FANDOM


  • In Naruto Lore this Jutsu is said to burn as hot as the sun and could last a week.

    Yet I don't remember a time when a NORMAL Amateratsu (one used by Itachi, not Sasuke since he could enhance it to form Inferno Style) burned to rock which has a lower Melting Point than the temperature of the Sun. And I don't think there was an instance where we saw a Dark Flame burn for 7 days, and... did we actually see SOMEONE (not a crow) die?

      Loading editor
    • Amaterasu doesn't really behave like 6000-50 000 000 degree plasma like the sun though. I think the best way to handle it is to see it as normal fire, that burns unnaturally. E.g it burns anything it touches, but it doesn't melt it. And while normally it burns for those seven days and nights, it can be stopped (and often is) by the user. It also seems to stop once it's burned what it was supposed to burn.

      E.g. Itachi burned down a forest and it kept burning (since Itachi "saw" the whole forest yet only parts of it could be initially hit). Itachi burned Sasuke but he forced it to stop. and Sasuke burned Shin's knives but once they were burned up the flames dissipated.

      The statement about "as hot as the sun" obviously refers to the fact that it's called Amaterasu (god of the sun), but in practice it seems to mean that it can burn whatever it needs to, regardless of whether it's actually flammable.

      The statement about "7 days and 7 nights" can also mean that this is the limit, but it seems from Itachi's and Sasuke's cases that the user can simply set it to stop once it's achieved it's goal (Or possibly, after a set time limit)

        Loading editor
    • What are metaphors?

        Loading editor
    • though even if it had been as hot as Sun's surface temperature it would take reasonable amount of time to actually melt a rock. Considering most of it is air which is very poor conductor of heat and all.

        Loading editor
    • Namikazenaruto9 wrote: though even if it had been as hot as Sun's surface temperature it would take reasonable amount of time to actually melt a rock. Considering most of it is air which is very poor conductor of heat and all.

      Not sure what you're getting at here. At 6000 degrees the thermal radiation alone would be hard to ignore. I'm not sure if you're saying that rock is mostly made of air, which it is not.

        Loading editor
    • Thekillman wrote:

      Not sure what you're getting at here. At 6000 degrees the thermal radiation alone would be hard to ignore. I'm not sure if you're saying that rock is mostly made of air, which it is not.

      Well if you are so keen on saying that what about rocks being conductor of heat? Silicon(which should be most of it) is good conductor of heat.

        Loading editor
    • Namikazenaruto9 wrote: Well if you are so keen on saying that what about rocks being conductor of heat? Silicon(which should be most of it) is good conductor of heat.

      The conduction of heat for a material is heavily dependent on how well it carries thermal phonons (note the n), thermal electrons and (for porous materials) internal radiation. Phonons are essentially elastic waves: atoms vibrating in a coordinated effort.

      Metals conduct heat very well because electrons can freely move through the material and so easily distribute heat, while the rather uniform crystal offers minimal thermal phonon resistance. Alloys, inclusions and fine-grained metals are worse at conducting heat than pure metals. Conductivities are in the order of 10-100+.

      Stones on the other hand are ionic materials which have different sizes of ions so they naturally conduct heat worse. The electronic contribution is also low. Conductivies are in the order of 1-10.

      Air is a horrible conductor of heat because it's mode of transport sucks. Hot molecules have to move to the cold side, meaning that the randomly moving and bumping atoms have to cross large areas. In a solid material, the coordinated movement is only in fractions of nanometers. You could imagine it like a newton's cradle: the transmission of the movement through the still balls appears instant compared to if the ball had to physically move and touch the outer ball. The conductivity of air is in the order of 0.01.

      It means that if you had an infinitely large plate of 1m thickness, one end is 0C and the other is 1C, then a stone plate would conduct 1-10 watts of heat while a metal could conduct tens to hundreds of watts. Alternatively, a plate subjected to a certain amount of watts would have a more uniform temperature when it is a metal than that it is a form of stone.

      However, you're not talking about uniformly heating up a stone but rather melting it. Melting it would cause the hot stone to move out of the way and expose more fresh stone. So a low conductivity is actually beneficial (assuming for a moment that you don't want to uniformly melt a stone).

      Also note that the actual chemical composition is of little importance unless you compare similar materials. A gas will pretty much always conduct worse than a liquid, which conducts worse than a solid, and a uniform crystalline material (ie a pure metal) will always conduct better than an amorphous material (e.g. glass).

        Loading editor
    • @killman
      First of all comparing Heat to electricity is very bad idea. Simply because Heat is disordered-chaos whereas Electricity is lot more ordered. Even if we take your hypothesis of thermo-electrons how would you explain Diamond and silicon are good conductors of Heat.
      Secondly when heat is involved three process go hand in hand conduction, convection and radiation. Heating Gases is quite tougher because the Heated Gas molecules are replaced by cooler ones via conviction and the process would naturally go on till there is cooler gases every time.
      Lastly Let's talk about Rock. Let say it has roughly 1200K as ignition temprature. Now in isolation it should easily reach this temperatures and melt however in the real world the pebble would be surrounded several more. That is their are several more targets to which this pebble could transfer heat before reaching its actual ignition temperature(note not melting point since its chemical change, volatile substances would burn way before non volatile ones, like moisture etc) This would result in increase in actual heat required to ignite our pebble.

        Loading editor
    • Wow, this website has gotten quite sciency lately.

        Loading editor
    • Namikazenaruto9 wrote: @killman
      First of all comparing Heat to electricity is very bad idea.

      Uhm no, that's not what i was talking about. Also, for metals electric conduction is in fact an excellent predictor of thermal conduction.

