Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Welcome to BZPower!

Hi there, while we hope you enjoy browsing through the site, there's a lot more you can do if you register. Some perks of joining include:
  • Create your own topics, participate in existing discussions, and vote in polls
  • Show off your creations, stories, art, music, and movies
  • Enter contests to win free LEGO sets and other prizes
  • Participate in raffles to win LEGO prizes
  • Organize with other members to attend or send your MOCs to LEGO fan events all over the world
  • Much, much more!
Enjoy your visit!

Kraggh's Works ♫♪



Photo

A law concerning Aircraft Carriers

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Nerd Oct 08 2017 · 44 views
aircraft carrier, science fiction and 3 more...
:kaukau: In America, it is literally illegal for the country to ever have less than 11 aircraft carriers, as of 2007.

The reason for this has to do with keeping continuous and indefinite presence between the Arabian and West Pacific "hubs," since carriers require regular maintenance. A single carrier is considered sufficient to fill just one hub. Furthermore, if the U.S. needed continuous carrier deployment in a third hub, or supplementation within one of the existing hubs, the country would need a whole lot more than just eleven. Probably around 16. There is also talk about designating the Mediterranean as a third hub.

Currently, ten Gerald R. Ford-class carriers are planned. There could possibly be more within that series, depending on what future budgets look like, and how much the economy expands in the next ten years. I personally think that it's fairly likely, given America's history of increasing her military budget.

Anyway, I just thought that this subject was interesting. I've been doing a lot of research lately on the world's navies. Perhaps it will come in handy if I write a science fiction story about a futuristic war. Although I'm not really sure how much of that knowledge would translate into stories about battles in outer space. But I want more than just Battlestar Galactica as a research citation for such things.

24601




Photo

Some Italian words

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Nerd Oct 01 2017 · 51 views
Italian, linguistics and 2 more...
:kaukau: So I started Duolingo Italian. Here's what I learned thus far:

Io - I
sono - (I) am
uomo/uomini -man/men
donna/donne - woman/women
ragazzo/ragazzi - boy/boys
giornale - newspaper
leggo - (I) read
scrivo - (I) write
bevo - (I) drink
mangio - (I) eat
l'acqua - water

So basically, if you know a little bit of Spanish, French, Latin, and heck, even German and Dutch, some of these words are going to look pretty familliar. Heck, I've even been noticing a lot of cognates with Irish. It's rather ridiculous just how similar all of these European languages sound.

Incidentally, the word in Italian for "spirit" is l'uirdo.


24601




Photo

Woverine's Bone Claws

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Nerd Jun 05 2017 · 38 views
Wolverine
:kaukau: Apparently there are people who hate the idea that he once had bone claws and that it ruins the character, because they prefer the idea of the claws being implants from the Weapon X program.

The reason why I've never been able to accept the "claws as implants" story, right from the very beginning, was because the mechanics didn't make sense. How did he protract them? You would have to have a special set of muscles to bring them out. If they were implants, there would be no way of naturally using them, since they'd just be dead objects stuck in his forearms. Having them be a natural part of his biology that his body was designed to use makes much more sense.

Also, I watched Wonder Woman. I am writing a review. I will finish it.

24601




Photo

Im Valjean eston.

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Nerd Mar 06 2017 · 110 views
Sindarin, Lord of the Rings and 3 more...


:kaukau: This sounds like an actual language. And just because I I feel like trash talking Christopher Paolini, who doesn't know the different between a verb and a participle. That doofus. Also, Sindarin is legitimately pretty and I would rather learn this than French, which I will grant as sounding pretty also but unfortunately has the most inconvenient spelling conventions. Anyway, it's a legitimately cool language and Tolkien's languages probably will sound a heck of a lot more natural than anything I will ever come up with.

