Originally posted by Robtard
Occam's Razor supports the steel beam. It looks like a massive steel beam and it took a super-powered being great strain to lift it. ergo, it's a steel beam and not this "100lbs future material".I also reject your helicarrier "could not fly" theory. It is powered and lifted by fictional power units, so they don't have to conform to physics.
Plus if it was a super light weight metal, the Winter Solider wouldn't have been trapped in the first place.
Originally posted by Robtard
Occam's Razor supports the steel beam.
You are having a "logic-fail" moment. It will pass.
"Since, by necessity, Hellacarriers would literally not be able to fly unless their support structures were largely ultra-super light and super strong materials, you need to prove a whole bunch of things, first, before we can start to believe they aren't just 100lbs orthogonally bonded graphene support structures."
Originally posted by Robtard
It looks like a massive steel beam and it took a super-powered being great strain to lift it. ergo, it's a steel beam and not this "100lbs future material".
Originally posted by Robtard
I also reject your helicarrier "could not fly" theory. It is powered and lifted by fictional power units, so they don't have to conform to physics.
Here's your problem. You do not understand that it's flight is powered by turbines. Massive, giant, fans. It isn't a future anti-grav tech. It's fans.
http://www.wired.com/2012/07/could-s-h-i-e-l-d-helicarrier-fly/
For your reference, this is actually how large the original helacarrier's turbines would have needed to be to be able to allow it to hover around sea-level (it gets worse the higher in the atmosphere you go because of the density of air):
That image is an underestaimte by almost half, by the way. That means the rotors would be far larger than that.
But, keep in mind, you believe it is made out of regular materials...lulz
But this same author thinks the new helacarriers are much more realistic but still has problems with how much fuel would be required.
It becomes far easier to believe that utlra-light and super-strong materials are used to create the skeletons of these carriers than it does to believe they are using industrial steel. This is where you should be using occam's razor:
"Is this flying craft made out of regular steel, causing the carrier's mode of thrust to have to put out so much thrust that it would sheer the steel apart like it was butter....OR is this flying craft made out of future materials that are very strong and very light?"
Since this is a fictional universe where such materials do exist, holograms are how people have business meetings, tesseracts exist, magical hammers exist, imaginary elements exist (Iron-man's power source), imaginary power sources exist (arc reactor), and full-blown AI (Jarvis) exists, occam's razor says you should go with the obvious and simplest answer: it is probably a superlight material. No need to create absurd logical issues which have turbines that must create so much force that they would sheer through large amounts of still with little issue.
You should note that it doesn't even look like steel...probably because they intended it to be something other than steel due to the whining the geeks made about the previous helacarrier.
But, if you want, provide a source that says the new helacarrier's support structures are made out of industrial steel, I'll concede the point. Until then, I'll stick with reality.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You are having a "logic-fail" moment. It will pass."Since, by necessity, Hellacarriers would literally not be able to fly unless their support structures were largely ultra-super light and super strong materials, you need to prove a whole bunch of things, first, before we can start to believe they aren't just 100lbs orthogonally bonded graphene support structures."
Here's your problem. You do not understand that it's flight is powered by turbines. Massive, giant, fans. It isn't a future anti-grav tech. It's fans.
http://www.wired.com/2012/07/could-s-h-i-e-l-d-helicarrier-fly/
For your reference, this is actually how large the original helacarrier's turbines would have needed to be to be able to allow it to hover around sea-level (it gets worse the higher in the atmosphere you go because of the density of air):
That image is an underestaimte by almost half, by the way. That means the rotors would be far larger than that.
But, keep in mind, you believe it is made out of regular materials...lulz
But this same author thinks the new helacarriers are much more realistic but still has problems with how much fuel would be required.
It becomes far easier to believe that utlra-light and super-strong materials are used to create the skeletons of these carriers than it does to believe they are using industrial steel. This is where you should be using occam's razor:
"Is this flying craft made out of regular steel, causing the carrier's mode of thrust to have to put out so much thrust that it would sheer the steel apart like it was butter....OR is this flying craft made out of future materials that are very strong and very light?"
