Naruto vs Shinshuusenju

[Alastor]

I agree but it's enormous size makes the feat impressive and seeing as madara is FAR more durable than the Buddha I don't really see your point in bring him up

The problem is that size =/= Durability.
How do you intend to prove that Juubi Madara is more durable than the Buddha ? We can't... Let me put this in perspective :

Juubi jin Madara Tanks Lava RS.
God tree gets cut by Lava RS.
Conclusion : Juubi jin Madara > God tree (in durability)

Now : Buddha statue tanks TBB
Madara was never shown tanking TBB

Conclusion : we can't compare their durability.

Of course Lava RS MAY be able to destroy the Buddha, but it also MAY not be able to do so, therefore it all comes down to opinions, which is why I stated "I don't think so" (as this was my opinion)

 

[Ansatsuken]

Question 1: How many TBB's would BM Naruto need to destroy SS completely?
Q2: How many would BSM Naruto need?
Q3: Would Rikudo Narutos TBBFRS destroy it?
Q4: Would Lava RS destroy it?

The Answer:-

1. 2002 TBB's, why? Shinsuusenju 1002 hands will catch the TBB's, that mean Naruto need an extra 1000 TBB's
2. -DITTO-
3. Yes.
4. Yes.

Thanks.

 

[Prog]

Question 1: How many TBB's would BM Naruto need to destroy SS completely?
Q2: How many would BSM Naruto need?
Q3: Would Rikudo Narutos TBBFRS destroy it?
Q4: Would Lava RS destroy it?

1,2) Dozens of casual TBB. A few Giant ones should do the trick.
3,4) One of each would do the trick.

 

[STOPGAI2014]

The problem is that size =/= Durability.

The larger something is the more energy it takes to destroy it. If we follow your logic because something we're destroy a VERY SMALL portion of the earth but can't destroy say a tank that makes the tank more durable than the earth? This is obviously an extreme example so don't take it to literally

 

[Alastor]

The larger something is the more energy it takes to destroy it. If we follow your logic because something we're destroy a VERY SMALL portion of the earth but can't destroy say a tank that makes the tank more durable than the earth? This is obviously an extreme example so don't take it to literally

Good job ignoring my points. Also your example doesn't make sense, what is a "VERY SMALL" portion of earth ? and why would it count as planetary level durability ?
Ok so by your logic Madara is smaller than GT so Madara should have been annihilated by Lava RS since GT couldn't tank it.... did that happen ? the answer is NO.

 

[STOPGAI2014]

Good job ignoring my points. Also your example doesn't make sense, what is a "VERY SMALL" portion of earth ? and why would it count as planetary level durability ?
Ok so by your logic Madara is smaller than GT so Madara should have been annihilated by Lava RS since GT couldn't tank it.... did that happen ? the answer is NO.

No fool that's not my logic at all I'm just trying to show you why saying it's not durable so it doesn't matter that it's big is stupid to say. the yrs sliced a country sized tree in half that takes a lot of energy so it doesn't matter that tobirama cut some branches with his suiton. If ems madara with the kyuubi could nearly destroy it I think it's pretty clear that one of current narutos most powerful techs should be able to destroy it. The shinju was just a way of giving in impressive feat to said tech

 

[Alastor]

No fool that's not my logic at all I'm just trying to show you why saying it's not durable so it doesn't matter that it's big is stupid to say. the yrs sliced a country sized tree in half that takes a lot of energy so it doesn't matter that tobirama cut some branches with his suiton. If ems madara with the kyuubi could nearly destroy it I think it's pretty clear that one of current narutos most powerful techs should be able to destroy it. The shinju was just a way of giving in impressive feat to said tech

Ok so you insulted me twice for no reason in the same post that's a good reason to stop answering don't you think ? But I'm a nice guy :

Size =/= durability.
Size = Durability ONLY IF we are talking about two objects made of the same material but of different sizes.

For example a Sugar cube would be easier to destroy than a block of Iron of the same size. Similarly a 2x2f cube of cheese would be much easier to destroy than a 1x1f cube of steel.
Do you get it ? for different materials Durability =/= size.

