Freezing Calcs, and Why they Make No Sense

[Dargoo_Faust]

Except we can't use force, we're stuck with a tiering system based on energy.
Ant has also said that it's not gonna happen, so we gotta do with what we gotta do.

And IRL logic doesn't apply to fiction, so there's that too.

That doesn't mean we can't use force, it means we think it's too much work to do so.

Using "IRL logic doesn't apply to fiction" as an argument also has you arguing against any form of calculation that uses RL physics. We must assume IRL logic applies to a fictional universe until proven otherwise.

If not, then there's no logical way to compare feats as you could just throw up your hands and say "well, one verse's rocks might be less durable than another's".

Which just takes me back to my point that our system isn't based in science but rather convienince, I'd just perfer us admitting it than rather than trying to skirt around it.

 

[AnonymousBlank]

For freezing being the transfer of heat (energy) away from whatever is getting frozen, can we not just say whatever is doing the freezing is simply durable enough to take the energy? The example I have in mind is Silver freezing the Sun Village in Fairy Tail. If he is able to remove 25 megatons from the village, and there is no sign of this heat going anywhere else, would this not mean it had to go into himself?

 

[KLOL506]

Don't we already admit to it tho? Pretty sure this was the case with a few threads a year or two back AFAIK.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

If he is able to remove 25 megatons from the village, and there is no sign of this heat going anywhere else, would this not mean it had to go into himself?

Why would we assume this when we don't know where the energy went?

It's equally likely to have gone to an infinite number of other places if there's no indication of where it went.

 

[AnonymousBlank]

Note this reasoning is for if we take the wording for AP hyper literally, to show it still doesn't debunk freezing feats.

Because its a transfer of energy between two objects. There is the village, the surroundings and Silver. It was taken from the village so it can't be going there, *the surroundings show no sign of having been affected by anything* and then there is Silver, the guy who is performing the feat. It could have gone to an infinite number of other places but why would we say it has when Occam's Razor is a thing?

*Considering the rest of your posts speak of scientific accuracy and that we should strive to uphold it, it can't even be argued that he sent the energy taken to another place as it would have to travel through a medium or be changed into another form of energy that would originate from the village as it travels away.*

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

we take the wording for AP hyper literally

You'd imagine the one thing we'd take literally on the site would be our own terminology pages.

Because its a transfer of energy between two objects. There is the village, the surroundings and Silver. It was taken from the village so it can't be going there, *the surroundings show no sign of having been affected by anything* and then there is Silver, the guy who is performing the feat. It could have gone to an infinite number of other places but why would we say it has when Occam's Razor is a thing?

Literally everything is the transfer of energy between two objects, it's called entropy.

However, AP is concerned energy output of the attack or character. The character performing the freezing is not outputting energy in any way or form, the object they are freezing does, so try again.

"It could have gone to an infinite number of other places but why would we say it has when Occam's Razor is a thing?"

Occam's Razor doesn't come into play when all of these other places take the same exact number of assumptions to come to a conclusion on. You're using the term wrong.

Considering the rest of your posts speak of scientific accuracy and that we should strive to uphold it

Never actually said that. You're conflating my argument against freezing (which operates based on our system) and my argument against heat feats being treated as AP/Durability (questioning the system itself).

I'm aware we aren't scientifically accurate. I'm aware that we won't have it any other way because of the work involved in changing it. I'd like us to first admit that.

it can't even be argued that he sent the energy taken to another place as it would have to travel through a medium or be changed into another form of energy that would originate from the village as it travels away.

If the energy wasn't moved anywhere else then he's just breaking the law of conservation of energy and not producing any energy at all, which is even less comparable to how we treat AP. Energy isn't even being moved, it's just being removed without a place to go.

So the attack doesn't even produce energy. So it isn't AP, try again.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Like, honestly, the only reason freezing can be justified for AP is by adding meaning to the AP page that just isn't there or ignoring our definition of it because by precedence we've been ignoring it, which is just off.

 

[Sir_sun_man]

finnaly somebody put it into words

cuse i always had a bit of a grippe with this system

like really? heat translates to AP?

so what then every nuke is 6B at its center for the fisrt few mili secons just cuse it can reach an upwards of 50,000,000 F?

 

[AnonymousBlank]

Agreed.

I said it would scale to his dura though.

