Gigantic XD weight/height ratio

October 15, 2008

Umm... where are people getting the idea that Exceed is unusually light for its size (or equivalently, less dense than expanded)? See, I ran the figures, and found out that, if we dialate the Gigantic (height: 363 kg, mass: 272 cm) to the Exceed's height (52 m) while keeping the same average density, that Exceed should be 2746 t. This is only two percent heavier than the stated 2690 t figure. It's just about as heavy as it should be if it keeps the same density and proportions. That is, if the Guyver Exceed is just the Gigantic with extra bio-clay.

Incidentially, I found the mass by realizing an important thing about volumes: if the volume of a figure is determined by some function V(r), and r is some characteristic length of that figure that completely determines the volume, then for an arbitrary positive scalar d, V(dr) = V(r) d³. Mass is M(r)= ρV(r), where ρ is the average density, so M(dr) = ρV(dr) = ρV(r) d³ = M(r) d³. Here, r is the height of Sho's Gigantic (2.72 m), dr is the height of Exceed (52 m), so d = 52/2.72. Also, M(r) is the mass of Sho's Gigantic (363 kg), and M(dr) is the mass of the Exceed (assuming constant density), so plugging it all in, we get M(dr) = M(r) d³ = (363 kg)(52/2.72)³ ~= 2746 t. Voila.

By the way, to make the densities exactly equal, Exceed has to be 35 cm shorter. That's only seven parts in 1000.

*Jess♥ · October 16, 2008

Umm... where are people getting the idea that Exceed is unusually light for its size (or equivalently, less dense than expanded)? See, I ran the figures, and found out that, if we dialate the Gigantic (height: 363 kg, mass: 272 cm) to the Exceed's height (52 m) while keeping the same average density, that Exceed should be 2746 t. This is only two percent heavier than the stated 2690 t figure. It's just about as heavy as it should be if it keeps the same density and proportions. That is, if the Guyver Exceed is just the Gigantic with extra bio-clay.

I could be wrong, but i feel like you haven't read teh topic fully.

because this whole topic was pretty much started by simlar type of calculations that I did in this post - http://www.japan-legend.com/forum/index.ph...ost&p=16097

as i said, I could be wrong and you may be talking about something else.

I am a little tired right now.

*zeo · October 16, 2008

Umm... where are people getting the idea that Exceed is unusually light for its size (or equivalently, less dense than expanded)?

It's the difference between 2D math and 3D math, the volume to surface area ratio increases geometrically for every doubling of size. Apply general physics that all structures must follow in order to support their mass, dexterity, etc. and it becomes mind numbingly apparent that you can't keep the same density if you radically increase your size and volume because of the ratio increase to volume becomes so much more than the surface area.

It would be like putting you under 10 times normal gravity and expecting you to be able to support your weight as well as you did at 1 G.

Like you can make a deck of playing cards and construct a small structure, increase the size however by several fold and the same material will no longer be able to support its own weight at the same density. Also physical design structures that work at one size may not work at much larger sizes.

A ant enlarged to the size of a car for example would need joints as tough as diamonds just to support its weight because of the way the legs are set to the sides puts much more of the weight load onto the joints than our leg design, which places our legs directly under us to more efficiently spread the weight load along the length of our legs.

The only reason an ant can lift many times its own weight is because at its normal size the surface area to volume ratio is such that the surface area gets a boost, their volume is so low compared to ours. If we were ant size, however, we too would be able to lift many times our own weight.

It's just like architecture, take the same rules for building massive buildings and it quickly becomes apparent that the Exceed doesn't follow the normal rules by keeping the same density as its normal size. Thus it is light for its size, especially considering the proportional increases to its abilities as well which would also normally require an increase in density.

For example the armor, same density spread over a much larger area means it becomes easier to penetrate rather than harder. It would be the equivalent of the Gigantic being made up of Styrofoam and still being as powerful as normal for comparison. So basically the Exceed is getting a massive size and power increase without the normal consequence of density increase that would normally come along with it.

October 16, 2008

It's the difference between 2D math and 3D math, the volume to surface area ratio increases geometrically for every doubling of size.

I know that. If you dialate a 3D figure by a scalar D, the volume goes up by D³. I did show this in my derivation. My calcs show that the Exceed is only 2% lighter than it would be if it kept the same density as Gigantic. For discussion of biomechanics, 2% is absolutely negligable in the face of over 5000 times increase in mass and volume.

Apply general physics that all structures must follow in order to support their mass, dexterity, etc. and it becomes mind numbingly apparent that you can't keep the same density if you radically increase your size and volume because of the ratio increase to volume becomes so much more than the surface area.
It would be like putting you under 10 times normal gravity and expecting you to be able to support your weight as well as you did at 1 G.

Unless your strength, structural toughness, ect. goes up by the same factor, which may be why Exceed's power amps are all a-glowy. My calcs show that the Exceed is only 2% less dense than Gigantic, and I showed my work. If you want to show that Exceed is very much less dense than Gigantic, please show me where I made my mistake.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Wyrm

*zeo · October 17, 2008

I know that. If you dialate a 3D figure by a scalar D, the volume goes up by D³. I did show this in my derivation. My calcs show that the Exceed is only 2% lighter than it would be if it kept the same density as Gigantic. For discussion of biomechanics, 2% is absolutely negligable in the face of over 5000 times increase in mass and volume.

And what do you think happens when you increase surface area by a given amount and at the same time the volume increase many times more than the surface area increase?

Like suddenly finding yourself under 10 times normal Gravity, while the Exceed has to withstand far more. I'm sure you may have considered it but it sounds like you dismissed it simply because of the power increase of Exceed. The problem is we are trying to figure out how the Exceed pulls it off.

Unless your strength, structural toughness, ect. goes up by the same factor, which may be why Exceed's power amps are all a-glowy. My calcs show that the Exceed is only 2% less dense than Gigantic, and I showed my work. If you want to show that Exceed is very much less dense than Gigantic, please show me where I made my mistake.
<rest snipped>

Simple, we never said the Exceed was light compared to the Gigantic, at least that was never the intent. The Exceed is only light for a being of that size because a being that size would have to have far greater density to support itself. The comparison was to what beings of that size would have to weigh, not to the original size. As Ryuki himself pointed out he already pointed out the ratio is roughly equivalent to the Gigantic, the same point you are trying to make, but this only illustrates the lack of a density increase and ignores the enormous increase in strain the Exceed body still has to deal with.

The basic point is that since volume increase faster than surface area as you increase size then that means the surface area supporting that weight has to increasing support more weight per area.

Without a density increase to compensate for that increasing strain means the surface area will eventually be overwhelmed by the volume mass and the structure will collapse under its own weight. This is the simple physics of the problem presented by the Exceed.

Take the heels of the Gigantic, with the weight increased (as you stated over 5000 times) the surface area of the heels did not increase by the same amount, so far more weight is then focused onto that area.

Thus the majority of the discussion in this topic was on not only pointing this problem out but thinking of ways on how the Exceed could use all that energy to not only compensate for the increased strain but also produce a proportional increase on top of that as well.

We all agree the energy has something to do with it but this doesn't answer how by itself? Which is why so much discussion has gone into how the energy could be applied to explain the Exceed.

After all just putting energy into a body just heats it and increased volume with not as much increase in surface area means it becomes increasingly harder to radiate the heat, as well as tend to slow the metabolism down. Basically this breaks down to that with the Exceed's level of power that he should have a miniature sun in his chest and that doesn't really help with supporting all that mass.

See the problem?

The energy has to be applied in some way and the physics of the body adapted for in order for the Exceed to not only function the same as the Gigantic but also to give it a proportional increase in power.

October 17, 2008

I could be wrong, but i feel like you haven't read the topic fully.
because this whole topic was pretty much started by simlar type of calculations that I did in this post - http://www.japan-legend.com/forum/index.ph...ost&p=16097

as i said, I could be wrong and you may be talking about something else.

I am a little tired right now.

If everyone agrees that the Exceed and the Gigantic are about the same average density, then were is all this "scaled up at the atomic level", "expanded dimensions" ect. bollocks coming from, instead of the rather straightforward, no-nonsense theory that the Exceed has 6987 times the number of atoms (perhaps from having 6987 times the number of cells) as the Gigantic?

The expanded atoms/dimentions theories would all tend to predict the Exceed to have much lower density (1/6987-th the density, in fact) than what is observed (due to the fact that the number of atoms don't change, only the volume those atoms occupy), thus requiring that we add additional assumptions to the mix to make the Exceed heavier, and we have the stability of atoms to consider. For chrissakes, the "more atoms" theory doesn't even require extra abilities from the Guyver in terms of kind, only scale (growth and performance enhancement). Occam's razor clearly favors it.

To pass up theories relatively unladen with unverified assumptions, such as "more atoms", in favor of the assumption-loaded "scaled up at the atomic level" and "expanded dimension" wankery is not science.

