Clark W-Angel Buffy Chosen

Got this for homework and I have no idea how to solve it:

"Star A emits blackbbody peaking at 0.3 microns, Star B emits blackbody radiation peaking at 0.8 microns. Both stars are equally luminous. How much bigger in surface area is star B compared to star A"

Can someone help me out on how to calculate this problem? I don't even know where to begin.

I don't get this. I see questions and comments all the time relating to how Orton "needs to turn heel", and it's something I just do not understand. What's wrong with Orton right now? What's the problem with having a guy who isn't a tie-the-girl-to-the-train-tracks bad guy, but at the same time isn't your standard white bread good guy? He actually tends to act like a pretty normal person. In fact, and in 2009 I never thought I'd say this, Orton is probably the most realistic "character" the WWE has right now.

So why the pushing for a heel turn?

Kind of a two-part question, so I'll separate them into a few parts.

WQ1: In your view, which of The Undertaker's streak matches since Wrestlemania 23 has been the best, and which has been your favorite (if the two are mutually exclusive)? Just to put them together, the opponents have been Batista, Edge, Shawn Michaels twice, Triple H twice and CM Punk. All have been good, but which is the best? I'll always have a special place for the first Undertaker/Shawn match at Wrestlemania 25, but his WM 28 bout against Triple H inside HIAC was amazing.

WQ2: Who do you WANT to face The Undertaker at Wrestlemania next year and who do you THINK will face him (again, if they're different). Just looking at the current landscape (which admittedly, could change), it seems to me that the only ones who will have a shot will be Brock Lesnar, The Rock or John Cena. Do you think the Wrestlemania 30 match between The Undertaker and whoever he faces will be his best one ever?

WQ3? Of the big, blockbuster rematch theme the WWE has been going with for the last few years, which set of matches is your favorite?

The Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels/Wrestlemania 25, Wrestlemania 26

The Undertaker vs. Triple H, Wrestlemania 27, Wrestlemania 28

John Cena vs. The Rock, Wrestlemania 28, Wrestlemania 29

Triple H vs. Brock Lesnar, Summerslam 2012, Wrestlemania 29 (I'm not counting their upcoming encounter, as it obviously hasn't happened yet)

Again, they were all great, but my personal favorite is probably the set between The Undertaker and Triple H. Those guys just went to war.

What I mean is, does having The Shield compete almost exclusively against main event level talent (their little one shot against 3MB notwithstanding) do good things for them in the long run or bad? Now obviously, it's a little too soon to truly tell, but history has shown that it's not always good. Nexus started off with a bang against John Cena but just couldn't sustain their momentum. Now, The Shield has already been booked far better than Nexus ever was, but the question remains.

The nWo didn't start off against the cream of the crop of WCW, which allowed them time to gain steam and build up the allure and appeal of seeing this new, dominant heel stable clash with the elite heroes of the promotion.

The Shield has a lot going for them that I think has allowed them to avoid a lot of the pitfalls Nexus stumbled through. For starters, all three of The Shield are clearly ready for the spotlight. They can all wrestle, and they can all wrestle a great match. They have excellent chemistry together, they're all decent, above average talkers. Their uniforms, their entrance and their music work. None of those things applied to Nexus.

But there is an innate problem, and it's one my Dad pointed out to me. We watch WWE together but I'm a much bigger fan. He's very casual with his viewing habits, and sometimes he points things out to me that hardcore fans don't always think about but regular fans do. In this case, he said that he just didn't believe as a fan that three guys who have never had a match in the company before could take down the reigning tag team champions, Cena, Orton, The Undertaker and the other upper echelon stars The Shield has been pitted against. He could never really take Nexus seriously because of that exact same issue. The WWE has done a good job so far of heavily playing on the teamwork angle of The Shield, but the issue remains, which is why I raised the question of whether or not putting The Shield up against those caliber of stars is a good idea or not.

What do you think?