24601




Photo

Esperanto Sucks

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Nerd Dec 30 2016 · 205 views

:kaukau: You know the most popular constructed language in the world, created with the hope of unifying all of the peoples? Yeah, I hate it. L.L. Zamenhof designed it to be easy to learn, particular for people in his environment, and in that area, thee language succeeds. It is definitely easy to learn, due to its simplicity and familiarity, but in every other regard, I hate it.

First of all, it often sounds like someone just spoke Latin and then intentionally mispronounced everything. Seriously, why learn this language when you can just learn Latin, where everything sounds right? Okay, so Esperanto also uses words from English, German, and Russian, but that makes for a really ugly mixture of sounds. At least when you have words like "patro," "filo," and "frato," you have a feel for the language, with its flowy latin-esque vocabulary in there. But then you throw in words like "knabo," which really interrupt that Latin rhythm that it has. So even though this language sounds like some corrupted Latin overall, it doesn't have the rhythm that makes Latin so appealing.

For example, as someone who has studied Spanish, I look at the phrase "La libro" / "the book" and think to myself that the article should be masculine. I don't like that every single noun looks masculine. I'm used to a lot of Eurpean languages that Esperanto is based off of requiring adjectives to match the grammatical gender, grammatical case, or some other aspect of the nouns that they modify. Seeing phrases like "la granda libro," "la multekosta domo," and "la venenita pomo" just looks...malbela.

Speaking of gender, that leads me to the single biggest reason for why Esperanto sucks. I mean seriously, the way it distinguishes between male and female. The default gender is masculine, and in order to make the language easier to learn, all feminine words are derivatives of their masculine equivalents. Let me just give you a few examples:

Man/Woman --- Viro/Virino
Boy/Girl --- Knabo/Knabino
Father/Mother --- Patro/Patrino
Son/Daughter --- Filo/Filino
Brother/Sister --- Frato/Fratino
Male Cousin / Female Cousin --- Kuzo/Kuzino
Uncle/Aunt --- Onklo/Onklino (This last one is particularly egregious, because "onklo" stands out as a particularly English-y word, made to sound weird and kind of lame, making it stick out like a sore thumb, interrupting the Latin sound of the language. Also, if you call your aunt "onlkino," you sound like you're saying that she's unclean.)

Gah. I hate that. There are ways of distinguishing between male and female without increasing the number or root words that you have to memorize. For example, instead of having women being a derivative of man, girl being a derivative of boy, mother being a derivative of father, and so forth, all of those things could be derivatives "adult person," "young person," "parent," "offspring," "sibling," "cousin," and "parent's sibling," which are all grammatically neutral in gender. Then you could add suffixes that could alter the gender of these words. It's not that omplicated. As it stands, this language is pretty darn sexist, enough that I'm a bit incredulous that it's associated with such high utopian ideals.

So there you have it. Esperanto isn't that great. If you want to learn a constructed language, I'd encourage you to consider Lojban instead. It definitely could use more attention. Also, Ithkuil is the ideal language, philosophically speaking, but the grammar is so advanced that and requires such precision of thought that you basically have to be a genius to speak it.

24601




Photo

The Complete Lojban Language

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Nerd Dec 16 2016 · 84 views

:kaukau: I discovered a book by this name on the Barnes & Noble website. I'm strongly considering getting it with my next paycheck. It's approximately 600 words long, so although I wouldn't quite consider it to be the length of a college textbook, it should have a decent amount of information in there and be a worthwhile read.

Also, Ithkuil has a grammar book, too.

I'm considering buying both of these, reading them, and then lending them to my high school English teacher.

After those, I might end up buying a textbook on Esperanto.

24601




Photo

Happy LEGO Day

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Life, BZPower, Nerd, Events Feb 14 2014 · 516 views
LEGO
:kaukau: Why not?
 
