Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Does anyone from the MCU or the DCEU have a feat of durability on par with this?

Just MCU, and DCEU? No, not that I can think of anyway.

The DCEU surviving thru Justice League flopping would be the greatest durability "feat" ever.

h1 taking the brunt of KMC this year has to be the greatest.

Originally posted by TheLordofMurder
Does anyone from the MCU or the DCEU have a feat of durability on par with this?

Thor's got to have it! The amounts of energy released by a Neutron Star are enourmous (H1 would disagree however).

The only feat I can think of that could rival such a feat would be Thanos surviving a direct blow from SB in the chest.

Originally posted by The Spectre+
h1 taking the brunt of KMC this year has to be the greatest.

What brunt?

Superman getting uppercut the height of an entire skyscraper (while busting up the skyscraper at the top) without any damage.

Superman collision with Zod such that a large crater is left in a brick skyscraper.

Originally posted by h1a8
What brunt?

Superman getting uppercut the height of an entire skyscraper (while busting up the skyscraper at the top) without any damage.

Superman collision with Zod such that a large crater is left in a brick skyscraper. You're really dumb. You should probably kill yourself.

Originally posted by h1a8
What brunt?

Superman getting uppercut the height of an entire skyscraper (while busting up the skyscraper at the top) without any damage.

Superman collision with Zod such that a large crater is left in a brick skyscraper.


This is proof that you're not very smart and that you have no knowledge of science in general or neutron stars in particular.

Stormbreaker impalement feat is obviously the greatest feat by far.

See, h1 doesn't know the first thing about science or neutron starts.

Originally posted by TheLordofMurder
Does anyone from the MCU or the DCEU have a feat of durability on par with this?

It's pretty much an anti-feat, seeing as Thor would've died if not for the Stormbreaker...

So a neutron star only puts out about 600,000 Kelvin. A nuclear blast can be up to 150,000,273 Kelvin, so technically supes and doomsday do have a better feat. Thor's was sustained though, so it might equal out. I'm no scientist

Dc fanboys. Laughable.

Originally posted by quanchi112
False, you are not familiar with the stones or the film. The weapon was capable of killing him and the finest weapon forged by the dwarf. Thanos survived impalement by one of the most powerful weapons in the MCU whereas Doomsday and Superman both died like weaklings while being impaled.

If you watched the film you would know better than your shitty claims.

He got impaled. That's not a durability feat. Many humans were impaled and not died instantly. Durability is about resisting damage.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
He survived getting impaled in the CHEST! He was very weak, but didn't go insta killed!

Many other beings would have died immediately!

Not dying instantly isn't a durability feat. Just as Getting chopped to pieces and not dying instantly isn't a durability feat. The fact that you got chopped to pieces means that you have shitty durability.

I don't think you understand how kryptonite works...

Nothing even comes close. H1 is an idiot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOLOBJSJL0I

And that's a MASSIVE underestimation. He only used the visible surface area. The rings seemed to focus the full power of a Star. Making it even more ridiculous.

People are forgetting that Marvel had multiple physicists consulting on the movie. The directors weren't just shooting blanks even though the script-writers might have.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
It's pretty much an anti-feat, seeing as Thor would've died if not for the Stormbreaker...

Thor was alive and breathing. In pain, and crispy, but alive. Even conscious to a point. So it counts.

Rocket thinks he would've died. The Guardian's also didn't understand how Thor could survive space. Thanos thought Thor would have died from being blown up by the Power Stone. Malekith thought the same with the Aether.

I think Thor would have lived tbh, but that's just mo. Anakin cry-baby Skywalker survived worse.

Thor's main super power aside from lightning is taking a beating that would have killed anyone else and should've killed him. Even Hela oddly enough underestimated him.

But the dwarf, the one who knew thor and Odin and had a good idea of asgardian biology, was the one who said he was dying?

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
It's pretty much an anti-feat, seeing as Thor would've died if not for the Stormbreaker...

Interesting analysis.

You could cut the time he spent exposed to the energy in half, while Thor was hurting but unscathed, and it'd still be more impressive than every single other durability feat in DCEU and MCU. Put together.

That scene was so far beyond anything that has ever come before, it's ridiculous. Etri said it was the full power of a Star. People keep mentioning heat, revealing a frightening ignorance of the composition of Star's. A Neutron Star average output is 0.25 of the power of the Sun according to the citation I read. That is so mindbogglingly RIDICULOUS.

Superman, Hulk, Iron Man, and Wonder Woman could spend the rest of their lives punching Thor in the face in-tandem and they'd hurt themselves before he gets flustered if we scale off this feat.

Luckily it was Thor who racked it up, not Superman or Hulk, or the boards would be unbearable. We basically have to ignore the feat, or pretend it doesn't exist/lowball (See: H1) or there is no point debating Thor in the movie forum.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
You could cut the time he spent exposed to the energy in half, while Thor was hurting but unscathed, and it'd still be more impressive than every single other durability feat in DCEU and MCU. Put together.

That scene was so far beyond anything that has ever come before, it's ridiculous. Etri said it was the full power of a Star. People keep mentioning heat, revealing a frightening ignorance of the composition of Star's. A Neutron Star average output is 0.25 of the power of the Sun according to the citation I read. That is so mindbogglingly RIDICULOUS.

Superman, Hulk, Iron Man, and Wonder Woman could spend the rest of their lives punching Thor in the face in-tandem and they'd hurt themselves before he gets flustered if we scale off this feat.

Luckily it was Thor who racked it up, not Superman or Hulk, or the boards would be unbearable. We basically have to ignore the feat, or pretend it doesn't exist/lowball (See: H1) or there is no point debating Thor in the movie forum.

The feat it's impressive, but you are exaggerating a bit boy.

And honestly, i don't think Thor can endure an impact from SB in the chest.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
The feat it's impressive, but you are exaggerating a bit boy.

And honestly, i don't think Thor can endure an impact from SB in the chest.

......I'm underplaying it, to a large degree. Brother, all you need is an online calculator and the citations in the video I posted for some rough estimates to come to this conclusion. It's not hard. A neutron Star cools down after it's formation because of the neutron's being stripped away, but there are still incredibly powerful sources of energy.

Why would Thor getting impaled by Stormbreaker be an issue....?

Originally posted by TheLordofMurder
Does anyone from the MCU or the DCEU have a feat of durability on par with this?

No one from Marvel.

Clearly, Superman tanking the world engines are more impressive.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
......I'm underplaying it, to a large degree. Brother, all you need is an online calculator and the citations in the video I posted for some rough estimates to come to this conclusion. It's not hard. A neutron Star cools down after it's formation because of the neutron's being stripped away, but there are still incredibly powerful sources of energy.

Why would Thor getting impaled by Stormbreaker be an issue....?

Because Hela beat him badly with her small necro swords.

Steve would've tanked it better.

Thor nearly dying from hitting the ground is worse then a weakened Superman and a nuke.

And taking the World Engines beats barely surviving a star.

