This is topic Trivia game! Fun while learning, the essence of a geek. in forum Science! at The Geek Culture Forums!.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=000005

Posted by Kt Smith (Member # 2293) on November 03, 2003, 16:01:
 
To start the game, I ask a science related question. First person to respond with the correct answer asks the next question and so on.

First quesion:
Approx. how old is the sun?
A. 2 billion years
B. 2.5 billion years
C. 4.5 billion years
D. 6 billions years
 
Posted by -ct- (Member # 209) on November 03, 2003, 16:49:
 
The Sun is estimated to be about 10 - 20 million years older then the Earth, and by radioactive dating, the Earth is about 4.75 billion years old, so that the Sun is therefore around 4.76 billion years. There are uncertainties inherent in radioactive dating so ages from 4.6 to 4.8 billion years are probably reasonable. Note, some of the oldest meteorites are 4.8 - 4.9 billion years, but the trapped dust grains can be much older than the Sun because dust grains are often formed in old stars 10's to 100's of millions of years before they got to the cloud out of which the Sun and planets formed.
(i knew this already, but i am not able to get my thoughts to paper (keyboard) so easy) (side note: that's probably my one big problem, getting my thoughts and ideas out of my head and into a form someone else can understand)

Q: if atoms are made of nutrons, eletrons, etc, and those are made of quarks, ups, downs, etc - what are THEY made of?

damn discovery channel had a special about string theory and didn't even ONCE mention those particals, of which we HAVE seen evidence of

there, that'll keep ya busy
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on November 03, 2003, 22:09:
 
Nice idea for a thread there Smitty, now we have to find a way to stop people Googling like -ct- who ripped his post right out of here

Will the real Dr. Sten Odenwald please stand up?

 -
 
Posted by Orpheus (Member # 2397) on November 03, 2003, 22:14:
 
Well, supposedly everything is made of supersymmetric vibrating strings. I don't know what the latest number of valid dimensions is... think it was something like 10 or so last I read. but there's a few configurations that seemed viable.... 'course I could be wrong so until we know I guess my question will be in a superposition of states of "asked" and "not asked". so someone can in theory get away with a half-assed answer.

here's one for the physical chemists out there, or possibly the google savvy... but then that's just cheating.
Q: How many forms of ice (solid H20) are there? And what well known author wrote a novel about a fictional new state of ice used as a doomsday device?

good luck...
 
Posted by Orpheus (Member # 2397) on November 03, 2003, 22:18:
 
hehe busted...
 
Posted by Cap'n Vic (Member # 1477) on November 03, 2003, 22:49:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus:
Well, supposedly everything is made of supersymmetric vibrating strings. I don't know what the latest number of valid dimensions is... think it was something like 10 or so last I read. but there's a few configurations that seemed viable.... 'course I could be wrong so until we know I guess my question will be in a superposition of states of "asked" and "not asked". so someone can in theory get away with a half-assed answer.

here's one for the physical chemists out there, or possibly the google savvy... but then that's just cheating.
Q: How many forms of ice (solid H20) are there? And what well known author wrote a novel about a fictional new state of ice used as a doomsday device?

good luck...

I am gonna guess here: Four states.

[Smile] Liquid
[Smile] Solid
[Smile] Gas
[Smile] And a state that I don't know the name of but heard Xanthie mention once, where the H20 was in all 3 state at once....(or possibly 2 only two states at one [crazy] )


Help me out Xanthie


[Confused] In the Arctic winters, sounds like a person yelling or a car engine can be heard more than 10 kms away, why?
 
Posted by Orpheus (Member # 2397) on November 03, 2003, 23:05:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus:
Well, supposedly everything is made of supersymmetric vibrating strings. I don't know what the latest number of valid dimensions is... think it was something like 10 or so last I read. but there's a few configurations that seemed viable.... 'course I could be wrong so until we know I guess my question will be in a superposition of states of "asked" and "not asked". so someone can in theory get away with a half-assed answer.

here's one for the physical chemists out there, or possibly the google savvy... but then that's just cheating.
Q: How many forms of ice (solid H20) are there? And what well known author wrote a novel about a fictional new state of ice used as a doomsday device?

good luck...

I am gonna guess here: Four states.

