Jess♥

oh sorry, I thought i replied. no I replied to a pm not the topic. I don't think we need the hassle of changing scans. the ones we have on the server are the correct dimensions and a suitable file size. it would be awkward to get these other scans to match our standards.

well i am not sure about alkanphels location. It could be showing alkanphels line of sight or it could be an overall view from a ways away from alky. if alkanphel was inbetween earth and the asteroid, we wouldn't be able to see him anyway because he is way too small and if we saw from his p.o.v. we would see either the asteroid or earth but not both at the same time. plus alkanphel was chasing the Creators and thus was behind them... then I believe the asteroid came out from where they left. or thereabouts.

hmm... not sure how much stock you wanna put in this, because the asteroid is moving and it may have moved a fair distance... but the distance is around 100,000km. I won't bother tweaking anything since that is pretty way off. i'll try with a 12 degree lens though just for kicks. edit: hmm, ok with a 12 degree lens the diistance turns out at around 400,000km. make of that what you will. the field of view makes a big difference here.. I don't think it's possible to be at all accurate with this huge distance variation unless you could triangulate alkanphels position relative to earth and the asteroid. edit #2: but for the purposes of this experiment.. I think what we see here is that Takaya san is using a 12 degree field of view for this scene? does that sound agreeable? I guess we could say a number of things at this stage. the asteroid could have moved a fair distance already ... Takaya san is hugely inaccurate in his space depictions.. or the field of view he is presenting us with is designed to show us as though we were looking through a real window into space. going with hte only one that gives semi-concrete evidence... well the bnest we can get anyhow... the asteroid is estimated to be around 7,200km in diameter. hmmm. I am enjoying this detective work. I guess we can't confirm this really but I think that is the best estimate we can get, are we all agreed on that? or should i do further tests? good job on suggesting that zeo. it has helped.

ok i'll try that using a 50 degree lens. (since i personally think Takaya would prefer to match his drawings with photographs.) please await the results.

either that or you could remember what the point was in the first place and make a summary and come to an agreement.

I have redone the overlay diagram to get it as accurate as i would like. also the image quality is better and it is larger. I have not written figures on it because i want it to remain clean. figures can be put at the end of this post. now consider this panel constitutes a window into the world that takaya has created. also consider the Manga is meant to be held at arms length or in somebodies lap. that's about 50cm. the panel is about 6.5cm high and 10.5cm wide. we'll use the largest measurement to set our lens angle. ( the lens angle correlates to the distance of viewer from frame and size of frame. also referred to as field of view. ) the resulting lens angle is 12 degrees. just so we're on hte same page and in case anybody does not understand this lens angle, field of view relationship... here is a diagram showing the size of the frame, the subject of the image and the angle that results (this diagram is not drawn for accuracy and the angle is not 12 degrees in this image). this angle is the angle of a lens we use to get the resulting image that shows as much of the subject as we require. think of it almost like a projector in reverse. if you still don't understand it, you really need to look at some books on the subject. now i have arranged the camera with the Manga panel and set it to the correct angle/field of view. set everything at the correct dimensions and now i have adjusted the distance of subject from the viewer. the geometry of my scene and the layout of all the object is now exactly as it would be if that panel in hte Manga were actually a physical window into space. for your interest, the distance of the 'window' from the subject (earth) is around 205,000km. next thing to do is create another object and place it as close as possible to hte original image. i spent a good 20 minutes moving this and adjusting it so that it would intersect as close as possible and so it was as close as possible to hte size of the asteroid. the size of this object is 7,200km. the last thing I will do just for an alternative is to use the msot common lens angle used in photography. I set my lens angle to 50 degrees (the average of a standard lens). for your interest, this brings the photographer to a distance of around 38,000km from earth. this was difficult to judge but another 20mins or so of tweaking i came up with a diameter of 6,300km. now if you have any questions or don't understand any part of what i have written please ask away. I am happy to explain anything or look for alternative results. p.s. this IS ACCURATE. I painstakingly made sure every aspect of this was as accurate as i could get it. if anyone has any issues with hte accuracy of this then I request they do this for themselves rather than trying to prove it wrong with words.