Our sun's core is only about 27 million degrees farenheit. A nuclear bomb burns at anywhere between 50-150 million degrees farenheit. A neutron star only burns at about 1.7 million degrees, and drops steadily because of it constantly losing neutrons.

Originally posted by cdtm
No one from Marvel.

Clearly, Superman tanking the world engines are more impressive. Nah.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Nah.




Ja.


They were essentially leaking Kryptonite. Even if the sun is more punishing, tanking it while weakened is impressive.

Comparing the energy output of a neutron star to a nuke is like comparing a nuke to a firecracker that had 99.9% of its gunpowder removed.

Originally posted by cdtm
Ja.


They were essentially leaking Kryptonite. Even if the sun is more punishing, tanking it while weakened is impressive. No, that is not. The force of a star weakened him as well. An oil rig kod Superman, buddy.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Comparing the energy output of a neutron star to a nuke is like comparing a nuke to a firecracker that had 99.9% of its gunpowder removed.

150 million to 1.7 million l, so yeah. That's exactly what it's like.

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
150 million to 1.7 million l, so yeah. That's exactly what it's like.

Good thing Thor took the full force of the neutron start not just the heat. As stated in the film.


Originally posted by cdtm
And taking the World Engines beats barely surviving a star.

Why do people think these things were like black holes or something. (they weren't)
Gravitational force from a neutron star >>>>>>>>>>>>>world engine

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
150 million to 1.7 million l, so yeah. That's exactly what it's like.

Google temperature vs power to understand the difference pls.

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
150 million to 1.7 million l, so yeah. That's exactly what it's like.

Glad you agree neutron star >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nuke in total energy output.

Originally posted by Inhuman
Good thing Thor took the full force of the neutron start not just the heat. As stated in the film.




Why do people think these things were like black holes or something. (they weren't)
Gravitational force from a neutron star >>>>>>>>>>>>>world engine

There was no force on Thor. It's just an expression used by a character of the movie. Forces accelerate mass. Thor wasn't being accelerated. "Full force" meant "full heat temperature" . It's called figurative language.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Comparing the energy output of a neutron star to a nuke is like comparing a nuke to a firecracker that had 99.9% of its gunpowder removed. Thor only resisted the heat. Heat is heat. Thor wasn't being crushed, pushed (well a little) or pulled, etc. There was no additional action acting on Thor other than heat.

Originally posted by h1a8
There was no force on Thor. It's just an expression used by a character of the movie. Forces accelerate mass. Thor wasn't being accelerated. Full force means full heat temperature. It's called figurative language.

Thor only resisted the heat. Heat is heat. Thor wasn't being crushed, pushed (well a little) or pulled, etc. There was no additional action acting on Thor other than heat.

You're a liar

Originally posted by Silent Master
You're a liar

Thor didn't get blown away, crushed, squeezed, nothing. There was no force. It's just figurative talk. Heat is needed to melt metal, not force. The writer wouldn't phucking insult people's intelligence by having an actual force melt metal, especially from a ball of fire (what most people think stars are anyway) and especially by showing us phucking flames that are heating the metal.

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor didn't get blown away, crushed, squeezed, nothing. There was no force. It's just figurative talk. Heat is needed to melt metal, not force. The writer wouldn't phucking insult people's intelligence by having an actual force melt metal, especially from a ball of fire (what most people think stars are anyway).

Movie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> h1

Originally posted by cdtm
Thor nearly dying from hitting the ground is worse then a weakened Superman and a nuke.

And taking the World Engines beats barely surviving a star.

When did Thor nearly die from hitting the ground? After being burned by a Star?

Smh. Superman was knocked out by a falling oil rig if that's the case.

What country are you from? Do you have access to google? How can you think that? The World Engine was some vague, planet terraforming tool. It's MAGNITUDES less impressive based on the available information.

I know you'll attempt to divert from specifics but leaning on the vagueness of the feat to attempt to mask it's inability to match Thor's feat, but save that posture talk for your book club. Hit me with the specifics if you want to discuss this in depth.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Movie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> h1

That has nothing to do with "figurative talk".

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
A neutron star only burns at about 1.7 million degrees, and drops steadily because of it constantly losing neutrons.

"The temperature inside a newly formed neutron star is from around 100,000,000,000 to 1,000,000,000,000 kelvin."

- Google

Originally posted by h1a8
That has nothing to do with "figurative talk".

Your opinion is irrelevant

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor didn't get blown away, crushed, squeezed, nothing. There was no force. It's just figurative talk. Heat is needed to melt metal, not force. The writer wouldn't phucking insult people's intelligence by having an actual force melt metal, especially from a ball of fire (what most people think stars are anyway) and especially by showing us phucking flames that are heating the metal.

Wait...what? Are you not a HS science teacher or something? What the f*ck are you even saying there?

Do you even know the definitions of the words you are using in this context? Heat is needed to melt metal, not force? H1, can you please describe an explosion to me.

I'm legitimately mad at how stupid you are. I am officially triggered like a green haired overweight feminist with a She-Hulk tattoo on her ankle.

Also, what kind of idiots do you surround yourself with where you think that Stars are just a ball of fire?

This is like Grade 10 introductory science courses.

Originally posted by Inhuman
Good thing Thor took the full force of the neutron start not just the heat. As stated in the film.




Why do people think these things were like black holes or something. (they weren't)
Gravitational force from a neutron star >>>>>>>>>>>>>world engine

Superman wouldn't even be able to get to that Neutron Star without dying. He'd cease to exist from the sheer gravity.

The hamstering is hilarious.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
"The temperature inside a newly formed neutron star is from around 100,000,000,000 to 1,000,000,000,000 kelvin."

- Google and after a few years, it drops dow 1,000,000 kelvin which is roughly 1.7 million farenheit. Considering hela had her own hammer, the star is well over several thousands of years old and was completely dark by the time thor got there. Even if the rings kept it relatively fresh, the fact that thanos had the gauntlet back during gotg show it would have dropped significantly. There are some neutron stars that are only around 1000 degrees

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
"The temperature inside a newly formed neutron star is from around 100,000,000,000 to 1,000,000,000,000 kelvin."

- Google

This neutron star is very very old as Mjolnir was forged before Thor was born. No one in Asgard even knew of Hela. Mjolnir existed before all of them were born. The temperature was most likely around 600,000k or less like what is listed in some sources.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Superman wouldn't even be able to get to that Neutron Star without dying. He'd cease to exist from the sheer gravity.

The hamstering is hilarious.

Psst superman is solar powered. Stars make him stronger

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Superman wouldn't even be able to get to that Neutron Star without dying. He'd cease to exist from the sheer gravity.

The hamstering is hilarious.

Thor didn't experience any gravity pulling him towards the star. And neither did the other characters. He just experienced heat.

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
and after a few years, it drops dow 1,000,000 kelvin which is roughly 1.7 million farenheit. Considering hela had her own hammer, the star is well over several thousands of years old and was completely dark by the time thor got there. Even if the rings kept it relatively fresh, the fact that thanks had the gauntlet back during gotg show it would have dropped significantly. There are some neutron stars that are only around 1000 degrees

Your statement read as if you thought they started at 1mil Kelvin. I was attempting to correct you. I apologize for the confusion.

