maintained, and it is. It's makes for a good story. But saying that there aren't plot holes gaping large enough to drive a car through would be stretching the truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If there are any plot holes at all, they don't have anything to do with the backstory, simple as that, the W bros left it way too open for that, hence people making up any explanation they like, it is 100% impossible to find a plot hole in that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Impossible? There is no way the machines would get more energy from using a combination of humans and fusion to power their grid than from using fusion power alone. The human side of the system would intake more energy then they would give off, no matter how efficient the system may be. That is a fact. So be careful what you declare to be 100% impossible.
The Matrix has plot holes in plot holes, people. I don't understand how anyone could possible say otherwise. But, that brings us around again to the suspension of disbelief that plays such a big role in our minds in those stadium seats before the big screen. The Matrix was far, far from perfect, science-wise. But it doesn't matter, so long as it <i>entertained</i> us.
Now, to get back on topic...disappointing films...
Armageddon. I want my two hours of life back.
Tomb Raider. Angelina Jolie once said that Lara Croft was the role she fit in perfectly. That's nice. Why didn't you play her in the movie?
Mission to Mars. Need I say more?
-Ryan!
All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have. -- Albert Einstein
What's the dilemma about the fuel source for the human power plants? Where do the crew of the Nebuchadnezzar get their food from? It's not implausible for the machines to be able to synthesize formulaic human food out of whatever organic material they have available, and it's not implausible for them to grow such organic material, in addition to recycling humans. Green slime grows wherever there's water and darkness; it doesn't take much to grow organic matter!
I see the business about the law of conservation of energy has been resolved nicely...
As for the conversion of heat into electricity... that's just a practical concern. Boiling water to turn turbines to power generators is just the best way we've thought of so far. If I remember correctly, you can get tiny currents out of two types of metal twisted together (used for thermometers in kilns, I think). If you've got billions of these, maybe you can get useable power?
<!--QuoteBegin--SoulSkorpion+Jun 11 2003, 01:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Jun 11 2003, 01:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...It's not implausible for the machines to be able to synthesize formulaic human food out of whatever organic material they have available, and it's not implausible for them to grow such organic material, in addition to recycling humans. Green slime grows wherever there's water and darkness; it doesn't take much to grow organic matter! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> One of the better reasonings I've seen yet. Doesn't patch up all the holes, but it certainly stitches a few. If only the W. brothers could have tossed that in there, it would have felt so much better.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I see the business about the law of conservation of energy has been resolved nicely...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is that sarcastic? Words don't always convey meaning well without inflection a voice would lend it.
Now, quick, on to bad movies! Office Space!
No, I'm just kidding. That movie was great.
-Ryan!
"What is defeat? Nothing but education, nothing but the first step to something better." -- Wendell Phillips
Just incase any of you are major scifi buffs like me, and I know you are, you may have witnessed the complete horor of "Flash Gordon". The most retarded and pointless movie i have ever seen. The only thing i can think of that is worse than the movie right now, is the theme song (by Queen).
Other completely horable movies I greatly disliked viewing : -Killer Clowns From Outer Space -Chucky (and all sequils) -Any Disney movie -The Transporter -And many others that i'm sure are just as bad, that I've happened to block from my memory.
oh, and i almost forgot... Drumbline, the second most pointless movie I've ever herd of (first being Bring It On, but it's out of my list because, at least they're hot!!)
<!--QuoteBegin--H'BNayr+Jun 11 2003, 02:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (H'BNayr @ Jun 11 2003, 02:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I see the business about the law of conservation of energy has been resolved nicely...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is that sarcastic? Words don't always convey meaning well without inflection a voice would lend it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, that wasn't sarcasm. I was gong to bring this point up, but I saw it had been covered <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Ok, in deference to the topic, I couldn't stand the latest Bond movie.
*SPOILER ALERT*
They abused every single cliche in the book. Lead baddie presumed dead, only to appear in a different guise. Orbital laser cannon. Ice castle. Mecha laz0r suit. "Luke, I am your father" in reverse ("Dad, I am your son"). Not a damn thing interesting or original. The CG was nothing short of terrible, and <i>James Bond surfing?! what were they on when they came up with <b>that?</b></i> It wasn't so bad as a plotless, pointless action movie, but I expect better than that from a Bond movie. It was what I expected xXx to be (meanwhile, xXx managed to not even come up with that. Don't get me started on how plain stupid xXx was).
*In runs <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo--> that has hijack thread*
"THE Sp33d OF LIGHT AND THE LAW OF cOnS3rVATION OF ENaRgy!11111!!!1111111111111ONEONEONEONEONE!"
