Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

pm713 wrote:
I'm more interested in his plan for what to do after killing the Emperor. If I was a Primarch that would the deciding factor in joining him.

I think because unlike Abaddon, he went full chaos and that he'd pretty much, just do the Chaos gods bidding in enslaving mankind and taking the galaxy.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Nice insults. Classy.

Anyway, the subtext of what happened to Horus seems pretty obvious to me: "He’d taken the power his father had taken, but he’d done so without deception. He’d taken it by force of arms and by virtue of his self-belief. There was no bargain made, no promise to honour. The power was his and his alone. Finally, after everything, Horus was a god." That last sentence is pretty much a dead giveaway. Horus thinks he's a god. He thinks he did everything better than the Emperor. He has absolutely no good reason to believe that other than his pride requires it to be true. The Chaos gods are manipulative, we know this. They play on emotions, ego, any weakness they can to achieve their goals. You say Horus was never tricked into taking his powers. How can you be sure? Perhaps the Emperor understood much more clearly than Horus what the price of acceptance was. If Horus didn't fully understand what he was getting into that would mean he was tricked into it, from a certain point of view.

You also say " If a book is in third person narrative then whatever is narrate is fact, what characters think, feel or assume is up to interpretation but if the narration says x or y happens then it does.". That's not necessarily true either. The unreliable narrator is a well-known literary device. Regardless, all the passage I quoted above is about how Horus views his experiences so it is inherently unreliable and prone to bias. And once again, if you analyse exactly what Sureka actually knew, for sure, you'll realise it's not very much at all.

I never insulted you. I'm not even talking to you. "The unreliable narrator " isn't being employed. Horus knew exactly what he was getting into, but tricked... sure he could have been but where is that relative and there is no real basis for thinking that anyways.

I don't want to get too tangled in this, but I will point out that the narrative was third person limited, not third person omniscient. That and the inclusion of an objectively false yet true to character statement (Horus is a god) indicates the entire passage is written from the perspective of Horus, who is unreliable. Like the old logic puzzle, even if Horus is the one telling the truth, he's repeating what the other guy (chaos) said.

Pride was Horus’ greatest weakness and it stands to reason that the Chaos Gods took that pride and convinced him that he “won” the power fair and square because in Horus’ mind he is better than the Emperor.

In reality the Emperor stole the power. Either through a deal he didn’t honour and/or by brute strength/trickery.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It also stands to reason that the Chaos Gods REALLY REALLY didn’t like the Emperor calling him names like anathema etc so they may well have just given the power to Horus because they wanted someone to kill Him. Clearly all the battles Horus fought were just proving grounds to make sure their investment of power was not in the wrong person.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Nice insults. Classy.

Anyway, the subtext of what happened to Horus seems pretty obvious to me: "He’d taken the power his father had taken, but he’d done so without deception. He’d taken it by force of arms and by virtue of his self-belief. There was no bargain made, no promise to honour. The power was his and his alone. Finally, after everything, Horus was a god." That last sentence is pretty much a dead giveaway. Horus thinks he's a god. He thinks he did everything better than the Emperor. He has absolutely no good reason to believe that other than his pride requires it to be true. The Chaos gods are manipulative, we know this. They play on emotions, ego, any weakness they can to achieve their goals. You say Horus was never tricked into taking his powers. How can you be sure? Perhaps the Emperor understood much more clearly than Horus what the price of acceptance was. If Horus didn't fully understand what he was getting into that would mean he was tricked into it, from a certain point of view.

You also say " If a book is in third person narrative then whatever is narrate is fact, what characters think, feel or assume is up to interpretation but if the narration says x or y happens then it does.". That's not necessarily true either. The unreliable narrator is a well-known literary device. Regardless, all the passage I quoted above is about how Horus views his experiences so it is inherently unreliable and prone to bias. And once again, if you analyse exactly what Sureka actually knew, for sure, you'll realise it's not very much at all.

I never insulted you. I'm not even talking to you. "The unreliable narrator " isn't being employed. Horus knew exactly what he was getting into, but tricked... sure he could have been but where is that relative and there is no real basis for thinking that anyways.

I don't want to get too tangled in this, but I will point out that the narrative was third person limited, not third person omniscient. That and the inclusion of an objectively false yet true to character statement (Horus is a god) indicates the entire passage is written from the perspective of Horus, who is unreliable. Like the old logic puzzle, even if Horus is the one telling the truth, he's repeating what the other guy (chaos) said.

