Scans_Daily

I have no problem with them talking about unstable molecules; the problem is that the things Otto's saying are either meaningless or obviously wrong even in the Marvel Universe.

It's silly to say that unstable molecules are "fundamental building blocks of the universe." They're molecules. By definition--and more importantly, by 616 canon--they're made of smaller atoms, which are themselves made of subatomic particles. People assemble and disassemble them, render them temporarily "inert", "unlock" them so that they chain-react with other matter, and muck around with them in all kinds of ways; there's nothing fundamental about them. Nor are they building blocks of much of anything, other than a few exotic technologies (and Skrulls, I guess.)

And what does it mean to say that Lamaze is wrong about unstable molecules changing or mimicking other stuff, because actually they just reveal a new facet of their potential? From a physics PoV, what's the difference between the two claims? I don't have a problem with the idea that there could be a subtle and physically meaningful difference, but Otto's making no attempt to define one here; it sounds like he's just quibbling over language.

It just comes off like a late-night philosophy discussion between stoned 616 undergrads, rather than a demonstration of keen scientific insight.