Since this is a fictional universe where such materials do exist, holograms are how people have business meetings, tesseracts exist, magical hammers exist, imaginary elements exist (Iron-man's power source), imaginary power sources exist (arc reactor), and full-blown AI (Jarvis) exists, occam's razor says you should go with the obvious and simplest answer: it is probably a superlight material. No need to create absurd logical issues which have turbines that must create so much force that they would sheer through large amounts of still with little issue.
You should note that it doesn't even look like steel...probably because they intended it to be something other than steel due to the whining the geeks made about the previous helacarrier.
But, if you want, provide a source that says the new helacarrier's support structures are made out of industrial steel, I'll concede the point. Until then, I'll stick with reality.
I believe it is you who might be having the fail moment.
Those new helicarriers are not powered by "turbines" as in Avengers, they're powered by new fictional "repulsor" Stark engines that put out a fictional amount of thrust. That was a plot point, the helicarriers never needing to land due to the new engines.
I hope this clears of your confusion and settles the issue that Cap America lifted an extreme amount of weight to the point that even a being of his power-level strained.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Plus if it was a super light weight metal, the Winter Solider wouldn't have been trapped in the first place.
That's poor logic for several reasons:
1. His arms were pinned. Unless he can do some serious sit-ups, he's not getting out unless someone takes it off of him.
2. His was hurt.
3. His strong arm was also pinned.
4. He probably had some head trauma (from multiple sources including the experiments). He seemed rather out of it.
5. Bucky was not a super soldier. They tried their best, alright, but he was not a super soldier.
Originally posted by Robtard
I believe it is you who might be having the fail moment.Those new helicarriers are not powered by "turbines" as in Avengers, they're powered by new fictional Stark engines that put out a fictional amount of thrust.
Why would you using my own points make me magically wrong?
You glossed over the information that says those engines were "turbines", I think. Jet engines. Also, you missed the part about fictional levels of thrust, too.
But, I believe you just conceded the point (you probably didn't mean to): they are using future tech. So are you on-board with the ulra-light and ultra-strong materials made by Herr Stark?
Originally posted by Robtard
I hope this clears of your confusion and settles the issue that Cap America lifted an extreme amount of weight to the point that even a being of his power-level strained.
Not so fast. You cannot concede the entire point (accidentally) and then still claim your original point is still correct. 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why would you using my own points make me magically wrong?You glossed over the information that says those engines were "turbines", I think. Jet engines. Also, you missed the part about fictional levels of thrust, too.
But, I believe you just conceded the point (you probably didn't mean to): they are using future tech. So are you on-board with the ulra-light and ultra-strong materials made by Herr Stark?
Not so fast. You cannot concede the entire point (accidentally) and then still claim your original point is still correct. 🙂
Again, the helicarrier in question is not powered by "turbines", it is powered by a fictional "repulsor" engines which are not bound by the laws of physics since being fictional it can put out whatever the amount of thrust is needed to lift.
Doing a "you concede" is lame. So stop, k.
I hope this ends the "turbine" nonsense.
Originally posted by Robtard
Again, the helicarrier in question is not powered by "turbines", it is powered by a fictional "repulsor" engines
Incorrect. It is powered by blades that spin and create thrust. It strongly resembles a jet engine.
Even if the spinning blades and the after-burner jet stuff underneath does not make it like a jet engine, you're still avoiding the actual problem with your argument: the new helacarriers are much larger than the original one and would require even more force...which is impossible because steel cannot withstand those forces.
Notice how you tried to avoid the point, altogether, by pretending this discussion was whether or not the new helacarriers used fans or jet engines to generate thrust? Notice how that also has nothing to do with the actual point we were discussing?
