Originally posted by jrodslamThanks for the explaination because I admit that I'm new. But we can atleast agree that sometimes bad writing comes into play that sometimes gives naysayers a low showing to bring a character down, right?
We usually dont go by character bois, because the characters feats constantly surpass what the bios may say. We try to judge how a character may do in a fight based off regular, consistent showings on panel.
Originally posted by Leobama
Thanks for the explaination because I admit that I'm new. But we can atleast agree that sometimes bad writing comes into play that sometimes gives naysayers a low showing to bring a character down, right?
Bad writing does come into play that gives someone a low showing. That or plot devices in the story, or just plain CIS.
Originally posted by LeobamaThat's why I don't see using the Handbooks is all that bad also. The strories are often very inconsistent with one another.
Thanks for the explaination because I admit that I'm new. But we can atleast agree that sometimes bad writing comes into play that sometimes gives naysayers a low showing to bring a character down, right?
EPIC WALL OF TEXT
theory of Relativity – A Brief History
The Theory of Relativity, proposed by the Jewish physicist Albert Einstein (1879-1955) in the early part of the 20th century, is one of the most significant scientific advances of our time. Although the concept of relativity was not introduced by Einstein, his major contribution was the recognition that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and an absolute physical boundary for motion. This does not have a major impact on a person's day-to-day life since we travel at speeds much slower than light speed. For objects travelling near light speed, however, the theory of relativity states that objects will move slower and shorten in length from the point of view of an observer on Earth. Einstein also derived the famous equation, E = mc2, which reveals the equivalence of mass and energy.
When Einstein applied his theory to gravitational fields, he derived the "curved space-time continuum" which depicts the dimensions of space and time as a two-dimensional surface where massive objects create valleys and dips in the surface. This aspect of relativity explained the phenomena of light bending around the sun, predicted black holes as well as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) -- a discovery rendering fundamental anomalies in the classic Steady-State hypothesis. For his work on relativity, the photoelectric effect and blackbody radiation, Einstein received the Nobel Prize in 1921.
Theory of Relativity – The Basics
Physicists usually dichotomize the Theory of Relativity into two parts.
* The first is the Special Theory of Relativity, which essentially deals with the question of whether rest and motion are relative or absolute, and with the consequences of Einstein’s conjecture that they are relative.
* The second is the General Theory of Relativity, which primarily applies to particles as they accelerate, particularly due to gravitation, and acts as a radical revision of Newton’s theory, predicting important new results for fast-moving and/or very massive bodies. The General Theory of Relativity correctly reproduces all validated predictions of Newton’s theory, but expands on our understanding of some of the key principles. Newtonian physics had previously hypothesised that gravity operated through empty space, but the theory lacked explanatory power as far as how the distance and mass of a given object could be transmitted through space. General relativity irons out this paradox, for it shows that objects continue to move in a straight line in space-time, but we observe the motion as acceleration because of the curved nature of space-time.
Einstein’s theories of both special and general relativity have been confirmed to be accurate to a very high degree over recent years, and the data has been shown to corroborate many key predictions; the most famous being the solar eclipse of 1919 bearing testimony that the light of stars is indeed deflected by the sun as the light passes near the sun on its way to earth. The total solar eclipse allowed astronomers to -- for the first time -- analyse starlight near the edge of the sun, which had been previously inaccessible to observers due to the intense brightness of the sun. It also predicted the rate at which two neutron stars orbiting one another will move toward each other. When this phenomenon was first documented, general relativity proved itself accurate to better than a trillionth of a percent precision, thus making it one of the best confirmed principles in all of physics.
Applying the principle of general relativity to our cosmos reveals that it is not static. Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) demonstrated in 1928 that the Universe is expanding, showing beyond reasonable doubt that the Universe sprang into being a finite time ago. The most common contemporary interpretation of this expansion is that this began to exist from the moment of the Big Bang some 13.7 billion years ago. However this is not the only plausible cosmological model which exists in academia, and many creation physicists such as Russell Humphreys and John Hartnett have devised models operating with a biblical framework, which -- to date -- have withstood the test of criticism from the most vehement of opponents.
