Originally posted by leonidas
huh? if a force can move a planet that force>planetary inertia already. so powering through THAT would obviously be a feat greater than moving the planet....i know where you're going though and narration can be pretty damn meaningless in comics.
I'm just asking. Wasn't going to mention anything else, especially anything that isn't relevant to this thread. Thanks for the answer though.
People saying than destroying a planet is greater than moving a planet have no idea in the forces that it requires to move a planet.
This is why trains are so hard to stop with out destroying them.
You can destroy a train and destroy it pretty easily, but to stop it with out destroying it , that is where it becomes a challenge.
The force required to destroy a planet is a lot less than the force required to move it from it's orbital trench and a lot less to move them at FTL as the closer you get to FTL it will be harder and harder to move.
Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Oh and trying to dismiss RL rules to quantify a sci fi feat it is ridiculous.
that's gotta be the first time i've ever heard anyone CONDONE using RL science to defend a comic world.....
couldn't disagree strongly enough with that take. the rules of physics are constantly broken in the world of comics so we don't really get to pick and choose which ones we should or shouldn't follow. that's why most will always caution, rightly, AGAINST that very thing.
reaching light speed=impossible by RL standards. exceeding it is basically incomprehensible. yet you advocate FOLLOWING those same rules? like i said--in the RW sure, moving a planet>destroying one. we're not talk real world, we're talking about a world where people routinely fly ftl, and hold universes apart, where thought>light speed and any other number of impossible things happen all the time. to suggest we play by the same rules makes no sense, but, to each their own i guess. /shrug
Where does it say in OP we are limited to comic feats?
I mean,I know it's a comic forum, but I find moving a planet more impressive, because I have seen the calcs.
Now, if we are to argue it's more impressive to bust a planet due to the rarity of the feat or something, or to use some other metric, that's fine.
But by using the metric of energy needed, then we kinda have to fall back on RL physics.
Besides, leo, the calcs I posted had NOTHING to do with lightspeed anymore.
It was just moving the Earth out of its orbit,at42km/hr. No, no decimals or numbers missing. A measly 42km/hr.
And THAT takes twice as much energy as destroying the Earth.
Let alone 200km/he, or 2000....
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Where does it say in OP we are limited to comic feats?
😐
I mean,I know it's a comic forum, but I find moving a planet more impressive, because I have seen the calcs.Now, if we are to argue it's more impressive to bust a planet due to the rarity of the feat or something, or to use some other metric, that's fine.
But by using the metric of energy needed, then we kinda have to fall back on RL physics.
Besides, leo, the calcs I posted had NOTHING to do with lightspeed anymore.
that's fine and like i said three times--in the real world moving a planet is certainly more impressive. but in comics things don't work out so well when we bring in rl science. supes held a black hole. the density of the singularity is infinite as the mass of the star collapses. so did he hold an infinite weight? because some superfans will argue he DID hold an infinite weight. and using rl physics they'd be right. so do we just say--obviously he didn't hold infinite weight--it's just comics!!1!
rl science breaks down all the time, which is why using it to prove arguments in the forum rarely works. could it work in this case? maybe, but then do we simply CHOOSE to disregard the fact that moving at ftl and greater speeds is, by rl standards a FAR greater feat than even that? me, i don't like to pick and choose. we stick with comics, if we're talking about comics. i remember a lengthy discussion with id regarding nate's 'plank length' maneuver. lol the author fully used the term completely incorrectly but force fit it into comics because it sounded cool. there are too many examples that prove rl isn't a very good or reliable way to look at comics.
again, could it be used to defend a stance in this thread? sure. you're using it. do i think those numbers mean that moving a planet in the comic world>one-shotting that same planet into complete dust? no, not necessarily and if a character in a book said destroying one is greater, then....it would be greater, despite the rl numbers. least imo. as it stands, both are about equally impressive in my mind. /shrug
Originally posted by Rao Kal El
People saying than destroying a planet is greater than moving a planet have no idea in the forces that it requires to move a planet.This is why trains are so hard to stop with out destroying them.
You can destroy a train and destroy it pretty easily, but to stop it with out destroying it , that is where it becomes a challenge.
The force required to destroy a planet is a lot less than the force required to move it from it's orbital trench and a lot less to move them at FTL as the closer you get to FTL it will be harder and harder to move.
Astronomers have concluded that certain planets have had their orbits altered by impacts that did not destroy them.
