- 24,974
- 26,821
SureShould I make a CRT
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
SureShould I make a CRT
It's just that the MCU writers are writers, not scientiest or military experts.With how low the on-screen yield for Thanos' snap was, despite being described as "a power surge of cosmic proportions,
Well at least the 6-B cap still remains and we're looking at an upgrade for Thor to "At most 6-C" if we can't scale his KE-based Endgame Storm calc to his physical self which was done uber-casually.It's just that the MCU writers are writers, not scientiest or military experts.
Plus as mentioned the original 1 million k figure is a large over estimation of a Neutron Star's heat. Thor's one would be significantly lower than that number.
Did Friday mean the spire itself would crack or the city? Because the latter one fits in better with her next sentence about the death toll still being in the millions.It's an outlier, but it's also pivotal to the plot to stop Ultron's mass extinction plan
Did Friday mean the spire itself would crack or the city? Because the latter one fits in better with her next sentence about the death toll still being in the millions.
Yeah, that part has always bothered me, even if the number was still rising. 5 gigatons+ seems way too low for that power surge, even visually speakingWith how low the on-screen yield for Thanos' snap was, despite being described as "a power surge of cosmic proportions, no one's ever seen anything like it", I don't trust WoG figures very much
I checked the video at x0.25 speed, and it looks to be about 5200+ megatonsLol can the snap value be upgraded as well wasn't the last number before it cut like 5800 megaton snap should be 5.8 gigatons instead of 5.2(tbh it's probably much higher maybe even 6+ but I digress)
ThisIt's stated in Endgame. 5.836 Gigatons
Eh, maybe it's just something wrong with my eyes
No, it's explicitly the spire mentioned to crack, right after Tony asks what would happen to the vibranium spire if Thor hit it hard enough.Did Friday mean the spire itself would crack or the city? Because the latter one fits in better with her next sentence about the death toll still being in the millions.
Yup. But I didn't see 5.8 gigatons anywhereIt definitely got above 5.2
I think what it is is probably actually just 5.336 but I'm going to go back to the movieYup. But I didn't see 5.8 gigatons anywhere
But why would cracking the spire effect the damaged the meteor would do? Its the thrusters and the mass are doing the work, not the spire.No, it's explicitly the spire mentioned to crack,
The dwarves likely tried to keep the neutron star as true-to-form as possible for whatever desirable qualities it had as a power source/forge, or they likely wouldn't have bothered. Plus, using the melting point is an extreme lowball, especially given how fast the Uru melts. Even with a forge running at melting point of a metal, it still takes a good while to actually heat if from room temperature and get it to melt if held at its melting point, not the handful of minutes it took for the Uru to meltIt's just that the MCU writers are writers, not scientiest or military experts.
Plus as mentioned the original 1 million k figure is a large over estimation of a Neutron Star's heat. Thor's one would be significantly lower than that number.
It only takes Iron about five minutes to melt in most forges for low carbon yields.not the handful of minutes it took for the Uru to melt
That's not really a solid justification for using a temperature 20 times higher than Uru's stated melting point. Especially when it took at least three in-universe minutes for the metal to melt.The dwarves likely tried to keep the neutron star as true-to-form as possible for whatever desirable qualities it had as a power source/forge,
?So is Thanos' Low 6-B+ still usable?
Foundries are often operating at temperatures in excess of the melting point and also have high ambient temperatures, meaning the metal reaches melting point faster. From what we can see, the ambient temperature of Nidavellir when the forge was restarted seemed pretty cold. And iirc the beam from the neutron star wasn't directly heating the Uru, it hit a receptacle that provided power to the smelterIt only takes Iron about five minutes to melt in most forges for low carbon yields.
That's not really a solid justification for using a temperature 20 times higher than Uru's stated melting point. Especially when it took at least three in-universe minutes for the metal to melt.
EDIT: I forgot to take in consideration heating up the forge. Though in this case the star beam can instantly do that while normal forges need to take time to reach that temperature.
It's not the same WoG, because neither are WoG. The Uru statement comes from a technical manual and the other is a in-universe measurement. If anything both are actually much harder pieces of evidence than WoG because they occur in licensed marterial.And I'm still not trusting the same WoG
All the same, still one statistic put in without much thought that makes me doubt whether the other statistic had much thought put into it, eitherIt's not the same WoG, because neither are WoG. The Uru statement comes from a technical manual and the other is a in-universe measurement. If anything both are actually much harder pieces of evidence than WoG because they occur in licensed marterial.
No it's recalculated at High 6-B and that's an outlierSo is Thanos' Low 6-B+ still usable?
In fairness that's vagueWith how low the on-screen yield for Thanos' snap was, despite being described as "a power surge of cosmic proportions, no one's ever seen anything like it", I don't trust WoG figures very much
Low 6-B+ is the recalc version tho?No it's recalculated at High 6-B and that's an outlier
Wait I thought the Low 6-B Tesseract was the original but then we got the High 6-B afterwards. The comments seem to imply thatLow 6-B+ is the recalc version tho?
Is that KLOL calc? Because it turned out to be 7-BLow 6-B+ is the recalc version tho?
The original was High 6-B, the recalced version Spino made was Low 6-B+ afaik.Wait I thought the Low 6-B Tesseract was the original but then we got the High 6-B afterwards. The comments seem to imply that
That's the neuron star feat, not Thanos crushing the tesseractIs that KLOL calc? Because it turned out to be 7-B
Ah I seeThe original was High 6-B, the recalced version Spino made was Low 6-B+ afaik.
Jeez how did we get 7-BThat's the neuron star feat, not Thanos crushing the tesseract
50 thousand kelvin instead of 1 million kelvinJeez how did we get 7-B
But it's not. It's dismissing a statement because you don't feel it aligns with our fan calcs, which isn't really how that works.All the same
But it's not. It's dismissing a statement because you don't feel it aligns with our fan calcs, which isn't really how that works.
Also I'm dismissing them cuz I think they're kinda crap on their own, even without them not aligning with fan calcs. A "power surge of cosmic proportions, no one's ever seen anything like it" shouldn't be getting dwarfed by the yield of a normal observable solar flareBut it's not. It's dismissing a statement because you don't feel it aligns with our fan calcs, which isn't really how that works.
I feel like you can't just dismiss what we don't like because they don't get big numbers. Why trust the team to correctly know the temperature of a pulsar but not the same team when they say Uru's melting point is 50,000k?Also I'm dismissing them cuz I think they're kinda crap on their own, even without them not aligning with fan calcs.