Thanos (MCU) vs. Doomsday (DCEU)

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



robotflug
Two near-unkillable and near-unstoppable alien antagonists, are about to clash in a fight to the death.

Battle Location: Patagonian Desert.

Round One: Thanos with no Infinity Gauntlet vs Doomsday.

Round Two: Thanos using the Infinity Gauntlet with all stones vs Doomsday.

BrolyBlack

riv6672
1. Jeez what a mismatch. Thanos FTW.

2. Jeez what a HUGE mismatch. Thanos FTW.

Impediment
Only Kryptonite killed DD.

It's PIS and CIS.

Thanos without stones can't stop DD.

playa1258
DD wins round 1.

Thanos the second.

riv6672

Josh_Alexander
I think Thanos would outmatch DD in a h2h, but, I just don't see how Thanos could kill DD.

R1. Tie due to plot device
R2. Obvious response.

FrothByte
Thanos puts up a fight in round 1 but ultimately loses.

Doomsdays gets wiped out of existence in round 2.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
Thanos puts up a fight in round 1 but ultimately loses.

Doomsdays gets wiped out of existence in round 2.

I think it's unfair to give DD the win due to plot device. I mean, sure, Thanos would eventually succumb to getting tired.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I think it's unfair to give DD the win due to plot device. I mean, sure, Thanos would eventually succumb to getting tired.

I'm not giving him the win due to plot device, I'm giving him the win because he was tough enough to survive a nuke, a fall from the atmosphere and was fast and strong enough to throw around Superman. Plus the fact that he has ranged attacks.

That said, I'm assuming this is an unarmed fight. If Thanos has his sword then he has a chance.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
I'm not giving him the win due to plot device, I'm giving him the win because he was tough enough to survive a nuke, a fall from the atmosphere and was fast and strong enough to throw around Superman. Plus the fact that he has ranged attacks.

That said, I'm assuming this is an unarmed fight. If Thanos has his sword then he has a chance.

I don't think DD has anything that could kill Thanos. Best case scenario, Thanos gets fatigued and K.Oed.

And even that is uncertained, as Thanos' stamina seems OP.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I don't think DD has anything that could kill Thanos. Best case scenario, Thanos gets fatigued and K.Oed.

And even that is uncertained, as Thanos' stamina seems OP.

And what exactly are you basing this on? Thanos is extremely tough but he's not invulnerable. A punch from IM was able to make him bleed. In comparison, I don't recall any punches being able to damage DD.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
And what exactly are you basing this on? Thanos is extremely tough but he's not invulnerable. A punch from IM was able to make him bleed. In comparison, I don't recall any punches being able to damage DD.

Well, DD was cut by an irrelevant sword.

Thanos was cut by the edge of Tony's most advanced suit, which was being propelled. And "All of that for a drop of blood".

I don't think DD range attacks would have any effect on Thanos either.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Well, DD was cut by an irrelevant sword.

Thanos was cut by the edge of Tony's most advanced suit, which was being propelled. And "All of that for a drop of blood".

I don't think DD range attacks would have any effect on Thanos either.

DD was cut by a sharp weapon. Thanos was cut by an armored punch. Do I need to explain the difference to you?

In any case, that's why I said Thanos has a chance if he has his sword. In a pure unarmed fight I don't see how he takes out DD.

BruceSkywalker
round one goes to dommsday

round two thanos stomps effortlessly

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
DD was cut by a sharp weapon. Thanos was cut by an armored punch. Do I need to explain the difference to you?

In any case, that's why I said Thanos has a chance if he has his sword. In a pure unarmed fight I don't see how he takes out DD.

Thanos was hit by the edge of the suit's propulsor.

Swords have proven useless against Thanos.

I agree. But also don't see how DD can put down Thanos, unless Thanos gets tired of fighting.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Thanos was hit by the edge of the suit's propulsor.

Swords have proven useless against Thanos.

I agree. But also don't see how DD can put down Thanos, unless Thanos gets tired of fighting.

Thanos is not invulnerable to cutting weapons as Thor proved. He is also susceptible to getting hurt with high enough pressure, like Wanda showed. DD is stronger and tougher than Thanos. He'll eventually just pummel Thanos to death.

A better question is, how do you think Thanos will defeat someone who's survived a nuke?

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
Thanos is not invulnerable to cutting weapons as Thor proved. He is also susceptible to getting hurt with high enough pressure, like Wanda showed. DD is stronger and tougher than Thanos. He'll eventually just pummel Thanos to death.

A better question is, how do you think Thanos will defeat someone who's survived a nuke?

You can't compare Thor's SB with Diana's random sword.

Wanda would certainly crush DD.

I never said he would. I' defending a tie position.

relentless1
Wonder Woman sword was magical in nature so its not just some regular sword and even still, DD was able to recover quickly and create a weapon out of the wound, Thanos on the other had was damaged by crushing, blunt force, impaling, and killed by slicing action so although very tough is susceptible to normal forms of weapon damage, DD however is not, he was killed by Kryptonite and any other weapon used on him either had no real effect or allowed him to adapt and become stronger... no way Thanos beats him without the full gauntlet tbh

Psychotron
Doomsday.
Thanos.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by relentless1
Wonder Woman sword was magical in nature so its not just some regular sword and even still, DD was able to recover quickly and create a weapon out of the wound, Thanos on the other had was damaged by crushing, blunt force, impaling, and killed by slicing action so although very tough is susceptible to normal forms of weapon damage, DD however is not, he was killed by Kryptonite and any other weapon used on him either had no real effect or allowed him to adapt and become stronger... no way Thanos beats him without the full gauntlet tbh

WW's sword has no feats besides cutting DD. Without having any other feats or characteristics, it's pretty much useless, as quantifying it's power is impossible.

I don't understand why people lowball IM scratching Thanos. I guess people forget that the mk 6 suit was going toe to toe with Thor, and that the MK 46 suit was way superior to Bucky and Cap (Tony only lost due to him being emotionally unstable and Bucky and Cap's coordination)

And again, IM hit Thanos with the edge of his suit. An edge is highly likely to cause a cut. Also, it seems strange that people will just obmit that Thanos took the impact of an asteroid, the explosion of multiple bombs and energy attacks, and many sword lashes with 0 damage. Obmitting that due to Thanos droping a single drop of blood by IM most powerful suit just isn't okay.

Psychotron
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
WW's sword has no feats besides cutting DD. Without having any other feats or characteristics, it's pretty much useless, as quantifying it's power is impossible.


That just means the sword is very powerful. DD has tanked a nuke, re-entry, Superman's best punches etc.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
You can't compare Thor's SB with Diana's random sword.

Wanda would certainly crush DD.

I never said he would. I' defending a tie position.

It's not all about the weapon though but also the strength behind the weapon.

In any case, if Thanos doesn't have his sword then this is not an argument worth arguing. Bottomline: Thanos can get hurt with enough blunt force trauma, which means DD can eventually pummel him to death if not at least KO.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by Psychotron
That just means the sword is very powerful. DD has tanked a nuke, re-entry, Superman's best punches etc.

The nuke had no blunt force, so, it's a heat feat.

Re Entry is impressive, but Carol also had no problem with re entry, and she wasn't even in her Binary form.

My position is that neither Thanos or DD has the power to put down each other, unless you argue that Thanos could run out of stamina.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
It's not all about the weapon though but also the strength behind the weapon.

In any case, if Thanos doesn't have his sword then this is not an argument worth arguing. Bottomline: Thanos can get hurt with enough blunt force trauma, which means DD can eventually pummel him to death if not at least KO.

I could agree that literally DD would eventually come on top, as Thanos will get tired. I find that unfair as I see Thanos on top for the beginning of the fight.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I could agree that literally DD would eventually come on top, as Thanos will get tired. I find that unfair as I see Thanos on top for the beginning of the fight.

Why do you see Thanos on top?

Psychotron
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
The nuke had no blunt force, so, it's a heat feat.

Re Entry is impressive, but Carol also had no problem with re entry, and she wasn't even in her Binary form.

My position is that neither Thanos or DD has the power to put down each other, unless you argue that Thanos could run out of stamina.

Superman was unable to cause damage to DD without kryptonite. Thanos is weaker than Superman so he can't do anything to Doomsday without his sword. Doomsday, on the other hand, can definitely hurt Thanos.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
Why do you see Thanos on top?

I see Thanos on top because he actually is a good fighter. Something Superman lacked.

Thanos does have the strength to meet DD. So, I see him doing the same with DD as he did with Hulk.

Although you could argue that DD is physically larger than Hulk, in terms of weight there shouldn't be a significant difference.

But, I agree DD wouldn't die to punches.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by Psychotron
Superman was unable to cause damage to DD without kryptonite. Thanos is weaker than Superman so he can't do anything to Doomsday without his sword. Doomsday, on the other hand, can definitely hurt Thanos.

I don't think Thanos is weaker than Superman, considering he is stronger than Hulk or Thor.

Both of the above have superior feats to Superman. But I think you differ from that.

Psychotron
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I don't think Thanos is weaker than Superman, considering he is stronger than Hulk or Thor.

Both of the above have superior feats to Superman. But I think you differ from that.

None of them have feats like overpowering the World Engine while heavily depowered, casually towing an icebreaker (easily over 50,000+ tons, may even be over 100,000 tons depending on the ship) or moving tectonic plates. Thanos has been hurt by Iron Man of all people. DD eats him.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I see Thanos on top because he actually is a good fighter. Something Superman lacked.

Thanos does have the strength to meet DD. So, I see him doing the same with DD as he did with Hulk.

Although you could argue that DD is physically larger than Hulk, in terms of weight there shouldn't be a significant difference.

But, I agree DD wouldn't die to punches.

I agree that Thanos is more skilled but I don't see where you're getting that he's as strong. He's definitely not as durable or as fast. If he engages in h2h he'll eventually lose.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by Psychotron
None of them have feats like overpowering the World Engine while heavily depowered, casually towing an icebreaker (easily over 50,000+ tons, may even be over 100,000 tons depending on the ship) or moving tectonic plates. Thanos has been hurt by Iron Man of all people. DD eats him.

I don't consider the tectonic plate a valid feat, just like many in this forum.

Hulk moved Surtur, which is definitely heavier than an ice breaker.

The World Engine beam doesn't have drag forces.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
I agree that Thanos is more skilled but I don't see where you're getting that he's as strong. He's definitely not as durable or as fast. If he engages in h2h he'll eventually lose.

Read my reply to Psichotron.

Psychotron
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I don't consider the tectonic plate a valid feat, just like many in this forum.

Hulk moved Surtur, which is definitely heavier than an ice breaker.

The World Engine beam doesn't have drag forces.

I don't care what you consider valid. It was stated on screen.