*zeo · October 17, 2008

If everyone agrees that the Exceed and the Gigantic are about the same average density, then were is all this "scaled up at the atomic level", "expanded dimensions" ect. bollocks coming from, instead of the rather straightforward, no-nonsense theory that the Exceed has 6987 times the number of atoms (perhaps from having 6987 times the number of cells) as the Gigantic?

I guess you haven't considered the surface area versus volume disparity then?

The Exceed has roughly the same density as the Gigantic but the ratio between the Surface Area (Support Structure) and Volume (Weight) is far greater than the Gigantic if you only have about the same density.

To pass up theories relatively unladen with unverified assumptions, such as "more atoms", in favor of the assumption-loaded "scaled up at the atomic level" and "expanded dimension" wankery is not science.

More atoms means more mass, with vastly greater volume to surface area means the same density (surface area) has to withstand a disproportional increase in volume (weight).

The theories are all to explain how the Exceed pulls that off without having to increase density (surface area) to compensate for the disparity with the volume.

October 17, 2008

Simple, we never said the Exceed was light compared to the Gigantic. The Exceed is only light for a being of that size because a being that size would have to have far greater density to support itself.

Wrong. Increasing density only increases the weight you have to support. Even if the strength of a material increases with density (a dubious assumption at best), increasing the density also increases the load that the supports have to bear in step. Increasing density wins you nothing.

To increase your ability to support weight, you have to increase the structural strength of the load-bearing members, which are measured in neutons, and the material its made out of in pascals (force/area).

If we make a building out of titanium instead of structural steel, we can get away with less of it, and it's less dense to boot. So the titanium building will be less dense than the steel building. Does this make the titanium building "less dense than it should be", because it's less dense than a steel building?

The comparison was to what beings of that size would have to weigh, not to the original size. As Ryuki himself pointed out he already pointed out the ratio is roughly equivalent to the Gigantic, the same point you are trying to make, but this only illustrates the lack of a density increase and ignores the enormous increase in strain the Exceed body still has to deal with.
The basic point is that since volume increase faster than surface area as you increase size then that means the surface area supporting that weight has to increasing support more weight per area.

Without a density increase to compensate for that increasing strain means the surface area will eventually be overwhelmed by the volume mass and the structure will collapse under its own weight. This is the simple physics of the problem presented by the Exceed.

Again, increasing density will not help matters. You just increase the amount of weight you must bear. You must increase material strength, and in real materials, they're not really related.

Take the heels of the Gigantic, with the weight increased (as you stated over 5000 times) the surface area of the heels did not increase by the same amount, so far more weight is then focused onto that area.

Which proves a problem for both the foot and the ground under it. Can't do much about the ground.

Thus the majority of the discussion in this topic was on not only pointing this problem out but thinking of ways on how the Exceed could use all that energy to not only compensate for the increased strain but also produce a proportional increase on top of that as well.
We all agree the energy has something to do with it but this doesn't answer how by itself? Which is why so much discussion has gone into how the energy could be applied to explain the Exceed.

We already know the Guyvers increases performance and durability. Not going through the top of the building Exceed was standing on... well, it bore the weight of Draglord easily enough.

After all just putting energy into a body just heats it and increased volume with not as much increase in surface area means it becomes increasingly harder to radiate the heat, as well as tend to slow the metabolism down. Basically this breaks down to that with the Exceed's level of power that he should have a miniature sun in his chest and that doesn't really help with supporting all that mass.
See the problem?

Of course there is a problem, but you're handling it wrong. Increasing the Exceed's density would not make your problem of bearing weight go away; it makes that problem worse. You do not consider that the Exceed may be straining to boost its own considerable performance and durability already through it's well-known ability to enhance it's symbiont's strengths, seeing how certain parts are glowing like torches, which is exactly what we'd expect under mere gigantism. We don't see Exceed flying around, or to anything that would really stress it. Gigantism works.

Instead, I get "expanded atoms" bollocks.

October 17, 2008

I guess you haven't considered the surface area versus volume disparity then?
The Exceed has roughly the same density as the Gigantic but the ratio between the Surface Area (Support Structure) and Volume (Weight) is far greater than the Gigantic if you only have about the same density.

The weight supported by a loadbearing member is (area of the support's cross section) x (structural strength of the material the member is made out of). It's the product of two numbers, not one. If you don't know both, you can't say if Exceed is overstressing it's structure. If the Gigantic's bio-booster bone can support one million times it's own weight on its shoulders, then the Exceed can support 142 times its own weight on its own shoulders. It's a reduced margin, true enough, but Exceed will still support its own weight better than we do ours.

*Jess♥ · October 17, 2008

If everyone agrees that the Exceed and the Gigantic are about the same average density, then were is all this "scaled up at the atomic level", "expanded dimensions" ect. bollocks coming from, instead of the rather straightforward, no-nonsense theory that the Exceed has 6987 times the number of atoms (perhaps from having 6987 times the number of cells) as the Gigantic?

all this 'bollocks' is coming from an attempt to explain how XD bypasses the laws of physics. please see below to find an explaination of why XD is violating the laws of physics.

The expanded atoms/dimentions theories would all tend to predict the Exceed to have much lower density (1/6987-th the density, in fact) than what is observed (due to the fact that the number of atoms don't change, only the volume those atoms occupy), thus requiring that we add additional assumptions to the mix to make the Exceed heavier, and we have the stability of atoms to consider. For chrissakes, the "more atoms" theory doesn't even require extra abilities from the Guyver in terms of kind, only scale (growth and performance enhancement). Occam's razor clearly favors it.

in straight forward terms you would think that it is simple, but you can't forget the laws of physics. I thik you are looking from a perspective of atomic physics here... but at a macro level you have to take into account teh structures. if you make a small bridge out of stone it will hold and be very strong. if you make a huge bridge out of stone it is not going to be as effective is it? the materials behave differently at different scales. you add more mass, you have to ACCOUNT for it in hte structure.

look at elephants. they are that shape for a reason.

To pass up theories relatively unladen with unverified assumptions, such as "more atoms", in favor of the assumption-loaded "scaled up at the atomic level" and "expanded dimension" wankery is not science.

this 'wankery' is thought and explaination. it is pursuit of knowledge and therefore is science. yes we have to take a lot of assumptions in ideas like that but that is because teh 'conventional' ideas don't work. simply said, it defies the laws of physics so we have to come up with unconventional ideas.

"more atoms" will not cut it. they won't cope with hte increased stress.

I would like to point out that zeo has already said a lot of teh things that i wrote.

If you don't understand what he said, then please just ask him about it. don't repeat the same questions over again, or repeat the same objections again.

we are taking the time to read what you have written, please ensure that you are extending teh same courtesy.

once again, if you have done this and I have misunderstood you, I apologise.

*Jess♥ · October 17, 2008

Instead, I get "expanded atoms" bollocks.

please stop saying things like this.

it is insulting.

these ideas have had very careful thought put behind them. if you do not believe they stand up to scrutiny then of course you have every right to challenge the ideas, but to simply label them as 'bollocks' is way past rude.

please remember to respect teh people you are talking to.

*zeo · October 17, 2008

Wrong. Increasing density only increases the weight you have to support. Even if the strength of a material increases with density (a dubious assumption at best), increasing the density also increases the load that the supports have to bear in step. Increasing density wins you nothing.

Incorrect, increasing mass does increase weight but it also increases surface area and the more surface area you have means the more you can spread the strain.

To increase your ability to support weight, you have to increase the structural strength of the load-bearing members, which are measured in neutons, and the material its made out of in pascals (force/area).

Which increases density!

It's like cement, how do you make it stronger? You increase the surface area and you do that by making it denser.

A good examples are human bones, pro-athletes can increase bone density by up to 6 times. Meaning they can withstand impacts that would shatter normal bones. You ever see a guy slam his forearm through a pile of bricks or whatever and you're looking at upwards of over 2 tons of force on impact.

The athlete doesn't have to have to make his body six times heavier to make this possible, since the density increase also increases the surface area and thus compensates for the normal volume disparity.

If we make a building out of titanium instead of structural steel, we can get away with less of it, and it's less dense to boot. So the titanium building will be less dense than the steel building. Does this make the titanium building "less dense than it should be", because it's less dense than a steel building?

Problem is Titanium is a different material, with different proporties. Like While Titanium has about 1/2 the density of steel Aluminum has about 1/3 and you couldn't build buildings as large with Aluminum as you could steel. Or like comparing coal to diamonds, both are carbon based but the diamond is clearly harder but it also inflexible and could never function in that state in a biological system.

The Exceed is a living being and for it to function the same the body still has to work, which means you can't really change that much in its molecular structure and still have it all work together. But regardless like my ant example needing diamond like joints to support its weight, you'll have to go even denser for something the size and mass of the Exceed.

This is why structure is so important in building design, you can't just take a material and make something as big as you want. Each material has its own density and strength values and all of it has to work together to make the structure work.

Again, increasing density will not help matters. You just increase the amount of weight you must bear. You must increase material strength, and in real materials, they're not really related.

Yes they are, the denser a material the stronger it gets because the surface area is being increased for a given area.

We already know the Guyvers increases performance and durability. Not going through the top of the building Exceed was standing on... well, it bore the weight of Draglord easily enough.

