Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
WW's sword has no feats besides cutting DD. Without having any other feats or characteristics, it's pretty much useless, as quantifying it's power is impossible.I don't understand why people lowball IM scratching Thanos. I guess people forget that the mk 6 suit was going toe to toe with Thor, and that the MK 46 suit was way superior to Bucky and Cap (Tony only lost due to him being emotionally unstable and Bucky and Cap's coordination)
And again, IM hit Thanos with the edge of his suit. An edge is highly likely to cause a cut. Also, it seems strange that people will just obmit that Thanos took the impact of an asteroid, the explosion of multiple bombs and energy attacks, and many sword lashes with 0 damage. Obmitting that due to Thanos droping a single drop of blood by IM most powerful suit just isn't okay.
Characters blunt force durability scales with cut force durability. Why?
Because of pressure (the exact reason why sharp objects cut). If DD can tank astronomical pressures then he is extremely cut resistant.
Also the sword does have a feat. If sliced the shit out of a huge boulder thrown by Superman. So cutting DD is the feat.
I have a problem giving characters other character's best feats when we all know that all characters operate at different levels at different times.
Hulk is not operating at his best feat level in every showing, nor his lowest showing. So someone overpowering him doesnt give them Hulk's best feats. If Hulk has highs and lows then we assume Hulk was operating at somewhere between when he faces Thanos.
As an example of why this particular logic is faulty (characters get other characters feats) consider Gladiator. He bashed a planet with punches. Yet he struck many characters (Thing, Colossus, etc). Did those characters tank planetary punches?
Originally posted by h1a8
Characters blunt force durability scales with cut force durability.
Not quite true. A rubber tire will take repeated sledgehammer blows far better than a steel chest plate but a steel chest plate will easily withstand cuts that will tear up the rubber tire.
Wonder Woman got a cut fighting WWI soldiers, presumably from a bullet, yet she's able to withstand a headbutt from Superman without even a busted lip.
Originally posted by FrothByte
No, it has to do with strength. Especially since Hulk never lifted Surtur in the first place.
If you lift up a weight, you have the strength to lift it. If you drop the weight eventually, it's because you got "tired" of lifting it (endurance).
Hulk moved Surtur from hip up. He didn't lift it, but he did move a part of it (a fraction of Surtur's weight).
Even half of Surtur's weight is far more heavy than that building. And, you are not seeing that Hulk was jumping on Surtur. The reason Hulk stopped moving Surtur is because he can't fly. So, once he lands on Surtur, the energy of the jump gets absorbed until it reduces to 0.
Just like a bullet stops after hitting a target. If the bullet moves the object a bit and then stops, it's only because the bullet isn't constantly propelling itself.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
If you lift up a weight, you have the strength to lift it. If you drop the weight eventually, it's because you got "tired" of lifting it (endurance).Hulk moved Surtur from hip up. He didn't lift it, but he did move a part of it (a fraction of Surtur's weight).
Even half of Surtur's weight is far more heavy than that building. And, you are not seeing that Hulk was jumping on Surtur. The reason Hulk stopped moving Surtur is because he can't fly. So, once he lands on Surtur, the energy of the jump gets absorbed until it reduces to 0.
Just like a bullet stops after hitting a target. If the bullet moves the object a bit and then stops, it's only because the bullet isn't constantly propelling itself.
If I lifted a 10 pound dumbbell, I'd have an easier time maintaining it raised than a 10 year old kid. Why? Because I'm a lot stronger than the kid. Only an idiot would claim that a lifting a heavy object for a longer duration doesn't require more strength than lifting the same object for a single instant.
Hulk moved Surtur via punching him. That's a striking feat, not a strength feat. So you can say Hulk is a more powerful striker than Superman and I'll agree with that. But you can't say Hulk is stronger than Superman.
Originally posted by Psychotron
It was in this case.Exactly. Surtur was just surprised by this ugly green mutant landing on his head. Hulk's punches proved 100% ineffective. Also, Superman CASUALLY pulled that Icebreaker, which is bigger than Surtur's head btw, and also CASUALLY carried and apartment complex.
Go back to school. Mass IS energy.
Except you are obmiting the fact that Surtur's movement isn't typical of a reaction. You don't get swayed by a fly. Sure, perhaps you could flinch your head in reaction, but your hips up section isn't factible.
A fly won't make you move like that.
Regarding Hulk's punches, you are trying to compare the force of an arm to that of the entire body.
Superman was lifting the building using the strength of most of his body, similar to the tanker. In order for you to make a valid comparison, you'd have to prove that Superman would move Surtur by punching his face the same way Hulk was doing.
Mass is energy, but energy isn't necessarily mass. Specially not a laser-like beam.
Although in real terms, laser beams do apply drag forces on objects, these are insignificant.