[Smile] Liquid
[Smile] Solid
[Smile] Gas
[Smile] And a state that I don't know the name of but heard Xanthie mention once, where the H20 was in all 3 state at once....(or possibly 2 only two states at one [crazy] )


Help me out Xanthie


[Confused] In the Arctic winters, sounds like a person yelling or a car engine can be heard more than 10 kms away, why?

umm sort of close but the question is actually how many forms of ice are there? and then there's the bit about the author, if no one gets it by tomorrow evening I'll post the answer.
 
Posted by GameMaster (Member # 1173) on November 04, 2003, 01:46:
 
I can only think of 4 states of Ice...
- sleet
- snow
- ice (like a block or a cude of hard solid ice)
- slush (1/2 melted and easiest to spin out on)
I suppose you could call black-ice another state, but that is just ice like block form. Coffee and other Wisconsinites should be able to confirm (or deny) these forms...

As for the fourth state of matter, you forgot good old plasma... Although there are "states" that between these clasifications and I think that is the state you are trying to remember, Cap'n.
 
Posted by littlefish (Member # 966) on November 04, 2003, 01:53:
 
Supercritical fluid is another state (maybe- I'm not sure that it is officially). Anyway, thats how they decaffeinate coffee.
 
Posted by snupy (Member # 1211) on November 04, 2003, 07:00:
 
quote:
Originally posted by littlefish:
Supercritical fluid is another state (maybe- I'm not sure that it is officially). Anyway, thats how they decaffeinate coffee.

How????
 
Posted by quantumfluff (Member # 450) on November 04, 2003, 07:26:
 
The 4 states of ice would be Alaska, North Dakota, Wisconson and Minnesota [Big Grin]
 
Posted by spungo (Member # 1089) on November 04, 2003, 07:44:
 
What about ice cream? Ice tea? Frappaccino?
 
Posted by littlefish (Member # 966) on November 04, 2003, 07:45:
 
Stick your coffee beans in supercritical CO or CO2, swish 'em around, and filter. The caffeine is soluble in the supercritical liquid, but other things aren't. At least I think that is what happens.
 
Posted by littlefish (Member # 966) on November 04, 2003, 07:50:
 
Quick googling shows that both CO and CO2 are used.
 
Posted by iCoach (Member # 2141) on November 04, 2003, 08:34:
 
from: http://www.anl.gov/OPA/whatsnew/newice.htm

"More than a dozen known forms of ice are known, including high-density and low-density amorphous, or non-crystalline, ice. Many scientists believe that high- and low-density amorphous ices are the low temperature manifestations of two different states of liquid water, and the transition between the ice forms is sudden, that is, discontinuous in density."
 
Posted by Slurpy (Member # 2050) on November 04, 2003, 14:12:
 
Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle, Ice-9, although I'm not sure it was actually a form of H20. It's been 10 years since I read it; time to dust it off [Wink] .
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 04, 2003, 14:26:
 
Cap'n Vic: it's called the triple point. It's not limited to water - everything except helium can be placed under conditions where it will be in all three states at once. What's the deal with He? It doesn't solidify.

There are many states of ice...the number six seems to stick out in my mind.

/me does a google search: 13 known so far.
Yipes!

Slurpy: ice-nine was H2O in a particularily pernicious form of seed crystal. Good model for prions.

Freezing rain isn't so much a state of ice as just a rather annoying phenomenon. Slush and sleet aren't states of ice - they're a mix of ice and water. My least favorite mixes, unless it's flavored and in a cup. Slushy, mmmm. Let's not forget milkshakes either.

Okay, here's some thermodynamics for ya: at absolute zero, what is the entropy of cis-platin? [Big Grin]

ON a side note, WTF is "snizzle"? It was in tomorrow's forecast in today's paper. Along with it was "freezing drizzle". I thought that, between the PacNW and upstate NY I'd seen all the nasty variations of precip you could see below the Arctic Circle, but apparently I was wrong.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 04, 2003, 14:27:
 
Just call me the double-posting labrat. :/
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 04, 2003, 14:33:
 
Make that triple. Argh!

