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

Can anyone below a well-fed Galactus or Celestial defeat Odin?

No pre. It would have to be straight up. Not in Asgard, though.

FP Tyrant.

Originally posted by Nikkolas
Can anyone below a well-fed Galactus or Celestial defeat Odin?

No pre. It would have to be straight up. Not in Asgard, though. A lower-fed Galactus.

Originally posted by Nikkolas
Can anyone below a well-fed Galactus or Celestial defeat Odin?

No pre. It would have to be straight up. Not in Asgard, though.

Surtur/Ymir/Zuras/Zeus

Originally posted by guy222
Surtur/Ymir/Zuras/Zeus
Probably not. Surtur/zeus are the only people on that list that would give Odin a run for his money maybe 5/5.
Ymir can easilly be delt with by banishment.
Zuras is just a Eternal, without the other Eternals to form UniMind he is out classed.

Most standard showings of Galactus, a lower-fed Big G, would have no chance against Odin.

And hasn't Odin beaten Surtur before? Even When Surtur had some nifty super-sword?

Originally posted by Nikkolas
Most standard showings of Galactus, a lower-fed Big G, would have no chance against Odin.

And hasn't Odin beaten Surtur before? Even When Surtur had some nifty super-sword? Standard showing Galactus, would obliterate Odin.

Surtur lost the sword by the time Odin fought him, because when Surtur had the sword, Odin got his ass molested.

One of Galactus' most often brought up feat is his fight with Tyrant which destroyed galaxies. This is not even close to "standard Galactus." And Odin had destroyed galaxies in multiple fights.

Standard Galactus gets his ass beat raw by Odin.

Originally posted by Nikkolas
One of Galactus' most often brought up feat is his fight with Tyrant which destroyed galaxies. This is not even close to "standard Galactus." And Odin had destroyed galaxies in multiple fights.

Standard Galactus gets his ass beat raw by Odin. Funny how I never brought up any feats, isn't it?

Odin destroyed long burnt out galaxies in his fight with Seth, and even then, it still contridicts the rest of his history... imagine that.

You base your baseless assumptions, on?

Yep.

Like I said.

Destroyed galaxies multiple times.

He destroys all but a well-fed Galactus.

A lower-fed Galactus gets knocked over by The Thing, beaten by Ego, fended off by regular Thor....

Originally posted by Nikkolas
Yep.

Like I said.

Destroyed galaxies multiple times.

He destroys all but a well-fed Galactus.

A lower-fed Galactus gets knocked over by The Thing, beaten by Ego, fended off by regular Thor.... Once, that I can recall... or one comic, which they were long dead galaxies...

Hold on, I'm going to look for the comic where Masterson Thor KO's Odin...

But I will argue on some more points until I find it...

Thing knocked him over because he was extremely weak, and really, all he did was hold his leg, and knock him over.
Galactus was never beaten by Ego, and Galactus was incredibly weak. In fact, Ego brought Thor to his planet, after Thor was about to get killed, and Ego needed his help...
Thor fired the God-blast at Galactus while he was distracted...

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/6427/thor22612en4.jpg



Do inform me how that makes it any less of a feat?

Maybe it was just included to, ya know, let the reade rknow Odin had not just killed untold multitudes of living things?

Originally posted by Priest
Probably not. Surtur/zeus are the only people on that list that would give Odin a run for his money maybe 5/5.
Ymir can easilly be delt with by banishment.
Zuras is just a Eternal, without the other Eternals to form UniMind he is out classed.

Zuras is immortal. Odin/Zeus aren't. Surtur/Ymir are older than Odin. They can defeat the all father who isn't ommipotent

Originally posted by Nikkolas
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/2636/thor22613gt8.th.jpg
Also, once again, Galactus was weak when he fought Ego...



Originally posted by Nikkolas
Do inform me how that makes it any less of a feat?

Maybe it was just included to, ya know, let the reade rknow Odin had not just killed untold multitudes of living things? The galaxies are dead... it would be something like trying to destroy a human with your hands, as apposed to destroying one that has been burnt to a crisp...
Rough comparison I know, but that's what it is.

Not to mention the fact that if it is as impressive as you let on, then it would contridict Odin's power a little...

Also, found it.
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/8297/thor45513uj2.th.jpg

Squirrel Girl.

Well, unless you know science and can tell me why, I see no reason to think a dead galaxy is any easier to destroy than a living one. They're just as big.

Originally posted by Nikkolas
Well, unless you know science and can tell me why, I see no reason to think a dead galaxy is any easier to destroy than a living one. They're just as big. Common sense?

No one with th exception of a FP Tyrant. Especially not a standard Galactus.


A list of some notable feats.

# Defeating Seth in a battle that destroyed Galaxies, was waged on
every plain of exsistence, and shook the multiverse. Also had seeming consequences Dr.Strange, among others, touched upon.

# Defeating Forsung the Enchanter in a universal wide battle that created new suns in it's wake, and destroyed planets like ant hills. Odin was unhurt, Forsung was killed.

# The Infinity Arc: There are retcon aspects here,but the arc itself hasn't been straight retconned. Rather that Odin's dark aspect was tapping into the abstract Infinity. Anyway,Odin and dark Odin(tapping into Infinity)fought twice. The first battle was prolonged and very destructive as well. Galaxies fell,etc etc. The second was apparently notably shorter, with Odin overcoming. After the entire thing was concluded, Odin merely waved his sceptre and put right all the damage that the battles had caused.

# Multiple defeats of Surtur

# An easy defeat of a Mangog that was at his Silver Age levels

# Reviving Mangog's people. The same people Odin had destroyed.

# Turning Apples of Idunn into pure Gold and bestowing upon them, IIRC,at least planetary level reality altering powers

# Transporting Asgard from it's time & physical place in the universe

# Easily defeating & banishing Annihilus when weakened

# Killing Hela and then bringing her back to life

# Easily creating a Galaxy

Zuras once sood toe-to-toe with Zeus btw...

bump

Originally posted by Nikkolas
Well, unless you know science and can tell me why, I see no reason to think a dead galaxy is any easier to destroy than a living one. They're just as big.

Actually in reality it would probably take more effort to destroy a dead galaxy.

In comics however the same is almost certainly not true.

what exactly is a dead Galaxy?

Originally posted by His Airness
what exactly is a dead Galaxy?

It has no Stars.

Only dead Planets, gases, and space debris.

A dead Galaxy is far easier to destroy,

than one coursing with Stellar Energies.

Originally posted by Mr Master
It has no Stars.

Only dead Planets, gases, and space debris.

A dead Galaxy is far easier to destroy than one coursing with Stellar Energies.

Why exactly is a dead Galaxy easier to destroy? Energy just makes things more unstable.

Originally posted by Mr Master
It has no Stars.

Only dead Planets, gases, and space debris.

A dead Galaxy is far easier to destroy,

than one coursing with Stellar Energies.

A) Where did you get this definition
B) A large area full of energy explodes much more easily than an area full of inert materials.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why exactly is a dead Galaxy easier to destroy?

Cause it has no Stellar Energy.

It probably doesn't have any giant gas planets either, like Jupiter and the like.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Energy just makes things more unstable.

Imo, it's more difficult to destroy matter and Energy,

than just matter alone.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A) Where did you get this definition

No where special, it makes sense.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
B) A large area full of energy explodes much more easily than an area full of inert materials.

I'm not surprised Odin and Seth were given "dead" galaxies to destroy,

Odin can mess with one "living" galaxy on his own, Seth? Not even one.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Cause it has no Stellar Energy.

It probably doesn't have any giant gas planets either, like Jupiter and the like.



Imo, it's more difficult to destroy matter and Energy,

than just matter alone. I think they're talking about using the energy present to help destroy the matter.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I think they're talking about using the energy present to help destroy the matter.

So what destroys the energy?

That's why (imo) it's more difficult to destroy both.

Originally posted by Mr Master
So what destroys the energy?

That's why (imo) it's more difficult to destroy both.

A bomb would destroy your body. It would not destroy the particles that make it.

In our universe conversation of mass and energy prevent the destruction of matter or energy under any circumstances.

I take the "destroyed a galaxy" thing the same way as "destroyed a planet" ie blew it the smitherines.

That pretty much covers it. use the energy (stars) to destroy the matter (planets, asteroids, other satelites etc.)

sorta like how when DP munched on the star it blowed up taking out the nearby planet.

A dead one would be harder because rather than using energy that's already present you'd have to use your own.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A bomb would destroy your body. It would not destroy the particles that make it.

In our universe conversation of mass and energy prevent the destruction of matter or energy under any circumstances.

I take the "destroyed a galaxy" thing the same way as "destroyed a planet" ie blew it the smitherines.

