Current Superman vs Worldbreaker Hulk

Started by Old Man Whirly!41 pages

Originally posted by Magnon
I can now see where [B]your confusion comes from: you think that the Q appearing in the Reissner-Nordström metric refers to the charge of some test particle (such as a proton or an electron) moving near the black hole. It does not: Q refers to the electric charge of the (charged) black hole.

If you don't have access to a GR book such as MTW, here's a pdf document detailing this:
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:912393/FULLTEXT01.pdf

See page 31 of this document for the metric tensor of the Reissner-Nordström geometry. The g_tt and g_rr components depend on Q, which is the electric charge of the black hole.

If we then consider motion of a test particle with charge q (note: now we use small q as opposed to the capital Q above) around the black hole, we can do it e.g. as shown in the above document in Chapter 5.3 (pp. 38). As you can see, in the resulting Euler-Lagrange equations of motion, both Q (the charge of the black hole) and q (the charge of the test particle) now appear.

The event horizon, as a purely geometrical feature of the Reissner-Nordström geometry, depends on Q (but not on q). I have already given the expression r+ for the location of the horizon earlier (which, just like the metric tensor itself, depends on Q but not on q). [/B]

Yup, Q in that is the electric charge of the charged black hole. And yes, Reissner-Nordstrom geometry depends on Q and not q.

Originally posted by Delta1938
So I skimmed through this, even ignoring what the writer clearly, implied, everyone is falling for Failberto's trap. The L taker is actually winning for once here because he's distracting from the real point of relevancy. The "quantifiable " feat he argued for Hulk wasn't quantifiable, actually failed, and wasn't even a Hulk feat.

But L-Berto desperately needs this distraction.

I finished him on that. He has other feat from any hulk that would compare.

double post

Originally posted by Magnon
I can now see where your confusion comes from: you think that the Q appearing in the Reissner-Nordström metric refers to the charge of some test particle (such as a proton or an electron) moving near the black hole. It does not: Q refers to the electric charge of the (charged) black hole.

Where the **** did I say that q was the charge of the particle? It's the charge of the black hole, and m the mass of the black hole. The particle is of unit mass and charge. If you don't know what I'm referring to then ask.

Originally posted by Magnon
If you don't have access to a GR book such as MTW, here's a pdf document detailing this:
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/g.../FULLTEXT01.pdf

See page 31 of this document for the metric tensor of the Reissner-Nordström geometry. The g_tt and g_rr components depend on Q, which is the electric charge of the black hole.


They're using a different symbol. they used Q, I used q, but it refers to the exact same thing: the charge of the black hole.

They further use q for the particle charge per unit mass. And they even specify, in the article that you posted that unless there is an electromagnetic field (that would be generated by the charged black hole) then the charge q (particle charge) doesn't matter. They explicitly express this in the article.

E.g. if Q = 0, then that's the same as q = 0.

Originally posted by Magnon
The event horizon, as a purely geometrical feature of the Reissner-Nordström geometry, depends on Q (but not on q).

So what you're saying is that non-charged particles are affected by electromagnetic fields. This is flat out wrong.

You think of this as some kind of space-time magic. It's not.

The Reissner-Nordström energy potential is the gravitational energy potential + the electromagnetic potential. And when the electromagnetic potential is zero, as it is for non-charged particles. Then it becomes the gravitational energy potential.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Yup, Q in that is the electric charge of the charged black hole. And yes, Reissner-Nordstrom geometry depends on Q and not q.

It does depend on the particle charge, it's just that the particle charge equals 1.

Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
Interesting, I thought its Hulk who was asked to provide a quantifiable strength feat. And the only feat you provided, Its also unquantifiable

Superman wins this by lifting a pair of glasses
https://readcomiconline.to/Comic/Action-Comics-2016/Issue-1000?id=133267#14

this was an awesome comic. All the dc heroes are fans of Superman and he broke out of a hyper time loop at the end there.

Originally posted by Diesldude
Seems like you have accepted that the magnetic field was no longer to tact after Superman grabbed the blackhole. Progress but it only took 32 pages to explain a few panels to you.

And your comment about Black hole being weightless? 😂 😂 thanks I needed another laugh.

we were long past arguing whether the field was up. The argument was about the nature of the feat. No idea why you brought it up. Then again you can't read anything 😂

And laugh at your own ignorance all you want. Maybe ONE DAY you'll understand the difference between mass and weight. STILL not a "Strength" feat

Originally posted by DarkSaint85

Originally posted by -Pr-
I don't think it's any secret that Alberto is a troll. If people choose to engage with him, that's their business.

Same with the likes of JBL, Mr. Mind, Broly etc.

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
we were long past arguing whether the field was up. The argument was about the nature of the feat. No idea why you brought it up. Then again you can't read anything 😂

And laugh at your own ignorance all you want. Maybe ONE DAY you'll understand the difference between mass and weight. STILL not a "Strength" feat

You know that mnemon uses the black hole to destroy shit right? He has absolutely no destructive super power on his own.