I am just going to assume it's an average Neutron Star, and not make huge guesses one way or another about it's longevity. Too many variables in play. Otherwise I'd just argue it's a brand new Neutron Star, because Asgardian voodoo magic restarted it as a newly formed NS and give h1 reoccurring nightmares.

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor didn't experience any gravity pulling him towards the star. And neither did the other characters. He just experienced heat.

I agree, I don't think Gravity was a particular factor. I'm sorry for giving you a panic attack.

But I have zero problem mentioning it as a valid point, because they had scientific commentary on this movie. And Neutron Star's are known for their density and gravity. It's the first thing that pops up when google them.

It was most definitely a consideration when the type of Star chosen was decided. Especially since there's misconception that Thor's hammer (In mainstream movies) is made from the heart of a Neutron Star (I'm not sure how/why this started, but it was even commented on by Neil DeGrasse and a few videos) instead of being forged in a dying Star. I think it's just makes sense to people because Thor's hammer seems just to be extremely heavy and when you say dying Star, people assume Neutron. It coincidentally meshes together.

Ah, good ol' asgardian voodoo magic.

I will argue that the forge was using the heat and maybe magnetism of the star and not the gravity. Gravity has a habit of taking loose matter and condensing it. Melting is taking a condensed material and making it looser.

Power =/= temperature.

For comparison, if you base it on the video Rage posted, the energy being let thru into the Iris is somewhere in the magnitude of 2x10^20J.

A 1 megaton explosion lets out around 4.18x10^15 J.

Just let that

Originally posted by Inhuman
Teaspoon of Neutron star is around 10 billion tons, the weight of a mountain at least.

That's right, and yet the feat shouldn't be taken literal either.

The gravity of the neutron star condences the matter to such a point. The structure's mechanism seems to break that gravity, resulting in the matter being released and decompressed in a massive beam.

I don't think the density of the Star is the same in the beam that stroke Thor.

Please note people that Heat isn't the most ferocious aspect of Neutron Star output...

Neutron stars release tremendous amounts of xrays and gamma rays...

Neutron stars can easily sterilize planets in their nearby vicinity with ionizing radiation...

There is no reason to speculate or to question by the feat. They tell you in the movie what Thor was meant to withstand. Eitri clearly says that Thor will take on the full force of the neutron star. They could easily have said "you're going to take the heat of the neutron star", but they didn't.

Whatever Space Magic or Asgardian dwarf Magic/technology, the mechanism built around a neutron star was made to do isn't clear.
What is clear is that when the iris is opened from the sphere around the neutron star, the energies with the full force of the neutron star come through it.
That is what hit Thor and what he withstood.

As ridiculous as it may seem, that is exactly what the writers intended , and they tried to portray that as best that they could on screen.

People need to accept that.

But why would they use the stars magnetism and gravity to melt metal? It's called a forge and forges use heat

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
But why would they use the stars magnetism and gravity to melt metal? It's called a forge and forges use heat

Because heat along with everything else (energies, gravity, radiation, forces, etc) also came through. That is what is implied with what the writers said in the film. So even if the "forge" only used the heat to melt the special metal, that doesn't mean the other things didn't come though as well.


Stupid phone spelling on my previous post.

Bane no-sold Baleman's haymakers. Baleman punches >>>>> Neutron star.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Power =/= temperature.

For comparison, if you base it on the video Rage posted, the energy being let thru into the Iris is somewhere in the magnitude of 2x10^20J.
So about enough to destroy an island?

Approximately 50,000 times more joules than is in a 1 Megaton nuclear blast

Isnt a nuclear blast way hotter than the core of any star? And it didnt seem like Thor was being hit with any kinetic force, just heat. Also, Thor didnt tank anything. He was about to die without the magic of Stormbreaker. At least the sun is a more reliable power amp than a MacGuffin axe

Originally posted by Lestov16
Isnt a nuclear blast way hotter than the core of any star? And it didnt seem like Thor was being hit with any kinetic force, just heat. Also, Thor didnt tank anything. He was about to die without the magic of Stormbreaker. At least the sun is a more reliable power amp than a MacGuffin axe


A one megaton nuclear blast has about 4.18 x 10^15 joules of energy, compared to about 2 x 10^20 joules for the neutron star feat.

IOW, the neutron star feat was about 50,000 times more powerful.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
You could cut the time he spent exposed to the energy in half, while Thor was hurting but unscathed, and it'd still be more impressive than every single other durability feat in DCEU and MCU. Put together.

That scene was so far beyond anything that has ever come before, it's ridiculous. Etri said it was the full power of a Star. People keep mentioning heat, revealing a frightening ignorance of the composition of Star's. A Neutron Star average output is 0.25 of the power of the Sun according to the citation I read. That is so mindbogglingly RIDICULOUS.

Superman, Hulk, Iron Man, and Wonder Woman could spend the rest of their lives punching Thor in the face in-tandem and they'd hurt themselves before he gets flustered if we scale off this feat.

Luckily it was Thor who racked it up, not Superman or Hulk, or the boards would be unbearable. We basically have to ignore the feat, or pretend it doesn't exist/lowball (See: H1) or there is no point debating Thor in the movie forum. Its's an amazing feat that will be hotly debated for all time. The Sokovia blast is still hot to this day. Anything Superman or Thor will do in movies will always be a hot topic.

Originally posted by Inhuman
There is no reason to speculate or to question by the feat. They tell you in the movie what Thor was meant to withstand. Eitri clearly says that Thor will take on the full force of the neutron star. They could easily have said "you're going to take the heat of the neutron star", but they didn't.

Whatever Space Magic or Asgardian dwarf Magic/technology, the mechanism built around a neutron star was made to do isn't clear.
What is clear is that when the iris is opened from the sphere around the neutron star, the energies with the full force of the neutron star come through it.
That is what hit Thor and what he withstood.

As ridiculous as it may seem, that is exactly what the writers intended , and they tried to portray that as best that they could on screen.

People need to accept that.

That's how I took it both visually and what what said, the forge harnesses the power of the star and lets them unleash it's energy, heat, radiation and gravity as a focused blast for the purposes of smelting/forging, while keeping those in and around the forge safe.

It also goes back somewhat to what Odin said in regards to Mjolnir: "The mighty hammer Mjolnir, forged in the heart of a dying star. Its power has no equal, as a weapon to destroy or as a tool to build." Seems like a bit of hyperbole on his part, but goes back to support that these weapons are created using the full power of a neutron star

edit: It's also a ridiculous powerful and inconsistent feat, considering he's been wounded by much less before. His clothes is also as durable as he is it seems

Thor 1: Thor was completely unscathed from BiFrost blowing up in his face. So was Loki (Loki also survived falling through a wormhole that should have torn him to pieces across time/space). BiFrost was tearing an entire planet to pieces, eventually destroying it.

Thor TDW: Thor survived blasts from Malekith with the Aether. This imo is his most impressive feat. The convergence would have spread his range, but the sheer power of destroying Earth-Space, including the Sun, as seen in Jane's vision, makes it by-far the most impressive feat imo.

