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

In your opinion and based on the effort exerted. Which feat required more strength to exert?

Clark towing a ship through ice in BVS

Vs

Thor pulling the Forge rings in Infinity war

Thor is apparently more impressing.

But we've got to consider that the rings weight isn't that apparent. The gravity isn't the same as they are on space.

So, I don't really know how strong that feat is.

My bets are on Thor though.

Objects don't weigh anything in space.

Having to break the massive amount of ice and stuff weighs something though. And holding open the iris while being pelted with millions s of tons of force (maybe more) from a star is way past anything Supes did on screen

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
Having to break the massive amount of ice and stuff weighs something though. And holding open the iris while being pelted with millions s of tons of force (maybe more) from a star is way past anything Supes did on screen

The ice is a strength feat yes.

We don't really know what type of beam that one was.

Could have been just heat or radiation, which would weight nothing. I don't think it was matter.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
Having to break the massive amount of ice and stuff weighs something though. And holding open the iris while being pelted with millions s of tons of force (maybe more) from a star is way past anything Supes did on screen

Everything is space is weightless.

Thor's feat and it's not even close.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Thor's feat and it's not even close.
Not EVEN close.

Superman pulling the the ship wasn't impressive at all as that was fan service...

thor pulling the rings was far more impressive

lol at all those people overplaying thor's massively unquantifiable feat(feats that are filled with lots of question marks) and ignoring real life physics. Meanwhile those same guys apply real life physics to downplay supes....
Double Standard.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Thor is apparently more impressing.

But we've got to consider that the rings weight isn't that apparent. The gravity isn't the same as they are on space.

So, I don't really know how strong that feat is.

My bets are on Thor though.

So you admit you dont even know the physics in space and what is going on, but your saying its a better feat while downplaying a quantifiable feat like pulling a ocean friggate on its side through the ice.

How the Thor feat quantifiable to you when you dont even know how big the rings were, how thick the ice was on them

Also didnt Rocket Help Thor a lot in that feat? Thor Swung the ship around and Rocket had the ship on full power.

Nobody is over-playing Thor's feat.

^^ then how quantifiable is/are thor's feats?
(compared to supes)

I'm not getting it either, why is Supermans feat not quantifiable, but Thors is. Also wasn't Thors feat assisted by Rocket and his ship?

It helped in the sense that it gave Thor someone to pull against, if Thor wasn't strong enough the cable would have been ripped from his hands.

Yea he was definitely strong enough to do it, no denying that. Its just that feat is now "quantifiable" yet people been saying for years that Superman's world engine feat wasn't or isn't.

Its even stated in MoS that the World Engine was a gravity weapon, Thors feat took place in space with no gravity. So I don't know why Thors is all the sudden quantifiable but Supermans isnt and never will be.

Most higher end feats aren't quantifiable in the sense that we can go. it took exactly xxxx.xxx tons to perform the feat.

But we can use common sense, I mean you'd have to be massively biased to think towing a ship is anywhere close to moving rings that are big enough to encircle a neutron star. keep in mind that neutron stars have a diamater of 20km.

Can anyone quantify Thor's feat?

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Thor is apparently more impressing.

But we've got to consider that the rings weight isn't that apparent. The gravity isn't the same as they are on space.

So, I don't really know how strong that feat is.

My bets are on Thor though.
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Objects don't weigh anything in space.
Objects in space have mass, said mass takes force to accelerate, ergo Thor had to apply that force.

The rings also had their own gravity, so what you're saying isn't strictly correct either.

Originally posted by Nevan
Objects in space have mass, said mass takes force to accelerate, ergo Thor had to apply that force.

The rings also had their own gravity, so what you're saying isn't strictly correct either.

Moving objects underwater is fairly easier than on land. Although it still requires force, it ain't the same.

The rings had it's own internal gravity it seems. Not like there was gravity outside.

Any thread where Thor outdoes Superman is a guaranteed barnburner.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Moving objects underwater is fairly easier than on land. Although it still requires force, it ain't the same.

The rings had it's own internal gravity it seems. Not like there was gravity outside.
No one takes into account air resistance in calcs, because it's too complicated to account for and not worth it unless you're talking about high velocity events.

Moving the rings in space is somewhat easier because there's no air resistance and other factors, but it's not unquantifiable at all.

If you were in Space you wouldn't be able to suddenly lift a building or a house sized Boulder.

Originally posted by riv6672
Any thread where Thor outdoes Superman is a guaranteed barnburner.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Can anyone quantify Thor's feat?

Not that I have seen

Those rings were thousands of times bigger than the ship Superman moved, how can anyone believe Superman's feat is even 1/100th as impressive?

Science Guy already kind of broke down Thor's feat as best he could using scientific formulas and numbers and such.

bOLOBJSJL0I

Fp7KqMRZSAk

Originally posted by Silent Master
Those rings were thousands of times bigger than the ship Superman moved, how can anyone believe Superman's feat is even 1/100th as impressive?