Can we stop talking about that stuff and maybe discuss craptastic movies? As for crappy movies I nominate Blair Witch Project 2: Book of Shadows. I really enjoyed the first one. This one was crap. This wasn't even crap, this was a steaming pile of crap with your face lying in it.
<!--QuoteBegin--SmokeNova+Jun 5 2003, 10:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SmokeNova @ Jun 5 2003, 10:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Any steven seagal. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I second that! They are horrible.
<!--QuoteBegin--Zeus+Jun 11 2003, 12:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zeus @ Jun 11 2003, 12:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--SmokeNova+Jun 5 2003, 10:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SmokeNova @ Jun 5 2003, 10:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Any steven seagal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I second that! They are horrible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Add terrorist. Add non conspicuous charcter played by steaven segale. Have some plot to disrupt life as we know it but in reality probably would never work. Have terrorist find out who steaven segale is and go "omg." Put some McGuiver/Native American Spiritual Healing **** Kill 50 bad guys with hand 2 hand combat
<!--QuoteBegin--ShootBang+Jun 11 2003, 01:29 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ShootBang @ Jun 11 2003, 01:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> oh, and i almost forgot... Drumbline, the second most pointless movie I've ever herd of. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> argh, /j00 needs to learn how to use the forums. There's an edit button for a reason. Learn to spell too <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->.
Analyze that was bad, too.
Edit: I'm not insulting the quotee, he's a good friend of mine.
<!--QuoteBegin--SmokeNova+Jun 5 2003, 10:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SmokeNova @ Jun 5 2003, 10:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Any steven seagal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The really depressing thing is that, while Seagal is a rotten, rotten, <i>rotten</i> actor, he's a brilliant martial artist - he's the only Gajin who's allowed to teach Aikido in Japan.
Comments
A human does not produse that much nutrients to feed a person more then a couple weeks. The human body is not a perfect machine and energy is lost as heat. Food is energy, if you use the law of conservation of energy in chemical reactions every amount of energy you take is then lost from the system so even if the human body is flawlessly efficient which it is far from your still going to loose your source of food. So therfore they cannot do that more then a couple times.
Lets say they have fusion now. H2O + electralosis = Hydrogen, use that as fuel as nuclear fuel. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
the machines are *very* efficient with energy, they capture the heat lost by people and turn that into energy. But you're right, if they use all the energy for themselves, they can't melt the bodies down and feed them to the living (no energy left in the bodies).
And i dont care what you say about the Twins. They rock, and morpheus is bald and he didnt kill them they're still alive (they did the phase thing, can't be hurt whlie in that).
BTW, Killer-Olie thinks this is going to be the end of matrix Revolutions:
*Neo in bed, alarm clock ringing*
*Neo wakes up, sits up*
"Phew, it was all a dream."
*<b>THE END</b>*
what do you lot think?
Its impossible to collect 100% dosent matter if they are really efficient if they still apply by the laws of physics and therefore have friction and will have heat lost. The law of thermodynamics would pwn the machines.
Also heat dosent = electricity. The only way we have of doing that is by using diffrence in heat. Like since warm water rises faster then colder we can turn turbines which turn generators. That is how we get energy into heat. If everything is the same temperature we can't do that. Humans don't really produce heat rapidly so we probably wouldnt even be able to brake the static friction to even turn a turbine.
So if I were them I would use fusion power. If they are half smart enought to make a near perfect engine then fusion should be easy as pie.
yeah it wouldn't, if i would have done the plot I would have made it so they were trying to get information and figuring out something that only humans could.
also as far as nuclear power. According to E=mc^2, for every kilogram of mass you multiply it light's speed squared. 2.99792458 x 10^8 m/s = 8.987551787 x 10^16 joules to put that into perspective 5.46 x 10^13 Joules was equal to the bomb that droped on Hiroshima. So they would have alot more energy then with people.
Its <b>impossible</b> to collect 100% dosent matter if they are really efficient if they still apply by the laws of physics and therefore have friction and will have heat lost. The law of thermodynamics would pwn the machines.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
When a scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
A more correct statement would be "<i>It isn't possible <b>yet</b> to collect 100% dosent matter if they are really efficient if they still apply by the laws of physics and therefore have friction and will have heat lost. The law of thermodynamics would pwn the machines.</i>"
Those laws only exist untill we find a way around them. Which will happen eventually.
AgentOrange, if they could break the laws of physics then they don't need humans.
But lets end this soon and keep this on topic <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> I already said fast and the furious.
