Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

1. Moving A Planet
2. Busting A Planet
3. Lifting A Planet

Busting a planet is a great feat. It takes greater strength to bust a planet than moving or lifting one, but all are nice feats.

What about shaking and causing planetary devastation to a planet while punching someone in the face? How does that stack up?

Depends on how fast you're moving the planet as well,tbh.

What's the difference between lifting a planet andmoving a planet? Hulk can probably lift a Planet but since he can't fly he can't move it. SM can lift and move a Planet, but it doesn't require greater STR from SM to do either one just some ability to fly very fast & Great STR.

Originally posted by carver9
What about shaking and causing planetary devastation to a planet while punching someone in the face? How does that stack up? It's a top of the chart feat. Greater than busting one.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Depends on how fast you're moving the planet as well,tbh. That's 95% flight speed.

Actually, overcoming inertia, orbital gravity, altering trajectories, overcoming the slingshot effect that stars have and objects that have a very high velocity like comets are high-end feats, it's why Superboy Prime and Majestic are probably top of the modern planet moving feats.

Originally posted by JBL
That's 95% flight speed.

Point being?

OP never asked about strength, lol. Just to order them.

If you push a planet at lightspeed or whatever, that's more impressive than busting a planet.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Point being?

OP never asked about strength, lol. Just to order them.

If you push a planet at lightspeed or whatever, that's more impressive than busting a planet.

Moving Earth at mach 20 or so is already above the energy necessary to destroy it.

Yeah, I'm more impressed with the one who can push a military tank fast across the field than the one who stood there and destroyed it with their fist.😏

You can try to move a tank while it is moving at 100 mph?

Or Silver Surfer has destroyed planets. He needed to go all out to move a moon and couldn't stop a planetoid from moving.

Originally posted by JBL
Yeah, I'm more impressed with the one who can push a military tank fast across the field than the one who stood there and destroyed it with their fist.😏

Originally posted by quanchi112


it is indeed hilarious.

Imagine moving that tank at 1 billion mph. Now imagine moving that tank at lightspeed.

Hell, imagine moving ANYTHING at lightspeed.

Anyone can blow the planet up. They just need enough energy. I could even calculate it. Sure, it would be high as hell, but it's there.

To accelerate from rest and move at lightspeed? That's actually breaking the laws of physics.

Hence my original post:

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Depends on how fast you're moving the planet as well,tbh.

JBL gets impressed by little things, I guess.

This is off topic Darksaint but I'm curious so answer a question for me. Do you have any posters on ignore and if so why ?

So Busting Planet > Lifting Planet > Moving Planet

Reverse order, champ.

Edit: depending on the speed!

Actually, it is:

Moving Planet (specially at relativistic speeds) >> Moving Planet > Busting Planet.

Originally posted by TethAdamTheRock
So Busting Planet > Lifting Planet > Moving Planet Yes.

Ok. So say I can throw a 10 lb rock at 20 mph. But I doubt I'd be strong enough to punch it and shatter it.

Originally posted by quanchi112
This is off topic Darksaint but I'm curious so answer a question for me. Do you have any posters on ignore and if so why ?

Only Carver.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
Ok. So say I can throw a 10 lb rock at 20 mph. But I doubt I'd be strong enough to punch it and shatter it. Can you move it across the ground

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Only Carver. I believe you're joking because you have a carver fetish but I'll play along. What is the point of ignoring someone you vehemently oppose from an argumentative level.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
Ok. So say I can throw a 10 lb rock at 20 mph. But I doubt I'd be strong enough to punch it and shatter it.

Yeah,so it depends how fast you're throwing it.

Like my original post said.

Imagine throwing that 10lb rock at 200mph.

2000.

20,000.

200000000000000000mph.

Etc etc.

One measure (blowing it up) is finite. The other is infinite.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I believe you're joking because you have a carver fetish but I'll play along. What is the point of ignoring someone you vehemently oppose from an argumentative level.

Lol...he doesn't have me on ignore. He responds to every single post I make in any thread. Like you said, he does have a fetish.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I believe you're joking because you have a carver fetish but I'll play along. What is the point of ignoring someone you vehemently oppose from an argumentative level.

Because it's boring to argue against them. You can predict what they're going to say, their viewpoint, everything. There's no fun, no interest. But you save on web page real estate.

Wow! Lifting something affects nothing. Moving something affects nothing in comics. Characters lift and move heavy things all the time. Destroying large things or tuff things is FAR more impressive. Why do you think superfriends drool over superman destroying probes? Fear not the ones that can lift or move you, but fear the one that can destroy you.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Because it's boring to argue against them. You can predict what they're going to say, their viewpoint, everything. There's no fun, no interest. But you save on web page real estate. Once you've had multiple years of interaction with anyone you usually can predict their arguments and tire of the same debates. I don't see why to ignore them but then again I've always viewed turning a blind eye to the dissenting opinion as weakness. I'm more of a Michael Jordanesque mentality that dissenters drive me and motivate me. But just as there is only one Jordan from the NBA there is only one Quan when it comes to message boards. I actually view it as a notch on my belt as I've broken their will.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Yeah,so it depends how fast you're throwing it.

Like my original post said.

Imagine throwing that 10lb rock at 200mph.

2000.

20,000.

200000000000000000mph.

Etc etc.