Well, how about this...there's a lab in Japan that's working out a way to grow coffee plants that don't produce caffeine in order to produce better-tasting decaf. Does that news make up for this posting fiasco? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Orpheus (Member # 2397) on November 04, 2003, 16:29:
 
wow its amazing what geeks can do when they post to forums hehe, well the answer I was looking for was 8, though the information could be a bit dated. In a plot of temperature vs pressure you can see the different states of water, at 1 atm and all temps we'd most likely experience its pretty much just the solid/liquid/gaseous phases of water we're all familiar with, but if you start really cranking up the pressure and really exploring the lower end of the Kelvin scale you find all sorts of different molecular configurations of solid ice. I was only aware of 8 but like I said the information could be dated. All the extra forms of ice are only stable at those extreme conditions. Kurt Vonnegut did write the book Cat's Cradle in which the new form, "Ice 9," was discovered to be stable under conditions found on earth and more than this it was so stable it would not melt. It was also found to stabilize other forms of water into that state. So a seed crystal of ice-9 dropped into an ocean would freeze the ocean.

as for the cis-platin thing wouldn't the entropy for any substance be infinite at absolute zero? unless the enthalpy is also zero at 0K... then I guess everything would be zero, but... well I dunno how internal energy behaves around there its been a while since I've had to think about anything more than dG, dS, dH, and dCp. my guess would be Zero since it shouldn't be moving.

that brings up another question, if there is supposed to be a certain amount of uncertainty (in position/momentum etc.) what happens when you do get to 0K and molecular vibrations are supposed to stop?

gooood question Xanth :}
 
Posted by Hanji (Member # 2379) on November 04, 2003, 17:53:
 
The third law of thermodynamics, if I recall correctly, states that the entropy of a solid sample of a pure element in crystalline form at 0K is 0. I don't know if cis-platin (never heard of), fulfils those requirements, however, and I doubt it does, as that would make the question too easy [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 05, 2003, 09:59:
 
cis-platin = PtCl2(NH2)2 = very toxic cancer drug

I think the answer is zero. The question was meant to be easy, just so long as you geeks don't overthink it. [Razz]

But no one's tried to answer my second question: what's snizzle? Coloradan for "flurry"?
 
Posted by Orpheus (Member # 2397) on November 05, 2003, 15:47:
 
not overthink something?? blasphemy!! [Razz]

I think its gangsta for snow ;p there be snizzle in mah hizzy fo' shizzle!!
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on November 05, 2003, 16:19:
 
Well, I suppose you can eventually overthink yourself back to the correct answer, but most of us mortals just end up screwing ourselves. [Razz]

Right now I'm trying not to overthink getting on my bike and riding home in the falling snizzle.

/me braces self to become a frozen and hopefully not flattened labrat
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on November 05, 2003, 18:05:
 
Quoth Xanthine:
Well, I suppose you can eventually overthink yourself back to the correct answer, but most of us mortals just end up screwing ourselves. [Razz]
Yeah, I've learned that it's bad to overthink things. (Random aside: Arghh, I so badly want vi keys to work right now as I type this :-/.)

Right now I'm trying not to overthink getting on my bike and riding home in the falling snizzle.
Yeah, just think, "I'm biking home now, and just need to be a tad more careful, as it's snizzling outside," and not "Aaahh, the snizzle, it's going to be the end of me!" Be not afraid...

/me braces self to become a frozen and hopefully not flattened labrat
The former can be dealt with easily, the latter is quite a bit more difficult :-P.
 
Posted by Jace Raven (Member # 2444) on November 26, 2003, 11:15:
 
ok, unless im missing something, dragon, your last post said and did absolutly nothing.

but on a different note:

Two bricks are separated by three parallel wooden sticks of circular cross sections. The sticks are positioned as shown in the picture, separated from the ends of the brick and from each other by distances l1, l2, l3, l4. The weight of the top brick is P. What are the forces applied by each stick on the brick.

 -
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on November 26, 2003, 11:51:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jace Raven:
ok, unless im missing something, dragon, your last post said and did absolutly nothing.