Avengers AoU: Thor was completely unscathed from Sokovia blowing up in his face. The type of power required to blast into pieces not only a city, but the large landmass underneath? Beyond any man-made Nuclear device.

In conclusion? You can make three other threads with the same topic with different feats and the answer would still be: None. Or something something, World Engine.

Tbh, it's a good feat and all but it's just so phucking removed from everything else power-wise in the MCU.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Isnt a nuclear blast way hotter than the core of any star?

Yeah, but it lasts for far less time than what Thor had to endure.





It's still a very good durability feat. It stretched his durability and endurance to the limits sure, but his body was still intact and he was alive (barely) after being exposed to that energy.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Wrong. Something that's extremely hot but relatively even more extremely tiny has very little thermal energy in it compared to much larger objects with much less temperature. Learn your physics.

It is the amount of thermal energy and how much of it was transferred that is relevant in a discussion about durability. Again, learn your physics.



Writer's intent disagrees with you. But we know you only really listen to this when it suits you, so what's the point eh?

And this is all irrelevant. Even if I agreed with you (I don't) that there was nothing but heat in that showing. This is about durability showings. And heat durability is durability. We don't suddenly disqualify a durability showing because you don't like the type of durability it is.



But we are not discussing kinetic-only durability here are we? This is plain durability showing and heat durability is a durability showing.

Sir I have a background in physics. Temperature by definition is the average kinetic energy inside a substance. The hotter something is then the more the thermal energy inside of it. It takes energy to increase the temperature of a substance. Q (energy)=mass x change in Temp x C-specific heat.

I didn't discredit it as not a durability showing. I merely stated that it was a heat resistant showing and then gave my opinion on how I value blunt force durability over heat resistant durability.

Movie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> h1's biased opinion.

Originally posted by h1a8
Sir I have a background in physics. Temperature by definition is the average kinetic energy inside a substance. The hotter something is then the more the thermal energy inside of it. It takes energy to increase the temperature of a substance. Q (energy)=mass x change in Temp x C-specific heat.

I didn't discredit it as not a durability showing. I merely stated that it was a heat resistant showing and then gave my opinion on how I value blunt force durability over heat resistant durability.

The same way of have a background in MMA amirite Mr super-puncher?

Nothing you say debunks what I just posted. The temperature of an object does not mean it has a lot of total thermal energy as factors such as its size is needed to determine the total amount.

And even then, that is irrelevant in a debate for durability showings til the rate of transfer is determined (aka how much heat goes from source into item whose durability we are trying to quantify).

The fact that you've used temperature interchangeably with thermal energy in past debates means you have a poor understanding of physics.

We don't care what type of durability showings you value. The OP asked for durability showings which are "on par" or within the same magnitude as he specifically gave this showings as the item for comparison. Stop trying to lowball and debate within the thread's set criteria.

Thor surviving up close contact with that neutron star might be the best to date. And in the same movie, he survived Thanos grinding the power stone into his head without taking serious damage. It would have killed him eventually of course, but that thing explodes a normal being on contact.

Superman managing to just survive a nuke explosion (though he did make Doomsday take the brunt of it) is the best in the DCEU to date.

Why does no one mention Doomsday, a being who apparently absorbs/adapts to energy in a limited extent, was literally right between Superman and the heart of the explosion?

Would that be a factor? I'm curious, I don't mention it because this is a comic book movie. Not going to be an anal nerd about it.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The same way of have a background in MMA amirite Mr super-puncher?

Nothing you say debunks what I just posted. The temperature of an object does not mean it has a lot of total thermal energy as factors such as its size is needed to determine the total amount.

And even then, that is irrelevant in a debate for durability showings til the rate of transfer is determined (aka how much heat goes from source into item whose durability we are trying to quantify).

The fact that you've used temperature interchangeably with thermal energy in past debates means you have a poor understanding of physics.

We don't care what type of durability showings you value. The OP asked for durability showings which are "on par" or within the same magnitude as he specifically gave this showings as the item for comparison. Stop trying to lowball and debate within the thread's set criteria.

I gave the basic equation. It contains mass, change in temperature, and specific heat of a substance.

Oh did I say mass? Pay more attention next time.

Heat resistance is not the same as blunt force resistance. They are not objectively comparable. It's only a matter of opinion which feat is greater.

Originally posted by h1a8
It's only a matter of opinion which feat is greater.

BS, at the very least Thor's feat was equivalent to 2x10^20 joules of energy, prove that the feats you're talking about are comparable.

One would then ask how come the star was still able to exist independent of the beam if its energy wasn't just being directed at Thor, but was in fact being completely displaced from outer space and onto Thor directly? One would then also ask how it could even reach Stormbreaker if literally all of the star's energy was focused entirely on Thor?

Would your answer be space magic?

@silentmaster

Thor resisted the temperature of the star, nothing more. You can post irrelevant numbers about energy. But the fact remains the feat is useless in proving that Thor can take a punch from Hulk or resist being cut by Hela. It's a dumb feat whose only use is against characters with heat poweras their primary power.

Originally posted by h1a8
@silentmaster

Thor resisted the temperature of the star, nothing more. You can post irrelevant numbers about energy. But the fact remains the feat is useless in proving that Thor can take a punch from Hulk or resist being cut by Hela. It's a dumb feat whose only use is against characters with heat poweras their primary power.


Prove it.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Why does no one mention Doomsday, a being who apparently absorbs/adapts to energy in a limited extent, was literally right between Superman and the heart of the explosion?

Would that be a factor? I'm curious, I don't mention it because this is a comic book movie. Not going to be an anal nerd about it.

Because this version of Doomsday was created to absorb massive energy, to give the other characters in the film the "Oh s*** it's unkillable" scene, signaling there's nothing else regular humanity could do. So the nuke feat is less impressive. It's like trying to kill Aquaman by drowning him.

And yet later, Doomsday dies by getting impaled by that kryptonite spear, which is something that only affected him and Superman. So again, nothing special. He was powerful in a PIS way.

Originally posted by NemeBro
One would then ask how come the star was still able to exist independent of the beam if its energy wasn't just being directed at Thor, but was in fact being completely displaced from outer space and onto Thor directly? One would then also ask how it could even reach Stormbreaker if literally all of the star's energy was focused entirely on Thor?

Would your answer be space magic?

You answered your own question...?

Rewatch the scene and freeze it at 0:47:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4xWxD65Cf8

The power of the Sun was focused into a concentrated area through the opening that underwent further precision through the Iris. The entire process was extremely precise, and controlled, but extremely illogical. Unless I misunderstood your misgivings?

-----------------

We are REALLY overthinking it imo. Thor forged a hammer, to do it, he had to withstand the full power of a Neutron Star. It's Asgardian f*cking magic and very straight forward.

I realize, that this explanation ruffles some feathers, but if you went around to 90% of the audience and asked what went down? They'd parrot Etri and just be like, Thor endured the power of a Star.

