PDA

View Full Version : Z Fighters vs Annihilators



Pages : [1] 2

The Dork Knight
04-23-2015, 10:42 AM
Goku
Vegeta
Buu ( composite, feats from all versions)
Gotenks
Gohan

vs

Beta Ray Bill
Gladiator
Surfer
Ronan
Nova ( yeah he isnt technically a member, still)

speed is equalized for all. DBZ characters are end of series but before the 10 year jump.

Beadle
04-23-2015, 10:49 AM
Buu's obviously the biggest challenge here for the Annihilators, but I don't think he could hurt Surfer, and neither can the others. Surfer can at least transmute Buu into a matching crockery set.

Pendaran
04-23-2015, 12:42 PM
Nova have the worldmind here?

abmccray
04-23-2015, 01:04 PM
EOS puts Goku/Vegeta at SSGSS (haha) so they're both at least above SSG, which makes them a lot more dangerous than they would be otherwise. Also weakens Gohan to a SSJ1, on the flip side (haha).

None of that really matters, though. Speed equalized, Buu does a wide city spaning candy beam that changes anyone that can be transmuted into candy, then everyone pounds on Surfer with all their planet busting and various plus level blasts, which he probably tanks, and then transmutes Buu and everyone else.

big_adventure
04-23-2015, 01:07 PM
If this is Nova Prime, he can simply shield his team and anyone capable of spooky action at a distance can bombard away - Surfer can transform the ground into a black hole, as a "for example."

Granted, Surfer likely doesn't need the shielding, and BRB can probably manipulate the crap out of any energy they can throw, but they can literally just stand there and ignore the Z-fighters with the kind of shield Nova can throw up, given what it did to the Galactus wave.

The Dork Knight
04-23-2015, 02:21 PM
Is that a legitimate feat for Nova given the ( lack of ) time he had to throw up a shield that could shield people from a multi solar system busting attack?

This would seem to imply any time he has struggled against less than that is PIS

The Dork Knight
04-23-2015, 02:22 PM
Nova have the worldmind here?

No. Team is powerful enough as it is

Beadle
04-23-2015, 02:32 PM
Intrigued as to why you included Nova but omitted Quasar.

The Dork Knight
04-23-2015, 02:41 PM
Quasar might have been able to drain their chi, or specifically if Goku tried to use something like a spirit bomb.

Seemed like an auto win so left him out

Pendaran
04-23-2015, 04:50 PM
Is that a legitimate feat for Nova given the ( lack of ) time he had to throw up a shield that could shield people from a multi solar system busting attack?

This would seem to imply any time he has struggled against less than that is PIS

Not really, they saw it coming with enough time for him to be capable of thinking "everything into defense", and, Nova's power basically works on ratios. So much into offense, defense, movement, what have you. If he threw absolutely everything into defensive shielding, I'm okay with it. It's not like he would have been capable of anything else.

Slade1
04-24-2015, 04:16 AM
Is SS immune to transmutation?

Anarchist
04-24-2015, 04:20 AM
He has a very high level of it himself, and I don't think Buu has the oomph to overpower Norrin in that department.

Cyke
04-24-2015, 07:12 AM
Meanwhile, Yamcha's trying to work his pelvic sorcery on Gamera, only to find a knife a molecule away from his throat.

Slade1
04-24-2015, 12:31 PM
Yes but does he have feats of resisting being transmuted?

Anarchist
04-24-2015, 12:53 PM
Yes, here for example, can't find the scan that comes after, but he reforms from that
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/4/47999/980023-859408_silversurfer199612019ue0_super.jpg

Len Ikari145
04-24-2015, 01:20 PM
EOS puts Goku/Vegeta at SSGSS (haha) so they're both at least above SSG, which makes them a lot more dangerous than they would be otherwise. Also weakens Gohan to a SSJ1, on the flip side (haha).


Almost the opposite. Gohan in the movie finds out that he can actually go SSJ1 while in Mystic form, according to the Revival of F movie blog run by Bulma.

Captain Morgan
04-24-2015, 02:40 PM
Yes, here for example, can't find the scan that comes after, but he reforms from that
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/4/47999/980023-859408_silversurfer199612019ue0_super.jpg
OK, I'm a big advocate for the Surfer being powerful as fuck, but can we get some scans and context here? Because that being is clearly rocking his shit and way more powerful and I'm not sure how he's not supposed to at least get knocked out by that kind of abuse.

Pendaran
04-24-2015, 02:46 PM
If it's all supposed to be weird metaphorical transmutation stuff as opposed to being direct physical abuse, I could sort of see it. Still, this incident is news to me.

It's still frankly.. kinda bridge too far barring context.

The Dork Knight
04-24-2015, 03:55 PM
Isnt that the issue where he is in a video game or something?

Anarchist
04-25-2015, 05:41 AM
It's against an Eternal.
I found the second half off the page, but I really don't know much more.
http://i.imgur.com/g3GcN6l.jpg

The Drunkard Kid
04-25-2015, 06:38 AM
Oh, those were *eyes*.

I thought someone sliced Surfer apart with nose-beams. Or possibly that he split his own body apart to avoid touching them.

Slade1
04-25-2015, 07:15 AM
It's against an Eternal.
I found the second half off the page, but I really don't know much more.
http://i.imgur.com/g3GcN6l.jpg

That's not really transmutation though. He just looks like he got physically sliced/smashed. The Eternal didn't turn him into stone or what not.

abmccray
04-25-2015, 07:18 AM
Almost the opposite. Gohan in the movie finds out that he can actually go SSJ1 while in Mystic form, according to the Revival of F movie blog run by Bulma.

The tie-in manga shows that the context is than Gohan is so out of shape in training, that he has degraded to *only* being able to go SSJ1 (not even 2), as opposed to being even more powerful than he was before, by adding to his "mystic" form.

Pendaran
04-25-2015, 10:18 AM
That's not really transmutation though. He just looks like he got physically sliced/smashed. The Eternal didn't turn him into stone or what not.

I would argue that being turned into a bunch of bouncing balls each with your face on them prooobably means that something purely physical is not going on.

Captain Morgan
04-25-2015, 10:21 AM
I would argue that being turned into a bunch of bouncing balls each with your face on them prooobably means that something purely physical is not going on.

It does seem like a bridge too far, still.

Anarchist
04-25-2015, 10:34 AM
During the latest Defender-series, Norrin also turned himself into snow and then reformed (off course).

buutenks
04-27-2015, 04:27 AM
EOS puts Goku/Vegeta at SSGSS (haha) so they're both at least above SSG, which makes them a lot more dangerous than they would be otherwise. Also weakens Gohan to a SSJ1, on the flip side (haha).

That may be true,however the OP said that at the end of Z before the 10 year jump,so im guessing he means end of buu saga.So no ssj god/s.

End of Buu saga goku has stamina issues in his ssj3 form,so i think it would be best if he sticks to ssj2 for this fight.BOG ssj3 goku apparently has no such issues though.


Almost the opposite. Gohan in the movie finds out that he can actually go SSJ1 while in Mystic form, according to the Revival of F movie blog run by Bulma.

Aha,but no,actually gohan is uncertain if he can even go ssj.SO he most likely lost his mystic form,it seems.Very disappointing though.

Melchior
04-27-2015, 05:48 AM
That may be true,however the OP said that at the end of Z before the 10 year jump,so im guessing he means end of buu saga.So no ssj god/s.

End of Buu saga goku has stamina issues in his ssj3 form,so i think it would be best if he sticks to ssj2 for this fight.BOG ssj3 goku apparently has no such issues though.


Could have sworn the issues with SSJ3 was that he had stamina issues when outside the afterlife. So, issues fighting Buu on Earth, but no issues using it against Beerus in BoG because King Kai's planet is in the afterlife.

The Drunkard Kid
04-27-2015, 06:04 AM
Could have sworn the issues with SSJ3 was that he had stamina issues when outside the afterlife. So, issues fighting Buu on Earth, but no issues using it against Beerus in BoG because King Kai's planet is in the afterlife.

It was more about his being alive or dead, since it drained "time" somehow. When he was dead and in the afterlife, no real issues. When he was dead and got a 24 hour pass to the living world, it drained his remaining time on Earth right quick. When he was alive and in the afterlife against Kid Buu, he was unable to use its full power at all, and his power started dropping when he tried to rev it up too much.

buutenks
04-27-2015, 02:52 PM
Could have sworn the issues with SSJ3 was that he had stamina issues when outside the afterlife. So, issues fighting Buu on Earth, but no issues using it against Beerus in BoG because King Kai's planet is in the afterlife.

nah,has to do with dead and living body.Since as dead he's got basically limitless stamina,due to well being dead he can maintain ssj3 quite easily,while in his living body he cannot due to not mastering it yet.

Goku said when he saw ssj3 gotenks,they completely mastered it,while they could only stay for 5 minutes,they didnt had the issue of not being able to bring its full power and maintain it for those 5 minutes,while goku had those issues.

But bog goku seemed to have mastered his ssj3 form.

big_adventure
04-27-2015, 09:54 PM
But bog goku seemed to have mastered his ssj3 form.

Eh, he lasted in it for about a minute before he had it knocked right the hell out of him by a casual tap from Beerus. So I dunno about "mastered" it.

Marvel-Studios Rep
04-28-2015, 12:15 AM
The preview of the Resurrection of F movie has Whis stating Bills destroyed a sun or two. if we take this statement at face-value, I could potentially see Duo SSJG (assuming they're somewhat close to Bills), hurting or even maybe killing Surfer. Barring that, Db stand no chance.

Anarchist
04-28-2015, 07:26 AM
Statements are not feats, otherwise Cell would be a Solar System Buster.

Hazard
04-28-2015, 07:28 AM
Statements are not feats, otherwise Cell would be a Solar System Buster.

Meh, it's a statement from a reliable source based on something that happened as opposed to a hypothetical. Plus, given Bills presentation it's seriously not surprising.

Kind of like how we know the reason King Kai's planet is small is because Bills blew it up because we are told that.

Cody
04-28-2015, 08:22 AM
What is the best thing that SS can tank exactly?Star buster? Solar System buster?

big_adventure
04-28-2015, 11:10 AM
What is the best thing that SS can tank exactly?Star buster? Solar System buster?

Eh, I don't know that he can tank a star-buster. It's probably not that far off, but "tank" is a big word for something that insta-one-shots a star.

Cody
04-28-2015, 11:23 AM
Eh, I don't know that he can tank a star-buster. It's probably not that far off, but "tank" is a big word for something that insta-one-shots a star.

So he is just a little more durable than a star then?

Pendaran
04-28-2015, 11:24 AM
So he is just a little more durable than a star then?

He flies in and out of such things unscathed.

The Dork Knight
04-28-2015, 11:25 AM
Well he did catch and throw a star in deadpool team up though im not sure if the series is actually canon

Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh
04-28-2015, 11:25 AM
Hasn't this exact question regarding the Surfer been discussed several times ?

Hazard
04-28-2015, 11:57 AM
Well he did catch and throw a star in deadpool team up though im not sure if the series is actually canon

Pretty sure it is. At least, I haven't heard anything about it not being canon.

It's not like Galactus doesn't have a history of giving out power cosmic like candy.

Example, Dazzler.

Cody
04-28-2015, 12:02 PM
He flies in and out of such things unscathed.

Not exactly the same as surviving an attack that can bust a star. Especially with someone who moves as fast as he does.

Pendaran
04-28-2015, 12:48 PM
Not exactly the same as surviving an attack that can bust a star. Especially with someone who moves as fast as he does.

Eh, when he's flying in one end, then right through it and out the other end after some vague amount of time spent in the heart of the sun to "purify himself", it's still a bout of constant exposure from his perspective.

Cody
04-28-2015, 12:52 PM
Eh, when he's flying in one end, then right through it and out the other end after some vague amount of time spent in the heart of the sun to "purify himself", it's still a bout of constant exposure from his perspective.

Okay, but again. This was pointed out in another thread. Surviving the gravity(I am guessing that is what you are referring to) of the center of the sun isn't the same as outright surviving a star buster or an actual Supernova. Does he not have any other consistent feats that would prove that he is more durable than a star?

Pendaran
04-28-2015, 12:58 PM
Okay, but again. This was pointed out in another thread. Surviving the gravity(I am guessing that is what you are referring to) of the center of the sun isn't the same as outright surviving a star buster or an actual Supernova. Does he not have any other consistent feats that would prove that he is more durable than a star?

When he otherwise gets into a fight inside a black hole and otherwise tears open singularities he emerges from the expanding energies of, having been the ground zero of the thing, I'm not really sure what it is you want here or what you're trying to say, we've had weird things in other threads with your "star durability" and this kind of shmear.

Cody
04-28-2015, 01:05 PM
When he otherwise gets into a fight inside a black hole and otherwise tears open singularities he emerges from the expanding energies of, having been the ground zero of the thing, I'm not really sure what it is you want here or what you're trying to say, we've had weird things in other threads with your "star durability" and this kind of shmear.

I am asking for more feats. What's the problem? I do not know much of the characters capabilities aside from his speed and esoteric abilities. So I ask for more examples of his physical durability to better understand. Surely that isn't a difficult thing to ask for is it?

It has been brought up in the past that him surviving the gravitational effects of a black hole could be attributed to his abilities from the power of cosmic, now from actual durability.

Again. Silver Surfer has his own set of comics. Surely asking for more examples of his durability that would rank him on the level you say he is at wouldn't be so out of the question would it? :)

Pendaran
04-28-2015, 01:15 PM
It has been brought up in the past that him surviving the gravitational effects of a black hole could be attributed to his abilities from the power of cosmic, now from actual durability.

Brought up by who? Where in such things as he does durability wise does it say that is the reason it is happening?


I am asking for more feats.

While putting odd qualifiers on existing feats.


Surely asking for more examples of his durability that would rank him on the level you say he is at wouldn't be so out of the question would it?

then it's surely not out of the question to ask what you are basing "that was because of some ability from the power cosmic" on.

Cody
04-28-2015, 01:32 PM
Brought up by who? Where in such things as he does durability wise does it say that is the reason it is happening?

It was pre-board wipe. It was said that Surfer, not being effected by the gravitational effects of of a black hole could be attributed to his powers. I think it was from his ability to control space time to the degree he can(or something, I forget what power it was exactly). Making himself immune to the gravitational effects of a black hole.




While putting odd qualifiers on existing feats.

How? I ask a simple question; if he is more durable than a star, would someone please provide feats". You present him surviving in a star which is not the same as surviving something like a super nova. And bring up some black hole feats which may or may not be attributed to his powers. If he has the durability you say he does then he would have more showings to prove it. Different showings illustrating it. I do not understand why you are getting so defensive over a simple request.




then it's surely not out of the question to ask what you are basing "that was because of some ability from the power cosmic" on.

I already said why. It was mentioned before. That Heralds typically have abilities that make them immune to the gravitational effects of a black hole. Much like say; the Light Hawk wings do in the Tenchiverse. Why the belligerence? If I am wrong, then cool. I would still like some more examples of his durability however to see how consistent it is.

The Dork Knight
04-28-2015, 01:37 PM
When he otherwise gets into a fight inside a black hole and otherwise tears open singularities he emerges from the expanding energies of, having been the ground zero of the thing, I'm not really sure what it is you want here or what you're trying to say, we've had weird things in other threads with your "star durability" and this kind of shmear.

