"1. Colonizable asteroids and moons. Both could really use some sort of indicator that they are inhabited. Its fantastic that the planets have city lights, etc on the dark side and the elevators. Moons and asteroids really need something similar."

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Colonised asteroids need some king of structure on it, just like colonized planets have. Perhaps modify the Pirate Base?

I also find the vanilla graphic effects in this game kind of dull,  but I count on Bailknight graphics mod (which is AWESOME) to fix it, so it does not matter to me much.

Why not include effects from the mod in vanilla Sins? 

QUOTE of the DAY - 

NUFF SAID

Because SPACE PONIES ARE WHAT SEPARATE THE REAL FROM THE FACK.

LOL i LOVE YOU GUYS!

Well, when it comes to the Asteroids/Moons I always assumed the people were located on the one orbital platform that appears.

That would be the IceCube experiment I was referring to in Antarctica...   Basically it's a giant neutrino detector far away from the standard EM interference of civilization. Recently, they reported no correlation between Gamma Ray Bursts (1 of the few astronomical objects we see, but don't know what it is) and neutrino emissions, so that's indication that no nuclear processes are involved, or they get immediately absorbed. I think this is a good indicator that they are Black Holes being formed, but I'm not sure about the energy levels involved.

They also were part of a recent series of big Dark Matter results: They found no Dark Matter interacting with the sun (should produce neutrinos). Other experiments found found no apparent extra gravity between our sun and local stars, and recent surveys of our satellite galaxies found no dark matter present.... It's starting to look like there may have been much ado about nothing...

As for the new results... (sorry for the news link, I cant find a published paper) There was also a story that they found a loose wire that may have messed up the timing. ICARUS is basically a second independent source saying they cannot reproduce the results. This is vital for any experiment, and now that the US has shutdown Fermilab, I'm very worried that there will be no way to confirm the results from LHC experiments, which devalues the experiments being done there and might make the whole project worthless if it turns out there's some bug in the machine which makes it look like they found the Higgs or whatever else they find. Or worse, what they don't find.

As for the other stuff:

• Yeah, the reason light bends when it goes through glass is due to the medium slowing down the speed of light locally. As I said, this is due to the atoms absorbing the light before re-emitting it. There's a delay, which slows it down on it's route. You can think of light going through glass like throwing a stick into a lake: the part that first hits the water immediately gets slowed, and the rest of the stick turns due to momentum. so, when the stick starts sinking, it is on a different trajectory than the one you threw it on. This is not a contradiction of the theory of relativity.
• You've mixed up the Pauli Exclusion principle with Quantum Entanglement. Pauli Exclusion basically just does not let 2 things be in the same state at the same time (applies to all Fermions, but the best example is in electrons). This is completely different from Entanglement which means one particle affects the state of another over vast distances and no direct connection. There some similarities, but know that Entanglement is destroyed if there's outside interference. Nothing stops Pauli's Exclusion.
• I think what Valkynas is referring to is the delayed choice experiment. It was recently in the news because I think they did it on an astronomical scale. What happens when you shoot photons (really, any fundamental particle) through a double slit is that it goes through both holes at the same time and it interferes with itself. However, if you place a detector in front of the slits, it suddenly goes through only one hole. In a delayed choice experiment, you essentially can do both. What was done recently was light from a far off galaxy bent around a closer one (think: 1 path bent to the left, the other bent to the right). the 2 paths the light took are the slits. Well, we can aim our telescopes at one or the other, and it looks like 1 thing and theres no interference. But if you combine the imagery, you get interference and can no longer recover either of the original images (unless you have a copy of 1 already). This is often pitched as a kind of time travel, and depending on the setup, it kinda is, but from the above example, once you get what's going on, it doesn't seem so surprising. 

I'm not seeing how the research into gamma bursts and dark matter suggests that neutrinos cannot travel faster than light...

While it has yet to be proven conclusively one way or the other, the theory behind why neutrinos could exceed the speed of light has been around for some time...

It has been suggested that at high enough energies, neutrinos could have an oscillating mass with an imaginary component, and thus could exceed the speed of light...certainly we have no proof this has happened, but it doesn't seem like we have experimental proof that it can't happen either....

I read the link...

High energy neutrinos (in the GeV range) were generated by devices on earth and observed...these neutrinos exceeded the speed of light by about c x 10^-5...

Low energy neutrinos (in the MeV range) emitted by celestial entities were also observed...these neutrinos exceeded the speed of light by about c x 10^-9 (or 10^-12)...

Summary: High energy neutrinos seem to exceed the speed of light more than low energy neutrinos...

I will then draw your attention to this quote:

"...a superluminal neutrino can be easily accommodated in a Lorentz invariance violation (LIV) model..."

There are many models that allow for an LI violation in regards to neutrinos (most of which are viable but at this point highly theoretical)...any search with "neutrino" and "lorentz invariance" will probably get you the results you want...