Valentine's Day is a stupid holiday.  Always thought so, always will.  It wouldn't make a difference if I was in a relationship, because the things I value in a relationship transcend hearts and chocolate (although to be fair to chocolate, it is one of the greatest inventions ever).  I mean, to have society try to associate your relationship with such a commercialized event that has seemingly nothing to do with relationships when you two are too busy doing something that's actually important is kind of embarrassing.  Everything about it is awkward.  Is it the only day of the year that people are supposed to be romantic or something?  Is there supposed to be some sort of special date that boys take their girlfriends out on this day?  I would have figured that a special date wouldn't be on a day where everyone else is doing it, because you'd want to make it a little more personal.  It's kind of hard to be personal when everyone else is doing it, and when the romantic theme of Valentine's Day is also so vague and ambiguous.  It's like you're not celebrating anything in particular, or anything meaningful about relationships.  You're just celebrating the shallow stuff.
 
So from now on, I'm making my own holiday on February 14, something that's actually fun.  I missed out on seeing the The LEGO Movie on its opening weekend, but there's a matinee this Friday.  I decided that I would dedicate this day to LEGOs and see that movie.  A friend even knew that today was LEGO Day for me and suddenly dropped in on me at midnight to say "Happy LEGO Day!"
 
I'll have a review of the movie up tomorrow, and I hope everyone else who hasn't seen it yet takes some time today to see it.  In fact, it would be awesome if you, too, would consider today LEGO Day from now on and it became a little tradition among us BZPers.
 
Happy LEGO Day!
 
Oh, and I admit, I did give in and celebrate Valentine's Day just a little bit.  This morning, I treated myself to a chocolate, heart-shaped doughnut.  But that was because of the chocolate. It just might be as awesome as LEGOs.
 

24601




Photo

Doctor Who Series 7 Reaction

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Nerd Dec 20 2013 · 311 views

:kaukau: I just got done watching the second half last night, and really all I have to comment on are Clara and The Name of the Doctor.  On Clara, she doesn't have much life to her and I wish that she was a bit more of a handful like she was in Asylum of the Daleks.  Otherwise, she was just kind of there.  On The Name of the Doctor...All I have to say is that the ending was -- WHAM!!!
 
Yeah, it hit me like that.  I've seen a fair number of twists on the show, but all of them had a certain character to them.  This one took the show in a very different direction, one I thought they would never go.  What I can say is that I was initially very sad that Matt Smith was leaving, but now I'm genuinely interested in seeing the new Doctor.
 

24601




Photo

Gravity on Krypton

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Nerd, Superman Nov 13 2013 · 1,889 views

:kaukau: According to the first pages of Action Comics #1, Clark Kent's "physical structure was millions of years more advanced" than the ordinary human's.  His strength was explained right away as being analogous to that of an ant's, which "can support weight hundred of times its own."  His strength was, therefore, explained to be more a part of his "advanced" genetics rather than being tied to the physical demands of living on Krypton, which his species would have adapted to even when they were in their primitive stages.  The current theory behind his strength is that it is, in part, the result of Krypton's gravity.
 
There is still something to be said for his genetic structure being more advanced than ours.  The very first panel of Action Comics #1 says that Krypton died of old age.  It is now universally accepted into the Superman mythology that Krypton had an old, red sun.  Life in Krypton probably started out with a yellow sun like our own but eventually had to become more "advanced" after millions of years in order to survive under the sun's gradually less life-giving rays.  With weaker sunshine, plants would not be able to photosynthesize as well.  The ecosystem in general would have less nutrients.
 
According to Superman: The Movie, Earth people "are primitives thousands of years behind [Kryptonians]."  Thousands, not millions.  Therefore, we can assume that Kryptonians did not begin to evolve technologically until several thousand years ago.  Let's assume that they were technologically equivalent to us ten thousand years ago, wen we were still writing The Epic of Gilgamesh.  This would make sense, as it would be difficult to create any advanced structure that could endure Krypton's gravity.  They would need to invent materials as endurable as themselves, so technological advancement for them would probably need to first happen in one giant leap in order to overcome the challenges inherent in raising a society on Krypton.  It is reasonable to assume that they had invented electricity and other technologies long, long ago, but they probably hit a technological plateau as they would have likely been unable to raise buildings and other large constructs, due to the gravity of their planet.  Ergo, Kryptonians might have had Earth-level technologies for thousands of years but had almost nothing, as it would have been almost impossible for them to have an industrial revolution.
 