You haven't been around here much, have you? [Wink]
 
Posted by Jace Raven (Member # 2444) on November 26, 2003, 12:26:
 
your right i havn't, Notice: "Nebie Larva" under my avatar.

can you answer the question?
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on November 26, 2003, 13:25:
 
Let's see if I remember my first year of mechanical engineering :

The weight supported by the first stick is: (l1 + l2/2)* P/(l1 + l2 + l3 + l4)

Second: (l2/2 + l3/2)* P/(l1 + l2 + l3 + l4)

Third: (l3/2 + l4)* P/(l1 + l2 + l3 + l4)

This sounds right to me, but it's been so long, I might have it all wrong. And that reminds me why I switched to computer science.
 
Posted by Jace Raven (Member # 2444) on November 26, 2003, 13:46:
 
close very close, too simplified.

your missing the pint where the rods hit the brick, call them x1 and x2, top and bottom, ill post the answer at 1330
 
Posted by Jace Raven (Member # 2444) on December 04, 2003, 14:57:
 
The answer :

For the sake of simplicity we introduce the coordinates Xi(i=1...3) of the points, where the rods touch the surface of the upper brick. They are defined as the horizontal positions of those points with respect to the center of the brick. The Y-axis is directed downwards from the brick's center. If we assume that the bricks and the rods are perfect rigid bodies then the conditions for equilibrium read:
(1) SUM( Fi) = P(force balance), and:
(2) SUM( Fi*X i) = 0 (torques balance),
where Fiare the forces of normal reaction exerted from the rods on the upper brick. It is evident that if the number of rods is 3 or more, the two equations are insufficient to determine F's unequivocally (the problem is statically undefined).

To cope with the problem we must go beyond the rigid body approximation. Let us to assume that the rods acquire some small deformation when the upper brick is put on them. We will neglect the deformations of the surfaces of the bricks since as a rule the ceramic material of the bricks is rather stiff compared to the wood.
It can be shown that the deformation of the rod is a linear function of the force, despite the fact that it has only a "point contact" with the brick. (This is explained in "Comment 1" at the bottom of this page.) Thus we can treat the rods as elastic springs of equal stiffness K, and assume that the Hook's law is satisfied: Fi= K*U i, where Uiis the deformation of the i-th rod. We assume that when the upper brick is laid onto the rods, due to their deformations, it's center is lowered by a small amount Y, and its surface tilts a little bit at an angle Awith respect to the horizontal (the later effect takes place if the rods are placed asymmetrically with respect to the center of the brick). Then the deformation of the i-th rod is:
Ui= Y + A*X i.
By substituting the forces Fiobtained from the Hook's law in Eqn. (1) and (2) we obtain the values of Yand A:
Y = (P/(3K))*D/(D - M 2);
A = - (P/(NK))*M/(D - M 2);
where D = SUM (X i2)/3 and M = SUM (X i)/3 . Finally we obtain the forces of reaction:
(3) Fi= (P/3)*(D - X i*M)/(D - M 2).
It is evident from the last expression that if the rods are placed symmetrically with respect to the center of the brick, then the weight of the brick is spread uniformly among them with equal portions of P/3 . A*X i.


Comment 1: Contacts involving cylinders or spheres were treated in 19th century by H. Hertz. You can find this treatment in most elasticity textbooks (e.g., the book by Landau and Lifshitz). What is special in this case is that we have a point contact , which upon application of force broadens into a contact with finite area. For the case of a contact between two spheres, or a contact between a sphere and infinitely rigid plane, this leads to conclusion the the displacement (deformation of the sphere) is proportional to the force in the power 2/3. (The prefactor in this relation depends both on the elastic properties of the sphere and on its radius.)
The situation is quite different in the "two-dimensional" case of cylinder. It can be derived from the general formalism that treats contact of ellipsoids, or can be considered directly as was done by H. Poritsky in J. Appl. Mech. 17 , p. 191 (1950). In this paper it has been shown that the displacement is simply proportional to the force applied to the cylinder. Thus the simple linear relation between the force and deformation used in the above derivation is justified. The only pathology caused by the presence of the point contact is related to the dependence of the proportionality constant on the properties of the cylinder: As in the case of a "regular" contact the force constant is proportional to the elastic constant (Young modulus) of the stick. However, for the point the force constant very weakly (logarithmically) depends on the diameter of the stick.
 