In order to destroy a living Galaxy,

let's say the Milky Way,

you have to have the power to destroy over 200 Billion Stellar Systems,

and about 30 Billion Planetary Systems.

And even in this instance, not only are the Stars/Suns alive with Energy,

but so are the Planets which draw on Stars.




Unlike a dead Galaxy,

Which has No Stars, and No Planets with life or energy of it's own.

In fact, according to Marvel, without Stars, Space becomes a Void.

Originally posted by Mr Master
In order to destroy a living Galaxy,

let's say the Milky Way,

you have to have the power to destroy over 200 Billion Stellar Systems,

and about 30 Billion Planetary Systems.

And even this instance, not only are the Stars/Suns alive with Energy,

but so are the Planets which draw on Stars.




Unlike a dead Galaxy,

Which has No Stars, and No Planets with life or energy of it's own.

In fact, according to Marvel, without Stars, Space becomes a Void. Picture if you will two scenerios

A.) you have a group of 5 men standing around an explosive device that if shot will explode.
B.) Same group of men not explosive.

Which group would take more bullets to take out?

Originally posted by Creshosk
That pretty much covers it. use the energy (stars) to destroy the matter (planets, asteroids, other satelites etc.)

sorta like how when DP munched on the star it blowed up taking out the nearby planet.

Only neither Odin or Seth have the power to destroy more than One Galaxy,

heck Seth can't even destroy one on his own,

why are they now destroying Multiple Dead Galaxies?

Logic demands me to conclude there's a reason why Odin can't affect more than a Single Live galaxy and Seth even less than that,

but when the object of destruction is "Dead galaxies" ...

well now all of a sudden they take out more than several? hm


Coincidence?

Or is it easier to destroy "Dead galaxies?"

Originally posted by Creshosk
A dead one would be harder because rather than using energy that's already present you'd have to use your own.

It's much harder to destroy a Sun than it is to destroy a Planet.

There's no arguing that friend.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Only neither Odin or Seth have the power to destroy more than One Galaxy,

heck Seth can't even destroy one on his own,

why are they now destroying Multiple Dead Galaxies now?

Logic demands me to conclude there's a reason why Odin can't affect more than a Single Live galaxy and Seth even less than that,

but when the object of destruction is "Dead galaxies" ...

well now all of a sudden they take out more than several? hm


Coincidence?

Or is it easier to destroy "Dead galaxies?"



It's much harder to destroy a Sun than it is to destroy a Planet.

There's no arguing that friend.

How does Odin not have the power to do what he's done? Also at that time seth was reagarded to as the most powerful being in the universe. Doubt it's true, but I'm just saying.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Picture if you will two scenerios

A.) you have a group of 5 men standing around an explosive device that if shot will explode.
B.) Same group of men not explosive.

Which group would take more bullets to take out?

These analogies I don't agree with,

it's simple, a Living Galaxy has Stellar Energies Billions upon Billion of Suns/Stars,

a Dead Galaxy does not.


If you disagree, fine.

I have another question, other than the one above.

How can one, shake the multiverse yet not have enough power to destroy a galaxy?

Originally posted by His Airness
How does Odin not have the power to do what he's done?

What are you talking about?

Originally posted by His Airness
Also at that time seth was reagarded to as the most powerful being in the universe. Doubt it's true, but I'm just saying.

I don't only doubt it. I ... no comment.

Originally posted by His Airness
I have another question, other than the one above.

How can one, shake the multiverse yet not have enough power to destroy a galaxy?

Ask Marvel?

Originally posted by Mr Master
These analogies I don't agree with,

it's simple, a Living Galaxy has Stellar Energies Billions upon Billion of Suns/Stars,

a Dead Galaxy does not.


If you disagree, fine.

I have an analogy.

Would it be harder to blow up a building full of bombs, or one without bombs?

Originally posted by His Airness
I have an analogy.

Would it be harder to blow up a building full of bombs, or one without bombs?

These analogies don't correspond to the feat that needs to be accomplished.

There are 100s of Billions of Stars in a single Galaxy.

Destroying that is the hard part, actually not just destroying it,

but actually consuming, utterly obliterating it's energies into nothingness.


This is what kills a Galaxy, this is what can kill life in a Universe.

Originally posted by Jebus reborn
Common sense?

So your common sense tells you that if for some reason there was no life on earth, then it would be much easier to destroy than if there was life on it?

Originally posted by Mr Master
These analogies don't correspond to the feat that needs to be accomplished.

