Gladiator (kallark) vs Thor Odinson -- strength feats

Originally posted by inimalist
that is true, as most comics are reviewed by astrophysicists prior to publication

Yes genius, I mean I can't understand why the writer used the word PLANET instead of something like moon or asteroid or planetoid. The average comic book reader would see the word "PLANET" and think something like the Earth in size which is probably what the writer wanted to convey otherwise he'd of used a different word or used a descriptive like "small" if he wanted to mean the PLANET wasn't as large as your "typical" ie Earth-sized world (you know what the average reader of comics would assume).

Thinking hurts you doesn't it?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Dwarf planet wasn't really a common term back then, it came into common usage in the last 5-10 years with the Pluto thing.

I don't think that's a solid argument either, it's still subjective and still renders the feat difficult to quantify.

Were the words planetoid, moon, asteroid, "small", and "large" around then? Because if the writer didn't mean to convey a roughly Earth sized planet he could have used any of those words to get that point across.

If the PLANET was capable of sustaining intelligent life, it would have to have :
an atmosphere of some kind
sufficient gravity to allow life to evolve and retain the atmosphere if the planet was close to it's parent star

There's more but those are the basics. The narration made it clear that world had intelligent life at one point but they had since moved on. So...

Originally posted by zopzop
Yes genius, I mean I can't understand why the writer used the word PLANET instead of something like moon or asteroid or planetoid. The average comic book reader would see the word "PLANET" and think something like the Earth in size which is probably what the writer wanted to convey otherwise he'd of used a different word or used a descriptive like "small" if he wanted to mean the PLANET wasn't as large as your "typical" ie Earth-sized world (you know what the average reader of comics would assume).

10 points to anyone who sees why this logic is self-refuting 🙂

the other side, and I can give you examples if you want, is that comics are not written with that level of specificity or fact checking put into it. The writers are not going through it with the fine tooth comb that forum people do. I've got other examples if you are interested where, unarguably, writers and editors are not as sophisticated as you think. There is certainly no reason to think their writing is anything close to a reflection of modern science [sic]. seriously, I lol'd for real

Originally posted by zopzop
Thinking hurts you doesn't it?

if you are older than 15 this isn't age appropriate 🙂

Originally posted by zopzop
If the PLANET was capable of sustaining intelligent life, it would have to have :
an atmosphere of some kind
sufficient gravity to allow life to evolve and retain the atmosphere if the planet was close to it's parent star

so what you are saying is the writer and editor sent some equations off to NASA in order to make sure that all of their calculations and art were in accordance with cutting edge understandings of astrophysics?

what would they call a planet the size of Jupiter? or a moon the size of earth?

Originally posted by inimalist
10 points to anyone who sees why this logic is self-refuting 🙂

the other side, and I can give you examples if you want, is that comics are not written with that level of specificity or fact checking put into it. The writers are not going through it with the fine tooth comb that forum people do. I've got other examples if you are interested where, unarguably, writers and editors are not as sophisticated as you think. There is certainly no reason to think their writing is anything close to a reflection of modern science [sic]. seriously, I lol'd for real

Then why use the word planet? The writer also made it clear that the planet was capable of sustaining life and intelligent life did evolve there before moving on.

The average reader would assume PLANET meant Earth-like PLANET.

Otherwise the writer could have said "planetoid" or "small" planet. Or why bother and just say asteroid or moon?

He specifically used the word PLANET because he wanted to show Gladiator as capable of destroying A PLANET. Not a moon, not an asteroid, not a "small" planet, not a planetoid, a PLANET.

Originally posted by inimalist

so what you are saying is the writer and editor sent some equations off to NASA in order to make sure that all of their calculations and art were in accordance with cutting edge understandings of astrophysics?

what would they call a planet the size of Jupiter? or a moon the size of earth?

First, of all, do you have an example of a "moon" the size of Earth?

Jupiter is a....wait for it................."LARGE" P L A N E T. Saturn, Uranus, Neptune are "L A R G E" "P L A N E T S".

Mars, Mercury, Pluto (back in the day when they thought it was slightly larger than Mercury) are..........wait for it..............."S M A L L" "P L A N E T S"

Earth and Venus are.................."P L A N E T S". What are we using as a metric for "large and small"? Earth of course.