Posted by littlefish (Member # 966) on December 04, 2003, 15:10:
 
OK, so the bricks don't deform, and you are neglecting the acceleration caused by placing the brick onto the rods? Sounds like a poor approximation to me. And you are ignoring windchill factors, flux dependance, the correolis effect and the thermal expansion coeffecient of the wood, which would alter it's compression characteristics. ;P

Stereo sounded close enough to me!
 
Posted by Jace Raven (Member # 2444) on December 04, 2003, 21:17:
 
well then..... [shake head]

allow me to recalculate [Razz] [weep]
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on January 26, 2004, 07:04:
 
In an attempt to revive this forum I seem to have killed with the article post (sorry!), I will finally use my turn to post a geek/science question.

I couldn't find one that would be tough enough yet open enough to be valuable, until I saw LOTR/ROTK. When watching it, I notice at least two scientific impossibilities (I'm not talking magic or the like here, but problems with the understanding of 'normal' physics) in some effects and actions.

So, the winner of this round will be the one who find and explains the biggest errors and/or the greatest number of them. Bonus points for errors from FOTR and TTT.

Enjoy!
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on January 26, 2004, 11:09:
 
There is the fact that oliphaunts that large wouldn't be able to stand, let alone charge into battle. Those things were at least 18 feet high and the tallest elephant I've ever seen was more like 9 feet. (shoulder measurements) With double the height you get 4 times the surface area and 8 times the mass. That means problems with dissapating heat and bones being able to support the animal.

Other than that I really didn't care to look for impossibilities. Anything impossible I'm going to explain away with magic and creative license. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jace Raven (Member # 2444) on January 26, 2004, 12:16:
 
While were on LOTR I have a question. I havn't read the book and i was wondering if i was missing something,
Where did frodo go with gandalf and the elves at the end of rotk?
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on January 26, 2004, 12:55:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jace Raven:
While were on LOTR I have a question. I havn't read the book and i was wondering if i was missing something,
Where did frodo go with gandalf and the elves at the end of rotk?

Into the West (cue Annie Lennox), but I think that the final destination was Valinor. See here for more information.
 
Posted by Jace Raven (Member # 2444) on January 26, 2004, 13:15:
 
WHOA! this is deep!!!
 
Posted by supergoo (Member # 2280) on January 26, 2004, 15:56:
 
In the fourth age, a journey to Valinor was a one-way ticket. That's why Pippin, Merry, and Sam were so upset at the end of the book: once Frodo and Gandalf left, they could never come back. Although I think Sam eventually went to Valinor in one of the appendicies, but I'm not sure about that one. I know Legolas and Gimli left Middle-Earth together but I'm not sure if they went to Valinor or not.

As far as physical impossibilites go, I'm still wondering how those catapulted rocks made that big of an impact on the walls of Minas-Tirith.

You can always go here for some insane Tolkien Trivia.

-supergoo
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on January 26, 2004, 16:16:
 
Yep, all three of them went into the West (possibly at different times). The site I linked in the last post has bios on all the characters, including when they went to Valinor. Just look under the first letter of the character's name.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on January 26, 2004, 17:06:
 
quote:
Originally posted by supergoo:
As far as physical impossibilites go, I'm still wondering how those catapulted rocks made that big of an impact on the walls of Minas-Tirith.

F = ma. 'Nuff said.

I wasn't looking for any gaping scientifici errors. Oliphaunts are indeed to big to exist, as was Shelob (an invertabrate that size can't breath). The Eagels were too big to fly as well, I believe, and the poison gases coming off that volcano would have killed Frodo and Sam before the Eagles got them (if the radiant heat from the lava didn't fry them first, that is). Oh yeah, and that whole business with the Ents tearing down walls and diverting rivers in TTT... Never mind the whole magic ring bit.

However, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Orcs, Trolls, Dark Lords and Wizards don't exist either. It's a fantasy movie. Many of those wild and impossible things came out of Tolkien's imagination to begin with, so if you wanna be all realistic, you can take it up with the man himself. [Smile] What is scientifically possible does not really apply to Middle Earth.

I enjoyed the movies immensely. It was wonderful to suspend my disbelief, and lay aside the skepticism I approach the rest of my life with for a good three hours and soak it all in.
 
Posted by GameMaster (Member # 1173) on January 26, 2004, 17:47:
 
Sppungster, that is akin to: "And how come no can tell superman is superman just cuz he takes off his glasses" (while him flying arround is perfectly natural).

