@conner_wolf said:
@saren: Except we're talking about Vibranium, ya know, the thing that absorbs kinetic energy into it's atoms? Which could classify as an atomic reaction? Specifically endothermic. And it didn't blow up as is standard with an atomic reaction that people are trying to imply, if it had set off a reaction in the Vibranium all of it would've been blown to smithereens, when everything's falling into the water, you can see the giant beam falling down and it's totally fine, ergo, he supplied that energy, and it was then put out by the Vibranium to destroy the city. They even demonstrate this earlier in the film with Cap's shield, which is standard for a movie to do, display something on a small scale early on, then use it in a big way later Vibranium takes the energy you put into it and as shown, blasts it outwards, diverting it.
And logically, Friday even said Thor would just crack it in half, Iron Man kept it together to as he said, keep the atomic reaction doubling back, for it to double back, it would've needed to be produced by Thor in the first place, and since Friday said he'd just crack it in half, logically, Thor hitting it and transferring his energy inside it, is an atomic reaction, interacting with the atoms and transferring energy to them on an atomic level, Tony Stark just prevented the energy from escaping so the only way it had to go was out. That the ONLY logical explanation here. Unless Iron Man putting a Cap on it suddenly caused all of that energy to suddenly transmute into something else that caused what you're implying it was. Which is ridiculous to claim without really massive evidence, in this case a statement from Joss. If he could come out and say whether or not Thor was the one who supplied the energy. Until then, it's only logical that it was Thor who supplied the energy.
Absorbing energy is not a reaction in itself. A chemical reaction is a process wherein chemical substances are transformed. Endothermic reactions are a subset of chemical reactions where predominantly heat energy is absorbed from the environment while the reaction happens, but you can absorb heat and/or energy without it constituting a chemical reaction. A rubber ball will absorb kinetic energy when you fling it at a wall, but that does not mean it is undergoing a chemical reaction. They tell you not to wear black shirts in the summer because black absorbs and radiates heat from ambient sunlight, but that does not mean the fabric of your shirt is undergoing a chemical reaction. Vibranium absorbing kinetic energy has very little to do with reactive properties and more to do with the physical aspects of it like rigidity and elasticity.
The example Skit gave about gongs is actually quite on point, because the amount of energy a gong releases when you strike it will be far greater than the amount of energy a brick wall releases when struck with the same amount of force, owing to the specific physical properties of the gong. Materials can enhance the quantity of energy released even with identical amounts of force depending on exactly how their physical properties react to kinetic energy, so the example with Cap's shield doesn't really make much of a difference as far as I can see. If anyone sees it differently, I'd like to talk about it.
I don't even know what that second paragraph is supposed to be, because half of it is just some weirdly incoherent babble about atoms and energy liberally interspersed with the word "logical" and variants thereof. I am very impressed by the many different ways you can slip "logical" into a paragraph, but that does not by itself actually mean anything, logically speaking. I'm just going to paste every line of Tony and Friday discussing the incident to eliminate any room for ambiguity, and also because I'm of the opinion that a script written by Joss Whedon would seem to serve the purpose described by the statement from Joss Whedon that you seek:
Friday: The anti-gravs are rigged to (fit?). Touch them and they go full reverse thrust. The city's not coming down soon.
Tony: It's part vibranium. If I get Thor to hit it....
Friday: It'll crack. That's not enough. The impact would still be devastating.
Tony: Maybe I could cap the other end. Keep the atomic action doubling back.
Friday: That could vaporize the city. And everyone on it.
And now I'm just going to paste whatever I wrote about the rest of it:
Tony needed Thor because he needed to crack the vibranium alloy and Thor was the only one strong enough to do so. He needed to cap the other end because all energy dissipates through mediums and changes into new forms of energy that could be useless depending on the purpose you intend it for. For instance, mechanical energy expended in the clapping of hands transforms into sound energy as it dissipates through air molecules. Sound energy is not as efficient or useful for kinetic purposes as mechanical energy is. To stop the energy from dissipating away, he created a heat seal to keep it reverberating within the boundaries of the city in its original destructive form.
The device was never intended to be destroyed, it was only intended to be cracked. Friday says that cracking it would be enough to produce a destructive release, albeit not one that would finish the job. That's why they needed the heat seal, to reuse the power released by cracking it. And again, an atomic reaction in your standard nuclear bomb for example will only need a microsecond to manifest, so the city vaporizing after Thor hits the vibranium is to be expected.
I don't know how you got that I was implying the energy was transmuted into something new, but then I did not understand one single word of that paragraph so the fault may lie on my end. I don't know why it would have set off a reaction throughout the vibranium, since we already know vibranium is a highly unreactive substance that takes a great deal of effort to change. All we know is that the energy provided was enough to crack the vibranium to a certain extent, not to set off a chain reaction throughout the entire structure.
So when you say "as is standard with an atomic reaction", you're not talking about uranium or plutonium, you're not even talking about atypical elements for such reactions like deuterium and boron, no, you're talking about a fictional element of uncertain natural qualities and trying to figure out what's "standard" for that. Generally speaking, I dislike these kinds of discussions because it involves attempting to apply real world science to the nonsensical pseudo-science that Hollywood devises to explain things, and there's always someone saying things like atomic reactions are anything involving atoms.
To be honest I'm not surprised you were right out of the gate with a way to disregard this feat.
Are you complimenting my ingenuity or casting aspersions on my integrity? If it's the latter, I feel obligated to point out that wolves are the Ku Klux Klan of the canine world.
If it's the former, wolves are a pure and noble breed that we must protect at all costs
Log in to comment