even if flash's hand didnt break, i doubt the impact would do much to clark, if anything at all.
now if flash had super strength then we might have a fight here, point is that clark can survive a nuclear explosion with basically no residual effects and a punch at near lightspeed from a solid object isnt as destructive as a molecular explosion AT lightspeed.
since flash doesn't have super strength i doubt he could do anything. his punch might knock clark back a few hundred feet, but it wouldn't hurt him.
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
even if flash's hand didnt break, i doubt the impact would do much to clark, if anything at all.now if flash had super strength then we might have a fight here, point is that clark can survive a nuclear explosion with basically no residual effects and a punch at near lightspeed from a solid object isnt as destructive as a molecular explosion AT lightspeed.
since flash doesn't have super strength i doubt he could do anything. his punch might knock clark back a few hundred feet, but it wouldn't hurt him.
The point was that his punch would do SOMETHING to superman it wouldn't be something that supes could completely ignore.
I dont know, I disagree I think a punch at near light-speed would be more damaging to single person than an atomic blast. The only thing moving at light speed in an atomic explosion is light.
The white martian was on Supes level, and Flash knocked his ass out....the only reason people are saying supes wins is because well he is supes....he "cant" lose to any other hero, EVER because its not possible, he is an ICON, a LEGEND!....sorta like with Wolverine exept not that fanboyish since most of the time there are right....but this time Wally could destroy him with the High velocity punch (no such thing as infinte mass people!) or just stopping him cold by stealing his speed, or any number of things that he could do
Originally posted by Hegemon875
The point was that his punch would do SOMETHING to superman it wouldn't be something that supes could completely ignore.I dont know, I disagree I think a punch at near light-speed would be more damaging to single person than an atomic blast. The only thing moving at light speed in an atomic explosion is light.
well actually no, the force created by a single point blow of a solid object at near lightspeed has minimal effects in comparison to a subatomic nuclear blast.
nuclear strikes literally destroy everything at a molecular level, an impact at near lightspeed would simply create a super huge inertial and kinetic force, which is not atomic by any means. basically it would throw superman back momentarily at near the same speed as he was hit, since clark can withstand blows of that magnitude pretty easily. (a regular person would prolly explode but thier remains would be a mile away) but since clark cant explode it would simply throw him back at a high speed.
a nuclear blast however destroys things at a molecular level, it creates a chain reaction of fusion particles that create mass amounts of energy. people are basically vaporised, a subatomic strike is far more damaging to a single person then a solid object at high speeds.
at least with hitting someone like that they'd still be, well, in pieces, but at least there would be pieces, nuclear strikes will completley vaporise people within the center point of the explosion.
its simple physics, if clark can survive a nuclear strike unharmed, flash's punch would not do anything other then throw superman back pretty far and fast.
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Flash is untouchable, hes faster then supes, can't be hit by his heat eyes.. and has his infinate mass punch...
Infinite mass punch? Since when is the mass of an object determined by its speed? Force equals mass times accelaration, mass doesn't equal force times accelaration.
Originally posted by DarkAge
Infinite mass punch? Since when is the mass of an object determined by its speed? Force equals mass times accelaration, mass doesn't equal force times accelaration.
This is just hearsay but it it has something to do with special relativity.
Link: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99186.htm
Quote: Question: How does mass increase when you approach the speed of light?
------------------------------------------------
Answer 1: This question addresses Einstein's theory of Special Relativity.
If my answer does not satisfy you, there are many clear books on
the topic in any university bookstore.
When a particle/object travels close to the speed of light, and is
thus considered "relativistic", the energy of the particle is
expressed as E = (gamma)*mass*velocity. Here gamma is a relativistic
factor that is greater than unity. So, one could consider the
factor (gamma)*mass a new mass, one that is larger than the mass
of the particle when it is at rest. This is why you hear that
mass increases when you approach the speed of light. It can be
argued that it is only an appearance of greater mass, or that it
depends on how you look at the problem. In short, it is all relative. 😉
It should be noted, however, that in order for an object to actually
reach the speed of light, it must have no mass, since E=mass*speed of
light^2. This is true of massless particles such as the photon,
the "particle" that transports light. (Notation:* means multiply by
and ^2 means squared).
robin d erbacher
=========================================================
Answer 2: I apologize for being picky, but in the last response, I think
that should be the "momentum" = gamma*mass*velocity.
timo p grayson
Another Source
Link: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec96/844716828.Ph.r.html
Quote: The mass of an object does increase as it gets faster, and theoretically infinite at the speed of light. What this really means is that only massless things like photons (particles of light) actually travel at the speed of light. Massive bodies like electrons or rockets can only ALMOST get there. This is just because the force required to accelerate them closer and closer to light speed increases as they get heavier. So you would need an infinite force to actually reach it.
Why do such effects occur? It's basically because times and distances as we understand them day-to-day behave very strangely if you are moving fast. Imagine someone leaning out of a train window and gently tossing a baseball in the opposite direction, back along the track. He sees the ball move away from him slowly. Someone standing by the railway line will see the ball moving in the same direction as the train, just slightly slower. This dependance of speeds on the motion of whoever is observing them is normal, everyday 'classical' physics. It assumes, sensibly, that time ticks along at the same rate however fast you move, and that space stays the same size and shape. However, the speed of light is actually constant, unvarying, fixed. This has been checked many many times by experiments, and there are also good (but subtle) theoretical reasons for this being true. So, imagine the person on the train now shines a flashlight back the way he or she came. According to our common-sense example with the baseball, the speed of the light should look slower to the person on the ground than it looks to the person in the train. In fact, they both see the same speed. Distances and times ACTUALLY CHANGE. The train is 100m long when it's at rest, and the person on the train measures it to be the same length when it's moving at, say, half the speed of light. To the person by the track, it looks as though it's 87m long. Worse still, it's the same height, so it looks like a weird fat train, and all the people on it have thinner bodies. What's more, the clocks on the train are all running more slowly than the clock on the station platform.
The reason it took so long for people to measure these effects was that the speed of light is so high: seven hundred million miles per hour. Relativity shows us that these strange effects only become noticable at speeds of more than about a hundred million mph. For example, the fastest car available, which can drive at maybe 200mph on a straight racetrack, appears longer to the driver than to you, standing by the track, but the difference is much less than the width of an atom. Likewise, the driver's watch runs slower, but she'd have to drive for six hundred thousand years for her watch to lose just one second on yours. If you wanted to make something go faster and faster, you'd end up slowing ITs version of time more and more relative to yours. In theory, you can make it go so fast that time stops dead, but that would need infinite force. There is no number bigger than infinity, so you can't make time reverse by pushing harder than infinity!
I hope this helps a little, but if you want to know more there are plenty of good books on Relativity which are written for the non-scientist. Many of them will give you a good understanding of the theory, and maybe you'll even be tempted to look at the equations (they're not much more complicated than our 'GCSE' or 'O' level exams here in Britain: just some algebra and a little bit of really simple calculus. And after all, there's no better way of learning maths than using it to tackle something interesting!)
Originally posted by Blair Wind
sure....if he COULD catch him 😉
Don't underestimate Superman's speed. The Flash may be faster but Superman is smarter and nearly as fast. And thats on top of the fact that the Flash can make mistakes, since he is cocky as hell.
The Flash is not that much faster than Superman is.
The Flash runs at the speed of light and Superman, near the speed. But he's been known to reach lightspeed too..