Or these planet feats · Comic Book 'Versus' Forum

Stoic Avenger

I think that it also depends on how hard you actually hit it, and how easily was it destroyed with a punch, because one way or the other the object is still being displaced. Whether it happens by means of accelerated velocity, or impact velocity, the result or effect would be the same. The planet would be removed from it's original position and destroyed.

carver9 Senior Member

It depends on how you are destroying the planet as well. If it's indirectly, that is better than any pushing ft anyone can muster.

Stoic Avenger

As DS pointed out earlier, it depends on the speed vs the amount of force.

JBL Wrestling God

Originally posted by CosmicComet
A rock is not the same as a celestial object.
If you had enough strength to move an entire planet it would just break apart anyway.
So in terms of energy output moving a planet at high speeds is far above just one shotting it.
Earth is like what, nearly 8000 miles in diameter? Push it fast enough to cover 1 diameter per second and you are moving that shit at low relativistic speeds. Thats huge.

Which takes more energy?picking up a watermelon, pushing a watermelon or busting it open with your fists?

abhilegend Prince of All Saiyans

Originally posted by JBL
Which takes more energy?picking up a watermelon, pushing a watermelon or busting it open with your fists?

Moving a watermelon already moving at 100000 mph.

abhilegend Prince of All Saiyans

Here are Surfer, Quasar and Beta Ray Bill trying to destroy a meteor the size of Rhode Island or deflect it.

So much for the planet moving being so easy, eh?

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract

Originally posted by JBL
Which takes more energy?picking up a watermelon, pushing a watermelon or busting it open with your fists?

As I have shown, it takes more energy to move Earth, than to bust it.

Again: this is the MINIMUM amount of energy required to push the EArth out of its orbit. I'm NOT talking about lightspeed anymore, or 20mph, or whatever. This is just to move the Earth:

To move the Earth:
4.457×10^32 J
source: https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-would-it-take-to-shift-the-Earth-from-its-orbit-around-the-Sun-and-propel-it-out-of-the-solar-system-and-are-there-any-processes-natural-or-otherwise-that-could-achieve-this
This isn't talking about lightspeed or whatever. Just moving the Earth out of its orbit.
To destroy the Earth:
2x10^32 J
Source:https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-would-be-required-to-destroy-the-planet
So ignoring lightspeed or whatever, just to move the planet (Assuming it is ALREADY STOPPED, lol) takes TWICE as much energy than to destroy it.
Cold, hard numbers.

It's TWICE as much energy to move the Earth, than it is to destroy Earth. At minimum.

Sidenote: I think this thread highlights who is biased, really. I have presented cold, hard numbers without any manipulation - and people are still bringing in weird analogies.

bluewaterrider Senior Member

Originally posted by DarkSaint85

It's TWICE as much energy to move the Earth, than it is to destroy Earth. At minimum.

Does that mean my wife and I should be careful when ... ?

😕

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract

I don't think you need to worry about that.....

-K-M- ...........

The destruction of bluewater is #1

Philosophía "The devil made me do it"

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Does that mean my wife and I should be careful when ... ?
😕

I assume sex dolls are weight resistant.

ShadowFyre Senior Member

More damage soak than durbility

Mindship Snap out of it.

I'm going with busting, cuz not only do you have to break the planet up, but the pieces, driven by the impact energy, have to move away from each other fast enough so that the planet doesn't reform (albiet in messed up fashion) from gravity.

Also, the transfer of impact energy, from a punch to the planet's surface to all through the planet, is impressive in itself, given all the punch should really do is make a hole the length of the puncher's arm. At least with planet-moving one can argue a "telekinetic" effect which keeps the planet intact and the lifter/pusher from going through the planet like a BB through cake ...

... though I suppose one could argue TK shock waves from a punch.

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract

I've already found websites which answer that precise question, mindship.

Mindship Snap out of it.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I've already found websites which answer that precise question, mindship.

👆

I remember doing some research on this myself, some years back, the energy required to move the earth, break it up, etc (though I don't recall what was toughest). Oh what peeps like to calculate in their spare time.

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract

It's twice as many joules to move the Earth out of orbit, than to blow it up so much that the pieces fly off and don't coalesce.

Galan007 |Quantum Observer|

As most have mentioned, planet-moving feats like this:

...Are VASTLY more impressive than physically destroying, and/or lifting that same world.

JBL Wrestling God

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
It's twice as many joules to move the Earth out of orbit, than to blow it up so much that the pieces fly off and don't coalesce.

How many planets have those people moved or destroyed? We are talking comics here. Tell superman to push his earth 50 MILES then destroy it. I could take a tow truck and pull or push a semi at 80 miles an hour or get a large crane to lift the semi, then plant bombs around the semi to destroy it. Which has more energy output? Stop using crap that has NEVER been done. Man has lifted, moved and destroyed a lot of things. When that space shuttle was headed to space, it was using energy to escape gravity yet it had PLENTY of Solid fuel left to use. But when it exploded, it took all that fuel at once to destroy it.

emporerpants Senior Member

I just...wow. People denying basic math...the bias is on full display. You really can't deny the numbers and maintain a façade of being fair. By denying BASIC QUANTIFIED FACTS, people here are totally outing themselves as the biased posters they are. There isn't anything open to interpretation. The math is the math. Moving a planet is more impressive than destroying it. End of story.

DarkSaint85 Bonified abstract

I'm not even sure what JBL is trying to say.

First he says we're talking comics,then uses real world examples.

What's more impressive, tearing Vision in half or tearing Jarvis the butler in half?

If anybody says tearing Vision is more impressive, I will use JBLs logic and say well,how many times has Jarvis been torn in half vs Vision?

Lol.

Space shuttles, trucks, watermelons, whatever. Fact remains. A PhD in physics, backed up by a guy who's an expert in astrophysics, plus a US Navy academic, have all calculated the amount of energy. It's basic math. Denying it just shows your bias,or ignorance of mathematical concepts. Either or, it doesn't look good.

But the fact remains. You need twice as much energy to move the Earth at ~25mph (not even talking about lightspeed now lol) vs blowing it up.

Because, funnily enough, space shuttles etc aren't planets.

Edit: if he's referring to how we shouldn't use scientific formulas to evaluate which is more impressive.... well, sure. Only if it defeats your argument, I suppose. Let's go with 'gut feeling' and 'bias' instead, because that's a hell of a lot easier.