-
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.
Mcu 6-a and speed rough draft
- 4,716
- 4,209
Yeah, I see. And since were getting back 6-B it's kinda redundant
- 8,413
- 10,656
- Thread starter
- #723
Party Thor also apparently blow up alpha star with one of his parties
(0:38)
(0:38)
- 8,997
- 9,718
4-C Party Thor because of his parties seems kinda weird. And I don't think scaling main timeline counterparts to their What If...? counterparts is currently accepted unless there's strong evidence that they are identical, like in the case of Doctor Strange
- 8,997
- 9,718
I did make an off-site 5-B calc based on a different Low 5-B calc several months ago
- 8,413
- 10,656
- Thread starter
- #726
Not saying he should be 4-c, just bringing it up as something I found. Besides there’s to many factors to consider when looking at this “feat”. His pretty much the same expect his a spoiled brat
- 8,997
- 9,718
This, I agree with, but I don't think the wiki would accept it
- 8,413
- 10,656
- Thread starter
- #728
They should since that’s the only thing different(besides I’ll only be using for supporting evidence at best)
- 8,413
- 10,656
- Thread starter
- #729
Also is anyone gonna redo the shaking calc with the info I’ve provided?
- 32,835
- 38,105
Because it's brute-force KE most of the way.
- 32,835
- 38,105
Like I said, still too vague without asking the VFX artists what dimension of the Canyon they were referring to when they made the comparison.
- 8,413
- 10,656
- Thread starter
- #732
They litterly say the “Grand Canyon” times hundered and then double down and call it a super-sized canyon. There’s absolutely no reason not to use the same dimensions as the entire Grand Canyon. If they just said it’s a super big canyon then sure that’s vague, but there straight up giving us a comparison to work with, so Idk why it needs to be super technically now.
- 32,835
- 38,105
They don't mention whether they're specifically multiplying the area by 100 or the length/width separately by 100.
- 32,835
- 38,105
The IRL canyon. Ranges anywhere from 6-18 miles in width.
You'd need evidence that they specifically meant the length and width individually.
- 8,413
- 10,656
- Thread starter
- #735
And they don’t need to, it’s clear this is an all around comparison to the canyon
Ok then use the same values of width of the canyon
why do I need more evidence that they specifically mean the length and width when they already the compared it to the whole thing. What exactly is so special about length and width?
- 32,835
- 38,105
If that is the case then what reason do they have to not just use the area obtained from the 277*18 value?
At its widest point.
Actually no wait, it's 4-18 miles. Not that it matters much.
It's in the word. "Size". If they meant length they'd clearly say "100 times the length".
Nothing, just that they aren't specifically mentioned here. Only the word "size" is.
- 8,413
- 10,656
- Thread starter
- #737
Idk I guess they wanted it be super big
Ok then use the same values of width of the canyon. Or just use the lowest and highest width for high and low balls
I doubt it, when people compare something in size they generally mean an all around comparison
ya and size can also be used for width and length
- 32,835
- 38,105
Wouldn't matter much. Using Google Maps the area would be right around the 4000 - 5000 sq mi mark.
Maybe so, but in this case we need more evidence than that.
- 8,413
- 10,656
- Thread starter
- #739
On average?
why? If they wanted to specify the width or the length then they would have instead of just doing a general comparison
- 4,606
- 5,428
Shouldn't Surtur be High 6-B with the Twilight Sword since he one-shot Hela and destroyed Asgard?
Coolboy6
He/Him- 7,434
- 5,993
The sword destroyed the core of Asgard, not it directly from what I’ve heard unfortunately
- 8,997
- 9,718
Destroying Asgard was because Surtur stabbed the crystal structure and it went boom according to the script. He himself didn't cause the explosion
- 8,413
- 10,656
- Thread starter
- #743
He should be higher tbh. Due to Hela statment of the eternal flame being above the tesseract
- 32,835
- 38,105
No. He directly impacted the core, the imminent High 6-B boom destroyed both him and the sword. It was essentially a chain reaction, if the sword was that strong then Surtur would've just waved it at Asgard from a distance and walked away. But he didn't.
- 32,835
- 38,105
Tesseract crushing has no tier anymore due to the wonky assumptions of the old calc, and the High 6-B boom killed him.
- 8,997
- 9,718
They aren't talking about the Tesseract crushing calc. They are talking about scaling Surtur's AP above the Tesseract's, like what they brought up two pages ago
Last edited:
- 8,413
- 10,656
- Thread starter
- #747
I wasn’t talking about the crushing feat I was talking about him straight up being more powerful then the tesseract
(0:18)
Probably cuz fate tbh
- 8,413
- 10,656
- Thread starter
- #748
Also I’m just curious but how much energy dose a neutron star output?
- 32,835
- 38,105
I mean, the Tesseract's offensive power isn't necessarily generated from the stone like that, it has to be harnessed separately into other weapons. The Stone on its own? Useless.
- 32,835
- 38,105
7.17 kilotons of TNT or 30 trillion joules. 7-C.
- 32,835
- 38,105
But this one Quora link which has sources and math for it states that the energy yield is around 4.5e38 ergs or 4e+31 J (5-C, Moon level)
Problem is tho, the Neutron Star in Infinity War has darkened out and doesn't have remotely anywhere near as much power because it's too old.
Problem is tho, the Neutron Star in Infinity War has darkened out and doesn't have remotely anywhere near as much power because it's too old.
- 8,413
- 10,656
- Thread starter
- #752
Thought it would be higher
Wasn’t it rigenited thought? Besides aren’t all neutron stars old?
- 32,835
- 38,105
No, it was always active but the doors inside it had closed.
Some are particularly older than others. Older they get, the more energy they lose.
- 8,413
- 10,656
- Thread starter
- #754
- 179
- 278
Honestly, without direct confirmation of its age, it seems like too much headcannon to assume it's so much older than any others and therefore has less energy. Does Eitri mention how long the Forge has been active? I think he might've.
- 8,413
- 10,656
- Thread starter
- #756
And even then isn’t it possible that nidvallar is also controlling/harnessing it’s gravity since rocket and groot haven’t been turned into noodles or whatever?
- 4,716
- 4,209
That can kinda be explained by the outer casing.
- 8,413
- 10,656
- Thread starter
- #758
Would that really null it’s gravity?
- 179
- 278
If you're talking about the dyson sphere. Then yeah, I think the outer casing is supposed to neutralize all the properties of the star until it was restarted.
- 4,716
- 4,209
We have ships capable of doing that already in the MCU so I don't see why Space Gods with magic can't do that.