It is third person omniscient, there is no single main protagonist. I've already established many times that Horus being biased or his testimony is irrelevant.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
text removed.
Reds8n

Wish I’d seen this! Guess I’ll never know.

Thankfully other people are carrying on the conversati8n nicely. That bit between Russ and Harris is interesting, he does have regret but still thinks of the emperor as the greatest evil in the universe, which could well be true given how many genicides and such he has committed. We can’t say he’s a good guy really.

Andykp wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
text removed.
Reds8n

Wish I’d seen this! Guess I’ll never know.

Thankfully other people are carrying on the conversati8n nicely. That bit between Russ and Harris is interesting, he does have regret but still thinks of the emperor as the greatest evil in the universe, which could well be true given how many genicides and such he has committed. We can’t say he’s a good guy really.

Just successfully refuted your points lol.

How can horus’s bias be irrelevant. He’s version of events, as told by the narrator describing horuss emotions, not his actions, is the only evidence we have of a deal with chaos. Slipspaces summery above is spot in really. You have said dev, many times before that you would admit when you were wrong but you still won’t do here when it’s clear you are.

I’ll break it down again for u.

Horus was lead to believe that the emperor made a deal or bargain with the gods, either by the emperor or by entities in the warp. If it was the emperor he only remembers this as a dream. Nothing reliable there.

The narrator states that Horus took his powers by force and the emperor didn’t. He also states that Horus is a god.

Is Horus a god? No.

Is it remotely likely that he defeated the chaos “gods”, stole there power and continued in without their influence.

From this we can deduce that the narrator is “unreliable”.

So, sources for the deal with chaos. An unreliable narrator, a sergeant of the emperor repeating hearsay and Horus.

This then leaves the question is horuss version of events reliable. The narrators isn’t. Surekas isn’t. And I think we all know Horus might be a bit anti-emperor in his way of thinking. Even if he believes there was a deal, ie the gods told him there was, are they reliable?

Of course not. They are chaos gods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
text removed.
Reds8n

Wish I’d seen this! Guess I’ll never know.

Thankfully other people are carrying on the conversati8n nicely. That bit between Russ and Harris is interesting, he does have regret but still thinks of the emperor as the greatest evil in the universe, which could well be true given how many genicides and such he has committed. We can’t say he’s a good guy really.

Just successfully refuted your points lol.

I’ve never said the emperor wasn’t evil.

Andykp wrote:
How can horus’s bias be irrelevant. He’s version of events, as told by the narrator describing horuss emotions, not his actions, is the only evidence we have of a deal with chaos. Slipspaces summery above is spot in really. You have said dev, many times before that you would admit when you were wrong but you still won’t do here when it’s clear you are.

I’ll break it down again for u.

Horus was lead to believe that the emperor made a deal or bargain with the gods, either by the emperor or by entities in the warp. If it was the emperor he only remembers this as a dream. Nothing reliable there.

The narrator states that Horus took his powers by force and the emperor didn’t. He also states that Horus is a god.

Is Horus a god? No.

Is it remotely likely that he defeated the chaos “gods”, stole there power and continued in without their influence.

From this we can deduce that the narrator is “unreliable”.

So, sources for the deal with chaos. An unreliable narrator, a sergeant of the emperor repeating hearsay and Horus.

This then leaves the question is horuss version of events reliable. The narrators isn’t. Surekas isn’t. And I think we all know Horus might be a bit anti-emperor in his way of thinking. Even if he believes there was a deal, ie the gods told him there was, are they reliable?

Of course not. They are chaos gods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
text removed.
Reds8n

Wish I’d seen this! Guess I’ll never know.

Thankfully other people are carrying on the conversati8n nicely. That bit between Russ and Harris is interesting, he does have regret but still thinks of the emperor as the greatest evil in the universe, which could well be true given how many genicides and such he has committed. We can’t say he’s a good guy really.

Just successfully refuted your points lol.

I’ve never said the emperor wasn’t evil.

Because Sureka testifies this all happened as well as Horus, Sureka is not going to have the same biases that Horus has therefore its irrelevant, I can't believe I have to tell you this for the 3rd time.

