I really wanted to get in the habit of not upvoting all the time, but then you go ahead and post about a torture device that makes people think the victim deserves it. Damn. +1
SCP-430 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-430
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-430.
No worries, it's how we do. ;)
PS: I rather like it. Have a plus.
I like this, but I suspect that this was specifically created as an excuse to introduce the term "litterbox duty" later on.
I'm upvoting this solely for the horror of the last line. The rest I'm iffy about. It presents an idea, then goes exactly where it looks like it's going to go. There's no emotional twist or moment where I go "huh, didn't see that coming".
…indentation testing resulted in nonphysical hardness values.
Aside from thinking it should be "non-physical", I don't know what that means in this context. Intangible or impossibly hard?
…reappears within SCP-430 within…
Minorly repetitive, but it jumped at me.
…blasphemy, treason,lèse majesté and poaching.
The oxford comma is important. "The strippers, Hitler and Stalin" is only two people after all.
Minor copy-editing, but I didn't change anything because they are all oddly subjective calls by grammer standards. They only minorly distracted from my enjoyment. +1
It means values that don't appear valid according to our understanding of physics.
For example, a permanent magnet with a field of 2T, its magnetic field's magnitude was measured to a nonphysical value, because the limit that can go to is ~1.8 due to how magnetic domains work
Is this some technical/scientific usage I just haven't come across before?
Because the standard form I've seen for that effect is "physically impossible". More technobabbly; "non-possible", "which violates known laws of physics", or "beyond testable limits".
The proper word would be unphysical - I goof'd a little.
Beyond word choice (which may very easily just be my vocabulary fail), I don't see how it could apply to testing hardness. The theoretical upper limit of hardness would be something astronomically dense like neutronium or black hole core material. Faaaaaaaar short of that, our ability to test is limited by the hardest material we can test the object against. On Earth that is diamond. So, at best, the Foundation could only say conclusively that the cage is harder than diamond. It would be unwarranted and unscientific to conclude that the material violates physics just because it beats our tests.
Oddly enough, it doesn't work the other way. If the cage was the consistency of talc, for example, it would be fully valid to say that the material was impossibly soft given the objects observed structural integrity. Retract that: I was musing on the concept and lost sight of the context. Example doesn't apply here.
Okay ,think of the possibility that a diamond indentation test leaves a nice, large indent, yet when you try to cut a piece of the material off, your saw wears off. x3
Besides, there are physical limits on the hardness of solids, too, because atomic bonds have well-defined strengths, and you can't really do much better than a whole lot of covalent bonds everywhere.
That's why I mention neutronium. It's composed entirely of neutrons forced into bonding by the unimaginable pressure at the cores of the largest stars. It would have zero empty space on an atomic level; and as such is the densest material theoretically possible. Barring some unpredicted oddnes with collapsed sub-atomic particles that might happen inside black holes for all we will ever know.
But what I'm tryign to say is that a tester would only be able to determine "harder than diamond". Mohs hardness goes up to 10, let's say the limits of physics caps hardness at 100. "Unphysical" would mean 101+. But what if the cage is merely 11? It would test the same to us at 11, 82, or 150. There is no way to rule out the physics-permitted 11 to 100 range and thus "unphysical" is an unwarranted, unscientific presumption.
The can't cut, but can dent example you give is consistent with the object description. But that still wouldn't be "unphysical hardness values". If it's dentable, the hardness values are perfectly plausible, it's just inconsistent with the other observed properties.
If it's dentable, the hardness values are perfectly plausible, it's just inconsistent with the other observed properties.
Hence the observer not even citing them, as the measurements don't correspond to the properties. But ,you know what? Inconsistent with other observed properties is a neat way of saying it, I think I'll edit it in.
Awww, I was just starting to have fun D:
In all seriousness, I am pleased to contribute in this small way.
Heh, I don't mind. You actually came with an intelligent point, and you should get a fucking cookie for fixing my science (well, while I maintain what I did wasn't wrong, the above is certainly better) . Pick your favourite flavour.
Just shows what happens when you try to SCP after four months or so x3
Just a point concerning that inscription: was it written in English? The names suggest it should be German. If so, perhaps mention the text as given in the article is a translation.
I made a couple grammar edits. By cca., you meant circa, right. It's abbreviated ca., or just c., so I went ahead and fixed that. However, circa isn't usually used for anything other than dating purposes, or at least, I haven't seen it used in any other way. The ca. 10 m/hour., for instance, I would normally see someone saying approximately 10m/hour. or ~10m/hour. Same with the kilograms statement.
Poor doctor Novikov.
Upvoted from a safe distance, since I'm most likely going to end up in that cage at some point of my life. It's only treason and poaching I haven't done yet, and "treason" according to the laws of the 18th century is possibly quite more extense than what I remember… : I
This one confused me. At the end in particular, it took me a while to realize SCP-430-C was different from SCP-430-2. There is no description of SCP-430-C in the Description, only a vague and indirect description in the containment procedures.
Also answering publicly after all this time.
SCP-430-C is not anomalous (hence why it foregoes the usual -[number] syntax) hence it does not require a mention in the Description. However, it has a subdesignation as it is a part of the containment procedures enacted.
Specifically, SCP-430-C is a non-anomalous D-Class subject living in a cell adjacent to SCP-430, and primed in such a way, via Protocol Prometheus-11, so as to become the next SCP-430-2 - rather than SCP-430 interring essentially random personnel in its vicinity (since, especially due to the lineage clause, its preferences in criminals interred are a little arcane.)
/forum/t-638148/scp-430#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
