Originally posted by Philosophía
Only to dumb and/or ignorant people. Which there are quite a few, actually. The rest I get along just fine.You're mis-informed and purposley, I assume, spreading the idiocies around. Do you even understand why the blackholes in the hadron colliders are harmless?
(1). Because they emit more radiation than the matter they consume, thus vanish and exist for time intervals so small (bilionth of a trilionth of a trilionth of a second) that they're insignificant.
And an alternative theory to the one above, devised just in case that the aforementioned is wrong:
(2). Because those are so infinitly small that it would take more than the age of the entire universe for them to consume a miligram of Earth material.And all these are theoretical aspects, that haven't actually been shown to exist.
How do either of them apply to the blackhole Superman contained? They don't. The blackhole had none of those impediments. It was capable of consuming the entire solar system had it been released in a matter of moments.
http://i738.photobucket.com/albums/xx28/PhilosophiaKMC/blackholeinpalm2.jpg
And Superman was experiencing the gravitational effects of the blackhole first-hand; it had begun bending everything as soon as it had been released.
http://i738.photobucket.com/albums/xx28/PhilosophiaKMC/blackholeinpalm3.jpg
http://i738.photobucket.com/albums/xx28/PhilosophiaKMC/blackholeinpalm4.jpg
http://i738.photobucket.com/albums/xx28/PhilosophiaKMC/blackholeinpalm5.jpgFurthermore, the size of the blackhole only matters in the sense that it determines how long it's going to last, and determines the event horizon/how fast it's actually going to consume matter. The actual pressure at the heart of the blackhole is still the same. If you don't understand that, whether Superman stands at the center of a blackhole as big as a galaxy, or one as big as a house, the pressure is experiencing is still the same - infinite gravity.
The fact that Superman was able to physically hold the blackhole itself (infinite gravity) into his hand, is both a measure of his strength
and durability - and if you want it to compare it, it takes infinitley - literally - more strength and durability than what Hulk has done.So this is, in fact, the 3rd post-Crisis feat where Superman has demonstrated infinite strength. Nice, right?
I don't use arguments and would rather point out that you're spilling idiocies because it's generally a waste of my time. I'm not talking down to you to make myself feel better - I talk that way because you're bathing in ignorance but talk as if you're right. You're not. Try not to act arrogant and knowledgeable while posting only stupidities, and then call me arogant and condescending.
Originally posted by Philosophía
Yes - and what does strength/striking power have to do with Superman being knocked out after pulverizing the moon in a single strike? You're demeaning his strength by talking about his durability. Can you rise up to kindergarden level and make the difference between apples and oranges?
Interesting Philo.. So tell me.. If one has enough striking power to obliterate a planet.. before it comes down to taxing their durability they can do so correct? Or are you claiming that whenever someone has one shot a planet.. it was actually a durability feat as opposed to a striking power feat.. if that is your stance.. then I don't know where to go from here.
Originally posted by Philosophía
Only to dumb and/or ignorant people. Which there are quite a few, actually. The rest I get along just fine.You're mis-informed and purposley, I assume, spreading the idiocies around. Do you even understand why the blackholes in the hadron colliders are harmless?
(1). Because they emit more radiation than they consume, and exist for time intervals so small (bilionth of a trilionth of a second) before they could do anything.
And an alternative theory to the one above, devised just in case that the aforementioned is wrong:
(2). Because those are so infinitly small that it would take more than the age of the entire universe for them to consume a miligram of Earth material.And all these are theoretical aspects, that haven't actually been shown to exist.
Which still really proves my point. :-/ When it comes to black holes, size matters.
But you know what? I'll talk to my friend. He dabbles in theoretical physics. I'm sure he'll have a good laugh at our little debate over unprovable (beyond equations) theoretical assumptions shown in comics where authors prolly have little-to-zero real knowledge about the physics involved when they wrote about it.
Originally posted by Philosophía
How do either of them apply to the blackhole Superman contained? They don't. The blackhole had none of those impediments. It was capable of consuming the entire solar system had it been released in a matter of moments.http://i738.photobucket.com/albums/xx28/PhilosophiaKMC/blackholeinpalm2.jpg
And Superman was experiencing the gravitational effects of the blackhole first-hand; it had begun bending everything as soon as it had been released.
http://i738.photobucket.com/albums/xx28/PhilosophiaKMC/blackholeinpalm3.jpg
http://i738.photobucket.com/albums/xx28/PhilosophiaKMC/blackholeinpalm4.jpg
http://i738.photobucket.com/albums/xx28/PhilosophiaKMC/blackholeinpalm5.jpgFurthermore, the size of the blackhole only matters in the sense that it determines how long it's going to last, and determines the event horizon/how fast it's actually going to consume matter. The actual pressure at the heart of the blackhole is still the same. If you don't understand that, whether Superman stands at the center of a blackhole as big as a galaxy, or one as big as a house, the pressure is experiencing is still the same - infinite gravity.