Horus 'never' stole the powers, he was given them. Why do you constantly say that? He didn't have to defeat them, just because the Emperor did doesn't mean that Horus needed to defeat them, so the writer is not unreliable. Both the testimonies are completely reliable as the both corroborate what the other says and both are on the other sides of the strife. Sureka is completely reliable, just because you 'think' she isn't doesn't make that true. Horus' knowledge of Molech and the Emperors deal all came from the Emperor, so you have the Red Angel, Erebus, Horus, ingethel the ascended and Sureka all telling the same story. 3 biased in terms of Chaos, 1 (could be argued 2) biased in terms of the Emps, there were also 6 other perpetuals there. If you argue that it didn't happen then you'd argue nothing happened in 30k. The Emperor went into the house of eyes and got power that is indisputable, the least you can say is that we don't know what powers he got but that still isn't that strong as Sureka knew Horus got the same powers.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
How can horus’s bias be irrelevant. He’s version of events, as told by the narrator describing horuss emotions, not his actions, is the only evidence we have of a deal with chaos. Slipspaces summery above is spot in really. You have said dev, many times before that you would admit when you were wrong but you still won’t do here when it’s clear you are.

I’ll break it down again for u.

Horus was lead to believe that the emperor made a deal or bargain with the gods, either by the emperor or by entities in the warp. If it was the emperor he only remembers this as a dream. Nothing reliable there.

The narrator states that Horus took his powers by force and the emperor didn’t. He also states that Horus is a god.

Is Horus a god? No.

Is it remotely likely that he defeated the chaos “gods”, stole there power and continued in without their influence.

From this we can deduce that the narrator is “unreliable”.

So, sources for the deal with chaos. An unreliable narrator, a sergeant of the emperor repeating hearsay and Horus.

This then leaves the question is horuss version of events reliable. The narrators isn’t. Surekas isn’t. And I think we all know Horus might be a bit anti-emperor in his way of thinking. Even if he believes there was a deal, ie the gods told him there was, are they reliable?

Of course not. They are chaos gods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
text removed.
Reds8n

Wish I’d seen this! Guess I’ll never know.

Thankfully other people are carrying on the conversati8n nicely. That bit between Russ and Harris is interesting, he does have regret but still thinks of the emperor as the greatest evil in the universe, which could well be true given how many genicides and such he has committed. We can’t say he’s a good guy really.

Just successfully refuted your points lol.

I’ve never said the emperor wasn’t evil.

Because Sureka testifies this all happened as well as Horus, Sureka is not going to have the same biases that Horus has therefore its irrelevant, I can't believe I have to tell you this for the 3rd time.

Horus 'never' stole the powers, he was given them. Why do you constantly say that? He didn't have to defeat them, just because the Emperor did doesn't mean that Horus needed to defeat them, so the writer is not unreliable. Both the testimonies are completely reliable as the both corroborate what the other says and both are on the other sides of the strife. Sureka is completely reliable, just because you 'think' she isn't doesn't make that true. Horus' knowledge of Molech and the Emperors deal all came from the Emperor, so you have the Red Angel, Erebus, Horus, ingethel the ascended and Sureka all telling the same story. 3 biased in terms of Chaos, 1 (could be argued 2) biased in terms of the Emps, there were also 6 other perpetuals there. If you argue that it didn't happen then you'd argue nothing happened in 30k.

Saying something three times doesn’t make it right. Horuss bias is clearly relevant. Surekas account is hearsay. Not fact. Tell me as many times as you want. You are still wrong.

The narrator is being used by the author to lead you in a specific direction, hence its unreliability. He is clearly misleading you into seeing horuss emotions by saying that Horus was a god and all that garbage. I’m not saying it didn’t happen or did happen. I’m saying we don’t know what happened. Horus didn’t know, neither did sureka. Neither testimony is reliable, even if they are identical. I say he stole the powers in that the quote you posted stated that he had taken the powers his father by force of arms. No promise or bargain to be made. To me, if you take something by force that’s the same as stealing. Replace stole with took if it helps u.

U need to remember you are reading a work of fiction. A story. The narrator and characters are going to say things to move the drama in certain directions. If you wish to treat it as factual history then do so, but then no accounts given are reliable as there were no witnesses to what the emperor and the chaos gods got up to. Only hearsay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I’ll say it again a never said the emperor wasn’t evil so don’t believe I’ve rubuked anything.