my initial guess is yes. if he can break down the cell proteins of a zoanoid, he should be able to break down the cells of any organism. although.. it could be the case that his cels take advantage of the possible instability caused by transformation. I will explain what I mean by that... in order to transform into a zoanoid, I believe that the cells must have a certain mechanism to break down their own proteins and reconstruct them over a fast period of time. if aptom can tap into that mechanism, he can break down the proteins and instead, reconstruct them as he sees fit. perhaps this is why zoanoids seem to mid-transform when aptom starts to use his ability. ( some ramotith when he protects mizuki and others before alkanphel arrives at relics point) so.. if this mechanism is not present in normal humans.. then aptom has nothing to take advantage of to rapidly break down the proteins. actually thinking about it now... some more thoughts.. i recall one moment when aptom is thrown off an intended victim by use of electrical current. if zoanoid transformatin is triggered in hte brain then nerve impulses may be responsible for telling the cells to break down. perhaps this is how aptom tells the cells to break down.. because initially the cells would remain intact with all their normal immune responces. it wouldn't make sense for them to be vulnerable like that. if this is indeed the method of zoanoid transformation.. it would make sense why zoanoids dissolve when killed. and also how a zoalord could command them to dissolve just by a single thought. all it would require is afor a nerve impulse to tell the bodies cells to dissolve teh proteins but instead of reconstituting, they simply stay dissolved. thanks for brining that up jukai, i haven't enoyed thinking about somethng like this in a while.

it's possible that these powers exhist without a zoacrystal but perhaps require enormous amounts of energy that only the zoacrystal can provide. at least we have seen that anything lower than a zoalord cannot use these abilities. so it could be possible for aptom to use these abilities if he had some way of storing such a large supply of energy. of course there was teh ability to partially shield from hte megasmasher by using the EM field. it seems that was teh limit of this ability... I think the barrier technique seems to be EM.. at least teh guyvers barrier seemed to be EM. and teh ability was very similar. so maybe the zoalords use EM and so it is just a really far more powerful version of what aptom used. therefore showing a need for more power to create it? hard to say.

actually you were using your 'definition' to exclude direct manipulation of the genomes. it says it right there in your post. don't turn this back on me. is this your method of debate? I'm breaking this down here. if your method of debate is saying something, waiting for someone to challenge what you said and then attack what they say whilst completely forgetting what they are actually replying to? that is not debating. it is simply a very elaborate form of provocation. if it continues we will have to analyse teh situation more thoroughly and take appropriate action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye you are familiar with the structure of the eye? also to produce an image with perspective you need to have a field of view. then you ned a distance from reference point thereby producing angle of the virtual lens. I'm not arguing perspective with you. don't be so ridiculous. actually your post shows a remarkable lack of understanding of depth of field. basically what you write was complete and utter bollocks. I'm not shying away from this. I understand depth of field. I may not understand advanced physic but i understand lens angles depth of field and all of that. you show an appalling knowledge of these tings and you are most certainly NOT qualified to debate against this. you should be ashamed at yourself for even trying to argue with me about this considering the complete lack of understanding of the subject matter. I wonder how many other tings you claim to be an authority on that you completely fail to grasp. this topic was not for debate. this topic was for clarification. I left it open so People could look at it and say "thank goodness thats sorted" but it seems you are incapable of accepting something that is staring you right in the face. jukai, you are correct it is a pointless argument but the thing is, when you point out plain straight forward things like that to zeo, he tends to list a load of scientific 'knwledge' and continue debates. so i figured I'd show this to find an irrefutable way of showing the size of teh asteroid... why do i bother? the asteroid is the inbetween the size of mars and mercury. end of story.

where do you get your definitions? i just wanted to clear this up - Christopherson, Robert W. (1997). Geosystems: An Introduction to Physical Geography, 3rd (in english), Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall Inc.. ISBN 0-13-505314-5. also I'd like to request that you stop using so many factoids in your posts. that's why People find it tough to read. I'm not the only one who has trouble, it seems.

excuse me? I would have thought you were more familiar with the concept of perspective? you just totally freaked me out with that statement. so please let me get this straight.. you are trying to claim that lens distortion is caused by an atmosphere? if you truly are saying that then i am telling you to get out of this science forum right now until you can learn the basics of light refraction cause by lenses. and even then.. are you suggesting there is air inside my computer program? what the f? i'm so utterly perplexed. salkafar.. why are you asking for a mockup with clay balls? i produced these images using a 3d geometric design package. this is pretty accurate to reality and besides, in reality you would have difficulty arranging the objects in suspension. and you are gonna have a very hard job getting precision with clay balls. if you're not happy with hte accuracy of my models i can take screenshots of teh actual dimensions for you. (btw in case you're doubting the program.. it is the same program they use for films like shrek and for special effects like in the hulk etc) p.s. i think it a little foolish to paste an image like this without correcting the figures or putting a disclaimer below it.

a followup to say in conclusion.. you can't tell for certain how big this is and arguing betwen mars-sized and mercury-sized is a futil gesture. reason being, by using different lenses, you will get a variation of sizes between the two planets. most likely size actually being more or less in between each planet. just for arguments sake.. it's closer to hte size of mercury.

