Twilight Dirac

12/0=x, 12=0*x, 0=12, is what you say. But, using g: 12/0=12*(1/0)=12g=x, and x has g in it. g is a new type of number, so your saying that "no number satifies x" is false, at least in my construction, because I made a new number to solve this paradox.

The problem here is that your new number needs to satisfy all the normal rules of arithmetic and algebra, something that i = (-1)^0.5 clearly does but because of the properties of zero your definition will quickly break down.  Watch what happens when I apply associative multiplication to your definition.

Define g such that 0*g = 12

Then 2*(0*g) = 2*12 = 24

Or 24 = 2*(0*g) = (2*0)*g = 0*g = 12

Therefore 12 = 24

This is very bad.  You need a definition that is also consistent with the rules of algebra and arithmetic, as such an object does not exist.

Watch this.   Please watch.

Remember, just because it has been posted on the internet doesn't mean its true.  I have taken the liberty of diagramming the merry-go-round pendulum experiment shown in this video

This is rather similar to the diagram shown in the video linked above, only I haven't omitted half the forces acting on the string!  Honestly, this is quite the oversight.  You can clearly see where and how the centrifugal force arises, and as the video points out, because the string is under tension in all reference frames, the forces shown above exist in all reference frames.

About the only place I can agree with you here is in regard to semantics.  I did a quick wikipedia search and it gives two definitions for the centrifugal force.  One is a force present exclusively as a consequence of being in a rotating frame of reference which will by definition vanish in an inertial frame of reference, and the second is the badly named reaction centrifugal force which I have shown above, which is present in all frames of reference.  Regardless of what you name the forces, however, there is in fact a real, frame independent, outward pointing force present in both the above example and most rotating systems (exceptions occur for some purely action at a distance systems such as binary stars).  Call it whatever you want, but it exist, it is real, and it can do anything a real force can (perform work, break the string, have somebody drawn and quartered, etc.).

I have to agree with Regulus on this.  Both centripetal and centrifugal forces are real and concrete forces.  There are two rather simple ways to demonstrate this:

1.) Newton's Third Law:  For every force there exist an equal and opposite force.  So if there is a centripetal force pointing inward, then by Newton's Third Law there must be a force of equal magnitude pointing outward, which would be your centrifugal force.

2.) Tether Ball:  Attach a ball to a pole with a string and kick the ball.  The string will pull taught and cause the ball to circle the pole.  I am sure everybody has seen some variation of this in person.  The thing is, the only way to pull a string taught is to pull both ends of the string in opposite directions.  If you apply a force in only one direction, the string will remain loose and simply accelerate.  So the only way this works is if the string is being pulled inward by the pole and outward by the ball.  Thus this everyday experience clearly illustrates the simultaneous existence of the centripetal and centrifugal forces.

One of the forces must come first as the origin of its equal and opposite reaction.

This is what is steering you in the wrong direction.  Newton's Third Law grants no such special privilege to one of the two forces involved.  The "for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction" wording of his Third Law is a rather clumsy and imprecise way to word it, hence the reason why I stated it the way I did above.  Both forces come into play simultaneously unless you are dealing with relativistic action at a distance type phenomenon, which we are not here. 

Everypony seems to gang up on that game, I didn't think it was that bad. Evolved the concepts all right and had a good ending. Frankly I think it's greatest crime was that it was the following act to it's predecessor. Those are BIG shoes to fill you know?

To be fair it is not a bad game, it is just inferior to the other few, with only a couple of features to make it stand out. 

I absolutely love this series.  Here is hoping this won't be another Invisible War.  And hopefully they will fix the hacking and the boss fights, the two things dragged down Human Revolution.

If Stardrive 2 wasn't coming out tomorrow, I would be all over this.  I have been waiting for that coming for over a year and I am going to need to get it out of my system before I join in on another MMO.  After that though I would be happy to join you.

I...don't like that. It's exhausting to be so thoroughly negative.

But Plinkett Reviews are so much fun.   You really ought to check them out.  I couldn't stop laughing when watching a great many of these episodes.

The reason you can't divide by zero is simple, there exist no number that satisfies the definition.  1/0 can alternatively be written as n such that n*0 = 1.  But because multiplying zero by anything gives zero, there are no numbers n that will satisfy the equation.

At best you can talk about the limit of 1/x as x approaches zero, an even this is unbounded and taken as infinity.

.. wait.. is Baldur's Gate 2 co-op?   Tell me more!

Yes, it has always been co-op.  Basically up to six players can create characters using like in the single player game and then play through the game using those characters.  It can be a blast.

Divinity Original Sin is similar, but has been built from the ground up for co-op play. 

I am also going with Avatar The Last Airbender.  Absolute masterpiece.  MLP is fun and all but it never rises to this level of quality.

