Sweet JC, the fight is non canon for Asura, too?! Well If the thread is not attemptin to replicate the conditions of the DLC fight to some degree and both characters are capable of usin everything at their disposal, not enough about Akuma is actually known to fight someone of this caliber and established story. Akuma's status locked to base form and thus there is no discussion. He loses.
The whole wormhole scenario seemed very convincin. I thought it was canon.
The cores were implanted, now they're standard equipment. Plot-wise this DLC would be between the end of the Yasha fight where he got the cores and him meditating before the final fight. So post core.
I'd think it would be more like a grenade hitting a speeding car. I mean he's overpowering the meteors body not its force, right?
Canon feats only Akuma wouldn't stand a chance against any of the former eight guardian generals. Even Wyzen who is the weakest among them was able to destroy a country sized object (Gohma Carrier) with a single blow. Not to mention also the absurd gap in speed...
Spoiler:
That said, I wish human Asura would be in Street Fighter V.
Originally posted by ares834
Here is the video:Moon busting is at about 12:45.
Originally posted by BloodRainI'd think it would be more like a grenade hitting a speeding car. I mean he's overpowering the meteors body not its force, right?
Unfortunately the the grenade doesn't have to be fired at the car to do damage. You could pull the pin and roll it near the car, unlike the bullet that actually needs to come direct contact with the car, like Akuma.
I'm not understandin how you can destroy a meteor by crashin into it, and not deal with it's force. You'd have to survive the force to come into direct contact with it.
Originally posted by No End N Site
Unfortunately the the grenade doesn't have to be fired at the car to do damage. You could pull the pin and roll it near the car, unlike the bullet that actually needs to come direct contact with the car, like Akuma.I'm not understandin how you can destroy a meteor by crashin into it, and not deal with it's force. You'd have to survive the force to come into direct contact with it.
The meteors DC can be what it is buts its dura is still that of a rock of its size. Im positive a bomb/nuke wouldnt need the meteors force in order to blow up the rock body.
Originally posted by BloodRain
Think you're getting a bit too literal with the metaphor. A speeding car has 4x the energy of a grenade, the grenade can make the car stop by destroy it without matching its output.The meteors DC can be what it is buts its dura is still that of a rock of its size. Im positive a bomb/nuke wouldnt need the meteors force in order to blow up the rock body.
No. . .the car and the grenade are usin energies in 2 completely different ways. The grenade is not destroyin the car by smashin into it. . .Like Akuma.
Unfortunately, the laws of motion do not agree with yur statement, brah. Once an object starts in a certain direction, it requires an equal or greater force to stop it from movin. Its durability is not a factor, you'd have to come face to face with its "force" before you can think about touchin the rock. Blowin the rock up means stoppin the rock. You can't destroy the rock without stoppin it, even if yur doin both at the same time.
Even in the grenade analogy you used, the grenade would have to generate more force than the car does to stop it, which it does. I'm not really sure if I believe a grenade has 4x less energy than a speedin car, but if it does, it's very clear that the car is usin less of this energy than a grenade does to preform its physical duties, the rest of the car's energy is just "there" and is useless.
What energy it uses is not the point. The point is that the object can be destroyed by its own dura than by countering its force.
I don't think the laws consider blowing something up. And durability is a factor. In Rugby/Football a guy can hold his ground mostly stationary (500J) and stop a charging player (3,500J) even with the energy difference.
Akuma hits it with whatever he has that causes the eruption of pink energy that destroys it. More akin to explosive force than pure strength.
Grenades are at about 500kJ, a 50m/s car hits with 2500kJ.
Actually it doesnt really matter, this wouldnt even change Akuma's strength by a whole lot. The destruction force of a meteor like that is Mountain level, which Akuma is already around iirc.
Originally posted by BloodRainIt's not "what" energy is being used, it's how it is being used. The only way to stop a movin object is to apply an equal or greater (in the case of destroyin or repellin an object) force in a direction opposite of its motion. "Dura" is at the bottom of the totem pole when considerin the haltin and destruction of a movin object. Especially since the properties of any given object change when in motion. A Speedin meteor, the size of a large town, that can cause a global catastrophe is radically harder and denser in motion, than at rest. Mountain bustin won't cut it. This is 5th and 6th grade science. Unless you live in a different dimension or in a black hole, there is no way around this.
What energy it uses is not the point. The point is that the object can be destroyed by its own dura than by countering its force.I don't think the laws consider blowing something up. And durability is a factor. In Rugby/Football a guy can hold his ground mostly stationary (500J) and stop a charging player (3,500J) even with the energy difference.
Akuma hits it with whatever he has that causes the eruption of pink energy that destroys it. More akin to explosive force than pure strength.Grenades are at about 500kJ, a 50m/s car hits with 2500kJ.
Actually it doesnt really matter, this wouldnt even change Akuma's strength by a whole lot. The destruction force of a meteor like that is Mountain level, which Akuma is already around iirc.
In the case of the Rugby/Football scenario, all I gotta say is, "Newton's 3rd law". Refresh your memory of it. It explains why the stationary object stops the movin object. And yes, the stationary object is still usin an equal and opposite force. I'm too lazy to start a physics class so that I can explain this further.
And I think you may be confused. Yur usin joules, which is the measurement of the energy used in applyin a force, not the measurement of the actual force, itself. In a debate with fictional characters and super powers the words "force" and "energy" are left as interchangeable terms, to me. But when it comes down to units of measure and actual physics, force and energy are not the same and are measured differently.
That's not ture. And object in motion is in no way notiably more durable or denser unless it's going a ridiciliously fast speed. And this is due to the mass of the object of the increasing depending on its speed not Newton's third law.
To destroy an object one does not have to first overcome it's kinetic energy and match said objects force... That's complete bull shit. If you are merely knocking the object away or stopping it in its track you would. But destroying... nah. Consdier a bullet, if someone shoots me it doesn't matter if I'm running or not. The bullet's going to pass through me despite having a significantly lower kinetic energy. And truly, no matter how fast I'm going this bullet will go through me.
Originally posted by ares834
That's not ture. And object in motion is in no way notiably more durable or denser unless it's going a ridiciliously fast speed.And this is due to the mass of the object of the increasing depending on its speed not Newton's third law.
Prove this. And I don't wanna hear what you think. Quote a certified physicist to disprove me and Mr.Newton. And the meteor is goin ridiculously fast. That's why I said what said. Clearly.
Originally posted by ares834
To destroy an object one does not have to first overcome it's kinetic energy and match said objects force... That's complete bull shit. If you are merely knocking the object away or stopping it in its track you would. But destroying... nah. Consdier a bullet, if someone shoots me it doesn't matter if I'm running or not. The bullet's going to pass through me despite having a significantly lower kinetic energy. And truly, no matter how fast I'm going this bullet will go through me.
Prove this. And I don't wanna hear what you think. Quote a certified physicist to disprove me and Mr.Newton.
And I never said anything about "overcomin" and then matchin. You have to match the force to stop it our outmatch it to destroy it. That is a fact.
1. Bullets don't always go thru people. Sometimes...they get stuck there. Wonder why that is...hmmmm
2. I'm not gonna go into considerable detail about why you are wrong about the bullet other than to say, like Bloodrain, you are measurin the wrong things in yur analogy.
Force is not energy.
Any energy is a product of force.
Found somethin useful. If you're havin trouble undestandin the difference between force and kenetic energy, this is a must read.
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Work-and-Energy.topicArticleId-10453,articleId-10418.html