User talk:Plasmic Physics
Here are a few links to help you get started:
The Manual of Style outlines the format of all articles on Halopedia.
Get involved by helping with one of Halopedia's ongoing projects.
These smaller pages could use some attention. Please add what you can!
Check the tutorials listed here for more help. Or, visit our IRC channel for live chat support!
Thank you, we hope you enjoy your stay!
User:Plasmic Physics/YourTemplate and generate it with User:Plasmic Physics/YourTemplate
 343's qoute
Good, for future reference how do I identify a quote in an aticle, that shouldn't be edited?--Plasmic Physics 21:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 Sierra 117
Through carefull analysis of the scenery of the level, like the shape of the river, the relative orientation of Kilimanjaro and the vegetation, I found the coordinates. The coordinates of the first river area. I cross check google earth and this map:  to find them as accurate as possible. Plasmic Physics 08:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Plastic Physics, could you please add a source for the "Post-War" section of the UN article? From what we know, the UN was never mentioned of being transformed into the UEG, although it still exists. --User:UNSC Trooper (Talk)
 UNSC Organization
 Bloody Arrow
It never exactly says in Ghosts of Onyx that Kurt was using the Bloody Arrow to discourage allies and/or potential rescuers from coming to his aid. Indeed, when he sent the code, he meant for Dr Halsey to find the technologies and the SPARTAN-IIIs and then get rescued by the UNSC Fleet and go home. I suppose you and I are both right. — Lt. Commander Kouger 10:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 Plasma Weapons Post
Good. I'm also glad that other people are aware of the problems with this topic. By all means, tell me your ideas, I'd like to see them.
As I pointed out on that talk page, the way in which plasma weapons are depicted is not only physically absurd, but also nonsensical and inefficient. It'd be like firing a bullet at something and it takes the projectile half an hour to hit its target.
Doesn't sound functional, does it? From one of the links I posted, even if the plasma bolt/blob held together, it apparently would have the aerodynamic efficiency of a balloon, and due to its low pressure etc., it would be buoyant, and could potentially float up instead of going forward.
It would need sufficient momentum, density, and speed in order to push through the atmosphere (hypersonic to relativistic) and even then, it would suffer from friciton, particle interactions with the air molecules, and black-body radiation (heat) losses, robbing it of its energy. To top that off, the way sci-fi depicts such weapons, even if it does hit, the plasma bolt is a largely randomized entity, with the particles barely contained, and when it hits, they will mostly splash against the surface of a target. There would be little to no penetration, which makes the weapon largely useless; in a projectile weapon, the density, momentum, etc. of a bullet, which makes such a weapon so useful.
In order for a plasma weapon to work, you'd need to compensate for friction, momentum, heat and energy losses, etc., and you'd need to have the plasma be relatively dense and most importantly, the particles all need to be moving in the same direction at the same high speed. If they are, then that means that they will all slam into the target, which will be subject to incredible heat, friction, and mechanical stresses.
In that case, it becomes more like a particle beam, except it is much thicker, denser, and far larger; in other words, it is a weaponized, coherent, rocket exhaust stream. The reason it would need to be dense is that plasmas are generally low density and sparse, so for the weapon to work, you'd need to convert a solid mass into plasma and prevent it from dispersing as it goes through the weapon. Another issue to be concerned about is the atmosphere.
One way to deal with this is to create an ionized channel of air via lasers or strong EM pulses, as well as making sure that the plasma stream is at a similar pressure to the surrounding atmosphere. This can be accomplished, it seems, by utilizing rocket nozzle techniques, which are designed to deal with similar problems. So basically this plasma weapon is a combination of rocket engine, laser, magnetic acceleration, and a bit of particle beam tech put into one nasty package.
The recoil from such a device depends on the speed of the stream/beam, density, etc., but for a gun or pistol, it would definitely not be negligible. It'd probably kick like a high caliber pistol or a shotgun, so recoil compensation would be a must. Unlike the whimpy plasma weapons in Halo and other sources, this would be a loud, bright, and downright terrifying weapon, easily able to burn and punch holes into targets just as well if not better than bullet weapons do.
Of course, I could be wrong.
