Base Thanos (Avengers Endgame) VS Post Nuke Doomsday

Originally posted by Psychotron
Suiting up doesn't mean anything. He had a beer gut. I played the scene several times and he was still fat. Mjolnir and Stormbreaker don't make him more powerful, they're just focuses for his lightning at this point. Odin made it clear.

"The full force of a star" and "nearly dead star" aren't mutually exclusive as that was the full force the neutron star could produce at that point. And it still would have killed him if not for Stormbreaker. Don't ignore that.

Nearly dead or not it was still fully functioning otherwise it wouldn’t have been able to create stormbreaker.

just got back from seeing Endgame.. Thanos stomps so hard it isn't even funny

Doomsday wins via NLF and tanking a nuke that’s greater than a star

Base Thanos not that impressive.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
A Neutron star is one of the most extreme celestial objects in the universe (below a black hole). I mean you can maybe call it an outlier but trying to lowball the "feat" is just a little shameful don't you think?

And if Thor tanked it's massive gravity it would be pretty impressive but he didn't. He took its heat (which is less than a nuke's as I've proved in multiple threads) and was getting killed. That's it. Don't overblow it.

Titan, no. He showed in Ragnarok that he can charge himself with lightning without Mjolnir or Stormbreaker. That was part of his character development.

Something a lot of you are misunderstanding is that tanking the heat of a dead star is less impressive than Doomsday surviving a nuke being dropped on him.

The heat inside the epicenter of the nuclear explosions modern nuclear bombs is in excess of 250,000,000 degrees celcius. The heat of our suns core is around 80,000,000 on average. That makes the heat of a nuclear explosion over 3 times hotter than what Thor took- and that’s assuming the feat is even as impressive as people make it out to be.

Realistically, the beam he ranked was just a small concentration of the energy coming from the star. It’s not as if he tanked it exploding, or something.

And either way, no one is arguing that Doomsday will vaporize Thanos. In terms of strength, speed, and stamina, Doomsday would utterly annhialate Thanos.

Thanos can’t take a nuke, or even a slash of stormbreaker, which has nowhere near that level of force.

Thanos WOULD likely be able to slash Doomsday and cut him- but only once. Is everyone forgetting Doomsday’s reactive adaptation, and regeneration capabilities? Even if Thanos managed to kill him, the only way he’d stay dead is if Thanos’ sword had kryptonite on it. Then he’d have no chance when Doomsday revives. That’s assuming he’d even manage to take out Doomsday in the first place, who is massively faster, stronger, and more durable.

Doomsday wins, hands down.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
A Neutron star is one of the most extreme celestial objects in the universe (below a black hole). I mean you can maybe call it an outlier but trying to lowball the "feat" is just a little shameful don't you think?

With that said DD is obviously stronger than Thanos (not by a whole lot though) and more durable. If Thanos has his blade then he has a good chance (he must cut the head off though) but DD can heal and grow new limbs. If Thanos doesnt have his blade then he loses badly.

Originally posted by h1a8
Everything he said was true. Name one thing he said that was false.

With that said DD is obviously stronger than Thanos (not by a whole lot though) and more durable. If Thanos has his blade then he has a good chance (he must cut the head off though) but DD can heal and grow new limbs. If Thanos doesnt have his blade then he loses badly.

Why are you assuming Doomsday can be killed by behdeading when 1. He has no organs, making his head no more important than an arm, and 2. It was outright stated that he can’t be killed without kryptonite, to stop him from regenerating?

Originally posted by Psychotron
And if Thor tanked it's massive gravity it would be pretty impressive but he didn't. He took its heat (which is less than a nuke's as I've proved in multiple threads) and was getting killed. That's it. Don't overblow it.

Titan, no. He showed in Ragnarok that he can charge himself with lightning without Mjolnir or Stormbreaker. That was part of his character development.

A few things, but before I begin, I'm not sure we've debated before so I feel its best that we try to get things off on the right foot .

Don't know what the 2 posters below you are saying, but I already have them in ignore. h1 for obvious reasons but I don't know who SSJ is and it's surprising he's even in my ignore list since I don't even know who he is. Probably trolled or something back then so it's all irrelevant really.

