Durakken

Saw it, forgot about it till after I posted about Time Lords human thing

One would think, but not really.
See back when stars first formed there was nothing else there... just Hydrogen and Helium. Those are called 1st generation stars. They were big and died fast and hard, lasting only millions of years, but this got things going with a few heavier elements and black holes...

After that Second Generation stars popped up, but they still only have lighter elements to work with when forming whatever they formed. Not sure whether they have planets or not. The lived a bit longer, but ultimately there just isn't enough heavy elements around while these guys were forming to create planets and life...

After that Third Generation stars formed, which our star and planets came about almost as soon as this stage began and it took Earth 4 billion years years roughly to cool down and get the right mixture for life to occur and as soon as it reached the point where it was possible life came about...

Once life came about you can pretty much track brain size and intelligence and such back to the dawn of animals with brains and there is a steady growth curve between the first and the current animals on earth.

In other word Humans came about pretty much as soon as Sentient life could come about. Since we're not sure when our drive to start advancing technologically came we only know that humans have been around for about 2 million years, in their current form 200,000, and we only really took off in a major way 10,000ish years ago.

So at best sentient life has only been around for 2 million or less years as far as the data seems to indicate... and it is also the case that even if you would consider humans sentient for all that time more advanced civilization only occurred very recently... and our level only within the last 100.

I would push back and say that 2000 years ago we had the ability to do those 100 years knowledge wise, but not the right environment.

So best case scenario our data points say that if everything lined up and somehow increased how fast another race got to where we are and beyond the oldest races would be no more than a 2-2.5 million years old, but more than likely they had to face similar prehistorical paths and every sentient life is within 2000 years ahead of where we are today or behind...

That seems like a little but it's a huge number considering exponential growth of technology.

Also as pointed out evolution makes things smarter over time so as more stars form and such over the timeline there will be few sentient races and then exponentially more as time goes by as long as we don't kill them off or mess with their evolution.

That's one of the reasons I think SETI is sort of a joke right now. We're likely one of the first species to get to where we are. There is no help out there. There are no super advanced aliens coming to kill us. There are just a bunch of species at beginning of the journey to explore the universe.

the redhead is Riddler
The guy on the far left I believe that's Clayface
The guy to right of Bruce is Scarecrow

Yup I was right and here's some more images

http://jeffandceleste.blogspot.com/2...tham-high.html

Wow... you read that wrong

Earth is where the first LIFE originated.
Earth is not where the Guardians come from and they never forgot where they came from. They come from Maltus.
Maltusians are the first SENTIENT life to have evolved.

Maltusians, when they left their home planet evolved into several offshoots...
Guardians
Zamarons
Controllers
Leprechauns
Babylonian Deities (One of which interbred with Humans)

The problem with that picture is Gallifrey is closer to us and we have no point of reference so it could actually be smaller but closer...but I'm pretty sure its' not.

Forgetting the impossibility of life starting billions of years before it did on earth for the most part if Time Lords are in the present doesn't that mean that the stasis lock at some point is removed?

there are so many things wrong with that and we really shouldn't be teaching people that nor is it accurate even within the education system as it is now.


The rating system of games and such where below 7 = unplayable was actually created by Game Publishers and Game Reviewers... Basically Publishers will stop providing Reviewers with games to review if they get low numbers so the Reviewers started rating them higher and thus anything lower than 7 is used for it's so bad we don't care if you stop giving us games to review and it would be unethical to suggest people buy it in any way.



As far as referring to LAG... it's just a jumping off point to talk about how ratings and what is said/thought by the reviewers seem to contradict each other.

The Doctor lies...

Batman was allowed to a gun from May 1939 (his first appearance) to April 1940, his first self title issue.

How often he used a gun or if he intentionally carried one I don't know, but all the issues I've seen he didn't use guns and only know of the one issue he did use guns and it was in Batman #1 to kill giants... which lead to Whitney Ellsworth to decree that is no longer allowed to use guns or kill.

Robin was introduced that very same month in 'tec #38 ^.^

Also Batman did use a gun during the last 20 years. He strapped the gun that killed his parents on as a reaction to thinking he might need to go more extreme. At the end of the issue or the next issue he decided he didn't need it and would never use guns.

btw... Guns refers to guns with regular bullets. Batman has used various other types of guns all the time.

Ahh but a advanced race could easily move stars about ^.^

I believe alfred is wearing what is called a Bowler? It's a type of hat. The pig faced character as far as I know was introduced when the character Scarlet was introduced, but I may be wrong. I've not seen him before so he at least wasnt in modern age cannon till Scarlet was introduced which was within the year.

Well considering the speech magic has been shown to be somewhat true in universe and The Doctor is responsible for creation of the current universe... if he were to give his name and then give it backwards it would destroy that universe ^.^

Of course there is also the idea that he may know the answer to a question that could result in a cataclysm caused by other learning the answer to that question...

That being said we have been having it driven into our heads that
"The Doctor Lies"

and the Silence as well as several others already know the answer/question...

So it's not so much knowing or asking so much as who and where those questions are asked... and i doubt it has much to do with where so it must be a who that learns of the answer/question that does something rather than the doctor himself or any other thing...


And then again I find it interesting that this all presupposes that the Silence know the future and try to alter it resulting in the future to come about that they tried to change... or is it that they know that these things needed to happen and are helping it along thus the Silence is actually good guys and not bad guys.

no i have not

So instead of reading what you found you decided to say "i got x number of results" because if you were to type strong nuclear potential energy you get all of 1 or 2 actual results that use that term... Now after rethinking it I thought what if I typed in "nuclear potential energy" with the quotes and then i used it with strong and weak... well the first search turns up very little actual results but links to 5 million-ish sites... while with the quotes you get 86,000 for the first and roughly 6 each for the other two. Considering you got the former... well. Yeah that tells a lot about what you're willing to go on.