The writers and directors created the scene, the physicists gave it grounding to have a semi-realistic scenario where it could work through space science and an Asgardian version of a Dyson Sphere. H1, you don't have to like, but you do have to deal with it. I hope Thor shows legit super-speed in the next movie, I think some people would boycott the movie.

Originally posted by h1a8
I gave the basic equation. It contains mass, change in temperature, and specific heat of a substance.

Oh did I say mass? Pay more attention next time.

Heat resistance is not the same as blunt force resistance. They are not objectively comparable. It's only a matter of opinion which feat is greater.

Oh did I not say "in past debates"?

Like this one:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=16636270&highlight=energy+userid%3A138814#post16636270

Pay more attention next time.

It's good that you've since changed your stance (on the down-low, of course, while pretending you never had to change it at all). Shows that you're at least capable of learning. Guess I'm teaching you something after all.

Are you an idiot?!?! (don't answer that, we know you are). The OP gave the Thor "feat" as the SPECIFIC METRIC for establishing magnitude. IF anything, it is your constant spouting of "blunt force resistance duhhh" that has no place here.

Learn to read noob.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Prove it. Prove what?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Oh did I not say "in past debates"?

Like this one:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=16636270&highlight=energy+userid%3A138814#post16636270

Pay more attention next time.

It's good that you've since changed your stance (on the down-low, of course, while pretending you never had to change it at all). Shows that you're at least capable of learning. Guess I'm teaching you something after all.

Are you an idiot?!?! (don't answer that, we know you are). The OP gave the Thor "feat" as the SPECIFIC METRIC for establishing magnitude. IF anything, it is your constant spouting of "blunt force resistance duhhh" that has no place here.

Learn to read noob.

Learning what? Nothing I said in this thread was incorrect.
I gave an opinion, not a fact.
Heat resistant is not as impressive TO ME than blunt force resistance. This is my opinion.

The only fact that I gave that is relevant is that Thor's feat has no bearing on taking hits from Hulk without being affected or being stabbed by blades.

You can't compare Thor's feat to anything else because no one has resisted heat of that magnitude for that period of time. Superman arguably experienced a greater temperature (with added pressure) but the duration wasn't as long.

So the answer is no one.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Why does no one mention Doomsday, a being who apparently absorbs/adapts to energy in a limited extent, was literally right between Superman and the heart of the explosion?

Would that be a factor? I'm curious, I don't mention it because this is a comic book movie. Not going to be an anal nerd about it.


Honestly I think the most impressive part of taking the full or part of the Nuke explosion was more that it seemed Kal was still recovering from Batmans Kryptonite given he still had his face scar when the fight with Doomsday began.


Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
I hope Thor shows legit super-speed in the next movie, I think some people would boycott the movie.

Originally posted by h1a8


1)Learning what? Nothing I said in this thread was incorrect.
2) I gave an opinion, not a fact.
3) Heat resistant is not as impressive TO ME than blunt force resistance. This is my opinion.
4) The only fact that I gave that is relevant is that Thor's feat has no bearing on taking hits from Hulk without being affected or being stabbed by blades.

You can't compare Thor's feat to anything else because no one has resisted heat of that magnitude for that period of time.

5) Superman arguably experienced a greater temperature (with added pressure) but the duration wasn't as long.

So the answer is no one.

1) Except for your constant use of temperature w/c has no relevance here. As it is heat energy and the amount of heat energy being transferred that has any bearing here, not the temperature of the source object.

The fact that you insist on using temperature is a clear indicator that you are simply trying to deceive less informed posters on its relevance. Because I have corrected you too many times for you to not know the difference by now.

2) And that is how everyone should treat everything you say.

3) No one cares what impresses you.

4) No one cares that you think this and it is irrelevant to this thread. Go make your own if you don't like it.

5) Case in point (see 1).

Originally posted by h1a8
Prove what?

Your claims.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Honestly I think the most impressive part of taking the full or part of the Nuke explosion was more that it seemed Kal was still recovering from Batmans Kryptonite given he still had his face scar when the fight with Doomsday began.





Quit lying. He was fine from Knite. His powers clearly worked and your Superman wanking is pretty pathetic to be honest. Superman fans are the worst.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Quit lying. He was fine from Knite. His powers clearly worked and your Superman wanking is pretty pathetic to be honest. Superman fans are the worst.


My Superman wanking? Are you high?


He still had the Kryptonite scar on his face all the way until the Sun healed him. I know you cant get that because in your mind street levellers like Batman and Khan can take him.

But try to join reality once in a while

Did you read the definition of temperature that I posted? Did you read the example how less energy but higher temperature damages over more energy but lower temperature?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
My Superman wanking? Are you high?


He still had the Kryptonite scar on his face all the way until the Sun healed him. I know you cant get that because in your mind street levellers like Batman and Khan can take him.

But try to join reality once in a while So what? He still had a cut that does not mean he was still weakened by Knite. You have no proof and ignore common sense. We see in the scene when his powers were affected and when they were not. When they return against Batman we see batmans punches do not hurt. For ****s sake you are so biased you ignore whatbthe scene is showing you in favor of your own preconceived notions. You do this with everything you debate. I love correcting your insanity.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The heat energy transferred is what caused damage you maroon. The cup of water spilling high amounts of energy within a small area focused the heat energy and (due to having enough time to do so) transferred enough of it beyond skin's heat tolerance w/c is what caused the damage.

Dispersing thermal energy within a large area would of course limit the amount of damage it does as you have kept the levels specifically below the skin's heat tolerance.

Here, do this instead:

Get that 99C water, dip your finger in it for a less than a second, pull it out immediately. No damage. Why? Because there wasn't enough time to transfer enough heat energy from the water to do damage to your finger. It is not temperature but total heat energy transferred vs area it was transferred to that matter.

Here's a video of a guy who touches molten metal for fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cfcsdGODMA

You, being as slimy as usual, are trying to deceive people by manipulating (as usual) a real world example where there are factors that are in your favor (using one example that is specifically above the heat tolerance of skin while using another that is not, dispersing the heat energy, giving yourself enough time for your example to do damage, etc.).

For durability showings, heat vs mass/size of affected area vs time (w/c is part of the thermal energy equation) are all needed. You just using temperature over and over again shows how disingenuous you are.

Your example is misleading and dishonest or shows a poor understanding of physics. And is the reason why people should not trust you.

At least quan has the balls to argue in a BZ, that means he is willing to back up what he says. You are not, which shows complete dishonesty. Which is what I don't like.

Edit. Edited a few items which I stated incorrectly.

Waste of post.

Kinetic energy = 1/2mass x velocity ^2
The key is mass.
Temperature is about the kinetic energy in small units of mass (averaged out). To get total energy you would need the entire mass of that something.

The energy Thor experienced was in the form of thermal energy and radiation.
Its all about how hot it was and how much radiation Thor took.

Originally posted by h1a8
Waste of post.

Kinetic energy = 1/2mass x velocity ^2
The key is mass.
Temperature is about the kinetic energy in small units of mass (averaged out). To get total energy you would need the entire mass of that something.

