Follow

    Marvel Cinematic Universe

    Concept » Marvel Cinematic Universe appears in 146 issues.

    Marvel's superhero movie continuity that is shared between several major character franchises.

    Thor Nidavellir Calculation

    • 99 results
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Avatar image for nwname
    nwname

    10154

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #51  Edited By nwname  Moderator

    @stalker_2

    Lol why not tag me?

    Energy released from the star (in its frame of reference) can not be more than its energy content (in its own frame of reference). Nothing is gonna change that here. No star has a luminosity over 10^47+ watts. that is 10.000.000.000 times the luminosity of the entire Milky way and you are arguing a single neutron star having that... nothing standing near a stationary star would take anything like that.

    Burden of proof is not on me. You are the one who said "a neutron star being 6600K is cope and downplay" and i showed you why most of them are indeed cold like that. You need to prove the star we saw was an outlier and one of the youngest and hottest neutron stars, against on screen evidence from its color no less. So my proof is, its is faar more likely and in line with on screen representation. Your proof is nothing.

    From the source (a random forum thread) you linked...

    Returning to the OP's question, let's consider blackbody colors, since these will be the colors of anything with a thermalized spectrum. To see what, check on sites like What color is a blackbody? - some pixel rgb values. Anything above 6700 K will look bluish, and above 17500 K or so, the colors don't change much. I like to call the color in this limit "Rayleigh-Jeans blue", because one is seeing the Rayleigh-Jeans limit of the blackbody spectrum. The hotter stars all look Rayleigh-Jeans blue, and all the temperature values and estimates I've found for pulsars are greater than 10,000 K, so they also will look Rayleigh-Jeans blue.

    Literally says hotter ones all look blue... so seems like you cant even search and write things down properly.

    Avatar image for alphamon
    Alphamon

    9583

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @stalker_2:how long did it take you to write out all those equations?

    Avatar image for nwname
    nwname

    10154

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #56 nwname  Moderator

    @nwname: Oh I forgot that , doesn't really matter though so lets begin .

    Energy released from the star (in its frame of reference) can not be more than its energy content (in its own frame of reference). Nothing is gonna change that here. No star has a luminosity over 10^47+ watts.that is 10.000.000.000 times the luminosity of the entire Milky wayand you are arguing a single neutron star having that... nothing standing near a stationary star would take anything like that.

    first of all that luminosity for milky would only be true if all the stars in the milky way are assumed to be similar to the sun .

    1011Lsun(= 1037Watts) here L is the luminosity of the sun and 1011

    is the number of stars.

    https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/objects/neutron_stars1.html

    *A magnetar called SGR 1806-20 had a burst where in one-tenth of asecondit released more energy than the sun has emitted in the last 100,000 years!*

    power of this star comes put to be L(sun)*100000*365*24*60*60*10 ≈ 1.2 * 10^40 watts much more than that of the galaxy (so it is nothing to get surprised about)

    And lol who taught you , mb I forgot you have never done physics or maths in your life before that a body can't emit more energy than its mass energy equivalence (for which your notions are still false )

    No Caption Provided

    In case you have problem reading what is written above the energy emitted doesn't come from the mass rather from the KE of the constituent particles .

    And again your notions of absolute energy contained in mass smh I suggest start doing physics from the basic rather than relying on random articles online.

    No Caption Provided
    No Caption Provided

    Energy is frame dependent so whatever pseudo physics you were uttering before that a mass can't emit more than its energy equivalent .

    From the source (a random forum thread) you linked...

    Returning to the OP's question, let's consider blackbody colors, since these will be the colors of anything with a thermalized spectrum. To see what, check on sites like What color is a blackbody? - some pixel rgb values. Anything above 6700 K will look bluish, and above 17500 K or so, the colors don't change much. I like to call the color in this limit "Rayleigh-Jeans blue", because one is seeing the Rayleigh-Jeans limit of the blackbody spectrum. The hotter stars all look Rayleigh-Jeans blue, and all the temperature values and estimates I've found for pulsars are greater than 10,000 K, so they also will look Rayleigh-Jeans blue.

    LMAO you were somehow able to locate the least accurate or the most easy to understand answer from that forum.

    most of the wavelength being emitted as wavelength is in X ray range so and the graph drops sharply after after the maxima therefore spectral emissive power For all wavelengths in the visible range would be nearly equal (as seen in the graph). Even the first answer in that forum was this :-

    *As I understand it, at the surface of a neutron star, most light is emitted in the X-ray range. In the visible range, red is emitted at about the same as blue and the other colors, so it would appear white to human eyes.*

    Another explanation could be from the red shift (which I don't know about right now) but from the same forum :-

    No Caption Provided

    The red shift effect was also mentioned by a guy in the same forum below the guy below the first guy gtring. Go and read it, cuz I can't explain it .

    So for lower temperatures as the range mentioned by that guy (6700 - 17500) (blue to violet) λm would be in the visible range but at very temperatures as that of a neutron star λm will go to the X ray region in the spectrum and what I previously mentioned will happen .

    Burden of proof is not on me. You are the one who said "a neutron star being 6600K is cope and downplay" and i showed you why most of them are indeed cold like that. You need to prove the star we saw was an outlier and one of the youngest and hottest neutron stars, against on screen evidence from its color no less. So my proof is, its is faar more likely and in line with on screen representation. Your proof is nothing.

    So for your onscreen representation white color has already been established as the color of a neutron star in the temp range of ( see pic 4) , also iirc that star was not even in milky way for which you posted the wikipedia article .

    Last advice please study physics and maths before talking about it LMAO.

    It is a vey decent estimate for an average galaxy and no it doesn't need all stars to be equal to the sun. A lot of them are dimmer while some are brighter and on average it is a bit lower than the Sun. A more direct number is 5x10^36 watts. (In b4 wikipedia doesnt cause even tho it cites a peer reviewed journal). Another source giving a value in the same range for Milky Way.

    That magnetar released that amount of power during a starquake and it was one of the brightest events ever sighted on Earth. So it is absolutely not close to the standard luminosity of even that star. You were arguing for a star releasing several orders of magnitude more power than even that, without any special event occurring.

