Which is better, Regeneration or Indestructibility?

[AkazilliaDeNaro]

So say you have two cubes.

The first cube cannot be damaged in any way, shape, or form. While the second cube just regenerates any damage done to the body in a matter of seconds. Which is the better material?

[SiuiS]

So say you have two cubes.

The first cube cannot be damaged in any way, shape, or form. While the second cube just regenerates any damage done to the body in a matter of seconds. Which is the better material?

For what? How? Neither is useful. Neither can be worked.

More data.

[Somensjev]

So say you have two cubes.

The first cube cannot be damaged in any way, shape, or form. While the second cube just regenerates any damage done to the body in a matter of seconds. Which is the better material?

how much damage can the second cube regenerate? is it always restored to it's original shape, or is there a limit? if there's a limit to the damage then only one would survive a bomb :smalltongue:

[GPuzzle]

Focus fire the Regenarating one with enough Dakka and you're bound to destroy it.

[Zrak]

For what purpose? The second cube might prove more useful on account of providing limitless material, since it will regenerate pieces which are removed. In terms of sheer resiliency, I would imagine complete indestructibility would always be preferable to regeneration.

[Lord Raziere]

If Cube A cannot be damaged at all, why would I go for Cube B, which can be damaged?

I mean, say if I'm using these cubes as shields: Do I want the shield that gets damaged, and is thus destroyed for a few seconds, thus giving my enemy opportunity to kill me while its regenerating during those few seconds?

or do I want a shield that cannot be damaged ever, and when I hold it up, it will protect me against a bullet just as well as it will against a nuclear strike?

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I'd go for Cube A, and have my shield of all-preventing attacks. the other guy holds up his regenerating shield, then dies when it gets damaged by a grenade then he gets shot by an assault rifle.

[AkazilliaDeNaro]

For what? How? Neither is useful. Neither can be worked.

More data.
Yeah, i probably should have specified.

The cubes are just meant to be examples of the material.

The material is the final product so you could fashion it into anything.

As for the qualities of the material.
The indestructible one is, for lack of a better word, "permanent" it will always be in the same shape as it was when it was created. it cannot gain nor lose material.

And the second one will always return to its original form regardless of how much damage has been done, if it was reduced to mere atoms it would still regenerate.
the use is just which is better, at surviving and making other survive.

[Somensjev]

does the regenerating one just regrow the pieces it's missing? or does it simply make the pieces taken off of it magically come back to it

if it's the first one, then you'd have a problem, which is, if you split the material exactly in half would both halves become a new whole? or would you have a half and a whole?

[Lord Raziere]

Yeah, i probably should have specified.

The cubes are just meant to be examples of the material.

The material is the final product so you could fashion it into anything.

As for the qualities of the material.
The indestructible one is, for lack of a better word, "permanent" it will always be in the same shape as it was when it was created. it cannot gain nor lose material.

And the second one will always return to its original form regardless of how much damage has been done, if it was reduced to mere atoms it would still regenerate.
the use is just which is better, at surviving and making other survive.

Then Cube A is better.

Once again- ounce of prevention > pound of cure. regeneration is a power that is only good if you have it. I make armor with the regenerating Cube and all I'm getting is an armor that if destroy enough will leave me vulnerable at a critical moment and then I die before it regenerates fully.

I make an armor out of Cube A though....well I now have an armor I can now shrug off nuclear explosions with and the radiation that stays around after. in fact, I can make entire cities nuclear bomb proof with it, if I'm persistent enough about making it mass produceable, then put all around the perimeter as a wall, now tanks, soldiers and so on can't get through no matter how many explosives they use, make blades that stay sharp forever, bridges, statues, architecture in general that doesn't need to worry about erosion, maybe even help protect against storms and natural disasters, get some people on making flexible and transparent versions so that we can make windows and wires from it...

all this? better with Cube A. Cube B, still gets damaged by all this and stuff poses a danger to people while its busy doing that, sure it regenerates, but unless you really take the time to build regenerating robotic bodies that people can transfer their minds into safely, its not going to be as useful.

edit: no wait, screw nuclear bombs, lets figure out a way to use Cube A to protect against meteors. cause I don't want a potential glorified rock wiping out civilization.

[SiuiS]

If Cube A cannot be damaged at all, why would I go for Cube B, which can be damaged?