The black hole was FULLY released in Superman's hands.
The black hole was capable of destroying the solar system within a small frame of time.

Everything else is irrelevant.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I don't think it's any secret that Alberto is a troll. If people choose to engage with him, that's their business.

Same with the likes of JBL, Mr. Mind, Broly etc.

Stiltman, Carver, Abhi, Darksaint, Digi..

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
we were long past arguing whether the field was up. The argument was about the nature of the feat. No idea why you brought it up. Then again you can't read anything 😂

And laugh at your own ignorance all you want. Maybe ONE DAY you'll understand the difference between mass and weight. STILL not a "Strength" feat

we? Then why did you bring up water balloons? 😂 that’ you’re ignorance 😂 don’t bring up tape now because you never thought of it and definitely didn’t when you brought up the balloon example. You have no answers and now you’re in denial.

It’s a strength and durability feat. Now go back and find us a quantifiable strength feat. You had over a week so you should be able to find one that in your opinion Superman can’t top. You consider him a mid herald after all. So us your skill. If you can’t find a feat that mid herald can’t top you should stop posting and just concentrate on breathing instead.

Originally posted by Diesldude
this was an awesome comic. All the dc heroes are fans of Superman and he broke out of a hyper time loop at the end there.
Yeah, The anniversary issue was better than I thought. Stories are simple but warm, And even have some epic moments such as breaking the hypertime loop

Originally posted by Astner
Where the **** did I say that q was the charge of the particle? It's the charge of the black hole, and m the mass of the black hole. The particle is of unit mass and charge. If you don't know what I'm referring to then ask.
There's no "particle of unit mass and charge" present in the Reissner-Nordström line element. There's just the mass M and charge Q of the black hole itself. You can see this if you follow through the derivation of the metric e.g. as given in the pdf document I linked or as given by MTW.

You can also see this if you express the metric in SI units and perform dimensional (i.e. unit) analysis on the g_rr component.

Originally posted by Diesldude
we? Then why did you bring up water balloons? 😂 that’ you’re ignorance 😂 don’t bring up tape now because you never thought of it and definitely didn’t when you brought up the balloon example. You have no answers and now you’re in denial.

It’s a strength and durability feat. Now go back and find us a quantifiable strength feat. You had over a week so you should be able to find one that in your opinion Superman can’t top. You consider him a mid herald after all. So us your skill. If you can’t find a feat that mid herald can’t top you should stop posting and just concentrate on breathing instead.

Go ahead and prove how it's a strength feat.

Originally posted by Astner
So what you're saying is that non-charged particles are affected by electromagnetic fields. This is flat out wrong.
Ah yes, and this. Another confusion of yours. Electromagnetic field enters the Einstein field equations via the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor. You know, the right-hand side of the famous Guv = 8πTuv.

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
Go ahead and prove how it's a strength feat.


Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Yeah but I'm still holding carver in his box in my hands. The box is stopping Carv from breaking out, but I'm actually holding the entire thing in my arms and running to the landfill to chuck him in there before he breaks out.

Still a strength feat for me.

DS seemingly made a reasonable argument 🤨

Originally posted by Astner
Where the **** did I say that q was the charge of the particle? It's the charge of the black hole, and m the mass of the black hole. The particle is of unit mass and charge. If you don't know what I'm referring to then ask.

They're using a different symbol. they used Q, I used q, but it refers to the exact same thing: the charge of the black hole.

They further use q for the particle charge per unit mass. And they even specify, in the article that you posted that unless there is an electromagnetic field (that would be generated by the charged black hole) then the charge q (particle charge) doesn't matter. They explicitly express this in the article.

E.g. if Q = 0, then that's the same as q = 0.

So what you're saying is that non-charged particles are affected by electromagnetic fields. This is flat out wrong.

You think of this as some kind of space-time magic. It's not.

The Reissner-Nordström energy potential is the gravitational energy potential + the electromagnetic potential. And when the electromagnetic potential is zero, as it is for non-charged particles. Then it becomes the gravitational energy potential.

It does depend on the particle charge, it's just that the particle charge equals 1.

Dude shut up

Originally posted by Magnon
Ah yes, and this. Another confusion of yours. Electromagnetic field enters the Einstein field equations via the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor. You know, the right-hand side of the famous Guv = 8πTuv.

Holy ****, you're actually right. I'm being ****ing retarded. The expression only describes the gravitational potential, not the gravitational potential + electromagnetic potential.

Originally posted by Bodybuildingbob
Dude shut up
c’mon bob that’s not a nice thing to say besides those posts have a lot of valuable info.

Be nice to Broly.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Be nice to Broly.
lol. That's Brolyblack all right. Definitely and without question.