Namor vs Superman

Originally posted by inamilist
WTF??????

do you have any idea how difficult it would be to move a planet?? even something as comparibly small as the moon would be BEYOND CURRENT HUMAN TECHNOLOGY (unless we built a rocket thruster on like half of it and used all of our hydrogen resourses to blast it, even then it would be tough)

please tell me why it would be easy to move a planet weighing trillions upon trillions of tonnes, moving at increadable speeds, being held in place by many gravitational forces? (This doesn't even take into account that in a vaccum it would even more difficult to stop and redirect an object in motion since there is no friction (not that im saying space is a vaccum, lol))

in fact, moving a planet means you could easily lift that weight under normal earth gravitational conditions, because you are dealing with much more than just the downward for of gravity.

plus, in your own argument you have stated they would need a mechanism to prevent them from just crashing into the planet. Thats true. So, then, using basic physics, and bastardizing what spetz said, the strength of whatever mechanism you are using must be equivelant to the force of the thrust, or else it breaks

also, your remark about the SUV is incorrect, provided that the SUV is currently in motion. See above.

Please tell me how anything that you've said relates to Superman's physical strength, in relation to moving a planet.

When did I say anything about the SUV being in motion?

Originally posted by Marcus4600
I was simply trying to make a point that Super-Strength isn't all that's needed for moving a planet. If all he was doing was using his arms, then he's doing pushups. Anyone with a base knowledge of physics knows that it would depend on his incredible amount of thrust, and his durability. The reason I brought that up was I hear too many people say that he's just using his arms, when that kind of argument is just flat out pathetic. Also, we don't know the limits of Namor yet, mostly because his limits haven't really been tested yet, unless I missed something. Also, I don't know as much about Superman as most people on these forums, mostly because I honestly don't think that he's that interesting of a character. I personally think that DC writers have an obsession of making their characters outside of Batman nearly godlike, and it's just not that interesting to me. I saw Namor accomplishing feats close to that of Superman before they decided to make him a god. So, let me rephrase my question. Would John Byrne's Superman (the one I know well enough) and Namor be a battle worth remembering?

Also, spetznaz, you read a little bit too much into my words, and made a lot of assumptions. The whole thing about Namor was about Namor, not Jubilee, or Wolverine. Namor is a character who has not been tested to his full potential. He hasn't shown his full strength yet, but some of the things that he has done are flat out amazing. The statement was simply that we don't know all of Namor's limits yet. I'm still wondering where the whole Haiti thing came into effect. In fact, the argument presented made sense until that point, when it seemingly became rambling. However, the other points made much more sense. It would take a being of extreme durability and strength to withstand a thrust of that magnitude. My statement just needed to be reworded. So, let me re-state it. The feat of moving a planet is not just super-strength. Superman more than likely can't bench press a planet. However, his thrust allows him to move it out of orbit, which is a statement that actually makes sense. So, next time, why don't you just rephrase the statement that I made, rather than being a complete ass and calling me a fanboy, when you don't even know who the hell I am.

So, here's the battle: Superman from the Man of Steel comic against Namor.

He hasn't shown his full strength yet, but he has shown a great deal of physical excertion while moving large tankers, suggesting this is somewhere near his limits. Please don't apply real world physics to comics, it juts doesn't work. In the words of Paul Daniels, when it doesn't make sense its magic/the comic universe 'Stregth Force'. Byrnes Superman is in the same strength department as Namor, but Current Supes (since Morrison was writing the JLA) is far stronger than the Byrne version.

Batman; 'He can spin mountains on his finger tips'

Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
He hasn't shown his full strength yet, but he has shown a great deal of physical excertion while moving large tankers, suggesting this is somewhere near his limits. Please don't apply real world physics to comics, it juts doesn't work. In the words of Paul Daniels, when it doesn't make sense its magic/the comic universe 'Stregth Force'. Byrnes Superman is in the same strength department as Namor, but Current Supes (since Morrison was writing the JLA) is far stronger than the Byrne version.

Batman; 'He can spin mountains on his finger tips'

Very believable. Yes, I do think Superman is stronger than Namor.

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
Very believable. Yes, I do think Superman is stronger than Namor.

IMO Namor is an Insect compared to Current Supes. 🙂

Originally posted by inamilist
in fact, moving a planet means you could easily lift that weight under normal earth gravitational conditions, because you are dealing with much more than just the downward for of gravity.

This is incorrect. Unless you simply shoved the planet using muscular power alone and allowed it to travel acting upon it no further, your physical strength would not come into play when moving a planet.

