New info on the star feat

  • 159 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Avatar image for rajjarsalt
RajjarsAlt

6650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No Caption Provided

Uru's melting point is 50000 kelvin.

Avatar image for rajjarsalt
RajjarsAlt

6650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

That said we don't know the specific heat capacity of uru, but considering what has failed to heat it, it must be very high.

Avatar image for kryptonianking88
KryptonianKing88

5472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@nwname https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/marvel-cinematic-universe-6521/thor-nidavellir-calculation-2010870/ this thread might deserve a bump

@rajjarsalt where's this from?

Avatar image for cocacolaman
CocaColaMan

10068

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

INB4 "It's actually 50 Kelvin. See the dot?"

INB4 "Statements aren't feats."

INB4 "Nuke feat is still better."

INB4 "Then that's an outlier."

INB4 "Superman still blitzes the statue."

INB4 "Wonder Woman still slices and dices."

INB4 "He was still dying."

INB4 "Rubber ball still knocked him down."

INB4 this gets ignored by people when it's convenient for them

Avatar image for kryptonianking88
KryptonianKing88

5472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

1 x 12,556,000 x 5.67 × 10^-8 x 60,000^4 = 9.2265506 ^ 10^18

9.2265506 ^ 10^18/396 = 2.329937 x 10^16 W/m^2

2.329937 x 10^16 x 120 = 2.7959244 x 10^18 j/m^2 or 668.24 megatons tnt

based off that thread

Avatar image for hydratedfubuki6
HydratedFubuki6

2680

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

that's 4x hotter than 616 Extremis IM unibeam

Avatar image for rajjarsalt
RajjarsAlt

6650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

1 x 12,556,000 x 5.67 × 10^-8 x 60,000^4 = 9.2265506 ^ 10^18

9.2265506 ^ 10^18/396 = 2.329937 x 10^16 W/m^2

2.329937 x 10^16 x 120 = 2.7959244 x 10^18 j/m^2 or 668.24 megatons tnt

based off that thread

The only surefire way to quantify it is to scale the energy of the beam above the unknown specific heat capacity of uru. The only quantifiable part of that is...well...whatever has failed to heat uru before.

Avatar image for rajjarsalt
RajjarsAlt

6650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By RajjarsAlt

That said there is nothing on Earth that melts only upon being heated to 50000 degrees kelvin.

Avatar image for rajjarsalt
RajjarsAlt

6650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

that's 4x hotter than 616 Extremis IM unibeam

Yeah but that's not the beam temperature it's the temperature uru needs to be at to melt, meaning it would stay solid at the temps below it etc

Avatar image for rajjarsalt
RajjarsAlt

6650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for eredin12
Eredin12

12347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

INB4 "It's actually 50 Kelvin. See the dot?"

INB4 "Statements aren't feats."

INB4 "Nuke feat is still better."

INB4 "Then that's an outlier."

INB4 "Superman still blitzes the statue."

INB4 "Wonder Woman still slices and dices."

INB4 "He was still dying."

INB4 "Rubber ball still knocked him down."

INB4 this gets ignored by people when it's convenient for them

Avatar image for cocacolaman
CocaColaMan

10068

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for kryptonianking88
KryptonianKing88

5472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for rajjarsalt
RajjarsAlt

6650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for rajjarsalt
RajjarsAlt

6650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By RajjarsAlt
@eredin12 said:
@cocacolaman said:

INB4 "It's actually 50 Kelvin. See the dot?"

INB4 "Statements aren't feats."

INB4 "Nuke feat is still better."

INB4 "Then that's an outlier."

INB4 "Superman still blitzes the statue."

INB4 "Wonder Woman still slices and dices."

INB4 "He was still dying."

INB4 "Rubber ball still knocked him down."

INB4 this gets ignored by people when it's convenient for them

Lmao all of those things are true you salty Thor fanboys

Avatar image for breakofdawn
BreakOfDawn

5127

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cocacolaman:INB4 "Nuke feat is still better."

I might be totally wrong but isn't a nuclear explosion far hotter? Even the "Little Boy" bomb was hotter.

Atomic bombs are a perfect example of a nuclear reaction that causes massive destruction. Atom bombs have a power equivalent to millions of tons of ordinary explosive. The temperatures of fusion nuclear explosions can go up into the millions of kelvin. Controlled fusion experiments can reach these temperatures. The "Little Boy"that exploded in Hiroshima had a huge damaging effect. The temperature of this fission reaction was about 300,000 kelvin at the center and about 6000 kelvin on the ground below.