      Namikazenaruto9 wrote:

      Even if we take your hypothesis of thermo-electrons how would you explain Diamond and silicon are good conductors of Heat.

      It's not my hypothesis. Open up any solid state physics book and read the chapter on heat conduction.

      Diamond has a nicely ordered structure which is why heat can travel through it easily. Silicon is a metalloid with a nicely ordered structure, which is why it also conducts heat well.

      Namikazenaruto9 wrote:

      Simply because Heat is disordered-chaos whereas Electricity is lot more ordered.

      No. just....no. Heat transport and electric transport both occur due to the coordinated (or "net") movement of atoms.

      Namikazenaruto9 wrote:

      Heating Gases is quite tougher because the Heated Gas molecules are replaced by cooler ones via conviction and the process would naturally go on till there is cooler gases every time.

      No. Gases are much less dense, and so are far easier to heat than solid materials.

      Elveonora wrote: Wow, this website has gotten quite sciency lately.

      Well, people ask scientific questions so they can get scientific answers.

        Loading editor
    • Thekillman wrote:

      No. just....no. Heat transport and electric transport both occur due to the coordinated (or "net") movement of atoms.
      net movement doesn't imply coordinated movement. Heat is chaotic whereas Electricity isn't. One of the best way to find out which is more chaotic is by conversion of energy. Heat conversions have least efficiency compared to other forms like electric etc.

      Thekillman wrote:

      No. Gases are much less dense, and so are far easier to heat than solid materials.
      Why don't you check out the specific heats of gases and solids. check out N2 and maybe most metals. Perhaps you will realize its more difficult to heat gases.
        Loading editor
    • Namikazenaruto9 wrote: Heat is chaotic whereas Electricity isn't

      I think you're mixing up terms here. Heat is by definition an energy flow. You're thinking about thermal fluctuations, which are random. Heat flow isn't.

      Namikazenaruto9 wrote:

      Why don't you check out the specific heats of gases and solids. check out N2 and maybe most metals. Perhaps you will realize its more difficult to heat gases.

      Specific heat has nothing to do with the random motion of gasses you talked about.

        Loading editor
    • Thekillman wrote:

      Namikazenaruto9 wrote: Heat is chaotic whereas Electricity isn't

      I think you're mixing up terms here. Heat is by definition an energy flow. You're thinking about thermal fluctuations, which are random. Heat flow isn't.

      Will check out. might have forgotten.

      Thekillman wrote:

      Namikazenaruto9 wrote:

      Why don't you check out the specific heats of gases and solids. check out N2 and maybe most metals. Perhaps you will realize its more difficult to heat gases.

      Specific heat has nothing to do with the random motion of gasses you talked about.

      I am pretty sure we are talking about heating gases and solids and specific heat is measure of that.
      The random motion which I talked about is convection which is also another form of heat transfer which will take place and cannot be neglected due to high temperature of the Black flames.

        Loading editor
    • Namikazenaruto9 wrote: The random motion which I talked about is convection which is also another form of heat transfer which will take place and cannot be neglected due to high temperature of the Black flames.

      No. Convection is specifically heat transfer by fluid (gas or liquid) flow.

      If you're really interested, I think it's best if you just looked up a book on solid state physics or any good book on heat transfer. There's little else for me to do but quote such books, and so i might as well cut out the middle man.

        Loading editor
    • In some works of fiction where there are people who can use superpowers, there will sometimes arise the concept of 'Hellfire', which is just a type of fire that can burn more intensely and (depending on the fictional work) can also burn spiritual entities/constructs whereas normal fire cannot. Hellfire can be expressed in many different ways and is often a different color, too, but not always. The Ghost Rider from Marvel Comics is an example of the Hellfire ability. His skull can continue to burn despite being in places with little to no oxygen such as underwater. One of the key characteristics of Hellfire is that it is not generated like normal fire but is 'summoned' from a different place. As such, since the origin of the Hellfire is otherworldly, its properties are as well. Amaterasu is just the Naruto Universe's version of this Hellfire trope.

        Loading editor
    • I believe the flame's complete heat goes towards the object it hits rather than spread heat, in the same degree of the sun.

      Since the objective of it all, was to burn/kill/destroy it's targets, not anything or anyone else, that is intentionally.So I think only the targets(that is if they were living beings) experience the heat of the sun through the flames that they have physical contact with.

      Though even without physical contact, the flames produce high amount of heat, more than normal flames but very less than the sun.

      If you think about it that might explain alot.For starters, I think it's safe to say, that the user doesn't get burned or harmed by the flames(or maybe they do, but that's not the point). If the heat of the black flames are as dangerous as the sun's, then even the user would be subjected to that heat.And considering how powerful it is said to be, it'll backfire him in battle(pun intended).So it be like one of the worst jutsus to use, if it actually creates that much heat, people could consider it even worse than Rasenshuriken(before sage mode came) for the user himself.

      So I believe, since it's literally powerfull magical/unnatural flames created through magical eyes, I think it's safe to say that the flames are user friendly and are different in nature to real flames(I'm talking about what I just showed), that is they don't emit heat in comparision to the temperature they posses.They only release that heat through physical contact upon it's targets.Thus, being a more pratically safer jutsu.

      Now, some might consider the heat of the flame as not compared to the heat of the sun(which was said to be), I think it easily neuterlising, the eight tails, was proof of it.The Eight tails easily could take on normal flames I believe and it took on other kind of large blasts and such.How could it then, be easily defeated by the heat of the Amaterasu, if it wasn't the heat of the sun?

      The only people who can tell the truth are Naruto(getting shot on his face for a few seconds), Bee, A(yes he took it easily, but he also took his hand that easily as well, the man has too high of a threshold)Oro(probably) Karin and other people I can't remember.Well these are all my own honest opinions.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.