Which of these characters can replicate this feat

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
1. How's it irrelevant? A Black Hole is durable enough to become a Quasar, which has an energy output a thousand times more than the Milky Way's.
2. No, it's common sense, I've provided you a very simple example, that shows why absorbing requires more power than releasing. Releasing something just requires to leave said thing, it's very easy, but absorbing something requires a lot of power.
3. The Singularity is part of a Black Hole, and it was shown that Gladiator tore part the Black Hole. So, it includes it's Singularity too, unless there's any contradiction.
4. I don't think so, STAR'S' was used because a Star System has only one Star. Even, if it's FTL, it pales in comparison with what a Black Hole can do. I mentioned what a Black Hole/Quasar can do.
5. Um, Sentry tearing apart space JUST recently, Thor has torn apart Space twice or thrice. That's not hyperbole, you're calling it one because it debilitates your point.
It's very illogical for humans to get Multiversal powers, simply because there body can't hold or manipulate that much power, they will get vaporized, even if they come in contact with a fraction of it, but this is fiction, who knows what can happen.

1. Quasars come from supermassive black holes located in the center of galaxies, not average black holes. The durability of anything has nothing to do with energy output. I can name a billion things (real life and in comics) that have insane energy output but isn't very durable. But you are responding out of context. I said, "irrelevant" because all that matters is what the chains are capable of, not what made them.

2. An example of a fictional character releasing energy easier than absorbing it doesn't prove anything. It only proves it in that character's case (not all others), it doesn't prove for real-life things, it doesn't prove for forces (black holes exert) but energy,
etc.

3. I can show you multiple examples in comics where characters were shown or stated to be inside a black hole (event horizon). The singularity is an atom, how can Gladiator tear something that size with physical force using only his hands and no other abilities? And even if Gladiator could (illogically can) then prove that it takes trillions and trillions of stellar weight force to do so.

4. The gravitational force of a black hole on a 200+lb being is less than planetary. The more massive something is then the more force the black hole will pull it. For example, a black hole will pull a solar mass star with more than 10x solar weight force, but a humanoid being with far less.

5. There had to be plot behind those incidences. It wasn't normal random space they just grabbed and tore. It had to be something else entirely. If you disagree, then simply post the scans and I'll show you.

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
No, Stars must not necessarily mean Trillions, it could be more than 2 or less than 50.
Also, hauling them at FTL speeds isn't a feat for the chains, but rather a feat for the one who is pulling them at FTL speeds.
The purpose of the chains is to hold the Stars together. Since there's no resistance in the Vaccum of Space, if the stars are being pulled at FTL speeds, it's not a feat for those chains, but rather for the one who is pulling them.

You have to learn about "tension" in physics. When you pull something with a taut object then the taut object experiences a tension force equal to the force the something is being pulled with. Why do you think the writer had the character state that the chains can haul stars in order to prove why they are very durable?

Hauling things at many times above light speed takes a force beyond trillions of times it weight. We are not talking about hauling multiple stars at one time (although some star systems have multiple stars). What is "mass"? It's the amount of inertia of an object. What is "inertia"? It's the ability to resist being accelerated. F = mass x acceleration. Accelerating something a trillion times faster than g (acceleration of gravity on Earth) requires a force a trillions times more than it's weight on Earth.

Originally posted by h1a8
1. Quasars come from supermassive black holes located in the center of galaxies, not average black holes. The durability of anything has nothing to do with energy output. I can name a billion things (real life and in comics) that have insane energy output but isn't very durable. But you are responding out of context. I said, "irrelevant" because all that matters is what the chains are capable of, not what made them.

2. An example of a fictional character releasing energy easier than absorbing it doesn't prove anything. It only proves it in that character's case (not all others), it doesn't prove for real-life things, it doesn't prove for forces (black holes exert) but energy,
etc.

3. I can show you multiple examples in comics where characters were shown or stated to be inside a black hole (event horizon). The singularity is an atom, how can Gladiator tear something that size with physical force using only his hands and no other abilities? And even if Gladiator could (illogically can) then prove that it takes trillions and trillions of stellar weight force to do so.