That didn't happen. Surtur reacted the same way a human does when a fly lands on his head. When Hulk started punching him he didn't move at all.

Prove it.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by Psychotron
I don't care what you consider valid. It was stated on screen.

That didn't happen. Surtur reacted the same way a human does when a fly lands on his head. When Hulk started punching him he didn't move at all.

Prove it.

Newspapares aren't always literal, and most time exaggerate stuff. And we didn't saw what Superman did exactly.

When a fly lands on your face, you flinch due to getting surprised. You don't get swayed. And, Hulk moved Surtur by falling on it and punching it (a combintation of the force of his body and arms). The second hits were only due to his arms.

It's an energy beam, energy doesn't have mass, ergo doesn't carry force.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Read my reply to Psichotron.

I don't really consider the World Engine feat to be that great, and I don't consider newspaper articles as valid feats either. But Superman carried an entire building for a prolonged duration. That's not a feat that Hulk or Thanos can match.

And again, Thanos has no durability and speed feats to match DD.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
I don't really consider the World Engine feat to be that great, and I don't consider newspaper articles as valid feats either. But Superman carried an entire building for a prolonged duration. That's not a feat that Hulk or Thanos can match.

And again, Thanos has no durability and speed feats to match DD.

Well, Hulk moved Surtur (Which is at least 10x) bigger than that building.

Regarding speed, Superman didn't had the speedblizing ability as of yet.

I think DD is faster than Thanos, but not fast enough to render him a statue.

Regarding durability, that's what I mean, DD would eventually defeat Thanos due to his endless durability. But, Thanos would likely come on top for sometime, until he grows tired.

I'm not saying that Thanos would stomp DD, but he is just a better fighter, and has the strength and durability overcome him for sometime.

h1a8
Doomsday
Thanos

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Well, Hulk moved Surtur (Which is at least 10x) bigger than that building.

Regarding speed, Superman didn't had the speedblizing ability as of yet.

I think DD is faster than Thanos, but not fast enough to render him a statue.

Regarding durability, that's what I mean, DD would eventually defeat Thanos due to his endless durability. But, Thanos would likely come on top for sometime, until he grows tired.

I'm not saying that Thanos would stomp DD, but he is just a better fighter, and has the strength and durability overcome him for sometime.

Hulk moved Surtur for an instant. Superman carried that building for a prolonged duration. See the difference?

Psychotron
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Newspapares aren't always literal, and most time exaggerate stuff. And we didn't saw what Superman did exactly.

When a fly lands on your face, you flinch due to getting surprised. You don't get swayed. And, Hulk moved Surtur by falling on it and punching it (a combintation of the force of his body and arms). The second hits were only due to his arms.

It's an energy beam, energy doesn't have mass, ergo doesn't carry force.

It was in this case.

Exactly. Surtur was just surprised by this ugly green mutant landing on his head. Hulk's punches proved 100% ineffective. Also, Superman CASUALLY pulled that Icebreaker, which is bigger than Surtur's head btw, and also CASUALLY carried and apartment complex.

Go back to school. Mass IS energy.

h1a8
Double post

h1a8
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
WW's sword has no feats besides cutting DD. Without having any other feats or characteristics, it's pretty much useless, as quantifying it's power is impossible.

I don't understand why people lowball IM scratching Thanos. I guess people forget that the mk 6 suit was going toe to toe with Thor, and that the MK 46 suit was way superior to Bucky and Cap (Tony only lost due to him being emotionally unstable and Bucky and Cap's coordination)

And again, IM hit Thanos with the edge of his suit. An edge is highly likely to cause a cut. Also, it seems strange that people will just obmit that Thanos took the impact of an asteroid, the explosion of multiple bombs and energy attacks, and many sword lashes with 0 damage. Obmitting that due to Thanos droping a single drop of blood by IM most powerful suit just isn't okay.

Characters blunt force durability scales with cut force durability. Why?
Because of pressure (the exact reason why sharp objects cut). If DD can tank astronomical pressures then he is extremely cut resistant.
Also the sword does have a feat. If sliced the shit out of a huge boulder thrown by Superman. So cutting DD is the feat.

I have a problem giving characters other character's best feats when we all know that all characters operate at different levels at different times.

Hulk is not operating at his best feat level in every showing, nor his lowest showing. So someone overpowering him doesnt give them Hulk's best feats. If Hulk has highs and lows then we assume Hulk was operating at somewhere between when he faces Thanos.

As an example of why this particular logic is faulty (characters get other characters feats) consider Gladiator. He bashed a planet with punches. Yet he struck many characters (Thing, Colossus, etc). Did those characters tank planetary punches?

FrothByte
Originally posted by h1a8
Characters blunt force durability scales with cut force durability.

Not quite true. A rubber tire will take repeated sledgehammer blows far better than a steel chest plate but a steel chest plate will easily withstand cuts that will tear up the rubber tire.

Wonder Woman got a cut fighting WWI soldiers, presumably from a bullet, yet she's able to withstand a headbutt from Superman without even a busted lip.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
Hulk moved Surtur for an instant. Superman carried that building for a prolonged duration. See the difference?

That has to do with endurance not strength.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
That has to do with endurance not strength.

No, it has to do with strength. Especially since Hulk never lifted Surtur in the first place.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
No, it has to do with strength. Especially since Hulk never lifted Surtur in the first place.

If you lift up a weight, you have the strength to lift it. If you drop the weight eventually, it's because you got "tired" of lifting it (endurance).

Hulk moved Surtur from hip up. He didn't lift it, but he did move a part of it (a fraction of Surtur's weight).

Even half of Surtur's weight is far more heavy than that building. And, you are not seeing that Hulk was jumping on Surtur. The reason Hulk stopped moving Surtur is because he can't fly. So, once he lands on Surtur, the energy of the jump gets absorbed until it reduces to 0.

Just like a bullet stops after hitting a target. If the bullet moves the object a bit and then stops, it's only because the bullet isn't constantly propelling itself.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
If you lift up a weight, you have the strength to lift it. If you drop the weight eventually, it's because you got "tired" of lifting it (endurance).

Hulk moved Surtur from hip up. He didn't lift it, but he did move a part of it (a fraction of Surtur's weight).

Even half of Surtur's weight is far more heavy than that building. And, you are not seeing that Hulk was jumping on Surtur. The reason Hulk stopped moving Surtur is because he can't fly. So, once he lands on Surtur, the energy of the jump gets absorbed until it reduces to 0.

Just like a bullet stops after hitting a target. If the bullet moves the object a bit and then stops, it's only because the bullet isn't constantly propelling itself.

If I lifted a 10 pound dumbbell, I'd have an easier time maintaining it raised than a 10 year old kid. Why? Because I'm a lot stronger than the kid. Only an idiot would claim that a lifting a heavy object for a longer duration doesn't require more strength than lifting the same object for a single instant.

Hulk moved Surtur via punching him. That's a striking feat, not a strength feat. So you can say Hulk is a more powerful striker than Superman and I'll agree with that. But you can't say Hulk is stronger than Superman.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by Psychotron
It was in this case.

Exactly. Surtur was just surprised by this ugly green mutant landing on his head. Hulk's punches proved 100% ineffective. Also, Superman CASUALLY pulled that Icebreaker, which is bigger than Surtur's head btw, and also CASUALLY carried and apartment complex.

Go back to school. Mass IS energy.

Except you are obmiting the fact that Surtur's movement isn't typical of a reaction. You don't get swayed by a fly. Sure, perhaps you could flinch your head in reaction, but your hips up section isn't factible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkQrt0P2vO8

A fly won't make you move like that.

Regarding Hulk's punches, you are trying to compare the force of an arm to that of the entire body.

Superman was lifting the building using the strength of most of his body, similar to the tanker. In order for you to make a valid comparison, you'd have to prove that Superman would move Surtur by punching his face the same way Hulk was doing.

Mass is energy, but energy isn't necessarily mass. Specially not a laser-like beam.

Although in real terms, laser beams do apply drag forces on objects, these are insignificant.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by h1a8
Characters blunt force durability scales with cut force durability. Why?
Because of pressure (the exact reason why sharp objects cut). If DD can tank astronomical pressures then he is extremely cut resistant.
Also the sword does have a feat. If sliced the shit out of a huge boulder thrown by Superman. So cutting DD is the feat.

I have a problem giving characters other character's best feats when we all know that all characters operate at different levels at different times.

Hulk is not operating at his best feat level in every showing, nor his lowest showing. So someone overpowering him doesnt give them Hulk's best feats. If Hulk has highs and lows then we assume Hulk was operating at somewhere between when he faces Thanos.

As an example of why this particular logic is faulty (characters get other characters feats) consider Gladiator. He bashed a planet with punches. Yet he struck many characters (Thing, Colossus, etc). Did those characters tank planetary punches?

Cut resistance (material's hardness) and blunt force (material's tenacity) aren't' related.

A diamond for instance, can endure extreme penetrating forces, but will break if you drop it.

Why shouldn't we assume that characters fight at the best of thier abilities? If you are in danger, it's logical to assume you will run as fast as you can, fight as hard as you can, etc.

Either way, the samething could apply to DD. Why should we, then, assume that Superman is fighting at the best of his ability?

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
If I lifted a 10 pound dumbbell, I'd have an easier time maintaining it raised than a 10 year old kid. Why? Because I'm a lot stronger than the kid. Only an idiot would claim that a lifting a heavy object for a longer duration doesn't require more strength than lifting the same object for a single instant.

Hulk moved Surtur via punching him. That's a striking feat, not a strength feat. So you can say Hulk is a more powerful striker than Superman and I'll agree with that. But you can't say Hulk is stronger than Superman.

It seems logical, but it's wrong. Force = Mass * Acceleration. The duration of the force applied has to do with your ability to maintain such force (durability/endurance).

A good analogy would be to think of a runner. Someone running at initial velocities of 3m/s but ends up running at 1m/s only means that he doesn't have the ability to pull 3m/s, just that he doesn't have the durability to maintain it.

Well, in that matter, Thanos would have been enduring stronger strikes than DD. You have just proven what I've been trying to explain here.

Josh_Alexander
double post.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
It seems logical, but it's wrong. Force = Mass * Acceleration. The duration of the force applied has to do with your ability to maintain such force (durability/endurance).

A good analogy would be to think of a runner. Someone running at initial velocities of 3m/s but ends up running at 1m/s only means that he doesn't have the ability to pull 3m/s, just that he doesn't have the durability to maintain it.

Well, in that matter, Thanos would have been enduring stronger strikes than DD. You have just proven what I've been trying to explain here.

The main problem with your analogy is that force is not equal to strength.

Besides, following your analogy what you're saying is that a guy who can benchpress 200 lbs. for a max of 1 rep is just as strong as a guy who can bench 200 lbs for a max of 20 reps. You realize how dumb that sounds right?

