Originally posted by Silent Master
Because the Frost Giants were on the ice planet, that's not proof that it only works on Ice planets.
That's not prove it can work on Earth either.
Also, human tissue is weaker than Ice and yet we don't see Jane Foster melting when teleported to Asgard.
I don't know what to make of that scene tbh. It could very well be PIS. Whatever the case, i think the bifrost shouldn't be seen as a miniature Death Star.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
That's not prove it can work on Earth either.Also, human tissue is weaker than Ice and yet we don't see Jane Foster melting when teleported to Asgard.
I don't know what to make of that scene tbh. It could very well be PIS. Whatever the case, i think the bifrost shouldn't be seen as a miniature Death Star.
The bifrost was stated in the movie to be able to destroy a planet if left on, if you want to claim it only works on Ice planets. Have fun proving it.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
A hint: Not all planets are the same.
Oh come on Josh! If Earths bigger it might take more time, but the result would be the same.
The better counter argument is what NemeBro pointed out- that we dont know if Mjolnir can direct the BiFrost the way bi-frost gun on Asgard could do.
Originally posted by relentless1
They are basically the same strength durability etc right now. Superman is a lot faster but Thor has more AOE damage output so id probably say Thor for efficiency in killing the Earth squisihes
Superman is significantly stronger and more durable. Thor is very resistant against heat and radiation, but not so much piercing and blunt forces.
It would be harder to hit Superman with weapons because of his speed and mobility and senses. Thor will be bombarded with projectiles moving far faster than what he can perceive. Jet fighters can easily avoid his attacks and light him up. Missiles would be launched and travel towards Thor at incredible speeds.
Thor would be toast in a matter of moments.
Originally posted by h1a8
Superman is significantly stronger and more durable. Thor is very resistant against heat and radiation, but not so much piercing and blunt forces.It would be harder to hit Superman with weapons because of his speed and mobility and senses. Thor will be bombarded with projectiles moving far faster than what he can perceive. Jet fighters can easily avoid his attacks and light him up. Missiles would be launched and travel towards Thor at incredible speeds.
Thor would be toast in a matter of moments.
You really love showing off your ignorance, don't you?
Earth is just as f***** either way. IMO they would probably destroy things at much the same pace. Thor has much better AOE, but Superman is MUCH faster, so I think those two things would probably even out the rate at which they could destroy things. Nobody could stop either of them and k-nite wouldn't matter to a blood lusted Supes. He'd just kill you whoever had it at range or superspeed. Not to mention k-nite is rare as hell, so the odds of anyone having it aside from Lex or Bruce is nill. As for other things mentioned Supes has the strength, speed, agility and range (against a single target) advantages. Thor has AOE and overall destructive potential in a single hit advantages due to Stormbreaker. Durability I would say is debatable. Thor has his sun feat, but Superman has IMO looked to be much harder to actually injure in a fight in his movies. I know that the underlining issue here is who people think would win an actual fight between the characters and I believe that would be Superman due to his massive speed advantage that would make Thor look like a statue and make him defenseless. Just look at what happened to Thor in Thor 3 when hulk hit him when he was defenseless. Supes's combination of stats is just too much. However, take away Superman's speed and then Thor wins. Stormbreaker is just too strong if he can actually land some hits.
Anyway, in this situation, at the end of the day, I'd have to say Thor's teleportation and AOE would let him wreck earth faster overall, but not by much due to Supes's superspeed. The earth is still screwed either way though. Both would be unstoppable.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Oh come on Josh! If Earths bigger it might take more time, but the result would be the same.The better counter argument is what NemeBro pointed out- that we dont know if Mjolnir can direct the BiFrost the way bi-frost gun on Asgard could do.
Earth is a rocky planet way more durable than Ice. If it's true that some buildings would be destroyed, the impact it would have on earth wouldn't be as exaggerated as the one it had on Jotunheim.
It's pretty much common sense.
Originally posted by emporerpants
Earth is just as f***** either way. IMO they would probably destroy things at much the same pace. Thor has much better AOE, but Superman is MUCH faster, so I think those two things would probably even out the rate at which they could destroy things. Nobody could stop either of them and k-nite wouldn't matter to a blood lusted Supes. He'd just kill you whoever had it at range or superspeed. Not to mention k-nite is rare as hell, so the odds of anyone having it aside from Lex or Bruce is nill. As for other things mentioned Supes has the strength, speed, agility and range (against a single target) advantages. Thor has AOE and overall destructive potential in a single hit advantages due to Stormbreaker. Durability I would say is debatable. Thor has his sun feat, but Superman has IMO looked to be much harder to actually injure in a fight in his movies. I know that the underlining issue here is who people think would win an actual fight between the characters and I believe that would be Superman due to his massive speed advantage that would make Thor look like a statue and make him defenseless. Just look at what happened to Thor in Thor 3 when hulk hit him when he was defenseless. Supes's combination of stats is just too much. However, take away Superman's speed and then Thor wins. Stormbreaker is just too strong if he can actually land some hits.Anyway, in this situation, at the end of the day, I'd have to say Thor's teleportation and AOE would let him wreck earth faster overall, but not by much due to Supes's superspeed. The earth is still screwed either way though. Both would be unstoppable.
Thor can be stopped by modern weaponry. For example, aircraft bullets would penetrate him and powerful missiles will phuck him up. Remember, Thor’s reactions are not much better than a human’s.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Well unless there is evidence that it can work on earth then it doesn't. Granting feats based on speculation doesn't work here.
The bifrost was explicitly stated to be able to destroy a planet and we later see it start to destroy a planet. If you want to claim that it only worked because jotunheim was an ice planet. Have fun proving it.
Originally posted by Silent Master
The bifrost was explicitly stated to be able to destroy a planet and we later see it start to destroy a planet. If you want to claim that it only worked because jotunheim was an ice planet. Have fun proving it.
I am not saying it wouldn't have distructive capabilities on Earth. What I meant was that the damage output wouldn't be as massive as the one we saw on Jotunheim.