Well here is the thing, prior to the collision the forces aren't what matter it's the kinetic energy. The forces come into play durign and after the collision, these are called collision forces and include "fun" things like impact force. However, once again these are, usually, dependents on the kinetic energy of the objects not the force prior to collision. In fact, I'd assume that the meteor would have a negative acceleration as it's likely going faster than terminal velocity.
Originally posted by No End N Site
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.
Proove what? lol. Durability does not go up as force goes up. lol. Not a single law of Newton's says that. And, as I just said the meteor should have a negative force... And I doubt the meteor is going fast enough for the mass increase to have any notiable effect. That requires it to be going at a speed near that of light. I mean even if was going at a fifth the speed of light then it's mass increase would only be abou 2%...
Prove this. And I don't wanna hear what you think. Quote a certified physicist to disprove me and Mr.Newton.
Luckily Mr. Newton never once said what you are claming.
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.
No it's not. To destroy an object one must not need to overcome the force. But to repell it, yes.
1. Bullets don't always go thru people. Sometimes...they get stuck there. Wonder why that is...hmmmm
Because it didn't have sufficent energy to pierce through...
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.
Sure. But it's energy that's used in collisions prior to the actual collision. Afterall, the bullet in my analagy has a negative force due to air resistance. The same holds true with your meteor.
Originally posted by ares834
Well here is the thing, prior to the collision the forces aren't what matter it's the kinetic energy. The forces come into play durign and after the collision, these are called collision forces and include "fun" things like impact force. However, once again these are, usually, dependents on the kinetic energy of the objects not the force prior to collision. In fact, I'd assume that the meteor would have a negative acceleration as it's likely going faster than terminal velocity.
For the most part, I agree and yur view is understandable.
However, Akuma and the meteor's kinetic energies become virtual non factors cuz Akuma is not a meteor, he is not the same size, he has not traveled for the same amount of time, length, and he is not made out of the same things. The way in which the meteor and Akuma generate the same force will be different and will require different amounts energy. Either way, the amount of force will be, either equal or greater. A human punch has more kenetic energy than a bullet, but the bullet still hits with greater force, cuz what kinetic energy the bullet does have is focused in a much smaller point and is transfered into the recievin object, almost, 100%, unlike the punch.
Originally posted by ares834
Proove what? lol. Durability does not go up as force goes up. lol. Not a single law of Newton's says that. And, as I just said the meteor should have a negative force... And I doubt the meteor is going fast enough for the mass increase to have any notiable effect. That requires it to be going at a speed near that of light. I mean even if was going at a fifth the speed of light then it's mass increase would only be abou 2%...
I never stated Newton said that. I said, Newton stated, "The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force. The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force and inversely proportional to the mass. The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear." The fact that an object's durability goes up as it accelerates at ridiculous speeds should be common sense. You shouldn't need help commin to that conclusion. The force required to destroy a giant rock will be far from equal as destryoin the same rock at 1/5 the speed of light.
And even a 1% increase in the mass of an object that strikes with the force to replicate 1 billion atomic bombs is considerable. It should be noted that I never stated the meteor in question is movin at anywhere near the speed of light, thus there is no major increase in mass. I was simply illustratin that the properties of objects change when in motion.
Originally posted by ares834
No it's not. To destroy an object one must not need to overcome the force. But to repell it, yes.
This is not true for a movin object. If you obliterate somethin in motion, you stopped it. 😂
Originally posted by ares834
Because it didn't have sufficent energy to pierce through...
Clearly, but you spoke as if all bullets pierce thru and exit flesh...
Originally posted by ares834
Sure. But it's energy that's used in collisions prior to the actual collision. Afterall, the bullet in my analagy has a negative force due to air resistance. The same holds true with your meteor.
I explained this in my last post. And Akuma jumped into space to crush the meteor. Their is no air resistance in space. Infact all resistance is actually against Akuma and he still clashed with the meteor and destroyed it.