Didn’t Horus kill Sureka before he entered the Chaos orifice?

Andykp wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:
How can horus’s bias be irrelevant. He’s version of events, as told by the narrator describing horuss emotions, not his actions, is the only evidence we have of a deal with chaos. Slipspaces summery above is spot in really. You have said dev, many times before that you would admit when you were wrong but you still won’t do here when it’s clear you are.

I’ll break it down again for u.

Horus was lead to believe that the emperor made a deal or bargain with the gods, either by the emperor or by entities in the warp. If it was the emperor he only remembers this as a dream. Nothing reliable there.

The narrator states that Horus took his powers by force and the emperor didn’t. He also states that Horus is a god.

Is Horus a god? No.

Is it remotely likely that he defeated the chaos “gods”, stole there power and continued in without their influence.

From this we can deduce that the narrator is “unreliable”.

So, sources for the deal with chaos. An unreliable narrator, a sergeant of the emperor repeating hearsay and Horus.

This then leaves the question is horuss version of events reliable. The narrators isn’t. Surekas isn’t. And I think we all know Horus might be a bit anti-emperor in his way of thinking. Even if he believes there was a deal, ie the gods told him there was, are they reliable?

Of course not. They are chaos gods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
text removed.
Reds8n

Wish I’d seen this! Guess I’ll never know.

Thankfully other people are carrying on the conversati8n nicely. That bit between Russ and Harris is interesting, he does have regret but still thinks of the emperor as the greatest evil in the universe, which could well be true given how many genicides and such he has committed. We can’t say he’s a good guy really.

Just successfully refuted your points lol.

I’ve never said the emperor wasn’t evil.

Because Sureka testifies this all happened as well as Horus, Sureka is not going to have the same biases that Horus has therefore its irrelevant, I can't believe I have to tell you this for the 3rd time.

Horus 'never' stole the powers, he was given them. Why do you constantly say that? He didn't have to defeat them, just because the Emperor did doesn't mean that Horus needed to defeat them, so the writer is not unreliable. Both the testimonies are completely reliable as the both corroborate what the other says and both are on the other sides of the strife. Sureka is completely reliable, just because you 'think' she isn't doesn't make that true. Horus' knowledge of Molech and the Emperors deal all came from the Emperor, so you have the Red Angel, Erebus, Horus, ingethel the ascended and Sureka all telling the same story. 3 biased in terms of Chaos, 1 (could be argued 2) biased in terms of the Emps, there were also 6 other perpetuals there. If you argue that it didn't happen then you'd argue nothing happened in 30k.

Saying something three times doesn’t make it right. Horuss bias is clearly relevant. Surekas account is hearsay. Not fact. Tell me as many times as you want. You are still wrong.

The narrator is being used by the author to lead you in a specific direction, hence its unreliability. He is clearly misleading you into seeing horuss emotions by saying that Horus was a god and all that garbage. I’m not saying it didn’t happen or did happen. I’m saying we don’t know what happened. Horus didn’t know, neither did sureka. Neither testimony is reliable, even if they are identical. I say he stole the powers in that the quote you posted stated that he had taken the powers his father by force of arms. No promise or bargain to be made. To me, if you take something by force that’s the same as stealing. Replace stole with took if it helps u.

U need to remember you are reading a work of fiction. A story. The narrator and characters are going to say things to move the drama in certain directions. If you wish to treat it as factual history then do so, but then no accounts given are reliable as there were no witnesses to what the emperor and the chaos gods got up to. Only hearsay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I’ll say it again a never said the emperor wasn’t evil so don’t believe I’ve rubuked anything.

Horus bias isn't relevant, its only relevant if he is the only testimony. Sureka's account is not hearsay, its corroborated by herself and the narrator. "The narrator is being used by the author to lead you in a specific direction, hence its unreliability. He is clearly misleading you into seeing horus emotions by saying that Horus was a god and all that garbage" Complete and utter conjecture, plus how do you know when you haven't read the book. The writer didn't say he was an actual god, he was saying he was a god as much as the Emperor was a god, someone with godlike powers. It is a motif, Horus said before he was going to walk in his fathers footsteps, then building on that when he left the writer says he is a god and then Horus says I'm coming for you father. Read the novel. Narration in a third person omniscient novel speaks facts, the characters do the directing of drama in the story, that's literature 101, for example you will never find a writer narrating that the Emperor is a god etc. you only think that the narration does what you say it does because the HH is a massive series of books. What you assert just doesn't happen, the writer will always (especially in the case of HH style) let you know what is fact and fiction.