One measure (blowing it up) is finite. The other is infinite. Then you and some others that agree with you come help me move this 427 engine block off the back of my truck and carry it into my garage. Don't care how fast you get it on the stand. On the other hand, I think I'll go with the 468 block. Destroy the 427 with your bare hands fellows. 😏

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Yeah,so it depends how fast you're throwing it.

Like my original post said.

Imagine throwing that 10lb rock at 200mph.

2000.

20,000.

200000000000000000mph.

Etc etc.

One measure (blowing it up) is finite. The other is infinite.

Thanks. Makes a little more sense.

Originally posted by JBL
Then you and some others that agree with you come help me move this 427 engine block off the back of my truck and carry it into my garage. Don't care how fast you get it on the stand. On the other hand, I think I'll go with the 468 block. Destroy the 427 with your bare hands fellows. 😏

This is kinda what I was thinking originally.

Originally posted by JBL
Then you and some others that agree with you come help me move this 427 engine block off the back of my truck and carry it into my garage. Don't care how fast you get it on the stand. On the other hand, I think I'll go with the 468 block. Destroy the 427 with your bare hands fellows. 😏

Both are difficult to do....you seem to think that just because I said moving is more impressive, that I can destroy lol.

Your logic is incredibly poor.

How much energy does it take to move ANYtjing from rest to lightspeed? let's say a 1lb weight.

Accelerate that to lightspeed, please. Let's make it 1lb of marshmallows.

I bet I could smash it though.

But please, move it at lightspeed.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Both are difficult to do....you seem to think that just because I said moving is more impressive, that I can destroy lol.

Your logic is incredibly poor.

How much energy does it take to move ANYtjing from rest to lightspeed? let's say a 1lb weight.

Accelerate that to lightspeed, please. Let's make it 1lb of marshmallows.

I bet I could smash it though.

But please, move it at lightspeed. Sign! If I could move at light speed sure. I can move it at the speed I'm capable of. Answer this. Which would take more energy from superman? Flying a 1000 lb ball of primary Adamantiun at light speed or him standing there trying to destroy it with his fists??

When planets are made of adamantium, get back to me.

How about a 1000lb ball of Earth?

How can you not realize that to get to lightspeed requires more energy than smashing???

And to answer your question, if I could smash it, sure. See how easy that was lol.

Do you even know basic physics?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
When planets are made of adamantium, get back to me.

How about a 1000lb ball of Earth?

How can you not realize that to get to lightspeed requires more energy than smashing???

And to answer your question, if I could smash it, sure. See how easy that was lol.

Do you even know basic physics? Did the OP say moving a planet at light speed? Get with the Subject

Originally posted by JBL
Did the OP say moving a planet at light speed? Get with the Subject

Get with my post, which you jumped on (and only now, hilariously realising your mistake):

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Depends on how fast you're moving the planet as well,tbh.
Originally posted by JBL
That's 95% flight speed.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Point being?

OP never asked about strength, lol. Just to order them.

If you push a planet at lightspeed or whatever, that's more impressive than busting a planet.

Originally posted by JBL
Yeah, I'm more impressed with the one who can push a military tank fast across the field than the one who stood there and destroyed it with their fist.😏


So as I said in my very first post here: Depends on how fast you are moving. But noooo, rather than agree with me, you decide to be the big shot, and try and step up to argue.

So we BOTH agree. It depends on how fast you're pushing the planet.

Thanks for playing.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Get with my post, which you jumped on (and only now, hilariously realising your mistake)o you know what flight assist is?








So as I said in my very first post here: Depends on how fast you are moving. But noooo, rather than agree with me, you decide to be the big shot, and try and step up to argue.

So we BOTH agree. It depends on how fast you're pushing the planet.

Thanks for playing. Do you know what flight assist is? If you want to use light speed, then lift the planet at light speed and then try destroying the planet while hitting it with punches at light speed. Two of the things are doing One thing. Lifting or pushing. That's it. The other is punching the hell out of it multiple times, far more energy used

False news

A rock is not the same as a celestial object.

If you had enough strength to move an entire planet it would just break apart anyway.

So in terms of energy output moving a planet at high speeds is far above just one shotting it.

Earth is like what, nearly 8000 miles in diameter? Push it fast enough to cover 1 diameter per second and you are moving that shit at low relativistic speeds. Thats huge.

I think that it also depends on how hard you actually hit it, and how easily was it destroyed with a punch, because one way or the other the object is still being displaced. Whether it happens by means of accelerated velocity, or impact velocity, the result or effect would be the same. The planet would be removed from it's original position and destroyed.

It depends on how you are destroying the planet as well. If it's indirectly, that is better than any pushing ft anyone can muster.

As DS pointed out earlier, it depends on the speed vs the amount of force.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
A rock is not the same as a celestial object.

If you had enough strength to move an entire planet it would just break apart anyway.

So in terms of energy output moving a planet at high speeds is far above just one shotting it.

Earth is like what, nearly 8000 miles in diameter? Push it fast enough to cover 1 diameter per second and you are moving that shit at low relativistic speeds. Thats huge. Which takes more energy?picking up a watermelon, pushing a watermelon or busting it open with your fists?

Originally posted by JBL
Which takes more energy?picking up a watermelon, pushing a watermelon or busting it open with your fists?
Moving a watermelon already moving at 100000 mph.

