Originally posted by Dum Dum Dugan
gotta love getting trolled. U ****ing people are a waste of my time. GO **** YOUR SELFS. im done
Originally posted by Sr J-Bieb
Well. It turned out well.
Originally posted by Mindset
I hope your keyboard is made out of primary adamantium.I guess it won't matter if you're as strong as Morlun though, you'll break it anyway.
😂
Originally posted by MindsetI think the two types of adamantium are more like different qualities you can get with other alloys. By changing the relative proportions of copper and zinc in brass alloy you get different strength, malleability, ductility etc. of the alloy. Same with bronze and changing the amount of tin in it. But they are still considered brass or bronze alloy.
Saying they are both equally adamantium isn't saying they equal?Maybe he should have used a different word.
Also, his example is really flawed. Adamantium is a metal alloy, not an element like Carbon.
Secondary adamantium is supposed to be a cheap way of producing something close enough to primary adamantium to do the job in most cases, but saves money. So maybe one of the ingredient resins is cheaper and easier to obtain, so the bean counters skimp some on the proportion of more expensive harder to produce resins. Different proportions of the same alloy.
For example:
Anything with 70%-80% expensive resin X = primary = virtually indestructible.
Anything with < 70% resin X = secondary adamantium = extremely strong, but can be destroyed by extreme force.
Anything with > 80% resin X = basically useless dilute resin X.
Anything with < 30% resin X = crapamantium = easily wrecked castoff, sold cheap maybe used in manufacture of chinese cars etc.
Something like carbonadium might be extremely close to duplicating the formula of adamantium, but not considered a type of adamantium because the scientists used a different component somewhere in the formula in the attempt to replicate it. So it's a different alloy but with some similar properties, like comparing brass and bronze.
Originally posted by Sr J-Bieb
Also, who calls a diamond, or graphite carbon anyway?The fact that those aren't commonplace words for such objects kind of ruins his example anyway.
But you could call them both carbon and it'd be correct, just as you can call both adamantiums adamantium and be correct.
And there are examples where materials are called the same thing in their various configurations.
Rubber can be very different in properties like elasticity and hardness. Tire rubber is massively tougher and less stretchy than balloon rubber. Make a tier out of balloon rubber and it'll be destroyed in no time. Make a balloon out of tire rubber and it's useless. But they're both rubber.
Originally posted by Mindset
Saying they are both equally adamantium isn't saying they equal?
No, it's really not.
Banana. Orange. They're equally fruit. Different fruit, but both fruit and neither is more or less fruit than the other.
Anyway, enough with the category semantics. Equally part of a category/descriptor doesn't mean equal in all respects.
Maybe he should have used a different word.Also, his example is really flawed. Adamantium is a metal alloy, not an element like Carbon.
Bronze is an alloy.
Bronze is an alloy between copper and either tin or arsenic.
Tin bronze is bronze.
Arsenic bronze is bronze.
They are both "bronze," even though they have somewhat different compositions and properties.
So there's even an alloy example for you.
Originally posted by Q99I have to go to work, so I'll just say this.
But you could call them both carbon and it'd be correct, just as you can call both adamantiums adamantium and be correct.And there are examples where materials are called the same thing in their various configurations.
Rubber can be very different in properties like elasticity and hardness. Tire rubber is massively tougher and less stretchy than balloon rubber. Make a tier out of balloon rubber and it'll be destroyed in no time. Make a balloon out of tire rubber and it's useless. But they're both rubber.
No, it's really not.
Banana. Orange. They're equally fruit. Different fruit, but both fruit and neither is more or less fruit than the other.
Anyway, enough with the category semantics. Equally part of a category/descriptor doesn't mean equal in all respects.
Bronze is an alloy.
Bronze is an alloy between copper and either tin or arsenic.
Tin bronze is bronze.
Arsenic bronze is bronze.
They are both "bronze," even though they have somewhat different compositions and properties.
So there's even an alloy example for you.
Nope, you're wrong.
Originally posted by Mindset
I have to go to work, so I'll just say this.Nope, you're wrong.
It doesn't really matter if you think it's wrong - that is how it, linguistically, works.
Likewise, steel. Stainless steel is steel. Tool steel is steel. High carbon steel or low carbon, hard or soft. Katanas have multiple strengths of steel inside the same blade. There's a wide variety of steels, and they're all equally steel.
It's not a matter of opinion, it's not an imaginary story. Alloys can have different compositions and properties and still fit under the same name, and none of them are "more" the name than the others.
Originally posted by Dum Dum Dugan
it is just you. You post was nonsense. Q99 posted made actual senses.
😆
yep, hardly anyone agrees with me.... 🙄 you really should just STOP talking about adamantium altogether. the last time i entertained your fantasies regarding adamantium didn't really turn out all that well for you....
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=556194&pagenumber=14
adamantium just really isn't your thing i guess. 🙂
Originally posted by Q99Ok, I'm back from work.
It doesn't really matter if you think it's wrong - that is how it, linguistically, works.Likewise, steel. Stainless steel is steel. Tool steel is steel. High carbon steel or low carbon, hard or soft. Katanas have multiple strengths of steel inside the same blade. There's a wide variety of steels, and they're all equally steel.
It's not a matter of opinion, it's not an imaginary story. Alloys can have different compositions and properties and still fit under the same name, and none of them are "more" the name than the others.
Just wanted to stop in and say that you're still wrong.