There are 100s of Billions of Stars in a single Galaxy.

Destroying that is the hard part, actually not just destroying it,

but actually consuming, utterly obliterating it's energies into nothingness.


This is what kills a Galaxy, this is what can kill life in a Universe. You can't obliterate energy or matter into nothingness, it'd still be there. Dead or living galaxy.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
So your common sense tells you that if for some reason there was no life on earth, then it would be much easier to destroy than if there was life on it? It's a dead galaxy, meaning that there should be no core in the planets...

Also, shouldn't a dead galaxy, essentially have no stars in it, either they are blown up, or they reverted into tightly dense balls?

Also, either way, that little story involving Odin/Seth, is kind of pis if you look at it.

Originally posted by Jebus reborn
It's a dead galaxy, meaning that there should be no core in the planets...

Also, shouldn't a dead galaxy, essentially have no stars in it, either they are blown up, or they reverted into tightly dense balls?

Also, either way, that little story involving Odin/Seth, is kind of pis if you look at it.

Nothings PIS if Stan Lee wrote it.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
So your common sense tells you that if for some reason there was no life on earth, then it would be much easier to destroy than if there was life on it?

No,

my common sense tells me if the Earth itself is without life,

then yes it would be much easier to destroy it.


And what is the life force of a Planet like Earth?


GEOTHERMAL ENERGY

Our earth's interior - like the sun - provides heat energy from nature. This heat - geothermal energy - yields warmth and power to volcanic activity and other intricacies of the ecosystem and elemental forces of nature likewise that keep the Earth sustained.

Geothermal heat originates from Earth's fiery consolidation of dust and gas over 4 billion years ago. At earth's core - 4,000 miles deep - temperatures may reach over 9,000 degrees F.


Without this Energy, Earth or any Planet dies, and shribbles up gradually.

Originally posted by His Airness
Nothings PIS if Stan Lee wrote it. Stan said that he would write Hulk beating Superman...

Originally posted by Creshosk
You can't obliterate energy or matter into nothingness, it'd still be there. Dead or living galaxy.

If there is energy in a Galaxy, it's not dead.

When all the Stars go out in a Galaxy, it's officially "Dead"

Originally posted by Jebus reborn
It's a dead galaxy, meaning that there should be no core in the planets...

Also, shouldn't a dead galaxy, essentially have no stars in it, either they are blown up, or they reverted into tightly dense balls?

Exactly.

Originally posted by Jebus reborn
Also, either way, that little story involving Odin/Seth, is kind of pis if you look at it.

I agree.

Geothermal energy comes from the pressure and magnetic field at the core of the earth.

It doesn't have anything to do with life.

Nothing can even survive down at the core of the earth, so what that would possibly have to do with the earth being "dead" I can't imagine.

Besides, what determines the energy required to destroy a planet is gravity, if a planet has more mass then its own gravity holds it together stronger, so it's stronger to destroy. That's called gravitational binding energy.

The mass of the earth gives it a GBE of around 2.4e32j, which would be the same whether or not earth had life on it.

Stars aren't alive either, so why would the stars have to be destroyed for a galaxy to be considered dead?

Originally posted by Mr Master
If there is energy in a Galaxy, it's not dead.

When all the Stars go out in a Galaxy, it's officially "Dead" I don't think you get my point.

You're blatently exagerating the difficulty by saying you need to obliterate the energy into nothingness. You can't do that and that was never a requirement to destroy a galaxy. mearely the coporeal disintigrashion of the bonds of the majority of the subject.

Earth would be destroyed if you blew it into asteroids, would it not? But there would be astroids left behind.

And you seem to knot want to grasp the concept of utilizing the resources available to you in the destruction goal. If you harness the power of the stars to help you obliterate the surrounding area it require less energy on your part to destroy said area. You attack and detonate a star not only is the star destroyed but anything within the explosion would also be taken out. Where as without the star you have to take out the surronding things by yourself one at a time.

As if anyone has the slighest idea of whats needed to destroy a Galaxy, the amount of energy would be insane. Also wouldnt it take thousands of years to destroy a galaxy...

Originally posted by Endless Mike
Geothermal energy comes from the pressure and magnetic field at the core of the earth.

It doesn't have anything to do with life.

Nothing can even survive down at the core of the earth, so what that would possibly have to do with the earth being "dead" I can't imagine.

Imagine Life on the surface then,

which it has everything to do with.