Even so, the ONLY significant force acting upon a body moving through space is inertia. There is no friction, and gravity enacted upon the body by another body is immensly weakened by the distance between the two.

I am not saying that the feat is unimpressive. It would require an insane amount of force. However, that force is not muscular force. It is force projected through flight.

Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
IMO Namor is an Insect compared to Current Supes. 🙂

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
Please tell me how anything that you've said relates to Superman's physical strength, in relation to moving a planet.

When did I say anything about the SUV being in motion?

ok, moon, moving at X speed, weighing Y and being held in place by a gravitational force of Z. i forget the equation for inertia, but it would relate to X and Y, while Z is important because, well, if superman cannot account for Z, the moon and earth will crash into eachother

so, lets move slowly.

Superman needs to move the moon. He will first have to stop its inertia, then redirect it based on its gravitational force and the earth's so that it orbits the earth again and does not crash into it (This may be a more increadable feat as the moon is in a very ideal place for life on earth, any signifigant change either closer or farther away could cause huge disturbances)

So, he begins flying at the moon (ok, so he is only responsable for 1/3 of all this force, as wonderwoman and MM are helping) and pushing against it with a force that MUST BE equal to XY, or else the moon will not stop. Period. Since it is travelling through a space (for all intents in this situation it might as well be a vaccum) there will be no friction to aide in slowing down the moon. Then, he will have to combat gravity which would want to either A) keep the moon in orbit or B) bring it crashing to earth. My math skills arent very good, but i think this means that the force supes must be applying is (XY + Z)/3

since you will not agree that superman's thrust is equivellant to his strength, this only sets up a more complex explination.

if we made a rocket with (XY + Z)/3 force and sent it to move the moon, it would crash on the surface and blow up. This is because the strength of the rocket cannot withstand (as newtons 3rd law states) the equal (XY + Z)/3 force being applied back against it.

let me dumb this down. lets say it takes 1 unit of force to move a metal ball. if i throw an egg with 10 units of force, it is unlikely that the ball will move since the strength of the egg's shell would require less than 1 unit to break.

how does this apply to superman?

ok, so, we have superman giving it his all and making the necessary force to move the moon [(XY + Z)/3 units of force]<as an aside, what is the unit of force, i think jouls or something>. Yes, the creating of this force is in his "thrust" not his general muscular strength. HOWEVER, it would require that superman's strength be at least equal to (XY + Z)/3 or else he would just crash into the moon, like the rocket or egg.

Another example:

Try doing a handstand. to do this, you must have the equivelant strength in your arms to hold your body weight up under the force of gravity. If you started having a friend push down on your legs (same effect as thrust) you may not be able to keep yourself upright. So, if Supes arms could not take the thrust he was producing, he would not be able to use them to move the moon.

wow...

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
I just realized that you are Yahman. 🙂

YEsssss .... the King has returned punk

I haven't seen you in a while C.C. ? Last time i heard your name being referred i was talking to Alpha Centurai .... 🙂

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
This is incorrect. Unless you simply shoved the planet using muscular power alone and allowed it to travel acting upon it no further, your physical strength would not come into play when moving a planet.

Even so, the ONLY significant force acting upon a body moving through space is inertia. There is no friction, and gravity enacted upon the body by another body is immensly weakened by the distance between the two.

I am not saying that the feat is unimpressive. It would require an insane amount of force. However, that force is not muscular force. It is force projected through flight.

What about when they are pulling on a chain ?

Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
What about when they are pulling on a chain ?

wow, i hadn't seen that before

im way more impressed that they found a chain that could take that....

but the same would still apply. If his strength wasn't enough, he would just dislocate his arms

Spetz's examples on the first page are way more relevant than my last post after seeing this

Originally posted by inamilist
wow, i hadn't seen that before

im way more impressed that they found a chain that could take that....

but the same would still apply. If his strength wasn't enough, he would just dislocate his arms

Spetz's examples on the first page are way more relevant than my last post after seeing this

Its magic !!!!!!!! 😄

Originally posted by inamilist
ok, moon, moving at X speed, weighing Y and being held in place by a gravitational force of Z. i forget the equation for inertia, but it would relate to X and Y, while Z is important because, well, if superman cannot account for Z, the moon and earth will crash into eachother

so, lets move slowly.

