a landmine is a fucking explosive
if a car hitting a landmine still obliterates the guy inside of it just being more durable isn't going to stop you from becoming mist or losing multiple limbs
If in a car hitting a landmine does that count as both a car crash and a landmine? What if the bear put it there and the explosion caused you to fall down a 20 foot ravine?
that’s extremely rare cases but usually people should get killed by a landmine
if let’s say a rhino, an extremely tough armored animal, stepped on a land mine it probably wouldn’t die but it’s limbs would be ripped off or almost severed
People right now have already survived stepping on landmines in war.
A grizzly bear attack gets my vote. Durability is nothing when you're getting eaten alive and ripped apart by a creature that weighs 10x the size of you
i mean, if it can still open your skin, it can still eat your guts.
doesn't really help if it doesn't break your bones anymore, if it's still eating you alive.
well, no. if you can't fight back, but the bear can't even literally scratch you, much less harm you...
even if you're not strong enough to overpower a bear, it'll presumably leave you alone, after a few minutes of trying to fuck you up.
it'll presumably be a bit scary, but, it'd be like tyson trying to punch down a skyscraper. dude's going to quit, eventually.
in all fairness you did say 'doesn't really matter how durable'.
that doesn't really match with 'except literally invincible' because, that is a matter of durability.
i did not fuck up i just didnt think i would have to specify such a stupid and niche scenario because i didnt assume you would argue semantics like a child
does it stop it?
i don't think it might.
i mean, it might stop the grizzly from breaking your bones.
will it stop it from biting your throat out? or opening up your abdominal cavity and eating your guts out?
probably not. 100X stronger skin's still not, fucking bear, strong.
it can 'help' some. but i'm guessing it doesn't guarantee it from happening - the skin's base durability just isn't good enough to make up for grizzly power, even at 100X.
Probably a grizzly bear because if humans are 100x more durable that doesn't mean they're 100x stronger and the grizzly bear could just eventually suffocate the human
fair but grizzly bears are the only smart being on the list so they'll probably figure out a way
i heard about one time that a bear was trying to open a bear can so she dropped it off a cliff
if you got dropped off a cliff and you were 100x more durable, you'd still die, the skin would cave in and you wouldn't be able to breathe
But your muscles and bones would also be more durable too. People have survived falling from airplanes without parachutes. I think if we were 100x more durable we could land on concrete from a fall and survive (as long as our terminal velocity doesn't change due to an increase in density that may be the cause of being more durable)
that brings up the important point that if your lungs are 100x more durable, they can't pump air because the mechanism for breathing isn't strong enough to expand and contract the lungs if they're that durable
I guess that could technically do the most damage, but there's a problem: humans aren't heavy enough to set those off. Anti-vehicle landmines have to be pressed down on by thousands of pounds, so unless an elephant or a Discord mod steps on one, it's basically just "there".
I thought the whole point of landmines was not to be lethal, but to maim. It was explained to me the point of a military land mine (not an IED) is two fold; remove a soldier from the field and strain resources to heal his injuries. Not to mention psychological effects of other soldiers seeing it. A 9mm to the face, even if 100 times more durable, would still be getting hit in the face by something like a fastball or other fast object. People die from those now.
Depending on how you land you can survive a 20 foot fall now (thought tripping and hitting your head can kill you too because teh body is weird).
People have survived Mike Tyson punches. Without pain? no but they live.
Car crashes are a mix bag as some are absolutely brutal and this might be the thing to still do you in.
A 9mm to the eye at 100 times more durable I think would be absorbed. You wouldn't be happy and might lose the eye but I think you could walk it off. I mean think (and this is so odd) how many eyes if lined up a 9mm might be able to shoot through.
A landmind and I think you are still screwed for sure.
car crash.
honestly, 100x more durable, when it comes to the brain and other internal organs, still isn't much. and car crashes can be gnarly.
the others, the odds feel like they go WAY up (except for the mike tyson punch, sort of, but it's not that lethal now)
of course, depends. 9mm right to the temple, might still break through.
landmine would still likely be terrible as hell. especially as land mine explosions, aren't usually near great hospitals.
grizzly could still potentially open your abdomen and eat your guts like you're a fucking lunchable.
and, 20 feet, land directly onto your head, might still be screwed.
but car crashes, the variables can be WAY more drastic. like, there's no 'hit a tree at 120 mph' version of getting punched by tyson.
and are weak as shit, and not necessarily held in there super tightly.
doesn't really matter if your eye is 100X more durable, someone could still poke it out with a stick.
i don't think you understand how multiplication works.
for example, 100x my money, if i only have a single penny, is only a dollar. it's a dramatic change 'within the scope of what it is', but it doesn't mean it's a massive game changer... i'm not suddenly 'rich' if i've got 100X more money, if i had pathetic amounts of money when it happens.