Originally posted by h1a8
Characters blunt force durability scales with cut force durability. Why?
Because of pressure (the exact reason why sharp objects cut). If DD can tank astronomical pressures then he is extremely cut resistant.
Also the sword does have a feat. If sliced the shit out of a huge boulder thrown by Superman. So cutting DD is the feat.I have a problem giving characters other character's best feats when we all know that all characters operate at different levels at different times.
Hulk is not operating at his best feat level in every showing, nor his lowest showing. So someone overpowering him doesnt give them Hulk's best feats. If Hulk has highs and lows then we assume Hulk was operating at somewhere between when he faces Thanos.
As an example of why this particular logic is faulty (characters get other characters feats) consider Gladiator. He bashed a planet with punches. Yet he struck many characters (Thing, Colossus, etc). Did those characters tank planetary punches?
Cut resistance (material's hardness) and blunt force (material's tenacity) aren't' related.
A diamond for instance, can endure extreme penetrating forces, but will break if you drop it.
Why shouldn't we assume that characters fight at the best of thier abilities? If you are in danger, it's logical to assume you will run as fast as you can, fight as hard as you can, etc.
Either way, the samething could apply to DD. Why should we, then, assume that Superman is fighting at the best of his ability?
Originally posted by FrothByte
If I lifted a 10 pound dumbbell, I'd have an easier time maintaining it raised than a 10 year old kid. Why? Because I'm a lot stronger than the kid. Only an idiot would claim that a lifting a heavy object for a longer duration doesn't require more strength than lifting the same object for a single instant.Hulk moved Surtur via punching him. That's a striking feat, not a strength feat. So you can say Hulk is a more powerful striker than Superman and I'll agree with that. But you can't say Hulk is stronger than Superman.
It seems logical, but it's wrong. Force = Mass * Acceleration. The duration of the force applied has to do with your ability to maintain such force (durability/endurance).
A good analogy would be to think of a runner. Someone running at initial velocities of 3m/s but ends up running at 1m/s only means that he doesn't have the ability to pull 3m/s, just that he doesn't have the durability to maintain it.
Well, in that matter, Thanos would have been enduring stronger strikes than DD. You have just proven what I've been trying to explain here.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
It seems logical, but it's wrong. Force = Mass * Acceleration. The duration of the force applied has to do with your ability to maintain such force (durability/endurance).A good analogy would be to think of a runner. Someone running at initial velocities of 3m/s but ends up running at 1m/s only means that he doesn't have the ability to pull 3m/s, just that he doesn't have the durability to maintain it.
Well, in that matter, Thanos would have been enduring stronger strikes than DD. You have just proven what I've been trying to explain here.
The main problem with your analogy is that force is not equal to strength.
Besides, following your analogy what you're saying is that a guy who can benchpress 200 lbs. for a max of 1 rep is just as strong as a guy who can bench 200 lbs for a max of 20 reps. You realize how dumb that sounds right?
Originally posted by FrothByte
The main problem with your analogy is that force is not equal to strength.Besides, following your analogy what you're saying is that a guy who can benchpress 200 lbs. for a max of 1 rep is just as strong as a guy who can bench 200 lbs for a max of 20 reps. You realize how dumb that sounds right?
Strength is force. Like the literal definition.
In your analogy, you do need force to lift up the weights.
Using your analogy, and knowing that strength is force:
Aren't both lifting 200lbs?
Yes they are, which means they are just as "strong". Now, the second guy is doing more reps because his muscles have the endurance to do so.
Can you see it now? Guy A muscles can lift up the 200lb weight, but they don't have the durability to do so many times (his muscles get tired, fatigued and cramped).
It has nothing to do with strength and everything to do with stamina.
I admit it's not evident. Anyone would say that guy B is "stronger" at the gym, but the comment in terms of real physics is wrong.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Cut resistance (material's hardness) and blunt force (material's tenacity) aren't' related.A diamond for instance, can endure extreme penetrating forces, but will break if you drop it.
Why shouldn't we assume that characters fight at the best of thier abilities? If you are in danger, it's logical to assume you will run as fast as you can, fight as hard as you can, etc.
Either way, the samething could apply to DD. Why should we, then, assume that Superman is fighting at the best of his ability?
I said they scale. Do you know what that means? It means that that are highly correlated.
Pressure = force /Area
What you are referring to is the ability to SCRATCH.
Diamonds don't break if you drop them. They are very durable against blunt forces. You need a really hard blow to chip or shatter them.
Try cutting a tough meat with a dull knife. Although the knife is HARDER THAN THE MEAT, You won't be able to cut (or scratch) the meat if you don't apply a large amount of force.
Agree with Superman. That's why we look at the average. Superman is significantly more durable and stronger than Hulk on average.
Plus the nature of DD'S powers is to get stronger as the fight progresses. Even if Thanos was as strong as Superman then that would do him no good.
Originally posted by h1a8
I said they scale. Do you know what that means? It means that that are highly correlated.
Pressure = force /AreaWhat you are referring to is the ability to SCRATCH.
Diamonds don't break if you drop them. They are very durable against blunt forces. You need a really hard blow to chip or shatter them.Try cutting a tough meat with a dull knife. Although the knife is HARDER THAN THE MEAT, You won't be able to cut (or scratch) the meat if you don't apply a large amount of force.
Agree with Superman. That's why we look at the average. Superman is significantly more durable and stronger than Hulk on average.
Plus the nature of DD'S powers is to get stronger as the fight progresses. Even if Thanos was as strong as Superman then that would do him no good.
I don't think they do. You can drop a wooden block and it won't break unlike diamond... Yet you can cut wood, but need laser cutters to cut diamond. But feel free to bring scientific material to prove your point.
No, a diamond will get fractures if you drop it (not shatter but it will break). Again, tenacity and harness are two different concepts.
I don't get how the knife analogy fits into our debate..
Except I don't agree that Superman's average is above Hulk's. What do you base this assumptions on?
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I don't think they do. You can drop a wooden block and it won't break unlike diamond... Yet you can cut wood, but need laser cutters to cut diamond. But feel free to bring scientific material to prove your point.No, a diamond will get fractures if you drop it (not shatter but it will break). Again, tenacity and harness are two different concepts.
I don't get how the knife analogy fits into our debate..
Except I don't agree that Superman's average is above Hulk's. What do you base this assumptions on?
Again a diamond will not break if you drop. You need a LARGE blow to chip or shatter a diamond. A wood block will break far faster than a diamond.
The knife fits because hardness alone does not mean you WILL cut something. It just means that the object CAN be cut with SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF PRESSURE.
So, to summarize.
A being harder than B means that A can cut B If and only if A applies sufficient pressure to B.
Try cutting scratching a piece of steel with a dull (not very sharp) diamond. You won't manage to cut the steel unless you applied superhuman strength.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Strength is force. Like the literal definition.In your analogy, you do need force to lift up the weights.
Using your analogy, and knowing that strength is force:
Aren't both lifting 200lbs?Yes they are, which means they are just as "strong". Now, the second guy is doing more reps because his muscles have the endurance to do so.
Can you see it now? Guy A muscles can lift up the 200lb weight, but they don't have the durability to do so many times (his muscles get tired, fatigued and cramped).
It has nothing to do with strength and everything to do with stamina.
I admit it's not evident. Anyone would say that guy B is "stronger" at the gym, but the comment in terms of real physics is wrong.
Show me evidence that strength (pertaining to a person's strength) is exactly equivalent to force (pertaining to force as defined in physics).
Because using your analogy, if person A has a max 1 rep bench of 400 lbs and person B has a max 1 rep bench of 250 lbs but they have the exact same amount of endurance and stamina, then they should be able to perform the exact same reps with a 245 lbs bench.
Originally posted by h1a8
Again a diamond will not break if you drop. You need a LARGE blow to chip or shatter a diamond. A wood block will break far faster than a diamond.The knife fits because hardness alone does not mean you WILL cut something. It just means that the object CAN be cut with SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF PRESSURE.
So, to summarize.
A being harder than B means that A can cut B If and only if A applies sufficient pressure to B.Try cutting scratching a piece of steel with a dull (not very sharp) diamond. You won't manage to cut the steel unless you applied superhuman strength.
A quick google search will prove you wrong.
What did you understood when I said hardness? You have misunderstood.
Hardness refers to the physical property of materials to withstand pressures over a small area. Tenacity refers to the physical property of materials to withstand blunt forces.
These two properties aren't correlated. Ergo, an object withstanding being cut won't necessarily withstand blunt forces and viseversa.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Show me evidence that strength (pertaining to a person's strength) is exactly equivalent to force (pertaining to force as defined in physics).Because using your analogy, if person A has a max 1 rep bench of 400 lbs and person B has a max 1 rep bench of 250 lbs but they have the exact same amount of endurance and stamina, then they should be able to perform the exact same reps with a 245 lbs bench.
Easy. When you think of strength you think of lifting weights right? Weights "weight" because of the force of gravity. So when you apply strength, you are applying a force to oppose gravity.
In your case, guy A's muscles are stronger, ergo his arms won't fatigue with a 245lbs bench.
Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Easy. When you think of strength you think of lifting weights right? Weights "weight" because of the force of gravity. So when you apply strength, you are applying a force to oppose gravity.In your case, guy A's muscles are stronger, ergo his arms won't fatigue with a 245lbs bench.
I'm asking for actual evidence that proves force = a person's strength, not just your opinion.
Besides, you just contradicted yourself. You said if A's muscles are stronger then they don't fatigue as easily.