Greater feat: Thor pulling the rings vs. Superman Pulling a ship

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's obviously multiple times more impressive than Superman towing a ship.

You have no way of knowing that as you can't even give a lower estimate for the feat. For example, how do you know that it took more than 50 tons to achieve the feat?

Originally posted by h1a8
You have no way of knowing that as you can't even give a lower estimate for the feat. For example, how do you know that it took more than 50 tons to achieve the feat?

Since you provided an actual number, go ahead and prove that it took 50 or less tons to achieve.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Since you provided an actual number, go ahead and prove that it took 50 or less tons to achieve.

I never made a claim idiot.
I said that you can't prove it took more than that.
That means you can't prove ANY AMOUNT.

Originally posted by h1a8
I never made a claim idiot.
I said that you can't prove it took more than that.
That means you can't prove ANY AMOUNT.

If you want to play this kind of semantic game. You can't prove it didn't take 23 septillion tons of force.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If you want to play this kind of semantic game. You can't prove it didn't take 23 septillion tons of force.

Originally posted by h1a8
I surely can't.
That's why it's unquantifiable.

Most higher-end feats are unquantifiable, but we still use them.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Most higher-end feats are unquantifiable, but we still use them.

To be quantifiable, you must prove a lower estimate. In other words, you have to give an amount and prove that the feat took more than that.

For example, if I prove that a feat took more than 10 tons but cannot prove exactly how much it took then that still means it is quantifiable.

Anyway, the bottomline is that you cannot show whether it took more force than the ship feat. Therefore the thread is void.

Originally posted by h1a8
If a feat is unquantifiable then it cannot be used to compare with other feats. Maybe we are using different meanings of the word?

To be quantifiable, you must prove a lower estimate. In other words, you have to give an amount and prove that the feat took more than that.

For example, if I prove that a feat took more than 10 tons but cannot prove exactly how much it took then that still means it is quantifiable.

Sure you can, as an example. just because you can't quantify how durable a starship is doesn't mean you can't compare someone being able to destroy one with a punch to someone being able to destroy a can of soda with a punch.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Sure you can, as an example. just because you can't quantify how durable a starship is doesn't mean you can't compare someone being able to destroy one with a punch to someone being able to destroy a can of soda with a punch.

Stop being dense. I just stated that Quantifiable has nothing to do with quantifying an exact amount.
It has something to do with proving a lower bound.
In other words, you have to show that it took more than whatever amount of force.

Did the ring feat take more than crushing a can of soda pop? I believe so. But for you to prove the feat is superior to another quantifiable feat then you must show that it took more force.
If you can't then you have no leg to stand on in the claim.

Wrong, those rings were literally thousands of times bigger than the ship Superman towed. If you want to claim it took less force to move those then the ship the burden is on you.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Wrong, those rings were literally thousands of times bigger than the ship Superman towed. If you want to claim it took less force to move those then the ship the burden is on you.

I don't care if the were the size of a universe.
You can't prove the force differential Thor needed in addition to the force the rings were exerting to break the ice.

For example, the rings were exerting x amount of force, the ice was exerting x + y amount of force to stop the rings. Thor needed to exert more than y amount of force to break the ice. But we have no way of knowing y. It could be literally anything without proof.

The differential was enough that even with Thor throwing a spaceship and that spaceship using full power it still took time to bust the ice and move the rings. that you think Superman's towing one measly little ship across the ice is more impressive than that proves without any shred of doubt that you're a massive DC fanboy.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The differential was enough that even with Thor throwing a spaceship and that spaceship using full power it still took time to bust the ice and move the rings. that you think Superman's towing one measly little ship across the ice is more impressive than that proves without any shred of doubt that you're a massive DC fanboy.

What was the mass of the ship? How much force it took to throw the ship in that manner (being whirled around multiple times gaining speed)?

How much did the ship slow down when Thor was being dragged along the surface, breaking the ice (or metal) as in a fictional force before coming to a stop?

How much thrust force can the ship exert?

These are questions that can quantify the differential.

As for the Superman towing feat. I have no idea which feat took more force. But if they took around the same amount then Superman's feat would be more impressive as he did it with significantly less effort than what Thor did.

h1a8 you should start charging Silent for as much as you school that poor boy.

See this is how stupid h1 is, he doesn't realize that he just pointed out that the feat could be quantified using his "lower estimate" nonesene. as the throw resulted in Thor tearing through the metal of the rings for quite a distance.

Everyone thank h1 for owning himself once again.

Originally posted by Silent Master
See this is how stupid h1 is, he doesn't realize that he just pointed out that the feat could be quantified using his "lower estimate" nonesene. as the throw resulted in Thor tearing through the metal of the rings for quite a distance.

Everyone thank h1 for owning himself once again.

It takes significantly less force to accelerate an object over a longer period of time (Thor whirling in a circle multiple times) than it takes to accelerate the object over small period of time ( a simple quick throw).

Force needed = mass of ship x final velocity / time

In short,
The momentum generated for the ship/ time it took Thor to achieve this momentum = force Thor exerted.

A longer time = lesser force.

Look at that, he responded to my post but he didn't actually address it's points. so I'll just keep reposting until he responds to the points.

See this is how stupid h1 is, he doesn't realize that he just pointed out that the feat could be quantified using his "lower estimate" nonesene. as the throw resulted in Thor tearing through the metal of the rings for quite a distance.

Everyone thank h1 for owning himself once again.

Originally posted by juggernaut74
h1a8 you should start charging Silent for as much as you school that poor boy.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Look at that, he responded to my post but he didn't actually address it's points. so I'll just keep reposting until he responds to the points.

See this is how stupid h1 is, he doesn't realize that he just pointed out that the feat could be quantified using his "lower estimate" nonesene. as the throw resulted in Thor tearing through the metal of the rings for quite a distance.

Everyone thank h1 for owning himself once again.

I did. Thor only exerted a small fraction of the force needed to instantaneous break the metal.

Therefore you can start there with the quantifying.

Again, are you retarded? if Thor wasn't strong enough to withstand the force being applied the cable would have been ripped out of his hands. so your sad attempt to downplay the feat has failed.