Thinking about the entire scope of his return the day after Wrestlemania last year to today. In your view, has the Brock Lesnar return been booked and handled correctly? On paper, Lesnar is a fairly unimpressive 1-2 since coming back to the WWE. No matter how you slice it, that says something. However, on the other side of the coin, he's been an absolute beast in all three matches, has completely demolished the lesser-card wrestlers he's come across in attempts to boost, and perhaps make up for, his PPV credibility. The announcers talk about him like he's the freaking biblical wrath of god. And both times he's lost, to John Cena and to Triple H, it's felt like the ultimate underdog, david-slaying-goliath moment.

Personally, I'm happy with where Lesnar is. I have no idea who's going to win at Extreme Rules this year, but I'm itching to see it. What do you guys think though?

BQ: After Triple H, who should Lesnar face and feud with next? He's done interviews saying he's going to target the WWE Championship, so would a renewal of his rivalry with Cena be the best thing? Or should he square off against someone like Sheamus, who isn't in the title picture right now but is clearly still a main event guy? The Undertaker maybe, now that it looks like he's back in a larger in-ring capacity?

Given his mic performances in the past, which have been a little mixed, I wasn't expecting big things from the advertised "Ryback explains why..." segment tonight. But you know what? I thought he hit a home run. Far and away the best we've seen of Ryback on the mic.

I thought there were a lot of smart production moves. Having the segment pre-taped prevented any nervousness from Ryback that may have occurred had it taken place in front of a live crowd, and it gives them the obvious advantage of being able to re-shoot and edit it, which isn't there when things are live. I thought the spaced clips used fit perfectly.

And most of all, I was glad that they gave Ryback a credible reason for his actions while at the same time acknowledging things that had gone on in the past between him and Cena. It tracked. It made sense. If I was Ryback, and Cena was my friend, I'd be pissed too that he was never there. And...he wasn't. I liked that Ryback talked about the title shot Cena gave him, but then weighed that against all the times Cena didn't help.

I just thought it was really well done. It wasn't your stereotypical, cartoon-esque "oh, now he's gone bad!" moment. It worked. It clicked. The WWE saw Ryback's limitations on the mic and worked around them. And one of the last lines was awesome: "You were only there because I wasn't" about Cena winning the title. I thought that fit really well, because Ryback has been screwed out of the championship constantly, and by rights he probably should be the WWE Champion right now.

Anyways, there's my thoughts. What did you guys think?

I was thinking about this a bit today. Ryback is still hot so obviously, someone in the WWE is doing something right. However, prior to his current feud against John Cena for the title, he owns a pretty unimpressive PPV track record.

Since Hell in a Cell back in October, he's lost at every single PPV he's competed in. HIAC against Punk. Survivor Series to Punk and Cena, TLC with Team Hell No to The Shield, the Royal Rumble to John Cena, Elimination Chamber with Cena and Sheamus to The Shield and Wrestlemania to Mark Henry. I mean, that's six freaking PPV's in a row!

Granted, his looked great at the Rumble, but beyond that, it's not overly impressive. Now, despite the string of losses, almost all of them (except for the Rumble and Wrestlemania) had extenuating circumstances where Ryback got absolutely screwed. By rights he should have won the WWE Championship a few times over. Given how insanely popular and hot he still is, this type of booking has...ahem...shielded him.

So is this good or bad booking? I'm kind of divided on it. I like Ryback a lot, but the repeated losses just piling up one after the other got a little hard to take as a fan of his. I mean, if he keeps losing, again and again, what's the point?

What do you guys think?

BQ: The Rock in the new Star Wars? Yay or nay? Personally, I'd love to see him in it.

I don't normally ask questions like this, but I was really, really impressed with RAW last night. The opening segment with Lesnar and Triple H was excellent, and the final match between Cena and Punk was probably the best of their series. Hell, that match could have headlined Wrestlemania and I'd have been more than happy. I thought it was that good.

I was a little disappointed The Rock wasn't there but really, he wasn't needed. Sheamus/Barret was good and that's a match I'm really pumped to see. I thought Orton/Cesara was pretty good as well. The segment with The Shield was very strong, and it'll be interesting to see where they go with them. Orton/Sheamus vs. The Shield?

Ryback/Ziggler was good and the Swagger/Miz match (and the preceding segment) was VERY good.

Anyways, what did you guys think? Good? Bad? Did you think it acted as a good preview or setup to Wrestlemania? Are you more fired up for Wrestlemania?