It’s all fiction.

Mellow wrote:
Didn’t Horus kill Sureka before he entered the Chaos orifice?

Exactly, but she is a perpetual so she lived again and knew Horus took the same power as the Emperor even though she wasn't there to see it.

Didn't she sacrifice, without coming back, herself permanently in a short published afterwards?

 Earth127 wrote:
Didn't she sacrifice, without coming back, herself permanently in a short published afterwards?

No, she came right back after getting kababed with the Talons of Horus, hang on and I'll find the quote.

There is no context to this but it happens after Horus leaves the House of eyes:

She flipped through the yellowed pages, looking for a picture to conjure the right words into her head.
A page with a young girl sitting at the edge of the ocean caught her eye and she nodded to herself. The
girl was very beautiful, but her legs were fused together and ended in the wide tail of a fish. She liked this
story; the tale of a young girl who, for the sake of true love, gives up her existence in one realm to earn a
place in another.
Someone moved along the corridor. Vivyen waited for them to pass, but they stopped in front of her,
blocking the light.
‘I can’t see the words,’ she said.
‘That’s a good story,’ said the person in front of her. ‘Can I read it to you?’
Vivyen looked up in surprise and nodded happily.
‘Didn’t I tell you it was going to be okay?’ said Alivia Sureka

But the writer even says at the end:

"There’s a lot going on in this book, with plenty of new characters I’d love to come back to. I want to
see where Alivia Sureka goes and if things are indeed okay. I want to see the depths of madness into
which Albard Devine plummets. What’s going to happen to the Mournival now that it has Tormaggedon as
one of its members? Just what did the Warmaster see on the other side of that barrier and what power has
he now returned with? Is he now the equal of the Emperor?
Only time will tell. And while I bet you think you know the answers, we’ve still got some killer
surprises in store for you"

That would suggest they will get round to telling us what happened beyond the portal and whether Horus became the equal of the Emperor in power but I really really doubt they would provide those answers. It’s simply not their style.

Mellow wrote:
That would suggest they will get round to telling us what happened beyond the portal and whether Horus became the equal of the Emperor in power but I really really doubt they would provide those answers. It’s simply not their style.

I'm not suggesting that, the quote is to show that Sureka lived.

Perhaps Del you should take the "I bet you think you've got all the answers but we've some suprises in store for you" into mind eh?

BrianDavion wrote:
Perhaps Del you should take the "I bet you think you've got all the answers but we've some suprises in store for you" into mind eh?

Well yeah but you could apply that to everything in the book, I doubt every single thing in it is going to be surprisingly wrong or end up being misleading etc. Plus consider when this book was written, 6 years ago. Like I say until the lore is re-written its the best source we have.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Perhaps Del you should take the "I bet you think you've got all the answers but we've some suprises in store for you" into mind eh?

Well yeah but you could apply that to everything in the book, I doubt every single thing in it is going to be surprisingly wrong or end up being misleading etc. Plus consider when this book was written, 6 years ago. Like I say until the lore is re-written its the best source we have.

sure, but we need to factor in that we don't nesscarily know everything, taking statements as literal truth all the time in the HH novels leads to people concluding that the Ultramarines absorbed the lost legions.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Perhaps Del you should take the "I bet you think you've got all the answers but we've some suprises in store for you" into mind eh?

Well yeah but you could apply that to everything in the book, I doubt every single thing in it is going to be surprisingly wrong or end up being misleading etc. Plus consider when this book was written, 6 years ago. Like I say until the lore is re-written its the best source we have.

sure, but we need to factor in that we don't nesscarily know everything, taking statements as literal truth all the time in the HH novels leads to people concluding that the Ultramarines absorbed the lost legions.

It is truth until there is new evidence. That's the equivalent, when people say that there are not facts in science based on 'gravity isn't a fact because in the future we may find out its not actually real.' It also means there is no burden of proof of anything in 40k/30k as you could just say 'yeah but in the future that might be contradicted.' I don't take that kind of argument seriously. This isn't some implicit lore, its explicit, if it is to be interpreted or not to be taken as fact then it would be like the Ultramarines absorbing the other legions, which in first heretic when they say that its stated as speculation. The novel does not state that anything we are talking about is speculation, its stated it happened. If it was to be speculation it would be written as such.

