Claymore Chapter 90

[Vinak]

haven't we already gone over the whole month skipping thing?

[Cyclone]

Originally Posted by Aimless

Oh, dear God. I can't take this anymore. I usually enjoy the wild speculations that show up in these threads, but trying to explain youki abilities using relativity? Argh!

Welcome to the forum.
It probably wont be the first or last time you feel like that.

No. There aren't. Not in any meaningful sense.

As I said before, this is kind of my field. It's what I do. I could get very in depth about what the physics community is trying to do to further the study of gravity, but I'd have to start getting technical to do the subject any justice - and this isn't the place.

I obviously wont try to prove you wrong - you know what you're talking about and I don't. I would like to try and explain what bothers me (from the little I do know), and I'd sincerely appriciate if you could help me with it.

Firstly I'll say is that I don't believe the math to be wrong in his equations - that I'm sure has been vetted time and again by people who actually understand it. Since the math is correct, and as long as someone converts to and from to the system created by the axioms, everything should work. And a half century of physists seem to agree it does work.

It's the axioms Einstien built it on that bother me. Namely: The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. In my eyes this creates a universal speed limit no less artificial than the the brick wall in the sky some people thought the sound barrier was in the 1940s. Just what kind of evidence do we have for that if you fire off a flash light and try to follow the light at 1/2 the speed of light, that the speed of light will still be constant and moving away from YOU (the observer) at full light speed. In order to make this happen, the very notions of time and matter had to be re-redefined to make it work. Wouldn't redefining time to be a variable, render the velocity figure of light meaningless through a division by 0 (and make light timeless - thus how can it be created or destroyed?)? Doesn't it just make more sense to not have light as a universal speed limit? We have managed to transmit information at rates in excess of light speed and all. We've managed to slow down light to a relative crawl (in atmosphere and at near 0 kelvin I believe). Why should it be easier to believe that time is a variable and light speed in a vacuum is a constant, rather than the other way around? There has to be some logical reason why people believe this and one I am totally ignorant of.

It just seems to me like a lot of modern physics (from the little I know) seems like kludges and workarounds to explain things that shouldn't be, and like computer code, gets more and more hacky after that. Quantum Mechanics? The particle is there or isn't there based on the observer and only some percentage of the time? eh? And with all this, they still haven't explained gravity. I read an interesting article on slashdot last week where someone came out to suggest that we should be thinking of quatum mechinics more in terms of fractals, and maybe then they could make more sense. It was an interesting read at least - seemed like a reasonable approach at least.

I just think that somewhere along the way, we just started thinking about the whole thing wrongly, and it's led us to this. If I could ask you thing - are there any conclusions that could be drawn using Einstien's methods if we didn't assume the speed of light in a vacuum is constant?

[Ryus]

Originally Posted by Negativedark

Six is June... So no Claymore until June, no Claymore in May, oh shit.

Yes I know that they mean the June issue.

I don't know about Japanese magazines but here the June issue comes out at the beginning of May and goes OFF sale in June. So it stands to reason that you are having a panic attack over nothing. Issue six should be out at the beginning of May! Yeah! Wait NNOOOO!!! That's tooo long!

If it said issue 7 I'd be having a panic attack too! LOL!

Changing Subjects
This is my second post here, greetings all. I just discovered Claymore (the anime, then had to find ALL the manga chapters. I've never read a manga before, so it's been quite a month for me. I've have seen quite a lot of animes, at least in comparison with my circle of friends, I'm sure not compared to some of you.)

So unlike most of you who got angry at the end change of the anime, I discovered a manga that had a better story instead of an anime that failed the manga by not ending season 1 right. The again you all are used to waiting for the next scene, I've only done it for two weeks and am already painting my walls with bloody fist and skull imprints.

As you know now I got very angry/crazy when I found out there was no Chapter 90 yet and spent the last 2 weeks reading your Claymore threads. Thank you for stopping me from going completely nuts. However just reading your posts wasn't enough so I've finally decided to join in. There seems to be a bit of that today, maybe your physics argument help me too, it was CLASSIC. In a good serious way and comedic, I found I couldn't wait for next post.

