ewilen

Obviously, the newbie thread doesn't work well as a FAQ since it's too hard to search. But I think it's intended more as a place for newbie-type questions to go so they don't clutter the rest of the forums. People who feel like dealing with newbie questions can then answer them, and everyone else is saved the trouble of seeing and clicking on threads that turn out to be devoted to FAQs. As far as I can tell, questions posted to the newbie thread get answered very quickly. It's true that some kind of faq-o-matic would work better, but that's beside the point.

From the skimming I've done of various articles (weeding out a lot of Creationism vs. Darwinism crap in the process) I gather that the strength of a simple object like a steel girder is proportional to the area of its cross section. So making it larger makes it stronger. The problem is that if you simply scale it with the same proportions, its volume goes up faster than the cross-sectional area. The mass would increase at the same rate as the volume. E.g. if you double the size, the cross-sectional area goes up by a factor of four, but the volume and mass increase by eight. Because of this effect, any forces acting on the object which are proportional to mass will start to overwhelm the material strength as the object is scaled up. Forces which are proportional to mass include gravity and inertia. So at some point, the object will collapse under its own weight. Or if the effect of gravity is reduced (e.g., on the moon or in space), the stresses induced by inertia will still be present, as when pivoting the object from an attachment point (think of an arm or a leg). If the object collides with something else, the energy of impact at a given velocity is also proportional to the mass. So in general, the object can't be moved as quickly (lest it bend or snap), and if it's involved in a collision at a given velocity, it will shatter more easily. Although living organisms are a lot more complicated than steel girders, here's a thought experiment. (DO NOT DO THIS FOR REAL!) Drop a mouse from a height of ten feet. Chances are it won't be hurt at all. Now drop a horse from the same height...and then hope you don't have to call the glue factory. Another part of the square-cube law is surface area: volume goes up by the cube of the linear scale, while surface area goes up by the square. (Simple example: compare a cube that's 1 inch on a side to one that 2 inches on a side. The ratio of surface area to volume is 6:1 for the first; for the second it's 6*2^2:2^3 or 3:1.) For living organisms this affects heat retension and dissipation, oxygen absorption and elimination of waste gases, also absorption of nutrients through the digestion system. Insects, being small, can absorb oxygen through their skin. We need lungs with their intricately convoluted (almost "fractal") interiors in order to have enough surface area.

My wife says "cute" and I agree. Congrats, Graham!

For that matter, many anime series don't have "supernatural" elements, so why should SDF Macross be an exception? Maybe we should look at the stuff that was produced around that time and earlier. We know that Gundam had Newtypes. What else was there? I don't know much about Yamato, Harlock, or Gatchaman. OTOH even if all those shows had ESP and TK, there's a pretty good reason for Macross to be an exception: maybe Kawamori et. al. were reacting against existing trends. So ultimately I don't think you're going to get anywhere with that particular argument.

Keith, we've been through this a dozen times. Your earlier exposition in this thread was a pretty good demonstration of how the new "supernatural" stuff could be fitted to the original series. But now you're making your usual leap of "since there's no proof of not-X, therefore X". All you've really got going for you is the way things have developed in Macross since M7. On the other hand there's the well-known propensity of scifi/fantasy franchises to retroactively alter plotlines and rationales. For that matter, while your demonstration is plausible, I'm not even sure Kawamori would consider it necessary or desirable to incorporate it into SDF Macross. Even though all the supernatural stuff is part of the greater Macross universe, not everything has to be affected by it.

Look at this site for some pics, including a detail regarding color/sticker variations: http://www.menet.umn.edu/~ngo/vf-1_banpresto_strike.html It doesn't have out of the box pics but this might give you an idea: http://www.menet.umn.edu/~ngo/vf-1_banpresto_super.html Basically, some people hate the Banprestos, some people think they're great. A lot depends on how much you get them for. Another factor is that the earlier ones were made worse than the later ones. It seems the Strike may be the best of the lot since the Supers have more trouble keeping their armor on. If you do a search, you'll find recommendations for overcoming some of their shortcomings, like armor falling off and loose joints. I have a Fokker Strike 1S (DYRL colors) and I'm satisfied with it.

Just to add CoryHolmes' explanation--even though dinosaurs and elephants were/are made of similar stuff to humans, their body shapes and skeletal structures are very different. It's related to a concept known as the "square-cube law"--if you scale a creature uniformly, its volume and mass will go up by the cube of the linear scale, while the cross-section of its bones will only increase by the square. Unfortunately, a lot of the discussion and debate around this topic has gotten caught up in the Creationism debate, which I don't think is worth rehashing here.

http://macross.anime.net/mecha/united_nati.../vf1/index.html describes it as "ground-combat protector weapon system" but that doesn't quite match the letters. I've seen it as 'grenade box protector' but I think that's just somebody's guess.

Yeah, I just like the stylistic connection. It sort of looks like a cross between a Gnerl fighter pod and Britai's ship. Edit: Although, viewed from the side, it reminds me of Bodolza's (DYRL) fortress.

Funny, I think that we will. All this business with Hasford and with Sara's "transgression" seems to be pointing in pretty much that direction, along with the whole "Chariots of the Gods" thing with Hasford's book and the Protoculture Theory.

Okay, just did. Maybe I'm suffering from tunnel vision, but the definitions seem to confirm my notion of "mystical" as having to do with understanding the world, as opposed to doing things like make rocks levitate or read peoples' minds. [bTW, thanks for saving me the trouble imode.] Granted there isn't a bright line separating these concepts. I'm still not sure why the word "magic" bothers you, treatment, but I think we can both agree that it's not worth getting sidetracked. So, to shift gears... Regardless of whether it's seen as "magical/mystical", I do think there's a shift from SDF Macross to M0, and I can understand why it might bother people. Basically, even if it's all just handwaving and pseudoscience, the rules of the universe changed. I'll posit a metarule of science fiction and fantasy: while there are some fantastic elements to the story, everything else must be implicitly "normal". Otherwise, the story and background becomes incomprehensible since there's no way to control expectations. SDF Macross laid down the rules and stuck to them. There wasn't any telekinesis or ESP in SDF Macross. If the viewer goes into M0 hoping for a prequel that's tied closely to the original series, the introduction of the new elements is jarring. On the other hand, if M0 is seen more as an independent work, then the "baseline" Macross stuff is taken as a given and the new ("magical") stuff is part of a new premise.

Looks quite Zentradi-ish doesn't it?

Treatment, I think you're using a very limited definition of magic. I hate to rely on a dictionary, but... http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=magic Or consider the book Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande, a classic of anthropology by Edward Evans-Pritchard. It's not about card tricks and pulling rabbits from hats.

Why? Because I don't think the meanings of those terms are as clear cut as that. In the world of (pop) fiction, they may be nearly interchangeable...and on top of that, a lot of concepts are influenced by use in earlier fiction or even roleplaying games. In an academic/anthropological sense, I think you're mistaken. I think "mystical" usually refers to ways of understanding the world, usually through meditation, inspiration, and study of secret knowledge. I think "Magic" and "witchcraft" usually connote ways of affecting the world by supernatural means. E.g., making someone sick by sticking pins in an effigy, or wearing a charm to protect you in battle. You could look the words up in a dictionary, but I doubt that would suffice. You'd probably have to refer to a textbook, and it would probably have a good deal of equivocation and finally a set of "working definitions". So when I write "mystical", I mean something more or less connected to a supernatural understanding of the world; when I write "magical", I'm probably talking about actually doing stuff. But I may not be consistent.

Thanks for the clarification. Anyway, what I was trying to say was that midichlorians simply interpose a "scientific" layer on top of the "mystical" Force. It doesn't make the fundamental concept any more scientific. That's similar to saying "It's not magical. It's based on technology developed by the Protoculture, who were magical." But (again) I can understand the notion that, no, all that stuff really is scientific and technological because the story says so. What might throw people off is the fact that two different science fiction themes are getting mashed together. a) The theme of people who used to have high technology but forgot how to use it and/or how it works, who now interpret their technology in a mystical or religious fashion. b) The theme of supertechnology or advanced/unexplained scientific principles that look like magic to us--like teleportation, telekinesis, ESP, etc. So now in M0, the supertechnology is understood/remembered by the Mayans in a mystical fashion, which throws people off.

Okay, it's definitely the head, but that's not the eye. The thing can transform quite radically. There's a scene where we see it do so as it leaves the underwater cave. The eye is apparently inside the "front" end. Here's a picture that confirms that the thing in the forest is the head. It's from when Shin goes underwater to save the head from the Octos.