--Exalted Obliteration 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- There are different varieties of plasmas: coulomb plasma, nuclear plasma, quantum plasma. Coulomb plasma is a substance where some electrons are energetically ejected from their parent atoms, this requires a signiture quantum of energy from their surroundings. Sometimes the ejected electrons recombine with the ionised atoms and releases the absorbed energy back to their surroundings, most often in the form of light. A coulomb plasma can appear as a candle flame, a inferno, a spark or a lightning bolt, even metals qualify to an extent as a plasma due to the nature of the bonding.
- I'd like to point out that the purpose of a plasma shot is not to transfer momentum or penetrate the target, its purpose is to incinerate its target, this in effect makes it a long-range welding torch.
- The behaviour of a plasma shot indicates that it is akin to a controled example of ball lightning, which is in it self poorly understood by today's standards.
- I appologise if this seems a bit short, but I will have to reply in parts.
Not a problem. I should do that myself. Good points, especially about the way plasma weapons are presented. An incineration weapon, eh? It would be much simpler, cheaper, and less energy intensive to employ advanced versions of incendiaries like white phosphorous etc., sort of like the Jiralhanae do (Spikers, Flame Grenades, etc.).
In order for a plasma weapon to be an efficient incineration tool, it will have to be dense, hot, and incredibly fast. While your description likens it to a welding torch, don't forget that such things do their work over time, not nigh-instantaneously.
If you look closely at plasma shot impacts, the plasma has penetrated the target via burning into a target, so while the welding analogy is applicable, burning phosphorus or thermite is a better one.
Remember, with directed energy weapons, the transfer of energy into the target will create heat, and in the case of powerful lasers and particle beams, their high energy content will be transferred into the atoms of their target. If done via powerful near-instaneous pulses, this will not only superheat, but if done properly, will also expand viciously, carving out a crater into the target. In short, you have an explosion of superheated material, usually plasma, breaking into the target via strong mechanical and thermal stress. This can be likened to rocket exhaust applying "thrust" against something, which in this case, is solid matter.
As for ball lightning, good point. It would seem that the Forerunner (and by extension the Covenant) solved the problems I mentioned by applying some sort of quantum-based stabilization of plasma particles that mimics ball lightning.
--Exalted Obliteration 05:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 Portal size
I was under the impression that you intended to revert edits by Jugus in the Battle of Earth section and accidentally undid my size part too, but I'll explain that anyway.
- "hardly a credible" -> "pan-cam" : the size can be verified using pan-cam (comparing diameter to the length of the battlecruiser, which is undersized in WUs)
- 118.62->100 : I have no idea where the old diameter came from, and the highway distance between Voi and New Mombasa is 97km, so 100 is a good approximation.
- "actually is" -> "some have estimated it to be" : the 14km is an approximation by Stephen Loftus of HBO, a source as credible as the overhead image approximation. Source referenced.
Mutoid Chief 00:43, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
 Reply: Scientific Inaccuracies
I respectfully decline your offer for a private discussion. I would prefer we keep this debate public, so that everyone can see all sides of the argument.Spartan999 19:48, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
I do not wish to take an active participation in your discussion. However, I would like to refer to you one thing neither party has taken into account.
The Flood spore form is capable of infecting organisms and turning them into Flood organisms. As they are neither sentient nor biomass; the array does not affect them. Technically, the Flood will survive a galactic holocaust, though will eventually die without adequate biomass to sustain them.
- These are all good points and I agree with them, except for the fact that flood spores are not biomass, based on the defenition of biomass. Even so, they are off the original topic of the disscussion, which was the legitimacy of the inconsistency listed under the trivia section of that article.--Plasmic Physics 09:16, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Look "research and containment facility [alpha, beta, gamma, epsilon, zeta, and kappa sites]" does it look like named Installations (Well Alpha but still not the point) the Gas Giant facility was a Containment and research facility, The Halo Array was used basiclly as a weapons platforms but what ever dont wont to get in a big fight. Alertfiend 04:40, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
P.S Did you get Halo Reach yet if so fun yeah.
I can't really make out what you're trying to say (or is it ask?), but yes, I did get Reach.--Plasmic Physics 06:06, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
What i said (Or meant) was that you reverted it before i could re-post it with different wordings. Alertfiend 22:59, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, alright. It just seemed as if you randomly removed a paragraph. Go ahead.--Plasmic Physics 23:28, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 RE:Moving of the transcript of Long Night of Solace
Please cease and desist the moving of this page. It is unneeded and fine the way it is. Thanks. [Sometimes, it's all about the glory.] [Put your boot up enough alien backside and the corps will pin rows of medals on your chest.][Bad ass, unlocked.]