I know the nine rings were in the service of the dark loard, and in the books it was also said that he had the dwarfs rings... I haven't finished the book (that is the three volumes) but haven't started on the rest of extra information (except when a foot note lead to something I thought I'd like to know along the way). My question, not trivia, just curiousness, when and how did Sarumon get the Dwarf's rings? I assume one was with The King Under the Moutian... but I am not sure of this.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on January 26, 2004, 17:58:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
Sppungster, that is akin to: "And how come no can tell superman is superman just cuz he takes off his glasses" (while him flying arround is perfectly natural).

There was a great scene in 'Lois and Clarke' where the time-travelling villain from the future reveals the sercret of Supermans identity to Lois.

(Glasses off) "Superman!"
(Glasses on) "Clarke !"
(Glasses off) "Superman!"
(Glasses on) "Clarke !"
(Glasses off) "Superman!"
(Glasses on) "Clarke !"

"How stupid are you ?????"
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on January 26, 2004, 18:37:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
Sppungster, that is akin to: "And how come no can tell superman is superman just cuz he takes off his glasses" (while him flying arround is perfectly natural).

There was a great scene in 'Lois and Clarke' where the time-travelling villain from the future reveals the sercret of Supermans identity to Lois.

(Glasses off) "Superman!"
(Glasses on) "Clarke !"
(Glasses off) "Superman!"
(Glasses on) "Clarke !"
(Glasses off) "Superman!"
(Glasses on) "Clarke !"

"How stupid are you ?????"

I remember that one well - I loved that [Smile] .

But don't forget - Superman also slicks his hair back, where as Clark keeps it styled [Razz] . I mean, that just makes it so radically different [Wink] . Oh, and he struts/flies around in tights, as opposed to strolling by in a suit, and I think he also talks with a more stern voice. Clearly, we'd never recognize him by his /face/...
 
Posted by Beth (Member # 2512) on January 26, 2004, 19:02:
 
What? People are talking about LOTR? Where have I been? Good grief, I'm slipping. (Did I ever have a grip in the first place?) Aaaaanyway.

quote:
I know the nine rings were in the service of the dark loard, and in the books it was also said that he had the dwarfs rings...
I know it's already been brought up, but if you ever want to fill in any gaps in your Tolkien-knowledge, the Encyclopedia of Arda is the place to go. Everything you might want to know. Probably more, in fact. [Big Grin]

That being said, I'll explain it briefly: Sauron tricked the Elves into creating sixteen magic rings (seven for the dwarf-lords, nine for the men) which they thought were going to be used for good, but Sauron secretely made his own One Ring which had power over the sixteen. However, the Elves also have three of their own magic rings, which are NOT controlled by the One.

Um... I'm going to stop now, otherwise I might end up re-telling the entire history of Middle-Earth. And that's a lot of text! [Wink]
 
Posted by Stereo (Member # 748) on January 26, 2004, 19:02:
 
Well, Supergoo is right about the rocks hitting the wall. It's not much f = ma itself but more about inertia. Those rocks were hitting high, barely after taking their descending path - not much speed other than their horizontal one. Add that (normal) citadels walls can be up to 4 or 5 meters wide... The rocks would leave a hole, but the top of the walls shouldn't fall. That is, unless they used no mortar whatsoever.

As for the size of the animals, remember some dinausaurs were up to six time the size of an elephant (or is that of a blue whale? my memory's failing me), so I will easily believe an oliphant could live. It may not have the physiology of our elephants. Still, the second major physics problem is related to the oliphants. Hint: it's about how one gets killed.

The fumes from the volcano is a good one too, Xanthine, though I wonder if the opening would be sufficient to bring enough fresh air for one to survive. But I agree that no one could survive on a little island of rock surrounded by lava more than a minute or two.

(As for the Ents. I put it onto Tolkien's magic - special ability of species.)

Anymore contenders?
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on January 26, 2004, 19:35:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:
My question, not trivia, just curiousness, when and how did Sarumon get the Dwarf's rings? I assume one was with The King Under the Moutian... but I am not sure of this.