Thats not a durability feat for surfer. He escaped that thing as it expanded, he never actually tanked it. Ravenous and others who were actually in the blast radius tanked it. I suppose by extension we can say Surfer could do the same given he beat Ravenous and is crazy durable from other feats but that feat itself is not proof of surfers durability. He was never in the blast radius

Pendaran
04-28-2015, 01:40 PM
It was pre-board wipe. It was said that Surfer, not being effected by the gravitational effects of of a black hole could be attributed to his powers. I think it was from his ability to control space time to the degree he can(or something, I forget what power it was exactly). Making himself immune to the gravitational effects of a black hole.

You're advancing the argument, what are you basing this on? "It was said", by who? Issue number for where he endures a black hole or the like where it shows that such is the reason he is doing that?


How? I ask a simple question; if he is more durable than a star, would someone please provide feats". You present him surviving in a star which is not the same as surviving something like a super nova. And bring up some black hole feats which may or may not be attributed to his powers. If he has the durability you say he does then he would have more showings to prove it. Different showings illustrating it. I do not understand why you are getting so defensive over a simple request.


You once again make your weird qualifiers and categories.. Why exactly does he need to survive a super nova to be more durable than the thing that moving all the way through, right through the heart of in some effort for self purification does nothing to him?

And again, you keep saying "may or may not". Scan or issue number to back your claims?


I already said why. It was mentioned before. That Heralds typically have abilities that make them immune to the gravitational effects of a black hole. Much like say; the Light Hawk wings do in the Tenchiverse. Why the belligerence? If I am wrong, then cool.

What abilities? Where are you getting this from?

Pendaran
04-28-2015, 01:45 PM
Thats not a durability feat for surfer. He escaped that thing as it expanded, he never actually tanked it. Ravenous and others who were actually in the blast radius tanked it. I suppose by extension we can say Surfer could do the same given he beat Ravenous and is crazy durable from other feats but that feat itself is not proof of surfers durability. He was never in the blast radius

When he opens it up around himself such that he is at ground zero, and emerges from it, basically.. no to everything you're saying. It sure then expanded a lot.

You'd have to otherwise argue that he didn't open one up until he blew up Air Walker's body later on, but we have him talking about the energies he unleashed, and then Thanos in the same comic calling it the effect of "the surfer's energy discharge".

http://postimg.org/image/kx0xnlvp5/

Cody
04-28-2015, 01:47 PM
You once again make your weird qualifiers and categories.. Why exactly does he need to survive a super nova to be more durable than the thing that moving all the way through, right through the heart of in some effort for self purification does nothing to him?

Post-Crisis Superman flew through a red sun. Are you saying he is as durable as a star? Again, flying through, or staying even in the center of it is nowhere near the same as surviving an actual blast that could bust a star. This was brought up before in a topic you were involved in.


What abilities? Where are you getting this from?

I already told you. It was mentioned pre-wipe. I am not going to remember who said it. But I generally trust the info from here especially when no one argued against it. If you say he doesn't have that ability then okay cool. He survived a black hole. But don't black holes usually have ability to annihilate entire Solar Systems? Would this not mean Surfer is as durable as a Solar System? Or was this a "small" black hole that wasn't capable of that? If so then how do you know it was strong enough to destroy a star? How did you differentiate between the two?

Again; does the Surfer not have any more feats that display his durability to be at that level? So far you mention one black hole feat and him flying through a star. Since when do two feats = consistent durability when compared to others? I ask, again, for more examples of Surfer displaying the durability you claim he has. If you do not provide them then it is only shows that you do not have any other examples.

The Dork Knight
04-28-2015, 01:55 PM
When he opens it up around himself such that he is at ground zero, and emerges from it, basically.. no to everything you're saying. It sure then expanded a lot.

You'd have to otherwise argue that he didn't open one up until he blew up Air Walker's body later on, but we have him talking about the energies he unleashed, and then Thanos in the same comic calling it the effect of "the surfer's energy discharge".

http://postimg.org/image/kx0xnlvp5/

Huh. I guess you are right. I remembered that wrong. He is , inside the blast radius

This now means Air Walker at the point of death can tank such black hole creating energies

dat power cosmic lol

Hazard
04-28-2015, 01:56 PM
Not sure where the whole 'power cosmic' means those black hole feats aren't durability feats is coming from. First time I hear about it to be honest.

Honestly, while I don't think the Surfer has ever been hit with a star buster, he has enough surrounding stuff to say he could take it (black hole stuff, other people in his general tier doing similar stuff, catching a thrown star by Deadpool and putting it in its place, etc).


As an aside, it should be noted flying through a star is not the same as taking the energy required to destroyed.

The sun's total energy output second is 3.8E26 Joules.

The earth's gravitational binding energy also known as the minimum energy you need to overcome to get something resembling planet busting is like 2E32 joules.

So basically you would need to put the Earth for days to roast in the sun.

Well, this varies depending on the star to be honest.

The Dork Knight
04-28-2015, 02:01 PM
Post-Crisis Superman flew through a red sun. Are you saying he is as durable as a star? Again, flying through, or staying even in the center of it is nowhere near the same as surviving an actual blast that could bust a star. This was brought up before in a topic you were involved in.



I already told you. It was mentioned pre-wipe. I am not going to remember who said it. But I generally trust the info from here especially when no one argued against it. If you say he doesn't have that ability then okay cool. He survived a black hole. But don't black holes usually have ability to annihilate entire Solar Systems? Would this not mean Surfer is as durable as a Solar System? Or was this a "small" black hole that wasn't capable of that? If so then how do you know it was strong enough to destroy a star? How did you differentiate between the two?

Comic book black holes are weird. They dont behave anything like actual black holes , even so very few characters can actually survive inside one. Surfer could, casually ( though he later struggled to escape from it because ...comics)


Again; does the Surfer not have any more feats that display his durability to be at that level? So far you mention one black hole feat and him flying through a star. Since when do two feats = consistent durability when compared to others? I ask, again, for more examples of Surfer displaying the durability you claim he has. If you do not provide them then it is only shows that you do not have any other examples.

The surfers earliest appearances had him " riding supernovas" , he no sells planet busting + attacks and catches and tosses stars. Then there is the feat from Annihilation whose scan was posted. The energy released there ended up creating a black hole as a side effect. The guy who survived this was beaten easily by surfer later

So yeah dude seems to be rolling in the " at least as durable as a star" category

The Dork Knight
04-28-2015, 02:03 PM
Not sure where the whole 'power cosmic' means those black hole feats aren't durability feats is coming from. First time I hear about it to be honest.

Honestly, while I don't think the Surfer has ever been hit with a star buster, he has enough surrounding stuff to say he could take it (black hole stuff, other people in his general tier doing similar stuff, catching a thrown star by Deadpool and putting it in its place, etc).


As an aside, it should be noted flying through a star is not the same as taking the energy required to destroyed.

The sun's total energy output second is 3.8E26 Joules.

The earth's gravitational binding energy also known as the minimum energy you need to overcome to get something resembling planet busting is like 2E32 joules.

So basically you would need to put the Earth for days to roast in the sun.

Well, this varies depending on the star to be honest.



Unless Im mistaken the earth would collapse long before that because of the suns gravity. Theres a line iirc beyond which the smaller celestail body collapses due to gravity in the presence of the larger body . Its called the Roche limit

Which would actually affect someone as small as surfer a lot less

Sharpandpointies
04-28-2015, 02:03 PM
To be fair, that's to shatter the planet and send the pieces flying. Physical force. There's a lot more going on in a star that'll ruin the earth's day. ^_^

As for the power cosmic thing, I've never heard that one before either. :( Sorry to say.

Cody
04-28-2015, 02:04 PM
Comic book black holes are weird. They dont behave anything like actual black holes , even so very few characters can actually survive inside one. Surfer could, casually



The surfers earliest appearances had him " riding supernovas" , he no sells planet busting + attacks and catches and tosses stars. Then there is the feat from Annihilation whose scan was posted. The energy released there ended up creating a black hole as a side effect. The guy who survived this was beaten easily by surfer later

So yeah dude seems to be rolling in the " at least as durable as a star" category

Alrighty. That is fair and in an easy to understand manner. Thank you.

Pendaran
04-28-2015, 02:04 PM
Post-Crisis Superman flew through a red sun. Are you saying he is as durable as a star? Again, flying through, or staying even in the center of it is nowhere near the same as surviving an actual blast that could bust a star. This was brought up before in a topic you were involved in.

Post Crisis Superman flying through a sun's worth of thing that depowers him for the exposure of is a curious example of something to advance as valid for a comparison for anything. (that was crap, is what I'm saying)


Again, flying through, or staying even in the center of it is nowhere near the same as surviving an actual blast that could bust a star.

I asked you about why the Surfer needs to be able to tank super novas to be held as any kind of more durable than a star. This is not actually answering this question. A super nova is a star that has gone through various reactions that cause it to explode. What does this have to do with what I asked?


But I generally trust the info from here especially when no one argued against it.

So as it stands it's based on nothing.


So far you mention one black hole feat and him flying through a star.

He fought inside one, and otherwise emerged from a singularity he himself ripped open. That's two. Those are separate incidents.


But don't black holes usually have ability to annihilate entire Solar Systems?

In one go and moment?

It certainly means that the Silver Surfer is more durable than force that can drag in and consume/destroy planets, stars, the like.


Since when do two feats = consistent durability when compared to others? I ask, again, for more examples of Surfer displaying the durability you claim he has. If you do not provide them then it is only shows that you do not have any other examples.

the Silver Surfer has... had an angry bannerless Hulk at the time serving as some reality energy nexus and otherwise growing so potent from that its killing him attempt to throw a beating on him including grinding his head into the ground while otherwise screaming he's going to kill the Surfer, this particularly does nothing. Various planet busting explosions do not scratch the paint on the Surfer's hide. The Surfer and Morg blast each other. The side effect of this blast, not its direct force, because they're blasting at each other, destroys the planet they are on, the shockwave of it shattering a nearby moon in addition. Surfer unharmed.

Cody
04-28-2015, 02:05 PM
To be fair, that's to shatter the planet and send the pieces flying. Physical force. There's a lot more going on in a star that'll ruin the earth's day. ^_^

As for the power cosmic thing, I've never heard that one before either. :( Sorry to say.


Then I was misinformed or was misremembering. I apologize for my mistake.

Sharpandpointies
04-28-2015, 02:06 PM
the Silver Surfer has... had an angry bannerless Hulk currently serving as some reality energy nexus and otherwise growing so potent from that its killing him attempt to throw a beating on him including grinding his head into the ground while otherwise screaming he's going to kill the Surfer, this particularly does nothing.

I've always loved this one - the Hulk freaking out the Nth degree, literally jumping up and down on him, and the Surfer is all nonplussed...and completely unharmed. ^_^

Hazard
04-28-2015, 02:07 PM
But don't black holes usually have ability to annihilate entire Solar Systems?

Actually not really.

Well, it depends. You have to remember black holes seriously vary in size.

Some are as big as our solar system.

Some are 3 miles big.

It's a thing.

Kind of like how some stars are hilariously more massive than our sun and some planets are several times larger than Earth.


Difference is we don't have a default Black Hole size as opposed to using our Earth and our Sun for the default sizes so judging them is a bit weird.


Don't think too much on it is what I'm saying.

Sharpandpointies
04-28-2015, 02:11 PM
Basically 'Black Holes' in comics are considered the hot-crap of celestial bodies, dangerous to people like Superman, Thor, and the like.

That the Surfer can fight within one and open one up on himself, and Classic Dr. Strange can basically monkey around with one and stuff it away, those are pretty big feats for the characters.

The Dork Knight
04-28-2015, 02:14 PM
As far as Surfer and solar system busting goes , he survived Nova causing the star to go ...umm nova in the elders vs Galactus arc and this ended up destroying a bunch of planets and creating a ( really weird) black hole. But them again Galactus pulled him out before he was sucked completely through the hole , and it was really weird to begin with, so its not the clearest cut feat

Cody
04-28-2015, 02:15 PM
Post Crisis Superman flying through a sun's worth of thing that depowers him for the exposure of is a curious example of something to advance as valid for a comparison for anything.

Just pointing out to you that flying through something doesn't mean you can tank an attack that could destroy it.


I asked you about why the Surfer needs to be able to tank super novas to be held as any kind of more durable than a star. This is not actually answering this question. A super nova is a star that has gone through various reactions that cause it to explode. What does this have to do with what I asked?

That question, however, has nothing to do with what I said. It was just one of the examples I was mentioning that you seem to be clinging on. Any feat that would display that level of durability would be fantastic. However Dork already beat you to that. It is kind of a shame that one has to go through so much just to ask for feats from you Pendaran.


So as it stands it's based on nothing.

As I said. It was a recalled moment and I stated as such. I wasn't using it as proof that makes the feat invalid. I was more focused on requesting more examples that put him at the level of durability that you hold him on. There is no need to get defensive when someone questions something that you said.


He fought inside one, and otherwise emerged from a singularity he himself ripped open. That's two.

Exactly. I asked for a few more which Dork complied.


In one go and moment?

It certainly means that the Silver Surfer is more durable than force that can drag in and consume/destroy planets, stars, the like.

That was a good explanation. Thank you Pen.


the Silver Surfer has... had an angry bannerless Hulk currently serving as some reality energy nexus and otherwise growing so potent from that its killing him attempt to throw a beating on him including grinding his head into the ground while otherwise screaming he's going to kill the Surfer, this particularly does nothing. Various planet busting explosions do not scratch the paint on the Surfer's hide. The Surfer and Morg blast each other. The side effect of this blast, not its direct force, because they're blasting at each other, destroys the planet they are on, the shockwave of it shattering a nearby moon in addition. Surfer unharmed.

Again those are adequate explanations.

Now that both you and Dork gave me a better explanation and lists of feats I can see Surfer as being about as durable as what is being claimed here. Thank you.

Pendaran
04-28-2015, 02:15 PM
As far as Surfer and solar system busting goes , he survived Nova causing the star to go ...umm nova in the elders vs Galactus arc and this ended up destroying a bunch of planets and creating a ( really weird) black hole. But them again Galactus pulled him out before he was sucked completely through the hole , and it was really weird to begin with, so its not the clearest cut feat

it's why I didn't bother mentioning it. Nova blowing up a star is besides that kinda.... eeeehhhh. Nova? Really? She's not exactly in the top shelf of the heralds. It's... eeeehhhh...

The Dork Knight
04-28-2015, 02:18 PM
it's why I didn't bother mentioning it. Nova blowing up a star is besides that kinda.... eeeehhhh. Nova? Really? She's not exactly in the top shelf of the heralds. It's... eeeehhhh...

Well she did it by accelerating the reactions in the core or something iirc so theres that

And she...did comparitively better against morg than the other heralds when he was amped by the waters of life ( though the fact that she ended up getting killed kinda makes it moot i guess?)

Pendaran
04-28-2015, 02:22 PM
Exactly. I asked for a few more which Dork complied.

I stated this, right from the get go:


When he otherwise gets into a fight inside a black hole and otherwise tears open singularities he emerges from the expanding energies of

Two separate incidents from post the second on this.


Just pointing out to you that flying through something doesn't mean you can tank an attack that could destroy it.

Your example for this is a guy able to fly through a sun's worth of a thing that depowers him, it does not work for this attempted analogy, because the example itself, does not go.




