• 55 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for gamer-guy
#1 Edited by Gamer-Guy (3354 posts) - - Show Bio
No Caption Provided

just destroying the surface

Avatar image for thebeardofzues
#2 Posted by TheBeardOfZues (2801 posts) - - Show Bio

Depends on how large that Moon was.

Avatar image for emanresu_20
#3 Posted by Emanresu_20 (3006 posts) - - Show Bio

Well the moon doesn’t have an atmosphere at all so a nuke really would do that much damage.if it did a few holes hundred maybe. That’s just my guess.

Avatar image for red_ruby_petal
#4 Edited by Red_Ruby_Petal (8239 posts) - - Show Bio

BUMP

1 nuke. You guys should know that to see the curvature of the Earth, you'd have to be 10km in the sky.

https://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/

No Caption Provided

Nukes do in fact spread for as much as 70km, which is the standard ICBMs.

Seriously people have been overrating the moon feat so much. Its not a moon, its a glorified piece of rock. In fact the destruction caused at the cost of an entire moon was severely underwhelming and that should have been evidence enough.

Avatar image for buildhare
#5 Posted by buildhare (8715 posts) - - Show Bio

A ridiculous amount of real life nukes, or one DCEU nuke.

Avatar image for thorthunder98
#6 Posted by Thorthunder98 (6804 posts) - - Show Bio

BUMP

1 nuke. You guys should know that to see the curvature of the Earth, you'd have to be 10km in the sky.

You lost me at curvature of the Earth

Avatar image for echostarlord117
#7 Posted by echostarlord117 (5617 posts) - - Show Bio

@red_ruby_petal said:

BUMP

1 nuke. You guys should know that to see the curvature of the Earth, you'd have to be 10km in the sky.

You lost me at curvature of the Earth

Earth is flat = confirmed

Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#8 Edited by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2746 posts) - - Show Bio

@red_ruby_petal said:

BUMP

1 nuke. You guys should know that to see the curvature of the Earth, you'd have to be 10km in the sky.

https://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/

Different planets have different sizes, which effect the distance to see such curvatures... Titan may be a bit smaller or a bit bigger, we don't know. It was more than likely around earth sized, but there is too much assumptions there.

What we do know is that the moon in this case is spherical, meaning it had to have had enough mass over malleable enough materials for the weight in question to form into a sphere. This will start around 400km^3 for things like giant ice moons, or 600km^3 for more rocky ones.

Doing the math on the sizes in question with the lowest possible size estimates for that moon, and we need much more than 1 nuke... Which also hits only one area.

Look at these force requirements for the feat I did the math on:

Thanos Moon Feat CV Estimate

Avatar image for mickey-mouse
#9 Posted by MICKEY-MOUSE (36853 posts) - - Show Bio

I like the way some viners play scientist 👨🏿‍🔬 Lol...

Avatar image for amcu
#10 Posted by Amcu (16931 posts) - - Show Bio
Loading Video...

Avatar image for supermanthor
#11 Posted by Supermanthor (20383 posts) - - Show Bio

Many

Online
Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#12 Posted by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2746 posts) - - Show Bio

@amcu:

You just had to get that stuck in my head, didn't you? 😏

Avatar image for amcu
#13 Posted by Amcu (16931 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for essem
#14 Posted by Essem (338 posts) - - Show Bio

A nuke on the surface wont really do all that much other than create a crater. A nukes primary function is not its physical destructive capabilities, its more heat and radiation to kill as many people as possible.

If you dug a deep hole in there and put a large sized nuke in the outcome could be different depending on the size of the moon, but im not a physicist so can't really tell. But if its near the size of our moon, i doublt it would do all that much.

Avatar image for chazzer
#15 Posted by Chazzer (785 posts) - - Show Bio

@red_ruby_petal:

You bumped a 5 month old thread to drop all that false information?!

Titan is not earth.

Titan's moon is not our moon.

You need more data points to even come close to determining anything.

Fyi, even in our solar system the smallest moon is 7 miles in diameter and looks like an asteroid.

The smallest spheroid moon is 292 miles in diameter.

Your position is that Titan's moon is smaller than 99% of all known moons?

Even your nuke information is wrong on several points.

Fail on your part today, bud.

Avatar image for red_ruby_petal
#16 Posted by Red_Ruby_Petal (8239 posts) - - Show Bio

@theonewhopullsthestrings:

Different planets have different sizes, which effect the distance to see such curvatures... Titan may be a bit smaller or a bit bigger, we don't know. It was more than likely around earth sized, but there is too much assumptions there.

We don't know the size of the moon, but there are obviously hints that help us determine the sizes of these objects. For one, Titan could be smaller than Earth which is a lot more believable than it being bigger and this is due to the gravity evidently less than what is on Earth's.

Another hint is that despite encompassing the entire half of the moon, the destruction OBVIOUSLY, can't equate to moon level, otherwise Iron Man, Drax, and everyone else including Thanos himself would have been dead. Their battlefield isn't big enough to be near moon level, at all.

What we do know is that the moon in this case is spherical, meaning it had to have had enough mass over malleable enough materials for the weight in question to form into a sphere. This will start around 400km^3 for things like giant ice moons, or 600km^3 for more rocky ones.

I really don't think thought should be allocated towards formations of things, because there are over complicated factors and comparisons when it comes to this.

Doing the math on the sizes in question with the lowest possible size estimates for that moon, and we need much more than 1 nuke... Which also hits only one area.

Look at these force requirements for the feat I did the math on:

Thanos Moon Feat CV Estimate

I really didn't want to look at the calc, because that is too much thought allocated and you know fiction has a ton of factors that don't take this into account. Correct me, but that seems like a level of pixel scaling at this point.

@echostarlord117: @thorthunder98: And what makes it so hard to understand? Even elementary students can just look at illustrations of the distance between earth and the moon. Its massive enough that you obviously wouldn't get the view you were seeing in the battle of titan. Its pretty clear.

