For @TheLastStylebender I'll say clearly that every column and all building structures under normal conditions are made of reinforced concrete.
So here I have a little argument with @GreatIskandar14045 and @TheLastStylebender.
@TheLastStylebender disagree with the column made of reinforced concrete.
@GreatIskandar14045 disagree with the column got pulverized and how I use the destruction value of reinforced concrete then multiply it by the volume of the area that got destroyed to determine the kinetic energy of the attack.
I need your opinion regarding this matter.
| Kinetic Energy : 44956.9231 x 610 = 27423723.1 Joules (Small Building Level) |
It's not because of the dust why I am saying that the column got pulverized,just look at the small pieces of reinforced concrete,do you think that it will fit to the area of the column that got destroyed ? No it won't.
Except no scans you provided therein indicated that way, the sole reason why you said so is because there's dust, that's it. While in the contrary you can see bunch of large fragments on the ground, which opposed everything you just said. Of course, you can say that the shards on the floor aren't as much as the original part of the broken wall (the reason you assumed the rest are being destroyed into dust, and there's dust there), but you can as well argue that it is just an author being an author, they don't calculate everything the drew, hence, they don't really need to depicted it 100% accurately. It means ****** up drawing are ****** drawing, they aren't made for pixel scalings. This hits Occam's Razor too.
Now tell me why doesn't it counted as pulverization ?
Again it only small fragments and it won't fit the destroyed area.
you need to provide a single proof to support all of your argument before making such an extraordinary claim about reinforced concerete
again burden of proof, why do i become the one to provide anything here? but okay.
Already covered this.
"The fact" that said columm got pulverized is also just the made-up fact of yours, an author does inconsitent drawing is in fact, quite common (Bleach is one the prime example). We don't measure powers on just how they are shown (if we assumed it was pulverized), but also how consistent and make sense they are.
No, you read the articles, joule is a unit of energy, not the unit of Kinetic Energy. Kinetic Energy is a form of an energy from an object which reasoned by its motion, and mass, which expressed by 1/2*m*v^2. Your statement implied that joule is merely used for KE which is objectively wrong, because KE is just one of many physic formulas out there (I surprised you said that this shit was thought already in elementary school, but you don't know, and acted like a smartass).
It's not even an extraordinary claim, it's a common knowledge that a column is made of reinforced concrete.
you just embarassing youself bro,Joules is the unit of energy not only kinetic energy,we can use joules for other Physic formulas out there
the extraordinary one is not about the column is made of reinforced concrete, it's common knowledge, the one thing is funny here are how you force them being pulverized to supporting you argument,and contradictic your own word by speculated all of the part get pulverized which is false because you don't have any scans to proof it that way .
Saying that it could be an inconsistent drawing mean that you are agree that the column got pulverized aren't you ?,I don't know why you keep refusing that it's pulverization but in other hand say that it could be inconsistent drawing from author.
I have never said that joule is merely used for KE though
,your problem is how I using the destruction value of reinforced concrete and multiply it by the volume of the destroyed area, which you think it doesn't make any sense.
If it's an inconsistent drawing then canonically and by author intention, it is not a pulverization. I don't understand why would you assumed the opposite.
Then it is not KE and your definition of Kinetic Energy was just plain wrong, thanks for proving myself.I have never said that joule is merely used for KE though
I don't know why you think it doesn't make any sense,the destruction value of reinforced concrete already written on the table which you can see yourself in the link I sent above. We already known that to pulverization 1 centimeter cubic of reinforced concrete we need 610 joules of kinetic energy,then multiply it by the volume of the destroyed area we got the kinetic energy,it just as simple as that.
You say it yourself that column being made of reinforced concrete is an extraordinary claim come from myself.
Then it could be taken as an inconsistent feats rather then sayin it doesn't pulverized.
Then what is 610j/cc ?
,I think it's normal to determine the KE by using the destruction value and volume.
woah you seems don't understanding even half of @GreatIskandar14045 and my point here ,the only thing you can replies is unnecessarily word that we made for bonus.You say it yourself that column being made of reinforced concrete is an extraordinary claim come from myself.
Both are correct, the drawing was inconsistent and it is not a pulverization. In fact, there's nothing pulverized there since the only thing that is lacking is just the amount of chunk on the floor (which most likely caused by the author being doesn't really care), this "the rest got pulverized to dust" is just an (your) assumption.