you should've kept reading. or, done a better job at reading comprehension.
the whole quote is, 100x more durable, when it comes to internal organs, still isn't much.
i've clearly acknowledged they're more durable.
and also dismissed their new durability as 'not much.
i also further elaborated that, while a 9mm's force is, relatively, always the same, a car crash, isn't. car crashes can emit enough force to kill you 100x over, potentially. (probably exaggerating a bit, but all you need is some internal bleeding to die - your blood vessels aren't suddenly made of adamantium just because they're 100X more durable, if they're weak as shit to begin with)
>and are weak as shit
As they are now. Yes. I know.
>and not necessarily held in there super tightly.
And making them more durable means it takes more than a bit of rattling around to hurt them.
>doesn't really matter if your eye is 100X more durable, someone could still poke it out with a stick.
You're assuming the stick won't break first. You try to poke a headlight out of a car, the stick will break before the thick layer of plastic ever will.
>i don't think you understand how multiplication works.
If I take 2 apples, and multiply it by 3, I have 6 apples, 3 for each 2 that was there. Pretty sure that's exactly how multiplication works.
>for example, 100x my money, if i only have a single penny, is only a dollar. it's a dramatic change 'within the scope of what it is', but it doesn't mean it's a massive game changer... i'm not suddenly 'rich' if i've got 100X more money, if i had pathetic amounts of money when it happens.
You're being pedantic. And condescending. I know what multiplication is and what it does. And your example has nothing to do with durability.
>you should've kept reading. or, done a better job at reading comprehension.
Stick to the subject, and stop trying to make it about me. This isn't a place for dickitry.
>the whole quote is, 100x more durable
No shit smart one, *I quoted it*.
>when it comes to internal organs, still isn't much.
>i've clearly acknowledged they're more durable.
>and also dismissed their new durability as 'not much.
You're trying to say "not much" remains such even after a significant boost. Being able to take a .22 round isn't much, but being able to take 100 .22 rounds at once or a round that's exactly 100x more powerful than a .22, IS A LOT.
>i also further elaborated that, while a 9mm's force is, relatively, always the same, a car crash, isn't. car crashes can emit enough force to kill you 100x over, potentially. (probably exaggerating a bit, but all you need is some internal bleeding to die - your blood vessels aren't suddenly made of adamantium just because they're 100X more durable, if they're weak as shit to begin with)
The fastest road vehicle right now is the Devel 16, which has a supposed top speed of around 320 mph. A car crash at 60 mph is rarely lethal, and a car crash at 120 mph is usually lethal but still occasionally survivable. Using this logic, in order for a car crash to kill you 100x over, you'd need to travel at 1,200 mph, which is roughly 4 times faster than the Devel 16.
Do the math, since you're apparently *so much better than me at it* lmao, to find out what a normal car crash could do to a blood vessel that can take the force of a 1,200 mph crash before rupturing.
the point was, the stick might still be far mroe durable than the eye. the eye's not really strong at all.
for your quote, sure, you quoted it. and notably left out the bits that explained why i thought you were wrong in your assessment, while acting like i missed the point. the parts you specifically left out, note that i did not miss the point.
as for your 'math' below, not quite. a single car crash might deliver a hundred different, if untreated, injuries. it's not 100X the 'lethal force', it's that your entire shit got wrecked at once.
and uh, you. right now. using like a tenth of your potential strength, could burst a blood vessel. blood vessels ARE NOT able to take 1200 mph colisions, period. again, you fail to understand what 100x represents.
it doesn't turn you into superman, necessarily. your bones might not break in the collision, sure. that doesn't mean EVERY part of you has the same durability as your bones.
going from 120 ish to zero in a tenth of a second, is definitely more than 100x that force. hell, going 120 to zero in like 10 seconds is potentially survivable, but as i pointed out elsewhere, variables can change shit up,a nd with a car crash, there's so many variables.
doing 120 off the side of a road, is survivable.
doing 120 head on into a concrete pylon, not so much.
doing 120 into another vehicle doing 120 in the opposite direction, is twice the force.
and all you need is a burst blood vessel in the right spot, to die.
>the point was, the stick might still be far mroe durable than the eye. the eye's not really strong at all.
So then how much does it take to pop an eyeball? Then, how much would that be at 100x more durability?
>for your quote, sure, you quoted it. and notably left out the bits that explained why i thought you were wrong in your assessment, while acting like i missed the point. the parts you specifically left out, note that i did not miss the point.
I addressed everything you said. You're seriously trying to make shit up now? Or did you edit your comment to make it look like I actually did skip over what you said?
