Most Quantifiable Strength Feats

Started by TethAdamTheRock6 pages

He weighs 550 pounds

^^^neat.

Originally posted by carver9
Hulk had the weight of a star on him which was stated right after that scene.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11113/111138490/3475067-hulk_lifts_star_001_infinity_6_002.jpg

There is only one reason he would have that much weight on him. What reason do you think that is?

Again it is possible that it is hyperbole. The metal was forged from super dense material from a star. For example, a teaspoon of neutron star weights 10 million tons.

Also, Hulk didn't lift the weight, he was held down by it. So it's a non feat really.

Lastly, "all consuming" is not to be taken literally as Supernova have only limited influence.

Originally posted by Galan007
👆

That feat is about as 'quantifiable' as it gets.

lol. yeah. there's an actual number on panel. no debating that one.

Originally posted by h1a8
Again it is possible that it is hyperbole. The metal was forged from super dense material from a star. For example, a teaspoon of neutron star weights 10 million tons.

Also, Hulk didn't lift the weight, he was held down by it. So it's a non feat really.

Lastly, "all consuming" is not to be taken literally as Supernova have only limited influence.

He was standing up by the end of that showing. It states he had the weight of a star on him.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85

The Hulk feat actually specified that he had the weight of a star weighing on his back.

Not a sun, or the Sun.


But a "star" is a "sun."

And while there may be different types of "stars" (dwarfs-giants-neutrons etc) ... they were all once suns.

Originally posted by carver9
He was standing up by the end of that showing. It states he had the weight of a star on him.

Gud feat. But he was held down. Gud durability feat I guess.

Originally posted by Mr Master
But a "star" is a "sun."

And while there may be different types of "stars" (dwarfs-giants-neutrons etc) ... they were all once suns.

👆

It's sad that people have to explain this to him.

Originally posted by celeyhyga17
Gud feat. But he was held down. Gud durability feat I guess.

We already been through this and you even admitted be was standing up. Why are we repeating our debate?

I did? Show me.

Originally posted by celeyhyga17
I did? Show me.

Yes. About 3 months ago we discussed this same topic and you agreed. I'm not going over this with you again.

Originally posted by carver9
Yes. About 3 months ago we discussed this same topic and you agreed. I'm not going over this with you again.

Ure mistaken

Iirc i agreed about the weight being starlike, but....

Originally posted by celeyhyga17
Ure mistaken

Iirc i agreed about the weight being starlike, but....

Nope, it was you who I was debating this topic with. I remember it like it was yesterday.

OMFG, will you people give the star/sun thing a rest already? none

This thread specifically asks for the "Most Quantifiable Strength Feats". The weight of an ambiguous piece of stellar weaponry certainly doesn't fit that description... IOW, you're arguing just to argue at this point, and spamming up the thread with off-topic nonsense.

Originally posted by Mr Master
But a "star" is a "sun."

And while there may be different types of "stars" (dwarfs-giants-neutrons etc) ... they were all once suns.

Wrong. You have it the wrong way round.
Also, what Gal said, which is what I said at the start.

How does the ground or even the planet hold the weight of the sun/star?

Because its a comic.

^^^that way lies madness.

Originally posted by Galan007
OMFG, will you people give the star/sun thing a rest already? none

This thread specifically asks for the "Most Quantifiable Strength Feats". The weight of an ambiguous piece of stellar weaponry certainly doesn't fit that description... IOW, you're arguing just to argue at this point, and spamming up the thread with off-topic nonsense.

*psyduck_migrane.gif*

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So as I said, it said the weight of a STAR. Thanks, carver.

Why am I having the argument?

Because it shows how Carver will twist and turn, this way and that. He said not one page ago, that it said the weight of a SUN. And was insisting he was reading that it said the weight of a SUN.

If such readily verifiable facts can be distorted by him, what else can you trust?

Good times.

Back when Carver didn't....notice things like he does now. Obv.