Originally posted by Inhuman
Obviously you didn't learn anything. I suggest you go back to school.1. Its a movie . Things will not be totally accurate but we don't have to speculate because the writers tell us what they meant to show during that sequence regardless of inaccuracies, because you know , no one has ever witnessed the effects of the full force of a neutron star focused on a condensed beam hitting something.
[b]
2. We see the beam that according to the writers contained the full force of the star. Including heat. Like I asked previously. Are you trying to say you can see, gravity, radiation, cosmic rays, with the naked eye? I suggest you read an elementary school level book about outer space and educate yourself.
[b]
3. Great.
[b]
4. We know the neutron star core was inside a spherical object surrounding the whole thing , that had an iris that could be opened to release the full force of the star in a condensed beam.
From the movie we see this device is containing all the stars forces in check.[b]
You have stated no facts. Just personal opinion. And are ignoring the writers.
Those were facts. You are slow if you don't think so.
1. There's a difference between not accurate force and NO FORCE. We see nothing acting on Thor other than heat beam. Rage was making stuff up.
2. You are using circular reasoning. You have to prove that it wasn't figurative language. You just can't assume that because it suits you.
3 and 4. There was no FORCE. It was heat. You are an idiot if you believe anything other than that. Pure dummy.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Hilarious thing is h1 was the one who continually went on about writers intention with regards to a statement in Supergirl coming from someone whose facts/knowledge might be lacking (Jimmy).But when same applies to Thor, but from a much more reliable source, then suddenly that doesnt count as writers intention. And h1 can seemingly decide what writers intentions are.
Figurative language from a character (not a writer).
Originally posted by Inhuman
You are the only retard claiming that it was figurative.
Your idiotic theories are not facts. So you haven't proven anything.
Someone who does not know the difference between theories and facts is a waste of time to debate with.
I stated facts sir. Look at each fact and tell me which is a theory.
Originally posted by h1a8
@nibedicusWhoever the burden is on then I have proven the case over and over again.
Simply stating that the evidence isn't proof is not debating.Bottom line: It does not take a rocket scientist to know that Thor experienced heat energy ONLY.
Movies don't always show things 100% realistically.
Fact: The above trumps all your "facts".
Originally posted by h1a8
@nibedicusWhoever the burden is on then I have proven the case over and over again.
Simply stating that the evidence isn't proof is not debating.Bottom line: It does not take a rocket scientist to know that Thor experienced heat energy ONLY.
Lol. No. Writers >>>>>> you.
People do not need to disprove opinion. You're allowed to have it but we are allowed to disregard it entirely.
You're not convincing anyone. The fact that you can't even accept a BZ where you claim that your so-called "evidence" convincingly "proves your case" means that even you're not convinced of your own argument.
I can tear that argument apart but seeing as you're known to abandon your arguments and jump from one asinine argument to the next, all the while utilizing misdirection, dishonesty, double standards and cheap tactics, I would need a moderated/judged environment and a good incentive (like you shutting up for 6-12 months) before putting in the work. I feel that is fair.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Lol. No. Writers >>>>>> you.People do not need to disprove opinion. You're allowed to have it but we are allowed to disregard it entirely.
You're not convincing anyone. The fact that you can't even accept a BZ where you claim that your so-called "evidence" convincingly "proves your case" means that even you're not convinced of your own argument.
I can tear that argument apart but seeing as you're known to abandon your arguments and jump from one asinine argument to the next, all the while utilizing misdirection, dishonesty, double standards and cheap tactics, I would need a moderated/judged environment and a good incentive (like you shutting up for 6-12 months) before putting in the work. I feel that is fair.
Opinion?
I stated facts sir.
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 in a forge 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).
Fact 5: Most people who saw the film initially was thinking that Thor was resisting getting burned alive in that scene.
These FACTS support that Etri words were figurative and meant "full temperature".
Ask yourself these questions.
Are these facts?
If so, then do these facts support (in any amount) that Etri words were figurative?
Originally posted by Silent Master
If you cant provide the quote from the movie or the writer which states that Thor only withstood the heat energy, That means at best you're just guessing. thus you insisting your opinion is fact makes you a liar.
And Rage assuming that Etri’s words were meant literally when it goes against common sense, what we see, and the evidence IS BAD GUESSING.
Originally posted by Silent Master
If you cant provide the quote from the movie or the writer which states that Thor only withstood the heat energy, That means at best you're just guessing. thus you insisting your opinion is fact makes you a liar.
Well he did say the star had gone "cold" and they needed to restart it to "melt" the ore, and ore don't melt because of magnets or gravity.