It used to be Spoony of the Spoony Experiment but he doesn't do all that much anymore.  Now I think it is SF Debris, that channel keeps up a mean pace when it comes to releasing videos.

Now lets look at the Destructive Power output of an Acclamator Class Star Destroyer Light weapons =  300 Million GW (24 Turbo-Laser Turrets clocked at 12.5 million GW each) Heavy Weapons = 3.2 Billion GW (12 Turbo-Laser Turrets clocked at 266 Million GW each) Operational Range = 250,000 Light Years Shield Heat Dispersion = 75 Trillion GW peak Main Propulsion Reactor Power = 200 Trillion GW max

In defense of Star Trek, these numbers are absolutely absurd and don't mesh up with anything seen in the actual movies, where nothing close to this amount of power or energy is thrown around.  Heck, we see a super star destroyer's bridge shields get taken out by the basic guns of some one man fighters in episode 6 and then the bridge along with the rest of the ship was taken out my a kamikaze collision by a single A-wing.  If that is what a few fighters can do to a super star destroyer, anti-matter weapons (which are basically hydrogen bombs on steroids are far as destructive potential goes) would rip a Star Destroyer apart relatively quickly.  And no nothing in the movies suggest the starfighter blasters are hitting anywhere close to that kind of destructive potential, as each shot would have to carry enough energy to vaporize everything within a several mile radius (and everyone in the palace hanger bay in that scene in Episode I would have instantly died as soon as Anakin pulled the trigger once).  I am obviously judging by the movies but they ought take precedent over some technical manual written by a fanboy pulling numbers out of his rear end.

To be fair the weapons in Star Trek do not behave like they should either.  Then again, actual space combat would be insanely deadly and weapon hits likely instantly lethal to anything they struck, rendering the tactics present in either series suicidal (anybody with brains would use drones) and weapon lethality has to be toned down for the sake of drama.  Even under these considerations though, the numbers for the Star Destroyer are ridiculous (we are talking 5 - 10 decimal points too high here, its hard to emphasize the absurdity of this if you actually know what the numbers mean).  They outclass Star Trek ships if only because the Star Trek guys actually bothered to do some research before creating their numbers (the 1.5 kg anti-matter yield looks about right) whereas the Star Wars numbers were pulled out of nowhere.

I use the free browser extension adblocker plus so i almost never see adds at all, I got sick of them always getting shoved in my face at every turn, adblocker has blocked 375,000 adds in the last year for me, and my bandwith thanks it because i am not wasting data with my browser loading hundreds of thousands of pictures and playing video ads, I wish i had downloaded it sooner, 

I don't know how I ever lived without adblock.  It is an amazing browser add-on. 

CO-OP games can be a lot of fun.  Any interest in Divinity Original Sin, Baldur's Gate 2, Planetside 2, League of Legends or Magicka?  I really want to find somebody to play Divinity Original Sin with but nobody seems to have heard of it.

Off the top of my head:

Star Trek TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise

Firefly (which is beyond awesome for its short run)

Farscape

Stargate SG-1, Atlantis

Avatar TLA, Korra

Justice League, Justice League Unlimited

Young Justice

Warehouse 13

Thanks J.J. first you ruin Star Trek and now Star Wars. Are you quite done with shitting on my childhood?

To be fair, both the TNG and Star Wars movies were run into the ground without Abrams' help.  All four of the TNG movies were action flicks with Picard as the action hero.  I love Patrick Stewart's acting, but he is not Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sylvester Stallone.  Nobody liked Captain's Holiday or its follow up, so why were they so dog gone insistent on making every TNG movie Die Hard in space?  At least Abrams employed actors suited to the role of big dumb action movie hero.  As for Star Wars, I don't think I even need to explain that the prequels were a train wreck.

Intellivision: Intelligent Television!  Basically an off brand Atari.

Almost exclusively the PC, which is actually now two PCs.  I have a desktop I custom built and a laptop I use when I travel.  I also own a PS2 and a DSi, but I rarely use either system.

I earned my physics Ph. D. a few years ago, but I am still working for my adviser because the hiring politics surrounding Ph. D.'s is weird.  I might be getting a job in Washington D.C. in the near future though.

Been going to Catholic mass on a weekly basis since I was 6.  I used to hate it when I was young but now I get a deep sense of peace and ease when on attend mass.  I think there is much to get out of it if you attend church to truly celebrate the mass rather than treat it as another unwanted obligation and use the time for some self reflection.

You could also go Planetside 2 if you like the concept of Battlefield having tanks, helicopters and planes but could never actually get into Battlefield.

I have played Battletoads.  It might not be the hardest game I have every played because I grew up with the Nintendo, but if not it is still up there.  Never beat it because it was too hard, but that is typical of a lot of Nintendo games I played.

There are characters who can match him, and beat him, in his own universe, so conflict isnt instantly solved. And like I said, there are plenty of fictional characters who can kick Battler's ass.

