As you can see from the scans, it wasn't a natural black hole. It was a bomb that simulated a micro black hole in close proximity to Thanos' ship for thirty seconds tearing the ship apart.
We know that it was nowhere near as powerful as an actual black hole since pieces of Thanos' ship were still around even after being sucked in.
As for interpreting Adam Warlock's narration "The artificial singularity instantly and irresistibly drew everything within a two light-years radius into its merciless grasp," to mean that the Schwarzschild radius was two light-years is stupid.
Especially since it was confirmed to emulate a micro black hole, and it shouldn't take more than a few Google searches to find out that the super-massive black hole in the center of our galaxy is 1.41ᴇ-6 light-years across and the largest and the largest black hole in the universe is estimated to be around 2.11ᴇ-6 light-years across.
In other words the "micro black hole" would have a radius a million times greater than super-massive black holes.
__________________
As for the formula...
What he does is that he uses the formula for calculating the Schwarzschild radius which can only derived from the unique solution of Einstein's Field Equations in a vacuum to which is given by the Schwarzschild metric:
ds² = - (1-2GMr⁻¹)dt² + (1-2GMr⁻¹)⁻¹dr² + r²dΩ² : with c = 1
Note that something interesting is happens when r = 2GM, and we can show that r = 2GM happens to be the boundary of the causal part of the future null infinity, which is the event horizon. The problem of course is that you can't deduce anything by inverting the formula.
In other words, this is one of those instances when the ends don't justify the means. Just because you get a result from laws that aren't supposed hold in that situation, doesn't mean that the laws can be used there.
__________________
But just glossing over the numbers, I see that Mike can't even plug in his numbers into a calculator, and I'm not going to bother to reduce this to significant digits.
G = 6.673ᴇ-11 [m²kg⁻²]
r = 1.89210568ᴇ16 [m]
c² = 1.700539779ᴇ33 [m²t⁻²]
M = rc²/G
(please log in to view the image)
And not ...
(please log in to view the image)
See the highlighted.
Last edited by Astner on May 8th, 2015 at 11:37 PM
He's wrong about Thanos always using tech, though. He didn't seem to use any against Odin.. That was straight up durability, and with Odin believing his son Thor was kidnapped or worse..
__________________ What CDTM believes;
Never let anyone else define you. Don't be a jerk just to be a jerk, but if you are expressing your true inner feelings and beliefs, or at least trying to express that inner child, and everyone gets pissed off about it, never NEVER apologize for it. Let them think what they want, let them define you in their narrow little minds while they suppress every last piece of them just to keep a friend that never liked them for themselves in the first place.
The numbers were improperly plugged into the calculator.
As for uberhikari's points, they primarily extend on point 2 but also addresses the fact that even if it had validity it would not be a consistent portrayal of Thanos's abilities.
High end feats don't represent a consistent portrayal, by definition.
But most boards do go by optimum portrayals.
__________________ What CDTM believes;
Never let anyone else define you. Don't be a jerk just to be a jerk, but if you are expressing your true inner feelings and beliefs, or at least trying to express that inner child, and everyone gets pissed off about it, never NEVER apologize for it. Let them think what they want, let them define you in their narrow little minds while they suppress every last piece of them just to keep a friend that never liked them for themselves in the first place.
"Even as we speak, the fleet is directing its entire arsenal at the world, sparkling a massive chain reaction within its depths," was what killed Omega.
The thing is Thanos surviving a black hole is fully within the terms of the durability he has generally shown. Terrax, a low level herald, survived hiding in a black hole just fine. Does it makes sense in regards to Omega? Not at all, but then Omega was shown as inconsistent at best.
__________________
Last edited by Utrigita on May 10th, 2015 at 10:48 AM
Considering Terrax, Dazzler with an amp, Red Shift, Surfer have fought inside one without any real effort, I'd say the artificial black hole damaging Thanos - who is vastly more durable than any of them - probably says that the one he took was more powerful than a "real" one. Because comics.
