Thanos (MCU) vs. Doomsday (DCEU)

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
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.

A Google search will not prove me wrong. It's very very unlikely for a diamond to crack if dropped.

Stop making up definitions. That's not how hardness is defined. No amount of pressure would allow a softer object to scratch a harder object. Hardness is a measured using a ordinal scale (not a ratio scale).

Blunt forces have pressure.

So since Thanos has no feats of resisting cutting forces then he too can be cut easily by an ordinary sword by an ordinary human. See how stupid that sounds?

Originally posted by FrothByte
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.

Force:

strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement

No, I didn't contradict myself, because I never said that stamina isn't a factor of strenght. I said that two people that can lift up the same weight don't necessarily have the same stamina.

Originally posted by h1a8
A Google search will not prove me wrong. It's very very unlikely for a diamond to crack if dropped.

Stop making up definitions. That's not how hardness is defined. No amount of pressure would allow a softer object to scratch a harder object. Hardness is a measured using a ordinal scale (not a ratio scale).

Blunt forces have pressure.

So since Thanos has no feats of resisting cutting forces then he too can be cut easily by an ordinary sword by an ordinary human. See how stupid that sounds?

Hardness definition:

Material hardness is the property of the material which enables it to resist plastic deformation, usually by penetration or by indentation. The term of hardness is also referred to stiffness or temper, or to resistance to bending, scratching, abrasion, or cutting.

Tenacity definition:

Tenacity refers to a mineral's toughness or resistance to breaking or being deformed.

Here, hopes this finishes giving you clarity:

YouTube video

A good example of this is comparing plastic bottles with glass bottles. A drop will break glass, but won't break the plastic bottle. A knife will cut through plastic but not through glass.

Tenacity=/=hardness

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Hardness definition:

Tenacity definition:

Here, hopes this finishes giving you clarity:

YouTube video

A good example of this is comparing plastic bottles with glass bottles. A drop will break glass, but won't break the plastic bottle. A knife will cut through plastic but not through glass.

Tenacity=/=hardness

You stated that hardness refers to the physical property of materials to withstand PRESSURES OVER A SMALL AREA. That's definition is incorrect for the reasons you ignored. You basically made that definition up.

You also ignored.
1. Blunt forces has pressure since they exert force over an area.
2. Thanos has no feats of resisting being cut and therefore, by your logic, he can be easily cut by ordinary sword by ordinary human.
3. It is very hard TO CUT tough raw meat with a dull knife (which is harder than the meat). You must either apply a LARGE FORCE or sharpen the knife to reduce the area. Both increases the pressure.

Originally posted by h1a8
You are starting to Troll now (ignoring my arguments).

You stated that hardness refers to the physical property of materials to withstand PRESSURES OVER A SMALL AREA. That's definition is incorrect for the reasons you ignored. You basically made that definition up.

You also ignored.
1. Blunt forces has pressure since they exert force over an area.
2. Thanos has no feats of resisting being cut and therefore, by your logic, he can be easily cut by ordinary sword by ordinary human.
3. It is very hard TO CUT tough raw meat with a dull knife (which is harder than the meat). You must either apply a LARGE FORCE or sharpen the knife to reduce the area. Both increases the pressure.

Troll? Lol! Science isn't trolling.

I didn't make any definition, is right there on the internet.

https://www.ispatguru.com/material-hardness-and-hardness-testing/

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Blunt force is different from cutting, just like the guy from the video explained.

It's called science.

Thanos wasn't cut by Drax's knifes.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Force:

No, I didn't contradict myself, because I never said that stamina isn't a factor of strenght. I said that two people that can lift up the same weight don't necessarily have the same stamina.

Not what I asked. I asked for proof that force (physics) is equal to the strength as pertains to a user's strength. Please cite your source instead of just a simple quote.

Also, you're now moving goalposts. The original contention between us is that holding up a heavy load for an extended amount of time is easier for a stronger person. We weren't talking about stamina.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Troll? Lol! Science isn't trolling.

I didn't make any definition, is right there on the internet.

https://www.ispatguru.com/material-hardness-and-hardness-testing/

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Blunt force is different from cutting, just like the guy from the video explained.

It's called science.

Thanos wasn't cut by Drax's knifes.

Your definition DOESN'T MATCH YOUR LINK. The definition does not have pressure at all. If pressure was part of the definition then you would reach a contradiction as blunt force IS PRESSURE.

Drax cut at the armored boots and we do not know of damage was done or not. Therefore Thanos doesn't have any feats against being cut. So going by your logic...

Originally posted by FrothByte
Not what I asked. I asked for proof that force (physics) is equal to the strength as pertains to a user's strength. Please cite your source instead of just a simple quote.

Also, you're now moving goalposts. The original contention between us is that holding up a heavy load for an extended amount of time is easier for a stronger person. We weren't talking about stamina.

Also to add that people can at times strike with more force than they can lift.
So a punching feat is usually worst than a lifting feat if both exerted the same force. Punching requires gaining momentum prior to contact. So when the punch lands, the target is receiving both momentum from the punch and a push force from the person's strength. Both combine to give a total punch force.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Not what I asked. I asked for proof that force (physics) is equal to the strength as pertains to a user's strength. Please cite your source instead of just a simple quote.

Also, you're now moving goalposts. The original contention between us is that holding up a heavy load for an extended amount of time is easier for a stronger person. We weren't talking about stamina.

Merriam Webster Dictionary:

strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/force

I don't understand why are we debating Superman holding the building for a prolongued time. It's pretty much useless, as Surtur is way heavier than such building.

Originally posted by h1a8
Your definition DOESN'T MATCH YOUR LINK. The definition does not have pressure at all. If pressure was part of the definition then you would reach a contradiction as blunt force IS PRESSURE.

Drax cut at the armored boots and we do not know of damage was done or not. Therefore Thanos doesn't have any feats against being cut. So going by your logic...

I see where your error lies.

Your entire blunt force argument comes because Thanos was hit by IM's blunt edge?

Let's be clear on that before we can move to the physics part.

Originally posted by h1a8
Also to add that people can at times strike with more force than they can lift.
So a punching feat is usually worst than a lifting feat if both exerted the same force. Punching requires gaining momentum prior to contact. So when the punch lands, the target is receiving both momentum from the punch and a push force from the person's strength. Both combine to give a total punch force.

I agree regarding momentum, and yet Surtur is what? Maybe 10x heavier than that building? A persons punching strenght isn't far from a person's strenght.

So saying that Hulk can move Surtur with a punch, but not lift up a building that is 10x smaller (being kind to Superman) is plain out illogical.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Merriam Webster Dictionary:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/force

I don't understand why are we debating Superman holding the building for a prolongued time. It's pretty much useless, as Surtur is way heavier than such building.

Except Hulk never lifted Surtur did he?

You're also changing the context of force and providing a definition that is different from your physics application before. Because in this definition that you're referring to, force is the same thing as strength, power or energy. If this is the definition you want to use then you can no longer use the force = mass * acceleration formula as that talks about a completely different kind of force. Unless you want to claim that the formula for energy is also mass*acceleration?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Except Hulk never lifted Surtur did he?

You're also changing the context of force and providing a definition that is different from your physics application before. Because in this definition that you're referring to, force is the same thing as strength, power or energy. If this is the definition you want to use then you can no longer use the force = mass * acceleration formula as that talks about a completely different kind of force. Unless you want to claim that the formula for energy is also mass*acceleration?

I don't think you understand the definition. Read it again. Force is strength or energy exerted.

How do you measure strenght in your daily life? Weren't you the one using the gym example to illustrate how a guy lifting a heavier weight is stronger than one lifting a lighter weight?

Well, in order to lift something you need force.

You need force cause a change in inertia. Both lifting a building or moving a behemoth requires force. Sure, diferent muscles and contexts are involved in such feats, but isn't like lifting and punching requires signitificantly different force by your arms. At least not significant enough to say that Superman lifting a building requires more force by his arms, than Hulk moving a 10x bigger object by punching it.

Check my reply to h1 to understand what I mean by the above.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I don't think you understand the definition. Read it again. Force is strength or energy exerted.

How do you measure strenght in your daily life? Weren't you the one using the gym example to illustrate how a guy lifting a heavier weight is stronger than one lifting a lighter weight?

Well, in order to lift something you need force.

You need force cause a change in inertia. Both lifting a building or moving a behemoth requires force. Sure, diferent muscles and contexts are involved in such feats, but isn't like lifting and punching requires signitificantly different force by your arms. At least not significant enough to say that Superman lifting a building requires more force by his arms, than Hulk moving a 10x bigger object by punching it.

Check my reply to h1 to understand what I mean by the above.

You're grasping at straws.

The word "force" has many different definitions. Originally the definition you were using was force as it is applied in physics, as in force = mass*acceleration.

I then asked you to provide proof that the usage of force in this context is the same thing as strength when used to describe a person's strength.

You then provided a definition that equated force with strength... but also equated force with power and energy. Based on that, we know that you're no longer using "force" in the context of physics.

In the end, what all this really boils down to is that you just don't want to admit that Hulk has no strength feat that can match Superman lifting that apartment building. He has better strike feats (especially the leviathan punch) but no strength feat to match.

You also don't know anything about punching it seems. The force in your arm isn't the main ingredient in delivering a powerful punch.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I see where your error lies.

Your entire blunt force argument comes because Thanos was hit by IM's blunt edge?

Let's be clear on that before we can move to the physics part.

No my argument is based off common sense. But using your logic, if a character doesn't have the cut resistant feats then they don't have the special attribute. In other words, Thanos can be sliced up by an ordinary sword by an ordinary human.

Lastly, I was giving an IF P THEN Q argument. You basically showed that if Q then not P. In other words, you argued against the converse of my argument. This is a fallacy.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
I agree regarding momentum, and yet Surtur is what? Maybe 10x heavier than that building? A persons punching strenght isn't far from a person's strenght.