The energy Thor experienced was in the form of thermal energy and radiation.
Its all about how hot it was and how much radiation Thor took.

Any discussion with you is a waste of a post.

We are talking about heat transfer not the total energy of a heat source. Stop being stupid.

And the science guy gave that calculation. And it was in the magnitude of several thousand times more than a nuclear bomb.

I do like how h1 is proving to the entire board that his knowledge of science and physics is on par with a 3rd grader.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Any discussion with you is a waste of a post.

We are talking about heat transfer not the total energy of a heat source. Stop being stupid.

And the science guy that calculation. And it was in the magnitude of several thousand times more than a nuclear bomb.

Heat transfer equates to change in temperature.
Basic chemistry.

Faster molecules (hotter) collide with slower ones (colder) to increase their momentum. So the faster ones become slower and the slower ones become faster.

The law of conservation of momentum prevents something from getting hotter than its medium only from getting heated by the medium.

Temperature derives energy of a star.
The science guy calculates the energy FROM THE TEMPERATURE.

Originally posted by h1a8
Heat transfer equates to change in temperature.
Basic chemistry.

Faster molecules (hotter) collide with slower ones (colder) to increase their momentum. So the faster ones become slower and the slower ones become faster.

The law of conservation of momentum prevents something from getting hotter than its medium only from getting heated by the medium.

Temperature derives energy of a star.
The science guy calculates the energy FROM THE TEMPERATURE.

facepalm

Lol. Nice attempt at trying to change your argument. Funny thing is, we're not really falling for it.

Yes, heat transfer IS the change in average heat energy per unit mass (aka temperature) from the hotter source to the colder recipient. Duh.

Yes, you do not get hotter than the medium when getting heated by said medium. Another duh.

And yes, the science guy did extract temperature (average heat energy per unit mass) as part of the calculation for luminosity. Duh. It's in the equation he showed.

But that's not what you have been arguing/implying, is it? This is what you do, once pushed into a corner you try to deceive by making it seem like your argument was something else entirely. Just another h1 tactic.

You were arguing/implying that the temperature of the heat source matters more than heat energy transferred in a debate about durability. You have done this constantly in previous debates and it looks like you refuse to change your methods as it allows you to lowball the "feats" you don't like and exaggerate the "feats" you like to less informed posters.

This is wrong and this is misleading. It is the amount heat energy transferred (and thus causing a change in temperature of the immediate affected area) from the source to the recipient that "causes the damage" (as you so put it). This is affected factors such as speed of heat energy transfer (heat energy transferred per unit time), method of transfer (and thus efficiency of transfer), amount of time said energy is being transferred, area of transfer, etc. Which then amounts to the total heat energy transferred. Simply pointing out the temperature of a heat source is irrelevant as we also have to consider the above factors as they affect the overall heat energy transferred to such a degree that the range of variation could make the energy transferred equal the source medium (complete energy transfer with zero inefficiency) or to drop it to practically zero (method of energy transfer is completely inefficient).

"Durability" is then determined by how much of this a body is able to resist/survive/deflect.

Nice try though, but cheap tactics won't really do much for you here.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
facepalm

Lol. Nice attempt at trying to change your argument. Funny thing is, we're not really falling for it.

Yes, heat transfer IS the change in average heat energy per unit mass (aka temperature) from the hotter to colder. Duh.

Yes, you do not get hotter than the medium when getting heated by said medium. Another duh.

And yes, the science guy did extract temperature (average heat energy per unit mass) as part of the calculation for luminosity. Duh. It's in the equation he showed.

But that's not what you have been arguing/implying, is it? This is what you do, once pushed into a corner you try to deceive by making it seem like your argument was something else entirely. Just another h1 tactic.

You were arguing/implying that the temperature of the heat source matters more than heat energy transferred in a debate about durability. You have done this constantly in previous debates and it looks like you refuse to change your methods as it allows you to lowball the "feats" you don't like and exaggerate the "feats" you like to less informed posters.

This is wrong and this is misleading. It is the amount heat energy transferred (and thus causing a change in temperature of the immediate affected area) from the source to the recipient that "causes the damage" (as you so put it). This is affected factors such as speed of heat energy transfer (heat energy transferred per unit time), method of transfer (and thus efficiency of transfer), amount of time said energy is being transferred, area of transfer, etc. Which then amounts to the total heat energy transferred. Simply pointing out the temperature of a heat source is irrelevant as we also have to consider the above factors as they affect the overall heat energy transferred to such a degree that the range of variation could drop the energy transferred to equal the source medium (complete energy transfer with zero inefficiency) or to practically zero (method of energy transfer is completely inefficient).

"Durability" is then determined by how much of this a body is able to resist/survive/deflect.

Nice try though, but cheap tactics won't really do much for you here.

I been saying this all along. I haven't changed anything. Go back to any previous post and dissect it. Show me where I changed my argument.

Let's end it with this:

The energy creates the temperature. The more the energy then the hotter a star is. It took whatever energy you want to calculate to make the star that hot. Temperature is the end result.

Why isn't the statement, "Thor resisting being burned to death after coming in contact with something of a certain mass and with a certain temperature" is just as valid?

Durability isn't a catch all phrase. There are different types of durability. Resistance to heat, electricity, blunt force, piercing, etc. Just like I can't say one human is stronger than another if one is stronger at bench pressing and the other is stronger at squatting.
Thor's feat has nothing to do with most of the forum fights he will be in.
Blunt force durability is the most important since most forum fights depend on it. That's why I gave my opinion.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
My Superman wanking? Are you high?


He still had the Kryptonite scar on his face all the way until the Sun healed him. I know you cant get that because in your mind street levellers like Batman and Khan can take him.

But try to join reality once in a while

Shit, actually reminds me of that meh-sauce Superman Returns.

Superman lifting an island on his shoulders was both a strength and durability feat, as the full weight of said island would have been bearing down on his body why he exerted the flight-force required to counter that and gravity. He also had the island actively weakening him due to it being made in part of k-nite and iirc, he still had a k-nite shard in his body weakening him as well.

double post

Originally posted by h1a8
1) I been saying this all along. I haven't changed anything. Go back to any previous post and dissect it. Show me where I changed my argument.

2) Let's end it with this:

The energy creates the temperature. The more the energy then the hotter a star is. It took whatever energy you want to calculate to make the star that hot. Temperature is the end result.

3) Why isn't the statement, "Thor resisting being burned to death after coming in contact with something of a certain mass and with a certain temperature" is just as valid?

4) Durability isn't a catch all phrase. There are different types of durability. Resistance to heat, electricity, blunt force, piercing, etc. Just like I can't say one human is stronger than another if one is stronger at bench pressing and the other is stronger at squatting.
Thor's feat has nothing to do with most of the forum fights he will be in.
Blunt force durability is the most important since most forum fights depend on it. That's why I gave my opinion.