Yes, weight distributed throughout the ENTIRE length of the building, which buildings are designed to do. But we build structures with up to 100 times redundancy. The human body is more like 2.5, the Guyver and the Gigantic may substantially increase this but they both are still shown getting damaged with forces less than what the Exceed has to withstand just to support its body while standing.

October 17, 2008

I would like to point out that zeo has already said a lot of the things that i wrote.
If you don't understand what he said, then please just ask him about it.

I will debate zeo over PM about this issue, but I won't pull any punches. I'd love to be shown why I'm wrong, and if zeo can convince me of that, great — but zeo must first earn the victory. He can even call me names as much as he wants; the only insults I will not tollerate is to my intelligence. I will also not tollerate lying and posery.

I'll even CC you the carnage.

Here's the sneek preview. I looked through the thread (first two pages, because after that you've obviously think the conventional theory fails) and he fails to complete a very important step in disproving the conventional theory. Nowhere is the yield strength of bio-booster bone calculated. This is a very important part of any argument to demolish the conventional theory that the Exceed (or anything) holds itself up via its own structural strength.

I also have issue with some other things you said:

this 'wankery' is thought and explaination. it is pursuit of knowledge and therefore is science.

False. The pursuit of knowledge without the temperment of evidence and previous knowledge is not science. It's fairy-tale spinning. By your standard, astrology and alchemy count as science. Buddhism offers 'explanations' too, but that explanation is that 'everything is an illusion.' Great, but that won't tell me how I can use a transistor to receive Wierd Al music.

In all sciences, you find two things. The first is that theories are absolutely beholden to evidence, and to a lesser extent, previous theories. (Previous theories can be superceeded, but only when those previous theories start failing in some regime, and the new theory gives the same answers as the old where the old theories are correct.) The second is that a theory is a satisfactory explanation when it predicts the phenomenon well. I'll touch on this in a moment.

please stop saying things like this.
it is insulting.

these ideas have had very careful thought put behind them. if you do not believe they stand up to scrutiny then of course you have every right to challenge the ideas, but to simply label them as 'bollocks' is way past rude.

please remember to respect the people you are talking to.

Actually, it is precisely because I respect these people that I call these ideas "bollocks" — I believe telling people they're wrong is better than letting them live in ignorance. I consider it cowardly to use mealy-mouthed cologne-bathed weasel-words to pretend I have respect for an idea I think is worthless. No matter how much "very careful thought" is put into an idea by any number of people, a bad idea is a bad idea.

I will, of coruse, refrain from the language (I appologize in advance for any slips), but do not for a minute think I will go easy on any of you. If I think your theories are bo— er, tra— um, overreaching reason and evidence, I will not hesitate to speak my mind. My critique against an idea never was, and should never be, considered to be directed against any person. If I want to insult you personally, I'll do it directly. :wink:

Anyway, I called you people on the "expanded atom" theory because you are ignoring the obvious prediction of it: the atoms are occupying more volume, but thier chemical identity (and therefore atomic numbers and weights) are the same, and thus the same mass, which would tend to reduce the density of the Exceed, by a factor of ~7000x. "Expanded dimension" theories suffer the same problem — increased volume for the exact same mass, therefore reduced density.

And even if you add an assumption to bring the density back up to Gigantic equivalent, in the "expanded atom" theory, the chemical identities of the atoms are still the same, so the yield stength of bio-booster bone is still the same, so you're right back where you started. But wait! Yield strength is determined by the strength and density of the chemical bonds through a cross-section, and there are just as many of them as there were in the original Gigantic (same number of atoms = same number of bonds), just spread out over a larger area, so the yield strength actually reduces by ~360x (D²) as we go from Gigantic to Exceed, so the yield strength has to be amplified by the full ~6900x (D³) to give us identical relative strength. Same story with "expanded dimension" theories; the number of atoms making up the Exceed's legs is unchanged from the Gigantic, so the Exceed's magnified mass is all bearing down on those two itty-bitty legs.

"More atoms" theories not only automatically fit the observed density of the Exceed better, but they also only require a magnification of yield strength of ~19x to make up for the size increase. If there is any magnification at all. We never did see Exceed do the Kungfoo fightin' we know the Gigantic capable of — maybe because it's structure was being stressed to the limit.

Have I explained my unfortunate choice of words adequately, Ryuki?

*Jess♥ · October 18, 2008

Have I explained my unfortunate choice of words adequately, Ryuki?

certainly, thank you for explaining.

unfortunately i cannot accept this for the following reasons.

I understand that whilst debating with your peers you do not need to explain everything to them and all you need to do is tell them their idea is tosh and they may understand easily why you would say that.

this is not a hotbed of physicists though. there are a lot of regular people from different backgrounds who understand a lot of things, but don't come close to your level. I myself come up with some of these theories and I try to think them through as best as i can. as far as i am concerned it makes perfect sense. so for somebody to arrive and simply write it off without even giving any reasons.. comes across very rude.,

to you, perhaps it is nonsense, because you know more than I do. tehre may be plenty of things i am not aware of that go against my ideas.

but if you simply call it rubbish, then it is going to discourage anybody from coming up with any ideas and discussion ceases.

to not even consider the idea, expose it fully to scrutiny, or ask questions etc. is completely inconduscive to discussion.

we are here for discussion so I must ask you not to write off ideas without first exploring them or asking questions about them.

you may have missed something or misread even.

I realise you are looking at this from purely science. It's hard to find a name for this forum that is suitable. but we don;t need to stick with 100% science here. some branches of philosophy are welcome as well.

teh only real rule is that we follow logic and that we follow the manga.

I will give some more information about teh expanded atoms idea.

I did explain a lot of my ideas in a previous post.. but I'll go over some things. I believe tha tan enlarged atom could posess more mass due to extra neutrons. the higher energy level pushes the electrons outwards and pushes the other atoms away to increase magnitude. teh atomic bonding I think is due to gravity acting on mass? the addition of extra mass increses teh bonding and the gravity controllers can easily make teh atoms have more gravity.

I believe that in te same way that the momentum enhancers can effectively increase teh momentum of the guyvers punch, the same kind of process could effectively increase molecular cohesion without increasing teh actual weight. I mean.. the guyver can pucnh with a force that is more than could be produced by the guyvers weight and strength.. so in hte same way.. the guyver can be held together in the way of something with a much larger weight than is actually presented.

in this case.. my last paragraph.. is not necessary to be expanded atoms or multiplication of atoms.. I think it could work for both.

*zeo · October 18, 2008

Simplier answer, the basic premise for most of these theories is to make the surface area to volume ratio the same for the Exceed as it is for the Gigantic.

The actual strength of the Gigantic's physical form is not an issue because the Data File has stated the Exceed has a proportional increase in ability, this is why that part was never discussed. So there is no compensation going on within the limits of the orignal structure but an actual scaling that wouldn't be possible for any normal structure but clearly occurs for the Exceed.

It's just normal physics of a 3D object has the volume increase at a faster rate than the surface area. So the Exceed has to deal with far more volume versus surface area than the Gigantic does, but by either manipulating the physical constants or somehow enhancing the surface area an object has to work with could in theory explain how the Exceed can be as large as it is and still work with the same density as its original Gigantic form, while at the same time providing a proportional increase in powers/abilities that the surface area to volume disparity would have normally reduced instead of keeping proportional.

In all the theories the energy the Gigantic siphons is the source for the change but how it is applied to pull off this manipulation is the part we are still debating.

Does that clear it up for you?

October 18, 2008

unfortunately i cannot accept this for the following reasons.

I asked for understanding of that particular action, not acceptance of it. I accept the judgement.

to not even consider the idea, expose it fully to scrutiny, or ask questions etc. is completely inconduscive to discussion.
we are here for discussion so I must ask you not to write off ideas without first exploring them or asking questions about them.

you may have missed something or misread even.

I don't claim to be perfect, but in this case I am as certain as anyone with a physics background can be certain of anything, that the argument against the conventional explanation (that the Exceed stands by its own structural strength) is at best only half-completed, and as such, the conventional explanation is still live.

I know this because I know how an argument against the conventional explanation should go: in broad strokes, it calculates how much stress the Exceed's legs have to bear, and shows it to be greater than the yield strength of bio-booster bone. This is one specific quantity compared to another specific quantity. I know there aren't any such figures for either the stress or the yield strength in any pages in this thread, because I see no figures in units they're measured in: pressure — either in pascals, psi, baryns or pennyweights-per-acre. (Yes, that last one is a unit of pressure. It's an nonstandard one, but it counts.)

This is why your assertion that '"more atoms" will not cut it. they won't cope with the increased stress.' is impossilbe to accept. You are asking me to accept that one figure, which you haven't calculated, is greater than another figure, which you also haven't calculated. Do you understand why this statement rings hollow? If you had generated some estimates, sure, at the very least we'd have somewhere to go. But not even a token attempt? I consder this at least as rude as my calling certain ideas "bollocks" is to you; you are dismissing me without even presenting two lousy figures.

