One punch planet busters

Originally posted by bobbi
Just a question about the hulk destroying that asteroid..are we assuming this rocket pad thing he was on was propelling him at like the speed of light?

twice the mass of the earth is around 1.2 x 10^25 kg. lets say he makes the asteroid move 1 meter per second (3.6km/h) back just so its easier. seeing as this things hurtling toward earth you'd think apart from blowing up the asteroid, its individual parts would slow down/be deflected by more than a 1 meter/sec change I would think. so thats 6 x 10^24 Joules needed to even nudge this thing.

Work = 1/2 mass x velocity ^2
we assume hulk weighs like 500kg's.

6 x 10^24 / (500/2) = 2.4 x 10^22
square root the whole thing = 1.5 x 10^11 m/s

so he'd have to be going at around 500x the speed of light for this to be a purely durability feat...and thats to nudge this asteroid by 3.6km/hour. Even if the Hulk was going at the speed of light, an awful lot of power had to be coming from him..

energy of a 500kg mass going the speed of light is 2.25 x10^19.. needless to say thats around 1/300000 of the force needed to move this asteroid..Let alone destroy it. I'm sure someone is going to complain about the asteroid being hollow or much lighter than the earth or you dont have to move the entire asteroid to destroy it. if i had the time I could calculate how much energy it woudl take to deflect the majority of the asteroid away from the earth considering how close it was etc etc but seriously it wouldn't make orders of magnitude of change. unless this asteroid was full of cotton candy and unless the hulk was propelled at significantly above the speed of light it's mainly a strength feat.

(I just know someone will say it was a superluminal rocket pad or a cotton candy asteroid i just know it. although if it was a superluminal rocket pad u'd think u can blast any object to do the same damage. Yes it would probably be squashed flat against the asteroid but all of its force would still transfer if it hits it straight on so if you keep firing u'd eventually deflect it anyway. should take less energy for that than blowing it up too..so cotton candy asteroid...)

Awesome post, thank you for finally dispelling the myth that Hulk's giant asteroid busting feat was simply durability alone.

As mentioned by several other posters, it's clear that Hulk punches at the same time when he hits the asteroid. If it was only durability, Hulk would have simply gone through the core of the asteroid like a bullet. Fact is, that the rocket pads that propelled him only were to get him past the planet's atmosphere, after which point he used his leg muscle power to jump from them to propel himself towards the asteroid.

Originally posted by bobbi
oh my its way too late over here. i forgot to calculate relativistic effects. Guess you can have him going under light speed by a shade if you calculate that into it. Have his mass shooting up and whatnot. Not that comics ever calculate that into their feats besides flash's IMP's... So I guess you can argue this is a rare time that relativity is considered and that the scientist could make a machine that can generate the force to go near light speed and destroy an asteroid...yet needs the hulk to be a glorified cannonball. meh

(im still rooting for that cotton candy asteroid...mmm cotton candy)

What this implies is what I've been stated all along, and what was shown in WWH# 5 when he began to go super saiyajin. Hulk is not purely physical; he can grasp just a piece of an object and affect the whole thing. He can punch just part of an object and effect the whole thing as well.

maaaaaaaan, I'm learning more physics here than I did back in school 😕...

umm, before we get too caught up in the 'science' of the scans, we prolly should admit that the writers know sod all about science. far less than a few of the posters here, I'm sure.

what they mean to communicate is in the pictures and the texts, not in the depths of such (impressive) rigorous application of physical sciences.

that said, Kutulu's point about Hulk affecting the whole object whilst touching only a small part is one theory that definitely has wheels.

Hulk chucked a mountain at some lava monsters or whatever, in Planet Hulk. at best he was grabbing something like 1/10,000th of the object but he lifted the whole thing.

of course this is done for visual and narrative harmony, as you can't have a character demonstrate his godly strength by wrenching a boulder from a mountain - you want the whole mountain.

getting back to the asteroid feat. none but the deluded can say that it was a "durability feat". it was clearly meant for him to +punch+ the asteroid into bits. that's why they shot him up into space, that's why he swings the punch, that's why the asteroid smashes the way it does. Hulk is a planet(oid) smasher! ✅

Well, I'll be damned.

It has recently come to my attention the following about planetbusting (with the Earth as the standard)...

To really destroy the Earth, ie, to make an explosion big enough to not only blow it up, but to fling the pieces away from each other fast enough so that gravity doesn't take hold and pull the chunks back together: the explosion would have to overcome the Earth's gravitational binding energy, which is about 2x10E32 Joules.