Avatar image for red_ruby_petal
#17 Posted by Red_Ruby_Petal (8239 posts) - - Show Bio

@chazzer:

You bumped a 5 month old thread to drop all that false information?!

Feel free to disprove it.

Titan is not earth.

And do you want to prove that Titan is any bigger than Earth?

Titan's moon is not our moon.

Then feel free to consider it moon level even if it isn't nearly that size.

You need more data points to even come close to determining anything.

I've already got enough to determine and this does not require pixel scaling, its common sense.

Fyi, even in our solar system the smallest moon is 7 miles in diameter and looks like an asteroid.

and? But hey that works, because it will in fact take a single nuke to blow up the moon the way Thanos did, cuz 7 miles ain't hela enough for sure. Or at the very least, will severely crack the egg.

The smallest spheroid moon is 292 miles in diameter.

Your position is that Titan's moon is smaller than 99% of all known moons?

Yes it is, because there isn't a known moon that is that close to the surface as it is shown on Titan. Only satellites have that kind of view.

Even your nuke information is wrong on several points.

Care to point it out?

Fail on your part today, bud.

You gotta try harder than that.

Avatar image for echostarlord117
#18 Posted by echostarlord117 (5617 posts) - - Show Bio

@echostarlord117: @thorthunder98: And what makes it so hard to understand? Even elementary students can just look at illustrations of the distance between earth and the moon. Its massive enough that you obviously wouldn't get the view you were seeing in the battle of titan. Its pretty clear.

DUde, the earth is flat. Stop trying to shove propaganda down our throats.

Avatar image for red_ruby_petal
#19 Edited by Red_Ruby_Petal (8239 posts) - - Show Bio

@echostarlord117:

DUde, the earth is flat. Stop trying to shove propaganda down our throats.

Screw you none believers, THE EARTH IS ROUND I TELL YA. May Apollo curse you and all your close minded claims!!!!!!!!!

In all seriousness though, I am not sure if you were with or against me with that quote.

Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#20 Edited by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2746 posts) - - Show Bio

@red_ruby_petal said:

I really don't think thought should be allocated towards formations of things, because there are over complicated factors and comparisons when it comes to this.

Doing the math on the sizes in question with the lowest possible size estimates for that moon, and we need much more than 1 nuke... Which also hits only one area.

Look at these force requirements for the feat I did the math on:

Thanos Moon Feat CV Estimate

I really didn't want to look at the calc, because that is too much thought allocated and you know fiction has a ton of factors that don't take this into account. Correct me, but that seems like a level of pixel scaling at this point.

Lol... Really?

You come at me with the assumption of scales based on curvature, and you then come and say that my concrete analysis that the moon MUST be at LEAST this size and calcs to go with that, as being too specific, and not intended?

What, you think they intended people to think of all this curvature sort of thing?

This is a set of hypocrisy right here.

And I tell you one thing about the 'intent' of this: The most likely thing they discussed in the writing room was 'we want thanos to do something totally badass and off the wall. I know, let's see how he can throw a moon!' - it probably went something like that. Even the dialogue from Tony reinforces this 'do not throw a moon at me again'.

You want to talk about what the writers did not intend? I think they are even more in my camp than yours trying to lowball it.

Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#21 Edited by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2746 posts) - - Show Bio

@theonewhopullsthestrings:

Also, it isn't pixel scaling to KNOW FULL WELL FROM THE SCIENCE OF HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF GRAVITY KNOWLEDGE - that in fact, you have to have a certain mass and size to have a spheroid celestial body, ie: the weight of it pushes it into a ball and inward towards the center point of gravity that it creates. Otherwise you have small moons like Phobos that have nothing like the look of this thing Thanos got.

Pixel scaling is entirely different.

Avatar image for red_ruby_petal
#22 Edited by Red_Ruby_Petal (8239 posts) - - Show Bio

@theonewhopullsthestrings:

Lol... Really?

You come at me with the assumption of scales based on curvature,

It isn't assumption based on holy hell of calcs and whatever. Its common sense that anyone can consider. The gravity and the view, take a hint. This is more concrete information than one could take out of assuming from formations and the such.

and you then come and say that my concrete analysis that the moon MUST be at LEAST this size and calcs to go with that, as being too specific, and not intended?

Then how is it concrete?

The total power needed was about 14,145,748,688 pounds of force to do what he did, feel free to correct any calculations if anyone wants as I am not a math teacher or hobbiest. And also feel free to ask some questions about it. I do know there are more exact formulas for things like distance/mass/velocity over X angle/etc, so this is the simplistic version.

Either way, 14 billion pounds of force to do just the top sliver of the moon and throw it like that, thought it was worth mentioning in it's own post. Here is an an excerpt from my main post over in the other thread in response to Kara's strength he was talking about.

To Taer

I decided to do the math since apparently you did not, on the moon feet. Because I knew it was lowballing, let me do some minimums. For a moon around any planet, regardless if it is our moon or not, to become a celestial sphere, it has to have a certain weight/gravity. Since it is obviously a sphere, and not some chunk of rock moon like Phobos, we can rule out a few things. For rocky type planets - the size needs to be about 600 cubic km before it starts to pull itself down into a spheroid. For malleable, easy to compact/shape materials, like ice - it becomes less. But even the lighter estimates, for things like pure ice celestial objects from a few bits of asteroids - what does that have? Oh, about 400 cubic km. Since I don't need to get what I think it is (a bit of gas/rock) by the looks of it, let us just go by the lowest possible denominator and see what it at least is - if not way more, which it probably is.

1 cubic km of ice = 919000.8212 kilograms = 2026050 lbs.

* 400 to get total poundage needed for spheroidal light estimate...

= 810,420,000 pounds.

The moon had to weigh AT LEAST 800+ million pounds, and probably much more than that, given that it didn't look like something that was of that material by the color of it.