As to what level I should hold myself at, the fact that expanding an atom's volume but remaining at the same mass would reduce its density is high school physics. My God, the definition of density is in the dictionary. If you and zeo are anything to go by, your grasp of even the basics of physics is slippery at best, and that's an honest but educated opinion. With no sound foundation to build your theories on, I find it disingenuous that you expect anyone with a real physics background to not recoil in horror and not express his contempt in the face of such utter wrongness. Take note of that last part: the entire scenitific dicipline is founded upon openness and honesty. I had hoped that one of you would realize the flaw, because figuring out yourself is more educational than simply handing the answer to you on a platter, but it seems I cannot even do that.

I admit that I'm not known for my tact, hence my unfortunate language. However, know that I do not call an idea nonsense for no good reason. I will try to explain myself in future, and I appologize in advance for any slip-ups, and only a gentle reminder should serve in the future.

On the other hand, I don't think the science lab can function as a science lab if I'm the only one here who understands basic science. I ask that people please, please brush up on your basic physics and science. You need the solid foundation. You need to know what the words mean, and know how the basic concepts are related. Mechanics is literally the easiest part of physics, and you're tackling quantum mechanics? You're playing Marthon on 'Total Carnage' level and expect to do well when you get waxed on 'Kindergarden' level. That's madness... it's SPARTAAA!!!

I know I'm asking a lot from you, but science is not for the faint of heart. It is a dicipline, in every sense of the word. But you owe it to yourselves to not falsely advertise this as the Guyver Science Lab if you're not actually going to do science.

but if you simply call it rubbish, then it is going to discourage anybody from coming up with any ideas and discussion ceases.

Maybe it's a difference in culture, but to me, someone calling my idea rubbish, especially when with very little thought it's obvious that the idea is rubbish, is anything but discouraging. Instead, I have a try-to-kick-myself moment, and go back to work. Science is not for the easily discouraged.

I will give some more information about the expanded atoms idea.
I did explain a lot of my ideas in a previous post.. but I'll go over some things. I believe tha tan enlarged atom could posess more mass due to extra neutrons. the higher energy level pushes the electrons outwards and pushes the other atoms away to increase magnitude.

First off, the atom is the size it is mostly because of the electron, not the nucleus. The atomic radius (which you seek to inflate) is normally on the order of 10^-10 meters. Contrast this with the nucleus, which is about 10^-15 meters; even if the nucleus was a million times bigger (in volume), the electrons would be well-isolated from it. The only thing the electron feels from the nucleus is its charge, and you don't seek to change that. The nuclear mass does play a role, but I'll get to that later.

The Heisenburg uncertainty principle explains why the electron doesn't approach closer. The electron's orbital constrains both the electron's position and its momentum, so therefore, only a certain minimum size is allowed. But the only straightforward way to change the size of the orbitals is to change h... but changing h changes the orbitals' energies, size, shape, and physical behavior, which buggers up chemistry (particularly biochemistry) and Sho is one dead duck. The only way out is to make a generous assumption that Exceed's chemistry remains the same even though you've jiggered the most important constant governing it. That's assumption 1.

Assumption 2 has to do with the question of where all those neutrons came from. I'm not going to rip on you too hard for this, since "more atoms" requires a source of matter, too. Just know that in this area, your theory isn't an improvement.

Now that we have all the neutrons, we need to get them into the nuclei. You are proposing neutron capture on an energy scale far less than that of a supernova, the only place where neutron capture occurs with any appreciable rate. Either that, or you're telling me that the Guyver concentrates the energy that would destroy the earth one trillion times over. Either of these are HUGE assumptions that I will absolutely not grant you until you justify them. That's assumption 3.

Onto assumption 4. Check out the 2004 Chart of Nuclides, particularly this part. The color indicates half-life, where blue is either half-life of greater than ~100 million years or a stable isotope, and any other color is a half-life of 100 million years or less (or unmeasurable). Explore the chart. Choose several elements on the whole of the chart and follow the chart right, with increasing mass number (more neutrons), watching what happens to the number underneath the isotope name. You will see that as you get further from the blue isotopes, the half-life of the isotope has a downward trend. Indeed, all of the isotopes furtherest from the most stable have half-lives of minutes or seconds. And this is when the neutrons, at most, number less than three times the number of protons. What do you think will happen when the number of neutrons outnumber protons by ~7000 times? Either you're hoping for an island of stability somewhere out in the boonies of nuclear physics, or the Exceed has nuclear stability control, which would make a horrifyingly useful and frightful weapon than any the Guyver has demonstrated. (Imagine making any matter go POW! in an instant. And I do mean POW!) This is another assumption I will absolutely not grant you without justification.

Assumption 5. Remember when I said the mass has some effect on the electrons? It does, but not on the size of the orbitals, which is what you were hoping for, but on the chemical and physical properties of the atoms. Normally, using a different isotope of atom in a chemical makes no detectible difference in chemical or physical properties. This is because in elements heavier than hydrogen, the additional neutrons have insigificant effect. For deuterium (heavy hydrogen), the situation changes. The neutron doubles the mass of the deuterium atom with respect to the hydrogen atom, with drastic biological results. Chemistry is going to change drastically at magnifications of atomic mass by factors of ~7000.

But it gets worse! Now bonds between atoms are more feeble compared to the masses of the atoms. The electrons, which do the actual job of cementing molecules together, are going to be struggling to wrangle down these ~7000 amu behemoths. You cannot guarantee that chemistry will even be possible, let alone the same.

In trying to get rid of your assumptions, you've gone from two unsupported assumptions to five. Care to try again?

the atomic bonding I think is due to gravity acting on mass? the addition of extra mass increses the bonding and the gravity controllers can easily make the atoms have more gravity.

Atomic bonds are electromagnetic. If gravity went away, chemistry would be unchanged to very high precision.

I believe that in te same way that the momentum enhancers can effectively increase the momentum of the guyvers punch, the same kind of process could effectively increase molecular cohesion without increasing the actual weight.

The actual weight of the Exceed is 2960 t, up from 272 kg. That's an observation. You can't handwave it away.

I mean.. the guyver can pucnh with a force that is more than could be produced by the guyvers weight and strength.. so in the same way.. the guyver can be held together in the way of something with a much larger weight than is actually presented.

Where's your mechanical analysis to support this argument?

Edited October 19, 2008 by Wyrm

October 18, 2008

It's just normal physics of a 3D object has the volume increase at a faster rate than the surface area.

True, but I never disputed this.

So the Exceed has to deal with far more volume versus surface area than the Gigantic does,

You mean "cross-section" here. That is, the cross-sectional area through the Gigantic/Exceed's limbs. It obeys the same rules as surface area, because all areas obey those rules with regard to scaling.

By the way, true, but again, never disputed.

but by either manipulating the physical constants or somehow enhancing the surface area an object has to work with could in theory explain how the Exceed can be as large as it is and still work with the same density as its original Gigantic form,

This is where you go awry. Yes, the stresses on Exceed would be increased. This was never in dispute. The argument is whether the increased stress would cause Exceed to collapse without unconventional support.

This cannot be answered by stating that going from Gigantic to Exceed would increase the stress on its structure. Putting the Phone Book on a bedside table also increases the stress on the table. The table only collapses, however, if the increased stress is larger than the yield strength of the table (actually the ultimate strength, but yield strength suffices for our purposes).

This can only be answered by calculating the increased stress, and comparing it to the yield strength, both having units of pressure. This clearly calls for a quantitative answer. The calculation and comparison has not been done because nowhere has a figure in units of pressure been presented in this thread.

Does that clear it up for you?

No, because my question has NOT been answered. It will remain unanswered as long as you seek to give a qualitative answer to my quantitative question, because a quantitative question can only be answered by a quantitative answer. You can repeat your abovestated argument as many times as you want, but it is not an answer to my question — it never was and it never will be.

As long as my question remains unanswered, the conventional explanation is still live whether you like it or not.

*Jess♥ · October 19, 2008

On the other hand, I don't think the science lab can function as a science lab if I'm the only one here who understands basic science. I ask that people please, please brush up on your basic physics and science. You need the solid foundation. You need to know what the words mean, and know how the basic concepts are related. Mechanics is literally the easiest part of physics, and you're tackling quantum mechanics? You're playing Marthon on 'Total Carnage' level and expect to do well when you get waxed on 'Kindergarden' level. That's madness... it's SPARTAAA!!!

This has now been remedied.

the forum is now called guyver theory.

we don't need to understand all these words of sceince. ideas can work fine even without the correct terminology. I explain things in a way so that everyone can understand. I use analogy most of the time because it is important for people to understand what i am saying, it is not important to get the itty bitty details correct or do calculatrions or forecasts or analysis or things like that.

this is not college or university. this is a public forum focused on entertainment.

I don't get "waxed on kindergarten level". it is not my fault you do not read my posts properly or understand what I am saying. my understanding of the way things work is fine. the error is yours. and i say that the error is yours simply because you have not asked me questions about what i have said. you have assumed so much and never actually verified any of your assumptions.