Not trying to downplay the feat, genuinely curious.

Avatar image for eredin12
Eredin12

12347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By Eredin12

@breakofdawn: Yep but heat only lasts for fraction of a second i think, its like lightning hence why despite being 30 000 Kelvins people survive it with some burns, this was full energy of neutron star + that heat for more than minute, that is what makes it better

Avatar image for cocacolaman
CocaColaMan

10068

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cocacolaman:INB4 "Nuke feat is still better."

I might be totally wrong but isn't a nuclear explosion far hotter? Even the "Little Boy" bomb was hotter.

Atomic bombs are a perfect example of a nuclear reaction that causes massive destruction. Atom bombs have a power equivalent to millions of tons of ordinary explosive. The temperatures of fusion nuclear explosions can go up into the millions of kelvin. Controlled fusion experiments can reach these temperatures. The "Little Boy"that exploded in Hiroshima had a huge damaging effect. The temperature of this fission reaction was about 300,000 kelvin at the center and about 6000 kelvin on the ground below.

Not trying to downplay the feat, genuinely curious.

A nuke is hotter for a fraction of a second, yes. I'm just saying, this thread isn't about the nuke, and even if I hadn't mentioned it at all, someone will eventually come in talking about how the nuke feat is better, just because everything MCU Thor related eventually comes back to DCEU Superman.

Avatar image for breakofdawn
BreakOfDawn

5127

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@eredin12: @cocacolaman: Cheers for the replies. So the argument is more endurance, in that Supes took a million celsius temperature explosion for a split second whereas Thor took a 49,727 (give or take) blast for a minute or two?

Avatar image for rajjarsalt
RajjarsAlt

6650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21  Edited By RajjarsAlt

@breakofdawn said:

@eredin12: @cocacolaman: Cheers for the replies. So the argument is more endurance, in that Supes took a million celsius temperature explosion for a split second whereas Thor took a 49,727 (give or take) blast for a minute or two?

Well the reason the nuke is hotter is cuz its not heating anything impressive (air molecules?) which has a far smaller specific heat than uru or any good metal tbh.

that's why nukes can have such small energy yields and be so hot nonetheless

Avatar image for eredin12
Eredin12

12347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@breakofdawn:

So the argument is more endurance, in that Supes took a million celsius temperature explosion for a split second whereas Thor took a 49,727 (give or take) blast for a minute or two?

Yep

Avatar image for breakofdawn
BreakOfDawn

5127

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@breakofdawn said:

@eredin12: @cocacolaman: Cheers for the replies. So the argument is more endurance, in that Supes took a million celsius temperature explosion for a split second whereas Thor took a 49,727 (give or take) blast for a minute or two?

Well the reason the nuke is hotter is cuz its not heating anything impressive (air molecules?) which has a far smaller specific heat than uru or any good metal tbh.

that's why nukes can have such small energy yields and be so hot nonetheless

Hmm, interesting. I'm no expert on nuclear physics (wish I was) but this sounds interesting.

Avatar image for rajjarsalt
RajjarsAlt

6650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By RajjarsAlt

@eredin12 said:

@breakofdawn:

So the argument is more endurance, in that Supes took a million celsius temperature explosion for a split second whereas Thor took a 49,727 (give or take) blast for a minute or two?

Yep

I disagree in the sense of whether or not Superman taking a nuke in the proper sense (in atmosphere where thermal radiation is released as you'd expect) versus far above 400km above sea level, in which case the energy is released in the form of high freq radiation like gamma, which changes the nature of the feat

more over the thermal burst lasts between 10^-5 and 10^-2 seconds

Avatar image for rajjarsalt
RajjarsAlt

6650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25  Edited By RajjarsAlt

@breakofdawn said:
@rajjarsalt said:
@breakofdawn said:

@eredin12: @cocacolaman: Cheers for the replies. So the argument is more endurance, in that Supes took a million celsius temperature explosion for a split second whereas Thor took a 49,727 (give or take) blast for a minute or two?

Well the reason the nuke is hotter is cuz its not heating anything impressive (air molecules?) which has a far smaller specific heat than uru or any good metal tbh.

that's why nukes can have such small energy yields and be so hot nonetheless

Hmm, interesting. I'm no expert on nuclear physics (wish I was) but this sounds interesting.

