AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Nanoha

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-09-08, 17:13   Link #981
Keroko
Adeptus Animus
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Age: 26
What it boils down to is this: There is no logical reason for the off-Earth weapons to be worse than ours. In fact, being that this is a society that is ahead of us in technology, it's far more logical to assume that their weaponry is superior to our own. Then we watch the series and see that magic can hold it's own against these weapons, with mages successfully defending against them, or countering them.

Magic can be effective against mass-based weaponry. At the same time, villains using them means that the reverse is true as well.

Conclusion? Magic and mass-based weaponry are on equal ground. Both have ways to defend and defeat the other.
__________________
Keroko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-08, 17:21   Link #982
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keroko View Post
Magic can be effective against mass-based weaponry. At the same time, villains using them means that the reverse is true as well.

Conclusion? Magic and mass-based weaponry are on equal ground. Both have ways to defend and defeat the other.
Eh, a villain using a mass-based weapon doesn't mean too much. I'd say it's more a matter than guns can be given to anyone, and it's an easy way to get a force armed. Especially when not everyone you face is gonna be a mage; see the civil war in Orussia. A villain will use whatever he can. A gun is usually better than a knife, but a villain will still use a knife if that's what he can get his hands on; he'll just plan his strategy around it, to try and get in close to negate the gun's advantage.

I'd still say magic is better, at least until you reach the nuclear explosion level. Hell, if we're going to argue anything about science being better, I'd probably say biological weapons are where it's at. Bombard your enemies with lethal gas, or spread a virus, and you can knock out a lot of mages (Dieci's attack at the peace center shows this, even though she was using something non-lethal).

Not everyone is a mage, so guns are effective on the non-mage people. You also have to remember that there are a lot of normals in the Bureau.
Kaijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-08, 17:44   Link #983
Keroko
Adeptus Animus
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Age: 26
Yes, that's what I meant with on equal ground. Both have advantages the other do not. Magic is more flexible, guns can be used by anyone, stuff like that.

Also, bigger guns can be compared to stronger mages. A random thug with a small gun isn't much of a threat, but a regular B-rank mage isn't going to fare as well as Subaru against an anti-tank weapon.
__________________
Keroko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-08, 18:25   Link #984
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keroko View Post
What it boils down to is this: There is no logical reason for the off-Earth weapons to be worse than ours. In fact, being that this is a society that is ahead of us in technology, it's far more logical to assume that their weaponry is superior to our own.
Maybe they never had much use for chemistry and used magic instead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keroko View Post
Also, bigger guns can be compared to stronger mages.
Yes and no. A strong mage isn't any harder to transport than a weak one. Just harder to mass produce.

Quote:
A random thug with a small gun isn't much of a threat,
Against whom? A good mage who sees him coming, certainly. Against non mages, weak mages, and maybe even against strong mages who aren't on guard...?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-08, 19:11   Link #985
arkhangelsk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
It's cute that your whole argument, the only way you can rationalize things, boils down to, "Obviously, mass-base weapons in this high-tech society are deliberately made crappier than the ones we know on Earth!"

Which breaks the whole "logic" thing. And the whole "Occam's Razor" thing. But you don't seem to let those minor things get in the way....
I find it cuter that my opponents' whole argument is not based off what they can actually see and hear, but ultimately what they wish it to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keroko View Post
And what's stopping criminals from popping over to earth and buying or stealing our 'superior' weapons? You know, like any organization that wants to have the upper hand would do? Or even just the plans and then manufacture their own? Really, this argument holds not even a shred of logic.
I have no idea. Perhaps it is a similar thought process to people like you. Just assuming because they are living in a society with a higher tech base = everything is superior, without bothering to actually check. Most of them may not even be aware that on the unknown boonies known as Non-Management World 97, there are routine weapons that would actually fire rounds with "shocking" speeds that cross vast distances in an "instant". But ultimately all this is speculation versus what we observe.

Quote:
Once again you fall back to framerates and counting seconds, while ignoring that doing so will cause nearly any anime out there to have crappy technology. Macross missiles slow to a crawl, bullets suddenly lose their speeds etc. etc. All the while creating gargantuan plotholes in the anime you're trying to explain as well.
Oooh, you mean I'm actually looking at the show very closely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Comartemis View Post
Since when has ark been known for his logic? You do recall this is the same guy who introduced the Crappy Mid-Childan Concrete Theory in the Magic and Tech thread, right?
Life's different when you use the observations...

Last edited by arkhangelsk; 2010-09-08 at 20:18.
arkhangelsk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-08, 20:40   Link #986
MeisterBabylon
~ Ping For Effect ~
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: The Golden Throne
Age: 28
I'll bite. Arkh, could you list all the attributes of Nanohaverse conventional weapons technology, and how they differ/are the same from our world? Use any method you wish; I can't do it myself...
__________________

On money: Every man has a price. For everything else, there's MakoCard.
MeisterBabylon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-08, 21:18   Link #987
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Maybe they never had much use for chemistry and used magic instead.
I'll grant this would be the case for a lot of people, but humans are curious and resourceful. Eventually, someone is gonna come along who isn't a mage, or maybe they are, and they have find love in chemistry. It only takes one person, and then the knowledge spreads; especially when you consider that someone would have noticed Earth and learned about our weapons. Also, Ancient Belka was flush with fairly nasty weapons, so the knowledge most likely survived somehow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhangelsk View Post
I find it cuter that my opponents' whole argument is not based off what they can actually see and hear, but ultimately what they wish it to be.