Also, in forums, I have a tendency to never being satisfied with my avatar when I first join a forum. So if someone else is using it too or I borrowed a fan art of yours and you don't like it let me know before I become too attached it.

[khryoleoz]

@Cyclone

I hear ya. It's not the observed reality, but rather the way in which the observation is articulated that puzzles me often times. I vaguely recall an article I've read in passing a long time ago that attempted to explain an observed phenomena of electrons disappearing in one place and reappearing in another as ceasing to exist and then coming back into existence. At the time I thought to myself, are you kidding me? Even if I've apprehended nothing of the substance behind the study, spontaneous generation of any sort applied to any topic is an irrational concept. Gosh I wish I can remember where I read that from.

[Negativedark]

Originally Posted by Negativedark

Six is June... So no Claymore until June, no Claymore in May, oh shit.

Yes I know that they mean the June issue.

I meant that I know that the june issue is actually out in may. Hell, I've been the one explaining that on occasion.

[Cyclone]

Originally Posted by Ryus

This is my second post here, greetings all. I just discovered Claymore (the anime, then had to find ALL the manga chapters. I've never read a manga before, so it's been quite a month for me. I've have seen quite a lot of animes, at least in comparison with my circle of friends, I'm sure not compared to some of you.)

So unlike most of you who got angry at the end change of the anime, I discovered a manga that had a better story instead of an anime that failed the manga by not ending season 1 right. The again you all are used to waiting for the next scene, I've only done it for two weeks and am already painting my walls with bloody fist and skull imprints.

Welcome. Welcome. Always nice to see new faces.
I hear ya about the skull imprints. We've all been there. Worst is when an issue comes out and you find our Claymore is on break. THAT is torture.

As for the anime vs manga... You have no idea just how familiar that sounds to (and probably most here). Heh - you're starting down a road from which there is no looking back. No worries - you'll have no regrets.

[ClearAcid]

Originally Posted by Cyclone

Welcome to the forum.
It probably wont be the first or last time you feel like that.



I obviously wont try to prove you wrong - you know what you're talking about and I don't. I would like to try and explain what bothers me (from the little I do know), and I'd sincerely appriciate if you could help me with it.

Firstly I'll say is that I don't believe the math to be wrong in his equations - that I'm sure has been vetted time and again by people who actually understand it. Since the math is correct, and as long as someone converts to and from to the system created by the axioms, everything should work. And a half century of physists seem to agree it does work.

It's the axioms Einstien built it on that bother me. Namely: The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. In my eyes this creates a universal speed limit no less artificial than the the brick wall in the sky some people thought the sound barrier was in the 1940s. Just what kind of evidence do we have for that if you fire off a flash light and try to follow the light at 1/2 the speed of light, that the speed of light will still be constant and moving away from YOU (the observer) at full light speed. In order to make this happen, the very notions of time and matter had to be re-redefined to make it work. Wouldn't redefining time to be a variable, render the velocity figure of light meaningless through a division by 0 (and make light timeless - thus how can it be created or destroyed?)? Doesn't it just make more sense to not have light as a universal speed limit? We have managed to transmit information at rates in excess of light speed and all. We've managed to slow down light to a relative crawl (in atmosphere and at near 0 kelvin I believe). Why should it be easier to believe that time is a variable and light speed in a vacuum is a constant, rather than the other way around? There has to be some logical reason why people believe this and one I am totally ignorant of.

It just seems to me like a lot of modern physics (from the little I know) seems like kludges and workarounds to explain things that shouldn't be, and like computer code, gets more and more hacky after that. Quantum Mechanics? The particle is there or isn't there based on the observer and only some percentage of the time? eh? And with all this, they still haven't explained gravity. I read an interesting article on slashdot last week where someone came out to suggest that we should be thinking of quatum mechinics more in terms of fractals, and maybe then they could make more sense. It was an interesting read at least - seemed like a reasonable approach at least.