That question, however, has nothing to do with what I said. It was just one of the examples I was mentioning that you seem to be clinging on. Any feat that would display that level of durability would be fantastic. However Dork already beat you to that. It is kind of a shame that one has to go through so much just to ask for feats from you Pendaran.

Okay.. what does this have to do with asking what tanking a super nova has to do with being more durable than a star, asking this last question a few times now.




As I said. It was a recalled moment and I stated as such. I wasn't using it as proof that makes the feat invalid. I was more focused on requesting more examples that put him at the level of durability that you hold him on. There is no need to get defensive when someone questions something that you said.

A feat was provided, your reply was "well based on this, it maybe doesn't count", when you make a claim, "when did this ever happen" is a thing that sometimes gets asked in response to claims.

Pendaran
04-28-2015, 02:23 PM
Well she did it by accelerating the reactions in the core or something iirc so theres that

And she...did comparitively better against morg than the other heralds when he was amped by the waters of life ( though the fact that she ended up getting killed kinda makes it moot i guess?)

Ehhhhh... She didn't do that great. She got killed from one zot. Firelord survived getting hacked into his heart from what it looked like (granted this was a comic that remembered these people are energy and he bled fire as I recall it, but still, he lived, Nova did not)

The Dork Knight
04-28-2015, 02:30 PM
Ehhhhh... She didn't do that great. She got killed from one zot. Firelord survived getting hacked into his heart from what it looked like (granted this was a comic that remembered these people are energy and he bled fire as I recall it, but still, he lived, Nova did not)

Well I may be remembering this wrong too but wasnt she the only one who actually hurt him ? ( she believed she had killed him, which is what allowed him the free killshot)

Anyway Novas other feats involve fighting off a spaceship powered by the surfers power and travelling through time. She isnt exactly the weakest of heralds .

Cody
04-28-2015, 02:32 PM
Okay.. what does this have to do with asking what tanking a super nova has to do with being more durable than a star, asking this last question a few times now.

The power behind the explosion from a supernova is generally capable of destroying a star. Isn't that right? Or am I mistaken?

AlphaMale
04-28-2015, 02:33 PM
....

I guess I don't understand what the debate is about???

Surfer tanks the full effect of a black hole just fine. Galactus the Devourer, issue 2 seems to be the one in question by Cody. The narration reads something to the effect, "a black hole is a collapsed star....whose gravitational pull is so great, even light is sucked in (or some such)....Yet impossibly, two beings shielded by their own enormous power ...is the way the narration goes, IIRC.

Newsflash: the power cosmic is the reason for all of Surfer's (and almost every other herald in Galactus' employ....) abilities. If however, someone is alleging that the Surfer (and Red Shift) were shielded from the effects of the black hole's gravitational pull....well, that would be an enormous crock.

Surfer DID use a shield to send Alicia back to earth....and the artwork clearly indicated she was shielded by an actual force field. If Surfer (or Red Shift) were shielded by a force field, then we would've seen it.

What the narration means is that the power cosmic is what allowed the characters in question to stand up under the intense gravitational pull of the black hole.

Additionaly, Surfer has used super novas to fling him across out space no probs. FF 48 and SS 145 come to mind.

Not really even sure why....or WHAT.....the exact question is regarding the Surfer's durability. It's next to top shelf (below Thanos probably??).

Pendaran
04-28-2015, 02:38 PM
The power behind the explosion from a supernova is generally capable of destroying a star. Isn't that right? Or am I mistaken?

Let me phrase this another way. And a way that you yourself should be familiar with from the various things you've otherwise advanced as categories. Invoking something that could in fact waste a solar system when talking about being more durable than a star within said solar system is going wayyy to the end of things.

Cody
04-28-2015, 02:49 PM
Let me phrase this another way. And a way that you yourself should be familiar with from the various things you've otherwise advanced as categories. Invoking something that could in fact waste a solar system when talking about being more durable than a star within said solar system is going wayyy to the end of things.

I see. Thank you for the clarification. I did not realize a Supernova was that much more powerful than I originally thought.

Pendaran
04-28-2015, 02:50 PM
Well I may be remembering this wrong too but wasnt she the only one who actually hurt him ? ( she believed she had killed him, which is what allowed him the free killshot)

Anyway Novas other feats involve fighting off a spaceship powered by the surfers power and travelling through time. She isnt exactly the weakest of heralds .

It's not like any herald is weak per se, but eh, Morg showed pain from a punch from Air Walker really (who otherwise was the weakest there). Lower grade Terrax contested him in might until his axe broke, so forth. She hurt him and temp zapped him out, sure, but it looked like anyone could have at least hurt him there.

No one else really got in much zapping on him by comparison or had much of a chance to. Firelord got blocked by the axe for instance.

Anarchist
04-29-2015, 06:15 AM
While it doesn't have to do anything with the Surfer, is Thor flying through stars also considered legit?

Hazard
04-29-2015, 06:21 AM
While it doesn't have to do anything with the Surfer, is Thor flying through stars also considered legit?

I don't really have any problems with it. It's not like it has only happened once.

Cody
04-29-2015, 06:56 AM
I don't really have any problems with it. It's not like it has only happened once.

Thing is; wouldn't that mean he would utterly stomp post-crisis Superman? I don't see how a moon buster at best Superman could possibly harm someone that durable. I mean would that not mean Thor could take a planet-low end multi planet buster at the least? I ask because it has always been regarded that Post-Crisis Superman would take it to Thor via blitz.

Captain Morgan
04-29-2015, 07:36 AM
Thing is; wouldn't that mean he would utterly stomp post-crisis Superman? I don't see how a moon buster at best Superman could possibly harm someone that durable. I mean would that not mean Thor could take a planet-low end multi planet buster at the least? I ask because it has always been regarded that Post-Crisis Superman would take it to Thor via blitz.

I don't especially consider flying through stars as being beyond demolishing planetary bodies.

Cody, I think you have a problem with thinking of celestial bodies as being durable in the same sense a class 100 person is. Planets and moons aren't actually that durable at all. They are mostly just made up of rock. Planet busting is significant because there is just a lot of it.

Stats aren't even solid matter. They are giant balls of explosive gas. You could probably mulch a planet if you shoved it in a star, but that is because it's basically immersed in the stuff. The level of abuse a person sized object would get off being submerged in the sun isn't the same amount a planet sized object would be. It's a significant durability feat, but not something that blows past, say, being at the epicenter of a planet buster and emerging unscathed.

Hazard
04-29-2015, 08:09 AM
Thing is; wouldn't that mean he would utterly stomp post-crisis Superman? I don't see how a moon buster at best Superman could possibly harm someone that durable. I mean would that not mean Thor could take a planet-low end multi planet buster at the least? I ask because it has always been regarded that Post-Crisis Superman would take it to Thor via blitz.

Not really.

The sun has a lot of energy. True.

The sun's energy is spread over humongous volume.

Even the core of the sun is larger than Earth.

Thor is tiny.

It is literally impossible for him to take all the energy the sun puts out.

Also, the sun doesn't put out planet busting energy. Not in the way we think of it at least.

The Dork Knight has a point when he said the sun's gravity could cause the Earth to collapse, but that has to do with gravity being either the most underwhelming or overwhelming force ever depending on your size.

buutenks
04-29-2015, 08:55 AM
Well the pressure inside our sun is 250 billion bar,for comparison a 10 MegaTon bomb has inside the nuclear detonation 5.3 billion bar.

Still though,wouldnt tanking a sun explosion not be considered having star level durability,since the whole explosion isnt concentrated on your whole body.

Bluekey
04-29-2015, 10:51 AM
Well the pressure inside our sun is 250 billion bar,for comparison a 10 MegaTon bomb has inside the nuclear detonation 5.3 billion bar.

Still though,wouldnt tanking a sun explosion not be considered having star level durability,since the whole explosion isnt concentrated on your whole body.

I wouldn't say so. Being on a planet when it explodes isn't the same as taking a planet busting attack.

Anarchist
04-29-2015, 11:13 AM
It definitely isn't, because when a planet explodes the kinetic force isn't solely directed at a particular person on it.

Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh
04-29-2015, 11:14 AM
It definitely isn't, because when a planet explodes the kinetic force isn't solely directed at a particular person on it.

Yeah, when a planet explodes, it's usually because it's mad at the universe at large. Heavenly bodies are fickle creatures.

Cody
04-29-2015, 11:21 AM
Well the pressure inside our sun is 250 billion bar,for comparison a 10 MegaTon bomb has inside the nuclear detonation 5.3 billion bar.

That's it? Seriously? Shit...I didn't know that. You..don't even need to be capable of tanking a planet buster to survive through that...well..huh.

No idea why so many people are using that feat then to prove someone is capable of taking a star buster. Shit.

Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh
04-29-2015, 11:30 AM
That's it? Seriously? Shit...I didn't know that. You..don't even need to be capable of tanking a planet buster to survive through that...well..huh.

No idea why so many people are using that feat then to prove someone is capable of taking a star buster. Shit.

Who is doing that ?

I mean you keep referencing "so many other people" or individuals you're basing your notions on and ... they're like the Ones Who Sit Above in Shadow.

Cody
04-29-2015, 11:46 AM
Who is doing that ?

I mean you keep referencing "so many other people" or individuals you're basing your notions on and ... they're like the Ones Who Sit Above in Shadow.

Pen was using it as an example at first. Then there were the bunch here: http://community.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?10126-Superman-vs-Bills&p=427673&viewfull=1#post427673 (had to link directly to monikers post as to me, his post is on page 8, which would show different stuff entirely to those who don't have it set to show 40 posts per page)

Though after re-reading it I might have misinterpreted some of the posts.

The Dork Knight
04-29-2015, 11:52 AM
Er Pendaran explicitly says in that link that flying through one and surviving one busting is NOT the same thing...

Cody
04-29-2015, 11:57 AM
Er Pendaran explicitly says that flying through one and surviving one busting is NOT the same thing...

When I was asking for examples of Surfers claimed durability, he used him being in the center of the sun as proof, alongside the other listed feats.

Pendaran
04-29-2015, 12:06 PM
When I was asking for examples of Surfers claimed durability, he used him being in the center of the sun as proof, alongside the other listed feats.

You:


So he is just a little more durable than a star then?

My reply, to the question of the Surfer being more durable than a star. The question you asked.


He flies in and out of such things unscathed.

This then became "that doesn't show he can endure star busting and supernovas" in further replies which prompted me to ask what exactly it is you were trying to say here, like when I said..



When he otherwise gets into a fight inside a black hole and otherwise tears open singularities he emerges from the expanding energies of, having been the ground zero of the thing, I'm not really sure what it is you want here or what you're trying to say, we've had weird things in other threads with your "star durability" and this kind of shmear.

This then leads to an entire spiralling thing where I ask, repeatedly, this question


Why exactly does he need to survive a super nova to be more durable than the thing that moving all the way through, right through the heart of in some effort for self purification does nothing to him?

Leading to having to ultimately say this:


Let me phrase this another way. And a way that you yourself should be familiar with from the various things you've otherwise advanced as categories. Invoking something that could in fact waste a solar system when talking about being more durable than a star within said solar system is going wayyy to the end of things.

Now, setting all that aside, the problem with all of this and the things being discussed at the moment.. do people really think comic writers think of the sun as anything but "the really powerful thing"? Like the Flash evacuating a whole town under the speed of light they.. kinda don't think about these things. You can sort of apply science to comics, but really only to a point.

Pendaran
04-29-2015, 12:08 PM
But getting back to this, given the posts on the "durability of stars" and their force involved, and just running with every post to this point on the subject recently, why /wouldn't/ flying through one completely unharmed show more durability than a star? You seem to still be trying to have it both ways here with "star busting" is this nebulously awesome force you try to pin on or deny people, but you also want to go "well then I agree stars aren't a big deal then as far as their durability".

Cody
04-29-2015, 12:15 PM
But getting back to this, given the posts on the "durability of stars" and their force involved, and just running with every post to this point on the subject recently, why /wouldn't/ flying through one completely unharmed show more durability than a star? You seem to still be trying to have it both ways here with "star busting" is this nebulously awesome force you try to pin on or deny people, but you also want to go "well then I agree stars aren't a big deal then as far as their durability".

That is not what I said whatsoever. If you are going to reply to me you need to read my posts. The pressure inside the sun was what I was referring to. It was pathetic. And anyone chilling inside the sun with that type of pressure going on would not make them capable of taking a star buster. Which was the point.

Blowing up a star in one hit is vastly above planet busting. Surviving an attack that could take out a star in one hit is impressive. Surviving the pressure inside of the sun is not, and does not prove someone can take an attack that can take out a star.

I don't see how you are having a hard time understanding what I am saying. Either you are truly having a hard time understanding, or you are purposely misinterpreting what I say.

Pendaran
04-29-2015, 12:27 PM
By the standard of the posts you are agreeing with, that would include having to factor in what is noted about the composition of stars, or you are now going "science should always count except for these parts", and while certainly there's nothing wrong with saying something like that per se as regards comics, saying that when you dip into the harder end for "the mathematical force being put out at the center of the star", while saying you're not agreeing with the other posts on things like what a stars composition and thus related durability would be, doesn't especially sync up. At all.


Blowing up a star in one hit is vastly above planet busting.

Based on what while being consistent with the science being advanced here.

buutenks
04-29-2015, 12:27 PM
That's it? Seriously? Shit...I didn't know that. You..don't even need to be capable of tanking a planet buster to survive through that...well..huh.

No idea why so many people are using that feat then to prove someone is capable of taking a star buster. Shit.

Well ye,still you need to take in the account the heat and stuff,so i guess its more of a resistance feat,sure also durability,since youd need a shit ton of durability to survive inside the core of the sun.

Pendaran
04-29-2015, 12:32 PM
Or, more simply: So how durable is a star then?

Cody
04-29-2015, 12:33 PM
By the standard of the posts you are agreeing with, that would include having to factor in what is noted about the composition of stars, or you are now going "science should always count except for these parts", and while certainly there's nothing wrong with saying something like that per se as regards comics, saying that when you dip into the harder end for "the mathematical force being put out at the center of the star", while saying you're not agreeing with the other posts on things like what a stars composition and thus related durability would be, doesn't especially sync up. At all.

The pressure doesn't have anything to do with the amount of power you would need to destroy a star. You keep comparing the two when they are nowhere near the same.




Based on what while being consistent with the science being advanced here.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-11/1004909251.As.r.html

Pendaran
04-29-2015, 12:37 PM
The pressure doesn't have anything to do with the amount of power you would need to destroy a star. You keep comparing the two when they are nowhere near the same.





http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-11/1004909251.As.r.html

And now a related question. Do you seriously feel that when planets and the like are being depicted as being blown up and the like in comics that the people involved are remotely considering things like "having to overcome the gravity holding it together"?

Setting that aside, you've once again gone into how much force is needed to take out the entire solar system as having to do with the force needed to take out a star.

You know what, let's just keep it at that one for a minute.

Pendaran
04-29-2015, 12:46 PM
You know what, let's not just keep it at that one, you're invoking figures from a thing whose force calculations include "the necessary force to override the gravity keeping it together". When I ask you what a star's durability is, what does that have to do with it?

In fact, the calculations you're advancing as "proof", the guy admits to fudging things.


(I'm ignoring internal forces. In reality, rocky bodies like Earth would be somewhat more work to tear apart because rock doesn't like to come apart. The gas bodies like the Sun and the Jovian planets fit my model well, though.)