Here are Surfer, Quasar and Beta Ray Bill trying to destroy a meteor the size of Rhode Island or deflect it.

https://s6.postimg.org/gidhdm06p/Star_Masters_2_001.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/9vqtkfii9/Star_Masters_2_003.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/l9dcvmt0x/Star_Masters_2_004.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/8w542gsq9/Star_Masters_2_005.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/hlxlpkktt/Star_Masters_2_006.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/hag5ct4dt/Star_Masters_2_007.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/6mgzrpjsh/Star_Masters_2_008.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/ex7eda4q9/Star_Masters_2_009.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/i913su73l/Star_Masters_2_014.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/jkdgf1s35/Star_Masters_2_015.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/4te33dylt/Star_Masters_2_016.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/t670vcj8x/Star_Masters_2_017.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/vtrvrymwh/Star_Masters_2_018.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/bnodt2r8x/Star_Masters_2_019.jpg

So much for the planet moving being so easy, eh?

Originally posted by JBL
Which takes more energy?picking up a watermelon, pushing a watermelon or busting it open with your fists?

As I have shown, it takes more energy to move Earth, than to bust it.

Again: this is the MINIMUM amount of energy required to push the EArth out of its orbit. I'm NOT talking about lightspeed anymore, or 20mph, or whatever. This is just to move the Earth:



It's TWICE as much energy to move the Earth, than it is to destroy Earth. At minimum.

Sidenote: I think this thread highlights who is biased, really. I have presented cold, hard numbers without any manipulation - and people are still bringing in weird analogies.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85

It's TWICE as much energy to move the Earth, than it is to destroy Earth. At minimum.



Does that mean my wife and I should be careful when ... ?

I don't think you need to worry about that.....

The destruction of bluewater is #1

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Does that mean my wife and I should be careful when ... ?

I assume sex dolls are weight resistant.

More damage soak than durbility

I'm going with busting, cuz not only do you have to break the planet up, but the pieces, driven by the impact energy, have to move away from each other fast enough so that the planet doesn't reform (albiet in messed up fashion) from gravity.

Also, the transfer of impact energy, from a punch to the planet's surface to all through the planet, is impressive in itself, given all the punch should really do is make a hole the length of the puncher's arm. At least with planet-moving one can argue a "telekinetic" effect which keeps the planet intact and the lifter/pusher from going through the planet like a BB through cake ...

... though I suppose one could argue TK shock waves from a punch.

I've already found websites which answer that precise question, mindship.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I've already found websites which answer that precise question, mindship.

I remember doing some research on this myself, some years back, the energy required to move the earth, break it up, etc (though I don't recall what was toughest). Oh what peeps like to calculate in their spare time.

It's twice as many joules to move the Earth out of orbit, than to blow it up so much that the pieces fly off and don't coalesce.

As most have mentioned, planet-moving feats like this:
https://s7d2.turboimg.net/t1/36225431_P00014.jpg https://s7d2.turboimg.net/t1/36225432_P00015.jpg https://s7d2.turboimg.net/t1/36225433_P00016.jpg

https://s26.postimg.org/qw8yzzky1/Infinite_Crisis_04_of_07_2006_Digital-_HD.jpg



...Are VASTLY more impressive than physically destroying, and/or lifting that same world.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
It's twice as many joules to move the Earth out of orbit, than to blow it up so much that the pieces fly off and don't coalesce. How many planets have those people moved or destroyed? We are talking comics here. Tell superman to push his earth 50 MILES then destroy it. I could take a tow truck and pull or push a semi at 80 miles an hour or get a large crane to lift the semi, then plant bombs around the semi to destroy it. Which has more energy output? Stop using crap that has NEVER been done. Man has lifted, moved and destroyed a lot of things. When that space shuttle was headed to space, it was using energy to escape gravity yet it had PLENTY of Solid fuel left to use. But when it exploded, it took all that fuel at once to destroy it.

I'm not even sure what JBL is trying to say.

First he says we're talking comics,then uses real world examples.

What's more impressive, tearing Vision in half or tearing Jarvis the butler in half?

If anybody says tearing Vision is more impressive, I will use JBLs logic and say well,how many times has Jarvis been torn in half vs Vision?

Lol.

Space shuttles, trucks, watermelons, whatever. Fact remains. A PhD in physics, backed up by a guy who's an expert in astrophysics, plus a US Navy academic, have all calculated the amount of energy. It's basic math. Denying it just shows your bias,or ignorance of mathematical concepts. Either or, it doesn't look good.

But the fact remains. You need twice as much energy to move the Earth at ~25mph (not even talking about lightspeed now lol) vs blowing it up.

Because, funnily enough, space shuttles etc aren't planets.

Edit: if he's referring to how we shouldn't use scientific formulas to evaluate which is more impressive.... well, sure. Only if it defeats your argument, I suppose. Let's go with 'gut feeling' and 'bias' instead, because that's a hell of a lot easier.

Damn so Vados from DB Super must have phenomenal power if she is towing 6 planet size dragon balls at speeds massively exceeding speed of light.

You look at DBS?

Originally posted by carver9
You look at DBS?
Short answer yes.

Long answer, I have been a fan much longer than you. But thats only because I have been exposed to anime/manga since the age of 3ish.

You can look at basic math all you want, but until those "people" actually move or destroy a planet, their theory means nothing because it is NOT a fact. Let's look at proven FACTS. A race cars engine or any cars engine is an controlled explosion that produces power (energy). Now when that fuel and air is ignited, it produces enough energy by forcing those pistons down, ( the compression stroke) that energy propels some race cars at over 300 MPH in the quarter mile around 4 seconds. 2000+ HP on various fuels. Yet that engine contains that power (explosion) now in order for that enging to not contain that power( explosion) you have to apply far more energy that that engine can take, like introducing nitrous oxide which makes more power. That engine now has to deal with far more energy. It will now blow up. In other words, it takes more energy to destyoy that engine that to send it at 300+ mph down the track in 4 seconds.You need no math or theorys made up by man to see this fact.

Oh wow.

I just......yeah.

At the very least, please don't use the word theory like you know what it means, lol.

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

Double post: I've re-read your post, and I am still speechless at its stupidity. I don't usually report posts, but I have reported yours for just....yeah, I'm still in shock.

Originally posted by JBL
You can look at basic math all you want, but until those "people" actually move or destroy a planet, their theory means nothing because it is NOT a fact. Let's look at proven FACTS. A race cars engine or any cars engine is an controlled explosion that produces power (energy). Now when that fuel and air is ignited, it produces enough energy by forcing those pistons down, ( the compression stroke) that energy propels some race cars at over 300 MPH in the quarter mile around 4 seconds. 2000+ HP on various fuels. Yet that engine contains that power (explosion) now in order for that enging to not contain that power( explosion) you have to apply far more energy that that engine can take, like introducing nitrous oxide which makes more power. That engine now has to deal with far more energy. It will now blow up. In other words, it takes more energy to destyoy that engine that to send it at 300+ mph down the track in 4 seconds.You need no math or theorys made up by man to see this fact.

Do you know what gravity is? Like, at all?

Originally posted by JBL
You can look at basic math all you want, but until those "people" actually move or destroy a planet, their theory means nothing because it is NOT a fact. Let's look at proven FACTS. A race cars engine or any cars engine is an controlled explosion that produces power (energy). Now when that fuel and air is ignited, it produces enough energy by forcing those pistons down, ( the compression stroke) that energy propels some race cars at over 300 MPH in the quarter mile around 4 seconds. 2000+ HP on various fuels. Yet that engine contains that power (explosion) now in order for that enging to not contain that power( explosion) you have to apply far more energy that that engine can take, like introducing nitrous oxide which makes more power. That engine now has to deal with far more energy. It will now blow up. In other words, it takes more energy to destyoy that engine that to send it at 300+ mph down the track in 4 seconds.You need no math or theorys made up by man to see this fact.
But we've seen planet destroyers like Silver Surfer and Beta Ray Bill unable to move an asteroid the size of an island.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Here are Surfer, Quasar and Beta Ray Bill trying to destroy a meteor the size of Rhode Island or deflect it.

https://s6.postimg.org/gidhdm06p/Star_Masters_2_001.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/9vqtkfii9/Star_Masters_2_003.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/l9dcvmt0x/Star_Masters_2_004.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/8w542gsq9/Star_Masters_2_005.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/hlxlpkktt/Star_Masters_2_006.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/hag5ct4dt/Star_Masters_2_007.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/6mgzrpjsh/Star_Masters_2_008.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/ex7eda4q9/Star_Masters_2_009.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/i913su73l/Star_Masters_2_014.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/jkdgf1s35/Star_Masters_2_015.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/4te33dylt/Star_Masters_2_016.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/t670vcj8x/Star_Masters_2_017.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/vtrvrymwh/Star_Masters_2_018.jpg
https://s6.postimg.org/bnodt2r8x/Star_Masters_2_019.jpg

So much for the planet moving being so easy, eh?

Can you show us a planet mover unable to destroy a planet though?

Moving at FTL speed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destroying.

And the Planets are not the most durable things, compared to the fists or bodies of HH.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Oh wow.

I just......yeah.

At the very least, please don't use the word theory like you know what it means, lol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory I teach classes on the subject. Man has flip flopped for hundreds of years.flat earth, what's a planet and what's a ball of gasses. How the earth was formed, when the dinosaurs lived. When mankind came to be. How old the earth is. How old the universe is. Yet he cannot use any of his methods to tell you how old someone is without FACT and he can see living things every day. Theories are what mankind want to accept to ease his mind. Speaking of gravity?? Go drop a 500 lb ball of steel and a 10 ball of steel and see them drop at the same speed. But let's drop the Subject. I have a class to teach. Thanks for giving me my next course. The effect of gravity and how many times man has changed his mind about what he assumed was. Theory😁

That's.... exactly the opposite of scientific theory lol.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
That's.... exactly the opposite of scientific theory lol. Just stop. Unless you want to know what you were just called by a few accelerated students.

Did you tell them of your race cars made of watermelons, and the adamantium space shuttles,and how they relate to planets?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Did you tell them of your race cars made of watermelons, and the adamantium space shuttles,and how they relate to planets? Excuse me, but where in my post did I say my cars are made of watermelons? Or that the shuttle was made of adamantium? How old are you? Wait let me theorize.... You are 7 right?

At least 6.

Which makes my grasp of math (4 is twice as much as 2!) All the more embarrassing when compared to yours.

But please, keep telling everyone how you know more. What proof have you to offer that smashing a planet is more impressive?

Note I never did mention comic companies. My opinion is based on numbers and maths, yours is based on irrational hate, bias, and an unwillingness to even move a single iota because your ego can't allow you to admit the possibility that someone from DC MIGHT have done something more impressive.

It's a bit sad, really.

But yes, continue telling how 2 is bigger than 4.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
At least 6.