Thor's feat is bigger, overall Im just wondering why he gets complete credit for it, when Rocket was obviously needed to make it happen with his ship.

Its be like if Wonderwoman was pushing the ship from behind would Superman get complete credit, I dont think so.

The other thing is there is no gravity present, which is why the feat is unquantifiable in terms of real life. They just stated in that video above about how much gravity would be present, and its a lot, there was none.

Saying it's bigger overall is a massive understatement. All Rocket provided is something for Thor to pull against, If Thor wasn't strong enough the cable would have been ripped from his hands.

It wouldn't be like that at all.

Yes, it's massively bigger. But he couldn't put a dent in Thanos without Stormbreaker even before he had all the stones.

Yet Ironman was able to make Thanos bleed eventually with 5 stones. Yet Thor was durable enough to withstand the star, strong enough move the rings and open the forge.

It doesn't make sense, or its just inconsistent showings.

Originally posted by Inhuman
Science Guy already kind of broke down Thor's feat as best he could using scientific formulas and numbers and such.

bOLOBJSJL0I

Fp7KqMRZSAk

Great videos, but I had to have the volume on like 2 because hes really fcking annoying and loud.

We have no idea what shape Thor was in during that scene, trying to act like that is an example of how Thor would normally do against Thanos is very intellectually dishonest.

Why would he have been in bad shape?

Because they had just been attacked by Thanos and his crew, it's like you haven't even seen the movie.

Correct, so when they were attacked he was 100%. So why could Thor pull off that star feat and lose to Thanos and his crew when he had Hulk, Loki, Heimdall and a bunch of other Asgardians.

Because Thanos had an Infinity stone and a group fighters with him.

Thanos had 5, and did better against 5 less powerful people. Which is why I think its inconsistent to have him pull off a star feat, while losing to Thanos with 2 stones while Thor was at full power with Hulk, Heimdall, Loki and others.

Yea and when Thor was at full power he knocked a Thanos with the full IG into the dirt and then buried SM into his chest.

Stormbreaker did that.

Thor pulled off the star feat prior to Stormbreaker, meaning he had the power to do it when he faced Thanos and crew the first time with fewer stones.

again, its an inconsistent showing. Its not hard to admit it.

Thor was also in an enclosed ship surrounded by his own people which means he wouldn't have been able to cut loose. besides one low showing doesn't negate multiple better showings.

So in a one on one, Thanos without all 5 gems or even 2 gems, Thor and team wins without Stormbreaker?

^^they might

Originally posted by Nevan
No one takes into account air resistance in calcs, because it's too complicated to account for and not worth it unless you're talking about high velocity events.

Moving the rings in space is somewhat easier because there's no air resistance and other factors, but it's not unquantifiable at all.

If you were in Space you wouldn't be able to suddenly lift a building or a house sized Boulder.

All I know is that without gravity there is no weight. Moving an object would be way easier.

Also, Etri said that the rings were frozen, ergo it means that once the ice was broken the rings were free to operate. Therefore, no real way to quantify the feat.

Originally posted by carthage
In your opinion and based on the effort exerted. Which feat required more strength to exert?

Clark towing a ship through ice in BVS

Vs

Thor pulling the Forge rings in Infinity war

He braced against the force necessary to break the ice. This force is unknown. For example, if the rings turn with a force of 100 tons, and yet ice is exerting 101 tons to stop the rings then Thor only needs to brace against 1 tons. Obviously it took well more than 1 ton of force. But we can't be sure how much more.

And then effort plays a role too.
Clark did it with less effort.

Originally posted by h1a8
He braced against the force necessary to break the ice. This force is unknown. For example, if the rings turn with a force of 100 tons, and yet ice is exerting 101 tons to stop the rings then Thor only needs to brace against 1 tons. Obviously it took well more than 1 ton of force. But we can't be sure how much more.

And then effort plays a role too.
Clark did it with less effort.

The feat is an unknown. No real way to calculate the force exerted.

Originally posted by h1a8
He braced against the force necessary to break the ice. This force is unknown. For example, if the rings turn with a force of 100 tons, and yet ice is exerting 101 tons to stop the rings then Thor only needs to brace against 1 tons. Obviously it took well more than 1 ton of force. But we can't be sure how much more.

And then effort plays a role too.
Clark did it with less effort.

Wow, you really suck at science.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Wow, you really suck at science.

1 ton confirmed. Pretty sure Cap could have just thrown a motorcycle with a rope attached to it and had the same effect.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
1 ton confirmed. Pretty sure Cap could have just thrown a motorcycle with a rope attached to it and had the same effect.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Yes, it's massively bigger. But he couldn't put a dent in Thanos without Stormbreaker even before he had all the stones.

Yet Ironman was able to make Thanos bleed eventually with 5 stones. Yet Thor was durable enough to withstand the star, strong enough move the rings and open the forge.

It doesn't make sense, or its just inconsistent showings.
Why is that a bad feat for Thanos instead of a good feat for Iron Man?

