Jump to content
Naota Takizawa

Earth Does Not Equal Stone? How?

Recommended Posts

Please move this post if it is in the wrong forum.

 

Anyway, here's a question I have. How come Earth & Stone aren't the same element? In every series except Bionicle, Earth encompasses Stone and it isn't even considered its own element, yet Stone is a separate element from Earth? Who came up with this idea and why was it approved? I'm not mad about it, it's just a question that's been on my mind.


If you like Pingu & want to support a good project, click here. Also, I've rejoined the BZPRPG & I have a new profile for a new game. Click here to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd forgotten about that.


If you like Pingu & want to support a good project, click here. Also, I've rejoined the BZPRPG & I have a new profile for a new game. Click here to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, it's more that the wielders of those elements are biologically different than that the elements themselves are different.

 

Main difference I can think between the two is that, stone is in deserts, and earth is in caves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that Bionicle is the spiritual successor to Throwbots/Slicers/RoboRiders/etc. and different biomes were a big thing in those series.

 

When you look at it from that perspective, they aren't really Stone and Earth, rather they're Desert and Underground.  As the story became more fleshed out and we got a more in-depth explanation of how Toa elements work, the fact that they were separate started to make less sense.

 

In my headcanon, the "jurisdiction" between Earth and Stone is divided by particle size: Toa of Stone can control the big stuff, while Toa of Earth can control the smaller stuff (since dirt is just crushed up rocks with some organic matter mixed in).

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the two being separate elements in G2 is also mostly a holdover from G1 simply because doing something like merging the two would have forced them to select a new element for either Onua or Pohatu (depending on which element they dissolved into the other), and then most of the G1 fans would have gone ballistic.

 

No thank you. :P

  • Upvote 8

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/007lewa/bzpgot/sig.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Water and Ice are separate even though they're different forms of the same substance. 

 

Also in G2, Stone lets you control sand. It always bugged me that G1 didn't allow that.

Edited by Kumata
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was confused by this at first, too, but as I really start to get into Bionicle I can see the differences. Besides powers, there are also cultural and personality difference between the elements. Environments play a big part also, as mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like Pokemon's Ground and Rock types.

 

Earth(ground) is dirt, compact soil, clays and stones ONLY if the stones are still connected to the ground.

 

Stone(rock) is rock. literally any rock, and only rock, rock that the toa can lift clean off the ground without negating its "stone-y-ness"

 

that covers how Onua can "use" stones, he only can when they're part of the "earth".

  • Upvote 1

bnnrimg1.pngbnnrimg2.pngbnnrimg3.pngbnnrimg4.pngbnnrimg5.pngbnnrimg6.pngbnnrimg7.pngbnnrimg8.png


Corpus Rahkshi characters: Snap, Teeth ,Rose,Kaita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/\ Right.

 

Stone lets you control stone, Earth lets you control earth. Which brings up something interesting:

 

If Onua let out a nova blast, would it rupture the planet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

/\ Right.

 

Stone lets you control stone, Earth lets you control earth. Which brings up something interesting:

 

If Onua let out a nova blast, would it rupture the planet?

A nova blast is Bionicle's equivalent to a nuclear bomb, so probably not.

But, if he organized a big party filled with Onu-Toa and they all did a nova blast at the same time, then probably. 

  • Upvote 4

bZpOwEr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm looking at it from the elemental aspect.

 

If he hit the ground with a nova blast, would it carry his power through, or would it dissipate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here's a graph I found on the internets displaying the components of an atomic bomb's detonation:
EnergyBreakdown.jpg
Source.
Now I know that physics need not apply in the universe, but I'm hoping that it's safe to assume that we can carry over these percentages from a nuclear bomb to a nova blast. 

If I'm correct about how the conversion would work, approximately 85% of a nova blast is the element, and 15% is elemental energy, assuming that radiation = energy can be applied. 

However since we don't know for sure how much force a nova blast has, we can't determine if it would rupture the planet. But we can assume that since Onua is a Toa Nuva, and thus one of five Toa that tie for second place in the power scale (Tahu being the first), his nova blast would probably be on the higher end of a nuclear weapon's detonation ability. 

Now this is where I start to stretch the assumptions even more. Since Tahu is the strongest Toa in operation, his equivalent to our world would be the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful nuclear detonation ever, which was conducted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Thus we'd have to pick the next in line, which was the Operation Castle Series, performed by the United States of America. Operation Castle equated to 48,200 kilotons of TNT.

To quote the website that I cited for the pie chart:

 

 

One megaton is equivalent to 4.18 x 1015 joules.