Hazard
04-29-2015, 12:51 PM
Okay, I am getting confused now.

Cody, what are you arguing for here?

Do you disagree with the notion that star busting>planet busting>being inside a star?

'cause if not, then let's just call it a day.

Pendaran
04-29-2015, 12:54 PM
He's arguing that because of science, flying through a star does not mean you are more durable than a star. He is also saying that despite said science, busting a star is still wayyy more impressive than busting a planet, and in response to being asked based on why is the durability of a star so impressive given what has been noted about the composition of a star, he posts calculations that have as much to do with overcoming the star's gravity holding it together as anything, calculations the guy who made them admits he is fudging anyway.

Now, the simple acknowledgement that science, she no work well like this with comics would make this all go away, but it is what it is.

Myself I'd have to ask..



Do you disagree with the notion that star busting>planet busting>being inside a star?


Why though, would that be the case? To be consistent with everything otherwise noted.

Hazard
04-29-2015, 12:58 PM
Ah, okay.

Well, for starters the phrase 'as durable as a star' is kind of misleading; so is as 'durable as a planet' for starters.


They aren't tough. They are big.

Like a skyscraper made out of sponges.


Why though, would that be the case? To be consistent with everything otherwise noted.

Because it's impossible for a human shaped body to take all the power of a star at once given how energy is spread out, thus it is not really impressive compared to actually taking all the energy focused.

As for the other two, stars are way bigger than planets so destroying one should be harder than another.

Pendaran
04-29-2015, 01:00 PM
Ah, okay.

Well, for starters the phrase 'as durable as a star' is kind of misleading; so is as 'durable as a planet' for starters.


They aren't tough. They are big.

Like a skyscraper made out of sponges.

That's exactly the point, yes. If you're dipping into "hard science proves my points", this is something you have to acknowledge. In which case, exactly, why would flying through a star not mean that one is more durable than a star? They're, exactly, not tough. And handling even the force and heat one encounters within it, to the point that they exist, would make one more durable than it, indeed well more durable, just in the name of basic consistency.

Cody starting this whole thing with his whole "more durable than a star" "star busting" stuff. "More durable than a star" being his words and terms. By this whole trip into astronomy, flying through a star makes you well more durable than one, and blowing one up is really only impressive for how much mass you are wasting in one go, and gravity you are overcoming, it has jack to do with durability. In terms of durability, these things aren't tough at all, by the standards being invoked. In fact, the guy making the calculations he's citing says he is specifically ignoring things like internal forces and material composition.

edit: though for the record I maintain this is analyzing comics by standards that do not remotely work to analyze them by, I'm perfectly happy to ask people to at least be consistent with themselves if they're going to do that.

Estrecca
04-29-2015, 01:03 PM
He's arguing that because of science, flying through a star does not mean you are more durable than a star. He is also saying that despite said science, busting a star is still wayyy more impressive than busting a planet, and in response to being asked based on why is the durability of a star so impressive given what has been noted about the composition of a star, he posts calculations that have as much to do with overcoming the star's gravity holding it together as anything, calculations the guy who made them admits he is fudging anyway.

Now, the simple acknowledgement that science, she no work well like this with comics would make this all go away, but it is what it is.

Well, the thing is that he is completely right in both points.

Comic books might not play nice with real life science, but for comparison purposes we have to assume that a modicum of real life rules apply to fictional universes. Otherwise, we have no framework for comparison between different settings and versus debates become utterly subjective and pointless.

EDIT: Though it seems to me that there are two different definitions of "more durable than a star" being used here.

Pendaran
04-29-2015, 01:08 PM
Well, the thing is that he is completely right in both points.

Comic books might not play nice with real life science, but for comparison purposes we have to assume that a modicum of real life rules apply to fictional universes. Otherwise, we have no framework for comparison between different settings and versus debates become utterly subjective and pointless.

There's a difference between a modicum of real life and "I'm using calculations that the guy making them admits he is ignoring things to make." There's also a difference between "a modicum of real life" and "The force calcs for the center of a star".

There's also then, okay, for you, why is the durability of a star impressive? Why, if not taking gravity and mass into account, is busting a star more impressive than busting a planet? The term here is durability. This entire thing started with "more durable than" as the question.

Pendaran
04-29-2015, 01:11 PM
EDIT: Though it seems to me that there are two different definitions of "more durable than a star" being used here.

What do you feel durability means other than durability? It's.. how tough something is. That's.. durability. If Cody would like to say "by durability I meant the whole time just mostly mass and the gravity holding it together", well, that would certainly be interesting.

Cody
04-29-2015, 01:11 PM
And now a related question. Do you seriously feel that when planets and the like are being depicted as being blown up and the like in comics that the people involved are remotely considering things like "having to overcome the gravity holding it together"?


Setting that aside, you've once again gone into how much force is needed to take out the entire solar system as having to do with the force needed to take out a star.

The page describes the power needed to destroy each planet, and the sun, while figuring out the total power needed to destroy a SS. The calcs that listed the power to destroy the earth and the calcs listed for the power needed to destroy the sun, are the point. You are purposely trying to twist what is said and turn it into something else or find simple statements incredibly hard to understand.


Also, from your own page:


So, how does that reconcile?

And again you are outright ignoring all of what is said and focusing on the points you think help your argument. That was being compared to the total amount of power needed to cover and destroy each planet in the SS. As further described here:


As I alluded to above, this isn't the whole picture. Most bombs go off and spread their energy out in all directions equally. This means that most of the blast energy will miss the planets. Each planet has to intercept the required amount of energy from the blast over its cross-sectional area (pi R2) when the initial energy has been spread out of 4 pi a2 surface area (where a is the distance to the Sun). Working this out, you need 4(a/R)2 times more energy to blow up each planet to account for the wasted energy. This energy is computed in the right column of the table.

It is also why the listed energy required in the table is far higher for the sun when compared to the others.

Are you honestly saying that a star buster would be less impressive than a planet buster? For you asking how I figure a star buster has more power than a planet buster makes it seem that way.

Then there is what is described here: http://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/5978/

When I say that one is tougher than a planet, or a sun, it means they can take more damage than said things. You need, say, an energy output of about 53 quadrillion megatons to destroy Earth. When I say someone is tougher than the Earth, that means they can take more than 53 quadrillion megatons of energy being sent right at them.

The amount needed to destroy the sun is vastly higher. Thus when I say someone is more durable than a star, that would mean they can take more than the amount of megatons of power needed to destroy the sun.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand. It is to purposefully simplify matters.

Estrecca
04-29-2015, 01:13 PM
There's also then, okay, for you, why is the durability of a star impressive? Why, if not taking gravity and mass into account, is busting a star more impressive than busting a planet? The term here is durability.

As I edited into my previous post, it is obvious that there are two definitions of "more durable" at work here.

A bullet is generally more durable than human bodies (pound per pound basis), but size difference means that it takes a greater amount of energy to vaporize a human body than it does a bullet.

So the more durable label could be applied to either, depending on what one is trying to say. Some confusion in this thread seems to arise from that fact.

Pendaran
04-29-2015, 01:14 PM
You're citing a page that says it is intentionally ignoring things about the things it is making calculations about, to come up with its calculations. You're citing a page factoring in mass and gravity to make claims about how much force is needed to explode something. Can you explain how that works? When part of the force is "how much is needed to overcome the gravity holding it together".

It should be a simple question. How durable is a star with regards its composition? The one direct answer to this question in this thread has so far been "not very".

Hazard
04-29-2015, 01:15 PM
As I edited into my previous post, it is obvious that there are two definitions of "more durable" at work here.

A bullet is generally more durable than human bodies (pound per pound basis), but size difference means that it takes a greater amount of energy to vaporize a human body than it does a bullet.

So the more durable label could be applied to either, depending on what one is trying to say. Some confusion in this thread seems to arise from that fact.

Yeah, that seems to be the case.

Pendaran
04-29-2015, 01:15 PM
As I edited into my previous post, it is obvious that there are two definitions of "more durable" at work here.

A bullet is generally more durable than human bodies (pound per pound basis), but size difference means that it takes a greater amount of energy to vaporize a human body than it does a bullet.

So the more durable label could be applied to either, depending on what one is trying to say. Some confusion in this thread seems to arise from that fact.

The problem of that is that you can't really use science to.. handwave word meanings. Durability. It's how tough/enduring something is. Not its gravity and the force needed to overcome said gravity. Not its mass.

Pendaran
04-29-2015, 01:19 PM
When I say that one is tougher than a planet, or a sun, it means they can take more damage than said things. You need, say, an energy output of about 53 quadrillion megatons to destroy Earth. When I say someone is tougher than the Earth, that means they can take more than 53 quadrillion megatons of energy being sent right at them.

So, what would the exact figure be with the various internal forces factored in?



When I say that one is tougher than a planet, or a sun, it means they can take more damage than said things.

Then a ridiculous ton of things are tougher than a planet or a sun. Saying what you meant this whole time is "what I meant is they are tougher than the force needed to overwhelm their gravity and mass" is.. definitely interesting for comic books.

Cody
04-29-2015, 01:20 PM
The problem of that is that you can't really use science to.. handwave word meanings. Durability. It's how tough/enduring something is. Not its gravity and the force needed to overcome said gravity. Not its mass.

Then you are just being hung up on a misuse of a word. If you said that and offered a different way of saying it that would have been it.

You basically just figured out that I meant something else entirely, and instead of admitting it you are getting hung of over the use of the word.

buutenks
04-29-2015, 01:21 PM
Ok,so who wins dbz or the other team?

Also how does SS fare vs being turned to candy?

Also could the dbz team take out SS if the rest get turned to candy?

Estrecca
04-29-2015, 01:21 PM
The problem of that is that you can't really use science to.. handwave word meanings. Durability. It's how tough/enduring something is. Not its gravity and the force needed to overcome said gravity. Not its mass.

The meaning of durability is sufficiently broad to extend to both meanings, seeing that the amount of energy that a celestial body can withstand before its mass is scattered is a measure of how enduring it is. The definition you are working with here is closer to hardness, which is somewhat more strictly outlined.

Hazard
04-29-2015, 01:24 PM
Ok,so who wins dbz or the other team?

Also how does SS fare vs being turned to candy?

Also could the dbz team take out SS if the rest get turned to candy?

The other team.

He has turned himself into snowstorm and come back so he should be fine.

Not really.

Pendaran
04-29-2015, 01:24 PM
Then you are just being hung up on a misuse of a word. If you said that and offered a different way of saying it that would have been it.

You basically just figured out that I meant something else entirely, and instead of admitting it you are getting hung of over the use of the word.

You're certainly cleaving to something else entirely after several pages of nothing of the sort, sure.

But since we're now on this standard instead, why is it we can analyze to the point of (intentionally fudged by the author's own admission) calculations that have nothing in any way to do with the comics themselves, but we don't take that as far as things like the destructive effects various high end superpowers would have on the environment around them? We're using hard science here, but not there.

edit: Presumably the aforementioned Flash thing, we should ignore how fast he's being noted as going, since the math shows he would have to be going so much faster.

Estrecca
04-29-2015, 01:25 PM
Ok,so who wins dbz or the other team?

The other team.


Also how does SS fare vs being turned to candy?

Assuming that he doesn't defend himself in one of the various ways in which he could do so, I'd assume that not too well.


Also could the dbz team take out SS if the rest get turned to candy?

Well, it would be something of a crapshot, but if Buu gets to eat the other Annihilators in candy form he might power up sufficiently to do the thing.

Anarchist
04-29-2015, 01:26 PM
Here is the snow feat, for those who are interested
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/9/91339/2354583-the_defenders_01_009.jpg

buutenks
04-29-2015, 01:28 PM
I see,so other team wins.

Pendaran
04-29-2015, 01:50 PM
So, just as a general post on where this went for "here's why this isn't impressive". Said another way on where this thread went and the things that got subbed in for performances, it barely works as is to talk about comics and serialized fiction (outside of hard sci fi certainly) generally in a way that trucks in terms like characters having a set of powers, remembering what those powers are, and how powerful those powers are. That /sort of/ works.

The harder into science you go with comics, the more there is no particular reason whatsoever for not saying something like "clearly that planet busting explosion wasn't as impressive as this one, the gravity is going to pull all that back together based on how it exploded". It's at least theoretical that a writer remembers what someone's powers are when writing characters and what they can do. The idea that they know any of these things (the science being thrown about here) strains credulity past a breaking point. Comics truck in various things that only have theoretical understandings at best, they ignore things like the application of physics.

The problem of "a modicum of comparison to real life" is that, aside from things like using a page where a guy is fudging his own calculations and shrugging that off, a modicum is actually pretty small. "This thing is bigger and more powerful than this thing" "This thing is generally portrayed as this all destroying super force thing" are as valid as anything, or you get... so why /aren't/ we arguing that everyone who can bullet time is speed of sound to, more likely, supersonic. If they're not, shouldn't we just ignore all that sort of thing instead of the constant noting of "there's only a certain point of how hard you can think about it". We're using physics calcs to analyze Surfer feats after all. Why /don't/ we ignore when something in a comic is described as being a particular thing, even though scientifically that can't remotely be possible. Why /don't/ we start specifically analyzing every planet busting thing by the minutae of how it is depicted against relevant calcs. Why wouldn't we discount powers that clearly don't have the effect on the surrounding environment that they should. Why do people at all say "well, lightning in comic books", when noting about people dodging Electro's lightning or the like not making them something into ftl or lightspeed. We shouldn't be able to do that either.

Saying in the face of that "well, there's a modicum." Yeah, there is, and it's a really slight one, it's one just enough to go "Fast" "powerful" "tough" to various, frankly broad lengths of how fast, how powerful, how tough. Otherwise, while you can do things like, say, for example, weigh a character's performance against other performances, their career, attributes of others, the powers they have, past a certain point of scientific commitment, you can't really weigh science for what science you like and what you don't.

Short version, this thread involved talking about the old board? There's a reason there were any number of posts on it that would go "but I'm not using calcs like these for feats" or something to that effect.

The Drunkard Kid
04-29-2015, 03:41 PM
Namor will lick you on his own terms, Surfer, or not at all!

Not as much, anyway!

Less than you'd think, at least!

Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh
04-29-2015, 04:06 PM
Namor will lick you on his own terms, Surfer, or not at all!

Not as much, anyway!

Less than you'd think, at least!

Surfer isn't blonde. That's the only real issue here.

Cody
04-30-2015, 08:15 AM
So, just as a general post on where this went for "here's why this isn't impressive". Said another way on where this thread went and the things that got subbed in for performances, it barely works as is to talk about comics and serialized fiction (outside of hard sci fi certainly) generally in a way that trucks in terms like characters having a set of powers, remembering what those powers are, and how powerful those powers are. That /sort of/ works.

The harder into science you go with comics, the more there is no particular reason whatsoever for not saying something like "clearly that planet busting explosion wasn't as impressive as this one, the gravity is going to pull all that back together based on how it exploded". It's at least theoretical that a writer remembers what someone's powers are when writing characters and what they can do. The idea that they know any of these things (the science being thrown about here) strains credulity past a breaking point. Comics truck in various things that only have theoretical understandings at best, they ignore things like the application of physics.