This is well over one weeks' worth of energy generated by the Sun! That's right: in that second, when Superman, Gladiator, etc, bust a world with one punch, they're generating over 600,000x the power of the entire Sun in the same time period.

My feeling now about planetbusting is the same as withstanding black holes or basking at the Sun's core: save it for the most powerful characters, eg, Galactus.

Originally posted by Don Corleone
List heroes/villans that could destroy a planet the size of Earth, with just one punch. Now don't come in here and say Galactus, LT, etc, ect.....

Supes, WBH, classic Sentry are the only ones I can think of.

Originally posted by Mindship
Well, I'll be damned.

It has recently come to my attention the following about planetbusting (with the Earth as the standard)...

To really destroy the Earth, ie, to make an explosion big enough to not only blow it up, but to fling the pieces away from each other fast enough so that gravity doesn't take hold and pull the chunks back together: the explosion would have to overcome the Earth's gravitational binding energy, which is about 2x10E32 Joules.

This is well over one weeks' worth of energy generated by the Sun! That's right: in that second, when Superman, Gladiator, etc, bust a world with one punch, they're generating over 600,000x the power of the entire Sun in the same time period.

My feeling now about planetbusting is the same as withstanding black holes or basking at the Sun's core: save it for the most powerful characters, eg, Galactus.

Your science is wrong. Once a planet is broken into small enough pieces (pieces far bigger than a mountain) then the gravitation force of each piece is far too weak to overcome the velocity of each piece protruding away from the center (of where the strike took place).

Also, it takes far less force to destroy a planet with a punch that to move it at considerable acceleration. An Earth weight of force is sufficient in destroying the Earth provided it is concentrated in a small area such as a fist.

It's meaningless to measure strength in terms of busting some piece of rock. Beta ray bill destroyed planetS in his fight with stardust. Thor never destroyed a planet IIRC. Does that make Bill>>>Thor, no. Pre zero hour Mon-el moved a star and got oneshotted by Kal, dumb drax ripped apart a star with his bare hands and got beat up by She-hulk. Entire avengers (Thor, Wonder man, Vision and Iron man) had to lift a compressed island by Graviton. While it certainly helps with establishing strength how much one lifts, combat feats are the most reliable measure of strength levels.

We all know who's the winner of this thread.

Originally posted by h1a8
Supes, WBH, classic Sentry are the only ones I can think of.

Your reasoning is wrong. It is not about destroying a planet where it never comes back, but rather destroying one in the first place.

Your science is wrong. Once a planet is broken into small enough pieces (pieces far bigger than a mountain) then the gravitation force of each piece is far too weak to overcome the velocity of each piece protruding away from the center (of where the strike took place).

Also, it takes far less force to destroy a planet with a punch that to move it at considerable acceleration. An Earth weight of force is sufficient in destroying the Earth provided it is concentrated in a small area such as a fist.

Good choices. I cant remember the size of the planet Champ destroyed with a punch while fighting Thanos.

Remember guys, this is just one punch.

Originally posted by Photon009
Propulsion does make a difference. You saying if Superman flew at pretty high speeds and hit WW, and then stood in one place and hit WW, it would be the same effect? Hell no. Propulsion does make a big difference actually.

And what do you consider "sketchy"?

resisting fanboy urges... will be back later see if urge recedes.

The OP says...

Originally posted by Don Corleone
List heroes/villans that could destroy a planet the size of Earth, with just one punch.

Originally posted by h1a8
Your reasoning is wrong. It is not about destroying a planet where it never comes back, but rather destroying one in the first place.

http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2009/02/the_physics_of_the_death_star.php

Originally posted by h1a8
Your science is wrong. Once a planet is broken into small enough pieces (pieces far bigger than a mountain) then the gravitation force of each piece is far too weak to overcome the velocity of each piece protruding away from the center (of where the strike took place).

Originally posted by h1a8
Also, it takes far less force to destroy a planet with a punch that to move it at considerable acceleration.

1. 2.2×1032 J gravitational binding energy of the Earth
2. 2.7×1033 J Earth's kinetic energy in its orbit

#2 is roughly 10x the power of #1. So this one you got right, sort of. Regardless, neither I nor the OP said anything about accelerating a planet...

Originally posted by h1a8
An Earth weight of force is sufficient in destroying the Earth provided it is concentrated in a small area such as a fist.

Of course, applying real-world physics to comics borders on ludicrous, but for me, this is part of the fun.

Originally posted by Mindship
The OP says...