A megaton weapon has the power of one million tons of TNT. Since Onua Nuva's nova blast is 48,200 kilotons of TNT, that would make it 48,200,000 tons of TNT, or 48.2 megaton weapons. One megaton weapon generates 4.18e+16 joules. So, Onua Nuva's nova blast would generate 2.0147e+18 joules. 

 

Now how this converts to rupturing a planet, I haven't any idea. You'd need to take into account the density of Spherus Magna's various soil horizons, as well as the various spheres within the planet. 

So I can give you how much energy it would produce, but not how much damage it'd be able to cause. 

  • Upvote 4

bZpOwEr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always held that the distinction is earth is organic material and stone is not. That solves the debate handily.

 

~B~

Edited by Ballom
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of it this way:

Onua, Master of Land

Pohatu, Master of Rocks

Maybe they could have changed Onua to be gravity... Idk...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as G1 goes, it's particle size canonically. Really very simple. ^_^

 

Below sand particle size is Earth, above is Stone, and sand is a separate (SM) element. In G2 it's sand and above is stone, but otherwise seems about the same so far.

 

No, it's not environments per se, though Matoran and presumably Toa of each element will prefer environments that focus more on that. But caves for example can be more stone than Earth technically (and that kind of cave is even safer to live in by far!); they prefer caves more because they don't like direct sunlight, a trait which is associated with Earth because it's easier to dig in dirt. Indirect, but it did make some sense. And no, it isn't about organic or not, as inorganic rock ground up small enough is Earth, and organic dirt can be cemented into Stone.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well that sounds like a really complicated way to separate the two compared to the "rock vs ground type" concept, but okay.

 

this is the GBs and by extension, the GregF we're talking about here. :t

 

EDIT: Wait a flip, that can't be it, particle size is contradicted at several points in the Bionicle story, when Onua is seen manipulating the huge stony faces of caves in or around Onu-Koro! (and i can't say for sure but i'm p sure Nuparu and Whenua do similar while in underground areas...)

Edited by Rahkshi Lalonde
  • Upvote 3

bnnrimg1.pngbnnrimg2.pngbnnrimg3.pngbnnrimg4.pngbnnrimg5.pngbnnrimg6.pngbnnrimg7.pngbnnrimg8.png


Corpus Rahkshi characters: Snap, Teeth ,Rose,Kaita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as G1 goes, it's particle size canonically. Really very simple. ^_^

 

Below sand particle size is Earth, above is Stone, and sand is a separate (SM) element. In G2 it's sand and above is stone, but otherwise seems about the same so far.

 

No, it's not environments per se, though Matoran and presumably Toa of each element will prefer environments that focus more on that. But caves for example can be more stone than Earth technically (and that kind of cave is even safer to live in by far!); they prefer caves more because they don't like direct sunlight, a trait which is associated with Earth because it's easier to dig in dirt. Indirect, but it did make some sense. And no, it isn't about organic or not, as inorganic rock ground up small enough is Earth, and organic dirt can be cemented into Stone.

The problem with particle size is that both soil and sediment (going with these as more precise alternatives to earth and stone; I think this is pretty unambiguous because sediment is derived from rock, and soil being considered earth follows directly) can exist as extremely small particles: silt, which is very low on the scale of particle sizes can be either soil or sediment. Particle size therefore cannot distinguish earth and stone.

 

As for your claim that inorganic rock ground small enough is earth, do you have a proper source for that? I've never heard of inorganic material qualifying as earth. Merriam-Webster defines earth in the sense in question as "the material in which plants grow," or in the full definition as "the solid footing formed of soil." Plants require organic material to grow, and soil is partly organic (teeming with life, as it were). Ergo, earth must be organic.

 

Also, given that cement is beyond Matoran technology demonstrated in Gen 1, its ability to potentially cement dirt appears moot.

 

~B~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As far as G1 goes, it's particle size canonically. Really very simple. ^_^

 

Below sand particle size is Earth, above is Stone, and sand is a separate (SM) element. In G2 it's sand and above is stone, but otherwise seems about the same so far.

 

No, it's not environments per se, though Matoran and presumably Toa of each element will prefer environments that focus more on that. But caves for example can be more stone than Earth technically (and that kind of cave is even safer to live in by far!); they prefer caves more because they don't like direct sunlight, a trait which is associated with Earth because it's easier to dig in dirt. Indirect, but it did make some sense. And no, it isn't about organic or not, as inorganic rock ground up small enough is Earth, and organic dirt can be cemented into Stone.

The problem with particle size is that both soil and sediment (going with these as more precise alternatives to earth and stone; I think this is pretty unambiguous because sediment is derived from rock, and soil being considered earth follows directly) can exist as extremely small particles: silt, which is very low on the scale of particle sizes can be either soil or sediment. Particle size therefore cannot distinguish earth and stone.

 

As for your claim that inorganic rock ground small enough is earth, do you have a proper source for that? I've never heard of inorganic material qualifying as earth. Merriam-Webster defines earth in the sense in question as "the material in which plants grow," or in the full definition as "the solid footing formed of soil." Plants require organic material to grow, and soil is partly organic (teeming with life, as it were). Ergo, earth must be organic.

 

Also, given that cement is beyond Matoran technology demonstrated in Gen 1, its ability to potentially cement dirt appears moot.

 

~B~

 

Is it possible that it is possible but no one has done it yet? Akin to Avatar: The Last Airbender's Toph being an earthbender and discovering metalbending, maybe a Toa of Earth (or Stone) could discover how to create cement?

 

I believe I have asked this question a month or more ago, but it is possible that like the situation of ice and water, the separation between earth and stone is rooted in old Maori mythologies and stuff? Maybe the Maori see/saw the properties of water and ice, and earth and stone being different without the knowledge about their respectful molecular similarities. I don't know much about Maori myths except a little bit about their arrival to the Pacific-Islands (specifically New Zealand), so I would have no idea if this question is founded or not.

Edited by Iaredios Paerkenon
  • Upvote 1

line.gif

new_roman_banner1.png

A RUDE AWAKENING - A Spherus Magna redo | Tzais-Kuluu  |  Pushing Back The Tide  |  Last Words  |  Black Coronation  | Blue Man Bound | Visions of Thasos   ن

We are all but grey specks in a dark complex before a single white light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, look! It's this month's version of this topic.  How I've been looking forward to this.  <_<

 

First, ask yourself this: Are Ice and Water the same element?

 

Second, if I walk up to you and hand you a bag full of loose, malleable, brown stuff, what are you going to call it? If I hand you a hard, heavier, solid object that has a very irregular form, what will you call it? There you go. 

 

The easiest way to understand the difference is to read the books and comics. Just look at any scene in which Pohatu/Onewa/Hewkii uses their powers in comparison to any scene where Onua/Whenua/Nuparu uses their powers. You should get the gist of it from there. :)

Edited by T1Shadow: The Artisan
  • Upvote 4

~Your friendly, neighborhood Shadow

 

sotpbanner.png

~Credit for Avatar and Banner goes to

NickonAquaMagna~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ice/water thing always confused me, like, when people made a deal of it i mean.

 

are Ice and water the same thing chemically? Yes, yes they are.

 

are they the same property-wise, and thusly, are they the same when thrown at your enemy?

 

no, not really.

 

(further on this, toa of ice have been shown to have more of control over cooling air/water temperatures, rather than just ice, {i'm pretty sure anyway.})

 

so anyway, the earth/stone and water/ice (and fire/plasma) thing is really just because the things are different enough in concept to make distinct powersets from, kopaka spears with icicles, gali thrashes with waves, pohatu kicks boulders, Onua makes those weird green-crack-covered columns shoot out at you.

 

(wow this is poorly written, oops.)

  • Upvote 1

bnnrimg1.pngbnnrimg2.pngbnnrimg3.pngbnnrimg4.pngbnnrimg5.pngbnnrimg6.pngbnnrimg7.pngbnnrimg8.png


Corpus Rahkshi characters: Snap, Teeth ,Rose,Kaita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

so anyway, the earth/stone and water/ice (and fire/plasma) thing is really just because the things are different enough in concept to make distinct powersets from, kopaka spears with icicles, gali thrashes with waves, pohatu kicks boulders, Onua makes those weird green-crack-covered columns shoot out at you.

 

That brings up an interesting idea:

 

The elements are separated as they are not because of chemical/material composition, but by behavior.

 

Ice is solid and doesn't move too much, cracks quite a bit, and is really cold. Water, on the other hand, is liquid and flows, and you can't really "break" it.

 

Fire burns and lasts a while, while Lightning is quick and operates on a somewhat different level, as does plasma.

 

As I said before, Stone is the hard, solid, crackable stuff whilst Earth is the softer, more malleable stuff.

 

(Also, the final battle in MNOG isn't the best example. :P )

  • Upvote 3

~Your friendly, neighborhood Shadow

 

sotpbanner.png

~Credit for Avatar and Banner goes to

NickonAquaMagna~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That brings up an interesting idea:

 

The elements are separated as they are not because of chemical/material composition, but by behavior.

How comes that this idea wasn't brought up and widely accepted in the fandom, like, some considerable time ago?..

  • Upvote 1

TOO LATE.

IT WAS ALWAYS TOO LATE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That brings up an interesting idea:

 

The elements are separated as they are not because of chemical/material composition, but by behavior.

How comes that this idea wasn't brought up and widely accepted in the fandom, like, some considerable time ago?..

 

Because everyone's stuck up on material things these days. :P

  • Upvote 1

~Your friendly, neighborhood Shadow

 

sotpbanner.png

~Credit for Avatar and Banner goes to

NickonAquaMagna~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well that sounds like a really complicated way to separate the two compared to the "rock vs ground type" concept, but okay.

How do you figure? Since rock is in the ground most of the time, that occasional fan concept is very confusing. I've never heard a definition that seemed consistent with Bionicle. Particle size is about as simple as you can get. :P

 

And it's also the same as some of the common definitions of the words. (Though "earth" can indeed mean ground, but also can mean dirt.)

 

 

EDIT: Wait a flip, that can't be it, particle size is contradicted at several points in the Bionicle story, when Onua is seen manipulating the huge stony faces of caves in or around Onu-Koro! (and i can't say for sure but i'm p sure Nuparu and Whenua do similar while in underground areas...)

When was an Onu-Toa ever manipulating stone?

 

Perhaps in some non-canon media, but you probably are referring to the large clumps of dirt Onua sometimes threw around (like in one of the 2001 comics -- this is one of the common questions that traditionally comes up in these topics when people hear the canon definition for the first time :)), or perhaps to when he used his Mask of Strength to pick up stone, etc.?

 

 

The problem with particle size is that both soil and sediment (going with these as more precise alternatives to earth and stone; I think this is pretty unambiguous because sediment is derived from rock, and soil being considered earth follows directly) can exist as extremely small particles: silt, which is very low on the scale of particle sizes can be either soil or sediment. Particle size therefore cannot distinguish earth and stone.

 

It's probably because I'm in a hurry, but I didn't see how you got to that conclusion from what's in this quote. Particle size absolutely can distinguish it. All I'm seeing in what comes before your "therefore" here is a description of small particle sizes (which, assuming we're not talking about metallic particles, would go under Earth). Could you clarify?

 

As for asking for a quote, try fishers' archives. :) It was one of the most commonly discussed subjects while Bionicle was going; it would be pretty hard for even me to be remembering that one wrong. :lol:

 

The rest of your second paragraph makes it sound like you're confusing the most common real-world definition of earth (lowercase e; English term) with the Bionicle element of Earth, but we're talking about the latter. :) Earth does indeed usually refer to soil (organic), although it can also refer to land in general, but the Bionicle element doesn't always mean organic.

 

 

I believe I have asked this question a month or more ago, but it is possible that like the situation of ice and water, the separation between earth and stone is rooted in old Maori mythologies and stuff?

I don't know that there's anything specifically like this in the Maori culture or others Bionicle was inspired by.

 

What I have heard is that they were aware that definitions of "elements" differ from culture to culture, which they took as grounds to define their own (after all, we're not talking about something like atomic elements; it's essentially arbitrary), and that they wanted more than four Toa. I think it was based on the Greek four, and the fact that Earth and Ice make for obviously different environments for people to live in. But it may not have been only Greek.

 

 

 

 

The elements are separated as they are not because of chemical/material composition, but by behavior.

 

How comes that this idea wasn't brought up and widely accepted in the fandom, like, some considerable time ago?..

That's basically a summary of what's already canon. :) As the example that brought it up shows -- Ice/Water. The way it was phrased back in the day was more about environments as experienced by Matoran/people-in-general. A snowscape versus a bay, a cave versus mesas, etc. (Volcano, you get the picture.) But that's basically behavior. (And same for why having the same elements work for both normal matter and protodermis was considered valid; they behaved the same, so the GBs had the elemental divisions treat them as the same.)

Edited by bonesiii
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When was an Onu-Toa ever manipulating stone?

 

Perhaps in some non-canon media, but you probably are referring to the large clumps of dirt Onua sometimes threw around (like in one of the 2001 comics -- this is one of the common questions that traditionally comes up in these topics when people hear the canon definition for the first time :)), or perhaps to when he used his Mask of Strength to pick up stone, etc.?

 

No i was mostly referring to in 2003, when he brought down the ceiling of Onu-Koro, which, as we could all see, was solid rock. :0

  • Upvote 1

bnnrimg1.pngbnnrimg2.pngbnnrimg3.pngbnnrimg4.pngbnnrimg5.pngbnnrimg6.pngbnnrimg7.pngbnnrimg8.png


Corpus Rahkshi characters: Snap, Teeth ,Rose,Kaita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem with particle size is that both soil and sediment (going with these as more precise alternatives to earth and stone; I think this is pretty unambiguous because sediment is derived from rock, and soil being considered earth follows directly) can exist as extremely small particles: silt, which is very low on the scale of particle sizes can be either soil or sediment. Particle size therefore cannot distinguish earth and stone.

It's probably because I'm in a hurry, but I didn't see how you got to that conclusion from what's in this quote. Particle size absolutely can distinguish it. All I'm seeing in what comes before your "therefore" here is a description of small particle sizes (which, assuming we're not talking about metallic particles, would go under Earth). Could you clarify?

 

As for asking for a quote, try fishers' archives. :) It was one of the most commonly discussed subjects while Bionicle was going; it would be pretty hard for even me to be remembering that one wrong. :lol:

 

The rest of your second paragraph makes it sound like you're confusing the most common real-world definition of earth (lowercase g; English term) with the Bionicle element of Earth, but we're talking about the latter. :) Earth does indeed usually refer to soil (organic), although it can also refer to land in general, but the Bionicle element doesn't always mean organic.

 

The pages linked to from Wikipedia, on particle sizes and silt, show that extremely small particles can be either earth or sediment. The idea that particles below a certain size must be earth and not stone is refuted by the fact that sufficiently small stone particles can be shown to exist.

 

Making the distinction on particle sizes is arbitrary and nonsensical. Am I supposed to believe someone with disintegration powers can rob Pohatu of stones to control by breaking them down small enough? And then Onua is spontaneously able to manipulate them, but not if we glue some together enough that it switches back to Pohatu's domain? Organic versus inorganic avoids this entire debacle, and as much simpler (which means better storytelling). Occam's Razor.

 

Also, yes, I am considering "Bionicle Earth" to be the same as real-world earth. To make them different things would be utterly baffling.

 

As for citations, if you make a claim that requires proof and I ask about it, it shouldn't be my duty to unearth it (pun not intended); that should rest on the person who invoked it.

 

That brings up an interesting idea:

 

The elements are separated as they are not because of chemical/material composition, but by behavior.

This is also a sensible and simple way of distinguishing them.

 

~B~

Edited by Ballom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wait, did he say that earth (matierial) and Earth (element) aren't the same thing?

 

then what does the power of Earth (capital e) refer to? the planet? does Onua control the whole of planet Earth and nothing less?


bnnrimg1.pngbnnrimg2.pngbnnrimg3.pngbnnrimg4.pngbnnrimg5.pngbnnrimg6.pngbnnrimg7.pngbnnrimg8.png


Corpus Rahkshi characters: Snap, Teeth ,Rose,Kaita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No i was mostly referring to in 2003, when he brought down the ceiling of Onu-Koro, which, as we could all see, was solid rock.

I don't know how we could see that, but rock would have earth above it, presumably, and enough downward pressure would do that if the rock was thin enough and brittle enough. I've always thought Onu-Koro was probably in an area where there was enough of a mixture to make the cavern stable enough yet also justify there being Earth Matoran living there. :shrugs: I do recall some discussion about that scene, and some dismissed it as the moviemakers not knowing the difference. Wouldn't be the first mistake they made, but I don't know what the actual intent was.

 

The pages linked to from Wikipedia, on particle sizes and silt, show that extremely small particles can be either earth or sediment.

Again, Ballom, we're talking about Bionicle's element, not the definition you're using in this sentence. :)

 

Making the distinction on particle sizes is arbitrary

Yes it is, as would be defining the element by something else, like inorganic/organic. However, once the definition was chosen, it does provide a simple and non-arbitrary way to tell between them. See a large boulder? Not so easy to tell at a glance if it's inorganic matter, but if it's a boulder and it isn't just a large clump of dirt that will break apart on a reasonably weak impact, it's Stone. See some loose particulate? You need not worry about just how it's composed to know it's Earth. Of course, the Toa wouldn't need this simplicity; they could just sense it either way. But it does seem like a better choice for the kids, if not completely non-confusing as the myriad of topics over the years have shown. :P

 

Point is, picking organic/not, or ground/not-ground would also be arbitrary, since magical elements in general are arbitrary; see my previous post on that. :)

 

someone with disintegration powers can rob Pohatu of stones to control by breaking them down small enough?

That would follow, yeah. Or if they had a power of... cementation?? Stickiness? Something like that, they might make Onua unable to control dirt, by turning it into stone. Or somebody with actual "turn to stone" power could make Kopaka not able to control ice. :P

 

Organic versus inorganic avoids this

Not really -- just changes the debacle, so now if it's loose and flowing and otherwise behaves just like Earth, but it's inorganic, suddenly it's Pohatu's domain. Oh wait, that's this year LOL. (But sand does at least behave noticeably different when you walk on it from smaller particulate, so that works. Really, any way would probably work. They just had to pick one.) But yes, that way would be valid too. :) Better than "Earth is ground", at least.

 

Also, yes, I am considering "Bionicle Earth" to be the same as real-world earth. To make them different things would be utterly baffling.

Clearly it HAS been at least mildly baffling. But I think pretty much no matter how you have Earth and Stone be separate, it's going to be confusing, because it's not a common idea. We're used to them being the same because that's how it was in the Greek version, and most fiction borrows that. So, pretty much goes with the territory. :shrugs:

 

But it's not that hard to grasp, really. Earth, by the common meaning of soil, is the most prominent and commonly-encountered type of nonmetallic natural particulate, so it makes sense to name the element after it. And of course, because it sounds cooler than "dirt" (although off the top of my head, dirt usually also refers to soil, I think :shrugs:). Similar to Iron, which was named using the same principle later. And loosely, Water, since Ice is water too.

 

As for citations, if you make a claim that requires proof and I ask about it, it shouldn't be my duty to unearth it (pun not intended); that should rest on the person who invoked it.

Not really when it's something discussed so often as to have been common knowledge oft-quoted at the time, and you're directed to how to find it yourself. The person most curious to see the quote should have some burden to spend some time if they have it to satisfy their curiosity, and have the means easily. :) But if you don't have time, I get that; I didn't have time when you asked. if you don't have time to do a Find search in fishers' archives, I might have time tomorrow. :) Let me know if you do find the time to look it up before then. ^_^ (Or somebody else can get it if they want. :P) I was answering the topic starter, who asked simply for the answer, not just for a quote. If it was a topic asking just for a quote, then yes, that would make sense (though directing them where to find it themselves would still be relevant... but then somebody else would likely have done it already heh).

 

RL, I've already answered what the Bionicle definition refers to, why are you asking again? Did you not catch that Ballom was defining it a different way as organic versus inorganic? My point was that's one valid definition (as would be land, the planet Earth, etc.) but not the one Bionicle picked. :) Otherwise, I'm not sure where you're confused? Could you clarify?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you once said the difference between Stone and Earth was that Earth was little pieces and Stone was large chunks

 

So does that mean sand would come under the control of an Earth Toa, a Stone Toa, neither or both?

 

No, I never said anything of the kind. What I said was, here's the difference -- go out and get hit with a clump of mud. Now go out and get hit with a rock. See the difference? Stone is rock. Earth is dirt. That's the difference.

 

Technically, sand would be under stone, because sand is fine rock particles. But because I don't want to take the time from the story to have to explain that, and/or risk confusing fans who DON'T know sand's connection to stone, we keep the Toa of Stone dealing with rock only and not sand.

3)whats the difference between Onua and Pohatu's power?

 

Onua controls the earth and soil... Pohatu controls stone only.

 

I ran "particle size", "earth and stone", and "stone and earth" through the files. It took me a grand total of five minutes. 

 

Children. :P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RL, I've already answered what the Bionicle definition refers to, why are you asking again? Did you not catch that Ballom was defining it a different way as organic versus inorganic? My point was that's one valid definition (as would be land, the planet Earth, etc.) but not the one Bionicle picked. :) Otherwise, I'm not sure where you're confused? Could you clarify?

 

There is literally one definition of "Earth (element)" and that is the ground beneath our feet. how could Bionicle have picked a different definition of something that is only one thing at any given time? :t

 

(i am aware, before you say it, that the earth is made of lots of dofferent soils and silts and textures, what i mean is all that is, was, and always will be what "earth" means. earth is ground, ground is earth, not gonna mean anything different anytime soon.)


bnnrimg1.pngbnnrimg2.pngbnnrimg3.pngbnnrimg4.pngbnnrimg5.pngbnnrimg6.pngbnnrimg7.pngbnnrimg8.png


Corpus Rahkshi characters: Snap, Teeth ,Rose,Kaita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RL, I don't see where you're headed with this. In your previous post you acknowledged that there are multiple definitions (including the planet for example), and in this post you say there is only one. And yes, the meaning of Earth as soil is connected to and probably rooted in (not sure, but would make sense) the meaning of ground, which I think is more ancient. But this might help -- I was curious with all this talk of definitions and looked it up in dictionary.com. We can dismiss the first few which talk about the planet and its inhabitants. This one is pretty much what Bionicle was apparently aiming at:

 

soil and dirt, as distinguished from rock and sand; the softer part of the land.

 

This would include inorganic but "softer" (smaller-grained) particulate. Not really sure how they mean "dirt" as distinct from soil here as it isn't defined within this definition, but may imply inorganic may be in the dirt category in the mind of whoever wrote that. (Or it could just be listing two common synonyms.)

 

Interestingly, they don't cite anything about organic or not there (not in the dictionary.com-exclusive list, that is -- there's some in the other dictionary cites below. Some others that explicitly go beyond organic, though, like this one in the British Dictionary:

 

the loose soft material that makes up a large part of the surface of the ground and consists of disintegrated rock particles, mould, clay, etc; soil

 

Note the disintegrated rock particles bit! :lol:

 

Apparently they don't have the Merriam-Webster one. Let's look at that since it was mentioned:

 

1:  the fragmental material composing part of the surface of the globe; especially :  cultivable soil

 

Doesn't specifically say organic, but I'd take that as the soil meaning (as far as I know that's what soil means... but probably wrong lol). But note the especially, so not only. And this defines it primarily as being "fragmental" (huh, the spellcheck doesn't believe that's a word, and I thought it was fragmentary. English is freaky like that sometimes. :D).

 

 

 

Fishers, thanks, but those quotes don't really make it clear. :P The first one sounds like he's contradicting himself, even. I'm not actually sure if this was in the archive, come to think of it, but it might be in years in between those two. It came about from a discussion he was involved in in the old Official Elements topic. He had said smaller particles (I doubt he used that exact word, incidentally) were Earth, and the question came up of which sand would fall into, since the particles there are in-between. He came down on the side of neither; in-between at the end of it. The 2007 quote sounds almost like he forgot about that discussion; that's probably what the questioner is referring to. :shrugs: Maybe not so easy to find after all, though. :P

 

I think I will indeed have a go at it myself... but tomorrow...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RL, I don't see where you're headed with this. In your previous post you acknowledged that there are multiple definitions (including the planet for example), and in this post you say there is only one.

 

Well i mean, i wasn't the one saying "earth" and "Earth" were "distinctly different" and that Bionicle "chose another definition"

 

there is one Earth (earth) when it comes to elements and it is specifically referring to the planet "Earth" (or vice-versa, i have no idea.)

 

3)whats the difference between Onua and Pohatu's power?

 

Onua controls the earth and soil... Pohatu controls stone only.

 

This greg quote here that that guy linked, here he gets it, Onua can and has manipulated rocks before, but only alongside soil or in the ground, never as his sole specialization and as far as i can tell, he's never removed just a rock from the earth itself with his powers.

 

which is why i feel the distinction is between ground and rock. Stone handles loose rocks, and like greg himself also said (if he didn't say that thing about possible confused kids after it anyway.) sand is loose particles of rock, regardless of size.

 

Onua can move those, yes, but he seems to only move them as "earth" as a whole, seemingly never as their own particles, it's all singular. earth vs rocks.

 

This, this got too long, bluh. what i mean is, Onu=Singular force, Earth. Po=seperate, defined particles, Stones.

 

(further supported: Po-matoran carve stones apart as an art form, Onu matoram mine through the earth for material gain. they interact with these similar elements differently. o: )

  • Upvote 1

bnnrimg1.pngbnnrimg2.pngbnnrimg3.pngbnnrimg4.pngbnnrimg5.pngbnnrimg6.pngbnnrimg7.pngbnnrimg8.png


Corpus Rahkshi characters: Snap, Teeth ,Rose,Kaita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i mean, i wasn't the one saying "earth" and "Earth" were "distinctly different" and that Bionicle "chose another definition"

 

there is one Earth (earth) when it comes to elements and it is specifically referring to the planet "Earth" (or vice-versa, i have no idea.)

I'm still not following you, sorry. I was replying to Ballom there who was clearly defining "earth" in his post as organic only.

