- 15,407
- 5,717
The timeframe isn't the problem. The problem is that the timeframe shows that it wasn't the impact of the window itself that busted the entire building, otherwise everything would have collapsed at once.
-
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.
Garfield General Discussion Thread (No, seriously.)
- Thread starter Imaginym
- Start date
-
- Tags
- garfield garfield (verse)
- 944
- 103
I'd just like to input the fact that is was an incredibly short timeframe for the walls and such (which the calc covered). The timeframe means nothing when you consider that a window falling out would literally do nothing to the structure of the house, it was Garfield's pure forced that caused it.
If you're going to ignore the fact that the walls fell down in almost no time at all after the window broke out due to the sheer force be my guest.
If you're going to ignore the fact that the walls fell down in almost no time at all after the window broke out due to the sheer force be my guest.
- 28,211
- 1,745
Still 8-C, eh?
Jeez. Though, I can't read the joules in the calc TBH.
Jeez. Though, I can't read the joules in the calc TBH.
- 3,456
- 882
They may have fallen down within seconds of each other, but the fact of the matter was, unless everything happened simultaneously, they were separate events. Garfield should only scale to the original force
- 28,211
- 1,745
Y' know, somethin' sorta bothers me.
- 944
- 103
He scales to the entirety of the force. Only if it was a chain reaction of the window, which it wasn't, he would scale to the original force. However, it was NOT the window that caused it. That, again, has nothing to do with a houses structure. It was Garfield. He caused the feat no matter what way you happen to look at it.
and please, read the following; "More or less cinematic timing as well as it was used for more dramatic purposes regardless, he still broke it all down with a single slam."
and please, read the following; "More or less cinematic timing as well as it was used for more dramatic purposes regardless, he still broke it all down with a single slam."
- 944
- 103
What's that?Christian Higdon said:
- 28,211
- 1,745
Everybody talks about the house feat, yet I'm here staring at the truck feat, waiting to see if that can be calced or not.
Help me.
Help me.
- 944
- 103
Mind sending that scan again? Iirc the type of destruction was unknown.
- 28,211
- 1,745
Hold on.
- 3,456
- 882
Again, I'll repeat what I said earlier.
Garfield should only scale to the feat of knocking down the wall
The wall can easily be assumed to be loadbearing, in fact it is fallacious to assume otherwise.
Garfield should only scale to the feat of knocking down the wall
The wall can easily be assumed to be loadbearing, in fact it is fallacious to assume otherwise.
- 944
- 103
Uh, no. He scales to all four of the walls that fell down, as the roof fell straight down directly after the walls did. The roof obviously couldn't have crushed the walls and him being able to make all of the walls fall down at once with his force is the feat.
And no, it is not fallicious to assume otherwise, as explained earlier you can quite literally see the other walls and their supports falling down directly following the original. And if you're going to argue against that, it's fallicous to even say they could be ASSUMED to be loadbearing. That's something that must be proved, as a singular wall collapsing, again, does not cause thatdamage. Regardless, the walls merely support the roof. The walls could only fragment upon loadbearers being destroyed if Garfield affected the foundation of the building, which he did not. And sometimes, even the destruction of the foundation doesn't warrant walls falling down. TL;DR, a wall collapsing wouldn't cause that in the slightest.
And no, it is not fallicious to assume otherwise, as explained earlier you can quite literally see the other walls and their supports falling down directly following the original. And if you're going to argue against that, it's fallicous to even say they could be ASSUMED to be loadbearing. That's something that must be proved, as a singular wall collapsing, again, does not cause thatdamage. Regardless, the walls merely support the roof. The walls could only fragment upon loadbearers being destroyed if Garfield affected the foundation of the building, which he did not. And sometimes, even the destruction of the foundation doesn't warrant walls falling down. TL;DR, a wall collapsing wouldn't cause that in the slightest.
- 28,211
- 1,745
- 944
- 103
Oh wow, given by the way he was destroying clocks and things earlier fragmentation could probably be assumed for that.
- 28,211
- 1,745
Well, then. If that can be calculated, anybody wanna do so?
Mind you, I can't calc thingies.
- 944
- 103
Sure.
- 3,456
- 882
1) The force of such a blow would be directed forward, at the window. There is no reason why an equal force would be similarly directed at the walls of the house as well
2) You consistently use the phrase "at once". That is wrong. They are three separate events. There is a significant gap between each one, enough time for the window to hit the ground before the wall to begin moving.
2) You consistently use the phrase "at once". That is wrong. They are three separate events. There is a significant gap between each one, enough time for the window to hit the ground before the wall to begin moving.
- 944
- 103
1. I've already proven why him directing it at the window is irrelevant. The force went throughout the entire building and caused it to fall. I've already shown you why the force being initially meant to only affect the area of the window doesn't matter as windows are not important to the structure of a house and cannot cause such damage, Garfield did it. And saying there's no reason for the same force to be directed at the walls as well is outright ignoring the scan, the very feat itself contradicts the same force not being hit at the same walls as they all fall down with an equal force.
2. I used the phrase at once for the walls, strawman. I never claimed things such as the roof and wall feat happened at once, only that it couldn't have possibly been a chain reaction (with evidence given that you blatently ignored), and that Garfield caused all of the walls falling down at once.
2. I used the phrase at once for the walls, strawman. I never claimed things such as the roof and wall feat happened at once, only that it couldn't have possibly been a chain reaction (with evidence given that you blatently ignored), and that Garfield caused all of the walls falling down at once.
- 944
- 103
god this debate is gonna last some days tbh
- 944
- 103
Also, Garfield has a ship that flies really damn fast, not sure if it should be counted on his page or made its own.
- 3,456
- 882
The fact remains, these are three separate events. Garfield punches the window out, which then hits the ground. Then the wall falls, and only after it hits the ground does the rest of the house collapse. If the punch generated an omnidirectional force, which must have been the case for this calculation to be true, then all of these events would have happened simultaneously.
You have offered proof that there are cases where removing a singular wall does not cause the entire house to be knocked down. But the burden of proof is not on me here as the feat shows clear evidence of this being the case. A wall is removed from the structure, therefor the entire structure collapses, therefor the wall can be assumed to be loadbearing.
You have offered proof that there are cases where removing a singular wall does not cause the entire house to be knocked down. But the burden of proof is not on me here as the feat shows clear evidence of this being the case. A wall is removed from the structure, therefor the entire structure collapses, therefor the wall can be assumed to be loadbearing.
- 944
- 103
"The fact remains, these are three separate events. Garfield punches the window out, which then hits the ground. Then the wall falls, and only after it hits the ground does the rest of the house collapse."
Yet again, you ignore the things I've stated. I've already covered the fact that it was cinematic timing due to how it was supposed to expressed the dramatic and rising feeling of dread upon Garfield after he destroys the house. Secondly, no, saying the other walls only collapse after that one outright contradicts what happens in the scan itself as you see the walls are falling together and their supports are breaking at the same time.
"If the punch generated an omnidirectional force, which must have been the case for this calculation to be true, then all of these events would have happened simultaneously."
You continue to imply I calculated all of the actions, such as the roof. I only calculated the force that was put into all of the walls. And it WAS omnidirectional, the walls all fell and fragmented simultaneously, there's no proof they only fell after one hit the ground and that contradicts what happened in the scan itself.
"You have offered proof that there are cases where removing a singular wall does not cause the entire house to be knocked down. But the burden of proof is not on me here as the feat shows clear evidence of this being the case. A wall is removed from the structure, therefor the entire structure collapses, therefor the wall can be assumed to be loadbearing."
This is entirely pushing my point to the side and reversal of burden of proof. It is on you to prove it's loadbearing. I gave several things to deny this more than just a "singular wall doesn't cause the house to fragment" such as the foundation being destroyed and the house stayed up. It's also twisted logic. The roof quite literally couldn't have crushed down on them if there was a load-bearer wall as you would need to realize if one outer wall was a load-bearer, they ALL would've been load-bearers. That is how a load-bearer structure works on a one-story building like Garfield's, all of the walls hold up the thing above them which would be the roof. Load-bearers are even that exact thing , all of the outer walls. So yes, by extent, he did knock all of load-bearing walls down at once, one being destroyed wouldn't warrant that, and I gave scans of walls that qualify as load-bearers being destroyed (exterier walls of one story buildings) and the houses stayed up. So yes, even if we assume it's a load-bearer, the feat counts due to the structure of Garfield's house.
Yet again, you ignore the things I've stated. I've already covered the fact that it was cinematic timing due to how it was supposed to expressed the dramatic and rising feeling of dread upon Garfield after he destroys the house. Secondly, no, saying the other walls only collapse after that one outright contradicts what happens in the scan itself as you see the walls are falling together and their supports are breaking at the same time.
"If the punch generated an omnidirectional force, which must have been the case for this calculation to be true, then all of these events would have happened simultaneously."
You continue to imply I calculated all of the actions, such as the roof. I only calculated the force that was put into all of the walls. And it WAS omnidirectional, the walls all fell and fragmented simultaneously, there's no proof they only fell after one hit the ground and that contradicts what happened in the scan itself.
"You have offered proof that there are cases where removing a singular wall does not cause the entire house to be knocked down. But the burden of proof is not on me here as the feat shows clear evidence of this being the case. A wall is removed from the structure, therefor the entire structure collapses, therefor the wall can be assumed to be loadbearing."
This is entirely pushing my point to the side and reversal of burden of proof. It is on you to prove it's loadbearing. I gave several things to deny this more than just a "singular wall doesn't cause the house to fragment" such as the foundation being destroyed and the house stayed up. It's also twisted logic. The roof quite literally couldn't have crushed down on them if there was a load-bearer wall as you would need to realize if one outer wall was a load-bearer, they ALL would've been load-bearers. That is how a load-bearer structure works on a one-story building like Garfield's, all of the walls hold up the thing above them which would be the roof. Load-bearers are even that exact thing , all of the outer walls. So yes, by extent, he did knock all of load-bearing walls down at once, one being destroyed wouldn't warrant that, and I gave scans of walls that qualify as load-bearers being destroyed (exterier walls of one story buildings) and the houses stayed up. So yes, even if we assume it's a load-bearer, the feat counts due to the structure of Garfield's house.
- 16,606
- 1,788
I am gonna go watch Garfield gets real for more cosmology stuff... for Garfield lore lol