But I am not. It takes less assumptions to assume the heat moves into Silver as he is the one doing the freezing and nothing around shows any sign of such. If I put ice in a drink and it cools, the default assumption would be that the ice is where the heat goes. Your assumption is that it goes some random place that has nothing to do with the feat, completely ignoring the cause of the feat itself.

Except I gave a perfectly valid place for the energy to go to, Silver himself. Silver casually stomps people who have low 7-B feats so him being able to take low end 7-B energy is hardly out of place.

I never argued for it directly granting AP to the character who performed it. My whole point is that it scales to their dura regardless and thus if they can fight people who harm them, their AP would scale regardless.

 

[InfiniteSped]

Agree with the op

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I said it would scale to his dura though.

For reasons which rely on baseless assumptions, yes.

But I am not. It takes less assumptions to assume the heat moves into Silver as he is the one doing the freezing

Actually, looking how temperature decreases work IRL it takes more assumptions for that, as more often than not the heat is displaced outside of the object when temeperature is decreased artifically.

If there's nothing indicating he absorbed the heat, then you have to make a bunch of assumptions about him doing so, of which you could come to the conclusion that the heat was displaced off-screen or not displaced at all with equal ludicrous assumptions.

Get an ounce of proof that the heat moved to him outside of "well, there isn't proof it didn't go to him!", then come back.

If I put ice in a drink and it cools, the default assumption would be that the ice is where the heat goes.

You mean, the default assumption is something that's demonstrably proven IRL. That's not an assumption, that's a fact. We expect ice to cool water because it's already in a lower heat state to begin with, it doesn't magically freeze the water from a distance on a whim, the comparison is null.

Not that this example correlates in any way, shape, or form to the """"feat"""" you're talking about, as the character in question indicates no lower heat level themselves prior to the feat.

Except I gave a perfectly valid place for the energy to go to, Silver himself.

The problem with that is that there's infinite equally valid places it can go as there is no indication that it goes to him in the first place. You're making a guess with no basis other than convenience for your claim.

If you want your claim to hold up, give me something more substantial than "here's a possible place!".

Silver casually stomps people who have low 7-B feats so him being able to take low end 7-B energy is hardly out of place.

We're not discussing if a feat in a specific verse is out of place, we're discussing if it's a feat that even counts for AP/Dura to begin with. This contributes nothing to your argument.

My whole point is that it scales to their dura regardless and thus if they can fight people who harm them, their AP would scale regardless.

A) It doesn't scale to dura unless you construct a scenario on baseless guesses to support a claim, despite claims to the contrary having equal evidence, or should I say lack thereof.

B) Define "fight people who can harm them". How does being heat-resistant translate to being capable of taking punches or bullets? Answer: It doesn't, there's no correlation between heat resistance and blunt force resistance outside of the fictitious one we've constructed out of convenience.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Already gave my opinion, not super interested in debating this since I think I fleshed out and explained my point of view well enough. Just popping in to say V. Frag, Frag, and Pulverization all come from the physical properties of the materials. It isn't just made up. Jfc.

 

[KLOL506]

Welp. I'll still stick with Bambu's opinion.

Though this really isn't gonna go anywhere if we don't get more calc members, but DT is kinda way too busy these days sadly. I'mma unfollow the thread for the meantime.

 

[AnonymousBlank]

So you want split durability instead of simply changing the wording for AP? Got it. Have fun writing that up.

 

[Dvorak1902]

I agree with the OP, simply displacing heat is not Attack Potency. However, there is a way of freezing things that I think would be valid for AP, and that is directly applying work to the molecules of an object in such a way that they reduce their kinetic energy and stop moving. Akin to stopping a trillion little cars at once.

But I don't know if most fictional depictions of freezing can be assumed to fit the first or the second description.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

So you want split durability instead of simply changing the wording for AP? Got it. Have fun writing that up.

So, I'm taking it you didn't have a response to any of my other points, given that wasn't even the crux of my argument against the freezing feats?

Funny you mention it - if we just treated Durability as it was currently worded and took those as Heat Resistance feats, it'd work out just fine. Don't need to reword any of our actual terms. Even that isn't necessary for discounting freezing feats, just applying what we actually define as AP.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

finnaly somebody put it into words
cuse i always had a bit of a grippe with this system

like really? heat translates to AP?

so what then every nuke is 6B at its center for the fisrt few mili secons just cuse it can reach an upwards of 50,000,000 F?