I haven't seen Smackdown tonight so I don't know if he's in the Elimination Chamber match at the next PPV (if you have seen it, please don't tell me who else is in the match. Much appreciated). Roughly at the moment my Wrestlemania card looks something like this:

The Rock vs. John Cena

Triple H vs. Brock Lesnar

The Undertaker vs. CM Punk

Randy Orton vs. Sheamus

I don't have a role yet for Ryback though. Now, he'll have one. He's one of the WWE's biggest names at the moment, but he doesn't seem to slot with the other guys right now. Maybe a triple threat for the World Heavyweight Championship with Sheamus or Orton, or a singles match against one of them? Could he face Barrett or Cesaro for one of the mid-card championships? Or something with The Shield?

This is a term we see lot. And I mean a LOT. In the WWE, it gets thrown around all the time whenever Punk, Triple H, Cena or Orton are in main events, or whenever The Rock comes back (interestingly, and for a reason I can't pinpoint, not when Lesnar returns), and in TNA it gets said seemingly whenever Hogan opens his mouth. My question is, why does "hogging the spotlight" bother people?

Think about it logically. The best spots, the main events, should theoretically go the people who do the best business, right? The ones who the most fans are interested in seeing, and for the most part that's the guys I've mentioned above. I see comments all the time in regards to younger wrestlers like Cody Rhodes, Zach Ryder and a host of others, about how they should be in the top spots, and would be if Punk, Cena ect. would "stop hogging the spotlight". But when you think about it, the only reason those guys are in the main events are because people want to see them. The WWE, TNA and every other promotion on the planet pushes the people the audience wants to see the most. It's as simple as that.

So it kind of perplexes me that some fans get SO angry and agitated about it. I suppose I understand if you don't like a certain performer who is in the main event, but it kind of baffles me when I read or hear comments along the lines of "the WWE needs to push new stars, The Rock and Cena are hogging". We heard that all the time (and I mean ALL the time), and still do, about Triple H whenever he would work a main event, even though he's one of the biggest, most popular and most well-known stars in wrestling history. The Rock and Cena (and Punk, Orton, Sheamus and a select few) are the ones who drive the business. They do the biggest numbers, garner the most interest and get the most attention. So from that perspective, WHY should the WWE/TNA push other star? Is there a logical reason, or is it just a pseudo-commi belief that everything should be "fair" and "equal"? I mean, why should it be "fair"?

SCENARIO 1: John Cena vs. The Rock for the WWE Championship

There's big appeal here. Their feud last year was a lot of fun, they work well together and the WWE has proven with The Undertaker over the last four years that they know how to build a mega rematch. Cena chasing his redemption is an interesting avenue to go down.

If Cena/Rock happens that likely means we'll see Punk vs. Undertaker and Triple H vs. Lesnar, or those reversed with Undertaker/Lesnar and Triple H/Punk.

SCENARIO 2:

CM Punk (c) vs. John Cena for the WWE Championship.

Surprisingly, this is my choice. I love this match. Punk and Cena have had an on-again-off-again feud for almost two years now where the question of "who's better" hasn't really, truly been answered. It's been built well, and there are merits to saying both guys. If any two guys were made to face each other in the main event of Wrestlemania it's CM Punk and John Cena, the top villain fighting the top hero. It's a classic match that can blow off all the classics they've already had.

If Cena and Punk face one another, that would likely mean we'd see Triple H vs. Brock Lesnar and The Rock vs. The Undertaker.

So which would you prefer?

Sooner or later, Punk will lose the WWE Championship. As soon as that happens, the question becomes whether or not he can stay in the main event without it. I think for the most part, Punk has been an excellent champion, and working in the main event has really given him a chance to showcase all the things he does so well. And guys like Sheamus, John Cena and Randy Orton have all proven over time that they can be legitimate main event stars even without the title.

Do you think that'll be the case with Punk, or will he turn out to be more like The Big Show, where he fades back into the pack a bit and becomes a part-time main event guy when called upon?