Notice that in the OP, it does not say, "not about destroying a planet where it never comes back, but rather destroying one in the first place." And while my first thought about planetbusting was like yours, if you google up planetbusting/planetkilling (see eg link below), you find that "destroying a planet where it never comes back" is a major consideration. Anything less than this renders the planet "unusable," but gravitational energy apparently acts like the planet's healing factor, so to speak. So, "true" planetbusting means the planet is gone, destroyed, kaput, etc. All that should be left is rubble/dust/atoms dispearsing into the void.

http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2009/02/the_physics_of_the_death_star.php

dividing both sides by r yields m/r = p x 4/3pi r^2. Substituting into 1) yields the escape velocity to be
V=sqrt(8/3pi x r^2 x p x G)

Now assuming the mountain size pieces have a radius of 10,000 m and a density of p=2.7kg/m^3 and G=6.673e-11m^3/(kg*s^2) then we see that escape velocity is 0.39m/s. This is incredibly slow. Thus one would need to break the Earth into mountain sized pieces where each pieces separating from each other with a minimum velocity of 0.39m/s. This cannot be stopped for more than 50% of the pieces since the original destruction will give each side more than that in relative velocity.

The site you linked to only showed how to calculate the energy to do it in its ENTIRETY. I can send 70% of the Earth pieces away with the escape velocity and allow 30% to mend together and form a small moon. Thus I succeed in destroying the planet for good. So the entire amount of energy is not needed.

Again, google up planetbusting. Whether you vaporize a planet or just split it in half, unless the gravitational binding energy is overcome, the "wounded" planet will simply "heal." It has not been "killed."

Google up "Joules" "Orders of Magnitude"...

1. 2.2×1032 J gravitational binding energy of the Earth
2. 2.7×1033 J Earth's kinetic energy in its orbit

#2 is roughly 10x the power of #1. So this one you got right, sort of. Regardless, neither I nor the OP said anything about accelerating a planet...

Provide source or math please.

Of course, applying real-world physics to comics borders on ludicrous, but for me, this is part of the fun.

I mentioned accelerating a planet because of Superman. But that was irrelevant, sorry. Using real world math gives us an idea of how powerful one has to be to perform certain feats. We have to use it in some form otherwise we couldn't tell who is class 100 vs. class 75 or tell the difference of which class 100 is stronger than another if the two never fought.

😂

That'S the first time I actually see you writing down equations...

Originally posted by Uriel005
if you want to be technical about it. There should be only so much kinetic energy that characters should be able to generate before it becomes moot and the opponent simply rockets away before the rest of the energy is transferred or the flesh is simply turned to jelly and torn away. For characters like superman the strength should matter less than the speed considering that unless the opponent has flight/other method of remaining stationary and deliberately taking the entirety of the punch the capability of generating a quintillion tons of force should mean nothing if the punch does cannot deliver all the kinetic energy the character can generate.

But force and kinetic energy are two different things. Force causes things to accelerate and kinetic energy causes things to be damaged.

The key difference is
DISTANCE OF ACCELERATION.

If I can provide F force over D distance then I can achieve a kinetic energy of F*D (assuming no friction or drag). Also, a large F means a large kinetic energy which means a large final velocity.

^ but in comics that doesn't necessarily apply, for example superman can move his limbs at incredible speeds but to assume you can plug that into an equation to see what force he could muster just doesn't work.

if anything you have to go backwards; dissecting the on-panel feat and TRYING to apply math to it, but even that is pretty ludicrous.

math and comic feats really don't mix

She's been beaten By Wonder Woman who's held a third of the wieght of the earth against the gravity of the sun.

Why do people always think that she was pulling 1/3 of the Earth?
We don't know about that, but we are still assuming that everyone was pulling exactly 1/3, since they were three people.
What if the Martian Manhunter was doing most of the pulling? :-X

Besides that, pulling is not lifting. Pulling the Earth is not as great als lifting it.
In "All Star Superman" Superman was lifting 200 quintillion or whatsoever tons or something and was pretty much at the peak of his powers there.
These 200 quintillion tons would be still not nearly as much as the weight of 1/3 of the planet, but yet he was lifting that weight and not pulling it.

I'm into bodybuilding. Believe me, there are worlds between these two actions.

And on the top of that there was a moment in the most recent Superman comics before DCnU [52], where Superman was lying next to Lois in bed and said that he could benchpress the entire planet (obviously he had the Earth in mind).
Is Superman a credible person? Should we consider that as a cannon fact and give him the strenght to lift the entire Earth?
If so, then "pulling 1/3 of the Earth" would be a boring feat, but yet it would mean that Wonder Woman and Martian Manhunter probably never did that much during the Earth-pulling.

