Originally posted by TheHulkster
Where does it say that he possess stellar mass? Why would he have regular stellar mass as opposed to regular stellar density?I've not referenced anything regarding damage nor non-damage to surroundings and we know how irrelevant that is in comics.
The Last Son is a star.
Originally posted by TheHulkster
As long as he beats Hulk right? This goes to show how much of this has become a game here as opposed to a honest evaluation of feats. No one in their right mind truly believes that Xorn is walking around casually bearing normal stellar weight.
He's a life giving star, just like the one PM pinned him Hulk down with.
But strangely, this is ignored.
Either both feats are valid, or both are invalid. I want to believe both are valid, and we ignore the pesky science because it's comics.
Parmaniac, as an example, wants to ignore both because of the pesky science. That's fair.
You want to be biased and say ah, let's handwave one side and not the other.
Then accuse me of playing games.
Originally posted by TheHulksterBecause like I said before, He is a star. So by definition, He has stellar mass.If you want using RL physics then we apply to both of them. If you want accepting both are comic books nonsenses then we accept that at face value. Lets be consistent
Where does it say that he possess stellar mass? Why would he have regular stellar mass as opposed to regular stellar density?I've not referenced anything regarding damage nor non-damage to surroundings and we know how irrelevant that is in comics.
Originally posted by -Pr-
Please tell me you guys didn't take 23 pages arguing over whether they were feats at all, instead of comparing them.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
He's a life giving star, just like the one PM pinned him Hulk down with.But strangely, this is ignored.
Either both feats are valid, or both are invalid. I want to believe both are valid, and we ignore the pesky science because it's comics.
Parmaniac, as an example, wants to ignore both because of the pesky science. That's fair.
You want to be biased and say ah, let's handwave one side and not the other.
Then accuse me of playing games.
Except It is very explictly stated that the weight of a star is holding Hulk down. Hulk feat stands, the other doesn't. as proven, how you feel about it is irrelevant. Go argue with the writers
Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
Because like I said before, He is a star. So by definition, He has stellar mass.If you want using RL physics then we apply to both of them. If you want accepting both are comic books nonsenses then we accept that at face value. Lets be consistent
Im not even tryint to argue which feat is better, I just pointed out if we apply RL science for one side then we should also question other side, Either both are vailid or invalid.lets be consistent.
If we count them both as feat, Then we can move on to comparing them.
Kill-All was a living star in that he was made of Hydrogen and Helium. Nobody said anything about him being as heavy as one. you pulled that out of your ass because you want an excuse to wank Superman even more.
😂
Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
Except It is very explictly stated that the weight of a star is holding Hulk down. Hulk feat stands, the other doesn't. as proven, how you feel about it is irrelevant. Go argue with the writers
But the star has no size. So unquantifiable, if you're going to go by what the writers wrote.
Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
Except It is very explictly stated that the weight of a star is holding Hulk down. Hulk feat stands, the other doesn't. as proven, how you feel about it is irrelevant. Go argue with the writers
This. It's like we are repeating the same thing over and over again. Weight was mentioned for the star. The size behind the star was humongous since it was outright said it was an all consuming star. Then, not only was it called a star, Proxima said it was a SUN which gives us a much more defined depiction of its size.
Originally posted by carver9
This. It's like we are repeating the same thing over and over again. Weight was mentioned for the star. The size behind the star was humongous since it was outright said it was an all consuming star. Then, not only was it called a star, Proxima said it was a SUN which gives us a much more defined depiction of its size.
👍
Originally posted by carver9
This. It's like we are repeating the same thing over and over again. Weight was mentioned for the star. The size behind the star was humongous since it was outright said it was an all consuming star. Then, not only was it called a star, Proxima said it was a SUN which gives us a much more defined depiction of its size.