Omega's death was definitely not inconsistent at the time. Since in the follow-up series, Thanos vol. 1, Galactus was almost killed by a planetary collision. Thanos even calculated Galactus' odds of survival to be 60%.
So it's very much in line with what was established in the Infinity Abyss.
The problem with this is that those stories have no connection to Thanos' portrayal in the Infinity Abyss while Omega's death did.
You can't cherry-pick instances throughout comic history to justify an interpretation of a feat when that interpretation is contradicted by the very comic series it is featured in.
And Thanos is regularly knocked out by far less. The Maker—while depowered and vulnerable—knocked Thanos out with an area of effect blast covering a city block.
Look at the artist rendering of Thanos just at the page before. Thanos' attire wasn't as much as scratched when Adam Warlock found his corpse in space. Unlike, say, his first encounter with the Maker.
Omega had feasted on three planets before encountering Thanos, and struggled to initially get through one of Thanos forcefields, while Omega supposedly was operating at two times the strength of Galactus... On the other hand we have Galactus while weakened, blasting his way through all of Thanos shields... Then we have the screen with the two colliding planets, you're the math expert here, but I highly doubt that the force of two planets colliding (which was loaded with nuclear weapons and so on but nvm), or a exploding planet for that matter, exceeds the power of a supernova, which Galactus btw tanked without any problems a few issues prior.
__________________
Last edited by Utrigita on May 12th, 2015 at 07:52 PM
So we go back to what the two planets colliding was. And Thanos, in your scans attributed not wanting to be there due to the nuclear devices, not the planets colliding.
And considering he tanked these sorts of bombs that took out Galactus' ships, we should be able to firmly conclude that the sizable nuclear device was more powerful: http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums.../Thanos/16t.jpg
I'd post follow up scans but it's not needed. Bombs take down Galactus' ship that's more durable than planets, and there's wreckage everywhere to indicate the damage happened right by Thanos.
So really, you limit that to planetary when everything indicates that it was more.
But that's not all. Your basic logic here is that a being twice as powerful as Galactus being killed by a planet makes sense because Galactus got damaged by two planets blowing up on him?
How does that mesh together at all in your opinion? How does that make it sound right? If anything that would conflict with the claims of Omega's superiority. The being twice as weak as Omega who was farther weakened in a fight takes something twice as powerful as Omega and isn't KO'ed let alone killed and this should back up Omega as making sense? No
But more context is needed. It was stated that the planet is highly explosive, which should basically be enough to say that it doesn't conflict with anything considering the planet was plot devicey enough to kill a being of this magnitude. That doesn't speak of others, that just speaks of Omega.
Not to mention Omega was only ever stated to be twice as powerful as Galactus when he was on his ship. And from the wording it seemed as though Omega would be in the process of trying to absorb the energy but not have the resources. Which would indicate he's letting it into his body without the ability to control it.
Plus an entire armada is blasting into the core of the explosive planet and their energy has to go somewhere.
There's enough factors to make it different.
With that being said, you're trying to take away from Thanos' feat by using a completely different character from the same story. And considering there's no relation between Infinity Abyss and the Thanos mini, you've opened the gates to just include Starlin. So, with Starlin in mind, let's take a look at Thanos' first real appearance in comics. http://static.comicvine.com/uploads...76437-28577.jpg http://static.comicvine.com/uploads...49941-29701.jpg
When his first actual appearance in comics is of him tanking a planet blowing up that destroyed either moons or planets nearby, I don't think you can use the excuse of someone else dying from a planet to try and degrade his feats, even in context.
But if you don't believe the context makes up for the feat, or at the very least lazily explains it enough to make it semi acceptable, then what do you think is more plausible going by history:
Thanos being able to survive the event horizon of an every day black hole
Or
A being twice as powerful as Galactus being killed by an everyday planet explosion
Because from that point of view that you seem to be arguing, it seems you'd be using the less logical showing to try and diminish the more logical one according to history. I think Marvel has shown enough that black holes and planet explosions are more than survivable... by the same level beings.
A wholly illogical scene just because it occurred under the same writer doesn't overwrite a logical one.
