All that was relevant to the subject was:
You effectively said "its not kinetic energy its momentum".
Without momentum/movement the kinetic energy remains as potential energy.
Now go ahead and try to worm your way out of that in front of myself Focus and DDM, who are all quite aware of that which you were not.
🙂 *again*
rounds far lighter than the BGM made a full-size TF violently recoil from the kinetic energy. whether the bullet ricochet or he had to take all the energy into his face, it caused his neck to recoil.
but keep up the literarys attempt to defy reality and destroy energy. clown
while kong was balanced on top of a platform and withstood the kinetic energy from BMG rounds, FAR GREATER and MULTIPLE SHOTS. also there is no vidual evidence of said rounds puncturing his arm 🙂 prime would have gotten knocked off on the first pass. sure he would have grabbed something and not fallen, but still 🙂
ACR:
BGM 50:
Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
its too bad we DONT have a physics major roaming the versus forum because id love to see it calculated BMG standard round vs ACR with all available armor piercing etc allowed so you'll finally stfu. (you wouldnt)
Originally posted by Master Han
I love how hard his signature tries to mock something you said by adding a grammatically suspect, awkwardly worded parenthetical. 😆
You clearly just misunderstood something yet again...
It referred to a massive about-face in his debate position from then-to-now.
So again you flap off at the mouth embarrassing yourself almost habitually. Knock yourself out.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
You effectively said "its not kinetic energy its momentum".
Physics 101: for our sake, momentum is always conserved in a collision. Kinetic energy is not. The more elastic a collision is, the more kinetic energy is conserved, and the greater the acceleration/the more the transformer will recoil.
The funny thing is, harder surfaces are more likely to result in relatively elastic collisions, meaning that the transformers would recoil more if they were made of tougher stuff. This is why car hoods have crumple zones that deform upon impact, so that the impulse will occur over a greater distance/time.
This has nothing to do with durability. An adamantium transformer would still recoil based on its mass.
Tying this into the debate, fucachump's sad attempt to prove that Kong is more durable than Prime fails miserably, and your nonexistent evidence that Kong can tank armor piercing explosive rounds to the face isn't winning you any votes either.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
oh i get it, this is the versus forum and you're allowed to obvious troll so here you are lying and obvious trolling.well as long as you know your place and dont even think about pulling this clown shit in other forums. 🙂
Originally posted by focus4chumps
stick to the topic or gtfo. 🙂
fucachumps, I look forward to your countering:
Originally posted by Master Han
Physics 101: for our sake, momentum is always conserved in a collision. Kinetic energy is not. The more elastic a collision is, the more kinetic energy is conserved, and the greater the acceleration/the more the transformer will recoil.The funny thing is, harder surfaces are more likely to result in relatively elastic collisions, meaning that the transformers would recoil more if they were made of tougher stuff. This is why car hoods have crumple zones that deform upon impact, so that the impulse will occur over a greater distance/time.
This has nothing to do with durability. An adamantium transformer would still recoil based on its mass.
Tying this into the debate, fucachump's sad attempt to prove that Kong is more durable than Prime fails miserably, and your nonexistent evidence that Kong can tank armor piercing explosive rounds to the face isn't winning you any votes either.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
its too bad we DONT have a physics major roaming the versus forum because id love to see it calculated BMG standard round vs ACR with all available armor piercing etc allowed so you'll finally stfu. (you wouldnt)
You don't need a physics major to do high school level physics.
What is the mass of the object? m
What is the velocity of the object? v
Find momentum: p
Find this for both slugs.
Compare the momentum of each.
Which is greater?
Then end.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
you will never get to disqualify clear evidence of kongs superior physical strength df
Originally posted by focus4chumps
yes it does. their ability to absorb kinetic energy has everything to do with strength.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh really?
Yes Han. And those tansformers were often hit by much smaller mass at speed than Kong was with the Heavy cal weapons, that were also shot at him by planes flying towards him, and Kong took it WAY better than those TFS he remained intatc and took a couple of planes down. Those TFs would have been on floor smashed all over midtown WAY before Kong made his eventual descent.
No Admantium is a most likely a heavy ass metal and the frame would withstand the impact better without being rocked so hard..