You will note that equation (4) represents the specific LIV model chosen by the authors...

I will also draw your attention to this quote:

"...Especially for a large ξ of the order O(10^-5), the processes π+ → µ+ +νµ and µ− → e− +νµ + ¯νe are even forbidden so that no high energy neutrinos could be produced..."

Essentially, the means by which neutrinos can be produced inherently applies a limit to the LIV parameter ξ, or the "perturbation" term....in quantum mechanics, perturbation theory is often used to develop models for "complex" systems...in perturbation theory, you start with a "simple" model and then create the "complex" model by adding "perturbations" to the simpler model...

In general, the rest of the paper uses theory and experimental data to determine the maximum size of ξ...recall that this ξ is the LIV parameter or "perturbation" constant/term used in an equation...it is not the energy of the neutrino....

Now let's look at the conclusion:

"...In such a framework, we find the neutrino production process π+ → µ+νµ becomes kinematically forbidden for Eν > 5 GeV if taking δνγ = 2.5 × 10^−5 as shown by OPERA data..."

So, the authors have argued that one specific neutrino production process (pion decay) cannot generate neutrinos with enough energy to exceed the speed of light...

I would like to point out that the OPERA experiment used a different process (π → µνµ)...a third process was also analyzed (µ → νµ + e + ¯νe)...additionally, there are references to other neutrino production processes (like "three body decay" and what not)...

As far as I can tell, this paper in no way argues against the ability of neutrinos to exceed the speed of light...what this paper does do is argue that one particular neutrino process cannot generate superluminal neutrinos...most importantly, this paper analyzes the results from other production processes, and uses them to put an experimentally determined limit on the LIV parameter ξ...

This parameter is utilized by a contending model that describes the superluminal behavior of neutrinos...in essence, this paper takes data from a bunch of experiments and places an upper limit on a "constant" used in some equation that shows how neutrinos can go faster than light...

First, I never said negative mass...I said imaginary mass, which would lead to a negative squared mass...

Here is one such paper that investigates this possibility, though I'm sure there are others, as the idea has been around for a while...

As you have said, experimental data has essentially proven that neutrinos oscillate between flavors.....quantum electrodynamics shows that an oscillation of this type can only occur for particles with mass...furthermore, it shows that each flavor eigenstate is a superposition of mass eigenstates and vice versa...

In this superposition, one could assign imaginary amplitudes to the mass eigenstates...so, either an imaginary mass or imaginary amplitudes associated with the mass eigenstates could lead to superluminal neutrinos...

There is a whole thread dedicated to discussing FTL travel...since we have absolutely no working model for it, the discussion basically hit a wall...

The best that we could do is get upwards to 90+ % the speed of light, which would require a lot of power if you are going to accelerate to that speed in the "short" distance between earth and mars...

The key is finding fuel that contains a lot of energy per mass...at this point, antimatter produced on earth is the best candidate....

As far as I can tell, there is no contradiction at all...

I will summarize the paper as I interpret it, and then go from there...

First, let us clarify the three important variables used:

1. E = Energy - this is the energy of a nuetrino, which in this paper ranges anywhere from the MeV range to the TeV range
2. δνγ = "velocity" - this value was specified as (v-c)/c, and so in essence the quantity δνγ x c expresses the amount by which the neutrino exceeded the speed of light
3. ξ = LIV parameter - this is a constant used in equation (4) which was developed using a perturbation method

So basically there is no real way we will leave the Solar system D;?

This is what I have read before (ICARUS I think tested this?), and what I think is probably the strongest current argument for why neutrinos do not exceed the speed of light...

My biggest problem with the papers at the 1st and 3rd links is that they basically say "We can't say neutrinos never exceed the speed of light, we just think they can't go as fast as OPERA"...while the research is important, refuting OPERA doesn't answer the bigger question: can neutrinos be superluminal?

It is my understanding that if superluminal neutrinos exist, they necessarily must be of high energy (perhaps in the GeV range?)...this is one reason why the often cited SN1987A is thought of as inadequate for experimental purposes (IIRC the neutrinos it emits are in the MeV range)...

I always find it amusing how people seem to think that slapping "sci-fi" on something means that in addition to making up currently nonexistent technologies, you also get to ignore everything we already do know about how things work.  And that any attempt to consolidate the two makes all possibly resultant stories or games "unfun".  If there were any more incorrect nonsense uttered by a living being, it would've had to come from a politician.

It's ok to "black box" something like a FTL drive.  That doesn't change anything else about the reality surrounding that technology.  It's ok to "black box" something like artificial / anti gravity.  That doesn't change anything else about the reality surrounding that technology either.  The same is true for all the other "black box" technologies that are currently hypothetically possible in one way or another, but as yet unproven.  What they do change is what all tools and devices have always changed...the options available to those that use such tools within the boundaries of the same rules that have always been true whether we knew about them or not.