1) I don't have to convince you of your multiple flipflops or logical errors. I just have to show everyone. With that:

To anyone that doubts my words on h1's stance on the temp vs heat energy vs durability vs whatever else and his poor understanding of heat energy/temp (that has since changed hopefully), I refer you to this thread. I was going to quote it but there is just so much to quote, I couldn't pick or be bothered with putting them all here. Pls simply read this:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=652396&pagenumber=50

Here's one lovely poop nugget from that goldmine:

Originally posted by h1a8
It takes heat energy comparable to a star to be able to melt steel that fast.

2) I will not disagree with this as I don't see anything wrong with that. But I will stress again that this is about energy transfer.

3) Because it forgets to mention other factors such as rate of transfer or total energy transferred, w/c are just as relevant/more relevant to debates about durability.

4) And I already said, you're in the wrong forum to b!tch about all this when the OP specifically gave this "feat" as a benchmark and the thread was about magnitudes.

All this arguing over physics and melting points blah blah blah - let's just remember Thor and Superman take these incredible energy attacks and their clothes (plus cape) don't get vaporized. It's willful suspension of disbelief, it's fantasy, it's magic, it's comics logic...let's not overdue the analysis.

Originally posted by roughrider
All this arguing over physics and melting points blah blah blah - let's just remember Thor and Superman take these incredible energy attacks and their clothes (plus cape) don't get vaporized. It's willful suspension of disbelief, it's fantasy, it's magic, it's comics logic...let's not overdue the analysis.

At least Thor's costume (and the rest of the MCU costumes) at least get dirtied and blemished.

Superman's (and the rest of the DCEU's) normally withstand all types of attacks without getting even a little blemish on them. Heck, his hairdo never even gets messed up.

The analysis comes into play because h1 tried to use real world physics to downplay Thor's feat, so that he could claim Superman's feats were better.

Problem is, h1 is so bad at science/physics that he didn't realize that analyzing the feat would just make Thor look that much better. so he's trying to BS his way out of the hole he dug for himself.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) I don't have to convince you of your multiple flipflops or logical errors. I just have to show everyone. With that:

To anyone that doubts my words on h1's stance on the temp vs heat energy vs durability vs whatever else and his poor understanding of heat energy/temp (that has since changed hopefully), I refer you to this thread. I was going to quote it but there is just so much to quote, I couldn't pick or be bothered with putting them all here. Pls simply read this:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=652396&pagenumber=50

Here's one lovely poop nugget from that goldmine:



2) I will not disagree with this as I don't see anything wrong with that. But I will stress again that this is about energy transfer.

3) Because it forgets to mention other factors such as rate of transfer or total energy transferred, w/c are just as relevant/more relevant to debates about durability.

4) And I already said, you're in the wrong forum to b!tch about all this when the OP specifically gave this "feat" as a benchmark and the thread was about magnitudes.

Thor resisting being burned to death after coming in contact with something of a certain mass and with a certain temperature. That's the feat.

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor resisting being burned to death after coming in contact with something of a certain mass and with a certain temperature. That's the feat.

Lol. No. Thor resisted being burned after being blasted by the full force of a star's worth of energy. Writers >>>>>>>>>> you.

Because, while yes he did came into contact with something that has mass and has temperature, those variables alone do not properly express the magnitude of what Thor went thru.

The fact that you keep insisting on simply temperature (adding in mass of the source doesn't change much in your argument) just shows how desperate you are to try and lowball the "feat". Your bias just won't let you accept the truth that you'd do anything to downplay it.

Why so desperate h1? Can't accept a Marvel character being top dog in a thread?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Lol. No. Thor resisted being burned after being blasted by the full force of a star's worth of energy. Writers >>>>>>>>>> you.

Because, while yes he did came into contact with something that has mass and has temperature, those variables alone do not properly express the magnitude of what Thor went thru.

The fact that you keep insisting on simply temperature (adding in mass of the source doesn't change much in your argument) just shows how desperate you are to try and lowball the "feat". Your bias just won't let you accept the truth that you'd do anything to downplay it.

Why so desperate h1? Can't accept a Marvel character being top dog in a thread?


There was no great force action on Thor as he didn't accelerate a large amount after he let go, given his mass. We see the beam is hot and creates flames. We know that heat melts metal and that stars have heat (writers intent). We know that the star is emitting energy at over 90% of other parts of it's surface area (as it is still shining in all directions). Therefore, Etri used figurative language and meant the "full temperature of a star."

I provided significant evidence that Etri's statement is figurative. You must provide evidence that Etri's statement was meant to be literal.

H1 stop you are just a troll with no balls. Battlezone him if you have the stones.

Originally posted by h1a8
There was no great force action on Thor as he didn't accelerate a large amount after he let go, given his mass. We see the beam is hot and creates flames. We know that heat melts metal and that stars have heat (writers intent). We know that the star is emitting energy at over 90% of other parts of it's surface area (as it is still shining in all directions). Therefore, Etri used figurative language and meant the "full temperature of a star."

I provided significant evidence that Etri's statement is figurative. You must provide evidence that Etri's statement was meant to be literal.

None of what you posted proves that Eitri's was using figurative language in any capacity. This is all speculative and your attempt to shift burden of proof is laughably pathetic.

We know MCU must've touched you in your no-no place and anyone hyping MCU "feats" trigger you in your poophole, but jeez man, this is pitiful.

And the fact that you said, "this is all speculation" proves that you are not objective and are arguing from a bias standpoint. Why?
Because I stated facts not speculation.
Reread my post and show me where ALL of it is speculation.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You gave speculation, which no one needs to dignify with a response.

Writers >>>>> you.

Eitri said full force, we will take it as full force. Nothing needs be done beyond that.



Ok then wannabee, if you think these are "facts" I challenge you to a BZ.

Points to be argued:

Your stance: Eitri did not mean "full force of a star" he was only talking figuratively in the movie. And that you can prove it.

1 year ban for the loser.


Originally posted by h1a8
There was no great force action on Thor as he didn't accelerate a large amount after he let go, given his mass. We see the beam is hot and creates flames. We know that heat melts metal and that stars have heat (writers intent). We know that the star is emitting energy at over 90% of other parts of it's surface area (as it is still shining in all directions). Therefore, Etri used figurative language and meant the "full temperature of a star."

I provided significant evidence that Etri's statement is figurative. You must provide evidence that Etri's statement was meant to be literal.

Fact 1: There was no great force action on Thor as he didn't accelerate a large amount after he let go, given his mass.

Fact 2: We see the beam is hot and creates flames.

Fact 3: We know that heats melts metal and that stars have heat.

Fact 4: The star was emitting its energy in all other areas of its surface area (over 90% more area).

Where is the speculation at?
You claimed that ALL OF THESE FACTS are speculation.

This is overwhelming evidence (from facts) that Etri words were figurative.

Originally posted by h1a8
We see the beam is hot and creates flames. We know that heat melts metal and that stars have heat.


Are you claiming that radiation, x-rays, gravity, gamma Ray's, cosmic rays, magnetic forces, can be seen with the naked eye?
You keep saying over and over again that all that was shown was a beam of heat and flames.
Per writers intent, all the other forces came through as well besides just the heat. Anybody with basic knowledge of space and how things work out there would know that the other "forces" are not visible to the naked eye.
They tried to portray that feat as best they could. You know because nobody has ever traveled millions of light-years to get to a neutron star to film what happens when there is a contraption built around it that then it shoots a concentrated beam at someone and documented it.

