VS #1: Lightsaber vs. Adamantium

[Guest force_echo]

thats kinda the point of the entire thread

What point? What does that have anything to do about secondary adamantium and it's ability to withstand a lightsaber?

[xLEGACYx]

What point? What does that have anything to do about secondary adamantium and it's ability to withstand a lightsaber?

its the same amount of proof you have given in this thread. I admit that my ideas are just a theory and whether you choose to admit it or not, yours are too.

[Guest Dinsdale Piranha]

That's also illogical.

I try to refrain from merging comics and science in most instances because most of the writers aren't savvy in the science department.

 

They're getting better... Better than silver Age Superman stories at any rate.

 

For the sake of this argument though, if Marvel states that Primary Adamantium cannot be destroyed and has consistently demonstrated so, then it can't be destroyed, regardless of how unrealistic it is.

 

It's a fair point, though i don't have to like it. I wish they'd say something like, "No known force can pierce adamantium." My guess is that they know the minute they stop saying "indestructible" some writers are going to start allowing their characters to shred it like tinfoil, then they'll have to come up with a whole new indestructible substance.

 

And it is my personal opinion that secondary adamantium cannot be melted by a lightsaber.

 

Abandoning physics for a moment, I think it's better from a storytelling POV to say that a light saber can't cut through adamantium.

[Guest force_echo]

its the same amount of proof you have given in this thread. I admit that my ideas are just a theory and whether you choose to admit it or not, yours are too.

No, they're not. You just post random shit that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I used extremely simple logic to prove that Secondary Adamantium can't be structured the way you said it is. These two things are not the same, neither are theories. One doesn't make sense at all, the other one uses absolutely no theory whatsoever.

[G4hardcore]

Just because the limits of today's technology can heat plasma that hot, how do you know lightsabers can? That's a logical misstep.

I don't know, I'm assuming that because Star Wars Universe technology has been shown to be superior to our technology, that their technology can exceed the limits of relatively simple Earth tech. While I'm aware that assumptions by their very nature can backfire, it's hardly a logical misstep on my part to go with a sensible standpoint.

 

Human Torch is a man. He can be hotter than a lightsaber. So much for no man made heat being as hot.

The Human Torch may or may not be hotter than a lightsaber. I haven't seen anything in this thread to convince me that Storm is for certain.

[Guest force_echo]

I don't know, I'm assuming that because Star Wars Universe technology has been shown to be superior to our technology, that their technology can exceed the limits of relatively simple Earth tech. While I'm aware that assumptions by their very nature can backfire, it's hardly a logical misstep on my part to go with a sensible standpoint.

 

 

The Human Torch may or may not be hotter than a lightsaber. I haven't seen anything in this thread to convince me that Storm is for certain.

The physics of heating plasma that hot just doesn't go with a standard power cell that a lightsaber has, so no, it's not a logical step. Just because the cutting edge tech of today can do it with high technology means doesn't mean Star Wars can do it with a standard power cell.

[xLEGACYx]

The physics of heating plasma that hot just doesn't go with a standard power cell that a lightsaber has, so no, it's not a logical step. Just because the cutting edge tech of today can do it with high technology means doesn't mean Star Wars can do it with a standard power cell.

You have a theory the secondary adamantium is structured one way. I theorize it is structured a different way. You think it would be changed at a sub atomic level. I believe it would simply be mixed with other strong metals while melted.

 

Both are theories.

[Guest force_echo]

You have a theory the secondary adamantium is structured one way. I theorize it is structured a different way. You think it would be changed at a sub atomic level. I believe it would simply be mixed with other strong metals while melted.

 

Both are theories.

But your theory simply does not go with what has been directly shown in the comics you freaking retard, how the hell do you not understand the simplest concepts? Mine does, yours doesn't.

[xLEGACYx]

But your theory simply does not go with what has been directly shown in the comics you freaking retard, how the hell do you not understand the simplest concepts? Mine does, yours doesn't.

Its a theory. The adamantium could be the major ore in its makeup. That is what provides its durability. The other ores are still there. They would begin to melt as the lightsaber came closer. My theory makes more sense when it comes to the metal being bent than yours does. It has to have a weak point or it would be regular adamantium. The flaws of being a mix of metal makes since for its lesser degree of durability.

 

Im also glad you show your use of intellect in your vocabulary.

[Guest force_echo]

Its a theory. The adamantium could be the major ore in its makeup. That is what provides its durability. The other ores are still there. They would begin to melt as the lightsaber came closer. My theory makes more sense when it comes to the metal being bent than yours does. It has to have a weak point or it would be regular adamantium. The flaws of being a mix of metal makes since for its lesser degree of durability.

 

Im also glad you show your use of intellect in your vocabulary.

Then every time it would take a nuke it would melt or get visibly damaged by your theory, since the impure metals would melt at that stage and the adamantium wouldn't. I have the other ores in my example too, they're just surrounded by adamantium molecules, it's still not as hard as solid adamantium, because the structure would be interrupted, but still more plausible than your scenario.