Which makes my grasp of math (4 is twice as much as 2!) All the more embarrassing when compared to yours.

But please, keep telling everyone how you know more. What proof have you to offer that smashing a planet is more impressive?

Note I never did mention comic companies. My opinion is based on numbers and maths, yours is based on irrational hate, bias, and an unwillingness to even move a single iota because your ego can't allow you to admit the possibility that someone from DC MIGHT have done something more impressive.

It's a bit sad, really.

But yes, continue telling how 2 is bigger than 4. 2 elephants are bigger than 4 horses.numbers have lied all through history.

I'm glad you're not disappointing me as to the depths of your idiocy.

How many JBL to change a lightbulb, though?

That's the real question.

Let me guess. Superman must have pushed something really fast huh?? Lol

Is that the only reason why you think it's less impressive? Serious q, btw.

Jbl teaches art. They eat the paint chips.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Is that the only reason why you think it's less impressive? Serious q, btw. nope. It's the reason you and your other superman fans want it to be number one at all costs. By the way, your numbers and calculations were wrong. But we know where you got it from.

Point out the mistakes, I'm happy to learn.

JBL spreading his HATE and IGNORANCE to the youth!!!

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Point out the mistakes, I'm happy to learn.



If we're giving this appropriate treatment, the answers are probably something like the following:


1. For Philosophia, who's playing The Dozens with me, "Write to whoever manufactured yours. I wouldn't know."

2. For CosmicComet, regarding the paint chips in art class comment to JBL?
Lead hasn't been used in consumer paint since about 1978.
However, since, outside this thread, lead is a serious problem that shouldn't only be joked about, click on the following:

https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/tips.htm

3. To Pr, concerning his query a page ago?
JBL may not understand what gravity is, but neither do you.
This is not an insult; no less an authority than NASA says that NO ONE has the answer to that question:

https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question30.html

4. To D.S...

a) applying "real-world" physics to fictional objects following fictional rules of physics doesn't always work. Or even "often" work, necessarily.

b) even if we treat comic showings as real world you run into another problem:
Your equations assume the planet in question is nearly identical in size, shape, mass, weight, and composition to our own Earth. In "reality", the planets in question vary in nearly all these dimensions. Superman in Our Worlds At War, for instance, is not pushing Earth, but Pluto, a planet now regarded as too small to even BE a planet. Mass compared to Earth?

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/plutofact.html


Although all of the planets beyond Mars are gas giants, Pluto is small and rocky. The tiny body has a mass of only 1.31 x 1022 kilograms, about two-tenths of a percent of Earth's. It has a volume of 1.5 billion cubic miles (6.4 billion cubic km).


https://www.space.com/18568-how-big-is-pluto.html

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
If we're giving this appropriate treatment, the answers are probably something like the following:


1. For Philosophia, who's playing The Dozens with me, "Write to whoever manufactured yours. I wouldn't know."

2. For CosmicComet, regarding the paint chips in art class comment to JBL?
Lead hasn't been used in consumer paint since about 1978.
However, since, outside this thread, lead is a serious problem that shouldn't only be joked about, click on the following:

https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/tips.htm

3. To Pr, concerning his query a page ago?
JBL may not understand what gravity is, but neither do you.
This is not an insult; no less an authority than NASA says that NO ONE has the answer to that question:

https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question30.html

4. To D.S...

a) applying "real-world" physics to fictional objects following fictional rules of physics doesn't always work. Or even "often" work, necessarily.

b) even if we treat comic showings as real world you run into another problem:
Your equations assume the planet in question is nearly identical in size, shape, mass, weight, and composition to our own Earth. In "reality", the planets in question vary in nearly all these dimensions. Superman in Our Worlds At War, for instance, is not pushing Earth, but Pluto, a planet now regarded as too small to even BE a planet. Mass compared to Earth?

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/plutofact.html


Although all of the planets beyond Mars are gas giants, Pluto is small and rocky. The tiny body has a mass of only 1.31 x 1022 kilograms, about two-tenths of a percent of Earth's. It has a volume of 1.5 billion cubic miles (6.4 billion cubic km).


https://www.space.com/18568-how-big-is-pluto.html Nice.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
3. To Pr, concerning his query a page ago?
JBL may not understand what gravity is, but neither do you.
This is not an insult; no less an authority than NASA says that NO ONE has the answer to that question:

And yet, it doesn't really counter what I said, as much as JBL might like it to. shrug

And yet real world physics are all we have to go by, unless the comic comes up with some reason for it not to count. So, Blue, why should we not go by real world science when trying to determine which is more impressive between pushing a planet and destroying it? What reasons do you put forth for why destroying a planet is more impressive? What are you basing this off of? In the absence of anything else, real world science is what we have to use. I'm curious as to what reasoning you are using for justification for destroying a planet being more impressive. I only ask because you seem to be championing JBL's cause. If this isn't the case and I've misunderstood you, then nevermind.

Originally posted by emporerpants
And yet real world physics are all we have to go by, unless the comic comes up with some reason for it not to count. So, Blue, why should we not go by real world science when trying to determine which is more impressive between pushing a planet and destroying it? What reasons do you put forth for why destroying a planet is more impressive? What are you basing this off of? In the absence of anything else, real world science is what we have to use. I'm curious as to what reasoning you are using for justification for destroying a planet being more impressive. I only ask because you seem to be championing JBL's cause. If this isn't the case and I've misunderstood you, then nevermind.





A partial answer to your queries can be found here:

http://comicboxcommentary.blogspot.com/2011/11/review-dc-comics-presents-28.html?m=1

The above relates the tale of the first Warworld, pre "Our Worlds at War".

Ask yourself: "Which would be easier, for one or both of these powerful Kryptonians to MOVE Warworld, or for one or both of them to destroy it?"

Originally posted by -Pr-
And yet, it doesn't really counter what I said, as much as JBL might like it to. shrug


Insofar as JBL was countering D.S., the proper response is the one I GAVE to DS:


----------

b) Your equations assume the planet in question is nearly identical in size, shape, mass, weight, and composition to our own Earth. In "reality", the planets in question vary in nearly all these dimensions.

----------

And this I can show in due course of time. Indeed, I already started with the case of WarWorld, from back in the days when Kara and company were truly world-moving figures.

Giving a proper response to this thread is likely going to take a lot of links and images.

So, where I can recall resource or reference heavy threads ...

The following, for instance, gives fairly complete information on Supergirl versus WarWorld:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=644563&pagenumber=1

Link to page of Kara moving Bizarroworld.
Note that it takes less effort than the actual "lifting" of Bizarroworld would require -- at least as we've defined planet "lifting" to date:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=477038&pagenumber=8

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Insofar as JBL was countering D.S., the proper response is the one I GAVE to DS:


----------

b) Your equations assume the planet in question is nearly identical in size, shape, mass, weight, and composition to our own Earth. In "reality", the planets in question vary in nearly all these dimensions.

----------

And this I can show in due course of time. Indeed, I already started with the case of WarWorld, from back in the days when Kara and company were truly world-moving figures.

Gotta be honest, I kinda feel lost now, but that's my own fault for coming in to a thread 4 pages in.

the question is largely unanswerable in terms of comics. in the real world, pushing a planet at light speed is redundant because the energy required to push ANY body with mass at light speed is infinite. adding a planetary body to infinity is.... yeah, exactly. if we were looking in the real world and superman could push a ball of adamantium at light speed, it would require an infinitely greater amount of energy than it would take for him to smash said ball.

in a comic, just because he can push adamantium at light speed, clearly doesn't mean he could smash said ball.

because achieving light speed in comics is such a common place thing, we need to completely throw out real world numbers imo. i mean we're talking about a medium where (some believe) hyperion held apart 2 UNIVERSES. is THAT>destroying a planet or moving one at light speed?

anyway, moving a planetary body at light speed SHOULD require infinite energy. it doesn't in a comic world, so it becomes one more impressive feat, but quantitatively impossible to gauge in comparison to destroying a planet, especially one that is stated to be more massive than earth.

in general, in the comic world, i would think full on destroying a planet (depending on the number of blows required) would be more impressive but the degrees of 'impressiveness' are close. trying to prove this quantitatively is....beyond pedantic. i think the only sure thing is that lifting a planetary weight is the least impressive by far. /shrug

"pedantic"

Must have something to do with feet. Hmm....

You can't move an entire planet without destroying it anyway.

Its way too heavy relative to its durability/strength.

Square cube law. These same weirdos keep talking about moving a rock vs breaking it but when a rock is really, really huge, moving it and breaking it are the same thing. ...because it would break apart when moved.

Moving The Earth at 1 diameter per second (so 8000 miles a second) is only low relativistic and thats still way higher energy output than simply busting the planet.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
You can't move an entire planet without destroying it anyway.

in the real world i agree 100%. that obviously doesn't happen (all the time) in comics which further illustrates why the use of RL numbers in this thread supporting either side is...

which is why we need in-comic points for view. wasn't there a scene of majestros moving planets around like chess pieces using special gloves or something....?

i wonder if more people have moved planets or planetary bodies in comics or have destroyed them under their own power...?

Originally posted by CosmicComet
You can't move an entire planet without destroying it anyway.

Its way too heavy relative to its durability/strength.

Square cube law. These same weirdos keep talking about moving a rock vs breaking it but when a rock is really, really huge, moving it and breaking it are the same thing. ...because it would break apart when moved.

Moving The Earth at 1 diameter per second (so 8000 miles a second) is only low relativistic and thats still way higher energy output than simply busting the planet. The earth along with all the other planets at a very fast rate. Not take that speed and amplify it and watch them get destroyed.

I don't know if this question can be answered but which one is more impressive, pushing a planet or powering through an attack that can push/hurl planets.

huh? if a force can move a planet that force>planetary inertia already. so powering through THAT would obviously be a feat greater than moving the planet....

i know where you're going though and narration can be pretty damn meaningless in comics.

Originally posted by leonidas
huh? if a force can move a planet that force>planetary inertia already. so powering through THAT would obviously be a feat greater than moving the planet....

i know where you're going though and narration can be pretty damn meaningless in comics.

I'm just asking. Wasn't going to mention anything else, especially anything that isn't relevant to this thread. Thanks for the answer though.

People saying than destroying a planet is greater than moving a planet have no idea in the forces that it requires to move a planet.

This is why trains are so hard to stop with out destroying them.

You can destroy a train and destroy it pretty easily, but to stop it with out destroying it , that is where it becomes a challenge.

The force required to destroy a planet is a lot less than the force required to move it from it's orbital trench and a lot less to move them at FTL as the closer you get to FTL it will be harder and harder to move.

Oh and trying to dismiss RL rules to quantify a sci fi feat it is ridiculous.

You need an anchor to quantify it. In this case RL rules.

If an object weights 200 lbs in rl it will weight 200 lbs in cl.

Plain and simple. I will think common sense or logic will be used in here. Regardless of the outcome.

Anyway. An interesting topic all the time.

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Oh and trying to dismiss RL rules to quantify a sci fi feat it is ridiculous.

that's gotta be the first time i've ever heard anyone CONDONE using RL science to defend a comic world.....

couldn't disagree strongly enough with that take. the rules of physics are constantly broken in the world of comics so we don't really get to pick and choose which ones we should or shouldn't follow. that's why most will always caution, rightly, AGAINST that very thing.

reaching light speed=impossible by RL standards. exceeding it is basically incomprehensible. yet you advocate FOLLOWING those same rules? like i said--in the RW sure, moving a planet>destroying one. we're not talk real world, we're talking about a world where people routinely fly ftl, and hold universes apart, where thought>light speed and any other number of impossible things happen all the time. to suggest we play by the same rules makes no sense, but, to each their own i guess. /shrug

Where does it say in OP we are limited to comic feats?

I mean,I know it's a comic forum, but I find moving a planet more impressive, because I have seen the calcs.

Now, if we are to argue it's more impressive to bust a planet due to the rarity of the feat or something, or to use some other metric, that's fine.

But by using the metric of energy needed, then we kinda have to fall back on RL physics.

Besides, leo, the calcs I posted had NOTHING to do with lightspeed anymore.

It was just moving the Earth out of its orbit,at42km/hr. No, no decimals or numbers missing. A measly 42km/hr.

And THAT takes twice as much energy as destroying the Earth.

Let alone 200km/he, or 2000....

To remove all bias, let's use the same character.

Which is more impressive, this:

https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_medium/11119/111193908/4183071-countdown024e-tile.jpg

Or this:
https://s26.postimg.org/qw8yzzky1/Infinite_Crisis_04_of_07_2006_Digital-_HD.jpg

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Where does it say in OP we are limited to comic feats?





that's fine and like i said three times--in the real world moving a planet is certainly more impressive. but in comics things don't work out so well when we bring in rl science. supes held a black hole. the density of the singularity is infinite as the mass of the star collapses. so did he hold an infinite weight? because some superfans will argue he DID hold an infinite weight. and using rl physics they'd be right. so do we just say--obviously he didn't hold infinite weight--it's just comics!!1!

rl science breaks down all the time, which is why using it to prove arguments in the forum rarely works. could it work in this case? maybe, but then do we simply CHOOSE to disregard the fact that moving at ftl and greater speeds is, by rl standards a FAR greater feat than even that? me, i don't like to pick and choose. we stick with comics, if we're talking about comics. i remember a lengthy discussion with id regarding nate's 'plank length' maneuver. lol the author fully used the term completely incorrectly but force fit it into comics because it sounded cool. there are too many examples that prove rl isn't a very good or reliable way to look at comics.

again, could it be used to defend a stance in this thread? sure. you're using it. do i think those numbers mean that moving a planet in the comic world>one-shotting that same planet into complete dust? no, not necessarily and if a character in a book said destroying one is greater, then....it would be greater, despite the rl numbers. least imo. as it stands, both are about equally impressive in my mind. /shrug

So JBL is (in his imagination) teaching the writers who work for DC and Marvel what gravity is and how science works? Well, explains a lot.

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
People saying than destroying a planet is greater than moving a planet have no idea in the forces that it requires to move a planet.

This is why trains are so hard to stop with out destroying them.

You can destroy a train and destroy it pretty easily, but to stop it with out destroying it , that is where it becomes a challenge.

The force required to destroy a planet is a lot less than the force required to move it from it's orbital trench and a lot less to move them at FTL as the closer you get to FTL it will be harder and harder to move.

Astronomers have concluded that certain planets have had their orbits altered by impacts that did not destroy them.

Originally posted by TheHulkster
Astronomers have concluded that certain planets have had their orbits altered by impacts that did not destroy them.

When there are certain conditions. Certainly not against a complete opposing force. But using the SAME force to move it in the same direction.

Originally posted by leonidas
that's gotta be the first time i've ever heard anyone CONDONE using RL science to defend a comic world.....

couldn't disagree strongly enough with that take. the rules of physics are constantly broken in the world of comics so we don't really get to pick and choose which ones we should or shouldn't follow. that's why most will always caution, rightly, AGAINST that very thing.

reaching light speed=impossible by RL standards. exceeding it is basically incomprehensible. yet you advocate FOLLOWING those same rules? like i said--in the RW sure, moving a planet>destroying one. we're not talk real world, we're talking about a world where people routinely fly ftl, and hold universes apart, where thought>light speed and any other number of impossible things happen all the time. to suggest we play by the same rules makes no sense, but, to each their own i guess. /shrug

All I am saying is that when trying to quantify a feat you need an anchor point.

"More powerful than a locomotive"

Is an impressive statement because it is stating how powerful it is with a RL reference. More powerful than a locomotive will be a meaningless phrase if it is meant to be more powerful than a lawn mower engine with comic books laws.

So we have to use a standard for both feats and not only apply when it only suits our argument.

That is why I can come up with the conclusion that DOS Doomsday is an impressive enemy. Because he survived an attack that ripped a hole in reality.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
To remove all bias, let's use the same character.