I mean, say if I'm using these cubes as shields: Do I want the shield that gets damaged, and is thus destroyed for a few seconds, thus giving my enemy opportunity to kill me while its regenerating during those few seconds?

or do I want a shield that cannot be damaged ever, and when I hold it up, it will protect me against a bullet just as well as it will against a nuclear strike?

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I'd go for Cube A, and have my shield of all-preventing attacks. the other guy holds up his regenerating shield, then dies when it gets damaged by a grenade then he gets shot by an assault rifle.

A high calibur bullet or nuclear blast will still kill you despite the indestructibikity of the shield. A bomb will accelerate the cube into you, which will kill you, and leave the cube pristine and unharmed.


Yeah, i probably should have specified.

The cubes are just meant to be examples of the material.

The material is the final product so you could fashion it into anything.

As for the qualities of the material.
The indestructible one is, for lack of a better word, "permanent" it will always be in the same shape as it was when it was created. it cannot gain nor lose material.

And the second one will always return to its original form regardless of how much damage has been done, if it was reduced to mere atoms it would still regenerate.
the use is just which is better, at surviving and making other survive.

They're both useful for different things.


Then Cube A is better.

Once again- ounce of prevention > pound of cure. regeneration is a power that is only good if you have it. I make armor with the regenerating Cube and all I'm getting is an armor that if destroy enough will leave me vulnerable at a critical moment and then I die before it regenerates fully.

Armor made well enough to be mobile will have articulation and plates. Armor A will destroy you, as energy still transfers through it, and you can still be crushed inside it without it deforming. Armor B offers ablative energy dispersal, diverting kinetic force away from you into the easier to destroy armor, which then recovers.

Space ship hulls should be made out of A in the micron scale (indestructible means **** you, square cube law) to allow for limitless travel.

B would probably see use in medical advances, interweaving mesh and solid forms into medicine such as a bone-shaped splint which will self correct if moved forcibly to allow bones to knit properly; replacement joints that won't wear out; earthquake proof buildings which will partially collapse and restore themselves (A would just destroy everything inside due to lack of crumple), cars which never need auto body maintenance, just a week's vacation.


Of course, with Material B you need to establish methods. Does cutting a cube in half result in two cubes? Or does one half assume primacy and the other is inert? Because if throwing a cube into a sandblasted creates millions of cubes, we all will suffocate and die. And does the federation produce ectothermic energy? Kinetic energy? How much? Will the regeneration slow if met with constant resistance, pushing against it like a growing tree root? Or spring to full growth and damage things like an inflatable raft popping into shape?

[Lord Raziere]

:smallannoyed:

I hate it when your right, Siuis. For some reason that always gets on my nerves. its times like this when I wish I can find something your wrong about. so that I can be right at you for once.

[SiuiS]

:smallannoyed:

I hate it when your right, Siuis. For some reason that always gets on my nerves. its times like this when I wish I can find something your wrong about. so that I can be right at you for once.

It's probably my implied tone. I'm stuck with it; trying to be more conversational inevitably gets me dismissed entirely.


...


Well crap :smallfrown:

I could show you a bunch of things I was wrong about if your like, but I think it would just irritate you more because my response is universally "oh, good point. Okay then, sorry." And I move on and use the correct information next time it comes up.

[Elemental]

Hmm... I think which is better really depends on the application intended for the resulting product. Situations where rigidity is paramount favour the indestructible material, whereas those where flexibility is needed favour the regenerative one. This is an oversimplification naturally, but I think it sums it up nicely.

[Grinner]

Having been faced with a similar conundrum in the context of video-games, I would take regeneration. Indestructibility never really works out in them.

In a materials science context, I would take either one, depending upon the intended application.

[hamishspence]

A certain man that "fate has made indestructible" would point out that the word can be applied to someone who "always regenerates no matter what".

:smallamused:

"Undamagability" might fit better than "Indestructibility" in this case.

[Finlam]

In a materials science context, I would take either one, depending upon the intended application.

Yeah, it really depends on your use case. For example, when crafting plate armor, indestructibility would be optimal for parts of the armor and regeneration...considerably less so. The rate of regeneration really matters too. If it always regenerates "as fast as we need it to" then there is no situation in which material A is better.

[Rawhide]

Two words. Ablative armour.

Very thin layer of indestructible armour, coated with much larger collection of layers of regenerative armour. Indestructible and momentum reducing.

[Telonius]

Cube B. If a cube is indestructible, it would be pretty hard to figure out how it's made or what it's composed of. With Cube B, you could take it apart and study it and maybe make another one.

EDIT: Just saw the clarification ... answer is no longer applicable.