I have no idea. Perhaps it is a similar thought process to people like you. Just assuming because they are living in a society with a higher tech base = everything is superior, without bothering to actually check. Most of them may not even be aware that on the unknown boonies known as Non-Management World 97, there are routine weapons that would actually fire rounds with "shocking" speeds that cross vast distances in an "instant". But ultimately all this is speculation versus what we observe.
You having theories about how things go, isn't the problem. The problem is that you want us to believe you when have no proof. Most people tend to group all data into one theory of everything, whereas your path means you have to make up a completely new theory for every single new event; it's a rather poor way to conduct science, when a unified theory that explains all cases is so much simpler. You favor the convoluted explanation, when it's not needed; there's no good reason to.

Here's me conducting a theory, based on limited evidence, in the manner which you do:

Remember that gun in SSX that the poacher shot Erio with? Your claim that it's "whine-up" time means it was somehow a poor gun? Maybe the whine-up means it's some sort of advanced hand-held railgun charging up. Such a weapon would shoot a projectile at far deadlier speeds than a normal gun, which means it's all the more impressive that Erio easily survived it.

The problem with my theory? There's no proof. It's just a wild mass guess that introduces new elements and makes a simple situation all the more complex when it doesn't need to be. Since it's an audio program and we have no visuals, we have limited information. And to invent such a new theory does nothing to help us explain anything else, so it's ultimately a pointless exercise, especially when we already have a perfectly fine explanation due to seeing mages take numerous kinetic impacts throughout the series and coming through just fine.

I'll use your logic style again: ark must be some sort of robot; it makes sense, because he continuously spouts the same things over and over again, like some programming. It's a needlessly complex explanation, and the simpler one is that he's just a human, but obviously my explanation is just better because I say so. Even though I have no proof and requires people to stretch their belief unreasonably.
Kaijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-09, 00:02   Link #988
arkhangelsk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
You having theories about how things go, isn't the problem. The problem is that you want us to believe you when have no proof. Most people tend to group all data into one theory of everything, whereas your path means you have to make up a completely new theory for every single new event; it's a rather poor way to conduct science, when a unified theory that explains all cases is so much simpler. You favor the convoluted explanation, when it's not needed; there's no good reason to.
I'll restrain myself to noting I'm being told this by a man who has to come up with two separate explanations just to explain away two shanks with the same type weapon, one of which requires assumptions the opposite to which we are told, when a much simpler explanation, that the BJ just isn't very good against this kind of thing should be starting to float up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keroko View Post
What it boils down to is this: There is no logical reason for the off-Earth weapons to be worse than ours. In fact, being that this is a society that is ahead of us in technology, it's far more logical to assume that their weaponry is superior to our own. Then we watch the series and see that magic can hold it's own against these weapons, with mages successfully defending against them, or countering them.
I'll agree that it is reasonable to hypothesize on the basis that they have a higher overall tech level that they have better weapons. It is not reasonable to insist on said hypothesis when the weapons are turning in below par performances.

Not to mention in some cases, a weapon with a low speed and warhead effect performance is actually more logical than a high solution. For example, when it is a "howitzer" made from an arm, mounted on a more or less human sized body.

On the general point of whether magic can counter against mass, I'll agree it probably can. And it can do it without having to give advantages to magic it doesn't have or trying to take away its limitations - which arguably in fact makes me more pro-magic than you (that's for those who think I must just be miserable constantly picturing the Nanoverse as weak), since I think magic has a chance as is, w/o buffs.

On the more strategic point, the debate is whether mass weapons are useful in a "fringe" (defeating unprepared mages, non-mages, en-masse v 1 ... etc) or central way. If we ignore the observable technical correlations for the moment, and just hang onto this plotline, while it is possible to rationalize the ban in a fringe scenario, the justification is much stronger in a "central" scenario - it becomes a matter of simple national security for government relying on mage-centric security force to suppress things. It'll also explain the desire for thugs to have some (even those rather limited specimens we see).

As for why don't thugs use guns more like ours, I'll say that large scale re-development efforts are spotted and splashed before they reach fruit. As for the average thug (or small group of them), a modern gun is a rather complex affair and it is unlikely the thug will successfully to design and make one with the help of only a non-specialist education. More likely, any illegal slugthrower they make will be cobbled together based on conveniently available aftermarket parts, with correspondingly low performance (if it has high enough performance, its application as a mass weapon would be clear and access will be restricted or banned).

Last edited by arkhangelsk; 2010-09-09 at 00:47.
arkhangelsk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-09, 02:16   Link #989
prescience
Friendly Satanist
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhangelsk View Post
I'll agree that it is reasonable to hypothesize on the basis that they have a higher overall tech level that they have better weapons. It is not reasonable to insist on said hypothesis when the weapons are turning in below par performances.
I'd be interested to hear where you're getting these "below par performances" from. All we know is that, in all cases where mass-based weapons have been used against mages, they have failed to be effective. From this, all we can infer is that the weapons used in these cases are ineffective against magic defenses. If we see the weapons failing to do damage to targets without magical defenses (that they would be expected to damage in the real world), then yes, we could conclude that their performance is below-par. But until then, this argument holds no water.

Quote:
Not to mention in some cases, a weapon with a low speed and warhead effect performance is actually more logical than a high solution. For example, when it is a "howitzer" made from an arm, mounted on a more or less human sized body.
I would like to take object with your general insistence that timing measurements are admissible as evidence in this debate. You say that you judge the events shown in the story by the same standards as you would judge events in real life. But, even setting aside the possibility that the writer deliberately sacrificed realism for the sake of making things look cool (a well-documented occurrence even in live-action series/films), these details are only going to be coherent to the extent that the writer actually thought things out. I find it much more believable that Tsuzuki doesn't care about the details and just threw things in willy nilly because they sound cool, than to think that he decided to make the mass-based weapons used in the series utterly crappy by terran standards, and carefully planned the timing of all the scenes in question to be consistent with this. But maybe that's just me...

Quote:
As for why don't thugs use guns more like ours, I'll say that large scale re-development efforts are spotted and splashed before they reach fruit. As for the average thug (or small group of them), a modern gun is a rather complex affair and it is unlikely the thug will successfully to design and make one with the help of only a non-specialist education. More likely, any illegal slugthrower they make will be cobbled together based on conveniently available aftermarket parts, with correspondingly low performance (if it has high enough performance, its application as a mass weapon would be clear and access will be restricted or banned).
... or they could just steal a bunch of M16A1s (or, more likely, AK47s) from Earth. If Fate could come over and steal Jewel Seeds as a 9-year-old kid, surely an organized crime syndicate wouldn't have any trouble finding somewhere to steal assault rifles from.
prescience is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-09, 05:42   Link #990
arkhangelsk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by prescience View Post
I'd be interested to hear where you're getting these "below par performances" from.
If as depicted, our mass weapons are going at Mach 3, your Para 2 won't be there.

Quote:
All we know is that, in all cases where mass-based weapons have been used against mages, they have failed to be effective.
We have two shankings with a non-magical attacker, a set of whippings and for an all-time low, windblast with no hint of attacking magic... (trying to prove there is no magic, or no attacking magic, is a futile attempt at proving a negative)

Quote:
From this, all we can infer is that the weapons used in these cases are ineffective against magic defenses.
Which then leaves us to determine the mass and speed of the rounds. Also, for the 2nd example, it seems canon wants us to credit the Cyborg body, more than the magic. Read previous posts.

Quote:
I would like to take object with your general insistence that timing measurements are admissible as evidence in this debate.
Join the club

Quote:
<snip>
It may be just me, but I think that if the scene under discussion involved a "baseball", but the best estimate of its speed was Mach 3, I'm sure none of you there would accept any solution other than Mach 3 speed. And if it hit a mage and mage is unfazed by the attack with only his barrier jacket, you will not accept anything less than a conclusion that everything is as shown and thus the mage BJ has excellent ballistic characteristic despite its thinness. The fact it was supposed to be a "baseball", Naruto, or any of the above would have no importance in comparison to the observable speed.

Which is all very well, and scientifically correct, but why does everything change when the situation inverts to "howitzer" and <50m/s speed?

I prefer to be consistent and scientific. Observations through good and bad.

Quote:
... or they could just steal a bunch of M16A1s (or, more likely, AK47s) from Earth. If Fate could come over and steal Jewel Seeds as a 9-year-old kid, surely an organized crime syndicate wouldn't have any trouble finding somewhere to steal assault rifles from.
That assumes they are even aware of Earth as more than a number, that they are aware of the goodies we have, that they understand the advantages of our weapons ... etc before they would even consider an acquisition mission. It also assumes they have independent teleportation ability (since no regular ships come here) and we don't exactly see an excess of private interdimensional transport, which is not that common and if they have such ability they are likely mages and presumably less interested.

Think about how little we really know about most other countries. How interested do you think the average syndicate is in our "backwater" world?
arkhangelsk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-09, 06:32   Link #991
prescience
Friendly Satanist
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhangelsk View Post
If as depicted, our mass weapons are going at Mach 3, your Para 2 won't be there.
If the projectiles were depicted as going at Mach 3 in screentime, then you would have no basis for arguing that they are weaker than their real-world equivalents. So I'm not sure what you're trying to prove there.

Quote:
We have two shankings with a non-magical attacker, a set of whippings and for an all-time low, windblast with no hint of attacking magic... (trying to prove there is no magic, or no attacking magic, is a futile attempt at proving a negative)
All of these cases involve mages not using active defenses (for one reason or another); only Barrier Jackets. You are the one arguing that mass-based weapons are effective against mages in a general context; this would have to include situations where the mages in question had sufficient warning to put up active shields. And as an aside, the "windblast" argument is, as noted before, ridiculous. It comes down to deciding whether:
(a) Barrier Jackets are utterly, ridiculously fragile to physical damage, to the point where they can be damaged by insects flapping their wings at a distance
or:
(b) there are some magical effects that are not accompanied by a colorful glow

Given that the insects are known to be magical in nature, and that we never see BJs getting ripped from e.g. a mage stretching her arms or something like that, choosing (b) over (a) seems like a no-brainer to me.

Quote:
It may be just me, but I think that if the scene under discussion involved a "baseball", but the best estimate of its speed was Mach 3, I'm sure none of you there would accept any solution other than Mach 3 speed. And if it hit a mage and mage is unfazed by the attack with only his barrier jacket, you will not accept anything less than a conclusion that everything is as shown and thus the mage BJ has excellent ballistic characteristic despite its thinness. The fact it was supposed to be a "baseball", Naruto, or any of the above would have no importance in comparison to the observable speed.

Which is all very well, and scientifically correct, but why does everything change when the situation inverts to "howitzer" and <50m/s speed?