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
The main problem with your analogy is that force is not equal to strength.

Besides, following your analogy what you're saying is that a guy who can benchpress 200 lbs. for a max of 1 rep is just as strong as a guy who can bench 200 lbs for a max of 20 reps. You realize how dumb that sounds right?

Strength is force. Like the literal definition.

In your analogy, you do need force to lift up the weights.

Using your analogy, and knowing that strength is force:
Aren't both lifting 200lbs?


Yes they are, which means they are just as "strong". Now, the second guy is doing more reps because his muscles have the endurance to do so.

Can you see it now? Guy A muscles can lift up the 200lb weight, but they don't have the durability to do so many times (his muscles get tired, fatigued and cramped).

It has nothing to do with strength and everything to do with stamina.

I admit it's not evident. Anyone would say that guy B is "stronger" at the gym, but the comment in terms of real physics is wrong.

h1a8
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Cut resistance (material's hardness) and blunt force (material's tenacity) aren't' related.

A diamond for instance, can endure extreme penetrating forces, but will break if you drop it.

Why shouldn't we assume that characters fight at the best of thier abilities? If you are in danger, it's logical to assume you will run as fast as you can, fight as hard as you can, etc.

Either way, the samething could apply to DD. Why should we, then, assume that Superman is fighting at the best of his ability?

I said they scale. Do you know what that means? It means that that are highly correlated.
Pressure = force /Area

What you are referring to is the ability to SCRATCH.
Diamonds don't break if you drop them. They are very durable against blunt forces. You need a really hard blow to chip or shatter them.

Try cutting a tough meat with a dull knife. Although the knife is HARDER THAN THE MEAT, You won't be able to cut (or scratch) the meat if you don't apply a large amount of force.

Agree with Superman. That's why we look at the average. Superman is significantly more durable and stronger than Hulk on average.

Plus the nature of DD'S powers is to get stronger as the fight progresses. Even if Thanos was as strong as Superman then that would do him no good.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by h1a8
I said they scale. Do you know what that means? It means that that are highly correlated.
Pressure = force /Area

What you are referring to is the ability to SCRATCH.
Diamonds don't break if you drop them. They are very durable against blunt forces. You need a really hard blow to chip or shatter them.

Try cutting a tough meat with a dull knife. Although the knife is HARDER THAN THE MEAT, You won't be able to cut (or scratch) the meat if you don't apply a large amount of force.

Agree with Superman. That's why we look at the average. Superman is significantly more durable and stronger than Hulk on average.

Plus the nature of DD'S powers is to get stronger as the fight progresses. Even if Thanos was as strong as Superman then that would do him no good.

I don't think they do. You can drop a wooden block and it won't break unlike diamond... Yet you can cut wood, but need laser cutters to cut diamond. But feel free to bring scientific material to prove your point.

No, a diamond will get fractures if you drop it (not shatter but it will break). Again, tenacity and harness are two different concepts.

I don't get how the knife analogy fits into our debate..

Except I don't agree that Superman's average is above Hulk's. What do you base this assumptions on?

h1a8
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I don't think they do. You can drop a wooden block and it won't break unlike diamond... Yet you can cut wood, but need laser cutters to cut diamond. But feel free to bring scientific material to prove your point.

No, a diamond will get fractures if you drop it (not shatter but it will break). Again, tenacity and harness are two different concepts.

I don't get how the knife analogy fits into our debate..

Except I don't agree that Superman's average is above Hulk's. What do you base this assumptions on?

Again a diamond will not break if you drop. You need a LARGE blow to chip or shatter a diamond. A wood block will break far faster than a diamond.

The knife fits because hardness alone does not mean you WILL cut something. It just means that the object CAN be cut with SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF PRESSURE.

So, to summarize.
A being harder than B means that A can cut B If and only if A applies sufficient pressure to B.

Try cutting scratching a piece of steel with a dull (not very sharp) diamond. You won't manage to cut the steel unless you applied superhuman strength.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Strength is force. Like the literal definition.

In your analogy, you do need force to lift up the weights.

Using your analogy, and knowing that strength is force:
Aren't both lifting 200lbs?


Yes they are, which means they are just as "strong". Now, the second guy is doing more reps because his muscles have the endurance to do so.

Can you see it now? Guy A muscles can lift up the 200lb weight, but they don't have the durability to do so many times (his muscles get tired, fatigued and cramped).

It has nothing to do with strength and everything to do with stamina.

I admit it's not evident. Anyone would say that guy B is "stronger" at the gym, but the comment in terms of real physics is wrong.

Show me evidence that strength (pertaining to a person's strength) is exactly equivalent to force (pertaining to force as defined in physics).

Because using your analogy, if person A has a max 1 rep bench of 400 lbs and person B has a max 1 rep bench of 250 lbs but they have the exact same amount of endurance and stamina, then they should be able to perform the exact same reps with a 245 lbs bench.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by h1a8
Again a diamond will not break if you drop. You need a LARGE blow to chip or shatter a diamond. A wood block will break far faster than a diamond.

The knife fits because hardness alone does not mean you WILL cut something. It just means that the object CAN be cut with SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF PRESSURE.

So, to summarize.
A being harder than B means that A can cut B If and only if A applies sufficient pressure to B.

Try cutting scratching a piece of steel with a dull (not very sharp) diamond. You won't manage to cut the steel unless you applied superhuman strength.

A quick google search will prove you wrong.

What did you understood when I said hardness? You have misunderstood.

Hardness refers to the physical property of materials to withstand pressures over a small area. Tenacity refers to the physical property of materials to withstand blunt forces.

These two properties aren't correlated. Ergo, an object withstanding being cut won't necessarily withstand blunt forces and viseversa.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
Show me evidence that strength (pertaining to a person's strength) is exactly equivalent to force (pertaining to force as defined in physics).

Because using your analogy, if person A has a max 1 rep bench of 400 lbs and person B has a max 1 rep bench of 250 lbs but they have the exact same amount of endurance and stamina, then they should be able to perform the exact same reps with a 245 lbs bench.

Easy. When you think of strength you think of lifting weights right? Weights "weight" because of the force of gravity. So when you apply strength, you are applying a force to oppose gravity.

In your case, guy A's muscles are stronger, ergo his arms won't fatigue with a 245lbs bench.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Easy. When you think of strength you think of lifting weights right? Weights "weight" because of the force of gravity. So when you apply strength, you are applying a force to oppose gravity.

In your case, guy A's muscles are stronger, ergo his arms won't fatigue with a 245lbs bench.

I'm asking for actual evidence that proves force = a person's strength, not just your opinion.

Besides, you just contradicted yourself. You said if A's muscles are stronger then they don't fatigue as easily.

h1a8
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
A quick google search will prove you wrong.

What did you understood when I said hardness? You have misunderstood.

Hardness refers to the physical property of materials to withstand pressures over a small area. Tenacity refers to the physical property of materials to withstand blunt forces.

These two properties aren't correlated. Ergo, an object withstanding being cut won't necessarily withstand blunt forces and viseversa.

A Google search will not prove me wrong. It's very very unlikely for a diamond to crack if dropped.

Stop making up definitions. That's not how hardness is defined. No amount of pressure would allow a softer object to scratch a harder object. Hardness is a measured using a ordinal scale (not a ratio scale).

Blunt forces have pressure.

So since Thanos has no feats of resisting cutting forces then he too can be cut easily by an ordinary sword by an ordinary human. See how stupid that sounds?

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
I'm asking for actual evidence that proves force = a person's strength, not just your opinion.

Besides, you just contradicted yourself. You said if A's muscles are stronger then they don't fatigue as easily.

Force:



No, I didn't contradict myself, because I never said that stamina isn't a factor of strenght. I said that two people that can lift up the same weight don't necessarily have the same stamina.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by h1a8
A Google search will not prove me wrong. It's very very unlikely for a diamond to crack if dropped.

Stop making up definitions. That's not how hardness is defined. No amount of pressure would allow a softer object to scratch a harder object. Hardness is a measured using a ordinal scale (not a ratio scale).

Blunt forces have pressure.

So since Thanos has no feats of resisting cutting forces then he too can be cut easily by an ordinary sword by an ordinary human. See how stupid that sounds?

Hardness definition:


Tenacity definition:



Here, hopes this finishes giving you clarity:

XBjiEsAyNQs


A good example of this is comparing plastic bottles with glass bottles. A drop will break glass, but won't break the plastic bottle. A knife will cut through plastic but not through glass.

Tenacity=/=hardness

h1a8
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Hardness definition:


Tenacity definition:



Here, hopes this finishes giving you clarity:

XBjiEsAyNQs


A good example of this is comparing plastic bottles with glass bottles. A drop will break glass, but won't break the plastic bottle. A knife will cut through plastic but not through glass.

Tenacity=/=hardness
You are starting to Troll now (ignoring my arguments).

You stated that hardness refers to the physical property of materials to withstand PRESSURES OVER A SMALL AREA. That's definition is incorrect for the reasons you ignored. You basically made that definition up.

You also ignored.
1. Blunt forces has pressure since they exert force over an area.
2. Thanos has no feats of resisting being cut and therefore, by your logic, he can be easily cut by ordinary sword by ordinary human.
3. It is very hard TO CUT tough raw meat with a dull knife (which is harder than the meat). You must either apply a LARGE FORCE or sharpen the knife to reduce the area. Both increases the pressure.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by h1a8
You are starting to Troll now (ignoring my arguments).

You stated that hardness refers to the physical property of materials to withstand PRESSURES OVER A SMALL AREA. That's definition is incorrect for the reasons you ignored. You basically made that definition up.

You also ignored.
1. Blunt forces has pressure since they exert force over an area.
2. Thanos has no feats of resisting being cut and therefore, by your logic, he can be easily cut by ordinary sword by ordinary human.
3. It is very hard TO CUT tough raw meat with a dull knife (which is harder than the meat). You must either apply a LARGE FORCE or sharpen the knife to reduce the area. Both increases the pressure.

Troll? Lol! Science isn't trolling.

I didn't make any definition, is right there on the internet.

https://www.ispatguru.com/material-hardness-and-hardness-testing/

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Blunt force is different from cutting, just like the guy from the video explained.

It's called science.

Thanos wasn't cut by Drax's knifes.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Force:



No, I didn't contradict myself, because I never said that stamina isn't a factor of strenght. I said that two people that can lift up the same weight don't necessarily have the same stamina.

Not what I asked. I asked for proof that force (physics) is equal to the strength as pertains to a user's strength. Please cite your source instead of just a simple quote.