[Duck999]

What happens if the regenerating cube is changed to something else. Will it regenerate to its original shape? Can the indestructible cube be changed?

[SiuiS]

What happens if the regenerating cube is changed to something else. Will it regenerate to its original shape? Can the indestructible cube be changed?

The cube isn't the focal point, it's just a demo. The idea is, you have the capability to make a material. You can form it into any shape (probably via molds) and then make an object. Afterwards, that object is either A) indestructible, or B) destructible but rapidly repairs itself in defiance of entropy.

[Duck999]

Let's say it is ionized. What happens to each cube?

[SiuiS]

No idea.

Why are we sticking with cubes?

[Kneenibble]

I would take the first cube, and fashion a spade from it; and a handle from the second. Then I would dig a hole in the garden soil, which is presently under a few feet of snow and frozen, and fill it with hot water. I would mix a Tom Collins, put on my most colourful form-fitting undergarment, and splash about in the water going "What is the meaning of this?"

I trust this answers your question peremptorily.

[noparlpf]

I make an armor out of Cube A though....well I now have an armor I can now shrug off nuclear explosions with and the radiation that stays around after.

How do you shrug off oxygen deprivation?

[Lord Raziere]

How do you shrug off oxygen deprivation?

ignoring the fact that Siuis already said it wouldn't work for different reasons...

we have diving equipment for a reason.

[Coidzor]

Neither is useful. If you use the indestructible cube as an unbreakable gate or what have you, they'll just destroy everything around it and move it. The second could conceivably be destroyed in one massive attack or something, and its ability to self-repair would actively hinder any attempt made to shape it into a useful form.

[Asmayus]

I'm going to be brave (read: stupid) and re-phrase the question:

Who would win in a fight? Wolverine or Superman?

One regenerates, the other is indestructible.

Unless the regeneration has an energy cost, I'm don't think there is an answer.

[SiuiS]

Superman is better, then, because the things superman can accomplish for the good of the world outstrip the things wolverine can accomplish for the good of the world. Even if only going by "one is indestructible" and "one regenerates to the point of being indestructible".

[Amidus Drexel]

Who would win in a fight? Wolverine or Superman?

One regenerates, the other is indestructible.


Superman is better, then, because the things superman can accomplish for the good of the world outstrip the things wolverine can accomplish for the good of the world. Even if only going by "one is indestructible" and "one regenerates to the point of being indestructible".

That's not really a fair comparison in this context, though. Superman has a plethora of abilities denied to Wolverine that make him objectively better. He could just throw Wolverine into the sun. Sure, Wolverine might not die, per se, but the fight would be over. Wolverine couldn't do that to Superman, period. He's on a much different scale of power.

[SiuiS]

That's not really a fair comparison in this context, though. Superman has a plethora of abilities denied to Wolverine that make him objectively better. He could just throw Wolverine into the sun. Sure, Wolverine might not die, per se, but the fight would be over. Wolverine couldn't do that to Superman, period. He's on a much different scale of power.

That isn't relevant, though, because throwing wolverine into the sun (or fighting him at all) doesn't advance mankind or the world. I'm not banking on the predatory 'who is left' but the optimistic 'which does the most good'?

[Chen]

Clearly Superman wins that fight but not due to invulnerability vs regeneration. I suspect the question was more trying to get at:

Would a person with invulnerability beat someone who regenerated extremely fast, assuming they had completely equal other powers.

When talking about characteristics of a person rather than an object, I think invulnerability is pretty much strictly better. You would never need to regenerate since you're invulnerable. If the regeneration were amped up SO high that you regenerated INSTANTLY (no time delay at all), then they're effectively the same. Even then I'd assume the one who had to regenerate would still feel more pain (as parts of them are being destroyed) so presumably the invulnerability is STILL better in that extreme case.

[Amidus Drexel]

That isn't relevant, though, because throwing wolverine into the sun (or fighting him at all) doesn't advance mankind or the world. I'm not banking on the predatory 'who is left' but the optimistic 'which does the most good'?

See the first part of my response (the rest was, admittedly, mostly directed at the quoted post above yours - the one asking about who would win in a fight). The reason Superman is objectively better than Wolverine has little to nothing to do with his method of invulnerability. He's essentially all-powerful, or at least close to it, while Wolverine is mostly just strong and nigh-impossible to kill. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying the comparison isn't fair.

