Ultimate Nullifier vs. Infinity Gauntlet?

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
I don't believe this....

... we have to prove that it takes more power to nullify AND RECREATE the entire Marvel Multiverse than it takes to nullify a single tiny marble?

answer my damn questions ODG. You won't because of how they make your premise look. You'll hold onto one part of things and keep repeating it. How many times do I have to say... I don't have an issue if it does or doesn't require more energy. All I have ever said is there is ZERO PROOF this is the case. We have never heard one narration saying that it takes more work for the UN to do so or more energy for the UN to do so. We've never seen it have to build up more power to nullify a wider area. In fact we've seen it just instantly happen. Regardless, you keep on arguing a point I don't care about. Just cause you don't have proof it's okay. It can release more energy and I've said I'm fine with that. What i"m not okay with is things are nullfiied more potently just cause you increase the scale. That is just idiotic and that is what your argument relies upon. Plain stupidity to think it does.

^ ... a Multiversal nullifying/recreating blast isn't more potent than a marble-sized sphere? You keep going on about potency... what are you even talking about?! You've completely stripped any coherent meaning from that damn word!

Christ. Let's see if I can dumb this down somehow. Which is a more potent type of nullification?

A. Nullifying only a person's physical form.

B. Nullifying a person's physical form and nullifying him from ever having existed such that his very existence never occurred.

"B" is not a more potent type of nullification than "A"?

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
answer my damn questions ODG. You won't because of how they make your premise look. You'll hold onto one part of things and keep repeating it. How many times do I have to say... I don't have an issue if it does or doesn't require more energy. All I have ever said is there is ZERO PROOF this is the case. We have never heard one narration saying that it takes more work for the UN to do so or more energy for the UN to do so. We've never seen it have to build up more power to nullify a wider area. In fact we've seen it just instantly happen. Regardless, you keep on arguing a point I don't care about. Just cause you don't have proof it's okay. It can release more energy and I've said I'm fine with that. What i"m not okay with is things are nullfiied more potently just cause you increase the scale. That is just idiotic and that is what your argument relies upon. Plain stupidity to think it does.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
In one instance, your phsyical form is nullified. In another instance, your physical form and your entire existence from reality/eternity is nullified. Which type of nullification is more potent?

Or... is there no difference involved here? You can feel free to argue with Black Bolt Z and Mr Master and quanchi112 about this. Nullification can just nullify your physical existence. It can also nullify you from ever having existed in the first place, which would rewrite reality itself.

I think ODG is right, it demonstrates more power, in destroying and recreating a universe in 1 second, than it does to destroy a cubic inch in one second.

clearly the force needs to be greater, in order to accomplish the scale of the task, in the same (or less) time.

Originally posted by Black bolt z
There is a difference but the end effect is still the same.Nullification.Simple enough for you?

Which one is more potent? This isn't a trick question!

Here's another question: First end effect = burning your physical body. Second end effect = burning your physical body AND burning your eternal soul.

Which fire is more potent? This sin't a trick question!

Stop with this this reductionist bs. A 5-year old can tell there is a difference in results and that one is more potent than the other. Christ.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
^ The end effects are different. First end effect = physical nullification. Second end effect = physical nullification AND existential nullification.

Which one is more potent? This isn't a trick question!

Here's another question: First end effect = burning your physical body. Second end effect = burning your physical body AND burning your eternal soul.

Which fire is more potent? This sin't a trick question!

Stop with this this reductionist bs. A 5-year old can tell there is a difference in results and that one is more potent than the other. Christ.

Do you deny that:Both nullify you?

Originally posted by janus77
I think ODG is right, it demonstrates more power, in destroying and recreating a universe in 1 second, than it does to destroy a cubic inch in one second.

clearly the force needs to be greater, in order to accomplish the scale of the task, in the same (or less) time.

