Originally posted by Batman-PrimeI don't 'think Superman is even close to WB Hulk in terms of strength. The guy has doubted himself while up against Subjekt 17 and besides lacking the strength feats or the dynamic strength of the Hulk he just isn't as impressive when he cuts loose imo. Hulk can destroy a planet simply by moving around he doesn't need to fly or go light speed in order to do so.
SMP or SBP isn't holding back too. Superman without holding back would be at leats in WBH strength level. As said any herald with such strength can destroy a planet or move it, though moving would be harder and not as fast as prime. Hulk can't fly, duh.So now we go to lowball Prime because you already lost two arguments...
Hulk would struggle to do so, as did Superman or any other Herald with Hulks strength. Prime didn't. Simple.
If you are shot against a piece of paper, you will get shot strough it and would do less damage then standing there and ripping it apart or hitting it with a Karate Chop. See we can play this game and you will always lose, like before. A char with herald strength can destroy a planet with his punches, that's something we agree, right? They can move a planet but it will be hard and they will have to struggle, right? What Prime did, unamped was beyond that kind of strength.
You claimed nuke while taking a shot at my post which clearly showed how many nukes it would theoretically take to destroy the earth. A lot less than has injured Prime. I for one don't go nuts over "nukes" or "collateral damage" but since you want to take it there I am more than happy to oblige.
Prime used his speed in order to do so. Hulk while weaker destroyed a planet while flying through it going much slower.
Hulk is stronger than prime and Superman at his best imo. Neither of them have dynamic strength or have exhibited the sheer power that Hulk has.
Originally posted by quanchi112
It's all speculation it seems but the forces it would take to destroy the earth without it eventually reforming is awesome indeed.Source: This method suggested by Sean Timpa.5.OverspunYou will need: some means of accelerating the Earth's rotation.Accelerating the Earth's rotation is a rather different matter from movingit. External interactions with asteroids might move the Earth but won't have asignificant effect on how fast it spins. And certainly it won't spin the Earthfast enough. You need to build rockets or railguns at the Equator, all facingWest. Or perhaps something more exotic...Method: The theory is, if you spin the Earth fast enough, it'll fly apart asthe bits at the Equator start moving fast enough to overcome gravity. In theory,one revolution every 84 minutes should do it - even slower would be fine, in fact,as the Earth would become flatter and thus more prone to breaking apart as youspun it faster.Feasibility rating: 4/10. This could be done - there is a definite upperlimit on how fast something like the Earth can spin before it breaks apart.However, spinning a planet is even more difficult than moving it. It's not assimple as attaching rockets pointing in each direction to each side...Source: This method suggested by Matthew Wakeling.6.Blown upYou will need: 25,000,000,000,000 tonnes of antimatter.Method: This method involves detonating a bomb so big that it blasts theEarth to pieces.This, to say the least, requires a big bomb. All the explosives mankind hasever created, nuclear or non-, gathered together and detonated simultaneously,would make a significant crater and wreck the planet's ecosystem, but barelyscratch the surface of the planet. There is evidence that in the past, asteroidshave hit the Earth with the explosive yield of five billion Hiroshima bombs - andsuch evidence is difficult to find. It is, in short, insanely difficult tosignificantly alter the Earth's structure with explosives. This is not to mentionthe gravity problem. Just because you blasted the Earth apart doesn't mean youblasted it apart for good. If you don't blast it hard enough, the pieces will fallback together again under mutual gravitational attraction, and Earth, like theliquid metal Terminator, will reform from its shattered shards. You have to blowthe Earth up hard enough to overcome that attraction.How hard is that?If you do the lengthy calculations you find that to liberate that muchenergy is equivalent to the complete annihilation of around 1,246,400,000,000tonnes of antimatter. That's assuming zero energy loss to heat, neutrinos andradiation, which is unlikely to be the case in reality: You'll probably need to upthe dose by at least a factor of twenty. Once you've generated your antimatter,probably in space, just launch it en masse towards Earth. The resulting release ofenergy (obeying Einstein's famous mass-energy equation, E=mc2) should besufficient to split the Earth into a thousand pieces.
But I digress and fall back with my real world example. Pick up a 25 pound dumbbell and try to destroy it under your own physical power. Tell me which is harder in the weight room. I win.
None of this is relevant at all.
And your real world example is ignoring that the reason moving Earth isn't just because it weighs a lot, but also because you are expected to halt an object that large that is also rotating at supersonic speeds, and moving through space at a speed of roughly mach 100, while overpowering the Sun's gravital pull on Earth.
It is easier to lift a 25 pound dumbell than destroy it... When it is at rest. It is much more difficult to even stop the same dumbell when it is moving at a speed of mach 100, than it is to destroy it (Traveling at that speed, if it hit something that was harder than it, it would almost assuredly shatter, considering something that weight at that speed would have a force of over three hundred tons if it hit something), much less grab it and then push it at FTL speeds.
Originally posted by NemeBroWe see a nuked hurt Prime while he flies through the earth and destroys it while being generally unharmed. That's called inconsistent. If you don't see the difference then you aren't being honest.
None of this is relevant at all.And your real world example is ignoring that the reason moving Earth isn't just because it weighs a lot, but also because you are expected to halt an object that large that is also rotating at supersonic speeds, and moving through space at a speed of roughly mach 100, while overpowering the Sun's gravital pull on Earth.
It is easier to lift a 25 pound dumbell than destroy it... When it is at rest. It is much more difficult to even stop the same dumbell when it is moving at a speed of mach 100, than it is to destroy it (Traveling at that speed, if it hit something that was harder than it, it would almost assuredly shatter, considering something that weight at that speed would have a force of over three hundred tons if it hit something), much less grab it and then push it at FTL speeds.