Anyway, my comment was in relation to the phrasing in your statement when you added "near-dead neutron star" w/c strongly implies that being near-dead neutron star somehow diminishes the "feat" in relation to a normal star where it does not (thus the "lowballing" comment). As the forces of a neutron star is some of the most extreme out there. If you meant different, then I feel that you should maybe fix your phrasing next time? As the implicative language is a bit too strong to ignore if you ask me.

Also, to add, neutron stars don't just have gravity and heat. But this isn't important at this time.

Before I continue, I'd like to say that in situations like this, we can either debate as reasonable debaters or we can allow the discussion to devolve to time waster trolling as one side tries to out-science each other.

Let us agree on one thing: None of us participating in the debate so far are physicists (there are a few posters around here like Astner who has not posted in this thread yet, and I wish he would, would make debates soo much easier for all of us if someone credible can be asked to do the science-ing). The science here is beyond us. We have to be honest about this. Til someone with actual credentials comes in and posts the actual best-explanation science involved in the "feat", this is the best we have so far:

https://youtu.be/bOLOBJSJL0I

Now, I'll be honest, there is NO WAY (other than the filmmakers themselves quantifying said "feat"😉 that anyone can provide the absolutely correct science on the "feat". But we go by "most correct" when we debate, and as the science is beyond us, at this point all we can do is refer to experts that do take the time to do the science behind a "feat".

One thing I do wish to point out, tho, is that, from my interpretation on what the expert above is saying, this "feat" is not about surviving temperature, it is about resisting heat energy (there is a very important difference between the two). What do you think (you seem like you want to be reasonable, I'd like to get our opinion on this)?

Anyway, we can probably go at it and try to out-science each other (when neither side can really provide the correct science) but this has already been done and in the end, it's an absolute waste of time reserved only for trolls.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
A few things, but before I begin, I'm not sure we've debated before so I feel its best that we try to get things off on the right foot .

Don't know what the 2 posters below you are saying, but I already have them in ignore. h1 for obvious reasons but I don't know who SSJ is and it's surprising he's even in my ignore list since I don't even know who he is. Probably trolled or something back then so it's all irrelevant really.

Anyway, my comment was in relation to the phrasing in your statement when you added "near-dead neutron star" w/c strongly implies that being near-dead neutron star somehow diminishes the "feat" in relation to a normal star where it does not (thus the "lowballing" comment). As the forces of a neutron star is some of the most extreme out there. If you meant different, then I feel that you should maybe fix your phrasing next time? As the implicative language is a bit too strong to ignore if you ask me.

Also, to add, neutron stars don't just have gravity and heat. But this isn't important at this time.

Before I continue, I'd like to say that in situations like this, we can either debate as reasonable debaters or we can allow the discussion to devolve to time waster trolling as one side tries to out-science each other.

Let us agree on one thing: None of us participating in the debate so far are physicists (there are a few posters around here like Astner who has not posted in this thread yet, and I wish he would, would make debates soo much easier for all of us if someone credible can be asked to do the science-ing). The science here is beyond us. We have to be honest about this. Til someone with actual credentials comes in and posts the actual best-explanation science involved in the "feat", this is the best we have so far:

https://youtu.be/bOLOBJSJL0I

Now, I'll be honest, there is NO WAY (other than the filmmakers themselves quantifying said "feat"😉 that anyone can provide the absolutely correct science on the "feat". But we go by "most correct" when we debate, and as the science is beyond us, at this point all we can do is refer to experts that do take the time to do the science behind a "feat".

One thing I do wish to point out, tho, is that, from my interpretation on what the expert above is saying, this "feat" is not about surviving temperature, it is about resisting heat energy (there is a very important difference between the two). What do you think (you seem like you want to be reasonable, I'd like to get our opinion on this)?

Anyway, we can probably go at it and try to out-science each other (when neither side can really provide the correct science) but this has already been done and in the end, it's an absolute waste of time reserved only for trolls.