First off, the atom is the size it is mostly because of the electron, not the nucleus. The atomic radius (which you seek to inflate) is normally on the order of 10^-10 meters. Contrast this with the nucleus, which is about 10^-15 meters; even if the nucleus was a million times bigger (in volume), the electrons would be well-isolated from it. The only thing the electron feels from the nucleus is its charge, and you don't seek to change that. The nuclear mass does play a role, but I'll get to that later.

It seems obvious to me upon reading this that you have either not understood what i have written or not read it all.

I have gone to great lengths to read and understand your posts I thik it's only fair to expect teh same in return.

I am dyslexic as well and it is far more difficult to understand when you do not always phrase them elegantly.

a few times i have been caught trying to make sense of a sentence or two.

I don't see why i should read any of ytour posts when this paragraph makes it plainly obvious that you are not considering all that i have written or trying to understand it.

since i quoted this anyway.. I will explain this AGAIN. after that, I will not go into this issue. if it seems you are ignoring what i have written, then i will ignore you in return.

First off, the atom is the size it is mostly because of the electron, not the nucleus. The atomic radius (which you seek to inflate) is normally on the order of 10^-10 meters. Contrast this with the nucleus, which is about 10^-15 meters; even if the nucleus was a million times bigger (in volume), the electrons would be well-isolated from it. The only thing the electron feels from the nucleus is its charge, and you don't seek to change that. The nuclear mass does play a role, but I'll get to that later.

The guyver puts more energy into hte electron thereby increasing the energy state of the electron and increasing magnitude.

also add more neutrons in order to increase the mass. the atoms being larger... will form the same structures in hte material. since the pull of atomss on each other does not depend on surface area, teh same structure should work at the different scale.

this is my idea as i last had it. if you have problems with it, then ask me about it or suggest some things. but i am gettig tired of you dictating science to me without first understanding what i am trying to say.

*zeo · October 19, 2008

I apologize if this response is out of line Ryuki but I believe this has gone on long enough and is not helpful in pushing this discussion forward...

No, because my question has NOT been answered. It will remain unanswered as long as you seek to give a qualitative answer to my quantitative question, because a quantitative question can only be answered by a quantitative answer. You can repeat your abovestated argument as many times as you want, but it is not an answer to my question — it never was and it never will be.
As long as my question remains unanswered, the conventional explanation is still live whether you like it or not.

Sorry but if you want me to be frank, since you're obviously refusing to be led to the answer, then the conventional explanation didn't have a leg to stand on from the beginning. Bone density of the Gigantic is irrevelant, dexterity alone would never explain the Exceed.

I commend your knowledge of physics (except for your dismissal of density producing increased physical strength when it clearly does so, especially for load bearing structures like bone and your dismissal of changing constants when mainstream scientist are taking the possibility seriously with mounting evidence supporting it) but first and foremost you are forgetting the Exceed has a Proportional Increase in powers/abilities, this is in direct conflict with the effects of a greatly increased ratio disparity between surface area and volume of the body. No amount of dexterity would explain how this could be possible.

Really... Nerve impulses would have far greater distances to follow, just to feel (let alone the brain function)... The surface area to volume disparity also means far more body heat would be retained as it would be harder to effeciently radiate the heat away from the body as well as having to travel greater distance from within the body... The blood would have to be pumped at far greater pressure and that increased pressure would effect the funtions of the cells like how the pressure at the bottom of the ocean effects like to the point that even enzymes stop working (Unless you want to forget that we're talking about a living being)... Far more oxygen would be needed to support the larger body and the oxygen would have to travel further through the bloodstream to get to where it is needed... The vastly greater mass of the Exceed would require proportionally far greater energy to move than the Gigantic... Even with enough energy it would take longer to accelerate and decellerate... Even if the Gigantic has a body capable of withstanding the strain of being scaled up to 52 meters we do know the Gigantic's approximate strength level can not be greater than 20x the Guyver's and this is not enough to explain how the Exceed can still move normally (one of the reasons I used how it would feel to you to suddenly be under 10 times normal gravity)... Having enough dexterity to support the Exceed does not go to the point that the Dexterity also becomes proportional since the Exceed withstood attacks that would have required the Gigantic to raise a barrier shield to protect against, like withstanding a Purgatorium with just the palm of his hand or multiple Bio-Missiles capable of taking out entire city blocks and amplified by blowing up inside the barrier shield...

Among many other factors you should have considered... Really the conventional answer you are defending only works if you ignore pretty much everything and just view the Exceed like a really big statue or at best a robot with few internal moving parts. Only then would it make sense that just super dexterity and energy can explain everything but this over simplifies the vast complexity of a living being and what it would have to go through in order to function properly at a vastly scaled up size, let alone have those functions remain Proportional!

The basic Newtonian physics alone should have had you questioning that assumption...

Now I don't agree with all the theories thrown around trying to explain it, but at least they are trying to explain it... I think that while trying to maintain scientific reasoning you forgot the part about practicality. Theorems aren't only tested for their logic but also their practicality and whether they fit all possible variables. So a theorem may work but may still not be practical or fit all variable and this is where your conventional answer falls into. Explaining only how the Exceed could exist but not how it could function.

October 19, 2008

This has now been remedied.
the forum is now called guyver theory.

That's hardly better. "Theory" is a concept from science. A theory is a well-tested explanatory framework, which is not what's in here. People will walk in thinking what goes on in Guyver Theory is somehow science. It's still false advertising. I suggest "Guyver Speculuation", because that's what this is: speculation done without any serious critical review.

I would also like that the rules be amended to make it clear that science is not what in fact goes on in this forum, because that would be truthful. I don't insist on that, though.

we don't need to understand all these words of sceince. ideas can work fine even without the correct terminology.

Yet you read the scientific literature. How do you expect to know what any of them is saying without knowing what the words mean?

I explain things in a way so that everyone can understand. I use analogy most of the time because it is important for people to understand what i am saying, it is not important to get the itty bitty details correct or do calculatrions or forecasts or analysis or things like that.

There's also answering challenges to your hypothesis, critical review by your peers, gathering observations and doing experiments, which you also do not do, but together with all the things you dismiss, that constitutes 99.99% of what science is. The idea in your head is only the very first step on a long road, and chances are good that when you travel that road, your idea will not survive scrutiny. Coming up with the general idea for my masters thesis project took half a day. Fleshing out those little details, working through the calculations, writing and running the simulations, analysing the results, writing the thesis, reworking that thesis into a peer review article, defending that article at two conferences, and getting it into the literature, took me three years. And this was a relatively simple thesis/project.

this is not college or university. this is a public forum focused on entertainment.

For me, doing science is entertaining. No one is forcing you to put a science oriented forum on your board.

I don't get "waxed on kindergarten level". it is not my fault you do not read my posts properly or understand what I am saying. my understanding of the way things work is fine. the error is yours. and i say that the error is yours simply because you have not asked me questions about what i have said. you have assumed so much and never actually verified any of your assumptions.

Alright, Ryuki, I'll play your game. I'll state my challenges in the form of questions, questions that have to be answered for your 'theories' to work. Will that satisfy you?

It seems obvious to me upon reading this that you have either not understood what i have written or not read it all.
I have gone to great lengths to read and understand your posts I thik it's only fair to expect the same in return.

I am dyslexic as well and it is far more difficult to understand when you do not always phrase them elegantly.

a few times i have been caught trying to make sense of a sentence or two.

I don't see why i should read any of ytour posts when this paragraph makes it plainly obvious that you are not considering all that i have written or trying to understand it.

Thinking it's acceptible to ignore my posts because you THINK I've ignored yours is not acceptible either. The Golden Rule is "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you," not "Do onto others as they have done onto you."

since i quoted this anyway.. I will explain this AGAIN. after that, I will not go into this issue. if it seems you are ignoring what i have written, then i will ignore you in return.
The guyver puts more energy into the electron thereby increasing the energy state of the electron and increasing magnitude.

The questions start now:

1. Considering that the average time an atom spends at ordinary excited states is on the order of 10 picoseconds (10^-8 seconds), and at metastable states for times on the order of miliseconds [Landshoff & Metherell, Simple Quantum Physics, p90], why do you expect the Exceed's electrons to remain in thier bloated orbits for the tens of minutes that they do?

2. A quick modeling of some representitive elements using the Bohr model shows that the binding energies of the electrons reduce by a factor of 20 times. Given that chemistry is largely based on the binding energies of the electron's orbits, why do you expect Sho's biochemistry to remain the same?

3. Since most of the Exceed's atoms are in an excited state, the mass has formed what has called a population inversion. A population inversion (together with the phenomenon of stimulated emission) is the reason why lasers lase. What keeps the Exceed from becoming the biggest laser core the world has ever seen?

also add more neutrons in order to increase the mass.

4. Where do the neutrons come from?

5. How are the neutrons stuffed en-masse into the individual atoms without supernova level energy densities?

6. A cursory inspection of a nuclide chart reveals that fixing atomic number and increasing mass number reveals a general trend of increasing radioactivity. There is unlikely to be an island of stability in that direction, and every indicator predicts it does not exist that way. Why doesn't Exceed instantly explode into a burst of alpha, beta and gamma radiation?