Supporting Evidence: The size of Kong distributes the damage better than the smaller Tfs. A mosquito bite is gonna be way more detrimental to an ant than a human.
Votes? This is a debate not politics or a popularity contest.
Very revealing of your mindset here.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Yes and those tansformers were often hit by much smaller mass at speed than Kong was with the Heavy cal weapons, that were also shot at him by planes flying towards him, and Kong took it WAY better than those TFS he remained intatc and took a couple of planes down. Those TFs would have been on floor smashed all over midtown WAY before Kong made his eventual descent.
Funny that you say that.
Remember when Blackout effortlessly wiped out an entire military base?
Remember when it took a f*cking A-10's taking advantage of scorponok's weakness to sabot rounds, and several thousand rounds of ammunition, to force it to retreat?
Remember when it took several rounds of F22 raptor airstrikes, and yet again taking advantage of a weak spot, to take down Blackout?
But I love how you harp on some snipers (who had been training for years specifically to take out decepticons) catching a few decepticons off guard with precision eye-shots.
1) Why are people still arguing that Kong is physically weaker than Prime? It's already been shown that going with his lowest rating, he's still heavier than Prime at Prime's highest rating.
2) Why are people still calling Kong "soft" and "squishy"? It's been shown he can dead fall 440 meters onto concrete and not splatter, let alone not rupture.
In mechanics, an impact is a high force or shock applied over a short time period when two or more bodies collide. Such a force or acceleration usually has a greater effect than a lower force applied over a proportionally longer time period of time. The effect depends critically on the relative velocity of the bodies to one another.
Different materials can behave in quite different ways in impact when compared with static loading conditions. Ductile materials like steel tend to become more brittle at high loading rates, and spalling may occur on the reverse side to the impact if penetration doesn't occur. The way in which the kinetic energy is distributed through the section is also important in determining its response.
his head recoiling was a sign that his neck could not resist the energy.
you will never get to disqualify physical strength from the topicdf
Originally posted by Robtard
1) Why are people still arguing that Kong is physically weaker than Prime?
1. Prime is made of metal, and has ripped apart transformers that had earlier tanked massed heavy weapons fire.
2. Why should we even care? Prime has guns, strength is pretty pointless to debate.
2) Why are people still calling Kong "soft" and "squishy"? It's been shown he can dead fall 440 meters onto concrete and not splatter, let alone not rupture.
The concussive force still killed him, though, metaphorical ramblings about beauty killing the beast aside. I could ask "why are people still pretending Kong can withstand heavy, armor piercing, modern explosive ammunition?"
Originally posted by Master Han
Funny that you say that.Remember when Blackout effortlessly wiped out an entire military base?
Remember when it took a f*cking A-10's taking advantage of scorponok's weakness to sabot rounds, and several thousand rounds of ammunition, to force it to retreat?
Remember when it took several rounds of F22 raptor airstrikes, and yet again taking advantage of a weak spot, to take down Blackout?But I love how you harp on some snipers (who had been training for years specifically to take out decepticons) catching a few decepticons off guard with precision eye-shots.
It had a shield on at that time. Prime has no such shield.
Scorponok was diving in and out of sand, had firepower that was making it hard for the troops.
The thousands of rounds hit him? lol No they didn't.
Oh you mean when Maddox shot him and killed him, you mean? lol
If they were training for years to take out the eyes, why was that the first time they'd ever done it...? lol
Originally posted by focus4chumps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_(mechanics)
Wikipedia? Seriously? 😆
Different materials can behave in quite different ways in impact when compared with static loading conditions. Ductile materials like steel tend to become more brittle at high loading rates, and spalling may occur on the reverse side to the impact if penetration doesn't occur. The way in which the kinetic energy is distributed through the section is also important in determining its response.
Dude, you literally just quoted a paragraph of sh*t that validated my point. I don't think you even understand what any of it means, lol.
his head recoiling was a sign that his neck could not resist the energy.
No, it isn't. You don't know what the f*ck you're talking about, lol.
you will never get to disqualify physical strength from the topicdf
Sort of like, in a "gunman vs. Bruce Lee at twenty meters" thread, I could babble about Lee's enormous strength, right?