^ Video explaining effects. There would basically be a massive fireball with giving out really intense heat and deadly radiation. Plus it would act as a massive EMP. But again its no Blast Wave making it much less destructive.
No blast wave but theres obviously still kinetic energy in a massive ball of fire.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
https://youtu.be/Jec6ZKuYgxU^ Video explaining effects. There would basically be a massive fireball with giving out really intense heat and deadly radiation. Plus it would act as a massive EMP. But again its no Blast Wave making it much less destructive.
No blast wave but theres obviously still kinetic energy in a massive ball of fire.
There's a "fire ball" but in the form of radiation not mass.
In that aspect there is little to no kinetic impact.
Originally posted by ShadowFyreThey'd go through him like a hot knife through butter.
Hes definitely not just flying through him. And dtormbreaker can cut him, but it wouldnt even go deep enough to hit muscle tissue, little lone vital organs. Different scale.Its not that Thor or Superman cant physically damage Godzilla, its just they are to small for it to mean a ything.
You have no grounds to put his durability on par with Thor's, much less Thanos's, so no, Stormbreaker not going right through the Mad Titan does not indicate it won't do so to Godzilla. Especially considering that it only impaled Thanos after it got done overpowering a blast from the Infinity Gauntlet.
Thor stomps, 10/10 times, with minimal effort. Big slow lizard gets rekt.
Originally posted by ShadowFyre
Hes definitely not just flying through him. And dtormbreaker can cut him, but it wouldnt even go deep enough to hit muscle tissue, little lone vital organs. Different scale.Its not that Thor or Superman cant physically damage Godzilla, its just they are to small for it to mean a ything.
Superman moving at millions of miles per hour turns him into a much larger area of damage
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
There's a "fire ball" but in the form of radiation not mass.In that aspect there is little to no kinetic impact.
Radiation and HEAT. It is very hot. And there is a Huge fire ball explosion. So theres definitely kinetic energy.
But youre right that without the shock wave the destructive output is massively gimped.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Radiation and HEAT. It is very hot. And there is a Huge fire ball explosion. So theres definitely kinetic energy.But youre right that without the shock wave the destructive output is massively gimped.
My knowledge over nuclear physics isn't that complex, but as Jaden proved, experts say there is no kinetic energy released in space.
Either way, fact is, a nuke on Earth acts differently than on space
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
My knowledge over nuclear physics isn't that complex, but as Jaden proved, experts say there is no kinetic energy released in space.Either way, fact is, a nuke on Earth acts differently than on space
I didnt see the part where it said no kinetic energy. I just read no blast radius.
IOW it wont spread the same way it does on Earth. Which makes it a lot less destructive.
However the full heat is still there and the radiation can be more deadly.
Thats what Ive gathered anyway. It wasnt specific enough about kinetic energy, but a big ball of exploding fire would obviously have kinetic energy.
But yes you are right that its clearly different to exploding in the Earths atmosphere.
In Superman 4, A human woman was breathing and talking in space.
Does that mean that it was air in space?
Basically, writers get shit wrong in movies all the time. Therefore we should go by intent.
Clearly the intent was that the outcome would have been the same on the surface or in orbit.
Note: Trying to use exact physics to lowball (not highball) feats can result in nearly all feats being rendered non feats (or lowballed). So let's stick to writer's intent shall we.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
First of all, there is no solid evidence that SB can cut Godzilla easily.And in order to significantly penetrate Godzilla he would require to have an impressive impulse.
Also, SB penetrating Godzilla would be like an ant penetrating an elephant, the wound would be insignificant.
I think it's more like a human with a hot knife penetrating a blue whale. Sure, a single strike is not going to do much damage to the whale but unless the whale manages to get the human off it then the human will eventually manage to do significant damage to cripple the whale and eventually kill it.
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Like I was saying you have no clue about nuclear physics.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects1.shtml
50% of the nuclear weapon's energy is used in producing an Air Blast. Air has mass and therefore kinetic energy is produced.
Nasa: https://history.nasa.gov/conghand/nuclear.htm
First, in the absence of an atmosphere, blast disappears completely.
In other words, only radiation and thermal energy is released. In that aspect, the kinetic energy released in space is little to none. Insignificant when compared to that in earth.
It's my pleasure to educate you Broly, evidently you didn't attend college
Originally posted by Darth Thor
I didnt see the part where it said no kinetic energy. I just read no blast radius.IOW it wont spread the same way it does on Earth. Which makes it a lot less destructive.
However the full heat is still there and the radiation can be more deadly.
Thats what Ive gathered anyway. It wasnt specific enough about kinetic energy, but a big ball of exploding fire would obviously have kinetic energy.
But yes you are right that its clearly different to exploding in the Earths atmosphere.
Radiations has no mass, at least not Gamma. And even Alpha and Beta have too little mass to be produces an impact.
I agree, the nuke would release more heat and radiation in space, but I agree that Thor's resistance to heat and radiation must be insane.
But again, that doesn't mean he would be able to tank a nuke whilst on Earth.
Originally posted by h1a8
In Superman 4, A human woman was breathing and talking in space.
Does that mean that it was air in space?
Basically, writers get shit wrong in movies all the time. Therefore we should go by intent.
Clearly the intent was that the outcome would have been the same on the surface or in orbit.Note: Trying to use exact physics to lowball (not highball) feats can result in nearly all feats being rendered non feats (or lowballed). So let's stick to writer's intent shall we.
Wrong, we can't take the writers intent at heart.
If we were, then we we would have to take Etri's words literal and accept that Thor can withstand quintillions of tons of force.
Originally posted by FrothByte
I think it's more like a human with a hot knife penetrating a blue whale. Sure, a single strike is not going to do much damage to the whale but unless the whale manages to get the human off it then the human will eventually manage to do significant damage to cripple the whale and eventually kill it.
It will take Thor a significant time, and besides, isn't like Godzilla will just stand there looking at microbe Thor.
Originally posted by h1a8
In Superman 4, A human woman was breathing and talking in space.
Does that mean that it was air in space?
Basically, writers get shit wrong in movies all the time. Therefore we should go by intent.
Clearly the intent was that the outcome would have been the same on the surface or in orbit.Note: Trying to use exact physics to lowball (not highball) feats can result in nearly all feats being rendered non feats (or lowballed). So let's stick to writer's intent shall we.
Just like Avengers IW's intent was that Thor took the full force of a star.
Originally posted by h1a8
In Superman 4, A human woman was breathing and talking in space.
Does that mean that it was air in space?
Basically, writers get shit wrong in movies all the time. Therefore we should go by intent.
Clearly the intent was that the outcome would have been the same on the surface or in orbit.Note: Trying to use exact physics to lowball (not highball) feats can result in nearly all feats being rendered non feats (or lowballed). So let's stick to writer's intent shall we.
You cant just decide what writers intended.
You can take movie statements, and established movie rules, but good writers acknowledge that In Universe characters can be wrong and cant necessarily be trusted to be factual.
But real world science still comes first as thats an objective measurement.