[wgemini]

That relies on the assumption that the Shivans decieded to destroy Capella because of the GTVA.

Regardless their motives, they could have done it after destroying the GTVA. The only plausible explanation is that they changed their mind because of ETAK for some reason.

I think the SOC having the technology to cause supernovae is more of a plot hole than mysterious Shivan motives.

It's kind of a theme in FS world that GTVA can cook up any technologies in  a very short amount of time. They just lack resources to mass produce them.

[wgemini]

It's supposed to be hard to understand; that's the point of a plot twist, the only difference is that we haven't seen the aftermath.  But Freespace has always about the Shivans agent provocateurs, and I can't see Volition just shuffling them into the corner, outsmarted and technologically outgunned by the GTVA.  It's not as if command expected a nova in the last mission, after all; otherwise they'd surely have pulled out more combat ships to blockade Vega-Capella (and why would 80 Sathani gather round the node, transmitting that strange subspace pulse signal otherwise?).

Plus we know destroying the nodes - star or no star - wasn't a permanent barrier against the Shivans invading; Command admitted as much in the brief, noting the Shivans subspace abilities.  Plus command stated the node destruction would have been total in the brief for the Bastion/Nereids' missions.

(I think it was called the Nereid on the Vega node, anyways).

Well, command doesn't exactly have a good record of telling the truth or care for their pilots. Both sides seem to be caught by surprise. Either it's an accident, or both fleets were kept in the dark.

A supernova presumably closed all nodes (including the one to GD), which makes it a lot harder to reopen them. Only some of the Juggernauts escaped. It will take them some time to rebuild their fleet. It's certainly not a good solution, but it seems to be the best for GTVA giving the circumstances, which is kind of SOC's job.

[karajorma]

Regardless their motives, they could have done it after destroying the GTVA. The only plausible explanation is that they changed their mind because of ETAK for some reason.

On what basis are you claiming that your theory is the only plausible one? You have absolutely no evidence to back it up a statement like that. The Shivans in FS2 aren't necessarily the same sect as the ones from FS1. There could easily have been a change in their attitude to the GTVA after the destruction of the Lucifer. The Sathanas never tried to move beyond Capella and in fact was defeated somewhere other than the Epsilon Pegasi or Vega node which shows that there is no proof whatsoever that it intended to scout any further into GTVA space than Capella.

There is no reason to assume that the Shivans had any interest in destroying the GTVA in FS2 let alone stating that it is the only possible theory.

[Prophet]

Karajorma is quite right. Remeber how they were so happy about the subspace portal, and how they broadcasted what it is, does and so on. Don't you think they would have done so if they'd found a way to destroy entire stars? That is quite a major discovery if you ask me...

[wgemini]

Karajorma is quite right. Remeber how they were so happy about the subspace portal, and how they broadcasted what it is, does and so on. Don't you think they would have done so if they'd found a way to destroy entire stars? That is quite a major discovery if you ask me...

Actually, the GTVA was quite keen in not telling us things. Remember when we first saw the Erinyes? "The fighter they are flying is the Erinyes class. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, they don't even exist". (Or something like that). How about the Shivan communication node? "You can be sure that it will be above your level of clearance. They always are". (Or something like that. BTW, anybody knows where I can find a script for FS2?) We never knew about the Hecate or the Colossus until they were deployed. The main reason they bragged about the subspace portal was to justify the risk of keeping it online. Even then, it's highly classified (Level Phi or something). By destroying the Capella star, the SOC would be committing genocide. I am sure it will be classified above level Omega just for political reasons. Lack of trust is kind of typical for us Terrans.

[wgemini]

On what basis are you claiming that your theory is the only plausible one? You have absolutely no evidence to back it up a statement like that. The Shivans in FS2 aren't necessarily the same sect as the ones from FS1. There could easily have been a change in their attitude to the GTVA after the destruction of the Lucifer. The Sathanas never tried to move beyond Capella and in fact was defeated somewhere other than the Epsilon Pegasi or Vega node which shows that there is no proof whatsoever that it intended to scout any further into GTVA space than Capella.

There is no reason to assume that the Shivans had any interest in destroying the GTVA in FS2 let alone stating that it is the only possible theory.

I guess I misspoke, my mistake. Everything is possible until classifies. For all we know, the leader of the Shivans could be a Face Dancer sent by the Bene Tleilax. Or maybe the replicators invaded Shivan home world, thus they had to recall their fleet hastily. I am simply saying that the ending went against all the pretext laid out for the Shivans, that they are the immune system of the galaxy, determined to punish those who have sinned. That's why I like FS1 better than FS2. It has a much more interesting back story and intriguing villains. Much like the Cylons in the new BSG series.

[karajorma]

I prefer FS2 for exactly the same reasons. The FS1 Shivans are your average, everyday, bog-standard xenophobes. FS2 era Shivans are much more mysterious.