    I never said a star's output is a function of its mass, just that the notion of it releasing energy higher than the entirety of what is contained in it is absurd. Kinetic and potential energy would still add mass to the star. I don't argue for some universal absolute of energy being same to every observer. What im saying is an object can not release energy higher than what it contains (from perspective of observer x) in total, in reference to the same observer x. And all this still has no relevancy as there was no involvement of anything moving at relativistic speeds. Everything was stationary relative to each other.

    Least accurate because you don't like it?

    The hotter a star is the more blue-heavy its visible radiation will be. Star releasing radiation of every wavelength won't make them all appear white. Colors are a bit exaggerated here to make it easier to tell buts its roughly like this.

    No Caption Provided

    So curve peak wavelength doesn't need to be in 450-495 nm, even if its higher the visible spectrum part would be blue-heavy.

    No Caption Provided

    Naked eye sees 10000K+ as white-blue to blue

    No Caption Provided

    Tbh why not just google star color temperatures? Or just looks at hotter stars like Bellatrix etc.

    Also star's location possibly not being in milky way is entirely irrelevant milky way isnt some special galaxy with all of the universes coldest neutron stars in one place lol.

    Avatar image for nwname
    nwname

    10154

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #58  Edited By nwname  Moderator
    @stalker_2 said:

    @nwname:

    HAHAHA so I come online and I see some kid trying to teach me physics , lets begin:-

    So this kid found another article on wikipedia and without an ounce understanding cited it here ,same wikipedia is saying quasars have a power output more than the entire galaxy in which it exists, lol .(I don't know astrophysics so I won't explain much here) .

    Tf are you talking about I didn't even pay any attention to whatever multiply divide you have done in the OP to get that value I just gave the estimate for the range of power released by the star for the temperatures (10^6, 10^12) , and about the power released by the neutron star it was for your misconception that individual bodies can't have power greater than than the entire system it is residing in.

    You don't do physics therefore direct and simple conclusions look out op place to you which is very common for most of the kids.

    I contradict you in your own childish language of physics :-

    The radiating body (here star) has more energy than mc^2 , that extra energy is due to the KE of the constituent particles , the energy you are talking about is the total energy of star at 0K at TK

    E = m(rest)c^2 + KE + PE where the KE is being released as radiation and when the state of the body changes PE released as latent heat .

    KE of individual particles does equate to mass (since mass of each particle changes) so overall mass of the star will change and it would no longer the mass for which are calculating the energy equivalent ,so what you were doing is still wrong.

    The very first childishly wrong statement was " Again intuitively you should be able to tell a star can not radiate far more mass than it has... guess not." which in itself is completely false and stupid then I told you about different observers measuring different energies and then you changed it to suit all observers but still it remains false and stupid.(see above).

    Tf why are you even trying to tell me about things which I already know (not from wikipedia article though) .

    Open you eyes read and understand before talking LMFAO .

    Again talking like a stupid guy a neutron star is not a normal star in reality a neutron star is invisible to naked eyes and to actually see some color you will have to go extremely near to it where tidal forces will turn you into strings , and if you are actually able to go near it you will witness what I have stated above .( And there's a reason why at no place on the internet you will find an article about the color of the neutron star too bad for you).

    I decided I will also use some random article online for this one

    https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsneutron-stars

    It literally doesn't say that you are straight up making this up. Milky way doesn't host a quasar if that is what you are thinking. And most galaxies don't host quasars if you are thinking that. And point still stands, you said something like the luminosity of a random neutron star (that also isnt just created instants ago) being 10^32 times what it would be with 6000K and that is far higher than even a quasar. And again you are just ignoring sources you don't like and making up excuses to ignore them even tho the page cites a peer reviewed journal.

    "it was for your misconception that individual bodies can't have power greater than than the entire system it is residing in" they obviously can't... a building can't be using more energy than all the buildings combined and a star can't glow brighter than all the stars combined and a quasar can't be brighter than the system (galaxy) that includes it... this is basic logic lmao. This isn't a physics thing anymore you are just butchering basic logic. Unless you are making a new concept like anti-luminosity stars? Wouldn't be surprising at this point.

    KE +PE are included in the total mass of the star. If it is a 1.8 solar (rest) mass star with ~3.6x10^46J energy stored as heat, binding energy etc. it would be a ~2 Sm star in total. Fact is it will not and can not release more than 3.6x10^47J. There is nothing wrong with that.

    Yes you tried to bullshit your way out by using different observers. It should have been obvious what i meant. What you tried to argue is equivalent to saying "1 kg of TNT explosion isnt only 4 MJ, if you take a relativistic observers frame of reference it will be 4 YJ so its not false to say a small conventional bomb can have 1 petaton power".

    Once again, all this was to demonstrate how nonsensical it was for a neutron star to radiate 10^48++ joules it is irrelevant to the main argument.

    Are you talking about them being so dim and low output that you wouldn't notice them from range? If so it is true, most neutron stars can't be seen unless you are close because they are relatively cold and very low luminosity. And like i posted, for stars with most intense wavelengths well above the visible spectrum, they all appear blue because they still release energy of various wavelengths. They however do not appear white just because they have all type of visible light. The blue light released by a very hot star is much higher than its red release so it appears blue, like in the gif i posted. Look at it again, it shows distribution of wavelengths and resultant color. Neutron stars don't only have a single color, it changes with its age. When its very young and hot it will be blue and when it cools down for about a billion years it will be white and will go down to whiteish yellow with more time.

    I don't deny the source, in fact i posted the same information before. Ones detected from Earth are indeed very hot. That is because they glow far brighter and to do that they need to be really hot considering their tiny surface. What i added and you ignored however is they are the outliers, minority of 1000s of observable stars that are very young (on a cosmic scale) while there are far more of the older far colder ones. So if you picked a random neutron star among only the ones luminous enough to be observable from Earth there is a good chance it will be very hot. But if you pick a random one in general, among all of them, there is little to no chance of it being that hot.

    Avatar image for ichinisanji
    IchiNiSanji

    538

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @nwname

    the radiation energy didn't seem to change color inside the pipes, im not sure how it managed to heat up Uru to 50,000 if it was only coming from a source equivalent of 5000 K temperature (surface temperature of neutron)

    the color grading doesnt matter here (since the neutron star's size is also very small, not to mention the lack of gravity).

    I think you should put in 50,000 K as the temperature of the neutron star (minimum), and apply the stefan boltzman law to it which would give the beams energy as 10^18 watts in magnitude probably...

    Or assume that the pipes acted as a compressor for the photons (?)

