Talk:Core: Difference between revisions

From EvaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
(needs elaboration)
Line 16: Line 16:


:::I "softened" it for the time being for my own sense of ease. An elaboratory note can come later (unless someone beats me to it)... --[[User:Reichu|Reichu]] 12:33, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I "softened" it for the time being for my own sense of ease. An elaboratory note can come later (unless someone beats me to it)... --[[User:Reichu|Reichu]] 12:33, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
==S² located inside core==
I believe this detail needs to be elaborated more. Should it be done here or in a relevant common misconception article? --[[User:Dr. Nick|Dr. Nick]] 09:45, 18 December 2007 (PST)

Revision as of 17:45, 18 December 2007

Arael's core is free-floating? I had the impression that there were two tiny wings holding it in place. And does anyone have an image of Leliel's core? I haven't seen it in the shadow.--UrsusArctos 23:01, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Arael's core. You can see it in the episode itself, but it's a bit more difficult. (You can BARELY make out a red halo.)
Leliel? Well, okay, I probably should have phrased things a bit more theoretically -- but that's what edits are for. Anyhow, once I saw something red and cracking with this glow beneath it, my mind made an instant connection. --Reichu 23:31, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Soul Container

"uniformily serves as a container for the soul" ...er, source for this or speculation?--V 20:12, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
The CI talks about how they put they put mommy-souls in Eva cores, and everything lines up with the soul-core connection.
Angels die when you trash their cores for a reason, after all. --Reichu 20:18, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
Oh I see....yeah what with the A.T. Field being a "soul-based techology" etc.--V 10:34, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
I "softened" it for the time being for my own sense of ease. An elaboratory note can come later (unless someone beats me to it)... --Reichu 12:33, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

S² located inside core

I believe this detail needs to be elaborated more. Should it be done here or in a relevant common misconception article? --Dr. Nick 09:45, 18 December 2007 (PST)