....... "truth like gravity" alright that statement there implies your absolute and utter ignorance of scientific method.

Gravity is a measureable, observable effect. I pick up an apple and let it go, it falls to the ground, we call that gravity. that is an observable effect. you are welcome to challange me on that and try doing otherwise, but it's pretty solid.

THAT is truth, (course as we all know, it's more complicated as there are ways around gravity) now.. what causes gravity? THAT is something that we can only theorize about and the theory of gravity has changed over time, Newton's theories on gravity, for example where in fact superseeded by Einstein, and one day someone else may develop an even better theory. THAT is truth, there is observable data and the theory you can cfrat from it. You are presenting observable data and claiming your theories as to it are fact.

BrianDavion wrote:
....... "truth like gravity" alright that statement there implies your absolute and utter ignorance of scientific method.

Gravity is a measureable, observable effect. I pick up an apple and let it go, it falls to the ground, we call that gravity. that is an observable effect. you are welcome to challange me on that and try doing otherwise, but it's pretty solid.

THAT is truth, (course as we all know, it's more complicated as there are ways around gravity) now.. what causes gravity? THAT is something that we can only theorize about and the theory of gravity has changed over time, Newton's theories on gravity, for example where in fact superseeded by Einstein, and one day someone else may develop an even better theory. THAT is truth, there is observable data and the theory you can cfrat from it. You are presenting observable data and claiming your theories as to it are fact.

You just missed the point. I never said gravity doesn't exist.. There is no theorising of what causes gravity. Gravity is simply warped space-time. You haven't understood my point at all, you are arguing on a basis of, you can't take it as fact as it could change in the future, that is like saying you can't take gravity as fact because it might be replaced by some other theory. Yes, it is fact, the writer wrote it as such as do all other writers on 30k/40k books.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
....... "truth like gravity" alright that statement there implies your absolute and utter ignorance of scientific method.

Gravity is a measureable, observable effect. I pick up an apple and let it go, it falls to the ground, we call that gravity. that is an observable effect. you are welcome to challange me on that and try doing otherwise, but it's pretty solid.

THAT is truth, (course as we all know, it's more complicated as there are ways around gravity) now.. what causes gravity? THAT is something that we can only theorize about and the theory of gravity has changed over time, Newton's theories on gravity, for example where in fact superseeded by Einstein, and one day someone else may develop an even better theory. THAT is truth, there is observable data and the theory you can cfrat from it. You are presenting observable data and claiming your theories as to it are fact.

You just missed the point. I never said gravity doesn't exist.

no b ut you said Gravity was "fact" when it's actually a lot more complex.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
....... "truth like gravity" alright that statement there implies your absolute and utter ignorance of scientific method.

Gravity is a measureable, observable effect. I pick up an apple and let it go, it falls to the ground, we call that gravity. that is an observable effect. you are welcome to challange me on that and try doing otherwise, but it's pretty solid.

THAT is truth, (course as we all know, it's more complicated as there are ways around gravity) now.. what causes gravity? THAT is something that we can only theorize about and the theory of gravity has changed over time, Newton's theories on gravity, for example where in fact superseeded by Einstein, and one day someone else may develop an even better theory. THAT is truth, there is observable data and the theory you can cfrat from it. You are presenting observable data and claiming your theories as to it are fact.

You just missed the point. I never said gravity doesn't exist.

no b ut you said Gravity was "fact" when it's actually a lot more complex.

Gravity is a fact, we know everything there is to know about it, apart from that we haven't figured out quantum gravity.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
....... "truth like gravity" alright that statement there implies your absolute and utter ignorance of scientific method.

Gravity is a measureable, observable effect. I pick up an apple and let it go, it falls to the ground, we call that gravity. that is an observable effect. you are welcome to challange me on that and try doing otherwise, but it's pretty solid.

THAT is truth, (course as we all know, it's more complicated as there are ways around gravity) now.. what causes gravity? THAT is something that we can only theorize about and the theory of gravity has changed over time, Newton's theories on gravity, for example where in fact superseeded by Einstein, and one day someone else may develop an even better theory. THAT is truth, there is observable data and the theory you can cfrat from it. You are presenting observable data and claiming your theories as to it are fact.