    Avatar image for nwname
    nwname

    10154

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #61 nwname  Moderator

    @nwname

    the radiation energy didn't seem to change color inside the pipes, im not sure how it managed to heat up Uru to 50,000 if it was only coming from a source equivalent of 5000 K temperature (surface temperature of neutron)

    the color grading doesnt matter here (since the neutron star's size is also very small, not to mention the lack of gravity).

    I think you should put in 50,000 K as the temperature of the neutron star (minimum), and apply the stefan boltzman law to it which would give the beams energy as 10^18 watts in magnitude probably...

    Or assume that the pipes acted as a compressor for the photons (?)

    I dont think the beam was a black body so it doesn't have to have a color like one. 6000K was for the surface temperature of the star not the beam. Beam can very well be 50000K. I simply considered the beam like a laser that contained the focused the power of the star. I admit this isnt a perfect model as it was more flame like. Using flame/plasma can lower the result i guess.

    So the star isn't a black body like any other star is? Maybe, considering it lacked everything a neutron star normally has.

    The beam heat intensity i calculated is equal to a perfect black body with temperature of ~67 000 Kevin.

    If the beam is plasma/gas it can heat up by being compressed.

    Avatar image for harrisonmesko
    physicalculturi

    1255

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #63  Edited By physicalculturi

    @nwname: Wouldn't nidavellir's being the smallest a neutron star can possibly be buff the feat and not nerf it? Since if it were the smallest a neutron star can possibly be would mean it is the densest it could possibly be before collapsing under its own gravity?

    Also I'm no physicist but I don't understand how it could possibly have such low yield. When our own sun's solar mass ejections are 7 orders of magnitude more energetic than a fusion bomb.

    https://earthsky.org/space/what-are-coronal-mass-ejections/

    And Neutron star events are some of the most energetic in the universe. like GRBs.

    Avatar image for nwname
    nwname

    10154

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #64 nwname  Moderator
    z@stalker_2 said:

    @nwname:

    Now initially I was just ignoring your childishness and absence of physics knowledge but now it is getting irritating when you don't know physics have never done it like ever why are you even trying ,smh.

    I know you won't understand but still I will try :-

    Setup : -

    A source of power S is placed inside a spherical black body and it generates heat/power at Q joules per second.

    No Caption Provided

    So at steady state the power emitted by the black body equals that of the source as shown above .

    Now we wrap this setup with another black body of nearly the same radius as of the spherical black body

    No Caption Provided

    Now at steady state the power emitted by the setup as measured by the observer will be Q but the power emitted by the black body inside the black body screen is 2Q . What do we learn from this "it was for your misconception that individual bodies can't have power greater than than the entire system it is residing in"

    Talk to me when you really know physics .

    Again talking like an idiot first of all ,all these power output calculations are being done considering the star will follow Stephen-Boltzmann law at all the temperatures it exists , so if the star was at temperature T it will emit power proportional to T^4 , and about that childish notion that a star can't emit more than the energy contained in its mass ,you yourself after reading from I don't know which wikipedia article said that KE PE adds to the mass so you yourself should have concluded that mass should increase with T but as I know and have told you many times that you don't know physics ,you have never done physics so what you say is not surprising any more.

    More idiotic words I have already told you that approximation for a galaxy's power is based on the assumption that all stars are similar to the sun ,exceptions (neutron stars and quasars) are ignored , and I am not saying that quasars are brighter than a galaxy your wikipedia article does.

    No Caption Provided

    This isn't a physics thing anymore you are just butchering basic logic. Unless you are making a new concept like anti-luminosity stars? Wouldn't be surprising at this point.

    This was never physics considering you don't know physics at all . Your lack of understanding doesn't mean butchering logic."Anti luminosity star" I mean yeah expected on a comic book site (It was my mistake to remotely mention physics here).

    Yes you tried to bullshit your way out by using different observers. It should have been obvious what i meant. What you tried to argue is equivalent to saying "1 kg of TNT explosion isnt only 4 MJ, if you take a relativistic observers frame of reference it will be 4 YJ so its not false to say a small conventional bomb can have 1 petaton power".

    Not at all a star's frame of of reference is a rotating frame and nobody(who does physics) assumes the observer to be in a non inertial frame right of the bat everyone tries to see the problem first in lab frame or any other inertial frame and yes it was an extremely stupid thing to say at the first place that a body can't emit more than energy in its rest mass at 0K you were trying to say stephen - Boltzmann law fails here LMFAO , and if it took you so long to realize such a trivial thing then your condition in physics is worse than what I previously thought.

    Are you talking about them being so dim and low output that you wouldn't notice them from range? If so it is true, most neutron stars can't be seen unless you are close because they are relatively cold and very low luminosity. And like i posted, for stars with most intense wavelengths well above the visible spectrum, they all appear blue because they still release energy of various wavelengths. They however do not appear white just because they have all type of visible light. The blue light released by a very hot star is much higher than its red release so it appears blue, like in the gif i posted. Look at it again, it shows distribution of wavelengths and resultant color. Neutron stars don't only have a single color, it changes with its age. When its very young and hot it will be blue and when it cools down for about a billion years it will be white and will go down to whiteish yellow with more time.

    Again saying the same thing ,see the graph I drew then match it with what you are saying ,but since you don't understand graphs as well I tell you in lay man terms if a neutron star emits 1000K photons from a unit are per second 600K photons will be X ray 300K will be UV Visible colors (K is natural)

    V-17K

    I - 16K

    B-15 K

    G- 15K

    Y-14K

    O-12K

    R- 11K

    our eyes are not sensitive enough to differentiate a color when all the colors are nearly equal in number.

    Once again, all this was to demonstrate how nonsensical it was for a neutron star to radiate 10^48++ joules it is irrelevant to the main argument.

    Do physics then things will make sense to you.

    It literally doesn't say that you are straight up making this up. Milky way doesn't host a quasar if that is what you are thinking. And most galaxies don't host quasars if you are thinking that. And point still stands, you said something like the luminosity of a random neutron star (that also isnt just created instants ago) being 10^32 times what it would be with 6000K and that is far higher than even a quasar. And again you are just ignoring sources you don't like and making up excuses to ignore them even tho the page cites a peer reviewed journal.

    LMFAO guy has a problem understanding what is written I gave a range of values for the range of temperatures (10^6 K - 10^12K) considering Stephen - Boltzmann law is valid for all temperatures (Although at higher temperature cooling doesn't take place through radiation ).So even if the high end feat is disregarded with this argument the low end is still much bigger than what was calculated in the OP .

    Apart from being irrelevant, as a galaxy is noting like a physical surface spread over an area and is instead a collection of celestial bodies and gas etc, you just added another object ie the black body screen so now the totality is the sphere and the cover screen. Neither the screen nor the sphere radiate more than their sum. Again a star will never output more than itself and another star combined.

    I didn't deny temperature increasing the mass. However a neutron star never has mass of 3 Solar mass or above in its lifetime. It still can not radiate 10^48++ joules.

    And i told you no, it isnt. Sun's output of ~4x10^26 multiplied by estimated number of stars at 1-4x10^11 gives 4x10^37-1.6x10^38. This is higher than the value mentioned, because most stars aren't as luminous as the Sun. I already adressed this, Milky Way doesn't have a quasar and neither do most galaxies. There also aren't supernovas going off every second. That supernova you highlighted is not in the Milky way and noted to have luminosity 20-50 times above combined luminosity of the Milky way.

    Feat in question has a small and static star. I also didn't say BB radiation equations fail, simply that something like trillion K doesn't last at all and idea of 10^48+J being absurd.

    Output in wavelengths arent that close and out eyes do see the hottest stars as blue. I posted a gif of how visible wavelengths combined look based on temperatures. Just look again.

    What physics source did you ever see with a neutron star radiating more than 10^48 joules?

    I already said why 10^6 is not a low end at all and why its an extremely unlikely high end instead. Only the ones hot and bright enough to be observed from earth are that hot. Marojity is over 1 Gyr old thus at temperatures equal to or below the Sun.

    Avatar image for nwname
    nwname

    10154

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #65  Edited By nwname  Moderator
    @harrisonmesko said:

    @nwname: Wouldn't nidavellir's being the smallest a neutron star can possibly be buff the feat and not nerf it? Since if it were the smallest a neutron star can possibly be would mean it is the densest it could possibly be before collapsing under its own gravity?

    Also I'm no physicist but I don't understand how it could possibly have such low yield. When our own sun's solar mass ejections are 7 orders of magnitude more energetic than a fusion bomb.

    https://earthsky.org/space/what-are-coronal-mass-ejections/

    And Neutron star events are some of the most energetic in the universe. like GRBs.

    Star being denser doesn't make it a better feat. Taking its heat concentrated into a beam does not involve its density so it doesnt change anything here. Also on-screen it isnt as small as the smallest neutron stars irl, its about 8-10 times smaller and lacks gravity it should have. If you use real world size stars output would go up but the beams size would too so Thor would take a lower %.

    This is not the entire beams output its the portion Thor would take based on surface area. Neutron stars are far smaller than the sun and while neutron star events like mergers or star quakes are indeed very energetic this feat did not involve any special stellar event, just a small dyson sphere presumably collecting all thermal energy of a non rotating neutron star and putting the energy into a beam. Thermal emission from a 1 Gyr (somewhat on the younger side for a star) is ~10^24 ergs per second or 10^17J.

    Avatar image for harrisonmesko
    physicalculturi

    1255

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @nwname: ok ty for the explanation.

    Avatar image for harrisonmesko
    physicalculturi

    1255

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @nwname: I don't doubt your response. I just honestly still think the nidavellir feat event was more energetic than that. Even if it wasn't as energetic as our own sun's solar mass ejection. I honestly think it would be 2 orders of magnitude less at absolute least.

    Avatar image for ichinisanji
    IchiNiSanji

    538

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #68  Edited By IchiNiSanji
    @harrisonmesko said:

    @nwname: I don't doubt your response. I just honestly still think the nidavellir feat event was more energetic than that. Even if it wasn't as energetic as our own sun's solar mass ejection. I honestly think it would be 2 orders of magnitude less at absolute least.

    You're seeing it as a mass ejection, but the calculation is being done in terms of emmitted radiation or luminosity.

    Additionally by "neutron star events" im assuming you mean pulsars, but nidavellir is no pulsar

    Mass ejections of significance don't even really happen with a neutron star unless 2 neutron stars are merging and that collision releases mass otherwise the amount of mass ejected is very low because of the high gravity.

    The issue with this whole calc is, the beam doesn't work like a laser in terms of its speed, it looks more like plasma being shot out. Of course in that case we're assuming the energy of the laser is being imparted to a gas completely which is then being shot out.

    Edit:

    @stalker_2 Your math is how they end up perpetual motion machines where you make energy out of nothing.

    The black body shell you used to enclose your source has 2 surfaces. The outer shell will not recieve Q energy, it'd get Q/2 energy while the inner shell swaps q/2 energy inside itself

    At equilibrium the outer shell will emit Q as well.

    Avatar image for harrisonmesko
    physicalculturi

    1255

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @ichinisanji: Yes you are pretty much correct. I realized that after posting. My difference in opinion came down to my thinking it was a mass ejection. And @nwname's thinking it was just energy emitted . But I suppose nwname is probably correct if NS mass ejections are too rare.

    Avatar image for ichinisanji
    IchiNiSanji

    538

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #71  Edited By IchiNiSanji
    @stalker_2 said:

    @ichinisanji: don't know how don't get any notifications.

    Your math is how they end up perpetual motion machines where you make energy out of nothing.

    What are you trying to say speak clearly.

    The black body shell you used to enclose your source has 2 surfaces. The outer shell will not recieve Q energy, it'd get Q/2 energy while the inner shell swaps q/2 energy inside itself

    What you are saying is incorrect at steady state outermost shell will receive 2Q heat of which Q gets transmitted as measured by the observer and Q (not Q/2) gets reflected inside towards the inner shell proof is simple if you want then ask.

    At equilibrium the outer shell will emit Q as well.

    At equilibrium outer shell emits 2Q (2 surfaces) Q outside and Q inside.

    When we speak of power, its the net energy emitted/transmitted not the parts of the energy in equilibrium which would probably be seen as a photon gas. The inner surface of the screen would be in equilibrium and not have any net energy/second it releases therefore its power would be 0. It would absorb a net power of Q. The outer surface of the outer shell would have a power of Q that it emits outside.