To peel off to top layer, doing the math, since it is the crust, of at least the deepness of the largest rocks we saw - which were what, 15, 20 feet or so? Ok, let us go 15ft for the lower bracket again. Or 4.572 meters. We can use this later to find how much weight we are talking about, but first we need to find the equation for the complete sphere from the volume that we have. V =⁴⁄₃πr³, since we know 400 cubic km is V, let us find R. 400 = ⁴⁄₃πx³ = ⁴⁄₃π(4.570781)³ - so 4.570781 kilometer radius.

Now let us use that 4.572 meters. Which is 0.004572 in km... To find the space that the top slice of that size off the planet, we use the formulas V =⁴⁄₃πR³-⁴⁄₃πr³, or simpler V=⁴⁄₃π(R³-r³).

To find the other radius, we just have to subtract 0.004572 from 4.570781 to get our two radii for this equation. The answer to that is 4.566209. So to have the answer we need, that is a set of two radii of 4.566209 and 4.570781.

Plug in to the formula mentioned above... V=⁴⁄₃π((4.570781)³-(4.566209)³)

= 1.19911940158 cubic km of Thanos destroyed crust - minimum possible estimates. Let us get the poundage on that, from the numbers we had before. 1 cubic km = 2,026,050 pounds of ice (as one of the better materials for you in this debate). Now, what is 2026050*(1.19911940158)?

2,429,475.86357 pounds. At extreme range, and by the looks of the attack, low difficulty in pushing.

But this still doesn't give us the total strength, because this was actually moving it - because how he did it over the distance he did, made it very much more impressive.

Want to find the power required to move that much mass that far and faster?

Just to be conservative on you, I am just going to use a basic pulling force required set of formulas... And to be ultra conservative let say it was only a mile up in the atmosphere (even though, lol - should be more).... It took what, 10 seconds at slowest to get there? So that would be D^2/t^2 here, or 1mile=1609.34 meters, ((1609.34 meters above)^2)/(10seconds)^2 = 2589975.2356/100 = 25899.752356. Let's just round that, 25900. So Thanos needs to have an acceleration of 25900G just to get it from where it was to the avengers faces he was fighting in that amount of time... And now to factor in the mass to this.... Multiply that by the mass that is to be pulled to get the force of the gauntlet being used there... 25900*2,429,475.86357lbs = 62,923,424,866.5

Converting this over to pound force - 14,145,748,688.98168.

That is to move that mass of a couple million, that quickly, that far.

Ouch. You want to talk about million+ pound punches, this Thanos with the moon feat has a striking power of at least 14 BILLION POUNDS, and this is from all the LOWEST POSSIBLE ESTIMATES. From just the top 15 feet of crust ONLY.

Legit estimations for a more normal moon consistency, size to what it looks like, and a more realistic distance, and we have entered in absurd territory.

This is what you showed me and the moment you point out comparisons and assume this moon is similar to that moon and that moon is to this, this is where I stopped reading. The important part isn't how it is formed. Its hypocritical enough that you consider one factor and not the other. This calc moreover does not prove my claim wrong and yet they are contradictory with yours. That is where you can't call it concrete. In a directors perspective, people never consider formation for the sake of whether or not this is a result of the environment, but for the sake of just making the battlefield look like something.

What, you think they intended people to think of all this curvature sort of thing?

That they made it clear the distance from Titan's moon from the surface isn't that large at all. Its common sense given the view.

Avatar image for red_ruby_petal
#23 Edited by Red_Ruby_Petal (8239 posts) - - Show Bio

@theonewhopullsthestrings said:

@theonewhopullsthestrings:

Also, it isn't pixel scaling to KNOW FULL WELL FROM THE SCIENCE OF HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF GRAVITY KNOWLEDGE - that in fact, you have to have a certain mass and size to have a spheroid celestial body, ie: the weight of it pushes it into a ball and inward towards the center point of gravity that it creates. Otherwise you have small moons like Phobos that have nothing like the look of this thing Thanos got.

Pixel scaling is entirely different.

And I believe this is was a reply directed towards me. There is a whole different world between logically thinking and using formations to make calcs when the formation of things in fiction is to give an image of what an artist imagines it to be and not to determine the mass. You'd have to go deep into science which isn't considered 99% of the time. Which again you'd have to assume it is similar to other known moons, which doesn't add up to where it is positioned and varying factors regarding its size.

And my bad with wording it as pixel scaling, but I see numbers, and I say no.

Avatar image for red_ruby_petal
#24 Edited by Red_Ruby_Petal (8239 posts) - - Show Bio

@amcu: Titan's moon won't accompany billions of Thanos sized rocks, ( I say Thanos sized because some meteors aren't as big as the one that hit Iron Man. )

so it definitely won't take billions of nukes.

Avatar image for chazzer
#25 Edited by Chazzer (785 posts) - - Show Bio

@red_ruby_petal: No. Your stuff is idiotic and laughable. I'm not doing the work you should have done yourself.

Fyi, Starlord said and we saw, Titan's gravity was all over the place.

You should do some research on basic astronomy and the gravitational forces of celestial bodies, then you might get a clue.

Do you think something can stay in a stable orbit 6 miles in the atmosphere of an earth sized planet?

Besides, why are you even trying to lowball the power stone? We've already seen it devastate a planet and Ronan was going to do the same to Xandar.

You should have not posted this absurd comment today. You're just hurting your reputation.

Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#26 Posted by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2746 posts) - - Show Bio

And my bad with wording it as pixel scaling, but I see numbers, and I say no.

That they made it clear the distance from Titan's moon from the surface isn't that large at all. Its common sense given the view.