4. The gravitational force of a black hole on a 200+lb being is less than planetary. The more massive something is then the more force the black hole will pull it. For example, a black hole will pull a solar mass star with more than 10x solar weight force, but a humanoid being with far less.

5. There had to be plot behind those incidences. It wasn't normal random space they just grabbed and tore. It had to be something else entirely. If you disagree, then simply post the scans and I'll show you.

1. Any Black Hole can become Supermassive, if it absorbs enough energy. In Black Holes' case, durability has to do with Energy output, because the Black Holes absorb and contain that much energy, and if they have to do that, they must be DURABLE enough to do what I said. So, there durability can be measured from their energy output
4. Gravitational force of a Black Hole has nothing to do here.
5. This is fiction, anything can happen.
6. Lol, I just indicated a possibility, I used "IF". I just pointed out that IF they are pulled at FTL speeds, then it's not a feat for them.
7. I did consider the consider the Stars' mass/gravity, that's why I said the feat is impressive. Gravity is nigh irrelevant in this particular case.

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
1. Any Black Hole can become Supermassive, if it absorbs enough energy. In Black Holes' case, durability has to do with Energy output, because the Black Holes absorb and contain that much energy, and if they have to do that, they must be DURABLE enough to do what I said. So, there durability can be measured from their energy output
2. Gravitational force of a Black Hole has nothing to do here.
3. This is fiction, anything can happen.
4. Lol, I just indicated a possibility, I used "IF". I just pointed out that IF they are pulled at FTL speeds, then it's not a feat for them.
5. I did consider the consider the Stars' mass/gravity, that's why I said the feat is impressive. Gravity is nigh irrelevant in this particular case.

1. Your first sentence is irrelevant. Are you claiming Gladiator tore a supermassive black hole? You mentioning quasars is irrelevant to the discussion. A black hole uses the mass it gains to increase its strength and durability. The bottom line, you have to prove that tearing a black hole (illogical) takes more than a lot of stellar weight force for a 200+lb man to do. And you have to articulate why kid Gladiator wasn't using hyperbole.

2. Well explain how someone can tear something the size of an atom (if you assume the singularity) or tear a region of space with their hands and no other abilities. Because it all points to hyperbole. If we can't imagine it then it can't happen. Suspension of disbelief.

3. Not illogical things. It's not illogical to break the laws of physics but It's illogical to have a contradiction. You have to prove that they tore random space with absolutely no plot behind it.

4. Pulling something many times faster than light speed gives a tension force of many times that objects weight.

5. Tension = mass x acceleration

Originally posted by Diesldude
their entire argument is stupid.

The universe isn't a solid object.

It's like 2 big waves in the ocean come at you from the opposite direction. Both of them have a mud ball in front. You stand in the direct path of the mud ball. Stick your arms out to push the mud balls back. This won't stop the waves, they both will continue and crash into Eachother. Just because you held the mud balls apart doesn't mean you held the waves apart. Then while you hold the mud ball apart for a certain amount of time, the force of the wave will keep pushing the mud balls against your arms. Your denser then the mud ball so it will break. This isn't even a lifting feat. More a durability feat.

Why would you offer up this analogy when Hickman himself offered one in the actual pages of the book through the voice of possibly the smartest person in comics? There he explains what happens during an incursion.

https://imgur.com/a/j6dbHEs

Alberto explained it earlier that the book ignores the notion of the Earth moving independently within it's universe and treats it as a fixed part of the universe that acts as the point of collision between two. The Earths colliding equates to the universes colliding with universal force resulting in universal level reverberations that destroy both universes. If one Earth is destroyed beforehand, there is no collision, squashing the notion of the universes making contact at any other points besides the Earth's.

So your analogy doesn't work and what you are really calling stupid is Hickman's writing which is irrelevant. Greatest feat of all time.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Which is A: Superman worthy lmao if we take your single piece of 'proof'

B: replicable by any durable hero

Not sure where you all are getting the notion of this being a durability feat. It's strength.

Of course if Hickman's agreement didn't include the Superman part, you would going on and on about the rules. But let's discuss.

The Superman part would be an opinion agreed by a writer who, to my knowledge, has never written Superman. Now compare this to a writer agreeing with what is stated to actual happen in a book that he himself wrote. That would be a general opinion versus actual clarification and the clarification represents what Hyperion has actually done.