I just think that somewhere along the way, we just started thinking about the whole thing wrongly, and it's led us to this. If I could ask you thing - are there any conclusions that could be drawn using Einstien's methods if we didn't assume the speed of light in a vacuum is constant?

Hey, I haven't posted in a while (in the forums in general)
but this interests me and maybe I can clarify some things with what I understand of modern physics (I'm taking a class on it)

first of all, the way I see it, the speed of light is like the "zero" in a number line (ex. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3)
it doesn't limit speeds, but it limits which "particles" go at what speeds.
example, any positive mass such a proton can travel with some speed that is less than the speed of light, but if you ever wanted to make the proton travel at the speed of light you need an infinite amount of energy.
now, photons, which are massless, require almost no energy to travel at the speed of light but can't go any faster.
and lastly there's a theoretical particle called tachyon that is said to travel faster than the speed of light and no slower, but has a mass that is negative, which creates unique results (we would need to put in energy to slow it down than to speed it up)
ex. if you try to catch a tachyon, in your frame the tachyon is traveling faster instead of slower but if you go in the opposite the tachyon travels slower in your frame but not slower than the speed of light.

there's a lot more but I would need to start deriving formulas and such (wiki has them)

[Vinak]

yea, I could never understand how the observer got past peer review. how does observing the event influence said event?

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics".

[iLney]

Let see...

Light is particle A and there exists a particle B that can move faster than A.

If A is the one that carries information, in order for B to move faster than A, B has to be constantly in contact with A. This leads to two things:

_B must go slower for A to catch up.
_B must constantly creating new A along its way to keep the line communication and this makes A goes faster than B since vAnew = VB + VA.

There is a third case in which B is lost due to its speed and is constantly created by A.

Hmm.... What am I talking about?

[Aimless]

Originally Posted by Cyclone

It's the axioms Einstien built it on that bother me. Namely: The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. In my eyes this creates a universal speed limit no less artificial than the the brick wall in the sky some people thought the sound barrier was in the 1940s. Just what kind of evidence do we have for that if you fire off a flash light and try to follow the light at 1/2 the speed of light, that the speed of light will still be constant and moving away from YOU (the observer) at full light speed. In order to make this happen, the very notions of time and matter had to be re-redefined to make it work. Wouldn't redefining time to be a variable, render the velocity figure of light meaningless through a division by 0 (and make light timeless - thus how can it be created or destroyed?)? Doesn't it just make more sense to not have light as a universal speed limit? We have managed to transmit information at rates in excess of light speed and all. We've managed to slow down light to a relative crawl (in atmosphere and at near 0 kelvin I believe). Why should it be easier to believe that time is a variable and light speed in a vacuum is a constant, rather than the other way around? There has to be some logical reason why people believe this and one I am totally ignorant of.

This is actually an extremely reasonable critique, and to be honest you're basically following the logical path that Einstein and his contemporaries went through in the beginning, only in reverse. The difference here, though, is that the experimental evidence came first, and Special Relativity was posed as the explanation.

The original rationale for relativity comes from something called the Michelson-Morley experiment. If you're really interested in it, you should look up the details, but I'll try to give a quick rundown. If you take a light source, split it into two beams, send the beams down tracks at right angles from each other, bounce them off a mirror, and then recombine the beams, you'll wind up forming a diffraction pattern from interference based on the beams traveling different lengths and (if you take the Earth's motion into account) presumably at different relative velocities. Now, mount the entire setup on a rotating platform. As you rotate the experimental apparatus, the direction of the beams with respect to the Earth's motion will change. If the velocity of light depends on the motion of the source or the observers, this rotation means that one light beam is now taking slightly longer or shorter to traverse its track with respect to the other, and the resulting diffraction pattern will change.