This is something I have fun doing at the end of each calender year for the WWE (I know, I know, inner wrestling nerd rising to the surface here). I have a bunch of categories and go through them, picking a winner for each. I know there's a few of them, so you don't have to explain them all if you don't want, but any explanations you do have would be great. It's just for 2012 and just involved the WWE. Here's the list with my winners for the year beside them:

Wrestler of the year: CM Punk

Match of the year: John Cena vs. Brock Lesnar, Extreme Rules 2012

Feud of the year: The Rock vs. John Cena

Comeback of the year: Brock Lesnar

Most popular wrestler: The Rock

Most hated wrestler: John Laurenitis

PPV of the year: Extreme Rules 2012

Promo of the year: CM Punk/Mick Foley, RAW, September 24th, 2012

Tag Team of the year: Team Hell No (Kane and Daniel Bryan)

Breakout wrestler of the year: Ryback

Most Improved wrestler of the year: Sheamus

Female wrestler of the year: A.J. Lee

“Hell Yeah!” Moment of the year: John Cena and A.J. Lee finally making out on RAW, November 19th, 2012 (I know, I know...but I still cheered lol)

Most shocking moment of the year: Brock Lesnar returning to RAW the day after Wrestlemania

Most extreme moment of the year: The sheer intensity of John Cena vs. Brock Lesnar at Extreme Rules 2012, culminating in Cena drilling Lesnar with the leaping chain shot

Most emotional moment of the year: John Cena’s speech following his victory over Brock Lesnar, Extreme Rules 2012

Most inspirational wrestler of the year: John Cena

BQ: I came across this song a while back watching a favorite T.V. show of mine, and listening to it today, it kind of came to me that it would be the PERFECT theme song for a Wrestlemania battle between The Undertaker and John Cena. I think the lyrics fit really well, it's a slow and haunting song that suits The Undertaker really well (in my eyes at least). It's only about two minutes long, so give it a listen and let me know what you think. If I'm totally off base, let me know!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRO0jQFnLjE

This is meant to be taken more from a kayfabe perspective, as opposed to any sort of backstage rumors or rumblings you've heard. So, in order, which of the current WWE Champions do you respect the most. It can be based on whatever criteria you want, really. In-ring record, way of wrestling, quality of opponents faced, length of the title reign, it's up to you.

For me, it would go like this:

Antonio Cesaro-US Champion

CM Punk-WWE Champion

The Big Show-World Heavyweight Champion

Kane and Daniel Bryan-Tag Team Champions

Wade Barrett-Intercontinental Champion

Eve Torres-Divas Champion

Any explanations you might have would be awesome.

Now, I like Punk a lot, and I've really enjoyed his title reign from the day he won the belt right through to today. However, a friend mentioned to me the other day that he didn't think Punk was much of a draw. I was interested and decided to do some digging into the numbers. RAW ratings have indeed dipped of late (although they improved this week in the go home show for TLC), but it's possible there are outside factors that can be attributed to. Ratings for RAW always fall when Monday Night Football hits its stride, always. And the expansion to three hours has has also hurt them ratings wise. Interestingly however, as a side note, I read that the USA Network is paying the WWE an undisclosed amount of money for the additional hour of programming.

I checked out buy rates next. I only went by what the WWE has released on their corporate website in their financial reports made public for shareholders. What I found was surprising. Their buy rates in 2012 have been quite strong. Starting with Wrestlemania, the buy rates at every PPV since have increased from 2011. There were big spikes, as can probably be expected, at Wrestlemania, Extreme Rules and Summerslam, which featured The Rock and Brock Lesnar.

However, I found it interesting. The ratings for RAW are down but the PPV buy rates are up. The WWE finished their third financial quarter with Night of Champions in September (which Punk headlined) and reported a 13 percent quarterly increase in buy rates over the same period of 2011, and their highest since 2008. I thought was pretty encouraging, and a sign that Punk is doing fine as a champion. The numbers aren't making anyone forget Steve Austin (except Wrestlemania, which drew insane numbers).

Do you think the increase in buy rates can be attributed to Punk? He's been headlining more shows of late, and while Survivor Series rates haven't been officially released yet (I don't trust spoiler sites), the Hell in a Cell numbers were up slightly from last year. Also, and I don't know if this is saying much, Punk's DVD, released in October, is already the fourth highest selling home video of the years for the WWE, and is on pace to eclipse the number one spot (Wrestlemania 28, followed by the Rock DVD and The Undertaker's new streak DVD) by quite a wide margin.