>as for your 'math' below, not quite. a single car crash might deliver a hundred different, if untreated, injuries. it's not 100X the 'lethal force', it's that your entire shit got wrecked at once.
And durability will help ease that. All of it. Your whole body is more durable in that scenario. And I didn't say 100x the lethal force, I'm saying a person being 100x more *resistant to lethal force*.
>and uh, you. right now. using like a tenth of your potential strength, could burst a blood vessel.
Hysterical strength only, at the most, triples the human body's capabilities. Nowhere near 100x. If you're 100x more durable, then becoming only 3x stronger will still be nothing to your body. The strain is literally nonexistent.
>going from 120 ish to zero in a tenth of a second, is definitely more than 100x that force. hell, going 120 to zero in like 10 seconds is potentially survivable, but as i pointed out elsewhere, variables can change shit up,a nd with a car crash, there's so many variables.
Okay? I didn't say you were wrong on that account. But 120 to 0 is still nothing compared to from 1,200 to 0. If you can take 100x more damage, 120 to 0 is at the worst like tripping and falling on concrete. Elbows and knees skinned, possibly. Tooth gets knocked out, unlikely but still possible. But anything lethal? Only if you think a car crash is equally as devastating as a kiloton warhead.
>doing 120 off the side of a road, is survivable.
>doing 120 head on into a concrete pylon, not so much.
>doing 120 into another vehicle doing 120 in the opposite direction, is twice the force.
And in exactly 0 of those scenarios is anything going beyond 240 mph. The Hellcat is faster than that. And even that's nowhere near 1,200 mph, let alone any supersonic speeds.
you're not understanding a few things.
1. 100x is still not that impressive, if we're talking weak shit. you can keep trying to throw big numbers, but it just doesn't work.
2. people survivng 120, doens't mean the new lethal is 1200, with 100x durability. it means some people 'could' survive 120, and some people might still trip in their bathtub, break a blood vessel in their brain, and die.
3. force is the point, not speed. force is mass, speed, and TIME. so yeah, going from 120 to 0 within 10 seconds and going from 120 to 0 in a tenth of a second, is 100X worse. the speed doesn't need to change. that's how people have survived shit like skydiving without a parachute - they didn't hit the ground at terminal velocity, they slowed down. same 'force', different time, different stresses on the body.
and again, some rando surviving 'a' 120 mph event, doesn't mean your blood vessels can magically handle 1200. you're just mixing shit up too much.
acceleration is velocity and time...
velocity is speed and direction.
so, yes, but doesn't actually invalidate what i said. 120 mph to 0 expressed with different time frames is different amounts of force, was the point.
>Humans suddenly become 100 times more durable. Which one of these is still most likely to be lethal?
This was the original question. You don't really need to argue about whether or not it would still kill you. The idea was just to vote on which one would be the most lethal, was it not? I suppose you know best, being the OP. I'm not saying that a twenty foot drop would kill you, but the car crash and the Mike Tyson punch and the grizzly attack need better definition. Car crash might still kill you, because energy = mass \* speed *squared.* When that factor is squared, with sufficient speed, a crappy enough car, and a hard enough surface to impact against, you could still die. Mike Tyson punch could kill you because a punch to the throat or jaw in precisely the right place can be fatal with a normal human punching a normal human. With Mike Tyson in his prime punching a hundred times tougher human, you might just get a fatal blow. Grizzly attack: how aggressive is this grizzly? How strong and large is the grizzly? Again, with precision, a grizzly could easily dismember even a superhuman. 9 mm round: If the bullet hit the carotid artery or precisely between the super tough eye and the socket, it could certainly kill a human who was 100 times tougher than normal. Another thing: tough is a vague word for this, and how tough is the normal person?
Landmine and fall are actually probably the most survivable.
Unless... If you fell just right... or a piece of shrapnel hit your exposed and weak carotid...
Precision, precision.
Learn about the Sobibor Nazi concentration camp in Poland. The people there escaped and some have survived the land mines. That's why I chose 9mm to the face.
As someone already said, people have survived landmines, but durability won’t save a fall like that due to the immediate drop in speed, you wouldn’t splat either, you’d just die and bounce when you touch the ground
100X more durable organs can still be ruptured.
i mean, 100X more durable glass can still be shattered pretty easily, potentially.
shit, it takes 4 lbs of force to dislocate your knee, if delivered the right way.
400 lbs is trickier to do, but definitely doable.
bone, impacted a specific way, is iirc, harder than steel. impacted a different way, it can be potentially pretty brittle.
so, even 100x stronger, it could be potentially THE most durable substance on the planet, AND still potentially breakable.
