Originally posted by D_Dude1210My mightiest blow could be a blow where I was assisted. Nothing wrong with that
No, we base it on best AND most current feats. PC Superman had a ton of good featsIf you still haven't figured out what I mean, then no you don't.
FYI, everything is a plot device in comics. IMO, unless something is stated on panel as providing the main force of the blow, then the primary source of power should be the character itself.
After all, if Thor said: "'tis Mjolnir's mightiest blow!" not "'tis my mightiest blow!" then we can probably attribute his attacks to mjolnir and not Thor. :-/
How so? Superman pulling a planet has nothing to do with IMP.
The problem with this is that YOU have proven yourself to be biased and selective on w/c laws to apply.
And yes, we DO use feats. However, we also use comparative feats of people they've fought 1v1. Gladiator (Kallark) and Thor already fought 1v1 and Gladiator's feats already shown that he is more or less of equal strength to Supes (after all, Marvel patterned Kallark after Superman) and their strength wasn't that far apart.
1 on 1 shows nothing unless one overpowers the other grip, push, etc. CA has beaten class 50 beings with just skill. Kallark at his best is at least millions of times stronger than Thor too. This is when he is very confident of course. Otherwise he just a little stronger than Colossus.
Originally posted by h1a8
Heavenly as used in the ethereal definition (heavenly has more than one definition too) implies Celestial Spheres and not bodies. I know this because the American Heritage Dictionary's third definition of ethereal says "of the celestial spheres; heavenly". The heavenly is summarizing the meaning of celestial spheres. And looking up celestial spheres shows that it is an [B]imaginary sphere extending from the center Earth to the stars.
[/B]
No it doesnt, it was just a singular example used by that particular dictionary. As i have shown it can certainly refer to more than that the singular scientific concept of celestial bodies.
Also a certain amount of common sense and science has to be used in comics. Otherwise it is impossible to prove anything. Science has nothing to do with pulling a huge Serpent off a planet with 3 feet arms. Common sense does.
Actually no. The boat was not shown giving him any assitance so why should we assume it was? BEcause it shouldnt be possible realistically to do so with thors size of arms? Well its a good thing its a comic then. We cant use what applies in the real world to rationalize what goes on in comics especially when its obvious that the writer didnt take that into account when writing the comic and hence made no mention of it.
Originally posted by Naija boyHow do you know the writer wasn't thinking that the boat wasn't assisting? The boat seem to me to be assisting. It certainly wasn't just standing still in space.
No it doesnt, it was just a singular example used by that particular dictionary. As i have shown it can certainly refer to more than that the singular scientific concept of celestial bodies.Actually no. The boat was not shown giving him any assitance so why should we assume it was? BEcause it shouldnt be possible realistically to do so with thors size of arms? Well its a good thing its a comic then. We cant use what applies in the real world to rationalize what goes on in comics especially when its obvious that the writer didnt take that into account when writing the comic and hence made no mention of it.
All dictionaries aren't equal. Many definitions are either incorrect or weak. The American Heritage is one of the best.
You can judge a dictionary by looking up some of the hardest to define words (time, love, etc.)
Originally posted by h1a8
My mightiest blow could be a blow where I was assisted. Nothing wrong with that
Nothing wrong at all. However, there is also nothing wrong with Thor being unassisted by nothing more than his own strength and the weight and physically generated momentum of his hammer.
Also, if you read up on the third law a little bit, you'll realize that there was a SECOND unmentioned feat that (if physics is applied) was just as impressive as the force of the blow itself.
Originally posted by h1a8
How so? Superman pulling a planet has nothing to do with IMP.
Wasn't talking about superman pulling a planet here.
Originally posted by h1a8
1 on 1 shows nothing unless one overpowers the other grip, push, etc. CA has beaten class 50 beings with just skill. Kallark at his best is at least millions of times stronger than Thor too. This is when he is very confident of course. Otherwise he just a little stronger than Colossus.
So you're saying you can beat someone millions of times stronger than you by being more skillful?
Hooray for common sense!
Originally posted by h1a8
True. But this is the only one Thor fans have to try to show that Thor is near Superman in strength. All his other feats either fall short by a mile or are invalid due to a plot device.I'm getting tired of arguing this Midgard Serpent feat anyway. I never brought it up, someone else did. I'm was just trying to refute it.
go with something else. like when thor fought the destroyer, or the hulk, or the silver surfer.
that goes for everyone.
the debate is just going to be circular otherwise...
Originally posted by h1a8
How do you know the writer wasn't thinking that the boat wasn't assisting? The boat seem to me to be assisting. It certainly wasn't just standing still in space.All dictionaries aren't equal. Many definitions are either incorrect or weak. The American Heritage is one of the best.
You can judge a dictionary by looking up some of the hardest to define words (time, love, etc.)
I know such because in the narration it talked about thor using his strength to pull harder and harder and there is no mention of any help being provided by the boat. Infact prior to thor dropping the bait, the narration talks about the boat sailing and sailing until it comes to a stop so thor can lower the bait. From then on all emphasis is placed on thors strength with nothing being shown or mentioned in regards to the boat assiting him.
I can show at least ten dictionaries which show examples of "ethereal" being used to mean heavenly while NOT referring to celestial spheres including the official Websters and Oxford dictionaries. So this is not a matter of the dictionaries being weak but is clearly a case of one dictionary using a particular example but clearly not invalidating the multiple other dictionaries that use multiple different examples.
Originally posted by h1a8
If the rope is magical then yes.
With magic all common sense and science is void.
Hm. If we follow your logic, then it might also stand to reason that since the rope was magical, it may also have negated the gravitational pull of the Solar System against Earth and that they may have well been pulling an earth that may have minimal gravitational forces affecting it (the same way that attaching a rocket at the side of an earthbound asteroid that has mass approaching billions of tonnes may slowly steer it away from earth wherein hitting it with nukes would just scar the surface).
I don't really believe that, but HEY it's your logic after all.
Originally posted by Naija boyThat's not the same feat as pulling the Serpent from the Earth. When Thor fished the serpent it wasn't yet the size of the Earth. This is a different occurrence.
I know such because in the narration it talked about thor using his strength to pull harder and harder and there is no mention of any help being provided by the boat. Infact prior to thor dropping the bait, the narration talks about the boat sailing and sailing until it comes to a stop so thor can lower the bait. From then on all emphasis is placed on thors strength with nothing being shown or mentioned in regards to the boat assiting him.
I can show at least ten dictionaries which show examples of "ethereal" being used to mean heavenly while NOT referring to celestial spheres including the official Websters and Oxford dictionaries. So this is not a matter of the dictionaries being weak but is clearly a case of one dictionary using a particular example but clearly not invalidating the multiple other dictionaries that use multiple different examples. [/B][/QUOTE] Wrong most dictionaries explicitly defines it as light or intangible as the most used definition. And then Heavenly/Spiritual as a 2th to 3rd most used definition. Spiritual has something to do with spirits.
Originally posted by h1a8
That's not the same feat as pulling the Serpent from the Earth. When Thor fished the serpent it wasn't yet the size of the Earth. This is a different occurrence.
In Gods name what r u talking about now eh? Please go and read the comic. Im not referring to to thor #273 where he first went to fish the midgard serpent from below the sea. Im referring to Thor 327 which is the issue that the scans i posted come from and which is in question here. After thor defeated the giant Hamir he went with him to fish out the midgard serpent which had surrounded earth and narration mentions them sailing through the void until the point where thor drops the bait (an ox) into the Serpents mouth.
Wrong most dictionaries explicitly defines it as light or intangible as the most used definition. And then Heavenly/Spiritual as a 2th to 3rd most used definition. Spiritual has something to do with spirits.
ITs obvious u didnt understand my post at all. I wasnt arguing that the definition as heavenly is the primary definiton given in dictonaries. I was mentioning that when dictionaries do give "heavenly and celestial" as a definition( normally as a second definition) thatthey are not referring to the scientific celestial spheres only but rather give numerous diverse examples. So ur whole use of celestial spheres to somehow argue that it means imaginary is completely false and should be thrown out the window. Further its obvious to anyone that heavenly/spiritual in that case refers to a magnificent/supernatural/exalted creature or thing and its clear that thats the context which is being used in this example.
Originally posted by Naija boyWell IDK. This is irrelevant anyway. I can pull harder and harder with assistance and still fail (or succeed).
In Gods name what r u talking about now eh? Please go and read the comic. Im not referring to to thor #273 where he first went to fish the midgard serpent from below the sea. Im referring to Thor 327 which is the issue that the scans i posted come from and which is in question here. After thor defeated the giant Hamir he went with him to fish out the midgard serpent which had surrounded earth and narration mentions them sailing through the void until the point where thor drops the bait (an ox) into the Serpents mouth.