Besides, Iron Man had to do an entire barrage of attacks just to scratch him, acting like they are anywhere near the same tier is dishonest.

Yes H1, in this thread. You have confirmed to the entire board that you suck at science and math.

common guys. respect h1. In fact the mods should create a whole new forum for him..
The H1 physics Forum.

Is the star one more of a durability feat? How is it a strength feat?

Originally posted by HulkIsHulk
Is the star one more of a durability feat? How is it a strength feat?

They're talking about when Thor freed the gigantic rings that encircled there star.

As for how withstanding the full force of a star is both a strength and durability feat; you might want to Google neutron stars and what happens if something gets too close.

Originally posted by Nevan
Why is that a bad feat for Thanos instead of a good feat for Iron Man?

Besides, Iron Man had to do an entire barrage of attacks just to scratch him, acting like they are anywhere near the same tier is dishonest.

Thor and Ironman are not in the same tier, current Thor could one shot Ironman.

Originally posted by Silent Master
you might want to Google neutron stars and what happens if something gets too close.
Yes. and what was logically and surely, supposed to happen, clearly didnt happen.

Yea that video inhuman posted from the guy explaining the neutron star. Nothing remotely close happened that was even close to real. The gravity would have been so intense, they all would have been crushed.

How in the world is this even a debate?

If he had to pull against the mass of a neutron star than Thor wins.

Originally posted by Silent Master
They're talking about when Thor freed the gigantic rings that encircled there star.

As for how withstanding the full force of a star is both a strength and durability feat; you might want to Google neutron stars and what happens if something gets too close.

You are an idiot. There is no way the star feat is a superhuman strength feat.
If it was then how was Thor using superhuman strength to resist the force of the star? The beam pushed him, there was no net gravity force (or any other type of force shown). If there was then Thor would have went into the star when he let go or went to wherever the force took him.

Also Thor leaped to the star in the beginning to get there and just stood there. There was no gravity or any other force acting when he was just standing there talking and not holding anything.

It's a durability feat against heat and radiation energy, nothing more.

We do not know how much force it took to free the rings from the ice.
The rings already were supplying a force to free themselves. Thor needed only to supply the remaining force, however much that is.

Originally posted by HumbleServant
If he had to pull against the mass of a neutron star than Thor wins. He didn't. The star never pulled him. He stood there at the star talking without holding anything. There was no force on him.

It is odd he was able to breath like take breaths in space, what exactly was he breathing. Also sound cant travel in space, so how was he able to talk.

Thor needed a good feat because up until that point he didn't have a monster feat, but it could be said some of this was fan service not based in any reality.

The mechanism that was built around the neutron star was there to contain all the neutron star's forces, gravitational pull and all that.
It's all dwarf space magic but that was the idea behind that whole structure. The dwarves had to work that close to the neutron star to make weapons, so the structure was there for them not to die and for them to use and harness whatever they needed from the neutron star.
But when the iris was opened , all the forces from the star came through that opening and hit Thor. Gravitational pull, radiation, gravity, heat, x-rays, etc, etc.
That is what is supposed to be happening in that scene. Thor taking the full force of the neutron star. Eitri even says this in a line of dialogue before it happened. He tells Thor that he is about to take the full force of the star.
There should be no guessing or assuming on that scene if the movies/writters tell you what is happening. Then the special effects team and directors portrayed that scenario as best they could even if there might be slight discrepancies.

If thats the facts then Im cool with that.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
It is odd he was able to breath like take breaths in space, what exactly was he breathing. Also sound cant travel in space, so how was he able to talk.

This is just movie nonsense. happens in every sci-fi movie like Star wars or whatever. Ships exploding with big fiery explosions in outer space and things like that.
Look at Aquaman, people were talking underwater. And before somebody says that sound travels better underwater, yes but if you communicate like a ****ing dolphin with clicks and chirps or whales that have certain low-frequency moans, but actual words that are formed with vocal cords that are made to work outside of the water, no that's nonsense.

Yea I didnt see Aquaman, from what I saw in Justice Leauge they made a air bubble around them to talk. But I see your point.

Originally posted by Inhuman
The mechanism that was built around the neutron star was there to contain all the neutron star's forces, gravitational pull and all that.
It's all dwarf space magic but that was the idea behind that whole structure. The dwarves had to work that close to the neutron star to make weapons, so the structure was there for them not to die and for them to use and harness whatever they needed from the neutron star.
But when the iris was opened , all the forces from the star came through that opening and hit Thor. Gravitational pull, radiation, gravity, heat, x-rays, etc, etc.
That is what is supposed to be happening in that scene. Thor taking the full force of the neutron star. Eitri even says this in a line of dialogue before it happened. He tells Thor that he is about to take the full force of the star.
There should be no guessing or assuming on that scene if the movies/writters tell you what is happening. Then the special effects team and directors portrayed that scenario as best they could even if there might be slight discrepancies.