How, pray tell, do they grow the food? Feeding us the dead humans. OK, but that's not nearly enough. Engineering the food? Inefficient at best, costly to the extreme at worst. Foodstuffs are chains of oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon bound together, we merely release the binds, and there energy contained within. It would be far, far easier for the machines to break the binds themselves. If they can build a neural network, then this, surely, isn't beyond them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fact is, if you hate a science fiction film because it doesn't make sense, there is really something wrong in your head. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say I hated it because of it's faults. As I stated, it's a nice premise. But to say there are no plot holes is a stretch, is all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->AND! in the matrix, why aren't the agents 40 foot tall killer evil death machines with big glowy eyes? And the machines should put norton or VAC or sommat on the Matrix servers, cos Neo and his "krew" are just hax0rz <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And why can't the agents shoot straight? I realize it's not exactly hit-scan weapons in the "real world," but you'd think that if we can make aim-bots now, the machines can take it to the next level. Still, if they were a perfect shot every time, there'd be no tension, would there?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...So they collect and convert the "lost" heat energy... durrr... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's kind of defeating the concept of "lost" energy. No machine, no matter how perfect, is 100% efficient. Magnetic levitation, frictionless motion, heat absorbtion shield. No matter how much you try to stop it, some amount of energy will be lost. Which is why you will become an instant trillion-aire if you can produce a perpetual-motion machine that can sustain skeptical analysis under laboratory conditions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...and in case you didn't notice, a lot of people die every day, they could split this among the living, recycle it until it is gone, and repeat...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, this might work, assuming that the machines don't mind a population of humans that is decreasing at an exponential rate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->they couldn't use cows because, like you said, almost all animals and plantlife is dead, as was explained in the first movie<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, some humans survived, so it stands to reason that a few nations kept a "Noah's Ark" of sorts. The machines could just swipe a few cows there.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The laws of physics CAN be broken we just haven't found a way yet. Remember when the atom was the smallest thing and we were SO sure of it. Or when earth was flat, there was no way we were wrong there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The laws of physics can always be re-written, and bent as we know them now, but anything that stands up to scrutiny should be built upon. A true scientist is NEVER sure of anything. The atom the smallest thing? The theory was that every element, every material, could be split into two again, and again, and again, until you ended up with only one bit of the material that still retained the property of the original material, but could not be split again without losing those properties. And few actually declared that the Earth was flat. It was certainly proposed, but was quickly refuted in the early years of the first Millenia using something as simple as an artificial horizon and a sextant. The only reason that the "Earth is flat" theory was popularized was that the church clinged to the notion long after the general population knew otherwise. Scientists know that they never truly know anything about science. They only try to explain things that are observed in controlled experiments.
Anyhow, it's nice to see a few of you thinking and discussing this. But, as someone pointed out, this is science <i>fiction</i>. A certain level of suspension of disbelief needs to be maintained, and it is. It's makes for a good story. But saying that there aren't plot holes gaping large enough to drive a car through would be stretching the truth.
-Ryan!
Being in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it's important.
-- Eugene McCarthy
Actually, dead humans <i>are</i> enough, they most likely don't need a quarter of the energy that <i>we</i> need, keep in mind that the humans rarely even move a muscle, thats an incredible amount of energy saved right there, the machines could have messed around with our DNA and created a more efficient human being, so, with that down, machines are recieving more energy than they use, if they didn't they wouldn't have even bothered in the first place.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And why can't the agents shoot straight? I realize it's not exactly hit-scan weapons in the "real world," but you'd think that if we can make aim-bots now, the machines can take it to the next level. Still, if they were a perfect shot every time, there'd be no tension, would there?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They <i>shoot</i> straight, ballistics and movement are whats stopping them, combine that with bullet time and you've got yourself a reason.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's kind of defeating the concept of "lost" energy. No machine, no matter how perfect, is 100% efficient. Magnetic levitation, frictionless motion, heat absorbtion shield. No matter how much you try to stop it, some amount of energy will be lost. Which is why you will become an instant trillion-aire if you can produce a perpetual-motion machine that can sustain skeptical analysis under laboratory conditions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like I said, they get more than they lose, any lost energy is quickly replaced.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Well, this might work, assuming that the machines don't mind a population of humans that is decreasing at an exponential rate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems you have forgotten that many people are <i>born</i> at the same time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, some humans survived, so it stands to reason that a few nations kept a "Noah's Ark" of sorts. The machines could just swipe a few cows there.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They obviously didn't have time, and don't forget that Zion operates competlely off of machines (ie. they don't have or need plants for air, don't have or need animals for food).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyhow, it's nice to see a few of you thinking and discussing this. But, as someone pointed out, this is science fiction. A certain level of suspension of disbelief needs to be maintained, and it is. It's makes for a good story. But saying that there aren't plot holes gaping large enough to drive a car through would be stretching the truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If there are any plot holes at all, they don't have anything to do with the backstory, simple as that, the W bros left it way too open for that, hence people making up any explanation they like, it is 100% impossible to find a plot hole in that.