I prefer to be consistent and scientific. Observations through good and bad.
There is a fundamental asymmetry between these two situations. In fiction, fast motion is often slowed down to increase dramatic effect. The converse situation, speeding up motion for diminished dramatic effect, is not remotely likely. So in the "Mach 3 baseball" scenario, we would have no basis for believing that the speed of the baseball was being represented inaccurately. In any case, I would argue that while the fact of it being a baseball might be irrelevant, how it was launched would very much be relevant to my decision as to whether it is believable that it actually was travelling at Mach 3. In short, the assertion that screen time corresponds to real time in a particular sequence is just that - an assertion, which needs to be justified.
prescience is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-09, 07:18   Link #992
arkhangelsk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by prescience View Post
If the projectiles were depicted as going at Mach 3 in screentime, then you would have no basis for arguing that they are weaker than their real-world equivalents. So I'm not sure what you're trying to prove there.
That will be true on the speed axis. Unfortunately, it is not, and my original statement primarily centered on their velocity performance.

Quote:
All of these cases involve mages not using active defenses (for one reason or another); only Barrier Jackets. You are the one arguing that mass-based weapons are effective against mages in a general context; this would have to include situations where the mages in question had sufficient warning to put up active shields.
Actually, the side that wants to assert that mages can block the attacks really has the burden of proof in establishing the shield's defensive capacity and its magnitude. But as a bonus: considering the way that Vita's relatively low speed hammer can apparently penetrate, that Nanoha and Fate were wincing at those (not awfully powerful) small-caliber missiles slamming into their shield, that it takes 4 people shielding just to survive a makeshift exploding Gadget drone ... the indications would, IMO, indicate that while mages shielding would be infinitely better at resisting kinetic attacks, they are far from invulnerable.

Besides, considering that mages basically either move & attack (and often only move OR attack) or defend, to overemphasize the whole shield part would be improper in the tactical decision, even if one optimistically assumes they are perfectly safe if only they turn the shield on. Eventually, the mage would want to actually ATTACK rather than get into a stalemate contest and he'll be holed...

Quote:
And as an aside, the "windblast" argument is, as noted before, ridiculous. It comes down to deciding whether:
(a) Barrier Jackets are utterly, ridiculously fragile to physical damage, to the point where they can be damaged by insects flapping their wings at a distance
It was point blank, to be fair to the barrier jacket.

Quote:
or:
(b) there are some magical effects that are not accompanied by a colorful glow

Given that the insects are known to be magical in nature, and that we never see BJs getting ripped from e.g. a mage stretching her arms or something like that, choosing (b) over (a) seems like a no-brainer to me.
Trying to disprove b is a exercise in proving the negative, and thus scientifically unsubstantiable. I'll just note that the magic cast previously on those bugs is for control and not attack, and we see no signs of a magical attack, and while it is pretty depressing for the proximity windblast of an insect penetrating is pretty sad, that a supposed S-rank's attack would fail to just down that A-rank unison device is also no glory.

Quote:
There is a fundamental asymmetry between these two situations. In fiction, fast motion is often slowed down to increase dramatic effect. The converse situation, speeding up motion for diminished dramatic effect, is not remotely likely.
You are ignoring the true fundamental assymetry, which is that you (collective) have a tendency to find excuses (which you are even doing now) to explain away the poor performers, while finding excuses to accept the high performers as gold. Even a moron can easily tell that such systematic biases is no formula for an accurate solution to any problem.

Quote:
So in the "Mach 3 baseball" scenario, we would have no basis for believing that the speed of the baseball was being represented inaccurately.
For the specific example, the fact that a realistic baseball would likely not have survived the launch and cruise stresses of a Mach 3 flight would be a nice scientific countercue. But we all know that it'll be washed away with shouts of "It's MAGIC!" (read: brain stopped functioning).

Quote:
In any case, I would argue that while the fact of it being a baseball might be irrelevant, how it was launched would very much be relevant to my decision as to whether it is believable that it actually was travelling at Mach 3.
Interesting. OK, suppose the ball was launched in a way that you do not think it could be travelling at Mach 3 (say it was hand-thrown). Yet the available observational evidence says with high confidence its speed is such. Yet according to you it could not have been visually speeded up (so the ball cannot be slower). Now what.

Or, to match our current situation a little better, suppose you cannot seriously estimate the plausibility based on its launch method (this would apply to basically all our Nanoverse launches, since the launch mechanism is magical or unknown - we have no mechanism, no real basis for saying the observed speed is even dubious; our personal wishes don't count).

Quote:
In short, the assertion that screen time corresponds to real time in a particular sequence is just that - an assertion, which needs to be justified.
As for the whole screen time = real time is one of the most basic assertions in anime, just as learning to draw in perspective is one of the most fundamental skills. If one needs extra confirmation, it requires only the first line of dialog. After that, shifts are the exception and require special signals because the audience assumes that it is in real time. This is all the more true in a audio-only medium, because there is no possibility of using the many visual techniques used to signify the application of time compression / dilation.
arkhangelsk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-09, 08:30   Link #993
prescience
Friendly Satanist
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhangelsk View Post
That will be true on the speed axis. Unfortunately, it is not, and my original statement primarily centered on their velocity performance.
Wait, what?

Quote:
Actually, the side that wants to assert that mages can block the attacks really has the burden of proof in establishing the shield's defensive capacity and its magnitude. But as a bonus: considering the way that Vita's relatively low speed hammer can apparently penetrate, that Nanoha and Fate were wincing at those (not awfully powerful) small-caliber missiles slamming into their shield, that it takes 4 people shielding just to survive a makeshift exploding Gadget drone ... the indications would, IMO, indicate that while mages shielding would be infinitely better at resisting kinetic attacks, they are far from invulnerable.
No one is claiming that mages are invulnerable to kinetic attacks (or at least, I'm not). But the fact of the matter is that they are shown to be able to defend against these attacks is sufficient to establish the defensive value of magical shields. And the point about "Vita's relatively low speed hammer" is entirely irrelevant, since Graf Eisen is powered by magic, so we can't speculate about the principles behind it's operation unless we have canon information about them.