You are making stuff up. Nowhere in the movie does it explains that.

Also Net Force = sum of all the forces =mass x acceleration
So the net force on Thor can be determined by the product of his mass times acceleration.

The product is very low. Therefore the net force on Thor was low.

Originally posted by h1a8
You are making stuff up. Nowhere in the movie does it explains that.

"Eitri : You understand, boy, you're about to take the full force of a star. It'll kill you."

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4154756/characters/nm0227759

Everything else I said can be seen in the movie. Have you watched the movie yet besides just youtube clips?

Whoops

@h1, you lousy dummy.. here.. if you can't read then perhaps your eyes see and your ears can listen...


Fhc2lCoMgIY

None of h1's crying about RL physics changes the fact the movie showed Thor performing the feat and flat out stated that he was taking the full force of the star.

BTW, you'll notice that h1 only ever tries to use RL physics to dismiss Marvel related feats.

Originally posted by Silent Master
None of h1's crying about RL physics changes the fact the movie showed Thor performing the feat and flat out stated that he was taking the full force of the star.

BTW, you'll notice that h1 only ever tries to use RL physics to dismiss Marvel related feats.

Figurative language.
The full force can be measured by Thor's mass times his acceleration.


Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
@h1, you lousy dummy.. here.. if you can't read then perhaps your eyes see and your ears can listen...


Fhc2lCoMgIY

Originally posted by Inhuman
"Eitri : You understand, boy, you're about to take the full force of a star. It'll kill you."

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4154756/characters/nm0227759

Everything else I said can be seen in the movie. Have you watched the movie yet besides just youtube clips?

Figurative language.
Thor experienced heat, radiation, and a net push force.
The actual force (the push force) can be measured within a certain degree of accuracy.

Again, no amount of you crying about RL physics changes the fact the movie showed Thor performing the feat and flat out stated that he was taking the full force of the star.

BTW, you'll notice that h1 only ever tries to use RL physics to dismiss Marvel related feats.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, no amount of you crying about RL physics changes the fact the movie showed Thor performing the feat and flat out stated that he was taking the full force of the star.

BTW, you'll notice that h1 only ever tries to use RL physics to dismiss Marvel related feats.
RL physics has nothing to do with anything. Net forces don't exist if their affects aren't shown. That's common sense.

Originally posted by h1a8
RL physics has nothing to do with anything. Net forces don't exist if their affects aren't shown. That's common sense.

It has everything to do with it, your whole argument is based on how things would work in real life. entertainment doesn't have to get everything perfect in order for it to count. that is what suspension of disbelief is all about.

Originally posted by Inhuman
The mechanism that was built around the neutron star was there to contain all the neutron star's forces, gravitational pull and all that.
It's all dwarf space magic but that was the idea behind that whole structure. The dwarves had to work that close to the neutron star to make weapons, so the structure was there for them not to die and for them to use and harness whatever they needed from the neutron star.
But when the iris was opened , all the forces from the star came through that opening and hit Thor. Gravitational pull, radiation, gravity, heat, x-rays, etc, etc.
That is what is supposed to be happening in that scene. Thor taking the full force of the neutron star. Eitri even says this in a line of dialogue before it happened. He tells Thor that he is about to take the full force of the star.
There should be no guessing or assuming on that scene if the movies/writters tell you what is happening. Then the special effects team and directors portrayed that scenario as best they could even if there might be slight discrepancies.
so do you accept that superman was no where close to death, and only dried up bcos of the ionizing radiation of that nuke, as evidences show that pure heat couldnt have done that. why? We see that there's no burn on his skin, even the suit was intact, heck his hair was still in place.
Therefore with the removal of the ionizing rad factor, supes would have taken the nuke and be fine. Or supes still got dried, but since he obviously wasnt close to dying or dead (as proven by zod&clark that dead krypt would need tremendous amount of energy to be revived) , his feat still remains superior, as thor on the other hand was SURE to have died .

Originally posted by Silent Master
It has everything to do with it, your whole argument is based on how things would work in real life. entertainment doesn't have to get everything perfect in order for it to count. that is what suspension of disbelief is all about. Thor got pushed away with a certain acceleration. Where's the net gravity force? There wasn't any as Thor flew away from the star, not towards.

What about the time Thor stood there next to the star talking? No net forces were acting on him.

Like I said, your whole argument is based on how things would work in real life. entertainment doesn't have to get everything perfect in order for it to count. that is what suspension of disbelief is all about.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Like I said, your whole argument is based on how things would work in real life. entertainment doesn't have to get everything perfect in order for it to count. that is what suspension of disbelief is all about.

Suspension of disbelief has nothing to do with anything here.
We suppose to be believed that Thor is being pulled when he actually is being pushed? Idiot you.

Again, entertainment doesn't have to get everything perfect in order for it to count. that is what suspension of disbelief is all about.