Also, you're now moving goalposts. The original contention between us is that holding up a heavy load for an extended amount of time is easier for a stronger person. We weren't talking about stamina.

h1a8
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Troll? Lol! Science isn't trolling.

I didn't make any definition, is right there on the internet.

https://www.ispatguru.com/material-hardness-and-hardness-testing/

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Blunt force is different from cutting, just like the guy from the video explained.

It's called science.

Thanos wasn't cut by Drax's knifes.

Your definition DOESN'T MATCH YOUR LINK. The definition does not have pressure at all. If pressure was part of the definition then you would reach a contradiction as blunt force IS PRESSURE.

Drax cut at the armored boots and we do not know of damage was done or not. Therefore Thanos doesn't have any feats against being cut. So going by your logic...

h1a8
Originally posted by FrothByte
Not what I asked. I asked for proof that force (physics) is equal to the strength as pertains to a user's strength. Please cite your source instead of just a simple quote.


Also, you're now moving goalposts. The original contention between us is that holding up a heavy load for an extended amount of time is easier for a stronger person. We weren't talking about stamina.

Also to add that people can at times strike with more force than they can lift.
So a punching feat is usually worst than a lifting feat if both exerted the same force. Punching requires gaining momentum prior to contact. So when the punch lands, the target is receiving both momentum from the punch and a push force from the person's strength. Both combine to give a total punch force.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
Not what I asked. I asked for proof that force (physics) is equal to the strength as pertains to a user's strength. Please cite your source instead of just a simple quote.


Also, you're now moving goalposts. The original contention between us is that holding up a heavy load for an extended amount of time is easier for a stronger person. We weren't talking about stamina.

Merriam Webster Dictionary:


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/force


I don't understand why are we debating Superman holding the building for a prolongued time. It's pretty much useless, as Surtur is way heavier than such building.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by h1a8
Your definition DOESN'T MATCH YOUR LINK. The definition does not have pressure at all. If pressure was part of the definition then you would reach a contradiction as blunt force IS PRESSURE.

Drax cut at the armored boots and we do not know of damage was done or not. Therefore Thanos doesn't have any feats against being cut. So going by your logic...

I see where your error lies.

Your entire blunt force argument comes because Thanos was hit by IM's blunt edge?

Let's be clear on that before we can move to the physics part.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by h1a8
Also to add that people can at times strike with more force than they can lift.
So a punching feat is usually worst than a lifting feat if both exerted the same force. Punching requires gaining momentum prior to contact. So when the punch lands, the target is receiving both momentum from the punch and a push force from the person's strength. Both combine to give a total punch force.

I agree regarding momentum, and yet Surtur is what? Maybe 10x heavier than that building? A persons punching strenght isn't far from a person's strenght.

So saying that Hulk can move Surtur with a punch, but not lift up a building that is 10x smaller (being kind to Superman) is plain out illogical.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Merriam Webster Dictionary:


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/force


I don't understand why are we debating Superman holding the building for a prolongued time. It's pretty much useless, as Surtur is way heavier than such building.

Except Hulk never lifted Surtur did he?

You're also changing the context of force and providing a definition that is different from your physics application before. Because in this definition that you're referring to, force is the same thing as strength, power or energy. If this is the definition you want to use then you can no longer use the force = mass * acceleration formula as that talks about a completely different kind of force. Unless you want to claim that the formula for energy is also mass*acceleration?

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
Except Hulk never lifted Surtur did he?

You're also changing the context of force and providing a definition that is different from your physics application before. Because in this definition that you're referring to, force is the same thing as strength, power or energy. If this is the definition you want to use then you can no longer use the force = mass * acceleration formula as that talks about a completely different kind of force. Unless you want to claim that the formula for energy is also mass*acceleration?

I don't think you understand the definition. Read it again. Force is strength or energy exerted.

How do you measure strenght in your daily life? Weren't you the one using the gym example to illustrate how a guy lifting a heavier weight is stronger than one lifting a lighter weight?

Well, in order to lift something you need force.


You need force cause a change in inertia. Both lifting a building or moving a behemoth requires force. Sure, diferent muscles and contexts are involved in such feats, but isn't like lifting and punching requires signitificantly different force by your arms. At least not significant enough to say that Superman lifting a building requires more force by his arms, than Hulk moving a 10x bigger object by punching it.

Check my reply to h1 to understand what I mean by the above.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I don't think you understand the definition. Read it again. Force is strength or energy exerted.

How do you measure strenght in your daily life? Weren't you the one using the gym example to illustrate how a guy lifting a heavier weight is stronger than one lifting a lighter weight?

Well, in order to lift something you need force.


You need force cause a change in inertia. Both lifting a building or moving a behemoth requires force. Sure, diferent muscles and contexts are involved in such feats, but isn't like lifting and punching requires signitificantly different force by your arms. At least not significant enough to say that Superman lifting a building requires more force by his arms, than Hulk moving a 10x bigger object by punching it.

Check my reply to h1 to understand what I mean by the above.

You're grasping at straws.

The word "force" has many different definitions. Originally the definition you were using was force as it is applied in physics, as in force = mass*acceleration.

I then asked you to provide proof that the usage of force in this context is the same thing as strength when used to describe a person's strength.

You then provided a definition that equated force with strength... but also equated force with power and energy. Based on that, we know that you're no longer using "force" in the context of physics.

In the end, what all this really boils down to is that you just don't want to admit that Hulk has no strength feat that can match Superman lifting that apartment building. He has better strike feats (especially the leviathan punch) but no strength feat to match.

You also don't know anything about punching it seems. The force in your arm isn't the main ingredient in delivering a powerful punch.

h1a8
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I see where your error lies.

Your entire blunt force argument comes because Thanos was hit by IM's blunt edge?

Let's be clear on that before we can move to the physics part.

No my argument is based off common sense. But using your logic, if a character doesn't have the cut resistant feats then they don't have the special attribute. In other words, Thanos can be sliced up by an ordinary sword by an ordinary human.

Lastly, I was giving an IF P THEN Q argument. You basically showed that if Q then not P. In other words, you argued against the converse of my argument. This is a fallacy.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I agree regarding momentum, and yet Surtur is what? Maybe 10x heavier than that building? A persons punching strenght isn't far from a person's strenght.

So saying that Hulk can move Surtur with a punch, but not lift up a building that is 10x smaller (being kind to Superman) is plain out illogical.

The problem with the Surtur feat is that
1. Hulk's following punches did absolutely nothing. Therefore it was Hulk's download falling momentum that did the work.
2. Surtur only moved his upper body, not his entire body. So basically a very small force was able to move Surtur.
3. Also punching someone back takes way less force than punching them off the ground (which requires the force of their weight) or lifting them.

4. Then you have the fallacy of giving Thanos Hulk's best feat. If that made any sense then that would mean that everytime Gladiator punched someone then that character took planet destroying force.

5. Then you have the fallacy of believing you know Surtur's exact composition when he is a magical being.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
You're grasping at straws.

The word "force" has many different definitions. Originally the definition you were using was force as it is applied in physics, as in force = mass*acceleration.

I then asked you to provide proof that the usage of force in this context is the same thing as strength when used to describe a person's strength.

You then provided a definition that equated force with strength... but also equated force with power and energy. Based on that, we know that you're no longer using "force" in the context of physics.

In the end, what all this really boils down to is that you just don't want to admit that Hulk has no strength feat that can match Superman lifting that apartment building. He has better strike feats (especially the leviathan punch) but no strength feat to match.

You also don't know anything about punching it seems. The force in your arm isn't the main ingredient in delivering a powerful punch.

Lol, are you really saying that the dictionary, specially the Merriam Webster, doesn't know the scientific definition of Force? Dude you are dense!

Force:

https://www.britannica.com/science/force-physics

If you think a little, you'll realize that the Merriam Webster definition isn't wrong. It's just that you are the one who has the concepts wrong.

So when you lift up a weight, you change its motion (static). Ergo, in all your examples of strenght, the guys were applying force.


Seems to me that you aren't paying attention. Read my comment on the Surtur feat, again, please.

Robtard
Not sure what the wonder twins above are ranting about. But here's how It'd go:

Round 1) Thanos punches DD to the point DD gets strong enough to tear Thanos in twain

Round 2) Thanos uses one or more of the stones to destroy DD

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by h1a8
No my argument is based off common sense. But using your logic, if a character doesn't have the cut resistant feats then they don't have the special attribute. In other words, Thanos can be sliced up by an ordinary sword by an ordinary human.

Lastly, I was giving an IF P THEN Q argument. You basically showed that if Q then not P. In other words, you argued against the converse of my argument. This is a fallacy.



The problem with the Surtur feat is that
1. Hulk's following punches did absolutely nothing. Therefore it was Hulk's download falling momentum that did the work.
2. Surtur only moved his upper body, not his entire body. So basically a very small force was able to move Surtur.
3. Also punching someone back takes way less force than punching them off the ground (which requires the force of their weight) or lifting them.

4. Then you have the fallacy of giving Thanos Hulk's best feat. If that made any sense then that would mean that everytime Gladiator punched someone then that character took planet destroying force.

5. Then you have the fallacy of believing you know Surtur's exact composition when he is a magical being.

Originally posted by h1a8
If DD can tank astronomical pressures then he is extremely cut resistant.

Please clarify what do you mean by /\? Honestly, by this point I've lost your original argument line.

1. Momentum which was produced by his body. Ergo, strenght that was produced by Hulk.

2. LMAO! You mean half of Surtur's size, which is equivalent to what? 5x the size of the building Superman moved? Yeah sure, "very little force"!

3. Dude! Force = mass * acceleration. If the acceleration caused by the punch which made the object move back is superior to that of gravity then the force is greater than the one required to hold the object. If you look at how fast Surtur moved, I bet the force required to that is greater than the force required to hold it in your arms.

4. Then you have the fallacy of giving Superman the best feats against DD. If you lowball Hulk, then you have to lowball Superman.

5. We can speculate. Obviously Surtur's composition tougher than a human's.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure what the wonder twins above are ranting about. But here's how It'd go:

Round 1) Thanos punches DD to the point DD gets strong enough to tear Thanos in twain

Round 2) Thanos uses one or more of the stones to destroy DD

thumb up I also believe that.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Lol, are you really saying that the dictionary, specially the Merriam Webster, doesn't know the scientific definition of Force? Dude you are dense!

Force:

https://www.britannica.com/science/force-physics

If you think a little, you'll realize that the Merriam Webster definition isn't wrong. It's just that you are the one who has the concepts wrong.

So when you lift up a weight, you change its motion (static). Ergo, in all your examples of strenght, the guys were applying force.


Seems to me that you aren't paying attention. Read my comment on the Surtur feat, again, please.

Oh I never said Merriam Webster's definition was wrong, I'm saying you're wrong to think that force = strength = power = energy = mass*acceleration.