Theory of Relativity – A Testament to Creation
Using the observed cosmic expansion conjunctively with the general theory of relativity, we can infer from the data that the further back into time one looks, the universe ought to diminish in size accordingly. However, this cannot be extrapolated indefinitely. The universe’s expansion helps us to appreciate the direction in which time flows. This is referred to as the Cosmological arrow of time, and implies that the future is -- by definition -- the direction towards which the universe increases in size. The expansion of the universe also gives rise to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the overall entropy (or disorder) in the Universe can only increase with time because the amount of energy available for work deteriorates with time. If the universe was eternal, therefore, the amount of usable energy available for work would have already been exhausted. Hence it follows that at one point the entropy value was at absolute 0 (most ordered state at the moment of creation) and the entropy has been increasing ever since -- that is, the universe at one point was fully “wound up” and has been winding down ever since. This has profound theological implications, for it shows that time itself is necessarily finite. If the universe were eternal, the thermal energy in the universe would have been evenly distributed throughout the cosmos, leaving each region of the cosmos at uniform temperature (at very close to absolute 0), rendering no further work possible.
The General Theory of Relativity demonstrates that time is linked, or related, to matter and space, and thus the dimensions of time, space, and matter constitute what we would call a continuum. They must come into being at precisely the same instant. Time itself cannot exist in the absence of matter and space. From this, we can infer that the uncaused first cause must exist outside of the four dimensions of space and time, and possess eternal, personal, and intelligent qualities in order to possess the capabilities of intentionally space, matter -- and indeed even time itself -- into being.
Moreover, the very physical nature of time and space also suggest a Creator, for infinity and eternity must necessarily exist from a logical perspective. The existence of time implies eternity (as time has a beginning and an end), and the existence of space implies infinity. The very concepts of infinity and eternity infer a Creator because they find their very state of being in God, who transcends both and simply is.
Originally posted by snoopdoggThank you. For example i've heard of a situation where the hulk was choked out by an anaconda. That's not bad writing . . . . . THAT'S HORRIBLE WRITING!!!! And whenever someone is bashing the Hulk, they always bring up crap like that.
That's why I don't see using the Handbooks is all that bad also. The strories are often very inconsistent with one another.
Originally posted by srankmissingnin
And none of those three are anywhere near top tier fighters....What it does mean is that you don't have a leg to stand on when you suggest that Blade [b]is
as skilled. Blade's never beaten a top tier Martial Artist. He's never had a top tier martial artist praise his skill. He's never used pressure point attacks. What exactly leads you to believe that he is any where near as skilled as one of the primer fighters in Marvel with out a shred of evidence to back your claim? [/B]
Blade hasnt fought that many top tiers. he hasn't fought DD, Cap, BP etc, but he has held his own against Spitfire. Spitefire, Union Jack and Cap were fighting the master race and Spitfire did the best out of all of them. Also be aware that it was a bloodlusted Spitefire and not normal Spitfire.
It could damn well be argued that most of Blade feats are better than Dds because the opponents he fights are tougher.
Originally posted by Warrior18
You mean that fight where Frank tranquilizers DD in the stomach? Was it not a while ago and since then DD would not have learned not to be so careless? Also would DD be stupid enough to try to grapple with Blade anyway?I say again............dodging a shot from bullseye from approx 3 feet.
Thats impressive but doesnt mean he wins why couldnt Blade do that?
Originally posted by Leobama
Thank you. For example i've heard of a situation where the hulk was choked out by an anaconda. That's not bad writing . . . . . THAT'S HORRIBLE WRITING!!!! And whenever someone is bashing the Hulk, they always bring up crap like that.