 

This greg quote here that that guy linked, here he gets it, Onua can and has manipulated rocks before, but only alongside soil or in the ground, never as his sole specialization and as far as i can tell, he's never removed just a rock from the earth itself with his powers.

That would work by moving the earth around the rock, which in turn would push the rock. :) That scene at the end of the MNOG final battle gives that kind of impression, for example. Your wording here makes it sound like Onua's power is also directly moving the rock telekinetically as long as there's also some dirt around it, but then his power would be overlapping Pohatu's in a very confusing way, since the same rock taken out into the air would be Pohatu's power. Nothing about the rock changed in that example at all, just where it is, unlike water turning very cold and solid, for example.

 

Or, to use the organic/inorganic argument, if there was a whole log buried in soil, that argument alone would make the log "Earth", even though the same log on the surface would not (and would either go under Plants or nobody, unsure if dead wood counts for their control offhand). Clearly particle size would have to be involved even in that definition, so making it just about that made for a much simpler and less arbitrary answer. :)

 

Elements could work that way, but it makes more sense the way they have it (so if you get hit by a boulder with some dirt around it, versus just a boulder, that's not the same as being hit by a clump of dirt versus a boulder :P).

 

Alright, from the 2003+ collection... starting with one usually wondered in these topics:

 

 2)What would a Nova blast of earth be like? Explosion of dirt?  

 2) Yup

This one covers that stone underground is still Po, not Onu, so it's not "ground versus out of ground" but "earth versus stone":

 

How come Hewikii can make hands come out of the ground isint that a toa of earths area?

Not if there is stone under the ground, no. The hands Hewkii makes are made of stone, not earth.

Here's one that clearly shows sand is neither:

 

  1. Do Toa of earth have power over sand?

 A. No

 1. T.o. stone?

 A. No. We have too many fans who wouldn't realize sand is just ground down stone, and would get confused if the Toa of Stone was controlling sand. So we just don't do that.  

 

 1) Can Onua turn stone into earth and vice versa since stone is just condensed earth? 

 2) Can Pohatu turn earth into stone and vice versa since earth is just sediments of stone?  

 1-2) No. We don't get that complex with the powers because we don't want our younger readers to have to take a science class to understand what we're doing.

Here's the one about non-metal and it being essentially soil (hence the name as explained earlier).

 

14) Can a Toa of Earth control metal? Metal is just earth reshaped and processed.

 14) No. Earth, for the purposes of BIONICLE, is soil, not minerals and elements in the soil.

Here's another that makes it somewhat clear ground does not equal only Earth:

 

10)Vakama can shoot fire, Nuju can shoot ice and freeze things, Nokama can blast things with water, Matau can blast wind...what can Onewa and Whenua do?   

 Make earth and stone work for them. For example, Whenua can create a tidal wave of earth by calling it from the ground. Onewa can make stone spikes appear from the ground or can cause someone to be encased in stone.  

Another rejecting the "earth as ground includes stone" concept:

 

1) I'm having trouble with the differences between the Toa of stone and the Toa of Earth because isn't there stone in earth? What can stone do that Earth can't? Do you think you could give me a short list and desciption of their differences?      

 Onewa deals with rock; Whenua deals with soil. Onewa can make big rock pillars rise up out of the ground, Whenua can't. Whenua can send a tidal wave of dirt at an enemy, Onewa can't. Onewa can look at a big slab of rock and figure out just where to hit it to shatter it -- Whenua can't. Whenua can sense vibrations in the earth and know when something is coming -- Onewa can't.

I didn't see the one that settled the question in the Official Element Topic. It was probably a post, or used words I'm not finding in searches.

 

Trying the 2008+ one now...

 

I suppose this is relevant:

 

5) Would the Element Lord of Rock have control over Rock exclusively, or does he have powers over Earth, too?

5) No, just rock. Rock is not the same as earth.

And zero results at all in 2010+. While I'm at it, might as well try LMB... though its search feature is very bad, so don't hold your breath... (But the questions do often get "back to basics" so who knows...) Well, here's one:

 

5. Why aare stone and earth separate elements?

5) I used to get this question a lot. My answer was usually that if you have been hit in the head by a ball of mud -- and then hit in the head by a rock -- it's pretty obvious they are two very different things. Now, you can say we find rocks in the soil, but we also find lots of minerals underground too ... but if I did a Toa of Silver, no one would say he should be a Toa of Earth instead.

That should be enough to get the picture. ^_^ I'd add, there's also plant roots in soil, but that doesn't mean Onua controls roots directly. (But he could move a plant around by moving the dirt it's stuck in.)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...