Is h1 still saying what the movie says doesn't matter, only what he says matters? Because we all know h1's opinion overrules what the movie directly states and shows. -sarcasm-

Originally posted by h1a8
Figurative language.
The full force can be measured by Thor's mass times his acceleration.






Figurative language.
Thor experienced heat, radiation, and a net push force.
The actual force (the push force) can be measured within a certain degree of accuracy.



movies are about entertaining us, you twit... when you go see a movie you are supposed to check your rain at the door and hopefully be entertained at what you just watched.. you must think aquaman actually exist, lmao. real life science/physics is not movie science/physics.. you should learn that, but you won't ever

Originally posted by KingD19
Is h1 still saying what the movie says doesn't matter, only what he says matters? Because we all know h1's opinion overrules what the movie directly states and shows. -sarcasm-
nah... he's just bringing some facts that should be applied to the feat. But you guys are doing well to sidestep it, just bcos it exposes a misconception/flaw in that feat; terming it "suspension of belief".
Meanwhile you fail to apply/disregard these factors to other characters&situations. smh.

Originally posted by KingD19
Is h1 still saying what the movie says doesn't matter, only what he says matters? Because we all know h1's opinion overrules what the movie directly states and shows. -sarcasm-

It's what he does, you'll notice that he only applies the RL argument when it helps his side.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, entertainment doesn't have to get everything perfect in order for it to count. that is what suspension of disbelief is all about. Suspension of disbelief doesn't apply here. How can Thor experience gravity pull when he was pushed away? Clearly the writer didn't write any gravity force in the scene.
Thor stood on the platform of the star talking. No forces were acting.

The more you argue the point the dumber you appear.

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's what he does, you'll notice that he only applies the RL argument when it helps his side.

RL physics has nothing to do with anything here.
You want to believe Thor was pulled when it was shown he was pushed. You are an idiot troll.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
movies are about entertaining us, you twit... when you go see a movie you are supposed to check your rain at the door and hopefully be entertained at what you just watched.. you must think aquaman actually exist, lmao. real life science/physics is not movie science/physics.. you should learn that, but you won't ever And figurative language is still figurative language.

It has everything to do with it, your whole argument is based on how things would work in real life. entertainment doesn't have to get everything perfect in order for it to count. that is what suspension of disbelief is all about.

cool how were throwing the phrase "suspension of belief" about. B'when its supes the sub disapears.
S.M.H

Can you give some examples of where suspension of disbelief was thrown out for Superman feats?

The building carrying feat is quite a good example.

Why the ship feat? Why not the building carrying feat?

flimflam

Originally posted by juggerman
flimflam
Only slightly less annoying than Scrappy.

Back to the thread. The ring feat is unquantifiable. We have no idea how impressive it is.
Therefore the thread is invalid.

h1 doesn't understand what suspension of disbelief is or how it's applied. Also, Superman doesn't have a blackhole feat. it was artifcally generated and was never stated to have the same properties of a black hole. and the tetonic plate feat was never shown or explained.

You really suck at this.

Originally posted by Silent Master
h1 doesn't understand what suspension of disbelief is or how it's applied. Also, Superman doesn't have a blackhole feat. it was artifcally generated and was never stated to have the same properties of a black hole. and the tetonic plate feat was never shown or explained.

You really suck at this.
It was stated to be a singularity. Suspension of disbelief want us to think black hole.

The black hole sucked in and atomized the durable as hell ships and Kryptonians, making all of them 1 atom. The gravitational force needed to do that is astronomical.

Suspension of disbelief states Superman did it physically (tectonic plates) as it was a reference to Reeves Superman.

Originally posted by h1a8
It was stated to be a singularity. Suspension of disbelief want us to think black hole.

The black hole sucked in and atomized the durable as hell ships and Kryptonians, making all of them 1 atom. The gravitational force needed to do that is astronomical.

Suspension of disbelief states Superman did it physically (tectonic plates) as it was a reference to Reeves Superman.

By who?


Show the scene where things next to Superman were atomized?


That isn't how Suspension of disbelief works.

Originally posted by Silent Master
By who?


Show the scene where things next to Superman were atomized?


That isn't how Suspension of disbelief works.
By the scientist.
Irrelevant. All the ships and Kryptonians were crushed into a single atom. That proves how strong the gravitational force was.
The writers want us to remember the Reeve scene and apply it to Cavil Superman. Common sense really.

Originally posted by h1a8
By the scientist.
Irrelevant. All the ships and Kryptonians were crushed into a single atom. That proves how strong the gravitational force was.
The writers want us to remember the Reeve scene and apply it to Cavil Superman. Common sense really.


How would the scientist know, was he using equipment to take readings? (we all know the answer, let this be a test of your honesty)

Not irrelevant. as that would only prove that the gravitational force was that strong at that point, not that strong over the whole area. now if Superman survived right next to a ship that was atomized. you'd have an argument.

Where did the writer's state that, because it sounds like your just making things up again.

