Originally posted by h1a8
LOL, so I guess you didn't understand what I meant when I said ACUTE ANGLE.I learn something amazing everyday I guess.
His legs SLID on the ground BEFORE going airborne. That's the proof. End of the debate.
Wtf are you talking about? Where did I not understand what you meant by acute? Quote and explain.
Again, if there was frictional resistance, there would have been some form of rotation as his legs experienced said resistance while his top body did not. While his pants legs seems to look like they were very close or were still in contact with the marble, there is no indicator that it contributed any frictional resistance due to his trajectory. Also, an angled trajectory would mean that an object's full weight is no longer being applied to the surfaces. Meaning that even IF his legs were in contact with the marble, his full weight is no longer used to measure frictional resistance.
Sigh. This explaining of complex mechanics is tiresome. And a waste of time. There are too many factors in play to compute if we start arguing trajectory, angle and all this crap.
Just to get this debate moving forward let's just go ahead and just say that his pants legs may have slid a few inches off the marble before flinging him upwards. Happy? Let's move forward.
Did you skip the part where I said that even WITH friction in play that the addition of frictional resistance would not even significantly affect the difference between Cap's kick and Ozy's due to the low coefficient between cloth and marble (0.04 IIRC)? How does this change anything? Cap's kick is still much more powerful just by the weight/distance difference.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Wtf are you talking about? Where did I not understand what you meant by acute? Quote and explain.Again, if there was frictional resistance, there would have been some form of rotation as his legs experienced said resistance while his top body did not. While his pants legs seems to look like they were very close or were still in contact with the marble, there is no indicator that it contributed any frictional resistance due to his trajectory. Also, an angled trajectory would mean that an object's full weight is no longer being applied to the surfaces. Meaning that even IF his legs were in contact with the marble, his full weight is no longer used to measure frictional resistance.
Sigh. This explaining of complex mechanics is tiresome. And a waste of time. There are too many factors in play to compute if we start arguing trajectory, angle and all this crap.
Just to get this debate moving forward let's just go ahead and just say that his pants legs may have slid a few inches off the marble before flinging him upwards. Happy? Let's move forward.
Did you skip the part where I said that even WITH friction in play that the addition of frictional resistance would not even significantly affect the difference between Cap's kick and Ozy's due to the low coefficient between cloth and marble (0.04 IIRC)? How does this change anything? Cap's kick is still much more powerful just by the weight/distance difference.
I just rewatched the scene (since that's what you are doing now to debate me). The kick was actually at a slight downward angle. It had NO vertical upward component whatsoever. So either
1. Rorschach bounced off the ground (plenty of frictional forces)
or
2. We have Fiction inconsistency since the trajectory of launch and then angle of impact were contradictory to each other.
Originally posted by h1a8
Several things that are faulty.1. How can an explosion liquify a human under something very durable? Are you talking about HEAT or IMPACT force? You are clearly making stuff up. Bomb suits are very flexible. Did you know that? They are made of Kevlar, foam and plastic.
2. Highly correlated doesn't not mean equal durability. It means that if a character's skin and muscles are 500 times more durable than a human's then their throat should be at around 500 times more durable as well. It could be less than 500 times but somewhere around the vicinity. Otherwise, Ozy kills Cap and Thor with a throat punch easily.
1. Force travels over flexible materials. Basic stuff man. A lot of the force is absorbed by the skin and bone, sure. But even with unbreakable skin and bones, your internals would get mushed like meat loaf in a blender if they were human level after an explosion like the rainbow bridge explosion.
Luke Cage almost dying frim concussion from a point blank shotgun blast that did not even pierce his skin would be a good example.
Bomb suits are made of THICK kevlar, foam and plastic that absorbs and dissipates much of the concussive force/pressure wave of the explosion over the surfaces and into the material. If you, however, think that none of the energy of a bomb reaches the skin and the internals of the wearer then you don't know jack.