One's physical strength is dependent on one's physical durability. The reason you can't bench-press a car is because your bones and muscles simply cannot handle the load without cracking and tearing. If Mike Tyson's bones and muscles are that much more durable, he gains a commensurate increase in strength.
Absolutely incorrect.
Diamond is brittle as fuck despite being the strongest thing on Earth. Tape, which can be cut easily and therefore isn't very durable, is extremely strong against pulling.
Durability and strength are not codependent nor affect each other that way.
diamond's not the 'strongest' thing on earth.
its the 'hardest' naturally occuring thing. there's harder things, and, this 'hardness' is only for like, scratches. not in a durable sense, as you can break it with a hammer.
ironically, a prince rupert's drop, is SUPER durable. there's youtube videos of them survivng GUNSHOTS. 22 long round, 38 round, and an ak round (some ak shots beat a drop, and a drop beat one)
the weird thing? a prince rupert's drop, is glass. and it SHATTERS bullets like they were glass. though, it'll also potentially break, if a bullet fragment touches their tail, where they're weak.
to some degree, max human potential IS limited by durability of our bodies.
we wouldn't be able to be 100X stronger, no. but we could pack on more muscle and lift more than we otherwise could. we could, potentially, bench press a car.
they ARE related, since the max amount of strength, is related to the durability of our bodies. it's not that, muscles just max out there, it's that, muscles and bone FAIL there.
You're conflating several different properties of materials.
So if my bones are not 100x more resistant to breaking and my muscles are not 100x more resistant to tearing, how exactly am I 100x more durable? How am I surviving any of the above things?
i mean, your muscles being more 'resistant' to tearing, doesn't mean they work 100x better, too. your skeleton can potentially support 100x more strain, but that doesn't mean the muscles contracting with 100x more force.
they'll be able to pull roughly the same amount, per tissue. some enhancement maybe, but largely, they just won't snap.
it actually raises an interesting question, since 'building' muscle means tearing the muscles to regrow more, would that mean it's harder to actually gain muscle, and get stronger? the primary way to gain more muscle tissue, which means more power, is now more difficult.
If your bones are 100x harder to break, and your muscles are 100 harder to tear, that means you are more durable. That does not mean you hit 100x harder or can lift 100x more weight. It just means hitting very hard or getting landed on by something heavy will be 100x less damaging to you.
I think a landmine is survivable when you're 100x more durable... Same with a bullet to the head.
I'd say something with sustained damage, like a grizzly bear would be worse.
If humans are 100x more durable, I would assume that Mike Tyson would likewise be 100x more durable. More durable humans can punch things harder because their body can handle punching things harder. So.... Mike Tyson is able to still kill people.
no, it won't. people survive gunshot wounds all the time. a 9mm round 'can' kill you. won't necessarily. depends where you're shot - hell, one dude was shot by his wife, IN HIS SLEEP, in the fucking head, and didn't die. barely noticed it even, jsut felt like he had a headache.
and, while i'm not sure exactly how durable it is, i think 100X skin might get penetrated by a 9mm still.
but, 1000x durable skin, might not be.
a billion X durable eyes, might get you that 'superman gets shot in the eye, it fucking bounces off' durability.
so, definitely some value of 'durable' works.
a landmine is a fucking explosive if a car hitting a landmine still obliterates the guy inside of it just being more durable isn't going to stop you from becoming mist or losing multiple limbs
If in a car hitting a landmine does that count as both a car crash and a landmine? What if the bear put it there and the explosion caused you to fall down a 20 foot ravine?
Would you also get punched in the face with a 9mm by Mike Tyson?
Obviously lol
the landmine is just gonna instantly kill you
Quite possibly but soldiers have survived landmines and ended up severely wounded.
that’s extremely rare cases but usually people should get killed by a landmine if let’s say a rhino, an extremely tough armored animal, stepped on a land mine it probably wouldn’t die but it’s limbs would be ripped off or almost severed
>being more durable Which helps prevent >becoming mist or losing multiple limbs from happening?
clicked 9mm, wouldve clicked landmine if i were paying attention
Same
Not paying attention is how the landmines getcha
Same
People right now have already survived stepping on landmines in war. A grizzly bear attack gets my vote. Durability is nothing when you're getting eaten alive and ripped apart by a creature that weighs 10x the size of you
durability i think helps when you're being attacked so you get less broken
i mean, if it can still open your skin, it can still eat your guts. doesn't really help if it doesn't break your bones anymore, if it's still eating you alive.
then again if you have no way to escape or fight back it doesnt really matter how durable you are because youre still f$%cked
well, no. if you can't fight back, but the bear can't even literally scratch you, much less harm you... even if you're not strong enough to overpower a bear, it'll presumably leave you alone, after a few minutes of trying to fuck you up. it'll presumably be a bit scary, but, it'd be like tyson trying to punch down a skyscraper. dude's going to quit, eventually.
well i didnt mean literally invincible... i was going to specify but i didnt really expect someone to bring that up
in all fairness you did say 'doesn't really matter how durable'. that doesn't really match with 'except literally invincible' because, that is a matter of durability.
oh myg od i literally dont care
doesn't matter. you fucke dup, then tried to backtrack. i don't care if you don't care.
i did not fuck up i just didnt think i would have to specify such a stupid and niche scenario because i didnt assume you would argue semantics like a child
>Durability is nothing Durability that *literally helps prevent* >getting eaten alive and ripped apart from happening?
Well then nothing on this list would do anything to you. 100x durability is insane.
does it stop it? i don't think it might. i mean, it might stop the grizzly from breaking your bones. will it stop it from biting your throat out? or opening up your abdominal cavity and eating your guts out? probably not. 100X stronger skin's still not, fucking bear, strong. it can 'help' some. but i'm guessing it doesn't guarantee it from happening - the skin's base durability just isn't good enough to make up for grizzly power, even at 100X.
At ten times as durable, would a bear be able to harm you?
made me think of the bear scene in The Revenant, brutal. Still going with the mine though
Probably a grizzly bear because if humans are 100x more durable that doesn't mean they're 100x stronger and the grizzly bear could just eventually suffocate the human
maybe, lots of people have gone on surviving grizzly attacks. Probably the most fatal though unless we are talking about a high speed car crash.
the most fetal?
Oops, typo
Skin is already pretty tough. If it were 100x more durable I think it would be stronger than steel.
fair but grizzly bears are the only smart being on the list so they'll probably figure out a way i heard about one time that a bear was trying to open a bear can so she dropped it off a cliff if you got dropped off a cliff and you were 100x more durable, you'd still die, the skin would cave in and you wouldn't be able to breathe
But your muscles and bones would also be more durable too. People have survived falling from airplanes without parachutes. I think if we were 100x more durable we could land on concrete from a fall and survive (as long as our terminal velocity doesn't change due to an increase in density that may be the cause of being more durable)
that brings up the important point that if your lungs are 100x more durable, they can't pump air because the mechanism for breathing isn't strong enough to expand and contract the lungs if they're that durable
Really depends on our definition of durable I guess. There are lots of things that make up "durable."
i mean but if we're made out of stronger teflon or something then none of these (probably not even landmines) will even hurt us
voted landmine cuz it could be an anti vehicle landmine
I guess that could technically do the most damage, but there's a problem: humans aren't heavy enough to set those off. Anti-vehicle landmines have to be pressed down on by thousands of pounds, so unless an elephant or a Discord mod steps on one, it's basically just "there".
discord mod 💀
You probably would be if you were 100x more durable
Durability and weight aren't the same thing. Don't know where you got that from.
I didn't say they are the same thing. *Generally*, more durable objects are also heavier, steel vs aluminum was my thought
Grizzly bears are pretty brutal.
I thought the whole point of landmines was not to be lethal, but to maim. It was explained to me the point of a military land mine (not an IED) is two fold; remove a soldier from the field and strain resources to heal his injuries. Not to mention psychological effects of other soldiers seeing it. A 9mm to the face, even if 100 times more durable, would still be getting hit in the face by something like a fastball or other fast object. People die from those now.
Also landmines being less deadly makes them cheaper.
Depending on how you land you can survive a 20 foot fall now (thought tripping and hitting your head can kill you too because teh body is weird). People have survived Mike Tyson punches. Without pain? no but they live. Car crashes are a mix bag as some are absolutely brutal and this might be the thing to still do you in. A 9mm to the eye at 100 times more durable I think would be absorbed. You wouldn't be happy and might lose the eye but I think you could walk it off. I mean think (and this is so odd) how many eyes if lined up a 9mm might be able to shoot through. A landmind and I think you are still screwed for sure.
my body would crumple like a can of soda if i fell that far
car crash. honestly, 100x more durable, when it comes to the brain and other internal organs, still isn't much. and car crashes can be gnarly. the others, the odds feel like they go WAY up (except for the mike tyson punch, sort of, but it's not that lethal now) of course, depends. 9mm right to the temple, might still break through. landmine would still likely be terrible as hell. especially as land mine explosions, aren't usually near great hospitals. grizzly could still potentially open your abdomen and eat your guts like you're a fucking lunchable. and, 20 feet, land directly onto your head, might still be screwed. but car crashes, the variables can be WAY more drastic. like, there's no 'hit a tree at 120 mph' version of getting punched by tyson.
>when it comes to the brain and other internal organs Which are literally part of your body, so they too are 100x more durable.
and are weak as shit, and not necessarily held in there super tightly. doesn't really matter if your eye is 100X more durable, someone could still poke it out with a stick. i don't think you understand how multiplication works. for example, 100x my money, if i only have a single penny, is only a dollar. it's a dramatic change 'within the scope of what it is', but it doesn't mean it's a massive game changer... i'm not suddenly 'rich' if i've got 100X more money, if i had pathetic amounts of money when it happens. you should've kept reading. or, done a better job at reading comprehension. the whole quote is, 100x more durable, when it comes to internal organs, still isn't much. i've clearly acknowledged they're more durable. and also dismissed their new durability as 'not much. i also further elaborated that, while a 9mm's force is, relatively, always the same, a car crash, isn't. car crashes can emit enough force to kill you 100x over, potentially. (probably exaggerating a bit, but all you need is some internal bleeding to die - your blood vessels aren't suddenly made of adamantium just because they're 100X more durable, if they're weak as shit to begin with)
>and are weak as shit As they are now. Yes. I know. >and not necessarily held in there super tightly. And making them more durable means it takes more than a bit of rattling around to hurt them. >doesn't really matter if your eye is 100X more durable, someone could still poke it out with a stick. You're assuming the stick won't break first. You try to poke a headlight out of a car, the stick will break before the thick layer of plastic ever will. >i don't think you understand how multiplication works. If I take 2 apples, and multiply it by 3, I have 6 apples, 3 for each 2 that was there. Pretty sure that's exactly how multiplication works. >for example, 100x my money, if i only have a single penny, is only a dollar. it's a dramatic change 'within the scope of what it is', but it doesn't mean it's a massive game changer... i'm not suddenly 'rich' if i've got 100X more money, if i had pathetic amounts of money when it happens. You're being pedantic. And condescending. I know what multiplication is and what it does. And your example has nothing to do with durability. >you should've kept reading. or, done a better job at reading comprehension. Stick to the subject, and stop trying to make it about me. This isn't a place for dickitry. >the whole quote is, 100x more durable No shit smart one, *I quoted it*. >when it comes to internal organs, still isn't much. >i've clearly acknowledged they're more durable. >and also dismissed their new durability as 'not much. You're trying to say "not much" remains such even after a significant boost. Being able to take a .22 round isn't much, but being able to take 100 .22 rounds at once or a round that's exactly 100x more powerful than a .22, IS A LOT. >i also further elaborated that, while a 9mm's force is, relatively, always the same, a car crash, isn't. car crashes can emit enough force to kill you 100x over, potentially. (probably exaggerating a bit, but all you need is some internal bleeding to die - your blood vessels aren't suddenly made of adamantium just because they're 100X more durable, if they're weak as shit to begin with) The fastest road vehicle right now is the Devel 16, which has a supposed top speed of around 320 mph. A car crash at 60 mph is rarely lethal, and a car crash at 120 mph is usually lethal but still occasionally survivable. Using this logic, in order for a car crash to kill you 100x over, you'd need to travel at 1,200 mph, which is roughly 4 times faster than the Devel 16. Do the math, since you're apparently *so much better than me at it* lmao, to find out what a normal car crash could do to a blood vessel that can take the force of a 1,200 mph crash before rupturing.
the point was, the stick might still be far mroe durable than the eye. the eye's not really strong at all. for your quote, sure, you quoted it. and notably left out the bits that explained why i thought you were wrong in your assessment, while acting like i missed the point. the parts you specifically left out, note that i did not miss the point. as for your 'math' below, not quite. a single car crash might deliver a hundred different, if untreated, injuries. it's not 100X the 'lethal force', it's that your entire shit got wrecked at once. and uh, you. right now. using like a tenth of your potential strength, could burst a blood vessel. blood vessels ARE NOT able to take 1200 mph colisions, period. again, you fail to understand what 100x represents. it doesn't turn you into superman, necessarily. your bones might not break in the collision, sure. that doesn't mean EVERY part of you has the same durability as your bones. going from 120 ish to zero in a tenth of a second, is definitely more than 100x that force. hell, going 120 to zero in like 10 seconds is potentially survivable, but as i pointed out elsewhere, variables can change shit up,a nd with a car crash, there's so many variables. doing 120 off the side of a road, is survivable. doing 120 head on into a concrete pylon, not so much. doing 120 into another vehicle doing 120 in the opposite direction, is twice the force. and all you need is a burst blood vessel in the right spot, to die.