[xLEGACYx]

Then every time it would take a nuke it would melt or get visibly damaged by your theory, since the impure metals would melt at that stage and the adamantium wouldn't. I have the other ores in my example too, they're just surrounded by adamantium molecules, it's still not as hard as solid adamantium, because the structure would be interrupted, but still more plausible than your scenario.

its not more plausible. If each atom was covered in adamantium, it would not bend. The other metals would be completely protected and could not be harmed. In my theory those metals are still slightly exposed, and that allows the secondary adamantium to be bent or broken. It doesnt mean the entire object has tons of other metals in it. It would just mean that it has some and that allows for the damage it takes at times.

 

Your theory protects those other metals completely from harm by being covered by adamantium. If they are covered, they can not be damaged. So then, since they can not be damaged; they can not be bent or broken because it would have no vulnerability.

[Guest force_echo]

its not more plausible. If each atom was covered in adamantium, it would not bend. The other metals would be completely protected and could not be harmed. In my theory those metals are still slightly exposed, and that allows the secondary adamantium to be bent or broken. It doesnt mean the entire object has tons of other metals in it. It would just mean that it has some and that allows for the damage it takes at times.

 

Your theory protects those other metals completely from harm by being covered by adamantium. If they are covered, they can not be damaged. So then, since they can not be damaged; they can not be bent or broken because it would have no vulnerability.

Wrong, the overall metal structure would weaken because the structure of adamantium, a network, would be interrupted The same thing happens if you allow Titanium with the wrong metal, it gets weaker because the atomic structure is weakened. In your example, secondary adamantium couldn't take a nuke, because the every atom except the adamantium ones would be obliterated.

[xLEGACYx]

Wrong, the overall metal structure would weaken because the structure of adamantium, a network, would be interrupted The same thing happens if you allow Titanium with the wrong metal, it gets weaker because the atomic structure is weakened. In your example, secondary adamantium couldn't take a nuke, because the every atom except the adamantium ones would be obliterated.

No because in your example the other metal is completely protected from anything by the adamantium. Nothing would be able to damage the metal inside of the adamantium coating. Therefore nothing would be able to dent it due to the adamantium on the outside. Same as having an adamantium bubble. The person or object inside could not be damaged by anything on the outside.

[Guest force_echo]

No because in your example the other metal is completely protected from anything by the adamantium. Nothing would be able to damage the metal inside of the adamantium coating. Therefore nothing would be able to dent it due to the adamantium on the outside. Same as having an adamantium bubble. The person or object inside could not be damaged by anything on the outside.

Are you illiterate? The overall strength of the adamantium, of the entire compound IN GENERAL would be weakened because the structure would not be the same. Do you freaking understand this you idiot? How many more times do I have to say this before it gets through your head? Adamantium gets its strength from its molecular structure, if its molecular structure is altered, it's not as strong.

[xLEGACYx]

Are you illiterate? The overall strength of the adamantium, of the entire compound IN GENERAL would be weakened because the structure would not be the same. Do you freaking understand this you idiot? How many more times do I have to say this before it gets through your head? Adamantium gets its strength from its molecular structure, if its molecular structure is altered, it's not as strong.

The structure would not exactly be altered. The adamantium structure would be the same. What your theorizing is coating each various metal atom in adamantium (with its still stable structure) Therefore it would be the same as taking a bunch of rocks and coating them with adamantium. You could no longer destroy the rocks because they would be unable to be touched.

[Guest force_echo]

The structure would not exactly be altered. The adamantium structure would be the same. What your theorizing is coating each various metal atom in adamantium (with its still stable structure) Therefore it would be the same as taking a bunch of rocks and coating them with adamantium. You could no longer destroy the rocks because they would be unable to be touched.

Yes, it is changing the structure because you're changing it on a subatomic level, where there would be an adamantium atom, there is now an inferior metal, messing up the network in between the adamantium molecules. This is so simple, if it weren't true, then Steel would be just as strong as Iron. On a subatomic scale, it's all about the networks in between the atoms, go take a high school chemistry class.

 

Rocks are macroscopic you idiot, the adamantium shell wouldn't try to make a network with the rock, the rock isn't interrupting anything.

[xLEGACYx]

Yes, it is changing the structure because you're changing it on a subatomic level, where there would be an adamantium atom, there is now an inferior metal, messing up the network in between the adamantium molecules. This is so simple, if it weren't true, then Steel would be just as strong as Iron. On a subatomic scale, it's all about the networks in between the atoms, go take a high school chemistry class.

 

Rocks are macroscopic you idiot, the adamantium shell wouldn't try to make a network with the rock, the rock isn't interrupting anything.

Your theory of covering the metal atom with adamantium is the same as covering a random object. Blending the adamantium with the other metals is my theory of melting it all down and the atoms being melded together.

[Guest force_echo]

Your theory of covering the metal atom with adamantium is the same as covering a random object. Blending the adamantium with the other metals is my theory of melting it all down and the atoms being melded together.

No, it's not. You just think that because you're an idiot. Everything on an atomic scale, is not the same as stuff on a macroscopic scale, that's why Schrodinger made Schrodinger's cat, to dissuade idiots like you from being idiotic. Apparently it didn't work. Again, in Steel, every Carbon atom is surrounded by Iron atoms, by your logic, this has the same durability as just pure Iron. Obviously, you're wrong. For the 5th time, in your example, secondary adamantium wouldn't be able to take nuclear strikes, so your "theory" is obviously wrong.

[xLEGACYx]

No, it's not. You just think that because you're an idiot. Everything on an atomic scale, is not the same as stuff on a macroscopic scale, that's why Schrodinger made Schrodinger's cat, to dissuade idiots like you from being idiotic. Apparently it didn't work. Again, in Steel, every Carbon atom is surrounded by Iron atoms, by your logic, this has the same durability as just pure Iron. Obviously, you're wrong. For the 5th time, in your example, secondary adamantium wouldn't be able to take nuclear strikes, so your "theory" is obviously wrong.

problem is so is yours. Yours is still a THEORY as is mine. You have no actual proof and neither do I. That makes anything you or I say, simply speculative. I will use your words and tell you to stop trying to use real world logic in comics.

[Guest Dinsdale Piranha]

I'm no scientist but, maybe this will help.

 

First, according to the Marvel wikia, Adamantium is not an element.

 

Adamantium is a very dense, artificial, iron-based alloy that is virtually indestructible. A sufficient amount is capable of surviving multiple nuclear explosions with no damage.

 

Since it's not an element there is no such thing as an adamantium atom. Like steel, adamantium begins as iron and has its properties changed when it is alloyed with another element or elements. What those are, or how the combining works at the molecular level is unknown to us, but this says a little...

 

When a molten metal is mixed with another substance, there are two mechanisms that can cause an alloy to form, called atom exchange and the interstitial mechanism. The relative size of each atom in the mix plays a primary role in determining which mechanism will occur. When the atoms are relatively similar in size, the atom exchange method usually happens, where some of the atoms composing the metallic crystals are substituted with atoms of the other constituent. This is called a substitutional alloy. Examples of substitutional alloys include bronze and brass, in which some of the copper atoms are substituted with either tin or zinc atoms. With the interstitial mechanism, one atom is usually much smaller than the other, so cannot successfully replace an atom in the crystals of the base metal. The smaller atoms become trapped in the spaces between the atoms in the crystal matrix, called the interstices. This is referred to as an interstitial alloy. Steel is an example of an interstitial alloy, because the very small carbon atoms fit into interstices of the iron matrix. Stainless steel is an example of a combination of interstitial and substitutional alloys, because the carbon atoms fit into the interstices, but some of the iron atoms are replaced with nickel and chromium atoms.

 

The above is a quote from this wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alloys which has some good illustrations that helped me understand the different types of alloys.

 

Their example of an interstitial alloy is steel, which is made of iron and carbon atoms. Interestingly, steel is considerably stronger and harder than either iron or most naturally occurring forms of carbon.

 

The example they use for a substitutional alloy is phosphor-bronze. This is a mix of copper, tin, and a small amount of phosphorus. Here's a quick summary of the relative strengths of the materials.

 

MATERIAL MOHS HARDNESS MELTING POINT SHEAR MODULUS (rigidity)

Copper 3.0 1984.32 °F 45 GPa

Tin 1.5 449.47 °F 18 GPa

Bronze 4 1920 °F 41 GPa

 

Bronze is harder than either parent element but is weaker and easier to melt than copper and stronger and harder to melt than tin.

 

Some of the discussion sounds to me like it's based on the idea that secondary adamantium is made from alloying true adamantium with a weaker metal using the substitution model, just like alloying tin to copper. If that's the case it makes sense that the result would be weaker (at least in some ways) than the pure stuff. It's not the the case that a certain level of heat or other energy would damage the alloyed elements without harming the adamantium any more than you could melt the tin out of a bronze ingot by heating it to the melting point of tin. With an allow, you've really got a new material with new properties.

 

I don't know if that's the best model, though, after all, Marvel says that adamantium isn't an element, it's already an alloy. Instead of making adamantium then somehow alloying it to something else to make secondary adamantium, the two are similar but fundamentally different alloys, like tungston steel and stainless steel.

 

Anyway, after all that...........................................

 

(What was the question again?)

[G4hardcore]

Plate tectonics, cell theory, germ theory, general relativity, atomic theory, evolution... All theories.

 

Sidenote: I hope the above user sticks around! We need us some fact-knowers!

[xLEGACYx]

Plate tectonics, cell theory, germ theory, general relativity, atomic theory, evolution... All theories.

 

Sidenote: I hope the above user sticks around! We need us some fact-knowers!

difference there though is the proof to back them up

[Guest Djgambrell]

Plate tectonics, cell theory, germ theory, general relativity, atomic theory, evolution... All theories.

 

Sidenote: I hope the above user sticks around! We need us some fact-knowers!

The difference between theories and law in science, chemistry, and such is that lwas allow you to make predictions.

 

DJedit: And glad to see force staying civil

[Guest Darxeth]

Technically, those are hypotheses.

[Guest Djgambrell]

that's why Schrodinger made Schrodinger's cat

Whoa whoa whoa. I don't see how that pertains to any of this.