Poll: Size the Mata Nui robot

fishers64 · May 15, 2015

But now that you mention it, the fact that the EP wasn't destroyed and drifted into outer space does make it much more likely that the explosion happened separately from the EP: if EP had been the exploding substance and all of it were connected to each other, then it should all have burned up. That makes it likely my idea of it stabilizing something explosive in the core was right after all.

No, it doesn't. If you've ever researched gasoline or other exploding fluids, not all of it will explode on combustion, and some unspent fuel will be left over. Modern engines try to retain that stuff in the cylanders for the next explosion, but the EP had no such system.

Interestingly enough, the EP is probably why SM shattered, instead of exploding into tiny bits - the fluid channeled the force of the explosion at the poles, instead of hitting the solid rock structure directly.

The problem is, I don't have a direct source that says that the EP exploded. I have a source that says it is explosive, but not that it did explode. Until then, there will be room for your theory.

However, how does draining a small amount of EP cause something else to explode? That's where I'm confused. You'd think they would have to drain almost all of it before the thing exploded, and we know that didn't happen...

Thormen · May 15, 2015

No, it doesn't. If you've ever researched gasoline or other exploding fluids, not all of it will explode on combustion, and some unspent fuel will be left over. Modern engines try to retain that stuff in the cylanders for the next explosion, but the EP had no such system.

That's a good point, it would still mean a lot of EP must have exploded but we have no quote that says otherwise.

Interestingly enough, the EP is probably why SM shattered, instead of exploding into tiny bits - the fluid channeled the force of the explosion at the poles, instead of hitting the solid rock structure directly.

The problem is, I don't have a direct source that says that the EP exploded. I have a source that says it is explosive, but not that it did explode. Until then, there will be room for your theory.

However, how does draining a small amount of EP cause something else to explode? That's where I'm confused. You'd think they would have to drain almost all of it before the thing exploded, and we know that didn't happen...

Why would they need to drain almost all of it? There could've been an explosive all over the core that was neutralized by the EP being all over the core as well. When a small amount of EP was drained, it wasn't all over the core anymore meaning a part of the explosive wasn't neutralized anymore, and exploded. That set off a chain reaction which caused the rest of the core to explode as well.

IcarusBen · May 15, 2015

No, we can't determine that the Bonkles are too big, but it makes sense that they'd be set-sized, since they'd have a much easier time supporting their own weight if they were tiny.

Thormen · May 15, 2015

I know that's the theory you posted a while back, but the story sources have said from the start that the Toa are 1.6 bio, which is roughly 7 (imperial, real world) feet. So unless you want to get that retconned, that's the way it is.

IcarusBen · May 15, 2015

The theory was that the Toa are to scale. It helps fix the problems with the GSR's height, and fixes the problems with SM's gravity. In actuality, AM can be earth-sized without being either a). a lumpy potato or b). having the GSR stick out, because everything is to scale.

Sergei Rahkmaninoff · May 16, 2015

To scale with the sets? Because, as Thormen's pointed out, that is in direct contradiction with canon sources which specify Toa to be roughly seven feet tall - not seven inches, like the sets.

And if Toa were seven inches tall, then at 40 million feet the GSR would be far to unimaginably vast in comparison to them for them to even go from one end of Metru Nui to the other in any reasonable amount of time. Not to mention Metru Nui become far too large for a population of a mere 1000 three-inch-tall Matoran to inhabit. To fix that, then, we've got to scale down the GSR as well - except that, too, is in direct contradiction of canon.

I'll admit, your theory makes for a cool headcanon. But it blatantly contradicts canon in numerous ways, and thus can't be used in canon to help us reconcile the scale issues without retcons.

**bonesiii** · May 16, 2015

Huh? o.O I have no idea where you supposedly said that... In fact you seem to say the exact opposite over here

There's no "started" in those quotes -- you added that. And it wasn't that many posts back, but if you missed it, that's okay. Now you know.

But it's pretty simple logic, no? (Again, unless, as I also said then, the EP just decided it was destiny to explode then. But probably something else had to contact it to start it somehow or another, and presumably it was the substance of that table. That's not at all inconsistent with the EP exploding and causing the Shattering!)

No that's not what I'm driving at. That was my original idea before Fishers and T1 pointed out that we know Energized Protodermis is explosive, but then I changed my mind and pointed out that we still don't know the EP was the first thing to explode.

Okay, thanks for saying it outright now.

If you don't make it clear you accept that your earlier idea was (or might be) wrong, it's hard to know how to interpret your posts, so... well, worth a double thanks.

I was never commenting on what exploded first, to be crystal clear, and the idea seems questionable in light of typical chemistry anyways; explosions aren't normally one thing or the other exploding, they're a reaction, and the explosion is the result of that reaction from BOTH.

And outta time for posts on the next page... Later (if need be).

Vezon shall Return · May 16, 2015

Smaller. If Mata Nui is the size of Earth, then Spherus Magna must be the size of a gas giant. Unless the actual scale was something like this:

I would assume Mata-Nui was about the size of Unicron. (Bionicle copied and pasted the planet sized robot trope from transformers confirmed.)

fishers64 · May 16, 2015

Interestingly enough, the EP is probably why SM shattered, instead of exploding into tiny bits - the fluid channeled the force of the explosion at the poles, instead of hitting the solid rock structure directly.

The problem is, I don't have a direct source that says that the EP exploded. I have a source that says it is explosive, but not that it did explode. Until then, there will be room for your theory.

However, how does draining a small amount of EP cause something else to explode? That's where I'm confused. You'd think they would have to drain almost all of it before the thing exploded, and we know that didn't happen...
Why would they need to drain almost all of it? There could've been an explosive all over the core that was neutralized by the EP being all over the core as well. When a small amount of EP was drained, it wasn't all over the core anymore meaning a part of the explosive wasn't neutralized anymore, and exploded. That set off a chain reaction which caused the rest of the core to explode as well.

Yarr. But if there are landmines all over the inside of the rocky core of Spherus Magna, why didn't they all go off when the first one did? And if there was a bunch of explosives all over the place inside the rock of the planet, wouldn't the entire rock structure of the planet disentegrate, instead of break off two moons?

Plus wouldn't the explosive material in the rocks ignite the EP and make it explode? Therefore I'm back to EP exploding, only with a highly explosive material on the inside that strains my suspension of disbelief as to why SM is in three intact pieces instead of a bunch of highly uninhabitable space dust.

That's before I get to wondering who (in story) thought that was a good idea. "Yo, Rufus, we need to stash these explosives somewhere. This primitive planet looks good for that. They'll never notice."

*various explosives shipments follow*

*109,000 years later*

"Looks like they noticed."

Thormen · May 16, 2015

There's no "started" in those quotes -- you added that. And it wasn't that many posts back, but if you missed it, that's okay. Now you know.

No there's no 'started' in that quote, but there is a 'causing'. The whole cause-and-effect mechanic doesn't really work if the cause isn't at the start.

Okay, thanks for saying it outright now. If you don't make it clear you accept that your earlier idea was (or might be) wrong, it's hard to know how to interpret your posts, so... well, worth a double thanks.

I was never commenting on what exploded first, to be crystal clear, and the idea seems questionable in light of typical chemistry anyways; explosions aren't normally one thing or the other exploding, they're a reaction, and the explosion is the result of that reaction from BOTH.

I specifically said that T1 and Fishers corrected me by pointing out that Time Trap mentions that EP is explosive. In fact I have no idea why you responded to this:

Fishers and T1 also pointed out that the explosive property of Energized Protodermis was seen before in-story, so I was corrected about that. I don't see however how this is supposed to be "proof enough" that it was the EP that exploded causing the Shattering though, since all Greg said was that the core exploded due to the EP being drained. If simply tapping EP already causes it to explode, the Makuta should've been blown to bits millennia ago and most of the story wouldn't have happened. I can see two possibilities: either the Fire Tribe employed a specific method to drain the EP that caused it to explode, or the EP stabilized something explosive (as I mentioned earlier) and when it was drained the unstable core exploded. IMO both are equally likely.

Because you don't appear to actually disagree with it. :shrugs:

Yarr. But if there are landmines all over the inside of the rocky core of Spherus Magna, why didn't they all go off when the first one did?

I don't think the other 'landmines' didn't go off... The idea is: one 'landmine' got destabilized and exploded, then the others followed suit along with the EP and that entire chain reaction was the Shattering.

And if there was a bunch of explosives all over the place inside the rock of the planet, wouldn't the entire rock structure of the planet disentegrate, instead of break off two moons?

Well that's the big question of why the exploding core didn't do to Spherus Magna what the Death Star did to Alderaan. I'm thinking the core and the soft spots of Spherus Magna were a lot less sturdy than the stuff that the three shards were made of, so the explosion would have been big enough to shatter the soft stuff but not big enough to shatter the three shards and utterly destroy the planet.

Plus wouldn't the explosive material in the rocks ignite the EP and make it explode? Therefore I'm back to EP exploding, only with a highly explosive material on the inside that strains my suspension of disbelief as to why SM is in three intact pieces instead of a bunch of highly uninhabitable space dust.

Yeah the EP would also explode, I'm not denying that. The idea is the EP didn't explode first, but it followed suit when the other stuff got to exploding. Why do you assume the hypothetical other stuff has to be 'highly explosive' but not the EP? We know the core exploded, that already brings up the question why the planet wasn't obliterated.

That's before I get to wondering who (in story) thought that was a good idea. "Yo, Rufus, we need to stash these explosives somewhere. This primitive planet looks good for that. They'll never notice."

*various explosives shipments follow*

*109,000 years later*

"Looks like they noticed."

Lol But to be clear: I'm not talking about artificial explosives, I'm talking about natural explosive stuff. That's why I put 'landmines' between quotes in the above.

