Greatest Feat of Durability ever?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
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:

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.

Thor resisting being burned to death after coming in contact with something of a certain mass and with a certain temperature. That's the feat.

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor resisting being burned to death after coming in contact with something of a certain mass and with a certain temperature. That's the feat.

Lol. No. Thor resisted being burned after being blasted by the full force of a star's worth of energy. Writers >>>>>>>>>> you.

Because, while yes he did came into contact with something that has mass and has temperature, those variables alone do not properly express the magnitude of what Thor went thru.

The fact that you keep insisting on simply temperature (adding in mass of the source doesn't change much in your argument) just shows how desperate you are to try and lowball the "feat". Your bias just won't let you accept the truth that you'd do anything to downplay it.

Why so desperate h1? Can't accept a Marvel character being top dog in a thread?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Lol. No. Thor resisted being burned after being blasted by the full force of a star's worth of energy. Writers >>>>>>>>>> you.

Because, while yes he did came into contact with something that has mass and has temperature, those variables alone do not properly express the magnitude of what Thor went thru.

The fact that you keep insisting on simply temperature (adding in mass of the source doesn't change much in your argument) just shows how desperate you are to try and lowball the "feat". Your bias just won't let you accept the truth that you'd do anything to downplay it.

Why so desperate h1? Can't accept a Marvel character being top dog in a thread?

There was no great force action on Thor as he didn't accelerate a large amount after he let go, given his mass. We see the beam is hot and creates flames. We know that heat melts metal and that stars have heat (writers intent). We know that the star is emitting energy at over 90% of other parts of it's surface area (as it is still shining in all directions). Therefore, Etri used figurative language and meant the "full temperature of a star."

I provided significant evidence that Etri's statement is figurative. You must provide evidence that Etri's statement was meant to be literal.

H1 stop you are just a troll with no balls. Battlezone him if you have the stones.

Originally posted by h1a8
There was no great force action on Thor as he didn't accelerate a large amount after he let go, given his mass. We see the beam is hot and creates flames. We know that heat melts metal and that stars have heat (writers intent). We know that the star is emitting energy at over 90% of other parts of it's surface area (as it is still shining in all directions). Therefore, Etri used figurative language and meant the "full temperature of a star."

I provided significant evidence that Etri's statement is figurative. You must provide evidence that Etri's statement was meant to be literal.

None of what you posted proves that Eitri's was using figurative language in any capacity. This is all speculative and your attempt to shift burden of proof is laughably pathetic.

We know MCU must've touched you in your no-no place and anyone hyping MCU "feats" trigger you in your poophole, but jeez man, this is pitiful.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
None of what you posted proves that Eitri's was using figurative language in any capacity. This is all speculative and your attempt to shift burden of proof is laughably pathetic.

We know MCU must've touched you in your no-no place and anyone hyping MCU "feats" trigger you in your poophole, but jeez man, this is pitiful.

I gave evidence that supports. Anyone can say that evidence isn’t proof or that it isn’t sufficient WITHOUT ARTICULATING WHY. Anything you say, I can merely say, “that’s not proof “ without actually given the reason why.

I actually gave proof. Thor’s acceleration after he let go is the proof. There was no great force on Thor, just a hot beam from the star.

The initial claim is that Etri words are literal, hence the initial support of the feat (Rage). That stance needs to be supported by evidence since there is overwhelming evidence that points to the contrary being true.

And the fact that you said, "this is all speculation" proves that you are not objective and are arguing from a bias standpoint. Why?
Because I stated facts not speculation.
Reread my post and show me where ALL of it is speculation.

Originally posted by h1a8
I gave evidence that supports. Anyone can say that evidence isn’t proof or that it isn’t sufficient WITHOUT ARTICULATING WHY. Anything you say, I can merely say, “that’s not proof “ without actually given the reason why.

I actually gave proof. Thor’s acceleration after he let go is the proof. There was no great force on Thor, just a hot beam from the star.

The initial claim is that Etri words are literal, hence the initial support of the feat (Rage). That stance needs to be supported by evidence since there is overwhelming evidence that points to the contrary being true.

You gave speculation, which no one needs to dignify with a response.

Writers >>>>> you.

Eitri said full force, we will take it as full force. Nothing needs be done beyond that.

Originally posted by h1a8
And the fact that you said, "this is all speculation" proves that you are not objective and are arguing from a bias standpoint. Why?
Because I stated facts not speculation.
Reread my post and show me where ALL of it is speculation.

Ok then wannabee, if you think these are "facts" I challenge you to a BZ.

Points to be argued:

Your stance: Eitri did not mean "full force of a star" he was only talking figuratively in the movie. And that you can prove it.

1 year ban for the loser.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You gave speculation, which no one needs to dignify with a response.

Writers >>>>> you.

Eitri said full force, we will take it as full force. Nothing needs be done beyond that.

Ok then wannabee, if you think these are "facts" I challenge you to a BZ.

Points to be argued:

Your stance: Eitri did not mean "full force of a star" he was only talking figuratively in the movie. And that you can prove it.

1 year ban for the loser.

Originally posted by h1a8
There was no great force action on Thor as he didn't accelerate a large amount after he let go, given his mass. We see the beam is hot and creates flames. We know that heat melts metal and that stars have heat (writers intent). We know that the star is emitting energy at over 90% of other parts of it's surface area (as it is still shining in all directions). Therefore, Etri used figurative language and meant the "full temperature of a star."

I provided significant evidence that Etri's statement is figurative. You must provide evidence that Etri's statement was meant to be literal.

Fact 1: There was no great force action on Thor as he didn't accelerate a large amount after he let go, given his mass.