Saruman didn't get anybody's rings. He tried to take the One Ring but he captured the wrong pair of Hobbits.

It was said that each of the seven great dwarfd hoards was founded on one single gold ring, but those hoards were lost long ago. Sauron obtained three (or maybe four) dwarf rings through conquest. The remainder were lost to the dragons. Recall that these magic rings had been in existence for more than 1000 years by the time LOTR starts. Plenty of time for things that should not be forgotten to be lost. [Razz]

One of those dwarf rings was indeed taken from Thror (or maybe Thrain...the father of the lead dwarf in the Hobbit) when he got captured and imprisoned by Sauron, aka the Necromancer, in Dol Guldur. Gandalf did come to rescue this sorry dwarf, but he was too late. I do believe however, that that's how Gandalf got the map used by Bilbo and Co. in The Hobbit.
 
Posted by Orpheus (Member # 2397) on January 26, 2004, 20:30:
 
The trebuchets used by both sides were pretty unbelievable. IRL steel ones can send cars and pianos flying, but there is no way wooden trebuchets could send boulders the size of small houses flying much less for a few hundred meters. Though if the trebuchet could generate enough power to send these flying without tearing itself apart, then yes a boulder that size I think could tear straight through the buildings of Minas Tirith as depicted.
 
Posted by GameMaster (Member # 1173) on January 26, 2004, 21:22:
 
Saruman didn't get anybody's rings. He tried to take the One Ring but he captured the wrong pair of Hobbits.
That was a typo.... I know what I was asking was about sauron.

It was said that each of the seven great dwarfd hoards was founded on one single gold ring, but those hoards were lost long ago. Sauron obtained three (or maybe four) dwarf rings through conquest. The remainder were lost to the dragons. Recall that these magic rings had been in existence for more than 1000 years by the time LOTR starts. Plenty of time for things that should not be forgotten to be lost. [Razz]
Right, and I realize that the wearer of all the rings (and all people of power) are tempted and drawn into the rings more than others... But, it didn't explain when the four were captured.

One of those dwarf rings was indeed taken from Thror (or maybe Thrain...the father of the lead dwarf in the Hobbit) when he got captured and imprisoned by Sauron, aka the Necromancer, in Dol Guldur. Gandalf did come to rescue this sorry dwarf, but he was too late. I do believe however, that that's how Gandalf got the map used by Bilbo and Co. in The Hobbit.
The Necromancer of Dol Guldur wasn't Sauron, was he? I thought him to be a minnion of Sauron's... I also know that a few people in the Dark-Lord's service were promised rings of power for their deeds, (Saruman was, until the Ents came).

I really liked the idea of Tom Bombadil, an old wise, living long before and after all else dies... but having little to do with anyone else at all, save the fair lady of the river. I am, however, glad that they didn't include it in the films; as it would have been a realy long movie and would have been hard to get someone to play the role well... Dancing and Singing, and keeping it light, but showing the hidden wisdom of MANY MANY ages.
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on January 26, 2004, 21:26:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
[QUOTE]There was a great scene in 'Lois and Clarke' where the time-travelling villain from the future reveals the sercret of Supermans identity to Lois.

(Glasses off) "Superman!"
(Glasses on) "Clarke !"
(Glasses off) "Superman!"
(Glasses on) "Clarke !"
(Glasses off) "Superman!"
(Glasses on) "Clarke !"

"How stupid are you ?????"

Umm, that was actually "How dumb was she?"

</closet Lois and Clarke fan>

Edit: Come to think of it, I once saw a link of slashdot (where else) which looked at the physics of what would happen if Superman/Clarke bonked Lois. I'm not going to google for the link from work, but suffice it to say the conclusion was that Lois should get her lovin' elsewhere, for her own physical safety [Big Grin]
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on January 26, 2004, 22:05:
 
Why csk, are you implying that the Man of Steel could somehow cause harm to Lois Lane while in the budoir?

Don't mind me, I'm having difficulty sleeping now...mind not the insomniac dragon.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on January 26, 2004, 22:30:
 
quote:
Originally posted by csk:
Come to think of it, I once saw a link of slashdot (where else) which looked at the physics of what would happen if Superman/Clarke bonked Lois. I'm not going to google for the link from work, but suffice it to say the conclusion was that Lois should get her lovin' elsewhere, for her own physical safety [Big Grin]

"man of steel - woman of kleenex - a modern classic.
It also looked into a few other interesting and unexplored aspects of supermans existence.