Strawman much?

Fact is, you already agreed that a stronger person will have an easier time lifting a heavy weight for a prolonged duration than a weaker man would.

You also have yet to provide any proof at all that Hulk can match Superman's strength feat of lifting an entire building.

You also still don't know how the force behind a punch works.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure what the wonder twins above are ranting about. But here's how It'd go:

Round 1) Thanos punches DD to the point DD gets strong enough to tear Thanos in twain

Round 2) Thanos uses one or more of the stones to destroy DD

How do you think Round 1 will go if Thanos is given his sword?

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
Oh I never said Merriam Webster's definition was wrong, I'm saying you're wrong to think that force = strength = power = energy = mass*acceleration.

Strawman much?

Fact is, you already agreed that a stronger person will have an easier time lifting a heavy weight for a prolonged duration than a weaker man would.

You also have yet to provide any proof at all that Hulk can match Superman's strength feat of lifting an entire building.

You also still don't know how the force behind a punch works.

You don't understand physics.

Please explain to me, in your logic, what's strength?

Go ahead.

Let's change things, prove Superman can move Surtur the same way Hulk did, which is 10x bigger than your building.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
You don't understand physics.

Please explain to me, in your logic, what's strength?

Go ahead.

Let's change things, prove Superman can move Surtur the same way Hulk did, which is 10x bigger than your building.

I understand physics just fine. You don't understand logic nor it seems the english language.

I'm not going to bother proving Superman can move Surtur with a punch because I already said I don't think Superman can hit as hard as Hulk.

Now, are you going to bring proof that Hulk can actually lift that building or are you going to strawman some more?

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
I understand physics just fine. You don't understand logic nor it seems the english language.

I'm not going to bother proving Superman can move Surtur with a punch because I already said I don't think Superman can hit as hard as Hulk.

Now, are you going to bring proof that Hulk can actually lift that building or are you going to strawman some more?

So, why won't you tell me what your definition of strength is? What is your physics definition of strength?

Answer the above question, then we continue with Surtur.

h1a8
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Please clarify what do you mean by /\? Honestly, by this point I've lost your original argument line.

1. Momentum which was produced by his body. Ergo, strenght that was produced by Hulk.

2. LMAO! You mean half of Surtur's size, which is equivalent to what? 5x the size of the building Superman moved? Yeah sure, "very little force"!

3. Dude! Force = mass * acceleration. If the acceleration caused by the punch which made the object move back is superior to that of gravity then the force is greater than the one required to hold the object. If you look at how fast Surtur moved, I bet the force required to that is greater than the force required to hold it in your arms.

4. Then you have the fallacy of giving Superman the best feats against DD. If you lowball Hulk, then you have to lowball Superman.

5. We can speculate. Obviously Surtur's composition tougher than a human's.


If something can resist large amounts of blunt force without damage of any kind then it can resist being cut to a scaling degree. You argued against the converse of this argument (and not the argument itself)) by stating that a diamond can resist being cut but not blunt force.

1. The momentum was produced by Hulk's legs. Thanos legs are not as strong as Hulk's. Also, it seem Surtur could have flinched somewhat from the strike (Hulk didn't really make him move). The evidence supporting this is Hulk was still on top of Surtur's head after the strike. If Hulk struck him and made Surtur move then Hulk couldn't have stayed on him. Hulk would have hit Surtur him away from himself (punching an object away from oneself).

2. There is inconsistency with the scene. Hulk only appears to be a few times smaller than Surtur's head. Scaling from this and Surtur isn't as big as we think, unless you want to go with that particular scene being a lie.

3. I agree.

4. I'm not lowballing Hulk. Hulk doesn't operate at his highest feat level in every scene. This goes for any character in fiction. Writer's don't use exact physics when writing scenes. There are going to be great inconsistencies from scene to scene. But you are right. The same measure should be applied to Superman or any other character. I don't give anyone Superman's best strength feats just because they overpowered Superman. I would just say they are stronger than average Superman. I also judge DD's strength based off what he's done outside of Superman's feats. For example, how far and hard he hit Superman can be quantified as an approximate force.

5. tougher and denser are two different things. But it would be speculation as you said.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by h1a8
If something can resist large amounts of blunt force without damage of any kind then it can resist being cut to a scaling degree. You argued against the converse of this argument (and not the argument itself)) by stating that a diamond can resist being cut but not blunt force.

1. The momentum was produced by Hulk's legs. Thanos legs are not as strong as Hulk's. Also, it seem Surtur could have flinched somewhat from the strike (Hulk didn't really make him move). The evidence supporting this is Hulk was still on top of Surtur's head after the strike. If Hulk struck him and made Surtur move then Hulk couldn't have stayed on him. Hulk would have hit Surtur him away from himself (punching an object away from oneself).

2. There is inconsistency with the scene. Hulk only appears to be a few times smaller than Surtur's head. Scaling from this and Surtur isn't as big as we think, unless you want to go with that particular scene being a lie.

3. I agree.

4. I'm not lowballing Hulk. Hulk doesn't operate at his highest feat level in every scene. This goes for any character in fiction. Writer's don't use exact physics when writing scenes. There are going to be great inconsistencies from scene to scene. But you are right. The same measure should be applied to Superman or any other character. I don't give anyone Superman's best strength feats just because they overpowered Superman. I would just say they are stronger than average Superman. I also judge DD's strength based off what he's done outside of Superman's feats. For example, how far and hard he hit Superman can be quantified as an approximate force.

5. tougher and denser are two different things. But it would be speculation as you said.

Please clarify your understanding of "blunt force".

1. When you lift something vertically, you are applying force with your legs. So, Superman<<<<Hulk. You don't flinch to the point of almost falling by something the size of a fly, you are seriously lowballing now. Your physics is trully primary at best, please research the term inelastic collition.

2. A few times smaller? Hulk is nearly 10x smaller than Surtur's face! And Hulk is what? The size of an elephant? Now you are just lowballing.

3. Accepted.

4. Superman is the size of a normal man and just as heavy. DD sending him flying away after a punch is insignificant to Hulk punching Surtur away.

And Thanos hits harder than the Hulk, so, DD should be handled in the first minutes of the fight.

But I agree DD would eventually come on top.


5. Flesh isn't that dense. Surtur seems to be made of rock, so, i think it's pretty obvious.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
So, why won't you tell me what your definition of strength is? What is your physics definition of strength?

Answer the above question, then we continue with Surtur.

What kind of strength? Compressive strength? Tensile strength? Characteristic strength?

There are many kinds of "strength" in physics but none of them is equal to just force. You can do a quick google search on the formulas for each and you'll easily realize your error.

Now, your turn. Give me a lifting feat from Hulk that matches Superman's building carry feat.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
What kind of strength? Compressive strength? Tensile strength? Characteristic strength?

There are many kinds of "strength" in physics but none of them is equal to just force. You can do a quick google search on the formulas for each and you'll easily realize your error.

Now, your turn. Give me a lifting feat from Hulk that matches Superman's building carry feat.

What is your definition of a man being strong?

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
What is your definition of a man being strong?

Sorry dude, you already asked your question and I answered. Now answer mine first then you can go ahead and ask another question AFTER you've answered my question.

So, does Hulk have any non-striking feats to match Superman lifting a building?

By the way, formula for tensile strength is force divided by cross section (s=P/a) if you're interested. Again, proof that force is clearly not equal to strength.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
Sorry dude, you already asked your question and I answered. Now answer mine first then you can go ahead and ask another question AFTER you've answered my question.

So, does Hulk have any non-striking feats to match Superman lifting a building?

By the way, formula for tensile strength is force divided by cross section (s=P/a) if you're interested. Again, proof that force is clearly not equal to strength.

No, you didn't answer my question, you avoided my question and brought scientific definitions akin to our debate.

You said that a man's "strength" isn't related to force (which is ridiculous). So, I'm asking: What's your definition of a man's strength? How do you determine man's strength?

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
No, you didn't answer my question, you avoided my question and brought scientific definitions akin to our debate.

You said that a man's "strength" isn't related to force (which is ridiculous). So, I'm asking: What's your definition of a man's strength? How do you determine man's strength?

Nope, you're changing the question. Your original question was this:




The most common "strength" mentioned in physics is tensile strength, and I already answered the definition for that which is s=P/a, where P is force and a is the cross section.

That already proves force is not equal to strength. I can list other examples of strength as defined in physics and I can guarantee you that none of them will be equal to force.

Now, stop moving goalposts and answer my question.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
Nope, you're changing the question. Your original question was this:




The most common "strength" mentioned in physics is tensile strength, and I already answered the definition for that which is s=P/a, where P is force and a is the cross section.

That already proves force is not equal to strength. I can list other examples of strength as defined in physics and I can guarantee you that none of them will be equal to force.

Now, stop moving goalposts and answer my question.

LMAO. Our debate is whether a man's physical strength is related to force. When I asked about your definition of strength, I meant under the given context. But you are just playing ignorance now.

So answer the question.

And lol at you admitting that Tensile "strength" is "force" devided by cross section. You just conceded.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
LMAO. Our debate is whether a man's physical strength is related to force. When I asked about your definition of strength, I meant under the given context. But you are just playing ignorance now.

So answer the question.

And lol at you admitting that Tensile "strength" is "force" devided by cross section. You just conceded.

How did I concede by proving you wrong when you said force = strength?

I never said force isn't related to strength, I said you were wrong to say force = strength. In fact this is exactly what I said:



So nice try on the strawman but that's not gonna fly.

Why can't you just be a man and admit that you were mistaken?

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
How did I concede by proving you wrong when you said force = strength?

I never said force isn't related to strength, I said you were wrong to say force = strength. In fact this is exactly what I said:



So nice try on the strawman but that's not gonna fly.

Why can't you just be a man and admit that you were mistaken?

Will you answer the question, or will you keep avoiding? How do you describe a person's strength?

Stop changing the context. We aren't talking about tensile strength here, we are talking about Superman's strength in lifting a building.

And, yes, tensile strength is the force over a cross section. It's an aplication of force.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Will you answer the question, or will you keep avoiding? How do you describe a person's strength?

Stop changing the context. We aren't talking about tensile strength here, we are talking about Superman's strength in lifting a building.

And, yes, tensile strength is the force over a cross section. It's an aplication of force.

I already answered your question, your question which asked for the physics definition of strength. Or are you going to deny that too?

Do you admit that, in physics anyway, force is not equal to strength?

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
I already answered your question, your question which asked for the physics definition of strength. Or are you going to deny that too?

Do you admit that, in physics anyway, force is not equal to strength?

Dude, you are avoiding so utterly.

You claimed that Superman is stronger than Hulk, because he lift up a building. You said that strength isn't force, ergo, Superman lifting the building isn't Superman aplying force on the building to counteract the force of gravity.

