I think that it also depends on how hard you actually hit it, and how easily was it destroyed with a punch, because one way or the other the object is still being displaced. Whether it happens by means of accelerated velocity, or impact velocity, the result or effect would be the same. The planet would be removed from it's original position and destroyed.
I'm going with busting, cuz not only do you have to break the planet up, but the pieces, driven by the impact energy, have to move away from each other fast enough so that the planet doesn't reform (albiet in messed up fashion) from gravity.
Also, the transfer of impact energy, from a punch to the planet's surface to all through the planet, is impressive in itself, given all the punch should really do is make a hole the length of the puncher's arm. At least with planet-moving one can argue a "telekinetic" effect which keeps the planet intact and the lifter/pusher from going through the planet like a BB through cake ...
... though I suppose one could argue TK shock waves from a punch.
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
I remember doing some research on this myself, some years back, the energy required to move the earth, break it up, etc (though I don't recall what was toughest). Oh what peeps like to calculate in their spare time.
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
How many planets have those people moved or destroyed? We are talking comics here. Tell superman to push his earth 50 MILES then destroy it. I could take a tow truck and pull or push a semi at 80 miles an hour or get a large crane to lift the semi, then plant bombs around the semi to destroy it. Which has more energy output? Stop using crap that has NEVER been done. Man has lifted, moved and destroyed a lot of things. When that space shuttle was headed to space, it was using energy to escape gravity yet it had PLENTY of Solid fuel left to use. But when it exploded, it took all that fuel at once to destroy it.
I just...wow. People denying basic math...the bias is on full display. You really can't deny the numbers and maintain a façade of being fair. By denying BASIC QUANTIFIED FACTS, people here are totally outing themselves as the biased posters they are. There isn't anything open to interpretation. The math is the math. Moving a planet is more impressive than destroying it. End of story.
First he says we're talking comics,then uses real world examples.
What's more impressive, tearing Vision in half or tearing Jarvis the butler in half?
If anybody says tearing Vision is more impressive, I will use JBLs logic and say well,how many times has Jarvis been torn in half vs Vision?
Space shuttles, trucks, watermelons, whatever. Fact remains. A PhD in physics, backed up by a guy who's an expert in astrophysics, plus a US Navy academic, have all calculated the amount of energy. It's basic math. Denying it just shows your bias,or ignorance of mathematical concepts. Either or, it doesn't look good.
But the fact remains. You need twice as much energy to move the Earth at ~25mph (not even talking about lightspeed now lol) vs blowing it up.
Because, funnily enough, space shuttles etc aren't planets.
Edit: if he's referring to how we shouldn't use scientific formulas to evaluate which is more impressive.... well, sure. Only if it defeats your argument, I suppose. Let's go with 'gut feeling' and 'bias' instead, because that's a hell of a lot easier.
Last edited by DarkSaint85 on Sep 21st, 2017 at 05:10 PM