Adam Warlock uses actual black holes to traverse the universe under Starlin. You can call it a wormhole if you like to lessen the effect, but the fact remains that it is a literal black hole there.
Which brings me to my point. Thanos is the most durable character to my recollection that has been damaged by a black hole. If we consider your argument that Thanos didn't even enter the black hole, it means he was damaged with less exposure than the other characters had. So, either we use other feats to say Thanos could survive a real one. Or we use that one to end up in some sort of weird paradox that puts Thanos as less durable than Terrax.
However, add in the fact that the black hole was so powerful it sucked in everything within 2 light years within 30 seconds save the small debris field we presume Thanos was around and it would make sense. It was simply a vastly stronger black hole. That's it. Even under Starlin vastly vastly weaker characters have taken them. Normal black holes should be nothing to these characters as shown in comics. And normal black holes don't suck up everything within two light years within 30 seconds.
As for the debris field. If we assume Thanos didn't enter the black hole, then we would assume that whatever force Thanos was exerting to keep himself away extended to his immediate vicinity. Pretty simple really.
Plus Sanctuary is no ***** either. The black hole ripped his ship to shreds.
Also, Thanos is not regularly knocked out by less. Thanos has been KO'ed three times in comics. Once by Maker. Once by Squirrel Girl. And once by the Cosmic Cube being destroyed by Mar-Vell, which was more a result of his body not knowing what to do considering he made himself into a godlike being as opposed to flesh.
He's taken Galactus, Omega, Odin, Tyrant, planets blowing up, random "most powerful minerals in the universe", cosmic cubes, power gems, Infinity Gauntlets, and other sorts of things without being KO'ed. Simply showing a rare occasion where he is doesn't speak of a lack on his part, but rather the ability of the opposition.
He got surprised and KO'ed. That's not regular stuff for him.
The reason I chose to use that scan is because of one of your screenpics saying something about him not being able to withstand a galaxy exploding blast, and I figured you stood by it, so I linked it. That's not to say collateral damage is the be all end all, it's just what happened.
But your issues with it are in the same vein as "Superman's cape wasn't singed, it must have been the limpest dick attack I've ever seen" while Superman is on the floor seizing up and drooling. Clothes get destroyed. Clothes don't get destroyed. That's not a measure of attack.
And considering Thanos' clothes were cloth like at the time, that's even less so. You can't go around expecting every attack to end in nudity to show the power being displayed. Comics would just be flopping penises all the time.
All that matters is his body was undamaged when he had a gaping wide hole in him at the time while he was dead. Accurate, yes or no? And if Thanos' body isn't being damaged in the least, then there's an unlikely chance he's actually getting ko'ed, or worse killed.
Naturally your eyes should focus in on his cape being destroyed there.
What all of this means is that Thanos should be able to more than survive a normal black hole. Even following the "Only counts under the same writer" rule.
You're right. But as you can see, Galactus carefully planned and set up this event. Even Thanos pointed out that "there is some serious science at work here," and there are no hints or indications of that Galactus tanked it.
By replying "Especially seeing how I placed a sizable nuclear arsenal at old Rigel-3's point of impact."
The Hunger and Galactus didn't know of them they replied "no!" and "Titan, what have you done," respectively. So clearly they were frightened of the effects the mere collision of the planets would have on them.
Look at the scan you posted. If Galactus' ship was more durable than planets, then how come explosives that "could take out half a planet,"—which according to the effects we see next page might well be hyperbole on Pip's part—took it out the very next page?
but no. Nothing indicates that this was beyond planetary. Just because the Hunger feeds on realities doesn't mean that he has to be particularly durable.
It was a planetary explosion with no hints of it being anything greater than it was.
There is no mention of Omega's ship. Genis-Vell asks "How powerful is Omega?" and Thanos replies "Probably twice as powerful as Galactus."
That's all there is to it.
Keep in mind that this was also Thanos' strategy against Galactus in the Thanos series we've been discussing; destroy the ship and blow up the planet, which proved to be very effective every time.
