- 15,272
- 13,282
This thread pertains to calculations involving images showing the destruction of large objects, such as this one.
It means the clarify that a shockwave being visible does not mean that the feat occurred in seconds, because shockwaves are slow. Shockwaves through the air are sound, and they travel at 343 m/s; you can see in this footage how many large explosions remain impressive for many many seconds due to this. Shockwaves through planetary rock travel through them between 7,000 miles per hour and 18,000 miles per hour. Or, 3,130 m/s to 8,050 m/s.
If calculations find speeds of rocks and the shockwaves that are vastly incongruent to this, they shouldn't be used. Existing calculations like this should be revised. A piece of instruction text mentioning this should be placed somewhere, but I'm not exactly sure where; ideas would be welcome.
This doesn't apply to most cases of similar feats in live action, animations, and games, as those have a temporal grounding that a timeframe can be based on. Although I wouldn't be too opposed if we still applied that there, and took the short timeframe as cinematic timing aimed to make it more watchable.
It obviously doesn't apply to cases with stated timeframes, or any other mitigating factor you can imagine that would be good textual evidence for the event taking place quickly.
Pinging some random CGMs, @Mr. Bambu @Jasonsith @Wokistan @Migue79 @CloverDragon03 @DemiiPowa
It means the clarify that a shockwave being visible does not mean that the feat occurred in seconds, because shockwaves are slow. Shockwaves through the air are sound, and they travel at 343 m/s; you can see in this footage how many large explosions remain impressive for many many seconds due to this. Shockwaves through planetary rock travel through them between 7,000 miles per hour and 18,000 miles per hour. Or, 3,130 m/s to 8,050 m/s.
If calculations find speeds of rocks and the shockwaves that are vastly incongruent to this, they shouldn't be used. Existing calculations like this should be revised. A piece of instruction text mentioning this should be placed somewhere, but I'm not exactly sure where; ideas would be welcome.
This doesn't apply to most cases of similar feats in live action, animations, and games, as those have a temporal grounding that a timeframe can be based on. Although I wouldn't be too opposed if we still applied that there, and took the short timeframe as cinematic timing aimed to make it more watchable.
It obviously doesn't apply to cases with stated timeframes, or any other mitigating factor you can imagine that would be good textual evidence for the event taking place quickly.
Pinging some random CGMs, @Mr. Bambu @Jasonsith @Wokistan @Migue79 @CloverDragon03 @DemiiPowa
Last edited: