Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

That's right. Namor vs Superman. Unlike Thanos, Namor is a much better match against the Man of Steel. For those who don't know, Namor's powers haven't been calculated yet, because his strength is WAY over the 100 ton level, and he can Speedblitz. Here's a list of his feats from Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feat_List_of_the_Sub-Mariner

The fight would take place on a beach. Namor cannot enlist the help of any outside source, and neither can Superman, which means NO FLYING THROUGH THE SUN! The fight also stays on the Earth so that neither has an unfair advantage.

Ready, Fight!

Superman would win. Even that dude who is a big fan of Namor would say so.

What? Darkcrawler?

Yup - he might be a Namor fan but he knows when to admit that he'd lose.

Superman is stronger, faster and more durable than Namor by a long long long way.

When Namor starts moving planets, flying at the speed of light and taking nukes without a scratch, please let me know.

Originally posted by Fanboy
Superman would win. Even that dude who is a big fan of Namor would say so.

"That dude?"

"THAT DUDE?"

And yeah, Superman 10/10. He is better in nearly every area, and he can also dehydrate Namor.

You are badass DC!

Yeah, I ****ing am!

Originally posted by DarkCrawler
Yeah, I ****ing am!

HA! Pfft, lucky for Namor, Supes is too nice.

The whole planet moving thing, you all are aware that has nothing to do with someone's super strength, right?

Also, we haven't seen the extents of Namor's abilities, mostly because Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Namor needs to move a planet.

Riiight.... let's just say that it's all to do with their 'flight' strength, as you seem to think so...

----------------------

Now - let's say we've got someone of average strength, but with incredible planet moving flight strength... k?

They stand upside down, like they're doing a handtsand, so they've got their arms bracing against the planet.

Now they start to use their planet moving strength.

And their arms collapse and they headbutt the planet.

This is what would happen, if they didn't have physical strength in their arms, equivalent to the pushing force of their flight...

-----------------

Superman has the strength in his arms to match his flight strength, otherwise he wouldn't be able to move planets without headbutting them.

Originally posted by Marcus4600
The whole planet moving thing, you all are aware that has nothing to do with someone's super strength, right?


*sigh*

"flight strength" also known as thrust would have to be generated by superman somehow. He doesnt use turbo thrusters like a jet, its all him.

So, if he can just generate that kind of power for flight, its probably reasonable to assume that he has at least that level of base strength, before he converts it to thrust.

If not, as soon as his feet leave the ground then he would be more than enough for namor, since he'd just beat him with thrust

but ya, there is probably a general level of suspension of disbelief necessary for the high physics involved in these feats. (especially travel at greater than light speed, since e=mc2)

Originally posted by Marcus4600
The whole planet moving thing, you all are aware that has nothing to do with someone's super strength, right?

Also, we haven't seen the extents of Namor's abilities, mostly because Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Namor needs to move a planet.

Ludicrous.

First let's start with your 'thrust' argument.
Take the Saturn V booster. The S-V is a heavy-lift rocket that can carry almost anything (that needs to be carried) to space.
Alright.
There we have a machine able to carry around 118 tons to low earth orbit. Thus, this machine could technically carry the weight of two MBTs (say the Abrams tank) to LEO.

Now, let's say you have someone somehow strapped to the booster rocket, and let's assume that everything is 'in situ' (in that there will be no detrimental effects to the person from friction, heat blast, inability to breath air due to speed, etc).
And that person is holding huge chains attached to two Abram's MBTs that are on the ground, and then the Saturn booster blasts off!
Ok, the person now has enough thrust to easily take the MBTs to LEO, but the connection from the booster to the tanks is through the human (and his arms).
What happens?
His arms get torn off.

Ok, a more real world example.
A car is stuck.
I need to pull it out of the mud.
I take a lil' child (say 3 yrs old), and put him in the back of a tractor (and strap the kid tightly so that he cannot be pulled off).
I give the child a high tensile strength rope to hold, and the end of the rope is tied around the front end of the car.
I then start to drive the tractor forward until the rope starts to get taut.
Then I go forward some more.
Now ....the tractor has more than enough pulling ability to get 5 cars out of mud, thus it has enough pull/thrust to get the car out of the muck.
The only thing is that the child is holding the rope.
However, since I have 'enough thrust' the kid should be able to pull out the car, right?
Wrong ....the kid's arms would immediately get disconnected.

Anyways, Superman helping move the moon had to do with strength.
Where do you think that thrust comes from?
A character cannot have the (to use your terminology) 'thrust' to MOVE A MOON (and also a PLANET, as when Supes moved WarWorld all by his own) and be a weakling.
That is just illogical.

Basically: To make EFFECTIVE use of the thrust generated, the character needs at THE VERY LEAST the same amount of strength in their arms to make it work. If you have X thrust, and you have X-1 (even X-0.001) arm strength, then you will not be able to utilize whatever thrust you are producing.
Hence to make use of any force generated, the characters need to have at least the same strength in their arms.
Otherwise it is all for moot.
It would be like attaching a spider's thread between a ramjet engine and a 1,000 pound chunk of metal, turning the ramjet on, and expecting the spider thread to hold the two together as the ramjet zips away.


The second illogical part in your posting is when you said the following: "Also, we haven't seen the extents of Namor's abilities, mostly because Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Namor needs to move a planet."

LOL ....alright then. Guess what! I guess one could also say that we haven't seen the extent of Wolverine's abilities, because 'Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Wolverine needs to slice and dice a planet.'
We also haven't seen Jubilee's abilities, because 'Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Jubilee needs to blow up a planet.'
Oh ....oh ....and we haven't see the extent of the Toad's abilities, because 'Marvel has never gone through a crisis where the Toad needs to lick a planet to goo.'

I am amazed that you would even try to make such an argument. You are extrapolating a character's abilities based on 'we haven't seen it yet.'
Goodness, that is tantamount to someone saying that Haiti may be able to defeat the United States in thermonuclear warfare, and that we haven't seen the extent of Haiti's 'amazing' combat prowess because 'Haiti has never gone through a crisis where it needs to excel in thermonuclear warfare.'
And yet Haiti in reality not only lacks nukes (the only radiological devices it has are probably a couple of x-ray machines), but it even has one of the most pathetic conventional armies (more like a heavily armed police force than a real army).
However ......who knows!
Haiti could defeat the US .....after all, we do 'not know the full extent of its abilities.'

Even for a Marvel fanboy that is just too much.
Namor is nowhere near Superman.

Originally posted by spetznaz
Ludicrous.

First let's start with your 'thrust' argument.
Take the Saturn V booster. The S-V is a heavy-lift rocket that can carry almost anything (that needs to be carried) to space.
Alright.
There we have a machine able to carry around 118 tons to low earth orbit. Thus, this machine could technically carry the weight of two MBTs (say the Abrams tank) to LEO.

Now, let's say you have someone somehow strapped to the booster rocket, and let's assume that everything is 'in situ' (in that there will be no detrimental effects to the person from friction, heat blast, inability to breath air due to speed, etc).
And that person is holding huge chains attached to two Abram's MBTs that are on the ground, and then the Saturn booster blasts off!
Ok, the person now has enough thrust to easily take the MBTs to LEO, but the connection from the booster to the tanks is through the human (and his arms).
What happens?
His arms get torn off.

Ok, a more real world example.
A car is stuck.
I need to pull it out of the mud.
I take a lil' child (say 3 yrs old), and put him in the back of a tractor (and strap the kid tightly so that he cannot be pulled off).
I give the child a high tensile strength rope to hold, and the end of the rope is tied around the front end of the car.
I then start to drive the tractor forward until the rope starts to get taut.
Then I go forward some more.
Now ....the tractor has more than enough pulling ability to get 5 cars out of mud, thus it has enough pull/thrust to get the car out of the muck.
The only thing is that the child is holding the rope.
However, since I have 'enough thrust' the kid should be able to pull out the car, right?
Wrong ....the kid's arms would immediately get disconnected.

Anyways, Superman helping move the moon had to do with strength.
Where do you think that thrust comes from?
A character cannot have the (to use your terminology) 'thrust' to MOVE A MOON (and also a PLANET, as when Supes moved WarWorld all by his own) and be a weakling.
That is just illogical.

Basically: To make EFFECTIVE use of the thrust generated, the character needs at THE VERY LEAST the same amount of strength in their arms to make it work. If you have X thrust, and you have X-1 (even X-0.001) arm strength, then you will not be able to utilize whatever thrust you are producing.
Hence to make use of any force generated, the characters need to have at least the same strength in their arms.
Otherwise it is all for moot.
It would be like attaching a spider's thread between a ramjet engine and a 1,000 pound chunk of metal, turning the ramjet on, and expecting the spider thread to hold the two together as the ramjet zips away.


The second illogical part in your posting is when you said the following: "Also, we haven't seen the extents of Namor's abilities, mostly because Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Namor needs to move a planet."

LOL ....alright then. Guess what! I guess one could also say that we haven't seen the extent of Wolverine's abilities, because 'Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Wolverine needs to slice and dice a planet.'
We also haven't seen Jubilee's abilities, because 'Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Jubilee needs to blow up a planet.'
Oh ....oh ....and we haven't see the extent of the Toad's abilities, because 'Marvel has never gone through a crisis where the Toad needs to lick a planet to goo.'

I am amazed that you would even try to make such an argument. You are extrapolating a character's abilities based on 'we haven't seen it yet.'
Goodness, that is tantamount to someone saying that Haiti may be able to defeat the United States in thermonuclear warfare, and that we haven't seen the extent of Haiti's 'amazing' combat prowess because 'Haiti has never gone through a crisis where it needs to excel in thermonuclear warfare.'
And yet Haiti in reality not only lacks nukes (the only radiological devices it has are probably a couple of x-ray machines), but it even has one of the most pathetic conventional armies (more like a heavily armed police force than a real army).
However ......who knows!
Haiti could defeat the US .....after all, we do 'not know the full extent of its abilities.'

Even for a Marvel fanboy that is just too much.
Namor is nowhere near Superman.


chair
I almost feel sorry for the fanboys when you post. Almost.

I was simply trying to make a point that Super-Strength isn't all that's needed for moving a planet. If all he was doing was using his arms, then he's doing pushups. Anyone with a base knowledge of physics knows that it would depend on his incredible amount of thrust, and his durability. The reason I brought that up was I hear too many people say that he's just using his arms, when that kind of argument is just flat out pathetic. Also, we don't know the limits of Namor yet, mostly because his limits haven't really been tested yet, unless I missed something. Also, I don't know as much about Superman as most people on these forums, mostly because I honestly don't think that he's that interesting of a character. I personally think that DC writers have an obsession of making their characters outside of Batman nearly godlike, and it's just not that interesting to me. I saw Namor accomplishing feats close to that of Superman before they decided to make him a god. So, let me rephrase my question. Would John Byrne's Superman (the one I know well enough) and Namor be a battle worth remembering?