Now frankly...most of the ships in Sins are alright in my opinion.  They could actually maneuver in space with fair degrees of efficiency and control.  Not great, but workable.  Unlike in EVE where all the ships are utterly incapable of space-flight, period.  But Sins could stand to kick up the realism notch a bit.  I am and always will be a firm believer that play of any kind should always be educational.  Not necessarily directly so, preferably indirectly, actually.  But the majority of the purpose of play is for learning, and our reward centers are set up to reflect that fact.  Which is why games are fun and school (in its current forms) is boring.  And why games make us selfish idiots and school makes us useless zombies.

Now having said all that, the problem in any such game is not realism.  The problem is internal consistency.  For instance, going back to EVE...if it were said that the ships have inertial nullifiers that cause them to not spin out of control from the thrust of their off-axis and inconsistently-sized engines, then it would automatically follow that they should be able to turn at perfect right angles while traveling at any velocity.  Obviously they can't do that in the game, and obviously they don't have inertial nullifiers because there are other techs in the game that increase turn speed and such.

Hmm...well maybe they have sophisticated computers that can control the thrust from those goofy configurations so that they can maneuver normally?  And by all rights, in that time period, humans and AI should've long since merged, so odds are the computers are in their brains.  Honestly, EVE is excessively primitive in terms of the technology they should be utilizing for their level of development.

But anyway, I digress...no matter how great that computer was, a ship that was designed to fly without the need for that goofy system would always outshine any and every ship that was dependent on it.  Processing power wasted on just making one of those goofy bastards fly would, in another "normal" ship, be devoted to processing more effective attack / evasion vectors, or better power management, or any number of processes the other ship's computer doesn't have the time to handle because it's too busy making sure the ship doesn't turn cookies for eternity at relativistic speeds.

Heck...just stop and think for a moment that with the energies required to travel near or beyond the speed of light, the instant we develop such a drive capable of it means we'll have developed all the potential needed to destroy whole worlds utterly with a single weapon.  No matter which method is used, the power required to do it is pretty close to the absolute output of the average star, if not more (depending on vessel size).  Even if one used inter-dimensional travel, it would still require that much power to side-step your way into the other dimensions from this one.  Probably why there are only two races in the game (the advent are still an off-shoot of humanity, there is only one "alien" race, the vasari).  The others all obliterated each other after they developed that much power.

Now, I can overlook the stupidity of lasers vs beams in Sins, it's all about the graphics in that regard.  The same is true of the layout of the ships.  What I can't abide is silliness like the spinning ships.  Even with artificial gravity, even with inertial compensation, that rate of spin would generate way too many g's.  Even neutron-heavy carbon materials would rip apart from the stress.  Inertia and momentum still apply even in microgravity.  And before anyone mentions it, the reason stars made of the same material don't rip apart is because they're already too heavy to fly apart.  The ships aren't so lucky.  And no amount of inertial damping short of nullification would help ships of those sizes.  Perhaps smaller ships might survive, but larger ships would be victims of their own size.

As for titans having gravity by virtue of mass, it's hard to judge because the scale of the game is so wonky.  Any given titan seems to be the size of north america when compared against planets, but barely musters better than two aircraft carriers when compared to the other ships in the game.  So, that's an entirely different issue altogether.

Finally, I'm not actually nitpicking.  I don't think any of this should be changed.  The game is fine as-is, and while I think games should be educational, I accept that people are too stupid to play educational games.  And I don't really care if people complain about when I do nitpick either, because I pity those who accept what they're handed without question because they lack the capacity to discern the difference between something worthwhile, and crap.  And the worst of it is...about half the other nitpickers fall into that category because they don't even know what they're trying to nitpick.

So, how about we all just quit nitpicking this particular game, enjoy it for what it is, and I'll quietly do what I can to try and save the human race from its inevitable downfall through willful ignorance?

Ok, so let's take this one step at a time... (not necessarily going to say this all is your opinion, but what you are arguing may be the case), since I think we're on different pages for some reason... I apologize for some of the wording, I'm just trying to cut to the point and say what I mean.

• You think that if neutrinos are superluminal, they must be of a high energy?
• What energy range?
• Do you dispute the claim that IceCube has captured neutrinos in the 100 GeV to 400 TeV energy range?
• Do you dispute the claim the Super-Kamiokande has captured neutrinos in the 1 GeV to 1 TeV range?
• Do you dispute the claim that pions in the upper atmosphere generate muon neutrinos such that ground-up neutrino detectors would/can capture them?
• Do you dispute the claim that the reaction that turns pions to muon neutrinos can not occur if neutrinos are superluminal and of energy > 5 GeV?
• Do you come to a different conclusion than "Given the last 2 statements; If the listed detectors have data, neutrinos cannot be superluminal. If they have no data, neutrinos could be superluminal"?

random other things:

News about OPERA now saying they now think they were wrong.

Here's the ICARUS results, published 3/29/12.