- 24,975
- 26,822
Would we be able to calc how much energy Thor was able to tank before passing out?
-
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 Tier 6 Upgrades?
- Thread starter Marvel_Champion_07
- Start date
- Status
- 12,085
- 2,096
No, we have Iron Man 2 Tony having a stronger feat than Nidallevir
- 12,085
- 2,096
Okay now, first thing that is needed is Thanos crushing the tesseract needs to be calculated
- 39,646
- 15,557
@KLOL506 You want to do it?
- 32,835
- 38,105
That's exactly what we did tho, and that was the 7-B result.
- 32,835
- 38,105
Once again I will reiterate, I WILL NOT TOUCH THE TESSERACT CALC IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER, it's just way outta my league.
- 24,975
- 26,822
Ouch, never mind.
- 39,646
- 15,557
Now what? Who want to recalculating Tesseract feat at this point?
- 3,720
- 1,729
Yo, sorry for the late reply since you messaged me on my message wall. Yeah, I agree with 6-C being somewhat of a lowball. Also considering that a heavily weakened Hela was capable of shattering Mjolnir, which is made of the same metal as the IG and the IG tanked it twice leaves me to believe that the higher end feats are consistent.
- 3,720
- 1,729
I'm talking durability wise, not AP, it's listed on the profile as well.
- 11,099
- 4,323
Alright so I've spent days looking at the Tesseract feat and all I've got is a massive headache.
Right, so looking at the actual quote for the Tesseract feat, it seems flimsier than I initially thought when put into context
However I guess you could still argue that the cube would have to survive that heat. But then Tony did propose that Selvig could have figured out how to stabilize the quantum tunnelling effect. in simple words, think of it as quantum mechanics bullshit that allows you to achieve nuclear fusion at a lower temperature, which is how stars in real life do so. I've been looking for a while and I'm not sure if Selvig was implied to have figured that out in the movie and I don't have time to rewatch the whole thing right now.
It's definitely rather iffy to use as a main supporting feat to say the least. I'll look more into it when I feel better but best spend your times debating other feats.
Right, so looking at the actual quote for the Tesseract feat, it seems flimsier than I initially thought when put into context
So the 120 million value was Bruce Banner theorizing the energy required to activate the Tesseract's powers. The Coulomb barrier is to overcome the repulsion between particles so nuclear fusion can be achieved, which Thanos definitely did not cause.
However I guess you could still argue that the cube would have to survive that heat. But then Tony did propose that Selvig could have figured out how to stabilize the quantum tunnelling effect. in simple words, think of it as quantum mechanics bullshit that allows you to achieve nuclear fusion at a lower temperature, which is how stars in real life do so. I've been looking for a while and I'm not sure if Selvig was implied to have figured that out in the movie and I don't have time to rewatch the whole thing right now.
It's definitely rather iffy to use as a main supporting feat to say the least. I'll look more into it when I feel better but best spend your times debating other feats.
- 24,975
- 26,822
Well that's a massive L
- 20,529
- 17,434
A professor assistant from a university calced the force to break it using some advanced 4th dimensional simulator thing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-ludicrous-strength-of-marvel-villain-thanos/
We could use that I guess.
- 9,113
- 13,723
I mean technically but was it somehow confirmed as canon by anyone from Marvel?
- 20,529
- 17,434
Well it doesn't really need to be canon, since they're just doing what we try to do but with a lot more resources.
The Tesseract in the MCU is confirmed to be structured as a actual Tesseract and the force is based on that.
It's like the time Harvard calculated Hammy's speed from over the hedge.
- 9,113
- 13,723
True
The Tesseract thing sounds like a massive headache giver btw
The Tesseract thing sounds like a massive headache giver btw
- 8,845
- 9,506
- 32,835
- 38,105
But seriously, they're made of the same metal, they'd need to be of the same durability bare minimum. If something hollow can survive the surge, chances are, something pure solid should have no problem at all.
- 32,835
- 38,105
LS only. Which eventually got rejected for some reason.
Last edited:
- 32,835
- 38,105
Only proves that this entire feat is a low-ball.
And even then, 120 million lbs is like, Class M.
- 7,466
- 2,886
- 6,900
- 8,043
Obviously the cube is made of ice, this is evident because:
-it's blue
-it's clear
-it's blue
-it's clear
- 20,529
- 17,434
Because the original calc was based in it having the density of a neutron star. IW made it clear that Uru isn't that, so it was just obsoleted
- 32,835
- 38,105
Ah yes, it was something along those lines.
- 17,150
- 26,860
It's better than working from nothing and it seems that professor was onto something by using carbon in his tesseract calc
- 32,835
- 38,105
BRUH, SO MUCH FOR THE SILICON
- 12,085
- 2,096
Guys can we discuss the MCU Iron Man meteor feat.
Donttalk said to calculate it we get the overall KE - The impact of the crater, so it's usable
Donttalk said to calculate it we get the overall KE - The impact of the crater, so it's usable
- 12,085
- 2,096
It would be higher, as Oxygen and Nitrogen are both heavier than carbon, but we don't know percentages
- 32,835
- 38,105
So KE of the meteor - crater impact = energy tanked by Iron Man? Which would bypass the surface area bullcrap because he'd be rammed into the ground and not sent flying so momentum can't get its grasp on it?
- 12,085
- 2,096
This is what Donttalk said:
"I mean, on the stuff exploding directly into ones face thing I can't say anything helpful and not really put anything helpful on the page either.
That is a decision so ancient that even I barely remember.
Guess it goes in the same vein of us not really subtracting environmental damage from the power of an attack when we determine durability and that it is not too far of the actual result anyways. Basically another simplification for scaling.
As for the meteor thing... it kinda depends IMO.
If the meteor breaks apart on impacting the character and the parts that don't hit the character aren't slowed then yes.
If the meteor hits the character and its KE is mostly cancelled out on impact then the entire meteor should scale on the other hand.
In a case where the meteor stays intact on impact and the KE doesn't visibly get cancelled out things get difficult. In that case, the surface area isn't really what matters IMO. The impact energy isn't really "missing" the character, which is the idea we usually use for inverse-square rulings. Like, in an idealized scenario where the character stands on an indestructible floor it would need to take 100% of the impact, as the parts of the meteor that don't hit the character can't fly past it without the meteor breaking apart.
With a destructible floor, things get more difficult. The impact would press the character into the earth and then the impact is split between it and the earth that gets hit. If this were real-life physics I would say calculate the energy to cause the displayed amount of destruction to the floor, subtract it from the meteors KE and the result is the difference that the character being there made. However, in fiction, we have the trouble with the AoE not reflecting power.
So that makes that difficult. Personally, I would say that by The Rules of Fiction™ the character is probably comparable to the attack's power. Similar to how we would scale a character that gets hit by an energy beam and flung out of its path without absorbing 100% of the beam to the attackers AP. Maybe err on the side of caution and downscale a character by a tier if the AP was close to baseline.
That's my take at least."
Take that if it is suitable for usable calculations
- 4,716
- 4,209
I'm saying we should use the Low 6-B version of the calc because it fits better with his shown feats
- 4,716
- 4,209
Which is entirely reliant on a statement from A secondary canon book, We should use the original calc which puts it at Low 6-B way more in line with his shown feats
- 11,099
- 4,323
We don't choose the version of calculations we think is the most consistent, we choose the more accurate one scientifically and the neutron star feat has been discussed many times with the older calcs being proven inaccurate.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