Also, spetznaz, you read a little bit too much into my words, and made a lot of assumptions. The whole thing about Namor was about Namor, not Jubilee, or Wolverine. Namor is a character who has not been tested to his full potential. He hasn't shown his full strength yet, but some of the things that he has done are flat out amazing. The statement was simply that we don't know all of Namor's limits yet. I'm still wondering where the whole Haiti thing came into effect. In fact, the argument presented made sense until that point, when it seemingly became rambling. However, the other points made much more sense. It would take a being of extreme durability and strength to withstand a thrust of that magnitude. My statement just needed to be reworded. So, let me re-state it. The feat of moving a planet is not just super-strength. Superman more than likely can't bench press a planet. However, his thrust allows him to move it out of orbit, which is a statement that actually makes sense. So, next time, why don't you just rephrase the statement that I made, rather than being a complete ass and calling me a fanboy, when you don't even know who the hell I am.

So, here's the battle: Superman from the Man of Steel comic against Namor.

Namor and Superman wear very similar underwear. This could be a close one.

Originally posted by Marcus4600
I was simply trying to make a point that Super-Strength isn't all that's needed for moving a planet. If all he was doing was using his arms, then he's doing pushups. Anyone with a base knowledge of physics knows that it would depend on his incredible amount of thrust, and his durability. The reason I brought that up was I hear too many people say that he's just using his arms, when that kind of argument is just flat out pathetic. Also, we don't know the limits of Namor yet, mostly because his limits haven't really been tested yet, unless I missed something. Also, I don't know as much about Superman as most people on these forums, mostly because I honestly don't think that he's that interesting of a character. I personally think that DC writers have an obsession of making their characters outside of Batman nearly godlike, and it's just not that interesting to me. I saw Namor accomplishing feats close to that of Superman before they decided to make him a god. So, let me rephrase my question. Would John Byrne's Superman (the one I know well enough) and Namor be a battle worth remembering?

Also, spetznaz, you read a little bit too much into my words, and made a lot of assumptions. The whole thing about Namor was about Namor, not Jubilee, or Wolverine. Namor is a character who has not been tested to his full potential. He hasn't shown his full strength yet, but some of the things that he has done are flat out amazing. The statement was simply that we don't know all of Namor's limits yet. I'm still wondering where the whole Haiti thing came into effect. In fact, the argument presented made sense until that point, when it seemingly became rambling. However, the other points made much more sense. It would take a being of extreme durability and strength to withstand a thrust of that magnitude. My statement just needed to be reworded. So, let me re-state it. The feat of moving a planet is not just super-strength. Superman more than likely can't bench press a planet. However, his thrust allows him to move it out of orbit, which is a statement that actually makes sense. So, next time, why don't you just rephrase the statement that I made, rather than being a complete ass and calling me a fanboy, when you don't even know who the hell I am.

So, here's the battle: Superman from the Man of Steel comic against Namor.

This is true. Logically, anyone who can fly and use some sort of mechanism to stop them self from going through the planet's surface should be able to move a planet. Moving a planet doesn't necessarily mean you can benchpress one.

Really, it's a matter of how much force one could project through flight, rather than muscular strength. I'd bet the Invisible woman could move a planet, if she tried to.

Originally posted by spetznaz
Ludicrous.

First let's start with your 'thrust' argument.
Take the Saturn V booster. The S-V is a heavy-lift rocket that can carry almost anything (that needs to be carried) to space.
Alright.
There we have a machine able to carry around 118 tons to low earth orbit. Thus, this machine could technically carry the weight of two MBTs (say the Abrams tank) to LEO.

Now, let's say you have someone somehow strapped to the booster rocket, and let's assume that everything is 'in situ' (in that there will be no detrimental effects to the person from friction, heat blast, inability to breath air due to speed, etc).
And that person is holding huge chains attached to two Abram's MBTs that are on the ground, and then the Saturn booster blasts off!
Ok, the person now has enough thrust to easily take the MBTs to LEO, but the connection from the booster to the tanks is through the human (and his arms).
What happens?
His arms get torn off.

Ok, a more real world example.
A car is stuck.
I need to pull it out of the mud.
I take a lil' child (say 3 yrs old), and put him in the back of a tractor (and strap the kid tightly so that he cannot be pulled off).
I give the child a high tensile strength rope to hold, and the end of the rope is tied around the front end of the car.
I then start to drive the tractor forward until the rope starts to get taut.
Then I go forward some more.
Now ....the tractor has more than enough pulling ability to get 5 cars out of mud, thus it has enough pull/thrust to get the car out of the muck.
The only thing is that the child is holding the rope.
However, since I have 'enough thrust' the kid should be able to pull out the car, right?
Wrong ....the kid's arms would immediately get disconnected.

Anyways, Superman helping move the moon had to do with strength.
Where do you think that thrust comes from?
A character cannot have the (to use your terminology) 'thrust' to MOVE A MOON (and also a PLANET, as when Supes moved WarWorld all by his own) and be a weakling.
That is just illogical.

Basically: To make EFFECTIVE use of the thrust generated, the character needs at THE VERY LEAST the same amount of strength in their arms to make it work. If you have X thrust, and you have X-1 (even X-0.001) arm strength, then you will not be able to utilize whatever thrust you are producing.
Hence to make use of any force generated, the characters need to have at least the same strength in their arms.
Otherwise it is all for moot.
It would be like attaching a spider's thread between a ramjet engine and a 1,000 pound chunk of metal, turning the ramjet on, and expecting the spider thread to hold the two together as the ramjet zips away.


The second illogical part in your posting is when you said the following: "Also, we haven't seen the extents of Namor's abilities, mostly because Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Namor needs to move a planet."

LOL ....alright then. Guess what! I guess one could also say that we haven't seen the extent of Wolverine's abilities, because 'Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Wolverine needs to slice and dice a planet.'
We also haven't seen Jubilee's abilities, because 'Marvel has never gone through a crisis where Jubilee needs to blow up a planet.'
Oh ....oh ....and we haven't see the extent of the Toad's abilities, because 'Marvel has never gone through a crisis where the Toad needs to lick a planet to goo.'

I am amazed that you would even try to make such an argument. You are extrapolating a character's abilities based on 'we haven't seen it yet.'
Goodness, that is tantamount to someone saying that Haiti may be able to defeat the United States in thermonuclear warfare, and that we haven't seen the extent of Haiti's 'amazing' combat prowess because 'Haiti has never gone through a crisis where it needs to excel in thermonuclear warfare.'
And yet Haiti in reality not only lacks nukes (the only radiological devices it has are probably a couple of x-ray machines), but it even has one of the most pathetic conventional armies (more like a heavily armed police force than a real army).
However ......who knows!
Haiti could defeat the US .....after all, we do 'not know the full extent of its abilities.'

Even for a Marvel fanboy that is just too much.
Namor is nowhere near Superman.

This is an entirely different situation, spetznaz. The person in your verbal illustration it holding onto chains that are being pulled. In all but one instance that I recall, Superman has pushed the said planet. I'm not saying that Superman could not perform the feat you've mentioned; I am doubtless that he could. Nonetheless, a subject even as strong and durable as Namor himself would be able to perform such a feat.

As Marcus4600 said, "thrust" in terms of flight has little to do with physical strength. Sue Storm can produce enough "thrust" to do just about anything, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with her strength. In the same token, Superman thrusting his body towards a planet via flight has little to do with his physical strength. Unless Superman shoved the planet, and acted upon it no further, allowing it to travel through space, the "thrust" he provided had little if anything to do with his physical strength. By protecting her body with a force field, and concentrating force behing her, Sue Storm could achieve the same results that Superman did.

Moreover, pulling or pushing a planet is much, much different from lifting the wieght of the said planet. As you know, inertia and gravity behave very differently, and gravity is considerably more potent. Hence, the notion that Superman can lift 66,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons is speculative, at best.

Thanks dude. In my opinion, it's Superman's flight ability that sets him apart from other heroes. The reason I like the Man of Steel Superman is because he actually has a personality. Also, I figured out that the reason he can fly through the sun is because his body naturally abosorbs that kind of radiation, but the radiation given from Kryptonite is near fatal for him. Scientifically, I can see in the comics Reed Richards wanting to do tests on him, and going nuts. However, it seems that it's usually the smarter characters that defeat him. Victor Von Doom once beat him with his wits. Superman tried to fight him in America, and Doctor Doom said this,

"Do you believe in the laws of America?"

"Yes."

"I am a foreign diplomat. In America, I am given political protection. For you to fight me would be to disobey your own principles."

Originally posted by Marcus4600
Thanks dude. In my opinion, it's Superman's flight ability that sets him apart from other heroes. The reason I like the Man of Steel Superman is because he actually has a personality. Also, I figured out that the reason he can fly through the sun is because his body naturally abosorbs that kind of radiation, but the radiation given from Kryptonite is near fatal for him. Scientifically, I can see in the comics Reed Richards wanting to do tests on him, and going nuts. However, it seems that it's usually the smarter characters that defeat him. Victor Von Doom once beat him with his wits. Superman tried to fight him in America, and Doctor Doom said this,

"Do you believe in the laws of America?"

"Yes."

"I am a foreign diplomat. In America, I am given political protection. For you to fight me would be to disobey your own principles."

I agree with you.

A big problem on this forum is the confusion of the terms 'mass' and 'weight'. The earth is weightless, yet it is extremely massive and is accompannied by great inertia (resistance to movement/change in direction.) However, if the earth did have a weight, it would be far, far more difficult to lift that weight (being imposed by gravity, a more potent force than inertia,) than it would be to move the earth through space by overcoming its inertia.

For instance, (in the absence of friction, but in the presence of gravity,) it would be easier to push an SUV (with or without wheels) than it would be to lift it.

Superman is indeed strong, but I can't quite say that he's strong enough to lift the weight of a planet. I'd say he's well into the mountain-lifting, tectonic plate moving class, however.

P.S. Don't piss off the Superman fans.

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
This is true. Logically, anyone who can fly and use some sort of mechanism to stop them self from going through the planet's surface should be able to move a planet. Moving a planet doesn't necessarily mean you can benchpress one.

Really, it's a matter of how much force one could project through flight, rather than muscular strength. I'd bet the Invisible woman could move a planet, if she tried to.

