2009-02-03, 08:54 | Link #1922 |
Adeptus Animus
Author
Join Date: Jan 2007
Age: 36
|
You're saying its pretty difficult to store luxons as if luxons are the definition of magic, I'm saying that it doesn't operate as any energy we know to begin with.
Booklets also label it as energy. As for your last part... I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove with this. You label a large variety of different examples of equipment that accomplishes similar purposes. Magic, on the other hand, can accomplish virtually all of this with only minor alterations, while you need a factory to build a plane. I've also yet to see a kid who changes into a ferret only a small part of the kids mass, or someone 'hiding behind something' in a space with nothing to hide behind. |
2009-02-03, 14:23 | Link #1923 | |||
Sword Wielding Penguin
|
Quote:
Quote:
If it's massed based particles for this component, then you can and do accellerate them. Quote:
You have real time active full sentience. I'm sure this means that means you are fast enough to handle this simple formulae: 183473790413413704374374032147204^2 [/quote] 183,473,790,413,413,704,374,374,032,147,204^2 One hundred eighty three novillion, four hundred seventy three octillion, seven hundred ninty septillion, four hundred thirteen sextillion, four hundred thirteen quintillion, seven hundred four quadrillion, three hundred seventy four trillion, three hundred seventy four billion, thirty two million, one hundred forty seven thousand, two hundred and four... Squared. And I don't even have a built in dedicated math processor. It takes longer to type than to read. Nice attempt to sidestep the point. But we both know a dedicated computer is built for rapid computation and the human brain was never wired to do so. (Exceptions are certain people with mental 'disorders' such as autism that have wiring in their head different. They look at equations more insanely comprex and DO solve them flippantly.) Trying to upset it by using the weakness of the human brain in mathematics is erranious and we all know anyone with half a brain of intelligence knows that when it comes to computer programming, sentience is more computation heavy than weather forecasting. At this time, my brain is currently processing input from millions of sensors from all five of my senses, processing concious and sub-concious thought, regulating body temperature, water level, sugar level, hormone levels, waste levels, and various other chemical and biological factors related to the functioning of the body. (Including processing the chemical signals that are telling me that my stomach is empty, and that I need some food.) RH does not need to regulate a million and one body functions and maintain homeostasis. It's much simpler 'body' design only needs to regulate magic, heat, and electricity, while monitoring and occasionally dealing with structural integrity issues. On top of this, the human brain functions as an integrated electrochemical network processor. The chemical processing, while making you nearly immune to EMP of all but 'Fry your Ass' levels, produces a very noticable lag in processing time compared to a purely electrical based processor. The lag is most noticeable when testing reflexes to the extremeties. RH, being a magical intelligent device, is first and foremost, NOT an organic network processor and does not HAVE chemical lag times save for the chemical lag times in the brain of its master. Now, as a point, If you want to SOLVE the equation, you should formulate it correctly: X = 183,473,790,413,413,704,374,374,032,147,204^2 Define X. Using the basic calculator on my computer, which is a really stupid non-senstient math processor. It didn't even take the time to blink when I hit enter to solve for X. X = 3.36626317686652585299228560758e+62 That being said, the rest of your argument is trying to circumvent rather than address. And that's all for now. I must be careful not to feed the troll too much, lest it become bloated and overweight. We need our local troll to be fit and trim and capable of SMASHING hapless Heroes. |
|||
2009-02-03, 14:31 | Link #1924 |
Adeptus Animus
Author
Join Date: Jan 2007
Age: 36
|
There are two things I discovered when browsing the few translated booklets:
1: ATC's 'increase the density of a beam' theory is canon. 2: In terms on Divine Buster, it is already applied, suggesting a limit being reached (and by 'suggested' I mean 'can be interpreted as such.' It's still debatable). ディバインバスター・エクステンション - Divine Buster ・ Extension A 「Bombardment spell」 fired and effected from Mana. Mana concentrated to high density allows the target to be hit directly at long range, with no decrease in power over distance. The first offensive spell that Nanoha memorized, after 10 years it has remained one of her favorites, and has also become one of her specialty spells. |
2009-02-03, 16:06 | Link #1925 |
Field Medic
|
well, if we accept for the moment the Particle model of Mana, there are a couple of potential limiting possibilties:
1: if the particles are charged in some way (that is, either electrostatically or magnetically or in some other 'magical' value we do not know) then there may be internal repulsion in the beam due to like charges repelling. There may come a point where compressing the beam any further becomes prohibitively expensive in energy terms due to this internal repulsion. Such repulsion would also have knock-on effects in terms of beam range, however, since it would lead to an increase in beam scattering, increasing the rate at which the beams would lose cohesion. 2: And possibly relating to 1: Compressing the particles down beyond a certain limit may lead to the particles undergoing Fusion... now, when Nuclear Particles undergo Fusion, this can be Bad...(if not done under controlled circumstances) There's no telling what Mana particles might do when they Fuse...but it may also be similarly Bad (again, if not done under controlled circumstances) (Has visions of Yuuno yelling at Nanoha and Fate: " How many times do I have to say it!? DON'T Cross the Streams!" Nanoha: Aww, but it's FUN!") |
2009-02-03, 17:15 | Link #1926 | |
Sword Wielding Penguin
|
Quote:
The reason being that if said beam is being forced together against scattering to remain cohesive uniformly to the target, the force of the compression is being stretched over the distance to the target. Where as the target only needs to project force over the surface area of the beam impact. So your 'energy used' factor for the total firing distance increase exponentially. So you're effectively castrating yourself by using a 'charged particle' beam at anything farther than the effective distance of its natural cohesion. Instead of one-two-three cartrige pumps... nanoha would do something more like, three, thirty, three-hundred. I won't even bother with the magic particle fusion bit. That's just so far out in wild theory range that I'm not going to touch with a ten foot pole. |
|
2009-02-03, 19:19 | Link #1927 | ||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
By the way, the fact you can concentrate mana is another clue as to its nature as a massive, rather than massless particle. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You have no clue of how RH is wired (and remember that while the brain may have more inputs, the brain also has various dedicated cortexes to handle a lot of the work, and RH without the inputs won't have equivalent processors, just the equivalent of our cerebral cortex), so you can't say whether math is a "weakness" as you put it. For all we know it is a neurally networked slow-propagation analogue layout similar to our brain. The fact we observe that it had to rely on a human to solve the problem of guiding about 12 slow moving bombs onto a target, even though surely working out the correct commands to send would be easy for a computer, says tons about the fact you can't just assume RH has the kind of computational abilities you'll expect. If it makes those who use other shows in their argument feel any better, highly advanced (even sentient or near-sentient) computers that have apparent difficulty in solving the relatively simple calculations involved in fire control are only all too common in sci-fi, such as the battle droids in Star Wars. There are a variety of external and internal mechanisms used to explain this, but the end result is the same - as depicted they just aren't solving the fire solutions very fast or very accurately despite being computers w/ sentience. Quote:
Just the levels of energy RH has to handle on a regular basis may be a good reason to choose a more robust electrochemical-equivalent system. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by arkhangelsk; 2009-02-03 at 21:47. |
||||||||||||
2009-02-04, 05:06 | Link #1928 | ||
Adeptus Animus
Author
Join Date: Jan 2007
Age: 36
|
Quote:
Me being one of the leading members of the 'it's magic, it doesn't work like regular science' pack, that sounds silly. Quote:
Even though it is blatantly labeled an energy in the booklets? Not to mention the part that says it doesn't lose any power over distance, that sounds more like an energy that something material being launched. In fact, that bit is in clear contradiction of Storm's point in 1. |
||
2009-02-04, 07:00 | Link #1929 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now, also, please justify how making magic "energy" (in the scientific definition, not the unknown but presumably lay definition used by the booklet) will improve on your complaints. Quote:
Quote:
Also, again, if the beam is "energy", you won't be able to see pink from the side (think of looking at a flashlight from the side, while it is shooting in an unobstructed direction - unless it reflects off something the rays won't hit your eyes). And unless the beam is completely non-interactive with air, which seems unlikely given how it must soon interact with the roof, it will lose some energy there too. |
||||
2009-02-04, 12:00 | Link #1931 |
Field Medic
|
no, he's saying they are oversimplified.
