Originally posted by Silent Master
One of the definitions of science is "a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject."Sounds like magic qualifies.
You mean that the Asgardians could have such an understanding of the universe that they have managed to study even magic to such an extent that it is now simply considered a type of scientific field within their knowledge? Certainly possible. In fact, that is how I actually originally saw how their magic-science worked in Thor 1.
Then at Thor 2 Jane kinda threw off that logic a bit when she was able to figure out how a Soul Forge works by calling it a Quantum Field Generator. It actually put me back to the "superscience that looks like magic" explanation as I feel it is more consistent with movie showings.
Although, one can certainly still see it that way. Since that would still make it functionally the same thing for the purposes of this debate. I certainly won't argue against it, since the idea that certain Asgardians can practice magic like certain humans can isn't really far fetched and makes a lot of sense.
As an example
If magic doesn't exist, how is Thor able to open the bifrost using Stormbreaker since we saw it being made and no technology was added to it.
Another example
When Mjolnir was destroyed we didn't see any visible technology. So how was it able to judge people's worthiness or return Thor's powers.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Well, yeah, science-magic, magic-science it's just a matter of definition. I think as it is, the Asgardian "tech/magic" is so beyond our own comprehension it may as well be magic.So for the sake of this argument only, let's say it IS magic.
As to your first question: They certainly have qualities/abilities that can be perceived as magical, sure. But to avoid a no-limits fallacy, we need to only limit what they can on what they've been EXPLICITLY shown to be capable of doing. Odin is implied to be vastly more powerful than Thor/Hela/etc in his prime but I'm not about to pull esoteric abilities for Odin out of thin air.
As for Mjolnir being prone to such. Well that would depend on what you mean by "prone". Do you mean that certain levels of magic (provided that Magic is powerful enough) would affect it? I can agree to that. Do you mean that Mjolnir has a special vulnerability to magic? That, I can't agree to. Since why would they make a weapon that is vulnerable to magic when the vast majority of the enemies that Thor would face would be considered "magical"?
We've seen Mjolnir affected by Odin's magic. But his magic and power is just well above Mjolnir (or Hela or Thor for that matter) that it should have no relevance in this argment.
By prone I mean that the Weapon's material can be influenced by spells (magic).
Nice! Because we clearly saw Odin effortlessly enchanting Mjolnir, and we know that Hela's power is one to rival his.
So, knowing that Hela is not only magical, but furthermore is labeled as the "Goddess of Death", and, that Mjolnir can be influenced by magic, rebuking magic in Hela's feat is unwise.
Furthermore, last time a checked, crushing an object doesn't produce an explosion. So, there is got to be something more going on in that feat, than solely Hela's hand crushing the hammer.
In conclusion, no, I don't believe that Hela's feat is one of pure strength. Specially not when we consider that if the feat is indeed one of strength, Thor would have 0 chance of facing her H2H (She would just crush him).
Originally posted by Silent Master
As an exampleIf magic doesn't exist, how is Thor able to open the bifrost using Stormbreaker since we saw it being made and no technology was added to it.
Another example
When Mjolnir was destroyed we didn't see any visible technology. So how was it able to judge people's worthiness or return Thor's powers.
Superscience is a fictional catch all I'm afraid. For as long as that explanation is used, fiction allows it.
I mean we might as well ask how Superman flies when he has no means of propulsion.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
By prone I mean that the Weapon's material can be influenced by spells (magic).Nice! Because we clearly saw Odin effortlessly enchanting Mjolnir, and we know that Hela's power is one to rival his.
So, knowing that Hela is not only magical, but furthermore is labeled as the "Goddess of Death", and, that Mjolnir can be influenced by magic, rebuking magic in Hela's feat is unwise.
Furthermore, last time a checked, crushing an object doesn't produce an explosion. So, there is got to be something more going on in that feat, than solely Hela's hand crushing the hammer.
In conclusion, no, I don't believe that Hela's feat is one of pure strength. Specially not when we consider that if the feat is indeed one of strength, Thor would have 0 chance of facing her H2H (She would just crush him).