ITs obvious u didnt understand my post at all. I wasnt arguing that the definition as heavenly is the primary definiton given in dictonaries. I was mentioning that when dictionaries do give "heavenly and celestial" as a definition( normally as a second definition) thatthey are not referring to the scientific celestial spheres only but rather give numerous diverse examples. So ur whole use of celestial spheres to somehow argue that it means imaginary is completely false and should be thrown out the window. Further its obvious to anyone that heavenly/spiritual in that case refers to a magnificent/supernatural/exalted creature or thing and its clear that thats the context which is being used in this example.
Originally posted by h1a8
I understood. I thought I just add a few things. I was just showing that it couldn't mean heavenly since that implies celestial spheres.
Other well respected dictionaries equate the heavenly with spiritual in the same phrase. Spiritual is of relating to the spirit. This is the root word for crying out loud. Think about it. How can something have the quality of being spiritual without the idea of a spirit? Spiritual beings are supernatural beings but supernatural things aren't necessarily spiritual things.
Yes the do put heavenly/spiritual but that is because the concept of heaven is normally associated with the spiritual and supernatural. Now suupernatural and spiritual while not exactly the same are very closely related and can certainly be interchanged within the context of the comic. The reason for the classification of heavenly/spriritual as a seperate definition(from immaterial intangible) is because it emphasizes a different concept. As ive said repeatedly The emphasis here is not on the intangibility of the spirits but rather is on their supernatural and exalted nature.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
ARGH! This argument went from feats, to physics, to philosophy and now to semantics.Someone put this thread out of its misery please. >_<
QFT. This fellow has refused to give up his belief that superman is billions of ttimes stronger than thor despite all the evidence shown. That and almost evrybody agrees that Kurse wins.
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
You admitted that even if your theory is correct and it can materialize when it chooses to thus explaining them walking over it's body. Then why not admit he obviously lifting more then just a head and it could've been his whole body or part of his body as you say since he can materialize at it's choosing. Furthermore, even if your theory is correct (which i don't believe because clearly part of his body is there) then the force a creature of that size could generate against and griping would be astronomical. Whether Thor lifted the weight of it or not it would still have the same pulling griping power of snake that size plus it's magical abilities. That my friend clearly alone far and away makes it WAY more then 1000 tons
H1a8 address this post please
Originally posted by KuRuPT ThanosiPlease read below completely. I may have change some things around while writing.
You admitted that even if your theory is correct and it can materialize when it chooses to thus explaining them walking over it's body. Then why not admit he obviously lifting more then just a head and it could've been his whole body or part of his body as you say since he can materialize at it's choosing. Furthermore, even if your theory is correct (which i don't believe because clearly part of his body is there) then the force a creature of that size could generate against and griping would be astronomical. Whether Thor lifted the weight of it or not it would still have the same pulling griping power of snake that size plus it's magical abilities. That my friend clearly alone far and away makes it WAY more then 1000 tons
The panel says ethereal form. The OHOTMU says only the A section materialized and that the serpent was magically (not physically) crushing the Earth causing storms, etc. This is all the evidence I need to know that the Serpent was mostly intangible and not wholly solid. Now if the Serpent wasn't intangible then people, automobiles, planes, etc. would have kept bumping into the darn thing while still contradicting the panel.
grip alone vs. weight and grip are two different things. It's no telling how much magical grip strength Thor was overcoming if any at all. That is to say, the grip could have been only 100tons or even 1 pound. Because crushing a planet certainly does not cause storms.
Now, assuming there was a grip, the grip had to be far under the weight of the Earth since Thor didn't pull the Earth with him. Maybe pulling on the head with a hook caused the Serpent to completely loosen its grip naturally. If I had a hook in my mouth then you can apply the gentlest pull and I will let go anything I'm holding and follow you. This is self preservation.
Lastly, even if the Serpent was totally solid then the power than Superman was pulling with still trumps the weight of the Serpent by more than a trillions times. Assuming the Serpent is a very generous 1 ton per foot (even though it was a little wider than Thor) and Earth is 25000 x 5280 ft around then 6.36E23tons/1.36E8tons = 4.68E15 times more. This is 4680000000000000 times more. My billion was somewhat generous.
Now the boat assisted in the pulling and this alone makes the feat invalid. But in the latter paragraph I assumed it didn't.