    The black body sphere would also have a power as Q, not 2Q. It doesnt make sense to say that it would have a power of 2Q by adding in the energy that is in equilibrium.

    This is what I mean by you making a perpetual energy machine. Energy in equilibrium cannot do work. You cant say the inner sphere has a power of 2Q in your set up.

    Avatar image for ichinisanji
    IchiNiSanji

    538

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @ichinisanji: And I was never refering to the net power of the inner sphere I was talking about emmissive power of the inner sphere and inner surface of the outer sphere at equilibrium will receive a net heat Q (it recieves 2Q but emits only Q inside).

    Net power of the inner sphere(if that is what you are referring to) is 0 not Q .

    Yes it would have a power of 2Q ( read Prevost's theory) .

    And we're speaking of the net power here.

    Also, the net power of the inner sphere would be Q emitted outwards

    It would have a higher temperature with the screen, but that's more like being a bucket with a hole that can fill up with water but at equilibrium will reach a steady water level. Prevosts theory is why i mentioned photon gas too.

    Avatar image for nwname
    nwname

    10154

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #74 nwname  Moderator

    @nwname: Take this as my last reply since you don't know physics and talking about it is futile here.

    Apart from being irrelevant, as a galaxy is noting like a physical surface spread over an area and is instead a collection of celestial bodies and gas etc,

    Why are you even saying this when I never mentioned anything about a galaxy's structure.(although in the bigger picture a galaxy is a system that emits energy , matter etc and under suitable conditions it can be treated as a point source or a planar structure or any other structure suitable for a problem.

    you just added another object ie the black body screen so now the totality is the sphere and the cover screen. Neither the screen nor the sphere radiate more than their sum.

    Again stupidity at its peak , I said the setup is a system the observer can only observe what is happening outside it not inside , so for him power generated by the system would be Q meaning he will measure the power output of the system as Q and not the sum of individual components of the system(LMFAO have you ever solved even a single thermodynamics problem). "it was for your misconception that individual bodies can't have power greater than than the entire system it is residing in"

    Again a star will never output more than itself and another star combined.

    Why not LMFAO I just now showed you a very simple setup if you really understood how it works you will understand why you are wrong here.

    And i told you no, it isnt. Sun's output of ~4x10^26 multiplied by estimated number of stars at 1-4x10^11 gives 4x10^37-1.6x10^38. This is higher than the value mentioned, because most stars aren't as luminous as the Sun.

    In your first internet article it was directly the product of number of stars to the power of the sun now I see the second one it is less than that ,ok but I don't remember why this is a part of the conversation.

    Feat in question has a small and static star.

    So

    I also didn't say BB radiation equations fail,

    LOl when you don't understand something you won't even realize when you make a mistake , I explain it for you , I said before "assuming stefan - boltzmann law is applicable star should emit this much"

    you said"a star can't emit more than mass" so it can't emit 10^48+JThen I gave you many examples how this is paradoxical (observer in a moving frame) and what you said above implies stefan - Boltzmann law fails for the star at that temperature.

    simply that something like trillion K doesn't last at all

    No temperature lasts for a body radiating heat until it reaches a steady state. What are you even saying here.

    and idea of 10^48+J being absurd.

    output in wavelengths arent that close and out eyes do see the hottest stars as blue. I posted a gif of how visible wavelengths combined look based on temperatures. Just look again.

    I would have easily proven how difference in intensity for blue light and red light is very minute at high temp using some math and graph but considering you won't understand nothing I will go the easy way.

    However, there's another angle to this and that's that if you are to imagine actually being in the star system with the star (i.e. at planetary distance), then actually if you looked straight at any star, it would, indeed, appear white in terms of its observable surface color, no matter the temperature

    And this is what I was saying for a long time but....nevermind .

    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/433017/are-there-stars-that-wouldnt-look-white-to-the-naked-eye

    What physics source did you ever see with a neutron star radiating more than 10^48 joules?

    I don't rely on wikipedia articles also rn I am in HS so there is no reason for me to find information about a neutron star also when you never done even basic physics why are you asking me this stupid question , nowhere have I seen a 6000K neutron star as well lol.

    That higher temps neutron star loses heat (in KE of neutrons) by ejecting neutrons so its power at this stage would be given by n*(average KE of neutrons) where n is number of neutrons ejected in 1 second since this is unquantifiable due to various reasons so stefan boltzmann law is the only option left to quantify this high end feat.

    already said why 10^6 is not a low end at all and why its an extremely unlikely high end instead. Only the ones hot and bright enough to be observed from earth are that hot. Marojity is over 1 Gyr old thus at temperatures equal to or below the Sun.

    Show me mathematical proof for this instead of repeating this again and again like a kid.

    @ichinisanji: don't know how don't get any notifications.

    Your math is how they end up perpetual motion machines where you make energy out of nothing.

    What are you trying to say speak clearly.

    The black body shell you used to enclose your source has 2 surfaces. The outer shell will not recieve Q energy, it'd get Q/2 energy while the inner shell swaps q/2 energy inside itself

    What you are saying is incorrect at steady state outermost shell will receive 2Q heat of which Q gets transmitted as measured by the observer and Q (not Q/2) gets reflected inside towards the inner shell proof is simple if you want then ask.

    At equilibrium the outer shell will emit Q as well.

    At equilibrium outer shell emits 2Q (2 surfaces) Q outside and Q inside.

    Because the debate was whether the luminosity of a galaxy being lower than a star or not was possible.

    You showed a black body screen with static temperature radiating twice as much as a star at the same temperature with half the surface area of that screen. Which proves nothing as the debate was never about total heat content inside of celestial objects in a galxy but the radiated energy.

    Why not..? Maybe because both stars have positive luminosity and sum of a positive set is larger than either of its components...

    This was part of the debate because you focused on it that much when i used it to give an idea of how absurd a star outputting 10+48J was, as it was trillion times more than Milky Ways output/second.

    You muddled the debate by using different observers instead of just accepting how a star releasing 10^48J of thermal energy is nonsensical, which obviously didn't refer to measurement made from a relativistic frame unrelated to the star. I didn't say equation fails because it isn't a necessity as with output youd get from the equation would be enough to significantly cool the star in under a second. Using output that high for the star at random point in its life is nonsense especially taking it as 1 second or more which is impossible.

    Im saying it won't last even a second.

