Comic Book Questions & Discussion

Originally posted by abhilegend
Warp drive means FTL travel, so moon was rotating FTL, easy peasy

So before moving on to the visuals let's establish what was and wasn't confirmed by the text. What was confirmed was that it was a warp engine that accelerated the moon's rotation. What wasn't confirmed was the rotational speed the moon accelerated to.

However, we can, from the visuals, make a couple of notes.
[list=1][*]The moon wasn't torn apart by the rotation.
[*]The moon retained hydrostatic equilibrium, i.e. the rotation didn't notable deform it.
[*]The astronauts were hurled into space.[/list]1. Proves that the rotational energy was less than the gravitational binding energy, i.e. in terms of energy this feat was less impressive than destroying the moon.

2. This puts an even lower upper bound to the energy than point 1 (a lot lower, actually). If you want a quick estimate for it, look up the angular velocity for one of Jupiter's or Saturn's moons that's not in hydrostatic equilibrium and use it for the moon. E = Iω^2/2, where I is the inertia of the moon.

3. This is a lower bound, and that's the surface velocity is greater than escape velocity.

Originally posted by Astner
No it doesn't. If you attach a jet engine to an aircraft carrier it's not going to move at jet speed.

So before moving on to the visuals let's establish what was and wasn't confirmed by the text. What was confirmed was that it was a warp engine that accelerated the moon's rotation. What wasn't confirmed was the rotational speed the moon accelerated to.

However, we can, from the visuals, make a couple of notes.
[list=1][*]The moon wasn't torn apart by the rotation.
[*]The moon retained hydrostatic equilibrium, i.e. the rotation didn't notable deform it.
[*]The astronauts were hurled into space.[/list]1. Proves that the rotational energy was less than the gravitational binding energy, i.e. in terms of energy this feat was less impressive than destroying the moon.

2. This puts an even lower upper bound to the energy than point 1 (a lot lower, actually). If you want a quick estimate for it, look up the angular velocity for one of Jupiter's or Saturn's moons that's not in hydrostatic equilibrium and use it for the moon. E = Iω^2/2, where I is the inertia of the moon.

3. This is a lower bound, and that's the surface velocity is greater than escape velocity.

Points 1 and 2 are dangerous precedents. Imagine if people used the same logic for other feats, i.e. 'Hulk's cloth shorts weren't affected, which leads to a lower bound to the energy'.

Originally posted by Astner
No it doesn't. If you attach a jet engine to an aircraft carrier it's not going to move at jet speed.

So before moving on to the visuals let's establish what was and wasn't confirmed by the text. What was confirmed was that it was a warp engine that accelerated the moon's rotation. What wasn't confirmed was the rotational speed the moon accelerated to.

However, we can, from the visuals, make a couple of notes.
[list=1][*]The moon wasn't torn apart by the rotation.
[*]The moon retained hydrostatic equilibrium, i.e. the rotation didn't notable deform it.
[*]The astronauts were hurled into space.[/list]1. Proves that the rotational energy was less than the gravitational binding energy, i.e. in terms of energy this feat was less impressive than destroying the moon.

2. This puts an even lower upper bound to the energy than point 1 (a lot lower, actually). If you want a quick estimate for it, look up the angular velocity for one of Jupiter's or Saturn's moons that's not in hydrostatic equilibrium and use it for the moon. E = Iω^2/2, where I is the inertia of the moon.

3. This is a lower bound, and that's the surface velocity is greater than escape velocity.

Lol, we saw Moon complete its rotation multiple times in a very quick time frame, no more than a couple of seconds (moon completes its rotation on its axis in 29.53 Earth days) which shows its momentum was increased by at least by 500k (even if we go by a conservative 5 seconds rotation). That's an absurd momentum to basically stop in seconds/minutes.

As usual, you suck in reading comprehension.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Points 1 and 2 are dangerous precedents. Imagine if people used the same logic for other feats, i.e. 'Hulk's cloth shorts weren't affected, which leads to a lower bound to the energy'.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Points 1 and 2 are dangerous precedents. Imagine if people used the same logic for other feats, i.e. 'Hulk's cloth shorts weren't affected, which leads to a lower bound to the energy'.