Dude, numbers are the only thing that is concrete... You are being silly here. "Common sense from anyone who views it" - no, this was common sense to me upon seeing it, it was a spheroid, it had to be at least semi-massive in planetary bodies for it to be a concern, and definitely not something anyone can just 'smash'. It wasn't phobos that I was looking at. That was obvious to me, and if you knew anything on these subjects or had any experience with astronomy whatsoever, you would definitely not say 'well, anyone who views it will think my way', NO, NO WE WOULDN'T that is your bias speaking through.

I didn't know the calcs off the top of my head, I had to look them up because my common sense told me to, and I posted the calcs to prove a point. You yourself because of your faulty bias here came here and said 'well, common sense tells me this', so let me post this to try and prove my point about curvature.

Also - them being close to the planet irrelevant to a massive degree in how awesome this feat is to him. And curvature has nothing to do with it.

Then how is it concrete?

Um, based on actual data pulled on planetary bodies on the internet, and actually understanding how it works? What, you care to dispute ANY claim of mine so far in my calcs? Have at it, let us both dig to the truth. If some of my numbers are wrong, let me be accurate; and I darn well know it will still come up in my favor at this point, even if the number is a bit smaller - but show something that would require those estimates to need revisiting.

This is what you showed me and the moment you point out comparisons and assume this moon is similar to that moon and that moon is to this, this is where I stopped reading.

Um, no - I made no such thing. I pointed out if the moon was made of ICE - not like our moon, and much smaller to get the spheroid, 400km^3 to get that spheroid (and given what the moon looks like, this is severely incorrect, but I am granting you the best case non-moon of ours scenario for you) - it still came up in my favor in calcs. I never once assumed it was like our moon, ever. But you seem to want it to be. I even gave in my calculations the given that it was only 1 mile up, which is insane, because it definitely is more than that. So I even made it closer. And YOU STOPPED READING THE WHOLE THING.

It isn't assumption based on holy hell of calcs and whatever. Its common sense that anyone can consider. The gravity and the view, take a hint. This is more concrete information than one could take out of assuming from formations and the such.

More concrete? Because I assumed materials? What? I never assumed anything, I gave you the BEST CASE SCENARIO for even if we assume it was the material that makes the feat the least impressive possible for Thanos - it still ends up being massively impressive. That isn't me assuming what it probably is, which I could have. This is me doing the work with what we can know.

This is a lot more accurate and concrete than well 'we see the curvature, and you know, because it is close, not impressive, etc'. No, just no.

Avatar image for amcu
#27 Posted by Amcu (16931 posts) - - Show Bio

@amcu: Titan's moon won't accompany billions of Thanos sized rocks, ( I say Thanos sized because some meteors aren't as big as the one that hit Iron Man. )

so it definitely won't take billions of nukes.

I posted the video because I think its funny. I don't know how many actual nukes it would take. It would be quite a lot though.

Avatar image for red_ruby_petal
#28 Posted by Red_Ruby_Petal (8239 posts) - - Show Bio

@chazzer:

No. Your stuff is idiotic and laughable. I'm not doing the work you should have done yourself.

Oh cool, I am dealing with a total badass over here who thinks he knows what he is talking about.

Fyi, Starlord said and we saw, Titan's gravity was all over the place.

So? Theres gravity, now can you prove it isn't smaller than Earth?

You should do some research on basic astronomy and the gravitational forces of celestial bodies, then you might get a clue.

Sure, I hope I need to read a 500 page book on astronomy to tell that smaller bodies have less gravity than bigger bodies.

Do you think something can stay in a stable orbit 6 miles in the atmosphere of an earth sized planet?

Did you even establish it was Earth sized? Despite the fact that Drax was clearly having fun because he was floating all over the place.

Besides, why are you even trying to lowball the power stone? We've already seen it devastate a planet and Ronan was going to do the same to Xandar.

This has nothing to do with me talking about the power stone but on the particular feat itself. Look who can't keep an argument straight.

You should have not posted this absurd comment today. You're just hurting your reputation.

Oh cool, I hope you are qualified enough to think I am hurting my reputation by pointing out the stupidity of your nonexistent arguments.

Avatar image for red_ruby_petal
#29 Edited by Red_Ruby_Petal (8239 posts) - - Show Bio

@theonewhopullsthestrings:

Dude, numbers are the only thing that is concrete...

Excuse me? Can you explain why we still "estimate" masses and volumes of bodies? I don't need to tell you this.

You are being silly here. "Common sense from anyone who views it" - no, this was common sense to me upon seeing it, it was a spheroid, it had to be at least semi-massive in planetary bodies for it to be a concern, and definitely not something anyone can just 'smash'. It wasn't phobos that I was looking at. That was obvious to me, and if you knew anything on these subjects or had any experience with astronomy whatsoever, you would definitely not say 'well, anyone who views it will think my way', NO, NO WE WOULDN'T that is your bias speaking through.

You aren't getting the point. I never said your point of view was entirely wrong, and neither is mine but I find yours less believable. Your entire basis on determining the size of the moon is comparing it to some other moons and formations, when I already addressed this by saying

- formations are not of consideration considering its fiction, and the real intention of forming things is to illustrate the imagination of an author.

- You aren't considering other factors that play out, such as what I pointed with the gravity and the curvature. You haven't told me a reason to dis consider, so how can you call your point any more valid than mine? Can you tell me whose biased now?

I didn't know the calcs off the top of my head, I had to look them up because my common sense told me to, and I posted the calcs to prove a point. You yourself because of your faulty bias here came here and said 'well, common sense tells me this', so let me post this to try and prove my point about curvature.

Calcs are made by people and people can make errors, and we don't know who exactly made the calc if he is some scientist or whatnot, or if he considered other important factors that come to play. You are telling me that you are gullible enough to believe a calc presented to you just for the sake that its a calc.

Also - them being close to the planet irrelevant to a massive degree in how awesome this feat is to him. And curvature has nothing to do with it.

If this is your only argument against my claim, then this is a weak argument. You are basically telling me you just want to believe it is moon sized. "Can you tell me whose biased now?"