Well, by that definition any and all materials can be influenced by spells for as long as fiction allows.
I am not rebuking her ability to spellcast, I am saying there is no evidence that she can and nothing in the movie showed that she cast a spell to affect Mjolnir. As what Shadowfyre said, we do not use headcanon to explain showings, we use evidence.
Non Sequitur. Being "magical" does not assign her specific powers outsie what she has demonstrated. Being able to rival Odin in power does not give her the same powers.
Mjolnir is a better source for the explosion as with the lightning and everything. Hela has never demonstrated lightning abilities.
Thor did have zero chance of facing her H2H. Like I said, characters have highs and they have lows. Thor has an ultra high durabality "feat", Hela has an ultrahigh strength "feat". We accept the highs but we do not use it as an average.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Superscience is a fictional catch all I'm afraid. For as long as that explanation is used, fiction allows it.I mean we might as well ask how Superman flies when he has no means of propulsion.
We saw it made, they melted metal and poured it into a cast. there was no superscience parts added to Stormbreaker.
Originally posted by Silent Master
We saw it made, they melted metal and poured it into a cast. there was no superscience parts added to Stormbreaker.
It was never stated (or at least I don't remember) what made Stormbreaker whether "magic" or "superscience akin to magic" (though at a certain point, the line between the two blurs). so we can't really say w/c of the two methods (whether superscience or magic) was used.
Fiction is fiction, it doesn't have to follow any rules save those the writer sets in his verse. IF he wants sueprscience to be the means in w/c something is made it doesn't matter the what's or the how's. It's better if it's rooted in something relatable or understandable by the reader but that is not a hard rule. Lex Luthor could build a time machine made of orange juice, a rubber band and paper clips and that'd still be superscience and not magic.
Edit. Is there a purpose to all this? What possible relevance is if the Asgardians use magic-y science or science-y magic? Either would work and either would have the same relevance to the debate.
Originally posted by Silent Master
We were shown the process of it being made, feel free to post a clip and timestamp where superscience parts were added.
Is there a rule that superscience-y parts need to be added in order for it to be superscience?
And did I state it WAS superscience? My position is that we don't know.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Your response to how Thor was able to summon Stormbreaker or use it to open the Bi-frost was superscience. if SB doesn't contain any superscience parts. how can superscience be the answer to my question?
Because fiction would allow it? A writer does not need to abide by your rules (or anyone's) of logic and reality in order for something to function in his work. If he wants it to be superscience then it is superscience. And if you're asking what was written that seems to point out that it is superscience, then we go back to the Thor 1 exposition and the Thor 2 where Jane broke down the function of Asgardian "tech/magic" into plausible Earth-science (but of course, interpretations would vary).
And if you're asking me why I think Stormbreaker was superscience, my answer is: This is a strawman. I never said Stormbreaker WAS superscience, I said we don't know. But superscience or science akin to magic qualifies just as well as magic does due to expositions present in previous movies.
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
How did heimdall summon the bi Frost on his deathbed without the actual machine?The answer is magic.
I already stated that it is reasonable to believe that specific Asgardian characters can use magic (or magic-like abilities) the same way that some humans can use magic (or magic-like abilities) this is not an unreasonable position to take after all. But my position has always been that this is not the ONLY possibility.
Superscience or superpowers can explain just about anything in fiction. Can super-XYZ NOT explain Heimdall being able to summon a bridge the same way magic does? Do we even know if magic is even different from science within the perception of an Asgardian (expositions say it is not).
(not addressed to you but in general--->😉 This is all irrelevant in this debate, though. Hela cannot be given abilities magical or otherwise that allow her to do things like weaken Mjolnir unless it was EXPLICITLY shown that she has the ability to do so on screen. At least not in a debate. We use evidence here, not headcanon/speculation.
Because people dont like Helas feat of crushing Mjolnir so they are trying to add reasons for her being able to do so even though there is nothing to back it up.
Mjolnir was actively trying to return to Thors hand but could nit because if her grip on it. And then, you see her clench her hands and cracks appear. Thats enough for me to say strength was involved.