Originally posted by Silent Master
How would the scientist know, was he using equipment to take readings? (we all know the answer, let this be a test of your honesty)

Not irrelevant. as that would only prove that the gravitational force was that strong at that point, not that strong over the whole area. now if Superman survived right next to a ship that was atomized. you'd have an argument.

Where did the writer's state that, because it sounds like your just making things up again.

He's a scientist. Suspension of disbelief knows what he is talking about. We see that he is right by the effects. It's called storytelling. The writer wants us to know something, he uses a character to explain it to us and we see it in action.

Superman was several times further away from the singularity. That would mean he was subject to at least 4% of the pulling force. 1/r^2 vs 1/(5r^2) means 25 times more force or 4% of the larger force.

The idea was for us to remember the Reeve scene and have Cavil pull off the same feat. Common sense.

You didn't answer the question

Using numbers from real singularities has no bearing on artificial ones, so unless you can quote the movie stating those numbers. you have no argument.

Prove it, quote the writer's stating that. As we all know it's far more likely the writer's would just say it was an Easter egg, it wasn't meant to be taken seriuosly.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You didn't answer the question

Using numbers from real singularities has no bearing on artificial ones, so unless you can quote the movie stating those numbers. you have no argument.

Prove it, quote the writer's stating that. As we all know it's far more likely the writer's would just say it was an Easter egg, it wasn't meant to be taken seriuosly.

Hes a scientist, therefore an expert. The fact that it came true prove that he knew. What ever you know must be true.

Doesn't matter if it's an artificial one. It works by gravity. The force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two objects.

Anything that happened in the movie, actually happened in the movie. Even jokes or Easter eggs. Claiming something is an Easter egg doesn't disprove that the event happened in the movie.
The writer wants us to know that Superman did the same shit.

You didn't answer the question.

Of course it matters, either provide the numbers the movie gave or admit you're making things up.

Correction, Anything we see happen in a movie actually happened. character statements about off screen feats require evidence to back them up.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You didn't answer the question.

Of course it matters, either provide the numbers the movie gave or admit you're making things up.

Correction, Anything we see happen in a movie actually happened. character statements about off screen feats require evidence to back them up.

I did answer the question. Him being a scientist collaborating with Clark (who knows) and knowing science stuff led him to the conclusion.

We know that the ships are at least as durable as solid steel. Go from there.

The evidence was the news paper. What was the writer trying to portray? That Superman did the same feat Reeve did.

fe5m-FnKHFA

Originally posted by h1a8
I did answer the question. Him being a scientist collaborating with Clark (who knows) and knowing science stuff led him to the conclusion.

We know that the ships are at least as durable as solid steel. Go from there.

The evidence was the news paper. What was the writer trying to portray? That Superman did the same feat Reeve did.


IOW, you have no proof that he was an expert in black holes or that he used equipment to scan/study it. which makes his statement worthless.

We also know that objects further away weren't destroyed by this artificial "singularity".

Which is no better than a character statement and those need evidence to back them up or they're ignored.

Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, you have no proof that he was an expert in black holes or that he used equipment to scan/study it. which makes his statement worthless.

We also know that objects further away weren't destroyed by this artificial "singularity".

Which is no better than a character statement and those need evidence to back them up or they're ignored.

1. Doesn't matter as a singularity was created.

2. And Thor didn't fly into the star nor experience any of force other than being pushed (as shown).

3. News paper article is evidence. Writer's intentions remember?

Glad you admit the scientist wasn't an expert nor did he study it before making an unspported statement.

It was an real neutron star, thus any mistakes fall under SOD.

They are no better than charcater statements, which require proof.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Glad you admit the scientist wasn't an expert nor did he study it before making an unspported statement.

It was an real neutron star, thus any mistakes fall under SOD.

They are no better than charcater statements, which require proof.


Glad you understand that it was a black hole. That was the whole point.

Yet it exhibited no effects of gravity or any other forces. Therefore under SOD, they did not exist. Thor stood there talking without holding on to anything. Yet we suppose to believe that he was tanking the force gravitational force of the star? Replace Thor with anyone in a spacesuit, and they would stand there too.

Wrong. Both character statements and news paper articles are what happened in the story if it is the intentions of the writer.
Writer's intention >>>>>>>you.

Nothing you just posted refuted any of my points.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Nothing you just posted refuted any of my points.

You saying that doesn't make it true.
Anyway, as far as the thread the ring feat is unquantifiable as we have no way of knowing how much force it took to break the ice.

It's obviously multiple times more impressive than Superman towing a ship.

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's obviously multiple times more impressive than Superman towing a ship.

You have no way of knowing that as you can't even give a lower estimate for the feat. For example, how do you know that it took more than 50 tons to achieve the feat?

Originally posted by h1a8
You have no way of knowing that as you can't even give a lower estimate for the feat. For example, how do you know that it took more than 50 tons to achieve the feat?

Since you provided an actual number, go ahead and prove that it took 50 or less tons to achieve.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Since you provided an actual number, go ahead and prove that it took 50 or less tons to achieve.

