Where do elves get metal?

[Nerwen]

Marhwini, as I said what you are doing is fine if you treat it as a game or a curiosity or an academic exercise, understanding that there can never be a true, final answer in the absence of an underlying reality. Even if you do manage to come up with an internally consistant model, you can't test it against a reality that isn't there.

That's the difference between Middle-earth and an exoplanet.

Plus, a lot of your theorising is of the card-castle variety- a fantastical, elaborate and ingenious structure built on a foundation so flimsy it would topple at a breath of air. I know it doesn't look that way to you, but that's because, in my opinion, you're not sufficiently objective about your own ideas to either critique them properly yourself or allow others to do so.

Which brings me to this:

It would be nice to have a bit more help in creating a detailed Foundation for the Operation of Middle-earth than the current Four of us (and I am currently the only one with much time to spend on it, while the fake bone in my leg grows into the real one).

And when I can regularly walk again, it will be back to studying Intestinal Villi and Oligosaccharides and Glycoproteins.

It is difficult to find people with a strong enough Science background to begin with, much less a deal of Interdisciplinary Study as well.

What's your intention in all this? *Are* you asking for our help or input? Are you actually interested in sharing ideas? Because honestly, you just seem to work from the basic assumption that you already possess Total Knowledge on All Subjects Whatever, and that the rest of us are Ignorant Peasants who should be Grateful that you Condescend to Enlighten us with your Vast Ineffable Wisdom. <--Yes, I'm mocking your posting style, but I'm doing it in order to help you see why you're getting increasingly negative responses. That's not what you want, right?

That said, please do understand that I bear you no ill-will, that I am very sorry to hear about your serious injury and that I wish you a speedy recovery.

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Marhwini, as I said what you are doing is fine if you treat it as a game or a curiosity or an academic exercise, understanding that there can never be a true, final answer in the absence of an underlying reality. Even if you do manage to come up with an internally consistant model, you can't test it against a reality that isn't there.

Yes and no.

We have no ABSOLUTE Foundational Theory for the universe in which we inhabit now.

And much of the Theory upon which it rests is wholly untestable unless we find some way to get outside of it.

But this does not mean that we do not have a whole system of Philosophy, Metaphysics, and Sciences that support the ability to make consistent predictions about our reality, or to understand how almost everything within our universe works that is not either:

• Very Massive.
•*Very Fast (and thus very massive).
• or Very Small.

Once you get into these realms, the bottom (or top) races away from you.

But within the Mesosphere (the "Middle World"), you have the Life we see around us, and a System of Physics, Chemistry, and Biology (and Genetics, Social Sciences, History, etc.) that grows directly out of these.

And out of the Reductionistic Sciences grow the Systems Sciences.

These, in our universe are based upon what is known as "Monistic Materialism."

There is a small clustering of other Philosophical designations that also include the basic Sciences we see in our world, and the predictions and observations that are accounted for by these Sciences.


But within Middle-earth.... Monistic Materialism isn't enough.

There is Something else.... Mainly because Tolkien was a Catholic, and like a good Catholic, he believes in God, Angels, Saints, Demons, The Devil (Tolkien was a Pre-Vatican II Catholic. The Devil wasn't some metaphorical or allegorical entity - How many people know that this is one of the reasons Tolkien hated Allegory so much? You have to go to CS Lewis to discover this, though), Souls, Heaven, and Hell (among other things). But Tolkien's beliefs are not a necessary component to creating a world in which property dualism is true. Anyone can create one.

Tolkien's beliefs are important because they are largely reflected in his creation of Middle-earth.

And... Some account for HOW a "Soul" WORKS needs to be accounted for. Because we see that the Fëa (what Tolkien called the "Souls" of things in Middle-earth) has a PHYSICAL EFFECT upon the world.

And when you have a physical effect upon the world, that means that whatever it is that Tolkien is calling "The Soul/Fëa" is affecting the molecules, or "Matter" that is in Middle-earth.

In fact, we can even calculate the bare minimal interaction of this effect.

Gandalf lights a bundle of wood on the side of Caradhras.

Lighting Wood on Fire takes Energy.

We can calculate EXACTLY how much energy if we know what kind of wood it is, and an approximate energy given just a list of possible wood types they might have had available in Alpine Foothills (Pine, Cedar, Spruce, Aspen, Larch, Birch, Yew, etc.).

