Captain America Shields Test

Originally posted by Galan007
I think you just refuse to hear the opinions of others. When your mind is made up, it's made up. It's irritating at times, but I can respect that, I suppose. Anyway...

Originally posted by Galan007
-Perrikus' scythe is a sharp object-- it cut Mjolnir as a sharp weapon would do. Give his scythe a blunted edge, and it wouldn't have had nearly the same effect on Mjolnir.
-Mjolnir is a blunt object-- it dented Cap's shield as a blunt weapon would do. Give Mjolnir a sharpened edge, and it would have cut the shield into paper mache. That's the difference.

You are overlooking the fact that the damage a weapon causes to whatever it strikes is dependent on the TYPE of weapon that's used (ie. pointed, sharpened, blunt, etc.) If Wolverine's claws had blunted tips, he wouldn't be cutting/stabbing the likes of Hulk, Rulk, Thanos, etc.(ALL of whom are VASTLY more powerful than he.) This is an easy concept to grasp-- the easiest, in fact.

Originally posted by Galan007
You seem to be ignoring what Owen actually said and replacing it with what you want him to have said. He specifically noted that the reason Mjolnir was difficult to atomize was because of the energies(Odinpower) laced within it. Even though Surfer's board was also (per Owen) comprised of "weird" molecules, he said nothing about it being difficult/tough to atomize. Finally, he said the shield contained the "weirdest" molecules, but weirdness does NOT denote increased durability by proxy. I find that notion kind of funny, actually.

Originally posted by ODG
Thinking an object that withstands the power of a more powerful being, wielding a more powerful force and a more powerful weapon to a better degree than another object being wrecked by lesser beings, lesser powers and weapons/attacks qualifies me as non-retarded.

At this point you are just ignoring that, it seems.

Originally posted by ODG
I'm not taking your reasoning very seriously since you haven't explained why you've not given Cap's shield analogous credit for being waifer thin as opposed to the thick bludgeon that Mjolnir is. Or that we had a street leveler holding it as opposed to a wielder of the Odinforce.

Why am I telling you things you surely know?

Originally posted by ODG
Molecule Man mocks the supposed invincibility of several objects. Says that, in the end, they're just composed of molecules. Says the shield's molecules are the weirdest of them all. I find the notion of the shield's structural/compositional superiority to be so plainly obvious a kindergartener would be able to understand the import of his comments. To each his own.

Again, Owen stated that Surfer's board was comprised of "weird" molecules. However, he didn't say the board was "tough" to atomize, like he'd said about Mjolnir just beforehand. So clearly, the 'weirdness' contained within the molecules of an object doesn't denote varying levels of durability by default.

Again: the ONLY item that Owen claimed was difficult to atomize was Mjolnir. Nothing else.

Originally posted by Galan007
The TYPE of damage dealt depends [almost entirely] on the TYPE of weapon that is used. For instance: the damage Wolverine can deliver with his adamantium claws is vastly different than the damage Hammerhead can deliver with his adamantium dome. Same material, except one is sharp and one is blunt. Easy.

At this point you are just ignoring that, it seems.

When in Rome...

Originally posted by Galan007
At this point you are just ignoring that, it seems.

Cap's shield absorbs energy-- aside from it's raw durability, that's what makes it so special/unique. That is why Cap was able to endure a strike from KT in the first place.

Why am I telling you things you surely know?

Compositional superiority? He atomized Tony's armor, Mjolnir, Surfer's board, and the shield at the same time. It's not as though the shield outlasted everything else. IF that would have been the case, you'd have a leg to stand on. But... :/

Originally posted by Galan007
Again, Owen stated that Surfer's board was comprised of "weird" molecules. However, he didn't say the board was "tough" to atomize, like he'd said about Mjolnir just beforehand. So clearly, the 'weirdness' contained within an object doesn't denote varying levels of durability by default.

Again: the ONLY item that Owen claimed was difficult to atomize was Mjolnir. Nothing else.

Originally posted by ODG
Right. Like how the damage being dealt would also depend on the thickness of said object (super thin shield vs super thick bludgeon)? Or the strength of the weapon's wielder (King Thor, when normal Thor already dented adamantium)? Or the near limitless cosmic power empowering said wielder/weapon (the Odinforce)?

That's why I believe Perrikus cutting it with his scythe (a godly sharpened weapon) is a possibility.

Originally posted by ODG
And while he did it simultaneously, the shield's composition proved strangest of all. But if you really think that the shield's composition has nothing to do with its durability, at the same time Molecule Man is mocking the supposed invincibility of each of those objects, I'd say you're doing it wrong. Christ. You can't possibly be twisting that scene as Mjolnir being superior to Cap's shield. facepalm

In fact, if you really want to pick apart that scene, then have a gander at this panel in which Owen is atomizing all of the items:

-Cap's shield: broken into a bunch of pieces/vaporizing.
-Tony's armor: literally melting off his body.
-Surfer's board: broken into a bunch of pieces/disintegrating.
-Mjolnir: still intact.

If I were as nitpicky as you, I could argue that Mjolnir is superior because Owen a.) stated it was "tough" to atomize, and b.) the illustration depicts it still intact, while every other item is broken apart.

...But I would never do that. 😈

Originally posted by Galan007
You're veering away from my point. What you said above is true-- all I'm saying is that KT striking the shield with a blunt object is why it was dented, and not cut/shopped/cleaved/flayed like it would have been if Mjolnir were a sharpened/pointed weapon.

Originally posted by Galan007
That's why I believe Perrikus cutting it with his scythe (a godly sharpened weapon) is a possibility.

I'm saying that even though the molecules of Cap's shield were the weirdest, that doesn't automatically make it more durable.

In fact, if you really want to pick apart that scene, then have a gander at this panel in which Owen is atomizing all of the items:

-Cap's shield: broken into a bunch of pieces.
-Tony's armor: literally melting off his body.
-Surfer's board: broken into a bunch of pieces.
-Mjolnir: still intact.

If I were as nitpicky as you, I could argue that Mjolnir is superior because Owen a.) stated it was "tough" to atomize, and b.) the illustration depicts it still intact, while every other item is broken apart.

...But I would never do that. 😈

Originally posted by ODG
Mhmm... kinda

Originally posted by ODG
I'm saying that it doesn't take much genius to realize that since molecules are the basis of his power, and the basis of his ability to easily dismantle supposedly invicible objects like Mjolnir, the board and the shield, that the shield's molecules being the weirdest of them all is a rather obvious statement of the shield's invincibility relative to the other objects.

I would have never noticed the [now blatant] illustration in that panel had you not been so damn nitpicky... So thanks. 🙂

Originally posted by Galan007
👆

Again, if we are going to pick things apart on this level, then Mjolnir>shield, because: Owen a.) stated it was "tough" to atomize, and b.) the illustration depicts Mjolnir still intact, while every other item (including the shield) is broken apart.

I would have never noticed the [now blatant] illustration in that panel had you not been so damn nitpicky... So thanks. 🙂

None of this much matters when the shield sustains less damage from more powerful entities, forces, and weapons.

You two are obviously gay for each other.

And I want in on it.

Originally posted by ODG
What you call nitpicky, I believe is plain common sense by reading a statement in its context. Molecule Man's observation when destroying thee supposedly invincible objects wasn't a meaningless one. People do things differently from other people. People also do things differently when it suits them.

^^That + Owen's statement that Mjolnir was "tough" to atomize = Mjolnir>shield in that particular scene. No ifs, ands or buts. The artistic depiction couldn't be clearer.

Originally posted by ODG
None of this much matters when the shield sustains less damage from more powerful entities, forces, and weapons.

Originally posted by Mindset
You two are obviously gay for each other.

And I want in on it.

ie. if you want a spot, it's yours.

Gay.

2231 🤺

I like to watch.

Originally posted by Galan007

-Cap's shield: vaporizing.
-Tony's armor: melting.
-Surfer's board: disintegrating.
-Mjolnir: still intact.

^^That + Owen's statement that Mjolnir was "tough" to atomize = Mjolnir>shield in that particular scene. No ifs, ands or buts. The artistic depiction couldn't be clearer.

In your opinion. 😉

Originally posted by ODG
I'm not surprised you twisted that scene and Molecule Man's words beyond all recognition. Not anymore.

If you have a problem with that, then I suggest sending Marvel an email. They're the ones who published that stuff, not me. 🙂

^ What haven't you twisted?

I've got no issue with weaker beings, with lesser power, with inferior weapons wrecking Mjolnir worse than Cap's shield. None at all.

Originally posted by ODG
^ What haven't you twisted?

Those were the only points I made. So again: what exactly did I "twist"?

Originally posted by Galan007
Okay?

Here's a direct comparison between the shield and Mjolnir:

Mjolnir came out clearly superior (ie. the shield was dented to phuck, and Mjolnir was unscathed.)

So ABC logic aside, what durability feats does the shield have that put it above Mjolnir? This is an honest question as I have always thought of Mjolnir as superior-- but with sufficient proof, I have no problem reversing my opinion.

🙂

Thickness of material is a factor of durability as well as cross sectional Area.
The material making up Cap's shield is more durable than the material making Mjolnir. But since Mjolnir is thicker and heavier with smaller cross sectional area (can penetrate something much larger better) then we see why it was able to dent Cap's shield.

But Mjolnir in possession under KT>>>>>>>>>>>>Mjolnir in possession of Thor. KT also decapitated Destroyer with one hammer throw.

Lastly, comics are inconsistent. We see Mjolnir break upon a slight OF Thor's strength, Destroyer's normal blasts, Thor's Godblast, etc. So Mjolnir denting Cap's shield must be taken as along with the other showings.

H1 seems to be ignoring my calls for him to provide scans.....

Originally posted by h1a8
Thickness of material is a factor of durability as well as cross sectional Area.
The material making up Cap's shield is more durable than the material making Mjolnir. But since Mjolnir is thicker and heavier with smaller cross sectional area (can penetrate something much larger better) then we see why it was able to dent Cap's shield.

But Mjolnir in possession under KT>>>>>>>>>>>>Mjolnir in possession of Thor. KT also decapitated Destroyer with one hammer throw.

Lastly, comics are inconsistent. We see Mjolnir break upon a slight OF Thor's strength, Destroyer's normal blasts, Thor's Godblast, etc. So Mjolnir denting Cap's shield must be taken as along with the other showings.

Not to mention Thors hammer routinely bounces off Ultrons adamantium hide, unable to affect him, and Caps shield is stronger than Ultron, so yeah not buying a non Godlike Amped Thor doing anything to Caps shield.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
H1 seems to be ignoring my calls for him to provide scans.....

What scans would you like to see dear?