Originally posted by FrothByte
Aquaman got knocked out for a 10 count by a grenade launcher and doesn't have the feats to match Thor's destructive output.
He also laughed off falling through a 6 story building and a laser that destroyed a small island. The grenade is lowballing him
And him lifting a submarine is still a better strength feat than anything thor has done without his ragnorok upgrade
Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
He also laughed off falling through a 6 story building and a laser that destroyed a small island. The grenade is lowballing himAnd him lifting a submarine is still a better strength feat than anything thor has done without his ragnorok upgrade
Taking a grenade point blank to the chest will destroy the human body much more thoroughly than crashing 6 stories (through a bunch of broken floors) will. That laser blast scorched and hurt Aquaman.
As for lifting the submarine, that was definitely an impressive feat, but let's not forget that was underwater. Still, you're right that it's a better lifting feat than Thor has but this is not a lifting competition. What kind of attacks does Aquaman have to match Thor’s destructive output?
Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
Lifting it underwater makes it more impressive. Plus he got beat up by the kraken for a solid few minutes.Considering loki, who is much weaker than aquaman, was able to stab pre ragnorok thor with his tiny knife, I think aquaman's big fork will be enough
Objects "weigh" less in water due to buoyancy. Aquaman also has a torpedo-like propulsion under water which he used to push the submarine. He's unable to do that outside water, which means he clearly gets some sort of amp underwater.
There was no proof that Thor got a physical strength upgrade after Ragnarok, as the only thing that happened is that his lightning powers were fully unlocked. So I'm not sure why you keep disregarding the Nidavellir feat.
And if you think Aquaman is skilled enough to stab Thor with his pitchfork before he gets smashed in the face with Mjolnir, then you need to rewatch those movies.
But water provides resistance so moving stuff underwater is much more difficult. And the propulsion comes from kicking their feetsies with super strength. Why you think he can't lift a submarine out of water. Dude briefly held off superman.
Before ragnorok upgrade, thor was a little weaker than hulk. With it he was kicking hulk's butt. Ergo, pre ragnorok thor was significantly weaker.
What makes you think aquaman is less skilled than Thor? Both took out several nooks at once. Both defeated skilled opponents. You can argue thor has more experience being older, but that doesn't necessarily mean more skilled
Originally posted by FrothByteThe drag force in water is more than 800 times that in air. Plus the force required to overpower inertia (F =MA). Just moving the submarine with that speed is beyond imagination in the level of force.
Objects "weigh" less in water due to buoyancy. Aquaman also has a torpedo-like propulsion under water which he used to push the submarine. He's unable to do that outside water, which means he clearly gets some sort of amp underwater.There was no proof that Thor got a physical strength upgrade after Ragnarok, as the only thing that happened is that his lightning powers were fully unlocked. So I'm not sure why you keep disregarding the Nidavellir feat.
And if you think Aquaman is skilled enough to stab Thor with his pitchfork before he gets smashed in the face with Mjolnir, then you need to rewatch those movies.
F > 1000v^2 + MA + weight
Originally posted by Silent MasterThen he was applying 938 quadrillion tons of force.
What if Thor needed to apply 938 quadrillion tons of force?
I'm sure you know the point. We can't quantify, to any degree of accuracy, the amount of force Thor applied since we don't know both how much force the rings were applying and the strength of the ice.
Except we can with the submarine, as he was to only one applying force. For the ring feat, we have thor + a rocket + the rings(maybe). It could have been 90% thor and 10% rocket. Or it could have been 2% thor and 90% rocket and 8% rings. All we know is thor couldn't do it alone.
The submarine, however, is 100% aquaman
Originally posted by Silent MasterSome of their feats can be quantified to a certain degree of accuracy. Most importantly, it is about whether we can PROVE a lower bound for a feat (prove that a feat exceeds a certain amount).
Same is true for Aquaman and Wonder Woman's feats.
For example, it can be proven that WW lifted more than 10 tons in her tank feat. Therefore 9tons is a lower bound and we can use 9 tons to argue her minimum strength in a forum.
In general, Any amount that can be proven is less than the actual amount is a lower bound. For example, If I can prove 1000 tons is less than the actual amount then 1000 tons can be used as a lower bound as argued for a character's minimum strength.
This is how we quantify feats (with lower bounds).
Originally posted by Silent MasterYou are moving the goalposts. The argument is about accuracy, not exactness.
"Certain degree of accuracy"Translation: They can't actually be quantified. but you'll handwave it because it helps your side.
But all that is irrelevant in light of the lower bound rule I gave.