Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case
Moderator: Moderators
Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case
F.1) Flight speed is assumed to be 30 MpH or less (vertical / on takeoff), 60 MpH or less (horizontal / in flight), or higher if falling toward the Earth (depending on steepness of descent). You must land at a speed that is consistent with human survivability (if you want to live).
F.2) Flight does not increase your strength; if you would not normally be able to lift a person, you won't be rescuing people from a burning building by carrying them.
F.3) Flight implies forward momentum; you cannot hover.
F.4) Your ceiling is determined by your body and the equipment you are wearing; if you don't have oxygen, you'll black out, if you don't have a jacket you'll freeze, and so on. If you have a space suit and the strength to lift it, you can leave Earth.
I.1) Invisibility is visual only; dogs can still smell you, your footfalls still make noise. However, you will not trigger laser tripwires.
I.2) Because light apparently passes through you, you do not cast a shadow. However, you will still leave footprints, and standard comic effects such as dumping flour on you will render you partially visible.
I.3) You still emit heat, and can be detected or targeted by the appropriate devices.
I.4) Invisibility is assumed to extend to objects on your person; that is, your clothes and objects on your person become invisible when you do and also become visible when you do. This ability does not extend to other living beings (if you have a mouse in your pocket, it will remain visible).
F.2) Flight does not increase your strength; if you would not normally be able to lift a person, you won't be rescuing people from a burning building by carrying them.
F.3) Flight implies forward momentum; you cannot hover.
F.4) Your ceiling is determined by your body and the equipment you are wearing; if you don't have oxygen, you'll black out, if you don't have a jacket you'll freeze, and so on. If you have a space suit and the strength to lift it, you can leave Earth.
I.1) Invisibility is visual only; dogs can still smell you, your footfalls still make noise. However, you will not trigger laser tripwires.
I.2) Because light apparently passes through you, you do not cast a shadow. However, you will still leave footprints, and standard comic effects such as dumping flour on you will render you partially visible.
I.3) You still emit heat, and can be detected or targeted by the appropriate devices.
I.4) Invisibility is assumed to extend to objects on your person; that is, your clothes and objects on your person become invisible when you do and also become visible when you do. This ability does not extend to other living beings (if you have a mouse in your pocket, it will remain visible).
Jesus (#229) | Solitude (#257)
- Carygon Nijax
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:13 pm
- Location: RP Channel... we have cake!!
- Contact:
Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case
I say Flight.. whether is not the greatest superpower.. you can save a lot off money in transportation
Top 10 on the Total Post list
- Cristiona
- Posts: 5118
- Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:01 am
- Location: the Conservatory with the lead pipe
- Contact:
Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case
Platypus, dammit.
Oh, er... wrong thread.
This is kind of a neat question, actually. I think I'd probably go with flight as it seems to have more use for mundane, day-to-day tasks. Invisibility is neat, but less useful unless you're a spy or something.
Oh, er... wrong thread.
This is kind of a neat question, actually. I think I'd probably go with flight as it seems to have more use for mundane, day-to-day tasks. Invisibility is neat, but less useful unless you're a spy or something.
Since you can go straight up, it implies that your acceleration is greater than 32 ft/sec^2. Since the super-powered flight isn't dependant on wings, thrust, lift, or Bernoulli effects, there's no reason one couldn't hover. Still, even taking this particular fiat into account, I'd probably still take flight. It'd make getting to work a lot easier.F.3) Flight implies forward momentum; you cannot hover.
The churches are empty / The priest has gone home / And we are left standing / Together alone
--October Project: "Dark Time"
--October Project: "Dark Time"
Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case
Flight. I've been doing it in my dreams for ages.
-
- Posts: 1395
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:22 pm
- Contact:
Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case
As much as I'd love to be able to fly, I choose invisibility. I can see a lot more use for that in my day-to-day life than flying around attracting all that attention.
Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case
Now, invisible flight, that'd be a great super power.
Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case
I chose invisibility.
I never really saw the fun and the usefulness of flying in my life so invisibility would be better.
I never really saw the fun and the usefulness of flying in my life so invisibility would be better.
Trading insanely super XL bowl! Message Avenger in game.
Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case
flight, man's oldest dream
- Corrupt Shadow
- Posts: 1234
- Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:24 pm
- Location: Baton Rouge, LA
- Contact:
Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case
Flight... invisibility is overrated and would get old after a while.
I've won the 100k DD bet so many times, I should have the title "Mr. Luck"
-
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:54 am
- Contact:
Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case
so, if you have flower dumped on you, you can turn visible, then invisible again and be fine, right?Jesus wrote:I.2) Because light apparently passes through you, you do not cast a shadow. However, you will still leave footprints, and standard comic effects such as dumping flour on you will render you partially visible.
I.4) Invisibility is assumed to extend to objects on your person; that is, your clothes and objects on your person become invisible when you do and also become visible when you do. This ability does not extend to other living beings (if you have a mouse in your pocket, it will remain visible).
I chose Invisible, cause I like to be sneaky. I'd actually rather have the ability to copy other peoples powers, or the power to read minds. but those aren't options...
Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case
Exactly. In that case you'd be fine, but if the thing being dumped was continuous (like rain), you'd be out of luck.seventhcross wrote:so, if you have flower dumped on you, you can turn visible, then invisible again and be fine, right?
I made the last point because invisibility would kind of suck if you couldn't wear clothes; you'd be pretty geographically/seasonally limited. The human body just doesn't take cold well. That kind on/off thing also makes theft tricker to pull off when the thing you're after is under surveillance; you can't just make the thing disappear without revealing yourself.
Jesus (#229) | Solitude (#257)
- Carygon Nijax
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:13 pm
- Location: RP Channel... we have cake!!
- Contact:
Re: Flight v. Invisibility: The classic Supreme Court case
so.. basically:
Flight ---> transportation ----> money save -----> good
Invisibility --> non-transportation---> stealing stuff / sneaking ----> Bad
Flight ---> transportation ----> money save -----> good
Invisibility --> non-transportation---> stealing stuff / sneaking ----> Bad
Top 10 on the Total Post list
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests