Gundam 00 — Episode 18
This post was delayed because I was at three separate Chinese New Year-related social functions over the 24-hour span of period between 8am Saturday and 8am Sunday. I only reached home this morning. But fret not, for this sudden spontaneous generation of what is common known as a “life” is an extremely rare occurrence that will probably not happen again for quite some time.
Anyway this episode was pretty good except for the fact that my brain was functioning like a half-dead zombie’s as I watched it. Or perhaps that was the reason. Either way, it’s a nice evasion from what had seemed like an inevitable descend into Destiny-ville.
Summary
The Trinity trio begins its campaign of merciless annihilation as it wipes out one military base after another without provocation. The Ptolemaios crew, along with almost everyone else, is confused as to whether these violent interventions are supposed to be part of the original plan.
Tax payers’ money
Apparently the creator(s), Aeolia Schenberg or whoever he turns out to be, of this gigantic secret organization didn’t think it through very well when he/they divided the organization into so many secret cells operating independently of one another, without providing any means for them to confirm each others’ identities.
Why must technical briefings always be done in the dark?
Ian, Celestial Being’s chief technician, discovers that the solar furnaces used by the Thrones are actually knock-offs. They lack some kind of implementation which results in them having limited operating time, unlike Exia and the rest which can operate indefinitely. This is pretty damning evidence that the Trinity siblings are evil and their Gundams are probably based on technology stolen from Celestial Being by a spy within the organization.
“Farewell Howard. We barely knew you. For real.”
With the lost of Howard Mason, a previously insignificant character, Senior Captain Graham has gained a renewed determination to beat the Gundams with his Flag and avenge his fallen comrade. Howard should be glad that he is achieving far greater good in his death.
These meetings always take place in bars
Kinue meets up with the Union soldier who claims to have seen a Gundam up close during the Taklamakan exercise. Apparently he was hidding behind some rocks when Nena exited her cockpit in enemy territory so as to give evil Haro instructions at a volume loud enough for everyone in a 100-metre radius around her to eavesdrop.
It’s good practice to stretch regularly if your job involves sitting in front of a monitor all day
The convenient plot hole aside, we learn from this conversation, and a later one, that the Trinity siblings report to an entity called “Ragna”, which sounds like a pirated copy of Veda. (Without Windows Genuine Advantage™) But it could really just be some grumpy old man with a mustache. There’s not enough information to make the call either way.
Weddings are…
On the way to one of their AEU targets, the trio passes through Spanish airspace and happens to fly over a wedding ceremony attended by the Halevy extended family, which includes Louise. Nena, being a psychotic bitch, is unhappy that some people get to have fun while she has to work her tight ass off (massacring people), so she decides to have some fun (massacring people) and fire on the ceremony. Twice.
…dangerous
This wipes out the whole Halevy lineage, except for Louise. Just think of all that inheritance…
My preciousssss
Okay, so I shouldn’t be mean. Louise is completely traumatized by the incident and she also lost her left hand, leaving her unable to accept the ring which Saji spent weeks saving up for.
Guro
Emo emo emo. I am somewhat reminded of Code Geass, in a good way.
Aim for the cockpit dammit!
Finally, Johann Trinity launches an attack against the Iris Corporation’s weapon factory, which is manned by civilians, and gets pwned by Graham in a one-on-one fight over Iowa airspace. Graham is smart because he steals Johann’s GN beam saber and uses it against the Gundam Throne. But he only manages to cut off an arm.
“Exia, exterminating targets.”
And uh, Setsuna decides to take on the Thrones. I’m guessing he’s going to get pwned, so that Exia can get upgraded into Ultra Hyper Exia Excellion Infinity, maybe?
Comments
All in all, it’s an enjoyable episode with nice pacing. It is heavily plot-based, which is a good thing because G00 is really weak when it comes to character substance.
Anyway, Louise lost part of her arm. Gundam Throne lost one of its arms. Am I the only one who thinks that something may come out of this coincidence? (Gundam Louise!)
Okay, that’s probably going too far. (I hope.) But seriously, I can just imagine Louise being abducted by some top secret joint Union-AEU-HRL black project to manufacture cyborg pilots for whatever super weapon they plan to build to counter the Gundams. Maybe some really, really huge mobile armour that shoots missiles from its fingertips and add some giant lasers for good measure. And name it something that invokes a sense of doom and destruction, like “Break”, “Kill”, “Annihilate”, or even “Destroy”. Yeah.
Also, it seems that the parent organization of Celestial Being is being set up by the story for a split-up into two factions, and the worst part: Wang Liu Mei sounds like she’s tempted to join the dark side! Oh no! :O
Screencaps
“Noooooooooo…”
My, what a huge head you have
Colin Powell’s descendant?
Tieria gets cock-blocked by Veda
“Maybe those mass murderers aren’t so bad after all…”
“Why did I volunteer to pilot the cannon fodder unit?”
The purple orb at the front looks like evil Haro
RIP
WTF? Wait… Wait… WTF!?
Graham lost a few internal organs from the acceleration
This is not the “Vader” you are looking for. *Waves hands*
Isn’t that bulge on the bed a little too big?
EMO
omg no guro pls kthxbye
“That ring was frigging expensive.”
I like to play Mahjong.
February 14th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Guner you said: Yah, tests have been done in particle accelerators. But we dont know if that applies to anything bigger than a particle.
Actually it does apply to everything bigger than a particle as everything bigger than a particle is made of smaller particles eventually going down to the smallest. This is a basic scientific FACT that u learn in like the third grade. Everything is of any size is made of smaller particles. SO if the laws of physics apply to the smallest particles does it not make sense that that apply to the things those same particles combine to create? If one particle with mass is affected by the laws of physics than all things with mass are affected by these same laws. You cannot make acceptions. The best way I ever heard it was in my sixth grade math class. What you do to the left you do to the right. What you do to the top you do to the bottom. This may have been learned in math but it applies in most sciences as well or things will not balance out. The fact is Guner, and I don’t mean any offense by this, that the way you view things can only happen in a fantasy universe. In the real universe the laws of physics apply to everything or they wouldn’t be considered laws. As for Einstien pretty much all of his ideas have been proven in his life or after it. And not just once either dozens and dozens of times in different laboratories and different experiments.
DM: I don’t know if you had reffered to any thing I had said in your post. I can’t remeber at the moment and frankly im feeling a bit to lazy to look. However if you did I’m sorry I tried going with things as best I remember, so I amy have gotten some things wrong namely about the friction in space.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Guner:
There’s no room left for argument because you are still using concepts and ideas that are exactly what relativity has displaced.
Velocity doesn’t exist only as relative ratios.
Your assumption that there’s no difference between 0.1c and 0.9c lies firmly in classical mechanics which are fundamentally wrong, and this makes all your subsequent arguments so completely and thoroughly irrelevant that it’s not even funny.
Energy is involved in accelerating an object to 0.9c, and the relative velocity between objects have nothing to do with it. Do you know enthalpy and Gibb’s free energy? The concept is sort of similar to velocity. Although we can only measure the change in enthalpy of a compound and the relative enthalpy difference between two compounds, that does not mean that enthalpy is a meaningless and arbitrary value. Every compound has a definite amount of energy content even if we cannot measure it.
Your whole argument about speed being relative shows that you have no real concept of what relativity actually means.
c is not an arbitrary limit
Your idea that the speed of light is an arbitrary limit shows that you have no idea how time progression works, and why the speed of light must be a constant in all frames of references in order for us to explain countless experimentally-obtained results. Time, space and the speed of light are intrinsically and elegantly linked in a relation that extends to the very foundation of modern physics. The velocity c is a limit placed upon all matter by time itself.
Paradigms
There is very little room left for doubt in the basic ideas of relativity. Perhaps it will be proven “wrong” one day by a even larger overreaching theorem in that sense that it may be incomplete. But for the purpose of the universe and dimensions that we are currently aware of, relativity has been proven and verified to be true, as far as the word “true” can hold meaning.
Einsteinian physics displaced Newtonian physics and did away with the concept of absolute reference frames, but that’s only because it deals with a larger domain. It certainly didn’t enable us to do anything new within the domain of Earth-based mechanics, which Newtonian physics still preside over. (Because it serves as a sufficient estimate in low velocity cases found on Earth.)
Similarly, a grand theory that supersedes relativity is unlikely to enable light-speed travel of matter, at least not in any way that you have described.
Experimental proof
Newsflash: You and I, and everyone else, live in the ideas of this dead man. Please educate yourself.
Real-life implementations
Your assertion that “nothing has been proven yet” effortlessly discounts an entire century of both theoretical and practical applications of relativity. Hey, I guess NASA implements relativistic adjustments in calculations for their satellites and deep-space probes just for the fun of it, right? And those GPS satellites that power your navigators? They adjust for time dilation too. Travelling overseas on a commercial plane? Congratulations, you extended your life span by a few nano seconds.
Einstein > you
I don’t see how anything but pure ignorance can make you conclude that “neither side can prove anything yet”, especially when your so-called “other side” exists only in your mind. So what’s your take on evolution anyway?
You criticize Einstein’s time-proven ideas without an irking of what they really are. You sound like you are disagreeing just to be different.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:58 am
“Or more like wedding rings are supposed to be worn on the left hand, at least going by Western and Japanese customs.”
buhahah…. omg, it is bug…
in Spain the wedding ring is worn on the left hand…
February 15th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Time dilation looks exactly to me like my ideas look to you. Unproven fantasy. Thats what makes us unable to properly discuss this. Relativists are using an unproven idea as the basis of their arguments, an idea i reject.
[quote]Your whole argument about speed being relative shows that you have no real concept of what relativity actually means.[/quote]
Then please tell me how you would measure absolute speed in space.
[quote]Your idea that the speed of light is an arbitrary limit shows that you have no idea how time progression works, and why the speed of light must be a constant in all frames of references in order for us to explain countless experimentally-obtained results. Time, space and the speed of light are intrinsically and elegantly linked in a relation that extends to the very foundation of modern physics. The velocity c is a limit placed upon all matter by time itself.[/quote]
I have never seen this actually proven anywhere. I have seen it inferred based on experiments which were interpreted using Einsteins ideas, which themselves have yet to be fully proven. Thats not the same as proof.
[quote]There is very little room left for doubt in the basic ideas of relativity. Perhaps it will be proven “wrong” one day by a even larger overreaching theorem in that sense that it may be incomplete. But for the purpose of the universe and dimensions that we are currently aware of, relativity has been proven and verified to be true, as far as the word “true” can hold meaning.[/quote]
Most of it. I question some of the more obscure parts.
[quote]Einsteinian physics displaced Newtonian physics and did away with the concept of absolute reference frames, but that’s only because it deals with a larger domain. It certainly didn’t enable us to do anything new within the domain of Earth-based mechanics, which Newtonian physics still preside over. (Because it serves as a sufficient estimate in low velocity cases found on Earth.)
Similarly, a grand theory that supersedes relativity is unlikely to enable light-speed travel of matter, at least not in any way that you have described.[/quote]
On the other hand, dissimilarly, if things like time dilation turn out to be wrong, then it might.
[quote]Your assertion that “nothing has been proven yet” effortlessly discounts an entire century of both theoretical and practical applications of relativity. Hey, I guess NASA implements relativistic adjustments in calculations for their satellites and deep-space probes just for the fun of it, right? And those GPS satellites that power your navigators? They adjust for time dilation too. Travelling overseas on a commercial plane? Congratulations, you extended your life span by a few nano seconds.[/quote]
GPS satellites adjust for gravitational effects on atomic clocks. We have no idea how gravity affects any other type of clock, or exactly why atomic clocks behave the way they do at high altitudes.
