Thanos (MCU) vs. Doomsday (DCEU)

Originally posted by h1a8
Touching with the point of a knife vs the head of a hammer is the same thing.

Sorry, I'm just going to butt in here because I have tell you... you're flat out wrong.

Put a sharp knife's edge across the palm of your hand with just enough pressure to indent the skin a bit. Is this a forceful impact? Not really, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't bruise or hurt yourself from this light pressure. Now without changing the pressure, quickly slide the blade back and forth in a sawing motion. Chances are you'll end up cutting your skin.

Now, try this same experiment with the head of a hammer and I'm pretty sure you won't cause yourself even the slightest injury.

ok, lets settle some shit here; blunt force and laceration trauma are completely different things... this is the reason why a bulletproof vest cannot stop a knife unless you put trauma plating into it as well... only an idiot would try and say that these two forms of damage happen in the same way

Doomsday wins h2h rather easily btw

Originally posted by FrothByte
Sorry, I'm just going to butt in here because I have tell you... you're flat out wrong.

Put a sharp knife's edge across the palm of your hand with just enough pressure to indent the skin a bit. Is this a forceful impact? Not really, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't bruise or hurt yourself from this light pressure. Now without changing the pressure, quickly slide the blade back and forth in a sawing motion. Chances are you'll end up cutting your skin.

Now, try this same experiment with the head of a hammer and I'm pretty sure you won't cause yourself even the slightest injury.

Why are you feeding the troll?

Originally posted by relentless1
ok, lets settle some shit here; blunt force and laceration trauma are completely different things... this is the reason why a bulletproof vest cannot stop a knife unless you put trauma plating into it as well... only an idiot would try and say that these two forms of damage happen in the same way

Doomsday wins h2h rather easily btw

Pressure = Force /Area
A sharp point has a small area and thus a large pressure.
Let's calculate.
Let's say the width of the tip of a knife is 0.5mm (smaller than this) and squarish. So the cross sectional area is
(0.5mm)^2 = 0.25 mm^2 = 2.5e-7m^2
Lets say we apply a stabbing force of 50lb or 222N.

So the pressure would be 222/2.5e-7 =8.9e8 Pa

Now let's look at a 9mm bullet.
Mass =124gr or 0.008kg
Speed = 375m/s
Stopping distance = 1inch or 0.0254m
diameter of bullet = 9mm =0.009m
cross sectional area =pi*r^2 =pi*(0.0045m)^2 =6.4e-5m^2

Force x stopping distance = change in kinetic energy
Force = change in kinetic energy /stopping distance
= 1/2 mass x velocity ^2/distance
=(0.5*0.008*375^2)/0.0254 =22145N

Pressure =Force /Area = 22145/6.4e-5 = 3.47e8 Pa

So the knife gave more than 2.5 times more pressure than the bullet.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Sorry, I'm just going to butt in here because I have tell you... you're flat out wrong.

Put a sharp knife's edge across the palm of your hand with just enough pressure to indent the skin a bit. Is this a forceful impact? Not really, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't bruise or hurt yourself from this light pressure. Now without changing the pressure, quickly slide the blade back and forth in a sawing motion. Chances are you'll end up cutting your skin.

Now, try this same experiment with the head of a hammer and I'm pretty sure you won't cause yourself even the slightest injury.

It is forceful impact because you applied a force in a collision.
The lightest touch has force and is therefore a forceful impact.

But you are changing the pressure when you saw back and forth.
There are micro serrations on a knife's edge. These points have even smaller areas and will locally cut through your hand.

Originally posted by h1a8
Wrong. It all stems from pressure.

Pressure = Force /Area
A sharp point has a small area and thus a large pressure.
Let's calculate.
Let's say the width of the tip of a knife is 0.5mm (smaller than this) and squarish. So the cross sectional area is
(0.5mm)^2 = 0.25 mm^2 = 2.5e-7m^2
Lets say we apply a stabbing force of 50lb or 222N.