Regitnui · May 16, 2015

And if there was a bunch of explosives all over the place inside the rock of the planet, wouldn't the entire rock structure of the planet disentegrate, instead of break off two moons?
Well that's the big question of why the exploding core didn't do to Spherus Magna what the Death Star did to Alderaan. I'm thinking the core and the soft spots of Spherus Magna were a lot less sturdy than the stuff that the three shards were made of, so the explosion would have been big enough to shatter the soft stuff but not big enough to shatter the three shards and utterly destroy the planet.

Fault lines are a good explanation here. Spherus Magna has volcanoes, correct? Whe can then assume that the planet is (or was) tectonically active, and had several plates of rock of which the crust consisted of. Perhaps, in places, the EP had worked it's way into the faults, so those faults were the ones blasted open in the Shattering.

**bonesiii** · May 16, 2015

No there's no 'started' in that quote, but there is a 'causing'. The whole cause-and-effect mechanic doesn't really work if the cause isn't at the start.

Uh... what?

No... ever heard of dominos, C4, etc.? And we're talking about a "chain reaction", remember?

To your next, can we please stop playing "rewind the discussion"? If you want to know why I responded to some part of a long discussion, go back to the response to that part and read it and its context. I don't have time to dig it up.

And I don't understand why you're confused about that one, since you said you now get that it did explode. But it sounds like this idea that only one cause can be to blame and has to be right at the start is behind it. If so, that would be where you're getting confused.

[And re-reading it more closely, it looks like I did explain clearly why I disagree with it, in the responses to them! Just go back and read the whole response. In short, the idea that there's another major explosive (not "first"; there was no hint in your post that you meant that) and EP was just a sideshow, is not equally likely canonically and I've explained in detail why. I think the biggest problem is with Ockham's Razor; you're inventing a non-canon major explosive when we already have a canon one.]

Yeah the EP would also explode, I'm not denying that. The idea is the EP didn't explode first

See my previous post about that. I don't see why you're making such a big deal of first, when explosions normally don't work like that anyways. But even when they do, by no means does it mean you can or should only talk about the first part instead of the most important part.

When C4 goes off in the standard military system, a different explosive goes off first, but it's C4 that really causes the door to be blown open etc. Nobody seems confused on that, so why the confusion here?

Or to apply a radically different example that isn't about explosives but cause and effect, in the Two Towers, when the Ents broke the dam and flooded Isengard, they used the water to cause the disaster, and it's most notable because it had the most power, but it wasn't what happened first -- first they smashed supports for the rock holding the water back.

(And there's no real first anyways... because THAT happened because of Saruman cutting down trees, which happened in turn for reasons etc. What you call first is arbitrary anyways, usually. Admittedly if the question is "what exploded first?" something can be picked, like the detonator cap to C4, but the detonator cap or the Ent attack or the contact with the material of that table or whatever isn't the main cause of the distastrous results; it's the big part that those things cause. Cause and effect is a chain/tree, not a single thing. The main cause is C4 exploding, water flooding Isengard, and EP exploding causing the Shattering. Does that help? )

Edited May 16, 2015 by bonesiii

fishers64 · May 16, 2015

And if there was a bunch of explosives all over the place inside the rock of the planet, wouldn't the entire rock structure of the planet disentegrate, instead of break off two moons?
Well that's the big question of why the exploding core didn't do to Spherus Magna what the Death Star did to Alderaan. I'm thinking the core and the soft spots of Spherus Magna were a lot less sturdy than the stuff that the three shards were made of, so the explosion would have been big enough to shatter the soft stuff but not big enough to shatter the three shards and utterly destroy the planet.

That's not how physics work. Rock is harder than whatever soft stuff you have in mind, and will break apart before whatever soft stuff does. Whatever natural explosive, if it is embedded in the rock, when it explodes it will break the rock first. Anything softer will take longer to break.

If I put a bomb in a glass jar, it with shatter into a gazillion pieces. The same size bomb placed in the middle of a mattress will only punch a hole in it and set it on fire. Mattress is softer than glass jar.

And before you try to dodge this again , remember that this natural explosive that isn't EP has to be buried all over the core, not just at the moons, for this to work.

(In further case, the EP would likely dissolve anything that wasn't excidian, and we know that's a very hard rock.)

So small explosive explodes --> EP explodes --> rest of the explosive explodes --> Spherus Magna's distentegration. Game Over.

Why do you assume the hypothetical other stuff has to be 'highly explosive' but not the EP?

Because it exploded. It's very hard to make things explode that aren't an explosive. That is, unless you have something else to explode it with.

So are we going to have a substance to explode the not-so-explosive substance to explode the EP to cause the Shattering? Aren't we up to four mythological substances now, including the magical silly string that holds SM together and keeps it from disentegrating? XD

It's much more interesting than the boring bonesiii explanation, I'll give you that much. :lookaround: Unfortunately, that explanation makes more sense. Darn.

Also, the EP is explosive. I think we all agree on that.

We know the core exploded, that already brings up the question why the planet wasn't obliterated.

It's the same reason your car doesn't explode every time you step on the gas. The fluid explosion pushes against the piston, sending that force to the wheels.

Same principle here - the fluid pushed out against the moons - the "pistons" if you will, launching them away.

**bonesiii** · May 16, 2015

It's much more interesting than the boring bonesiii explanation, I'll give you that much. Unfortunately, that explanation makes more sense. Darn.

I think this is actually probably the key to what's going on here -- an emotional desire for it to be something more than it was intended to be, which, details aside, was simply an explosion of EP (without really worrying about how plausible it was). I think maybe we're so used to that now, that we assume that's "boring", but it was once a new idea, and any new ideas now can get old to us too. (Of course, original reactions to it varied too, as taste often does.) I notice this trend in many areas of life -- people want to see more than what's there, because they assume what's there is boring if it's relatively simple.

What I've discovered is the truly interesting thing is to actually learn to embrace the (relatively) simple, and find value in understanding the logical reasons they are that way and not some 'flashy' but nonsensical way.

I've given the example before of electric poles. I used to find them so boringly ugly as to wish they didn't exist, but as I understand more and more about how things work and why things are how they are, I realize it's actually fairly brilliant. The surprising nature of their existing even though human nature wants something flashier is in itself incredibly bold. I means people dared to do something for reasons actually more important than superficial ones.

Nothing wrong with the flashier things either, especially if they do fit in a world and/or context where for that time and place they are the practical things, but yeah.

And let's register the irony here given how things went on the first few pages LOL.

fishers64 · May 16, 2015

bones, come on, you just ruined my theory test. I thought he had another reason for why we had gotten off on this, and I was hoping that he would remind me of it.

Now I really need to erase this hilarious mental image I have in my head of someone getting terribly offended at electric poles for existing. Homework? I once found that offensive. Annoying noises? *hand raise* But electric poles? (Maybe it's because I've traveled to so many places and seen a whole bunch of variations on the standard electric pole, but whatever.)

I apologize in advance for finding both disdain for liquid EP explosions and electric poles funny.

Edited May 16, 2015 by fishers64

**bonesiii** · May 16, 2015

No need to apologize -- I find it funny too (now).

fishers64 · May 17, 2015

I should probably quit this while I'm ahead, but I think you may be wrong. It's actaully a desire for simplicity at work here, possibly.

Because the Great Beings knew that tapping EP's power would cause the Shattering, no matter who won the war. To tap its power, you have to drain at least a little bit of it. If the draining causes the explosion, it makes the people part of the whole thing much easier to understand.

But if we place the draining as NOT the cause of the explosion, then we have to ask ourselves what method the tribes would use for power tapping, why the GBs knew that method would be used, and how they figured that the Shattering WOULD result from it, as a certainty, no matter which tribe did it. (And then that they couldn't convince the tribes not to do it, so they had to go with the 10 million dollar giant robot solution.)

Maybe it's wooden pipes, like that wooden table. Maybe it's destiny.

I'd like to see what the actual person has to say on this subject though - guessing in the dark and making presumption is not the way to go. >_>

**bonesiii** · May 17, 2015

Thormen has already said he's proposing another explosive that we don't know of, so that's more complicated. And draining is the cause in my understanding; a reaction with a substance used somehow in it. (Not directly in my retelling's version, though).

Thormen · May 17, 2015

Uh... what?

No... ever heard of dominos, C4, etc.? And we're talking about a "chain reaction", remember?

Causes don't happen after their own effects. What you're talking about is an entire concatenation of cause-and-effect relationships, and sure you can point at a cause at the end and an effect at the start and say "That cause happened after that effect.", but those are not the cause and the effect that belong to one another. If A causes B, A has to happen before B. Therefore if the Energized Protodermis exploded causing the Shattering, the EP exploded before the Shattering. Is it in actuality more difficult to determine an exact cause when there could be multiple contributing factors? That's true, but that simply proves the point I was making.

I think this is actually probably the key to what's going on here -- an emotional desire for it to be something more than it was intended to be, which, details aside, was simply an explosion of EP (without really worrying about how plausible it was).

I see no reason why you would go and make assumptions about my emotions, Bones, and I don't see why this should be part of the discussion so all I'm going to say about that is your assumption is dead wrong.

As to the question why this discussion is still going on, well that's what I've been asking myself for a couple of days now. I posted a theory about the inner workings of Spherus Magna and how the Shattering might have gone down, then T1 and Fishers pointed out that one detail was incorrect and you stated simply that the EP exploded shattering the planet. Then I wrote the following:

Fishers and T1 also pointed out that the explosive property of Energized Protodermis was seen before in-story, so I was corrected about that. I don't see however how this is supposed to be "proof enough" that it was the EP that exploded causing the Shattering though, since all Greg said was that the core exploded due to the EP being drained. If simply tapping EP already causes it to explode, the Makuta should've been blown to bits millennia ago and most of the story wouldn't have happened. I can see two possibilities: either the Fire Tribe employed a specific method to drain the EP that caused it to explode, or the EP stabilized something explosive (as I mentioned earlier) and when it was drained the unstable core exploded. IMO both are equally likely.

And I still stand behind what I wrote there. You responded to that post and from that point on I can't figure out anymore why we're having this discussion. You actually seem to be agreeing with what I said, so I have no clue why you initially went against it.

