Originally posted by One Big Mob
Your last two posts are impossible. Bullets don't travel 80km in 7 seconds. Neutron stars can't exist smaller than 20km.Also your last two posts have nothing to do with Thor being hit by billions of teaspoons of star matter.
I apologize to you.
I phucked up bad.
I saw that scene wrong for all this time.
You know what I thought? I thought the Iris was the hole in the opening of the ring and Thor was holding it open from that opening. I didn't realize the Iris was on the star where Thor was. By me thinking Thor was already on the ring, I thought Thor fell forward a little before falling down after he gave out. So the size is definitely bigger than I thought. But the star is not 20km from the scaling as I will prove now.
Look here.
The opening of the Iris is about 2 Thor heights in diameter.
You see the scaling shows that the rings aren't as large as you think.
I would say the circumference of the inner ring is at most 200 diameters of the opening hole of the ring. If this opening hole in the ring is say 200ft in diameter then the circumference is less than 200x200 or 40,000 ft.
radius = circumference /2pi < 40,000ft / 6.28 = 6366ft = 1.9 km
Originally posted by h1a8
I would say the circumference of the inner ring is at most 200 diameters of the opening hole of the ring.
Lol.
"I would say" = "my opinion based on nothing more than a guesstimate, trust me I am great with numbers and am honest and true and my word should mean more than the scientific fact that neutron stars can't be smaller than 20kms in diameter."
Rest is his usual math garbage. Don't bother reading past the first 3 words. I didn't.
Originally posted by NibedicusI wasn't finished posting. was having problems posting pictures. Now I'm finished.
Lol."I would say" = "my opinion based on nothing more than a guesstimate, trust me I am great with numbers and am honest and true and my word should mean more than the scientific fact that neutron stars can't be smaller than 20kms in diameter."
Rest is his usual math garbage. Don't bother reading past the first 3 words. I didn't.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Lol."I would say" = "my opinion based on nothing more than a guesstimate, trust me I am great with numbers and am honest and true and my word should mean more than the scientific fact that neutron stars can't be smaller than 20kms in diameter."
Rest is his usual math garbage. Don't bother reading past the first 3 words. I didn't.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Liar.No one disagreed with me because I was asking if my measurements were correct and I acknowledged I could be wrong and even admitted that it was hard to measure due to Thor's tiny size and inconsistent scaling. I can even link them to the thread:
Edit. Also, I was talking about the THICKNESS of the ring, not the radius/diameter (w/c was many many many times the thickness of each ring).
Next time try not to be so dishonest ok?
But if the thickness rings is 600ft then the radius of the inner ring is no more than 4 of those thicknesses. If you disagree then how many thicknesses do you think is the radius of the inner ring?
Look here
You see, if I'm trolling about the star's size then everyone here is too.
Originally posted by h1a8
But if the thickness rings is 600ft then the radius of the inner ring is no more than 4 of those thicknesses. If you disagree then how many thicknesses do you think is the radius of the inner ring?You see, if I'm trolling about the star's size then everyone here is too.
Glossing over the fact that you lied and tried to put words in my mouth?
Glossing over the fact that I acknowledged that the number (600ft) that I estimated was likely not accurate because the size scaling was inconsistent?
Glossing over the fact that movies tend to change scaling to make characters/items more visible (see: Surt vs Hulk)?
Writer's intention = neutron star. Period. Nothing else matters.
A neutron star cannot be smaller than 20kms. Thus it is 20kms. My words mean nothing against that fact and yours even less.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Glossing over the fact that you lied and tried to put words in my mouth?Glossing over the fact that I acknowledged that the number (600ft) that I estimated was likely not accurate because the size scaling was inconsistent?
Glossing over the fact that movies tend to change scaling to make characters/items more visible (see: Surt vs Hulk)?
Writer's intention = neutron star. Period. Nothing else matters.
A neutron star cannot be smaller than 20kms. Thus it is 20kms. My words mean nothing against that fact and yours even less.
The fact that you and everyone else thought the star was much smaller is proof I wasn't trolling. Bran was wrong, stating that the scaling wasn't wrong and I was.
But the scaling is wrong, if the star is 20km in diameter. So Bran is wrong.
Anyway, in fiction stars can be any size the writer wants it to be (even marble size).
If we can't rely on visuals then we can't calculate from them either. That means Thor's velocity can't be calculated. Therefore the pushing force on Thor is unknown.
Originally posted by h1a8
I apologize to you.
I phucked up bad.
I saw that scene wrong for all this time.
So did you pirate the movie and finally watch it or did you watch some youtube clips as usual?
Edit: Never mind , I see the watermarks on your pics. You got them from some blog or website. You should watch the actual movie sometime. 😬