If Hulk destroys a planet but his pants remain intact he still destroyed the planet. There's no getting around that.

Likewise, here we know for a fact that Captain Marvel stopped the rotation of the Moon. But in order to quantify the feat we need to make sense of how fast it rotated. Points 2 and 3 give the best upper- and lower bound for this.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Lol, we saw Moon complete its rotation multiple times in a very quick time frame, no more than a couple of seconds (moon completes its rotation on its axis in 29.53 Earth days) which shows its momentum was increased by at least by 500k (even if we go by a conservative 5 seconds rotation). That's an absurd momentum to basically stop in seconds/minutes.

If the surface velocity is equal to its escape velocity (which would be required to hurl the astronauts into space) then it would displace 2.8 km/s...or a tenth of a degree per second, which would not be noticed on this scale. Not to mention that the stars in the background seem to displace as well, making this particular visual interpretation unreliable.

Again, the most reliable factor we have for an upper bound is the oblateness of the Moon. Which deflates the feat quite substantially from your interpretation of it.

You might want to rely on the location of the speech bubbles, but they're not really displaced in the direction of the rotation.

Originally posted by Astner
Sure. But there are different layers of examining feats. First we look at what the text implies, then we look at what the visuals imply, and then we draw a conclusion from what can be considered a fair interpretation of the feat.

If Hulk destroys a planet but his pants remain intact he still destroyed the planet. There's no getting around that.

Likewise, here we know for a fact that Captain Marvel stopped the rotation of the Moon. But in order to quantify the feat we need to make sense of how fast it rotated. Points 2 and 3 give the best upper- and lower bound for this.

How do you know it's a complete rotation? They just added a blur effect. On top of that, there's no time frame added here:

If the surface velocity is equal to its escape velocity (which would be required to hurl the astronauts into space) then it would displace 2.8 km/s...or a tenth of a degree per second, which would not be noticed on this scale. Not to mention that the stars in the background seem to displace as well, making this particular visual interpretation unreliable.

Again, the most reliable factor we have for an upper bound is the oblateness of the Moon. Which deflates the feat quite substantially from your interpretation of it.

You might want to rely on the location of the speech bubbles, but they're not really displaced in the direction of the rotation.

Your argument assumes writers/artists take physics into account.

A better analogy from me would be to have a Character lifting a plane up by the nose. Then you coming in and saying it's not that heavy a plane, as steel would buckle under its own weight when lifted as the art depicted.

Or attempting to quantify Quicksilver (who is absent the quasi+mystical Speed Force)'s speed, absent text. And just looking at how his clothes (and the people he carries) don't burn up from air friction, so deducing it's 'not that fast'.

Using the planet and Hulk's pants, we can deduce that it was obviously a very small, very fragile planet that was destroyed - as the gravitational binding energy of said planet is shown to be below that of.....cloth.

Did he destroy a planet? Yes, that's a fact, can't get away from that. But it was a soap bubble planet, tiny in size.

Per your logic and methodology.

Originally posted by Astner

How do you know it's a complete rotation?

Because I have eyes?

https://i.ibb.co/x2mfS8X/00017.jpg

It is showing the moon rotating in full circle several times.

They just added a blur effect. On top of that, there's no time frame added here:

We know it's not long, minutes at tops.

If the surface velocity is equal to its escape velocity (which would be required to hurl the astronauts into space) then it would displace 2.8 km/s...or a tenth of a degree per second, which would not be noticed on this scale. Not to mention that the stars in the background seem to displace as well, making this particular visual interpretation unreliable.

😂

You're nitpicking, again.

Again, the most reliable factor we have for an upper bound is the oblateness of the Moon. Which deflates the feat quite substantially from your interpretation of it.

It isn't. It's just your preference lol.

You might want to rely on the location of the speech bubbles, but they're not really displaced in the direction of the rotation.