I understand you don't want to rewind the discussion, neither do I, but the discussion won't go anywhere if you don't make clear why you started it. It seems you simply misunderstood what I wrote there and that's OK, we can drop the subject in that case since you seem to get it now

Meanwhile Munty is the only one who actually commented on the theory I posted in whole instead of focusing on a certain detail I didn't know.

That's not how physics work. Rock is harder than whatever soft stuff you have in mind, and will break apart before whatever soft stuff does. Whatever natural explosive, if it is embedded in the rock, when it explodes it will break the rock first. Anything softer will take longer to break.

True, so it should actually be the other way round: the stuff the surviving chunks were made of should be softer and more elastic and the stuff at the border should break more easy.

But you're missing the point I was making: if I propose that an unnamed explosive exploded causing the Shattering, then it doesn't make sense to argue "But if there was an explosion, then why was the planet not obliterated?" since we already know there was an explosion. All I ever said is that there's a possibility the reaction got started differently.

And before you try to dodge this again , remember that this natural explosive that isn't EP has to be buried all over the core, not just at the moons, for this to work.

It doesn't necessarily have to be all over the rock of the planet. It only has to be at some place in the core, when the EP got drained it got drained away from that place and it exploded, then the whole chain reaction got started.

And for the record I wasn't trying to dodge that, I just didn't get you were trying to emphasize that.

(In further case, the EP would likely dissolve anything that wasn't excidian, and we know that's a very hard rock.)

EP doesn't dissolve everything that isn't Exsidian. We could very well be speaking of a substance that was destined to be stabilized by the EP.

Because it exploded. It's very hard to make things explode that aren't an explosive. That is, unless you have something else to explode it with.

OK here I should've probably highlighted 'highly' to point out that I was emphasizing that. I'm not saying the hypothetical stuff that exploded wasn't explosive, I'm saying it wasn't more explosive that EP.

Thormen has already said he's proposing another explosive that we don't know of, so that's more complicated. And draining is the cause in my understanding; a reaction with a substance used somehow in it. (Not directly in my retelling's version, though).

Let me get one thing straight: I am not saying that my idea is probably how it happened. Ever since it was pointed out to me that we know EP is explosive I've made it clear that all I'm saying is there are multiple possbilities.

fishers64 · May 17, 2015

Thormen has already said he's proposing another explosive that we don't know of, so that's more complicated.

Yarr, but you can't claim that his motivation is to make it more complicated simply because it is more complicated, bones.

More possibilities exist, and you just closed your mind to all of them.

And draining is the cause in my understanding; a reaction with a substance used somehow in it. (Not directly in my retelling's version, though).

What this debate is all about (as far as I know) is figuring out if and why the draining was the cause. The "substance reaction" theory is a valid one; so is what I thought it was, like the Fire Tribe tried to use it to power a steam turbine or something, and the EP dissolved the workings and got to the flames in the boiler.

We don't know the answer to this question, so throwing around theories as to what happened is a completely legit thing to do. Pulling out swords and claiming to know the right answer and accusing others of being entirely wrong is not really valid at this point - there is still a possibility that Thormen could be correct.

Now I'll be honest - I think it's a slim possibility, for reasons I'm going to outline in a short reading down.

In further case, I find that speculation as to a person's motives without consulting them (in this case, based on an entirely different reaction from me that was a joke - and probably, IMO, in poor taste now that I think on it) tends to put people on the defensive. They close off and won't listen to you anymore, because now you've moved from talking about the facts to talking about them. Judging them. Accusing them.

In the context of claiming that they're wrong, this is even worse. Not only are they wrong, but now they have some motivation, some emotional desire, some taste, some part of them that you find to be wrong.

And unless you have mind-reading powers I don't know about, the odds of one correctly guessing the motives of another is pretty slim. I thought you might be better at it - that it was a fault unique to me. But I've seen so many blasted debates that have gotten cut up because you guessed, and guessed wrong, and then people getting mad at you because you guessed wrong...

But maybe that's me misreading the whole situation. I've made more than my share of mistakes doing this, and saying that just because I can't do it nobody can is a fallacy. And I'm sure you've done plenty of research on the subject. But still. Every time I see this in a debate I just want to bang my head on my desk.

Alright. Back to the facts.

I posted a theory about the inner workings of Spherus Magna and how the Shattering might have gone down, then T1 and Fishers pointed out that one detail was incorrect and you stated simply that the EP exploded shattering the planet.

I actually had more to dispute there, but I didn't feel like arguing it simply because I figured no one would listen. The basis of the explosion stuff was the BS01 articles I quoted.

Then I wrote the following:

Fishers and T1 also pointed out that the explosive property of Energized Protodermis was seen before in-story, so I was corrected about that. I don't see however how this is supposed to be "proof enough" that it was the EP that exploded causing the Shattering though, since all Greg said was that the core exploded due to the EP being drained. If simply tapping EP already causes it to explode, the Makuta should've been blown to bits millennia ago and most of the story wouldn't have happened. I can see two possibilities: either the Fire Tribe employed a specific method to drain the EP that caused it to explode, or the EP stabilized something explosive (as I mentioned earlier) and when it was drained the unstable core exploded. IMO both are equally likely.
And I still stand behind what I wrote there. You responded to that post and from that point on I can't figure out anymore why we're having this discussion. You actually seem to be agreeing with what I said, so I have no clue why you initially went against it.

This is where this started:

I don't see however how this is supposed to be "proof enough" that it was the EP that exploded causing the Shattering though

But we know it was the EP... ?

It wasn't exsidian or Thornax.

since all Greg said was that the core exploded due to the EP being drained.

Yes, which was the EP exploding, since it has explosive properties.

EP stabilized something explosive (as I mentioned earlier) and when it was drained the unstable core exploded. IMO both are equally likely.

While that would be a valid story, it's seeking out another source of explosive power when we already have one, so Ockham's razor applies here, I'd think.

And it really sounds like another way of saying the same thing; it's just changing exactly how the explosion starts; once it does, the EP goes too. Something that isn't EP had to trigger the explosion, probably (unless it just decided it was destiny to explode then or something ). Regardless of where it was or what it was.

But we know it was the EP... ?

It wasn't exsidian or Thornax.

[...]

Yes, which was the EP exploding, since it has explosive properties.
Do we, really? All I've actually read in the official sources is that the core exploded. There's no mention of EP exploding in any of Greg's quotes, no mention of it on BS01, no mention of it in any of the online serials, in Journey's End... Like I said I don't have All Our Sins Remembered so it could be in there, but right now all I see is you saying "The EP exploded, the EP exploded." without any reference to back that up.

Oooooh, now I get what this is all about. You're assuming the core consisted of EP only (or mostly or whatever) and I'm not. Under your assumption I do understand why you responded immediately by saying the EP "exploded shattering the planet", because then it simply follows out of Greg's quote that the core exploded. Without that assumption however there are more possibilities for which substance would've actually exploded.

So as far as I know the only thing that was ever said is that EP was "in the core". That doesn't have to mean the entire core was composed of EP, there could still be other (possibly explosive) matter in the core.

The problem is if something else exploded in the core, the EP would explode too. Therefore the EP exploded, regardless of the original original cause.

The dispute is over whether there was other explosive material in the core or just EP. A just-EP core could explode, though, and fulfill the storyline requirements for the explosion. Which begs the question of why this other substance needs to exist. So far I haven't heard a good reason, and to be really honest I don't think there is one.

Meanwhile Munty is the only one who actually commented on the theory I posted in whole instead of focusing on a certain detail I didn't know.

I'm commenting/criticizing it now. At least, that is what I was trying to do. bones seemed to assume that I was doing more than that, (gahhhh) but alas, no.

But you're missing the point I was making: if I propose that an unnamed explosive exploded causing the Shattering, then it doesn't make sense to argue "But if there was an explosion, then why was the planet not obliterated?" since we already know there was an explosion. All I ever said is that there's a possibility the reaction got started differently.

That's like saying that an IED has the same destructive capacity as a hydrogen warhead. Explosions can be really big or small. You've given the hypothetical explosion more explosive power, so it was a bigger boom than before.

It doesn't necessarily have to be all over the rock of the planet. It only has to be at some place in the core, when the EP got drained it got drained away from that place and it exploded, then the whole chain reaction got started.

And for the record I wasn't trying to dodge that, I just didn't get you were trying to emphasize that.

There are two problems with this. The first one is that it's just darn lucky that there was an explosive material right next to the spring. Actually, it would need to be far away from the spring, in order for the EP to lose contact and shatter quickly. That area just so happened to lose contact first. Note that you posted these answers on the last page telling us that the shattering happened rapidly.

1. Were the Great Beings the first ones to realize that Spherus Magna was shattering slowly?

1) It didn’t shatter slowly, it shattered quickly, and yes, they were the first ones to realize it might happen

1. Did the inhabitants of Spherus Magna have a hint that the Shattering would soon take place? Like increasing amounts of earthquakes, strange climate changes, reseeding waterlines, whatever.

1) Quakes, yes, but not much warning. It happened pretty abruptly

1) What is a rough estimate of the time elapsed between the final battle of the Core War and the Shattering?

1) Hours

Secondly, if there was a set of explosives in one specific spot on the planet, one of the resulting pieces would have a huge hole in it someplace. This was never confirmed to exist. That hole could leave the planet unstable and cause an implosion.

Third, why would there be a whole core full of EP just to stabilize a small portion of explosive? And if it was all in one part of the core, how did the Great Beings know about it from experimenting with EP, as it is strongly implied that the Great Beings researched the EP and concluded from that that the planet was going to explode? I mean, they could have found the explosive if it reached the surface, but why did no group of unlucky Agori decide to make camp in the explosive area and decide to light a fire and...too bad.

With all that being said, it's possible...but not likely. The fire tribe exploding it is a whole lot simpler and doesn't require all these patches to make happen.