I never made a claim idiot.
I said that you can't prove it took more than that.
That means you can't prove ANY AMOUNT.

Originally posted by h1a8
I never made a claim idiot.
I said that you can't prove it took more than that.
That means you can't prove ANY AMOUNT.

If you want to play this kind of semantic game. You can't prove it didn't take 23 septillion tons of force.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If you want to play this kind of semantic game. You can't prove it didn't take 23 septillion tons of force.
I surely can't.
That's why it's unquantifiable.

Originally posted by h1a8
I surely can't.
That's why it's unquantifiable.

Most higher-end feats are unquantifiable, but we still use them.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Most higher-end feats are unquantifiable, but we still use them. If a feat is unquantifiable then it cannot be used to compare with other feats. Maybe we are using different meanings of the word?

To be quantifiable, you must prove a lower estimate. In other words, you have to give an amount and prove that the feat took more than that.

For example, if I prove that a feat took more than 10 tons but cannot prove exactly how much it took then that still means it is quantifiable.

Anyway, the bottomline is that you cannot show whether it took more force than the ship feat. Therefore the thread is void.

Originally posted by h1a8
If a feat is unquantifiable then it cannot be used to compare with other feats. Maybe we are using different meanings of the word?

To be quantifiable, you must prove a lower estimate. In other words, you have to give an amount and prove that the feat took more than that.

For example, if I prove that a feat took more than 10 tons but cannot prove exactly how much it took then that still means it is quantifiable.

Sure you can, as an example. just because you can't quantify how durable a starship is doesn't mean you can't compare someone being able to destroy one with a punch to someone being able to destroy a can of soda with a punch.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Sure you can, as an example. just because you can't quantify how durable a starship is doesn't mean you can't compare someone being able to destroy one with a punch to someone being able to destroy a can of soda with a punch.

Stop being dense. I just stated that Quantifiable has nothing to do with quantifying an exact amount.
It has something to do with proving a lower bound.
In other words, you have to show that it took more than whatever amount of force.

Did the ring feat take more than crushing a can of soda pop? I believe so. But for you to prove the feat is superior to another quantifiable feat then you must show that it took more force.
If you can't then you have no leg to stand on in the claim.

Wrong, those rings were literally thousands of times bigger than the ship Superman towed. If you want to claim it took less force to move those then the ship the burden is on you.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Wrong, those rings were literally thousands of times bigger than the ship Superman towed. If you want to claim it took less force to move those then the ship the burden is on you.

I don't care if the were the size of a universe.
You can't prove the force differential Thor needed in addition to the force the rings were exerting to break the ice.

For example, the rings were exerting x amount of force, the ice was exerting x + y amount of force to stop the rings. Thor needed to exert more than y amount of force to break the ice. But we have no way of knowing y. It could be literally anything without proof.

The differential was enough that even with Thor throwing a spaceship and that spaceship using full power it still took time to bust the ice and move the rings. that you think Superman's towing one measly little ship across the ice is more impressive than that proves without any shred of doubt that you're a massive DC fanboy.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The differential was enough that even with Thor throwing a spaceship and that spaceship using full power it still took time to bust the ice and move the rings. that you think Superman's towing one measly little ship across the ice is more impressive than that proves without any shred of doubt that you're a massive DC fanboy.

What was the mass of the ship? How much force it took to throw the ship in that manner (being whirled around multiple times gaining speed)?

How much did the ship slow down when Thor was being dragged along the surface, breaking the ice (or metal) as in a fictional force before coming to a stop?

How much thrust force can the ship exert?


These are questions that can quantify the differential.

As for the Superman towing feat. I have no idea which feat took more force. But if they took around the same amount then Superman's feat would be more impressive as he did it with significantly less effort than what Thor did.

h1a8 you should start charging Silent for as much as you school that poor boy.

See this is how stupid h1 is, he doesn't realize that he just pointed out that the feat could be quantified using his "lower estimate" nonesene. as the throw resulted in Thor tearing through the metal of the rings for quite a distance.

Everyone thank h1 for owning himself once again.

Originally posted by Silent Master
See this is how stupid h1 is, he doesn't realize that he just pointed out that the feat could be quantified using his "lower estimate" nonesene. as the throw resulted in Thor tearing through the metal of the rings for quite a distance.

Everyone thank h1 for owning himself once again.

It takes significantly less force to accelerate an object over a longer period of time (Thor whirling in a circle multiple times) than it takes to accelerate the object over small period of time ( a simple quick throw).

Force needed = mass of ship x final velocity / time

In short,
The momentum generated for the ship/ time it took Thor to achieve this momentum = force Thor exerted.

A longer time = lesser force.

Look at that, he responded to my post but he didn't actually address it's points. so I'll just keep reposting until he responds to the points.

See this is how stupid h1 is, he doesn't realize that he just pointed out that the feat could be quantified using his "lower estimate" nonesene. as the throw resulted in Thor tearing through the metal of the rings for quite a distance.

