Yeah and literal none of what you said is how we do things around here. I'd hate to inform you that you have been misinformed about our lifting strength standards. Quite frankly your personal opinion on how we scale lifting strength is irrelevant as this is the accepted principle.
This still does not negate the fact that, according to these calculations, Ohma shifts tens of millions of tons of matter, which is an absurd outburst in a verse where the machine stops and the compression of titanium is something anamal.
Not sure what you even mean by this, so I'm just gonna ignore it until you make more comprehensive sense.
You say that in this calculation the distance between the mountain and the dust does not matter, but I answer you that the value is important, because the size of the dust is directly scaled from the size of the mountain.
I didn't refute myself at all, you should learn the proper definitions of words before applying them in such a manner.
You attributed words to me that I didn't say in order to put them in doubt. Who else here has to learn the meaning of words?
Nobody is arguing the dust fell onto the mountain, what the actual **** are you even talking about?
Why are you reacting when I literally said it doesn't matter?
No there isn't and I've already proven so via scans.
No, you still haven't provided any real evidence. All your evidence boils down to antics and misinterpretation of other people's words.
Nobody assumes the dust traveled up to all 603 meters. The dust got kicked up a few hundred feet. How's about you drop your everso obvious strawman fallacies? At this point your tyring to argue against things that nobody is even discussing.
You're using my words wrong again. I said in plain text that the size of the dust is scaled from the size of the mountain, which has a height of 603 meters. You stubbornly see what you want to see.
I've already proven the size of those tree's, they're indeed colossal as they're comparable to a portion of the mountain. You saying "that is not the case." isn't a real argument. You provided zero citation and just act as if whatever you say is set in stone, this isn't how debating works.
You just showed a frame where we see the trees from a closer distance. The base of the mountain is also covered with forest, preventing you from seeing its full size.
The person above has already given you arguments why the trees are not as big as you think, but you just turned a blind eye to common sense
Thanks for the elementary school physics course, none of what you said is applicable to the case here. Your assuming this a dust that's derivative from soil, whenever that isn't the case. The dust here comes from wood debris. I'm not even gonna spend time on this comparison, it's the equivalent of comparing apples to oranges. The two circumstances are different from one another.
You know elementary school physics, but you're not even able to apply it, lmao. I repeat - are you seriously trying to tell me that 1 cubic meter of dust cloud weighs 2 tons?
You can find the density of the dust cloud and put it into the calculation. But I hasten to surprise you - dust, like flour, like sand can both float in the air and be a solid substance. The article indicates the density of dust as a solid substance.
If the dust cloud really had such a density, it would immediately fall to the ground, but the dust hovers.