This experiment has been performed tens if not hundred of thousands of times. Many such tests were performed in the late 1800's. No change in the diffraction pattern has even been observed. Once you accept this result, you are forced to accept the idea that all inertial observers will measure a constant speed of light. From there, mathematics tells us that in order for mechanics as we know it to be preserved and for all inertial observers to measure the same speed of light, the way we measure velocity must obey certain rules known as the Lorentz transform. All of this was known well before Einstein wrote his paper on SR - and, in fact, SR was itself no great break-through, but merely an extension and formalization of the above.

If that's not enough to convince you, then there's another experimental verification done millions of times a day: GPS navigation systems will not function properly unless a correction is made to take relativistic effects into account.

So the answer to your quandary is that relativity is simply the only available mathematical framework that satisfies observation, and once you accept that certain other physical properties (such as different observers measuring the passage of time differently) must of necessity follow.

Regarding your aside on the stoppage of light, this is a different question entirely, and concerns the passage of light through matter, where the matter itself interacts with the passing photons. The answer to your question is extremely complicated, but it basically boils down to this: depending on how you define what constitutes a photon (not a trivial question in itself), then yes we have stopped light (and even sped it up!) in the lab. However, this is really more of a mathematical quirk based on the fact that what we're looking at is not a single photon, but rather a continuous stream of them. Further, we can't use any of these setups to change the velocity at which information travels, which in the modern parlance is what we physicists tend to mean when we say that c is the universal speed limit.

Originally Posted by Cyclone

It just seems to me like a lot of modern physics (from the little I know) seems like kludges and workarounds to explain things that shouldn't be, and like computer code, gets more and more hacky after that.

There's actually quite a bit of truth to this assessment of modern physics. And, in fact, we don't have a universal theory to tie everything together. However, there have been a lot of very very smart hackers working at the problem for more than a century now, and the hacks work very well. What this means is that whatever the final, non-hacky solution is (assuming that one exists), said solution will have to reproduce the results of each of these hacks. That means that there probably is some fundamental truth underlying quantum mechanics, although for the most part the theory boils down to "shut up and calculate." Meta-physical interpretations of the implications of the various postulates of QM and GR are beyond my pay grade.

[chibamonster]

Well if physics is still in, information not being able to travel faster than light is absolutely something researchers are absolutely working to destroy . Quantum tunneling seemed pretty promising and I have heard mixed results, but there is a whole wikipedia page dedicated to the theories people have. I have not been keeping up on this topic recently so I am not going to claim any authority on the matter, but a quick google search shows lots of fun stuff. I guess it doesn't matter until they get it into a chip of some sort though.

The universe is full of weird things. Look what bizzarre properties pop up with super conductors, lasers, carbon nanotubes, and that sweet new fandangled Bose-Einsteinian condensate (which is about as cool as can be). The rules of physics apply... until they don't. Like the black box effect in the global consciousness project As gravity and light are not understood I'm not holding my breath for a unified theory any time soon. I personally pull for Tesla's research as it makes the most sense to me (considering that every reaction except nuclear ones is almost all in the movement of electrons, that and the dude created modern society pretty much single handedly) but there are tons of cool things out there. Cellular Automata have been fun.

Aaand... spoilers anyone? So many powerful characters converging in this next chapter! I am getting a bit anxious.

[Ryus]

I've been having a ton of fun reading all your ideas and theories based on Claymore's powers. You'll have stopped arguing and are actually debating , your putting out serious ideas and a lot of thought into it . Plus, if memory serves, this discussion has gotten 3 new member (Aimless, nakaru_mizuki, and me (Ryus)) to the site and the Claymore thread and several others have come back for other parts of the forum just based on this topic, too. So it is clearly a good idea, to many. Aimless seems to really know his stuff (and some others), since he was giving me tons of flashback of Physics class and some great documentaries I've watched. I could really learn something in a FUN WAY. (mental note: give a lot of people some good rep, for starting a cool topic and for eventually cooling off this morning and just continuing the debate.)

