Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Supes also struggled with a ballistic missile, a crashing passenger jet, a Daily Planet Globe, a fiery oil rig, dragging a ship thru frozen ice to name a few...And the fact that it took CM "seconds" to fly thru the ship kinda implies the size of the actual ship & not the speed she was flying.
My point was to show Josh that he can't just use high showings for his character and low showings for the other character. I can just as well take away her high showings with contradictory low showings (as he's trying to do to Supes). He knows better than to point out characters contradictory low showings when we all argue high showings only. Why didn't you address him on this trolling? Are you too bias against Superman?
I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I don't recall Superman struggling to push a ballistic missile, a crashing passenger jet, a Daily planet Globe, or a ship on frozen ice (I recall he pulling it with relative ease). Can you point out which movie these 3 things happened in, or post the scenes.
It kinda doesn't imply the size as we can visually see the size of it compared to her. And that ship was definitely less than 3 times the size of the ship Superman busted through (probably less than 2 times the size). And given Superman was weakened (not at full power), fighting through tremendous drag forces, and busting through instantly (CM took more than 10 times more time) then the feat is far more impressive or at the very least AS IMPRESSIVE.
I am growing tired of this, you are either trolling by this point or just conviniently ignoring my points.
I am going to address every single one of your points and bring EVIDENCE (scientific material, not my opinion), if you want to keep debating this, then I expect you to do THE SAME. Otherwise, don't even bother responding
Originally posted by h1a8
1. No you didn't. She traveled between stars (interstellar space). The average distance between objects is so large that it takes many seconds to react. It's about time (=distance /speed) to react. The average distance between asteroids is 600,000 miles. Google it.
Again, it's evident that you are tampering with the evidence.
Let me quote the real evidence!
Astronomers estimate that the average distance between two asteroids in the asteroid belt is about 600,000 miles (966,000 km).
Source: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/asteroid.html
- It's very evident that their estimation is regarding the asteroid belt in OUR SOLAR SYSTEM. Such evidence is useless in regards to intergalactic distances, interstellar distances and other solar systems which Carol would have to travel through!
Furthermore (This I already brought):
We know little about the interstellar medium and even less about the intergalactic medium. We do know that the former is filled with large amounts of dust and gas. Looking in the night sky we can see that large areas of the milky way are blocked to our view by dust. In the southern hemisphere there is one very dark small region near the southern cross that is called the coal-sack. This is due to dust blocking the light of stars behind it. Although this dust is augmented and often accompanied by large areas of gas and plasma, we shall restrict our definition of space debris to macroscopic particles and leave discussion of atomic and molecular debris throughout the universe for another discussion.Although we know nothing about larger bodies (eg meteoroids, asteroids and comet-type bodies) in the interstellar medium, we believe them to be present.
source: http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/debris.htm
Clearly humanity's knowledge over interstellar and intergallactic distances is limited, and yet, they aknowledge the presence of asteroids there. They don't know how close or far appart they are from each other, but the fact remains that they are present.
Visual perception (which I already pointed out, but you conviniently ignored):
The faster you travel, the less time you have to react, furthermore, the further away you are from an object, the smaller it seems. It's COMMON KNOWLEDGE.
Astronomers use degrees to measure objects in the sky. The moon for example, has a size of 0.52 degrees (https://stardustnext.jpl.nasa.gov/education/pdfs/Deep3.pdf)
An asteroid the size of Mt. Everest would appear the size of the moon at a distance of 1,100km aprox. (assuming that these asteroid is reflecting some sort of light and is clearly visible).
For the purpose of debating, lets assume Carol miraculously manages to spot such asteroid at a distance of 10,000km (the object would have an apparent size of 0.05degrees, which is almost invisible) and manages to realize that it is a Mt. Everest asteroid and not a star millions of light years away. Carol would have 0.03s to react to such asteroid
Now I don't think I have to prove how dangerous crashing at the speed of light is! But for you to have an idea, at the speed of light crashing even an object the size of a basketball ball would be catastrophic.