Quote:
Besides, considering that mages basically either move & attack (and often only move OR attack) or defend, to overemphasize the whole shield part would be improper in the tactical decision, even if one optimistically assumes they are perfectly safe if only they turn the shield on. Eventually, the mage would want to actually ATTACK rather than get into a stalemate contest and he'll be holed...
And eventually the mass-based-weapon user will run out of ammo. In any case, you are presupposing a 1-on-1 situation; if there are multiple mages, some can defend the group which the others attack.

In any case, this point is entirely tangential; the fact of the matter is that magical defenses can protect mages against mass-based weapons (at least to some substantial extent). The tactical implications are a different topic altogether.

Quote:
It was point blank, to be fair to the barrier jacket.
That's not what it looks like to me, watching it frame-by-frame. Earlier in the thread you actually tried to use this as further evidence of how OMG ridiculously weak barrier jackets are.

Quote:
Trying to disprove b is a exercise in proving the negative, and thus scientifically unsubstantiable.
It's not a matter of disproving one or the other. It's a matter of deciding which explanation is more plausible. And you've failed to address my point that explanation (a) is grossly implausible.

Quote:
You are ignoring the true fundamental assymetry, which is that you (collective) have a tendency to find excuses (which you are even doing now) to explain away the poor performers, while finding excuses to accept the high performers as gold. Even a moron can easily tell that such systematic biases is no formula for an accurate solution to any problem.
Systematic biases? You mean like your refusal to accept magic as an explanation of anything that doesn't glow like a neon advertising board?

Quote:
For the specific example, the fact that a realistic baseball would likely not have survived the launch and cruise stresses of a Mach 3 flight would be a nice scientific countercue. But we all know that it'll be washed away with shouts of "It's MAGIC!" (read: brain stopped functioning).
Nice ad hominem there. Depending on who was throwing it, it could well have been magic. Perhaps you've forgotten what the title of the series is?
I see you conveniently contradict yourself a little bit further on, as well...

Quote:
Interesting. OK, suppose the ball was launched in a way that you do not think it could be travelling at Mach 3 (say it was hand-thrown). Yet the available observational evidence says with high confidence its speed is such. Yet according to you it could not have been visually speeded up (so the ball cannot be slower). Now what.
Like I said, the assertion that screen time = real time must be justified, and is therefore contingent on the surrounding circumstances. I did not say that time is never speeded up; I just said that in the absence of supporting evidence I consider it an implausible explanation.

Quote:
Or, to match our current situation a little better, suppose you cannot seriously estimate the plausibility based on its launch method (this would apply to basically all our Nanoverse launches, since the launch mechanism is magical or unknown - we have no mechanism, no real basis for saying the observed speed is even dubious; our personal wishes don't count).
Except that when we are talking about mass-based weapons, the launch mechanism is known. Unless you want to speculate that what they call "mass-based weapons" are actually some other, special, unexplained form of magic...

Quote:
As for the whole screen time = real time is one of the most basic assertions in anime, just as learning to draw in perspective is one of the most fundamental skills. If one needs extra confirmation, it requires only the first line of dialog. After that, shifts are the exception and require special signals because the audience assumes that it is in real time. This is all the more true in a audio-only medium, because there is no possibility of using the many visual techniques used to signify the application of time compression / dilation.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy this. With projectile weapons, there is always room for artistic license, especially considering the high speeds that they usually travel at.
prescience is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-09, 09:41   Link #994
arkhangelsk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by prescience View Post
Wait, what?
You asked me for where the poor performances are, as if you doubt their existence, even though they are the very point of discussion. I merely point out that the fact you are trying to excise some of them from the record is the best admission they exist.

Quote:
No one is claiming that mages are invulnerable to kinetic attacks (or at least, I'm not). But the fact of the matter is that they are shown to be able to defend against these attacks is sufficient to establish the defensive value of magical shields.
Well, then the next problem would be to quantify those shields, which leaves us with what I said.

Quote:
And eventually the mass-based-weapon user will run out of ammo. In any case, you are presupposing a 1-on-1 situation; if there are multiple mages, some can defend the group which the others attack.

In any case, this point is entirely tangential; the fact of the matter is that magical defenses can protect mages against mass-based weapons (at least to some substantial extent). The tactical implications are a different topic altogether.
Deciding how well mages can handle gunners is surely a tactical as well as technical matter.

You are pleasantly assuming the mass-based weapon user will actually keep shooting ineffectually at the target. More likely, he's either to shift to heavier weapons to force a breakthrough, or he's going to stop attacking. The mage has a mission to finish, and he can't do that hunkering in the shield.

By pairing up, the situation improves (that's the basis of how I see anti-gunner operations take place, rather than the BJ being just effectively invulnerable), but we are still left with them coordinating their movements and one of them will have to stick out of cover to shoot, leaving him vulnerable. At this point, we have a real tactics fight.

Quote:
It's not a matter of disproving one or the other. It's a matter of deciding which explanation is more plausible. And you've failed to address my point that explanation (a) is grossly implausible.
B is not exactly better, due to the problems I mentioned. How likely is this. S-rank mage decides to attack A-rank unison device, and deliberately sends a bug to close to <10cm to send a magic-enhanced windblast that only makes a small cut in a barrier jacket... when it reaches this point, all of a sudden a freak vortex sounds almost appealing.