7. Consumption of heavy water causes nasty biological effects, due to the fact that deuterium is twice as heavy as hydrogen from its extra neutron. You're proposing ultra-mega-heavy versions of all chemicals. Why do you believe that Sho can survive the change in biophysical behavior of the chemicals he's made of?

the atoms being larger... will form the same structures in the material. since the pull of atomss on each other does not depend on surface area, the same structure should work at the different scale.

This question is a little more involved, so bear with me. Imagine building a 5x5 grid of tinkertoys connected by the short sticks (all equal length). Let each of the round pieces have a leg extending downward, and let the grid sit on these legs. There are 25 legs, true? Okay, build the same structure but this time at a larger scale, using longer sticks (again, same size). How many legs does the grid sit on. Still 25, right? Use the longest sticks and count the legs. Still 25. Seems clear that no matter how you expand this grid, it's still resting on 25 legs, right?

Now, suppose all of these legs are the same strength; say they can support a newton each. Well, since there are 25 legs, it should be able to support 25 newtons, correct?

Suppose now that we make a cut through Gigantic's leg and count the individual bonds that go through this area. You will, of course, come up with some gigantanormous number, but let's just call it N. Each of those little bonds has some unnamed strength, exerting a force beyond which the individual bond collapses, and call it s. Logically, the strength of the leg is Nxs = S. Now let Gigantic expand into Exceed. Because of the argument of the grid above, the number of bonds has not changed, so it's still N. Also, you assert that the strength of the bonds has not changed, so it's still s. What is the strength of the Exceed's leg, and how many times greater than the Gigantic's is it?

October 19, 2008

Sorry but if you want me to be frank, since you're obviously refusing to be led to the answer, then the conventional explanation didn't have a leg to stand on from the beginning. Bone density of the Gigantic is irrevelant, dexterity alone would never explain the Exceed.

I never talked about bone density. I've talked about yield stress. It's a very diffent animal.

I commend your knowledge of physics (except for your dismissal of density producing increased physical strength when it clearly does so, especially for load bearing structures like bone

If the relationship is so clear, engineers should've noticed it long ago. Which engineering textbook did you read this principle from?

As to bone, please examine this figure of a normal bone compared to an osteoporotic (weakened) bone:

1. What does this figure say to you?

2. The bone on the left is denser in the sense that the bone's mass divided by its volume is greater than a similar calculation for the bone on the right. Going from the figure, what is the explanation for this?

and your dismissal of changing constants when mainstream scientist are taking the possibility seriously with mounting evidence supporting it)

Which article in the peer review literature does this come from?

but first and foremost you are forgetting the Exceed has a Proportional Increase in powers/abilities, this is in direct conflict with the effects of a greatly increased ratio disparity between surface area and volume of the body.

It was never in dispute that the stress on the Exceed's bones would be greatly increased. How do you go from this fact to "the Exceed will collapse"?

No amount of dexterity would explain how this could be possible.

If I recall correctly, I haven't said a thing about dexterity. I've made calculations on the density of Exceed and showed how it didn't change.

Really... Nerve impulses would have far greater distances to follow, just to feel (let alone the brain function)...

3. Why do you think this problem is solved by expanded atoms?

4. When was this part of my argument?

The surface area to volume disparity also means far more body heat would be retained as it would be harder to effeciently radiate the heat away from the body as well as having to travel greater distance from within the body...

Please answer questions 3 & 4 in regards to this issue.

A. The blood would have to be pumped at far greater pressure and that increased pressure would effect the funtions of the cells like how the pressure at the bottom of the ocean effects like to the point that even enzymes stop working (Unless you want to forget that we're talking about a living being)...
B. Far more oxygen would be needed to support the larger body and the oxygen would have to travel further through the bloodstream to get to where it is needed...

C. The vastly greater mass of the Exceed would require proportionally far greater energy to move than the Gigantic...

D. Even with enough energy it would take longer to accelerate and decellerate...

E. Even if the Gigantic has a body capable of withstanding the strain of being scaled up to 52 meters we do know the Gigantic's approximate strength level can not be greater than 20x the Guyver's and this is not enough to explain how the Exceed can still move normally (one of the reasons I used how it would feel to you to suddenly be under 10 times normal gravity)...

F. Having enough dexterity to support the Exceed does not go to the point that the Dexterity also becomes proportional since the Exceed withstood attacks that would have required the Gigantic to raise a barrier shield to protect against, like withstanding a Purgatorium with just the palm of his hand or multiple Bio-Missiles capable of taking out entire city blocks and amplified by blowing up inside the barrier shield...

G. Among many other factors you should have considered... Really the conventional answer you are defending only works if you ignore pretty much everything and just view the Exceed like a really big statue or at best a robot with few internal moving parts. Only then would it make sense that just super dexterity and energy can explain everything but this over simplifies the vast complexity of a living being and what it would have to go through in order to function properly at a vastly scaled up size, let alone have those functions remain Proportional!

I have labeled the statements above with letters. Please answer questions 3 & 4 in regards to these issues.

Please note for your answers that in Ryuki's 'theory' of expanded atoms, the Exceed is precisely as massive as in "more atoms". Furthermore, all of the substances of the expanded atoms in Exceed are supposed to have exactly the same macroscopic properties as they have in Gigantic.

The basic Newtonian physics alone should have had you questioning that assumption...

Why do you assume that you have more knowledge physics of Newtonian physics than I do? Why do you assume that the Exceed will break just because its got greater amount of stress on it? How do you go from "increased stress" to "collapse"?

Now I don't agree with all the theories thrown around trying to explain it, but at least they are trying to explain it... I think that while trying to maintain scientific reasoning you forgot the part about practicality. Theorems aren't only tested for their logic but also their practicality and whether they fit all possible variables. So a theorem may work but may still not be practical or fit all variable and this is where your conventional answer falls into. Explaining only how the Exceed could exist but not how it could function.

I do not say, and have never said, that the More Atoms Exceed does not have significant biomechanical challenges to overcome. All the above you cited have to be addressed. But you're claiming expanded, more massive atoms (EMMA) to be a superior theory, are you not? How is it superior? What of the above biomechanical challenges does EMMA ease?

Edited October 19, 2008 by Wyrm

*Jess♥ · October 20, 2008

ok how about "how guyver works" ?

now surely there can be no problems?

That's hardly better. "Theory" is a concept from science. A theory is a well-tested explanatory framework, which is not what's in here. People will walk in thinking what goes on in Guyver Theory is somehow science. It's still false advertising.

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

6. a particular branch of knowledge.

7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

science has a number of definitions. please expand your view a little.

Yet you read the scientific literature. How do you expect to know what any of them is saying without knowing what the words mean?

when i see a word i do not understand and i feel it is important to help my iunderstanding, I look up the defiition of that word so that i can understand the concept. I do not memorise words. my dyslexia prevents me from memorising things easily, I learn by understanding not by memorisation. I understand a lot of concepts, I just don't know the words.

For me, doing science is entertaining. No one is forcing you to put a science oriented forum on your board.

we put this here for all members. a lot of members have questions about how teh guyver works. a lot of the time they would be happy with relatively simple answers. the things you talk about will be way over the heads of most members.

1. Considering that the average time an atom spends at ordinary excited states is on the order of 10 picoseconds (10^-8 seconds), and at metastable states for times on the order of miliseconds [Landshoff & Metherell, Simple Quantum Physics, p90], why do you expect the Exceed's electrons to remain in thier bloated orbits for the tens of minutes that they do?

energy siphon.

2. A quick modeling of some representitive elements using the Bohr model shows that the binding energies of the electrons reduce by a factor of 20 times. Given that chemistry is largely based on the binding energies of the electron's orbits, why do you expect Sho's biochemistry to remain the same?

don't know. can you suggest anything? compensation by more protons perhaps?

3. Since most of the Exceed's atoms are in an excited state, the mass has formed what has called a population inversion. A population inversion (together with the phenomenon of stimulated emission) is the reason why lasers lase. What keeps the Exceed from becoming the biggest laser core the world has ever seen?

electromagnetic manipulation. similar to how the gigantic guyver produces an energy field/ barrier.

4. Where do the neutrons come from?

neutrons are forms of energy. as talked about in other thread, I believce guyver can create matter from energy.

5. How are the neutrons stuffed en-masse into the individual atoms without supernova level energy densities?

I don't see why we can't have those energy densities, but anyhow.. perhaps guyver produces matter by injecting energy into individual atomic compnents causing them to split?

6. A cursory inspection of a nuclide chart reveals that fixing atomic number and increasing mass number reveals a general trend of increasing radioactivity. There is unlikely to be an island of stability in that direction, and every indicator predicts it does not exist that way. Why doesn't Exceed instantly explode into a burst of alpha, beta and gamma radiation?

yes i considered this very carefully. I believe that the containment of the EM barrier that guyver gigantic uses.. will allow the radiation to bounce around inside and hit teh electrons and that is what increases their energy state.