 New Page
Hi dude, I know you don't know me, but I need your opinion on my new page. XXSPeCiaL KiLaXx 00:53, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
 Pillar of Autumn
Care to explain how I'm not being mature about my edits? The only thing I'm doing is reverting your edit. You may also explain why what you think is correct, and why what I think isn't.--19:49, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
- I reverted an incorrect edit, requesting an explanation in the edit summary, as no explanation was given for the incorrect edit. Rather than give an explanation for your reversion, which would have been the mature thing to do, you just fed my explanation request back to me like a dictaphone. Plasmic Physics 23:25, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
- The incorrect edit I'm refering to, is the structure diameter. Plasmic Physics 23:28, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't send your request back to you. I asked you to explain, as well.-- 00:00, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
- There's a difference? Plasmic Physics 00:15, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I simply wanted to know what happened. I hope we can settle this disagreement nicely (most of the disagreements I've had have resulted in the person I'm arguing with suddenly insulting me and trying to make me hated on this wiki)--00:37, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Seeing as how you're reasonable I'll give you some adivice: If, you think the edit is controvesial, bring it up in the respective talk page first, if there is no reply for at least two days then go ahead. If the edit is is not, then a simple edit summary would suffice. Edit summaries are more important when you're changing content rather than adding new content. Plasmic Physics 00:44, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 Noble 6 Eulogy
On Catherine Halsey's page, you repeatedly revert edits to reflect your belief that Dr. Halsey is somehow physically present delivering a eulogy. Please go to the talk page and discuss this further before making any further edits on the subject.
Watemon 22:58, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you're willing to make at least a few concessions giving your opinions on the matter, but you never took it to the talk page, a request I've repeatedly asked every time I've reverted the edits (by not just yourself). Ironically, when making the last revert, you yourself requested the discussion take place on the talk page, even though you never did so. Curious...
Watemon 21:29, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
- My point of view:
- The voice delivering the eulogy belongs to Halsey.
- There is no proof that the eulogy was delivered at the date given.
- The fact of the eulogy being delivered at all, indicates that Halsey must have escaped from Onyx at some point in time.
- Any other assumptions would be based of speculation. I wrote the paragraph to reflect these facts, but everytime someone rewrites the paragraph to include the incorrect assumptions. --Plasmic Physics 21:42, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
Even your assumptions here are speculation. Not that I don't agree they're simply more supported than some of the others, my problem is that they are assumptions that cannot be verified. You simply cannot say with any certainty that the closing monologue indicates Halsey has escaped from Onyx. No one can verify that Jen Taylor's voicing the closing monologue wasn't for more than dramatic effect.
My point of view: we know where Halsey is AFTER the events depicted in Reach, we can't verify that those details change by simple observation that her voice is behind the game's closing monologue (to say nothing of the fact it's 30+ years after Reach). It takes a mighty presumptive leap to suggest that means she escaped. I'm all for the trivia page saying she voiced the eulogy, but no presumption should be made as to whether that means she escaped Onyx or that it's even a recording.
Watemon 22:38, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
- My point of view is not based on assumptions, but rather on inferences. We have no evidence to the contrary that the voice does not belong to Halsey, to suggest otherwise would be an incorrect assumption. If this is true then Halsey had to have escaped from Onyx in order to record/deliver the eulogy. Bungie clearly intended for the identity behind the voice to be easily recognised as belonging to Halsey. To cast doubt on the indetity would introduce opportunity for speculation. On occassions of lack of information, sources should be taken at face value, otherwise incorrect assumptions and speculation becomes rampant. Plasmic Physics 23:45, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
Inferences that are not direct observations. I'm not trying to cast doubt on the identity behind the voice, just pointing out that both presumptions are just as likely and just as unverifiable.
It is face value that the voice is Halsey's, it is NOT face value that it means Halsey has escaped Onyx in order to deliver a eulogy set 30+ years after the events of the game. It is an unsubstantiated presumption. The trivia could read: "Dr. Halsey delivers the epilogue to Halo: Reach." There need not be mention of any speculation if it can't be substantiated. Except maybe to mention, "it cannot be certain whether this means she has indeed escaped Onyx."