Yeah temperature is a state of activity regarding the kinetic energy of molecules but what really makes durability is the energy used to do that as not all molecules are =

Avatar image for eri_joni
Eri_Joni

12271

Forum Posts

213

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Nice, and Thor heated up Gungnir several times in the throne fight scene.

Avatar image for deactivated-5fabc76a05e3b
deactivated-5fabc76a05e3b

840

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This is iffy because the beam was focused on Stormbreaker, but Thor did take an amount of it. I don't know how much he took, but it's an impressive heat resistance feat.

Avatar image for gaoron
Gaoron

11654

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Oh shit

Avatar image for eredin12
Eredin12

12347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31  Edited By Eredin12

@tony_stark82: Eitri himslef who knows it best siad that Thor tanked full force/ power of beam he did, he was in the middle of it, regardless what was its objective, he took it enitre power

Avatar image for eri_joni
Eri_Joni

12271

Forum Posts

213

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32  Edited By Eri_Joni

@samato: Those effects haven't been shown before in the movies. Wut, Thor doesn't need to magically heat it up, it heated up because he threw it very hard.

Avatar image for eri_joni
Eri_Joni

12271

Forum Posts

213

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for nwname
NWName

8171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35  Edited By NWName

@kryptonianking88 said:

1 x 12,556,000 x 5.67 × 10^-8 x 60,000^4 = 9.2265506 ^ 10^18

9.2265506 ^ 10^18/396 = 2.329937 x 10^16 W/m^2

2.329937 x 10^16 x 120 = 2.7959244 x 10^18 j/m^2 or 668.24 megatons tnt

based off that thread

12.556.000 multiplier is gone tho that was the surface area of the star. Since we know the heat you can use Thor's surface area at 2 m². So he took (presumably) about 20 kilotins of heat. Thats more than what Superman took (considering that the fusion devide wasnt in his face but exploded inside the missile).

Avatar image for deactivated-5fabc76a05e3b
deactivated-5fabc76a05e3b

840

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@eredin12: Debatable since Thor's 'best feat' is kinda unquantifiable. It's not "full force of a Star" but in the kilotons range. Unless you believe that Thor can no-sell planet level explosions.

Avatar image for nwname
NWName

8171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37  Edited By NWName

Well this at least shows Uru can indefinitely no sell DCEU heat vision.

Avatar image for eredin12
Eredin12

12347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38  Edited By Eredin12

@tony_stark82:

Debatable since Thor's 'best feat' is kinda unquantifiable.

Its not, its full energy of a Neutron star that melted Uru for a more than minute

It's not "full force of a Star" but in the kilotons range.

It is the full force of star according to the movie itself, anything else is headcaon that goes agisnt movie/ Russos intent, it is in many megatons range

Unless you believe that Thor can no-sell planet level explosions.

No? Planet level is far above kilotons or megatons, this is just a good deal in the megatons range as far as energy durability goes

Avatar image for deactivated-5fabc76a05e3b
deactivated-5fabc76a05e3b

840

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@eredin12: It's not in the megatons range, not even VSbattles got them at that level. I don't lowball MCU feats, but this feat is always hard to judge properly.

It melted Uru sure, but melting point doesn't work like that. Thor did take and was burned by a fraction of the beam, but it's still a solid heat durability feat.

Avatar image for eredin12
Eredin12

12347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40  Edited By Eredin12

@tony_stark82:

It's not in the megatons range, not even VSbattles got them at that level. I don't lowball MCU feats, but this feat is always hard to judge properly.

It is, Kyle Hill calculated it to be far above it as well, this is definitely at least megatons range

It melted Uru sure, but melting point doesn't work like that. Thor did take and was burned by a fraction of the beam, but it's still a solid heat durability feat.

No, he tanked full force of it, what you dont get? Eitri" you understand boy you are about to take FULL FORCE of star" not a fraction of it or some nonsense unless you know better than Eitri we will go what he/ movie itself siad

Thor was burned after more than a minute of being hit by full force of that beam whcih melted Uru complelty

Avatar image for eredin12
Eredin12

12347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41  Edited By Eredin12

@nwname:

20 kilotins of

Nah, tanking full force of enitre energy output of Neutron star which melted Uru is far above 20 kilotons, that would do nothing to Uru, it is definitely in many megatons range

Avatar image for deactivated-5fabc76a05e3b
deactivated-5fabc76a05e3b

840

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@eredin12: You mean the guy on YouTube? Lol, he's not a reliable source.