2. Not true in any fictional universe. Durability is inconsistenly portrayed across different aspects of a character. With Spiderman's strength and durability feats, his muscles alone need to have been easily bulletproof to pull any if the stuff he's done off. But that's not true is it.
Again, mod ruling. Lady reply to this BS logic til a mod ruling arrives.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1. Force travels over flexible materials. Basic stuff man. A lot of the force is absorbed by the skin and bone, sure. But even with unbreakable skin and bones, your internals would get mushed like meat loaf in a blender if they were human level after an explosion like the rainbow bridge explosion.Luke Cage almost dying frim concussion from a point blank shotgun blast that did not even pierce his skin would be a good example.
Bomb suits are made of THICK kevlar, foam and plastic that absorbs and dissipates much of the concussive force/pressure wave of the explosion over the surfaces and into the material. If you, however, think that none of the energy of a bomb reaches the skin and the internals of the wearer then you don't know jack.
2. Not true in any fictional universe. Durability is inconsistenly portrayed across different aspects of a character. With Spiderman's strength and durability feats, his muscles alone need to have been easily bulletproof to pull any if the stuff he's done off. But that's not true is it.
Again, mod ruling. Lady reply to this BS logic til a mod ruling arrives.
1. But I gave examples of flexible durable material PREVENTING a human from being liquefied. So your logic is faulty. You are basically changing the goalposts now.
2. Strength vs. Durability is not the discussion. You are missing the point. We are speaking in terms of durability alone. If a character's skin, muscles, veins, and nerves are shown to be extremely durable then it is highly reasonable to assume that their throat is also very durable. Otherwise, Ozy can kill ANYONE that (Thor, Cap, Thanos, etc.) has no throat feats with a punch to the throat.
Also, the kick has tremendous concussive force. That means Rorschach's brain, throat, etc. should have been damaged due to the impact forces if the skin and muscles DIDN'T absorb the impact.
Originally posted by h1a8
I just rewatched the scene (since that's what you are doing now to debate me). The kick was actually at a slight downward angle. It had NO vertical upward component whatsoever. So either
1. Rorschach bounced off the ground (plenty of frictional forces)
or
2. We have Fiction inconsistency since the trajectory of launch and then angle of impact were contradictory to each other.
What are you talking about?! I already said that this line of logic is a waste of time. How does this affect the difference between Cap's "feat" and Ozy's?!
Hell no it was a downward angle. There is no visible reference point that can indusputably prove that due to the closeness and angle of the shot.
Know what? Just go ahead and prove it had a downward angle.
1) No he didn't bounce off at all.
2) Reasonable. But where does that leave us?
Originally posted by h1a8
1. But I gave examples of flexible durable material PREVENTING a human from being liquefied. So your logic is faulty. You are basically changing the goalposts now. Poor reading FTL.2. Strength vs. Durability is not the discussion. You are missing the point. We are speaking in terms of durability alone. If a character's skin, muscles, veins, and nerves are shown to be extremely durable then it is highly reasonable to assume that their throat is also very durable. Otherwise, Ozy can kill ANYONE that (Thor, Cap, Thanos, etc.) has no throat feats with a punch to the throat.
1. I said human internal organs. Not the entire human. Reread what I said.
2. Muscle fibers need to be durable enough to pull off multiton "feats" of strength else they'll just snap like broken rubber bands. But fictional portrayals of durability is inconsistent allthroughout and not based in reality. That is why we use "feats" and not do reaching logic like you do.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
What are you talking about?! I already said that this line of logic is a waste of time. How does this affect the difference between Cap's "feat" and Ozy's?!Hell no it was a downward angle. There is no visible reference point that can indusputably prove that due to the closeness and angle of the shot.
Know what? Just go ahead and prove it had a downward angle.
1) No he didn't bounce off at all.
2) Reasonable. But where does that leave us?
1. i apologize! Bounce off is the incorrect term. More like jump off (jumping requires a downward force to propel someone upward due to Newton's 3rd law).
