Greatest Feat of Durability ever?

Originally posted by h1a8
Prove what?

Your claims.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
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).

Energy is what creates the temperature.
Total Energy in itself doesn’t damage, high temperatures do.
The energy required to heat the beam, that was hitting Thor, to star like temperatures is irrelevant. It’s the high temperature of the beam the reason for the damage.
Temperature is the AVERAGE kinetic energy (per unit mass) of a substance.

For example, it takes more energy to heat 100 gallons of 30degree Celsius water to 60 degree C water than it takes to heat 1 cup of 30 degree Celsius water to 99 degree C water. The 1cup of water would do more damage to me (higher temperature but lower total energy) than the 100 gallons of water (which contains more total energy but lower temperature).

Lol no one cares what Quan thinks either but I don’t see you posting towards him. I give my opinion so that others can see my viewpoint and choose to agree or disagree.

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.

😂

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 👆

@H1

"Total Energy in itself doesn’t damage, high temperatures do."

...............?

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 👆

Originally posted by h1a8
Energy is what creates the temperature.
Total Energy in itself doesn’t damage, high temperatures do.
The energy required to heat the beam, that was hitting Thor, to star like temperatures is irrelevant. It’s the high temperature of the beam the reason for the damage.
Temperature is the AVERAGE kinetic energy (per unit mass) of a substance.

For example, it takes more energy to heat 100 gallons of 30degree Celsius water to 60 degree C water than it takes to heat 1 cup of 30 degree Celsius water to 99 degree C water. The 1cup of water would do more damage to me (higher temperature but lower total energy) than the 100 gallons of water (which contains more total energy but lower temperature).

Lol no one cares what Quan thinks either but I don’t see you posting towards him. I give my opinion so that others can see my viewpoint and choose to agree or disagree.

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.

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.