[Elemental]

Personally, I would want neither invincibility or regenerative abilities on par with it. I mean... If we assume invincibility and regeneration prevent aging, then that is going to seriously backfire in the long run.

[Coidzor]

Yeah, i probably should have specified.

The cubes are just meant to be examples of the material.

The material is the final product so you could fashion it into anything.

As for the qualities of the material.
The indestructible one is, for lack of a better word, "permanent" it will always be in the same shape as it was when it was created. it cannot gain nor lose material.

And the second one will always return to its original form regardless of how much damage has been done, if it was reduced to mere atoms it would still regenerate.
the use is just which is better, at surviving and making other survive.

In that case. Mu.

You cannot answer the question without knowing to what application it will be put.

[Knaight]

The first cube cannot be damaged in any way, shape, or form. While the second cube just regenerates any damage done to the body in a matter of seconds. Which is the better material?

To join the chorus here, it depends on what you're doing with it. That said, there are a few points to be made regarding the utility of each. It also depends on other factors, such as thermal expansion rates, flexibility, etc.

Invulnerable: The big thing is that this lets you make extremely small things which are very strong. For instance, you could hang heavy objects from very small cables - though there are potential problems here if they get too small, regarding sharpness. It also lets you make extremely large structures without them collapsing. For instance, you could make very long bridges without the use of all that much material, which is extremely helpful in certain situations. If the electrical properties are right, you could make circuitry which can't break, which would be all sorts of helpful. There's also obvious utility in extremely lightweight structural meshes used to support other materials.

This is also very useful if you have something where breaking and regenerating just doesn't do it. For instance, containers - if they fall and break, them regenerating doesn't return everything that leaked and/or fell out. An area where this stands out is in high pressure containment - you could use this material to store something of an arbitrarily high pressure, without using much of it. Need to store a gas at 10,000 atm? No problem (other than keeping it a gas at that pressure). The same principle applies when you have things outside that you don't want inside - you really, really don't want a submarine hull to puncture, even if it does repair pretty quickly.

There are also applications here regarding sharpness. If you've got something ridiculously sharp, it stays that way. Assuming a decently hard object, this is really useful. A set of cooking knives made of this stuff would be glorious. In conjunction with the capacity to hold weights, there are also other simple tools that could be made for cutting things. A really thin wire (or better yet, a set of really thin wires running in parallel) connected to a couple of heavy weights could be placed on an object with the weights suspended, with it being used to cut. Continuing with my cooking example, you've basically got an excellent standardized slicer for a number of things.

Regenerating: The big thing here is that this has what is effectively macroscopic permeability. You could have a container in which you cut off a side to put something in or take something out. There's obvious potential for seals here. For instance, you could have a container which holds fluids accessed by stabbing the side with some sort of specialized implement and draining the fluid, which closes when you remove the implement. This is far more useful with a relatively soft material. If it closes in such a way as to not close around something inside it, there are other options. Sealed equipment comes up again - take two vessels made of this material, stab both with a pipe, have it close around it and you're good.

The regenerating material also has options for energy generation. The best case scenario is if the lost mass gradually fades away into nothingness, so you don't have inadvertent permanent mass generation as well. This is particularly good if you can get it to change phase, and have it regenerate back in the original one. For instance, you could melt the bottom surface of something made of the regenerating material, and have it fall and spin a wheel for energy - then, it comes right back as a solid. If you can't do that, having a system wherein you have globs of the material on threads attached to a surface is an alternative - you have something cut the threads, the globs fall, their falling is used for energy in some way (maybe they are charged and move, maybe they spin something, maybe they are part of a pump system, who knows), and then they come back. Some of this energy is used to keep the cutting implement spinning, and you've got infinite energy. As you're also throwing mass, it could also provide momentum - for instance, there would be ways to power a space craft with this, and keep it going indefinitely.

Basically - both of these could be extremely useful, in a number of different tasks. Exactly how useful depends on a number of other factors, such as hardness, flexibility, thermal conductivity, electrical conductivity, thermal expansion, what happens to removed bits of the regenerating one, etc. The extent to which these tasks see said items is, of course, highly dependent on how much these materials cost.

*Make it out of material 1.

[Lorick]

Clearly Superman wins that fight but not due to invulnerability vs regeneration. I suspect the question was more trying to get at:

Would a person with invulnerability beat someone who regenerated extremely fast, assuming they had completely equal other powers.