Actually, dead humans <i>are</i> enough, they most likely don't need a quarter of the energy that <i>we</i> need, keep in mind that the humans rarely even move a muscle, thats an incredible amount of energy saved right there, the machines could have messed around with our DNA and created a more efficient human being, so, with that down, machines are recieving more energy than they use...
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So one dead body would give enough nutrients to sustain a living human for 40 years? 60? 80? If not, then what? Two bodies? Three? Four? Because there is no possible way for there to be a one-to-one ratio. Which means for every child sustained, how many people must die to feed it as it grows? Dozens, at the least, hundreds of thousands at the other end of the spectrum. Think of it this way. 144 bodies are fed to a dozen children, and the waste is extracted, recycled, cleansed, and fed again, and again. We'll give the machines a break, and say that those 144 people can sustain 12 from birth, through the entire full growth cycle (Neo's growth wasn't stunted, obviously), and through to death. Well, great, from 144 people, to 12. And those 12 are fed to one child, from birth, to growth, to death. A one-to-one ratio (every one person dies feeds another human from birth to death) sounds wonderful in theory, but would be impossible using any science based in THIS particular universe. Which brings me to my next point...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...if they didn't they wouldn't have even bothered in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, this is a work of fiction, and requires suspense of disbelief. The machines never bothered, because this never happened. COULD never have happened.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And why can't the agents shoot straight? I realize it's not exactly hit-scan weapons in the "real world," but you'd think that if we can make aim-bots now, the machines can take it to the next level. Still, if they were a perfect shot every time, there'd be no tension, would there?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They <i>shoot</i> straight, ballistics and movement are whats stopping them, combine that with bullet time and you've got yourself a reason.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ballistics and movements, as well as air friction and dynamics are among the thing that I was mentioning when I said "you'd think that if we can make aim-bots now, the machines can take it to the next level." How hard is it to predict movements of slow humans. And I'm not talking about Neo moving super-fast. I'm talking about Agents firing at members of Morpheus's group and missing far, far, far too often for beings that are supposed to be able to process information incredibly fast. As in, fast enough to dodge bullets fast.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's kind of defeating the concept of "lost" energy. No machine, no matter how perfect, is 100% efficient. Magnetic levitation, frictionless motion, heat absorbtion shield. No matter how much you try to stop it, some amount of energy will be lost. Which is why you will become an instant trillion-aire if you can produce a perpetual-motion machine that can sustain skeptical analysis under laboratory conditions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like I said, they get more than they lose, any lost energy is quickly replaced.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whu-? I'm speechless. What can I say? You didn't make a point here, really. Just said that they get more they lose. Which is a scientific impossibility (again, going back to the generator that can churn out more energy than is put into it, whether it be nuclear, chemical, or otherwise) I might add, but it would be interesting to hear you expand on that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, this might work, assuming that the machines don't mind a population of humans that is decreasing at an exponential rate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems you have forgotten that many people are <i>born</i> at the same time.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I haven't. It goes back to what I pointed out earlier. Every person <i>born</i> at the same time requires that much more <i>food</i>, taking nourishment from its siblings. Every person dead can feed only a fraction of the next generation, even assuming that the wastes are recycled ad infinitum. Every generation born will be a bit smaller, or fed less and less until they begin to die of malnourishment. And if you haven't yet discovered the power of the exponential rate yet, then you are in for an awakening. Tell you what...I'll give you a post-dated check for $10 million now, if you'll just give me one penny today, double it tomorrow, and double it the next day, and so on, for the entirety of a month.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, some humans survived, so it stands to reason that a few nations kept a "Noah's Ark" of sorts. The machines could just swipe a few cows there.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They obviously didn't have time, and don't forget that Zion operates competlely off of machines (ie. they don't have or need plants for air, don't have or need animals for food). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.intothematrix.com/' target='_blank'>The humans knew it was coming.</a> Some nation out there had to have some foresight.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyhow, it's nice to see a few of you thinking and discussing this. But, as someone pointed out, this is science fiction. A certain level of suspension of disbelief needs to be maintained, and it is. It's makes for a good story. But saying that there aren't plot holes gaping large enough to drive a car through would be stretching the truth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If there are any plot holes at all, they don't have anything to do with the backstory, simple as that, the W bros left it way too open for that, hence people making up any explanation they like, it is 100% impossible to find a plot hole in that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Impossible? There is no way the machines would get more energy from using a combination of humans and fusion to power their grid than from using fusion power alone. The human side of the system would intake more energy then they would give off, no matter how efficient the system may be. That is a fact. So be careful what you declare to be 100% impossible.