WTF??????

do you have any idea how difficult it would be to move a planet?? even something as comparibly small as the moon would be BEYOND CURRENT HUMAN TECHNOLOGY (unless we built a rocket thruster on like half of it and used all of our hydrogen resourses to blast it, even then it would be tough)

please tell me why it would be easy to move a planet weighing trillions upon trillions of tonnes, moving at increadable speeds, being held in place by many gravitational forces? (This doesn't even take into account that in a vaccum it would even more difficult to stop and redirect an object in motion since there is no friction (not that im saying space is a vaccum, lol))

in fact, moving a planet means you could easily lift that weight under normal earth gravitational conditions, because you are dealing with much more than just the downward for of gravity.

plus, in your own argument you have stated they would need a mechanism to prevent them from just crashing into the planet. Thats true. So, then, using basic physics, and bastardizing what spetz said, the strength of whatever mechanism you are using must be equivelant to the force of the thrust, or else it breaks

also, your remark about the SUV is incorrect, provided that the SUV is currently in motion. See above.

Originally posted by inamilist
WTF??????

do you have any idea how difficult it would be to move a planet?? even something as comparibly small as the moon would be BEYOND CURRENT HUMAN TECHNOLOGY (unless we built a rocket thruster on like half of it and used all of our hydrogen resourses to blast it, even then it would be tough)

please tell me why it would be easy to move a planet weighing trillions upon trillions of tonnes, moving at increadable speeds, being held in place by many gravitational forces? (This doesn't even take into account that in a vaccum it would even more difficult to stop and redirect an object in motion since there is no friction (not that im saying space is a vaccum, lol))

in fact, moving a planet means you could easily lift that weight under normal earth gravitational conditions, because you are dealing with much more than just the downward for of gravity.

plus, in your own argument you have stated they would need a mechanism to prevent them from just crashing into the planet. Thats true. So, then, using basic physics, and bastardizing what spetz said, the strength of whatever mechanism you are using must be equivelant to the force of the thrust, or else it breaks

also, your remark about the SUV is incorrect, provided that the SUV is currently in motion. See above.

Please tell me how anything that you've said relates to Superman's physical strength, in relation to moving a planet.

When did I say anything about the SUV being in motion?

Originally posted by Marcus4600
I was simply trying to make a point that Super-Strength isn't all that's needed for moving a planet. If all he was doing was using his arms, then he's doing pushups. Anyone with a base knowledge of physics knows that it would depend on his incredible amount of thrust, and his durability. The reason I brought that up was I hear too many people say that he's just using his arms, when that kind of argument is just flat out pathetic. Also, we don't know the limits of Namor yet, mostly because his limits haven't really been tested yet, unless I missed something. Also, I don't know as much about Superman as most people on these forums, mostly because I honestly don't think that he's that interesting of a character. I personally think that DC writers have an obsession of making their characters outside of Batman nearly godlike, and it's just not that interesting to me. I saw Namor accomplishing feats close to that of Superman before they decided to make him a god. So, let me rephrase my question. Would John Byrne's Superman (the one I know well enough) and Namor be a battle worth remembering?

Also, spetznaz, you read a little bit too much into my words, and made a lot of assumptions. The whole thing about Namor was about Namor, not Jubilee, or Wolverine. Namor is a character who has not been tested to his full potential. He hasn't shown his full strength yet, but some of the things that he has done are flat out amazing. The statement was simply that we don't know all of Namor's limits yet. I'm still wondering where the whole Haiti thing came into effect. In fact, the argument presented made sense until that point, when it seemingly became rambling. However, the other points made much more sense. It would take a being of extreme durability and strength to withstand a thrust of that magnitude. My statement just needed to be reworded. So, let me re-state it. The feat of moving a planet is not just super-strength. Superman more than likely can't bench press a planet. However, his thrust allows him to move it out of orbit, which is a statement that actually makes sense. So, next time, why don't you just rephrase the statement that I made, rather than being a complete ass and calling me a fanboy, when you don't even know who the hell I am.

So, here's the battle: Superman from the Man of Steel comic against Namor.

He hasn't shown his full strength yet, but he has shown a great deal of physical excertion while moving large tankers, suggesting this is somewhere near his limits. Please don't apply real world physics to comics, it juts doesn't work. In the words of Paul Daniels, when it doesn't make sense its magic/the comic universe 'Stregth Force'. Byrnes Superman is in the same strength department as Namor, but Current Supes (since Morrison was writing the JLA) is far stronger than the Byrne version.

Batman; 'He can spin mountains on his finger tips'

Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
He hasn't shown his full strength yet, but he has shown a great deal of physical excertion while moving large tankers, suggesting this is somewhere near his limits. Please don't apply real world physics to comics, it juts doesn't work. In the words of Paul Daniels, when it doesn't make sense its magic/the comic universe 'Stregth Force'. Byrnes Superman is in the same strength department as Namor, but Current Supes (since Morrison was writing the JLA) is far stronger than the Byrne version.

Batman; 'He can spin mountains on his finger tips'

Very believable. Yes, I do think Superman is stronger than Namor.

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
Very believable. Yes, I do think Superman is stronger than Namor.

IMO Namor is an Insect compared to Current Supes.

Originally posted by inamilist
in fact, moving a planet means you could easily lift that weight under normal earth gravitational conditions, because you are dealing with much more than just the downward for of gravity.

This is incorrect. Unless you simply shoved the planet using muscular power alone and allowed it to travel acting upon it no further, your physical strength would not come into play when moving a planet.

Even so, the ONLY significant force acting upon a body moving through space is inertia. There is no friction, and gravity enacted upon the body by another body is immensly weakened by the distance between the two.

I am not saying that the feat is unimpressive. It would require an insane amount of force. However, that force is not muscular force. It is force projected through flight.

Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
IMO Namor is an Insect compared to Current Supes.
I just realized that you are Yahman.

