Theglassman12 said:
So again, you're boiling it down to be headcanon logic of "Oh it could be this strong instead so it can't make this version of the calc an outlier".
Pretty sure the calculation that she made that wasn't even called a bluff by a literal scientist shouldn't be considered flawed if not even Kokonoe called her bullshit and agreed with her statements on how strong the atomization would yield.
You seem to like that headcanon word, but maybe we should clear up what that means, so we know the proper topic.
| Headcanon (or head canon, head-canon) is a fan's personal, idiosyncratic (a mode of behavior or way of thought peculiar to an individual) interpretation of canon, such as habits of a character, the backstory of a character, or the nature of relationships between characters. | | |
| | ~ some website, fiction is too subjective for a proper dictionary, so whatever | |
So, headcanon is the idea of someone thinking something outside of the text, in shorthand.
The problem is that we don't even have a text to think out of. We get one detail: the planet is "destroyed", and we have to interpret our own specific meaning. Subjectivity isn't headcanon, the former is one of the core elements of a story, while the latter is the one that degrades a story by taking away what it actually, definitively means.
Headcanon would be saying that the planet doesn't get destroyed, The Black Beast leaves and lets the survivors kill themselves, a direct contradiction to what we actually know. Subjectivity is saying that it's possible planet destruction refers to anything from wiping the surface, to violently shattering it and sending the pieces at several hundred Mach speed. Sure, the latter is a bit of a crazy assumption, but nothing makes it an invalid headcanon.
Your character can be as scientific as they want but they can't escape
this. Atomizing the moon with an omnidirectional blast from earth is not 10^31 Joules, it's as was calculated with Inverse Square law, 16 Yottatons. At that, you don't need it to be an explosion for energy to start spreading thinner across more space.
That said, we seem to be confusing ourselves between if this is quantium anhilation or Atomization, which is understandable since the text says both to further throw a wrench into our understanding of the ordeal. So, who do we believe? The person saying it's an atomic explosion, or the person who states subatomic destruction?
If we trust the scientist, it could go all the way up to Tier 4, but if their statement was reliable, you have to wonder why they didn't correct Hades saying it wasn't that. Also you have to wonder how the fork they got such a low number when even something like, the size of Texas being subatomized is already 2 Zettatons or so