So if Force isn't strength within your context, then what is strength.

Tensile strength has nothing to do with your original claim.

h1a8
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Please clarify your understanding of "blunt force".

1. When you lift something vertically, you are applying force with your legs. So, Superman<<<<Hulk. You don't flinch to the point of almost falling by something the size of a fly, you are seriously lowballing now. Your physics is trully primary at best, please research the term inelastic collition.

2. A few times smaller? Hulk is nearly 10x smaller than Surtur's face! And Hulk is what? The size of an elephant? Now you are just lowballing.

3. Accepted.

4. Superman is the size of a normal man and just as heavy. DD sending him flying away after a punch is insignificant to Hulk punching Surtur away.

And Thanos hits harder than the Hulk, so, DD should be handled in the first minutes of the fight.

But I agree DD would eventually come on top.


5. Flesh isn't that dense. Surtur seems to be made of rock, so, i think it's pretty obvious.
Blunt force is the force that combines kinetic energy and momentum.
Getting stabbed by a sword is blunt force. We just call it cutting because we are relatively large in comparison to a the edge of a blade. But if we were to shrink to the size of the edge then it would appear to us that a huge wall is striking a surface (blunt force).

1. You need back, arm, etc muscles to lift as well. Your legs don't do 100% of the lifting. But anyway, you ignored Thanos legs being weaker than Hulk. This thread is ultimately about him, not Hulk.
If the fly stings like a bee then you will flinch. So you are saying that Hulk's fists got caught inside Surtur head instead of hitting it away?
That's ridiculous.


2. If you look at the scene where Hulk strikes Surtur, you will see that Surtur's head is only a few times larger than Hulk's body. Was this a mistake in the art? Let me know and we will go further.

3. You are begging the question here. You are assuming what you are trying to prove. You can't compare Superman being hit a far distance to Surtur feat when the Surtur feat is still in question.

4. Why does Thanos hit harder than Hulk? What are his striking feats that are superior to Hulk's?

5. I never claimed flesh. It could be anything, from fire and ash to molten lava. We don't actually know. We can only speculate.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by h1a8
Blunt force is the force that combines kinetic energy and momentum.
Getting stabbed by a sword is blunt force. We just call it cutting because we are relatively large in comparison to a the edge of a blade. But if we were to shrink to the size of the edge then it would appear to us that a huge wall is striking a surface (blunt force).

1. You need back, arm, etc muscles to lift as well. Your legs don't do 100% of the lifting. But anyway, you ignored Thanos legs being weaker than Hulk. This thread is ultimately about him, not Hulk.
If the fly stings like a bee then you will flinch. So you are saying that Hulk's fists got caught inside Surtur head instead of hitting it away?
That's ridiculous.


2. If you look at the scene where Hulk strikes Surtur, you will see that Surtur's head is only a few times larger than Hulk's body. Was this a mistake in the art? Let me know and we will go further.

3. You are begging the question here. You are assuming what you are trying to prove. You can't compare Superman being hit a far distance to Surtur feat when the Surtur feat is still in question.

4. Why does Thanos hit harder than Hulk? What are his striking feats that are superior to Hulk's?

5. I never claimed flesh. It could be anything, from fire and ash to molten lava. We don't actually know. We can only speculate.

Where did you got that definition from? Because, first of all, I can't seem to find the physics definition of "blunt force". What I've found is the medical definition of a trauma caused by a "blunt force" and it has nothing to do with penetration!

Blunt force trauma:

https://reference.medscape.com/slideshow/blunt-force-trauma-6007991#1

According to this, "blunt force" has nothing to do with getting stabbed and more to do with being hammered.

So, I think your notion of the word is wrong.

1. Thanos legs are weaker than Hulk's? LMAO. Where did you got this from?

2. Dude, it's called "objects that are closer look bigger than objects that are further". Once Hulk lands on Surtur's crown, we can truly scale their sizes! Hulk is much smaller than Surtur's face!

3. You are the one making fallacious statements. The force required to move an object will not always be smaller than the one required to lift the same object. It all depends on the acceleration.

Again, you need to review your physics.

4. Because Thanos defeated Hulk in seconds, while the Hulkbuster didn't. The Hulkbuster is just as strong as the Hulk.

5. You can speculate on the real composition, but not on it being less dense than human fless.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
You said that strength isn't force, ergo, Superman lifting the building isn't Superman aplying force on the building to counteract the force of gravity.



Why do you feel the need to make stuff up? I already quoted exactly what I said, why are you even trying to misrepresent it. Here, let me quote myself again:



Do I mention anywhere in there that Superman wasn't applying any force on the building or that strength has got nothing to do with force? No, I said force isn't equal to strength, which is what you were claiming.

I don't mind proceed on this debate with you but I'm not going to bother if you're going to be completely dishonest about it. That's H1 tactics.

Now, let me ask again so we can move forward. Do you at least agree that from a physics context, force is not equal to strength?

h1a8
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Where did you got that definition from? Because, first of all, I can't seem to find the physics definition of "blunt force". What I've found is the medical definition of a trauma caused by a "blunt force" and it has nothing to do with penetration!

Blunt force trauma:

https://reference.medscape.com/slideshow/blunt-force-trauma-6007991#1

According to this, "blunt force" has nothing to do with getting stabbed and more to do with being hammered.

So, I think your notion of the word is wrong.

1. Thanos legs are weaker than Hulk's? LMAO. Where did you got this from?

2. Dude, it's called "objects that are closer look bigger than objects that are further". Once Hulk lands on Surtur's crown, we can truly scale their sizes! Hulk is much smaller than Surtur's face!

3. You are the one making fallacious statements. The force required to move an object will not always be smaller than the one required to lift the same object. It all depends on the acceleration.

Again, you need to review your physics.

4. Because Thanos defeated Hulk in seconds, while the Hulkbuster didn't. The Hulkbuster is just as strong as the Hulk.

5. You can speculate on the real composition, but not on it being less dense than human fless.

Blunt force is not well defined as it doesn't have a minimum force or minimum cross sectional area. Touching someone slightly is applying a forceful impact. Touching with the point of a knife vs the head of a hammer is the same thing.

Stabbing with sharp point = blunt force impact. This is easily seen by imagining the observer being smaller than the point that's striking an object.

1. We go by feats.

2. Noooo. Hulk was on Surtur's head punching him with no effect.

3. I know this. That has nothing to do with what I said. My point is that you are assuming mass while we are arguing about it. You can't assume what you are trying to prove.

4. Defeating Hulk in seconds is not proof. Hulk didnt fight Hulk nor did Hulk apply the same hits to the same areas oh Hulk for a comparison. Thanos hit Hulk a bunch of times and in vital areas. Plus Hulk didn't go flying anywhere.

5. We don't know is my point. Surtur is a magical being. All we can do is guess.

FrothByte
Originally posted by h1a8
Touching with the point of a knife vs the head of a hammer is the same thing.

Sorry, I'm just going to butt in here because I have tell you... you're flat out wrong.

Put a sharp knife's edge across the palm of your hand with just enough pressure to indent the skin a bit. Is this a forceful impact? Not really, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't bruise or hurt yourself from this light pressure. Now without changing the pressure, quickly slide the blade back and forth in a sawing motion. Chances are you'll end up cutting your skin.

Now, try this same experiment with the head of a hammer and I'm pretty sure you won't cause yourself even the slightest injury.

relentless1
ok, lets settle some shit here; blunt force and laceration trauma are completely different things... this is the reason why a bulletproof vest cannot stop a knife unless you put trauma plating into it as well... only an idiot would try and say that these two forms of damage happen in the same way

Doomsday wins h2h rather easily btw

Eon Blue
Originally posted by FrothByte
Sorry, I'm just going to butt in here because I have tell you... you're flat out wrong.

Put a sharp knife's edge across the palm of your hand with just enough pressure to indent the skin a bit. Is this a forceful impact? Not really, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't bruise or hurt yourself from this light pressure. Now without changing the pressure, quickly slide the blade back and forth in a sawing motion. Chances are you'll end up cutting your skin.

Now, try this same experiment with the head of a hammer and I'm pretty sure you won't cause yourself even the slightest injury.

Why are you feeding the troll?

h1a8
Originally posted by relentless1
ok, lets settle some shit here; blunt force and laceration trauma are completely different things... this is the reason why a bulletproof vest cannot stop a knife unless you put trauma plating into it as well... only an idiot would try and say that these two forms of damage happen in the same way

Doomsday wins h2h rather easily btw
Wrong. It all stems from pressure.

Pressure = Force /Area
A sharp point has a small area and thus a large pressure.
Let's calculate.
Let's say the width of the tip of a knife is 0.5mm (smaller than this) and squarish. So the cross sectional area is
(0.5mm)^2 = 0.25 mm^2 = 2.5e-7m^2
Lets say we apply a stabbing force of 50lb or 222N.

So the pressure would be 222/2.5e-7 =8.9e8 Pa

Now let's look at a 9mm bullet.
Mass =124gr or 0.008kg
Speed = 375m/s
Stopping distance = 1inch or 0.0254m
diameter of bullet = 9mm =0.009m
cross sectional area =pi*r^2 =pi*(0.0045m)^2 =6.4e-5m^2


Force x stopping distance = change in kinetic energy
Force = change in kinetic energy /stopping distance
= 1/2 mass x velocity ^2/distance
=(0.5*0.008*375^2)/0.0254 =22145N

Pressure =Force /Area = 22145/6.4e-5 = 3.47e8 Pa

So the knife gave more than 2.5 times more pressure than the bullet.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Sorry, I'm just going to butt in here because I have tell you... you're flat out wrong.

Put a sharp knife's edge across the palm of your hand with just enough pressure to indent the skin a bit. Is this a forceful impact? Not really, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't bruise or hurt yourself from this light pressure. Now without changing the pressure, quickly slide the blade back and forth in a sawing motion. Chances are you'll end up cutting your skin.

Now, try this same experiment with the head of a hammer and I'm pretty sure you won't cause yourself even the slightest injury.

It is forceful impact because you applied a force in a collision.
The lightest touch has force and is therefore a forceful impact.

But you are changing the pressure when you saw back and forth.
There are micro serrations on a knife's edge. These points have even smaller areas and will locally cut through your hand.

FrothByte
Originally posted by h1a8
Wrong. It all stems from pressure.

Pressure = Force /Area
A sharp point has a small area and thus a large pressure.
Let's calculate.
Let's say the width of the tip of a knife is 0.5mm (smaller than this) and squarish. So the cross sectional area is
(0.5mm)^2 = 0.25 mm^2 = 2.5e-7m^2
Lets say we apply a stabbing force of 50lb or 222N.