**bonesiii** · May 18, 2015

Then I wrote the following:

Thormen, on 10 May 2015 - 06:30 AM, said:
Fishers and T1 also pointed out that the explosive property of Energized Protodermis was seen before in-story, so I was corrected about that. I don't see however how this is supposed to be "proof enough" that it was the EP that exploded causing the Shattering though, since all Greg said was that the core exploded due to the EP being drained. If simply tapping EP already causes it to explode, the Makuta should've been blown to bits millennia ago and most of the story wouldn't have happened. I can see two possibilities: either the Fire Tribe employed a specific method to drain the EP that caused it to explode, or the EP stabilized something explosive (as I mentioned earlier) and when it was drained the unstable core exploded. IMO both are equally likely.
And I still stand behind what I wrote there.

Then it seems like we're still having the discussion because, you're not accepting points raised why there are problems with "equally likely"? I haven't seen you respond to most of them, and since you're now saying you don't even know why I disagree with that part (incidentally, why single out this one paragraph? You've done that twice now?), that's puzzling. I thought I explained why.

Anyways, I wasn't assuming anything, but just suggesting that might be what's going on with Munty and you, since you have been continuing to suggest and promote more complicated alternatives. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a trend I've noticed in a lot of people so the possibility is worth considering here.

More possibilities exist, and you just closed your mind to all of them.

I don't do that, fishers. I was saying the one I mentioned appears to be canon and/or the most canonically plausible. That doesn't mean alternatives are impossible... but it does make them more complicated (if the scenario in question is more complicated anyways), which probably makes is it more unlikely.

Just keep this thing in perspective, okay? As much as other versions might seem good in this kind of discussion, the story wasn't aimed at this sort of discussion. It's perfectly fine to consider alternatives, just be realistic about how likely they are. (Of course, you don't really have to do that either, but Thormen keeps pressing the question of why I happened to disagree on that one point, so yeah. :shrugs:

Anyways, while I'm posting, one more point to your idea, Thormen -- more evidence in its favor -- you mentioned "stabilizing" something, and fishers mentioned exsidian as the only known substance not destroyed/transformed by it. But I'm not sure about that, since wasn't it EP that was said to stabilize the power source of the prototype robot? (I... think?) And as far as I know that wasn't exsidian. :shrugs:

Regardless of what that was, we do know that stabilizing things and itself being explosive are within the range of possible behaviors for EP.

The gap in knowledge here is that we only know of EP in the core, which makes that the more likely theory. (Make sense? Plus, it was "common knowledge", which as I mentioned might be wrong, but we can't track that down with endless back-and-forth between ourselves; yall need to go look for quotes or go ask Greg if he recalls now. )

Edit:

In further case, I find that speculation as to a person's motives without consulting them (in this case, based on an entirely different reaction from me that was a joke - and probably, IMO, in poor taste now that I think on it) tends to put people on the defensive. They close off and won't listen to you anymore, because now you've moved from talking about the facts to talking about them. Judging them. Accusing them.

First, fishers, that was consulting them. Second, why are you taking it as an "accusation"? There's nothing wrong with having that preference.

Edited May 18, 2015 by bonesiii

maxim21 · May 18, 2015

But I'm not sure about that, since wasn't it EP that was said to stabilize the power source of the prototype robot?

Granted the prototype robot was created before the discovery of EP, that's not possible. EP was used to stabilize the power source of the GSR, not the prototype.

Also, Exsidian isn't EP-resistant: it's just one of the ingredients the GB used to create an EP-resistant material.

If anything, I'm leaning towards what (I think) Thormen is saying: a simple big EP explosion can't fully explain the Shattering. A more complex explosion would also explain better how AM and BoM were sent into orbit - several smaller explosions would allow that more easily than just an enormous one; I also don't think it's a given that the EP was the first thing to explode, especially since it would not really be a chain reaction anymore.

I think it's also possible the Shattering had something to do with the elements. It would explain how so much of the water ended up on just one fragment, so much of the jungle on another, so much of the sand and the frost on another.

Thormen · May 18, 2015

Fault lines are a good explanation here. Spherus Magna has volcanoes, correct? Whe can then assume that the planet is (or was) tectonically active, and had several plates of rock of which the crust consisted of. Perhaps, in places, the EP had worked it's way into the faults, so those faults were the ones blasted open in the Shattering.

Sorry Regitnui, I didn't get to responding to this yesterday. The first thing that came to mind is that if earth were to shatter that way, it wouldn't turn into a couple of chunk but actually into a number of flying tectonic plates and a huge ball of magma. However, Spherus Magna is not earth and both Munty and I already drew it with a much thicker crust, so I guess it would work but not so much with tectonic 'plates' as on earth, but with tectonic 'chunks'.

Actually what I really like about the idea is that it works well with the fact that explosions are quicker to shatter hard matter than soft matter, as Fishers pointed out to me yesterday. When the magma becomes solid around the fault lines, it turns into very hard rock. The farther you get up towards the surface, the more sand, earth gravel etc. you're going to find. So regardless of what exactly exploded I think it's reasonable that mostly the igneous rock around the fault lines shattered and the softer stuff above remained intact.

You pointed out that there are volcanoes on Spherus Magna which shows there must be magma. I had initially avoided assuming there was magma underground, but I hadn't thought of the volcanoes. The reason I wanted to avoid it is because if there's magma down there, and the EP was down there as well, it's likely that the two would've come into contact with each other. That's a problem since EP explodes when it is heated and contact with magma would've definitely heated it (magma is at least 600 degrees celsius but usually hotter, don't think Vakama heated up his EP vial significantly past that), meaning the EP should've exploded looong before the Core War.

One possible solution to this is that EP needs oxygen to explode and that there was no oxygen mixed with it down in the core, and that actually fits quite nicely with what Mailli said before about how oil on earth is generally drained by pumping air into the oil field and how that could've been what the Fire Tribe was doing with the EP. That would give us the following scenario: the EP was always down in the core, in contact with magma or other extremely hot matter, but didn't explode because there was no oxygen. Then a part of it forced its way to the surface and cooled down, when it came into contact with the oxygen there, there was no problem since it was too cool to explode (cool as in cold, not cool as in awesome obviously ). Then the Fire Tribe started pumping oxygen down there and the oxygen began mixing with the EP underground, until after a few hours the oxygen actually came into contact with the hotter EP that was deep underground and then everything went boom.

Fishers, thank you for your thoughtful post

The problem is if something else exploded in the core, the EP would explode too. Therefore the EP exploded, regardless of the original original cause.

Agree 100%.

The dispute is over whether there was other explosive material in the core or just EP. A just-EP core could explode, though, and fulfill the storyline requirements for the explosion. Which begs the question of why this other substance needs to exist. So far I haven't heard a good reason, and to be really honest I don't think there is one.

The reason I thought of it was because of the fact that the Fire Tribe started draining the EP and then the core exploded. By 'draining' I imagine they mean roughly the same thing as when we say an oil company is draining an oil field, and those oil fields don't explode even though the oil is explosive as well. Now I get that EP is highly explosive, so it's likely that there are methods of draining (such as using the wrong material for pipes, as Bones mentioned) that cause the EP to explode, but I still find it hard to believe that just the act of taking the EP out of the ground is going to make it explode.

I'm commenting/criticizing it now. At least, that is what I was trying to do. bones seemed to assume that I was doing more than that, (gahhhh) but alas, no.

Actually by 'theory' I meant the picture I posted and the stuff about the force being directed so it didn't originate in the core, making orbit possible, I didn't mean the part about the EP not being the first thing to explode. But that doesn't mean I don't want to respond to your points of course.

That's like saying that an IED has the same destructive capacity as a hydrogen warhead. Explosions can be really big or small. You've given the hypothetical explosion more explosive power, so it was a bigger boom than before.

I don't see where I've given the explosion more explosive power... Or maybe you're saying this:

EP explosive power + unnamed explosive power > EP explosive power

Which is of course true since the unnamed explosive power is greater than 0. But the thing is, we don't know if the EP explosive power was enough to cause the Shattering. The standard theory basically says this:

EP explosive power = explosive power needed to cause the Shattering

And the idea I was talking about is this:

EP explosive power < explosive power needed to cause the Shattering

EP explosive power + unnamed explosive power = explosive power needed to cause the Shattering

So basically the idea would be that there was a little less EP or EP is a little less explosive than in the standard theory.

The picture doesn't exactly show what I was talking about. I was suggesting the unnamed explosive was in the core, the EP would actually be embedded in it. I also imagined the core a lot smaller, so the distance between the surface and the explosive stuff would be larger than in your picture.

There's another problem however that I'm only thinking of right now while I'm typing this: my idea requires that the Fire Tribe were draining the EP in such a way that the amount of it in the core also diminishes, and that is very problematic when you think about how gravity and pressure etc. work. It's the same principle as why you can't empty a bottle with a straw if you don't put the straw all the way down into the bottom of the bottle: you can't pump something up if it's located lower than your pipe is. That would mean the Fire Tribe had to have had a pipe long enough to reach down into the core, and that seems unlikely since they supposedly installed the pipe 'immediately' (and blew up the core within hours) and a pipe that would work with my picture would have to be 70 000 km long, a pipe that would work with Munty's picture would have to be 350 000 km long. As a person who argued 12 000 km is too big for the Great Spirit Robot I can't honestly assume that they would have a pipe this big.

There are two problems with this. The first one is that it's just darn lucky that there was an explosive material right next to the spring. Actually, it would need to be far away from the spring, in order for the EP to lose contact and shatter quickly. That area just so happened to lose contact first. Note that you posted these answers on the last page telling us that the shattering happened rapidly.

True, that's darn lucky (or unlucky actually but that's beside the point), but not so much that it would stretch belief I think. There could be several places in the core where it could be located, the Fire Tribe didn't initially drain those places but after a few hours one of the places got drained and went boom.

Secondly, if there was a set of explosives in one specific spot on the planet, one of the resulting pieces would have a huge hole in it someplace. This was never confirmed to exist. That hole could leave the planet unstable and cause an implosion.