The problem of "a modicum of comparison to real life" is that, aside from things like using a page where a guy is fudging his own calculations and shrugging that off, a modicum is actually pretty small. "This thing is bigger and more powerful than this thing" "This thing is generally portrayed as this all destroying super force thing" are as valid as anything, or you get... so why /aren't/ we arguing that everyone who can bullet time is speed of sound to, more likely, supersonic. If they're not, shouldn't we just ignore all that sort of thing instead of the constant noting of "there's only a certain point of how hard you can think about it". We're using physics calcs to analyze Surfer feats after all. Why /don't/ we ignore when something in a comic is described as being a particular thing, even though scientifically that can't remotely be possible. Why /don't/ we start specifically analyzing every planet busting thing by the minutae of how it is depicted against relevant calcs. Why wouldn't we discount powers that clearly don't have the effect on the surrounding environment that they should. Why do people at all say "well, lightning in comic books", when noting about people dodging Electro's lightning or the like not making them something into ftl or lightspeed. We shouldn't be able to do that either.

Saying in the face of that "well, there's a modicum." Yeah, there is, and it's a really slight one, it's one just enough to go "Fast" "powerful" "tough" to various, frankly broad lengths of how fast, how powerful, how tough. Otherwise, while you can do things like, say, for example, weigh a character's performance against other performances, their career, attributes of others, the powers they have, past a certain point of scientific commitment, you can't really weigh science for what science you like and what you don't.

Short version, this thread involved talking about the old board? There's a reason there were any number of posts on it that would go "but I'm not using calcs like these for feats" or something to that effect.

The problem is that many pieces of fiction also selectively uses science to factor in certain showings. The lightning you brought up being an example of this.

It isn't "using science you like and what you don't" it's using it when it can actually be used or actually needs to be used in order to figure out just how impressive a feat is or isn't.

No actual science was really needed here as you did not understand what I meant when I was talking about durability. You constantly clinging on to the one link I mentioned, while ignoring the other, all the while ignoring the main point of the first link that I used(it lists the needed power to destroy the sun, then adds all of the numbers combined to figure out the total amount needed to take out the Solar System, all of which were irrelevant to what I was arguing for as I was strictly speaking about their calcs for the Sun, nothing else)all so you could try and make some sort of point when all you end up doing is further miss the point.

Sometimes calcs are needed in order to figure out a characters presented feat and how impressive it is. Sometimes. Consistent feats should always take priority over everything else. But if calcs can make things simpler to understand on certain feats, then great. As long as they are done properly and nothing contradicts it.

In this case your argument doesn't really have any merit to it as the total calcs you are referring to had nothing to do with this thread. I was referring to the one about the sun. But you promptly ignored that in order to try and make a "point". Missing the actual point in the process. The actual point? I brought that link up due to it's one calc about the power needed to take out the sun compared to the power needed to take out all the other planets. Nothing more. I used a second link to further simplify it but you ignored it.

Pendaran
04-30-2015, 10:01 AM
The problem is that many pieces of fiction also selectively uses science to factor in certain showings. The lightning you brought up being an example of this.

It isn't "using science you like and what you don't" it's using it when it can actually be used or actually needs to be used in order to figure out just how impressive a feat is or isn't.

It can be used every single time and with every single thing I mentioned, and in the past people have indeed attempted to use them in exactly those ways. Those were in fact just a small sample platter of such things. The planet busting thing and gravity? For which some years back alone there would be 20+ pages involving arguments like that? Especially a thing (involving really godawful Star Wars debates). Especially when you start talking about that the impressiveness of kersploding celestial bodies is because you are overcoming the gravity to the point of involved math? To not then factor that with the portrayal of every single explosion so mentioned is just selectively applying your own reasoning. If you make gravity a thing, then gravity is a thing.



It isn't "using science you like and what you don't" it's using it when it can actually be used or actually needs to be used in order to figure out just how impressive a feat is or isn't.

Rarely does it need to be beyond something like "is that thing noted as being in nanoseconds? well nanoseconds are this tiny fraction of seconds". Talking about planetary destruction in terms of the gravity holding celestial bodies together, talking about things like the forces at the center of the sun compared to that of nukes, a comic book writer may remember at some point "the Flash is really fast" and so we can at least go "they should have remembered the Flash is really fast, who doesn't know that", but the odds of any of them devoting thought one to anything more complicated than, for example, "the sun! reaaallly powerful!" is taking a fictional medium we're already handwaving to go "these powers exist" and handwaving it past that to go "comic book writers understand physics" is taking the thin layer of logic we pretend exists and stretch over everything to say "no, you can take powers into account" and then stretching it so far it snaps.



No actual science was really needed here as you did not understand what I meant when I was talking about durability.

A few pages of posts there before durability turned into "I was talking about the combination of mass and gravity".


You constantly clinging on to the one link I mentioned

When you post a link of calcs where the person making those calcs admits they are using a fudged, inaccurate model to make those calcs, it is what it is. It also is exactly going "I'm saying we need to use science, but just when it agrees with me".

Your second link does not actually give the force needed to blow up the earth, nor take into account the problem the other guy mentioned of "adjusting for internal forces". It just talks about blowing up the sun, and what coronal mass ejections from a distance from the sun would mess with satelites and power grids. And setting all that aside? It also again is talking about overcoming gravity, and frankly I continue to find it thin to say "by durability I meant the force of gravity holding the thing together". If that's what you want to say this should be defined as now, hey, sure, but then at least own the definition.

You know what, I'm sure all the same somewhere out there someone has done the calcs for how much energy you would need to blow up the Earth such that it blows it up, overcomes its gravity and prevents it from coming back together, while taking into account the comparatively different internal forces/composition of the Earth, because I'm sure they were at least posted the once on some incarnation of the board or another, you can probably find them (granted the only ones I can remember didn't take that into account). But at the end of the day, it wouldn't really matter compared to the overall standard this entire argument creates, but is then denied that it creates on.. no real or logical basis.

You're talking about and have been talking about gravitational force calcs this whole time, but also saying there's nothing inconsistent about using hard science that has nothing to do with comics here, and not even in any other way that would involve.. having to acknowledge gravitational effects.


You constantly clinging on to the one link I mentioned, while ignoring the other, all the while ignoring the main point of the first link that I used(it lists the needed power to destroy the sun, then adds all of the numbers combined to figure out the total amount needed to take out the Solar System, all of which were irrelevant to what I was arguing for as I was strictly speaking about their calcs for the Sun, nothing else)all so you could try and make some sort of point when all you end up doing is further miss the point.

You brought up the link for why a star's durability is so impressive that wasting it is vastly more impressive than wasting the earth, despite neither of these things, by the terms of the science being used, being particularly tough at all. The link acknowledged "I am fudging my model".

The only thing you are now doing is arguing for the right to be inconsistent with the hard scientific principles you want to weigh a feat by.



Sometimes calcs are needed in order to figure out a characters presented feat and how impressive it is.

Rarely, and to a generally shallow depth. Certainly more shallow than the one you're using.

Or, you know what, damn man, even with Green Lantern and otherwise that shield helping him, Superman containing that black hole in his hand is /crazy/ impressive after all. Yeah yeah size and that a distortion effect from it couldn't even kill Batman. It's a black hole. What does science say about those there? You have a quote from Drunkard Kid in your sig about that you can ignore it because it makes no sense with physics, so I imagine you could say that in response, but again, if you're ignoring a feat not based on how the feat was depicted being, just, not really that impressive and having asterisks and instead, on the basis of physics, then at what point isn't this "hard science should be used to analyze feats despite having crap to do with comics, but also only where I want it to."


Consistent feats should always take priority over everything else. But if calcs can make things simpler to understand on certain feats, then great.

But here's what it is. They don't. They're advanced physics calcs that mostly expose how they have... nothing to do with the material they are being applied to, which on a near uniform basis almost completely ignores such things, and further exposes "why are we only applying it to this?" The speed of lightning? Incredibly simple. Speed of bullets? Super simple. Lasers, the like. It's not even that much more complicated for something like "what would happen on Earth if someone moved this fast or threw a punch this hard". If the entire term for why something is impressive, and let's go by your second link then, which makes even more of a point of having to overcome something's gravity, then why exactly are we not going "did the way that thing exploded overcome its gravity?" Because if that's your defining characteristic for impressiveness, then that is how you now define things. You want to use gravity? Then use gravity. You want to use hard science physics calcs? Then use hard science physics calcs. But physics? It's not fiction, and I hope it's not something where people are making up the rules for it out of nothingness as it suits them to for reasons of narrative. "This science counts but this doesn't" isn't.. a thing that goes with that.



In this case your argument doesn't really have any merit to it as the total calcs you are referring to had nothing to do with this thread. I was referring to the one about the sun. But you promptly ignored that in order to try and make a "point". Missing the actual point in the process. The actual point? I brought that link up due to it's one calc about the power needed to take out the sun compared to the power needed to take out all the other planets. Nothing more. I used a second link to further simplify it but you ignored it.

No, the argument has to do with the thread just fine the moment the calcs for nukes and the center of the sun started up and I commented on those posts shortly after them "do people really think comic writers think of the sun as anything but 'this really powerful thing'". There are maybe a tiny fractional barely there amount of times in comics where anything even half assedly close to that level of forethought exists.

It's a point I've brought up before, and something that, when stuff like this happens, I will certainly bring up again.

Aside from that? The calculations you are bringing up and saying what you totally actually meant the whole time for durability bring this problem up just fine. The "one" about the sun, I'm entirely referring to that too.


The actual point? I brought that link up due to it's one calc about the power needed to take out the sun compared to the power needed to take out all the other planets. Nothing more. I used a second link to further simplify it but you ignored it.

The actual point, as far as what you're arguing now, is that you invoked hard physical science to analyze feats and make comparisons, but feel somehow, even just by the terms through which you do that analysis, it in no way has to be further applied, nor does it need to be addressed that it goes well beyond something like "well, we can say that someone's powers should have still existed, those powers are at least a big part of comics", to things that have just nothing to do with comics.

Hazard
04-30-2015, 10:53 AM
Well, if we're getting into GBE a few things should be noted.

Imagine cutting a planet in half. If such a feat were preformed in real life the planet would just put itself back together. Gravity. It's a thing. In fiction, you have two options, either the first one happens (The Last comes to mind) or the celestial body explodes.

Like a gigantic explosion. Because it's not enough to cut things in half, you need to cut it in half so hard it explodes.



What you're calculating using GBE is what would it take to mass scatter the planet. Literally fling every piece of it and send it hurling at escape velocity. It's probably the closest approximate to what we call 'planet busting'.

Thing is, it's not that close at all. Planet busting doesn't happen at escape velocity.


I mean, think of every time a planet blows up in fiction. Does it look like the explosion is travelling at remotely those speeds? No. We're talking about matter being flung at speeds approaching a noticeable percentage of light when they aren't going faster than that. And that's when there is any matter left at all. Planet busting is violent. Explosive. Fast.

GBE can be used, I guess, to compare difference in magnitudes when it is not immediately obvious, but most of the time they are really low end estimates of what we see in fiction.

Writers really have no sense of scale.

Pendaran
04-30-2015, 11:15 AM
Which is part of my point. To say "these advanced physics calcs are fine to use for figuring out these things in a medium that has nothing to do with them" is just off. Beyond that it creates a standard where there is no consistent or logical reason to not start applying that sort of thing, to all kinds of things, right down to "bullet timing shouldn't even be a thing unless we're going to say all these people are varying degrees of speed of sound to supersonic". Which y'know, they in no other way are.

Cody
04-30-2015, 01:22 PM
It can be used every single time and with every single thing I mentioned, and in the past people have indeed attempted to use them in exactly those ways. Those were in fact just a small sample platter of such things.


Rarely does it need to be beyond something like "is that thing noted as being in nanoseconds? well nanoseconds are this tiny fraction of seconds". Talking about planetary destruction in terms of the gravity holding celestial bodies together, talking about things like the forces at the center of the sun compared to that of nukes, a comic book writer may remember at some point "the Flash is really fast" and so we can at least go "they should have remembered the Flash is really fast, who doesn't know that", but the odds of any of them devoting thought one to anything more complicated than, for example, "the sun! reaaallly powerful!" is taking a fictional medium we're already handwaving to go "these powers exist" and handwaving it past that to go "comic book writers understand physics" is taking the thin layer of logic we pretend exists and stretch over everything to say "no, you can take powers into account" and then stretching it so far it snaps.

Then we can agree. It can be used. Just only in those very rare times, when it can actually work and/or does not contradict anything.


A few pages of posts there before durability turned into "I was talking about the combination of mass and gravity".

As the others pointed out: we were talking about two different things. Which brought up confusion.


Your second link does not actually give the force needed to blow up the earth, nor take into account the problem the other guy mentioned of "adjusting for internal forces". It just talks about blowing up the sun, and what coronal mass ejections from a distance from the sun would mess with satelites and power grids. And setting all that aside? It also again is talking about overcoming gravity, and frankly I continue to find it thin to say "by durability I meant the force of gravity holding the thing together". If that's what you want to say this should be defined as now, hey, sure, but then at least own the definition.

I was strictly speaking about someone being able to take an attack that would bust a star, to have star durability. I explained this. Many times. You went on a tangent on something else, thinking I somehow meant something other than what I explained.


You know what, I'm sure all the same somewhere out there someone has done the calcs for how much energy you would need to blow up the Earth such that it blows it up, overcomes its gravity and prevents it from coming back together, while taking into account the comparatively different internal forces/composition of the Earth, because I'm sure they were at least posted the once on some incarnation of the board or another, you can probably find them (granted the only ones I can remember didn't take that into account). But at the end of the day, it wouldn't really matter compared to the overall standard this entire argument creates, but is then denied that it creates on.. no real or logical basis.

You're talking about and have been talking about gravitational force calcs this whole time, but also saying there's nothing inconsistent about using hard science that has nothing to do with comics here, and not even in any other way that would involve.. having to acknowledge gravitational effects.

The gravitational force discussion was illustrating that the Surfer taking on the gravitational forces in a star, isn't the same as him taking an attack that could bust a star.


You brought up the link for why a star's durability is so impressive that wasting it is vastly more impressive than wasting the earth, despite neither of these things, by the terms of the science being used, being particularly tough at all. The link acknowledged "I am fudging my model".

When taking all those other things into account, would it really make a difference? Would the Earth somehow be "harder to destroy" than the Sun?


The only thing you are now doing is arguing for the right to be inconsistent with the hard scientific principles you want to weigh a feat by.

I was presenting sources that explain, and show, how the sun was harder to destroy than the earth because somehow, it sounded like you were arguing that was not the case. If I had access to every single piece of explanation, taking everything into account, I would have provided it. Sadly those are harder to find than I thought.


Rarely, and to a generally shallow depth.

I agree.


Certainly more shallow than the one you're using.

You mean sources that explain how the Sun is harder to destroy than Earth while you are getting a fit over them not explaining the obvious details even though it should be obvious that it is harder to bust a star than it is a planet? I shouldn't have even had to post anything. You were getting hung up on something else entirely when all this time, all I meant by "star durability", was that a person was capable of taking an attack that could utterly obliterate a star. Again, taking into account everything when destroying a planet and a star, do you think the gap would between them would be that much larger? Would a planet suddenly be significantly tough enough to be capable of taking an attack that would destroy a star? There is a reason why a "star buster" is more impressive on here than a "planet buster" in terms of damage output.


