- 21,491
- 30,820
Y’all make everything a negative discussion.
Just chill and agree or disagree.
Me personally, looks good
Just chill and agree or disagree.
Me personally, looks good
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This assumption is completely unfounded, we have no idea how long it would take for Boros' attack to destroy the surface... and heat the atmosphere to almost a billion degrees? That's nearly the temperature of a supernova, and Boros never even mentions what his attack is going to do the atmosphere."Boros was most likely gonna destroy any normal creature in a single second with his attack, so no division. 926.6667 °C x 846,575.99 seconds = 784,493,788.21 °C. (784 million °C)That would be the temperature needed to turn the tusk into ash in 1 second."
I'm pretty sure it is not.@Damage3245 Is this method allowed or it is even correct? Dividing the time it takes for an object to completely "incinerate" in one second to obtain absurd levels of temperature?
The reasons is in the commentThis assumption is completely unfounded, we have no idea how long it would take for Boros' attack to destroy the surface... and heat the atmosphere to almost a billion degrees? That's nearly the temperature of a supernova, and Boros never even mentions what his attack is going to do the atmosphere.
I asked Mitch and he said it was fine mathematically. But he is not sure if it was allowed by VSBW standards.@Damage3245 Is this method allowed or it is even correct? Dividing the time it takes for an object to completely "incinerate" in one second to obtain absurd levels of temperature?
Thanks for the numbers!The athmosphere weight is weird. Whole athmosphere of Earth is 5.15*10^18kg. However, I see no reason to assume that the entire thing was heated instead of just a surface layer. If you heat everything 100m up you will have burned down the whole Earth.
Daper point also seems like a kinda arbitrary interpretation? It just says "scorching" not making it visibly glow. 100°C would leave every being on Earth with severe (deadly) burns and set all forests on fire, which is scorching in my book.
Don't think the video game is good evidence, due to being non-canon. Not sure how you get ionization form that video anyway. Also don't think your minimum is a minimum. Which ionization is needed for a plasma is not strictly defined as far as I am aware.
Taking him vaporizing bones of creatures with a direct blast to mean he can do the same on the scale of the entire planets surfaces is overextrapolation. Also you can't really upscale the energy with the time requirement the way the blog does.
Melting isn't indicated by the showings.
Seen CSRC is literally a more powerful version of his first energy blast against Saitama in his Released form.This assumption is completely unfounded, we have no idea how long it would take for Boros' attack to destroy the surface... and heat the atmosphere to almost a billion degrees? That's nearly the temperature of a supernova, and Boros never even mentions what his attack is going to do the atmosphere.
You're ignoring what UeTa said. Boros' blast was stated to be able to vaporize to the bone, and was also shown to be able to vaporize parts of the ship.Vaporizing the human body and parts of the ship =/ Vaporizing the entirety of the planet's surface, the scale and range are on a whole different level, the extrapolation comes out of nowhere.
Why would scorching the earth be only 100°C? It literally won't change a single thing besides boiling up the oceans and drying the plants, the earth part of the earth would not have anything changesVaporizing the human body and parts of the ship =/ Vaporizing the entirety of the planet's surface, the scale and range are on a whole different level, the extrapolation comes out of nowhere.
If the translation of the statement says scorching, then take the elements of the continental crust and assume that they will be heated up to 100°C like DontTalkDT suggested.
What do you mean. I mean unless we're getting into general relativity they are =. I mean our understanding of science is based off of mathmatics.Fine mathematically =/= scientifically accurate
Maybe we can use the melting point of the ship to find a new low-High end?Doesn't the beam when divided by Saitama liquify the edges of the ship it comes into contact with into a bright orange molten slurry?
The same ship that presumably has heat res astronomically far beyond 100c? (Based on re-entry alone?). 100c does come off as unrealistically way, way, below what it's actually doing.
d̵o̵ ̵t̵h̵i̵n̵k̵ ̵t̵h̵e̵ ̵c̵a̵l̵c̵ ̵i̵s̵ ̵s̵u̵s̵ ̵t̵h̵o̵
Boros' ship surface is roughly 6.48 km above ground level. Which should place it inside the troposphere. (6 to 20 km)Vaporizing the human body and parts of the ship =/ Vaporizing the entirety of the planet's surface, the scale and range are on a whole different level, the extrapolation comes out of nowhere.