First Janus, that isn't the only argument going on here nor accounts for the faulty logic he is using in other areas. I haven't argued that it seems logical more energy is needed to nullify things on a bigger scale. Cool. All I'm saying is there is zero proof to back this up. However, the more energy goes towards the more stuff you're having to nullfiy NOT towards making the nullficiation properites more potent on what you're nullifying. There is absolute ZERO proof of that this is the case and it defies logic. I asked ODG this question which he avoided so I'm curious about your thoughts...

1. Lets say we have planet X. In one instance planet X is just nullified.. nothing more. In another instance... a whole galaxy is erased which planet X is apart of. So is it your stance that planet x in scenerio B is nullified more potently i.e. the nullification forces applied to planet x are far greater than when just planet x is nullified? Do you agree with ODG stance on that?

BBZ, there is a objective difference in the scope of the nullification carried out. that's the point. there isn't just one level of nullification.

MU exists on many levels, dimensions, layers, each and everyone needs to be dealt with. many cosmics and all abstracts transcend any single layer/level/univers and exist in all reality across time, simultaneously ... the nullifier has to deal with them by expanding its scope (thus doing more thorough nullifying).

like really scrubbing hard with a brillo pad as opposed to just wiping a stain with a kitchen towel. they both remove dirt but one is a more powerful action.

Honestly, it's difficult for me to fathom how impossibly dumb you guys are being about this.

This is the best argument that you Infinity Nut-Huggers can come up with? It's truly a testament to the overall paucity of rationale underllying your collective wish that the IG isn't vastly inferior to the UN's power.

Originally posted by janus77
BBZ, there is a objective difference in the scope of the nullification carried out. that's the point. there isn't just one level of nullification.

MU exists on many levels, dimensions, layers, each and everyone needs to be dealt with. many cosmics and all abstracts transcend any single layer/level/univers and exist in all reality across time, simultaneously ... the nullifier has to deal with them by expanding its scope (thus doing more thorough nullifying).

like really scrubbing hard with a brillo pad as opposed to just wiping a stain with a kitchen towel. they both remove dirt but one is a more powerful action.

Originally posted by Black bolt z
I know.But the end result is the same.Nullification.In both you are nullfied.Do you confirm or deny this?

it was like an On/Off/Reset switch to them, they didn't have to worry about how much power they unleashed, they wanted to nullify the whole universe. Warlock was clearly attempting to use it like a dimmer switch and go for the lowest power he could (lest he reset/nullify the universe).

Originally posted by janus77
the eventual result yes, provided enough power/will whatever is backing it up... imo that makes the most sense of the piddling little sphere of nullification Warlock achieved, when you think back to how Galactus and Reed both (Reed with a little more effort, imo) reset things.

it was like an On/Off/Reset switch to them, they didn't have to worry about how much power they unleashed, they wanted to nullify the whole universe. Warlock was clearly attempting to use it like a dimmer switch and go for the lowest power he could (lest he reset/nullify the universe).

Originally posted by Black bolt z
Warlock?

unless it's Surfer, all cosmics look alike to me 😛

Originally posted by janus77
sorry, mind was elsewhere ... Quasar.

unless it's Surfer, all cosmics look alike to me 😛

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
So you want me to prove a negative... That's the problem Omega this has NEVER been stated on panel. So what exactly do you want me to prove. There hasn't been one shred of evidence that suggest it takes more energy to do so... there isn't one artistic depiction or narration of the UN having to build up more power in order to nullify more. Nothing, nada ziltch. Even if I agree that it does require more energy to do so... there is even less evidence and lack of logic to think that a larger scale nullification... nullifies things more potently

Answer this question that ODG keeps on avoiding...

1. Lets say we have planet X. In one instance planet X is just nullified.. nothing more. In another instance... a whole galaxy is erased which planet X is apart of. So is it your stance that planet x in scenerio B is nullified more potently i.e. the nullification forces applied to planet x are far greater than when just planet x is nullified? I'm going to love this answer....