Posted Image

(thumbnail)

 
This is a size comparison between Krypton and its sun, Rao, taken from Smallville.  It is very similar to the size comparison in Superman: The Movie, and in fact directly homages the Christopher Reeve legacy.  In the film, the sun is closer to the viewer and the planet is behind the sun.  Therefore, this is not a trick of the camera where the planet looks bigger due to optic illusions.  It really is quite big compared to its red giant sun.
 
The size of a red-giant varies, but let's assume that Krypton was once much like our own sun.  In approximately 12 billion years, our sun will have a maximum radius of 1.2 astronomical units, or a diameter of 2.4 astronomical units.  This is is considerably more than "millions of years advanced" of our timeline, however.  Let's assume that Krypton isn't that old.  Besides, in the first comic it states that Krypton died because of the planet's old age, not the sun's.  Besides, the size comparison between Krypton and Rao is considerably less contrasting than the size comparison between the sun's present and future self in this Wikipedia image.  If Rao was 1.2 AU in radius, then Krypton by comparison would have to be larger than our current sun, both in radius and certainly more in mass.  In that hypothecal scenario, the planet would be the center of the solar system and the sun would have revolved around Krypton, which isn't a bad idea for science fiction, but it doesn't seem to be in keeping with how Krypton has been depicted.
 
Therefore, we will assume that Rao is a red star, but not necessarily a gas giant.  For the sake of these calculations, Krypton will have a radius estimated to be equivalent with either Jupiter's or one lunar unit.  Jupiter's radius is 43,441 miles.  One lunar unit (the distance between Earth's center of mass and the moon's center of mass) is 238,900 miles.
 
First, however, let's calculate the gravitational pull of Earth, which pulls with a force of 1 Newton per kilogram of mass at its surface.  The radius of Earth is 3,959 miles at the equator.  The volume of Earth is therefore approximately 260,000,000,000 (260 billion) cubic miles.  The mass of the earth is approximately 5.972x1024 kilograms.  The average density of the Earth, therefore, is 22,970,000,000,000 kilograms per cubic mile (yes, I'm mixing metric units with English units, which would be a no-no in a formal paper, but practically speaking it won't make any difference in the end conclusions given here).
 
Therefore, let us assume that Krypton's average density is equal to Earth's.  In reality, it would probably be even denser on average, due to intense amounts of pressure creating a larger solid core, but I do not have the math to calculate the internal makeup of Krypton anyway, and there's no guarantee that it has the same metals in its mantle as Earth does.
 
If Krypton was the size of Jupiter, it would have a volume of 343,390,000,000,000 cubic miles and a mass of 7.887x1027 kilograms.  That's over a thousand times that of Earth's mass, but the distance from the surface to the center of mass is greater.  Therefore, the gravity should be less than Earth's.  Thus, we look again at the radius, 43,441 miles.  For the sake of the ensuing calculations, this will have to be converted into metric, so it's 69,911,513 meters.
 
To double-check our work here, the mass of Earth is 5.97x1024 kilograms.  The mass of Jupiter is 1.90x1027 kilograms.  Earth's density is 4.15 times that of Jupiter's.  If Jupiter had Earth's density, it would be approximately 7.885x1027 kilograms.  This alternative way of calculating the mass of Krypton renders a result almost exactly the same as the previous calculation.
 