Originally posted by No End N Site
It's not "what" energy is being used, it's [b]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.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. [/B]
So if they sent a hypothetical, mountain-level nuke that explodes upon hitting the meteor, nothing would happen to it? Equal&Opposite reaction if it does would explain this point as much as it covers Akuma and the meteor. Both unequal forces, both the same result. The pink energy ruptures the rock, its not a basic punch.
Can use the joules for the energy of the moving bodies or the Newtons of the their force, but both are higher for the car.
Originally posted by NemeBro
That meteor was the size of a small country.Mountain level?
What?
Top right. Its 2° from Earth level, and if it just started burning up it'd be 100km away. Makes the meteor 3.5km wide, length is double that for 7km. Snugly in the Mountain range.
My bad for leavin this hangin but I been a bit of a busy bee as of late. Soooooo yeah,
A nuke is virtually useless when being shot at an extinction class meteor. A nuke thats power's beyond what any country has revealed might break off a piece, maybe even slow it down, slightly. But blow it up to a point where its pieces will cease upon contact with the_atmosphere? That's a negative.
Here's a link providing proof of this...
http://science.howstuffworks.com/asteroid-nuclear-bomb.htm
Akuma is also using chi. Chi is an extension of physical and spiritual force which is why Ryu's Hadouken feels like a "solid kick" and not a laser blast or a fire ball. So when Akuma clashes with the meteor he's just smashing it with all his physical might. He is digging down deeper to generate more force than any human possibly could. The purple light is just a sign of that incredible force.
Yes, Nemebro already brought that up. However, this is where one must realize physics and video games or movies don't collide. The reason the nuke doesn't stop the asteroid isn't because it's more durable, after all it still shatters it, but rather that the shattered pieces would still crash into the Earth and cause as much if not more damage than the full asteroid.
Now it's possible that Akuma punched hard enough to shattered and repelled it, in which case you were right, but if he merely shattered it then the pieces still fell to earth then you would be wrong. Sure, you can say "but then the Earth would still be devastated” but I would point out that almost all forms of media ignore this like in the movie Armageddon or Superman: TAS.
Our most powerful bomb "might cause great hunks of an extinction class meteor to break off, at the most". That's not destroyin the meteor. That's not Stopping the meteor.
The most powerful bomb we could possibly make, at this point, would most likely cause it to fracture into several pieces, large pieces of an even larger asteroid. That's not "shattering" or Stopping the meteor.
To obliterate/shatter/destroy = stop the movin object in its tracks, you must counter it's force before you can even worry about how durable it is. There is literally, no way around this. You can not destroy a movin object without stoppin it.
Yes, you can. The reason it's not blowing it into smitherieens is because the asteroid is gigantic in the post it says around 400 meters not because it's moving. A nuke doesn't reduce solid rock to rubble like that. If you can actually post something that directly states something that directly states durabilty is increased when an object is in movement I'll believe it. But until then, not at all.
Edit: And no when you shatter an object you don't have to stop it. Ever hit a thrown egg or water balloon with a baseball bat? The water/egg juice keeps moving.
Edit 2: Hell object's can break up in atmospheric reentry, yet clearly they don't need to be stopped.
BR said a nuke would destroy an EX meteor. I posted clear evidence that even our greatest weapon would to fail destroy the average EX meteor. And o'course the rock is gigantic, it's gonna wipe out mankind. The one that killed the dinos is way bigger than 400 meters. And I don't need to post anything to prove my point. You are tryin to refute a very basic law of physics.😂 I mean seriously, this is as easy as askin yurself, what's more "durable", a 50 cal lead-bullet or a half foot of concrete?...The damn Concrete. But when the 50 cal is in motion from being fired with enough force...Leik really, c'mon. Some bullets break on impact with water, is a lake of water more durable than a 22 caliber bullet? Durability of anything is not the major factor in obliteratin a giant asteroid with'ya bare hands.
If the yolk/water is still movin...then clearly, you did not stop the object, let alone destroy it completely.
If the object does not dissipate in reentry before it touches the ground, obviously reentry didn't stop it or destroy it.