[TrashMan]

Anyways, it's not like there's anything inherently unrealistic about multi-dimensional beings; the odds are that any alien race we ever encounter will probably be near inconceivable to us because of evolutionary differences.

There isn't?

A being made of energy, living inside a star = impossible.
energy cannot be alive. energy cannot think, it cannot reproduce, it's not self-aware.

And other dimensions or realities..while in theory it might be possible, it stands on very shaky legs.

[Prophet]

energy cannot be alive. energy cannot think, it cannot reproduce, it's not self-aware.

What are you then? Energy within an organic shell. If there is no energy in you, you're just a hunk of meat...
You do know what happens in your brain, how braincells function?

[TrashMan]

Though requires the biological, organic component. Electric impulses pass trought the nerve celsl and different areas of brain, resulting in tjousands of different bio-chemichal processes.

Pure EM waves  are the side-product of the tought process.

Really, people..you've been watching too much Star Trek.

[Prophet]

Not me, I hate Star Trek (the original series funny thought). And while I agree with you that anything living inside a star sounds pretty far fetched, you cant really know for sure that energy based beings are impossible.

While being a fact that we have not really seen any kind of space monsters before, they still are possible (in theory), and people may belive in them. As well as not belive in them.
But you stated your beliefs as a fact (at least it looked liked it). So I was just trying to correct you. 

And while I don't really care that much about what you say about a living light bulb, I did react to you implying I might be a Star Trek fan

[aldo_14]

Anyways, it's not like there's anything inherently unrealistic about multi-dimensional beings; the odds are that any alien race we ever encounter will probably be near inconceivable to us because of evolutionary differences.

There isn't?

A being made of energy, living inside a star = impossible.
energy cannot be alive. energy cannot think, it cannot reproduce, it's not self-aware.

And other dimensions or realities..while in theory it might be possible, it stands on very shaky legs.

why?

Your biological justification only stands ground within the realms of carbon based life; and carbon based life that evolved in earth, at that. The exact mechanics of thought only apply to human thought, really (we can't read the minds of other animals, after all), and what human brain action really boils down to is an action of input-process-response; memories are nothing more than particular reinforced neuron connection patterns; you're actually equating the action of thought as being caused by the physical mechanics, without considering if there can be a reproduction of those actions with difference physical mechanics.  Hell, we can already mimic brain neuron activity mechanically, in software; the barriers to AI are more in the issue of conception & design (what is thought?  How do we define it?  How do we specify 'intelligence'?) than lacking the technology.

You've made a vast swathe of assumptions in areas you can't possibly make them for, and you've also kind of evidence exactly my point; the human mind can only imagine within the constraints of the world which it has evolved to live and operate within as the cumulation of billions of years history in that environment.

[WMCoolmon]

All you really need to 'think' (at least at a computer level) is an energy structure, ie, energy in a specific pattern rather than just free-floating energy. Whether or not you can be 'self-aware' at that point is debated, but you can have specific behavior on the level that the Shivans exhibit.

Granted that's extraordinarly unlikely to happen by pure chance, barring some kind of energy evolution, but you can always throw in extra races to fill that gap.

[aldo_14]

All you really need to 'think' (at least at a computer level) is an energy structure, ie, energy in a specific pattern rather than just free-floating energy. Whether or not you can be 'self-aware' at that point is debated, but you can have specific behavior on the level that the Shivans exhibit.

Granted that's extraordinarly unlikely to happen by pure chance, barring some kind of energy evolution, but you can always throw in extra races to fill that gap.

Do we actually know enough to say whether energy can evolve or not across a universal level?  I mean, sci-fi can basically include anything unless it has been shown to be, specifically, impossible.  Any unknowns can be safely and fairly assumed.

[Xeandra]

Only about 4% of the total mass in the universe (as inferred from gravitational effects) can be seen directly. About 23% is thought to be composed of dark matter. The remaining 73% is thought to consist of dark energy

So far we have only been able to observe the visible universe and very litle of it too, so we can't exactly say what is impossible and what is not. To say something is very unlikely considering our current knowledge is another thing all to gether.

[Nuclear1]

What I see happening here is that a lot of people are viewing the future purely through a mindset based in the present, and that a lot of people are missing the concept of progressing human thought and knowledge.

Think about it. With the exceptions of navigation by the stars, astrology, and a few other areas, humans have been primarily concerned with Earth and life on this planet. We've studied the biology behind nearly all life on the planet, and we've come to a conclusion that all life on Earth must exist as a plant or an animal. What I see happening in this thread is that everyone seems to be judging the universe from a standpoint of how things happen here on Earth. As far as we know, there are no energy beings that exist on Earth; however, in another galaxy or solar system, there may be just such an occurence, where beings exist in a much different way than beings on Earth.