I've debated this with People in hte past so I decided to lay this horse to rest. ok zeo made a rather wild claim in hte recent debate so I wanted to test his theory. I quote zeo as actually I find this manner here kinda insulting considering my results. I'm not judging. just the debate which we always disagree on. it's not a personal jab. now the part i find insulting is the phrase "it really is a simple matter"... because dude. this is not simple as you so readily demonstrated by sizing that meteor up as 1,800 km (thereabouts) here is a reconstruction demonstrating these sizes as you typed in your diagram. now this is a side elevation, but even looking at this, I find it insane to even start to believe that this sizing could produce a shot like that shown in the manga. well i had a little faith so I tried it out to be fair. here is with a standard 45degree lens. which quite obviously is not working, so I worked on this by changing lenses. got kinda close.. but you'll notice the insane distortion... I was interested just to know exactly how much this is being distorted so at this stage i mapped some checker patterns onto hte sphere. this is teh side elevation - and back to hte perspective view and now a top down view so you can see just how close this camera is. I believe this was a 180 degree lens although the cone does not suggest that... I am certain it was 180 degree lens... oh well it was pretty wide angle anyway, definately a fish eye lens. so anyway I went back to a 45 degree lens and left the mapping on and decided to increase thesize of the asteroid to match. I displayed the size of teh asteroid on hte image. now i decided to experiment with different lenses to get some variations on hte size. next is a 10 degree lens.. the distance of the camera from hte subject is displayed on hte image. and now increased teh size of teh asteroid to match. and now a final test to see the other way.. a 90 degree lens. sdistance from subject and size of asteroid. ok so there you have it. these numbers and sizes may not be COMPLETELY accurate but they should give you a fairly good idea of the sizes. when i was tweaking with htem, the size variations did not differ greatly for example when achieving the 7,000km size the variations that showed noticable change were only ranging in hte 100s of kilometers.

well technically... using your own logic, he already is "guyver". he is already out of control so I don't think he needs a zoalord DNA to make him "guyver" that'd just make him more diverse. in actuality, zoalords are not necessarily the most powerful type of combatant... the thing that sets a zoalord apart is their telepathic command and the barrier technique. any zoalord dna would not really increase aptoms ability that much because i believe these techniques require a zoacrystal. so in order to make himself that much more powerful he would need one of those.

he he cool

no there's not.. I'm gonna up them to hte merchandise wiki page.

i have uploaded teh re-release images in hte past. they may be in the gallery.

I think if we have a gallery format for this.. we can leave spaces for pictures.. ppl can add images if they want.

This is the discussion topic for the wiki article: Guyver: Merchandise

in book 25 aptoms stated that he is unable to absorb a Guyver or a zoalord. the CM will stop him absorbing a Guyver and the zoacrystal stops him absorbing a zoalord.

whoever said agito had lost the ability to use the gigantic?? I believe that has been totally fabricated. all we know is that sho ripped the gigantic off agito. this doesn't in any way mean that agito can't call it. it just means that sho had more will power than agito at that moment.

actually i think it would be more fair to say it takes EQUAL amount of faith, since it is said there is no actual proof for either. anything else is simply personal belief and trust in the source.

I should just point out, that theguyver.net forum is this forum. if you need to reefer People to hte old forum, you'll need to direct link to hte appropriate page. you can find that by following the link to hte old forum on the index of this forum.

if an object gets more massive as it approaches the speed of light... it must cause a big gravity well. because gravity is usually proportionate to mass. and you need more energy to create that.. but i was looking at ionocrafts.. and what happens is that the voltage crates a gravity well that the object falls into... what if you could combine tejh two effects in some way? or what if you could split the mass of an ogject.. what if you could concentrate that mass along 1 dimension and aim it at a black hole.. teh mass could attract each other and the object would move faster than light.. it would be warp drive. what about a hill? if you have a heavy object an put it on a hill, if the object gets heavier, it will roll faster. if an object approaching the speed of light gets more massive. can't we find a 'hill' in space and roll it down hte hill.. that will let it go faster than light times a million. but of course you need to bend space time for that to happen. only travel in one direction.. if you push a snowball it gathers snow so the mmore you push it, the heavier it gets.. but what if you just melt the snow? what if you make a vaccuum, there is no friction. you can add anergy and it goes faster and then even faster al the time. with a rail gun, you can accelarate an object faster and faster and it is casued by magnetics. teh increase of force is casued by magenticas and does hnot slow down because of more mass. it actually increase because of more mass. if you have an object and push it, you will never go faster than light just by pushing it.. but if you can create a gravity well ahead of teh object, it will fall forvere. if teh mass increases, the object will 'fall' fastr. all you need to do is keep the gravity well ahead of the object and if the object is fixed and teh apparatus for producing the gravity well is fixed on the object the gravity well will awlays be in front of the object and it will always go faster. inifinite mass, means it is infinitely heavy. which only causes more aceclaratiobn when falling.