That's like someone that has never seen a firearm before, watching somebody shoot another person, saying that the person with the gun killed the other person with sound coming from the gun because the other person could not see the bullet with the naked eye.

That's how you sound.

Originally posted by h1a8
(writers intent). We know that the star is emitting energy at over 90% of other parts of it's surface area (as it is still shining in all directions). Therefore, Etri used figurative language and meant the "full temperature of a star."

I provided significant evidence that Etri's statement is figurative. You must provide evidence that Etri's statement was meant to be literal.

There's no reason to guess, speculate, or give personal opinions on what the writers meant.
The movie tells you exactly what the writer's meant by that scene. By Eitris own words.

You are the one that's going against The writer's 100% intentions.
You're basically calling them wrong or you think they made a mistake and then you're throwing your own spin on the feat.

Originally posted by h1a8
Blahblahblah I'm ducking the battlezone challenge cuz I know everything I said is just me speculating.

Yup. Typical.

Originally posted by h1a8
Fact 1: There was no great force action on Thor as he didn't accelerate a large amount after he let go, given his mass.

Fact 2: We see the beam is hot and creates flames.

Fact 3: We know that heats melts metal and that stars have heat.

Fact 4: The star was emitting its energy in all other areas of its surface area (over 90% more area).

Where is the speculation at?
You claimed that ALL OF THESE FACTS are speculation.

This is overwhelming evidence (from facts) that Etri words were figurative.

It's a movie, they don't always show things 100% realistically.

I'm fairly sure I've offered to BZ him at least 20 different times, he always runs away.

Originally posted by Inhuman
Are you claiming that radiation, x-rays, gravity, gamma Ray's, cosmic rays, magnetic forces, can be seen with the naked eye?
You keep saying over and over again that all that was shown was a beam of heat and flames.
Per writers intent, all the other forces came through as well besides just the heat. Anybody with basic knowledge of space and how things work out there would know that the other "forces" are not visible to the naked eye.
They tried to portray that feat as best they could. You know because nobody has ever traveled millions of light-years to get to a neutron star to film what happens when there is a contraption built around it that then it shoots a concentrated beam at someone and documented it.

That's like someone that has never seen a firearm before, watching somebody shoot another person, saying that the person with the gun killed the other person with sound coming from the gun because the other person could not see the bullet with the naked eye.

That's how you sound.



There's no reason to guess, speculate, or give personal opinions on what the writers meant.
The movie tells you exactly what the writer's meant by that scene. By Eitris own words.

You are the one that's going against The writer's 100% intentions.
You're basically calling them wrong or you think they made a mistake and then you're throwing your own spin on the feat.

Thor could have gotten hit by some x-rays or he didn't. No biggie there.
Magnetic forces and gravity effects can be easily seen by them causing Thor to accelerate. You are just making stuff up that's not in the movie.

If there was a force then why didn't Thor accelerate greatly when he let go?

You act as if it's impossible for someone to speak figuratively.

The writers intentions are that Thor experienced the heat energy that came from the star., nothing more. The average person watching the film don't know about magnetic fields of neutron stars and all that other stuff. The movie is made for the average person. Metal needs heat to melt, stars have heat. The energy beam does not even touch the Stormbreaker metal. We see flames heating the metal container of the Stormbreaker metal. Duhh. Common sense. Stop adding stuff that don't exist in the movie.

Provide the quote from the movie or the writer which states that Thor only withstood the heat energy.

I so want to make a Harry Potter comment, in the spirit of James Gunn ...


Anyway, greatest durability, relative to their purported biology, would have to go to Rambo or John McClain ... If you scaled them up as super heroes, they'd be surviving Big Bangs to the face ...

Originally posted by janus77
I so want to make a Harry Potter comment, in the spirit of James Gunn ...


Anyway, greatest durability, relative to their purported biology, would have to go to Rambo or John McClain ... If you scaled them up as super heroes, they'd be surviving Big Bangs to the face ...
Umm Chev Chelios from Crank?

Originally posted by h1a8
The writers intentions are that Thor experienced the heat energy that came from the star., nothing more.

mmm




Dialog straight from the Avengers: Infinity War via IMDB:

"Eitri: You understand, boy, you're about to take the full force of a star. It'll kill you."

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4154756/quotes

Originally posted by h1a8


The writers intentions are that Thor experienced the heat energy that came from the star., nothing more.


Something I told Quan.

When you keep repeating the same nonesense argument which absolutely nobody else uses, and when you fail to convince even 1 person of your argument, then one of two things are happening:

1) Either you are Purposefully Trolling, or

2) Your arguments are Trash tier.


Either option makes it clear your argument is not even worth responding to.

Originally posted by Inhuman
mmm




Dialog straight from the Avengers: Infinity War via IMDB:

"Eitri: You understand, boy, you're about to take the full force of a star. It'll kill you."

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4154756/quotes

Figurative language as proven in an earlier post. Do you want to see the evidence again?

Originally posted by h1a8
Figurative language as proven in an earlier post. Do you want to see the evidence again?

What evidence? You mean your opinion? You haven't proven anything.
Common sense is the movie telling the audience exactly what is going to happen in the Thor scene.

No need to throw your own spin on it other than what the writers already told us what was going to happen. Not figuratively but exactly what they wanted to happen in that scene.

You don't like it, then write an email to the Russo brothers. Let's see if they like you twisting and changing their intentions on the movie they made.

Originally posted by Inhuman
What evidence? You mean your opinion? You haven't proven anything.
Common sense is the movie telling the audience exactly what is going to happen in the Thor scene.

No need to throw your own spin on it other than what the writers already told us what was going to happen. Not figuratively but exactly what they wanted to happen in that scene.

You don't like it, then write an email to the Russo brothers. Let's see if they like you twisting and changing their intentions on the movie they made.

I gave facts. Remember in 1st grade where we learned the difference between fact and opinion?

Originally posted by h1a8
Fact 1: There was no great force action on Thor as he didn't accelerate a large amount after he let go, given his mass.

Fact 2: We see the beam is hot and creates flames.

Fact 3: We know that heats melts metal and that stars have heat.

Fact 4: The star was emitting its energy in all other areas of its surface area (over 90% more area).

This is overwhelming evidence (from facts) that Etri words were figurative.

You would be an idiot for thinking Etri wasnt using figurative language.
Everyone who saw the scene initially thought HEAT. Rage came weeks later and made up some shit and everyone then followed. This wasnt your or anyone’s here original idea. So how can it be writers intentions for Etri words to be literal?

Provide the quote from the movie or the writer which states that Thor only withstood the heat energy.

IOW, you lied about the writer's intention.

If you cant provide the quote from the movie or the writer which states that Thor only withstood the heat energy, That means at best you're just guessing. thus you insisting your opinion is fact makes you a liar.