Also, from your own link: http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H%26KPaper.htm
[quote]I don’t see how anything but pure ignorance can make you conclude that “neither side can prove anything yet”, especially when your so-called “other side” exists only in your mind. So what’s your take on evolution anyway?
You criticize Einstein’s time-proven ideas without an irking of what they really are. You sound like you are disagreeing just to be different.[/quote]
There is no need to be snippy. Yet.
The problem with using the results of atomic clocks is that they are just one type of clock. Just like all other types of clocks, they do not measure time directly. Until we have checked that a clockwork or digital clock in low gravity or swift motion behave the same way they do, saying that “time changes” is at best a hopeful guess. And in my estimation, likely to be wrong.
Incidentally, Einsteins ideas also existed “only in his mind” for quite a long time. That in itself is no grounds for dismissing them.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:09 am
sorry about my mistake… of course:
in Spain the wedding ring is worn on the right hand…
February 15th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Guner:
Yes, except that you are no obviously no Einstein if you think that the only thing stopping objects from accelerating to light speed is drag force.
When Einstein went ahead and destroyed an entire paradigm with his ideas, he actually understood 1) the theory he displaced 2) his own theory and 3) the proof behind his theory.
You have thus far shown none of the above. What you are doing is saying that you don’t believe in everything that physicists have been doing in the recent decades based on some vague hunch that time dilation is wrong and that we should be able to accelerate to light speed just by pushing.
The reason why atomic clocks are affected by gravity is explained in general relativity. In fact, you are basically saying that general relativity does happen! Your baseless assertion that we don’t know why gravity affects atomic clocks is patently false, since GPS satellites do employ Einstein’s general relativity to adjust for relativistic effects caused by gravity and won’t work without them.
On one hand we have a formula proven to work in real-life applications, on the other hand we have baseless accusations that it doesn’t work, coming from someone who sounds like he is reading about this whole topic on wikipedia for the first time in his life.
Relativity is proven as far as physics conducted on non-human scales can be proven. Whether you believe in it or not doesn’t change that fact. You speak of “relativists” as if they belong to some kind of belief system, but in reality “relativists” may as well mean “modern physicists”.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:39 am
[quote]Yes, except that you are no obviously no Einstein if you think that the only thing stopping objects from accelerating to light speed is drag force.[/quote]
Reading too much into things. What im saying is that you would probably have laughed at Einstein too if you had been around back then.
[quote]When Einstein went ahead and destroyed an entire paradigm with his ideas, he actually understood 1) the theory he displaced 2) his own theory and 3) the proof behind his theory.
You have thus far shown none of the above. What you are doing is saying that you don’t believe in everything that physicists have been doing in the recent decades based on some vague hunch that time dilation is wrong and that we should be able to accelerate to light speed just by pushing.[/quote]
You are just going to have to take my word that i understand his ideas. Understanding them is not the same as accepting them.
[quote]The reason why atomic clocks are affected by gravity is explained in general relativity. In fact, you are basically saying that general relativity does happen! Your baseless assertion that we don’t know why gravity affects atomic clocks is patently false, since GPS satellites do employ Einstein’s general relativity to adjust for relativistic effects caused by gravity and won’t work without them.[/quote]
It is possible to reach a correct result with flawed methods.
Neither of us know exactly how much tinkering and formula adjustment it took to get the GPS adjustments right. I submit that it is likely that they needed the results from the jet clock to figure it out, that the formula alone was not enough. Unfortunately i dont know where i would find the info to confirm this.
And we still dont know how gravity might affect other clocks. It necessarily has to match the atomic clocks if this theory is right, but it has yet to be tested.