So the pressure would be 222/2.5e-7 =8.9e8 Pa

Now let's look at a 9mm bullet.
Mass =124gr or 0.008kg
Speed = 375m/s
Stopping distance = 1inch or 0.0254m
diameter of bullet = 9mm =0.009m
cross sectional area =pi*r^2 =pi*(0.0045m)^2 =6.4e-5m^2

Force x stopping distance = change in kinetic energy
Force = change in kinetic energy /stopping distance
= 1/2 mass x velocity ^2/distance
=(0.5*0.008*375^2)/0.0254 =22145N

Pressure =Force /Area = 22145/6.4e-5 = 3.47e8 Pa

So the knife gave more than 2.5 times more pressure than the bullet.

It is forceful impact because you applied a force in a collision.
The lightest touch has force and is therefore a forceful impact.

But you are changing the pressure when you saw back and forth.
There are micro serrations on a knife's edge. These points have even smaller areas and will locally cut through your hand.

No one believes your pseudo-math dude. You claimed the point of a knife is no different from the head of a hammer. Only an idiot makes a statement like that.

Originally posted by FrothByte
No one believes your pseudo-math dude. You claimed the point of a knife is no different from the head of a hammer. Only an idiot makes a statement like that.

He also once claimed that bullets hit with a PSI of 313 million tons.

Originally posted by FrothByte
No one believes your pseudo-math dude. You claimed the point of a knife is no different from the head of a hammer. Only an idiot makes a statement like that.

First of all, you are misunderstanding me.
That's what happens when you butt into a debate with two other people.

When I said they were the same I meant at the fundamental level (atoms and electric forces, etc). I even stated that if we were smaller than the edge of a sharp knife then the edge of a sharp knife would appear to be a huge wall hitting a bigger wall (the material being cut). Our perception would change and view the wall striking as blunt force.

The math just shows that a knife has more pressure.

Why do sharps objects cut easier than dull or non sharp objects? Did you learn the Science of that?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Why do you feel the need to make stuff up? I already quoted exactly what I said, why are you even trying to misrepresent it. Here, let me quote myself again:

Do I mention anywhere in there that Superman wasn't applying any force on the building or that strength has got nothing to do with force? No, I said force isn't equal to strength, which is what you were claiming.

I don't mind proceed on this debate with you but I'm not going to bother if you're going to be completely dishonest about it. That's H1 tactics.

Now, let me ask again so we can move forward. Do you at least agree that from a physics context, force is not equal to strength?

Lol, you just quoted something that isn't your original statement. Let me refresh your memory:

Originally posted by FrothByte
Superman carried an entire building for a prolonged duration.

Originally posted by FrothByte

Hulk moved Surtur via punching him. That's a striking feat, not a strength feat.

Your claim is that Superman's feat is one of strength, whereas Hulk isn't. As if both feats don't involve force, specially in this scenario, where "strength" (lifting a building) is literally force. You need force to lift up something.

So, if strength under your argument above, isn't force, then, how do you describe it?

Quick tip:

Physical strength is the measure of an animal's exertion of force on physical objects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_strength

It's pretty clear by now, that your notion of strength under the scene in context is erroneous.

Me, dishonest? Dude, literally every site (dictionaries, wikipedia, physics pages) are clearly telling you that Force is Strength! Even Thesaurus, is saying that strength is a synonym of force!

The problem with you is that you fail to realize that strength is the urban word used to describe force! When you are at the gym, you say: that guy is stronger than the other because he is lifting a heavier weight, instead of going all scientific and saying: that guy is applying a greater force on the weight than that other guy.

Now, if you are so convinced that I'm being dishonest, then I'm willing to take this to a BZ.

That should be enough to demonstrate that I'm serious here and that I'm confident over my understanding of physics

Originally posted by h1a8
Blunt force is not well defined as it doesn't have a minimum force or minimum cross sectional area. Touching someone slightly is applying a forceful impact. Touching with the point of a knife vs the head of a hammer is the same thing.

Stabbing with sharp point = blunt force impact. This is easily seen by imagining the observer being smaller than the point that's striking an object.

1. We go by feats.

2. Noooo. Hulk was on Surtur's head punching him with no effect.

3. I know this. That has nothing to do with what I said. My point is that you are assuming mass while we are arguing about it. You can't assume what you are trying to prove.

