nope. It's the reason you and your other superman fans want it to be number one at all costs. By the way, your numbers and calculations were wrong. But we know where you got it from.
If we're giving this appropriate treatment, the answers are probably something like the following:
1. For Philosophia, who's playing The Dozens with me, "Write to whoever manufactured yours. I wouldn't know."
2. For CosmicComet, regarding the paint chips in art class comment to JBL?
Lead hasn't been used in consumer paint since about 1978.
However, since, outside this thread, lead is a serious problem that shouldn't only be joked about, click on the following:
3. To Pr, concerning his query a page ago?
JBL may not understand what gravity is, but neither do you.
This is not an insult; no less an authority than NASA says that NO ONE has the answer to that question:
a) applying "real-world" physics to fictional objects following fictional rules of physics doesn't always work. Or even "often" work, necessarily.
b) even if we treat comic showings as real world you run into another problem:
Your equations assume the planet in question is nearly identical in size, shape, mass, weight, and composition to our own Earth. In "reality", the planets in question vary in nearly all these dimensions. Superman in Our Worlds At War, for instance, is not pushing Earth, but Pluto, a planet now regarded as too small to even BE a planet. Mass compared to Earth?
Although all of the planets beyond Mars are gas giants, Pluto is small and rocky. The tiny body has a mass of only 1.31 x 1022 kilograms, about two-tenths of a percent of Earth's. It has a volume of 1.5 billion cubic miles (6.4 billion cubic km).
And yet real world physics are all we have to go by, unless the comic comes up with some reason for it not to count. So, Blue, why should we not go by real world science when trying to determine which is more impressive between pushing a planet and destroying it? What reasons do you put forth for why destroying a planet is more impressive? What are you basing this off of? In the absence of anything else, real world science is what we have to use. I'm curious as to what reasoning you are using for justification for destroying a planet being more impressive. I only ask because you seem to be championing JBL's cause. If this isn't the case and I've misunderstood you, then nevermind.
Insofar as JBL was countering D.S., the proper response is the one I GAVE to DS:
----------
b) Your equations assume the planet in question is nearly identical in size, shape, mass, weight, and composition to our own Earth. In "reality", the planets in question vary in nearly all these dimensions.
----------
And this I can show in due course of time. Indeed, I already started with the case of WarWorld, from back in the days when Kara and company were truly world-moving figures.
Link to page of Kara moving Bizarroworld.
Note that it takes less effort than the actual "lifting" of Bizarroworld would require -- at least as we've defined planet "lifting" to date:
Gender: Male Location: Planning to take over the WORLD!
the question is largely unanswerable in terms of comics. in the real world, pushing a planet at light speed is redundant because the energy required to push ANY body with mass at light speed is infinite. adding a planetary body to infinity is.... yeah, exactly. if we were looking in the real world and superman could push a ball of adamantium at light speed, it would require an infinitely greater amount of energy than it would take for him to smash said ball.
in a comic, just because he can push adamantium at light speed, clearly doesn't mean he could smash said ball.
because achieving light speed in comics is such a common place thing, we need to completely throw out real world numbers imo. i mean we're talking about a medium where (some believe) hyperion held apart 2 UNIVERSES. is THAT>destroying a planet or moving one at light speed?
anyway, moving a planetary body at light speed SHOULD require infinite energy. it doesn't in a comic world, so it becomes one more impressive feat, but quantitatively impossible to gauge in comparison to destroying a planet, especially one that is stated to be more massive than earth.
in general, in the comic world, i would think full on destroying a planet (depending on the number of blows required) would be more impressive but the degrees of 'impressiveness' are close. trying to prove this quantitatively is....beyond pedantic. i think the only sure thing is that lifting a planetary weight is the least impressive by far. /shrug
You can't move an entire planet without destroying it anyway.
Its way too heavy relative to its durability/strength.
Square cube law. These same weirdos keep talking about moving a rock vs breaking it but when a rock is really, really huge, moving it and breaking it are the same thing. ...because it would break apart when moved.
Moving The Earth at 1 diameter per second (so 8000 miles a second) is only low relativistic and thats still way higher energy output than simply busting the planet.
Gender: Male Location: Planning to take over the WORLD!
in the real world i agree 100%. that obviously doesn't happen (all the time) in comics which further illustrates why the use of RL numbers in this thread supporting either side is...
which is why we need in-comic points for view. wasn't there a scene of majestros moving planets around like chess pieces using special gloves or something....?
i wonder if more people have moved planets or planetary bodies in comics or have destroyed them under their own power...?
I don't know if this question can be answered but which one is more impressive, pushing a planet or powering through an attack that can push/hurl planets.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 22nd, 2017 04:30 PM
is THAT>destroying a planet or moving one at light speed?