Wood burning is a chemical reaction. It is the sugars in the wood (Cellulose, Sucrose, and Fructose, all of which are combinations of Glucose) oxidizing.

In fact, we have the formula:

C6H12O6 + 6(O2) → 6(CO2) + 6(H2O) + Heat + Light

Technically the formula for the Cellulose is:

2(C6H10O5)_n + 11(O2) → 6(CO2) + 10(H2O)

But the final results are fairly the same, and there is a LOT of math coming up

First Gandalf has to raise the temperature of the wood he is going to light from roughly 0ºC to 500ºC (the ignition temperature for cellulose). We can calculate that amount of energy with great specificity if we wanted to get down to actually looking at what it takes to light wet-frozen wood down to the conditions of how much water it has absorbed per cubic volume, how it was carried, etc.

But we can estimate the amount of energy to a very high degree of confidence just with some rough guesses.


The Energy to raise the Temperature of the Wood from 0ºC to 500ºC, is easily computed for 1kg of wood.

This is a simple equation: Q = cmΔT

Q is the Heat Added
c is the Specific Heat of the Substance (for the Sugars in the wood burning, it is 218.7 J/K•mol (joules per ºKelvin times moles))
m is the Mass of substance (guessing about 1kg would be needed to create enough energy to keep the entire thing burning)
ΔT is the change in temperate celsius.


So, for getting the temperature raised to 500ºC, which is needed to even complete the above Gibbs Free Energy calculation, you need to have:

Q = (218.7J/ºK•mol)(1kg)(500ºC - 0ºC)

Convert ºC to ºK, so that our Temperature will cancel in the equation (Simply add 273.15 to ºC to get ºK):

Q = (218.7J/ºK•mol)(1kg)(773.15ºK)

Now cancel the mass (convert 1kg of wood to mols of Glucose - To get the grams per mol of Glucose: C (12) * 6 + H (1) * 12 + O (16) * 6 = 174g/mol or 1mol/174g of Glucose, and Wood is roughly 80% Cellulose, so 800/174≈4.6mol)
and cancel like terms

This gives us:

Q = (218.7J)(4.6)(773.15)

Or.

Q = 775.315kJ

That's a LOT of freaking energy that had to come from someplace to just raise the temperature of the wood, to say nothing of getting it lit.

For getting it Lit, that is essentially it's Heat of Enthalpy (Gibb's Free Energy):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wo...eat-d_372.html

Burning wood is an Exothermic Reaction.

Yet it requires an "Activation Energy/Enthalpy" to begin the reaction.

For Sugar (Glucose - the stuff in wood that is reacting), that is -2805kJ/mol.

<<Edit>>: I forgot the link to the ΔH (Heat of Combustion) of Cellulose:

https://www.google.com/search?client...mbustion+sugar

<</edit>>

Continuing....

Since we are talking about LIGHTING the fire, that "-2805kJ/mol" is how much you have to dump into the wood to get it lit (Or, rather... It takes 2,805 kiloJoules/Mol just to get the reaction started).

We saw above that 1kg of wood is basically 4.6mols of Glucose.

So that is:

2805(4.6)kJoules

Or 12,903 kiloJoules.

So....

We now have Gandalf producing roughly 13,678kJ to light a fire.

That's a pretty significant amount of energy.

We can go even further with this to give that a mass-equivalent with Einstein's formulas...

That's the difference between Middle-earth and an exoplanet.

That isn't much of a difference.

We know that Energy had to come from somewhere.

Even saying "Magic" does nothing to answer the question. All it does is NOT answer the question, but defiantly refuses to even address the question.

Plus, a lot of your theorising is of the card-castle variety- a fantastical, elaborate and ingenious structure built on a foundation so flimsy it would topple at a breath of air. I know it doesn't look that way to you, but that's because, in my opinion, you're not sufficiently objective about your own ideas to either critique them properly yourself or allow others to do so.

Which brings me to this:

So be my guest to point out how Gandalf, or anyone, can light a fire without introducing some form of energy into the equation?

We know that Gandalf's energy he produces isn't from a source we would call "Material" (even though ultimately this is what it is. At this point it is just playing with definitions), but rather from someTHING ELSE. Tolkien calls it the "Fëa."

Gandalf somehow turns his Fëa into Physical Energy (and we see this in more additional instances than I could rattle off here without writing an actual book - not that I nearly haven't already).

