Planet Buster vs Continental attack

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



carver9
I'm debating a topic and maybe if KMC, at least the majority answered the question, I would feel better at knowing the truth. Let's use Supergirl and Superman as an example.

Let's say if the Supergirl and Superman was on the surface of Earth, New York City...walking through the mall...normal day and then someone set off an explosion that completely destroys the planet (remember, they are on the surface of the planet) but both of them survives. They are knocked out but they survive the attack. Would you consider Supergirl and Superman surviving a planet busting attack or a Continental level attack. The reason I am saying continental is because they wasn't in the heart of Earth when it exploded, they were on the surface of the planet.

5 answers would suffice. Please share your thoughts.

Estacado
Hulk wins.

DarkSaint85
Originally posted by carver9
I'm debating a topic and maybe if KMC, at least the majority answered the question, I would feel better at knowing the truth. Let's use Supergirl and Superman as an example.

Let's say if the Supergirl and Superman was on the surface of Earth, New York City...walking through the mall...normal day and then someone set off an explosion that completely destroys the planet (remember, they are on the surface of the planet) but both of them survives. They are knocked out but they survive the attack. Would you consider Supergirl and Superman surviving a planet busting attack or a Continental level attack. The reason I am saying continental is because they wasn't in the heart of Earth when it exploded, they were on the surface of the planet.

5 answers would suffice. Please share your thoughts.

Planet busting. As it destroyed the planet.

If anything, that attack is > than one that originates at the Earth's core, because it would have had to have traveled twice the distance (point A, where it originated, to the centre of the Earth, to point B, on the opposite side of the Earth).

DarkSaint85
Originally posted by carver9
Please share your thoughts.

God, I hate you.

carver9
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
God, I hate you.

laughing out loud

Thanks for the answer and Estacada...I agree, Hulk does stomp.

Galan, where are you?

Bentley
Depends, if the Planet Buster was unleashed by Hulk, then it's weaker than a Continental attack done by Superman.

Or what Darksaint said ahah

carver9
So no one is going to add on to this amazing thread?

Prof. T.C McAbe
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
God, I hate you.

Rao Kal El
Is this trying to compare an explosion that destroys a planet vs an explosion that kills all life on earth and shifts tectonic plates?

There so many variables to compare, can you be a little bit more specific?

carver9
Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Is this trying to compare an explosion that destroys a planet vs an explosion that kills all life on earth and shifts tectonic plates?

There so many variables to compare, can you be a little bit more specific?

Nothing involving Hulk or a Marvel or DC character. I'm having a debate with someone about Anime characters and I'm trying to see if his theory is correct, that's all. Now answer the question RAO. Switch the character if you want. It doesnt have to be Superman, use Surfer or Hulk...doesnt matter.

carver9
Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe


laughing out loud

I love you to Prof (no homo).

DarkSaint85
Originally posted by carver9
laughing out loud

I love you to Prof (no homo).

You love him to do what?

Sicko.

DarkSaint85
Originally posted by carver9
use Surfer or Hulk...doesnt matter.

Rao, he wants you to use Carver.

What happens when your continent explodes in his mouth?

Filthy thread.

NemeBro
Originally posted by carver9
I'm debating a topic and maybe if KMC, at least the majority answered the question, I would feel better at knowing the truth. Let's use Supergirl and Superman as an example.

Let's say if the Supergirl and Superman was on the surface of Earth, New York City...walking through the mall...normal day and then someone set off an explosion that completely destroys the planet (remember, they are on the surface of the planet) but both of them survives. They are knocked out but they survive the attack. Would you consider Supergirl and Superman surviving a planet busting attack or a Continental level attack. The reason I am saying continental is because they wasn't in the heart of Earth when it exploded, they were on the surface of the planet.

5 answers would suffice. Please share your thoughts. Freeza probably has planetary+ durability both because Namek is IIRC a rather large planet and Freeza was very much in a weakened state when he took the blast. There carver. I answered the real question you wanted answered.

Anyway, yes, it is a fact that you aren't subject to near an explosion's full energy if you're not at ground zero. God knows I can't remember the exact formula or name of the principle right now but the total energy a person is subjected to decreases exponentially or maybe more the further you are from Ground Zero.

pym-ftw
Not sure why you posted this here...

What carvers asking is if Frieza destroying the core of namek is the same as Thor vs Gorr destroying a planet and a moon.

He also wants to know if tanking a blast pointblank that destroys a planet is the same as a spontaneous planet exploding with you on it.

DarkSaint85
Originally posted by pym-ftw
Not sure why you posted this here...

What carvers asking is if Frieza destroying the core of namek is the same as Thor vs Gorr destroying a planet and a moon.