Comics/fiction doesn't have to adhere to the laws of physics and be consistent. You factoring in weight and making up numbers was always a waste of time.
Originally posted by quanchi112
We see a nuked hurt Prime
We see a blast similar in size to a nuke. By that logic, Thanos's showing against Odin isn't particularly impressive because Odin wasn't destroying even countries, let alone galaxies like he is capable of.
while he flies through the earth and destroys it while being generally unharmed. That's called inconsistent. If you don't see the difference then you aren't being honest.
Why are you even going on this tangent? I didn't so much as bring up the consistency of Prime's feats, or even Prime at all in my post, I was addressing the difference between your flawed analogy and the reality of destroying a planet.
Comics/fiction doesn't have to adhere to the laws of physics and be consistent. You factoring in weight and making up numbers was always a waste of time.
Only I have a basis for saying moving Earth is more impressive than destroying it. You, on the other hand, have no basis for claiming the opposite. Therefore, my stance, due to being more supported than your's, is stronger.
Why should your point of view be lended any credence when you have nothing to base it on other than personal interpretation? Why claim that destroying a planet is more impressive than moving it when you are adamant about not acknowledge that you are simply incorrect by real-world standards? By all means, if you can prove that for some reason moving a planet is much easier in comics, do so, but until then, I've won this argument.
Originally posted by NemeBroThanos has destroyed a planet while in conflict with someone but unlike yourself I don't care about collateral damage. You do so by your own standards it remains inconsistent unless you think a nuke should hurt more than an entire planet being destroyed. Therein lies the point of inconsistencies.
We see a blast similar in size to a nuke. By that logic, Thanos's showing against Odin isn't particularly impressive because Odin wasn't destroying even countries, let alone galaxies like he is capable of.
My point has to do with in fiction how it can vary so wildly from one arc to the next.
Why are you even going on this tangent? I didn't so much as bring up the consistency of Prime's feats, or even Prime at all in my post, I was addressing the difference between your flawed analogy and the reality of destroying a planet.[/B]
Did you miss the post about it being supported in just how difficult it would be to completely destroy the planet. The level of power is almost inconceivable to us and all of it is speculation either way.
Only I have a basis for saying moving Earth is more impressive than destroying it. You, on the other hand, have no basis for claiming the opposite. Therefore, my stance, due to being more supported than your's, is stronger.Why should your point of view be lended any credence when you have nothing to base it on other than personal interpretation? Why claim that destroying a planet is more impressive than moving it when you are adamant about not acknowledge that you are simply incorrect by real-world standards? By all means, if you can prove that for some reason moving a planet is much easier in comics, do so, but until then, I've won this argument. [/B]
That wasn't my personal interpretation that was via the net.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Thanos has destroyed a planet while in conflict with someone but unlike yourself I don't care about collateral damage. You do so by your own standards it remains inconsistent unless you think a nuke should hurt more than an entire planet being destroyed. Therein lies the point of inconsistencies.
And Superboy Prime has pushed planets into eachother, survived anti-matter from the Anti-Monitor on two separate occasions, etc etc.
You're looking only at the size of the blast, which isn't necessarily demonstrative of its potency.
My point has to do with in fiction how it can vary so wildly from one arc to the next.
Which is irrelevant to the argument.
Did you miss the post about it being supported in just how difficult it would be to completely destroy the planet. The level of power is almost inconceivable to us and all of it is speculation either way.That wasn't my personal interpretation that was via the net.
I know it is difficult to destroy Earth.
It is more difficult to move it from its orbit to Mars.
Your post proved only that it is difficult to destroy a planet (No shit, I already did that), not that it is more impressive to do so than to move one.
Originally posted by NemeBroThe blast was compared to a nuke and the link also went into detail how many nukes would be necessary to destroy earth. The nuke which hit Prime paled in comparison yet the destruction of a planet didn't harm him at all. Inconsistency. You can pretend it's all written by the same guy and all makes sense. It isn't.
And Superboy Prime has pushed planets into eachother, survived anti-matter from the Anti-Monitor on two separate occasions, etc etc.You're looking only at the size of the blast, which isn't necessarily demonstrative of its potency.
Which is irrelevant to the argument.
I know it is difficult to destroy Earth.
It is more difficult to move it from its orbit to Mars.
Your post proved only that it is difficult to destroy a planet (No shit, I already did that), not that it is more impressive to do so than to move one.
No, it isn't.
No, it's clearly not and it's all theoretical anyway.
Originally posted by Cogito
Lol at the idea that the size of an attack is relative to its power in comics. Just because something looks like a nuke, doesn't mean it bears the same power. Monarch wielded the power of the big bang. Bursting his containment suit destroyed the universe, and Prime survived it. Why don't you show that, Quan?If size = power, then Thor's Godblast would be...what..a millionth of the power of a relatively small nuclear warhead?
👆 👆
Originally posted by CogitoPrime was teleported away. Comics are inconsistent and the Monitor easily survived it as well despite being far less than Monarch. A nuke which didn't destroy the planet hurt Prime and it was called a nuke on panel. I didn't dub it a nuke. Prime flew through a planet relatively unscathed but he was still amped.
Lol at the idea that the size of an attack is relative to its power in comics. Just because something looks like a nuke, doesn't mean it bears the same power. Monarch wielded the power of the big bang. Bursting his containment suit destroyed the universe, and Prime survived it. Why don't you show that, Quan?If size = power, then Thor's Godblast would be...what..a millionth of the power of a relatively small nuclear warhead?
In any event I don't judge characters by feats anyway I am just giving examples of how inconsistent feats can be from writer to writer.