You think not lying, not harassing, paying attention to the wording and the context... is not polite discussion?

As far as posting sources. i'm not going to go look for sources again just cuz someone flagged my post with sources in it. And they did flag it the "filter" doesn't work the way someone thinks it does.


Anyways I'm done with this. There's no point in continuing with people who have decided I'm wrong without actually paying attention.

I am talking about real physics and how it actually works.

Most people have never heard the words strong/weak nuclear potential energy and it takes quite a bit of searching to find those terms. Most people associate Nuclear energy with the energy that is produced from a nuclear reaction and most strongly with that reaction that comes from nuclear power plants.

Yes, there are polite ways to discuss things. They start with not lying, not harassing, paying attention to the wording and the context, stuff like that. I'm not the one that is doing those things... you guys are.

Or wait do you mean by polite someone saying something wrong while they are "correcting" you and you graciously saying that you were wrong when you're not just because the other person is more liked?

This is all i read and I'll tell you the reason I stopped.

You still don't get that it is very clear what I was talking about considering the context and most people's use of the word nuclear energy. I've also directly stated it several times now so the rest of whatever you are going to say is irrelevant.

I will admit I had no idea that there was such a thing as strong and weak nuclear energies and in fact there are only a very few places that I have even found that definition and here I did they used it wrongly. However, even with that what I am/was talking about is not and never has been potential and if you were better at picking up context clues or, like I said, paying attention you'd see that what i was talking about is the resultant energy of a nuclear bomb which is heat and radiation...which is what? Oh that's right Kinetic.

Energy IN matter, or rather that is matter, is intrinsic. And my original comment holds merit here because potential energy is strongly associated with the forces and could be more or less defined as the ability of forces to do work. ie Hold things together, cause decay, holding you to the earth, etc. The potential energy is in holding everything together and causing decay.

When you split an atom you convert that potential energy into kinetic by adding enough kinetic energy to overcome thing bonds that hold the particles together. This only lasts a short while because the forces are strong and reconvert that kinetic energy to potential energy, but at the same time intrinsic energy is lost and converts to kinetic or the sub-types of kinetic as heat and radiation.

In other words Nuclear energy is the energy BETWEEN particles not IN a structure. And has very little to do with what a competent, attentive reader would understand that I was talking about.

You know it would be awfully nice of me if i wasn't pedantic about that word in and maybe you could be non-pedantic about me saying radiation was potential energy... oh wait that wasn't me that was you >.> Oh I know I'll be less pedantic about quoting properly without manipulating them to make the other party look to be in the wrong...

temperature and static (as in no movement) radiation

This is what is scary...

You don't understand that temperature is caused by energy flowing from a more energetic source to a more energetic source and is a form of EM radiation.... which in turn is Kinetic Energy

There is no such thing as "static" radiation. Radiation is by definition not static. it's particles coming off a source.


I'm pretty sure you are absolutely wrong

Energy is the ability to do work.
Potential energy is positional energy (ie working to hold something together)
Kinetic energy is motion energy (ie anything that moves is kinetic energy)

So if you remove all kinetic energy and disallow conversion of potential and intrinsic to kinetic...

How do you propose anything interacts? And what would you need a potential energy for. nothing is moving thus nothing needs to be held together.

if nothing moves how does something get hurt?

that's wrong... matter = energy. Photons do have mass thus why you can cause lensing by messing with light. ...actually nothing "has" mass but that's a whole other issue.

Again potential energy is the working ability to hold things in a force. It's energy. it's doing work.


Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure if I looked up all those terms again they'd say the same thing.

The lie comes from the omission where it is implied I don't know what I'm talking about because when i said Nuclear energy I'm talking about it LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. The way you and i and everyone else thinks of nuclear energy and power is kinetic energy.

Further she's just straight wrong in what is considered potential and kinetic energy within the reaction. The fact is the energy that we call nuclear energy and the one that is implied is that of what would be the result from a nuclear bomb. Not between particles at the atomic and sub atomic levels. But more over the fact is the energy that I was referring to IS kinetic and comes from intrinsic energy and never is potential.

More over the example given by Arcana for what nuclear energy is is wrong, and the statement that radiation is not kinetic shows a clear misunderstanding of the concepts.

At worst I referred to something colloquially. That is the only error you could point out of anything that I said in reality. However, Arcana is speaking technically and missing the point to correct me on, missing the point of what i said, going on a tangent, and adding nothing to the actual conversation while taking credit for what I pointed out in the first place.

Within that "rant" I even admitted that I found ONE and ONLY ONE source referring to strong and weak nuclear energy but obviously gave bad examples and in general wasn't a credible source and didn't match up with any other sources I could find.

More or less this is 2 people talking past each other but one is being purposely dishonest and maliciously trying to make the other look bad in favor of trying to look like an intellect.

I didn't know saying someone is a liar and it is readily apparent as well as they have the physics wrong with sources backing it up like so many keep saying I never do is considered a rant.

Of course that is deleted but the Arcana and Furio and several others being harassing and insulting is still there... You know I think I'll go flag them all see what happens as they should be deleted to.

btw this is going to be my standard response. I'm tired of this trolling so from now On you get flagged.

No. Flashpoint set up a universe that was changed, but largely the same meaning that most everything should be as it was with minor changes.

The same way that in the comics it was never specifically stated that this was a reboot/relaunched or anything else. That comes from Statements, not the comics themselves