Originally posted by Starscream M
its one thing to speculate about fictional characters based on panel feats and history and bios, and another to make up science
Where did I make up science? Also notice we were disussing wether or not it would work as we BOTH were unsure if it would or not. Have you actually even read the thread?
Originally posted by -K-M-you claimed Mk's antimetal wave could disintegrate adamantium and that it would affect even organic adamantium, which has no basis
Where did I make up science? Also notice we were disussing wether or not it would work as we BOTH were unsure if it would or not. Have you actually even read the thread?
Originally posted by Starscream M
you claimed Mk's antimetal wave could disintegrate adamantium and that it would affect even organic adamantium, which has no basis
It has incinerated adamntium before, and I should it should work on the organic metal as it's still metal and gave a reason as to why it would. However, as I even said in the thread we don't know if it would or will work. So I suggest you reread the thread before commenting again.
Originally posted by -K-M-That's like saying you can take a flame to the hydrogen in the chemical compound dihydrogen monoxide, as after all flame ignites hydrogen... what you forget is the fact that the presence of another chemical changes the way the chemicals react entirely. What's dihydrogen monoxide, you ask? Water... your argument is like saying that introducing a flame to water would detonate the hydrogen in the chemical formula... that doesn't happen... Hell even just adding salt to water changes the way water acts. It alters the freezing and boilling points, changes the electro conductivity and changes the toxicity.
That's what I'm getting at actually, you can still alter a substance by impacting one of the molecules in a substance ie. the metal in the compound. One molecule that is changed can alter the structure so basically the anti-metal would still affect the metal in the substance altering it and would still be effective. You don't have to alter the ENTIRE structure just parts, which can alter the structure. That's what I'm getting at.I was talking more of the lines the anti-metal would destroy the metal, not the chemical reaction.
You contradicting yourself. One molecule is changed into a different substance entirely.
Do you have ANY evidence of an anti metal wave affecting a metal that's molecularly bonded to an organic material?
I'll give you another example. Red jasper. Iron makes the jasper red. IT does NOT make it magnetic. That's right, the ferrum does not make the compound ferious.
The metal(Iron) does not make the jasper act like metal.
Do you have ANY evidence that the antimetal wave will have any effect on the new coumpound?
Originally posted by Creshosk
That's like saying you can take a flame to the hydrogen in the chemical compound dihydrogen monoxide, as after all flame ignites hydrogen... what you forget is the fact that the presence of another chemical changes the way the chemicals react entirely. What's dihydrogen monoxide, you ask? Water... your argument is like saying that introducing a flame to water would detonate the hydrogen in the chemical formula... that doesn't happen... Hell even just adding salt to water changes the way water acts. It alters the freezing and boilling points, changes the electro conductivity and changes the toxicity.You contradicting yourself. One molecule is changed into a different substance entirely.
Do you have ANY evidence of an anti metal wave affecting a metal that's molecularly bonded to an organic material?
I'll give you another example. Red jasper. Iron makes the jasper red. IT does NOT make it magnetic. That's right, the ferrum does not make the compound ferious.
The metal(Iron) does not make the jasper act like metal.
Do you have ANY evidence that the antimetal wave will have any effect on the new coumpound?
Ummm...your going off on something I wasn't addressing or talking about. Also anti-metal isn't exactally real-world science now is it? It literally destroys the metal. It was said in Black Panther the metal is completly removed. I don't know if it transforms the metal into something else as matter cannot be created or destroyed. . You can impact a substance by altering even a molecule, but your going off on a tangent with what I wasn't talking about.
No, hence why I said earlier I don't know if it will or won't work.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Science disagrees with your assessments actually.
No it doesn't 😬
Originally posted by -K-M-No. you remove one part of a compuond you have to break the bonds to the other parts of the compound to do it.
You can still remove parts of a molecule that make up a substance without destroying everything in the compound.
Originally posted by -K-M-Which is the opposite of what you stated previously.
That's what I'm getting at actually, you can still alter a substance by impacting one of the molecules in a substance ie. the metal in the compound. One molecule that is changed can alter the structure
Originally posted by -K-M-You have no evidence of this. as was stated, red jasper is not magnetic despite having iron in it. it no longer acts like iron in that regard.
so basically the anti-metal would still affect the metal in the substance altering it and would still be effective.
Originally posted by -K-M-This contradicts itself, the first part is wrong. atltering wone part of the compound will alter the entire compound.
You don't have to alter the ENTIRE structure just parts, which can alter the structure. That's what I'm getting at.
Originally posted by -K-M-The physical reaction you're refering to would still be altering the chemical compound hence sitill a chemical reaction.
I was talking more of the lines the anti-metal would destroy the metal, not the chemical reaction.
Originally posted by -K-M-The iron in red jasper is still iron. But magnets do not work on red jasper.
it should work on the organic metal as it's still metal
Originally posted by -K-M-You need to prove that it would. and none of this sham dismissal of "real world science". That's a cop out red herring fallacy. Comic book science is still based off of real world science. and Real world science is only to be disregarded when comic book science is shown to over ride it. There is nothing to show that it would have any effect on an organic compound simply because it has a result on the more pure form of a simple molecular structure.
and gave a reason as to why it would. However, as I even said in the thread we don't know if it would or will work. So I suggest you reread the thread before commenting again.
Originally posted by -K-M-You're talking about the effects on compound molecular structures and of altering molecular structures inaccurately. I have corrected your errors and cited examples that contradict your statements which again, not only have no basis but real world science does not agree with. Deny this if you wish, but your denials do not validate your incorrect statements.
Ummm...your going off on something I wasn't addressing or talking about.
Originally posted by -K-M-Red herring logical rule violation. Discarded.
Also anti-metal isn't exactally real-world science now is it?
Originally posted by -K-M-It has a unique reaction with metal that hs been shown in a more pure noncompound form. this has no bearing on a more complex version, as was cited with the red jasper example. Reactions with metal do not always remain when other chemical compounds are introduced.
It literally destroys the metal.
Originally posted by -K-M-From an organic compound? Post a scan of this.
It was said in Black Panther the metal is completly removed.
Originally posted by -K-M-but it can be converted into other forms of energy or matter. Which is the most likely case. Which real world science that you'd like to dismiss supports.
I don't know if it transforms the metal into something else as matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Originally posted by -K-M-dealt with above.
You can impact a substance by altering even a molecule, but your going off on a tangent with what I wasn't talking about.
Originally posted by -K-M-Then do not state something as if it were true if you cannot back up your claims.
No, hence why I said earlier I don't know if it will or won't work.
Originally posted by -K-M-How does it not? If your claims were true then the examples I cited would be false... but I can cite specific examples where each of the previous cited examples are true. If you do not believe me, then I encourage you to do your own independant rresearch onto the effects of molecular interaction. You'll see that your statements are incorrect and unfounded.
No it doesn't 😬
Errrr? Cresh your debating things which I didn't say, also once again I said I don't know for sure if anti-metal WOULD work or not as I said a few times now I don't recall anti-metal ever coming into contact with organic metal. You think I'm saying something different, but everything you said I agree with 😬
Also yes I know the law of conservation of mass/matter as well.
Also yes I know full well how molecules are formed and the bonds they have. It's possible the anti-metal disrupts those bonds, but as far as I know they never explained how anti-metal destroys or converts metals.