4. Defeating Hulk in seconds is not proof. Hulk didnt fight Hulk nor did Hulk apply the same hits to the same areas oh Hulk for a comparison. Thanos hit Hulk a bunch of times and in vital areas. Plus Hulk didn't go flying anywhere.

5. We don't know is my point. Surtur is a magical being. All we can do is guess.

h1, there's nothing wrong about being wrong. People is wrong every day. You inventing science is way worse than you admiting you were wrong over your understanding of blunt force.

The definition of blunt force clearly contradicts your understanding of it. You hitting something with a hammer isn't the same as you stabbing something.

If you read the site that I quoted, which is a very trustful site, clearly states that blunt force is the contrary of a penetrating force

1. Which feat shows that Thanos' legs are weaker than the Hulk's? Dude, you are just inventing now!

2. Moving goalpoasts? We aren't talking about the effect of Hulk's punches while on Surtur's face, we were talking about Hulk's size in relation to Surtur's head.

You are just evading now. I will take it as if you have realized that you were wrong about Surtur's face being small.

3. Now you are lying:

Originally posted by h1a8

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

You literally made up a false statement, which I had to correct for you. Your error was to make an absolute statement by saying than punching someone takes less force than lifting them.

4. Apples to apples comparison. Please pay attention. We can use the Hulkbuster as a parameter for this.

5. Well, it's an educated guess to say that Surtur's composition is stronger than a person's.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Lol, you just quoted something that isn't your original statement. Let me refresh your memory:

Your claim is that Superman's feat is one of strength, whereas Hulk isn't. As if both feats don't involve force, specially in this scenario, where "strength" (lifting a building) is literally force. You need force to lift up something.

So, if strength under your argument above, isn't force, then, how do you describe it?

Quick tip:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_strength

It's pretty clear by now, that your notion of strength under the scene in context is erroneous.

Me, dishonest? Dude, literally every site (dictionaries, wikipedia, physics pages) are clearly telling you that Force is Strength! Even Thesaurus, is saying that strength is a synonym of force!

The problem with you is that you fail to realize that strength is the urban word used to describe force! When you are at the gym, you say: that guy is stronger than the other because he is lifting a heavier weight, instead of going all scientific and saying: that guy is applying a greater force on the weight than that other guy.

Now, if you are so convinced that I'm being dishonest, then I'm willing to take this to a BZ.

That should be enough to demonstrate that I'm serious here and that I'm confident over my understanding of physics

Your claim is that Superman's feat is one of strength, whereas Hulk isn't. As if both feats don't involve force

^ read your statement above and realize just how much of a liar you sound. Yes, I claimed Superman's feat is one of strength whereas Hulk's is one of striking power. Nowhere there did I ever claim they didn't include force. You literally made that up, as proof that it's seen nowhere in my posts.

Now, can we go back to an honest debate or are you going to troll some more?

Though if you want to BZ then sure, I challenge you to BZ the fact that in the context of physics, force is not equal to strength. Or if you prefer, we can BZ the fact that striking power is not directly equal to strength. Which will you accept?

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
h1, there's nothing wrong about being wrong. People is wrong every day. You inventing science is way worse than you admiting you were wrong over your understanding of blunt force.

The definition of blunt force clearly contradicts your understanding of it. You hitting something with a hammer isn't the same as you stabbing something.

[B]If you read the site that I quoted, which is a very trustful site, clearly states that blunt force is the contrary of a penetrating force

1. Which feat shows that Thanos' legs are weaker than the Hulk's? Dude, you are just inventing now!

2. Moving goalpoasts? We aren't talking about the effect of Hulk's punches while on Surtur's face, we were talking about Hulk's size in relation to Surtur's head.

You are just evading now. I will take it as if you have realized that you were wrong about Surtur's face being small.

3. Now you are lying:

You literally made up a false statement, which I had to correct for you. Your error was to make an absolute statement by saying than punching someone takes less force than lifting them.