What's your intention in all this? *Are* you asking for our help or input? Are you actually interested in sharing ideas? Because honestly, you just seem to work from the basic assumption that you already possess Total Knowledge on All Subjects Whatever, and that the rest of us are Ignorant Peasants who should be Grateful that you Condescend to Enlighten us with your Vast Ineffable Wisdom. <--Yes, I'm mocking your posting style, but I'm doing it in order to help you see why you're getting increasingly negative responses. That's not what you want, right?

If you demonstrate an understanding of the concepts.... Then yeah... Help would be good.

And... the "Total Knowledge...."

Nope...

But one needn't have total knowledge of a subject to recognize a wrong answer.

You do not need to know Ordinary Differential Equations to know that the Answer to:

dx/dt = x - 1

ISN'T: "Horse"



In the Sciences, and most of Academia, that is called "Not even wrong."

A Wrong answer would be something like:

"5" or "x = 1"
(the actual answer is x(t) = c e^t + 1).

And if I come off a little weird here, it might be because many of the responses I am seeing are looking to me like someone has responded with "Horse" to many of the posts I have made.

That isn't saying that "Horse" isn't the right response to something that you are thinking that I said.... But it isn't really responding to the underlying foundation of the claims I have made.

It tends to make me wonder what people's definitions of "Metaphysics" are.

And, yes... I am socially Clumsy.... I tend to be used to working with Academics and people in the Sciences (or Social Sciences - less so).

I am trying to figure out what might be missing from this explanation to illuminate it a bit better..... But I seem to have had poor luck in that regard.

And Fiction or No, Tolkien worked to try to discover the rules by which his creation would work (again: p. x of Morgoth's Ring) so that the things that occurred in Middle-earth would:

1) Have a REASON that they worked (that is to say: HOW they functioned)
2) Did not contradict themselves or other aspects of his world.

That this is a Fictional World actually aids in accomplishing this, because we can postulate rules that don't exist in this world. But the trick is to make them consistent with what we DO KNOW EXISTS (either for Our Universe, or for Middle-earth, which uses the same Physical Template, over which additional assumptions have been Layered by Tolkien.... Of course, this isn't that hard - especially with Google, these days).

We don't need an experiment, because we can dictate outcomes that align with what we do know to be true, plus what NEEDS to be True (within Middle-earth) for some event, action, or item to exist, or operate/function.

That said, please do understand that I bear you no ill-will, that I am very sorry to hear about your serious injury and that I wish you a speedy recovery.

Thank you, it is no fun to have 1-1/2 legs.

MB

[Formendacil]

Marhwini, I think there are couple things about your pursuit of a Unified Theory that are ruffling our collective feathers, and it seems to me worth it to pursue them:

1. Tolkien's work is art. There are things within his books that take place not because it fits within a specific physics or metaphysics, but because it is artistically appropriate. The sciences most appropriate for analysing The Lord of the Rings is and will remain aesthetics, form criticism, or philology.

Tolkien definitely aimed for verisimilitude--most writers do and especially those writers who say things like "I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers." I certainly agree that thought was put into the "behind the scenes" mechanics of Middle-earth. Where I disagree is in thinking that these can be definitively revealed.

Perhaps the most apparent way of stating this part of the problem has already been made by Morthoron: how do you reconcile a Talking Purse in the Possession of Trolls to your Unified Theory?

2. And a major part of the reason for this is that Tolkien changed his mind about things! Middle-earth only exists or has a definitive form insofar as he gave it one. It's one thing for Tolkien to decide that a certain metaphysic must apply--if anything contradicted it, he was able to change it. But for the rest of us who can only study matter, what are we to do when there are competing traditions? Was Arda flat at one point? What is the nature of the stars that Varda made?

Tolkien had the freedom to reject concepts AND to completely modify texts to fit new theories. We see this especially with his linguistics (since, of course, this was the field he was most interested in), but we also see that he had a profound respect for anything that he'd already published: note how he dropped the whole "problem of -ros." And, of course, he'd forget he decided something now and again without specifically writing out that he'd done so, so you're looking at a dubious metric in using "whatever his latest opinion was."

Basically, you can't have a Unified Theory without first establishing which texts are permissible to admit as evidence, and you can't do that unless you first establish what is canon.

It may be somewhat ancient history now, but we on the Downs have fought many wars over Canonicity before (here is but one major example), and you first need to demonstrate there is a clear, unmistakable canon before you can start deriving anything approaching definitive conclusions.




To be perfectly clear, I *like* the idea of exploring some of the metaphysical or physical ramifications of Arda-as-Revealed, but it always has to be approached with the same sort of attitude as approaching a contrafactual question like "what if Melitot Brandybuck found the One Ring?": you can base it on evidence, make a clear and compelling case, but you cannot PROVE it.

[Marwhini]

While Tolkien's work might be "Art" it does not dismiss the statements made by Tolkien himself (see where I have quoted them above in the thread more times than I can now count) that there are Operational Rules (Sciences) within Middle-earth that are just as robust and rigorous as are our Sciences in this world.

As for how do you reconcile a Talking Pursue?

There are dozens of different ways to reconcile a talking purse.

Formost among them is that The Hobbit is a story that Bilbo crafted to tell other Hobbit Children, and that the event with the Trolls has been Bowdlerized to make it amusing to the Children, and not the terrifying experience it might have been.

There are other Mythological alternatives that can explain a Talking Pursue as well.

As I already pointed out, Having the world based upon Sciences does not preclude what we call "The Supernatural," as the whole attempt is to reconcile that and TO EXPLAIN IT. It means that we need to just look at what would need to be true within Middle-earth for the events, items, people, places, etc. to behave as we see them behave.

The rest of your post is based upon a misconception of what is being attempted, based upon the above point.

Not to mention not understanding that we have an Identical Problem with our own Universe, where conflicting theories and narratives tend to prevent this very thing.

As I said above, that Middle-earth is a fiction works to our advantage, not against us.

MB

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

As for how do you reconcile a Talking Pursue?

There are dozens of different ways to reconcile a talking pursue.

Formost among them is that The Hobbit is a story that Bilbo crafted to tell other Hobbit Children, and that the event with the Trolls has been Bowdlerized to make it amusing to the Children, and not the terrifying experience it might have been.

First, it's purse, p-u-r-s-e, not "pursue".

You could pound a square peg into a round hole and claim "The Hobbit is a story Bilbo crafted to tell other Hobbit Children"; however, there is nothing anywhere in Tolkien's notes to indicate it was Bowdlerized, and you would be back to mere speculation. We know Tolkien didn't care for the naming conventions of the three Trolls (and he names "William" in particular), but then he didn't care for the names of all the Dwarves in the story either (and Gandalf to boot), borrowed as they were from the Völuspá. But he did edit out any number of anachronisms from The Hobbit, yet he chose to keep the talking purse in and never mentioned it again as anachronistic or out of character or too whimsical.

But if, as you speculate, the story was Bowdlerized, and since we know that Bilbo lied about the Ring at one point, doesn't that call into account the veracity of the story as a whole? How many elements were changed to meet the mythical audience you created with your conjecture? Is there a list of things you believe could not occur to fit in your stilted theory? If that's the case, it cannot be considered "canon" in the truest sense, and we must toss aside The Hobbit as unfit for your divine plan.

And how do Trolls have an intrinsically magic item that is beyond their obvious ability to craft? Did they steal it from Ye Old Coach Purse and Majicks Shoppe? It is a unique item, unlike any other described in the Tolkien corpus. Does it work on solar power? D'oh! No, forget that idea. Thorin mentions "magical toys" his forefathers' created that were now out the Dwarves' ken to create. Yes, one is left with conjecture - it could be one of many manifestations (it may even have a soul ). The enigmatic. The unexplainable. The supernatural. These have a place in Tolkien's fantasy. Just like the "express train" that passed through Bywater one evening.

Originally Posted by Marwhini

There are other Mythological alternatives that can explain a Talking Pursue as well.

I have already described in a previous post the talking purse as a folkloric motif, which it is, and Tolkien would have recognized it as such (hence, it's inclusion). But Tolkien always leaves one guessing. He guessed quite often himself, and never came to a specific one-size-fits-all, end-all-be-all, all-in-all-we're-just-another-brick-in-the-wall conclusion about many things. Tom Bombadil, for instance, who he specifically named an "enigma". And since Tolkien is dead, you will never come to a conclusion about some things, which is fine and part of the allure of the tale. Take Trolls, for instance. Tolkien wrote in Letter 153:

I am not sure about Trolls. I think they are mere 'counterfeit', and hence (though here I am of course only using elements of old barbarous mythmaking that had no 'aware' metaphysic) they return to mere stone images when not in the dark. But there are other sorts of Trolls beside these rather ridiculous, if brutal, Stone-trolls, for which other origins are suggested. Of course since my world is highly imperfect even on its own plane nor made wholly coherent...when you make a Troll speak you are giving them a power, which in our world (probably) connotes the possession of a 'soul'. But I do not agree (if you admit that fairy-story element) my Trolls show any sign of 'good', strictly and unsentimentally viewed.

Let's see: "I am not sure", "I think", "using elements of old barbarous mythmaking", "other origins are suggested", "my world is highly imperfect", "[not] wholly coherent", "probably", "if you admit that fairy-story element", etc. That's quite a bit of conjecture by the Professor about his own story. And you have the temerity to say you will continue his work? That, my dear, it what is called fan-fiction, and invariably it suffers when compared to the original.

Originally Posted by Marwhini

As I already pointed out, Having the world based upon Sciences does not preclude what we call "The Supernatural," as the whole attempt is to reconcile that and TO EXPLAIN IT. It means that we need to just look at what would need to be true within Middle-earth for the events, items, people, places, etc. to behave as we see them behave.

What legitimate science accepts the Supernatural or the enigmatic? Oh, I know, when you bend and warp science to make an artificial synthesis of a fiction novel. Rather like Joseph Campbell's tortured attempt to cram every story into his Hero's Journey one-size-fits-all mold. If Tolkien did not explain it while he was alive and writing, how can you then force it into your precepts without making crap up? Educated guesses are guesses with a thesaurus. Again, fan-fiction, no matter how high the temperature it takes to burn cellulose. One could just as easily say Gandalf possessed a Ring of Power, imbued with fire, which he set his pine cones ablaze with, and you wouldn't be wrong...or right, for that matter. Gandalf may also have used gunpowder, as in the cave against the Orcs (which would also explain the "devilry of Saruman" and the explosion at Helm's Deep).

Originally Posted by Marwhini

The rest of your post is based upon a misconception of what is being attempted, based upon the above point.

Not to mention not understanding that we have an Identical Problem with our own Universe, where conflicting theories and narratives tend to prevent this very thing.

Don't worry, Formy, he's insulted 5 or 6 different people on this forum in like manner already, reminding us of our ignorance. Whatever.

[Marwhini]

That would be an exact example of what I am talking about being "Not even Wrong."

It would be one thing if you could communicate a correct description of what I have been attempting to resolve within Tolkien's work, and then criticized it.

But I have yet to see even an attempt to understand the goal, or what it entails, much less any criticism that actually applies to what I am (or, rather, "We") are attempting to do.

You are addressing things that have nothing to do with the actual goal, or endeavor.

Nearly every reply has been of the nature: "Horse" when the question is:

"What is the Solution to dx/dt = x + 1 ?"

If you cannot even effectively communicate what the problem set is describing, how do you hope to even recognize an answer, much less formulate one that isn't simply an accident?

As to "insulting people..."

I have done no such thing.

If someone is attempting to understand the goals that we have in this project, and communicating what they THINK is being done, then they are never going to reach an understanding of what is being attempted if their misconceptions are not pointed out.

That would be like trying to learn history, or math without ever having any of your knowledge corrected when you have a wrong answer.

And I might be horrifically socially clumsy in that regard.

But that in no way changes the fact that someone who has failed to understand the goal and process here has failed to understand the goal and process.

They might take offense at having this pointed out. But that would be rather like being offended when told that 1+1 ≠ 7. Especially if one intended to discover the correct answer to the problem of 1 + 1 .



MB

[Nerwen]

Marhwini, I find it encouraging to see that you've laid off Capitalising Things.

Now look, you speak constantly of SCIENCE! and allude frequently to having an academic background of some kind, yet, as I've said earlier, it seems to me that you have a deep emotional attachment to your project such that you are unable to evaluate it, or even discuss it, in a manner which remotely approaches being "scientific". For you, there can be no discussion: your ideas must be right, and so you assume anyone who disagrees is simply ignorant and unable to understand what you're saying, and therefore in need of "correction". It seems to me, further, that you are reading at most a few lines of others' posting, before responding with your walls of text + wiki links + equations, whereas a closer examination might reveal to you that we understand perfectly well what you're getting at. We just think you're wrong. Your inability to accept this is what's causing you to come across to many as arrogant and insulting, even though I'm sure that's not your intention.