Holes as in holes on the surface or as in underground domes? Because there were two holes on the surface of Bara Magna where Bota Magna and Aqua Magna used to be, they are seen in canon media. As for underground domes: well since Greg said the EP floated into outer space and froze, we already have to assume there is some kind of hole where it used to be. :shrugs:

Third, why would there be a whole core full of EP just to stabilize a small portion of explosive?

I wasn't saying the EP was there for that reason, I was saying that it could have had that effect. We don't know why there was EP in the core.

And if it was all in one part of the core, how did the Great Beings know about it from experimenting with EP, as it is strongly implied that the Great Beings researched the EP and concluded from that that the planet was going to explode? I mean, they could have found the explosive if it reached the surface, but why did no group of unlucky Agori decide to make camp in the explosive area and decide to light a fire and...too bad.

That's a good point, I wasn't initially aware of the way All Our Sins Remembered portrays this, since I don't have the graphic novel, but if the way it goes down is really: the Great Beings do tests and find out EP is explosive > the Great Beings conclude that draining the stuff would blow up the planet, then it's not likely there was another explosive down there that they suddenly guessed must have existed.

With all that being said, it's possible...but not likely. The fire tribe exploding it is a whole lot simpler and doesn't require all these patches to make happen.

I was also thinking it's possible but only one of the possibilities ever since you and T1 pointed out that we know EP is explosive, but after reading Regitnui's and your posts it seems a lot less likely to me as well. I think the most likely explanation is the oxygen + magma + EP = explosion one now and both your point about the GBs experimenting and the fact that the Fire Tribe would need an immense pipeline make it a very unlikely possibility.

Then it seems like we're still having the discussion because, you're not accepting points raised why there are problems with "equally likely"? I haven't seen you respond to most of them, and since you're now saying you don't even know why I disagree with that part (incidentally, why single out this one paragraph? You've done that twice now?), that's puzzling. I thought I explained why.

So all of what you were writing was still about it being the 'Ockham's Razor possibility'??? As I pointed out before that's completely subjective and there's no point discussing that. If I had known that that was still your main issue after I pointed that out, I would've ignored what you wrote immediately. It would've been a lot easier if you had initially replied "I think the two are not equally likely because [reasons]" instead of "We know it was the EP", which is just plain wrong.

And I do think Fishers' criticism of your attitude is valid. You previously pointed to the irony of what's happening here and what was happening on the first pages of this topic. Let me point to the irony that you're the one pointing to that irony. There's a really important life lesson you need to learn, but I'm not going to point that out to you since that was done before in this very topic but obviously fell on deaf ears.

I'm going to Ireland tomorrow for ten days and I won't be able to post anything. If the discussion is still ongoing when I return I'll gladly give my two cents of course, but until that time I won't be available. A heads up to you however, Bones: from now on I'm going to ignore everything you say outside of your function as a moderator.

fishers64 · May 18, 2015

*inhales* *exhales*

Anyways, I wasn't assuming anything, but just suggesting that might be what's going on with Munty and you, since you have been continuing to suggest and promote more complicated alternatives. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a trend I've noticed in a lot of people so the possibility is worth considering here.

Actually, no, it's not. That possibility is offensive, especially in the middle of an implication that their theory is less likely than previously thought. It's already a letdown, and suggesting that they are responsible for their theory's errors or it being less likely is incredibly rude in this case. Having an unlikely theory doesn't mean that they magically fit your pattern, and suggesting that they do is just unnecessary.

If they do have a problem, telling them why it's less likely is enough. If there's a reason why they came to that idea expecting it to be more plausible, they will figure it out themselves without you having to get on your high horse and throw possibilities out there.

Most people just want their facts evaluated, not their motives. They don't want to be evaluated. Evaluating them Does. Not. Help. At all. Period. It just makes them more indignant, more combative, and eager to write off everything you say as false. There's no point to it, because even if your evaluation is correct, the person doesn't want to talk to you anymore.

This isn't a time or place for it either. If I was looking for a personal evaluation, I'd go see a psychologist, not post on a forum dedicated to discussing facts about an undead toyline.

It does imply that "I can't figure out what's going on, so instead of evaluating the facts and checking to see what the person took issue with, I'm just going to throw this shot in the dark out there and assume that the other person is wrong."

More possibilities exist, and you just closed your mind to all of them.
I don't do that, fishers. I was saying the one I mentioned appears to be canon and/or the most canonically plausible. That doesn't mean alternatives are impossible... but it does make them more complicated (if the scenario in question is more complicated anyways), which probably makes is it more unlikely.

Just keep this thing in perspective, okay? As much as other versions might seem good in this kind of discussion, the story wasn't aimed at this sort of discussion. It's perfectly fine to consider alternatives, just be realistic about how likely they are. (Of course, you don't really have to do that either, but Thormen keeps pressing the question of why I happened to disagree on that one point, so yeah.

What I meant was that you closed your mind to all of possibilities as why Thormen is attached to and defending his theory, not what you interpreted my statement as.

But when you wrote:

Yes, which was the EP exploding, since it has explosive properties.

It does appear that you closed you mind to alternate interpretations of the facts as well. But that statement was taken out of context in Thormen's post response, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Edit:

In further case, I find that speculation as to a person's motives without consulting them (in this case, based on an entirely different reaction from me that was a joke - and probably, IMO, in poor taste now that I think on it) tends to put people on the defensive. They close off and won't listen to you anymore, because now you've moved from talking about the facts to talking about them. Judging them. Accusing them.
First, fishers, that was consulting them. Second, why are you taking it as an "accusation"? There's nothing wrong with having that preference.

No, it wasn't. It was speculation. Almost straight-up gossiping, except Thormen was here to be offended instead of the telephone game being played.

It's implying that Thormen was wrong because of a preference that he had. Which is a straight-up accusation. "You're wrong and you're not listening to me because of X."

It wasn't consulting them. If you're looking for someone's motive, you don't propose a theory. You ask a question. As painful as it is for guys to use interrogative sentences, they are needed here.

And I don't need to tell you that Thormen did find it offensive. If you didn't catch his change in tone after you posted that, his later post made it explicit.

Now I'll be honest. I know that this wasn't your intent. I know that you're trying to be helpful. But this is the reality of the situation - it doesn't help. Maybe some people around you have been more thoughtful then me and been like, hey, that's awesome, you read me exactly bones. Maybe a few people shrugged and said it was possible and they would think about it. Maybe.

I probably said the latter a few times because I test all the ideas thrown at me properly before throwing them out.

But most people (like 99%) prefer to have their motives as accepted as legit without having to state them. Questioning them or speculating about them undermines their sense of self and comes off as a personal attack.

I know this because I have someone, who, if not sufficiently distracted, continually questions my motivations. He assumes that everyone around them, if they don't agree with him or do exactly what he wants, have bad motivations for everything they do. He literally treats almost everyone in a thoughtless manner. He's not the only one - I've seen at least two or three people who, if things don't work out or if the person doesn't obey them to a T, assume that the person working for them is a rebellious backstabbing jerk or has some problem/taste. They leave waves of interpersonal devastation in their wake. (Incidently, some of their "observations" have been correct, but it took me twice as long to get that their observations were correct simply because those particular people made them, and because they were jerks who didn't consider my interests at all. Having another person bring it up, if it is right, just pushes the truth further away.)

I don't think you're anywhere near there. But if every time you get into a debate with someone and you can't figure out what's going on you attack/speculate/question/try to fit to a magic pattern to the other person so you can find an easy escape route, there's the hole in the boat. And it's sinking.

And for someone who has to eat breakfast with the proverbial shipwreck every morning, watching it sink makes me sick at heart.

Fishers, thank you for your thoughtful post

Probably overreacting a little bit. This area still makes me want to punch something every time, so yeah. Knife to the gut, twist slowly. But you're welcome anyway.

The real irony here is that some of the Bones Blog entries have been helpful for me in working out some of these issues. It's amazing how the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is typing. Regardless of what comes of this, I'm still willing to put up with him to some degree, to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. People have flaws. Life will continue.

Anyway, stupid girl rant over. Back to EP/Shattering.

but I still find it hard to believe that just the act of taking the EP out of the ground is going to make it explode.

I was pretty sure that tapping it for power was what caused the explosion, not draining it. But considering all, that's probably just me.

And the idea I was talking about is this:

EP explosive power < explosive power needed to cause the Shattering

EP explosive power + unnamed explosive power = explosive power needed to cause the Shattering

So basically the idea would be that there was a little less EP or EP is a little less explosive than in the standard theory.

Fair point. I didn't think of it like that.

The picture doesn't exactly show what I was talking about. I was suggesting the unnamed explosive was in the core, the EP would actually be embedded in it. I also imagined the core a lot smaller, so the distance between the surface and the explosive stuff would be larger than in your picture.

There's another problem however that I'm only thinking of right now while I'm typing this: my idea requires that the Fire Tribe were draining the EP in such a way that the amount of it in the core also diminishes, and that is very problematic when you think about how gravity and pressure etc. work. It's the same principle as why you can't empty a bottle with a straw if you don't put the straw all the way down into the bottom of the bottle: you can't pump something up if it's located lower than your pipe is. That would mean the Fire Tribe had to have had a pipe long enough to reach down into the core, and that seems unlikely since they supposedly installed the pipe 'immediately' (and blew up the core within hours) and a pipe that would work with my picture would have to be 70 000 km long, a pipe that would work with Munty's picture would have to be 350 000 km long. As a person who argued 12 000 km is too big for the Great Spirit Robot I can't honestly assume that they would have a pipe this big.

I think I can agree here - although it presumes a maze-like core. I got the impression that the core was pure EP, but its possible that impression could be wrong.

Secondly, if there was a set of explosives in one specific spot on the planet, one of the resulting pieces would have a huge hole in it someplace. This was never confirmed to exist. That hole could leave the planet unstable and cause an implosion.