You just missed the point. I never said gravity doesn't exist.

no b ut you said Gravity was "fact" when it's actually a lot more complex.

Gravity is a fact, we know everything there is to know about it, apart from that we haven't figured out quantum gravity.

We still don’t know exactly

What it is.

Why it only pulls

Why it is so weak

Why it is so finely tuned

Does life need gravity

Can we counter it permanently

And of course, can we ever have a theory of quantum gravity

There’s more, but it’s clear we don’t “know everything there is to know about it” but shock horror, Delvarus makes a supposition not backed by facts

Usual defence tactics coming in 3, 2, 1.....

I love how we are discussing gravity now.

Comparing scientisifc knowledge to information gleaned from a fictional book is really weird.

I will state 1 fact about 40k. There is no canon. It all changes all the time. Different people are in charge of GW and different people write the books, codex and fiction but in the end it can all change. So even “knowing things” is transient.

That is an observation based on 30years following the the story of this universe.

 Formosa wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
....... "truth like gravity" alright that statement there implies your absolute and utter ignorance of scientific method.

Gravity is a measureable, observable effect. I pick up an apple and let it go, it falls to the ground, we call that gravity. that is an observable effect. you are welcome to challange me on that and try doing otherwise, but it's pretty solid.

THAT is truth, (course as we all know, it's more complicated as there are ways around gravity) now.. what causes gravity? THAT is something that we can only theorize about and the theory of gravity has changed over time, Newton's theories on gravity, for example where in fact superseeded by Einstein, and one day someone else may develop an even better theory. THAT is truth, there is observable data and the theory you can cfrat from it. You are presenting observable data and claiming your theories as to it are fact.

You just missed the point. I never said gravity doesn't exist.

no b ut you said Gravity was "fact" when it's actually a lot more complex.

Gravity is a fact, we know everything there is to know about it, apart from that we haven't figured out quantum gravity.

We still don’t know exactly

What it is.

Why it only pulls

Why it is so weak

Why it is so finely tuned

Does life need gravity

Can we counter it permanently

And of course, can we ever have a theory of quantum gravity

There’s more, but it’s clear we don’t “know everything there is to know about it” but shock horror, Delvarus makes a supposition not backed by facts

Usual defence tactics coming in 3, 2, 1.....

We know why it only pulls, its because objects travel through warped space-time.

Why its so weak has to do with quantum gravity as I stated we don't know that.

Why its finely tuned is just another way of asking why its so weak and its just the anthropic principle.

We know everything about gravity in the macro world, its just gravity in the quantum world we don't understand and what you listed is just exactly that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
I love how we are discussing gravity now.

Comparing scientisifc knowledge to information gleaned from a fictional book is really weird.

I will state 1 fact about 40k. There is no canon. It all changes all the time. Different people are in charge of GW and different people write the books, codex and fiction but in the end it can all change. So even “knowing things” is transient.

That is an observation based on 30years following the the story of this universe.

I was comparing his argument technique to people that say there are no scientific facts, its not really weird, but I'm glad I love debating about physics its fun.

We know why it only pulls, its because objects travel through warped space-time.

thats the current leading theory but that doesn't mean it's truth. in fact the weaknesses you yourself admitted exist are evidance eneugh that the theory may in fact be one day proven wrong as our understanding advances.

end of the day no good scientist will say "this theory is truth absolute" he'll say "this is what we belive currently"

BrianDavion wrote:

We know why it only pulls, its because objects travel through warped space-time.

thats the current leading theory but that doesn't mean it's truth. in fact the weaknesses you yourself admitted exist are evidance eneugh that the theory may in fact be one day proven wrong as our understanding advances.

end of the day no good scientist will say "this theory is truth absolute" he'll say "this is what we belive currently"

Not likely, you can calculate every orbit or mass of a body to perfect precision. That we can make predictions for it means its true to some degree. There could be a theory that trumps it, but that it works in giving prediction means that its very unlikely, they will probably just add to it. Yes scientists don't believe in absolute truths, but that is just a matter time, what we have a truths at the present so they are truths until they are proven otherwise, saying something isn't true because it could change in the future is a terrible argument, because it doesn't really mean anything.