And you just made 95% of the forum and internet look like an *******. Good job man.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
A few things, but before I begin, I'm not sure we've debated before so I feel its best that we try to get things off on the right foot .

Don't know what the 2 posters below you are saying, but I already have them in ignore. h1 for obvious reasons but I don't know who SSJ is and it's surprising he's even in my ignore list since I don't even know who he is. Probably trolled or something back then so it's all irrelevant really.

Anyway, my comment was in relation to the phrasing in your statement when you added "near-dead neutron star" w/c strongly implies that being near-dead neutron star somehow diminishes the "feat" in relation to a normal star where it does not (thus the "lowballing" comment). As the forces of a neutron star is some of the most extreme out there. If you meant different, then I feel that you should maybe fix your phrasing next time? As the implicative language is a bit too strong to ignore if you ask me.

Also, to add, neutron stars don't just have gravity and heat. But this isn't important at this time.

Before I continue, I'd like to say that in situations like this, we can either debate as reasonable debaters or we can allow the discussion to devolve to time waster trolling as one side tries to out-science each other.

Let us agree on one thing: None of us participating in the debate so far are physicists (there are a few posters around here like Astner who has not posted in this thread yet, and I wish he would, would make debates soo much easier for all of us if someone credible can be asked to do the science-ing). The science here is beyond us. We have to be honest about this. Til someone with actual credentials comes in and posts the actual best-explanation science involved in the "feat", this is the best we have so far:

https://youtu.be/bOLOBJSJL0I

Now, I'll be honest, there is NO WAY (other than the filmmakers themselves quantifying said "feat"😉 that anyone can provide the absolutely correct science on the "feat". But we go by "most correct" when we debate, and as the science is beyond us, at this point all we can do is refer to experts that do take the time to do the science behind a "feat".

One thing I do wish to point out, tho, is that, from my interpretation on what the expert above is saying, this "feat" is not about surviving temperature, it is about resisting heat energy (there is a very important difference between the two). What do you think (you seem like you want to be reasonable, I'd like to get our opinion on this)?

Anyway, we can probably go at it and try to out-science each other (when neither side can really provide the correct science) but this has already been done and in the end, it's an absolute waste of time reserved only for trolls.

Sure, let's keep things civil.

Now, let me clarify what I meant by "near-dead". The dwarf Eitri said that the Forge, which is essentially a Dyson sphere, had gone cold. Thor and Rocket had to re-ignite it to forge Stormbreaker. There's no way to know how much energy that neutron star was producing after it was re-ignited but it's a safe bet that it would be less than a younger neutron star. Every piece of information I have found says that the average neutron star is cooler than a nuclear explosion. Not only that but the nuke has both heat energy and kinetic energy (enough to level a city), so by my estimates that makes tanking a nuke far more impressive.

Last but not least, everyone acts like Thor just walked it off when in reality he was nearly killed and needed Stormbreaker to survive.

Had to delete and edit this post. Daughter kept bugging me so my train of thought was extremely fragmented. Lol. Let me try again below.

You need a good drink.

No need to take this site so seriously, Nib.

You don't *always* need to bring your a-game...

Originally posted by Psychotron
Sure, let's keep things civil.

Now, let me clarify what I meant by "near-dead". The dwarf Eitri said that the Forge, which is essentially a Dyson sphere, had gone cold. Thor and Rocket had to re-ignite it to forge Stormbreaker. There's no way to know how much energy that neutron star was producing after it was re-ignited but it's a safe bet that it would be less than a younger neutron star. Every piece of information I have found says that the average neutron star is cooler than a nuclear explosion. Not only that but the nuke has both heat energy and kinetic energy (enough to level a city), so by my estimates that makes tanking a nuke far more impressive.

Last but not least, everyone acts like Thor just walked it off when in reality he was nearly killed and needed Stormbreaker to survive.

You're still trying to outscience here man. This is beyond you and me. Only real physicists would be able to really figure out the forces involved here. Best we can FIRST is scrutinize the story to get hints on what the writer is telling us here.

First, I feel you need to watch the video I posted as the guy in the vid actually is credentialed and uses (if I remember the credits of the show correctly) has an actual physicist working as a consultant as well.