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
Please tell me how anything that you've said relates to Superman's physical strength, in relation to moving a planet.

When did I say anything about the SUV being in motion?

ok, moon, moving at X speed, weighing Y and being held in place by a gravitational force of Z. i forget the equation for inertia, but it would relate to X and Y, while Z is important because, well, if superman cannot account for Z, the moon and earth will crash into eachother

so, lets move slowly.

Superman needs to move the moon. He will first have to stop its inertia, then redirect it based on its gravitational force and the earth's so that it orbits the earth again and does not crash into it (This may be a more increadable feat as the moon is in a very ideal place for life on earth, any signifigant change either closer or farther away could cause huge disturbances)

So, he begins flying at the moon (ok, so he is only responsable for 1/3 of all this force, as wonderwoman and MM are helping) and pushing against it with a force that MUST BE equal to XY, or else the moon will not stop. Period. Since it is travelling through a space (for all intents in this situation it might as well be a vaccum) there will be no friction to aide in slowing down the moon. Then, he will have to combat gravity which would want to either A) keep the moon in orbit or B) bring it crashing to earth. My math skills arent very good, but i think this means that the force supes must be applying is (XY + Z)/3

since you will not agree that superman's thrust is equivellant to his strength, this only sets up a more complex explination.

if we made a rocket with (XY + Z)/3 force and sent it to move the moon, it would crash on the surface and blow up. This is because the strength of the rocket cannot withstand (as newtons 3rd law states) the equal (XY + Z)/3 force being applied back against it.

let me dumb this down. lets say it takes 1 unit of force to move a metal ball. if i throw an egg with 10 units of force, it is unlikely that the ball will move since the strength of the egg's shell would require less than 1 unit to break.

how does this apply to superman?

ok, so, we have superman giving it his all and making the necessary force to move the moon <as an aside, what is the unit of force, i think jouls or something>. Yes, the creating of this force is in his "thrust" not his general muscular strength. HOWEVER, it would require that superman's strength be at least equal to (XY + Z)/3 or else he would just crash into the moon, like the rocket or egg.

Another example:

Try doing a handstand. to do this, you must have the equivelant strength in your arms to hold your body weight up under the force of gravity. If you started having a friend push down on your legs (same effect as thrust) you may not be able to keep yourself upright. So, if Supes arms could not take the thrust he was producing, he would not be able to use them to move the moon.

wow...

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
I just realized that you are Yahman.


YEsssss .... the King has returned punk

I haven't seen you in a while C.C. ? Last time i heard your name being referred i was talking to Alpha Centurai ....

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
This is incorrect. Unless you simply shoved the planet using muscular power alone and allowed it to travel acting upon it no further, your physical strength would not come into play when moving a planet.

Even so, the ONLY significant force acting upon a body moving through space is inertia. There is no friction, and gravity enacted upon the body by another body is immensly weakened by the distance between the two.

I am not saying that the feat is unimpressive. It would require an insane amount of force. However, that force is not muscular force. It is force projected through flight.

What about when they are pulling on a chain ?

Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
What about when they are pulling on a chain ?

wow, i hadn't seen that before

im way more impressed that they found a chain that could take that....

but the same would still apply. If his strength wasn't enough, he would just dislocate his arms

Spetz's examples on the first page are way more relevant than my last post after seeing this

Originally posted by inamilist
wow, i hadn't seen that before

im way more impressed that they found a chain that could take that....

but the same would still apply. If his strength wasn't enough, he would just dislocate his arms

Spetz's examples on the first page are way more relevant than my last post after seeing this

Its magic !!!!!!!!

Originally posted by inamilist
ok, moon, moving at X speed, weighing Y and being held in place by a gravitational force of Z. i forget the equation for inertia, but it would relate to X and Y, while Z is important because, well, if superman cannot account for Z, the moon and earth will crash into eachother

so, lets move slowly.

Superman needs to move the moon. He will first have to stop its inertia, then redirect it based on its gravitational force and the earth's so that it orbits the earth again and does not crash into it (This may be a more increadable feat as the moon is in a very ideal place for life on earth, any signifigant change either closer or farther away could cause huge disturbances)

So, he begins flying at the moon (ok, so he is only responsable for 1/3 of all this force, as wonderwoman and MM are helping) and pushing against it with a force that MUST BE equal to XY, or else the moon will not stop. Period. Since it is travelling through a space (for all intents in this situation it might as well be a vaccum) there will be no friction to aide in slowing down the moon. Then, he will have to combat gravity which would want to either A) keep the moon in orbit or B) bring it crashing to earth. My math skills arent very good, but i think this means that the force supes must be applying is (XY + Z)/3

since you will not agree that superman's thrust is equivellant to his strength, this only sets up a more complex explination.

if we made a rocket with (XY + Z)/3 force and sent it to move the moon, it would crash on the surface and blow up. This is because the strength of the rocket cannot withstand (as newtons 3rd law states) the equal (XY + Z)/3 force being applied back against it.

let me dumb this down. lets say it takes 1 unit of force to move a metal ball. if i throw an egg with 10 units of force, it is unlikely that the ball will move since the strength of the egg's shell would require less than 1 unit to break.

how does this apply to superman?

ok, so, we have superman giving it his all and making the necessary force to move the moon <as an aside, what is the unit of force, i think jouls or something>. Yes, the creating of this force is in his "thrust" not his general muscular strength. HOWEVER, it would require that superman's strength be at least equal to (XY + Z)/3 or else he would just crash into the moon, like the rocket or egg.