No it's not a basic law of physics, not one of them states an object's momentum must be stopped for it to be destroyed. And yes, the bullet is "more durable" than concrete as metal is significantly harder than concrete. And hell, your bullet breaking up in water example shows an object breaking up before it's stopped. It's the sudden deceleration/sudden force exerted on the object that breaks it.
Secondly, I did not say I stopped the egg/water balloon but merely destroyed it. And to destroy an object one does not need to erase it from existence or vaporize it. When a demolition crew destroys a building it isn't vaporized.
It does! An object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an equal or greater opposite force. If the object is shattered into tiny pieces and its pieces eventually stop or go off in opposite directions, it is stopped. I'm not gonna argue semantics about the word shattered or destroyed. To do what Akuma did, you would have to overcome the force of the meteor. The object should not be movin if it's completely destroyed. I'm leavin it at that.
Metal is harder than concrete, sure. But a half inch of lead is not more durable than 6"s of concrete. And the bullet STOPS (even if it's for a split second), shatters, scatters in the opposite direction, and then falls into the water. The same force that fires the bullet is not the same force that continues its decent into water. The force that fires the bullet has been met and overcome. Gravity takes control of the aftermath.
This is one of those things where you will never get the exact words you are lookin for, cuz this is somethin no one on Earth has tried to refute...until now.
Originally posted by No End N Site
It does! An object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an equal or greater opposite force. If the object is shattered into tiny pieces and its pieces eventually stop or go off in opposite directions, it is stopped. I'm not gonna argue semantics about the word shattered or destroyed. To do what Akuma did, you would have to overcome the force of the meteor. I'm leavin it at that.
This is true, if the pieces stop or go flying in the other direction! I have yet to see evidence that they do in this case rather than simply shatter but continue to fall toward to Earth.
Originally posted by No End N Site
Metal is harder than concrete, sure. But a half inch of lead is not more durable than 6"s of concrete. And the bullet STOPS, shatters, scatters in the opposite direction, and then falls into the water. The same force the fires the bullet is not the same force that continues its decent into water. The force that fires the bullet has been met and overcome. Gravity takes control of the aftermath.
Breaking concrete is actually quite easy, I've done it numerous times with a sledge hammer. Breaking and not merely deforming a bullet it is significantly more difficult.
And no, the bullet breaks upon contact with the water and at that point the bullet's momentum has not been met or overcome as it continues upon it's same trajectory for several meters. In fact, the idea that it breaks once it's momentum has stopped makes no sense as it would be experiencing very little forces then. It's when it first contacts the water, when it's velocity is greatest, that the forces the bullet expirences are greatest.
This is one of those things where you will never get the exact words you are lookin for, cuz this is somethin no one on Earth has tried to refute...until now.
No one has tried to refute it because no one has ever stated such nonsense. On object can be destroyed while it's motion. It does not need to be stopped first.
The meteor has clearly been stopped by Akuma in the scan...
Again, continuin to go on about the concrete while forgettin the sheer amount being brought up. Anything less than a 50 cal will break half way through a 6 inch wall.
What you said about the water, is not destroyin the bullet, it is only breakin it. An object whose purpose is to move is not trully destroyed unless it is broken out of existence or ceases to function, completly.
Lmao You have a very silly definition of "destroy". If an object in pieces behaves as it does when whole, it is not destroyed. When things like google exist, I refuse to argue about the meaning of words beyond this.
Originally posted by No End N Site
The meteor has clearly been stopped by Akuma in the scan...
In that case can I see the scan?
Originally posted by No End N Site
Lmao You have a very silly definition of "destroy". If an object in pieces behaves as it does when whole, it is not destroyed. When things like google exist, I refuse to argue about the meaning of words beyond this.
When someone mentions something is destroyed I usually take it to be broken apart and not reduced to nothingness. For example, when I say "I destroyed a rock" I merely mean I broke it apart not reduced it to dust. I take "destroy a meteor" the same way.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that Akuma Meteor scene from the extremely overpowered Udon comics, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual Capcom continuity other than having licensing rights? IIRC, didn't the Udon King of Fighters comics have Iori Yagami set the atmosphere on fire with one of his techs?