Or, you know what, damn man, even with Green Lantern and otherwise that shield helping him, Superman containing that black hole in his hand is /crazy/ impressive after all. Yeah yeah size and that a distortion effect from it couldn't even kill Batman. It's a black hole. What does science say about those there? You have a quote from Drunkard Kid in your sig about that you can ignore it because it makes no sense with physics, so I imagine you could say that in response, but again, if you're ignoring a feat not based on how the feat was depicted being, just, not really that impressive and having asterisks and instead, on the basis of physics, then at what point isn't this "hard science should be used to analyze feats despite having crap to do with comics, but also only where I want it to."

When the scenario actually makes sense with it. It wouldn't work there because the whole event was just off in every way possible. Containing a black hole? Really? With no one effected despite the fact that they should? That, and stuff like a person dodging Electro's electricity or Jedi blocking force lightning yet having consistently showing that they are not capable of reacting to light at all. It's those times like that where using science and/or any type of calculation properly would be almost impossible and just nonsensical, because that moment, that event, outright ignores any type of "science". It throws every sort of logic out the window.

I am not saying we should use "hard physics". I am speaking on typical mathematic calculations. Where hard science wouldn't be needed. While other events like, say, someone being capable of covering an entire city in a certain time limit, or calculating a persons attack on how much damage and/or area it covered, etc. It can work. Just only in a very rare instance as we usually don't need to use any at all on here.


But here's what it is. They don't. They're advanced physics calcs that mostly expose how they have... nothing to do with the material they are being applied to,

Which were even presented in the first place due to confusion of what is actually being meant while being asked to provide evidence on how a star is harder to bust than a planet.


which on a near uniform basis almost completely ignores such things, and further exposes "why are we only applying it to this?" The speed of lightning? Incredibly simple. Speed of bullets? Super simple. Lasers, the like. It's not even that much more complicated for something like "what would happen on Earth if someone moved this fast or threw a punch this hard".

That is exactly what I meant. When they can actually work, great. Otherwise? No. The calcs I presented here obviously don't work or belong in this debate, but I was confused at what exactly you were getting at, what you were on about, or what you were even trying to argue for. All the while you thought I meant something else entirely when I said "star durability".


The actual point, as far as what you're arguing now, is that you invoked hard physical science to analyze feats and make comparisons, but feel somehow, even just by the terms through which you do that analysis, it in no way has to be further applied, nor does it need to be addressed that it goes well beyond something like "well, we can say that someone's powers should have still existed, those powers are at least a big part of comics", to things that have just nothing to do with comics.

Then don't ask for sources, or proof, that explain how a Star is harder to bust than a Planet. I explained what I meant when I said someone had "star durability" or was "as durable as a star" both early in this conversation and in the last few posts. You still managed to get confused over it and go on to a whole other thing entirely. I should have asked right from the beginning what you were trying to get at. Whether or no you were actually trying to say that a planet would be harder to bust than a star. It would have ended things a lot sooner.

Anyway, as far as I am concerned; this conversation is done. You can reply if you want Pen but there is no point in continuing this really. This all started with confusion on what is being meant here. So let's just drop it.

Pendaran
04-30-2015, 02:18 PM
Then we can agree. It can be used. Just only in those very rare times, when it can actually work and/or does not contradict anything.

We don't particularly agree about anything when I'm noting we can use something as shallow as nano is word that means a fraction of something and you're using advanced physics calcs for gravity and laws of physics that have not the slightest thing to do with how things are depicted in comics.


I was strictly speaking about someone being able to take an attack that would bust a star, to have star durability. I explained this. Many times. You went on a tangent on something else, thinking I somehow meant something other than what I explained.

You have certainly explained that what you mean is the force necessary to overcome the gravity holding the star together, you bet. You then selectively apply the consequence of deciding that is what durability now means pretty thoroughly.


The gravitational force discussion was illustrating that the Surfer taking on the gravitational forces in a star, isn't the same as him taking an attack that could bust a star.

Which we are only applying the calculations of to this very single thing, exactly why?


I was presenting sources that explain, and show, how the sun was harder to destroy than the earth because somehow, it sounded like you were arguing that was not the case. If I had access to every single piece of explanation, taking everything into account, I would have provided it. Sadly those are harder to find than I thought.

The sources and reasoning you use establish a standard that both is not used in comics, and has no reason by the standards of your logic not to be further applied.


Containing a black hole? Really? With no one effected despite the fact that they should?

How many times in comics does someone use their superpowers and said powers do not have the effect that they should? How many times does a planet blow up in a way that it shouldn't to depict what should be depicted as far as when said planets explode? How many times do we call bullet time feats bullet time feats but say that doesn't make the person speed of sound to supersonic?


That, and stuff like a person dodging Electro's electricity or Jedi blocking force lightning yet having consistently showing that they are not capable of reacting to light at all.

If a star is a star and a planet is a planet such that both can be analyzed for the force involved by physics based analysis of their gravity holding them together, why exactly isn't Electro's lightning, lightning? Why should we not at this point say "Everyone below classic Quicksilver dodging bullets after they have left the gun is no longer valid, these people are not sonic/supersonic speedsters, and that is the speed involved". We go instead "that is analyzing it too far", but why exactly by these standards? That's such a simple analysis compared to "here are the force calculations for destroying celestials bodies in order to overcome the gravity holding them together." Which itself has to ignore "also in comics their explosions are depicted in no way accurate to the science involved in those calculations, but we're using them anyway". Bullet timing? That's just "here's a range of how fast bullets are. Do these people do anything else that fast? No? Not a single one of them? Well, there goes all that crap."


It's those times like that where using science and/or any type of calculation properly would be almost impossible and just nonsensical, because that moment, that event, outright ignores any type of "science". It throws every sort of logic out the window.

All the things we are talking about with regards comics to some degree or another ignore science.



I am not saying we should use "hard physics". I am speaking on typical mathematic calculations. Where hard science wouldn't be needed.

Dude, things like having to figure out the relative gravitic forces and the force needing to overcome them, because otherwise a celestial body in question wouldn't be destroyed, is not typical mathematic calculations. Comparing the force of the center of the sun and nukes? A level of science comics has nothing to do with.

One of the other times I've had this conversation involved something to the tune of "the Hulk getting nuked by this means he could handle X of being tossed into the sun due to the following measurements" to which I had to ask "do you really think comics views the sun that way remotely". Which? It does not.

The central premise of this board is make believe there is logic, in order to have nerd debate. We make believe that people's superpowers actually exist and can be talked about. This barely, barely has anything to do with a medium where Captain America can KTFO the Hulk with a bit of help from Spiderman in a comic that sells gangbusters. It has just a tiny bit to do with it, being generous, and we basically take that tiny bit and build an entire thing out of it. There's, or man, I hope there is, that Superman related thread is reminding me there isn't sometimes with that one dude, an implicit or at least unconscious acknowledgement that we're already going well off the reservation from the source material we're talking about to do these things that we do and say these things that we say. Going to the point of this level of analysis being put forward? We are leaving that source material so far behind you cannot even see it anymore with the Hubble Space Telescope (see what I did there?).


Which were even presented in the first place due to confusion of what is actually being meant while being asked to provide evidence on how a star is harder to bust than a planet.

And in presenting, set a standard that does not work with.. comics, this board, so forth.


The calcs I presented here obviously don't work or belong in this debate

.. you have spent several pages presenting them as the foundation of your arguments with regards a feat showing something or not. You responded to that one guy who went "well the respective forces of a nuke and the sun are.." with "then why was this being claimed about the showing!". Those are just your posts. You might notice my immediate reply to things like what that dude said was "do people really think these things remotely are considered in these comics." Your entire "well that doesn't show more durability then" is based in this whole thing, that's just.. you. If you now want to say this whole time you were just talking about what things would mean in the real world... ookay.


Then don't ask for sources, or proof, that explain how a Star is harder to bust than a Planet.

I'm pretty cool to ask people for where they get their claims from as to why a feat shows a thing or not, and why something has more force or less than another thing, and if their entire basis turns out to be the things you have said, to then ask them "how can you possibly think this has anything to do with comics" while asking why they would not be consistent in applying what they said across the board.



Anyway, as far as I am concerned; this conversation is done. You can reply if you want Pen but there is no point in continuing this really. This all started with confusion on what is being meant here. So let's just drop it.

If this kind of thing comes up in another thread, I'm pretty much going to say these exact same things, but sure.

King_Hellion
05-09-2015, 10:19 PM
Goku Buu and vegeta would solo in base forms.
Gohan and Gotenks could solo but Gotenks plays around and underestimates his opponents. Gohans too soft in his training too often for me to say he could solo. By RF he didn't even know if he could still turn super saiyan.

Goku Ssj3 punched a whole in king kais planet which is the equivalent of punching a whole in a planet ten times the size of earth. Which is a better strength feat than anyone in marvel or dc post crisis. His spirit bomb on frieza was the combined energy of multiple z fighters, stars and planets. Which should tell you how strong frieza is.

Gotenks and buus screams can rip open reality.

Gokus an energy absorber

Vegeta was dodging light in base form in botg.

Gohan and vegeta were dodging light based attacks in namak and cell saga (death beam is a beam of ki turned into light)

Buu can just absorb everyone. Galactus is so weak against magic he needed dr stranges help doing a locator spell. Babadis dads magic comic from a demon god and possessed the king of demons.

No one has the fight speed to keep up.

In botg Beerus destroyed 6 planets by flying intem them. In RF Whis stated that beerus destroyed 3 neighbouring suns and he had to rewind time to stop him. Goku in bbotg (whos much stronger now) Absorbed bills attack. No one on the annihlators team has that type of power. Silver surfer could not absorb the power of a sun without nearly exploding and dying.

Ss healing factor is nothing compared to buus. And gotenks and goku both had attacks capable of killing buu.

Pendaran
05-09-2015, 10:37 PM
Galactus is so weak against magic he needed dr stranges help doing a locator spell.

Just to touch this one part, so when Galactus fought Agamotto evenly in Agamotto's own home dimension and the side damage of that fight brought the rest of the Vishanti in to tell Agamotto to stop as the fight was threatening to cause multidimensional collapse, that was Agamotto and his dimension being jobbed out, because "Galactus is so weak against magic"?

Edit: Also, what do how well Galactus' senses work in having to see across multiple dimensions that otherwise have mystic barriers on them have to do with anything? At best that means.. Galactus is not great at sensing things multiple dimensions over that also are mystically shielded against tracking.

King_Hellion
05-09-2015, 10:47 PM
Just to touch this one part, so when Galactus fought Agamotto evenly in Agamotto's own home dimension and the side damage of that fight brought the rest of the Vishanti in to tell Agamotto to stop as the fight was threatening to cause multidimensional collapse, that was Agamotto and his dimension being jobbed out, because "Galactus is so weak against magic"?

Edit: Also, what do how well Galactus' senses work in having to see across multiple dimensions that otherwise have mystic barriers on them have to do with anything? At best that means.. Galactus is not great at sensing things multiple dimensions over that also are mystically shielded against tracking.

21961

Except galactus got stomped on

Pendaran
05-09-2015, 10:51 PM
Except galactus got stomped on

Nothing in the scan you posted shows that remotely. At all. Agamotto sure damaged some of the armor of a guy whose appearance is only that because that's what Strange's understanding can perceive him as.

In fact, on the very next page, despite being zapped in the back, Galactus is standing upright and showing no impairment whatsoever.

Can you explain how Galactus "got stomped on" when he trades shot for shot and keeps doing so through the attacks, in a fight the Vishanti note for happening is wreaking multi dimensional havoc as a side effect?

Pendaran
05-09-2015, 10:53 PM
The very next page:

http://postimg.org/image/ic0jvktkh/

For a guy being stomped and having power thrown at him to the point that other dimensions are in trouble for it, he sure seems to look completely upright and unharmed.

King_Hellion
05-09-2015, 10:54 PM
Nothing in the scan you posted shows that remotely. At all. Agamotto sure damaged some of the armor of a guy whose appearance is only that because that's what Strange's understanding can perceive him as.

In fact, on the very next page, despite being zapped in the back, Galactus is standing upright and showing no impairment whatsoever.

Can you explain how Galactus "got stomped on" when he trades shot for shot and keeps doing so through the attacks, in a fight the Vishanti note for happening is wreaking multi dimensional havoc as a side effect?

My scan showed more than what you did. Which is nothing. Galactus is getting whooped on his attackd could not phase agamotto because agamotto was his own reality. Dr strange clearly says galactus underestimated him and that he was no match. You can ignore that if you want. Also my post doesn't consist of one big galactus argument. I've made many points and I dont want to end up arguing some trivial unrelated tangent

The Dork Knight
05-09-2015, 11:00 PM
Goku Buu and vegeta would solo in base forms.
Gohan and Gotenks could solo but Gotenks plays around and underestimates his opponents. Gohans too soft in his training too often for me to say he could solo. By RF he didn't even know if he could still turn super saiyan.

Goku Ssj3 punched a whole in king kais planet which is the equivalent of punching a whole in a planet ten times the size of earth. Which is a better strength feat than anyone in marvel or dc post crisis. His spirit bomb on frieza was the combined energy of multiple z fighters, stars and planets. Which should tell you how strong frieza is.

Gotenks and buus screams can rip open reality.

Gokus an energy absorber

Vegeta was dodging light in base form in botg.

Gohan and vegeta were dodging light based attacks in namak and cell saga (death beam is a beam of ki turned into light)

Buu can just absorb everyone. Galactus is so weak against magic he needed dr stranges help doing a locator spell. Babadis dads magic comic from a demon god and possessed the king of demons.

No one has the fight speed to keep up.

In botg Beerus destroyed 6 planets by flying intem them. In RF Whis stated that beerus destroyed 3 neighbouring suns and he had to rewind time to stop him. Goku in bbotg (whos much stronger now) Absorbed bills attack. No one on the annihlators team has that type of power. Silver surfer could not absorb the power of a sun without nearly exploding and dying.

Ss healing factor is nothing compared to buus. And gotenks and goku both had attacks capable of killing buu.


There is ...so much wrong with this

Lets focus on just one thing at a moment though

Goku at base form vs the Surfer

What do you feel allows Goku to beat surfer?

Pendaran
05-09-2015, 11:01 PM
Galactus is getting whooped

Your scans show a guy getting blasted, to which the next page of the same comic shows him being unharmed by, utterly. In what way is this Galactus "being whooped".


Dr strange clearly says galactus underestimated him and that he was no match.

Doctor Strange says nothing like that last thing, and is instead only speculating by his own admission what could happen /if/ Galactus is hurt or killed. He closes the comic book itself by saying Galactus was "arguably" not the most powerful entity. He otherwise says things like "that might just make the difference" or "or even just be injured enough". That's a firm conclusion right there. Strange engaged in some speculation, that Galactus then showed was inapplicable by, you know, not being hurt even in the slightest despite this apparent magic weakness. Some armor ripped and he had a scorch mark. And that's on the perception of his actual form.


Also my post doesn't consist of one big galactus argument. I've made many points and I dont want to end up arguing some trivial unrelated tangent

You claimed a character could be beat by other characters and is weaker than them on what turns out to be based on nothing. Are you walking back on the claim that Galactus would get wasted here then?

master of read
05-09-2015, 11:38 PM
gonna have to agree with pen. seeing both scans, galen is not getting "whooped on". it seems more like a even fight since he is eating some of big A's shots but doesn't seem to be impaired or hurt in any real way.