The Matrix has plot holes in plot holes, people. I don't understand how anyone could possible say otherwise. But, that brings us around again to the suspension of disbelief that plays such a big role in our minds in those stadium seats before the big screen. The Matrix was far, far from perfect, science-wise. But it doesn't matter, so long as it <i>entertained</i> us.
Now, to get back on topic...disappointing films...
Armageddon. I want my two hours of life back.
Tomb Raider. Angelina Jolie once said that Lara Croft was the role she fit in perfectly. That's nice. Why didn't you play her in the movie?
Mission to Mars. Need I say more?
-Ryan!
All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -
and yet it is the most precious thing we have.
-- Albert Einstein
I see the business about the law of conservation of energy has been resolved nicely...
As for the conversion of heat into electricity... that's just a practical concern. Boiling water to turn turbines to power generators is just the best way we've thought of so far. If I remember correctly, you can get tiny currents out of two types of metal twisted together (used for thermometers in kilns, I think). If you've got billions of these, maybe you can get useable power?
One of the better reasonings I've seen yet. Doesn't patch up all the holes, but it certainly stitches a few. If only the W. brothers could have tossed that in there, it would have felt so much better.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I see the business about the law of conservation of energy has been resolved nicely...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is that sarcastic? Words don't always convey meaning well without inflection a voice would lend it.
Now, quick, on to bad movies! Office Space!
No, I'm just kidding. That movie was great.
-Ryan!
"What is defeat? Nothing but education, nothing but the first
step to something better."
-- Wendell Phillips
Other completely horable movies I greatly disliked viewing :
-Killer Clowns From Outer Space
-Chucky (and all sequils)
-Any Disney movie
-The Transporter
-And many others that i'm sure are just as bad, that I've happened to block from my memory.
Is that sarcastic? Words don't always convey meaning well without inflection a voice would lend it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, that wasn't sarcasm. I was gong to bring this point up, but I saw it had been covered <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Ok, in deference to the topic, I couldn't stand the latest Bond movie.
*SPOILER ALERT*
They abused every single cliche in the book. Lead baddie presumed dead, only to appear in a different guise. Orbital laser cannon. Ice castle. Mecha laz0r suit. "Luke, I am your father" in reverse ("Dad, I am your son"). Not a damn thing interesting or original. The CG was nothing short of terrible, and <i>James Bond surfing?! what were they on when they came up with <b>that?</b></i> It wasn't so bad as a plotless, pointless action movie, but I expect better than that from a Bond movie. It was what I expected xXx to be (meanwhile, xXx managed to not even come up with that. Don't get me started on how plain stupid xXx was).
It was just stupid, but I got one good thing from it, my new catch phrase.
FOLLOW THE WHALES!!
Anything with Jean Claude Van Damme.
Look, he knows ONE kick. And he uses it EVERY film. And he can't act. At all.
*In runs <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif'><!--endemo--> that has hijack thread*
"THE Sp33d OF LIGHT AND THE LAW OF cOnS3rVATION OF ENaRgy!11111!!!1111111111111ONEONEONEONEONE!"
Can we stop talking about that stuff and maybe discuss craptastic movies?
As for crappy movies I nominate Blair Witch Project 2: Book of Shadows. I really enjoyed the first one. This one was crap. This wasn't even crap, this was a steaming pile of crap with your face lying in it.
I second that! They are horrible.
I second that! They are horrible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Add terrorist.
Add non conspicuous charcter played by steaven segale.
Have some plot to disrupt life as we know it but in reality probably would never work.
Have terrorist find out who steaven segale is and go "omg."
Put some McGuiver/Native American Spiritual Healing ****
Kill 50 bad guys with hand 2 hand combat
argh, /j00 needs to learn how to use the forums. There's an edit button for a reason. Learn to spell too <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->.
Analyze that was bad, too.
Edit: I'm not insulting the quotee, he's a good friend of mine.
The really depressing thing is that, while Seagal is a rotten, rotten, <i>rotten</i> actor, he's a brilliant martial artist - he's the only Gajin who's allowed to teach Aikido in Japan.
would be:
STAR WARS ep 1/2. and probably 3.
beacauuuuuuuuuuse
natalie portman currently = sux * 12^10
^_^
she was good in Leon: The (the?) Professional, but there's no reason to list that movie here. because it's the best movie ever.