He also wants to know if tanking a blast pointblank that destroys a planet is the same as a spontaneous planet exploding with you on it.

Lol. THor/Gorr is way harder core than that.

NemeBro
Originally posted by pym-ftw

What carvers asking is if Frieza destroying the core of namek is the same as Thor vs Gorr destroying a planet and a moon.

Obviously not because Thor and Gorr were doing that indirectly, and Thor was snuffing out stars by flying.

The former is more impressive and probably by a large amount. This is inarguable.

carver9
Originally posted by pym-ftw
Not sure why you posted this here...

What carvers asking is if Frieza destroying the core of namek is the same as Thor vs Gorr destroying a planet and a moon.

He also wants to know if tanking a blast pointblank that destroys a planet is the same as a spontaneous planet exploding with you on it.

Who said anything about the Thor and Gorr fight? It's simple really. Someone said Frieza withstood a Continental level attack when planet Namek exploded on him. I'm asking if this is true. Gorr had NOTHING to do with my thread.

carver9
Originally posted by NemeBro
Obviously not because Thor and Gorr were doing that indirectly, and Thor was snuffing out stars by flying.

The former is more impressive and probably by a large amount. This is inarguable.

No one ever said ANYTHING about the comparison between Gorr and the Frieza showing.

carver9
This is what was said...

Originally posted by StealthRanger
I think Frieza surviving Namek was at low end continental, and he would have died eventually were it not for King Cold's cybernetics

DarkSaint85
And this was what was said:

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
God, I hate you.

Rao Kal El
Originally posted by carver9
Nothing involving Hulk or a Marvel or DC character. I'm having a debate with someone about Anime characters and I'm trying to see if his theory is correct, that's all. Now answer the question RAO. Switch the character if you want. It doesnt have to be Superman, use Surfer or Hulk...doesnt matter.

Well, I am still not sure what are you trying to compare, but here is what I think:

I will think that an explosion that pierces the mantle of a planet somehow will have to be more powerful that one that does not pierces the mantle but is dispersed on the surface.

To give an analogy I imagine a shield that with stands an explosion but anything on the surface of the shield gets destroyed vs a concentrated explosion that actually pierces the shield vs a explosion that completely destroys the shield.

I imagine that completely destroying the shield will require more effort.

So I think destroying a planet will require more energy, than piercing it's mantle or cooking it's surface

pym-ftw
You made this thread because of how poorly your doing in the Broly vs Thor thread.

Your trying to equate Frieza to Thor level and then powerscale Broly past Thor... not gonna work. You must despise context.

shadowknight
Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Well, I am still not sure what are you trying to compare, but here is what I think:

I will think that an explosion that pierces the mantle of a planet somehow will have to be more powerful that one that does not pierces the mantle but is dispersed on the surface.

To give an analogy I imagine a shield that with stands an explosion but anything on the surface of the shield gets destroyed vs a concentrated explosion that actually pierces the shield vs a explosion that completely destroys the shield.

I imagine that completely destroying the shield will require more effort.

So I think destroying a planet will require more energy, than piercing it's mantle or cooking it's surface quote for truth in advertising thumb up

Prof. T.C McAbe
Originally posted by carver9
laughing out loud

I love you to Prof (no homo).

I love you too (full homo) but don't tell anyone!
hug

Rao Kal El
Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
I love you too (full homo) but don't tell anyone!
hug

Sleeping with the enemy?

NemeBro
Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Well, I am still not sure what are you trying to compare, but here is what I think:

I will think that an explosion that pierces the mantle of a planet somehow will have to be more powerful that one that does not pierces the mantle but is dispersed on the surface.

To give an analogy I imagine a shield that with stands an explosion but anything on the surface of the shield gets destroyed vs a concentrated explosion that actually pierces the shield vs a explosion that completely destroys the shield.

I imagine that completely destroying the shield will require more effort.

So I think destroying a planet will require more energy, than piercing it's mantle or cooking it's surface I don't think that's the question he is asking.

carver9
Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Well, I am still not sure what are you trying to compare, but here is what I think:

I will think that an explosion that pierces the mantle of a planet somehow will have to be more powerful that one that does not pierces the mantle but is dispersed on the surface.

To give an analogy I imagine a shield that with stands an explosion but anything on the surface of the shield gets destroyed vs a concentrated explosion that actually pierces the shield vs a explosion that completely destroys the shield.

I imagine that completely destroying the shield will require more effort.

So I think destroying a planet will require more energy, than piercing it's mantle or cooking it's surface

So would it be planetary if someone withstood the explosion?

carver9
Originally posted by pym-ftw
You made this thread because of how poorly your doing in the Broly vs Thor thread.

Your trying to equate Frieza to Thor level and then powerscale Broly past Thor... not gonna work. You must despise context.