If a mass of 1 kilogram is on Krypton's surface, 69,911,513 meters away from the core, and Krypton's total mass is 7.887x1027 kilograms, then we have enough information to "plug and chug" the data into the formula given in Newton's Law of Gravity:
 

GM1M2

____________

R2

 
G is the gravitational constant
 
G = 6.67x10-11 m3kg-1s-2
 
M1 = 1.000 kg
 
M2 = 7.887x1027 kg
 
R = 69,911,513 m
 
          Therefore:
 

(6.67x10-11 m3kg-1s-2)(1.000 kg)(7.887x1027 kg)

_____________________________________________________________________________

(69911513 m)2

 
First, let's cancel out the units.  (kg-1)(kg)(kg) becomes kg.  The top has m3 while the bottom has m2, which cancel out to become just m.  The rest is easily solved with a calculator, and the end result becomes
 

1.08x102 kg m s-2

 
A kilogram-meter per square second is the definition of a newton.  Therefore, the gravitational pull of Krypton, if it was equivalent in average density to Earth and in radius to Jupiter, would be 108 G.
 
This is truly monumental.  To put this into perspective, some humans can survive up to 9 g continually if they are in special suits that force blood to the brain, and if they strain their muscles.  These, however, are trained fighter pilots.  The typical person can survive up to 5 g before passing out.  Meanwhile, the rapid negative acceleration of a racecar crash is about 100 g and lasts only for a moment.  People do not always survive these.
 
However, let's think like Siegel and Sushter, who needed to compare Superman to existing specimens of life already found in nature.  According to them, he was comparable to an and, which could lift hundreds of times its own weight, not a mere one hundred and eight times its own weight.  This is somewhat of an overstatement on the creators' part, since an ant can really only sustain up to fifty times its weight, but this is where they estimated Superman's natural strength to be nevertheless.  There are other remarkable examples in nature of living organisms enduring extreme conditions.  For example, bacteria has been cultivated in an ultracentrifuge subjecting them to over 400,000 g, and they not only survived, but thrived (source).  What if not only single-celled organisms, but larger members of the animal kingdom could endure similar extremes?  Clearly, we're limiting Kryptonian life by assuming that its natural habitat exhibits only 108 G.
 
Therefore, let us not assume a conservative estimate of Krypton's size as being equivalent to Jupiter's but instead place its radius as equivalent at that of one lunar distance.  Pulling from earlier data, this is approximately 238,900 miles (or 384,472,282 meters).  The volume of such a planet would be 57,113,000,000,000,000 (approximately 57 quadrillion) cubic miles.  This is about 219,750 times Earth's volume, so assuming equivalent density, its mass would also be 219,750 times that of Earth's, or 1.312x1030 kg.  It should be noted that this is only about two thirds the mass of our sun.
 
Let us revisit the formula for gravity to find the amount of pull on a one-kilogram object on Krypton's surface, assuming these variables:
 
G = 6.67x10-11 m3kg-1s-2
 
M1 = 1.000 kg
 
M2 = 1.312x1030 kg
 
R = 384,472,282 m
 

(6.67x10-11 m3kg-1s-2)(1.000 kg)(1.312x1030 kg)

_____________________________________________________________________________

(384472282 m)2

 

5.93x102 kg m s-2

 

593 Newtons

 
Ergo, the gravitational pull would be 593 G on Krypton should it be the size of the moon's orbit around the Earth.    While hardly over 400,000 g, it's closer to what Siegel and Sushter imagined when they said that Superman's natural strength was comparable to the ant that could lift hundreds of times its own weight.  This is indeed several hundred times Earth's gravity, close to six hundred times our everyday experience.
 
There is little to compare 593 g to.  It is far more than a car crash.  If a person was subject to 593 g for even a thousandth of a second, he would surely die.  The highest recorded g-force ever survived was 214 g.  This 2.77 times that.
 
Before we move on to some of the further implications of the gravity, it would be useful to create an expanded formula to make any further computations easier, if one wants to find the gravitational pull of Krypton at any given radius, assuming average density consistent with Earth's.
 