Summary: There is presence of asteroids in between stars and galaxies although the amounts of these is unknown. In other words, travelling at the speed of light inbetween stars or galaxies without proper reflexes, would be like swimming into a river with 0 visibility of what's underwater, knowing that there are crocodiles living in such river. You don't know how many crocodiles there are, or how near to you they are, but still, only a phucking IDIOT would swim in that river.
Considering:
1. Size perception in terms of distance (objects turn smaller the further away you are from them)
2. You have no way to know how far an object is from you and therefore it's actual size.
3. The speed of light covers a large distance in very little time.
4. Crashing at the speed of light would extremely dangerous.
5. Visibility of object's in space would be determined by the amount of light being reflected by these (not always visible)
You reach to the conclusion that CM NEEDS to have some very good reflexes in order to make light-speeding safe!
Tool used to calculate size percepction: https://sizecalc.com/#distance=10000kilometers&physical-size=10kilometers&perceived-size-units=degrees
Originally posted by h1a8
3. She wasn't laughing when going through the ship. Even if she was then it still took her seconds. She struggled with the ballistic missile.
You do realize that a. Carol was learning to use her new powers b. The missile isn't only falling due to gravity but actually propulsing itself against Carol?
And actually, I was never arguing that Carol was stronger than Superman. I believe Superman wins in terms of raw strength.
Originally posted by h1a8
4. Prove that Kree has superhuman reflexes and then to what degree. Because having superhuman reflexes does not mean that that you wont be a statue to Superman.
They do, it's common MCU knowledge. I'd have to bring Agents of Shield material and honestly I don't recall the exact episodes.
But Carol in her binary form is clearly wayyyyy more powerful and fast than a normal Kree.
Polling has Superman at 65% over CM 34% on who would win
https://thetylt.com/entertainment/captain-marvel-superman-marvel-dc
Everyone else > You
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Polling has Superman at 65% over CM 34% on who would winhttps://thetylt.com/entertainment/captain-marvel-superman-marvel-dc
Everyone else > You
Lol, you must be so desperate to make your iconic hero win, that you bring pathetic polls and use "popularity" to try rebuke facts.
It wouldn't surprise me if that poll was determined by bots and people like you 😂
Popularity =/= facts. But it doesn't surprise me coming from you.
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
There isn’t any science in this 😂It’s a comic book movie.
People can’t fly you😂
Okay, that's a fallacy.
Superpowers doesn't mean lack of science. Superman flying doesn't mean there is no grabity. Hulk smashing a car doesn't mean there are no forces.
Following your logic we would have to alter every thread in this website and more.
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
There isn’t any science in this 😂It’s a comic book movie.
People can’t fly you😂
Okay, that's a fallacy.
Superpowers doesn't mean lack of science. Superman flying doesn't mean there is no gravity. Hulk smashing a car doesn't mean there are no forces.
Following your logic we would have to alter every thread in this website and more.
Originally posted by h1a8
I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I don't recall Superman struggling to push a ballistic missile, a crashing passenger jet, a Daily planet Globe, or a ship on frozen ice (I recall he pulling it with relative ease). Can you point out which movie these 3 things happened in, or post the scenes.
All these happened in the various versions from Reeves to Routh to Cavill.
I'm not saying he's weak because he didn't handle these calamities with relative ease...
He struggled to push a ballistic missile off course from hitting its target & yet CM was able to flip her missile a full 360 into the other incoming missiles.
He struggled several times with the passenger jet plummeting to earth. Every time he tried to grab it, he'd end up just ripping chunks of metal off its body...ripping a wing off caused it to spiral out of control.
And the fact that he was leaning forward whilst pulling the ship over frozen ice kinda implies struggle.
It makes sense to see Supes struggle as that's the only connection a human can relate to him, both director & audience know that.
To see him do all these feats without even changing expression would simply alienate his fan base & appeal.