Holes as in holes on the surface or as in underground domes? Because there were two holes on the surface of Bara Magna where Bota Magna and Aqua Magna used to be, they are seen in canon media. As for underground domes: well since Greg said the EP floated into outer space and froze, we already have to assume there is some kind of hole where it used to be.

I was saying that if the explosive was in one location in the rock, that could explode, leaving three holes in Bara Magna instead of two. The third hole could contribute to more crumbling and instability than actually happened.

I was also thinking it's possible but only one of the possibilities ever since you and T1 pointed out that we know EP is explosive, but after reading Regitnui's and your posts it seems a lot less likely to me as well. I think the most likely explanation is the oxygen + magma + EP = explosion one now and both your point about the GBs experimenting and the fact that the Fire Tribe would need an immense pipeline make it a very unlikely possibility.

Thanks for taking the time to talk with me.

Edited May 19, 2015 by fishers64

**bonesiii** · May 19, 2015

Granted the prototype robot was created before the discovery of EP, that's not possible. EP was used to stabilize the power source of the GSR, not the prototype.

Pretty sure it was the prototype. Remember, it wasn't stabilized before the discovery of EP -- the prototype exploded and was left there until Mata Nui came along and had it put back together. I think there was something about the GBs having realized by that time that EP could stabilize it and leaving instructions.

Also, Exsidian isn't EP-resistant: it's just one of the ingredients the GB used to create an EP-resistant material.

Right -- we shouldn't assume it is resistant. That's just shorthand for its being confirmed as that ingredient and the theory based on that that it's probably resistant. (The GBs had to have something resistant for that vial... not necessarily exsidian though.)

So all of what you were writing was still about it being the 'Ockham's Razor possibility'??? As I pointed out before that's completely subjective

No, it's not subjective -- when one explanation relies on extra unknowns that another doesn't have, that's a definite difference between the two. Doesn't prove anything one way or the other, but it does help show what appears more or less likely. And yes, I was talking about that, as far as I recall (though this has covered a lot of subjects, so not sure if that applies to everything). I thought I made that clear, but apparently not, so my bad.

I don't know how to take the rest of what you said as it comes across as... well, your words literally appear to say you think Ockham's Razor is "completely pointless." I hope you didn't mean it that way, though... but without a clarification I don't know what else to say.

*reads to the end* Uh... Okay? There was no attitude except enjoying considering ideas about a toy. I did think it odd that the Shattering wouldn't be taken as evidence of explosive properties, so if that offended you, I'm sorry. But I think odd and silly things ~~too~~. :shrugs: [Edit: Er... I think odd and silly things... far odder and sillier than anybody else. I didn't mean your idea was odd or silly. >_<] As for how the topic started, I don't know exactly what you mean, but you seem to want to say something, so please consider sending me a PM about it. Just be willing to hear me out too and consider you may have misjudged.

You generally seem like a reasonable person, and it's disappointing that somehow you have reached that kind of point. Please know that there's never any need to hesitate to bring up constructive criticism to me (although if you consider it personal, PMs are probably best ). Pet peeve of mine that people think they need to walk on eggshells around staff members. You really don't -- if you have a concern, you are absolutely free to (respectfully) voice it. And I always want that; the main reason I'm on here is to find ways to always keep improving. ^_^

As for fishers, I didn't see a criticism except assuming that I had assumed something or closed my mind to something (still not sure where that came from since I had clearly stated otherwise earlier, but okay; she probably missed that too lol). But it's against my rules to do that. (Literally; I actually wrote up rules that include that. I was a bit surprised fishers leaped to that assumption as previous statements had led me to believe she had read my posts about that, but I didn't mention it because nobody's under any obligation to remember what silly old me happens to write, heh.) Also the 'accusation' thing -- maybe you did take it that way? I expected since you're usually so reasonable that you wouldn't take it that way and would find it a possibly helpful suggestion to consider, but maybe not.

No, it wasn't. It was speculation. Almost straight-up gossiping, except Thormen was here to be offended instead of the telephone game being played.

See, I just don't consider personal tastes something to be offended about. I admit sometimes that works against me as I forget that sometimes people do, but to me it's so ingrained that all personal tastes are equal I can forget that honest curiousity about them can be taken as "are you a shrink?" If somebody wants a more complex explanation, nothing wrong with that, and if that IS what's behind it (and I'd noticed the pattern and it seemed similar to a pattern I'd followed myself -- another reason I would find being offended at it odd, BTW ) -- and identifying that, and that Bionicle (if Bionicle) wasn't aimed at that particular taste by bad luck, can help be more okay with it (if they do, as you put it, find the one they used or seemed to use more boring).

In retrospect, though, the "laughing at it" part proooobably didn't go down too well. >_< I meant it as self-deprecation... but yeah. (And the electric poles thing alone... but it could be taken the wrong way now that I think about it. :shrugs:

Anyways, outta time again... and fair warning: I had to skim some parts of these latest two posts... hope that doesn't mess things up. :lookaround: We'll see if I have time to look more closely at every part tommorrow, but this is a bad time. Thormen, please remember that you had kept asking me for more details, and I've gone way out of my way to try to answer you. Please try to consider how it may not be fair to then get angry if I wasn't crystal clear on everything. I just don't have that kind of time anymore. It sounds like you get that from a similar situation.

No hard feelings, man? ^_^

And since you asked for the moderator-level -- everybody, please remember at all times to keep this subject in perspective. Thanks. (Also, we really should try to reconnect it back up to planet size and thus the giant robot's size, heh.)

Edited May 19, 2015 by bonesiii

fishers64 · May 19, 2015

bones, I did read all of your posts on personal taste, at least ones made ever since the new forum, and a few more that were before that, because I did some poking around before the old archives died (and then I was around here in 2010-2011 anyway, so I saw a few more). I agree with nearly all of that now, after careful evaluation - it's a good talking game.

It's best not to assume that I don't read people's posts. I think I've at least skim-read all of the posts in S&T, yours included, for the past 5 years. And the PT ones interested me, so I would have read them in detail like 5 times or something as I evaluated them. Yeah, I'm a little insane there. Don't mind me.

I've also read the about 50 or so discussions that go something like this:

*debate happens, something about some factual story thing*

*bones speculates as to some preference that the person might be having*

*person gets mad at bones and accuses bones of being a condescending jerk*

bones: But I don't do that anymore! I am being falsely accused!

Me: Yes, you are. The real cause is something else, but I don't know what it is.

*everyone else groans*

Me: *facedesk*

I'm actually quite calm at the moment. A tinge of indignation, but that's about it. I guess I still could be wrong in some way, but I'll wait and see for now. Unless you have a more detailed response, I'm willing to drop the subject. But I'd thought I'd clear up this misconceptionitis while it's out there. :shrugs:

Sorry for making you read this and that long one, though.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Back on topic, Thormen's thoughts on a maze-like inner core, as oppose to a solid sphere of pure EP, would require Spherus Magna to be more dense. This would make Spherus Magna, and thus the giant robot, smaller. (Plus the other explosive would probably be more dense, etc.

Whereas a pure EP core would leave SM less dense, meaning that SM and the giant robot could be bigger.

maxim21 · May 19, 2015

Pretty sure it was the prototype. Remember, it wasn't stabilized before the discovery of EP -- the prototype exploded and was left there until Mata Nui came along and had it put back together. I think there was something about the GBs having realized by that time that EP could stabilize it and leaving instructions.

Well, there is nothing about stabilizing the old battery with EP on its BS01 page, and neither on the prototype page. On the other hand, it's cited on the GSR page.

Back on topic, Thormen's thoughts on a maze-like inner core, as oppose to a solid sphere of pure EP, would require Spherus Magna to be more dense.

I don't understand how you end up with that. I mean, if there was less EP plus a material around the same density as EP instead of a core full of EP, the global density of the core would remain the same, isn't it?

fishers64 · May 19, 2015

Back on topic, Thormen's thoughts on a maze-like inner core, as oppose to a solid sphere of pure EP, would require Spherus Magna to be more dense.
I don't understand how you end up with that. I mean, if there was less EP plus a material around the same density as EP instead of a core full of EP, the global density of the core would remain the same, isn't it?

EP is a liquid. Liquids are less dense than solids - and any solid matter to form a maze would make the planet more dense.

maxim21 · May 19, 2015

Liquids are less dense than solids

Ah, so that's why you said that. Well, that's actually false. A solid can be less dense than a liquid; that's actually how something can float on water (or any liquid): if its density is smaller than the density of water, it floats on water.

**bonesiii** · May 19, 2015

I've also read the about 50 or so discussions that go something like this:

*debate happens, something about some factual story thing*

*bones speculates as to some preference that the person might be having*

*person gets mad at bones and accuses bones of being a condescending jerk*

50? I remember three, maybe five or six. Most of the time it seems to have the opposite effect and people appreciate the help or attempted help at getting to the bottom of something that was evidently causing them annoyance. People are hard to predict, what can I say? :shrugs:

Then again, that's my memory lol. (Also, I don't speculate; I bring it up when there's good reason based on things they've said to think it may be the case. ) And if it IS around 50 due to how long I've been doing this, the positive reactions are still way beyond anything I could guess a number at. :shrugs:

Incidently, always trying to understand people is one of the best ways to try to figure out when it'll have its intended effect and when not. If somebody doesn't like being attempted to be understood, that's only going to compound the problem, you know? I'm not telepathic; I can only go based on what they say. (But I won't even assume that's what's going on here, heh. :shrugs: )

Back on topic, Thormen's thoughts on a maze-like inner core, as oppose to a solid sphere of pure EP, would require Spherus Magna to be more dense. This would make Spherus Magna, and thus the giant robot, smaller. (Plus the other explosive would probably be more dense, etc.

Whereas a pure EP core would leave SM less dense, meaning that SM and the giant robot could be bigger.

[...]

EP is a liquid. Liquids are less dense than solids - and any solid matter to form a maze would make the planet more dense.