7. Consumption of heavy water causes nasty biological effects, due to the fact that deuterium is twice as heavy as hydrogen from its extra neutron. You're proposing ultra-mega-heavy versions of all chemicals. Why do you believe that Sho can survive the change in biophysical behavior of the chemicals he's made of?

because he isn't human, he is guyver. guyver is shown to have vastly different biology and for all we know, guyver may be composed of heavy elements anyway.

This question is a little more involved, so bear with me. Imagine building a 5x5 grid of tinkertoys connected by the short sticks (all equal length). Let each of the round pieces have a leg extending downward, and let the grid sit on these legs. There are 25 legs, true? Okay, build the same structure but this time at a larger scale, using longer sticks (again, same size). How many legs does the grid sit on. Still 25, right? Use the longest sticks and count the legs. Still 25. Seems clear that no matter how you expand this grid, it's still resting on 25 legs, right?

Now, suppose all of these legs are the same strength; say they can support a newton each. Well, since there are 25 legs, it should be able to support 25 newtons, correct?

Suppose now that we make a cut through Gigantic's leg and count the individual bonds that go through this area. You will, of course, come up with some gigantanormous number, but let's just call it N. Each of those little bonds has some unnamed strength, exerting a force beyond which the individual bond collapses, and call it s. Logically, the strength of the leg is Nxs = S. Now let Gigantic expand into Exceed. Because of the argument of the grid above, the number of bonds has not changed, so it's still N. Also, you assert that the strength of the bonds has not changed, so it's still s. What is the strength of the Exceed's leg, and how many times greater than the Gigantic's is it?

I imagine these legs like little cones. usually the forces are equal on each end, so the cones appear like cylinders.

true enough.. but in this scenario.. perhaps the electrons are the same, but if there are more protons, then there is more of a one sided force.. cones may be weak at teh tip perhaps.. but there comes a point where the strength of teh cone is more than sufficient.

so this means.. that the electron may be a kind of weak tip... but if you squash it a little bit.. it is still strong enough.

this was fun by the way.

I do welcome this kind of questioning. it is open, respectful and conducive to further duscussion and new thoughts and ideas.

*zeo · October 20, 2008

Ryuki, why not just call it "Theoretical Discussion Forum"? Or better yet, "Idea Lab" since we don't always stick to just Guyver topics?

I never talked about bone density. I've talked about yield stress. It's a very diffent animal.

You've basically talked bone strength, which is linked to bone density since bone is structured as a load bearing structure and the greater the density of these load bearing structures, the more they support the structure.

If the relationship is so clear, engineers should've noticed it long ago. Which engineering textbook did you read this principle from?

Medical ones, Wolff's law and other more recently discovered mechanisms, you think engineers have a monopoly on understanding how things work? Or do you think the trend of the last decade of adopting natural designs from nature is just a fluke? That millions of years of evolution doesn't means nature knows things about designing that we have yet to figure out?

If you listen in on what real scientists are entertaining, many of their ideas are equally as wild as those presented here and in many cases are based on what those real scientist have suggested as possibilities.

As to bone, please examine this figure of a normal bone compared to an osteoporotic (weakened) bone:

1. What does this figure say to you?

2. The bone on the left is denser in the sense that the bone's mass divided by its volume is greater than a similar calculation for the bone on the right. Going from the figure, what is the explanation for this?

Quite simple, the bone mineral density is less for osteoporotic bones and the microarchitecture is also disrupted. Which means the bones are both have less to work with and the load bearing structure is no longer properly layed out to spread the strain making fractures even more likely.

But this only proves my point. Besides it appears you are still missing the point that surface area includes the entire structure and support structure varies throughout the body, as can be noted by the Bone Mineral Content index and bone shape which helps determine how flexible each part is and how it reacts to strain and impacts.

The key mechanism however is on the cellular level as the way the bone minerals are layed out is in a way that can be described as a spongy like interconnecting web that snaps under strain to absorb impacts. Of course there are 2 types of bones that work in tandem to fill in the damage and restrengthen the bones over time but its the final result that we are discussing. Which is why bone can withstand a strong impact once but snap when hit again with the same force before the bone has had time to recover.

Perhaps you are being confused by the term surface area but we are the sum of our parts and every part of us has surface area, all the way down to individual molecules and atoms. When dealing with how the body handles stress and noting that the stress is effected by surface area to volume ratio then the whole body has to be considered and not just some aspect of it.

Increasing bone density allows for more of these structures to occupy the same overall volume and thus make the bones stronger, which is why it is possible to make your bones stronger than normal by simply inducing continuous stress upon them that over time makes them denser and stronger.

Which article in the peer review literature does this come from?

Physical Review Letters, among other well respected physics journals where scientists present research for peer review, as real scientist perfect better methods of measuring and testing theories it is becoming less a question of if the constants have changed but rather a question of why. Just do a search on changing constants and quite a few of them turn up. Along with links to various versions of inflation theory and brane theory.

It was never in dispute that the stress on the Exceed's bones would be greatly increased. How do you go from this fact to "the Exceed will collapse"?

Again, irrevelant, you aren't considering the effect on the function of the Exceed. You only seem to care whether the Exceed would collapse on itself upon the first step. This is a living being, not a machine! It needs to function as well as exist.

If I recall correctly, I haven't said a thing about dexterity. I've made calculations on the density of Exceed and showed how it didn't change.

Sorry, physical dexterity is one of those meaning that have been expanded recently to also include how a body handles strain/damage and is now often used in place of durability in living things.

3. Why do you think this problem is solved by expanded atoms?

I don't, if you bothered reading all the previous posts you'd note I have my own theory. But at least they acknowledged that the problem can't be solved so simply as just having the Gigantic be tough enough.

4. When was this part of my argument?

Since the moment you assumed that the Gigantic was simply being tough enough to grow into Exceed and seriously considered that as an answer despite all the things that goes against it.

Again the Exceed is a living being, unless you consider all the factors that effect a living being then you aren't testing your theorem. And without testing it then you can't use it to compare to the other theories and say they aren't needed and shouldn't have even been considered.

Why do you assume that you have more knowledge physics of Newtonian physics than I do? Why do you assume that the Exceed will break just because its got greater amount of stress on it? How do you go from "increased stress" to "collapse"?

I'm not assuming, you are clearly stating your stance and that stance can only be made by ignoring the complete list of factors. The Exceed is a living being, since you aren't considering how the extra mass would be effecting the functions of the Exceed in your argument shows you aren't considering all of the Newtonian physics like momentum, which was one of the things I listed in my last post.

Really, simple physical considerations like inertia that would defy the ability of the Exceed to keep its abilities proportional!

Remember, any theory that explains the Exceed has to also explain how the abilities also remained proportional.

How many times do I have to point that out though? The Exceed is Proportional in powers/abilities. Being able to take the strain does not make you proportional when physics clearly shows the volume goes way up compared to the surface area.

I again point to the example of putting you under 10 times normal gravity and expecting you could move like you would under normal gravity. Answer is you can't! Even if you had the strength and durability to take 10 times normal gravity you would have to handle vastly increased strain that would inhibit you from functioning as you would under normal gravity.

So, if your theory can't explain this then it fails period.

It doesn't matter what the Gigantic's physical limits are, they couldn't stay proportional without something effecting how they work.

I do not say, and have never said, that the More Atoms Exceed does not have significant biomechanical challenges to overcome. All the above you cited have to be addressed. But you're claiming expanded, more massive atoms (EMMA) to be a superior theory, are you not? How is it superior? What of the above biomechanical challenges does EMMA ease?

Sorry, if I'm confusing you but like I said I don't agree with all the theories. You are free to point out all the problems with any of the theories. But first you have to understand the need for those theories since you started this discussion out by dismissing the need for them when conventional explanations don't suffice, yet you've insisted that they could when we are dealing with a concept that is clearly not conventional.

October 20, 2008

ok how about "how guyver works" ?
now surely there can be no problems?

I like zeo's "Idea Lab" better, but whatever. ("Theory" is a no-no! You're not doing science, so it's false advertising!)

science has a number of definitions. please expand your view a little.

The definitions in the dictionary were written by dictionary writers, not scientists.

Science is knowledge attained through the scientific method. The scientific method states that when you have an idea, you test it. Again and again. As the tests progress, the idea is refined. If it breaks along the way, it is discarded (most will be). If the theory takes on all comers, then we can safely say the idea is a theory and science can be considered to 'know' all it entails.

It is this rigorous testing the idea that gives rise to all the "itty bitty details" you dismiss so readily a couple messages back, and I'm disappointed you do dismiss it so readily, because that's what makes science work. If you don't want to do the hard work, fine, but don't dismiss it as "itty bitty details".

when i see a word i do not understand and i feel it is important to help my iunderstanding, I look up the defiition of that word so that i can understand the concept. I do not memorise words. my dyslexia prevents me from memorising things easily, I learn by understanding not by memorisation. I understand a lot of concepts, I just don't know the words.