One thing I am curious about, though- and forgive me if this is something you've explained already- what do you ultimately intend to do with your project? Do you intend to publish it in book form? As an article? Or what?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

That would be an exact example of what I am talking about being "Not even Wrong."

It would be one thing if you could communicate a correct description of what I have been attempting to resolve within Tolkien's work, and then criticized it.

But I have yet to see even an attempt to understand the goal, or what it entails, much less any criticism that actually applies to what I am (or, rather, "We") are attempting to do.

Again, you mistake misunderstanding with rejection. I reject your attempt at making a little video game and claiming it encompasses what a dead author might be thinking on any given subject. It is indeed fan-fiction, enlightened and scientific enough so as not to contain Mary-Sues on little pink ponies, but fan-fiction nonetheless, no matter how you try to conflate it to epic proportions with algorithms and pronouncements. Let's upgrade your attempt to "speculative fiction", give it a nod and a pat on the back for effort, and move on.

Originally Posted by Marwhini

...But that in no way changes the fact that someone who has failed to understand the goal and process here has failed to understand the goal and process.

They might take offense at having this pointed out. But that would be rather like being offended when told that 1+1 ≠ 7. Especially if one intended to discover the correct answer to the problem of 1 + 1 .

Perhaps our failure to communicate entails my concern and fascination dealing with the philology, literary devices, the motifs, the synthesis of world mythos that Tolkien instilled in his work, and the glamour of Middle-earth, with it's the facade of magic and the eucatastrophic ending that requires a suspension of disbelief, because there are some things in Middle-earth that are simply inexplicable by scientific methods; Tolkien himself expressed the need of enigma in fantasy. Tolkien was quite curt with a correspondent, Peter Hastings, who pushed Tolkien in a letter to further explain Bombadil's status, to which Tolkien stated, "As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being far too serious," and further emphasized the point with a blunt, "I don't think Tom needs philosophizing about, and is not improved by it." I would suggest you are not improving it in the same monomaniacal manner.

It seems to me that you subscribe to what Gandalf said of Saruman, “He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.”

Originally Posted by Marwhini

Science is JUST "Fan-Fiction" in that case, because it contains the same problems that exist in Tolkien's world:

We have gaps in history....

And that is our biggest problem. We have proposed a couple of means for how to get past either the historic gaps, or the metaphysical/theological gaps as well.

But there will remain some arbitrary decisions. That can't be avoided.

No, science is not fan-fiction, because one can continually update one's hypotheses to match newly discovered data. Science is not static and is not based on presupposition in so far as ignoring some data to push other data into a given mold.

In the case of Tolkien's Middle-earth, you are attempting to arbitrarily decide how his world operates based on incomplete data, and not only that, pick and choose what you consider "canon".

Which brings me back to the infamous 'talking purse', which you so blithely brushed off when you decided it was merely a story-telling contrivance by Bilbo so as to not upset children listeners, and again ignored the mention to merely state I misunderstood your objectives. There is nothing anywhere in Tolkien's mountains of missives and writings that states that a talking purse does not exist in Middle-earth, any more so than one can explain away anthropomorphic animals, or several species of birds, canines and dragons with intelligible speech (or the aptitude for a lower life form to make such speech), a talking sword (courtesy of the Kalevala), spells, curses and counter-curses, songs of power, lands held in a natural vacuum of verdancy by wielding a Ring of Power, undead beings existing for thousands of years at the whim of a Ring, malevolent, predatory willows, or blades that turn blue when only a very specific species of creature comes in contact with the wielder (without, of course, insisting on some specialized infra-red computational technology that could not exist in a fantasy of that age).

You can pontificate, you can approximate, you can estimate, but you still will not offer a Truth in your little video game commensurate with reality. You only eliminate Wonder and Imagination in the process, breaking down Fantasy into mathematical scribbles .

[Marwhini]

Also...

SCIENCE DOES NOT 'PROVE' THINGS!

There is no 'Proving' in the Sciences.

Proof is for Mathematics and Formal Logic.

Not that this makes any difference.

In my post above I illustrated, complete with the math required, how we can derive very specific facts about things within Middle-earth.

MB