I'm beginning to think that we need a new thread: Claymore's Abilities and Powers. (Vague, but it is very clear what it is for and what it isn't for such as X character VS Y character, clearly ownage talk is inappropriate here but power and ability talk is appropriate.)

Now this would have the benefit of not only letting use talk about the source of powers but ALSO let talk about how these abilities could effect the plot (like I just did in the speculation thread). Since it's not speculation but honest feelings (and thought) about powers/enemies (new and old) and debate on how a plot point would/has effect(ed) the plot. THERE WOULD BE NO X character VS Y character talk, so the moderators couldn't object based on that idea. Plus in this case we have a track record of ending the fight and just continuing the discussion. Also this new thread would allow use to move this discussion to a new, more appropriate thread.

If we have a general consensus that this is a good idea lets request it on the new thread requests thread.

[wnmnkh]

ah.... any other chap 90 info other than Cyclone briefly mentioned?

[Aimless]

Originally Posted by chibamonster

Well if physics is still in, information not being able to travel faster than light is absolutely something researchers are absolutely working to destroy . Quantum tunneling seemed pretty promising and I have heard mixed results, but there is a whole wikipedia page dedicated to the theories people have.

Yeah; quantum tunneling is really cool, and if they can manage to verifiably transmit information faster than light that would be a really big result. It's not my field, though (I don't do experiment), so I haven't been keeping up with it.

Further, I'm pretty sure such a result is not actually evidence against SR, although it might make us rethink things a bit.

Addendum: This bit about quantum tunneling reminds me of something I've always found funny. Whenever physicists talk to non-physicists about physics, there's a tendency to present results factually, when there are always quibbles and exceptions and approximations and what not when you get down into the nitty-gritty of things (I'm certainly guilty of it, even here in this thread). The most striking example of this is the material taught in Physics classes. We start off by telling students "here's how the world works," and then as soon as they get to the next course in the sequence it's always "everything we taught you last semester is a lie, here's how things really work." This happens over and over, at every level of physics.

There's a reason for this, of course - it's impossible to discuss why the material given in a course is wrong without going into far more depth than is appropriate for that class (usually because the students lack a sufficient mathematical background). The same is true when a physicist tries to explain his work to a lay person - in order to explain why what the physicist just said is a lie, he'd have to get into far more detail than appropriate.

However, this leads to something really funny that happens every once in a while: sometimes popularized accounts of various results from physicists will contain flatly contradictory claims. Of course, each account will be presented as the absolute, true, and final "this is the way things work," because that's just how we tend to talk when we're presenting stuff that we take for granted. Of course, this contradiction will get caught out by the public, and our poor physicist will splutter around for a while trying to figure out how to convince the public that's it's not really a contradiction after all, all the while trying not to use the words "differential operator," "Green's function," "path integral," or "Dirac delta function."

This bit above regarding quantum tunneling is a great example of this. QM and SR say things that are flatly contradictory when presented at the level of a lay person, and to demonstrate why they are not (although it is the case that QM and GR are flatly contradictory) would require a far deeper consideration of the subject than can be given here.

[revan5]

Originally Posted by Aimless

This is actually an extremely reasonable critique, and to be honest you're basically following the logical path that Einstein and his contemporaries went through in the beginning, only in reverse. The difference here, though, is that the experimental evidence came first, and Special Relativity was posed as the explanation.

The original rationale for relativity comes from something called the Michelson-Morley experiment. If you're really interested in it, you should look up the details, but I'll try to give a quick rundown. If you take a light source, split it into two beams, send the beams down tracks at right angles from each other, bounce them off a mirror, and then recombine the beams, you'll wind up forming a diffraction pattern from interference based on the beams traveling different lengths and (if you take the Earth's motion into account) presumably at different relative velocities. Now, mount the entire setup on a rotating platform. As you rotate the experimental apparatus, the direction of the beams with respect to the Earth's motion will change. If the velocity of light depends on the motion of the source or the observers, this rotation means that one light beam is now taking slightly longer or shorter to traverse its track with respect to the other, and the resulting diffraction pattern will change.