I understand the movie perfectly, it's one of my favorite MCU movies. And "full force of a Star" is clearly hyperbole, unless you believe that the beam is better than a planet busting attack. I said the feat is solid and kilotons range for sure, not really sure about what to make it for Uru (not like it's relevant in battles).

Avatar image for eredin12
Eredin12

12347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43  Edited By Eredin12

@tony_stark82:

You mean the guy on YouTube? Lol, he's not a reliable source.

Yeah, that guy, an actual scientist that knows far more about that than you or i ever will, i think he is

I understand the movie perfectly, it's one of my favorite MCU movies. And "full force of a Star" is clearly hyperbole, unless you believe that the beam is better than a planet busting attack.

No? Just far above kilotons range, agian there is no proof it was hyperbole Eitiri was very clear, he siad full force of it which is how much Thor tanked, and please dont constantly preach about how it is your favorite movie, not only is that irelvant for this discussion but tbh i really dont care

I said the feat is solid and kilotons range for sure, not really sure about what to make it for Uru (not like it's relevant in battles).

It is in solid megatons range, above almost any nuke that ever existed, besides maybe Tsar

Avatar image for nwname
NWName

8171

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44  Edited By NWName

@eredin12 said:

@tony_stark82:

It's not in the megatons range, not even VSbattles got them at that level. I don't lowball MCU feats, but this feat is always hard to judge properly.

It is, Kyle Hill calculated it to be far above it as well, this is definitely at least megatons range

It melted Uru sure, but melting point doesn't work like that. Thor did take and was burned by a fraction of the beam, but it's still a solid heat durability feat.

No, he tanked full force of it, what you dont get? Eitri" you understand boy you are about to take FULL FORCE of star" not a fraction of it or some nonsense unless you know better than Eitri we will go what he/ movie itself siad

Thor was burned after more than a minute of being hit by full force of that beam whcih melted Uru complelty

You know Hill randomly assumed the temperature of a very young neutron star ie 10⁶ K right? Its not a young star at all. Also we now got this. Not only is the star not 1 million K (visuals were enough to debunk that anyway) even the focused beam is not 1 million K.

So Thor took 100% of the beam and 0% melted Uru. 🐐 logic.

@eredin12 said:

@nwname:

20 kilotins of

Nah, tanking full force of enitre energy output of Neutron star which melted Uru is far above 20 kilotons, that would do nothing to Uru, it is definitely in many megatons range

Based on? Your headcanon? With the uru melting aspect of the beam we (questionably) get 20 kilotons for Thor. Might be lower too (depending on emissivity %)

Avatar image for eredin12
Eredin12

12347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45  Edited By Eredin12

@nwname:

You know Hill randomly assumed the temperature of a very young neutron star ie 10⁶ K right? Its not a young star at all. Also we now got this. Not only is the star not 1 million K (visuals were enough to debunk that anyway) even the focused beam is not 1 million K.

Tbh we dont know that, all we know is how much heat you need to do this to Uru which it did, it can be 50 000 or much above, but yeah i dont think it was nearly as much as he siad, i agree there, i just siad some calcs put it above

So Thor took 100% of the beam and 0% melted Uru. 🐐 logic.

No, it melted Uru but he also as Eitiri siad was hit by the full force of the beam, its how writers wanted it to be, so taking their intent into consideration you cannot try to calculate the only part of the beam hiting him you need to count him tanking full power of that beam

Based on? Your headcanon? With the uru melting aspect of the beam we (questionably) get 20 kilotons for Thor. Might be lower too.

Based on selling Sokavia exsplosion at the epicenter, it being enitre energy output of Neutron star for a minute, i really doubt that is 20 kilotons, KG siad 600 megatons, while i dont think it is that much, i very much doubt it is just 20 kilotons eaither

Avatar image for deactivated-5fabc76a05e3b
deactivated-5fabc76a05e3b

840

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@eredin12:

Yeah, that guy, an actual scientist that knows far more about that than you or i ever will, i think he is

Sorry, but i am not lowballing anything. Just know that when someone doesn't agree with your reasoning or some calculation due to flaws that doesn't mean they're downplaying. Its them giving their opinion.

No? Just far above kilotons range, agian there is no proof it was hyperbole Eitiri was very clear, he siad full force of it which is how much Thor tanked, and please dont constantly preach about how it is your favorite movie, not only is that irelvant for this discussion but tbh i really dont care

You said that I didn't understand the movie, when it's one of my favorites.