 

[Flakez]

1 YRS cuts it in half.

 

[Apêx1]

1. Too many.
2: I'd say around 3 at the very least.
Q3: 1 would atomise the entire SS, several won't change the outcome.
Q4: It would cut it in half, but would most definitely not destroy the entire thing instantly. Has the potential to burn down the entire SS given time and no countermeasures to the fire burning it.

 

[STOPGAI2014]

Ok so you insulted me twice for no reason in the same post that's a good reason to stop answering don't you think ? But I'm a nice guy :

Size =/= durability.
Size = Durability ONLY IF we are talking about two objects made of the same material but of different sizes.

For example a Sugar cube would be easier to destroy than a block of Iron of the same size. Similarly a 2x2f cube of cheese would be much easier to destroy than a 1x1f cube of steel.
Do you get it ? for different materials Durability =/= size.

Are you not seeing my point? Yes I agree that madara while smaller is more durable than the god tree but because the god tree is so large it still takes a substantial amount of energy to destroy it despite the fact that the material it is made of may not be that durable. Because the god tree is so large we know it takes a good deal of energy to destroy it. The more energy the more destructive force. We know that at best the buddha could possibly have been hit with small country level attacks although we never saw this. how many? we don't know. So i believe it's safe to assume current naruto who is leagues above the vote crew that eventually destroyed the buddha could destroy the buddha with one of his most powerful techniques. While just because the tree is larger than the buddha that doesn't absolutely mean it is more durable i believe it is safe to assume it is.

 

[Alastor]

Are you not seeing my point? Yes I agree that madara while smaller is more durable than the god tree but because the god tree is so large it still takes a substantial amount of energy to destroy it despite the fact that the material it is made of may not be that durable. Because the god tree is so large we know it takes a good deal of energy to destroy it. The more energy the more destructive force. We know that at best the buddha could possibly have been hit with small country level attacks although we never saw this. how many? we don't know. So i believe it's safe to assume current naruto who is leagues above the vote crew that eventually destroyed the buddha could destroy the buddha with one of his most powerful techniques. While just because the tree is larger than the buddha that doesn't absolutely mean it is more durable i believe it is safe to assume it is.

You are the one still misunderstanding... How do you know how much energy was needed to cut the tree ? and how do you know how much energy is needed to cut the Buddha (it was not destroyed at VOTE) ? So How can you compare to unknown amounts of energies ?

You can't, these are pure speculations, we don't even have a reference to use.
You say that it is larger so more energy is needed that is false, re-read my examples with the cubes.
You seem dead set on LRS being enough, I see no logical reason to assume it is, so let's just agree to disagree.

 

[STOPGAI2014]

You are the one still misunderstanding... How do you know how much energy was needed to cut the tree ? and how do you know how much energy is needed to cut the Buddha (it was not destroyed at VOTE) ? So How can you compare to unknown amounts of energies ?

You can't, these are pure speculations, we don't even have a reference to use.
You say that it is larger so more energy is needed that is false, re-read my examples with the cubes.
You seem dead set on LRS being enough, I see no logical reason to assume it is, so let's just agree to disagree.

I said nearly destroyed and I said it takes a large amount of energy not more than anything in particular. I saw your example and I'll give you a counter example if we mashed a bunch of sugar cubes together until it was the size of a very building then it could be more durable than a cube of iron the size of a sugar cube although idk the exact physics of it so don't quote me on that. I say we can agree to disagree and I apologize for insulting you earlier

Also I'm assuming the amounts of energy it takes to destroy each I'm obviously not positive.

 

[Alastor]

I said nearly destroyed and I said it takes a large amount of energy not more than anything in particular. I saw your example and I'll give you a counter example if we mashed a bunch of sugar cubes together until it was the size of a very building then it could be more durable than a cube of iron the size of a sugar cube although idk the exact physics of it so don't quote me on that. I say we can agree to disagree and I'll apologize for insulting you earlier

Yes, but that's only if you take into consideration the amount of energy needed to destroy 1m3 of Iron and 1m3 of sugar, then calculate the size of the sugar cube required to surpass that amount.
In this case both amounts of energy are unknown, so like I said in my very first post it all comes down to opinions.
Anyway, let's agree to disagree, and apology accepted. Have a nice day.