Originally posted by CPT Space Bomb
It was a neutron star, as was stated in the movie and why it was small. Did you even watch the film?
I hope he does come back and claim that stars don't have energy. because I've been saving some info about energy given off from a real world neurtron star in the hopes that he'll make such a retarded claim. Instead of his usual mental gymnastics or claims of hyperbole.
Originally posted by h1a8.
Did you read my second sentence? This post is unnecessary if you did.I seen nowhere it being referred to as a neutron star.
Originally posted by h1a8
Stars emit mostly heat and radiation.
So what's the full force of a star? 10 tons of force, 100 fons?
Please quantify it.I never heard anywhere in the movie of it being called a neutron star.
When was this?And a neutron star, a white dwarf, and a newly formed black hole are DEAD STARS.
A dying star isn't dead yet. Once it dies it will become any of those 3 and not necessarily a neutron star.
Finally, if Etri meant energy (as force) then since heat is energy, ...
Watch the movie again.
Originally posted by Silent Master
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0220stardisk.htmlHere you go, a small explosion on a neutron star gave off more energy in 3 hours than the sun does in 100 years and the sun gives off energy equal to 9.192×1010 megatons of TNT per second.
-------------------------
10 or a 100 tons, LOL!!!!!!!!! I thought you were supposed to be smart.
Originally posted by h1a8
That doesn't prove FORCE.That refers to energy (heat and radiation).
And if you are referring to energy then clearly the star didn't exhaust ALL OF ITS ENERGY.Tons of force, not tons of TNT (energy). I thought you were smart.
And it was a dying star (not a neutron star
What are you even saying here bro?
What is your definition of force, and who taught it to you? You're coming off autistic tbh.
The most destructive events in the Universe such as gamma ray bursts, neutron Stars or black holes wouldn't have force by your definition.
Originally posted by Josh_AlexanderThe neutron star was encased in the sphere contraption to make it safe to work with. It was opened slightly and Thor was exposed to heat close to its surface for a couple of seconds. The surface of a neutron star is typically around 600,000 K (they start off stupid hot, but fall to no more than 1,000,000 K after a few years; the neutron star in IW was at least 1000 years though likely a fuk ton longer). This nearly killed Thor.
Okay, it has been stated that the star is a neutron one.Which is >>>>>>>> a nuke in all aspects.
So evidently, Thor>>>Superman durability wise.
Superman was in the dead center of a nuke. The center of a nuke is always between 27,778,033 K and 83,333,589 K, and Supes was there long enough for it to dissipate (so pretty damn long). This nearly killed Superman.
Thor's feat doesn't come close to Supes. It's between 1/28 and 1/83 as impressive. Their durability isn't even comparable (and honestly, neither is their strength or speed). Superman dwarves him in every way.
Originally posted by Silent MasterThat's a figure of speech and in no way quantifiable. It's like someone saying you're at the mercy of the full force of the suns rays if you don't use sunscreen. You're not.
The movie did not state Thor was only subjected to the surface heat of the star, it stated he would be subject to the full force of the star
You guys seem to be trying to take the word "force" literally in hopes of giving Thor an unearned feat and trying to attach some ridiculous number to it as opposed to referring to the neutron stars heat. If that were the deal, Thor wouldn't have just been sent soaring a few thousand feet into a metal beam after he went unconscious. He would have been flung across the solar system and it would have looked instantaneous onscreen. If you want to quantify the actual force he was subjected to, you only need to look at how far and fast he was flung and what it took to stop his flight in that vacuum. The answer is not much. Thors feat, while impressive, is not what you guys are claiming it is.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Prove that it was just a figure of speech
Originally posted by Arachnid1That part kind of does. We can visually see the force applied to him and its effect. Going strictly by "force" instead of "heat" actually makes the feat very unimpressive and does you guys no favors. Loki could survive the force applied there. Hell, Cap probably could.
If that were the deal, Thor wouldn't have just been sent soaring a few thousand feet into a metal beam after he went unconscious. He would have been flung across the solar system and it would have looked instantaneous on screen. If you want to quantify the actual force he was subjected to, you only need to look at how far and fast he was flung and what it took to stop his flight in that vacuum. The answer is not much. Thors feat, while impressive, is not what you guys are claiming it is.
Originally posted by Silent MasterAgain, that's not what I'm saying. I said a figure of speech cant be quantified. The effect of the force applied to Thor onscreen, on the other hand, can be quantified. That's nothing impressive.
You not being able to quantify something doesn't change what a movie characters words mean
TBH, I'm not even sure about that, but I'll entertain the idea. Even if Thor can take more than a couple hits from Supes, whats to stop Supes from outright blitzing him? We saw him attack Flash 7 times going the same speed as Barry (and he wasn't even winded), so we know he's capable of it. Keep in mind that everyone besides Superman and Flash, including WW who is an outright speedster, was a statue this scene. I'm having a hard time seeing Thor lasting more than a few seconds tops here.
Originally posted by Arachnid1
TBH, I'm not even sure about that, but I'll entertain the idea. Even if Thor can take more than a couple hits from Supes, whats to stop Supes from outright blitzing him? We saw him attack Flash 7 times going the same speed as Barry (and he wasn't even winded), so we know he's capable of it. Keep in mind that everyone besides Superman and Flash, including WW who is an outright speedster, was a statue this scene. I'm having a hard time seeing Thor lasting more than a few seconds tops here.
2 things. The first is physics. If Superman hits Thor with any punch strong enough to do damage at superspeed, that's going to launch Thor a few hundred meters away, which then means Superman needs to catch up to Thor again, hit him again, catch up to him, hit him, etc. The idea of Superman hitting Thor a hundred times in a nanosecond just doesn't fly in the face of physics, unless those punches are ridiculously weak such that they don't move Thor out of the way.
Of course, Superman could just hit Thor downards and smash him to the ground then ground and pound him, which brings me to my 2nd reason:
Thor's lightning cloak. At the end of Ragnarok we seem him coated in lightning that was immediately attacking everyone near him. If Superman bullrushed Thor, he'll probably send Thor flying from a punch but end up getting thrown back himself from an electric jolt. Every time Superman wants to lay a hand on Thor, he'll risk entering that electric field.
Hilarious!
When in one corner you have the Thor fans and in the other the Superman fans...result...biggest threads in KMC.
Either way, i believe we should all agree that the power/energy of a star is far above a nuke.
I believe if we are reasonable we should all agree on the following:
Thor:
-Has the durability factor
-Has the power factor
-Has the fighting skills/experience factor
Superman:
-Has the strength factor
-Has the speed factor
The way I see it, it would all depend on whether Superman can bring down Thor before Thor manages to give a decisive blow (which he can).
But can Superman do that? Considering that Thor has endured Kurse, Hulk, and Hela...
Originally posted by Silent Master
So you're saying that if some magical or highly advanced super-science type of device were attached to one in order to harvest energy. they wouldn't get anything. because stars have zero energy?
I admitted that stars have energy that acted on Thor. But force?
How much?
We can't quantify it except by the acceleration Thor experienced when he let go. And going by that then not much force.
The feat only proved that Thor is highly heat resistant. Nothing more.
Originally posted by h1a8
I admitted that stars have energy that acted on Thor. But force?
How much?
We can't quantify it except by the acceleration Thor experienced when he let go. And going by that then not much force.The feat only proved that Thor is highly heat resistant. Nothing more.
Do stars have energy?