Halo 2 Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: MC Vs Predator
  • Subject: MC Vs Predator
Subject: MC Vs Predator
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: DeathscytheV2
not trying to make anyone look like anything dark, you strted flaming and continualy speculated and tried to disrupt the subject to cover your mistke. if you had let this drop...ohhh lets say 3 or so pages ago then you would have looked intelligent but you decided to flame. I on the other hand am making informed statements and asking for informed responses and have yet to recieve one........You DO know I am STILL waiting?


What, waiting for a response to your inability to actually know how much force it takes to launch a "Lightspeed Disk" ??? If that's what you want me to respond to, I'm sure I could, but then I'd just be making you look like an incompetent.

  • 07.29.2004 5:44 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Im tired of this thread, it was a waste of time, especially so seeing as its for no reason except for flaming, since its not even a poll!!! the title could have been" flame room "come here to flame about stupid -blam!-"

  • 07.29.2004 5:45 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

The pred is like "ok I think I need some concrete and drywall...hmm this looks nice *punch*" He doesent even punch he more or less "slides" his hand through it.Ok guys Im done knowing that this thread is going to change no ones minds so there is ABSOLUTLY no point in arguing..I''m gonna go look at some halo 2 pics and wish it was here ;)

im answering this since it was very dumb. As i said, regular humans can karate chop throuch concrete, I can punch through drywall. Damn, he seem very strong....

kthnx

Im out.

  • 07.29.2004 5:47 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I asked you to give me the exact specifications of the weapon fired by the predator. I cannot give you made up numbers about something I dont know the exact details of. I offered you the formula to find out but I have yet to recieve the input for the formula.


Your asking for 2 + _ = ?


thats a little absent minded.

  • 07.29.2004 5:51 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

can u rewrite the equation i would like to try and figure it out. You know for fun

  • 07.29.2004 5:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Hello anyone there can i have the equation plz.

  • 07.29.2004 5:57 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

do you know how to input the data properly? I doubt it(not contesting your mathematical abilitys, just doubting that you have had the proper teaching to do it). There are hundredss of factors(diameter,weight,thickness,shape,measurements on the shape,friction resistance factors and much much more.

Edit: and I am obtaining the formula for you right now, there is a basic version of it a few pages back or so. Lots of text to dig through, I am off school right now and must dig up old books.

[Edited on 7/29/2004 6:00:11 PM]

  • 07.29.2004 5:58 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

this thread is useless, predator fans are gonna go with the pred. and halo fans are gonna go with MC. so in other owrds its a battle of the fans and all you people are doing is flaming. and i keep seeing the same thigs come up again and again and again and agian, liek the hole arny kills him so mc can i saw that one atleasat 10 times so enless you got some new info or a new point dont post or atleast read the hole thing before you post anything

  • 07.29.2004 5:59 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

yeah i do know how to put in the data. now give me the equation and if its to confusing i just say it is.

  • 07.29.2004 6:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Relax I am obtaining it. its very long and I am trying to find it right now.

  • 07.29.2004 6:02 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Some people on here might be overestimating the Predator a bit. He is tough no doubt but depending on the weapons he brought with him Chief would be difficult to handle. Which is the major thing to consider I guess. Is the Predator expecting to fight MC? Because if he is then he would probably be packing weapons designed for the job an would likely win. If he was using the stuff from the movies though MC would probably kill him without much trouble so long as he dodged the plasmacaster shots an that Disc most Preds carry.

  • 07.29.2004 6:08 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

sorry for my dumbness but ive only seen like the first half hour of predator, but is the predator a human?

  • 07.29.2004 6:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

No.

  • 07.29.2004 6:10 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

oh yea also remember that MC has realllllly good reaction time so by the time the pred trew his disc thingy mc could just move.