Here's a napkin, your eye is bleeding:
Originally posted by Robtard
Doing a "you concede" is lame. So stop, k.I hope this ends the "turbine" nonsense.
It doesn't. Change the words to whatever you like to pretend to be right: still doesn't get rid of the entire reason we were talking about that, to begin with. 😄 Here, check it out: "Here's your problem. You do not understand that it's flight is powered by whoseits. Is this flying craft made out of regular steel, causing the carrier's mode of thrust (via whoseits) to have to put out so much thrust that it would sheer the steel apart like it was butter....OR is this flying craft made out of future materials that are very strong and very light?"
You conceded. Just be a bit more graceful about it. Don't pretend this is about a word game over the word "turbine." *pats Robards head*
Originally posted by dadudemon
Incorrect. It is powered by blades that spin and create thrust. It strongly resembles a jet engine.Even if the spinning blades and the after-burner jet stuff underneath does not make it like a jet engine, you're still avoiding the actual problem with your argument: the new helacarriers are much larger than the original one and would require even more force...which is impossible because steel cannot withstand those forces.
Notice how you tried to avoid the point, altogether, by pretending this discussion was whether or not the new helacarriers used fans or jet engines to generate thrust? Notice how that also has nothing to do with the actual point we were discussing?
Here's a napkin, your eye is bleeding:
It doesn't. Change the words to whatever you like to pretend to be right: still doesn't get rid of the entire reason we were talking about that, to begin with. 😄 Here, check it out: "Here's your problem. You do not understand that it's flight is powered by whoseits. Is this flying craft made out of regular steel, causing the carrier's mode of thrust (via whoseits) to have to put out so much thrust that it would sheer the steel apart like it was butter....OR is this flying craft made out of future materials that are very strong and very light?"
You conceded. Just be a bit more graceful about it. Don't pretend this is about a word game over the word "turbine." *pats Robards head*
Didn't read past your first sentence since your premise is still incorrect and therefore the rest of what you'd be saying would be wrong. But you're already too invested in your incorrectness to admit it, so here you go:
"The Helicarriers created under Project Insight were next-gen and more advanced than the original. They were more heavily armed with long range dorsal and ventral guns and cannons and have repulsor-powered engines instead of the old turbine-powered engines. Fury commented that this was done due to input from Stark who "was up close and personal" with the old engines." Link
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Didn't Eye Patch specifically state the engines where repulsors compliments of Tony Stark. Nothing else was mentioned as designed by him for the hellicarriers though.
Don't get caught up in Robtard's game. He's trying to shift the discussion to something to be right about instead of focusing on what we are talking about.
No matter what creates the thrust, the thrust would be ridiculously high. To the point that using any other support materials; besides something that doesn't exist in reality, yet; it makes it physical impossible. The support structures are most likely made out of future materials are are very strong and very light to make it sit within physics.
Captain America lifted up a material that was probably very strong but not absurdly heavy.
Lastly, Robtard glossed over the ibeam table I linked him and the points I made about the lift, itself. Even if Captain America lifted some industrial steel, it is not outside human strength.
The hellicarriers floated the same way that any aircraft carriers would displacing tons of water.
The ones in TWS that crashed were the same in every way cept they were powered by repulsors.
The upgraded ones in the second movie were stated never needing to come down from orbit thanks to Stark tech.
The turbine ones should not have been able to fly in any case but they did based off the movie stating they can. Thus the second generations could as well. The discussion on weight has no bearing, they weighed what they weighed and were extremely heavy and should not have been able to fly with either engine, however they did because thats how they wanted them to work.
Originally posted by Robtard
Didn't read past your first sentence since your premise is still incorrect and therefore the rest of what you'd eb sayiogn would be wrong, But you're already too invested in your incorrectness to admit it, so here you go:"The Helicarriers created under Project Insight were next-gen and more advanced than the original. They were more heavily armed with long range dorsal and ventral guns and cannons and have repulsor-powered engines instead of the old turbine-powered engines. Fury commented that this was done due to input from Stark who "was up close and personal" with the old engines." Link
It's a shame you didn't read the rest of the post because it points out why you're missing the point, entirely, if you think this is about "turbines vs. repulsors."
Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't get caught up in Robtard's game. He's trying to shift the discussion to something to be right about instead of focusing on what we are talking about.No matter what creates the thrust, the thrust would be ridiculously high. To the point that using any other support materials; besides something that doesn't exist in reality, yet; it makes it physical impossible. The support structures are most likely made out of future materials are are very strong and very light to make it sit within physics.
Captain America lifted up a material that was probably very strong but not absurdly heavy.
Lastly, Robtard glossed over the ibeam table I linked him and the points I made about the lift, itself. Even if Captain America lifted some industrial steel, it is not outside human strength.
The beam he lifted was extremely heavy man, there is no denying that.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The turbine ones should not have been able to fly in any case but they did based off the movie stating they can. Thus the second generations could as well. The discussion on weight has no bearing, they weighed what they weighed and were extremely heavy and should not have been able to fly with either engine, however they did because thats how they wanted them to work.
No one is disputing that they could not fly because they did. I'm simply stating that they could fly because they were made out of future-materials. Robtard is stating that they defy the laws of physics.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The beam he lifted was extremely heavy man, there is no denying that.
Yeah, at 20 feet long, the estimate is 800-ish pounds if it is made of steel. That's a ridiculously good deadlift...but humans can do better.
But Captain was shot to pieces. And the material is likely much lighter than steel. That does not take away from the feat, it's just not a good strength feat to showcase Captain's strength. Kicking a person 20 feet, however, is a good showcase of his super-human strength.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No one is disputing that they could not fly because they did. I'm simply stating that they could fly because they were made out of future-materials. Robtard is stating that they defy the laws of physics.
Its impossible to suggest that because nothing exists that is light and strong enough to hold the hellicarrier together under sustained flight. I don't see the point though, cause its just a movie, they don't have to explain why something fly's, they just make it fly.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, at 20 feet long, the estimate is 800-ish pounds if it is made of steel. That's a ridiculously good deadlift...but humans can do better.But Captain was shot to pieces. And the material is likely much lighter than steel. That does not take away from the feat, it's just not a good strength feat to showcase Captain's strength. Kicking a person 20 feet, however, is a good showcase of his super-human strength.
A deadlift with a bar at the gym is different, those lifts are made with a bar that is easy to grip, the weight is distributed properly and evenly. The weights at the gym are designed to be lifted.
Its like comparing Bane's deadlift and overhead press of Batman to weight you can lift at a gym. I could do the approximate weight that Bat's prolly weighed, but my gf weights 115 and I cant deadlift and press her over head. Cause its not the same.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Its impossible to suggest that because nothing exists that is light and strong enough to hold the hellicarrier together under sustained flight.
Orthogonally bonded graphene sheets would work. We just do not have the capability of producing that stuff in mass quantities much less bonding them like that. They are working on it, in real life, but they are not there.
Or vibranium. Or adamantium. Or the materials Thor's hammer is made out of.
Anything that is far stronger than steel works to help make this happen. Bonus if it is ultra-light: not as much mass required to get the desired strength if it is ultra-light, too.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
A deadlift with a bar at the gym is different, those lifts are made with a bar that is easy to grip, the weight is distributed properly and evenly. The weights at the gym are designed to be lifted.Its like comparing Bane's deadlift and overhead press of Batman to weight you can lift at a gym. I could do the approximate weight that Bat's prolly weighed, but my gf weights 115 and I cant deadlift and press her over head. Cause its not the same.
Its much worse than that. He didn't deadlift that support piece. He just barely picked it up and slid it. But he used similar muscles that would be involved in a deadlift. Additionally, it was easy to hold...nothing suggested it was unweidly. What, was it supposed to be slippery and I missed that?