The armada did not blow up the planet. What the armada did was "sparking a massive chain reaction within its (the planet's) depths," which then lead to the destruction of the planet.
But even if the armada blew up the planet, it's still the destruction of a planet! You don't get to make claims like 'it was probably a condensed galaxy-buster,' unless you have a basis for that claim.
I'm not making the argument that Thanos shouldn't be able to survive a planetary explosion, especially battle-ready with his shields up.
And I'll admit that the scenes of Omega and Galactus dying and barely surviving, respectively, are low end-portrayals and should not be used as arguments against Galactus' durability in versus forums.
The argument I'm making is that it makes no sense to interpret the scene from the Infinity Abyss in the way that Thanos survived a black hole based on the execution of the scene as well as the context of the story.
In fact. There is another scene, in Infinity Abyss, where Thanos only survives one of Omega's assaults that went through all three of his shields and his armor despite the fact that the size of the crater is about the size of a house.
He set up the whole event in regards to tapping into the core of the planet in order to make the sun go nova to retrive the Infinite Gem. The serious science is obvious a reference to Thanos not having the faintest idea on what is going on. And we have Galactus on panel standing in the middle of the exploding star. That is really all the proof needed. But by all means find a statement of Galactus using a shield or some sorts in there.
__________________
Last edited by Utrigita on May 14th, 2015 at 11:33 AM
Without proper examination of the scenes and the characters in them? Of course it is.
You can use whatever stories you want, by whatever writers you want when you are explaining a character's abilities. But you are not allowed to determine what is and isn't consistent within the story from completely unrelated stories.
That's why I used the Thanos series as a reference, because it had direct ties to the Infinity Abyss.
Like with the Galactus scene there is no indication of that Adam Warlock had to "endure" gravitational forces of the black hole. And the, the second scan specifies that it was hyper-space travel, which is accessible by pretty much every intergalactic spaceship in Marvel. Prime example, Annihilus' battle ships, which clearly weren't particularly durable.
No one in Marvel, to my knowledge, has every endured the effect of a black hole... save for Thanos enduring the artificial micro black hole in the Infinity Abyss, and even that was off panel.
I've not read the comic. But from what I've seen, there were no signs of Terrax enduring the black hole, so there is no reason to take it as a durability feat for Terrax. Especially since Terrax has been up by much less.
You mean the debris that was his ship. The debris should indicate the kind of damage Thanos actually took, it was enough to tear up his ship but not disintegrate it as suggested by Adam Warlock's narration.
A black hole doesn't rip, it tears matter apart atom by atom in a process referred to as spaghettification. But once again, your interpretation is contradicting the story, because you assume that Thanos and his ship, was infinitely more durable Omega and his ship.
The Fallen One is knocked out by being close to a planetary explosion—and Thanos is surprised that the Fallen One survived—with Thanos being even further way. What is this supposed to prove?
It doesn't matter that she was once "the most powerful in the known universe." Because Thanos points out that she had made herself vulnerable and mortal.
Sure, but unless you can prove that those instances featured blasts that would destroy solar system (or whatever you're arguing for) it's doesn't matter.
You'd know, wouldn't you.
As I've showed with the scan preceding it, there is nothing that hints on Thanos' corpse was being exposed to any destructive energies. You were either ignorant or dishonest by presenting it the way you did.
Except that Superman's suit and cape has been explained to be durable, Thanos' robes—that were even ripped by bullets/energy rays—doesn't have that.
Now does that mean that every powerful attack has to disintegrate the clothes of the target? No. But when you are arguing for durability you better be able to present evidence that suggests that Thanos' tanked the bulk of the blast.
No. There also needs to be evidence of that Thanos tanked the bulk of the blast, of which there is none.
Furthermore, this is actually a reference to Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 2 #18-24 (which I haven't read) so it's poor evidence to begin with.
As I pointed out, I've not kept up with Guardians of the Galaxy so I don't know what happened to Thanos' corpse after he died.
No. Not withing the context of the story, or any story that I'm aware of.
KMC Community Forums
Faux-physics at its finest. 
May 8th, 2015 09:28 PM