When talking about characteristics of a person rather than an object, I think invulnerability is pretty much strictly better. You would never need to regenerate since you're invulnerable. If the regeneration were amped up SO high that you regenerated INSTANTLY (no time delay at all), then they're effectively the same. Even then I'd assume the one who had to regenerate would still feel more pain (as parts of them are being destroyed) so presumably the invulnerability is STILL better in that extreme case.

I think it really depends on the nature of the regeneration. If a building falls on you, and you're invulnerable, you're pinned down in darkness for all eternity. If you regenerate, however... well, a few things could happen. You could be crushed, and then reform where there's enough space for your body to fit (maybe you could even choose where, which would make regeneration vastly superior). Alternatively, you could reform where you are, pushing out the building ever-so-slightly, and also being trapped for eternity. Maybe you'd even reform without pushing it in a smaller form, still dealing with the same problem. And then there are the 17 other possibilities I didn't think of that the forum will share when I hit the post button.

However, the point stands that there is the possibility of regeneration being better.

[Randomguy]

It depends on the physical properties of both materials. For example, what's the tensile strength of the second material? Is it regenerating mister clean magic sponge or regenerating iron? How deformable is the first material? Does it deform like stone or not at all?

I don't know if I'd want either of them to go into common use. I mean, an indestructable building would be great in case of earthquakes. But what if it needs to be demolished for some reason?

I like the idea of using the indestructable material to make a space elevator or something, though. That'd be useful.

[SiuiS]

See the first part of my response (the rest was, admittedly, mostly directed at the quoted post above yours - the one asking about who would win in a fight). The reason Superman is objectively better than Wolverine has little to nothing to do with his method of invulnerability. He's essentially all-powerful, or at least close to it, while Wolverine is mostly just strong and nigh-impossible to kill. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying the comparison isn't fair.

But...


Superman is better, then, because the things superman can accomplish for the good of the world outstrip the things wolverine can accomplish for the good of the world. Even if only going by "one is indestructible" and "one regenerates to the point of being indestructible".

:smallconfused:

[FLHerne]

But...

[forum eats nested quotes :smallannoyed: ]

:smallconfused:But in that case, you're not talking about Superman vs Wolverine, you're talking about Hypothetical Single-Feature Character A vs Hypothetical Single-Feature Character B. Especially for Superman, the invulnerability is less central to his overall utility than his flying or ridiculous strength* or occasional improbable time-travel shenanigans.

Not that the abstract comparison is a bad idea, but the way you phrased it is pretty meaningless. :smallconfused:

*Yes, ludicrous strength without nigh-invulnerability is useless. Whatever... :smalltongue:

[Rawhide]

Ok, I see a bit of back and forth over the question's meaning, even where it has already been clarified by the original poster, so I thought I'd put together a collection of clarifications both made by the original poster and extrapolated from what I believe is the intended meaning.


You can have one of two objects, either an object that is 100% indestructible, or an object that is 100% regenerative. Both materials need to be "fired", like pottery, but the method of firing is immaterial to the discussion. Prior to firing, both of the materials are are 100% malleable, capable of being moulded into the exact shape you want. Once fired, the materials are 100% non-malleable, always staying or regenerating into the exact same shape.

---

For the second question raised by a new poster, these are the parameters that were seemingly targeted.

You can have only one of two powers, either having Superman's indestructibility (100% indestructible, no other powers or weaknesses) or Wolverine's regeneration (100% regeneration from a single cell, somehow not creating clones of yourself, no other powers or weaknesses). Both of these will make you immortal. Ageing will stop once you reach the typically used age, you can still make new memories and improve yourself.

[SiuiS]

But in that case, you're not talking about Superman vs Wolverine, you're talking about Hypothetical Single-Feature Character A vs Hypothetical Single-Feature Character B. Especially for Superman, the invulnerability is less central to his overall utility than his flying or ridiculous strength* or occasional improbable time-travel shenanigans.

Not that the abstract comparison is a bad idea, but the way you phrased it is pretty meaningless. :smallconfused:

*Yes, ludicrous strength without nigh-invulnerability is useless. Whatever... :smalltongue:

But I'm not the one who phrased it as superman and wolverine, and the superman/wolverine comparison was always only to illustrate the concept, not compare superman and wolverine.

[Chen]

I think it really depends on the nature of the regeneration. If a building falls on you, and you're invulnerable, you're pinned down in darkness for all eternity. If you regenerate, however... well, a few things could happen. You could be crushed, and then reform where there's enough space for your body to fit (maybe you could even choose where, which would make regeneration vastly superior). Alternatively, you could reform where you are, pushing out the building ever-so-slightly, and also being trapped for eternity. Maybe you'd even reform without pushing it in a smaller form, still dealing with the same problem. And then there are the 17 other possibilities I didn't think of that the forum will share when I hit the post button.

However, the point stands that there is the possibility of regeneration being better.

I would certainly not assume regeneration let you somehow teleport out of the situation. Just that you'd somehow start healing while still crushed.

I guess unless you were COMPLETELY immobile, the invulnerability is still better. Even with regular person strength you could use your invulnerable body to eventually wear through the materials that had buried you. Might take a very long time though.

[JustSomeGuy]

Familiar with Seyles general adaptation syndrome: Skip next bit

Unfamiliar with seyle's general adaptation syndrome: Basically, if you are unstressed by anything, you will adapt to that and become slightly weaker, slower, less resilient etc. Being stressed by something you are familiar with will result in zero adaptations, basically you will stay the same. Being stressed with something you are unfamiliar with will result in 1 of 2 eventualities - either adapting to the stress and becoming more capable of dealing with it in the future (stronger, faster, more resilient) or failing to adapt while suffering ill effects, again weaker slower less resilient because you overstretched your abilities to recover and adapt. Real world uses are stuff like strength training, muscular hypertrophy etc.

So mr invulnerability will remain at a constant level of strength, speed, power etc. while ms regeneration will adapt to whatever is stressing or destressing her at the time, and given her speed of recovery/adaptation that'll be pretty immediate. So she will detrain to a weaker state unless contracting her muscles, loading her bones etc. under which stress (and depending on the level of the stress) she will adapt pretty instantaneously (assuming regeneration speed is pretty instantaneous) to how hard/fast/heavy she is going. So she will, as she attepts to pick up the building/tank/planet, become stronger and stronger until she is strong enough to lift whatever, and once she releases it she will become weaker and weaker until she hits whatever genetic minimum 'untrained' level she rests at. If she is throwing a goon, she will become more powerful with every passing degree of rotation until she is accelerating goon at such speed he disintegrates or whatever. This is all assuming she has no upper genetic limits placed on either rate of force development (speed) or maximal force development (strength), but since she will never become overstressed (because of regeneration overriding or indeed being a part of her genetics) she will continue to adapt and recover until point infinity of either.

Regenreation wins hands down at smashing through, lifting and throwing stuff. Ther only downside would be her resting state would be pretty physically unimpressive and probably not worthy of a lycra costume (but then again given such rapid and frequent spells of growing and shrinking, outfits as we know them would probably not be overly useful).

A more interesting train of thought would be: If a mr regeneration could regerate instantly and adapt to anything, would he even look human anymore? If he pushed really hard against whatever long bone from a right angle, that bone would become denser and stronger to adapt until it is a giant square block of bone; likewise, as his muscles pull on their boney attatchment points, would those tendons adapt by regenerating and growing at a more advantageous angle of pull - basically moving the muscle and tendon along the bone to get a mechanical advantage? If he were swimming, would his fingers grow webbed and his carpals, metacarpals and phalanges grow elongated to adapt to provide a stronger pull against the water until he has fins/flippers, or would they grow thicker and denser to react against the force of the water he is pulling through - a force which grows greater and greater as his muscle become suddenly stronger as he adapts to swimming?

Non-instantaneous regenration: adaptations will still occur, only they would take longer to both happen and to reverse. I suppose if that is the case, there remains the possiblity of overstressing oneself and suffering serious harm before adapting to the event, but that doesn't seem to be the case being discussed, which is why i didn't use this in the mai nexample.

[Devils_Advocate]

Focus fire the Regenarating one with enough Dakka and you're bound to destroy it.

enough Dakka

enough Dakka
HERESY. :P

[Tylorious]

what would happen if you made a container out of material A, and an extremely long stick out of material B, then broke the stick and put all the pieces into the container and closed it!!!!!!!??

[Wardog]

The cube isn't the focal point, it's just a demo. The idea is, you have the capability to make a material. You can form it into any shape (probably via molds) and then make an object. Afterwards, that object is either A) indestructible, or B) destructible but rapidly repairs itself in defiance of entropy.

Defiance of entropy, eh?

When you have a material that will make the laws of entropy and thermodynamics go and cry in a corner, "armour" is probably the least impressive thing you could do with it.

Can we burn it as fuel? Even if not, I expect that with a bit of inginuity, we might be able to MacGyver a perpetual motion machine out of it.