Originally posted by leonidas
that's gotta be the first time i've ever heard anyone CONDONE using RL science to defend a comic world.....couldn't disagree strongly enough with that take. the rules of physics are constantly broken in the world of comics so we don't really get to pick and choose which ones we should or shouldn't follow. that's why most will always caution, rightly, AGAINST that very thing.
reaching light speed=impossible by RL standards. exceeding it is basically incomprehensible. yet you advocate FOLLOWING those same rules? like i said--in the RW sure, moving a planet>destroying one. we're not talk real world, we're talking about a world where people routinely fly ftl, and hold universes apart, where thought>light speed and any other number of impossible things happen all the time. to suggest we play by the same rules makes no sense, but, to each their own i guess. /shrug
All I am saying is that when trying to quantify a feat you need an anchor point.
"More powerful than a locomotive"
Is an impressive statement because it is stating how powerful it is with a RL reference. More powerful than a locomotive will be a meaningless phrase if it is meant to be more powerful than a lawn mower engine with comic books laws.
So we have to use a standard for both feats and not only apply when it only suits our argument.
That is why I can come up with the conclusion that DOS Doomsday is an impressive enemy. Because he survived an attack that ripped a hole in reality.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
To remove all bias, let's use the same character.Which is more impressive, this:
Or this:
To me?
The second one is more impressive.
Not only did he generated enough force to move the planet, he did it so fast that no one notice it AND he didn't destroy the planet in the process.
Moving that mass at that speed and make it to stop or regain it's formal orbital speed it is an INSANE feat.
I'm sure a lot of characters can move that mass and destroy it, but to move it at that speed with that accuracy so almost no one noticed it. It is just mind blowing.
The same reason why this feats are impressive if performed by HUMANS and not by top tier characters.
Because on average this feats will be impressive if performed by RL humans or Comic book humans but not impressive if performed by Superman.
Originally posted by Rao Kal El
All I am saying is that when trying to quantify a feat you need an anchor point."More powerful than a locomotive"
Is an impressive statement because it is stating how powerful it is with a RL reference. More powerful than a locomotive will be a meaningless phrase if it is meant to be more powerful than a lawn mower engine with comic books laws.
So we have to use a standard for both feats and not only apply when it only suits our argument.
That is why I can come up with the conclusion that DOS Doomsday is an impressive enemy. Because he survived an attack that ripped a hole in reality.
i like the locomotive example and again, in the real world (and i'm not even denying the possibility in a comic world) you're a 100% right.
to me the issue isn't which is more impressive--both are stupidly impressive even in comics--it's more about the way we support opinion on the forum. people have spent a decade making fun of h1 for using rl science to defend point after point specifically BECAUSE it is common knowledge that rl science fails so miserably so often when it comes to supporting comic feats.
your point about a 'standard' i get, but in a case like this i don't know that the rl science would necessarily be supported in a comic book. i remember some dude came into that nate discussion (he's banned now lol) and swore up and down that the real life science supported nate travelling umpteen times the speed of light. lol but the rl science made no sense in comic book terms no matter how hard he tried to fit it in. too many examples showing things like that.
again in the rw, moving>>destroying. if that's what the thread starter wanted that IS the answer. but in a comic book, i'm not sure we can come to that conclusion definitively--at least not without proof from WITHIN a comic itself. in which case i'd happily admit to being wrong. but it wouldn't change my stance on using rl science to defend points though. /shrug
And that's fair.
I've made fun of h1, I will hold my hands up.
But in the absence of any other metric from OP, I mean . What CAN we use?
We could say destroying planets is more impressive, as we see it so rarely. But then, we all know planets are rarely destroyed, not due to their durability or the characters weakness, but because plot demands that the planet stick around just in case it's needed for future stories (like how Red Tornado and Vision get holes ounched through them every time).
it's also extremely rare where someone one-shots a planet. usually someone flies to the center and the planet ends up destroying itself as much as the character does--the character usually acts as a catalyst. i think your prime scan above could be lumped in that category.
i'm thinking about something like what terrax did:
http://i.imgur.com/bsYUh3i.jpg
i always found that feat damn impressive... or if someone BLASTS a planet into dust, that is a huge feat as well. it also seems like if someone (say terrax) hit the planet hard enough to destroy it that it would also MOVE as a result of the blow, but now I'M being pedantic.... lol
i'd like to see a bunch of scans of both feats. maybe something would come up that would show some in-book support one way or the other. /shrug
Originally posted by leonidas
it's also extremely rare where someone one-shots a planet. usually someone flies to the center and the planet ends up destroying itself as much as the character does--the character usually acts as a catalyst. i think your prime scan above could be lumped in that category.i'm thinking about something like what terrax did:
http://i.imgur.com/bsYUh3i.jpg
i always found that feat damn impressive... or if someone BLASTS a planet into dust, that is a huge feat as well. it also seems like if someone (say terrax) hit the planet hard enough to destroy it that it would also MOVE as a result of the blow, but now I'M being pedantic.... lol
i'd like to see a bunch of scans of both feats. maybe something would come up that would show some in-book support one way or the other. /shrug