On a similar note, how do the vampires in 'Buffy' (and other popular vampire shows/books) manage to be so well groomed when they can't see themselves in the mirror?
 
Posted by MTB Babe (Member # 2297) on January 27, 2004, 05:59:
 
quote:
On a similar note, how do the vampires in 'Buffy' (and other popular vampire shows/books) manage to be so well groomed when they can't see themselves in the mirror?
Good point. Maybe they groom each other like chimps.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on January 27, 2004, 06:35:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GameMaster:

The Necromancer of Dol Guldur wasn't Sauron, was he? I thought him to be a minnion of Sauron's... I also know that a few people in the Dark-Lord's service were promised rings of power for their deeds, (Saruman was, until the Ents came).

Sauron was indeed the Necromancer. Gandalf says so at the Council of Elrond (I think - either it was there or in the Unfinished Tales...). After the White Council went ahead and tried to clean out Dol Guldor two thirds of the way through the Hobbit Sauron retreated to Mordor and started to further rebuild. Dol Duldur was empty for a little while, and then a couple Nazgul moved in.

Now, about that life you were going to sell me...
 
Posted by GameMaster (Member # 1173) on January 27, 2004, 08:10:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:

Now, about that life you were going to sell me...

Just $19.99 (May cause sleeplessness, dizzyness, nausia, or high blood presure. Do not take if: you are pragnet, may be come pregnet or at high risk for heart attack. Ask your doctor if life is right for you. Offer expires June 15, 2004. Not valid in the state of Texas. Other restrictions may apply. Please read, understand and follow any and all warning labels that come with power tools. There is no more important safty rule than wearing safty googles. This product comes without warenty, we are not responsible for any injury that may occur as the result of the use or misuse of this product. This tag cannot be removed under the full penalty of the law, except by the consumer).
 
Posted by Drazgal (Member # 984) on January 29, 2004, 03:44:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
and then a couple Nazgul moved in.

Now, about that life you were going to sell me...

Not just any Nazgul, Khamul, the second lord of the ring wraiths! (the one who lead the invasion of the shire and passed the hobbits twice before the elves showed up).

Er I really should get out more.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on January 29, 2004, 07:33:
 
I wasn't going nto name names Drazgal, but you're right. There was another that went there too, but the only Ring Wraiths Tolkien ever identifies are Khamul (an Easterling) and the Witch King.
 
Posted by spungo (Member # 1089) on January 29, 2004, 07:44:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
I wasn't going nto name names Drazgal, but you're right. There was another that went there too, but the only Ring Wraiths Tolkien ever identifies are Khamul (an Easterling) and the Witch King.

But, of course, you're forgetting that in the original transcripts (that were never published), Tolkien actually gives one of the other Nazgul's name - as 'Nigel'. And, in fact, Nigel only appears with the other eight as he missed his flight back to the planet Shaggatron because of a pub-brawl between the lobster pixies and the flying space-monkeys from the Banana Centauri system. Having been abandonned on Middle Earth, Nigel ends up selling tulips at a junction off the A127, near Basildon. For some reason Tolkien dropped this plot-line in later versions.
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on January 29, 2004, 08:13:
 
Did Nigel have grey skin and antennae? I may have met him then. [Razz]
 
Posted by spungo (Member # 1089) on January 29, 2004, 08:20:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Xanthine:
Did Nigel have grey skin and antennae? I may have met him then. [Razz]

No, he had a Ford Capri and a bird named Tracy and a tattoo wot read 'I luv moi bird Tracy' which he did himself using a bic pen and a box of matches. They used to go to the boozer every night - 'The Gammy Badger', and also to Upton Park every other week for all of West Ham's home games. Later on, Nigel nicked some lolly off the Witch King and scarpered off to Ibiza with some tart he met at a disco in Braintree. They 'ad a little brat called Tristan, who would later form the band 'Kajagoogoo' when he grew up, but was subsequently dropped before they hit the big time due to his unusual habit of pouring jam over the other band members' guitars when they weren't looking.
 


© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0