M2 = (5.97x10^24 kg){[(4/3)Rπ]/[(4/3)(6378100 m)π]}
 

(6.67x10-11 m3kg-1s-2)(1.00 kg)(5.97x10^24 kg){[(4/3)R3π]/[(4/3)(6378100 m)3π]}

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

R2

 

or

 

R(1.53 kg s-2)

______________________

106

 
There we go.  Every variable is taken care of for us except for R.  Therefore, if we wish to quickly calculate the gravity of a terrestrial planet of density equivalent to Earth at any given radius (measured in meters), simply place the radius into this equation.
 Likewise, if we wanted to learn the inverse and know what the radius of such a planet would be given a specific gravitational pull, the formula can simply be rearranged.  Radius would be equal to:
 

106G

_______________________________

(1.53 kg s-2)

 
Returning to the bacteria experiment mentioned earlier, how large of a planet would they have to be on in order to experience similar forces?  Plug and chug: G = 400,000, therefore R = 261,437,908,496 m, which is about 40,990 times as wide as Earth.  Converting this into miles, the radius is approximately 152,000,000 miles, the circumference is approximately 325,000,000 miles, and the surface area is approximately 332,000,000,000,000,000 (332 quadrillion) square miles.  That would be one big planet.
 
Since it's difficult to determine exactly what Krypton's radius or gravitational pull is, however, we will settle for the assumption that its the size of a lunar orbit and has a gravitational pull of 593 G.  This could also be expressed as there being an acceleration of downward movement of 5,800 meters per square second, but this might not be entirely accurate, since wind resistance could mess with that figure.
 
With a gravitational pull as heavy as that, Krypton must have dense atmosphere consisting mostly of hydrogen.  It would be very difficult to breath in.  Perhaps the Kryptonians are forced to be able to break the triple bonds of N2 in order to breathe (we humans only break up double O2 bonds).  In any case, their environment is harsh for more than just the gravity alone.  Not only is the atmosphere hardly breathable, but it should provide plenty of resistance to movement.  Imagine being at the bottom of a very deep swimming pool trying to do aerobic exercises.  At the same time, it would not make the body feel any lighter or buoyant.
 
There would be less atmosphere, of course, if the planet was closer to the sun, in which case the solar winds would blow most of it away.  In the case of it being further away from the sun, the atmosphere would be so strong that it would prevent most of the sun's rays from getting to the surface.  It would be very much like living at the bottom of the ocean.  How does an ecosystem thrive under these conditions?  An organism must adapt to be able to function off of the least nutrients possible.  Kryptonians would have also needed spectacular sight in order to see in the thick atmosphere, which would have been like an impenetrable fog to them.  Perhaps, when these acute senses are enhanced, they could lead to x-ray or cut-away vision.
 
Furthermore, it must have taken ages before Krypton could develop technology that could generate over 5,800 m/s2 thrust necessary in order to escape Krypton's gravity, or accelerate an object so that it reached the planet's escape velocity, which can be calculated this way:
 

(2gr)1/2

 
          Which is
 

[2(5800 m/s2)(384472282 m)]1/2

 

or

 

2,111,842 m/s

2,112 km/s

4,724,000 mi/hr

0.007c

 
It is entirely possible that Krypton's first space mission utilized a method similar to the one used in Superman Returns, in which a rocket shuttle was lifted high into the atmosphere using a plane.  Krypton's dense atmosphere would have made this fairly feasible.  Over the course of time, however, the most likely means of propulsion into space was anti-gravity rockets, which slip by the problem altogether.  It's possible that this technology would have been easier for Kryptonians to develop, since Lex Luthor theorized that Superman's flight came from a Kryptonian biological development that allowed them to manipulate the gravity waves around them to make life on Krypton more durable (Superman could develop this into total defiance of gravity due to his enhanced health under Earth's sun).  Given that it might have been part of their natural ability in the first place, such technology would be easier to study in nature.
 
After Krypton became industrialized, its conditions may or may not have changed over a long period of time.  In order to industrialize, they needed a major technological breakthrough in order to create structures that could endure Krypton's gravity.  In order to do this, they needed to create a new substance.  This would be the crystal seen in Superman: The Movie and Smallville.
 