2. If this is the case then we can't argue which strike was harder. But it's irrelevant because it would take astronomically more force to go from not damaging someone in the least to killing them. Cap's striking feats are not much greater (if at all) than that Ozy kick.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1. I said human internal organs. Not the entire human. Reread what I said.2. Muscle fibers need to be durable enough to pull off multiton "feats" of strength else they'll just snap like broken rubber bands. But fictional portrayals of durability is inconsistent allthroughout and not based in reality. That is why we use "feats" and not do reaching logic like you do.
1. Bomb suits HAVE prevented internal organs from being liquefied.
2. I understand that. But that's not the discussion. Spider-man has lifted over 50tons many different times. Yet he is never bulletproof (even from small arms). Is this inconsistent? Yes but it has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion is: "Is it reasonable that the throat have more than human level durability if the skin, muscles, veins, and nerves are shown to be MUCH more durable than a human's?
Originally posted by h1a8
Look at 0:29 to 0:31
YouTube video1. i apologize! Bounce off is the incorrect term. More like jump off (jumping requires a downward force to propel someone upward due to Newton's 3rd law).
2. If this is the case then we can't argue which strike was harder. But it's irrelevant because it would take astronomically more force to go from not damaging someone in the least to killing them. Cap's striking feats are not much greater (if at all) than that Ozy kick.
1. I cannot fathom how someone getting kicked in the face would still be able to jump.
2 Friction coefficientsof cloth vs metal is around 0.25 (http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/19305/1/IJFTR%2019(3)%20151-155.pdf ; misremembered value from before). You get approximately close to the same level of "slip" from metal as black marble.
It's not exact but we can approximate that it would add just a fractional difference to the Ozy "feat" but nowhere enough to offset the huge difference between the two "feats".
Originally posted by h1a8
1. Bomb suits HAVE prevented internal organs from being liquefied.2. I understand that. But that's not the discussion. Spider-man has lifted over 50tons many different times. Yet he is never bulletproof (even from small arms). Is this inconsistent? Yes but it has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion is: "Is it reasonable that the throat have more than human level durability if the skin, muscles, veins, and nerves are shown to be MUCH more durable than a human's?
1. Of course bomb suits can protect you from explosions. Duh.
But if you think none of the force of a powerful explosion's pressure wave can reach your internals thru flexible body armor, then you don't know physics.
2. It proves that durability is inconsistent to reality in fiction w/c is why we base things off "feats".
And yes, it IS reasonable. Which is why I said "SOME increased durability". But not in exact scaling of the best showings you choose to exaggerate and wank out of proportion unless "feats" prove otherwise.
Mod ruling pls.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1. I cannot fathom how someone getting kicked in the face would still be able to jump.2 Friction coefficientsof cloth vs metal is around 0.25 (http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/19305/1/IJFTR%2019(3)%20151-155.pdf ; misremembered value from before). You get approximately close to the same level of "slip" from metal as black marble.
It's not exact but we can approximate that it would add just a fractional difference to the Ozy "feat" but nowhere enough to offset the huge difference between the two "feats".
Which huge differences do you speak of here?
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1. Of course bomb suits can protect you from explosions. Duh.But if you think none of the force of a powerful explosion's pressure wave can reach your internals thru flexible body armor, then you don't know physics.
2. It proves that durability is inconsistent to reality in fiction w/c is why we base things off "feats".
And yes, it IS reasonable. Which is why I said "SOME increased durability". But not in exact scaling of the best showings you choose to exaggerate and wank out of proportion unless "feats" prove otherwise.
Mod ruling pls.
I didn't say exact scaling but close scaling. So you agree that it should scale somewhat? But by how much is debatable?
If throat durability doesn't scale close to skin, muscle, vein, and nerve durability then Ozy can literally kill Thor, Cap, WS, Hulk, etc. with a throat punch since SOME scaling is not enough. Do you agree?