Quote:
Systematic biases? You mean like your refusal to accept magic as an explanation of anything that doesn't glow like a neon advertising board?
Considering the Black Box nature of magic, this is only scientific, for similar reasons why we don't write "God" in the answer box of every little bump science en-counters.

Besides, the debate of interpretations is a very different matter from literally throwing out the observations.

[quote]Nice ad hominem there. Depending on who was throwing it, it could well have been magic. Perhaps you've forgotten what the title of the series is?
I see you conveniently contradict yourself a little bit further on, as well...

I'm talking about the part where people handwave away any problems with their theory with "its magic". It is not so much the idea of involving magic that's annoying - obviously some things like magiflight must involve magic somewhere. The annoying part is how when all analysis stops, and theories are no longer created but just attacking theories they don't like.

Quote:
Like I said, the assertion that screen time = real time must be justified, and is therefore contingent on the surrounding circumstances. I did not say that time is never speeded up; I just said that in the absence of supporting evidence I consider it an implausible explanation.
I'll actually argue that the same is true for slowing down. In the absence of clear cues, and especially in cases of countercue, it is enormously implausible.

Quote:
Except that when we are talking about mass-based weapons, the launch mechanism is known. Unless you want to speculate that what they call "mass-based weapons" are actually some other, special, unexplained form of magic...
There are actually a variety of launch mechanisms for mass weapons, from the use of tensioned strings, to explosives to electromagnetic, with a wide variety of possible speed results.

Quote:
I'm sorry, but I don't buy this. With projectile weapons, there is always room for artistic license, especially considering the high speeds that they usually travel at.
Tell me, how many anime series do you see where your first thought is "Man, we must be going at 10X speed here". Not many, I suppose, because anime spend most of their time at 1X speed, and the very presence of dialogue, movement ... etc all point to 1X. It'll be enormously disorienting to watch an anime at 10X or 1/10X speed for a prolonged period, because the human mind assumes that things go on at 1X.

Granted, slowing down of fast movement is more statistically likely than the speed up, but that's a literary rather than scientific concern, and both combined would be a minority in comparison to the time it spends at 1X. It is one thing to say that, for example, Males are more likely than Females to commit crimes, and another to say this is a reason for assuming all males that you don't like are criminals.
arkhangelsk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-09, 10:06   Link #995
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhangelsk View Post
I'll restrain myself to noting I'm being told this by a man who has to come up with two separate explanations just to explain away two shanks with the same type weapon, one of which requires assumptions the opposite to which we are told, when a much simpler explanation, that the BJ just isn't very good against this kind of thing should be starting to float up.
So in other words, you are unable to answer my point. Just like you are unable to resolve the HE round contradiction in your theories. You'll probably avoid respondind to this point yet again.

By the way, the shanking explanations are consistant; in both cases, the auto-barrier/BJ combo was weakened.

Another amusing thing... you say that magic moves slow, and their bass-based weapons are slow. Thus everything is moving slow. Or, another way to say it: mass-based weapons and magic are moving at the same speed. Of course, one explanation is that it really is slow... and the other is they really are moving fast and that timing tricks are used to slow it down enough so that we can follow what is going on.

The latter is the most common among anime and live action movies. So, obviously, in your case, when confronted with the most obvious explanation, you go with the least obvious explanation supported with non-existent evidence.

Ya know, I do partially think you're trolling with all this, but it's cool; I practice backtrolling. That is, to keep trolls occupied so they have less time to bother other thin-skinned citizens of the internet. =)
Kaijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-09, 10:26   Link #996
arkhangelsk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
So in other words, you are unable to answer my point. Just like you are unable to resolve the HE round contradiction in your theories. You'll probably avoid respondind to this point yet again.
There's no contradiction to contend that a HEAT round can take out Cyborgs and a HE round can't. This is NOT a difficult concept.

Quote:
By the way, the shanking explanations are consistant; in both cases, the auto-barrier/BJ combo was weakened.
You had to use TWO separate excuses to try and explain why the AB/BJ was weakened, one of them was basically contradicted, and BOTH of them don't really solve the problem anyway.

This is in comparison to the idea that the AB/BJ combo simply does not have the performance people think it does. It uses both pieces of evidence directly, does not have to contradict anything, and doesn't have a problem to solve.

Really, the victor is obvious.

Quote:
Another amusing thing... you say that magic moves slow, and their
bass-based weapons are slow. Thus everything is moving slow. Or, another way to say it: mass-based weapons and magic are moving at the same speed. Of course, one explanation is that it really is slow... and the other is they really are moving fast and that timing tricks are used to slow it down enough so that we can follow what is going on.
In other words, one is just to take the observations as is, and the other is to find excuses for why not to. Hmm...
arkhangelsk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-09, 10:39   Link #997
prescience
Friendly Satanist
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhangelsk View Post
B is not exactly better, due to the problems I mentioned. How likely is this. S-rank mage decides to attack A-rank unison device, and deliberately sends a bug to close to <10cm to send a magic-enhanced windblast that only makes a small cut in a barrier jacket... when it reaches this point, all of a sudden a freak vortex sounds almost appealing.
Well, obviously that doesn't make any sense; there's nothing to indicate that Lutecia was even aware of Rein's presence. What I was getting at was more along the lines of magical reactive shielding that caused damage to Rein automatically when she came into proximity of the bugs (or vice versa). Since there are lots of these bugs, no one of them would channel anything like Lulu's full power, which explains why Rein didn't get WTFPWNED by them.

Quote:
Considering the Black Box nature of magic, this is only scientific, for similar reasons why we don't write "God" in the answer box of every little bump science en-counters.
In the real world, this would be a perfectly reasonable argument. In the Nanohaverse, however, we know that magic does exist, so we have to consider it as a possible explanation. You may not like the fact that it doesn't give us as much information as a purely non-magical explanation, but that has nothing to do with whether it fits the evidence or not.

Quote:
Besides, the debate of interpretations is a very different matter from literally throwing out the observations.
I'm not throwing out the observations; I'm interpreting them differently to you. The fact that under my interpretation they do not support your argument is beside the point.

Quote:
I'm talking about the part where people handwave away any problems with their theory with "its magic". It is not so much the idea of involving magic that's annoying - obviously some things like magiflight must involve magic somewhere. The annoying part is how when all analysis stops, and theories are no longer created but just attacking theories they don't like.
If you advance a theory based only on real-world physics, and it actually works, then great; we can subject the theory to detailed analysis. But if a valid explanation relies on black box magic, then like it or not, you can't analyse it very far.

Quote:
I'll actually argue that the same is true for slowing down. In the absence of clear cues, and especially in cases of countercue, it is enormously implausible.
Except that there's a clear reason why the writer would want to slow down a high-speed scene, while speeding up a normal-speed scene (like your supersonic baseball, for example) wouldn't serve any purpose. The very fact that projectiles that usually travel at high speeds are travelling slowly in a given sequence is a cue (though not a very clear one) that the sequence is being slowed down.

Quote:
There are actually a variety of launch mechanisms for mass weapons, from the use of tensioned strings, to explosives to electromagnetic, with a wide variety of possible speed results.
So the Mariage's arm howitzer is really a trebuchet in disguise?

Quote:
Tell me, how many anime series do you see where your first thought is "Man, we must be going at 10X speed here". Not many, I suppose, because anime spend most of their time at 1X speed, and the very presence of dialogue, movement ... etc all point to 1X. It'll be enormously disorienting to watch an anime at 10X or 1/10X speed for a prolonged period, because the human mind assumes that things go on at 1X.
No-one said anything about running at non-realtime speeds for extended periods of time. The sequences in question are quite short (a few seconds of screen time, in the Mariage case).

Quote:
Granted, slowing down of fast movement is more statistically likely than the speed up, but that's a literary rather than scientific concern,
Literary concern? We're discussing a work of fiction here, so I'm not sure why the distinction is relevant. You seem to think that we can apply scientific principles to a work of fiction just as you would in the real world, ignoring the fact that it is a work of fiction...
prescience is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-09, 11:40   Link #998
arkhangelsk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by prescience View Post
Well, obviously that doesn't make any sense; there's nothing to indicate that Lutecia was even aware of Rein's presence. What I was getting at was more along the lines of magical reactive shielding that caused damage to Rein automatically when she came into proximity of the bugs (or vice versa). Since there are lots of these bugs, no one of them would channel anything like Lulu's full power, which explains why Rein didn't get WTFPWNED by them.
Magical reactive shielding? Not only is this rather speculative, but why would anyone install such a thing in a bug that's meant to close in on equipment to control them. Further, it'll be rather lousy as a protective means - the thin swipe it does on the opponent is more likely to infuriate them - the effort would be better spent on pushing the bug out of danger, which is obviously not what happened.

Quote:
I'm not throwing out the observations; I'm interpreting them differently to you. The fact that under my interpretation they do not support your argument is beside the point.
If you have to say that the velocity depicted in a particular scene is not the actual velocity, you are throwing out the information in the scene.

Quote:
If you advance a theory based only on real-world physics, and it actually works, then great; we can subject the theory to detailed analysis. But if a valid explanation relies on black box magic, then like it or not, you can't analyse it very far.
As a matter of practicality, there may be times when we have to do that. However, if Opponent then brings up a theory that handles it scientifically, or at least keeps more stages scientific before going into the black box, then one should not proclaim his own theory as "simpler", that his opponent's is more "convoluted" (it is what happens when the theory actually has specifics), and then pass off any scientific problems with his own theory as "It is MAGIC..."

Such thought patterns have kept humankind in the Dark Ages for centuries, and it is the Renaissance that allowed us to break free, so we can discuss the scientific analysis of MGLN on a forum.

Quote:
Except that there's a clear reason why the writer would want to slow down a high-speed scene, while speeding up a normal-speed scene (like your supersonic baseball, for example) wouldn't serve any purpose.
They'll both serve a purpose - dramatic. The guy thought that would look better than the reality.

Quote:
The very fact that projectiles that usually travel at high speeds are travelling slowly in a given sequence is a cue (though not a very clear one) that the sequence is being slowed down.
How do you know those magirounds are supposed to be flying faster. Do you have some real magirounds to do comparisons with?

Quote:
So the Mariage's arm howitzer is really a trebuchet in disguise?
Or it might be fired with high-pressure gas rather than explosives. Even with explosives, a wide variety of speeds result based on quantity and composition. You don't know which one it is. All you know is that it is fired from an arm - while one can come up with a technobabble / magical stabilizer I guess, the simpler solution is that it is just slower, thus eradicating the need for these complicating devices. When it is consistent with what we hear, I see no reason to throw out an observation that is scientifically reasonable in exchange for a fiction that is not scientifically reasonable.