You can't prove the mass of the mini-black hole Superman was holding in his hand as no quantities were ever provided. For all we know it was very tiny and the force he was feeling was from the its outer gravity even before going within its event horizon. :-/
With RL physics aside, Havoc has been able to hold onto a mini black hole himself. The feat really isn't that impressive.
Originally posted by Philosophía
The fact that Superman was able to physically hold the blackhole itself (infinite gravity) into his hand, is both a measure of his strength
and durability - and if you want it to compare it, it takes infinitley - literally - more strength and durability than what Hulk has done.So this is, in fact, the 3rd post-Crisis feat where Superman has demonstrated infinite strength. Nice, right?
He didn't "physically hold" the black hole at its core. It can be argued that he was containing it beyond its event horizon, as he wasn't holding it at its center at all but sealing it off to prevent it from gaining mass.
And we don't really know or can prove HOW or even if it's possible to transport a black hole by hand applying RL physics.
Nice try at attempting to give Supes "infinite strength", tho.
Originally posted by Philosophía
I don't use arguments and would rather point out that you're spilling idiocies because it's generally a waste of my time. I'm not talking down to you to make myself feel better - I talk that way because you're bathing in ignorance but talk as if you're right. You're not. Try not to act arrogant and knowledgeable while posting only stupidities, and then call me arogant and condescending.
When have I ever acted arrogant? I state my arguments as plainly (and as robotic) as I can in order to avoid ppl going to a pointless/childish namecalling game such as this, as it is isn't worth my time as my time is actually worth money (might be worth yours, tho, I dunno. Doesn't sound like you're employed, tbh.).
The only person who acts "arrogant" and pretends to be "knowledgeable-without-fail" here, is you, really. But I'm sure you take pleasure in your douche-ness, your self-esteem in RL must leave a lot to be desired.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Which still really proves my point. :-/ When it comes to black holes, size matters.[...]
The feat really isn't that impressive.
[...]
For all we know it was very tiny and the force he was feeling was from the its outer gravity even before going within its event horizon.
Originally posted by Philosophía
it'sgenerallya waste of my time.
---
Anyway, Black Adam, eventough I'd still lose.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210It's not hypocritical because I said we can use the Hulk feat. Superman is so far above Hulk in strength (not in potential though) I see no reason not to use it.
See below.Also, you can call it PIS if you want. But isn't it hypocritical then to use the Maggedon feat as by your computation (w/c I strongly disagree with) Superman is lifting weights he's never shown to be able to do so (5000 Earth weights)? That, in itself, is YOUR definition of PIS as well.
Herc has no quantifiable punching feats that says otherwise to a bloodlusted Superman. Lowballing implies when characters have shown better. If Herc has shown better then prove me wrong.
It's lowballing Herc to state that Superman has 3x the punching power he has.
Of course I did. It was complete. I could post it again or send it to PM. It was an underestimate, meaning that Superman was pulling with at least that force.
1. Where do you keep getting this "50 Earth weights" computation of yours?? I remember us 2 having this debate before and you never really conclusively proved your computation was accurate.
It doesn't say. An underestimate can be calculated though, which is far above 100 Earth weights of force. Try closer to 5000.
Also, he was simply turning the wheels )of Mageddon, where does it say here that he was pulling all of 100 Earth weights BS that you keep throwing around?
I'm basing it off feats 1st then real life 2nd. In comics, the stronger someone is the harder they punch (with the exception of flash). This is a comic fact. In reality F=ma is a LAW, not a theory. It can't be disputed. If I can use the SAME strength I was pulling with to create the acceleration to punch with then my pulling strength is directly proportional to punching strength. Actually, punching IS pulling, for pulling is pushing.3. But feats argue otherwise. Applying RL physics in quantities and computations with the levels of unquantifiables present in the feats in question is simply impractical. With that, we base it on feats. In a fight, pulling is irrelevant and punching is not. You need to show Supe's punching feats in order to make a good case of arguing whether or not he'll win a fight. With the SHEER WEALTH of showing Superman has and the FACT that he fights mostly by punching something, you should have NO PROBLEM showing me the upper limits of his physical punching power.
4. We must be talking about different things. Pls supply this star-throwing feat if you can.
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/3254/s1te3.jpg
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/1662/s2cd5.jpg
Not a true sized star but when Superman thrown it, it was fairly decent size. It was super dense and massive that it still had the strength to hold all of it's planets a short distance from it.
Originally posted by kgkg
You won't accept that feat?
Here I would, since it wouldn't matter to a bloodlusted Superman.
But in general I wouldn't.
Originally posted by Starscream MIt implies he has infinite strength and durability. Obviously it's not representative of him on average.
philosophia, the blackhole feat is a ridiculous non-sensisical feat that should not be applied as representative of superman.
But it's hypocritical to say that Joe Fixit destroying an asteroid twice the size of earth (if we take it at face value, that is) is somehow representative of Hulk's average.
Originally posted by DeadlineA moon made of negative energy. And using Mcduffie? I'm insulted. It's common knowledge that he was writing Superman down.
Even worse.
Originally posted by Starscream MBut he does this kind of shit ALL THE TIME. 😬
philosophia, the blackhole feat is a ridiculous non-sensisical feat that should not be applied as representative of superman.
Classic Philo "debating" style. Act like a tool then run away once a debate gets started. Actually, I guess its a good thing, your type are beneath me. I DO have better things to do than debate with a most-likely unemployed tool that acts reeeeal "big" online in his search for self-validation due to having no self-esteem IRL.
H1a8: gotta catch my flight now. Ill be back in 1-2 days for my rebuttal when I get back to my home.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Classic Philo "debating" style. Act like a tool then run away once a debate gets started. Actually, I guess its a good thing, your type are beneath me. I DO have better things to do than debate with a most-likely unemployed tool that acts reeeeal "big" online in his search for self-validation due to having no self-esteem IRL.H1a8: gotta catch my flight now. Ill be back in 1-2 days for my rebuttal when I get back to my home.
In Summation, I got owned. 🙁
FTFY.
Originally posted by Philosophíaright, the implication is irrational...as is the use of the lifting of book with infinite pages feat
It implies he has infinite strength and durability. Obviously it's not representative of him on average.
Originally posted by PhilosophíaI personally have a low view of any of the planet destroying feats...as I think writers get carried away and don't stay consistent. Most heralds barely destroy their surroundings in big fights, yet they can all of sudden smash a planet with a blow?
But it's hypocritical to say that Joe Fixit destroying an asteroid twice the size of earth (if we take it at face value, that is) is somehow representative of Hulk's average.
so, yeah, you're right, the asteroid feat isn't representative of hulk's average, or even peak imo. but two wrongs don't make a right.
Originally posted by KuRuPT ThanosiCalibur is meaningless here at a forum fight. Now if you mean someone who has Thano's durability then that is a different story. IMO, Thanos durability lies far more in his ability to resist energy projection. This doesn't equate to resisting blunt force hits though. Thanos may not be more durable than say a very angry Hulk or Thor in the physical blunt force area but he is definitely more durable against energy projection. But why does Superman need to show something from a comic to be THE ONLY MEANS of proving he can do it in a forum fight? Can't we just use common sense. I mean if someone can lift a tanker then certainly they can lift a BMW. If Superman is strong enough to ko Thanos and fast enough to hit him if he blitzed then why in hell can't Superman do it? You are now arguing against common sense.
h1a8.... please give the times Superman has blitzed an opponent right from the start of the fight.. and KO'd them before they could ever react. Of course.. someone of the calibur of Thanos with comparable durability. Thanks
1. This is bloodlusted Superman. He will use everything he has to kill Thanos. This is common sense.
2. Comics wouldn't have Superman always use his speed against powerful foes (who are not fast) because he would win the fight so quickly and it wouldn't be a comic to write about. That's why this is a forum fight.
Jesus f'n Christ.
Superman being KOed after ramming the moon =/= Superman being weaker than Hulk. Shit, if it's not Hulk lowballing, it's gotta be Superman lowballing.
As it was said previously in the thread, their peers in strength. Neither one of them is going to one shot the other. Any attempt at trying to paint one of these characters as obliterating the other easily in a straight up "brick style slugfest" is ridiculous.
