King Thor Vs HOM Hulk

Originally posted by h1a8
How did he defeat them? We don't know. He could have used superior skill and tactics to win.
How do you know Gladiator is stronger than Aquaman?

Peer by peer comparisons.

Originally posted by h1a8
Yup
Collateral damage gives us the minimum force that was used. But not the maximum.

Pre retcon Molecule Man hit classic Beyonder with blast powerful enough to destroy billions of dimensions yet wallpaper in the room they were was undamaged.

You're reasoning is terrible and logic worse

Originally posted by Insane Titan
major fail.

Pre retcon Molecule Man hit classic Beyonder with blast powerful enough to destroy billions of dimensions yet wallpaper in the room they were was undamaged.

You're reasoning is terrible and logic worse

Superman's heat vision is significantly hotter than the sun, and yet it never ignites the atmosphere around it.

A punch from anyone at near light speed would cause a massive nuclear explosion, and yet never does in comics.

Eternity unleashing all his power only destroyed a planet.

LT and a couple other abstracts didn't damage anyone in the vicinity while blasting Thanos.

I think it's safe to say these beings are below Hulk.

Originally posted by Cogito
Superman's heat vision is significantly hotter than the sun, and yet it never ignites the atmosphere around it.

A punch from anyone at near light speed would cause a massive nuclear explosion, and yet never does in comics.

^ Was adding, not contradicting

Originally posted by Cogito
^ Was adding, not contradicting

Who wins?

Originally posted by xvmvhmqing
Who wins?

Originally posted by quanchi112
We have seen Thor take on stronger peers than Thing.

Peer by peer comparisons.

How do you know they were stronger than Thing?

Originally posted by Insane Titan
major fail.

Pre retcon Molecule Man hit classic Beyonder with blast powerful enough to destroy billions of dimensions yet wallpaper in the room they were was undamaged.

You're reasoning is terrible and logic worse

Your logic is actually fail.
I said Collateral proves minimum and not maximum. If you don't understand what that means then I'll break it down for you.

Originally posted by h1a8
How do you know they were stronger than Thing?

Originally posted by h1a8
Your logic is actually fail.
I said Collateral proves minimum and not maximum. If you don't understand what that means then I'll break it down for you.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Superior showings to him in direct comparison. Are you really asking these stupid questions ?

Originally posted by h1a8
How do you know these showings are superior? Science knowledge maybe?

Originally posted by Insane Titan
look basically you pick and choose what is a deciding factor in a fight as you have no real clue as to how things work

It's called logic. You can't pick and choose in logic.

If someone hits someone and it doesn't cause collateral damage then the force could be anywhere from 0 to infinity.

But
It someone hits someone and it causes X amount of collateral damage then the striker applied a force between many times that to infinity.

Both cases we don't know the supremum of the feat
but in the second case we also know the infinum of the feat.

So Hulk applied anywhere from billions of times of planet destroying force to infinite force. We don't know the maximum but we sure as hell know the minimum.

In conclusion, proving minimum is factual evidence but proving maximum= speculation.

h1, I think I speak for everyone when I say this: You're a purposefully obnoxious ass.

You're the guy in the courtroom who says video evidence, a confession, dna, fingerprints, motive, eyewitnesses, and possession of the murder weapon isn't enough to convict.

You're the douche who literally needs the judge and jury to witness the crime in person, and then do some sketchy pseudo-math to make sure all the possible vantage points were covered sufficiently.

/thread

Originally posted by quanchi112
You can tell who is stronger in a direct comparison, sport.

Yes but how can you tell when there were no direct comparison's. Like how do you know that Gladiator is stronger than Aquaman?

Originally posted by Cogito
h1, I think I speak for everyone when I say this: You're a purposefully obnoxious ass.

You're the guy in the courtroom who says video evidence, a confession, dna, fingerprints, motive, eyewitnesses, and possession of the murder weapon isn't enough to convict.

You're the douche who literally needs the judge and jury to witness the crime in person, and then do some sketchy pseudo-math to make sure all the possible vantage points were covered sufficiently.

/thread

actually I'm very reasonable. I believe in the suspension of disbelief and I can make subjective but reasonable leaps in logic.
Silent Master is the poster you should be addressing this to. Did you ever read any of his posts?