I mean.

Heat = Energy = What we use for AP.

So yeah. Freezing is interpretive, heat 100% fits our current AP standards. Like that just isn't even an argument. You can disagree with it but that's more rewriting our entire system and calcs because you don't like heat for whatever reason. I don't see why a guy capable of burning the surface of a planet would be 9-B, because "lol it's just heat", but hey, could be just me I guess.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

oh also

@Dargoo that's wrong. the bit about introducing energy being required to count as AP. that's just straight up ignoring laws of thermodynamics. If you're gunning for that sick nasty 100% accuracy to physics, then energy can't be created. freezing changes energy in the same way a punch or an explosion changes energy- none of these just make it. The energy already exists and is being shifted about.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I mean.

Heat = Energy = What we use for AP.

Not all energy interacts with stuff the same, one.

You're forgetting we actively don't use energy from certai kinds of attacks (most of the time) despite them "just being energy", by the way.

You could say freezing and heating inflate feats in a very similar way given that, by nature, it's extremely inefficient at destroying the objects in question.

I don't see why a guy capable of burning the surface of a planet would be 9-B, because "lol it's just heat", but hey, could be just me I guess.

Where did I say people capable of surface-wiping through fire are 9-B?

My problem is when we translate that kind of attack to something like Force for purposes of scaling or durability, when all that amounts to is a really high heat resistance.

 

[Antoniofer]

I believe that decreasing the environmental temperature due creating a source of heat could counts as AP (like an sphere so hot that the temperature within x radius decrease certain degrees). Although, that wouldn't be possible in the opposite case, as it would meaning to generate physically impossible temperature.

And even yet, any freezing feat suffer from AoE, decreasing 50 degrees the enviromental temperature in 10 m is essencially the same that decreasing the temperature in 10 km radius for those who tanked it.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

oh also
@Dargoo that's wrong. the bit about introducing energy being required to count as AP. that's just straight up ignoring laws of thermodynamics.

You misread me. I'm talking about characters using their own/exerting their own energy, introducing it into the object. System may have been a poor choice in words.

Oh, aside from my point, but just to poke fun at this:

We are aware that this technically violates the principle of conservation of energy
	~ Attack Potency​

If you're gunning for that sick nasty 100% accuracy to physics, then energy can't be created.
That's a gross misrepresentation of my argument. I want physics to be assumed until proven otherwise, not to take precedence over what the stories show, obviously.

freezing changes energy in the same way a punch or an explosion changes energy
Ha, no it doesn't. It changes energy, and a punch changes energy, but saying they do it in the same way is just blatantly false.

If that was truly the case, we'd see a direct correlation between heat capacity and compressive strength, which there isn't.

The energy already exists and is being shifted about.
That's not how we define AP.

 

[Spinoirr]

So characters who absorb heat to freeze things are fine?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

of course not all energy interacts the same, but at that point you're arbitrarily choosing one over the other. doesn't really matter how they interact. we base AP on joules. joules is joules and heat relates to joules.

and ye, I realize, but if you are going to try to justify the usage of 100% accurate physics, do so. Don't take half of what works and ignore the rest, is the thing.

why would we not assume, as is the possible explanation under physics, that the character has such energy within them and exerts it. as our system does now? Like yeah this doesn't fit fully accurate physics but as I said before, this is the least broken the system can be imo. Picking at the scab ain't gonna fix it.

In the same way as in, they both change energy. Again, choosing the punch as being more accurate is a random arbitrary choice. We use energy generally, not specifically from KE/Force as you seem to imply we do.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

doesn't really matter how they interact.

If our goal is to catalog feats accurately, and certain types of feats/abilities don't interact with durability the same way, wouldn't it be inaccurate to not treat it so?

I'd say that matters.

and ye, I realize, but if you are going to try to justify the usage of 100% accurate physics, do so. Don't take half of what works and ignore the rest, is the thing.
What am I ignoring? I thought your claim was based on the idea I was saying the characters create energy, when I corrected this and explained that wasn't my point?

why would we not assume, as is the possible explanation under physics, that the character has such energy within them and exerts it.
Because the process of freezing isn't one that requires them to exert energy into an object, by definition.

Like yeah this doesn't fit fully accurate physics but as I said before, this is the least broken the system can be imo. Picking at the scab ain't gonna fix it.
You're really driving home the "100% accurate physics 100% of the time" point, even when that's explicitly not what I'm claiming.

