• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Hmmn so I suppose we should treat the moment of Thor truly becoming 6-C as after he gets beaten the shit out of by Hela?

And in his fight versus Hela he's somewhere unknown between 7-A and 6-C and combined with Gungnir he can fight Hela for a bit.

But then he lost to Thanos off-screen. We don't know how but Loki still seemed confident of Hulk fighting Thanos after his brother got beaten.
 
Hulk after training at Sakaar should be at most 6-C for taking 2 blows from awakend Thor and still going strong even though he’s clearly weaker tbh.
 
The counter-argument seems to be that Thor was not yet 6-C at that point. But then there are many instances that Hulk seems to be implied to be on the level of the strongest as said above, though it's not as clear cut as I originally imagined.
 
Can't we just recalculate it.
The comment had this part
Major problem with this calculation is that you're getting an answer in Watts and displaying the result in Joules. This feat isn't quantifiable without more information on the Tesseract.

As an example, if we assume the Tesseract is as dense as granite and has a specific heat coefficient of water (one of the highest materials in this category) then this would calculate out like this:

1. The Tesseract has a volume of 0.002 m^3 (0.12 m x 0.12 m x 0.12 m)

2. The Tesseract has a mass of 5.5 kg (0.002 m^3 x 2750 kg/m^3)

3. Water has a specific heat coefficient of 4.186 J/g K, meaning it'd take about 2.7e+12 J or 660 Tons of TNT to heat the Tesseract to this temperature, not teratons

The emissivity just tells you how fast the Tesseract will lose this temperature, not how much energy it's tanking or emitting. You can't know that without a timeframe.
 
The water part is incredibly sus
That actually makes the result much lower, since the water thing was using its emissivity ratio.
if its energy yield being noted to be able to wipe out the Eastern seaboard is anything to go by.
There were a lot of explosives on those planes. It wasn't going to one shot the Eastern Seaboard.
 
Hollowness plays no factor in an earthquake calc
It does. If the planet lacks tectonic plate structure there's nothing to base an earthquake calc on. It would be like trying to calc an earthquake for a black hole or a gas giant.
 
It does. If the planet lacks tectonic plate structure there's nothing to base an earthquake calc on. It would be like trying to calc an earthquake for a black hole or a gas giant.
I thought radiated waves didn't need tectonic plates and was based on meteor impacts.

Though I do remember DontTalk saying it wouldn't work on our Moon or something.
 
I thought radiated waves didn't need tectonic plates
Radiated waves are short hand for "Seismic Energy in Waves Radiated from Earthquake Source". They're just the energy of seismic waves through a medium. Its why large explosions or meteor impacts can generate them since they can cause a seismic event.

If something lacks tectonic plates you can't get seismic energy from it.
 
Back
Top