  • 07.29.2004 6:10 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

lets not forget that the predator has his to razor blades that shoot out of his wrist that would cut master chief in half but master chief has the plasma sowrd. the preds tech is so much better than the mc. the pred would hunt him down and shiv the chief. if you didnt notice in the first pred movie the pred snuk up behind arnold without even making a sound the only reson arnold didnt get the shiv is because of the stupid net trap

  • 07.29.2004 6:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: A_Spartan
No.


well why did people say he was a superhuman?

  • 07.29.2004 6:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Gang Related
lets not forget that the predator has his to razor blades that shoot out of his wrist that would cut master chief in half but master chief has the plasma sowrd. the preds tech is so much better than the mc. the pred would hunt him down and shiv the chief. if you didnt notice in the first pred movie the pred snuk up behind arnold without even making a sound the only reson arnold didnt get the shiv is because of the stupid net trap


but MC has good reaction time so MC could see it couming hed see the blades and right as the pedator tries to slice him up mc ducks, but also you have to think about MC NOT in the xbox game, because in the game you cant duck very good or run so yea

  • 07.29.2004 6:13 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Nope hes a alien.

  • 07.29.2004 6:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

so everybody is saying arnold swarzenager is better mc because he defeated predator, so i'd say mc would win.

  • 07.29.2004 6:15 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Ok this will keep you busy whilst I finish digging up the exact formulation. You DO know it also depends on the equipment being used to accelerate the object. Its all about focusing.




"In general relativity, on the other hand, gravity propagates at the speed of light; that is, the motion of a massive object creates a distortion in the curvature of spacetime that moves outward at light speed. This might seem to contradict the Solar System observations described above, but remember that general relativity is conceptually very different from Newtonian gravity, so a direct comparison is not so simple. Strictly speaking, gravity is not a "force" in general relativity, and a description in terms of speed and direction can be tricky. For weak fields, though, one can describe the theory in a sort of Newtonian language. In that case, one finds that the "force" in GR is not quite central--it does not point directly towards the source of the gravitational field--and that it depends on velocity as well as position. The net result is that the effect of propagation delay is almost exactly cancelled, and general relativity very nearly reproduces the Newtonian result.

This cancellation may seem less strange if one notes that a similar effect occurs in electromagnetism. If a charged particle is moving at a constant velocity, it exerts a force that points toward its present position, not its retarded position, even though electromagnetic interactions certainly move at the speed of light. Here, as in general relativity, subtleties in the nature of the interaction "conspire" to disguise the effect of propagation delay. It should be emphasized that in both electromagnetism and general relativity, this effect is not put in ad hoc but comes out of the equations. Also, the cancellation is nearly exact only for constant velocities. If a charged particle or a gravitating mass suddenly accelerates, the change in the electric or gravitational field propagates outward at the speed of light.

Since this point can be confusing, it's worth exploring a little further, in a slightly more technical manner. Consider two bodies--call them A and B--held in orbit by either electrical or gravitational attraction. As long as the force on A points directly towards B and vice versa, a stable orbit is possible. If the force on A points instead towards the retarded (propagation-time-delayed) position of B, on the other hand, the effect is to add a new component of force in the direction of A's motion, causing instability of the orbit. This instability, in turn, leads to a change in the mechanical angular momentum of the A-B system. But total angular momentum is conserved, so this change can only occur if some of the angular momentum of the A-B system is carried away by electromagnetic or gravitational radiation.

Now, in electrodynamics, a charge moving at a constant velocity does not radiate. (Technically, the lowest order radiation is dipole radiation, which depends on the acceleration.) So, to the extent that A's motion can be approximated as motion at a constant velocity, A cannot lose angular momentum. For the theory to be consistent, there must therefore be compensating terms that partially cancel the instability of the orbit caused by retardation. This is exactly what happens; a calculation shows that the force on A points not towards B's retarded position, but towards B's "linearly extrapolated" retarded position. Similarly, in general relativity, a mass moving at a constant acceleration does not radiate (the lowest order radiation is quadrupole), so for consistency, an even more complete cancellation of the effect of retardation must occur. This is exactly what one finds when one solves the equations of motion in general relativity.