You don't need the words to understand, but you do need them to communicate that understanding, which is what you're trying to do right now. Either use the words as they are defined, or define your own words as you go. I'm not going to play "guess the definition" with you.

we put this here for all members. a lot of members have questions about how the guyver works. a lot of the time they would be happy with relatively simple answers. the things you talk about will be way over the heads of most members.

I admit that I've had little practice in 'dumbing down' the science, but the concepts you are tackling are not simple. It is rocket science. Come to think of it, compared to some of the things you tackle on this board, rocket science is relatively easy. Sometimes the honest answer isn't simple.

1. Considering that the average time an atom spends at ordinary excited states is on the order of 10 picoseconds (10^-8 seconds), and at metastable states for times on the order of miliseconds [Landshoff & Metherell, Simple Quantum Physics, p90], why do you expect the Exceed's electrons to remain in thier bloated orbits for the tens of minutes that they do?
energy siphon.

That's not nearly satisfactory. Define what an "energy siphon" is and how it's supposed to accomplish (1). Simply saying "energy siphon" is like simply saying "Santa Claus" or "Abracadabra."

2. A quick modeling of some representitive elements using the Bohr model shows that the binding energies of the electrons reduce by a factor of 20 times. Given that chemistry is largely based on the binding energies of the electron's orbits, why do you expect Sho's biochemistry to remain the same?
don't know. can you suggest anything?

Would that I could. I'm only beginning to see unpleasant things happening to poor ol' Sho, not to mention Tokyo.

compensation by more protons perhaps?

Doesn't work. You'd have to add electrons to the atoms to keep them neutral, otherwise, you get the world's biggest tesla coil. However, the increasing the number of electrons in an atom changes chemical behavior, which you're trying to keep the same. Also, the extra charge pulls electron orbits in, so the Exceed will shrink. So you need to boost the electrons back to the orbit with more energy, which makes keeping them there tougher.

3. Since most of the Exceed's atoms are in an excited state, the mass has formed what has called a population inversion. A population inversion (together with the phenomenon of stimulated emission) is the reason why lasers lase. What keeps the Exceed from becoming the biggest laser core the world has ever seen?
electromagnetic manipulation. similar to how the gigantic guyver produces an energy field/ barrier.

9. Why do you assume that the ablity to create an energy barrier confers the ability to control stimulated emission?

10. So the Gigantic can inhibit lasing out to a distance of 21 meters. Gee, that would be useful against bio-blasters! Why do you assume the Gigantic can do this?

(PS, magnetism and incandecence are both electromagnetic effects, too. Doesn't mean I can pick up a paperclip with a light-bulb.)

4. Where do the neutrons come from?
neutrons are forms of energy. as talked about in other thread, I believce guyver can create matter from energy.

Neutrons are particles, which have energy. Remember the dirty little secret of physics. Plus if you're going to use the word, please make sure you're using it correctly. Anyway...

12. Certainly, the Guyver has a source for the matter it uses to regenerate. However, up to this point, it's all been ordinary elements, of atomic mass no more than ~300. Neutrons are not an element. Why do you assume that a process that's only produced atomic elements before can produce prodigeous free neutrons?

5. How are the neutrons stuffed en-masse into the individual atoms without supernova level energy densities?
I don't see why we can't have those energy densities,

13. You mean you don't have a problem with enough energy to destroy the Earth crammed into each cubic meter of the Guyver? That you don't have a problem with the inefficiency of the neutron capture process will raise the Guyver flesh to hundreds of billions of degrees Kelvin? That the radiation output of that flesh alone would be like exploding four million trillion times the world's nuclear arsenel on top of Tokyo every second?

If the Exceed's flesh could withstand that kind of punishment, why doesn't it laugh off Kahn's pitiful little drill missles that aren't even a kiloton each?

but anyhow.. perhaps guyver produces matter by injecting energy into individual atomic compnents causing them to split?

14. (You meant 'nuclear' there, did you not?) So you seek to enlarge the nuclei, by splitting it apart? How does THAT work?

6. A cursory inspection of a nuclide chart reveals that fixing atomic number and increasing mass number reveals a general trend of increasing radioactivity. There is unlikely to be an island of stability in that direction, and every indicator predicts it does not exist that way. Why doesn't Exceed instantly explode into a burst of alpha, beta and gamma radiation?
yes i considered this very carefully. I believe that the containment of the EM barrier that guyver gigantic uses.. will allow the radiation to bounce around inside and hit the electrons and that is what increases their energy state.

15. So the Exceed can... must individually shield each of its nuclei against furious radiation, tracking each of them individually to keep them from going kablooie, yet when Kahn's missles explode inside its outer barrier, it cannot then throw up a smaller, inner barrier to protect the rest of itself from at least some of the blast? After all, it can track 10³¹ someodd atomic nuclei. A few million compartment shields should be a piece of cake.

16. There's also this neat little trick individual particles do called 'tunneling'. This allows them to penetrate barriers that would classically confine them. Only two ways out and your scenario block one already: the nuclei are very unstable, so you must put up an outragously high potential barrier, or a very wide barrier (and that's all a force-shield is, speaking in quantum) — much higher and wider than you might imagine. You must do this for each nucleus. Why do you assume this will be cheap?

17. The energy of nuclear decay is normally on the order of 100 keV. Normal ionization energies of atoms is in the tens of eV; if a radiation particle hits an electron in the atom, the electron will whizz off, free and clear and the atom will be ionized. That will play hell with chemistry. In order to solve this, you must dilute the energy. How is this trick accomplished?

7. Consumption of heavy water causes nasty biological effects, due to the fact that deuterium is twice as heavy as hydrogen from its extra neutron. You're proposing ultra-mega-heavy versions of all chemicals. Why do you believe that Sho can survive the change in biophysical behavior of the chemicals he's made of?
because he isn't human, he is guyver. guyver is shown to have vastly different biology and for all we know, guyver may be composed of heavy elements anyway.

That's not the point. The point was that, when Gigantic, the Guyver's biology is adapted to one set of physical and chemical properties of its stuff, but as Exceed, its systems still has to work, but the physical and chemical properties of the stuff it's made out of has changed because all its atoms are ~7000x heavier, not just the ones in its water. Why do you assume these are compatible?

8.

Suppose now that we make a cut through Gigantic's leg and count the individual bonds that go through this area. You will, of course, come up with some gigantanormous number, but let's just call it N. Each of those little bonds has some unnamed strength, exerting a force beyond which the individual bond collapses, and call it s. Logically, the strength of the leg is Nxs = S. Now let Gigantic expand into Exceed. Because of the argument of the grid above, the number of bonds has not changed, so it's still N. Also, you assert that the strength of the bonds has not changed, so it's still s. What is the strength of the Exceed's leg, and how many times greater than the Gigantic's is it?
I imagine these legs like little cones. usually the forces are equal on each end, so the cones appear like cylinders.

true enough.. but in this scenario.. perhaps the electrons are the same, but if there are more protons, then there is more of a one sided force.. cones may be weak at the tip perhaps.. but there comes a point where the strength of the cone is more than sufficient.

so this means.. that the electron may be a kind of weak tip... but if you squash it a little bit.. it is still strong enough.

That's not the point, if you forgive the pun. Whether you think of the bonds as cones, cylenders, sticks, toothpicks, rebars, or whatever, if you press down hard enough, the darn thing breaks. I mean, everything breaks when you thump it hard enough, right? If they didn't, you could build whatever, and engineers would be out of a job.

The force which that happens is what I label 's' in the above-bolded text. Please now answer the question I posed at the end of the bolded text.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Wyrm

*Jess♥ · October 20, 2008

you know what.. I would probably have to study for four years to fully satisfy you.

I'm just trying to have fun with my ideas and you're throwing all this stuff at me. it just takes away my fun.

do you really expect me to be able to suffeiciently explain this to you and satisfy every single theory? if i could do that, then i could build a friggin gigantic guyver.

I'm tired of this.

I have an idea. why don't you write up your own theory. include all the details you want. write a bloomin' thesis or whatever. and then post it here. see how many people understand it.

ok i admit it, my idea doesn't hold up to modern day physics theory. I thought that if we could discuss things, that we could share ideas and instead of you tearing my idea apart, you might try and consider a way for it to work.

why don't you just go ahead and label the entire concept of guyver bollocks every time we discuss it. it's not real. it doesn't satisfy the laws of physics. but the point is tha twe do the best we can with it.

I don't have fun discussing with you in this way. your original questions wer fun, but your reaction to my answers was no better than anything you wrote before you asked the questions.

since i don't enjoy discussing with you in this way, I am not going to do so.

Sign In

Gigantic XD weight/height ratio

Recommended Posts

Guest Wyrm

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

*Jess♥

*zeo

Guest Wyrm

*zeo

Guest Wyrm

*zeo

Guest Wyrm

Guest Wyrm

*Jess♥

*Jess♥

*zeo

Guest Wyrm

*Jess♥

*zeo

Guest Wyrm

Guest Wyrm

*Jess♥

*zeo

Guest Wyrm

Guest Wyrm

*Jess♥

*zeo

Guest Wyrm

*Jess♥

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity