Fact Or Fiction?

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by Kephras, Apr 12, 2014.

  1. Thanks to a rather irrational argument with one of our dear community, I'd like to play a little game.

    How do you determine what is fact, and what is fiction? Myth vs Reality?

    Now to hopefully avoid flamewars and other complications, let's lay a couple ground rules:
    -No religion. Religion cannot be debated in this topic because at the end of the day it technically can't be proven or disproven.
    -Back up your statements. You're welcome to your opinions, but you have to include a rational argument for your position.
    Good? Good.

    Now let's begin!
    What happens if you're suddenly exposed to the vacuum of space? Answered.
    Can you Spontaneously Combust, and if so, how?
    Can a cosmically powerful creature differentiate between reality and imagination?
    Why do we park in driveways and drive down parkways?
    607 likes this.
  2. You die.

    Sweet and simple answer :)
    princebee, supereskimo and Kephras like this.
  3. I determine fact vs. fiction with knowledge vs. wisdom.

    Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad. I use similar logic with my beliefs. Don't bound yourself to what you know and what is fact. Just because you know one thing, doesn't mean it applies to everything that it should.

    EXAMPLE: Black holes should not be possible, but you know they are there.

    Answer to question (not relevant to how I see it): You explode (basically)
    607 and Kephras like this.
  4. See, this is where the whole disagreement comes in. You actually don't explode.
    The popular misconception is, humans are big blood-filled balloons waiting to burst, but our skin, muscles, and circulatory systems are tougher than that. True, the lack of oxygen will kill you pretty quick (you pass out in about 15 seconds, due to the pressure difference forcing the oxygen from your body), but you won't just pop.
    SoulPunisher likes this.
  5. I stand by my argument. Your body is a ballon. There is blood pressure, air in your lungs, and other fluids. You basically expand and pop, versus explode. It isn't what kills you first necessarily, but it will kill you just as easily as lack of oxygen. It does suck out air, but both are options of death in space.
  6. I would think that since we have all this oxygen in it, we would get the air sucked out of us an implode...
  7. There is more than oxygen. Our body is 80% fluid.
  8. ...See, you don't though - not implode, nor explode. The body's skin, musculature, and skeleton are stronger than you give them credit for, and a pressure difference of 1 Atmosphere (ATM) to none does not cause 'popping' to happen. Think of it less as a rubber balloon, and more of a basketball - there's rubber and nylon and other structure in there to help it withstand the pressure of being compressed / decompressed rapidly (in this case, against the ground).

    Now it is true that gasses are forced from the fluids inside your body by the pressure difference - divers should be familiar with this one, as it happens right here on earth in the form of the Bends. In space, it deprives your body of oxygen, causing hypoxia and asphyxiation, and can rupture blood vessels - but we rupture those in everyday life as well. Y'know that ugly bruise you got knocking your shin off the coffee table? Same principle. It can also damage or rupture your lungs if you attempt to hold your breath.

    That's not to say explosive decompression is a complete myth - look up the Byford Dolphin accident in 1983. Five people were killed, one of them in the rather graphic way you're imagining, when an accident with the rig's diving bell resulted in a pressure drop from 9ATM to 1.

    Going from 1 to 0 atmospheres however, is not going to 'explode' you.
    SoulPunisher likes this.
  9. I guess explode is not the right word, but slowly expand. It is not the blood pressure alone that makes you expand, but other factors contribute to space death also, involving the vacuum. Explosion is not the right word, but with the combination of the vacuum of space and pressure that still exists, it is deadly.
    Kephras and wisepsn like this.
  10. Oh yes, absolutely. Blistering, rupture of eardrums and other soft tissues, swelling... I'm not saying it's pretty, I'm just trying to explain that "going pop" is a myth. Hollywood likes to be dramatic, not accurate.

    Anyone want to try a new question?
  11. You swell up, because there's no pressure in space to hold you together.
    Kephras likes this.
  12. because we need a new question: Can you Spontaneously Combust, and if so, how?
    Kephras likes this.
  13. Uhm, yes. AllTimes10
  14. Oh, this question made my brain melt entirely: Can a cosmically powerful creature differentiate between reality and imagination?

    It's an unknowable answer, but I'd like to hear what people think about it.

    (just in case people don't understand the question, I'll propose a scenario:

    Cosmic Being interacts with mortals, doesn't believe they actually exist. If they were real beings, and not imagined, they should be able to respond to stimuli in an unexpected or unanticipated way. Cosmic Being is effectively omniscient, and thus knows exactly how they will respond to anything. Do these mortals have autonomy? Are they even real?

    Is it even possible to know?)
  15. Spontaneous combustion may be theoretically possible, but has not been proven. It's known that bales of hay can burst into flame if put away "green" (they heat up from organisms and biological decay, until the flash-point). When it comes to humans however, most indications of "spontaneous" combustion actually point to an outside source for the initial heat, which is propagated and fueled by body fat burning off.

    That's treading perilously close to the 'religion' thing I was hoping to avoid. ;) But let's take a stab at it.
    -If the entity is truly omniscient then my answer is 'no.' Simply put, at that point "reality" and "imagination" cease to have any discernible meaning and existence simply 'is.' There can be no outside influence to change the entity's perception of existence as it will already know and anticipate that influence.
    -If the entity is under an illusion of omniscience but still 'cosmically powerful,' then all it would take is for an outside influence that behaves contrary to its perception of reality to call attention to the difference. It could hallucinate that influence, but the result would still be calling attention to a discrepancy between reality as perceived, and whatever situation is acting contrary to that perception.
    Taking my definitions above, if "effectively" omniscient means this is not literally the case and the entity is simply under its own perception of such, we get into Matrix territory. Statistical probability indicates that eventually, the entity would see a mortal defying its conventions of reality and draw attention to the discrepancy. The longer it goes on, the more likely it is to happen.
    From a standpoint of literal omniscience, both "reality" and "imagination" lose all meaning. Existence simply 'is' or 'is not' - there is no alternative version of 'is' that would suggest a contrary version of "reality" from what this entity perceives.
  16. Oxygen really has nothing to do with it. The lack of pressure is what kills you in space. As pressure decreases, so does a liquids boiling point. This can be seen by anyone that has opened a bottle of soda. All those bubbles coming out of the soda are the soda literally boiling. Basically your blood would boil, and then you would die horribly.
    Kephras likes this.
  17. It really depends on the extent of the creature's power, the way in which it observes things, the nature of the greater "system" in which the creature and the mortals exist, and whether or not things evolve entirely based on cause-and-effect. I think your original post makes several assumptions about the scenario but doesn't explain them well enough to get a solid answer. I've already written several paragraphs trying to answer you, but I keep realizing our definitions may be different.
    Also, I don't really see why the vacuum question is in this thread, because it's really just an experimental matter. This video should give some answers:
    ISMOOCH, Kephras and Luckygreenbird like this.

  18. The answer!

    About 9 minutes in. . .
    supereskimo and Kephras like this.
  19. EDIT: Derp.
    Thank you, I knew I'd seen that before but had forgotten the 'internal pressure' factor in the blood-boiling scenario.
    As for why it's up for debate... let's just say that certain people refuse to believe anything until they physically see someone shoved out of an airlock. :rolleyes: And then /ignore me when I attempt to dispute this personal belief.
    supereskimo likes this.
  20. Made some slight edits to the OP so other questions wouldn't get overlooked as easily. :) Additional questions are welcome as well.