New answers tagged

0

I'd like to build on to Separatrix idea, to keep the soul energy in its "natural container" as long as possible. Depending on how gruesome you want this part of your story to be, maybe you want to have a really hateable character, I'd like to point out that a person would not need to be, how to say this, complete, in order to stay alive. If there are large ...


1

The traditional method is crystals or gemstones. Crystals are naturally rare, just like the ability to store souls is valuable. it's far from free to do this. This is because of how the souls passes on. The crystalline structure of the container prevent this natural dissipation. Of course, there's all kinds of differences between gemstones. Bigger ones ...


3

I like the idea of artificial beings used to "store" the energy. Since the soul is eternal in the right conditions, I'm thinking about a being which could easily retain the mana while preventing it from dissipating. Since it's artificial, it can be made in a way which permits the mage to access the stored energy more easily than a real life being. ...


13

Fish goes off very quickly in hot countries. The trick to keeping it fresh in a market stall or a restaurant is to keep it in a naturally preserved state. Alive. Usually on display in a tank so customers can pick their own. Given the nature of the character you're using as a base for your mage, the simplest way for him to store the soul energy from people ...


1

There may be another possibly. A planet or moon thrown from another system could be captured by a blue giant star. The debris could be cleared by a more massive planet orbiting closer to the blue star. There are lots of possibilities. That still doesn’t give life much time to evolve though...


9

No, for many reasons. The water would freeze - without atmospheric pressure water can only exist as ice or gas, it never exists as liquid. Even if you placed it in an atmosphere there is nothing to keep the water together, it would spread out. Even if you somehow kept it together surface tension would pull it into balls and droplets, not forming a stream. ...


8

There is an excellent answer to that question, written by J.B.S.Haldane as long ago as 1926 in his essay "On Being the Right Size". The Wikipedia entry has link to the full text of the essay. It is an interesting read, I highly recommend it. He does not deal with limitations found in different sze brain (except in a short remark), but he does show that body ...


2

Yes, absolutely. For example, anthrax and small pox have been weaponised or actually used as weapons in the past. They key is that a micro-organism doesn’t have to reproduce very fast to be an effective weapon, if the reproduction occurs inside a human body. It doesn’t need to be a timescale of seconds; a few days will be fine.


2

I don't know about the planet in question, but here on Earth, we have one thing called necrotizing fasciitis and it's a mean and fast bacterial problem to have. It's mostly beaten by amputation. Taking the water dilemma into consideration, what if your insidious bio-weapon didn't fill the room; it fills the people? Plenty of water and food and some precedent ...


9

Assuming an atmospheric composition similar to Earth's (~20% oxygen, 80% nitrogen), with an atmosphere at 5 bar, your partial pressure of oxygen is just over 1 bar, which is below the toxicity limit (not much below, but safe enough). Nitrogen narcosis might be an issue (your atmosphere is equivalent to 55 m depth, which is right on the border for nitrogen ...


10

No. Reproduction of organisms doesn't produce matter out of nothing. There is conservation of mass. Moreover, most organisms are high % water, so even in best case scenario, to get full room of your microorganism, they'd have to get like 20% of volume of the room of water, not even talking about need for carbon.


3

Weapon logic: I have some grenade where that microorganism is hibernated. Then, when I activate it, some reaction happens and environment mentioned in question comes up. Microorganism starts to reproduce and in some seconds (for example) fills the room and people inside buried alive. This is the very fundamental logic of biological weapons: Biological ...


2

A bow with a draw weight of 100 lbs is high but still doable for normal humans. It is thought that English Longbows had draw weights of 120 lbs, but for an archer to draw and fire such a bow with the speed and accuracy that the English displayed during the 100 years war took a lifetime of training and practice. Much more powerful bows existed during the same ...


0

Well, I'm not expert on archery and bows, but a while back I saw this article for a crossbow made of a leaf spring from an old truck that can impale a car door. Apparently if this article can be believed (I lost the link) it would have a 400 LB to 1000LB draw weight. Now while for a human this bow would be impossible, maybe you could use it for a longbow or ...


4

So, firstly, I can't think of any reason why you can't just make the bow (and the arrows) out of stronger materials to keep pace with your bionic arms. If we're talking about two or three or five times stronger than a normal human, you can just make the bow and the arrows out of stuff that has higher tensile strength to keep pace, and it should work just ...


1

NO, But... This is an something that has actually been tested in the long term e-coli experiment. In bacteria separated by several generation older generations can outcompete there distant descendendants. It is not a given of course but the chances are not insignificant either. This is because the population of bacteria is constantly changing as bacteria ...


9

You don't know how actual your question is: link. The melting of the polar cap might actually release long dormant viruses, bacteria and funghi. In August 2016, in a remote corner of Siberian tundra called the Yamal Peninsula in the Arctic Circle, a 12-year-old boy died and at least twenty people were hospitalised after being infected by anthrax. The ...


3

We tend to correlate the word "evolution" with the word "improvement", but that is a false association. "Evolution" is more closely related to the word "change". If at a particular moment in the past, a disease emerges to threaten the survival of a population, then the portion of that population which had previously "evolved/changed" to resist that disease ...


Top 50 recent answers are included