This experiment has been performed tens if not hundred of thousands of times. Many such tests were performed in the late 1800's. No change in the diffraction pattern has even been observed. Once you accept this result, you are forced to accept the idea that all inertial observers will measure a constant speed of light. From there, mathematics tells us that in order for mechanics as we know it to be preserved and for all inertial observers to measure the same speed of light, the way we measure velocity must obey certain rules known as the Lorentz transform. All of this was known well before Einstein wrote his paper on SR - and, in fact, SR was itself no great break-through, but merely an extension and formalization of the above.

If that's not enough to convince you, then there's another experimental verification done millions of times a day: GPS navigation systems will not function properly unless a correction is made to take relativistic effects into account.

So the answer to your quandary is that relativity is simply the only available mathematical framework that satisfies observation, and once you accept that certain other physical properties (such as different observers measuring the passage of time differently) must of necessity follow.

Regarding your aside on the stoppage of light, this is a different question entirely, and concerns the passage of light through matter, where the matter itself interacts with the passing photons. The answer to your question is extremely complicated, but it basically boils down to this: depending on how you define what constitutes a photon (not a trivial question in itself), then yes we have stopped light (and even sped it up!) in the lab. However, this is really more of a mathematical quirk based on the fact that what we're looking at is not a single photon, but rather a continuous stream of them. Further, we can't use any of these setups to change the velocity at which information travels, which in the modern parlance is what we physicists tend to mean when we say that c is the universal speed limit.



There's actually quite a bit of truth to this assessment of modern physics. And, in fact, we don't have a universal theory to tie everything together. However, there have been a lot of very very smart hackers working at the problem for more than a century now, and the hacks work very well. What this means is that whatever the final, non-hacky solution is (assuming that one exists), said solution will have to reproduce the results of each of these hacks. That means that there probably is some fundamental truth underlying quantum mechanics, although for the most part the theory boils down to "shut up and calculate." Meta-physical interpretations of the implications of the various postulates of QM and GR are beyond my pay grade.

No universal theory to tie everything together huh? I wonder what some physicists would say about that. Particularly physicists like Brian Greene, who wrote on book on the matter called "The Elegant Universe". His book is on something called String Theory, which is at the cutting edge of physics (and is wildly controversial) and has been dubbed, ahem, the "Theory of Everything".


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html

For those of you who'd rather hear and see the theory from the man himself on video, here you go. Prepare to have your mind blown.

"The Elegant Universe" with Brian Greene, string theorist
Parts 1-19

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULlR_pkHjUQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex7hv...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8acTv...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unJ2a...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaazA...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSru9...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a9eO...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqmF...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ux8g...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN_xJ...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9opg...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieTaO...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3bs-...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_QtX...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhtfI...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv6Zv...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx5sf...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHU9Q...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP-HX...eature=related


Here's a collection of quotes:

"According to string theory, if we could examine these particles with even greater precision—a precision many orders of magnitude beyond our present technological capacity—we would find that each is not pointlike but instead consists of a tiny, one-dimensional loop. Like an infinitely thin rubber band, each particle contains a vibrating, oscillating, dancing filament that physicists have named a string."

"Although it is by no means obvious, this simple replacement of point-particle material constituents with strings resolves the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity (which, as currently formulated, cannot both be right). String theory thereby unravels the central Gordian knot of contemporary theoretical physics. This is a tremendous achievement, but it is only part of the reason string theory has generated such excitement."

I see your arguments guys on there being no "Theory of Everything"...and raise you Brian Greene and String Theory. Now go ahead, surprise me by beating him down...if you can. This thread is getting really entertaining.

[Gangsta Spanksta]

Originally Posted by chibamonster

@PureYoki: Sorry, I don't want to argue about science history in relation to popular culture etc right now. It is pointless. Gangsta asked for someone who disagreed and I gave him a source. I can go scouting for other ones, but there is no reason to. The only reason I brought it up with Gangsta was because he was siting equations without applying them to see what would happen if they were actually used. His theory operated under the assumption that readers believed nuclear physics/ astrophysics was as applicable to a fictional story theory as breathing is or human relationships. Also that they even understood what was being said. I took his theory literally to show him just what would be required to make the energy to mass transfer, and offered some equally accepted ideas in physics.