LOL there had to be some cirumstances to that 😂
Originally posted by Battlehammerdracula...varnae was able to fight dr.strange, brother voodoo, and marie deveau to a standstill, deacon frost was a vampire diety (no way would daredevil beat him), spitfire, the vampie spiderman, draconis....i have trouble seeing dd beat any of the above mentioned
actaully it can't/ His opponets are not harder nor have they ever proven to be.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Blade hasnt fought that many top tiers. he hasn't fought DD, Cap, BP etc, but he has held his own against Spitfire. Spitefire, Union Jack and Cap were fighting the master race and Spitfire did the best out of all of them. Also be aware that it was a bloodlusted Spitefire and not normal Spitfire.
All of which is precisely why there is no evidence to support Blade being anywhere near Daredevil in combat skill.
So far the argument breaks down like this.
Daredevil Supporters: Daredevil is much more skilled than Blade.
Blade Supporters: Prove it!
Daredevil Supporters: Daredevil is widely regarded as one of the premier fighters in Marvel, Blade isn't.
Blade Supporters: So?
Daredevil Supporters: Daredevil has stalemated or held his own with virtually all of the other top tier fighters in Marvel, Blade hasn't.
Blade Supporters: Well... Blade doesn't even fight those guys.
Daredevil Supporters: Daredevil issues crazy martial arts moves and pressure points, Blade doesn't.
Blade Supporters: So, all that means is Blade isn't good with pressure points.
You offer no counterpoints, and just flat out ignore Daredevils skill feats. What is there to suggest that Blade IS anywhere near as good as Daredevil?
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
It could damn well be argued that most of Blade feats are better than Dds because the opponents he fights are tougher.
I don't know about that, Daredevil has fought dudes leagues above the fodder that Blade typically deals with... and even the Hand Ninja genin have been stated on panel to each be the equivalent of 12 men, which would make them vastly superior to vampires. 😈
[QUOTE=11269569]Originally posted by DestinyGuy678
dracula...varnae was able to fight dr.strange, brother voodoo, and marie deveau to a standstill, deacon frost was a vampire diety (no way would daredevil beat him), spitfire, the vampie spiderman, draconis....i have trouble seeing dd beat any of the above mentioned [/QUOT
so you think Blade could give strange a fight?
pleases DD has defeat foes blade would stand no chances of beating either such as hyde
DD has beaten spiderman before..............
Originally posted by BattlehammerDD beating hyde is PIS
[QUOTE=11269569]Originally posted by DestinyGuy678
[B]dracula...varnae was able to fight dr.strange, brother voodoo, and marie deveau to a standstill, deacon frost was a vampire diety (no way would daredevil beat him), spitfire, the vampie spiderman, draconis....i have trouble seeing dd beat any of the above mentioned [/QUOTso you think Blade could give strange a fight?
pleases DD has defeat foes blade would stand no chances of beating either such as hyde
DD has beaten spiderman before.............. [/B]
and blade has a chance against spiderman
Originally posted by Battlehammerwhen? and who is Hyde?
[QUOTE=11269569]Originally posted by DestinyGuy678
[B]dracula...varnae was able to fight dr.strange, brother voodoo, and marie deveau to a standstill, deacon frost was a vampire diety (no way would daredevil beat him), spitfire, the vampie spiderman, draconis....i have trouble seeing dd beat any of the above mentioned [/QUOTso you think Blade could give strange a fight?
pleases DD has defeat foes blade would stand no chances of beating either such as hyde
DD has beaten spiderman before.............. [/B]
Originally posted by Starscream M
"pleases DD has defeat foes blade would stand no chances of beating either such as hydeDD has beaten spiderman before.............. "
yea and how was what you said relevent to my comment?
my references to DD beating spiderman was in responses to him saying blade beat a vampire spiderman.............I was not saying blade could not beat spiderman..........I mean you do notices how there a spces between my two sentences right...............
I mean did you relaly not comprehend what I was saying?