My Top 5

  1. The Dark Knight
  2. Iron Man
  3. Civil War
  4. Infinity War
  5. Joker

I think the feat is solid, and since it's hard to judge I would go with that level. My main issue ia that it was clearly hyperbole, unless you believe it was stronger than a planet level+ energy attack.

It is in solid megatons range, above almost any nuke that ever existed, besides maybe Tsar

I don't agree, because the force would need to be displaced toward the ground in the case of the Tsar bomb. When nukes are detonated, they need to be visible. That's why I rate the Sokovia feat above this, it's easier to calculate and judge and it's both blunt force and energy.

Avatar image for eredin12
Eredin12

12347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47  Edited By Eredin12

@tony_stark82:

Sorry, but i am not lowballing anything. Just know that when someone doesn't agree with your reasoning or some calculation due to flaws that doesn't mean they're downplaying. Its them giving their opinion.

Yeah, well i never once siad you are lowballing, not a single time, so i very much understand that and agree there, all i siad is that Kyle knows more about science than me or you, which is true

You said that I didn't understand the movie, when it's one of my favorites.

Not a single time, just that you are wrong about something you siad about it

My Top 5

Cool

I think the feat is solid, and since it's hard to judge I would go with that level. My main issue ia that it was clearly hyperbole, unless you believe it was stronger than a planet level+ energy attack.

It does not need to be planet+ level, as NW siad it was old neutron star not young one, i just think it is above kilotons range

I don't agree, because the force would need to be displaced toward the ground in the case of the Tsar bomb. When nukes are detonated, they need to be visible. That's why I rate the Sokovia feat above this, it's easier to calculate and judge and it's both blunt force and energy.

Dont understand this point of yours

Avatar image for deactivated-5fabc76a05e3b
deactivated-5fabc76a05e3b

840

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@eredin12:

Yeah, well i never once siad you are lowballing, not a single time, so i very much understand that and agree there, all i siad is that Kyle knows more about science than me or you, which is true

I don't agree with his calc, but I placed the feat at a very reasonable level. Thor has better feats than the star feat, he took the Destroyer beam without a scratch and the Sokovia explosion.

Not a single time, just that you are wrong about something you siad about it

You said "not a fraction or no sense".

Cool

This is not relevant but what's your favorite MCU movie?

It does not need to be planet+ level, as NW siad it was old neutron star not young one, i just think it is above kilotons range

The thing is that the color and how the beam works is hard to judge, I think Thor took a lot of heat, and managed to survive it. But it allows him to tank other energy attacks like Heat Vision, Photon Blasts etc without being hurt.

Dont understand this point of yours

I was explaining that a nuke can release different energy whatever is detonated on ground or in space.

https://www.psi.edu/epo/fireballs/index.html

In case of the Sokovia explosion in the scene where Vision kills Ultron, we can clearly see how much rock was busted and sent flying and we can approximate and calc the impact. This is why I find that feat better and easier to judge and calculate.

Avatar image for eredin12
Eredin12

12347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@tony_stark82:

I don't agree with his calc, but I placed the feat at a very reasonable level. Thor has better feats than the star feat, he took the Destroyer beam without a scratch and the Sokovia explosion.

I dont think you put it at a reasonable level really

You said "not a fraction or no sense".

Yeah about this feat

This is not relevant but what's your favorite MCU movie?

Iron Man 1

The thing is that the color and how the beam works is hard to judge, I think Thor took a lot of heat, and managed to survive it. But it allows him to tank other energy attacks like Heat Vision, Photon Blasts etc without being hurt.

I think the same as well, only that it was in the megatons range

Avatar image for deactivated-5fabc76a05e3b
deactivated-5fabc76a05e3b

840

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@eredin12:

I dont think you put it at a reasonable level really

Like many people are saying, it's in the kilotons level range. I don't wank or lowball, like DCEU fanboys who think it's 0.008 kilotons but neither It's a "star level" feat.

Yeah about this feat

Ok.

Iron Man 1

Nice, it's a great movie and i love the first half and how RDJ portrayed Tony.

I think the same as well, only that it was in the megatons range

His other feat is probably in the megaton range, but this is pure heat and not energy so it's hard to judge.

No Caption Provided

If we assume the guidebook is right, Thor was hit by an attack stronger than a building level blast by 100.000 times. So basically 100.000 ton of TNT which is around 100 kilotons.