So saying that Hulk can move Surtur with a punch, but not lift up a building that is 10x smaller (being kind to Superman) is plain out illogical.

The problem with the Surtur feat is that
1. Hulk's following punches did absolutely nothing. Therefore it was Hulk's download falling momentum that did the work.
2. Surtur only moved his upper body, not his entire body. So basically a very small force was able to move Surtur.
3. Also punching someone back takes way less force than punching them off the ground (which requires the force of their weight) or lifting them.

4. Then you have the fallacy of giving Thanos Hulk's best feat. If that made any sense then that would mean that everytime Gladiator punched someone then that character took planet destroying force.

5. Then you have the fallacy of believing you know Surtur's exact composition when he is a magical being.

Originally posted by FrothByte
You're grasping at straws.

The word "force" has many different definitions. Originally the definition you were using was force as it is applied in physics, as in force = mass*acceleration.

I then asked you to provide proof that the usage of force in this context is the same thing as strength when used to describe a person's strength.

You then provided a definition that equated force with strength... but also equated force with power and energy. Based on that, we know that you're no longer using "force" in the context of physics.

In the end, what all this really boils down to is that you just don't want to admit that Hulk has no strength feat that can match Superman lifting that apartment building. He has better strike feats (especially the leviathan punch) but no strength feat to match.

You also don't know anything about punching it seems. The force in your arm isn't the main ingredient in delivering a powerful punch.

Lol, are you really saying that the dictionary, specially the Merriam Webster, doesn't know the scientific definition of Force? Dude you are dense!

Force:

Force, in mechanics, any action that tends to maintain or alter the motion of a body or to distort it.

If you think a little, you'll realize that the Merriam Webster definition isn't wrong. It's just that you are the one who has the concepts wrong.

So when you lift up a weight, you change its motion (static). Ergo, in all your examples of strenght, the guys were applying force.

Seems to me that you aren't paying attention. Read my comment on the Surtur feat, again, please.

Not sure what the wonder twins above are ranting about. But here's how It'd go:

Round 1) Thanos punches DD to the point DD gets strong enough to tear Thanos in twain

Round 2) Thanos uses one or more of the stones to destroy DD

Originally posted by h1a8
No my argument is based off common sense. But using your logic, if a character doesn't have the cut resistant feats then they don't have the special attribute. In other words, Thanos can be sliced up by an ordinary sword by an ordinary human.

Lastly, I was giving an IF P THEN Q argument. You basically showed that if Q then not P. In other words, you argued against the converse of my argument. This is a fallacy.

The problem with the Surtur feat is that
1. Hulk's following punches did absolutely nothing. Therefore it was Hulk's download falling momentum that did the work.
2. Surtur only moved his upper body, not his entire body. So basically a very small force was able to move Surtur.
3. Also punching someone back takes way less force than punching them off the ground (which requires the force of their weight) or lifting them.

4. Then you have the fallacy of giving Thanos Hulk's best feat. If that made any sense then that would mean that everytime Gladiator punched someone then that character took planet destroying force.

5. Then you have the fallacy of believing you know Surtur's exact composition when he is a magical being.

Originally posted by h1a8
If DD can tank astronomical pressures then he is extremely cut resistant.

Please clarify what do you mean by /\? Honestly, by this point I've lost your original argument line.

1. Momentum which was produced by his body. Ergo, strenght that was produced by Hulk.

2. LMAO! You mean half of Surtur's size, which is equivalent to what? 5x the size of the building Superman moved? Yeah sure, "very little force"!

3. Dude! Force = mass * acceleration. If the acceleration caused by the punch which made the object move back is superior to that of gravity then the force is greater than the one required to hold the object. If you look at how fast Surtur moved, I bet the force required to that is greater than the force required to hold it in your arms.

4. Then you have the fallacy of giving Superman the best feats against DD. If you lowball Hulk, then you have to lowball Superman.

5. We can speculate. Obviously Surtur's composition tougher than a human's.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure what the wonder twins above are ranting about. But here's how It'd go:

Round 1) Thanos punches DD to the point DD gets strong enough to tear Thanos in twain

Round 2) Thanos uses one or more of the stones to destroy DD

👆 I also believe that.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Lol, are you really saying that the dictionary, specially the Merriam Webster, doesn't know the scientific definition of Force? Dude you are dense!

Force:

https://www.britannica.com/science/force-physics

If you think a little, you'll realize that the Merriam Webster definition isn't wrong. It's just that you are the one who has the concepts wrong.

So when you lift up a weight, you change its motion (static). Ergo, in all your examples of strenght, the guys were applying force.

Seems to me that you aren't paying attention. Read my comment on the Surtur feat, again, please.

Oh I never said Merriam Webster's definition was wrong, I'm saying you're wrong to think that force = strength = power = energy = mass*acceleration.

Strawman much?

Fact is, you already agreed that a stronger person will have an easier time lifting a heavy weight for a prolonged duration than a weaker man would.

You also have yet to provide any proof at all that Hulk can match Superman's strength feat of lifting an entire building.

You also still don't know how the force behind a punch works.