We should let the verse itself determine whatever physics it wants to ignore, not a third party. Wouldn't it be more ideal to look at how verses individually tackle these problems when cataloging them?

In the same way as in, they both change energy.
They don't change energy in the same way, though. This is demonstrably true.

We even, in our very own system, define Lifting Strength and Striking Strength separately, despite those two resembling each other vastly more than heat and physical force (they're actually both physical force), but sure.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we started converting those two stats into each other at this rate, though.

 

[Antoniofer]

Take into account that energy its the capability to produce change (not cause harm), so change energy its quite of a redundant terms (or unusable).

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Antoniofer

I'm geniunely unsure if what you said supports my claims or Bambu's.

 

[Antoniofer]

I'm not sure if it support anyone's claim, I guess it do not support the ones that stated that comment, although it was a curious comment of mine. But yes, energy its just how the change is measured, one can manipulate heat through energy (if it can do it) to increase temperature, and thus, cause harm, but it is limited to how much temperature it can increase, not the AoE (so higher aoe do not means causing more harm).

That generally do not works with freezing feats, physically speaking, as freezing quickly as fiction generally does would requiere physically impossible levels of temperature. So at the end, in order to endure tye freezing temperatures one just need resistance to low temperatures (although, in few instances freezing its generally harmless).

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Our goal is to catalog the potency of fictional characters measured in joules. See above for why heat has that capacity to be calculated in joules. So no. That particular bit doesn't matter.

The act of freezing is the act of interacting with latent energy by moving it. Should be AP. That's joules.

I won't continue this debate much since I did say I'd drop it but... why ignore the stuff about arbitrarily choosing purely physical energy over other forms? As far as I can see, heat is energy, punching is energy.

@Anton I mean. Then again, we're being arbitrary if we're saying AoE =/= Higher AP because of Higher Energy. Why stop at a punch? If we truly should only focus on size of attack having more energy in it, then only calculate the energy done to blades of grass or things of that size. Or atoms. Quarks. Why use a human sized thing? That's pointless and arbitrary and thus we should clearly only calculate energy done to atoms. If you can't affect something that small, you clearly have too much AoE and aren't viable.

Har har you get the point.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Our goal is to catalog the potency of fictional characters measured in joules.

Never knew that cataloging in joules specifically was a core part of our purpose as a site. This seems to be absent from what's said on our Main Page:

The purpose of this wiki is to index the statistics of characters from a wide variety of different fictional franchises.

The act of freezing is the act of interacting with latent energy by moving it. Should be AP. That's joules.
You do realize that "interacting with energy" isn't the definition of AP, right? I'd quote the AP page for the fifth or sixth time but I feel like it's just going nowhere.

Look, if you assert "it relates to joules thus it must be AP" when this claim contradicts the specifics of the page itself (the part I quote so often is bolded), I really don't know what to tell you. I feel like we're both tired of this back-and-forth.

As far as I can see, heat is energy, punching is energy.
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Heat_vs_work

The Second Law allows work to be transformed fully into heat, but forbids heat to be totally converted into work. If heat could be transformed fully into work it would violate the laws of entropy. The maximum amount of work one can attain from heat is given by the Carnot efficiency. Heat is the energy associated with the random motion of particles, while work is the energy of ordered motion in one direction. Therefore heat is "low-quality" energy and work is "high-quality" energy, and this supports the entropy statement of the Second Law. Heat and work each have their own distinct properties, and they differ in how they affect a system.

Yes. They're both energy (actually not really, they're the transfer of energy but that's besides the point). We both know that. My point is that they have fundamentally different properties, and literally can't be converted both ways. They interact in systems differently, far more differently than stats we separate already such as Lifting/Striking strength.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yes. And we do so in joules. As our Attack Potency page so clearly lays out. Unless you're implying that's not what we've been doing this whole time.

The part you bold as I've said is largely semantics. Freezing should count, as I've given my opinion on so many times. We don't focus on Force. Never have. We do focus on Joules. Freezing can effectively be calculated in a Joules value. Don't see why it wouldn't qualify, even if it is just altering the state of the energy in a system rather than introducing new energy.

Sure, but they can both be represented in Joules, which is the only requirement. Not Force. Again, I cannot express this enough, our system is not about Force, it is about Joules, which Heat is capable of being represented i.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Yes. And we do so in joules. As our Attack Potency page so clearly lays out. Unless you're implying that's not what we've been doing this whole time.

Attack Potency being measured in joules does not make everything that is measured in joules Attack Potency. Mass can be measured in joules, I mean seriously.

What the page actually says and what we've been doing are two obviously different things, likely as a misunderstanding of the page itself.

The part you bold as I've said is largely semantics.

Repost.

Isn't semantics something we should actually worry about with our frequent terms and guidelines, to be very honest on this one?

If you want to change how we define Attack Potency, go do that. Freezing doesn't match our definition of it as it stands.

Freezing can effectively be calculated in a Joules value. Don't see why it wouldn't qualify, even if it is just altering the state of the energy in a system rather than introducing new energy.
You've given an opinion, yes. I've given what the page actually defines.

"I don't see how it wouldn't qualify" isn't valid reasoning for a claim.

our system is not about Force, it is about Joules, which Heat is capable of being represented in.

Both Striking Strength and Lifting Strength can be measured in joules, we separate them because of fundamental differences between the two. Saying "our system is about joules" handwaves distinctions we make in our system from the getgo. I notice when I point this out, it's largely ignored or skirted around.

What's the point of using RL physics to place such values on feats, when we're ignoring RL physics when qualifying and discussing feats? If our system is just based on collective opinions, is there anything really objective about it?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

...we consider Mass-Energy to be legitimate, if that's what you mean. If proven, anyways. Literally, Joules = Attack Potency. We've had it this way for ages.

Yeah, repost, something something going in circles something something ultimately relies on your opinion something something yada yada you get the deal, but hey, let's talk about it until someone else appears, eh? As for your point, no. Someone used the word Force once and now that seems to be the crux of this argument. That freezing and heat aren't force. But what the page says is contradictory. It is explained in 99.9999% "Joules", and has reference to "Force". Forgive me for going with the first one.

This isn't about the difference between Lifting Strength and Striking Strength. That case is quite different from this one, as it is the difference between a slow buildup (Lifting) to a sudden outburst (Striking). This thread is ostensibly about whether we use Force or Joules. We use the latter. Not the former. I ignored it because that point literally isn't relevant here.

To add as much accuracy as is doable. Fiction follows reality to a point. As do we. You've even explained this above, the wiki wholeheartedly discards pieces of real physics where they no longer apply to fiction. So the whole "RL physics" thing falls apart from the get-go.

 

[Ayewale]

From what I'm reading, this is slowly morphing into a 'How many real life physics are in Fiction' thread. Fun.

 

[KLOL506]

I feel like this has been done before

TBF this should be a Calc Group only thread

 

[Mr. Bambu]

From what I'm reading, this is slowly morphing into a 'How many real life physics are in Fiction' thread. Fun.

That's the whole wiki m80

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I feel like this has been done before
TBF this should be a Calc Group only thread

Most Calc Group are either busy or AWOL

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Literally, Joules = Attack Potency. We've had it this way for ages.

My body has 10^18 Joules of Mass Energy.

Joules = AP, we apparently don't care about how the joules are manipulated, utilized, or interacts in a system.

I am 7-A, or Mountain level under your definition of AP, as my body possesses this energy, however we do not care about how this energy is utilized.

AP is how much energy I can output. Freezing something does not have me outputting energy. Freezing is not AP. I'm tired of us not reading our own terminlogy in favor of an argument from tradition. I honestly don't care "how we've done things for ages" if how we're doing things can be improved or made more accurate.

Yeah, repost, something something going in circles something something ultimately relies on your opinion something something yada yada you get the deal, but hey, let's talk about it until someone else appears, eh?
Funny enough that wasn't actually in response to your post when I just made it, but alright.

now that seems to be the crux of this argument. That freezing and heat aren't force.
Something something I've said numerous times that I'm debunking Freezing by how we currently define AP and I'm questioning our entire system with heat as a whole, yada yada you get the deal, at least I hope.

Freezing isn't AP as we define it. That's my main point with it, I'll say it one last time. Either I've given you a poor understanding of my argument, or you've grouped together my Freezing and general Heat arguments so make them appear as if they both want to rock the foundations of the site.