I am also looking at the art.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Your argument assumes writers/artists take physics into account.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
A better analogy from me would be to have a Character lifting a plane up by the nose. Then you coming in and saying it's not that heavy a plane, as steel would buckle under its own weight when lifted as the art depicted.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Or attempting to quantify Quicksilver (who is absent the quasi+mystical Speed Force)'s speed, absent text. And just looking at how his clothes (and the people he carries) don't burn up from air friction, so deducing it's 'not that fast'.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Using the planet and Hulk's pants, we can deduce that it was obviously a very small, very fragile planet that was destroyed - as the gravitational binding energy of said planet is shown to be below that of.....cloth.

Did he destroy a planet? Yes, that's a fact, can't get away from that. But it was a soap bubble planet, tiny in size.

Per your logic and methodology.

When it comes to determining the rotation speed of the Moon in the Shazam feat there isn't really much to go by, and the fact that the Moon did retain its shape could well have been an oversight. But it's still a piece of evidence, and in this case the best piece of evidence we have for it.

It's the same as relying the trajectory of a jump to calculate the speed of it. It's more reliable than assuming arbitrary time frames and whatnot.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Because I have eyes?

https://i.ibb.co/x2mfS8X/00017.jpg

It is showing the moon rotating in full circle several times.

Especially in the light of the fact that the Moon isn't notably deforming from the speed, which is a far more concrete piece of evidence.

Originally posted by Astner
No, it only assumes that the visuals can be used as evidence when making a case.

If I were to make the argument you could always retort with "what material is it made of then?" And I would have to provide you with a reasonable answer.

You can't determine these things in a vacuum. If the speed feat is implied to be impressive then you should be able to communicate why it's impressive, and "the clothes didn't incinerate," is pretty far down the totem pole as far as counter-arguments go.

Not quite. It's all about making a convincing case.

When it comes to determining the rotation speed of the Moon in the Shazam feat there isn't really much to go by, and the fact that the Moon did retain its shape could well have been an oversight. But it's still a piece of evidence, and in this case the best piece of evidence we have for it.

It's the same as relying the trajectory of a jump to calculate the speed of it. It's more reliable than assuming arbitrary time frames and whatnot.

I don't think you can assume that speed lines here necessarily implies a full rotation. They're only there to communicate that the object is rotating.

Especially in the light of the fact that the Moon isn't notably deforming from the speed, which is a far more concrete piece of evidence.

Yeah. And I don't hold much truck with relying on art for feats - that way lies madness and using pixels on a screen to determine size etc.

Ultimately, I think it's a good feat, certainly herald level, but beyond that? Eh.

Originally posted by Astner
No it doesn't. If you attach a jet engine to an aircraft carrier it's not going to move at jet speed.

It was a warp drive; doesn't mean we know the speed at which the moon was rotating. Still, nice feat.

Originally posted by Astner

I don't think you can assume that speed lines here necessarily implies a full rotation. They're only there to communicate that the object is rotating.

Also to convey its speed, so yes, I can do that exactly.

Especially in the light of the fact that the Moon isn't notably deforming from the speed, which is a far more concrete piece of evidence.

We go by what happened on panel, not on what doesn't happens.

Basically the writer didn't take deformity by such speed in account.

Originally posted by Smurph
This strikes me as the most important point.

It was a warp drive; doesn't mean we know the speed at which the moon was rotating. Still, nice feat.

this is another case of comic is not scientific paper and the fans put more thoughts and efforts than the writers do on the feats

Originally posted by abhilegend
I was being facetious just like marvel fans who calculate speed in such a way , lightspeed pie and everything.

I think maybe you started defending the argument you were mocking

Originally posted by Smurph
Yeah cool but in that case what are you actually arguing with Astner about...?

I think maybe you started defending the argument you were mocking

Century Babies are back

https://bleedingcool.com/comics/outsiders-authority-the-return-of-planetary-to-dc-comics-spoilers/

Lol. Lockjaw vs Blackheart:

so much for skyfather level blackheart comicvine claimed

you think mephisto is a joke wait till you get to see blackheart

Amazing seeing Lockjaw and Black Bolt getting insane respect.

😂