4. Apples to apples comparison. Please pay attention. We can use the Hulkbuster as a parameter for this.

5. Well, it's an educated guess to say that Surtur's composition is stronger than a person's. [/B]

Now you are using drugs. What happened to you? Every time I start winning a debate you start trolling and acting like you are slow.

1. The definition doesn't give the minimum size an object has to be in order to be blunt and not sharp. What's the minimum size?

2. You claimed that closer objects appears larger than further objects. I stated that Hulk was shown on top of Surtur's head. He wasn't shown closer or further but equal distance from the camera. That was my point in which you missed.

3. What does my error have anything to do with you assuming what you are trying to prove. We haven't established mass or established whether or not Surtur flinched.

4. Hulkbuster has nothing to with this. Did Hulkbuster hit Hulk in the exact same vital spots and the same amount of hits all in quick succession where Hulk can't recover in time?

5. It could be that Surtur is made of flame and ash or at least as dense as a person.

Originally posted by FrothByte
^ read your statement above and realize just how much of a liar you sound. Yes, I claimed Superman's feat is one of strength whereas Hulk's is one of striking power. Nowhere there did I ever claim they didn't include force. You literally made that up, as proof that it's seen nowhere in my posts.

Now, can we go back to an honest debate or are you going to troll some more?

Though if you want to BZ then sure, I challenge you to BZ the fact that in the context of physics, force is not equal to strength. Or if you prefer, we can BZ the fact that striking power is not directly equal to strength. Which will you accept?

Fine! You want to BZ, let's do it.

Subject being debated: Strength as regards to a person lifting something is the same as force.

Accept?

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Fine! You want to BZ, let's do it.

Subject being debated: Strength as regards to a person lifting something is the same as force.

Accept?

LoL. If you're so willing to BZ then why are you changing the parameters? I said force as applied in physics is not the same as strength as applied in physics.

You claimed the strength of a person can be equated with force using the formula force = mass * acceleration.

So if you want to BZ something, either we BZ what I said, which is physics force is not the same as physics strength. Or we debate what you said, which is a person's strength is calculable by the formula force = mass * acceleration.

So, which will it be?

Originally posted by h1a8
Now you are using drugs. What happened to you? Every time I start winning a debate you start trolling and acting like you are slow.

1. The definition doesn't give the minimum size an object has to be in order to be blunt and not sharp. What's the minimum size?

2. You claimed that closer objects appears larger than further objects. I stated that Hulk was shown on top of Surtur's head. He wasn't shown closer or further but equal distance from the camera. That was my point in which you missed.

3. What does my error have anything to do with you assuming what you are trying to prove. We haven't established mass or established whether or not Surtur flinched.

4. Hulkbuster has nothing to with this. Did Hulkbuster hit Hulk in the exact same vital spots and the same amount of hits all in quick succession where Hulk can't recover in time?

5. It could be that Surtur is made of flame and ash or at least as dense as a person.

Science>>> h1

I know you are pretty retarded when physics comes to bear, but honestly! You can't read now?

Blunt trauma is physical trauma to a body part, either by impact, injury or physical attack. The latter is often referred to as blunt force trauma, though it can also result from high-velocity impact. Blunt trauma is the initial trauma, from which develops more specific types such as contusions, abrasions, lacerations, and/or bone fractures. Blunt trauma is contrasted with penetrating trauma, in which an object such as a projectile or knife enters the body, though either can prove fatal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunt_trauma

You don't get to make up science! Definition of a term>>> Your understanding of a term.

2. Yeah, in the scene, where Hulk is standing on top of Surtur's crown, it's clear that Surtur's face is much bigger than the Hulk!

3. Concession accepted. Except I never said that Surtur was being lifted, nor that the force requiered to move Surtur was bigger than the one requiered to lift him.

I said that it's plain out stupid to pretend than lifting a building is a greater feat of strength than moving a 10x bigger object!

4. Hulkbuster hit Hulk many more times than Thanos did. That's more than enough to show that Thanos' punches>>> Hulkbuster's.

5. Surtur is a solid. If Surtur was made of the exact same composition or one less dense than a person's, then the Hulk would have smashed his face! It's pretty obvious that Surtur is way denser.

Originally posted by FrothByte
LoL. If you're so willing to BZ then why are you changing the parameters? I said force as applied in physics is not the same as strength as applied in physics.

You claimed the strength of a person can be equated with force using the formula force = mass * acceleration.

So if you want to BZ something, either we BZ what I said, which is physics force is not the same as physics strength. Or we debate what you said, which is a person's strength is calculable by the formula force = mass * acceleration.

So, which will it be?

No, you are changing the parameters. Your original post clearly stated that strength is lifting a building in Superman's case.

I made a claim over that statement. You've been switcing to other types of strength. Why? Because you know you are doomed.

Accept or it's evident whose the one trolling here.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
No, you are changing the parameters. Your original post clearly stated that strength is lifting a building in Superman's case.

I made a claim over that statement. You've been switcing to other types of strength. Why? Because you know you are doomed.

Accept or it's evident whose the one trolling here.

Ah, so you're lying again. This is exactly what I said back in page 3:

Show me evidence that strength (pertaining to a person's strength) is exactly equivalent to force (pertaining to force as defined in physics).

I've never changed that stance and am perfectly willing to BZ you on that.

You on the other hand said this:

It seems logical, but it's wrong. Force = Mass * Acceleration.

Strength is force. Like the literal definition.

So you're basically claiming that the strength of a person is calculable by the formula of force = mass * acceleration.

Is that correct or are you now claiming you were mistaken?

Are you willing to BZ me on the topic: A person's strength is calculable by the formula force = mass * acceleration?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Ah, so you're lying again. This is exactly what I said back in page 3:

I've never changed that stance and am perfectly willing to BZ you on that.

You on the other hand said this:

So you're basically claiming that the strength of a person is calculable by the formula of force = mass * acceleration.

Is that correct or are you now claiming you were mistaken?

Are you willing to BZ me on the topic: A person's strength is calculable by the formula force = mass * acceleration?

Thank you for proving me right. If you were not so obsessed on proving me wrong, and were just willing to honestly debate (willing to accept other's opinion) you'd realize that your second quote has already been proven.

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).

Physical strength is the measure of an animal's exertion of force on physical objects.

How do you calculate the force exerted on an object FrothByte?

Oh, don't worry, you already answered for me!!:

Originally posted by FrothByte
force = mass * acceleration

So, the physical force of a man or animal is the ability to exert force on another object, where you calculate force exerted by muliplying the mass of the object times the acceleration.

So my claim is right.

Superman's strength in lifting a builiding is basically the force his applying on the building.

But, if sure, if you want to hear the samething from the judges, then we debate "a person's physical strength in lifting an object" is the same as force under the context of Superman lifting the building.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Thank you for proving me right. If you were not so obsessed on proving me wrong, and were just willing to honestly debate (willing to accept other's opinion) you'd realize that your second quote has already been proven.

How do you calculate the force exerted on an object FrothByte?

Oh, don't worry, you already answered for me!!:

So, the physical force of a man or animal is the ability to exert force on another object, where you calculate force exerted by muliplying the mass of the object times the acceleration.

So my claim is right.

Superman's strength in lifting a builiding is basically the force his applying on the building.

But, if sure, if you want to hear the samething from the judges, then we debate "a person's physical strength in lifting an object" is the same as force under the context of Superman lifting the building.

So what you're saying is, you agree to BZ me on the topic that: A person's strength is equal to the amount of force they generate and can be calculated by the formula force = mass * acceleration.

Is this correct?

Originally posted by FrothByte
So what you're saying is, you agree to BZ me on the topic that: A person's strength is equal to the amount of force they generate and can be calculated by the formula force = mass * acceleration.

Is this correct?

Yes, under our given context, of measuring the strength of a man based on lifting an object (Like Superman).

Don't insult me by even bothering bringing tensile strength.

Originally posted by Josh_Alexander
Yes, under our given context, of measuring the strength of a man based on lifting an object (Like Superman).

Don't insult me by even bothering bringing tensile strength.

That's fine. You're saying that strength (as in a person's lifting strength) is equal to force (as in force as described in physics) and thus can be accurately measured by the formula force = mass * acceleration.

Are we in agreement on this?