Over in the Macross Zero 4 thread some people have complained about the introduction of magic or supernatural elements to Macross. Others have responded that the "magical" elements seen in M0 can be explained as advanced technology developed by the Protoculture. My response was Several posters responded that Macross has always had fantastic elements. E.g., Aegis wrote So allow me clarify and expand. Yes, SDF Macross wasn't realistic in a whole bunch of ways. But none of the unrealistic parts depended on acceptance of magical or supernatural concepts. It's true that many parts relied on scientific or technological concepts which are speculative at best--the hyperspace fold and artificial gravity--definitely; arguably the beam weapons and the toughness of the Valkyries (retroactively explained as OT SWAG armor). The fusion engines are borderline--beyond today's science but seemingly at the edge of its grasp. By comparison, the cybernetic engineering technology required to build a plane that turns into a robot is relatively down-to-earth. The cloning system of the Zentradi can also be seen as a mere extension of technology we already possess--although the transfer of consciousness between Zentradi and their micronized forms raises some difficult philosophical problems. (Unless, that is, the portion of the brain which is the seat of consciousness is transferred intact instead of just "copied". Maybe Zentradis have tiny little brains inside their giant heads?) The fact that Zentradi are giants whose bodies probably couldn't stand the stresses of their own movements has generally passed over in the name of "suspension of disbelief". I've argued that if an in-story explanation is needed, we can posit that the Zentradi's giant bodies actually incorporate structures/materials unlike human flesh and bone. E.g., bones made of alloy and some kind of strong mesh or rigging to reinforce flesh. In any case, no appeal has been made to an overtly supernatural explanation--it may be unrealistic, but it's not magical. Finally, while the pop-idol culture attack in the SDF Macross story might seem laughable to SF fans who aren't charmed by Macross, there's nothing supernatural or even super-scientific about it unless you posit a connection to anima spiritia. (I haven't seen much of M7 but I've seen a few posters make the connection.) Some posters have claimed that Sharon did some things in M+ which were "magical". I don't see it that way, although the animated coaxial cables are hard to explain. Now, in M0, I think we have much more overtly supernatural/magical elements. Again, I don't particularly mind, although I'd be just as happy to do without them. But that might require a completely different story. Among these are: Levitating rocks/flying totem poles Precognition (Sara sees things before they happen) Clairvoyance (Sara's mind link to the Bird Man's head) As I wrote earlier, it might be possible to explain these things by means of nanotechnology or quantum mechanics. But they really do seem to represent a drift away from the more "scientific" approach of SDF Macross (even if some of the science was highly speculative) to a more "mystical" feel. (Trying to explain them in a scientific sense reminds me of...forgive the reference...and I may be wrong...midchlorians. For some reason, Lucas decided that depicting The Force as a magical/religious/mystical force in the universe was unsatisfactory. So he decided to ground it in pseudoscience by explaining that people aren't using magic when they use The Force. No, they're using a symbiotic lifeform in their cells. Perfectly scientific. Oh, by the way, the symbiotic lifeform is magical.) On the other hand, perhaps the division between "magical" and "scientific" in fiction is more of a convention. If the literature says it's magic, it's magic. If it says it's scientific, it's scientific. Certainly, science fiction is full of ESP and telekinesis--but the style and setting gives it an SF feel. I'll stop typing now and see what the rest of you think.

Sorry, I don't think I can help you. I have only minor problems with the fansub, but my system is probably quite different from yours (Mac OS X). I think some of the links I point to also have associated forums. You might try posing your question over there. Be sure to include as much info about your system as possible.

Regardless of whether it's technically feasible, do any airplanes allow engaging afterburner when not already running at full thrust? Might engaging afterburner in some configurations (airspeed/AoA/thrust) cause problems?

Hm. Started a post on magic and technology in Macross but I think it's best to start a new thread.

The timecode is 25:52 in the raw (DivX) version I have. I think it's the birdman's head but it's really hard to tell. Definitely not a battroid.

Does anyone know why a VF-0 can't refuel with its gunpod mounted? That seemed contrived to me, but I'm willing to hear anybody's attempt at an in-story explanation. Science vs. magic: while telekinesis is how people refer to it in sci-fi, and the underlying principles may be explained in different ways, it's still not "hard" SF since it's not based on real-world physics. Just saying "it's technology developed by the Protoculture" doesn't help much, although it may remove some of the "mystical/religious" feel which some dislike. Same goes for ESP, precognition, etc. If I were to take a stab at firming up the science, I might try to make a connection to nanotechnology or quantum mechanics. Anyway, I don't mind the drift into fantasy too much. Nor would I miss it if they left it out.

Have a look at my sig for help with codecs.

I think what Akilae would like to know is how the Iowas managed to be so fast and so well-armored at the same time. I'll take a stab at it, though I'll bet you could find better, more detailed, and possibly more accurate discussions through a web search. Basically, once you've solved problems like streamlining and the bulbous bow, the thing that makes a ship fast is the ratio of length:width. Long, narrow ships are faster than short, beamy ones. The Iowas are very long for their beam. Secondly, and I'm sure at least as important, the extra length of the Iowas compared to the earlier North Carolinas and South Dakotas allowed the installation of bigger engines, generating nearly twice the horsepower. This gave a top speed of about 33 knots, compared to 26-27 knots on the North Carolina or South Dakota.

Doh-dough, this thread has been allowed to exist because everyone has conducted themselves with decorum and respect. Everyone agrees implicitly that insulting people is bad, and for the sake of discussion, I think we can also agree no one should be attacked for presenting their point of view in a non-hostile manner. At least, that is the spirit under which everyone has operated thus far. For the record, I generally use the term "Asian" to describe peoples from East and Southeast Asia. It's become the normal term, for whatever reason, and as someone noted up-thread, "Oriental" sounds corny. Just as does "negro", "Afro-American", or "colored person", even though those terms were all once favored both by people they described and right-thinking people of other groups. ("Person/people of color", although current in the academic/activist context you come from, is quite different.) Now, I am wondering, if your quotation of all sorts of offensive terms for various racial/ethnic groups was not related to me, then whey did you bring it all up at all? And I also wonder how it is you know so much about me, so that you can say I've never experienced prejudice and bigotry, or patronizing comments about my ethnic background? And your answer really doesn't answer a thing. It strongly suggests that, yes, you've learned to be offended by the term "Oriental" because some professor, appealing to your sense of hurt and oppression, told you to be offended. You really have little to say about what makes the term itself hateful, what specifically connects it to the history of racism and prejudice against Asians, or even to your personal experiences. What if the next time you meet a white person, she tells you she loves Asian food?