Originally posted by Silent Master
Talking about lower bounds is not quantifying something. I want you to post exact numbers and show your work. Otherwise it's just you guessing.
Then you are trolling.
If it takes more than 1000 tons to achieve a feat then claiming that Nam exerted more than 500 tons is valid.
You must then prove that Hela can evert over 500 tons.
Originally posted by John Murdoch
Hela wins a good fight: palmed Mjolnir and crushed it, best healing factor in a superhero movie yet that I can recall, faster and far more skilled in a fight than Zod, weapon generation. Zod's only chance is spamming heat vision, but we saw his effectiveness with that in MoS.
We don't know the extent of her healing outside of Asgard. She could possibly heal slower or a fixed amount of times or a combination of both.
Her crushing the outer layer of Mjolnir causing it to explode (weakening the outer layer) is indeed impressive. But it's very hard to quantify. Did that take more than 100 tons of force, more than 500 tons of force, etc? If we can get a good close lower bound then we can compare it with what Nam did.
Originally posted by Silent MasterI stated multiple times that feats can be quantified if you can prove a lower bound for the feat. You don't have prove the exact force. For example, we don't know the exact mass of the Earth but we do know that it is more than 1 billion tons. So using 1 billion as a lower bound is valid.
You're the one that demands that things can't be used unless they're quantified and has thus far refused to quantify their feats.
If you can't give a reasonable lower bound for a feat then how can you convince someone its more impressive than another feat? It would be your opinion.