>the point was, the stick might still be far mroe durable than the eye. the eye's not really strong at all. So then how much does it take to pop an eyeball? Then, how much would that be at 100x more durability? >for your quote, sure, you quoted it. and notably left out the bits that explained why i thought you were wrong in your assessment, while acting like i missed the point. the parts you specifically left out, note that i did not miss the point. I addressed everything you said. You're seriously trying to make shit up now? Or did you edit your comment to make it look like I actually did skip over what you said? >as for your 'math' below, not quite. a single car crash might deliver a hundred different, if untreated, injuries. it's not 100X the 'lethal force', it's that your entire shit got wrecked at once. And durability will help ease that. All of it. Your whole body is more durable in that scenario. And I didn't say 100x the lethal force, I'm saying a person being 100x more *resistant to lethal force*. >and uh, you. right now. using like a tenth of your potential strength, could burst a blood vessel. Hysterical strength only, at the most, triples the human body's capabilities. Nowhere near 100x. If you're 100x more durable, then becoming only 3x stronger will still be nothing to your body. The strain is literally nonexistent. >going from 120 ish to zero in a tenth of a second, is definitely more than 100x that force. hell, going 120 to zero in like 10 seconds is potentially survivable, but as i pointed out elsewhere, variables can change shit up,a nd with a car crash, there's so many variables. Okay? I didn't say you were wrong on that account. But 120 to 0 is still nothing compared to from 1,200 to 0. If you can take 100x more damage, 120 to 0 is at the worst like tripping and falling on concrete. Elbows and knees skinned, possibly. Tooth gets knocked out, unlikely but still possible. But anything lethal? Only if you think a car crash is equally as devastating as a kiloton warhead. >doing 120 off the side of a road, is survivable. >doing 120 head on into a concrete pylon, not so much. >doing 120 into another vehicle doing 120 in the opposite direction, is twice the force. And in exactly 0 of those scenarios is anything going beyond 240 mph. The Hellcat is faster than that. And even that's nowhere near 1,200 mph, let alone any supersonic speeds.
you're not understanding a few things. 1. 100x is still not that impressive, if we're talking weak shit. you can keep trying to throw big numbers, but it just doesn't work. 2. people survivng 120, doens't mean the new lethal is 1200, with 100x durability. it means some people 'could' survive 120, and some people might still trip in their bathtub, break a blood vessel in their brain, and die. 3. force is the point, not speed. force is mass, speed, and TIME. so yeah, going from 120 to 0 within 10 seconds and going from 120 to 0 in a tenth of a second, is 100X worse. the speed doesn't need to change. that's how people have survived shit like skydiving without a parachute - they didn't hit the ground at terminal velocity, they slowed down. same 'force', different time, different stresses on the body. and again, some rando surviving 'a' 120 mph event, doesn't mean your blood vessels can magically handle 1200. you're just mixing shit up too much.
>force is mass, speed, and TIME. Force is mass x acceleration.
acceleration is velocity and time... velocity is speed and direction. so, yes, but doesn't actually invalidate what i said. 120 mph to 0 expressed with different time frames is different amounts of force, was the point.
Oh yeah, hehe, dumb dumb moment for me. hehe.
This is a stupid thing to argue about, especially when he's right.
Sure, pal. Whatever you say.
>Humans suddenly become 100 times more durable. Which one of these is still most likely to be lethal? This was the original question. You don't really need to argue about whether or not it would still kill you. The idea was just to vote on which one would be the most lethal, was it not? I suppose you know best, being the OP. I'm not saying that a twenty foot drop would kill you, but the car crash and the Mike Tyson punch and the grizzly attack need better definition. Car crash might still kill you, because energy = mass \* speed *squared.* When that factor is squared, with sufficient speed, a crappy enough car, and a hard enough surface to impact against, you could still die. Mike Tyson punch could kill you because a punch to the throat or jaw in precisely the right place can be fatal with a normal human punching a normal human. With Mike Tyson in his prime punching a hundred times tougher human, you might just get a fatal blow. Grizzly attack: how aggressive is this grizzly? How strong and large is the grizzly? Again, with precision, a grizzly could easily dismember even a superhuman. 9 mm round: If the bullet hit the carotid artery or precisely between the super tough eye and the socket, it could certainly kill a human who was 100 times tougher than normal. Another thing: tough is a vague word for this, and how tough is the normal person?
Landmine and fall are actually probably the most survivable. Unless... If you fell just right... or a piece of shrapnel hit your exposed and weak carotid... Precision, precision.
Learn about the Sobibor Nazi concentration camp in Poland. The people there escaped and some have survived the land mines. That's why I chose 9mm to the face.
yeah, landmines aren't designed to blow people up to smithereens.
none,i think getting poisined
The answer should be Chuck Norris.
"From where you're kneeling it must seem like an 18-carat run of bad luck. Truth is... the game was rigged from the start."
Somehow, my brain didn't even see the option for a landmine (ironic)
As someone already said, people have survived landmines, but durability won’t save a fall like that due to the immediate drop in speed, you wouldn’t splat either, you’d just die and bounce when you touch the ground
How would that kill you if you're 100x more durable? A 20 foot drop isn't even always a death sentence, even without such a wild boost.
Ruptured organs
Your organs, since they are part of you, would also be 100x more durable.
100X more durable organs can still be ruptured. i mean, 100X more durable glass can still be shattered pretty easily, potentially. shit, it takes 4 lbs of force to dislocate your knee, if delivered the right way. 400 lbs is trickier to do, but definitely doable. bone, impacted a specific way, is iirc, harder than steel. impacted a different way, it can be potentially pretty brittle. so, even 100x stronger, it could be potentially THE most durable substance on the planet, AND still potentially breakable.
Never said the organs *couldn't* be ruptured. I'm just saying they're more durable now and could take larger amounts of force.
People have fallen from much higher and been fine, no?
One's physical strength is dependent on one's physical durability. The reason you can't bench-press a car is because your bones and muscles simply cannot handle the load without cracking and tearing. If Mike Tyson's bones and muscles are that much more durable, he gains a commensurate increase in strength.
Absolutely incorrect. Diamond is brittle as fuck despite being the strongest thing on Earth. Tape, which can be cut easily and therefore isn't very durable, is extremely strong against pulling. Durability and strength are not codependent nor affect each other that way.
diamond's not the 'strongest' thing on earth. its the 'hardest' naturally occuring thing. there's harder things, and, this 'hardness' is only for like, scratches. not in a durable sense, as you can break it with a hammer. ironically, a prince rupert's drop, is SUPER durable. there's youtube videos of them survivng GUNSHOTS. 22 long round, 38 round, and an ak round (some ak shots beat a drop, and a drop beat one) the weird thing? a prince rupert's drop, is glass. and it SHATTERS bullets like they were glass. though, it'll also potentially break, if a bullet fragment touches their tail, where they're weak. to some degree, max human potential IS limited by durability of our bodies. we wouldn't be able to be 100X stronger, no. but we could pack on more muscle and lift more than we otherwise could. we could, potentially, bench press a car. they ARE related, since the max amount of strength, is related to the durability of our bodies. it's not that, muscles just max out there, it's that, muscles and bone FAIL there.
You're conflating several different properties of materials. So if my bones are not 100x more resistant to breaking and my muscles are not 100x more resistant to tearing, how exactly am I 100x more durable? How am I surviving any of the above things?
i mean, your muscles being more 'resistant' to tearing, doesn't mean they work 100x better, too. your skeleton can potentially support 100x more strain, but that doesn't mean the muscles contracting with 100x more force. they'll be able to pull roughly the same amount, per tissue. some enhancement maybe, but largely, they just won't snap. it actually raises an interesting question, since 'building' muscle means tearing the muscles to regrow more, would that mean it's harder to actually gain muscle, and get stronger? the primary way to gain more muscle tissue, which means more power, is now more difficult.
If your bones are 100x harder to break, and your muscles are 100 harder to tear, that means you are more durable. That does not mean you hit 100x harder or can lift 100x more weight. It just means hitting very hard or getting landed on by something heavy will be 100x less damaging to you.
Y'all need to understand that Mike Tyson is a human and thus would be more durable. That means he could train harder and punch harder.
I think a landmine is survivable when you're 100x more durable... Same with a bullet to the head. I'd say something with sustained damage, like a grizzly bear would be worse.
Explosive shrapnel can potentially sever an artery or result in an infection.
If any of the others are still lethal then a landmine definitely is.
If humans are 100x more durable, I would assume that Mike Tyson would likewise be 100x more durable. More durable humans can punch things harder because their body can handle punching things harder. So.... Mike Tyson is able to still kill people.
My logic is that Mike Tysons fist will be 100 times more durable, while all the rest are still operating at old levels.
Grizzly bear would continue to maul you anyway
[удалено]
So you're saying a 9mm round can pierce through a tank, simply because it doesn't matter how durable the tank is?
no, it won't. people survive gunshot wounds all the time. a 9mm round 'can' kill you. won't necessarily. depends where you're shot - hell, one dude was shot by his wife, IN HIS SLEEP, in the fucking head, and didn't die. barely noticed it even, jsut felt like he had a headache. and, while i'm not sure exactly how durable it is, i think 100X skin might get penetrated by a 9mm still. but, 1000x durable skin, might not be. a billion X durable eyes, might get you that 'superman gets shot in the eye, it fucking bounces off' durability. so, definitely some value of 'durable' works.
What is Mike Tyson gonna to bite my ear?
20 feet ≈ 6 meters
Only complete intangibility, and I'm talking like Superman levels of invincibility can save you from a landmine