So, we would have Munty's solid EP version as most dense, in your interpretation, Thormen's as a mix, other mixes possible then on a range to pure EP liquid core? I guess that works. Not sure about required though -- different solids can have different densities. :shrugs: [Wait... I thought you said MORE dense... The above post made me catch this though. I would think the liquid would be more dense? If it's anything like water, anyways. Then again, that depends on the molten vs. solid nature of the rock; I have argued it is probably not mostly molten since Bara didn't collapse inward, but we don't know that. And of course, on the substances involved. Anywho. I grant that it's possible. ]

Edited May 19, 2015 by bonesiii

FallenCor · May 19, 2015

(Just skimming this thread for now.) Perhaps the canon height would be easier to comprehend if we imagine that the story team was using some (smaller) MU definition of the foot as opposed to the 1959 international foot many of us Earthlings use, ha ha.

IcarusBen · May 19, 2015

(Just skimming this thread for now.) Perhaps the canon height would be easier to comprehend if we imagine that the story team was using some (smaller) MU definition of the foot as opposed to the 1959 international foot many of us Earthlings use, ha ha.

That's what I keep trying to tell them, but they don't listen.

The 1st Shadow · May 19, 2015

(Just skimming this thread for now.) Perhaps the canon height would be easier to comprehend if we imagine that the story team was using some (smaller) MU definition of the foot as opposed to the 1959 international foot many of us Earthlings use, ha ha.
That's what I keep trying to tell them, but they don't listen.

The problem there is that they were trying to use a measurement that we as the readers would understand.

Bear in mind, some people on here have trouble with the bio/kio/mio measurements. So, imagine a more casual reader going through the stories, and reads "the rahi was about 60 feet long," or "...when one is over 40 million feet tall," and having to translate the familiar "feet" into some measurement they've never even heard of.

In other words, you're trying to make it too overly complex. I understand fully where you're coming from, but in context (both in story and for the more casual readers), it makes absolutely no sense.

IcarusBen · May 19, 2015

It makes less sense than a robot that can't even fit on an earth-sized planet without it's feet sticking out into space?

Okie-dokie!

**bonesiii** · May 19, 2015

It makes less sense than a robot that can't even fit on an earth-sized planet without it's feet sticking out into space?

Okie-dokie!

As you know, I liked your idea, but either way requires a retcon. I don't agree that it doesn't make sense -- it's just non-canon (just like a smaller amount of those units to make it fit on Earth-sized planet is also non-canon).

I do think shrinking the amount of units is an easier retcon than shrinking how big that unit is, though, at this point. I think your idea would have worked great had it been adopted and promoted in 2001 but it's too late for it (at least if you also shrink Toa/etc.... I suppose that part is unneeded... might be worth considering... but since then we're really just shrinking the giant in terms of real-world feet and people will 'translate' that to Earth miles/kilometers, might as well shrink the amount of "feet" ).

Okay, Thormen, I read your latest post in more detail. Some highlights:

-Good point about the magma theory being problematic with the heat being near EP. The traditional theory (due to the collapse problem I mentioned earlier; I don't recall this one being brought up) has been that due to the planet's massive size and stresses that could cause, there were some pockets of magna near the surface but that the core was solid. This was before Greg chimed in about gravity, though, and I don't recall seeing the topic revisited since that.

-I agree the pipe thing is an issue, but it's been an issue in various ways with every interpretation, because something that transforms or destroys most (vast majority of?) substances being forced up through who knows-how-many things to a well is odd from the get-go. That may suggest a natural formation of a substance (I theorize exsidian-rich rock) that forms a pipelike shape and function. That could work under many theories including yours, methinks (it would be difficult with the majority-magma theory though).

We do have to keep in mind too that the substance has self-motive abilities (whether consciously controlled by the Entity or not, though as far as I know we've only heard of the former). So the normal rules of a liquid's behavior might not apply.

-About why the EP is there, my basic theory (regardless of how the Shattering works) is that if it was ever anywhere else, it ate like an acid through most substances and gravity naturally made it end up there early in the planet's history. In your theory, if it wasn't always there, most likely the other explosive would be a product of EP transformation. (Or maybe something else was, which reacted with it in your idea, and didn't exist there before because EP was, but now we're adding yet another unknown. )

-To fishers' question about how the GBs would know the other substance is there, that's actually easy -- same ways we know the basic composition of our own core. They could then naturally want to find a bit of it on the surface and see how it reacts to conditions related to EP. That still doesn't fit the image with the table explosion, though; it looks like it's contact with the substance that causes the explosion, not a lack of EP or whatnot.

If they do have a problem, telling them why it's less likely is enough.

Normally it should be, yeah, but I had already done that, and he kept asking me why and not accepting that answer, and he wasn't accepting to just agree to disagree on it, so at that point, normally that's when considering there might be something else going on is best.

(Many times in the past, BTW, this has still in the long run proved best even in the few cases where they misinterpret at first. Misinterpretations can be cleared up with further discussion. But if nothing is done to try to identify the reason for the unusual responses, usually it never gets better. Remains to be seen how he'll react after this, though. FTR, it might be best to just drop it and let him continue it by PM if he feels the need.)

It looks like a better approach might have been to scrutinize the line I breezed past about Ockham's Razor. I forget how he worded it before, but now it looks like he disagrees with it in general (which I wouldn't have imagined). But I only barely noticed the earlier statement, so had no idea he meant something like what he now seems to mean. Regardless, unless he chooses to explain, I dunno what else to say there.

Although it might help to point out that I've recently started considering that so important as to deserve a fifth spot after my old four rules for effective truthseeking (open mind / systematic uncertainty, sound logic, all-inclusive research, and considering all possibilities). Ockham's Razor is very useful in my experience. But I don't know why he seems to think it isn't so don't know how else to start going about showing him why.

BTW, fishers, please remember my response was aimed more at you than Thormen anyways, since you had actually said the old normal theory was "boring". You brought it up, so it's frankly unfair of you to act like my commenting on that was somehow unwarranted. It was partly a defense of it in response to your saying that. I only mentioned that it might be the case with others because I'd actually been wondering that based on several clues in their posts, and I took your seeming to voice that as likely confirmation I was on the right track. Still not convinced I wasn't, too.

But I'm always up for even more experimentation with even more ways to do things, and trying some weird blend of total silence on personal taste's role might be worth trying out... I just suspect it will hurt more than help, as leaving elphants in rooms to grow usually doesn't end well. I actually suspect the opposite might be the problem; that it's gone unsaid too often of late... but I'm not sure because the fanbase is aging and everything changes when that happens, often in ways hard to predict from past experience. :shrugs:

And... outta time again... Anywho. Giant robotserzorz.... >___>

Edited May 19, 2015 by bonesiii

IcarusBen · May 19, 2015

My theory can actually be justified in that the GSR is 40 million feet, but the unit of measurement known as "feet" is different for the GBs.]

There! Problem solved, retcon averted. Who wants kebabs?

The 1st Shadow · May 20, 2015

My theory can actually be justified in that the GSR is 40 million feet, but the unit of measurement known as "feet" is different for the GBs.]

There! Problem solved, retcon averted. Who wants kebabs?

Still doesn't work. You're missing the point. If they used different measurements, why not just flat out say them?

No, the story is being translated to us as the readers in a manner that we are familiar with (none of the Toa or Agori speak English, for example). So, "feet" is OUR understanding of the measurement, to let the READER have a better grasp of what the story is telling us. If "feet" is something that 10-year old Josh uses every day in Math class, what do you think he's going to think "feet" means when he reads one of the books, without it ever once being said that, "their definition of 'feet' is actually about 1/3 the length of an Imperial foot?"

Simple: he's going to think that "feet" means exactly what it was intended to mean--twelve literal inches.

IcarusBen · May 20, 2015

Okay, so a retcon is needed. Again, at least it makes more since than a robot that can't even fit on the surface of our planet.

fishers64 · May 20, 2015

Liquids are less dense than solids
Ah, so that's why you said that. Well, that's actually false. A solid can be less dense than a liquid; that's actually how something can float on water (or any liquid): if its density is smaller than the density of water, it floats on water.

Back on topic, Thormen's thoughts on a maze-like inner core, as oppose to a solid sphere of pure EP, would require Spherus Magna to be more dense. This would make Spherus Magna, and thus the giant robot, smaller. (Plus the other explosive would probably be more dense, etc.

Whereas a pure EP core would leave SM less dense, meaning that SM and the giant robot could be bigger.

[...]

EP is a liquid. Liquids are less dense than solids - and any solid matter to form a maze would make the planet more dense.

So, we would have Munty's solid EP version as most dense, in your interpretation, Thormen's as a mix, other mixes possible then on a range to pure EP liquid core? I guess that works. Not sure about required though -- different solids can have different densities. [Wait... I thought you said MORE dense... The above post made me catch this though. I would think the liquid would be more dense? If it's anything like water, anyways. Then again, that depends on the molten vs. solid nature of the rock; I have argued it is probably not mostly molten since Bara didn't collapse inward, but we don't know that. And of course, on the substances involved. Anywho. I grant that it's possible. ]

All liquids aren't water, and all solids aren't ice - I was thinking that the maze-like stuff would be composed of rock, which would be more dense then water. (Water is more dense than ice due to hydrogen bonds...)

Or EP. I don't see why EP doesn't follow normal matter-form density rules.

We do have to keep in mind too that the substance has self-motive abilities (whether consciously controlled by the Entity or not, though as far as I know we've only heard of the former). So the normal rules of a liquid's behavior might not apply.

-About why the EP is there, my basic theory (regardless of how the Shattering works) is that if it was ever anywhere else, it ate like an acid through most substances and gravity naturally made it end up there early in the planet's history. In your theory, if it wasn't always there, most likely the other explosive would be a product of EP transformation.

I'm not sure how the liquid being able to move on its own or acidic properties suddenly makes it more dense than solid rock.

If it is not more dense than solid rock, however, it kills the maze core theory because the gravity of the planet would suck the more dense rock to the inside of the core, leaving the EP around it. Unless some power in the EP prevents that.