So the pressure would be 222/2.5e-7 =8.9e8 Pa

Now let's look at a 9mm bullet.
Mass =124gr or 0.008kg
Speed = 375m/s
Stopping distance = 1inch or 0.0254m
diameter of bullet = 9mm =0.009m
cross sectional area =pi*r^2 =pi*(0.0045m)^2 =6.4e-5m^2


Force x stopping distance = change in kinetic energy
Force = change in kinetic energy /stopping distance
= 1/2 mass x velocity ^2/distance
=(0.5*0.008*375^2)/0.0254 =22145N

Pressure =Force /Area = 22145/6.4e-5 = 3.47e8 Pa

So the knife gave more than 2.5 times more pressure than the bullet.


It is forceful impact because you applied a force in a collision.
The lightest touch has force and is therefore a forceful impact.

But you are changing the pressure when you saw back and forth.
There are micro serrations on a knife's edge. These points have even smaller areas and will locally cut through your hand.

No one believes your pseudo-math dude. You claimed the point of a knife is no different from the head of a hammer. Only an idiot makes a statement like that.

Silent Master
Originally posted by FrothByte
No one believes your pseudo-math dude. You claimed the point of a knife is no different from the head of a hammer. Only an idiot makes a statement like that.

He also once claimed that bullets hit with a PSI of 313 million tons.

h1a8
Originally posted by FrothByte
No one believes your pseudo-math dude. You claimed the point of a knife is no different from the head of a hammer. Only an idiot makes a statement like that.

First of all, you are misunderstanding me.
That's what happens when you butt into a debate with two other people.

When I said they were the same I meant at the fundamental level (atoms and electric forces, etc). I even stated that if we were smaller than the edge of a sharp knife then the edge of a sharp knife would appear to be a huge wall hitting a bigger wall (the material being cut). Our perception would change and view the wall striking as blunt force.

The math just shows that a knife has more pressure.

Why do sharps objects cut easier than dull or non sharp objects? Did you learn the Science of that?

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
Why do you feel the need to make stuff up? I already quoted exactly what I said, why are you even trying to misrepresent it. Here, let me quote myself again:



Do I mention anywhere in there that Superman wasn't applying any force on the building or that strength has got nothing to do with force? No, I said force isn't equal to strength, which is what you were claiming.

I don't mind proceed on this debate with you but I'm not going to bother if you're going to be completely dishonest about it. That's H1 tactics.

Now, let me ask again so we can move forward. Do you at least agree that from a physics context, force is not equal to strength?

Lol, you just quoted something that isn't your original statement. Let me refresh your memory:

Originally posted by FrothByte
Superman carried an entire building for a prolonged duration.

Originally posted by FrothByte

Hulk moved Surtur via punching him. That's a striking feat, not a strength feat.

Your claim is that Superman's feat is one of strength, whereas Hulk isn't. As if both feats don't involve force, specially in this scenario, where "strength" (lifting a building) is literally force. You need force to lift up something.

So, if strength under your argument above, isn't force, then, how do you describe it?


Quick tip:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_strength

It's pretty clear by now, that your notion of strength under the scene in context is erroneous.

Me, dishonest? Dude, literally every site (dictionaries, wikipedia, physics pages) are clearly telling you that Force is Strength! Even Thesaurus, is saying that strength is a synonym of force!

The problem with you is that you fail to realize that strength is the urban word used to describe force! When you are at the gym, you say: that guy is stronger than the other because he is lifting a heavier weight, instead of going all scientific and saying: that guy is applying a greater force on the weight than that other guy.

Now, if you are so convinced that I'm being dishonest, then I'm willing to take this to a BZ.

That should be enough to demonstrate that I'm serious here and that I'm confident over my understanding of physics

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by h1a8
Blunt force is not well defined as it doesn't have a minimum force or minimum cross sectional area. Touching someone slightly is applying a forceful impact. Touching with the point of a knife vs the head of a hammer is the same thing.

Stabbing with sharp point = blunt force impact. This is easily seen by imagining the observer being smaller than the point that's striking an object.

1. We go by feats.

2. Noooo. Hulk was on Surtur's head punching him with no effect.

3. I know this. That has nothing to do with what I said. My point is that you are assuming mass while we are arguing about it. You can't assume what you are trying to prove.

4. Defeating Hulk in seconds is not proof. Hulk didnt fight Hulk nor did Hulk apply the same hits to the same areas oh Hulk for a comparison. Thanos hit Hulk a bunch of times and in vital areas. Plus Hulk didn't go flying anywhere.

5. We don't know is my point. Surtur is a magical being. All we can do is guess.

h1, there's nothing wrong about being wrong. People is wrong every day. You inventing science is way worse than you admiting you were wrong over your understanding of blunt force.

The definition of blunt force clearly contradicts your understanding of it. You hitting something with a hammer isn't the same as you stabbing something.

If you read the site that I quoted, which is a very trustful site, clearly states that blunt force is the contrary of a penetrating force

1. Which feat shows that Thanos' legs are weaker than the Hulk's? Dude, you are just inventing now!

2. Moving goalpoasts? We aren't talking about the effect of Hulk's punches while on Surtur's face, we were talking about Hulk's size in relation to Surtur's head.

You are just evading now. I will take it as if you have realized that you were wrong about Surtur's face being small.

3. Now you are lying:

Originally posted by h1a8

3. Also punching someone back takes way less force than punching them off the ground (which requires the force of their weight) or lifting them

You literally made up a false statement, which I had to correct for you. Your error was to make an absolute statement by saying than punching someone takes less force than lifting them.

4. Apples to apples comparison. Please pay attention. We can use the Hulkbuster as a parameter for this.

5. Well, it's an educated guess to say that Surtur's composition is stronger than a person's.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Lol, you just quoted something that isn't your original statement. Let me refresh your memory:





Your claim is that Superman's feat is one of strength, whereas Hulk isn't. As if both feats don't involve force, specially in this scenario, where "strength" (lifting a building) is literally force. You need force to lift up something.

So, if strength under your argument above, isn't force, then, how do you describe it?


Quick tip:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_strength

It's pretty clear by now, that your notion of strength under the scene in context is erroneous.

Me, dishonest? Dude, literally every site (dictionaries, wikipedia, physics pages) are clearly telling you that Force is Strength! Even Thesaurus, is saying that strength is a synonym of force!

The problem with you is that you fail to realize that strength is the urban word used to describe force! When you are at the gym, you say: that guy is stronger than the other because he is lifting a heavier weight, instead of going all scientific and saying: that guy is applying a greater force on the weight than that other guy.

Now, if you are so convinced that I'm being dishonest, then I'm willing to take this to a BZ.

That should be enough to demonstrate that I'm serious here and that I'm confident over my understanding of physics



^ read your statement above and realize just how much of a liar you sound. Yes, I claimed Superman's feat is one of strength whereas Hulk's is one of striking power. Nowhere there did I ever claim they didn't include force. You literally made that up, as proof that it's seen nowhere in my posts.

Now, can we go back to an honest debate or are you going to troll some more?

Though if you want to BZ then sure, I challenge you to BZ the fact that in the context of physics, force is not equal to strength. Or if you prefer, we can BZ the fact that striking power is not directly equal to strength. Which will you accept?

h1a8
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
h1, there's nothing wrong about being wrong. People is wrong every day. You inventing science is way worse than you admiting you were wrong over your understanding of blunt force.

The definition of blunt force clearly contradicts your understanding of it. You hitting something with a hammer isn't the same as you stabbing something.

If you read the site that I quoted, which is a very trustful site, clearly states that blunt force is the contrary of a penetrating force

1. Which feat shows that Thanos' legs are weaker than the Hulk's? Dude, you are just inventing now!

2. Moving goalpoasts? We aren't talking about the effect of Hulk's punches while on Surtur's face, we were talking about Hulk's size in relation to Surtur's head.

You are just evading now. I will take it as if you have realized that you were wrong about Surtur's face being small.

3. Now you are lying:



You literally made up a false statement, which I had to correct for you. Your error was to make an absolute statement by saying than punching someone takes less force than lifting them.

4. Apples to apples comparison. Please pay attention. We can use the Hulkbuster as a parameter for this.

5. Well, it's an educated guess to say that Surtur's composition is stronger than a person's.

Now you are using drugs. What happened to you? Every time I start winning a debate you start trolling and acting like you are slow.

1. The definition doesn't give the minimum size an object has to be in order to be blunt and not sharp. What's the minimum size?

2. You claimed that closer objects appears larger than further objects. I stated that Hulk was shown on top of Surtur's head. He wasn't shown closer or further but equal distance from the camera. That was my point in which you missed.

3. What does my error have anything to do with you assuming what you are trying to prove. We haven't established mass or established whether or not Surtur flinched.

4. Hulkbuster has nothing to with this. Did Hulkbuster hit Hulk in the exact same vital spots and the same amount of hits all in quick succession where Hulk can't recover in time?

5. It could be that Surtur is made of flame and ash or at least as dense as a person.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
^ read your statement above and realize just how much of a liar you sound. Yes, I claimed Superman's feat is one of strength whereas Hulk's is one of striking power. Nowhere there did I ever claim they didn't include force. You literally made that up, as proof that it's seen nowhere in my posts.

Now, can we go back to an honest debate or are you going to troll some more?

Though if you want to BZ then sure, I challenge you to BZ the fact that in the context of physics, force is not equal to strength. Or if you prefer, we can BZ the fact that striking power is not directly equal to strength. Which will you accept?

Fine! You want to BZ, let's do it.

Subject being debated: Strength as regards to a person lifting something is the same as force.

Accept?

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Fine! You want to BZ, let's do it.

Subject being debated: Strength as regards to a person lifting something is the same as force.

Accept?

LoL. If you're so willing to BZ then why are you changing the parameters? I said force as applied in physics is not the same as strength as applied in physics.

You claimed the strength of a person can be equated with force using the formula force = mass * acceleration.

So if you want to BZ something, either we BZ what I said, which is physics force is not the same as physics strength. Or we debate what you said, which is a person's strength is calculable by the formula force = mass * acceleration.

So, which will it be?

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by h1a8
Now you are using drugs. What happened to you? Every time I start winning a debate you start trolling and acting like you are slow.

1. The definition doesn't give the minimum size an object has to be in order to be blunt and not sharp. What's the minimum size?

2. You claimed that closer objects appears larger than further objects. I stated that Hulk was shown on top of Surtur's head. He wasn't shown closer or further but equal distance from the camera. That was my point in which you missed.

3. What does my error have anything to do with you assuming what you are trying to prove. We haven't established mass or established whether or not Surtur flinched.

4. Hulkbuster has nothing to with this. Did Hulkbuster hit Hulk in the exact same vital spots and the same amount of hits all in quick succession where Hulk can't recover in time?