And if Hickman views Hyperion and Superman as in the same class, that means that he views Hulk and Superman in the same class and views Thanos as significantly above. Is that acceptable to the Superman supremists dominating this site?

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW

Originally posted by h1a8
1. Your first sentence is irrelevant. Are you claiming Gladiator tore a supermassive black hole? You mentioning quasars is irrelevant to the discussion. A black hole uses the mass it gains to increase its strength and durability. The bottom line, you have to prove that tearing a black hole (illogical) takes more than a lot of stellar weight force for a 200+lb man to do. And you have to articulate why kid Gladiator wasn't using hyperbole.

2. Well explain how someone can tear something the size of an atom (if you assume the singularity) or tear a region of space with their hands and no other abilities. Because it all points to hyperbole. If we can't imagine it then it can't happen. Suspension of disbelief.

3. Not illogical things. It's not illogical to break the laws of physics but It's illogical to have a contradiction. You have to prove that they tore random space with absolutely no plot behind it.

4. Pulling something many times faster than light speed gives a tension force of many times that objects weight.

5. Tension = mass x acceleration

1. No, Black Holes have the same durability from the beginning, but they need energy to absorb and gain mass. Even a Black Hole reaches it's limit after absorbing certain amount of energy. A Black Hole can absorb the energy a Quasar possess, but it will only increase it's mass and size, it's durability remains the same otherwise, every Black Hole would've collapsed at it's very beginning after absorbing energy, if it's durability wasn't the same as it is in it's next stages and Supermassive mode. Again, Gravitational force is irrelevant here. You also know that a human has more chances of surviving in Supermassive BH's gravity than a normal BH's?
2. Again, this is fiction, anything can happen. Then, by your logic, exceeding the speed of light is hyperbole too because it's illogical.
3. What? It doesn't change anything. Bro, seriously stop this. This is fiction.
4/5. That formula is applicable if the chains and the stars are under the influence of gravity (vertically) of something larger.

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
1. No, Black Holes have the same durability from the beginning, but they need energy to absorb and gain mass. Even a Black Hole reaches it's limit after absorbing certain amount of energy. A Black Hole can absorb the energy a Quasar possess, but it will only increase it's mass and size, it's durability remains the same otherwise, every Black Hole would've collapsed at it's very beginning after absorbing energy, if it's durability wasn't the same as it is in it's Supermassive mode. Again, Gravitational force is irrelevant here. You also know that a human has more chances of surviving in Supermassive BH's gravity than a normal BH's?
2. Again, this is fiction, anything can happen. Then, by your logic, exceeding the speed of light is hyperbole too because it's illogical.
3. What? It doesn't change anything. Bro, seriously stop this. This is fiction.
4/5. That formula is applicable if the chains and the stars are under the influence of gravity of something larger.

1. Wrong, the break something apart you have to overcome the gravitational binding energy. Black holes gravity depends on its mass. Otherwise, scientifically prove your point (no speculation).

2. Exceeding the speed of light is not illogical. Like I said, we can have things go against science (no problem) but we can't have them go against logic and common sense. Suspension of disbelief is the minimum requirement. And if you insist that illogical things can happen in fiction then you have no leg to stand on in proving how much force it takes to achieve the illogical feat.

3. Yet you didn't prove your claim. Where are the scans? Show me those beings can tear random space without any help of magic or other abilities.

4. F=ma. Not debatable. If you don't understand then you lose the debate.

You're OVERHYPING and making too many assumptions about a feat Without knowing the exact mechanics involved, the best assumption would be to judge how durable the chain would have to be to withstand the force exerted on them from hauling a mass comparable to a star. But again, aside from the chains being used, WE don't know how the chained star is moved.

Originally posted by h1a8
1. Wrong, the break something apart you have to overcome the gravitational binding energy. Black holes gravity depends on its mass. Otherwise, scientifically prove your point (no speculation).

2. Exceeding the speed of light is not illogical. Like I said, we can have things go against science (no problem) but we can't have them go against logic and common sense. Suspension of disbelief is the minimum requirement. And if you insist that illogical things can happen in fiction then you have no leg to stand on in proving how much force it takes to achieve the illogical feat.