-To fishers' question about how the GBs would know the other substance is there, that's actually easy -- same ways we know the basic composition of our own core. They could then naturally want to find a bit of it on the surface and see how it reacts to conditions related to EP. That still doesn't fit the image with the table explosion, though; it looks like it's contact with the substance that causes the explosion, not a lack of EP or whatnot.

A fair point, I suppose.

* * *

Part of me wants to dig up examples for the "50 discussions" thing to prove my point. But in this case, I think I'll refrain. This topic is bad enough. Let's see if I can close this.

BTW, fishers, please remember my response was aimed more at you than Thormen anyways, since you had actually said the old normal theory was "boring". You brought it up, so it's frankly unfair of you to act like my commenting on that was somehow unwarranted. It was partly a defense of it in response to your saying that. I only mentioned that it might be the case with others because I'd actually been wondering that based on several clues in their posts, and I took your seeming to voice that as likely confirmation I was on the right track. Still not convinced I wasn't, too.

Welp, okay. For the context, I worded that joke badly. I apologize for offending you. I honestly had no idea that you would take it that way. It seemed that I discounted your role in the discussion (I thought you left) and then Thormen thought your response applied to him (worse, I thought it applied to Thormen because of the context of the debate - you said that you thought that it was "what was going on here", and since I agreed that your explanation was more likely, well yeah).

I don't expect the world to line up with my personal tastes. And I expect that whenever I have to buck up and face reality, there will be some pain involved. I tend to project that onto others, because I have had numerous observations, IRL and even on BZPower, that this is true. I believe that the human condition is wrapped around one single overriding fact - we don't like the truth.

However, avoiding the truth causes even more pain. Therefore, acknowledging the truth reduces long term pain and suffering, but does not eliminate the pain of acknowledgement required for each new revelation. However, I do not pretend that all truth revelations are painful - some are quite pleasant or neutral. But that's because they please my personal tastes (or my personal tastes have nothing to say on that subject, so I'm neutral). But pretending all truth revelations are a box of chocolates is ignoring the main part of what makes us human.

So this boils down to a difference in methods of figuring out personal tastes, I think. When I wrote that post to Thormen, I was acknowledging that his idea appealed to me on some level, even though I disagreed with it and thought it less plausible than your explanation. The objective behind that is to make the person in the debate more comfortable acknowledging that they were wrong, and that there was some taste there, and that I'm not going to bash their face in for being wrong because of taste.

Normally I'd just acknowledge the person's taste as legit and that I didn't share it, and it's a cool taste to have, but unfortunately the truth doesn't add up to make it happen here, sorry buddy. But in this case I did share the taste. Which I thought was pretty cool, so I said it. (And then I used the words "boring bonesiii explanation" to save space. FAIL. )

In short, it's putting me on their side - it's not me versus other people, it's me and other people versus the bloody truth. Now at great risk to my self I will say that is not how things should be, but it is how things are. I'm human, and I live in a universe filled with human beings, and to talk with humans, you got to talk on their level.

I must say I was miffed because you ruined the technique by painting Thormen's tastes as the "the reason he was wrong" basically undoing what I was trying to do there. If I continued agreeing, the entire fight was sunk, so I painted you as the truth-covered truth-siding evil truth-wielding villain to complete the technique.

Which ya are.

It's like a person's mind is a maze vault. What happens when you get to the guards in front of the personal taste vault doors? Do you kill them all? I prefer to give them donuts and persuade them to open the vault for me. Only this time, someone else came up behind me when I was opening my donut box and started shooting at everyone. So I pulled out my flame sword and cut him up. "Sorry for the inconvenience." I grumbled. "That's bonesiii, again."

But how did you miss all the mortar shells being thrown at the vault already? Don't they already do enough damage?

Of coarse, the ironic thing is the guy who launches the mortar shells is my friend. He was the one who gave me the donut box in the first place, told me that I would be better off soothing the pain while he took care of the rest.*

Such a girly approach to life. Or perhaps, a personal taste of mine? But one that I should not exercise at your expense, as tempting (and oh dang is it tempting) as it may be.

But that's an old disagreement of mine that I've had for years with you, ya silly bones lol. I need to better allocate for it when writing as part of the facts rather than assuming it can be changed.

*this comes close to referring to NSFBZP RL. I'm using an analogy for a reason.

See, I just don't consider personal tastes something to be offended about. I admit sometimes that works against me as I forget that sometimes people do, but to me it's so ingrained that all personal tastes are equal I can forget that honest curiousity about them can be taken as "are you a shrink?" If somebody wants a more complex explanation, nothing wrong with that, and if that IS what's behind it (and I'd noticed the pattern and it seemed similar to a pattern I'd followed myself -- another reason I would find being offended at it odd, BTW ) -- and identifying that, and that Bionicle (if Bionicle) wasn't aimed at that particular taste by bad luck, can help be more okay with it (if they do, as you put it, find the one they used or seemed to use more boring).

In retrospect, though, the "laughing at it" part proooobably didn't go down too well. >_< I meant it as self-deprecation... but yeah. (And the electric poles thing alone... but it could be taken the wrong way now that I think about it.

I thought the electric poles thing was funny - it's the implication that your theory was aimed at Thormen, not me (Why would I think that it was aimed at me? I wasn't arguing with you or even talking to you.) that got this mess going.

It's pretty clear that you understood what I described above, because you were trying to use the same technique on me! But I would have acknowledged the truth anyway in spite of my taste, so there's no need to "hand me a donut box". That doesn't make any sense - I already acknowledged what the truth was! I was arguing for it in that very post! So what did you think I concluded?

And I'm completely okay with the most likely possibility being canon. I'm even okay with your idea being canon. All I do is acknowledge is that his idea has an appeal, and suddenly I'm this terrible person because I'm not jumping for joy at your idea. Because the truth is just that amazing. Oh please. And you just happen to have it.

Oh, gosh and golly gee whisikers, this is awful. Welcome to the real world - it takes time for people to even acknowledge stuff as real, let alone appreciate it. Some people just can't appreciate it. And if they haven't gone through the painful stage of acknowledgement yet, they'll never get to appreciation, if they can get there about that particular thing. That requires a whole change in personal taste, which can take years to happen. I know of people with self-destructive personal tastes who acknowledge the truth, walk away from the self-destructive stuff that they want, and have to deal with the unfulfilled taste for the rest of their lives.

And since you made this personal, right now I am surrounded by people who think that I don't appreciate the truth enough about certain things, and can't seem to get through their thick skulls that I have different personal tastes than them and that the possibilities and options I have are wider than the narrow scope they see. I think having more of my personal tastes aligned with the facts is a nice and pretty goal, but right now it's pretty far away. And this doesn't bother me too much - I know that most of my personal tastes will lie unsatisfied. That's how this world works.

The truth is what it is. And you can't make me like it. I'm not the only person who finds that goal irritating, if not downright intolerable.

(FTR, I don't have a preference for complexity. I like things simple. I liked Thormen's idea because I find it funny. It's comically hilarious. Didn't you read the joke I posted right before that line?)

It looks like a better approach might have been to scrutinize the line I breezed past about Ockham's Razor. I forget how he worded it before, but now it looks like he disagrees with it in general (which I wouldn't have imagined). But I only barely noticed the earlier statement, so had no idea he meant something like what he now seems to mean. Regardless, unless he chooses to explain, I dunno what else to say there.
Although it might help to point out that I've recently started considering that so important as to deserve a fifth spot after my old four rules for effective truthseeking (open mind / systematic uncertainty, sound logic, all-inclusive research, and considering all possibilities). Ockham's Razor is very useful in my experience. But I don't know why he seems to think it isn't so don't know how else to start going about showing him why.

But I'm always up for even more experimentation with even more ways to do things, and trying some weird blend of total silence on personal taste's role might be worth trying out... I just suspect it will hurt more than help, as leaving elphants in rooms to grow usually doesn't end well. I actually suspect the opposite might be the problem; that it's gone unsaid too often of late... but I'm not sure because the fanbase is aging and everything changes when that happens, often in ways hard to predict from past experience.

Eh, I struggle with oversimplifying things, so maybe not.

It's probably just a boiling down to a difference in methodology, and a stab at an overly offensive goal. I'm okay with moving this to PM if you feel the need, but I think we may have to agree to disagree here. No one who I have run across who plays this game gets far with me. They just turn into monsters.

Apologies for my own mistakes, however.

**bonesiii** · May 20, 2015

fishers, I'm gonna have to read most of your post later, but just FTR in case you were worried, I wasn't offended. I just saw you calling something boring, that I didn't find boring, and while I accept that due to your tastes it's perfectly okay for it to be, just wanted to try to explain some of why I personally don't find it so.

Also, I thought I said it may be going on here, not was. *checks back real quick* Well, "probably", but yeah. "May" or "might" would have been better, as well as my usual emphasis on "something to consider and ignore if it's not the case" -- but for longtime members I usually drop that as I presume most of them would get that automatically. :shrugs: Maybe it's best to err on the side of always mentioning that if I bring it up at all?

On-topic:

Yeah, who knows about density, really. Let's just say that it could play a role in connecting this subject back to the giant robot's size, but further thought (and maybe info we'll never have) would be needed to figure out how.

FTR, the liquid moving thing was directed at the pipe-from-core issue, not density. Sorry for the confusion. (If that's still not clear, feel free to ask and I'll try to explain it.) And acidity was about why EP might be in the core, again not about density.

Incidently, I'm not clear on what you mean by "maze core", but probably my fault for skimming (okay, the evil clock's fault ). If you've already explained it that I missed, feel free to ignore this.

IB, wouldn't you agree, though, that if the units are just redefined, it is actually just a roundabout way to shrink the size in the units we were given, so just retconning the amount of units down would be the same thing but more direct? (And probably less confusing to most fans?)

I still like the idea just 'cuz of the side effect of having Toa at set size, but it's 15 years too late.

Poll: Size the Mata Nui robot

How big do you like dem giant robotz? 140 members have voted

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

How big do you like dem giant robotz?
140 members have voted