While current observations do not yet provide a direct model-independent measurement of the speed of gravity, a test within the framework of general relativity can be made by observing the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16. The orbit of this binary system is gradually decaying, and this behavior is attributed to the loss of energy due to escaping gravitational radiation. But in any field theory, radiation is intimately related to the finite velocity of field propagation, and the orbital changes due to gravitational radiation can equivalently be viewed as damping caused by the finite propagation speed. (In the discussion above, this damping represents a failure of the "retardation" and "noncentral, velocity-dependent" effects to completely cancel.)

The rate of this damping can be computed, and one finds that it depends sensitively on the speed of gravity. The fact that gravitational damping is measured at all is a strong indication that the propagation speed of gravity is not infinite. If the calculational framework of general relativity is accepted, the damping can be used to calculate the speed, and the actual measurement confirms that THE SPEED OF GRAVITY IS EQUAL TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT TO WITHIN 1%. (Measurements of at least one other binary pulsar system, PSR B1534+12, confirm this result, although so far with less precision.)

Are there future prospects for a direct measurement of the speed of gravity? One possibility would involve detection of gravitational waves from a supernova. The detection of gravitational radiation in the same time frame as a neutrino burst, followed by a later visual identification of a supernova, would be considered strong experimental evidence for the speed of gravity being equal to the speed of light. However, unless a very nearby supernova occurs soon, it will be some time before gravitational wave detectors are expected to be sensitive enough to perform such a test.

See also the section on gravitational radiation.

References
There seems to be no nontechnical reference on this subject. For a technical reference, see

T. Damour, in Three Hundred Years of Gravitation, S.W. Hawking and W. Israel, editors (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987).

For a good reference to the electromagnetic case, see

R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter II-21 (Addison-Wesley, 1989)."




Read the First and capitolized sentence for my proof that it does not require the suns gravity field to accelerate an object to the speed of light. Its all about focusing whatever amount of gravitational pull into the proper volatility. I am still working on that formula but this should hold you off for a moment.

  • 07.29.2004 6:19 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Alll this /\ over the preds spinning disk.... *sigh*
/ \

  • 07.29.2004 6:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

it would be a bad ass fight non the less. they both have there advantages, but i love them both and i cant really make up my mind by i would have to go with the pred. but how i do love the mc and his covenent ass kicking ways

  • 07.29.2004 6:23 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: DeathscytheV2
Ok this will keep you busy whilst I finish digging up the exact formulation. You DO know it also depends on the equipment being used to accelerate the object. Its all about focusing.




"In general relativity, on the other hand, gravity propagates at the speed of light; that is, the motion of a massive object creates a distortion in the curvature of spacetime that moves outward at light speed. This might seem to contradict the Solar System observations described above, but remember that general relativity is conceptually very different from Newtonian gravity, so a direct comparison is not so simple. Strictly speaking, gravity is not a "force" in general relativity, and a description in terms of speed and direction can be tricky. For weak fields, though, one can describe the theory in a sort of Newtonian language. In that case, one finds that the "force" in GR is not quite central--it does not point directly towards the source of the gravitational field--and that it depends on velocity as well as position. The net result is that the effect of propagation delay is almost exactly cancelled, and general relativity very nearly reproduces the Newtonian result.

This cancellation may seem less strange if one notes that a similar effect occurs in electromagnetism. If a charged particle is moving at a constant velocity, it exerts a force that points toward its present position, not its retarded position, even though electromagnetic interactions certainly move at the speed of light. Here, as in general relativity, subtleties in the nature of the interaction "conspire" to disguise the effect of propagation delay. It should be emphasized that in both electromagnetism and general relativity, this effect is not put in ad hoc but comes out of the equations. Also, the cancellation is nearly exact only for constant velocities. If a charged particle or a gravitating mass suddenly accelerates, the change in the electric or gravitational field propagates outward at the speed of light.

