Dying star?

[Ryushikaze]

Ultimecia's atmosphere affects everything on Earth? Are you implying that she was the only being ever lived in her time period?

ARE YOU EVEN READING WHAT I SAY?
I said it's NOT the Atmosphere of her castle, but Earth's ACTUAL atmosphere that affects how we see the sun and moon.

I'm sure the writers have considered how to deal with things like "What if players take something deeper?"

They have just done that. They have added a lot of things to the game that are non-dialogueous. Things that are non-dialogueous have the potential of being taken seriously, easily.

But that doesn't mean every scrap of visuals are meaningful.
You have to support, with evidence, that they ARE meaningful.

[Serapy]

No, not everything is coincidence, but just because something is similar does not mean it was intended to be similar, hence coincidence.

Rinoa waving her finger at the Star in the beginning and the ending definitely wasn't a coincidence. At the ending, she waves her finger at the star to symbolise the moment they've met from the beginning.

Ultimecia's atmosphere affects everything on Earth? Are you implying that she was the only being ever lived in her time period?

ARE YOU EVEN READING WHAT I SAY?
I said it's NOT the Atmosphere of her castle, but Earth's ACTUAL atmosphere that affects how we see the sun and moon.

The moon looks about the same as the one in the present era. Yet, the star looks red. That star being red takes place outside of her castle.

I'm sure the writers have considered how to deal with things like "What if players take something deeper?"

They have just done that. They have added a lot of things to the game that are non-dialogueous. Things that are non-dialogueous have the potential of being taken seriously, easily.

But that doesn't mean every scrap of visuals are meaningful.
You have to support, with evidence, that they ARE meaningful.

Visuals are always meaningful if they keep showing up in certain areas of the game, apparently.

[Ryushikaze]

Rinoa waving her finger at the Star in the beginning and the ending definitely wasn't a coincidence. At the ending, she waves her finger at the star to symbolise the moment they've met from the beginning.

The link there is Rinoa's habit. Not the star. Nor is it a 'symbol', it's a reference.

The moon looks about the same as the one in the present era. Yet, the star looks red. That star being red takes place outside of her castle.

And again, this is absolutely no problem to an 'atmospheric discoloration' explanation.

Visuals are always meaningful if they keep showing up in certain areas of the game, apparently.

This visual does not 'keep showing up' so, by even by that logic, it's meaningless.
Not that your argument is evidence, of course.

[qwertysaur]

A dying star would be many times larger than when it was in the bulk of its life. A comparison is our own star (the sun) will expand past where Earth is when it goes into the red giant phase.

[Serapy]

Rinoa waving her finger at the Star in the beginning and the ending definitely wasn't a coincidence. At the ending, she waves her finger at the star to symbolise the moment they've met from the beginning.

The link there is Rinoa's habit. Not the star. Nor is it a 'symbol', it's a reference.

You're admitting that this 'reference' is not meaningless? Finally!

The moon looks about the same as the one in the present era. Yet, the star looks red. That star being red takes place outside of her castle.

And again, this is absolutely no problem to an 'atmospheric discoloration' explanation.

This proves that the star is dynamic based on time periods and thus Ultimecia's time period is about millions of years later, hence the star dying.

I don't know why you would want to argue against this. Because if it's actually millions of years later, it would be utterly impossible for Rinoa to reach to Ultimecia's time period.

Visuals are always meaningful if they keep showing up in certain areas of the game, apparently.

This visual does not 'keep showing up' so, by even by that logic, it's meaningless.
Not that your argument is evidence, of course.

You didn't provide evidence that it's meaningless, either.

[Flying Mullet]

Serapy, can you please address the fact that several people have mentioned that as a star ages it grows larger and the star is the same size in your screen shot?

[Ryushikaze]

You're admitting that this 'reference' is not meaningless? Finally!

No. Because the 'star' you refer to is not one Rinoa points at.

This proves that the star is dynamic based on time periods and thus Ultimecia's time period is about millions of years later, hence the star dying.

Or, it proves that airborn particles can cause light to be different colors.

[qote]I don't know why you would want to argue against this. Because if it's actually millions of years later, it would be utterly impossible for Rinoa to reach to Ultimecia's time period.[/quote]

This has nothing to do with 'want to', I argue against this because it's asinine.

You didn't provide evidence that it's meaningless, either.

I don't have to, child. You have to provide evidence that there is meaning, first.

[Serapy]

You're admitting that this 'reference' is not meaningless? Finally!

No. Because the 'star' you refer to is not one Rinoa points at.

I'm not talking about that star in the picture.

This proves that the star is dynamic based on time periods and thus Ultimecia's time period is about millions of years later, hence the star dying.

Or, it proves that airborn particles can cause light to be different colors.

We cannot detect neutrons, but we can detect airborn particles?

I don't know why you would want to argue against this. Because if it's actually millions of years later, it would be utterly impossible for Rinoa to reach to Ultimecia's time period.

This has nothing to do with 'want to', I argue against this because it's asinine.

*gasp* You actually like the R=U theory?

You didn't provide evidence that it's meaningless, either.

I don't have to, child. You have to provide evidence that there is meaning, first.

No, I don't. Because this isn't a theory. On the other hand, if you want to dismiss the discussion and make it become nonexistent, your counterclaims must include evidence!

[Ryushikaze]

I'm not talking about that star in the picture.

Then what is the relevance.

We cannot detect neutrons, but we can detect airborn particles?

Yes. We call them CLOUDS!

*gasp* You actually like the R=U theory? :eek::eek::eek:

Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. It is baseless.

No, I don't. Because this isn't a theory. On the other hand, if you want to dismiss the discussion and make it become nonexistent, your counterclaims must include evidence!

STOP TRYING TO SHIFT YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF.
THEORY OR NO, You assert something, you claim something, you say something has meaning, YOU hold the onus to support it with evidence. NOT the people who doubt what you say.

[qwertysaur]

Are you ignoring me Serapy.

Also we can detect Neutrons. Free neutrons decay into protons via the weak nuclear force, and we detect those indirectly.

[Flying Mullet]

Serapy, can you please address the fact that several people have mentioned that as a star ages it grows larger and the star is the same size in your screen shot?

[Darth Cid]

Are you ignoring me Serapy.

Also we can detect Neutrons. Free neutrons decay into protons via the weak nuclear force, and we detect those indirectly.

In some threads, he's avoiding Ryushikaze's replies and attacking my responses to his illogic.

[Slothy]

STOP TRYING TO SHIFT YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF.
THEORY OR NO, You assert something, you claim something, you say something has meaning, YOU hold the onus to support it with evidence. NOT the people who doubt what you say.

This. I love when people claim something then argue that someone else has to prove them wrong rather than having to offer evidence backing themselves up.

I could say kitty cat's are made of chocolate but it's not the job of others to prove me wrong. I have to bite into one myself to prove my point.

[Flying Mullet]

I could say kitty cat's are made of chocolate but it's not the job of others to prove me wrong. I have to bite into one myself to prove my point.

Sounds like a tasty experiment to me!

[qwertysaur]

But if you are wrong, then angry cat + your face = you not having a face