Originally posted by Silent Master
h1 doesn't understand what suspension of disbelief is or how it's applied. Also, Superman doesn't have a blackhole feat. it was artifcally generated and was never stated to have the same properties of a black hole. and the tetonic plate feat was never shown or explained.You really suck at this.
The black hole sucked in and atomized the durable as hell ships and Kryptonians, making all of them 1 atom. The gravitational force needed to do that is astronomical.
Suspension of disbelief states Superman did it physically (tectonic plates) as it was a reference to Reeves Superman.
Originally posted by h1a8
It was stated to be a singularity. Suspension of disbelief want us to think black hole.The black hole sucked in and atomized the durable as hell ships and Kryptonians, making all of them 1 atom. The gravitational force needed to do that is astronomical.
Suspension of disbelief states Superman did it physically (tectonic plates) as it was a reference to Reeves Superman.
By who?
Show the scene where things next to Superman were atomized?
That isn't how Suspension of disbelief works.
Originally posted by Silent Master
By who?Show the scene where things next to Superman were atomized?
That isn't how Suspension of disbelief works.
Originally posted by h1a8
By the scientist.
Irrelevant. All the ships and Kryptonians were crushed into a single atom. That proves how strong the gravitational force was.
The writers want us to remember the Reeve scene and apply it to Cavil Superman. Common sense really. 😕
How would the scientist know, was he using equipment to take readings? (we all know the answer, let this be a test of your honesty)
Not irrelevant. as that would only prove that the gravitational force was that strong at that point, not that strong over the whole area. now if Superman survived right next to a ship that was atomized. you'd have an argument.
Where did the writer's state that, because it sounds like your just making things up again.
Originally posted by Silent Master
How would the scientist know, was he using equipment to take readings? (we all know the answer, let this be a test of your honesty)Not irrelevant. as that would only prove that the gravitational force was that strong at that point, not that strong over the whole area. now if Superman survived right next to a ship that was atomized. you'd have an argument.
Where did the writer's state that, because it sounds like your just making things up again.
He's a scientist. Suspension of disbelief knows what he is talking about. We see that he is right by the effects. It's called storytelling. The writer wants us to know something, he uses a character to explain it to us and we see it in action.
Superman was several times further away from the singularity. That would mean he was subject to at least 4% of the pulling force. 1/r^2 vs 1/(5r^2) means 25 times more force or 4% of the larger force.
The idea was for us to remember the Reeve scene and have Cavil pull off the same feat. Common sense.
You didn't answer the question
Using numbers from real singularities has no bearing on artificial ones, so unless you can quote the movie stating those numbers. you have no argument.
Prove it, quote the writer's stating that. As we all know it's far more likely the writer's would just say it was an Easter egg, it wasn't meant to be taken seriuosly.
Originally posted by Silent Master
You didn't answer the questionUsing numbers from real singularities has no bearing on artificial ones, so unless you can quote the movie stating those numbers. you have no argument.
Prove it, quote the writer's stating that. As we all know it's far more likely the writer's would just say it was an Easter egg, it wasn't meant to be taken seriuosly.
Hes a scientist, therefore an expert. The fact that it came true prove that he knew. What ever you know must be true.
Doesn't matter if it's an artificial one. It works by gravity. The force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two objects.
Anything that happened in the movie, actually happened in the movie. Even jokes or Easter eggs. Claiming something is an Easter egg doesn't disprove that the event happened in the movie.
The writer wants us to know that Superman did the same shit.
Originally posted by Silent Master
You didn't answer the question.Of course it matters, either provide the numbers the movie gave or admit you're making things up.
Correction, Anything we see happen in a movie actually happened. character statements about off screen feats require evidence to back them up.
Why do you keep on harping against a brick wall? H1 is a joke and I’m sure you know it, as well. I mean I get that you’re entertaining the Josh Sock, but it’s best not to humor these types. You’ve already checkmated H1 the loser hoebag.
Originally posted by Silent Master
You didn't answer the question.Of course it matters, either provide the numbers the movie gave or admit you're making things up.
Correction, Anything we see happen in a movie actually happened. character statements about off screen feats require evidence to back them up.
I did answer the question. Him being a scientist collaborating with Clark (who knows) and knowing science stuff led him to the conclusion.
We know that the ships are at least as durable as solid steel. Go from there.
The evidence was the news paper. What was the writer trying to portray? That Superman did the same feat Reeve did.
Originally posted by h1a8
I did answer the question. Him being a scientist collaborating with Clark (who knows) and knowing science stuff led him to the conclusion.We know that the ships are at least as durable as solid steel. Go from there.
The evidence was the news paper. What was the writer trying to portray? That Superman did the same feat Reeve did.
IOW, you have no proof that he was an expert in black holes or that he used equipment to scan/study it. which makes his statement worthless.
We also know that objects further away weren't destroyed by this artificial "singularity".
Which is no better than a character statement and those need evidence to back them up or they're ignored.
Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, you have no proof that he was an expert in black holes or that he used equipment to scan/study it. which makes his statement worthless.We also know that objects further away weren't destroyed by this artificial "singularity".
Which is no better than a character statement and those need evidence to back them up or they're ignored.
1. Doesn't matter as a singularity was created.
2. And Thor didn't fly into the star nor experience any of force other than being pushed (as shown).
3. News paper article is evidence. Writer's intentions remember?
Originally posted by Silent Master
Glad you admit the scientist wasn't an expert nor did he study it before making an unspported statement.It was an real neutron star, thus any mistakes fall under SOD.
They are no better than charcater statements, which require proof.
Glad you understand that it was a black hole. That was the whole point.
Yet it exhibited no effects of gravity or any other forces. Therefore under SOD, they did not exist. Thor stood there talking without holding on to anything. Yet we suppose to believe that he was tanking the force gravitational force of the star? Replace Thor with anyone in a spacesuit, and they would stand there too.
Wrong. Both character statements and news paper articles are what happened in the story if it is the intentions of the writer.
Writer's intention >>>>>>>you.