Um, based on actual data pulled on planetary bodies on the internet, and actually understanding how it works? What, you care to dispute ANY claim of mine so far in my calcs? Have at it, let us both dig to the truth. If some of my numbers are wrong, let me be accurate; and I darn well know it will still come up in my favor at this point, even if the number is a bit smaller - but show something that would require those estimates to need revisiting.

You aren't getting the point. Its not concrete because other claims and scaling which aren't wrong can still contradict what your own claims thus you have to give me a reason to believe that the science of forming things > less gravity which they explicitly showed, and the view it was in.

Um, no - I made no such thing. I pointed out if the moon was made of ICE - not like our moon, and much smaller to get the spheroid, 400km^3 to get that spheroid (and given what the moon looks like, this is severely incorrect, but I am granting you the best case non-moon of ours scenario for you) - it still came up in my favor in calcs. I never once assumed it was like our moon, ever. But you seem to want it to be. I even gave in my calculations the given that it was only 1 mile up, which is insane, because it definitely is more than that. So I even made it closer. And YOU STOPPED READING THE WHOLE THING.

You could simplify your point, because I don't have the time to read a full calc. Though I did get the jist of what you said and it comes down to the same thing I've been arguing for since then.

More concrete? Because I assumed materials? What? I never assumed anything, I gave you the BEST CASE SCENARIO for even if we assume it was the material that makes the feat the least impressive possible for Thanos - it still ends up being massively impressive. That isn't me assuming what it probably is, which I could have. This is me doing the work with what we can know.

This is a lot more accurate and concrete than well 'we see the curvature, and you know, because it is close, not impressive, etc'. No, just no.

Making a "best case scenario" does not make your claim bulletproof or concrete. If you want to prove your claim right, you have to prove my claim wrong.

My claim is concrete because

  • its a fact that smaller masses have less gravity
  • and it is common sense that you would need to have some semblance of height to see the curvature of a planetary body. When its a given that this planet cannot be bigger than Earth, then I can make the claim that the moon isn't that far off the battlefield they were fighting on.
  • I can back this up more considering the meteors were still an ample size good enough to be seen on the moon with a large portion of its body visible in the frame.

And i've been telling you why we can't use yours because nobody uses science to form things out of imagination.

Avatar image for red_ruby_petal
#30 Edited by Red_Ruby_Petal (8239 posts) - - Show Bio

@amcu said:
@red_ruby_petal said:

@amcu: Titan's moon won't accompany billions of Thanos sized rocks, ( I say Thanos sized because some meteors aren't as big as the one that hit Iron Man. )

so it definitely won't take billions of nukes.

I posted the video because I think its funny. I don't know how many actual nukes it would take. It would be quite a lot though.

Lol I got too serious there, though the best i'd give it is several nukes. You have anything against my post though? I just wanna here your insight.

Avatar image for galactic_1000
#31 Posted by Galactic_1000 (5761 posts) - - Show Bio

Few

Online
Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#32 Edited by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2746 posts) - - Show Bio

@red_ruby_petal:

Sigh, too much facepalming that will reiterate points for nothing at this point as we have already went round a few times.

Let me focus on your main points, since that is what you brought up in nice bullets:

@red_ruby_petal said:

  • its a fact that smaller masses have less gravity
  • and it is common sense that you would need to have some semblance of height to see the curvature of a planetary body. When its a given that this planet cannot be bigger than Earth, then I can make the claim that the moon isn't that far off the battlefield they were fighting on.
  • I can back this up more considering the meteors were still an ample size good enough to be seen on the moon with a large portion of its body visible in the frame.

And i've been telling you why we can't use yours because nobody uses science to form things out of imagination.

Direct rebuttals to the points

#1 - No, not all smaller masses have less gravity. It has to do with density just as much. A neutron star is smaller than mercury, but has many times the mass of our sun. As such, a gravitational pull very much stronger than our sun. Such stars were super-massive, and exploded out their outer core and hydrogen in a supernova, and the smaller than mercury sized object is all that remains, an extremely dense object - mostly neutrinos. There are many such instances of that in astronomy and physics well outside of these neutrinos. Thinking of it as in terms of bigness and smallness is shortsighted.

That being said, given the situation, it seems reasonable to conclude based on probability that the the moon is less dense, and less gravity, but to the exact extents - that is largely assumption work.

#2 - Common sense would tell you it is close, but that could be close for a few miles, or depending on the perspective, it could be hundreds of miles still (which is well into making the numbers outright silly, and Thanos >>>> Any CW/DCEU/MCU strength feat with it), or it might not be. I think you need to understand how perspectives work. Knowing "it isn't far from the battlefield" is very subjective. What do you mean 'not far'? A mile ? (still massive)? The more likely, dozens of miles (from what we see)? Super impressive. Or the possible hundreds of miles still? Which is insanely impressive.

#3 - Means nothing. Most small meteors burn up in the atmosphere, if it is earth-like; and it was breathable. It would take rather large ones to create the scene it did, huge ones. Furthermore, what we see is just a collection of rocks being pulled off when we saw the clip of it. Ok, are you going to tell me you have the measurements? Again, it is perspective we don't know the answers to, because we neither know how far the moon was, how big it was exactly, Titan's placement, etc - you are just assuming because 'well, in comparison to planet' - they are small; but that is far less concrete than what I actually gave you information well accepted by science on planetary bodies that show that it must be a rather large body, in which case, having those chunks of rock, become even more impressive, because they must be really large.

#4 - Many people do use science to make things out of the imagination. Heck, many tropes at this point used by sci-fi writers originally came from being amazed at the actual discoveries of real science... Like black holes and their effects... Of which many sci-fi writers have now used in abundance. Do not say 'no one uses science on imagination' - because you have no basis for making such a claim.

