Greatest Feat of Durability ever?

Originally posted by Inhuman
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.

Wrong! There was nothing but heat. We see flames heating the metal. This is fiction. If it were real then rocket raccoon would have been exposed too.
It’s called figurative talk. That’s the beauty of language, you can say many things in multiple ways depending on your style and preference. Forces push or pull. There were no great forces acting on Thor. Otherwise we would clearly see him being pushed or pulled with a large acceleration when he let go.

It takes heat to melt metal and stars have heat. It’s called common sense.

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
Wrong! There was nothing but heat. We see flames heating the metal. This is fiction. If it were real then rocket raccoon would have been exposed too.
It’s called figurative talk. That’s the beauty of language, you can say many things in multiple ways depending on your style and preference. Forces push or pull. There were no great forces acting on Thor. Otherwise we would clearly see him being pushed or pulled with a large acceleration when he let go.

It takes heat to melt metal and stars have heat. It’s called common sense.

So you are telling me radiation, cosmic waves/energies and gravity are visible to the naked eye like heat/flames are? If this is what you are claiming then prove we can see these things visually.

All these things, including the heat came with the beam that hit Thor. Again this is all according to The Russo Bros. That is why Eitri said that Thor would take the full force of the star.

There was no figurative talk. This is your opinion. The writers CLEARLY made it known to the audience what Thor was going to be hit with. There is no speculation needed or alternative opinions on the matter.

Also Rocket Racoon didn't get hit by the beam, Thor did. So bringing in Rocket into this , saying that he wasn't affected is nonsense. The whole structure of the base around the Neutron Star was there for a reason. We can see from the movie that it was there to harness the power of the star and to contain the forces as to let Dwarves be close enough to the star to work and make weapons. Once the iris was open from the sphere around the star then the force of the star was let out in a beam like fashion as we saw.

This is all seen in the movie and the movie also goes out of its way to tells us that Thor took the full force of the star.
If you have issues with this then you should take it up with the Russo Brothers , as they are the ones who wanted things to play out this way.

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.

The 2x10^20 number is also us being extremely generous, as that number was just based on the size of the beam Thor was hit with. we could easily say that the space forge was actually focusing the entire energy output of the neutron star, seeing as the statement was "full force of a star".

http://astronomy-by-kyle.blogspot.c...s-and-size.html

Neutron Star Output in Joules: 52.3 quathordecillion or 5.23×10^46 per second.

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.

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).