Which is more impressive, this:

https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_medium/11119/111193908/4183071-countdown024e-tile.jpg

Or this:
https://s26.postimg.org/qw8yzzky1/Infinite_Crisis_04_of_07_2006_Digital-_HD.jpg

To me?

The second one is more impressive.

Not only did he generated enough force to move the planet, he did it so fast that no one notice it AND he didn't destroy the planet in the process.

Moving that mass at that speed and make it to stop or regain it's formal orbital speed it is an INSANE feat.

I'm sure a lot of characters can move that mass and destroy it, but to move it at that speed with that accuracy so almost no one noticed it. It is just mind blowing.

The same reason why this feats are impressive if performed by HUMANS and not by top tier characters.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-232eabceda13b705e5f56cd371060af6

https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/123873/2718595-batman_leg_press_2.jpg

Because on average this feats will be impressive if performed by RL humans or Comic book humans but not impressive if performed by Superman.

Depending on the size of the planet, if it is bound in a solar gravitational system and how fast it is moved, moving a planet would be more difficult than blowing it up

Originally posted by Genii96
Depending on the size of the planet, if it is bound in a solar gravitational system and how fast it is moved, moving a planet would be more difficult than blowing it up

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
All I am saying is that when trying to quantify a feat you need an anchor point.

"More powerful than a locomotive"

Is an impressive statement because it is stating how powerful it is with a RL reference. More powerful than a locomotive will be a meaningless phrase if it is meant to be more powerful than a lawn mower engine with comic books laws.

So we have to use a standard for both feats and not only apply when it only suits our argument.

That is why I can come up with the conclusion that DOS Doomsday is an impressive enemy. Because he survived an attack that ripped a hole in reality.

i like the locomotive example and again, in the real world (and i'm not even denying the possibility in a comic world) you're a 100% right.

to me the issue isn't which is more impressive--both are stupidly impressive even in comics--it's more about the way we support opinion on the forum. people have spent a decade making fun of h1 for using rl science to defend point after point specifically BECAUSE it is common knowledge that rl science fails so miserably so often when it comes to supporting comic feats.

your point about a 'standard' i get, but in a case like this i don't know that the rl science would necessarily be supported in a comic book. i remember some dude came into that nate discussion (he's banned now lol) and swore up and down that the real life science supported nate travelling umpteen times the speed of light. lol but the rl science made no sense in comic book terms no matter how hard he tried to fit it in. too many examples showing things like that.

again in the rw, moving>>destroying. if that's what the thread starter wanted that IS the answer. but in a comic book, i'm not sure we can come to that conclusion definitively--at least not without proof from WITHIN a comic itself. in which case i'd happily admit to being wrong. but it wouldn't change my stance on using rl science to defend points though. /shrug

And that's fair.

I've made fun of h1, I will hold my hands up.

But in the absence of any other metric from OP, I mean . What CAN we use?

We could say destroying planets is more impressive, as we see it so rarely. But then, we all know planets are rarely destroyed, not due to their durability or the characters weakness, but because plot demands that the planet stick around just in case it's needed for future stories (like how Red Tornado and Vision get holes ounched through them every time).

it's also extremely rare where someone one-shots a planet. usually someone flies to the center and the planet ends up destroying itself as much as the character does--the character usually acts as a catalyst. i think your prime scan above could be lumped in that category.

i'm thinking about something like what terrax did:

http://i.imgur.com/bsYUh3i.jpg

i always found that feat damn impressive... or if someone BLASTS a planet into dust, that is a huge feat as well. it also seems like if someone (say terrax) hit the planet hard enough to destroy it that it would also MOVE as a result of the blow, but now I'M being pedantic.... lol

i'd like to see a bunch of scans of both feats. maybe something would come up that would show some in-book support one way or the other. /shrug

Originally posted by leonidas
it's also extremely rare where someone one-shots a planet. usually someone flies to the center and the planet ends up destroying itself as much as the character does--the character usually acts as a catalyst. i think your prime scan above could be lumped in that category.

i'm thinking about something like what terrax did:

http://i.imgur.com/bsYUh3i.jpg

i always found that feat damn impressive... or if someone BLASTS a planet into dust, that is a huge feat as well. it also seems like if someone (say terrax) hit the planet hard enough to destroy it that it would also MOVE as a result of the blow, but now I'M being pedantic.... lol

i'd like to see a bunch of scans of both feats. maybe something would come up that would show some in-book support one way or the other. /shrug
Yeah there should def be a distiction made in regards to where the planet is blown up from the inside or outside. To borrow the analogy from Armaggedon, lay a lit firecracker on your open palm and you end up with a burnt palm. Close your hand around it and the hand goes bye bye. It takes a lot more to destroy something from the outside than it does from the inside.

Originally posted by TethAdamTheRock
1. Moving A Planet
2. Busting A Planet
3. Lifting A Planet
Lifting is the same as moving.

With that said, It depends on how fast you move/lift the planet and what degree of busting we are talking about.

For example, Moving a planet to other star systems in a matter of moments is astronomically more than busting a planet with a single hit into 5 equal sized pieces. In other words, accelerating a planet to faster than light speeds in under a minute is far above busting a planet into a few equal pieces.

But completely pulverizing a planet in one hit is far above accelerating/lifting a planet slowly.

Originally posted by h1a8
Lifting is the same as moving.
. How

Lifting like superman did for 3 days under gravity

Because things move when you lift them.