Extra points in regards to your points to think about

  • Being close the battlefield is irrelevant, smaller moon is irrelevant. None of those means what he didn't do isn't massively impressive on it's own, even if one does buy your argument, because you still have to assume everything else, from the material that it is made out of, and if it is the rocks we know of - it becomes even more massively impressive. Being close to the battlefield isn't going to make having pound force enough to break up the entire surface of it and use it from that distance any less mind boggling, even a smaller one.
  • You talk about common sense a lot, but to most people common sense tells them moons are rather large, because of the comparisons they have in their head about them... Instead, you choose the odd-ball not normal way of looking at them to try and lowball, then dismiss any claims or evidence proving it might very well be the opposite.

Avatar image for red_ruby_petal
#33 Edited by Red_Ruby_Petal (8239 posts) - - Show Bio

@theonewhopullsthestrings:

Sigh, too much facepalming that will reiterate points for nothing at this point as we have already went round a few times.

Let me focus on your main points, since that is what you brought up in nice bullets:

We are repeating points because you are too bent on your own points believing that it is the superior one without any reason to believe yours more than mine. If anyone should be facepalming it should be me, and I was courteous enough not to go as far as to disrespect points being made, when I don't think you are even 100% sure you are giving a direct and concise argument against me.

#1 - No, not all smaller masses have less gravity. It has to do with density just as much. A neutron star is smaller than mercury, but has many times the mass of our sun. As such, a gravitational pull very much stronger than our sun. Such stars were super-massive, and exploded out their outer core and hydrogen in a supernova, and the smaller than mercury sized object is all that remains, an extremely dense object - mostly neutrinos. There are many such instances of that in astronomy and physics well outside of these neutrinos. Thinking of it as in terms of bigness and smallness is shortsighted.

Thats fair, but I don't think the density disparity is significant, considering Titan has always felt normal besides the gravity.

That being said, given the situation, it seems reasonable to conclude based on probability that the the moon is less dense, and less gravity, but to the exact extents - that is largely assumption work.

Assumption and estimates are there to get a good idea of the size of the moon, you don't need decimal numbers to tell if something is bad or good.

#2 - Common sense would tell you it is close, but that could be close for a few miles, or depending on the perspective, it could be hundreds of miles still (which is well into making the numbers outright silly, and Thanos >>>> Any CW/DCEU/MCU strength feat with it), or it might not be. I think you need to understand how perspectives work. Knowing "it isn't far from the battlefield" is very subjective. What do you mean 'not far'? A mile ? (still massive)? The more likely, dozens of miles (from what we see)? Super impressive. Or the possible hundreds of miles still? Which is insanely impressive.

I say the word common sense because you seem to be so bent on using accurate numbers and formations, because you can use common sense to tell if something is good or bad based on certain evidence. Its an impressive feat, but saying its so large seems to be stretching.

It can't be a 250 mile moon, because Thanos already encompassed the entire surface to attempt to level a battlefield which isn't that length.

#3 - Means nothing. Most small meteors burn up in the atmosphere, if it is earth-like; and it was breathable. It would take rather large ones to create the scene it did, huge ones. Furthermore, what we see is just a collection of rocks being pulled off when we saw the clip of it. Ok, are you going to tell me you have the measurements? Again, it is perspective we don't know the answers to, because we neither know how far the moon was, how big it was exactly, Titan's placement, etc - you are just assuming because 'well, in comparison to planet' - they are small; but that is far less concrete than what I actually gave you information well accepted by science on planetary bodies that show that it must be a rather large body, in which case, having those chunks of rock, become even more impressive, because they must be really large.

What do you mean means nothing, they didn't burn up and disintegrated when they were shot on Titan. Thanos teleported them and did you see them get any smaller in the scene itself. That is proof you have to present.

And is your point that perspective is wrong? That we have to use mathematical equations to determine things? Is that your stand? So when we see someone bust a small mountain and the other bust a large one, do we still have to calc to prove who is better?

There isn't anything wrong in perspective, its the most reliable way of determining sizes and scales especially in the fictional universe. Its not like you haven't used any of it. This is already hypocritical so you really have no reason to validate your point anymore than mine.

#4 - Many people do use science to make things out of the imagination. Heck, many tropes at this point used by sci-fi writers originally came from being amazed at the actual discoveries of real science... Like black holes and their effects... Of which many sci-fi writers have now used in abundance. Do not say 'no one uses science on imagination' - because you have no basis for making such a claim.

The basis isn't on me to prove, its all on you. Everything starts from imagination, YOU have to prove that they used science that make out its formation and mass, and not just for the sake of having large body orbit the planet. Even then, not all sci-fi writers are going to be accurate for every single thing. Actual scientists have debunked things that happen in movies.

Its not uncommon to see moons the size of a building in the fictional universe just so you know.

Loading Video...

This might be an extreme example but you get the point ( i hope )

Avatar image for chaos_zelur
#34 Posted by chaos_zelur (256 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for theserbianempire
#35 Posted by TheSerbianEmpire (1238 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for red_ruby_petal
#36 Posted by Red_Ruby_Petal (8239 posts) - - Show Bio

@theserbianempire: You mean the smash bros thing, well sorry I literally don't have any other source to make out a point.

Avatar image for red_ruby_petal
#37 Posted by Red_Ruby_Petal (8239 posts) - - Show Bio

@chaos_zelur: im not overthinking, the way I could scale doesnt use calcs or science. Its something that should be evident.

Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#38 Edited by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2746 posts) - - Show Bio

@red_ruby_petal:

I don't have to prove that people try to use realism as the foundation of most realities, it is more or less like our world, it should have similar physics. You are the one making the claim of it being different from normal common sense, because of your own reasons. I provided actual hard data, you just ignore it, because 'no one is supposed to think like that'.

If you don't want to accept that, and say well 'just use your feelings' - IT IS A MOON.