    The blog you quoted here also says incident light from the source would match the predicted black body color and cast a hue on things around it at that color and the scene still had yellowish white hue on Thor when the lid was opening as well as around the beam. It wasn't even fully white to begin with but yellowish white. If you want to compare it to looking at molten metal temperature could be well lower than what i used. Blog also gives example of red star at 3 something thousand K and a blue star at 12 something thousand K.

    I already used stefan boltzmann law "to quantify this high end feat".

    I gave sources but since you don't like to accept anything other than your own thoughts think about this. Universe is billion of years old, most neutron stars are billions of years old so how much time did they have to cool down? What temperature would a neutron star be at billions of years age? To use the example given before, taking a star that cooled to 600000K after 100000 years, and as surfacce temperature halves as the age quadruples we can find that an isolated star 4 billion years old would be (4x10^9/10^5)^0.5 = 200, 600000/200 = 3000K. One that is 1 Gyo would then be 4^0.5 * 3000 = 6000K.

    Avatar image for goldeneagle
    goldeneagle

    2379

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #76  Edited By goldeneagle

    The star seems to be a mix of colors. It is purple min some places, blue in others, orange in some parts, etc. The star is also relatively new due to the fact that Mjolnir was forged in the "hear of a dying star." This means that it was forged in the core of a dying star. Not a dying star. This means that sometime between when Mjolnir was made and IW, Nidavellir went supernova. This means that the star is relatively new.

    Avatar image for alphamon
    Alphamon

    9583

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    You know now that I’m thinking about, wouldn’t the gravity around the netron star be extremely intense? And Thor seemed to be just fine near it

    Avatar image for deactivated-62f3a8e120119
    deactivated-62f3a8e120119

    1031

    Forum Posts

    1

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @alphamon: For his mass, ‘tanking’ the gravity wouldn’t be an impressive feat, the star also wasn’t open til he opened it.

    Avatar image for coolcat4
    coolcat4

    77

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @akztemp said:

    @alphamon: For his mass, ‘tanking’ the gravity wouldn’t be an impressive feat, the star also wasn’t open til he opened it.

    Well i would say that it is questionable if he ever had to experience the gravity or if it was only after he opened the device. But if he did it would be very impressive. its about 2E11 times greater then earths. So he would weigh 1.33 X 10^14 lbs. under its gravity.

    Avatar image for alphamon
    Alphamon

    9583

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @akztemp: why would his mass change anything for the amount of gravity the star would have on him? I guess but that doesn’t change the fact that was crushed while surviving it’s heat

    Avatar image for parkerkent
    ParkerKent

    1361

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    Avatar image for gangorca
    GangOrca

    13478

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    Fun facts about neutron stars, which Thor took, from scientific experts:

    M. Coleman Miller of the University of Maryland: "This is the equivalent of detonating the entire world's nuclear arsenal on every square centimeter of the neutron star's surface within a minute!"

    Phil Plait, PhD from the University of Virginia: "The amount of energy released is just huge, it would completely dwarf the entire arsenal of nuclear weapons on our planet."

    The numbers in your first calc that mentions your quote talks about a neutron star with a size and age that does not match what we saw in the movie. Your second article is talking about gravity, which is irrelevant as the star's gravity wasn't pulling on Thor since he didn't fly into the star at a fraction of the speed of light when he let go of the forge.

    Avatar image for gangorca
    GangOrca

    13478

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #83  Edited By GangOrca

    Overall, using physics to judge this feat is never not going to be highly questionable, as you'd have to ignore some aspects of physics to make the calc work like this star existing at all due to it's size or the gravity not pulling in everything around it (even if you used the Dyson sphere as an argument, Rocket's ship would go flying inside once Thor opened the forge). The absolute most we have to work off of is Uru's melting point but that doesn't say much about the heat of the star itself.

    Avatar image for gangorca
    GangOrca

    13478

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @kjp said:

    This just prove that both mcu Thor and dceu sup are fodders

    That's a matter of perspective.

    Avatar image for parkerkent
    ParkerKent

    1361

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @gangorca said:
    @parkerkent said:

    Fun facts about neutron stars, which Thor took, from scientific experts:

    M. Coleman Miller of the University of Maryland: "This is the equivalent of detonating the entire world's nuclear arsenal on every square centimeter of the neutron star's surface within a minute!"

    Phil Plait, PhD from the University of Virginia: "The amount of energy released is just huge, it would completely dwarf the entire arsenal of nuclear weapons on our planet."

    The numbers in your first calc that mentions your quote talks about a neutron star with a size and age that does not match what we saw in the movie. Your second article is talking about gravity, which is irrelevant as the star's gravity wasn't pulling on Thor since he didn't fly into the star at a fraction of the speed of light when he let go of the forge.

    Hey, it's you again! Cool. So you also say this in the very next post on this thread:

    "using physics to judge this feat is never not going to be highly questionable"

    If we are to ignore physics, then all we can go on is what is shown and said onscreen, without any further extrapolation. And that is Thor moving miles of metal, then taking the full force of a neutron star while standing at its surface and being fully engulfed in its energy beam. Without any calculations, this is godly work that exceeds human comprehension.

    Avatar image for parkerkent
    ParkerKent

    1361

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    Thor resisted the heat AND GRAVITY of the neutron star.

    Reversed gravity is what sends Thor hurling approximately three miles away from the core to the ring in about three seconds, as soon as he lets go of the mechanism. Heat alone would not do that, not at that speed and not to that distance. Especially if the star is emitting less explosive power than a nuke, as many CVers have claimed.

    Besides, both the core and rings have their own terrestrial gravity, since Thor stood on both of them without floating away, which mean the speed and distance Thor covered after taking the energy beam was not due to being in the near-zero gravity of outer space.

    The Dyson Sphere keeps the destructive effect of the star's otherwise overwhelming heat and gravity contained to the core and its beam. The Dwarves also send the star's full force shooting outward in that energy beam. Anything outside the core and energy beam of the star are unaffected by its power.

    The star's gravity does not send Thor collapsing into the core when he lets go of the mechanism because the last of the fading energy beam is still hitting him. Stars have gravity. Eitri says Thor took the full force of a star. Gravity is part of that force. Gravity simply hit Thor in reverse, along with the outward flowing energy beam.