I went into this thinking that the numbers wouldn't support Punk, but they seem to. What do you guys think?

When he won the title, I wasn't a fan. I didn't think much of his gimmick, his in-ring work, his mic work or...well, anything about him really. First and foremost I thought him winning a championship was months too soon.

However, since him winning the title, my opinion on him has really changed. His matches have been great, he's defended his title regularly and unlike a lot of heels, hasn't complained about it. His move-set differs quite a bit from most other WWE wrestlers and while he's a bit repetitive on the mic, he seems to be a guy who's really coming on and moving up the card.

The only thing I would change about him is his who he feuds with. I'm not an R-Truth fan and I don't really like it when a guy loses straight up to a champion and then just instantly gets another shot without anything really changing. I just don't understand the reasoning for that, beyond just lazy writing. If R-Truth keeps winning and earns another crack at the title then sure, I get it, but for him to just get another chance seems kind of dumb. I'd like to see Cesaro work with other guys.

With the news today that CM Punk had arthroscopic knee surgery and his title reign being a bit in question, there seems to be a bit of a crossroads for the WWE right now. The preliminary reports (and yes, I fully recognize they're early, and certainly not official, but I'm going by what WWE.com is saying) are estimating he'll miss a month or so.

So here's my question:

Let's say it just isn't medically safe for Punk to compete at TLC in his title match against Ryback, but we know for sure he CAN go the next month at the Royal Rumble against The Rock for the championship (yes, I know we don't really know, or if Ryback will win at TLC, but just go with me). What should they do? Should they vacate the WWE Championship and crown a new champion at TLC (which would likely be Cena, to face The Rock) or should they do the almost unthinkable in the WWE, have no WWE title match at TLC and keep the belt on Punk until he's fit to go?

I don't think I can name a single time the WWE title hasn't been defended at a WWE PPV, but Punk is in the middle of a major angle over the length of his title reign, and I think that's going to play a big role in his feud with The Rock. They've been building towards Punk vs. Rock for ages now so really, Punk dropping the belt at this point would be a huge blow to current plans.

I suppose they could vacate the belt, have a new champion at TLC and then have Punk win it again on RAW the moment he's fit to wrestle. But let's say that won't happen. What you guys do?

BQ: If Punk can't go at the Rumble, how would YOU handle it, if you were in charge? Would you put the title on Cena and have him go against The Rock in a rematch? Ryback maybe? Would you bring a huge name back to hide the problem until Punk is healthy? Someone like The Undertaker or Brock Lesnar maybe? All opinions are welcome (except for the standard "Cena sux dude you jus like don no realz wrestlin!!!! Seriously. I hate those).

Does anyone feel that this time, more so than in years past, things are really building towards Wrestlemania? John Cena, CM Punk and Ryback are all feuding with one another right now, but there is the looming presence of The Rock, Brock Lesnar and The Undertaker there as well, even though they aren't around all that much. Sheamus and Triple H are sort of on the outskirts of that as well.

The last two WWE PPV's were not exactly what I'd call good, but they do seem to be building towards some big confrontations between the big three of today (with Sheamus and Orton possibly being around) and other stars like Undertaker, Lesnar, Triple H and The Rock.

What do you guys think?

BQ: Did you like Cena's new t-shirt at Survivor Series?

I think after the battles between CM Punk and John Cena, we can rule out the GTS and the FU. They've both been kicked out of too many times of late. Would it be Big Show's KO Punch? Sheamus' Brogue Kick? The Rock Bottom?

What do you guys think?

I thought it was pretty entertaining. A lot of the guys involved showed way more humor than I thought some of them were capable of. Orton didn't say much, but his facial expressions were hilarious. He's not bad at deadpanning when he wants to. Damian Sandow, who I couldn't stand a few months back, was awesome. He's totally ridiculous, but he's got the charisma to pull it off. The Miz is actually transitioning to a fan favorite really well.

It might have been a little long, but I liked it. What did you guys think?