Pym, again, you don't know what you are talking about. Someone said it's continental, I created this thread to see if this is true. If you want to discuss Thor vs DBZ, meet me in the proper thread. Keep it up out of here though.

DarkSaint85
Originally posted by carver9
So would it be planetary if someone withstood the explosion?

Did a planet get destroyed? If yes, than its a planetary explosion. If not, then no.

carver9
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Did a planet get destroyed? If yes, than its a planetary explosion. If not, then no.

thumb up

Thanks.

Rao Kal El
Originally posted by carver9
So would it be planetary if someone withstood the explosion?

If the planet gets shred into pieces, yes it will be a planet buster, if wipes out life on the planet only but not destroys is not a planet buster imo

Prof. T.C McAbe
Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Sleeping with the enemy?

He is not the enemy, he is a Superman fan like all KMC members. ^^

carver9
Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
I love you too (full homo) but don't tell anyone!
hug

laughing out loud

Placidity
Originally posted by pym-ftw
You made this thread because of how poorly your doing in the Broly vs Thor thread.

Your trying to equate Frieza to Thor level and then powerscale Broly past Thor... not gonna work. You must despise context.

I sense great fear in you boy. You have hate. You have anger.

Epicurus
Originally posted by carver9
I'm debating a topic and maybe if KMC, at least the majority answered the question, I would feel better at knowing the truth. Let's use Supergirl and Superman as an example.

Let's say if the Supergirl and Superman was on the surface of Earth, New York City...walking through the mall...normal day and then someone set off an explosion that completely destroys the planet (remember, they are on the surface of the planet) but both of them survives. They are knocked out but they survive the attack. Would you consider Supergirl and Superman surviving a planet busting attack or a Continental level attack. The reason I am saying continental is because they wasn't in the heart of Earth when it exploded, they were on the surface of the planet.

5 answers would suffice. Please share your thoughts.
Where is the point of origin of the planet's destruction?

Zack Fair
Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Well, I am still not sure what are you trying to compare, but here is what I think:

I will think that an explosion that pierces the mantle of a planet somehow will have to be more powerful that one that does not pierces the mantle but is dispersed on the surface.

To give an analogy I imagine a shield that with stands an explosion but anything on the surface of the shield gets destroyed vs a concentrated explosion that actually pierces the shield vs a explosion that completely destroys the shield.

I imagine that completely destroying the shield will require more effort.

So I think destroying a planet will require more energy, than piercing it's mantle or cooking it's surface My thoughts exactly.

NemeBro
You guys are dumb.

Of course an attack that destroys a planet is going to be more powerful than one that can just get into the mantle or glass the surface. No ****ing shit.

But if the point of origin of the planet-busting attack, "ground zero", is very far away from someone who survives the blast then they didn't necessarily tank "planet busting" attack. Or maybe the character did, because the blast was that powerful or the planet was unusually huge.

carver9
Originally posted by Epicurus
Where is the point of origin of the planet's destruction?

Starting from the core. The core of the planet is unstable which leads to the planet exploding as a result.

carver9
Originally posted by NemeBro
You guys are dumb.

Of course an attack that destroys a planet is going to be more powerful than one that can just get into the mantle or glass the surface. No ****ing shit.

But if the point of origin of the planet-busting attack, "ground zero", is very far away from someone who survives the blast then they didn't necessarily tank "planet busting" attack. Or maybe the character did, because the blast was that powerful or the planet was unusually huge.

So if the planet explodes and the person that is on the planet survives, then they did not withstand a planet busting attack?

NemeBro
Originally posted by carver9
So if the planet explodes and the person that is on the planet survives, then they did not withstand a planet busting attack? Depends.

Did explosion that destroyed the planet originate from right next to the character? Did the explosion originate from the core? Did it originate from the other side of the planet? How large was the explosion? Was it many times larger than the planet it destroyed (An example you would be familiar with is Kid Buu's blast that destroyed Earth, which IIRC had an explosion larger than Jupiter)?

This has to be determined on a case by case basis.

carver9
Originally posted by NemeBro
Depends.

Did explosion that destroyed the planet originate from right next to the character? Did the explosion originate from the core? Did it originate from the other side of the planet? How large was the explosion? Was it many times larger than the planet it destroyed (An example you would be familiar with is Kid Buu's blast that destroyed Earth, which IIRC had an explosion larger than Jupiter)?

This has to be determined on a case by case basis.

Let's use this as an example since I know you are familiar with it.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N5rheoSsfBU

If I survived something like this while standing on the planet, does that mean I withstood a planetary attack?

NemeBro
I've already covered Freeza carver.

The size of Namek and the blast that dwarfed it indicates that Freeza probably withstood planet busting energy.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.