5. It could be that Surtur is made of flame and ash or at least as dense as a person.

Science>>> h1

I know you are pretty retarded when physics comes to bear, but honestly! You can't read now?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunt_trauma


You don't get to make up science! Definition of a term>>> Your understanding of a term.

2. Yeah, in the scene, where Hulk is standing on top of Surtur's crown, it's clear that Surtur's face is much bigger than the Hulk!

3. Concession accepted. Except I never said that Surtur was being lifted, nor that the force requiered to move Surtur was bigger than the one requiered to lift him.

I said that it's plain out stupid to pretend than lifting a building is a greater feat of strength than moving a 10x bigger object!

4. Hulkbuster hit Hulk many more times than Thanos did. That's more than enough to show that Thanos' punches>>> Hulkbuster's.

5. Surtur is a solid. If Surtur was made of the exact same composition or one less dense than a person's, then the Hulk would have smashed his face! It's pretty obvious that Surtur is way denser.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
LoL. If you're so willing to BZ then why are you changing the parameters? I said force as applied in physics is not the same as strength as applied in physics.

You claimed the strength of a person can be equated with force using the formula force = mass * acceleration.

So if you want to BZ something, either we BZ what I said, which is physics force is not the same as physics strength. Or we debate what you said, which is a person's strength is calculable by the formula force = mass * acceleration.

So, which will it be?

No, you are changing the parameters. Your original post clearly stated that strength is lifting a building in Superman's case.

I made a claim over that statement. You've been switcing to other types of strength. Why? Because you know you are doomed.

Accept or it's evident whose the one trolling here.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
No, you are changing the parameters. Your original post clearly stated that strength is lifting a building in Superman's case.

I made a claim over that statement. You've been switcing to other types of strength. Why? Because you know you are doomed.

Accept or it's evident whose the one trolling here.

Ah, so you're lying again. This is exactly what I said back in page 3:



I've never changed that stance and am perfectly willing to BZ you on that.

You on the other hand said this:




So you're basically claiming that the strength of a person is calculable by the formula of force = mass * acceleration.

Is that correct or are you now claiming you were mistaken?

Are you willing to BZ me on the topic: A person's strength is calculable by the formula force = mass * acceleration?

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
Ah, so you're lying again. This is exactly what I said back in page 3:



I've never changed that stance and am perfectly willing to BZ you on that.

You on the other hand said this:




So you're basically claiming that the strength of a person is calculable by the formula of force = mass * acceleration.

Is that correct or are you now claiming you were mistaken?

Are you willing to BZ me on the topic: A person's strength is calculable by the formula force = mass * acceleration?

Thank you for proving me right. If you were not so obsessed on proving me wrong, and were just willing to honestly debate (willing to accept other's opinion) you'd realize that your second quote has already been proven.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Show me evidence that strength (pertaining to a person's strength) is exactly equivalent to force (pertaining to force as defined in physics).



How do you calculate the force exerted on an object FrothByte?

Oh, don't worry, you already answered for me!!:

Originally posted by FrothByte
force = mass * acceleration


So, the physical force of a man or animal is the ability to exert force on another object, where you calculate force exerted by muliplying the mass of the object times the acceleration.

So my claim is right.

Superman's strength in lifting a builiding is basically the force his applying on the building.

But, if sure, if you want to hear the samething from the judges, then we debate "a person's physical strength in lifting an object" is the same as force under the context of Superman lifting the building.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Thank you for proving me right. If you were not so obsessed on proving me wrong, and were just willing to honestly debate (willing to accept other's opinion) you'd realize that your second quote has already been proven.





How do you calculate the force exerted on an object FrothByte?

Oh, don't worry, you already answered for me!!:




So, the physical force of a man or animal is the ability to exert force on another object, where you calculate force exerted by muliplying the mass of the object times the acceleration.

So my claim is right.

Superman's strength in lifting a builiding is basically the force his applying on the building.

But, if sure, if you want to hear the samething from the judges, then we debate "a person's physical strength in lifting an object" is the same as force under the context of Superman lifting the building.

So what you're saying is, you agree to BZ me on the topic that: A person's strength is equal to the amount of force they generate and can be calculated by the formula force = mass * acceleration.

Is this correct?

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
So what you're saying is, you agree to BZ me on the topic that: A person's strength is equal to the amount of force they generate and can be calculated by the formula force = mass * acceleration.

Is this correct?

Yes, under our given context, of measuring the strength of a man based on lifting an object (Like Superman).

Don't insult me by even bothering bringing tensile strength.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Yes, under our given context, of measuring the strength of a man based on lifting an object (Like Superman).

Don't insult me by even bothering bringing tensile strength.

That's fine. You're saying that strength (as in a person's lifting strength) is equal to force (as in force as described in physics) and thus can be accurately measured by the formula force = mass * acceleration.

Are we in agreement on this?

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
That's fine. You're saying that strength (as in a person's lifting strength) is equal to force (as in force as described in physics) and thus can be accurately measured by the formula force = mass * acceleration.

Are we in agreement on this?

That's okay.

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
That's okay.

Ok. Do you want to organize the BZ or should I?

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
Ok. Do you want to organize the BZ or should I?

Do you agree to a single post BZ? I think we have debated this for too long now.

A single post outlining our arguments, to be sent to a neutral party for him to post both arguments in the BZ thread. We pick 3 judges.

Sounds good?

FrothByte
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Do you agree to a single post BZ? I think we have debated this for too long now.

A single post outlining our arguments, to be sent to a neutral party for him to post both arguments in the BZ thread. We pick 3 judges.

Sounds good?

Sounds good.

h1a8
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Science>>> h1

I know you are pretty retarded when physics comes to bear, but honestly! You can't read now?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunt_trauma


You don't get to make up science! Definition of a term>>> Your understanding of a term.

2. Yeah, in the scene, where Hulk is standing on top of Surtur's crown, it's clear that Surtur's face is much bigger than the Hulk!

3. Concession accepted. Except I never said that Surtur was being lifted, nor that the force requiered to move Surtur was bigger than the one requiered to lift him.

I said that it's plain out stupid to pretend than lifting a building is a greater feat of strength than moving a 10x bigger object!

4. Hulkbuster hit Hulk many more times than Thanos did. That's more than enough to show that Thanos' punches>>> Hulkbuster's.

5. Surtur is a solid. If Surtur was made of the exact same composition or one less dense than a person's, then the Hulk would have smashed his face! It's pretty obvious that Surtur is way denser.

1. What does injury definitions have to do with anything? A blunt force attack can penetrate or not. The fact that it did penetrate does not change the fact that it was a blunt force attack. We are discussing the whether durability of blunt force scales to cutting force. You are confusing the issue.

2. I stated that Surtur's head was only a few times bigger. This contradicts the size you believe Surtur was.

3. I wasn't talking about lifting vs hitting back. I was talking about the fact that you are assuming mass and acceleration when you are trying to prove it.

4. Hulk buster hit Hulk with a lot of baby jab hits. It did not hit Hulk in vital areas like Thanos did. Also it did not hit Hulk in succession as Thanos did. Hulk was able to recover due to the time between hits. You have to address ALL OF THIS. Picking and choosing what parts you want to address and parts you want to ignore IS TROLLING.

5. Again, density and toughness are not the same thing. Superman is as dense
As a human but solid steel is like tissue paper to him.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by FrothByte
Sounds good.

Fine, I'll PM you to coordinate further.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by h1a8
1. What does injury definitions have to do with anything? A blunt force attack can penetrate or not. The fact that it did penetrate does not change the fact that it was a blunt force attack. We are discussing the whether durability of blunt force scales to cutting force. You are confusing the issue.

2. I stated that Surtur's head was only a few times bigger. This contradicts the size you believe Surtur was.

3. I wasn't talking about lifting vs hitting back. I was talking about the fact that you are assuming mass and acceleration when you are trying to prove it.

4. Hulk buster hit Hulk with a lot of baby jab hits. It did not hit Hulk in vital areas like Thanos did. Also it did not hit Hulk in succession as Thanos did. Hulk was able to recover due to the time between hits. You have to address ALL OF THIS. Picking and choosing what parts you want to address and parts you want to ignore IS TROLLING.

5. Again, density and toughness are not the same thing. Superman is as dense
As a human but solid steel is like tissue paper to him.

1 No, the durabilily of you cutting something with a sword doesn't scale to the durability of you hammering the samething.

There are different factors embedded in such interactions, just like the several sites I've posted show.

Your comprenhension of reality doesn't translate into science, at least not in this planet nor in the known universe.

2. Only a "few times". If you mean that 10x is a "few times" then we agree.

3. Okay, I completely lost you on this point.

4. Vital points? Do you even know the definition of that?

Either way, samething could apply for this case.

Thanos would hit Doomsday way better than Superman would ever do.

5. Won't continue with something that anyone with a sense of logic would comprenhend!

Surtur》》》Building.

Lestov16
Pretty sure that Thanos will die here. The moment he lands a hit on Doomsday, DD will adapt to his strength and beat him senseless. Non-IG Thanos' best feat is going toe-to-toe with Hulk, and it is HIGHLY ARGUABLE whether MCU Hulk is stronger than DCEU Supes.

Josh_Alexander
Originally posted by Lestov16
Pretty sure that Thanos will die here. The moment he lands a hit on Doomsday, DD will adapt to his strength and beat him senseless. Non-IG Thanos' best feat is going toe-to-toe with Hulk, and it is HIGHLY ARGUABLE whether MCU Hulk is stronger than DCEU Supes.

Is it though? DCEU DD doesn't seem to "adapt". Sure, he seems invulnerable to most stuff and has regenerative abilities, but that's pretty much it.

Lestov16
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Is it though? DCEU DD doesn't seem to "adapt". Sure, he seems invulnerable to most stuff and has regenerative abilities, but that's pretty much it.

Are you serious dawg? Dat nigga Doomsday adapted to A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION. Sounds like you're trying to downplay DD's abilities.

Also, even if DD is merely "invulnerable" to nukes, that is still a better durability feat than anything Thanos has shown (especially considering how Thanos' entire army got wiped out by a nuke in the first Avengers movie)

Silent Master
Not saying this will happen, but given that DD grew a spike rather than regenerating a hand when WW cut his off. what do you think would happen if an opponent cut off his head.

Inhuman
Originally posted by Silent Master
Not saying this will happen, but given that DD grew a spike rather than regenerating a hand when WW cut off his off. what do you think would happen if an opponent cut off his head.

lol you read my mind. DD didnt show true regeneration. He regenerated a bone spike where his hand was.
Cut enough of him and it will be a pile of bone spikes on the floor.

Adam Grimes
Doomsday breaks him.

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