So its basically its like Dragonball Z, only much, much worse. 

But, if basic scientific impossibility is the test for sci-fi against fantasy, then wouldn't the use of FTL travel make nearly everything fantasy? Accelerating matter past the speed of light has been proven impossible numerous times, yet it maintains consistent prevalence in science fiction. And this isn't even factoring in the frequent use of time travel, even in works by otherwise non-fantastical writers. FTL, time travel, reanimation, teleportation, common depictions of energy weapons, and concepts like them are things that we, to borrow your terminology, straight up pulled out of our rear ends.

Like I said, it tends to be a judgement call as to how grounded the setting is.  Certain breaks tend to be forgivable, you can't have a time travel plot without time travel, but often that will be the only fantastic element at all in the setting.  FTL is currently considered impossible, for the most part, but not having it can easily drag down an otherwise good story if you are constantly having to work around relativistic time delays and its often better for everyone if you just hand wave it away so you can get on with your story.  Other concepts can migrate to either end of the spectrum.  Remember that even hard science fiction is still speculative; if we knew how to do exactly what was being shown in a science fiction setting, we would already have the technology to do it today (which actually does happen on occasion, especially for sci-fi that took place before the computer and internet revolution).

Star Trek in particular is quite the offender. Take a look at this chart. Not only can warp drives push our ships far past the speed of light (apparently by creating a "no physics allowed" zone around the ship), but different warp levels have some odd speeds. Warp factor 4.5, for instance, is described as being considerably slower than warp 4.4. Warp 3 has at least three different values, and warp 10 can apparently bring your speed to infinity. "Impossible" frankly doesn't even begin to describe it.

This has less to do with the plausibility of the tech in the setting and more to do with the fact the Star Trek consist of 5 separate television series and 12 different movies written by dozens of different writers over the course of half a century and they haven't bothered to remain consistent on what Warp X means.  As far as Warp 10 being infinite velocity is concerned, that is from the Voyager episode Threshold, and any Star Trek fan can tell you that Threshold is pure fantasy.  Actually Voyager in general tends to deviate from the much more grounded series of TNG and DS9 into absolute absurdity, although that can occasionally be glorious.

Does this make Star Trek fantasy? Or Mass Effect? Or Babylon 5 (though TBF, Babylon 5 has a very different mechanic for FTL travel)? No. It simply means that non-hard science fiction isn't determined by its scientific accuracy or plausibility.   This is why I use a very different test for determining science fiction. Though hard sci fi is fairly easy to identify as such, the rest I prefer to look at as (often exaggerated) extrapolations of cultural conceptions about the future. 50s science fiction, for instance, was dominated largely by alien invasion films because of the xenophobic early cold war attitudes of the time. We figured that whatever lingered outside the stars probably wasn't going to be friendly to us.   Star Trek, being a product of the space race 60s, instead saw the universe as something to be explored. It even went as far as to almost directly quote JF Kennedy in the series's intro, only substituting Kennedy's "New Frontier" for a "Final" one.   As for Star Wars, it sprang from the brilliant, yet demented little mind of 50s kid George Lucas, but with no small amount of nuance from the attitudes of the 70s. It was a post-vietnam world, where most had seen the abuses of the federal government, and feared a military industrial complex run amok. As a result of this combination, it was loaded with retro-futuristic technology, James Dean-esque heroes, themes of grand individuals sticking it to "the man," and the (however exaggerated) notion that one day the future-pentagon would invest in a weapon capable of literally destroying entire worlds.   Whatever fantasy elements Star Wars has, it certainly reflects cultural futurism in exactly the way that science fiction is supposed to.

Wait, so what your saying is if it reflects current or past historical events in anyway its automatically sci-fi?  Wouldn't that make Magicka Vietnam sci-fi instead of fantasy because it reflects the Vietnam war.  Doesn't that make even the standard pseudo-Medieval fantasy setting sci-fi as it is obviously a reflection of the Middle Ages.  That definition also kind of neuters the fantasy genre as a whole, because as soon as a fantasy writer tries to make a cultural statement they are going to be reflecting something about some culture and suddenly they are a sci-fi writer.  This is not a very good definition.

In other words, this guy is so OP, that it's gonna take characters as strong, or stronger, than top tier DC and Marvel characters to beat him. But rest assured, I promise you, there are plenty of fictional characters who can put him down.

So is this guy an actual character in an anime or something?  And if he is, how can anybody write a meaningful story using him as he would instantly resolve an external conflict, save those that would be either arbitrary or incomprehensible  (the bad guy uses infinity +1 shield, but fortunately Battler has an infinity^2 sword on him!)?  At this point is looks like you would have to start at Cthulhu and work your way up towards God just to beat the guy.  And I thought Superman was a problem character due to invulnerability, super strength and super speed.