Superman needs to move the moon. He will first have to stop its inertia, then redirect it based on its gravitational force and the earth's so that it orbits the earth again and does not crash into it (This may be a more increadable feat as the moon is in a very ideal place for life on earth, any signifigant change either closer or farther away could cause huge disturbances)

So, he begins flying at the moon (ok, so he is only responsable for 1/3 of all this force, as wonderwoman and MM are helping) and pushing against it with a force that MUST BE equal to XY, or else the moon will not stop. Period. Since it is travelling through a space (for all intents in this situation it might as well be a vaccum) there will be no friction to aide in slowing down the moon. Then, he will have to combat gravity which would want to either A) keep the moon in orbit or B) bring it crashing to earth. My math skills arent very good, but i think this means that the force supes must be applying is (XY + Z)/3

since you will not agree that superman's thrust is equivellant to his strength, this only sets up a more complex explination.

if we made a rocket with (XY + Z)/3 force and sent it to move the moon, it would crash on the surface and blow up. This is because the strength of the rocket cannot withstand (as newtons 3rd law states) the equal (XY + Z)/3 force being applied back against it.

let me dumb this down. lets say it takes 1 unit of force to move a metal ball. if i throw an egg with 10 units of force, it is unlikely that the ball will move since the strength of the egg's shell would require less than 1 unit to break.

how does this apply to superman?

ok, so, we have superman giving it his all and making the necessary force to move the moon [(XY + Z)/3 units of force]<as an aside, what is the unit of force, i think jouls or something>. Yes, the creating of this force is in his "thrust" not his general muscular strength. HOWEVER, it would require that superman's strength be at least equal to (XY + Z)/3 or else he would just crash into the moon, like the rocket or egg.

Another example:

Try doing a handstand. to do this, you must have the equivelant strength in your arms to hold your body weight up under the force of gravity. If you started having a friend push down on your legs (same effect as thrust) you may not be able to keep yourself upright. So, if Supes arms could not take the thrust he was producing, he would not be able to use them to move the moon.

wow...

This is a big post. However, it's irrelevant. Meaningless. You are explaining nothing.

I am not a superhuman. I'd bet Spiderman could do a handstand for a week. The position Superman was in when he was moving the planet is irrelevant. If Superman laid down flat on his back, on the face of the planet, (assuming that he can fly in this position,) and applied the same force that he did flying horizontally positioned, he would achieve the same result. It is not strength that moved the planet. It is the force he exerted through flying (not to be confused with pushing, or exerting muscular force,) that moved the planet.

Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
What about when they are pulling on a chain ?

Originally posted by inamilist
wow, i hadn't seen that before

im way more impressed that they found a chain that could take that....

but the same would still apply. If his strength wasn't enough, he would just dislocate his arms

Spetz's examples on the first page are way more relevant than my last post after seeing this

I am too.

This is very true.

It would certainly require a great degree of strength to do this. However, it would not require enough strength to lift a planet.

Originally posted by R.O.T. Yahman
Its magic !!!!!!!! 😄

Sometimes, Yahman, you amaze me. 😉

In a good way.

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
It requires more arm strength, but the same basic rules apply. Most of the work is done by the force exerted through flight. This is the example spetznaz used.

you are right, the force being applied is through the thrust

you fail to comprehend one of the simplest ideas in physics, which are newtons laws of motion

the biggie being #3 here

for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Therefore, as superman applies this thrust to the chain, the chain will pull back with equal force, meaning his strength must be equal to the force or his arms will dislocate

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube

It would certainly require a great degree of strength to do this. However, it would not require enough strength to lift a planet.

nope

it would only require strength=thrust

Originally posted by inamilist
you are right, the force being applied is through the thrust

you fail to comprehend one of the simplest ideas in physics, which are newtons laws of motion

the biggie being #3 here

for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Therefore, as superman applies this thrust to the chain, the chain will pull back with equal force, meaning his strength must be equal to the force or his arms will dislocate

How am I failing to comprehend the first law of motion?

Superman pulls the chain, therefore overcoming the planet's inertia.

Obviously, he is strong enough to pull the planet. Pulling and lifting are quite different.

You fail to understand that the planet's inertia >>>>> the planet's weight.

For instance, hypothetically, if the Earth were sitting on the surface of a body that is equally or more massive than itself, in the presence of gravity, Superman has not shown that he possesses the strength to push the two apart. Understood?

Originally posted by inamilist
nope

it would only require strength=thrust

Wrong. The thrust is the power of flight. Not his strength.

If Superman just shoved the planet, and it went flying, that would be strength.

Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
Wrong. The thrust is the power of flight. Not his strength.

If Superman just shoved the planet, and it went flying, that would be strength.

You're both right the thrustis behind Supes and the Planet is in front, his body does not buckle between the two, his not a solid, it's his levers etc that work as a humans do, so his mucles keep him in shape. If you applied force behind against a heavy object we would buckle - Supes doesn't, he's that strong!