3. Yet you didn't prove your claim. Where are the scans? Show me those beings can tear random space without any help of magic or other abilities.

4. F=ma. Not debatable. If you don't understand then you lose the debate.

1. No, lol, only overcoming gravitational binding energy won't be enough. Also, why are you bringing gravity again and again?
2. It's illogical and against the laws of science, which makes it illogical.

2. It's illogical and against the laws of science, which makes it illogical.

3. Um.... Here's Sentry tearing apart space with sheer strength:

4. F=MA, yes. But how is tension relevant here? Are the chains and stars under the influence of gravity of something larger? Tension is created when the rope holds something vertically and comes under the influence of gravity of something larger.

Try again

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
1. No, lol, only overcoming gravitational binding energy won't be enough. Also, why are you bringing gravity again and again?
2. It's illogical and against the laws of science, which makes it illogical.

2. It's illogical and against the laws of science, which makes it illogical.

3. Um.... Here's Sentry tearing apart space with sheer strength:

4. F=MA, yes. But how is tension relevant here? Are the chains and stars under the influence of gravity of something larger? Tension is created when the rope holds something vertically and comes under the influence of gravity of something larger.

Try again

Exceeding the speed of light is not illogical. If you disagree then clearly explain why. Don't use any science that the average person doesnt know.

Like I said, a plot device. It was a plot device that allowed the space to be tangible. You see energy everywhere.

To move something with a certain acceleration you need a certain Force. A chain experiences tension force when it pulls something (gravity has nothing to do with it). Pull something fast enough and the chain will break. Did you ever take physics?

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
You're OVERHYPING and making too many assumptions about a feat Without knowing the exact mechanics involved, the best assumption would be to judge how durable the chain would have to be to withstand the force exerted on them from hauling a mass comparable to a star. But again, aside from the chains being used, WE don't know how the chained star is moved.

All things considered(equal?), just take planet moving for example. Apply that and multiply it by the size of an average star being hauled by galactic distances.

Im speaking in the interest of making things simpler.

Originally posted by TheHulkster
Why would you offer up this analogy when Hickman himself offered one in the actual pages of the book through the voice of possibly the smartest person in comics? There he explains what happens during an incursion.

https://imgur.com/a/j6dbHEs

Alberto explained it earlier that the book ignores the notion of the Earth moving independently within it's universe and treats it as a fixed part of the universe that acts as the point of collision between two. The Earths colliding equates to the universes colliding with universal force resulting in universal level reverberations that destroy both universes. If one Earth is destroyed beforehand, there is no collision, squashing the notion of the universes making contact at any other points besides the Earth's.

So your analogy doesn't work and what you are really calling stupid is Hickman's writing which is irrelevant. Greatest feat of all time.

Differences..
"worlds" vs "universe"
IG can affect the entire universe, where as a brick will affect only what he's touching.

Another myth debunked.

Originally posted by TheHulkster
Why would you offer up this analogy when Hickman himself offered one in the actual pages of the book through the voice of possibly the smartest person in comics? There he explains what happens during an incursion.

https://imgur.com/a/j6dbHEs

Alberto explained it earlier that the book ignores the notion of the Earth moving independently within it's universe and treats it as a fixed part of the universe that acts as the point of collision between two. The Earths colliding equates to the universes colliding with universal force resulting in universal level reverberations that destroy both universes. If one Earth is destroyed beforehand, there is no collision, squashing the notion of the universes making contact at any other points besides the Earth's.

So your analogy doesn't work and what you are really calling stupid is Hickman's writing which is irrelevant. Greatest feat of all time.

Switch Hyperion with Superman and calculations would have been done on this ft

Originally posted by carver9
Switch Hyperion with Superman and calculations would have been done on this ft

Only for holding worlds apart (not universes) since we have no freaking idea how much force it takes to hold a universe apart. It could take a million tons for all we know.

The force that's moving the planets is the force Hyperion resisted. How much force was that? Should we go by how fast the planets were accelerating since F = m x a? Where do we start Carv?

What if they were small hollow universes?

Originally posted by carver9
Switch Hyperion with Superman and calculations would have been done on this ft