Everyone thank h1 for owning himself once again.

Originally posted by juggernaut74
h1a8 you should start charging Silent for as much as you school that poor boy.

https://media.giphy.com/media/Ugdyy18UaZj2/giphy.gif

Originally posted by Silent Master
Look at that, he responded to my post but he didn't actually address it's points. so I'll just keep reposting until he responds to the points.

See this is how stupid h1 is, he doesn't realize that he just pointed out that the feat could be quantified using his "lower estimate" nonesene. as the throw resulted in Thor tearing through the metal of the rings for quite a distance.

Everyone thank h1 for owning himself once again.

I did. Thor only exerted a small fraction of the force needed to instantaneous break the metal.

Therefore you can start there with the quantifying.

Again, are you retarded? if Thor wasn't strong enough to withstand the force being applied the cable would have been ripped out of his hands. so your sad attempt to downplay the feat has failed.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, are you retarded? if Thor wasn't strong enough to withstand the force being applied the cable would have been ripped out of his hands. so your sad attempt to downplay the feat has failed.

Two things.
1. Grip strength and pulling strength are two different things as someone's grip strength >>> their pulling strength.

2. Thor's grip strength is more than that of metal.
I agree. But Superman pulling that ship took more force than breaking metal.

So you can quantify the metal breaking part yes?
What would be a lower estimate?

Also that part has nothing to do with thr ice breaking part (freeing the rings) which is what the thread is about. Let's not use different feats other than that of the OP.

Only Thor's hands weren't locked straight, that means he was pulling against the force and not just using grip strength. your sad attempt to downplay the feat has once again failed.

That is a claim, So prove that Superman feat took more force than Thor tearing through all that metal.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Only Thor's hands weren't locked straight, that means he was pulling against the force and not just using grip strength. your sad attempt to downplay the feat has once again failed.

That is a claim, So prove that Superman feat took more force than Thor tearing through all that metal. He was being pulled (not pulling). All that is required is grip strength (hands and legs) and durability. Newton's third law states that the force required to break the metal = force acting on Thor.

All that metal is irrelevant. If you are pulled with a force for a mile, breaking a mile length of a wooden floor, then you only braced against the force required to break the wood floor (but for a long time).


Here's another example, if I pulled you with a rope and your feet broke 1 in of wood then pulling you a longer distance, with the same force, will cause you to break more wood.

And again, that scene isn't the ring freeing scene and has nothing to do with the thread.

Only Thor's hands weren't locked straight, that means he was pulling against the force and not just using grip strength to hold on. your sad attempt to downplay the feat has once again failed.

That is a claim, So prove that Superman's feat took more force than Thor tearing through all that metal.

Again, that is the ring freeing scene. either you're lying or too stupid to know what you're talking about, which is it?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Only Thor's hands weren't locked straight, that means he was pulling against the force and not just using grip strength to hold on. your sad attempt to downplay the feat has once again failed.

That is a claim, So prove that Superman's feat took more force than Thor tearing through all that metal.

Again, that is the ring freeing scene. either you're lying or too stupid to know what you're talking about, which is it?

Idiot. It doesn't matter if your arms are straight or not, Thor was being pulled and not the other way around. Otherwise people who waterski are pulling the boat vs them being pulled by the boat.

Originally posted by h1a8
Two things.
1. Grip strength and pulling strength are two different things as someone's grip strength >>> their pulling strength.

2. Thor's grip strength is more than that of metal.
I agree. But Superman pulling that ship took more force than breaking metal.

So you can quantify the metal breaking part yes?
What would be a lower estimate?

Also that part has nothing to do with thr ice breaking part (freeing the rings) which is what the thread is about. Let's not use different feats other than that of the OP. Your grip is the limiting factor in every lift that requires it.

I'm not sure I know what you mean.

Originally posted by h1a8
Idiot. It doesn't matter if your arms are straight or not, Thor was being pulled and not the other way around. Otherwise people who waterski are pulling the boat vs them being pulled by the boat.

Just how dumb are you? If Thor was relying on just grip strength to hold on his arms would be locked straight and pointed towards the ship. they weren't. which means he wasn't just holding the rope, he was pulling against it. IOW, your grip strength only argument is sh!t.

Originally posted by h1a8
Two things.
1. Grip strength and pulling strength are two different things as someone's grip strength >>> their pulling strength.

2. Thor's grip strength is more than that of metal.
I agree. But Superman pulling that ship took more force than breaking metal.

So you can quantify the metal breaking part yes?
What would be a lower estimate?

Also that part has nothing to do with thr ice breaking part (freeing the rings) which is what the thread is about. Let's not use different feats other than that of the OP.

Grip is the weakest part of any lift. So if you can keep your grip and complete the lift or pull or whatever, means your a boss.

For all the time i've been in this forum, the only thing SM and H1 have ever agreed on is to disagree.