- 10,475
- 11,168
I'm meant Air-Burst explosions in fiction, as they don't reflect off the ground.
What would this even look like to you?
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
One Punch Man: Post Superfight Genos Upgrade
- Thread starter Recon1511
- Start date
What would this even look like to you?
- 17,946
- 15,574
Yeah I know. I'm just saying that if his argument was that "the explosion was midair so its an airburst" then that wouldn't really be valid due to the explosion not being detonated mid-air due to it being detonated on a surface. I was mostly playing devil's advocate with that one point.
- 17,946
- 15,574
Ignoring how showing depictions of air bursts in other works of fictions is completely irrelevant to my point, here's a good one. It's a bomb explosion detonated in mid-air, and we have no reason to assume the shockwave didn't reflect on the ground. With SIC, we do since Murata literally drew the shockwave and we see it didn't do that.
- 10,475
- 11,168
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I don't see any difference between the explosions. They're both air burst explosions that should use the formula.
You aren't explaining yourself properly to me. Can you be concise and clear with no room for interpretation?
Because right now I don't get your point here. I feel like the one of us is missing something that's preventing understanding.
My apologies for dragging this on for so long, I'm starting to feel like a massive dolt right now. What am I suppose to be seeing here?
Our page says this.
"However, the rules above are for explosions happening in mid-air. For explosions that happen on the ground, we use this formula:"
You need to explain why our own page is wrong, because nothing you said is written on our page. If you are indeed correct I cannot expect your reasoning not being written on our page considering how many explosion feats this would effect. This would be a massive wiki wide revisions the majority of explosions.
- 17,946
- 15,574
Rusty, our page isn't wrong, it's just a bit vague. However, it doesn't really need to be changed as it links the article where it gets its information on air-bursts from. In the article it explains more in depth what air-bursts are than what our page does.
When explosions happen they release shockwaves. If the explosion is in the air, the shockwave may hit the ground. When it does so, it reflects off of it faster than its initial speed. When the faster part of the shockwave catches up with the slower bit, they combine and form one shockwave. The air-burst formula is calculating the energy in that shockwave.
When the Spiral Incineration Cannon his Elder Centipede's carapace and exploded, we see that the part of the shockwave that I pixel scaled (circled here) did not reflect off of any surface, meaning that in the moment, it can't be treated as an air bursts.
- 10,475
- 11,168
Your losing me again.
That doesn't make sense, since every single air-burst explosion I've seen on this wiki would fail to qualify if you're correct.
How can it apply for the "Surface" formula when it doesn't exploded on the surface. Even if it doesn't qualify for the air burst formula, why does it mean it qualifies for the surface formula? Why does are page not explain this if you're correct. Something isn't right here and I'm starting to get scared now.
I don't know what I'm suppose to do.
- 17,946
- 15,574
The difference between this explosion and other air-burst explosions on the wiki (you'd have to link some of them probably) is that in this explosion, Murata drew the shockwave itself and we see it did not show the Mach effect (which I explained above).
Because what makes these different formulas "surface" and "air-burst" isn't just them being on the surface and them being in the air. It's what could happen when they are in those places. When we see the shockwave not inhibit the qualities of these types of shockwaves, we can't treat it as such.
While the page doesn't explicitly state this, it doesn't need to, as the article it links does.
- 10,475
- 11,168
@Damage3245 @CloverDragon03 @Dalesean027 @Therefir @Armorchompy and @Migue79
Can someone say if this explosion should use the air burst formula or the surface formula?
I don't understand anything @Kachon123 is saying, and I'm not smart enough to converse with people.
I feel like I'm doing something horribly wrong. Once again, I'm sorry if I'm being disrespectful or rude here. I don't want an explanation anymore, I just want the answer here.
Can someone say if this explosion should use the air burst formula or the surface formula?
I don't understand anything @Kachon123 is saying, and I'm not smart enough to converse with people.
I feel like I'm doing something horribly wrong. Once again, I'm sorry if I'm being disrespectful or rude here. I don't want an explanation anymore, I just want the answer here.
- 11,175
- 17,299
My gut instinct looking at the calc tells me that this screams air-burst explosion
- 3,373
- 2,267
Death threat, banned.
- 17,946
- 15,574
What are your thoughts on the specifics on how Murata drew the shockwaves and the qualities inhibited by air-bursts (the Mach effect and reflected shockwaves)?
- 11,175
- 17,299
Well for the reflected shockwaves thing, we don't even see the shockwave hit the ground in that panel so we can't say whether or not it reflected off the ground. At least, that's my understanding of it
- 17,946
- 15,574
Yeah, I pretty much agree with you. However, there's no way for the specific shockwave that was pixel scaled to have reflected off of the ground considering how it was horizontally expanding, which is why I don't think we can't apply the air-burst formula to it.
- 3,373
- 2,267
Following
- 11,175
- 17,299
Taking a look at it, I think the horizontal shockwave is actually expanding a bit diagonally relative to the ground, meaning it would actually eventually hit the ground
- 17,946
- 15,574
It would reflect off the ground in an angle that wouldn't make it eventually combine with the initial one. Something like this.
- 10,475
- 11,168
Would be great, but I'm still waiting on an answer to this explosion situation.
I've already brought this stuff up to other calc group members but haven't gotten any reply back.
Going wait for at least a week before bringing it up again. Maybe have to make a calc group discussion thread if it still doesn't go anywhere.
I've already brought this stuff up to other calc group members but haven't gotten any reply back.
Going wait for at least a week before bringing it up again. Maybe have to make a calc group discussion thread if it still doesn't go anywhere.
- 10,475
- 11,168
No one likes it when it happens to them, but not everyone can work on the same schedule.
Sometimes one has to have patience, it's not like everything needs to happen right now.
- 10,475
- 11,168
@Kachon123
I have spoken to the calc group about this and they either find the idea that we only consider an explosion an Air-Burst because of a Mach Stem to be absurd. Or they have never heard of anything like an Air-Burst only being considered for the formula if it reflects off the ground.
As I've repeatedly explained myself, something as important as this would've been mentioned on our page. Not only that but the page you're linking to at no point says that the air-burst formula can only be applied when an explosion has a Mach Stem. It's just explaining what a Mach Stem is and how it can affect air-bursts.
Doesn't say anything about how not having this happen disqualifies it from being an Air-Burst.Ignoring the fact the explosion would reflect off the ground and back at the explosion anyone, since it doesn't matter which way you measured it. It's a omni-directional explosion and goes in every direction, not just the way you measured.
CloverDragon disagreed with you about the explosion reflection, Damage agrees with me that not using the Air-Burst formula for this explosion is wrong, and the calc group members I've spoken with about this topic agree with me as well. It's clear to me you just need to use the air-burst formula as this is a mid-air explosion.
At this point if you still actually disagree, you need to make a calc group thread. As I've shown, none of the calc group members I've spoken to have ever heard of a Mach Stem being needed to qualify for the air-burst formula nor do they understand why this would be the case.
Edit: DontTalk's comment on this matter.
I have spoken to the calc group about this and they either find the idea that we only consider an explosion an Air-Burst because of a Mach Stem to be absurd. Or they have never heard of anything like an Air-Burst only being considered for the formula if it reflects off the ground.
As I've repeatedly explained myself, something as important as this would've been mentioned on our page. Not only that but the page you're linking to at no point says that the air-burst formula can only be applied when an explosion has a Mach Stem. It's just explaining what a Mach Stem is and how it can affect air-bursts.
Doesn't say anything about how not having this happen disqualifies it from being an Air-Burst.
CloverDragon disagreed with you about the explosion reflection, Damage agrees with me that not using the Air-Burst formula for this explosion is wrong, and the calc group members I've spoken with about this topic agree with me as well. It's clear to me you just need to use the air-burst formula as this is a mid-air explosion.
At this point if you still actually disagree, you need to make a calc group thread. As I've shown, none of the calc group members I've spoken to have ever heard of a Mach Stem being needed to qualify for the air-burst formula nor do they understand why this would be the case.
Edit: DontTalk's comment on this matter.
Last edited:
- 17,946
- 15,574
Except the accepted guidelines for surface explosions state that for this formula to be used, the explosions needs to be detonated on a...
...which is exactly what happens in this scene. Regardless of if the Mach Stem point works here is irrelevant when Elder Centipede is objectively a flat surface in which the explosion occurred on that also happens to be on Earth.
You'd have to prove that this is purely an Air-Burst.
- 10,475
- 11,168
Completely forgot about this.
Elder Centipede isn't a flat surface, not necessary horizontal, whose atmospheric and gravitational conditions are the same or pretty similar to Earth's. The fact the explosion spread across in an entire sphere and wasn't misshaped at all makes it kind of obvious that his body didn't vastly effect the explosion's expansion.
His body is vastly smaller than the blast as well. He's the equivalent of a durable stick, at the very least the surface of the blast should be the same size as it.
Also Elder Centipede is not a flat surface that's comparable to the surface of the Earth.
However, I do find this argument much better than the Mach Stem thing, even if I don't agree with it.
@Damage3245 and @CloverDragon03
Do you agree or disagree that Elder Centipede body's surface is sufficient enough for this explosion to use the surface burst formula and not the air burst formula?
Elder Centipede isn't a flat surface, not necessary horizontal, whose atmospheric and gravitational conditions are the same or pretty similar to Earth's. The fact the explosion spread across in an entire sphere and wasn't misshaped at all makes it kind of obvious that his body didn't vastly effect the explosion's expansion.
His body is vastly smaller than the blast as well. He's the equivalent of a durable stick, at the very least the surface of the blast should be the same size as it.
Also Elder Centipede is not a flat surface that's comparable to the surface of the Earth.
@Damage3245 and @CloverDragon03
Do you agree or disagree that Elder Centipede body's surface is sufficient enough for this explosion to use the surface burst formula and not the air burst formula?
- 29,683
- 24,593
I think that you make the most sense here Rusty.