What I do know that is a common mistake a lot of ppl make in trying to "science" this "feat" is not first reading up on heat energy vs temperature vs heat transfer and how it works. Temperature gets tossed a lot and I feel that's going about it the wrong way. This is about heat transfer after all. But I will admit to not being an expert either way. Maybe we can discuss the science between us first and try to come to a consensus about how it SHOULD work rather than making conclusions before we know how it works?

After all, we want to avoid confirmation bias here.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
You need a good drink.

No need to take this site so seriously, Nib.

You don't *always* need to bring your a-game...

Haha. Thanks, man, I do need one. Daddy duties during summer is rough. Still have to go to work but daughter now wants attention all the time since school is out O_O and now we have to go to the beach and the pool and the mall and all the baby places all the time.

I tend to put together a "logic layout" in my head and post parts of it piece by piece separately and then I fill out the sentences to make them readable. But if my train of thought gets ruined mid-way none of what I say makes sense as the sentences/logic get jumbled. O_O

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Only real physicists would be able to really figure out the forces involved here.

Stop right here.

I know what we need to do!

Let's contact the biggest expert on our forums.

h1a8

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Stop right here.

I know what we need to do!

Let's contact the biggest expert on our forums.

h1a8

Haha. If he is the biggest expert. Then we are all, indeed, doomed. O_O

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You're still trying to outscience here man. This is beyond you and me. Only real physicists would be able to really figure out the forces involved here. Best we can FIRST is scrutinize the story to get hints on what the writer is telling us here.

First, I feel you need to watch the video I posted as the guy in the vid actually is credentialed and uses (if I remember the credits of the show correctly) has an actual physicist working as a consultant as well.

What I do know that is a common mistake a lot of ppl make in trying to "science" this "feat" is not first reading up on heat energy vs temperature vs heat transfer and how it works. Temperature gets tossed a lot and I feel that's going about it the wrong way. This is about heat transfer after all. But I will admit to not being an expert either way. Maybe we can discuss the science between us first and try to come to a consensus about how it SHOULD work rather than making conclusions before we know how it works?

After all, we want to avoid confirmation bias here.

What is there to discuss further? Thor took a stream of energy from the neutron star. There's no way to measure that in real life so we don't know how powerful it would be but we do know how powerful nukes are.

And there's no way I'm watching a video from that queer again. Just looking at him makes me want to physically assault him.

Originally posted by Psychotron
What is there to discuss further? Thor took a stream of energy from the neutron star. There's no way to measure that in real life so we don't know how powerful it would be but we do know how powerful nukes are.

And there's no way I'm watching a video from that queer again. Just looking at him makes me want to physically assault him.

Well, first we need to try and figure out what the writers are telling us explicitly. Because this is a simple medium with that tends to tell us to believe in simple information to move the story forward.

No need for aggression at him, man, it's just a hairstyle. Guy has credentials and has no reason to lie and has every reason to try and be accurate to not look foolish in a world full of armchair experts.

It's a matter of whether or not you believe him and why you feel your knowledge would be better than his.

It also about whether you believe that your opinions on the matter are based on the facts you know or more if you can honestly say your conclusion is based on the facts and not who you want to win. Then we can move forward, I feel. If your conclusion is honestly based on facts, then share this information (the facts, not the conclusion) with me so we can discuss it.

A lot of debates here degenerate because both sides already picked a winner w/o first scrutinizing (together) what the facts are. Ppl get forced to defend their position regardless of right/wrong because no one wants to admit they are wrong.

I feel that a conclusion-less discussion that focuses on reviewing the evidence FIRST and sharing what each sides know and can confirm would be far more productive. Don't you agree?

Originally posted by h1a8
Everything he said was true. Name one thing he said that was false.

With that said DD is obviously stronger than Thanos (not by a whole lot though) and more durable. If Thanos has his blade then he has a good chance (he must cut the head off though) but DD can heal and grow new limbs. If Thanos doesnt have his blade then he loses badly.

SB》》》》》》》》》Diana's sword.

Also, IG》》》》》》》Nuke.