Originally posted by Putinbot1
In the comics he did get hurt by air craft bullets, but it's one of those outliers best to avoid.
Well, yeah. Comics are inconsistent and characters can have low showings and high showings (and the scatter goes really wide in comics, we can have a character taking planet-shattering hits one issue and getting KO'd by an exploding gas station the next).
And I wouldn't even really have problems with using either extremes as long as they are presented honestly as long as they are properly contexed.
The problem I have with h1 is his formulaic highly dishonest strategy for lowballing a character. Really it's just his dishonesty (and -edit:completely misplaced- arrogance) that I don't I can't stomache.
You've been posting here far longer than I have so you must be more familiar with him than I am, I dunno. I engaged him at one time when I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. These days, he's not even worth replying directly to.
^ Both Thor and Wonder Woman have been shown to have this weird Backward durability in comics where small weapons can pierce/cut them even though large more powerful weapons can not. Its not consistent and makes Zero sense.
But this is the movies, not comics. Unless that is specifically stated/shown there is no logical reason to believe it exists in this medium.
The guy can take the full heat/force of a Star, survive Massive city destroying explosions to his face and trade equal punches with the Hulk who has been shown to be completely bullet proof.
IOW only a Troll would claim Movie Thor couldnt take aircraft fire at this point in time with the information available. A Troll or a very dumb person.
Originally posted by Silent Master
The fact that h1 describes tanking explosions as just slightly being pushed while riding the wave should tell everyone just how big a troll he is.
I remember that. He described it as being " gently carried away" like Thor was attacked by a ****ing care bear or something
Originally posted by NibedicusH1 is a troll supreme, my hat goes off to him.
Well, yeah. Comics are inconsistent and characters can have low showings and high showings (and the scatter goes really wide in comics, we can have a character taking planet-shattering hits one issue and getting KO'd by an exploding gas station the next).And I wouldn't even really have problems with using either extremes as long as they are presented honestly as long as they are properly contexed.
The problem I have with h1 is his formulaic highly dishonest strategy for lowballing a character. Really it's just his dishonesty (and -edit:completely misplaced- arrogance) that I don't I can't stomache.
You've been posting here far longer than I have so you must be more familiar with him than I am, I dunno. I engaged him at one time when I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. These days, he's not even worth replying directly to.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
H1 is a troll supreme, my hat goes off to him.
Meh, I'd say 5/10. He's pretty standard as a troll tbh. He just adds a bit of psuedo-science pretend knowhow to try and hassle people to disprove him, but it's nothing special. He doesn't hide his troll-hood well and everyone knows he is.
People replying to him is more a testament to how slow the traffic has been. People are bored and he's easy to beat up on.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Meh, I'd say 5/10. He's pretty standard as a troll tbh. He just adds a bit of psuedo-science pretend knowhow to try and hassle people to disprove him, but it's nothing special. He doesn't hide his troll-hood well and everyone knows he is.People replying to him is more a testament to how slow the traffic has been. People are bored and he's easy to beat up on.
People inflate feats far beyond the truth. Me exposing them is not lowballing or trolling.
They make up shit like tanking explosions = being resistant to aircraft bullets when they have no clue about the science of it.
You can't claim someone is aircraft bulletproof from another feat if you don't do the science. You would just be guessing and making up shit to fit your agenda.
The mistakes I make are not on purpose. I don't purposely use numbers that I know are wrong. You know this. There is no way that's trolling.
Originally posted by h1a8
People inflate feats far beyond the truth. Me exposing them is not lowballing or trolling.They make up shit like tanking explosions = being resistant to aircraft bullets when they have no clue about the science of it.
You can't claim someone is aircraft bulletproof from another feat if you don't do the science. You would just be guessing and making up shit to fit your agenda.The mistakes I make are not on purpose. I don't purposely use numbers that I know are wrong. You know this. There is no way that's trolling.
Yes, because stating that aircraft bullets hit with a PSI of 313 million tons isn't an example of inflating feats far beyond the truth.
Like making up that neutron stars are only 100ft in diameter.
Then why are your "mistakes" always in your favor.
I really was debating if I should or not, but **** it. This might be the end of my side arguing. I forgot how much I can't handle h1
Originally posted by h1a8
Thor wasn't shown to be hit. If he were then I would have conceded a long time ago. Can you prove where Thor was when the island exploded? Because the ground broke apart far before that happened. Thor should have been airborne, possibly flying elsewhere by then.
Star feat is irrelevant.
Thor being close to Hulk in strength is irrelevant.[B] It's called the intention of the writer. Why have Thor run from the bullets if he wants us to know that aircraft bullets will not harm him?
Did you not understand any of that part or something? How did you just handwave everything else away except Thor dodging bullets? He was shown as durable as Hulk. He was shown taking the star. You're handwaving away feats and actual writer's intention being shown in favor of your interpretation of writer's intention.
He was never shown to leave the island. In fact it would have been impossible for him to have left. In fact, he was shown falling into the ocean clearly stunned after it blew up. 1:15.
Also because I saw you seriously ask how an island blowing up could be more powerful than bullets, how about the writer's intention that an upgraded Iron Man suit had to hide behind a plate and high tailed it out of there as fast as he could, yet could take aircraft bullets just fine? Thor was at the epicenter and his skin was perfectly fine.
Did you even watch the movie?
He was tagged on the foot by Ultron. He was dropped in a storm of bullets.
The explanation for Thor dodging bullets is simple. That he didn't know about them. He never encountered bullets like that until that exact instance.
The explanation for the rest are as follows:
Every bullet missed Thor
Thor flew away from the massive explosion when it was specifically shown that Iron Man needed to hide behind a plate and ride out the explosion with it. Thor had no such item. It blew up while Thor was still calling down lightning... but Thor was gone according to you?
Stars... don't output... pressure? I don't know why this is irrelevant. You still haven't even tried to address this one, only argue the specifics about it.
Thor is as strong and as durable as Hulk, but he would get shredded by 20mm bullets because he dodged some 25mm to 30mm bullets before?
And again, you didn't understand a thing there. Even if he were vulnerable to bullets there like you're saying, he got a massive powerup afterwards that upped all his stats. Why are you still arguing that feat when he specifically seemed even more powerful than Hulk in every aspect?
Why is this not even worth consideration on your part where Thor gets a large powerup? Thor wasn't as strong as Hulk before his powerup. Afterwards he might be even stronger, and this shouldn't reflect on him potentially tanking bullets because he dodged some before? Why are you not answering this?
Why can the only thing that can be argued what is writer's intention in Thor dodging bullets, why is that the only writer's intention that matters? Your interpretation of writer's intention by the way?
Originally posted by h1a8Troll.
Thor does not have any feats that scientifically prove he is aircraft bulletproof. I'm saying that it's faulty to even argue that route when writer's intended for him not to be.
Originally posted by h1a8MCU isn't shown breaking that logic though. I realize you desperately want to bring comics and Wonder Woman into this... where you will then prop them up to say it makes no sense, but MCU doesn't do that. No character above Iron Man is shown to be getting penetrated by bullets.
You used a universal logic that pertains to anything. It's not exclusive to the MCU.
But yes, Wonder Woman being close to Superman in strength yet vulnerable to bullets is a universal logic that applies to everyone in MCU. As proven by all zero of the characters it's happened to.
Originally posted by h1a8ugh
You are very wrong here. Extremely.
1. Thor was pushed with little to no speed when he let go. I stated this a billion times from the very beginning. That proves no great force was acting on him.
2. This is an extremely small star (10 kilometers in radius ).
Actually, the star is extremely smaller than that by just scaling everything to Thor's size. Star was probably around less than 100 feet in diameter.
The beam was very slow as Thor was very close to the star.
The rings were small too.
3. The star was still emitting energy over 95% of its surface area.
As for the last one, it was writers intention that it was the full force of the star. It doesn't matter how much it was emitting on the surface, all that was allowed out was through the opening that Thor opened... that magnified the energy of a star into one beam.
That was billions and billions of tons of pressure. That was billions of tons of matter.
You're also acting like stars can't fire solar flares or gamma ray bursts just because they're emitting energy throughout the rest of the surface area. The sun doesn't stop just because one area is firing, that doesn't mean that one area isn't massively dangerous.
Originally posted by h1a8I've already said why that is relevant. These guys are no more bullet proof than normal humans. Jessica Jones crushing metal doesn't prove she can take bullets.
The videos don't. Like I said, using leverage tricks one can do work with less force but over a longer distance.
Archimedes once said, "give me somewhere to stand and I'll move the earth."
Jessica used no such tricks. She directly crumbled those huge padlocks casually. Do you know the science of levers?
And you're completely ignoring how shit her durability feats are. She can exert a lot of pressure in her hands and forearms. That doesn't mean she can take bullets and we all know we can't trust a ****ing thing you say for what constitutes bulletproof.
But again and again you continue to argue that Jessica Jones should be bulletproof. And you're applying it to Thor. Which means you're basically saying Thor should be bulletproof, but because Jessica Jones isn't, then Thor isn't either. That's not a logical conclusion to come to. The characters have nothing in common. Thor is as strong as the Hulk. Jessica Jones is as strong as no one who can take bullets. How many ****ing times do I need to repeat this? No matter what you think can take a bullet (you have no ****ing clue), she is less durable than the guy in universe who can barely take bullets. And she's less durable by far. Ie, she can't take bullets. All she can do is break metal, and get hurt by humans. Thor doesn't.
You keep flipping from real world logic to comic book logic where you're very picky with what you think should apply at the time. A sun's mass doesn't count. A bullet's fake numbers do. Writer's intention only counts for one scene but nowhere else ever. A sun doesn't count. Being as durable as Hulk doesn't count, Jessica Jones not being able to take bullets counts, but so does Jessica Jones crushing locks and therefore she should take bullets? A neutron star doesn't count, but Jessica Jones does. Wonder Woman being on par with Superman but being vulnerable to bullets should count... desperately?
You're putting more stock in Jessica Jones than anything that Thor has done... unless Thor hasn't done it, then it's super important.
What kind of Wookie defense shit is this?
Originally posted by h1a8The ****ing ego on you.
Lol. He moved forward WITH LITTLE VELOCITY. You are extremely late on this. No one here realized Thor moved forward. I was helping people out by proving a force acted on Thor but that is was small. Thor's acceleration was almost non existent.
bullets because of his other feats while ignoring the writer's intentions.
Originally posted by h1a8The only purpose of your new calculation was for you to realize how ****ing stupid it was for you to say it was 313 million tons of psi.
When I first calculated everything, I told everyone to check the math. That implies that I could have made a mistake. I was trying to be transparent.
Average Force = loss in kinetic energy /stopping distance
Peak Pressure = Peak force / area
Notice why I posted the word "PEAK"?
Because I always knew that the pressure and force decreases over distance.If you disagree with these then the discussion is a waste of time. The concept is sound. The initial calculations were wrong. I don't want anyone to trust what I say without verifying it for themselves. So I could care less about credibility. I rather have 0 credibility than so much that people don't check out my results.
lol at the last part. You sure made sure you have zero credibility though.
Originally posted by h1a8You posted a video of a 100 ton press, and then promptly told me to ignore it, and now you're using it as evidence again.
I explained this to you. I said that the initial pressure just proves AT LEAST slight penetration (Thor will be at least lacerated). I posted a video showing that when metal compresses it becomes more and more resistant to pressure.
You explained nothing. I asked you to post actual facts from a ballistics study that showed that a bullet went from 3000 tons to 50 after hitting something meant to only take 62 tons psi. You failed to do so.
I understand things compress, but that doesn't mean a bullet goes from 3000 tons to 50 after hitting essentially paper in comparison. You're arguing a huge non sequitur again.
Originally posted by h1a8How the **** do you think any of this proves a 3000 ton psi bullet shoots down to 50 tons in 2 inches?That's easy to prove. When the bullet deforms by 2 inches in length, the tip of bullet will have the size of the diameter of the bullet (20mm) or larger.
The area of the tip now becomes MORE THAN A = pi x (0.01m)^2 = 3.14e-4m^2 =0.49 in^2
The force would also be greatly reduced too. The force would probably reduce to less than half. 55 tons would be reduced to around 20 tons.20tons/0.49in^2 = 41 tons per square inch. But even if the bullet doesn't slow down any but just deforms (impossible) then the maximum pressure is
55tons/0.49in^2 = 112 tons per square in.
I asked you for a link that proved this, not you not even coming close to proving it.
You are the only person on the planet that has ever argued this. Do you wonder why? Because it's not true and bullets aren't measured like this anyway. If not, show me actual proof that a bullet comes close to 3000 tons of psi. Show me one of those ballistics experts saying this. They spend their entire life getting paid to study bullets. Why do no studies back you up? Is no one getting paid enough to tackle such a controversial study, or is it stupid and the science already proves it wrong?
Originally posted by h1a8You're full on retarded.The writer intentions where clear when Thor ran from bullets. The writer's intentions are clear for JJ too. Therefore it's illogical to assume Thor is resistant to aircraft bullets because of his other feats while ignoring the writer's intentions.
Anyway, if Thor had feats where he should be bulletproof, yet he's never been pierced by bullets, then how can we conclude that bullets should go through him? Without using Jessica Jones as an example.
Originally posted by h1a8Where was this said?
And one more thing.
There were bullets holes in I'm armor because it was stated to be.
Arguing why Tony is not dead doesn't erase that fact.
Perhaps the bullets angled and did not hit Tony.
Also Tony not being dead or even being hurt is a very important part of the whole thing. That means his thin armor STOPPED the bullets.
Angled and didn't hit Tony? How thick do you think the suit was? He was getting shot in the back... how would it not hit him? And there'd be exit wounds if this happened.
Prove there were holes in him. Prove there were exit wounds. I can prove there weren't... he was completely uninjured being hit multiple times in the back. Prove the suit didn't stop the bullets.
How are you seriously arguing that it doesn't matter if Tony wasn't hurt, yet your only arguments are the writer's intentions for Thor dodging bullets, and Jessica Jones?
How can you actually sit here and say you're not trolling with shit like this?
----
Oh God.
Let's talk about the size of that beam. On my TV, Thor standing upright was 10 1/2 inches. From the floor to the top of the ring was 15 1/2 inches. Thor is supposed to be 6'6. Which means from the floor to the inside of the "iris" is 2.925 meters, or 115.142 inches.
However, that was not how wide the beam was. The beam was actually much wider. As you can see it goes to the second ring.
https://imgur.com/OFxuaNK
https://imgur.com/ExvHRWH
Now, using this scene on my TV, I came out with 4 1/2 inches on the inside of the iris, and 25 1/2 inches to the inside of the outer ring. 5.666 times the diameter of the iris. Which we take the inside of the iris to be 2.925 meters, which works out to the inside of the third ring to be 16.573 meters. Which means that beam was at least 54 feet in diameter.
(I used a different image on my tv, but this about explains it, and yes, I absolutely used a scene where Thor was standing straight up to find the inside of the iris)
https://www.syfy.com/sites/syfy/files/styles/1140x640/public/2018/04/6166130-thorinflarger.png?itok=wonpr6em×tamp=1525116523
So, let's use a still of one of your pictures since you want to be like that.
.66mm for the beam. 25.46 for the inside of the hole. 33mm for the outer ring (not the higher pillars right beside the circle).
That works out to the inside diameter of the hole being 38.575 times bigger than the beam, or 639.31 meters.
The thickness of the rings is then 50 times the diameter of the beam, or 828.56 meters.
https://imgur.com/1IZVmvL
How do we find out the radius and how far the beam traveled? Well, let's just use your method and math:
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
639.31x200 = 127 862M/6.28 = 20360.19M = 20k
The beam took actually 2 seconds (and some change) to get there. 10k a second. Sun matter was beating on Thor's back at 10k a second.
https://imgur.com/aV6rBiS
https://imgur.com/Yv69rqs
https://imgur.com/TzQaaGA
https://imgur.com/OJqn7Sj
https://imgur.com/JUXgrvO
If it took Thor 7 seconds to travel that distance, then he was traveling around 2900 meters per second.
And yes, I'm counting when the beam or Thor gets inside of the rings, as I realize the sun is a little closer than that, so it still works out pretty close to the distance the beam had to travel.
So either way. 😂
No matter how you spin it, it is way faster than a bullet. And it's also a sun so there's that.
The beauty of this, is even if you lowball it and half the feat, it was still 1450 meters per second. So that accounts for any scaling inaccuracies for that. Diameter of the beam was 48 feet and the ring was only 28 times larger than the beam? 409 meters. 2 seconds is 6522 meters per second, and 7 seconds is 1863 meters a second using your formula... so there's no way you can even half it... but if you did, Thor was still traveling faster than a bullet. So there's no winning for you here.
The other beauty of this is that this was the speed, and it doesn't matter what the scale is. You want to up it to the full size of the star? You're still going to come up with the same numbers. Ie, no matter what you do, it's still faster than a 20mm bullets... than a 30mm bullet.
Do you understand that even though you made me go into scale (something I don't give two shits about and paid you no mind on it, hence why I said it wasn't wrong), that you are still wildly wrong here? You assumed the beam was only the Iris, and was at best 12 feet in diameter. And somehow the ring was 200 feet, and the star was 100 feet... and so much other things. The beam isn't 12 feet though, it can't be. You haven't even watched half the scenes involving it.
Though I don't know why the speed or distance even matters when he was getting pelted by ****ing sun matter. The amount of pressure for square inch of a sun beam would probably be a lot higher than your 313 million tons measurement. Why a bullet is being argued over a sun is bananas to me. Especially by you who pretends he prefers real world logic, but in reality hates all avenues of Marvel and will flip flop on a dime.
So now that you're completely wrong in every way possible, can you please explain to me why the size even matters? It's a sun.
Originally posted by h1a8Well since it's obvious you're trolling with shit like this, but how can you actually pretend you believe in your arguments, and do it for years? How do you stand behind the sort of shit you're saying when you know you're wrong?
At least I make perfect sense. My points are spot on.
I'm right just almost all the time.
Originally posted by h1a8
.Peak Pressure = Peak Force /Area of tip
> 221 tons/ (pi x (0.001m)^2]
= [b]313 million tons per square inchSo give me feats where Thor was shown to withstand pressures on his body above 313 millions tons per square inch. [/B]
Originally posted by h1a8
. Star was probably around less than 100 feet in diameter.
Originally posted by h1a8
The feats doesn't matter.
Originally posted by h1a8
At least I make perfect sense. My points are spot on.
I'm right just almost all the time.
Proof that H1 is a troll.