[RCgothic]

Regeneration would also make for some pretty handy crush-structures. If used in vehicles, after a heavy accident they'd just regenerate, without the passenger-squishing deceleration characteristics of something invulnerable.

I think the invulnerable would be more generally useful though.

[Aotrs Commander]

So am I really the first one to think to use Indestructible material as an offensive weapon...?

I mean... indestructible long-rod kinetic armour penetrator? Sword that can't be broken and never loses it's edge?



Come to that, I'd be wanting to combine the two and have an indestructible regenerating material because you can NEVER be to careful.

And then coat my bones with it.

OR replace my bones with a core of regenerative material surrounded by an indestructible material exoskeleton (ahaha).

Actually, screw that, I already regenerate from most things, so I'd just take the indestructible material to coat my bones with it anyway. By the time I'm at the point I gonna be exposed to anything that's powerful enough to vaporise my bon...

Huh.

That's an interesting thought - I couldn't have my bones vaporised, as they'd be constrained by the outer structure - and they couldn't be burned, since, y'know, no oxygen. That... theoretically means I couldn't be permenantly damaged by heat, fire, light or holy effects any more, since the could only melt the core of my bones, what with them being mithril alloy now...but not actually destroy them (which is why rejuvenation is stopped by those energy types, because when the bone structure gets turned into an oxide by combustion (or other chemical destruction), its no longer technically part of you).

So, uh, yeah. Screw the regen stuff, I'll physical invulnerability, thanks.

[FlapjackStudios]

Indestructible unless the regeneration comes with immortality via constant cell regeneration.

[Arkhosia]

Indestructible unless the regeneration comes with immortality via constant cell regeneration.

Same.
I mean, Anderson from Hellsing Ultimate
Died from his heart being ripped out

[lolthfollower]

indestructible. period. regeneration you can still get through.

[Studoku]

I immediately assumed Magic: the Gathering. In which case, indestructible is better because you don't have to pay for it and it doesn't tap the creature.

[endoperez]

Cube A can be used to stop things that destroy everything else. It might be useful as a shield against some sort of death rays, provided someone or something is able to move it quickly and accurately enough. For example, if we assume that the cube is about 1x1x1 meters, then someone with portal-creation powers could create a portal that opens into that cube, and direct harmless energies through the portal and into the cube, for perfect nullification of otherwise hazardous effects.



The regenerating cube, of course, would be used to create raw matter. How the matter removed from the cube could be used depends on the effects of the material, but if nothing else, it could probably be used as a fuel source. Make a flame hot enough that the regene-cube's material burns, and you could probably finagle it into a cheap source of heat at the very least, possibly gases or raw materials as well.

[Tvtyrant]

I think it depends on what you use it for. Indestructible would have alarming uses in tapping energy out of volcanoes, creating space elevators and even using the sun as a giant sling (the sun spins really, really fast at the equator. Make a line that goes out far enough and it will actually break relativity at the edge assuming it is rigid.)

[Knaight]

(the sun spins really, really fast at the equator. Make a line that goes out far enough and it will actually break relativity at the edge assuming it is rigid.)

Or it would slow the rotation rate down instead - particularly as relativistic angular momentum does get pretty ridiculous close to c, and even a light rod will eventually have one comparable to the sun. Also the math is completely hideous.

[Tvtyrant]

Or it would slow the rotation rate down instead - particularly as relativistic angular momentum does get pretty ridiculous close to c, and even a light rod will eventually have one comparable to the sun. Also the math is completely hideous.

I think trying to work the math out when you throw in impossibilities is silly. Also entertaining.

[TuggyNE]

I think trying to work the math out when you throw in impossibilities is silly.

As long as the impossibilities are logically consistent and mathematically expressible, there's no problem.</overlyseriousresponse>

[Saidoro]

So am I really the first one to think to use Indestructible material as an offensive weapon...?

I mean... indestructible long-rod kinetic armour penetrator? Sword that can't be broken and never loses it's edge?


Come to that, I'd be wanting to combine the two and have an indestructible regenerating material because you can NEVER be to careful.

And then coat my bones with it.

OR replace my bones with a core of regenerative material surrounded by an indestructible material exoskeleton (ahaha).

Actually, screw that, I already regenerate from most things, so I'd just take the indestructible material to coat my bones with it anyway. By the time I'm at the point I gonna be exposed to anything that's powerful enough to vaporise my bon...

Huh.

That's an interesting thought - I couldn't have my bones vaporised, as they'd be constrained by the outer structure - and they couldn't be burned, since, y'know, no oxygen. That... theoretically means I couldn't be permenantly damaged by heat, fire, light or holy effects any more, since the could only melt the core of my bones, what with them being mithril alloy now...but not actually destroy them (which is why rejuvenation is stopped by those energy types, because when the bone structure gets turned into an oxide by combustion (or other chemical destruction), its no longer technically part of you).

So, uh, yeah. Screw the regen stuff, I'll physical invulnerability, thanks.
The indestructible material wouldn't make a very good weapon outside of a few special cases with things like incredibly tiny threads used to cut. Metal is sufficiently indestructible for most of the things we want to destroy with it, and for certain things like bullets an amount of malleability helps deliver more energy to the target. And how are all of these massively invasive experimental surgical procedures protecting your brain? For that matter, how are they allowing your bones to continue playing their vital role in your internal chemistry without making those bones vulnerable to assault?

Personally, I would want neither invincibility or regenerative abilities on par with it. I mean... If we assume invincibility and regeneration prevent aging, then that is going to seriously backfire in the long run.
How so?

[Aotrs Commander]

And how are all of these massively invasive experimental surgical procedures protecting your brain? For that matter, how are they allowing your bones to continue playing their vital role in your internal chemistry without making those bones vulnerable to assault?

Lich.

If we want to be pendatic, Spirit-Bound Lich with, thanks to a very unlikely series of events that is entirely the fault of ponythread, currently a mithril-alloy skeleton. No, we aren't quite sure how I managed that, but there we go.

[Pomegranite Girl]

Cube A would make horrible armor. It cannot absorb energy by deforming as that would be a destruction of the shape which it is immune to. For low speed impacts this does not matter, but something with a lot of energy you get hurt. Cube B would be better as it can deform on impact and bounce back. Depending on the exact nature of its regeneration not only can it dampen energy by deforming, it could possibly transfer back the energy to the source as it reforms resulting in more elastic collisions. Either case you will get energy transfered to you, but you get significantly less with Cube B.

If I hit someone in armor A with a hammer they get more of the energy I transfered to them than if they were wearing normal armor. If they are wearing armor B not only do they get less energy transfered to them than with armor A they don't have to worry about me eventually deforming the armor such that they cannot breathe.

Assuming a shield you have similar problems (ie you shoot shield A and the wielder's arm might be disabled). Vehicles are designed with crumple zones so that the occupants don't die in an impact, thus for vehicles the material B would still be superior. I suppose a wall made out of A would not transfer the energy to the people it is supposed to protect, though it will transfer it into the anchoring structure and what it is anchored into meaning that a strong impact might rip it out of the ground. Material B would be a great thing to use for what it would transfer the force to so that it can deform but doesn't risk falling over.

[Devils_Advocate]

I could show you a bunch of things I was wrong about if your like, but I think it would just irritate you more because my response is universally "oh, good point. Okay then, sorry." And I move on and use the correct information next time it comes up.
Hahahahahahah, good one!


I think trying to work the math out when you throw in impossibilities is silly. Also entertaining.
It's pretty neat. (http://what-if.xkcd.com/1/)

[Mauve Shirt]

Wolverine beats Thing every time, right?

[Duck999]

Wolverine beats Thing every time, right?

Who said Thing is indestructable? Also, if Wolverine were beheaded, would he regenerate. If Thing were indestructable, he wouldn't be beheadable.

[thubby]

as an inanimate material? regeneration is better. it is shape-able (you need only encase it to keep it that way)

more importantly, an infinitely regenerating substance is a perpetual motion device of the first kind. you could extract literally endless energy from it if you got clever.

the indestructible material, on the other hand, is useful but only to a point. anything that holds it, moves it, or sits beneath it is destructible so there's only so much good it can do as a support or a barrier.

similarly, it's usefulness is limited to the most demanding task we can give it. if we need something to hold a billion pounds, it's only as good as a material that strong. it's like having a 500 horsepower engine in a car you use to drive to work.

[Duck999]

However, that logic works against you. What if you want to shape it? DO you always have to keep it locked up? I believe that this entire question is situational. An indestructible car would be nice, and anything animate (I believe) is better indestructible. If you bisect something that regenerates, how would it work? Would one half regenerate? Would both?

Endless energy: Doesn't work like that. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It would be pulling the energy from somewhere else. Possibly even the air.

[137beth]

Cube B violates conservation of mass-energy.