Fact 2: We see the beam is hot and creates flames.

Fact 3: We know that heats melts metal and that stars have heat.

Fact 4: The star was emitting its energy in all other areas of its surface area (over 90% more area).

Where is the speculation at?
You claimed that ALL OF THESE FACTS are speculation.

This is overwhelming evidence (from facts) that Etri words were figurative.

Originally posted by h1a8
We see the beam is hot and creates flames. We know that heat melts metal and that stars have heat.

Are you claiming that radiation, x-rays, gravity, gamma Ray's, cosmic rays, magnetic forces, can be seen with the naked eye?
You keep saying over and over again that all that was shown was a beam of heat and flames.
Per writers intent, all the other forces came through as well besides just the heat. Anybody with basic knowledge of space and how things work out there would know that the other "forces" are not visible to the naked eye.
They tried to portray that feat as best they could. You know because nobody has ever traveled millions of light-years to get to a neutron star to film what happens when there is a contraption built around it that then it shoots a concentrated beam at someone and documented it.

That's like someone that has never seen a firearm before, watching somebody shoot another person, saying that the person with the gun killed the other person with sound coming from the gun because the other person could not see the bullet with the naked eye.

That's how you sound.

Originally posted by h1a8
(writers intent). We know that the star is emitting energy at over 90% of other parts of it's surface area (as it is still shining in all directions). Therefore, Etri used figurative language and meant the "full temperature of a star."

I provided significant evidence that Etri's statement is figurative. You must provide evidence that Etri's statement was meant to be literal.

There's no reason to guess, speculate, or give personal opinions on what the writers meant.
The movie tells you exactly what the writer's meant by that scene. By Eitris own words.

You are the one that's going against The writer's 100% intentions.
You're basically calling them wrong or you think they made a mistake and then you're throwing your own spin on the feat.

Originally posted by h1a8
Blahblahblah I'm ducking the battlezone challenge cuz I know everything I said is just me speculating.

Yup. Typical.

🙄

Originally posted by h1a8
Fact 1: There was no great force action on Thor as he didn't accelerate a large amount after he let go, given his mass.

Fact 2: We see the beam is hot and creates flames.

Fact 3: We know that heats melts metal and that stars have heat.

Fact 4: The star was emitting its energy in all other areas of its surface area (over 90% more area).

Where is the speculation at?
You claimed that ALL OF THESE FACTS are speculation.

This is overwhelming evidence (from facts) that Etri words were figurative.

It's a movie, they don't always show things 100% realistically.

Yeah, the fact that he’s ducking the BZ again proves that even he doesn’t believe the BS he’s spouting.

I'm fairly sure I've offered to BZ him at least 20 different times, he always runs away.

Originally posted by Inhuman
Are you claiming that radiation, x-rays, gravity, gamma Ray's, cosmic rays, magnetic forces, can be seen with the naked eye?
You keep saying over and over again that all that was shown was a beam of heat and flames.
Per writers intent, all the other forces came through as well besides just the heat. Anybody with basic knowledge of space and how things work out there would know that the other "forces" are not visible to the naked eye.
They tried to portray that feat as best they could. You know because nobody has ever traveled millions of light-years to get to a neutron star to film what happens when there is a contraption built around it that then it shoots a concentrated beam at someone and documented it.

That's like someone that has never seen a firearm before, watching somebody shoot another person, saying that the person with the gun killed the other person with sound coming from the gun because the other person could not see the bullet with the naked eye.

That's how you sound.

There's no reason to guess, speculate, or give personal opinions on what the writers meant.
The movie tells you exactly what the writer's meant by that scene. By Eitris own words.

You are the one that's going against The writer's 100% intentions.
You're basically calling them wrong or you think they made a mistake and then you're throwing your own spin on the feat.

Thor could have gotten hit by some x-rays or he didn't. No biggie there.
Magnetic forces and gravity effects can be easily seen by them causing Thor to accelerate. You are just making stuff up that's not in the movie.

If there was a force then why didn't Thor accelerate greatly when he let go?

You act as if it's impossible for someone to speak figuratively.

The writers intentions are that Thor experienced the heat energy that came from the star., nothing more. The average person watching the film don't know about magnetic fields of neutron stars and all that other stuff. The movie is made for the average person. Metal needs heat to melt, stars have heat. The energy beam does not even touch the Stormbreaker metal. We see flames heating the metal container of the Stormbreaker metal. Duhh. Common sense. Stop adding stuff that don't exist in the movie.

Provide the quote from the movie or the writer which states that Thor only withstood the heat energy.

I so want to make a Harry Potter comment, in the spirit of James Gunn ...

Anyway, greatest durability, relative to their purported biology, would have to go to Rambo or John McClain ... If you scaled them up as super heroes, they'd be surviving Big Bangs to the face ...

Originally posted by janus77
I so want to make a Harry Potter comment, in the spirit of James Gunn ...

Anyway, greatest durability, relative to their purported biology, would have to go to Rambo or John McClain ... If you scaled them up as super heroes, they'd be surviving Big Bangs to the face ...

h1 already got challenged to a BZ. If he is so certain that his speculations proves the use of figurative language in that exact moment and how the purpose he says it was used for then it should take ZERO effort for him to win this BZ.

Til then, his speculations don’t even deserve a response.

Originally posted by h1a8
The writers intentions are that Thor experienced the heat energy that came from the star., nothing more.

mmm

Dialog straight from the Avengers: Infinity War via IMDB:

"Eitri: You understand, boy, you're about to take the full force of a star. It'll kill you."

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4154756/quotes