Another example:

Try doing a handstand. to do this, you must have the equivelant strength in your arms to hold your body weight up under the force of gravity. If you started having a friend push down on your legs (same effect as thrust) you may not be able to keep yourself upright. So, if Supes arms could not take the thrust he was producing, he would not be able to use them to move the moon.

wow...

This is a big post. However, it's irrelevant. Meaningless. You are explaining nothing.

I am not a superhuman. I'd bet Spiderman could do a handstand for a week. The position Superman was in when he was moving the planet is irrelevant. If Superman laid down flat on his back, on the face of the planet, (assuming that he can fly in this position,) and applied the same force that he did flying horizontally positioned, he would achieve the same result. It is not strength that moved the planet. It is the force he exerted through flying (not to be confused with pushing, or exerting muscular force,) that moved the planet.

Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
What about when they are pulling on a chain ?
It requires more arm strength, but the same basic rules apply. Most of the work is done by the force exerted through flight. This is the example spetznaz used.

Originally posted by inamilist
wow, i hadn't seen that before

im way more impressed that they found a chain that could take that....

but the same would still apply. If his strength wasn't enough, he would just dislocate his arms

Spetz's examples on the first page are way more relevant than my last post after seeing this

I am too.

This is very true.

It would certainly require a great degree of strength to do this. However, it would not require enough strength to lift a planet.

Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
Its magic !!!!!!!!

Sometimes, Yahman, you amaze me.

In a good way.

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
It requires more arm strength, but the same basic rules apply. Most of the work is done by the force exerted through flight. This is the example spetznaz used.

you are right, the force being applied is through the thrust

you fail to comprehend one of the simplest ideas in physics, which are newtons laws of motion

the biggie being #3 here

for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Therefore, as superman applies this thrust to the chain, the chain will pull back with equal force, meaning his strength must be equal to the force or his arms will dislocate

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube

It would certainly require a great degree of strength to do this. However, it would not require enough strength to lift a planet.

nope

it would only require strength=thrust

Originally posted by inamilist
you are right, the force being applied is through the thrust

you fail to comprehend one of the simplest ideas in physics, which are newtons laws of motion

the biggie being #3 here

for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Therefore, as superman applies this thrust to the chain, the chain will pull back with equal force, meaning his strength must be equal to the force or his arms will dislocate

How am I failing to comprehend the first law of motion?

Superman pulls the chain, therefore overcoming the planet's inertia.

Obviously, he is strong enough to pull the planet. Pulling and lifting are quite different.

You fail to understand that the planet's inertia >>>>> the planet's weight.

For instance, hypothetically, if the Earth were sitting on the surface of a body that is equally or more massive than itself, in the presence of gravity, Superman has not shown that he possesses the strength to push the two apart. Understood?

Originally posted by inamilist
nope

it would only require strength=thrust

Wrong. The thrust is the power of flight. Not his strength.

If Superman just shoved the planet, and it went flying, that would be strength.

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
Wrong. The thrust is the power of flight. Not his strength.

If Superman just shoved the planet, and it went flying, that would be strength.

You're both right the thrustis behind Supes and the Planet is in front, his body does not buckle between the two, his not a solid, it's his levers etc that work as a humans do, so his mucles keep him in shape. If you applied force behind against a heavy object we would buckle - Supes doesn't, he's that strong!

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
How am I failing to comprehend the first law of motion?

Superman pulls the chain, therefore overcoming the planet's inertia.

Obviously, he is strong enough to pull the planet. Pulling and lifting are quite different.

You fail to understand that the planet's inertia >>>>> the planet's weight.

For instance, hypothetically, if the Earth were sitting on the surface of a body that is equally or more massive than itself, in the presence of gravity, Superman has not shown that he possesses the strength to push the two apart. Understood?

(its achually the third, you seem to get the one about bodies in motion wanting to stay in motion)

to begin with we are talking about 1/3 of the moon

if i said superman could move a planet, it was more of a typo, we are talking about celestial bodies

since you have said yourself that intertia>>>>weight, you basically prove my point

its harder to stop a moving body than just lift one at rest

i dont make this stuff up

in space he has to overcome the inertia, on earth he has to overcome gravity

inertia >>>>>>>>>>>> gravity

the weight of the moon doesnt change

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
Wrong. The thrust is the power of flight. Not his strength.

If Superman just shoved the planet, and it went flying, that would be strength.

this is the last thing im saying on this, after you can just go look it up

superman can have all the thrust in the world, if his strength is not equal to that thrust, he cannot move anything with his arms

ok, lets try a recap

im NOT saying superman is using his strength to move the planet (not directly, i think you are splitting hairs about comic physics, but you still dont know what you are talking about)

He is most certainly generating the thrust that is needed to move the moon

where his strength comes into play is his ability to hold onto the chain (i had origionally thought he just pushed it with his arms, thats why i made the big post with the handstand thing)

so, you say you get newton, so then you get that if you exert force to lift something (even if that force is thrust) there will be an equal ammount of force pulling the opposite direction

look man, this is like, super simple physics

there is as much drag being created by the moon as there is thrust being created by superman

therefore, where the two meet (the chain superman is holding) there must be strength equal to the ammount of force on it.

like the tractor example from spetz:

Originally posted by spetznaz

Ok, a more real world example.
A car is stuck.
I need to pull it out of the mud.
I take a lil' child (say 3 yrs old), and put him in the back of a tractor (and strap the kid tightly so that he cannot be pulled off).
I give the child a high tensile strength rope to hold, and the end of the rope is tied around the front end of the car.
I then start to drive the tractor forward until the rope starts to get taut.
Then I go forward some more.
Now ....the tractor has more than enough pulling ability to get 5 cars out of mud, thus it has enough pull/thrust to get the car out of the muck.
The only thing is that the child is holding the rope.
However, since I have 'enough thrust' the kid should be able to pull out the car, right?
Wrong ....the kid's arms would immediately get disconnected.


superman HAS to be that strong, or his arms wouldn't be able to pull the weight, regardless of his thrust.

again, im not making this up, this is very simple physics that you see at work every day.