King_Hellion
05-09-2015, 11:53 PM
Talk about your ad hominems. So anyways. While you guys argue over Wheather or not galactus got stomped on, the Z fighters. Win for all the reasons I've mentioned

Cody
05-09-2015, 11:56 PM
Talk about your ad hominems. So anyways. While you guys argue over Wheather or not galactus got stomped on, the Z fighters. Win for all the reasons I've mentioned

Really don't, but okay! I think you're going to get along juuuust fine here :).

master of read
05-09-2015, 11:56 PM
i'd buy that if surfer weren't there.

Cody
05-10-2015, 12:01 AM
i'd buy that if surfer weren't there.

Same. Though tbh? I would give it to the Z fighters if the board allowed official sources as evidence. I mean the Daizenshuu did verify Cells claim of being able to bust a SS. It's just that; based on feats? Can't work :/. If we did allow it, then I'd see the Z fighters winning thanks to the equalized speed and having the fire power to take Surfer out based on power scaling from the Cell Saga onwards.

But since we go by feats, doesn't work that way :P.

master of read
05-10-2015, 12:02 AM
also, how fast is gladiator pegged at? i always seem to forget.

Cody
05-10-2015, 12:03 AM
also, how fast is gladiator pegged at? i always seem to forget.

Same speed as Wally and Surfer. So ungodly fast.

master of read
05-10-2015, 12:05 AM
Same speed as Wally and Surfer. So ungodly fast.

ahhhhhh. always knew he was fast but wow. so yeah, the z fighters are pretty boned.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 12:06 AM
Really don't, but okay! I think you're going to get along juuuust fine here :).

Thank you :)

Len Ikari145
05-10-2015, 12:09 AM
ahhhhhh. always knew he was fast but wow. so yeah, the z fighters are pretty boned.

Same. This is my first time hearing that Gladiator was operating at FTL.

Cody
05-10-2015, 12:10 AM
ahhhhhh. always knew he was fast but wow. so yeah, the z fighters are pretty boned.

Speed is equalized in this thread mate. So Gladiator isn't much to worry about. Especially with Buu there.

It's Surfer that is the problem.

master of read
05-10-2015, 12:11 AM
Speed is equalized in this thread mate. So Gladiator isn't much to worry about. Especially with Buu there.

It's Surfer that is the problem.

ahhh gotcha. makes more sense. but yeah, norrin is still a problem.

Cody
05-10-2015, 12:11 AM
Same. This is my first time hearing that Gladiator was operating at FTL.

IIRC; it was based off the stuff he was pulling when all of time was slowed down to a near stop in the universe. Reed had to make special time distortion belts for everyone in order to move normally. MFTL ships were basically statues iirc. Gladiator? Dude flew all over the universe in seconds and talked normally with everyone who had them belts on.

Dude is stupidly fast.

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 12:17 AM
Dude flew all over the universe

It wasn't all over the universe. It was that a Celestial had basically severed his chunk of the timeline (which was noted as being the at the time actual future, not an alternate reality) from the rest of time, such that in going into it, there was a massive dilation effect. Reed busted out what amounted to time distorting belts that let people act normally, or "normally from their perspective", he then further manipulated the belts to increase the relative dilation effect such that things happened like they could do the work of weeks+ in a moment. Gladiator still noticed them effing around, then accelerated off his own steam to be able to interact with them anyway, basically overriding a Celestial created time dilation effect severing his part of time from being interacted with on "I'm just stupid fast".

He has other things like having a fight with Hyperion where the interactions get measured on a scale of nanoseconds, and swimming (as opposed to flying) around a large expanse of a sun and then out of it. And some other crap like flying around at 100c, but that's travel speed.

master of read
05-10-2015, 12:19 AM
It wasn't all over the universe. It was that a Celestial had basically severed his chunk of the timeline (which was noted as being the at the time actual future, not an alternate reality) from the rest of time, such that in going into it, there was a massive dilation effect. Reed busted out what amounted to time distorting belts that let people act normally, or "normally from their perspective", he then further manipulated the belts to increase the relative dilation effect such that things happened like they could do the work of weeks+ in a moment. Gladiator still noticed them effing around, then accelerated off his own steam to be able to interact with them anyway, basically overriding a Celestial created time dilation effect severing his part of time from being interacted with on "I'm just stupid fast".

He has other things like having a fight with Hyperion where the interactions get measured on a scale of nanoseconds, and swimming (as opposed to flying) around a large expanse of a sun and then out of it. And some other crap like flying around at 100c, but that's travel speed.

i knew about the hyperion fight but that first part? wow.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 12:24 AM
Gladiator is not ftl. And he can't destroy planets with his punches. Both feats were one off in a single marvel presents comic. When powered by the uni power it was stated it would take him 5 minutes to fly from new york to California. He hasn't shown anywhere near that speed in his recent appearance. Strength either. The likes of gambit and canonball has given him trouble

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 12:29 AM
And he can't destroy planets with his punches. Both feats were one off in a single marvel presents comic.

The time dilation thing happened in Fantastic Four. The Hyperion fight with "nanoseconds later" while they're throwing and catching punches was in Quasar. The busting a planet and swimming around a sun happened in MCP, sure, which makes them not count because..?


When powered by the uni power it was stated it would take him 5 minutes to fly from new york to California.

And in another FF comic, he flew at 100c if you're now just wanting to talk his flight speed. Do you feel that showing makes the other showing not have happened?


He hasn't shown anywhere near that speed in his recent appearance.

You're talking about a character whose number of times appearing in comics, and then of those where he actually does something that can be noted, are comparatively few. Saying "his recent appearances" as far as waving stuff off doesn't seem to particularly track at all.

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 12:32 AM
The likes of gambit and canonball has given him trouble

Given your references both to previous posts on this board, other boards, the posters on this board, it seems odd that you'd say that some of Gladiator's lowest showings make his better ones not have occurred. That's not particularly the standards for weighing evidence here.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 12:33 AM
The time dilation thing happened in Fantastic Four. The Hyperion fight with "nanoseconds later" while they're throwing and catching punches was in Fantastic Four. The busting a planet and swimming around a sun happened in MCP, sure, which makes them not count because..?



And in another FF comic, he flew at 100c if you're now just wanting to talk his flight speed. Do you feel that showing makes the other showing not have happened?

As soon as you said nano seconds your time dilation feat was immediately called into question. I have debunked these clownish pico and nano second feats enough times with the flash to know this is debators way of wanking feats. Which is ironic considering you wanted to question a simple 10x gravity feat.

It makes them not count cus .they only happened once and have never been shown to be in his power range ever again. So not consistent. Not that it matters as he would still get crapped on here.

If he did it post rhe scan or comic number

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 12:38 AM
Given your references both to previous posts on this board, other boards, the posters on this board, it seems odd that you'd say that some of Gladiator's lowest showings make his better ones not have occurred. That's not particularly the standards for weighing evidence here.

Just because you posted a showing he performed in the his first or second appearance.. For one comic..and never did it again..does not mean I'm posting low showings. Gladiator powers work on conconfidence. The FF broke it with a simple trick.

Cody
05-10-2015, 12:42 AM
As soon as you said nano seconds your time dilation feat was immediately called into question. I have debunked these clownish pico and nano second feats enough times with the flash to know this is debators way of wanking feats. Which is ironic considering you wanted to question a simple 10x gravity feat.

It makes them not count cus .they only happened once and have never been shown to be in his power range ever again. So not consistent. Not that it matters as he would still get crapped on here.

If he did it post rhe scan or comic number

Claiming to debunk these instances from other sites is nice and all, but you should really put forward these arguments on here since you haven't yet.

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 12:45 AM
Just because you posted a showing he performed in the his first or second appearance.. For one comic..and never did it again..does not mean I'm posting low showings. Gladiator powers work on conconfidence. The FF broke it with a simple trick.

So, in the midst of uploading some scans, but since I was replied to twice, I'll answer this one.

What does the FF exploiting his confidence weakness have to do with Gladiator being however strong or fast? Also, you're invoking the comics that had things like Gladiator's flight speed being clocked at 100c. Why do you feel the FF breaking his confidence counts, but not that? You're similarly invoking comics where Reed's machines measure an explosion that if not contained would have wasted half the solar system, and the result being Gladiator got a concussion, while talking about Gladiator not being shown to be on a particular level of power. Why does only that one part count from it?

Similarly, you're saying in various posts about things based on statements should be given more weight, if for instance the Gladiator/Hyperion fight in Quasar talks about them putting out force noted as "planet pulverizing" as far as the descriptions being given for things like force and speed, what should we make of that, if you want to be consistent to that idea?

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 12:58 AM
So, in the midst of uploading some scans, but since I was replied to twice, I'll answer this one.

What does the FF exploiting his confidence weakness have to do with Gladiator being however strong or fast? Also, you're invoking the comics that had things like Gladiator's flight speed being clocked at 100c. Why do you feel the FF breaking his confidence counts, but not that? You're similarly invoking comics where Reed's machines measure an explosion that if not contained would have wasted half the solar system, and the result being Gladiator got a concussion, while talking about Gladiator not being shown to be on a particular level of power. Why does only that one part count from it?

Similarly, you're saying in various posts about things based on statements should be given more weight, if for instance the Gladiator/Hyperion fight in Quasar talks about them putting out force noted as "planet pulverizing" as far as the descriptions being given for things like force and speed, what should we make of that, if you want to be consistent to that idea?

............because how fast and strong he is depends on how confident he is. That's his powers. I specifically mentioned the FF BECAUSE of tge ancient one off feat you mentioned. Did i not include two modetn examples as well? Thats the speed you have him clocked at. Show him doing it in the modern era. Hes not even light speed with a uni power power increase. The better question would be why you keep ignoring all of this so we can go in a seemingly circular argument.

Lol oh so now other characters statements are allowed? I guess that means you accept cell as a solar system buster. My make of it is it was hyperbole. And not even the believable kind.

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 01:03 AM
I'm sure pointing out that if you keep insisting on statements, you may as well be consistent in doing so.


............because how fast and strong he is depends on how confident he is. That's his powers.

And what does that have to do with saying that his better showings should be ignored? You feel that irrelevant things get focused on in ways you do not prefer. What does bringing this up have to do with any kind of argument about Gladiator's showings of strength, speed, or durability, having no weight, because he has showings where he performs well beneath his better ones? Why.. did you mention this at all then?


Did i not include two modetn examples as well?

So, "two modern examples" discount anything better from a guy who barely has a relative footprint in comics? While also saying anything from older examples that show him underperforming are comparatively fair game?

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 01:08 AM
I'm sure pointing out that if you keep insisting on statements, you may as well be consistent in doing so.



And what does that have to do with saying that his better showings should be ignored? You feel that irrelevant things get focused on in ways you do not prefer. What does bringing this up have to do with any kind of argument about Gladiator's showings of strength, speed, or durability, having no weight, because he has showings where he performs well beneath his better ones? Why.. did you mention this at all then?



So, "two modern examples" discount anything better from a guy who barely has a footprint in comics? While also saying anything from older examples that show him underperforming are comparatively fair game?

Idk what youre talking about

. At this point you're just making up arguments to argue instead if giving feats or reasons why you think so and so wins or loses. This way you have nothing to lose and can just sit here and be argumentative all day. So change it up or I can just wait for someone who wants to debate instead of argue to come along. My statement couldnt have been any more self explanatory. Gladiator is not ftl has not been ftl outside of one comic appearance. Has not destroyed any planets with punches outside a single appearance. Why. Why. Why. Asking me unrelated why questions won't change this fact. People who are well below ftl can and gas tagged him. His speeds have been shown to be far below ftl when flying in modern comics. There's nothing to argue.

So ill take it you dont have anything other than that one single showing. I didnt think so

So once again. Z fighters

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 01:14 AM
Anywho, while we're here and since I'm not sure what was argued to not have happened precisely, I'll go in something approximating chronological order of when the things I noted went down.

This is Gladiator doing the 100c flight thing. It's travel time of course, but since that's being questioned too, may as well.

http://postimg.org/image/ggyazyo4n/

(What Reed thinks is the shrapnel is Gladiator)

Just to confirm that, the next page:

http://postimg.org/image/fs4i5xjn1/

Next up.. the rest of the junk I mentioned.

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 01:16 AM
Idk what youre talking about

. At this point you're just making up arguments to argue instead if giving feats or reasons why you think so and so wins or loses. This way you have nothing to lose and can just sit here and be argumentative all day. So change it up or I can just wait for someone who wants to debate instead of argue to come along. My statement couldnt have been any more self explanatory. Gladiator is not ftl has not been ftl outside of one comic appearance. Has not destroyed any planets with punches outside a single appearance. Why. Why. Why. Asking me unrelated why questions won't change this fact. People who are well below ftl can and gas tagged him. His speeds have been shown to be far below ftl when flying in modern comics. There's nothing to argue.

So ill take it you dont have anything other than that one single showing. I didnt think so

So once again. Z fighters

You said this:


Just because you posted a showing he performed in the his first or second appearance.. For one comic..and never did it again..does not mean I'm posting low showings. Gladiator powers work on conconfidence. The FF broke it with a simple trick.

What does the second thing have to do with the first thing, at all. If you're not arguing that Gladiator's low showings make his better ones not happen, if you're not even arguing that Gladiator's low showings are a result of his confidence weakness, what does this sequence of sentences even mean. Why bring up the confidence weakness when arguing that Gladiator's better showings are not valid, at all?

Also, again, when you've spent time scouting out this board, why do people need to keep saying that someone underperforming does not particularly make their better showings go away if those showings fit the character? Do you feel that Deathstroke is FTL when he hits the Flash? That Spiderman can legitimately beat the crap out of Firelord? When Captain America with a mild assist from Spiderman KO's the Hulk, what does that show?

The board guidelines for evidence and how we weight it are right in the FAQ, and several people have noted such things to you across two threads at this point.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 01:17 AM
Anywho, while we're here and since I'm not sure what was argued to not have happened precisely, I'll go in something approximating chronological order of when the things I noted went down.

This is Gladiator doing the 100c flight thing. It's travel time of course, but since that's being questioned too, may as well.

http://postimg.org/image/ggyazyo4n/

(What Reed thinks is the shrapnel is Gladiator)

Just to confirm that, the next page:

http://postimg.org/image/fs4i5xjn1/

Next up.. the rest of the junk I mentioned.

So...another outdated scan. He's not that fast anymore..let it go.

Anarchist
05-10-2015, 01:25 AM
See, this is exactly what gives DBZ-arguers a bad reputation.
Whenever people like Hazard or abmccray make reasonable arguments, something like that happens. It's almost like a cosmic force is trying to balance things out^^

But yeah, anybody from DBZ even scratching the paint job of a non-jobbing Galactus is not gonna happen. Ever.

master of read
05-10-2015, 01:25 AM
So...another outdated scan. He's not that fast anymore..let it go.


would be in your best interest to read the rules.

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 01:26 AM
Anyway, the Hyperion thing. Now, being fair, for /Hyperion/ this is a fight where he fights better than he has across his career (Squadron Supreme Hyperion that is) I mean, yes, Gladiator with his open hand completely blunts a punch Hyperion is throwing himself into, and the dude ends up with his neck snapped, but still, there was a part where they grappled evenly and it was noted they could have kept at that for hours.

Anyway, at one point the fight notes how fast they're throwing some of these punches at each other.

http://postimg.org/image/a1lo8g885/

This actually happens after the FF time dilation thing, it's just easier to note because there's really only one relevant scan. (again being fair a bunch of this fight is these two yorts remarking how matched they are, but that's made adorable by how the fight actually goes. Seriously, that's him just stopping a punch that Hyperion's more or less charging to make with his open hand)

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 01:36 AM
would be in your best interest to read the rules.