Without those Geothermal Energies, the Earth cannot support itself or life on it's surface.



Originally posted by Endless Mike
Besides, what determines the energy required to destroy a planet is gravity, if a planet has more mass then its own gravity holds it together stronger, so it's stronger to destroy. That's called gravitational binding energy.

The mass of the earth gives it a GBE of around 2.4e32j, which would be the same whether or not earth had life on it.

Stars aren't alive either, so why would the stars have to be destroyed for a galaxy to be considered dead?

I wasn't talking about what's required to destroy a Planet.

I simply pointed out what Scientists consider to be the life-force of a Planet.

That being, Geothermal energy.

Originally posted by Magee
As if anyone has the slighest idea of whats needed to destroy a Galaxy, the amount of energy would be insane. Also wouldnt it take thousands of years to destroy a galaxy...

Well if you're limited by the speed of light.

Odin has shown he's not.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Imagine Life on the surface then,

which it has everything to do with.

Without those Geothermal Energies, the Earth cannot support itself or life on it's surface.



Most of the energy used for life on earth comes from the sun.





Except geothermal energy is only used by creatures in places where sunlight isn't available, like the bottom of the ocean or deep underground.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I don't think you get my point.

You're blatently exagerating the difficulty by saying you need to obliterate the energy into nothingness. You can't do that and that was never a requirement to destroy a galaxy. mearely the coporeal disintigrashion of the bonds of the majority of the subject.

Earth would be destroyed if you blew it into asteroids, would it not? But there would be astroids left behind.


Originally posted by Creshosk
And you seem to knot want to grasp the concept of utilizing the resources available to you in the destruction goal. If you harness the power of the stars to help you obliterate the surrounding area it require less energy on your part to destroy said area. You attack and detonate a star not only is the star destroyed but anything within the explosion would also be taken out. Where as without the star you have to take out the surronding things by yourself one at a time.

You will never convince me,

that a dead Galaxy, which has No Stars, and No active Planets,

is harder to destroy,

than a Galaxy with 100's of Billions of Stars and Billions upon Billions of Active Planets.

The analogy of destroying Stars to take out more territory would require the power to destroy Star after Star, until 300 Billion or more have been destroyed, to take out one Galaxy.

It's easy to say,

"You detonate a star not only is the star destroyed but anything within the explosion would also be taken out"

But you have to have the power to take out those Stars.

Easier said than done.

A galaxy with no planets or stars has nothing to destroy.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
Most of the energy used for life on earth comes from the sun.

I said that before.

Without Stars there is no Life in a Galaxy, hence a "Dead Galaxy" is produced.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
Except geothermal energy is only used by creatures in places where sunlight isn't available, like the bottom of the ocean or deep underground.

Geothermal Energy sustains not only the Earth, but most aspects of Life on Earth.

http://geothermal.marin.org/pwrheat.html#Q2

The Sun sustains those Geothermal Energies, although every Planet has it's limits.

Originally posted by Magee
A galaxy with no planets or stars has nothing to destroy.

Gases, dust, space debris and shrinking dead Planets.

Then again,

they were, "Long dead Galaxies'

so perhaps by that time they were basically empty.

You can't destroy gas and space debris would account for about 1% of the mass of an entire galaxy. So i dont really understand how you go about destroying a dead galaxy considering its more or less void of anything.

Originally posted by Nikkolas
Can anyone below a well-fed Galactus or Celestial defeat Odin?

No pre. It would have to be straight up. Not in Asgard, though.

Atum and Cosmic Cubes such as Kubik, Shaper of Worlds...

Way to change the rules. before you said there were dead planets, as in those who have no tectonic activity but would still be whole. Now you suddenly change it to basically a galaxy that's already destroyed.

A vacant galaxy is no galaxy at all, just dead space. The only way to destroy dead space is to populate it with a living galaxy. Its far easier to destroy than it is to create.

So which would it be? A living galaxy, a dead galaxy or empty space?

You keep changing your definitions when backed into a corner. Of course not surprising coming from one who doesn't grasp temporal mechanics too well. *shrugs*

Originally posted by Magee
You can't destroy gas and space debris would account for about 1% of the mass of an entire galaxy. So i dont really understand how you go about destroying a dead galaxy considering its more or less void of anything.

I pretty much agree.

But I don't think it was completely void.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Way to change the rules. before you said there were dead planets, as in those who have no tectonic activity but would still be whole. Now you suddenly change it to basically a galaxy that's already destroyed.