He in turn said we cannot understand each other because I am too close minded and don't believe the scientific method. Interesting.

If you or I had the answers to the discrepancies that appear in different scientific theories, we would NOT be posting them in a forum about comic books.

You do misrepresent me, putting words in my mouth. What I was saying is that your standard in what is acceptable when it comes to putting out theories and speculations is ironically much higher than what would be acceptable using the scientific method, the bits of science that it inherited from philosophy from which it is based on. There are many times people just speculate, and then there are many times the make theories. When talking to you this time, I was also kind of thinking back on the discussion we had last time, where it seemed you required fact or thought of fact for things that were supporting evidence. Supporting evidence is not fact. Also in this discussion I was pointing out that you said the human heart is more valid for a theory than E=MC^2, because it was mentioned in the story. I was pointing out that the mention of human heart was very vague and short, and that basically you are doing what everyone else is doing with the speculation and forming theories with that vague reference and then using supporting evidence, some of which is not mention in the story, for only human heart is, vaguely. I was saying that doing so, really doesn't make your theory anymore stronger than speculation and theories based on things not directly mentioned in the manga, but they fit, and the person making speculation or theory can show how it works using examples in the manga. I think your own personal standards are somewhat more close minded than the scientific method which has its roots in philosophy which teaches to be open minded.

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Not everything you observe is fact. theories are weaker than facts. Supporting evidence is weaker than fact. In fact, Scientist don't say something is so when they talk about theories. Some politicians have taken advantage of that in the past, pointing that scientist won't say certain things are facts for example in causes of global warming. The most a theory is, is a "more likely than not" and it is totally open to be proven wrong by another theory. E=MC^2 is a theory not fact, ready to be replaced by a better theory if it comes out. Like I say, I think the scientific method is very open minded. I am not saying that all scientist follow this open mindedness,

As for my theory, I am sorry to say that I have not made one yet, or worked hard enough to make one yet in this case. I was speculating on things in what was at first a friendly environment. I think speculation has low standards, lower than a theory, which has lower standards than a fact. And nothing I said operated under any assumption of any reader but myself. I was saying: this is what I think. I am very open to other ideas. And you may see a problem with the amount of energy involved in the transformation, but 1) I never said my view of the claymore world was scientific alone, just that I prefered some physics than brining in magic, in the particular story since there seems no need to. 2) I have no problems with the amount of energy used; it may seem much to you; it may not be much in the grand scheme of things: Abyssal Ones do get pretty close to demigodhood. Anyway, the huge amounts of energy don't seem anymore ridiculous to me than human heart, which is something I actually support myself. I was trying to point out that using physics isn't anymore silly than using concepts like human heart. Again, I'm not the one who is saying one speculation is better than the other, and that the standards you set are too high IMO as in what we have to reference in the manga. I say, supporting evidence is good enough if the manga can support it and things work logically with it existence. E=MC^2 does not need to be mentioned by Riful in the story for us to speculate on it. I guess I better stop here; there are many things I want to still point out, especially about what I was trying to say about plausibility as a concept, but I feel the more involved in this discussion I get, the more of a nuisance I will make myself to the other readers.

[Aimless]

Originally Posted by revan5

I see your arguments guys on there being no "Theory of Everything"...and raise you Brian Greene and String Theory. Now go ahead, surprise me by beating him down...if you can. This thread is getting really entertaining.

Don't get me started on String Theory. To begin with, it's not even a true theory, yet, since they've made no testable predictions. As it stands, all String Theory is is a mathematical framework that purports to be able to describe everything. Furthermore, it's not even fully self consistent yet, nor do we even know which of the great many varieties of String Theories (yes, there are multiple formulations) corresponds to our actual universe.

