Alex vs. Cole

Originally posted by NemeBro
No, you need to take a few more English courses and learn how to write properly. Oh, and he was not.

Shown in-game to be hundreds of gigajoules?

Examples of fallacies? Just where did I bring up a fallacy?

no, you need to accept your follies and mistakes, like the one u just made and now feel silly for.

shown in game to be lightening from the sky which stretched on for many seconds. extrapolated by mathematics and power of lightening strikes to be hundreds of gigajoules.

burden of proof is a reference to the negetive evidence fallacy or russel's teapot fallacy.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
because he suffered the brunt of the damage acting as a sheild to the ground

Yet the remaining ground is a circle and not formed after his body. Also, his clothes are intact despite having suffered all this damage. It's merely burnt here and there with minor damage.

YouTube video

At around 2:00, he accidentally absorb even more energy without doing anything.

clothes are there because they cudnt show him nude, kind of like superman.

the remaining ground is a circle because only ground beneath cole was spared the energy.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
clothes are there because they cudnt show him nude, kind of like superman.

the remaining ground is a circle because only ground beneath cole was spared the energy.

And some sections of his body are more burnt than other because?

And what prove this statement over my absorption theory?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
clothes are there because they cudnt show him nude, kind of like superman.

the remaining ground is a circle because only ground beneath cole was spared the energy.

Spared because he absorbed it?

Originally posted by Wei Phoenix
Spared because he absorbed it?

That's my theory. We have proof that he has passive energy absorption (At 2:00 in the video, as well as 2:53, 3:24 and 3:54)

it's the only logical thing unless the construction workers made that patch of ground with super cement.

being assaulted by an ABSORBING the energy arent exclusive. usually energy is ABSORBED to break the bonds of the material and DAMAGE it. however the way "absorbed" is being used here makes it seem like one of those supernatural abilities where a character can ABSORB ENERGY without taking thr damage{e.g maelstrom/bishop etc}. that isnt the case.

What's with the capital lettered words? It makes your post harder to read.

I'll just put it out there that you do realise you're using fictional characters as example for how absorbing of energy works, right? I'll have you know that there has been fictional events where the absorber has suffered injury.

Electro from Marvel can for example only absorb a million volt. Then it becomes too much and he overloads.

I really don't see your point. Is there an attempt for science in that post? Because I can't make any sense out of it.

^all im saying is that we shudnt differentiate between absorbing and not being harmed here.

He was harmed. And it does imply absorption. I really don't understand what you're saying.

absorption = damage in this case.

He suffer damage, yes. He also seemed to absorb, several implications backing that up. So you can't say he tanked that blast, because he didn't. Not for as long as his absorption can't be disproved. He tanked perhaps parts of the heat of that blast, given his scorched body, but not full force. Not until the absorption theory is proven wrong, so his durability is unknown and can't be claimed equal to the destruction of that blast.

^but nuthing indicates that he can absorb energy without taking the damage that follows, unless proven otherwise.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^but nuthing indicates that he can absorb energy without taking the damage that follows, unless proven otherwise.

When people absorb energy they are rarely hurt at all, if they get hurt any then its usually because they've been overloaded, or they're new to their powers.

Given that the ground he stood on survived, I dare say that his absorption of the Ray Sphere nullified most damage in his little space.

sigh, no. again, cole isnt the type to absorb and NOT be damaged. taking the brunt of an attack means ABSORBING and being damaged or breaking into two from the force and letting the energy pass in a straight line unabsorbed, people who have an unnaturally high affinity for asbsorbtion and are undamaged after absorbing energy have a special energy absorption ability that cole does not.

He absorbed without taking damage on his way from the site of destruction, so I dare say he's the type to absorb and not be damaged. The Ray Sphere gave out adequate energy to damage him, but we don't know more than that. He has passive absorption for a power. Of that, there is no denying.

Leonhart makes a good point. The Ray Sphere had to generate enough energy and force to do that to the surrounding area, and to do some of it, the energy had to pass through Cole. It is still pretty different from a physical object like Mercer's sword arm or something though.

Absorbing electricity still heals Cole as it is done. And this is in New York city. >.<

Oops. This was an accident. >.<