I never changed my stance, I amplified my answer.

Originally posted by Creshosk
A vacant galaxy is no galaxy at all, just dead space. The only way to destroy dead space is to populate it with a living galaxy. Its far easier to destroy than it is to create.

So which would it be? A living galaxy, a dead galaxy or empty space?

A Dead Galaxy,

which is basically vacant due to it's Starless space, and shrinking dead Planets.


You said,

"A vacant galaxy is no galaxy at all, just dead space"


Is that so?

Here is Eternity/Death merged entering a Void, Empty.

This Empty Void ... is a Universe:

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/4356/e2di5.th.jpg


"dead space?"

I think not.


Those Galaxies could have been just as empty,

and could still be called Galaxies or more accurately "Dead Galaxies."

Originally posted by Creshosk
You keep changing your definitions when backed into a corner. Of course not surprising coming from one who doesn't grasp temporal mechanics too well. *shrugs*

You must be under the impression that you've disputed my claim in some way.

Stay there and be happy.

Originally posted by Mr Master
I never changed my stance, I amplified my answer.That's changing your answer.

Originally posted by Mr Master
So which would it be? A living galaxy, a dead galaxy or empty space?

A Dead Galaxy,

which is basically vacant due to it's Starless space, and shrinking dead Planets.


You said,

"A vacant galaxy is no galaxy at all, just dead space"


Is that so?

Here is Eternity/Death merged entering a Void, Empty.

This Empty Void ... is a Universe:

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/4356/e2di5.th.jpg


"dead space?"

I think not.


Those Galaxies could have been just as empty,

and could still be called Galaxies or more accurately "Dead Galaxies." Not void. Empty space. Not a universe either.

Just outer space the size of a galaxy. Eesh...



Originally posted by Mr Master
You must be under the impression that you've disputed my claim in some way.

Stay there and be happy. Why else would you "amplify your answer"?

Common man, a little logic wouldn't hurt you.

Originally posted by Creshosk
That's changing your answer.

No it's not, it's elaborating.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Not void. Empty space. Not a universe either.

Just outer space the size of a galaxy. Eesh...

Same difference, Eesh...

Originally posted by Creshosk
Why else would you "amplify your answer"?

Common man, a little logic wouldn't hurt you.

I guess the debating is over.

Let's jump into sarcasm and snide remarks,

hmm, I'm not following you there.

Have fun.

Originally posted by Mr Master
No it's not, it's elaborating.

That is changing what you mean.



Originally posted by Mr Master
I guess the debating is over.

Let's jump into sarcasm and snide remarks,

hmm, I'm not following you there.

Have fun.

You seem to do a good amount of that on your own

Originally posted by Mr Master
It has no Stars.

Only dead Planets, gases, and space debris.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Which has No Stars, and No Planets with life or energy of it's own.

In fact, according to Marvel, without Stars, Space becomes a Void.

Here's one place were you change your answer:

Originally posted by Mr Master
Destroying that is the hard part, actually not just destroying it,

but actually consuming, utterly obliterating it's energies into nothingness.


This is what kills a Galaxy, this is what can kill life in a Universe.

And back

Originally posted by Mr Master
When all the Stars go out in a Galaxy, it's officially "Dead"


And forth



Originally posted by Mr Master
Gases, dust, space debris and shrinking dead Planets.

Then again,

they were, "Long dead Galaxies'

so perhaps by that time they were basically empty.

Oh whats this? Suddenly we remove the planets like Mars, Mercury.. you know dead planets?

now its "basically empty" rather than just "no stars" Hmm...

Originally posted by Creshosk
Here's one place were you change your answer:

And back

And forth

Oh whats this? Suddenly we remove the planets like Mars, Mercury.. you know dead planets?

now its "basically empty" rather than just "no stars" Hmm...

All this is inconsequential.


Bottomline,

Odin can't mess with more than One Galaxy, and Seth with even less than that.

So when Odin and Seth destroy several "Dead galaxies"

It logically means the "Dead Galaxies" MUST be easier to destroy,

since neither can destroy more than one.

Originally posted by Mr Master
All this is inconsequential.


Bottomline,

Odin can't mess with more than One Galaxy, and Seth with even less than that.

So when Odin and Seth destroy several "Dead galaxies"

It logically means the "Dead Galaxies" MUST be easier to destroy,

since neither can destroy more than one. Oh, so now when it suits your argument its valid?

And just a second ago you called it PIS.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That is changing what you mean.