    Avatar image for gangorca
    GangOrca

    13478

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @parkerkent:

    If we are to ignore physics, then all we can go on is what is shown and said onscreen, without any further extrapolation. And that is Thor moving miles of metal, then taking the full force of a neutron star while standing at its surface and being fully engulfed in its energy beam. Without any calculations, this is godly work that exceeds human comprehension.

    Yeah, but what is shown and said onscreen isn't backed up by the neutron star that's being described for your quote in the first source, that's my point.

    Avatar image for parkerkent
    ParkerKent

    1361

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @gangorca said:

    @parkerkent:

    If we are to ignore physics, then all we can go on is what is shown and said onscreen, without any further extrapolation. And that is Thor moving miles of metal, then taking the full force of a neutron star while standing at its surface and being fully engulfed in its energy beam. Without any calculations, this is godly work that exceeds human comprehension.

    Yeah, but what is shown and said onscreen isn't backed up by the neutron star that's being described for your quote in the first source, that's my point.

    What's onscreen does back up the type of neutron star described in the first quote's source. That refers to Social Accreting Neutron Stars with a Companion Star Nearby, approximately 80,000 miles apart. This criteria is in the source link below:

    M. Coleman Miller of the University of Maryland: "This is the equivalent of detonating the entire world's nuclear arsenal on every square centimeter of the neutron star's surface within a minute!"

    The movie shows this right before Thor, Rocket and Groot get to Nidavellir:

    Loading Video...

    Top right corner of the screen shows a big bright star their pod is moving away from, right before they get to Nidavellir. They are in the middle of outer space, so there is no reason to assume that is anything other than a nearby companion star. Given that they reach Nidavellir four minutes later in continuous screentime, those stars are relatively close together.

    So, onscreen and in source science align with Thor taking the full force of a star that is at least equal to all the world's nukes, plus an insane gravity resistance feat per my previous post.

    Avatar image for gangorca
    GangOrca

    13478

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #89  Edited By GangOrca

    @parkerkent:

    What's onscreen does back up the type of neutron star described in the first quote's source. That refers to Social Accreting Neutron Stars with a Companion Star Nearby, approximately 80,000 miles apart. This criteria is in the source link below:

    M. Coleman Miller of the University of Maryland: "This is the equivalent of detonating the entire world's nuclear arsenal on every square centimeter of the neutron star's surface within a minute!"

    The movie shows this right before Thor, Rocket and Groot get to Nidavellir:

    Loading Video...

    Top right corner of the screen shows a big bright star their pod is moving away from, right before they get to Nidavellir. They are in the middle of outer space, so there is no reason to assume that is anything other than a nearby companion star. Given that they reach Nidavellir four minutes later in continuous screentime, those stars are relatively close together.

    So, onscreen and in source science align with Thor taking the full force of a star that is at least equal to all the world's nukes, plus an insane gravity resistance feat per my previous post.

    This proves absolutely nothing. The radius is incorrect, the age is almost certainly incorrect, the gravity is incorrect as it doesn't pull on Thor when he let's go of the forge or Rocket's ship, and the design of the star itself is incorrect as a Dyson sphere is built into the star in order to draw it's power.

    And no way is that star shown a measly 80,000 miles away from Nidavellir, that's less than a third of the distance between our moon and the Earth. Unless you think that star is the size of our moon or smaller (which still wouldn't explain why we don't see it anymore when they get to Nidavellir) and Rocket's ship is slow af, that distance is ridiculous.

    Avatar image for parkerkent
    ParkerKent

    1361

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @gangorca said:

    @parkerkent:

    What's onscreen does back up the type of neutron star described in the first quote's source. That refers to Social Accreting Neutron Stars with a Companion Star Nearby, approximately 80,000 miles apart. This criteria is in the source link below:

    M. Coleman Miller of the University of Maryland: "This is the equivalent of detonating the entire world's nuclear arsenal on every square centimeter of the neutron star's surface within a minute!"

    The movie shows this right before Thor, Rocket and Groot get to Nidavellir:

    Loading Video...

    Top right corner of the screen shows a big bright star their pod is moving away from, right before they get to Nidavellir. They are in the middle of outer space, so there is no reason to assume that is anything other than a nearby companion star. Given that they reach Nidavellir four minutes later in continuous screentime, those stars are relatively close together.

    So, onscreen and in source science align with Thor taking the full force of a star that is at least equal to all the world's nukes, plus an insane gravity resistance feat per my previous post.

    This proves absolutely nothing. The radius is incorrect, the age is almost certainly incorrect, the gravity is incorrect as it doesn't pull on Thor when he let's go of the forge or Rocket's ship, and the design of the star itself is incorrect as a Dyson sphere is built into the star in order to draw it's power.

    And no way is that star shown a measly 80,000 miles away from Nidavellir, that's less than a third of the distance between our moon and the Earth. Unless you think that star is the size of our moon or smaller (which still wouldn't explain why we don't see it anymore when they get to Nidavellir) and Rocket's ship is slow af, that distance is ridiculous.

    1. We do see the star again, when Thor hurls Rocket's pod to move the rings and before Nidavellir's core is revealed. The bright circular white thing in the image below is neither Rocket's pod nor part of Nidavellir:

    No Caption Provided


    2. This more recent source from NASA puts another such neutron-star pairing 186,000 miles apart:, more than twice the 80,000 miles of the first source: NASA Neutron Pairing

    3. The universe is big and varied. Even greater distances are bound to be found as our own science gets better. There is no reason to assume this is not a Social Accreting Neutron Star with a Companion Nearby.

    Avatar image for gangorca
    GangOrca

    13478

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @parkerkent:

    1. We do see the star again, when Thor hurls Rocket's pod to move the rings and before Nidavellir's core is revealed. The bright circular white thing in the image below is neither Rocket's pod nor part of Nidavellir:

    No Caption Provided

    2. This more recent source from NASA puts another such neutron-star pairing 186,000 miles apart:, more than twice the 80,000 miles of the first source: NASA Neutron Pairing

    3. The universe is big and varied. Even greater distances are bound to be found as our own science gets better. There is no reason to assume this is not a Social Accreting Neutron Star with a Companion Nearby.

    Even if I stand corrected on that part, that's still smaller the the distance between Earth and the moon, which can only mean that both the star is tiny and that Rocket's ship is incredibly slow (when it is not). The comparison to star pairing doesn't work to begin with as that star has nothing to do with powering Nidavellir as evident by the Dyson sphere and rings.