If the translation of the statement says scorching, then take the elements of the continental crust and assume that they will be heated up to 100°C like DontTalkDT suggested.
I'm saying your math can be 100% correct for a calc, but the calc itself can be wrong because the fundamental application of the science is wrong.What do you mean. I mean unless we're getting into general relativity they are =. I mean our understanding of science is based off of mathmatics.
You are grossly underestimating what heating the surface to 100°C would cause to the Earth, that's well enough for spontaneous combustion to happen, the plants would not only dry up, the entire surface would be set on fire.Why would scorching the earth be only 100°C? It literally won't change a single thing besides boiling up the oceans and drying the plants, the earth part of the earth would not have anything changes
I'm pretty sure that if Saitama wasn't there, the beam would have gone through the ship and hit the planet directly, it wouldn't just scorch the earth from 6.48 kilometers above the ground like you are trying to imply.Boros' ship surface is roughly 6.48 km above ground level. Which should place it inside the troposphere. (6 to 20 km)
You're talking about burning plants. Heating up the Earth to 100 degrees Celcius does nothing to the actual planet's surface.You are grossly underestimating what heating the surface to 100°C would cause to the Earth, that's well enough for spontaneous combustion to happen, the plants would not only dry up, the entire surface would be set on fire.
With your logic, the attack couldn't even be High 6A.I'm pretty sure that if Saitama wasn't there, the beam would have gone through the ship and hit the planet directly, it wouldn't just scorch the earth from 6.48 kilometers above the ground like you are trying to imply.
Your example makes no sense, as Boros' beam would have otherwise heated up the Earth even with Saitama deflecting the attack.
Nor did it set the atmosphere on fire, it only split the clouds, causing no damage to them.
Melting some metal =/= melting the entire surface of the earth. I'm just working with the statement not random headcanon.Why are we thinking that a character who can melt strong metal will only heat the surface up to 100C
Yep, it wouldn't even make it "red hot" as the definition of scorching. Which is mainly to burn something long enough to make it change color.You're talking about burning plants. Heating up the Earth to 100 degrees Celcius does nothing to the actual planet's surface.
No, I'm saying that it wouldn't scorch the surface from 6 kilometers above the surface, and that the atmosphere wouldn't be affected as the calculation implies, the beam never hit the ground.With your logic, the attack couldn't even be High 6A.
Scorching means “very hot” not “red hot”Yep, it wouldn't even make it "red hot" as the definition of scorching. Which is mainly to burn something long enough to make it change color.
Maybe because his fist didn't touch directly the attack?I'm pretty sure that if Saitama wasn't there, the beam would have gone through the ship and hit the planet directly, it wouldn't just scorch the earth from 6.48 kilometers above the ground like you are trying to imply.
Your example makes no sense, as Boros' beam would have otherwise heated up the Earth even with Saitama deflecting the attack.
Nor did it set the atmosphere on fire, it only split the clouds, causing no damage to them.
Scorching means “very hot” not “red hot”
A boiling water is very hot.
Anyway people already brought up my contentions with the calc
It assumes the earth heats up to a high degree at a very quick time that’s extremely speculative.
Also why are all the calcs for Boros CRSC saying it will engulf the entire planet when its not an omnidirectional attack to begin with?
Scorching means to char the surface of something.Scorching means “very hot” not “red hot”
How else does a relativistic+ beam cover the planet in char?Anyway people already brought up my contentions with the calc
It assumes the earth heats up to a high degree at a very quick time that’s extremely speculative.
What even is this contension? He literally says it will scorch the entire planet's surface. This has been accepted for years now.Also why are all the calcs for Boros CRSC saying it will engulf the entire planet when its not an omnidirectional attack to begin with?
I'm fine with using the Draper Point of 525 °C, depending on how you interpret the word scorching, it should a reasonable assumption.Yep, it wouldn't even make it "red hot" as the definition of scorching. Which is mainly to burn something long enough to make it change color.
Presumably it'd just look like thisAlso why are all the calcs for Boros CRSC saying it will engulf the entire planet when its not an omnidirectional attack to begin with?
This are why it’s called synonyms it means similar
Accepted for years doesn’t mean accurateWhat even is this contension? He literally says it will scorch the entire planet's surface. This has been accepted for years now.
the attack was not actually a bomb like attack was it tho? It was more like a fired beam, fired towards saitama