Elaborate - from websters dictionary.

"add more detail concerning what has already been said"



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You seem to do a good amount of that on your own

I don't remember insulting anyone in this thread.

This is the second time you come at me with negativity,

you got a problem?

PM me, or tell a Mod.

But don't come out your face unprovoked, this is the SECOND time that I See you doing it.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Oh, so now when it suits your argument its valid?

What's inconsequential is you actually taking the time to go into all my posts to nip pick at the expansion of my statements.

That's actually funny. You thought you made me look silly but you didn't.

As far as the debate is concerned, you lost me when you began to insult me for NO reason whatsoever,

oh wait,

cause I disagree with you and I have an argument for doing so.

Originally posted by Creshosk
And just a second ago you called it PIS.

What happened , happened.

But I agreed with Bran it was pissy.

Originally posted by Mr Master
What's inconsequential is you actually taking the time to go into all my posts to nip pick at the expansion of my statements. Its called providing proof. I claimed you changed your definition. Then I provided proof of it.



Originally posted by Mr Master
That's actually funny. You thought you made me look silly but you didn't.

As far as the debate is concerned, you lost me when you began to insult me for NO reason whatsoever,

oh wait,

cause I disagree with you and I have an argument for doing so. If that's what you choose to believe, so be it.



Originally posted by Mr Master
What happened , happened.

But I agreed with Bran it was pissy. Either something happed and its not pis, or something is pis and is therefore discarded. Which will it be?

Originally posted by Mr Master
Elaborate - from websters dictionary.

"add more detail concerning what has already been said"

Adding to is one thing, you removed information and added different information. Mutatis mutandis.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Its called providing proof. I claimed you changed your definition. Then I provided proof of it.

You did no such thing.

All you did was show me elaborating.

Thanx for your concern.

Originally posted by Creshosk
If that's what you choose to believe, so be it.

Same can be said for you dude.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Either something happed and its not pis, or something is pis and is therefore discarded. Which will it be?

It's Canon PIS.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Adding to is one thing, you removed information and added different information. Mutatis mutandis.

As you wish.

Originally posted by Mr Master
You did no such thing.

All you did was show me elaborating.

Thanx for your concern. No I showed how you changed your answer. Not "elaborating."



Originally posted by Mr Master
Same can be said for you dude.If that's what you really want to think.

Originally posted by Mr Master
It's Canon PIS.You are aware of the rules of this forum, are you not?

Originally posted by Mr Master
As you wish. I wish for the truth. And that is what it is.

Originally posted by Creshosk
No I showed how you changed your answer. Not "elaborating."

Wrong!

I say that with confidence homie.

Originally posted by Creshosk
If that's what you really want to think.

Well you thought you taught me something, so I suppose we're both lost.

Originally posted by Creshosk
You are aware of the rules of this forum, are you not?

?

Originally posted by Creshosk
I wish for the truth. And that is what it is.

"The truth?"

Let's examine your truth.


My first Two Posts:
Originally posted by Mr Master
It has no Stars.

Only dead Planets, gases, and space debris.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Which has No Stars, and No Planets with life or energy of it's own.

In fact, according to Marvel, without Stars, Space becomes a Void.

Same shit up top,


You said I changed my answer below:
Originally posted by Mr Master
Destroying that is the hard part, actually not just destroying it,

but actually consuming, utterly obliterating it's energies into nothingness.


This is what kills a Galaxy, this is what can kill life in a Universe.

How is this changing my answer?

Obviously in order to extinguish a Star you have to negate it's Stellar Energies,

hence "obliterating it's energies into nothingness" ...




You said I went back here:
Originally posted by Mr Master
When all the Stars go out in a Galaxy, it's officially "Dead"

But I'm still saying the SAME shit.

No Stars = Dead galaxy (what I said from the beginning)


I supposedly went forward again: hum
Originally posted by Mr Master
Gases, dust, space debris and shrinking dead Planets.

Then again,

they were, "Long dead Galaxies'

so perhaps by that time they were basically empty.

I'm still saying the SAME shit I said in my first Post,

I only added the realization that they were, "Long Dead galaxies"

so perhaps these Galaxies are more or less empty anyway,

because Planets shrink gradually without sustenance from Stars.



You got a bit too excited dude.

Let's get back on topic now, shall we.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Wrong!

I say that with confidence homie.Asserting something that's false with confidence is a sure sign of an-

Okay I won't finish that idiom.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Well you thought you taught me something, so I suppose we're both lost. I never said I taught you anything.