Energy does not, properly speaking, exist. There is no such thing as 'Pure' Energy. all that 'energy' is is a measure of the capacity of a system or process to do work Work being defined as a meaningful change in the state or circumstance of the subject. Going by this, the Beam is NOT a beam of energy, but rather a beam that Carries energy to where it is required to do work (the work in this case being to blow stuff up, or more technically, to break molecular bonds and volatilise the target substance, assuming an inorganic target) now, what Are the candidates for this beam? Well, we know it's Magic. However, we don't properly know how magic behaves except by observation. so, we approximate by making a comparison with something we do know that can offer a similar behavior to that observed. The models Proposed include an electromagnetic energy comparison, and a particle beam comparison. The electromagnetic wave model suffers from a velocity incompatibility; Electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light (well, not, actually; they ARE slowed in atmosphere). The observed beam does not travel at light speed or anything approaching it. How fast it does travel is up for debate, but I think it's agreed that is not instantaneous or anywhere close. The beam does not appear to be subject to the inverse square law either. also, the observed beam is not noted to suffer atmospheric refraction, nor any reflection (granted, no real opportunities have arisen for that one). It appears to possess a significant mass component as well (recoil, knockback on opponents, scattering forwards of blast debris; these are possible in an Electromagnetic wave based system but the apparent values appear to be largely higher than such a model would tend to indicate.) The visible glow would tend to support a loss of energy due to atmospheric collisions converting beam energy to randomised heat and light. so, those are the cons against an Electromagnetic/photonic model. That's not to say such a model is necessarily outright wrong, only that these concerns would really need to be explained somehow. The particle model does address some of these issues. The glow can be a result of Particle interactions within the beam, or interactions of the particle with the beam's containment. The energy lost is converted to randomised heat and light, including scattering of visible light photons. The velocity is more compatible with what's observed. since particles have an intrinsic mass, the recoil, knockback and forward scattering issues are easier to explain. The beam is not subject to the inverse square law, but is subject to particle scattering; beam range is still limited in effect, but the mechanism is different, and can be more easily addressed by altering the containment/beam density. By contrast, the Inverse Square law is an absolute As for ATC's point about any possible containment also being a defence: yes...but they do visibly have that defence: Shields, Barriers. so why aren't they inviolable? well, a possibility (and that's all it is) is if the beams are able to use a particle-laser model to align the particles initial velocity; in this case, the scatter force would be much weaker than the force along the attack vector; path of least resistance and all that. Thus, a much weaker (relatively) containment field would confine the beam for longer. but when that beam hits a similar field at a perpendicular angle, the energy transfer is much, much greater; in this case, a couple of things can happen: 1: the shield/barrier holds. This leads to: A: the beam backs up on itself until the pressure forces build to the point where the containment is overcome and the beam splashes, scatters or deflects through it's own sidewalls rather than through the opposing defence. As a result, the particles and the energy they carry is lost as it is diverted around and away from the target. This is how Barriers are stated to work: primarily through deflection B: The particles continue to back up on each other, the containment still holds (more likely at shorter ranges, I'd think). The energy density grows until the containment fails suddenly and spectacularly; we have an explosion at the interface between beam and shield/barrier; as a result, the energy is consumed before hitting the target; aside from some knockback, the target is unharmed. This is how shields are sated to work, I believe (doesn't this actually happen a few times? Beam hits shield, shield holds, explosion?) in both these instances, the major determining factor is elapsed time, which in turn depends on the ability of the beam containment to hold; if it fails gradually, we get A. if it fails suddenly, we get B. 2: The beam's kinetic energy along it's primary axis allows it to overcome the repulsive effect of the defence shield/barrier; the shield/barrier breaks and the particles continue to the target. If the shield/barrier is itself a particle effect (particles suspended in a containment field, much like a Gundam-style Beam shield) some particles may be expended in collisions with the defence particles or particle capture by the defence shield's containment, but the combination of repulsive effect and greater kinetic energy, as well as possibly greater particle numbers and so higher charge density and so greater repulsive effect forces the defence particles out of the way. The particles continue to the target. This is why I personally tend to favour the particle beam model over the Electromagnetic wave/photonic model. That's not to say either is necessarily right; they are models we use to approximate with, and we know we don't have all the variables or behaviours to work with... |
2009-02-04, 13:57 | Link #1934 |
Field Medic
|
Not necessarily true.
Even in modern science, the fundamental forces are believed to all have an associated particle which mediates their influence. The Strong Nuclear Force: Gluons The Weak Nuclear Force: W+,W- and Z particles Electromagnetism: Photons Gravity: Gravitons or the Higgs Boson so even if Magic is indeed an energy, that doesn't preclude it from having an intermediate Vector Boson which carries that energy ergo: Magic: Mana Particle |
2009-02-04, 14:08 | Link #1936 |
Once and Current Subber
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
While it's always possible that the thaum exists (come on, guys, if we're going to talk about subatomic magical particles, let's use the commonly-accepted term for them! ;p), there's just not enough information in Nanoha about the nitty-gritty function of magic to make any conclusions about it whatsoever.
It's obvious that magic involves a funky interaction with the universe, and not just "oh, it's a different kind of particle or energy", because AMF works. It's a lot easier to inhibit magical effects than it is to inhibit physical ones (if you take "inhibit" to mean "to create a zone where they don't function at all"; it's probably easier to inhibit physical stuff with armor than to make an AMF, heh.) We're comfortable talking about magic as both particle and wave because we've run into a lot of other things that function just like that. But it doesn't have to be. Heck, it could be -neither-; nobody talks about magical particles, nor the "wavelength" of a certain spell... |
2009-02-04, 17:01 | Link #1937 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2009-02-04, 17:50 | Link #1939 |
Sword Wielding Penguin
|
If this conversation leads to 'modify the frequency of the M-Particle wave so that it resonates with the mage's barrier and allows it to pass through', and other 'Deflector Dish' solutions to problems, I'm going to Base Delta Zero the place.
Let's avoid treknobabble. Technobabble is just fine, but Treknobabble... Dear God. They can do ANYTHING with a Navigational Deflector. It's a wonder they haven't renamed it the Starfleet Swiss Army Knife. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|