    Avatar image for parkerkent
    ParkerKent

    1361

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #92  Edited By ParkerKent
    @gangorca said:

    @parkerkent:

    1. We do see the star again, when Thor hurls Rocket's pod to move the rings and before Nidavellir's core is revealed. The bright circular white thing in the image below is neither Rocket's pod nor part of Nidavellir:

    No Caption Provided

    2. This more recent source from NASA puts another such neutron-star pairing 186,000 miles apart:, more than twice the 80,000 miles of the first source: NASA Neutron Pairing

    3. The universe is big and varied. Even greater distances are bound to be found as our own science gets better. There is no reason to assume this is not a Social Accreting Neutron Star with a Companion Nearby.

    Even if I stand corrected on that part, that's still smaller the the distance between Earth and the moon, which can only mean that both the star is tiny and that Rocket's ship is incredibly slow (when it is not). The comparison to star pairing doesn't work to begin with as that star has nothing to do with powering Nidavellir as evident by the Dyson sphere and rings.

    They can be MUCH farther apart. I'm not searching for this anymore, but Nidavellir and that other star seem about the same distance as what's stated below:

    National Radio Astronomy Observatory:

    "Some pulsars in double neutron star systems are so close to their companion that their orbital paths are comparable to the size of our Sun and they make a full orbit in less than a day. The orbital path of J1930-1852 spans about 52 million kilometers, roughly the distance between Mercury and the Sun and it orbits its companion once every 45 days. “Its orbit is more than twice as large as that of any previously known double neutron star system,” said Swiggum. “The pulsar’s parameters give us valuable clues about how a system like this could have formed. Discoveries of outlier systems like J1930-1852 give us a clearer picture of the full range of possibilities in binary evolution.”

    As for the companion star having "nothing to do with powering Nidavellir" ... these accretions happen in the real world without Dyson Spheres, and thus regardless of what the Dwarves constructed. It would happen anyway given their proximity.

    Avatar image for mikemageo
    MikeMageo

    1449

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    The biggest issue with attempting to quantify this feat lies within the star itself. Even though it is stated to be a neutron star, it's properties, namely fact that it had to be reignited, directly contradict this statement. This thereby renders any attempt to calculate the feat using traditional logic useless.

    Avatar image for ichinisanji
    IchiNiSanji

    538

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    I'm talking about the net power of the surface. The outer surface of the inner sphere will have a net power of Q. Q from the screen in equilibrium, Q total directed outwards.

    @ichinisanji:

    <Also, the net power of the inner sphere would be Q emitted outwards>

    Inner sphere recieves Q from the source Q from the screen and emits 2Q towards the outwards net power is 0 now tell me from where is this extra Q coming.

    I'm talking about the net power of the surface. The outer surface of the inner sphere will have a net power of Q. Q from the screen in equilibrium, Q total directed outwards.

    Suppose an observer is placed inside the screen he will measure Q coming from the screen and 2Q coming from the sphere due to prevosts law

    He'll measure Q coming from the sphere and an energy of 2Q in free heat in the middle which would keep bouncing between surfaces in equilibrium as a photon gas.

    Avatar image for goldeneagle
    goldeneagle

    2379

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    The star was was not just yellow. It was very obviously blue too. It was a bunch of different colors. We cannot just use one of the colors it shows off.

    Avatar image for alphamon
    Alphamon

    9583

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    I guess this is still going on

    Avatar image for parkerkent
    ParkerKent

    1361

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #97  Edited By ParkerKent

    It is indeed still going on, since I just came across this info. Nidavellir's size could be accurate for real neutron stars, and therefore their million to billion degree temperatures and near black hole level gravity would be valid, because the science is not definite. Below, beginning at Timestamp 6:42, City University of New York astrophysicist Matt O'Dowd, PhD, says:

    Loading Video...

    "For any given mass, there’s a certain size that if you could crunch an object down below that size it would be a black hole. It’s like a phantom event horizon. In the case of the Earth the phantom event horizon is about a centimeter in diameter. In the case of a neutron star it’s several kilometers."

    [4 to 5 kilometers is about the onscreen size of Nidavellir based on the sizes of Thor, the beam, and the sphere]

    "As you increase a neutron star’s mass, its phantom event horizon grows while its actual surface shrinks. When they overlap you have a black hole. This basic picture is pretty well accepted, but we still aren’t sure just how massive a neutron star can be before becoming a black hole. It’s not because our theories are wrong - it’s because the calculations required to understand the bizarre states of matter in a neutron star are horrendous, and there’s still some stuff that we don’t know. That’s especially true towards the center of the neutron star."

    As for my latest onscreen size calcs:

    The ring Thor pulls has a diameter 8 times the diameter of Nidavellir.

    Nidavellir’s diameter, measured by the flares coming through the Dyson Sphere, is 208 times the height of its energy beam.

    The energy beam is 36 times the size of Thor’s flailing body as he falls away.

    Let's assume Thor was not upright while flailing and falling, and only count his shoulder-to-shoulder width of 2 feet.

    Therefore:

    Nidavellir is 208 x 36 x 2 feet = 2.84 miles in diameter and 8.9 miles in circumference. The ring Thor pulls has a diameter of 22.72 miles and a circumference of 71.37 miles.

    Avatar image for antebellum
    Antebellum

    3144

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    Didn't understand nothing but seems plausible.

    Avatar image for parkerkent
    ParkerKent

    1361

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #100  Edited By ParkerKent
    No Caption Provided

    THIS IS THE IMAGE NASA HAS ON ITS NEUTRON STAR PAGE!!! ^^^ NOTE THE COLORS!!!

    https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/science/neutron_stars.html#:~:text=Neutron%20stars%20cram%20roughly%201.3,the%20same%20as%20Mount%20Everest

    Also NASA:

    "This new research has allowed the teams to place the first observational constraints on a range of properties of superfluid material in neutron stars. The critical temperature was constrained to between one half a billion to just under a billion degrees Celsius."

    https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/casa2011.html

    Infinity War says they are awakening the heart of the star. Heart is not surface. Heart is core. As Raj has proven, Thor 1 showed that even Mjolnir took the core of the star.

    https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/gen-discussion-1/mcu-mjolnirs-forging-busted-a-star-most-powerful-m-2229146/

    This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

    Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

    Comment and Save

    Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.