Watemon 00:13, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
- No, I agree, no one can verify that Jen Taylor's voicing the closing monologue wasn't for more than dramatic effect, but we do not have evidence that the eulogy is non-canon. If it is canon, as is reasonable, then Bungie would not have chosen a voice that also belongs to Halsey ergo, it is most certain to be Halsey's identity behind the eulogy. She could not have delivered the eulogy from within Onyx, so she must have escaped anywhere within thirty years.
- For lack of evidence to the contrary, I am certain that the voice belongs to Halsey; in order to deliver a eulogy, Halsey must have escaped the confines Onyx within at most thirty years. If you agree over the identity behind the voice, but do not over Halsey's escape, then provide a logical explanation for how this paradox could be solved. --Plasmic Physics 01:36, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
Allow me state once more that I am not doubting the identity behind the voice. Nor am I remotely suggesting the eulogy is "non-canon" (a ridiculous suggestion, considering the Bungie games hold primacy over the universe canon). Neither does identifying the character behind the voice certify that she "must have escaped".
- "For lack of evidence to the contrary,..."
The burden of proof that Halsey has escaped Onyx, lies with you. And just because it cannot be proved to the contrary either, does not make automatic proof that your claim is factual. I am only suggesting that until Bungie clarifies on the matter or until another book is written illustrating as such, Halsey's voice behind Reach's epilogue is not sufficient evidence that she has escaped Onyx. We do not see her deliver it, we do not see her on Reach in the closing image. It could be that her epilogue is presented as dramatic effect -- purely for the sake of the audience and for the sake of good storytelling. There is no evidence to prove either, so in order for you to assert that she DID escape, you're the one that has to prove so. I don't have to prove how she couldn't have.
Again, my question is not whether she's the voice, and is not whether she got off Onyx, my problem IS that you cannot say with any degree of certainty -- based on what is given in the game -- that she is most certainly off Onyx.
However, I will concede to this statement: "Dr. Halsey delivers the epilogue to Halo: Reach. However, it cannot be certain whether this means she has indeed escaped Onyx." It says everything you want, without making any (as-of-yet) unfounded assertions. Watemon 02:10, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to me as thought we're talking past each other.
- What I am saying, is that if the eulogy is canon as we agree, then it must have genuinely been delivered within the Halo universe thus, it could not have been for dramatic effect alone. If you suppose that Halsey has not escaped Onyx then there is a paradox: How could Halsey be aware of the outcome of the war if she is still confined to Onyx, unless you're suggesting that she can somehow communicate with the outside world from within Onyx? I am not asking you to prove your case; simply to explain away the paradox as I am confused. --Plasmic Physics 02:39, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
Because you don't know that Halsey communicated to the outside world. You did not develop this game, so you cannot assert with any degree of authority what Bungie may or may not have done for purely dramatic effect.
As far as we know, Halsey's epilogue was only communicated to us, the audience. We did not see any form of funeral service or public reception where Halsey delivered that speech. You cannot say with any certainty that the epilogue at the end of the game was delivered to any such audience, other than those playing the game.
Both likelihoods are equally possibly, and both equally unfounded by the actual events of the game. Watemon 03:06, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
- That does not fit the definition of canon, the characters within the Halo universe are not aware of the players thus, if it is canon, Halsey could not have addressed the player. --Plasmic Physics 03:25, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
This is all I'm saying:
- You cannot say with any degree of certainty that Halsey is off Onyx, and her epilogue is not proof to that point.
- You cannot say that BUNGIE didn't choose to use Halsey's voice to deliver their epilogue as purely dramatic effect (I am most certainly NOT suggesting she was actually speaking to the audience...)
As such, I agree to adding the following statement:
- "Dr. Halsey delivers the epilogue to Halo: Reach. However, it cannot be certain whether this means she has indeed escaped Onyx."
Key phrase: it cannot be certain. The possibility may be there, and you may be able to logically presume as such, but it is unfounded by any demonstrable evidence, hence, for the purposes of the article, you can't make that claim (at least as a statement of fact).
- That sounds like a good resolution. --Plasmic Physics 04:53, December 24, 2010 (UTC)