Don't know the name, but surely it is not KE, the KE's formula isn't J/cc.Then what is 610j/cc ?
You don't determine the KE with your current formula, it doesn't make sense. What you determined on that progress was just the value of energy of such destruction, not Kinetic Energy.
That is also just your own assumption coming from your imagination,while I am using what is in the picture to determine the kind of destruction.
It's an energy needed to pulverize 1 cm³ of reinforced concrete.
And from where did the energy come from ? It's from the movement of the object.
Argumentum ad nauseam. What shown in the picture translate nothing as you said. The moment when Guriko kicked it, he shattered the part of the column by crushing it into pieces instead of dust (unless if you gonna say that they suddenly turned into dust on the air). And as for this "the chunks won't fit the area of the destroyed column, so rest are turned into dust", not only you can argue that the drawing was just inconsistent (which can be the case, and is quite common), you can as well say that some parts off it were got thrown of the panel so that we cannot see it. So no, it is not an assumption from my imagination, that's literally the safest interpretation for this case, that arguing it was pulverized for your reasonings above is violating Occam's Razor.
You literally don't understand what you are talking about. Kinetic energy is obtained from the motion of an object by calculating its mass and stated velocity, not calculating the aftermath that was destroyed by a movement alone. For example, calculating the impact of energy from a meteor which weigh 100 tons with 11 km/s (earth's escape velocity) speed, mass and velocity, is KE. But calculating the crater to know how powerful said meteor (the object which moved) isn't. For the third time that's not how KE works, it's not KE, it's something else.
If some parts are thrown away to the places where we can't see,then what is the point of showing us the small fragments and the aftermath of the attack ?, it clearly is an intentions of the author to show us how powerfulll is the attack. you'll keeps saying that it is inconsistent drawing or it canonically never happened,but again you just trying to defense yourself by saying something that contradict with the picture.
You are the one who don't understand what are you talking about,we already know how much energy it take to pulverize the reinforced concrete,we only need to multiply it by the volume to get the total amount of kinetic energy used,you clearly knew nothing about KE and how it works.
Gonna be nitpicky here. But that's not how KE works mate, it's literally about mass and speed. It doesn't have anything to do with determining methods of destruction, volume, etc.
Of course it does have anything to do with destructive capacity,If 610 joules worth of energy are able to pulverized 1cm³ of reinforced concrete,then logically 1220 joules of energy should be able to pulverized 2cm³,it just that simple. I can't see no problem with the way i am using the destruction value and multiply it by the volume to determine the kinetic energy, everyone did the same thing.
I hope you will consider my opinion above
I don't think it's an exaggeration since there's nothing wrong with it being pulverization.
I literally don't understand how did you get that conclusion.
Yes, because it simply never happened. You can keep saying it is a pulverization but this site won't accept it anyway.
Give me a source about "Kinetic Energy is known by multiplying the volume after knowing how much energy it takes to destroy something". Of course you can't, because such mechanicsm for KE doesn't exist. You're just talking about something you barely understand, nor understanding its concept.
I think the closest Panel after the Fragmentation took place is a more accurate condition than the next panel you provided
When did I say "Kinetic Energy is known by multiplying the volume after knowing how much energy it takes to destroy something" ?. That's the way i and everyone in this site use to determine the KE of the attack.
What do you mean with "never happened" ?,it does happen just look at the picture.
Your explanation literally didn't explain why KE has anything to do with destruction value and volume. You're just plainly explained how to calculate energy from determining destruction value and volume, not explaining what the heck that's got to do with KE.
Would you mind explaining what KE is?
Everyone else is literally who, what ***** they've is not KE, because KE correlated with mass and velocity not volume and destruction methods. Yes, it is something else because it's not KE.
Of course KE has something to do with the volume and destruction value,the more the KE the larger the impact will be,that just a simple logic. I don't know why would you think KE has nothing to do with Destruction Value and The Volume of destroyed area.
Because KE is about finding an energy from mass and stated speed? What you're talking about is not KE but energy in general. Stop being a ******* smartass and act like you know everything and start some ******* reading, at least. You're just embarassing yourself at this point.