Originally posted by Mr Master

?
Guess not. Oh, well. Still funny that you call it PIS and then try to use it.

Originally posted by Mr Master
"The truth?"

Let's examine your truth.


My first Two Posts:




Same shit up top,


You said I changed my answer below:


How is this changing my answer?

Obviously in order to extinguish a Star you have to negate it's Stellar Energies,

hence "obliterating it's energies into nothingness" ...




You said I went back here:


But I'm still saying the SAME shit.

No Stars = Dead galaxy (what I said from the beginning)


I supposedly went forward again: hum


I'm still saying the SAME shit I said in my first Post,

I only added the realization that they were, "Long Dead galaxies"

so perhaps these Galaxies are more or less empty anyway,

because Planets shrink gradually without sustenance from Stars.



"truth?" shifty I'm not surprised that you cannot correctly analyze what you said. You're in denial. at least you called your argument shit for the shit they are.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Asserting something that's false with confidence is a sure sign of an-

Okay I won't finish that idiom.

Not saying anything, finished or not.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I never said I taught you anything.

First here:
Originally posted by Creshosk
I don't think you get my point.

And you seem to knot want to grasp the concept

of utilizing the resources available to you in the destruction goal.

I'm obtuse because I disagree with your opinion.



Here you get real cocky .... You even add an Insult:
Originally posted by Creshosk
You keep changing your definitions when backed into a corner.

Of course not surprising coming from one who doesn't grasp temporal mechanics too well.

shrug

Originally posted by Creshosk
Guess not. Oh, well. Still funny that you call it PIS and then try to use it.

I'm not trying to use anything,

I didn't even bring that Feat up.

That's inconsequential to me.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm not surprised that you cannot correctly analyze what you said. You're in denial. at least you called your argument shit for the shit they are.

At this point you have nothing left.

You've succumbed to insulting without provocation,

this is a sign of frustration,

cause you have no further point of significance to add to the debate.


My thing is to debate Comics, this verbal battle is probably your strong suit,

so I'll let you be.

You know that even if all of the stars and planets in a galaxy were destroyed, the matter and energy that they were made of would still be there, unless something actually took it and removed it from the area where the galaxy used to be.

So it would have the same mass and be just as difficult to destroy.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
You know that even if all of the stars and planets in a galaxy were destroyed, the matter and energy that they were made of would still be there, unless something actually took it and removed it from the area where the galaxy used to be.

So it would have the same mass and be just as difficult to destroy.

These aren't destroyed Stars and Planets lingering around as formless energy,

these are "Long Dead" galaxies.

No Energy ... hence, lifeless/dead, and perhaps barren.

Lifeless or dead simply refers to having no life on them.

Last time I checked, planets and stars weren't alive (well there's Ego, but I doubt the galaxies were made up completely of Ego - like beings)

Originally posted by Endless Mike
Lifeless or dead simply refers to having no life on them.

I have to disagree,

I take it as Galaxies without Stellar or Planetary Energies.

And perhaps barren at that.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
Last time I checked, planets and stars weren't alive

Last time I checked neither were Galaxies.

So what makes you the authority on what it is anyway?

Originally posted by Creshosk
So what makes you the authority on what it is anyway?

"Authority?"

I guess this is why you began to insult me, because you thought when I posted my opinion, I was somehow dismissing yours, which isn't true.

It's reasonable, so it's all forgotten ... let us proceed,

on the other hand, anyone who goes through this entire thread would know, I presented my opinion with my reasons for said opinion, it was just an opinion as yours was and everyone else's.

The only proof I presented was involving the Life-Force of a Planet, which is undoubtably Geothermal Energies, coupled with Solar Energy according to Geologists who study Thermodynamics.

http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/publife.html

http://geothermal.marin.org/pwrheat.html


Other than that, we're just trying to learn as kmc peers,

so let's keep it civil and grow in knowledge together.

Originally posted by Mr Master

Other than that, we're just trying to learn as kmc peers,

so let's keep it civil and grow in knowledge together.

Originally posted by Juntai


hug

Originally posted by Endless Mike
Lifeless or dead simply refers to having no life on them.Originally posted by Mr Master
I have to disagree,

I take it as Galaxies without Stellar or Planetary Energies.

And perhaps barren at that. There's no way to disprove either statement, unless a panel exists that solidifies one of these notions...


As both could be correct.