... because it was a planet?

Originally posted by zopzop
First, of all, do you have an example of a "moon" the size of Earth?

Jupiter is a....wait for it................."LARGE" P L A N E T. Saturn, Uranus, Neptune are "L A R G E" "P L A N E T S".

Mars, Mercury, Pluto (back in the day when they thought it was slightly larger than Mercury) are..........wait for it..............."S M A L L" "P L A N E T S"

Earth and Venus are.................."P L A N E T S". What are we using as a metric for "large and small"? Earth of course.

why? because it supports your point? or because this is spelled out somewhere in comics?

Originally posted by inimalist
... because it was a planet?

Planet (especially one that had intelligent life evolve on it), without a descriptive such as "large" or "small", meant what to the average comic book reader or writer in the 80s? Earth sized no?

Originally posted by inimalist
why? because it supports your point? or because this is spelled out somewhere in comics?

No genius because we use the Earth as a metric. Worlds larger than our planet are considered "LARGE PLANETS" worlds smaller than Earth we consider "SMALL PLANETS". Worlds the size of our planet like Venus don't have either descriptor because Venus is roughly Earth sized.

Originally posted by zopzop
Planet (especially one that had intelligent life evolve on it), without a descriptive such as "large" or "small", meant what to the average comic book reader or writer in the 80s? Earth sized no?

what, in my opinion? no... especially in the practice of debating things on forums, such things are indeterminate and likely not as "scientific" as you want it to be

could that be what the author meant? sure, but without anything else to corroborate it, there is no reason to think it means earth sized over any other size of planet.

Originally posted by zopzop
No genius because we use the Earth as a metric. Worlds larger than our planet are considered "LARGE PLANETS" worlds smaller than Earth we consider "SMALL PLANETS". Worlds the size of our planet like Venus don't have either descriptor because Venus is roughly Earth sized.

based on?

Originally posted by inimalist
based on?

Based on the fact that we live on the freaking planet Earth and it's our point of reference? What do they mean when they say Venus is .7 AU from the Sun (aka .7 Astronomical Units)? They are using EARTH as the metric and the metric is set at 1 AU from the Sun for Earth.

Since we live on the god damn planet, it's only natural we use it as our metric when comparing other worlds to it.

Originally posted by zopzop
Based on the fact that we live on the freaking planet Earth and it's our point of reference? What do they mean when they say Venus is .7 AU from the Sun (aka .7 Astronomical Units)? They are using EARTH as the metric and the metric is set at 1 AU from the Sun for Earth.

Since we live on the god damn planet, it's only natural we use it as our metric when comparing other worlds to it.

so, you appeal to science, yet are trying to argue that this isn't as sophisticated as science, again to reaffirm the point that writers would use scientific terminology...

you are must be correct, I lack the ability to comprehend what you write

Originally posted by inimalist
so, you appeal to science, yet are trying to argue that this isn't as sophisticated as science, again to reaffirm the point that writers would use scientific terminology...

you are must be correct, I lack the ability to comprehend what you write

No idiot, he used the term "Planet" without a descriptive like "small" or "large" because the writer knew most SANE readers would see the word PLANET (one that supported intelligent life as mentioned on panel) and use Earth as a frame of reference. Since you know ALL who read the comic were from the planet Earth.

Originally posted by zopzop
No idiot,

convinced me

Originally posted by inimalist
convinced me

I can already see it's pointless.

nono, insult me a couple more times, I think you've almost acted like a child enough to make a good point

Originally posted by inimalist
nono, insult me a couple more times, I think you've almost acted like a child enough to make a good point

Even that's pointless.

Originally posted by zopzop
Even that's pointless.

no, really, you were almost there

another slight about reading comprehension, or call me dumb, you know, the type of stuff that proves you have a good point. you are almost there!!!!

Hmm I think he has a point when you and someone cant reach an agreement on a particular subject I think it's only natural to call them an idiot.

Originally posted by SuperiorTech
Hmm I think he has a point when you and someone cant reach an agreement on a particular subject I think it's only natural to call them an idiot.

natural? yes, maybe for children who have no sense of civil discourse.....