Oh but 'plenty of people use building size moons' with a video of a moon dynamic in super smash - which also has sun/star powerups too, are they ever to be assumed smaller than a planet now? This is all time ridiculous. This isn't quite there, but almost like the infamous batman surviving the surface of the sun thread at this point. What is this even proving? It is beyond in left field.

No Caption Provided

After seeing that as a response to me, almost implying building level moon - I am done here.

You cannot be reasoned with.

Avatar image for chaos_zelur
#39 Posted by chaos_zelur (256 posts) - - Show Bio

@red_ruby_petal: Though I do think you have a very good point, it sounds like extensive debunking knowing where you are leading this. The rest of your points are great, the gravity and the angle of the shot except that large masses aren't drawn to scale. The meteors are still barely visible in comparison to the moon so I can't see how that can be used as a counter argument. You have seen beefcake from OPM I am pretty sure. He is inconsistent of all sizes, but they did make it very clear he towers above buildings and cities, but when you see Saitama on him, he happens to be... shrunken down?

But yeah lol, the surface busting attack is sooooo underwhelming than when people make it out to be, so I kinda believe you.

Where I do have the problem is your wording in order to debunk the moon feat. 10 miles to see the curvature so the moon is less than 10 miles. I guess its small, but it holy hell isn't dwarf size.

And also be careful when making a public statement against the MCU fanbase ROFL.

Avatar image for chaos_zelur
#40 Edited by chaos_zelur (256 posts) - - Show Bio

@theonewhopullsthestrings:

Its fiction, this isn't a complicated point she was trying to make out. Different shots and sizes will be made. The moon on Titan in particular isn't easy to debate about.

The smash example was funny, be she has a point. Objects like moons or mountains won't always be as big as you imagine them to be. They can be hills or small asteroids. Its not uncommon in fiction. You guys are just tangling a subject you can never have concrete evidence about. Yeah she might have sounded as if she were going to hard, but she isn't anymore wrong than you are. If you are thinking of examples like those, you aren't really reading context.

Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#41 Edited by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2746 posts) - - Show Bio

@chaos_zelur:

How is it underwhelming? If you break up the moon and throw the surface into chunks (even at basic surface level), do you think all the meteors from that are going to fall in screen? Why would you even ever assume that? That is his 'but battlefield does not look like it' out the window. It looked massively impressive, and a deeper analysis (read my math on the subject) - was very massively impressive, requiring at least 14billion pounds of force at the smaller end of the scale to do that on the smallest estimates possible - even using only the top part of the moon as the mass moved.

That isn't nothing.

Also, the curvature known isn't exact, you only need to be up at a certain point to see it, but anywhere beyond that, what of it? You can beyond that 10 mile gap and still see it as well, and this is with the assumptions he gives that it is comparable to use exactly, and it might not be. He is making flat earth style arguments from the curvature based on only the most basic glimpse of a curve.

Avatar image for chaos_zelur
#42 Posted by chaos_zelur (256 posts) - - Show Bio

@theonewhopullsthestrings:

How is it underwhelming? If you break up the moon and throw the surface into chunks (even at basic surface level), do you think all the meteors from that are going to fall in screen? Why would you even ever assume that? That is his 'but battlefield does not look like it' out the window. It looked massively impressive, and a deeper analysis (read my math on the subject) - was very massively impressive, requiring at least 14billion pounds of force at the smaller end of the scale to do that on the smallest estimates possible.

That isn't nothing.

Its underwhelming because moons are commonly massive in size, so any town, city, country, hell even a continent would be affected by meteor showers from an entire mass of a moon. Look at it objectively, most moon level destruction attacks would have already destroyed every building on Titan. Thats why its underwhelming. It might be nice for mid tiers to perform, but moon leveling attacks are only that of high tiers.

Avatar image for chaos_zelur
#43 Edited by chaos_zelur (256 posts) - - Show Bio

@theonewhopullsthestrings:

Also, the curvature known isn't exact, you only need to be up at a certain point to see it, but anywhere beyond that, what of it? You can beyond that 10 mile gap and still see it as well, and this is with the assumptions he gives that it is comparable to use exactly, and it might not be. He is making flat earth style arguments from the curvature based on only the most basic glimpse of a curve.

Nothing is exact, but at some point you will see it and you aren't that far from the planet. Its all the more to prove the moon can't be that big. She has a point you are disecting it the wrong way

Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#44 Edited by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2746 posts) - - Show Bio

@chaos_zelur:

But you cannot use that. "It isn't as much as you imagine it to be" ok, well then, it is then just a well "we do not know, it could be imagined, who knows what the authors meant" (they meant to impressively throw a moon as the most likely possibility). With that, you can do nothing, there is no arguments to be had. Well, it could be imagined that the planet they are in is jupiter in scale, and due to density and other things like special materials not explained, they might just have the gravity to do and walk around like they do. Which would make this moon earth++ size, even really close angle. WE WOULD NOT KNOW. There is always going to be "well, other people use X in fiction, you cannot prove it is not". With that, not even the curvature argument is valid, because if it is at a different scale on anything here, that entire math falls apart - FROM HIS ARGUMENT AS WELL.

And it becomes a useless game. If "science can be ignored because it is just imagination and others in other mediums have denied science before", there is nothing to rule out something like jupiter size even more. I gave things that cannot be denied about mass, no matter what material, or distance or size. I used that to give a minimum estimate. It is the only concrete way of looking at this.

Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#45 Edited by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2746 posts) - - Show Bio

@chaos_zelur said:

@theonewhopullsthestrings:

Also, the curvature known isn't exact, you only need to be up at a certain point to see it, but anywhere beyond that, what of it? You can beyond that 10 mile gap and still see it as well, and this is with the assumptions he gives that it is comparable to use exactly, and it might not be. He is making flat earth style arguments from the curvature based on only the most basic glimpse of a curve.