I mean, by that same logic Akuma can be beaten by Phoenix Wright, who can go on to defeat high end cosmic beings like Dormmamu, Dark Phoenix, Shuma Gorath, Galactus and Thanos with the Infinity Gauntlet by accusing them of murder. Heck, Karin's family somehow having an orbital laser that can destroy Bison's underground bunker at a call from her is more canon than that, as it actually happened in a possible (and hopefully not anywhere near serious) ending for one of the Alpha games.
In Asura's Wrath's completely non-canon DLC, base Ryu managed to harm a guy that can tank orbital reentry and fist fights with things that measure in the thousands of meters and wasn't seriously hurt from being punched all the way to the moon, Akuma was able to punch Ryu into space and create a wormhole and in Oni form the fight against Asura caused the moon to get shattered and the two of them to land on Earth. Also, both humans can breathe in space and for some reason Akuma is able to turn into stone for 500 years and return to life despite not being semi-divine cyborgs who did that repeatedly throughout their game like Asura was.
In terms of main continuity, Akuma/Gouki/Oni and Ryu/Evil Ryu don't even begin to approach the strength that base Asura has except MAAAAYBE with their most powerful super attacks, and definitely nowhere near the speed, agility, durability or experience (Asura was an adult of a species that doesn't seem to age appreciably over a period of 12,500 years and earned the rank of divine general during a millenia-spanning war and was trained by a guy at least as fight hungry as Akuma; he is literally orders of magnitude older than everyone in Street Fighter combined and has been fighting for most of that time). And Asura's stronger forms make his base form look like a pansy.
The DLC was just some fanservice for Capcom's de facto mascot(s), and was fine for what it was, even though I wish they'd done something more interesting with it than just put some tweaks on the Augus (Asura's aforementioned master) fight. It is not canon and definitely not representative of the Street Fighter cast's level or Asura's limits. In an actual fight, Asura would punch the SF cast into bloody stains six countries over before they can charge up their ultimate attacks (ie: the only things that could possibly harm his base form).
Originally posted by Drunkard Kid
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that Akuma Meteor scene from the extremely overpowered Udon comics, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual Capcom continuity other than having licensing rights? IIRC, didn't the Udon King of Fighters comics have Iori Yagami set the atmosphere on fire with one of his techs?
UDON is actually quite famous for accurately portrayin SF and DS characters quite well. As such, while CFE is not canon (far from it, so I wont argue for the feats being canon) none of the feats in that game are "over powered". Infact, the game actually presents canon information, not yet introduced to US shores.
Originally posted by Drunkard Kid
I mean, by that same logic Akuma can be beaten by Phoenix Wright, who can go on to defeat high end cosmic beings like Dormmamu, Dark Phoenix, Shuma Gorath, Galactus and Thanos with the Infinity Gauntlet by accusing them of murder. Heck, Karin's family somehow having an orbital laser that can destroy Bison's underground bunker at a call from her is more canon than that, as it actually happened in a possible (and hopefully not anywhere near serious) ending for one of the Alpha games.
Your logic does not apply. MVC is a multi-comapny crossover stated to take place in completely separate universes. CFE is an all Capcom production and is presented as a "what if", these characters ever met? This is further proven by the fact that all of the featured character's previous canons are left intact and are referenced quite often in the game, unlike MVC.
Originally posted by Drunkard Kid In terms of main continuity, Akuma/Gouki/Oni Evil Ryu don't even begin to approach the strength that base Asura has except MAAAAYBE with their most powerful super attacks[/B]
So you've seen Evil Ryu and Oni fight in canon? Pleez show me where you saw this. I've been waitin ages to see Evil Ryu and even Shin Akuma fight someone in canon. I'm glade someone's finally found somethin showin these characters in action.
Originally posted by Drunkard Kid Akuma; he is literally orders of magnitude older than everyone in Street Fighter combined and has been fighting for most of that time.[/B]