Energy beings could exist, just exist in a way that is unknown to humans. Look at humanity one thousand years ago. People lived under the impression that the Earth was flat and that Earth was the center of the solar system, and in a creation out of dust. Look where we are now: we now know that Earth is a round object circling a sun with eight other planets, all of it in a massive universe with billions of other stars similar to ours. We now have the theory that humans actually evolved, not simply created out of dust. IMHO, to claim or imagine that humanity has reached the edge of our understanding of anything is truly misguided: we are still working on cures for cancer, AIDS, and the common cold, not to mention the countless more advances to be made.

Perhaps in the same way that many have grown to accept evolution, humanity hundreds or thousands of years later may grown to accept a new form of life.

[aldo_14]

What I see happening here is that a lot of people are viewing the future purely through a mindset based in the present, and that a lot of people are missing the concept of progressing human thought and knowledge.

Think about it. With the exceptions of navigation by the stars, astrology, and a few other areas, humans have been primarily concerned with Earth and life on this planet. We've studied the biology behind nearly all life on the planet, and we've come to a conclusion that all life on Earth must exist as a plant or an animal. What I see happening in this thread is that everyone seems to be judging the universe from a standpoint of how things happen here on Earth. As far as we know, there are no energy beings that exist on Earth; however, in another galaxy or solar system, there may be just such an occurence, where beings exist in a much different way than beings on Earth.

Energy beings could exist, just exist in a way that is unknown to humans. Look at humanity one thousand years ago. People lived under the impression that the Earth was flat and that Earth was the center of the solar system, and in a creation out of dust. Look where we are now: we now know that Earth is a round object circling a sun with eight other planets, all of it in a massive universe with billions of other stars similar to ours. We now have the theory that humans actually evolved, not simply created out of dust. IMHO, to claim or imagine that humanity has reached the edge of our understanding of anything is truly misguided: we are still working on cures for cancer, AIDS, and the common cold, not to mention the countless more advances to be made.

Perhaps in the same way that many have grown to accept evolution, humanity hundreds or thousands of years later may grown to accept a new form of life.

The basic tenet of sci-fi is 'anything is possible', after all; what makes it such a fertile group for stories.

[Nuclear1]

Point well-taken, which is also why I don't see a whole lot of point behind threads about, say, Vasudan anatomy or "what defines life in Freespace" simply because of the fact that "anything is possible", and what kind of "anything" really is in the hands of the creator.

Say I created a sci-fi universe. I could very well say that life could exist in the form of a gaseous bubble of acid, but the point is that I would have to back up why it is life. As long as the story and why things are they way they are are explained decently or believable, than it's much more enjoyable or comfortable. As far as I've read, Kara/Geezer have done an excellent job describing and explaining the Starborn, and, if this weren't only a game, I would believe that they would exist otherwise.




Did any of that make any sense to anyone else? I'm so doped up on DayQuil that everything I say makes sense to me.

[aldo_14]

Point well-taken, which is also why I don't see a whole lot of point behind threads about, say, Vasudan anatomy or "what defines life in Freespace" simply because of the fact that "anything is possible", and what kind of "anything" really is in the hands of the creator.

I can see the use within the context that we're working (at least partly - depending on how much we want to) within a universe of someone elses creation and it can feel more authentic the more facts you have.  But that thread on human-vasudan interbreeding was just odd.

[TrashMan]

The exact mechanics of thought only apply to human thought, really (we can't read the minds of other animals, after all), and what human brain action really boils down to is an action of input-process-response; memories are nothing more than particular reinforced neuron connection patterns; you're actually equating the action of thought as being caused by the physical mechanics, without considering if there can be a reproduction of those actions with difference physical mechanics.  Hell, we can already mimic brain neuron activity mechanically, in software; the barriers to AI are more in the issue of conception & design (what is thought?  How do we define it?  How do we specify 'intelligence'?) than lacking the technology.

You've made a vast swathe of assumptions in areas you can't possibly make them for, and you've also kind of evidence exactly my point; the human mind can only imagine within the constraints of the world which it has evolved to live and operate within as the cumulation of billions of years history in that environment.

No actually, you're the one throwing assumptions around. If you claim energy can be alive, then maby you would like to explain how would that work?

Energy is a stream of electrons. How can it store information(memory)? How can it process it? How can it communicate?

While we may very poorly mimic neuron activity in software, the software by itself can't work without hardware.
Sci-F is a combination of science and fiction. Fictional stories and charachter in a scientific enviroment. Or at least uit was supopsed to.

I have given this matter a LOT of though...days....months..obviously far more then you.. My conclusions are simple - energy can't be alive.

Bah..as far as I'm concernd you can belive that Alpha Centauri is made of cheese. What the hell do I care.