Originally posted by inamilist
(its achually the third, you seem to get the one about bodies in motion wanting to stay in motion)

to begin with we are talking about 1/3 of the moon

if i said superman could move a planet, it was more of a typo, we are talking about celestial bodies

since you have said yourself that intertia>>>>weight, you basically prove my point

its harder to stop a moving body than just lift one at rest

i dont make this stuff up

in space he has to overcome the inertia, on earth he has to overcome gravity

inertia >>>>>>>>>>>> gravity

the weight of the moon doesnt change



this is the last thing im saying on this, after you can just go look it up

superman can have all the thrust in the world, if his strength is not equal to that thrust, he cannot move anything with his arms

ok, lets try a recap

im NOT saying superman is using his strength to move the planet (not directly, i think you are splitting hairs about comic physics, but you still dont know what you are talking about)

He is most certainly generating the thrust that is needed to move the moon

where his strength comes into play is his ability to hold onto the chain (i had origionally thought he just pushed it with his arms, thats why i made the big post with the handstand thing)

so, you say you get newton, so then you get that if you exert force to lift something (even if that force is thrust) there will be an equal ammount of force pulling the opposite direction

look man, this is like, super simple physics

there is as much drag being created by the moon as there is thrust being created by superman

therefore, where the two meet (the chain superman is holding) there must be strength equal to the ammount of force on it.

like the tractor example from spetz:



superman HAS to be that strong, or his arms wouldn't be able to pull the weight, regardless of his thrust.

again, im not making this up, this is very simple physics that you see at work every day.

Hehas a point CC his arms would come off!

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Hehas a point CC his arms would come off!

No the Strength Force that resisdes in all comical universes keeps them on his body ..... Supes manipulates this force more than any Marvel character !!!!!!!!!!!!

So, he has the ability to hold the weight, and withstand the force of it. That's a bit different. Personally, my body can hold more weight than it can lift upward. Superman's flight is doing most of the work, while his body is able to maintain while he flies. Basically, his body can withstand the G-force of the flight with the weight of that small moon behind him while being aided by Wonder Woman. So, the flight does most of the work. However, if he were to plant his feet somewhere, not fly, and drag that planet by himself, then yes, his strength alone would be able to move that planet.

btw, read through this article I found on Supes' powers. Please read through this carefully before posting further, because there's a HUGE difference between pre-crisis and post-crisis Superman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_and_abilities_of_Superman

Originally posted by Marcus4600
So, he has the ability to hold the weight, and withstand the force of it. That's a bit different. Personally, my body can hold more weight than it can lift upward. Superman's flight is doing most of the work, while his body is able to maintain while he flies. Basically, his body can withstand the G-force of the flight with the weight of that small moon behind him while being aided by Wonder Woman. So, the flight does most of the work. However, if he were to plant his feet somewhere, not fly, and drag that planet by himself, then yes, his strength alone would be able to move that planet.

btw, read through this article I found on Supes' powers. Please read through this carefully before posting further, because there's a HUGE difference between pre-crisis and post-crisis Superman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_and_abilities_of_Superman
Yes Yolu can hold with out grabbing at velocity more than you can lift from a power frame. Try a shrug with 20 KG more than your max. You can hold it. Now try a deadlift with that weight and see if you can move it. . Now ask someone to roll it to you and try and stop it and move it in the other direction upwards .

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Hehas a point CC his arms would come off!

I just realized that we were talking about 2 different things. I was talking about him pushing a planet. He was talking about pulling one. In which case he is right.

Superman's arms are strong enough to hold onto a planet while he pulls it via flight. One way or another it's his power of flight that provides the thrust which allows him to move planets, not his muscles.

Besides, who cares? He's stronger than just about every other superhero anyway. It requires a ridiculous amount of strength to pull a planet, whether your flying or not.

Originally posted by Marcus4600
So, he has the ability to hold the weight, and withstand the force of it. That's a bit different. Personally, my body can hold more weight than it can lift upward. Superman's flight is doing most of the work, while his body is able to maintain while he flies. Basically, his body can withstand the G-force of the flight with the weight of that small moon behind him while being aided by Wonder Woman. So, the flight does most of the work. However, if he were to plant his feet somewhere, not fly, and drag that planet by himself, then yes, his strength alone would be able to move that planet.

btw, read through this article I found on Supes' powers. Please read through this carefully before posting further, because there's a HUGE difference between pre-crisis and post-crisis Superman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_and_abilities_of_Superman

This is exactly what I've been meaning to say.

It's not that pulling a planet requires little strength; it requires hella strength. However, strength is not the major factor in the equation. Flight is the thrust that allows him to move the planet.

Actually, Superman's strength has little to do with his muscles and a lot to do with his bioaura, which would explain why he's able to exert enough power to move a planet.