We know that guns in IBO are able to damage at close enough ranges. It was mentioned in Episode 5, where Biscuit notes that they would not be able to pierce Barbatos's Nanolaminated Armor from afar, referring of course to Barbatos' battle with the Gjallahorn Grazes that was occurring at that time in space. This is shown in other instances as well such as in the first battle against the Gusion, where Mika commented that his gun wasn't able to pierce the Gusion's thicker armor even though he was at close range. So we know that closer range = more damage thing applies in space as well in the show.
Now, I think can sort of see how it works at point blank range (such as how Barbatos did it in Episode 5), where I assume most of the force coming out of the barrel will hit that spot and do enough damage to the body, which would have been not hit if it was not point blank. But if we're talking about beyond the effective range of an IBO gun, does the bullet have less/loses force by the time it reaches outside the effective-range and is this the reason the bullet doesn't do damage anymore against the armor? Is that how it would work?
I assume after a certain point, the bullet is just going to have constant momentum as it travels in space forever (space particle drag, light momentum, going near a large gravitational body, etc notwithstanding) so anything it hits after that point would just have the same force. Would be interested to see what other posters will say on the matter because I've been thinking about it a lot lately as I rewatch the battles in the show and not sure what the actual case would be.
When we first saw that both terms Ahab Waves and Ahab Particles appearing I speculated that they one possibility is that be changing between one another because of Wave-Particle Duality (I'm no expert on this complex and confusing phenomena but I know a little bit about it). I'm kinda happy that they sort of went this direction by acknowledging both, since Wave-Particle Duality is not a subject that Gundam physics lore has touched before this.Brave Fencer Kirby wrote:Regarding particles and waves, generally speaking waves are made of moving particles (eg, a sound wave is made up of moving air), but when you get down to the level of quantum-level phenomenon (like photons and, presumably, Ahab particles), they act like both a particle and a wave in different circumstances. The fact that this makes no damn sense doesn't keep it from being true: it's called wave-particle duality and is one of the weirder things about quantum physics.
Presumably the fact that they switch back and forth between "Ahab waves" and "Ahab particles" is a result of this. It's the same thing either way, but because physics is crazy, sometimes it's easier to talk about it one way or the other.
Although I don't think it is confirmed yet that Ahab Waves can change back and forth from Ahab Particles in the way that something like light can act as either a wave or a particle.
At the moment, we only know that Ahab Waves originated from Ahab Particles, but whether they can change back is not confirmed yet. It might still be possible that Ahab Waves and Ahab Particles are two distinct things with their own respective particle and wave forms. Maybe each are called "Wave" and "Particle" respectively because their special property only appears in that form, as opposed to being called something like Ahab Particle Type 1 and Ahab Particle Type 2.
Though I think it would just be unnecessarily complicated for them to go that route, so what you said about them being the same thing that has specific properties when it's being measured as a wave or particle sounds more simpler and likely in my opinion.
I am personally very interested in seeing them elaborate more on this in the future.......though maybe they'll just forget about it and leave it at that.
Thanks for verifying that, appreciate it. Also, unfortunate that they didn't give us anything new with the 1/100 Grimgerde.balofo wrote:You're right about everything.
BTW the 1/100 Grimgerd doesn't seem to have any new info. It doesn't mention the material of the blades.