This isn't about the difference between Lifting Strength and Striking Strength. That case is quite different from this one, as it is the difference between a slow buildup (Lifting) to a sudden outburst (Striking). This thread is ostensibly about whether we use Force or Joules. We use the latter. Not the former. I ignored it because that point literally isn't relevant here.
Honestly? I seriously just recommend taking a crash course in thermodynamics at this point.

A slow buildup vs. a sudden outburst is literally one of the differences in how heat and force spread energy.

My last source explained this as well. Please go through this one.

To add as much accuracy as is doable. Fiction follows reality to a point. As do we. You've even explained this above, the wiki wholeheartedly discards pieces of real physics where they no longer apply to fiction. So the whole "RL physics" thing falls apart from the get-go.
Let me explain the difference between what I propose, and what our wiki is doing.

I believe that we should treat RL physics as applicable in a verse until it is proven otherwise. This varies from verse to verse, many of them will focus more on realism while others will leave physical laws to the wayside.

What you're talking about is us pretending as if we have some kind of general understanding of fiction and creating standards based on our opinions of "trends" in fiction, something that can't be quantified with evidence or logic, as not a single user here has an understanding of fiction as a whole, just the few verses we know and love. We don't discard RL physics "when they don't apply in fiction" we discard them when it's most convenient for us.

I reaffirm, our system is not one that is searching for objective truth in character statistics, but rather one that searches for objective ease, if this is our philosophy on how we run things.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

From what I'm reading, this is slowly morphing into a 'How many real life physics are in Fiction' thread. Fun.

We use RL physics to make calculations. It's a shame that we can't use RL physics to disprove them, or show issues with how we handle them, as that's against the status quo, which must be maintained at all costs.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

But you aren't making use of that. That's the caveat. You aren't using that energy. Of course we're aware of Mass-Energy and use it when it is actually warranted but your body possessing that much mass doesn't actually translate to the ability to make use of 10^18 Joules of energy. So again, not relevant. This should be fairly obvious, so if this is like intended to be a biting rebuttal I'd rather skip stuff like this? I've already given my opinion and can leave if you'd prefer to just not have a discussion.

Think you misunderstood my crap attempt at friendliness here.

You haven't debunked it. You've said why you believe it shouldn't count and to my knowledge I've provided fairly reasonable explanations as to why it is. Freezing is still the manipulation of joules to some extent and etc. I don't see what you're even talking about at this point.

And that's the point, isn't it? Heat vs Force isn't the issue nor was it ever the issue and you shouldn't make it the issue. I'm trying ever so desperately to get myself understood here. Force, say it with me, is not the purpose. Hinging all of this on a single word in a single page vs everything else this site has established doesn't make sense.

What I propose is what we do. Manipulation of joules is AP, something you seem to wholeheartedly deny and demand that we only acknowledge FORCE, which isn't what we do nor what we have ever done. What you propose is indeed what you say, but ignoring several key factors of the wiki.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

But you aren't making use of that. That's the caveat. You aren't using that energy.

That's correct.

Of course we're aware of Mass-Energy and use it when it is actually warranted but your body possessing that much mass doesn't actually translate to the ability to make use of 10^18 Joules of energy.

That's my point, right there. Not everything that is measured in joules is AP.

Think you misunderstood my crap attempt at friendliness here.

I'm fine with being friendly. I was pointing out, however, that you were representing my argument incorrectly.

You haven't debunked it. You've said why you believe it shouldn't count and to my knowledge I've provided fairly reasonable explanations as to why it is. Freezing is still the manipulation of joules to some extent and etc. I don't see what you're even talking about at this point.

What you're explaining and what the AP page describes are two different things. How about, instead of asserting the same claim with little reasoning over and over again and asserting this is just a debate of opinions, you provide evidence in the form of stuff that's actually on the AP page?

I'm talking about what's on the AP page, not your or my own opinion.

I said "debunking", present-tense. It's a work-in-progress.

Hinging all of this on a single word in a single page vs everything else this site has established doesn't make sense.

My argument hinges on how force and heat actually work, the poor construction of our terminology pages is secondary to that. It's why I mentioned it last on the OP, for one.

demand that we only acknowledge FORCE, which isn't what we do nor what we have ever done

If what you've gathered from this argument is that I want force to replace every statistic on the wiki, I've either failed miserably at communicating my argument to you or you failed miserably at interpreting my argument, or both.

I would like to separate heat and force or at the very least recognize the differences between the two, not have force take over everything on the site.