Since this point can be confusing, it's worth exploring a little further, in a slightly more technical manner. Consider two bodies--call them A and B--held in orbit by either electrical or gravitational attraction. As long as the force on A points directly towards B and vice versa, a stable orbit is possible. If the force on A points instead towards the retarded (propagation-time-delayed) position of B, on the other hand, the effect is to add a new component of force in the direction of A's motion, causing instability of the orbit. This instability, in turn, leads to a change in the mechanical angular momentum of the A-B system. But total angular momentum is conserved, so this change can only occur if some of the angular momentum of the A-B system is carried away by electromagnetic or gravitational radiation.

Now, in electrodynamics, a charge moving at a constant velocity does not radiate. (Technically, the lowest order radiation is dipole radiation, which depends on the acceleration.) So, to the extent that A's motion can be approximated as motion at a constant velocity, A cannot lose angular momentum. For the theory to be consistent, there must therefore be compensating terms that partially cancel the instability of the orbit caused by retardation. This is exactly what happens; a calculation shows that the force on A points not towards B's retarded position, but towards B's "linearly extrapolated" retarded position. Similarly, in general relativity, a mass moving at a constant acceleration does not radiate (the lowest order radiation is quadrupole), so for consistency, an even more complete cancellation of the effect of retardation must occur. This is exactly what one finds when one solves the equations of motion in general relativity.

While current observations do not yet provide a direct model-independent measurement of the speed of gravity, a test within the framework of general relativity can be made by observing the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16. The orbit of this binary system is gradually decaying, and this behavior is attributed to the loss of energy due to escaping gravitational radiation. But in any field theory, radiation is intimately related to the finite velocity of field propagation, and the orbital changes due to gravitational radiation can equivalently be viewed as damping caused by the finite propagation speed. (In the discussion above, this damping represents a failure of the "retardation" and "noncentral, velocity-dependent" effects to completely cancel.)

The rate of this damping can be computed, and one finds that it depends sensitively on the speed of gravity. The fact that gravitational damping is measured at all is a strong indication that the propagation speed of gravity is not infinite. If the calculational framework of general relativity is accepted, the damping can be used to calculate the speed, and the actual measurement confirms that THE SPEED OF GRAVITY IS EQUAL TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT TO WITHIN 1%. (Measurements of at least one other binary pulsar system, PSR B1534+12, confirm this result, although so far with less precision.)

Are there future prospects for a direct measurement of the speed of gravity? One possibility would involve detection of gravitational waves from a supernova. The detection of gravitational radiation in the same time frame as a neutrino burst, followed by a later visual identification of a supernova, would be considered strong experimental evidence for the speed of gravity being equal to the speed of light. However, unless a very nearby supernova occurs soon, it will be some time before gravitational wave detectors are expected to be sensitive enough to perform such a test.

See also the section on gravitational radiation.

References
There seems to be no nontechnical reference on this subject. For a technical reference, see

T. Damour, in Three Hundred Years of Gravitation, S.W. Hawking and W. Israel, editors (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987).

For a good reference to the electromagnetic case, see

R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter II-21 (Addison-Wesley, 1989)."




Read the First and capitolized sentence for my proof that it does not require the suns gravity field to accelerate an object to the speed of light. Its all about focusing whatever amount of gravitational pull into the proper volatility. I am still working on that formula but this should hold you off for a moment.


Umm that will be enough thanx.

  • 07.29.2004 6:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

If arnold or danny glover can beat the predator, then mc can fo' sho'

  • 07.29.2004 6:31 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

i swear if any one sys that one more time i am gonna kill some one THAT IS LIKE THE %))TH TIME THE HAS BEEN POSTED IN THIS THREAD

  • 07.29.2004 6:34 PM PDT