Nothing is exact, but at some point you will see it and you aren't that far from the planet. Its all the more to prove the moon can't be that big. She has a point you are disecting it the wrong way

If it is a bigger planet than the earth, or the camera distance is actually farther out than the 10 miles she gave, like 100 miles - it can look very similar to that as well, and the math completely falls apart. If it is 100 miles out, and the planet is bigger - then yes, it does get hundreds of miles in diameter being the moon, and her "well, at this distance up, it looks close, and you have to be 10 miles up to see the curvature" falls apart.

She has provided no evidence other than feels.

I have given CONCRETE INFORMATION on how big something has to be to become a spheroidal moon. There is no comparison. She gives assumptions, misinformed ones that ultimately don't change much.

Avatar image for doofasa
#46 Edited by Doofasa (2196 posts) - - Show Bio

Just one. If a team of rag-tag astronaut drillers lead by Bruce Willis gets to deliver it.

Otherwise all of them +++++. People are vastly overestimating a nuke's ability to bust or even crack large and dense structures. The biggest nukes we have in existence today can't even crack a small mountain. A moon, even if we assume it is THE smallest moon in the known universe is way beyond their payload.

Avatar image for spongegar
#47 Posted by SpongeGar (243 posts) - - Show Bio

LMAO

Avatar image for chaos_zelur
#48 Edited by chaos_zelur (256 posts) - - Show Bio

@theonewhopullsthestrings: As I am rereading your debate.

But you cannot use that. "It isn't as much as you imagine it to be" ok, well then, it is then just a well "we do not know, it could be imagined, who knows what the authors meant" (they meant to impressively throw a moon as the most likely possibility). With that, you can do nothing, there is no arguments to be had.

I am pretty sure RRP mentioned this to you. There is whole different world between in depth science like what you are doing such as "formation" and basic sciences and forces that may apply. Fictional writers do maintain a level of realism, but it comes to a point where sometimes, you just have to not play mental gymnastics. I mean like RRP has been trying to prove to you what is shown on-screen vs what you want to compare to.

Well, it could be imagined that the planet they are in is jupiter in scale, and due to density and other things like special materials not explained, they might just have the gravity to do and walk around like they do. Which would make this moon earth++ size, even really close angle. WE WOULD NOT KNOW. There is always going to be "well, other people use X in fiction, you cannot prove it is not". With that, not even the curvature argument is valid, because if it is at a different scale on anything here, that entire math falls apart - FROM HIS ARGUMENT AS WELL.

Not at all, because I am pretty sure he mentioned gravity being a factor, so she has already given more substance to some unknown factors which she is trying to do. I mean you did make a good counter argument with density since she probably mixed up the science but at the same time, I think the density disparity can't logically be a lot. They've always treated its mass as normal. I mean if we want to go there like assume everything is unknown, lets render Thanos nigh featless. There has to be context somewhere along the lines.

And it becomes a useless game. If "science can be ignored because it is just imagination and others in other mediums have denied science before", there is nothing to rule out something like jupiter size even more. I gave things that cannot be denied about mass, no matter what material, or distance or size. I used that to give a minimum estimate. It is the only concrete way of looking at this.

You gave things that can be denied in fiction. The smash bros example she gave was IN FACT a good example honestly, but you chose to be bitter about it abused it being a ridiculous example when the context was there. I suggest you reread your arguments. What she is doing is better than having so many holes that can't be addressed, thus opinion only remains.

If it is a bigger planet than the earth, or the camera distance is actually farther out than the 10 miles she gave, like 100 miles - it can look very similar to that as well, and the math completely falls apart. If it is 100 miles out, and the planet is bigger - then yes, it does get hundreds of miles in diameter being the moon, and her "well, at this distance up, it looks close, and you have to be 10 miles up to see the curvature" falls apart.

But I don't think it has completely fallen apart, because if there are things to back her claim, then her claim has substance.

She has provided no evidence other than feels.

Ironic, because feeling is the only thing left with the direction of your argument. You can't fill in the holes with where you are going. There has to be a good comparison outside of what can be insanely inconsistent in the fictional universe. The size of the moon you are trying to emanate does have some fact, but I don't like your arguments against her because while it does contradict her showings in a indepth science sense, it doesn't counter her argument.

Meaning if she gave evidences to prove her claim that can seem factual enough like she has been doing the past few posts albeit insane of a claim, then there is still reason to disbelieve your own arguments and claims. She mentions this in post .

Debating 101, make sure your opponent is wrong. What you are doing wrong is that you aren't making sure she is wrong. I am not convinced her gravity and angle claims are wrong because with her argument she presents I can picture it.

  • Titan can't be that much bigger or even at all bigger than earth, thus the angle claim she makes should in fact be true.

This is why you need to read your opponents arguments.

I have given CONCRETE INFORMATION on how big something has to be to become a spheroidal moon. There is no comparison. She gives assumptions, misinformed ones that ultimately don't change much.

Its not concrete when visual evidence which is a lot more important when debating fictional characters, contradicts your own information. Its spherical, but writers don't give 2 shits about how much mass or size there needs to be to make the moon completely round. Writers don't care if a character lifts a building and it somehow doesn't collapse on them. There has to be intended implications before you can consider the whole thing. Otherwise too many feats would be either added or taken away. You can argue those facts in a science website, but this is comicvine. Don't pretend to be a scientist and there is no point in debating further if this is where you are going.

That said I am probably just reinstating @red_ruby_petal's arguments. There isn't much I need to say. I think you aren't very reasonable yourself.

Avatar image for chaos_zelur
#49 Edited by chaos_zelur (256 posts) - - Show Bio

@mickey-mouse said:

I like the way some viners play scientist 👨🏿‍🔬 Lol...

aren't you @lukehero???

And dude, I find that hilarious too. Although it can be ok in some cases.

Avatar image for plotweapon16255
#50 Posted by plotweapon16255 (7823 posts) - - Show Bio

BVS nuke can solo.