[quote]On one hand we have a formula proven to work in real-life applications, on the other hand we have baseless accusations that it doesn’t work, coming from someone who sounds like he is reading about this whole topic on wikipedia for the first time in his life.[/quote]
So just for the record, whats your scientific background?
February 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I took a semester long module on relativity. But that doesn’t matter since I am refering to understanding, not qualification.
Your appeal for me to “take your word” for it when you insist that you understand relativity does not inspire confidence. I have more than sufficiently demonstrated my understanding of the topic, why don’t you do the same? Describe the exact processes and assumptions that you seem so certain are wrong. Your argument thus far contains no substance. All you are saying over and over again is that you don’t believe in relativity because you find it unbelievable.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I must say that this is gettin kinda funny. Not the posts themselves but just how this argument is going.
DM: two things. One: your posts on this matter are all very intereseting. Two: Don’t bother arguing with Guner, I doubt he would change his mind if you got the best scientists in the world to come convince him or if you could somehow bring Einstien himself back to life.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:08 am
@Gunner
you might want to read on Maxwell’s equations, a chapter on spc relativity and partical accelerators.
speed of light is how fast information can travel in space
it’s derived from the fundalmental laws of physics. Now, if you are travelling faster than the information, that means you will make something happens before it happens. Think about that.
the idea behinds relative is that when you are travelling, or when you see someone else is travelling, physics law don’t change. Because c is derived from the laws of physics, it cannot change with speed.
Doesn’t matter if you are going at 0.01c or 0.99c. Physics laws has to be the same.
And, to satisfy rest of the laws, if you do some math, space, time, and mass has to be changed.
It turns out that you cannot accelerate something to the speed of light unless you are playing with the general theory of relative.. say.. a blackhole..
but let’s forget about that, since Exia isn’t ganna fight the thrones anywhere near a blackhole.
@dark Mirage
I feel sorry for you being involved in this long ass argument..
oh btw einstein does rock
February 16th, 2008 at 9:23 am
I agree with shadow.
February 16th, 2008 at 10:15 am
As i already said, i understand how it supposedly works. The problem, again, is that most of the key assumptions have not been proven to any meaningful degree.
The [i]other[/i] problem is that DM is ignoring whatever he feels like, while at the same time deciding what i do or dont know. Which makes it entirely pointless to try and have a discussion.
February 16th, 2008 at 10:19 am
I was too bored looking at all the scientific stuff you guys typed but that is not cool: that girl loosing that arm
I like complaining about her.
:( MEeeany TRINITY >( GGGOOOOOO EXIA!!!!;D
February 16th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Guner:
I don’t see why it’s so hard for you to describe how relativity is supposed to work and why you think it doesn’t, that is of course assuming that you really do understand the theory behind it.
My opinion is that you don’t, and you aren’t doing much to change that.
If you can describe the processes and point out the ones you think are flawed, then I can either correct your mistakes or accept your argument.
But all you are giving are vague reasons, which have long since been resolved by science, that show a poor understanding of relativity. Examples of this include your bringing up of the false twin paradox, your insistence that light is an arbitrary barrier, your illogical remark that Lorentz factor only applies to light (which totally makes no sense and sounds like something one would say after 5 minutes on wikipedia) and your assertion that relativity has not been proven yet.
These poorly justified statements all boil down to one thing: You don’t believe in relativity because you find it unbelievable.
The results predicted by relativity have been tested and verified by countless experiments. To deny the existence of relativistic effects is rather similar to denying gravity. In both cases, we have equations that give meaningful experimental results and we have observed their effects. Sure, we may not know everything about why gravity exists and what exactly is its nature, and we may never find out, but that doesn’t mean that we should discard the entire theory and promote Intelligent Falling instead.
February 16th, 2008 at 11:11 am
So, lets get back to it then?
Lets get the issues already up there resolved first. Such as, if speed is not relative as you claim, how exactly would you measure absolute speed in space?
Also, would you mind fixing the quote and cursive tags?