Oh and yeah, strenght does not always increase your chance to damange an opponent. Wonder Woman does not need the strenght to pull 1/3 of the Earth, but she has still enough strenght which (combined with her speed) causes devastating damage and hurts even Superman-like characters, since that's often what it's all about: The Speed.
That's why boxers are also often mainly working on their speed, since with the impact comes along and the impact means damage. Of course they also need a good amount of strenght for that and agility, but extra muscles are mainly there to protect them from hits and too much muscles would decrease their agility.

Superman did once move the Earth with just him and Hal trying. So he's likely more capable than 1/3. Then there's Warworld.

Originally posted by h1a8
Wrong! If it does matter not matter if the planet heals since the OP didn't say permanently destroy a planet but to just achieve it.

Originally posted by h1a8
Plus the healing process is not instantaneous and can take eons.

Originally posted by h1a8
Also, have you heard of escape velocity? It's the minimum velocity needed in order to break free from an object's gravitational field without further propulsion.

Originally posted by h1a8
The site you linked to only showed how to calculate the energy to do it in its ENTIRETY. I can send 70% of the Earth pieces away with the escape velocity and allow 30% to mend together and form a small moon. Thus I succeed in destroying the planet for good. So the entire amount of energy is not needed.

In fact, the site I first mentioned even ended with this thought (regarding the 2x10E32 joules):
"That's a preposterously huge amount of energy! It's a solid week of the sun's entire power output. Dumping it in about a single second, as required to blow up Alderaan, is a very, very impressive feat. Doubly so when you take into account the fact that the binding energy is just enough to dissociate the planet into a diffuse cloud. If you want to actually blow the thing up into pieces flying out at many times escape velocity, you need much more energy."

Originally posted by h1a8
Using real world math gives us an idea of how powerful one has to be to perform certain feats.

Even if we say only 1/1000th of the power is needed (ie, what it would take to permanently blow up the Moon), and even if we allow for planet healing, that's still 600x the power of the entire Sun. My 2 cents worth: like withstanding black holes, I think some feats should stay out of reach, save for the most powerful (ie, beyond herald) heroes. The comic universe should still have some naturally dangerous places, as this boosts the fun and excitement in storytelling w/o always having to come up with superduper-powered villians as the only source of challenge.

Sorry for the double post, but I ran out of time. What I meant to say (for my main point) is that, given the power required, some feats just seem too over-the-top, especially when such powerful characters are written inconsistently (eg, Superman).

Originally posted by Mindship
Fair enough. Then this is open to interpretation. But I'm pretty sure that when most of us imagine a planet being destroyed, it is envisioned as being permanent. The other planetbusting sites support this.

It's been estimated that the ejecta debris which formed the Moon may've coalesced in as little as a month, at most a century or so. Even if planethealing took a million years, that's still very brief in cosmic time.

This is exactly what the gravitational binding energy refers to: the explosion has to be powerful enough for escape velocity to be achieved, ie, for the gravitational binding energy to be overcome so the pieces don't come back together.

If you can accomplish such calculated destruction with one punch (as the OP does clearly state), I am impressed. I don't believe any comics one-punch planetbusters have even done this. In any event: as I mentioned previously, that site I gave was just an example. Another example: http://qntm.org/destroy

In fact, the site I first mentioned even ended with this thought (regarding the 2x10E32 joules):
"That's a preposterously huge amount of energy! It's a solid week of the sun's entire power output. Dumping it in about a single second, as required to blow up Alderaan, is a very, very impressive feat. Doubly so when you take into account the fact that the binding energy is just enough to dissociate the planet into a diffuse cloud. If you want to actually blow the thing up into pieces flying out at many times escape velocity, you need much more energy."

This was my point.

Even if we say only 1/1000th of the power is needed (ie, what it would take to permanently blow up the Moon), and even if we allow for planet healing, that's still 600x the power of the entire Sun. My 2 cents worth: like withstanding black holes, I think some feats should stay out of reach, save for the most powerful (ie, beyond herald) heroes. The comic universe should still have some naturally dangerous places, as this boosts the fun and excitement in storytelling w/o always having to come up with superduper-powered villians as the only source of challenge.

You are too focused on power and not total energy.
My emphasize is on force or energy and not so much power. This is because power alone can't determine the effect of something. For example, I can apply a tremendous amount of power over an infinitesimal length of time. I will practically achieve no effect.
Power is only the speed in which the energy is being put out and not the total energy (unless we know the amount of time the power was being put out).

The sites you linked to emphasizes energy