Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I am growing tired of this, you are either trolling by this point or just conviniently ignoring my points.[B] 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
Again, it's evident that you are tampering with the evidence.
Let me quote the real evidence!
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):
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
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.
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. [/B]
Basically you are saying that since man doesn't know exactly then the distance between objects in space MUST BE CLOSE where it takes a fraction of a second to react. You know how stupid that is?
Again, you have 0 evidence of how close objects are in space (between stars). Therefore, you can't conclude that she must have super fast reflexes to navigate space.
The gravity that far up is small. She was basically pushing against the propulsion.
Yes prove that Kree have superhuman reflexes, because what's shown trumps what you say. And even if they did then you have to prove what level of superhuman reflexes they have. For example, if they have 10% faster reflexes than the top humans then they would still be a statue to Superman.
Originally posted by Josh_AlexanderYou cite popularity all the time you hypocritical fat blob of slime.
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 h1a8
Basically you are saying that since man doesn't know exactly then the distance between objects in space MUST BE CLOSE where it takes a fraction of a second to react. You know how stupid that is?Again, you have 0 evidence of how close objects are in space (between stars). Therefore, you can't conclude that she must have super fast reflexes to navigate space.
The gravity that far up is small. She was basically pushing against the propulsion.
Yes prove that Kree have superhuman reflexes, because what's shown trumps what you say. And even if they did then you have to prove what level of superhuman reflexes they have. For example, if they have 10% faster reflexes than the top humans then they would still be a statue to Superman.
Incapable of bringing forth evidence!
Please QUOTE me saying that "since man doesn't know exactly then the distance between objects in space MUST BE CLOSE"
Please, go on, am eagerly waiting for that quote!
😂 How desperate must you be to bring such a pathetic claim!
First of all, the missiles were clearly already way inside the atmosphere!
a = Gm/r^2
Considering:
G= (the universal gravitational constant) 6.673 x 10-11N·m2kg2
m= (Mass of earth) 5.9736 x 1024 kg
r= (Radious from the center of the larger body to the object. 6,371*10^3m plus height of the object, which let's say it's 100km high above the surface) 6471*10^3m
The aceleration due to gravity would be of 9.51m/s^s!!
Thanks for proving once again that you love to tamper with physics!
Originally posted by h1a8
Basically you are saying that since man doesn't know exactly then the distance between objects in space MUST BE CLOSE where it takes a fraction of a second to react. You know how stupid that is?Again, you have 0 evidence of how close objects are in space (between stars). Therefore, you can't conclude that she must have super fast reflexes to navigate space.
The gravity that far up is small. She was basically pushing against the propulsion.
Yes prove that Kree have superhuman reflexes, because what's shown trumps what you say. And even if they did then you have to prove what level of superhuman reflexes they have. For example, if they have 10% faster reflexes than the top humans then they would still be a statue to Superman.
edit: Mass of earth = 5.9736 x 10^24 kg
Originally posted by Josh_AlexanderYou do it all the time. I said Evidence> popularity all the time but you just are not consistent. You are getting turn to shreds with your logic and hypocritical ways.
Quote me saying that I didn't use popularity, blind old man!I do use popularity as an extra, after using all the evidence and facts.
Take it as... a cherry to the cake! 😉
You mean on a sundae or milkshake you idiotic fat thing.
Originally posted by quanchi112
You do it all the time. I said Evidence> popularity all the time but you just are not consistent. You are getting turn to shreds with your logic and hypocritical ways.You mean on a sundae or milkshake you idiotic fat thing.
I have never said that popularity 》evidence! Otherwise quote me!
Have you never seen a cherry on a cake!?
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
He conceded when you showed proof Clark has no problem taking on women. That was the core of his argument and now it’s gone.He has given up all hope now. He was hoping no one would catch him, because he was to lazy to look up any evidence that might contradict his claim.
LOL!
My last post was this morning before I went to work.
It's now 11pm...
Hmmm, "Clark has no problem taking on women."
I guess I missed those scenes...care to elaborate the "proof"?