What we know is that this crystal can seemingly produce matter out of nowhere.  We also know that it covers almost all of Krypton.  It would be reasonable to assume that it also grew into Krypton and infested the mantle until it worked all the way down to the core.  If the planet was converted into this crystal, which was strong enough to form large free-standing (sometimes diagonal!) structures under 593 G, then its density might have changed, and therefore so would its gravitational pull.
 
The density of Earth is 5.52 times that of water.  The density of a (pure) diamond is 3.52 times that of water.  Therefore, the Earth's average density is 1.568 times as dense as a pure diamond, or a pure diamond is only 63.77% as dense as the Earth.  If Krypton was as dense as a diamond, it will have lost mass.  If we were to assign an arbitrary density to these crystals, however, and give them a density equivalent to steel, for the namesake of Krypton's last son, which has a density of up to 8.05 times that of water.  If that was the case, Krypton would have grown to be 145.8% its original mass.  Since any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic, we will not ask where that matter came or went from (though I'm assuming it's the Phantom Zone).
 
The interesting part in all this is that this crystalization might have been what destroyed Krypton in the first place.  By "dying of old age," the original authors implied that it was a natural death.  Since then, of course, we have come to accept that Krypton has died of unnatural, man-made reasons that were long in the making.  It is more like the mistakes of Kryptonian society reached an old age where they finally came to fruition.  Therefore, after ages of making its way down to the Kryptonian planet core, the crystals probably changed under intense pressure.  Under these pressures, it is my theory that Kryptonite formed and created an unstable planet core, primed for destruction.
 
My theory for thy the destruction happened in one fast instant instead of gradually was because of the Phantom Zone, which may or may not have used technology closely related to the technology that allowed the crystals to develop.  By opening the Phantom Zone, it is possible that Jor-El or the counsel (probably the counsel, using the technology against Jor-El's wishes), causes a rift in space-time that affected the crystals on their planet and made them become hyper-active on an atomic level, which expotentially sped up the process in which Kryptonite formed and even caused it to stat acting on its instability.
 
It is difficult to say how Kryptonite destroyed the planet.  From a human standpoint, Kryptonite is a seemingly innocent substance.  Yet, it reacts destructively with other Kryptonian materials and has an askew relationship with the very laws of physics that, according to Smallville, allows people who come in contact with it to develop abilities that defy said laws.
 
Therefore, my theory concludes that Kryptonite affected space-time until either one of two things happened.  Either it created a black hole, sucking the planet in, or it reversed the law of gravity, causing the planet to explode, as is traditionally depicted.  Or it somehow managed to do both, thereby sucking the rest of the planet in while creating an alternative plane of existence where gravity pulled the Kryptonite outward.
 

24601




Photo

New Math

Posted by Jean Valjean , in Nerd, Music Aug 20 2013 · 491 views
youtube, Controversy!!!
:kaukau: If I am going to set precedent and post a video on this blog, there is one and only one video on all of Youtube worthy of being the proverbial golden spike.
 

 
One day, I promise, I will write a song stylistically similar to this dedicated to the derivation of the quadratic formula.  And I will use it as a love song to flirt with the woman of my dreams.
 

24601








Me

Posted Image


Username: Jean Valjean
Real name: N/A
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Heritage: Half Dutch, 25% Hungarian, 12.5% Swedish, 6.25% German and Irish
Physical description: Looks like the eleventh Doctor
Favorite food: Chicken, turkey, and beef.
Least favorite food: Vegetables of any kind
Favorite band: Queen
Favorite singer: Billy Joel
Favorite song: American Pie
Favorite movie: Schindler's List
Favorite TV show: Smallville & Arthur the Friendly Aardvark
Favorite play: Les Miserables
Favorite color: Silver
Second favorite color: Brown
Favorite board game: Risk
Favorite athlete: Michael Phelps
Lucky Number: 53
Past-times: Writing, reading, politics, drawing
Political party: Republican
Religion: Christian
Language: Not English, but American.

Blog Divisions

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Search My Blog

Recent Comments