Quote:
No-one said anything about running at non-realtime speeds for extended periods of time. The sequences in question are quite short (a few seconds of screen time, in the Mariage case).
Precisely. They are exceptions, and thus should be signalled, and the absence of signal can be taken as an indicator that it is not.

Quote:
Literary concern? We're discussing a work of fiction here, so I'm not sure why the distinction is relevant. You seem to think that we can apply scientific principles to a work of fiction just as you would in the real world, ignoring the fact that it is a work of fiction...
We can certainly apply scientific principles, as long as we, for one, give up demanding the ranges and velocities of scenes be what they are not.
arkhangelsk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-09, 11:51   Link #999
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
Quote:
Originally Posted by arkhangelsk View Post
There's no contradiction to contend that a HEAT round can take out Cyborgs and a HE round can't. This is NOT a difficult concept.
It was your argument that said an RPG can take out a cyborg. RPG's use HE and HEAT rounds. The mariage fired an HE round that could take out a tank, and didn't take out Subaru.

Thus, which is it? Answer the question. Can an HE round that can take out a tank, take out a cyborg? You're trying to split hairs here, and hoping people won't actually be informed enough about military equipment to see the weakness. AN HEAT round is specifically made to penetrate tank armor. It's actually less destructive than a plain HE round.

So you're saying the "weaker" round can take out a cyborg, but the "stronger" round can't. And in both cases, you're being pedantic; an HE round that can take out a tank, is an HE round that can take out a tank. You really should stop trying to ignore facts.

Quote:
You had to use TWO separate excuses to try and explain why the AB/BJ was weakened, one of them was basically contradicted, and BOTH of them don't really solve the problem anyway.

This is in comparison to the idea that the AB/BJ combo simply does not have the performance people think it does. It uses both pieces of evidence directly, does not have to contradict anything, and doesn't have a problem to solve.

Really, the victor is obvious.
So, someone with multiple explanations clearly loses the argument? Congrats; you just made yourself the loser. You have WAY more explanations than anyone else here. We simply believe that in all cases, AB/BJ's can guard against most mass-based weapons. You have a dozen or more explanations to try and explain each situation.

And completely ignore mages easily surviving every kinetic impact to date under normal circumstances.

And there weren't multiple explanations. There was a single explanation from our side: In both cases, the AB/BJ was weakened. That's it. That's one explanation that covers both.

Quote:
In other words, one is just to take the observations as is, and the other is to find excuses for why not to. Hmm...
Yes, it's so obvious now!

Mass based weapons move slow.
Magic moves slow.
People move slow (they block instead of dodging a lot).

So the Nanoverse must move slower than our universe! They all move the same relative speeds in the Nanoverse, so it all balances out. The explanation is so obvious now, thanks to your expert observations! =)
Kaijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-09, 12:28   Link #1000
arkhangelsk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
It was your argument that said an RPG can take out a cyborg. RPG's use HE and HEAT rounds. The mariage fired an HE round that could take out a tank, and didn't take out Subaru.

Thus, which is it? Answer the question. Can an HE round that can take out a tank, take out a cyborg? You're trying to split hairs here, and hoping people won't actually be informed enough about military equipment to see the weakness. AN HEAT round is specifically made to penetrate tank armor. It's actually less destructive than a plain HE round.
What's so hard to understand that a HEAT round, which has a different mode of destruction, can destroy targets that a HE round cannot. Some targets are better engaged with HE (like soft, fleshy humans/mages and weak Kampfwagens) and others with HEAT (like better defended targets).

As for the HE round, the very fact that a small caliber HE round can do the job says much about the tank, because while a HE round has a larger blast radius and thus may be loosely be called "more destructive", its omnidirectionality limits intensity and the nature of its blast makes it weak against hard targets. Not that the weakness of the tank does anything to save a mage's reputation, because a mage apparently won't have survived that round.

Quote:
So, someone with multiple explanations clearly loses the argument? Congrats; you just made yourself the loser. You have WAY more explanations than anyone else here. We simply believe that in all cases, AB/BJ's can guard against most mass-based weapons. You have a dozen or more explanations to try and explain each situation.
It is easier when you don't have to fit the hypothesis to contradictory observations.

Besides, I don't think my answer is necessarily more complicated. I've decided on a layered scheme. The BJ with individual variation is basically useless (kinetically) so it can be blamed for all the weak spots. Active defenses with individual variation are more useful. It is not only very simple, but it layered structure allows its to capably cover all the situations w/o further discomfort PLUS it allows the maximum possible adherence to scientific principles.

Your answer is to say that the the AB/BJ is integral. Now that you have already concluded it can guard against most mass-based weapons, an explanation has to be come up with for each time it does not, even when it actually is contradictory to the information available.

Quote:
And there weren't multiple explanations. There was a single explanation from our side: In both cases, the AB/BJ was weakened. That's it. That's one explanation that covers both.
That's not called one explanation that covers both, because then you have the very obvious question for WHY the AB/BJ was weakened, and you had to use two explanations, which would have been disadvantageous, but not an instant killer if not for the fact that one of them doesn't even fit the facts as given (so technically, your "one explanation" leaves 1 unexplained), and neither considered the problem of magnitude. IN short, your theory didn't even make the starter's gate, let alone to Occam's Razor.

Quote:
Yes, it's so obvious now!

Mass based weapons move slow.
Magic moves slow.
People move slow (they block instead of dodging a lot).

So the Nanoverse must move slower than our universe! They all move the same relative speeds in the Nanoverse, so it all balances out. The explanation is so obvious now, thanks to your expert observations! =)
Except they move at reasonably normal speeds in their lives. Next.
arkhangelsk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:47.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.