String Theorists not withstanding, there is no fully developed self-consistent Theory of Everything.

[Cyclone]

@Aimless:
Thank you for explaination. I learned something today and I really appriciate it. At least I finally know where the theory came from. Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me - been reading the wiki pages for the eperiments you mentioned till now.

It'll take me some more time (probably a lot more) to digest the information. Ideas like gravity (the Earth's mass derailing the experiment) and light simply not needing a median to travel through popped into my head, but I have not had a chance to ponder the implications of either. I'll leave it the subject in the hands of you and your collegues - eventually someone will sort it all out.

[revan5]

Originally Posted by Aimless

Don't get me started on String Theory. To begin with, it's not even a true theory, yet, since they've made no testable predictions. As it stands, all String Theory is is a mathematical framework that purports to be able to describe everything. Furthermore, it's not even fully self consistent yet, nor do we even know which of the great many varieties of String Theories (yes, there are multiple formulations) corresponds to our actual universe.

String Theorists not withstanding, there is no fully developed self-consistent Theory of Everything.

I believe if you were to look up parts 15-19, you'd find the part on M theory, which purports to unify all the disparate String theories into one theory of everything. I'm sure you'd find it interesting...now, if only they could test this bad boy mathematical framework and make it a testable theory. Tell you what, you track down Brian Greene and get back to us on your community's debates. I'm sure it'd prove highly entertaining.

The part that gets me is for the equation to work, there needs to be something like 11 extra dimensions. No doubt this provides an "out" for those who somehow think we'll be able to someday use a "warp drive". Still off-scale weird though...but its hard to resist watching the show on it.

[Stream]

Originally Posted by gene

Spoiler for scene90:

クレイモア
リフル討伐へ西へと向かうアリシアとベス
ラボナのミリアたちもその大きな妖気の動きを察知していた
そこにヘレンとデネヴからの伝言を託されたディートリヒが来訪する
報告を受けたことで、事態を把握し、西の地を案じるミリアたち
一方、西のクレアたちは森でダフと遭遇していた
何とか気付かれずにやり過ごそうとしたものの、ユマが捕まってしまう
強固なダフにてこずり、ユマの捕まれた片足を切断することで
何とか逃げ延び一息付く三人だったが
クレアが単独でダフの後をつけリフルの根城へ向かおうとする
何故？と思い止まらせようとする二人に対し、
ラファエラに会わなければならない、自分でも説明できない思いを口にするクレア
6月号につづく.

glad to see miria again after N months........（n=)*—￥#（）
and poor yuma lost her leg....

ps
it's 2 April here so it's all up to you...

Many thanks to Gene@tss for posting this here. Much appreciated!

Now, for the...

TRANSLATION!

CLAYMORE
Alicia and Beth and head to west to defeat Riful.
Miria's group in Rabona senses the movements of that large youki.
Dietrich arrives with word from Helen and Deneve there.
With the reception of the report, understanding the situation, Miria's group worries over the land of the west.
Meanwhile, Clare's group in the west encounters Dauf.
Having somehow noticed, Yuma tried to take on too much and has been captured.
Unable to handle Dauf's fortitude, Yuma was caught with one of her legs cut off.
Somehow making good their escape, the three take a quick break.
Clare heads out alone towards the stronghold of Riful who is always behind Dauf.
Why? The two opposed decided to give up on the plan.
She has to meet Rafaela; I myself cannot explain Clare's feelings/reasons.
To be continued in the June issue.

NOTE: I always seem to have to say whenever I translate a spoiler, so you BETTER PAY ATTENTION! The current issue (Yes, the issue released April 4th) is the May issue. The June issue is released on May 4th. So! There will be an issue next month.

If anyone again quotes my post and complains that there is no issue next month (This happened last month, even though I posted the SAME notice, ffs.), please do not hesitate to tell them that they should READ the WHOLE post before they open their mouths and jump to stupid conclusions. Sorry, I'm getting sick of this.