I did. Don't see anything about being able to declare a one off feat from 50 years ago as the standard fir feats while ignoring the 50 years of feats that says he can't.

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 01:40 AM
Oh, I'll get to it as we go, but if we're really going to talk modern showings, during the War of Kings buildup, and thus, y'know, a few years back, Gladiator in a tie in issue notices an assassin has a "my gun fires bullets that can cross a city in a moment to kill its targets" gun. From Gladiator's perspective, the bullet being shot on over is slow enough that he can have an extended crisis of faith monologue debate to himself on whether to just let Vulcan die before deciding "nah" and moving in front of him to catch the thing with casual effort at the last moment.

If we're going to talk showings even more modern than that, Gladiator, while he ultimately got completely wrecked, for a while there took it to the Phoenix 5 better than.. really most of the people who tried to do so in that event, managing to hurt Colossus for a moment, contest Cyclops' energies for an extended period, and require the Namor/Pete tag team to brutalize him.

Also again, if the board guidelines are an optional thing and someone wants to be consistent with weighing statements, what do we make of people in that incident saying they've seen Gladiator tear apart black holes with his bare hands?

moonknight11
05-10-2015, 01:41 AM
I did. Don't see anything about being able to declare a one off feat from 50 years ago as the standard fir feats while ignoring the 50 years of feats that says he can't.

Its actually more like 40 years, and it only involves a handful of appearances. You cant judge him by the same metric as someone like Hulk or Thor or Iron Man or of course Wolverine who have thousands of appearances.

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 01:41 AM
I did. Don't see anything about being able to declare a one off feat from 50 years ago as the standard fir feats while ignoring the 50 years of feats that says he can't.

In what way is that feat from 50 years ago and in what way does Gladiator have "50 years of feats" to ignore them? Did Gladiator have a decades long running series that I had missed? Or is he a guy that on the scale of comics, barely shows up in them?

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 01:42 AM
The same way people like to post scans of the flash going ftl because he's moved nano and pico seconds..lol. That's all I can do. Even when it says the flash is moving at light speed. What does this have to do with the other?

Nano and pico seconds measures the time it takes light to move.

Anarchist
05-10-2015, 01:42 AM
Also, regarding his strength feats, yes, he has only once actually busted a planet, but what about casually beating crazy-tough people to near-death with only a few punches, like Thor or Vulcan?

moonknight11
05-10-2015, 01:43 AM
Oh, I'll get to it as we go, but if we're really going to talk modern showings, during the War of Kings buildup, and thus, y'know, a few years back, Gladiator in a tie in issue notices an assassin has a "my gun fires bullets that can cross a city in a moment to kill its targets" gun. From Gladiator's perspective, the bullet being shot on over is slow enough that he can have an extended crisis of faith monologue debate to himself on whether to just let Vulcan die before deciding "nah" and moving in front of him to catch the thing with casual effort at the last moment.

If we're going to talk showings even more modern than that, Gladiator, while he ultimately got completely wrecked, for a while there took it to the Phoenix 5 better than.. really most of the people who tried to do so in that event, managing to hurt Colossus for a moment, contest Cyclops' energies for an extended period, and require the Namor/Pete tag team to brutalize him.

Also again, if the board guidelines are an optional thing and someone wants to be consistent with weighing statements, what do we make of people in that incident saying they've seen Gladiator tear apart black holes with his bare hands?

Was it black holes or stars? i thought his son remembered tearing up stars? or maybe im confusing that with another time he was claimed to be able to tear apart stars.

Anarchist
05-10-2015, 01:44 AM
It was black holes.

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 01:44 AM
Its actually more like 40 years, and it only involves a handful of appearances. You cant judge him by the same metric as someone like Hulk or Thor or Iron Man or of course Wolverine who have thousands of appearances.

FF incident was from '82. Quasar thing is from '94. The other FF thing is going to be from 1990. If we're going to be accurate.

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 01:45 AM
Was it black holes or stars? i thought his son remembered tearing up stars? or maybe im confusing that with another time he was claimed to be able to tear apart stars.

T'were black holes his son said he saw him ripping apart.

moonknight11
05-10-2015, 01:45 AM
FF incident was from '82. Quasar thing is from '94. The other FF thing is going to be from 1990. If we're going to be accurate.

Oh i was measuring by his first appearance in X-Men haha.

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 01:46 AM
The same way people like to post scans of the flash going ftl because he's moved nano and pico seconds..lol. That's all I can do. Even when it says the flash is moving at light speed. What does this have to do with the other?

Nano and pico seconds measures the time it takes light to move.

That.. doesn't explain why you would claim Gladiator has decades worth of feats that let you ignore his better showings. At all. Even remotely.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 01:48 AM
Also, regarding his strength feats, yes, he has only once actually busted a planet, but what about casually beating crazy-tough people to near-death with only a few punches, like Thor or Vulcan?

Which becomes irrelevant if the opponents in this fake fight could do the same.

master of read
05-10-2015, 01:49 AM
I did. Don't see anything about being able to declare a one off feat from 50 years ago as the standard fir feats while ignoring the 50 years of feats that says he can't.

if you did, then you wouldn't be debating in such a fashion.

Anarchist
05-10-2015, 01:49 AM
Which becomes irrelevant if the opponents in this fake fight could do the same.

So you're now basically admitting that Gladiator IS that strong and you're just trying to lowball him?

Cody
05-10-2015, 01:50 AM
T'were black holes his son said he saw him ripping apart.

....How..?

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 01:51 AM
And if we're really just going to put everything out there and talk about "his modern showings make his better ones go away!", in a showing from the ancient days of... 2001, Gladiator knocked out Thor in two punches. Hitting him so hard with one of them Thor straight up dropped Mjolnir. One imagines one might go "future Gladiator!", but the guy has a lifespan of centuries, and like with the FF, before Thor changed the future, he was from the actual future to the point that Odin zapped him away rather than let Gladiator speak of it.

I'll get there eventually.

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 01:51 AM
....How..?

*throws pixie dust in the air*

Comics everybody!

Anarchist
05-10-2015, 01:53 AM
....How..?

Comic books and physics man.

Hulk once actually grabbed the edge of a black hole and held himself from getting sucked in that way.
http://s20.postimg.org/4am3znfbh/Hulk_Black_Hole_Feat_Defenders_003_003.jpg

master of read
05-10-2015, 01:54 AM
....How..?

as someone else put it, comic black holes are weird.

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 01:55 AM
Comic books and physics man.

Hulk once actually grabbed the edge of a black hole and held himself from getting sucked in that way.
http://s20.postimg.org/4am3znfbh/Hulk_Black_Hole_Feat_Defenders_003_003.jpg

That's not.. 100% what's goin on there.

Anarchist
05-10-2015, 01:57 AM
Granted I don't know the context, but it's still weird/beyond the impossible.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 01:58 AM
So you're now basically admitting that Gladiator IS that strong and you're just trying to lowball him?

I don't know how you got that out of my post but whatever. You went from tslking about planet busting strength which I clearly said he no longer has..to claiming he beat people like thor...how you're connecting the two...idk

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 01:59 AM
Granted I don't know the context, but it's still weird/beyond the impossible.

I'd have to re-read, but basically that's not.. quite accurate. There's shenanigans. Also it would mean not only is Namor stronger than the Hulk, he can resist the pull of a black hole better than everyone else there ;p

Granted, I like Namor, so let's go with that!

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 02:01 AM
And if we're really just going to put everything out there and talk about "his modern showings make his better ones go away!", in a showing from the ancient days of... 2001, Gladiator knocked out Thor in two punches. Hitting him so hard with one of them Thor straight up dropped Mjolnir. One imagines one might go "future Gladiator!", but the guy has a lifespan of centuries, and like with the FF, before Thor changed the future, he was from the actual future to the point that Odin zapped him away rather than let Gladiator speak of it.

I'll get there eventually.

Make his better ones go away? I already said he couldn't win either way. You're the ine getting upset over being called out for attributing feats to gladiator he only did ONCE decades ago. By your rational I should say ego the living planet solos marvel earth because he once hurt galactus....in the 60s

moonknight11
05-10-2015, 02:02 AM
I don't know how you got that out of my post but whatever. You went from tslking about planet busting strength which I clearly said he no longer has..to claiming he beat people like thor...how you're connecting the two...idk

beating down someone like thor in two hits supports his planet buster status pal

master of read
05-10-2015, 02:03 AM
I'd have to re-read, but basically that's not.. quite accurate. There's shenanigans. Also it would mean not only is Namor stronger than the Hulk, he can resist the pull of a black hole better than everyone else there ;p

Granted, I like Namor, so let's go with that!

it's the speedo, isn't it?

Anarchist
05-10-2015, 02:03 AM
I don't know how you got that out of my post but whatever. You went from tslking about planet busting strength which I clearly said he no longer has..to claiming he beat people like thor...how you're connecting the two...idk

They are feats that support Gladiator being on that level (Planet Busting).
Thor has always been far more durable than he is strong, being able to casually KO him in a few punches is impressive.
You are acting as if one has to bust planets all day to be considered a Planet Buster.

But let's play this your way. Tell me again, how many times did Vegeta bust a planet?
Or Gohan?

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 02:06 AM
it's the speedo, isn't it?

It's like he's wearing nothing at all! Nothing at all!

Stupid sexy Namor.

master of read
05-10-2015, 02:08 AM
It's like he's wearing nothing at all! Nothing at all!

Stupid sexy Namor.

http://obivalderobi.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/namor_4_cover_painting_by_mikemayhew-d2z8xqi.jpg

namor in his nature habitat: seducing married blonde women.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 02:09 AM
beating down someone like thor in two hits supports his planet buster status pal

Lol it really doesn't.

master of read
05-10-2015, 02:12 AM
Lol it really doesn't.

based on what?

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 02:14 AM
They are feats that support Gladiator being on that level (Planet Busting).
Thor has always been far more durable than he is strong, being able to casually KO him in a few punches is impressive.
You are acting as if one has to bust planets all day to be considered a Planet Buster.

But let's play this your way. Tell me again, how many times did Vegeta bust a planet?
Or Gohan?

No..they arent. Saying thor is hard to knockout and then equating knocking him out to planet busting strength is absurd. What is it even based on? Hes been knocked out by less.. But by the way these debates have been going...anytime someone does something unpopular its a low showing

Why would they when theyre heroes? They avoid busting planets by condensing their ki. Just like vegeta vs perfect cell and his final flash. Vegeta attempted to blow up namek before frieza kicked the blast into space. And he attempted to destroy earth before being countered. Your argument isnt even close to being the same

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 02:14 AM
Make his better ones go away? I already said he couldn't win either way. You're the ine getting upset over being called out for attributing feats to gladiator he only did ONCE decades ago. By your rational I should say ego the living planet solos marvel earth because he once hurt galactus....in the 60s

How is listing a variety of performances over the years that show Gladiator's level of power being treated in a certain way.. anything you're saying there? While we're there, so, the Silver Surfer and a high powered crowd backing him take on Tyrant. This is 1993 as far as "Gladiator, a 50 year history of comics"*. The Surfer, Beta Ray Bill and Gladiator go for Tyrant directly. Gladiator manages to contest Tyrant's energies with his own for a moment, recover from doing so to run at him again, is still getting up from a second zap for trying, and only goes down to the following punch. The only person who did better in that sequence was the Surfer himself. Bill went down to a single smash by comparison (and was otherwise smacked into Gladiator as a projectile by Tyrant at one point). Considering Tyrant's level of power and.. everything else being noted, it's curious to claim Gladiator operating on that scale of potency was a one off event that his "50 years of showings" discounts.

*In which he barely appears and does anything.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 02:19 AM
Dude. It's 5 in the morning. Im not going to read walls of text when its just you asking the same questioned that's been answered. Gladiators power levels have dropped since that one comic. If you cant prove modern era gladiator is 100xftl then you have no argument. There's lliterally nothing else to add. So I won't.

master of read
05-10-2015, 02:20 AM
Dude. It's 5 in the morning. Im not going tovread walls of text when its just you asking the same questioned that's been answered. Gladiators power levels have dropped since that one comic. There's lliterally nothing else to adf. So I won't

based on what?

Anarchist
05-10-2015, 02:21 AM
No..they arent. Saying thor is hard to knockout and then equating knocking him out to planet busting strength is absurd. What is it even based on? Hes been knocked out by less.. But by the way these debates have been going...anytime someone does something unpopular its a low showing


It's a feat that support's Gladiator strength.
And yes, low showing like him having trouble with Wolverine are exactly what they are called: Low showings.



Why would they when theyre heroes? They avoid busting planets by condensing their ki. Just like vegeta vs perfect cell and his final flash. Vegeta attempted to blow up namek before frieza kicked the blast into space. And he attempted to destroy earth before being countered. Your argument isnt even close to being the same
So, they never did it, that means they can't do it.
As opposed to Gladiator demonstrating it.

Again, just using your logic here.

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 02:21 AM
Dude. It's 5 in the morning. Im not going to read walls of text when its just you asking the same questioned that's been answered. Gladiators power levels have dropped since that one comic. If you cant prove modern era gladiator is 100xftl then you have no argument. There's lliterally nothing else to add. So I won't.

Despite having multiple high powered showings since then?

Also, a single paragraph is a wall of text?

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 02:25 AM
It's a feat that support's Gladiator strength.
And yes, low showing like him having trouble with Wolverine are exactly what they are called: Low showings.



So, they never did it, that means they can't do it.
As opposed to Gladiator demonstrating it.

Again, just using your logic here.

You're not using any logic that came from me.

The feat does not support gladiator because he is no longer that strong. You're all familiar with retcons and power statistics changing. So im not even going to entertain the notion that you all arent just arguing to argue. Ive listed several examples of a change in gladiators strength and speed levels. And whats your response? To support ONE SINGLE showing from ONE comic decades ago...over the many instances of the modern era. Brilliant

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 02:26 AM
So, being provided with several examples that don't show any such change doesn't actually build on that showing now?

Anarchist
05-10-2015, 02:27 AM
. Ive listed several examples of a change in gladiators strength and speed levels. And whata tour response?
Cosistent High showings that debunk your deliberate nitpicking of lowballing.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 02:28 AM
Despite having multiple high powered showings since then?

Also, a single paragraph is a wall of text?

If he did you'd posted them by now instead of trying to force outdated feats down my throat. On a cell phone it is.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 02:31 AM
Cosistent High showings that debunk your deliberate nitpicking of lowballing.

Lol he beat thor = gladiator can crush planets with his fist

Scan from decades ago =gladiator is ftl despite mentioning modern era gladiator when super powered isnt light speed. Mentioning all the people ge was too slow to tag who arent ftl. Yeah ignore all that concentrate on feats from a single comic. But im the unreasonable one?

This isnt proof. Its fan wanking

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 02:33 AM
I've been posting them throughout this thread, would you like the scans to go with each of them as well? If so, that'll be a minute, as considering I've mentioned a pile of stuff by this point, that's going to be a lot of scans.

I suppose while we're there, so, Vulcan, high powered guy, takes out a varied sundry of high powered figures. Gladiator ignores his attacks, maims him and basically casually takes him out. This would once again require calling something in the post 2000s era "old". Particularly that 6 years ago is old.

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 02:34 AM
Lol he beat thor = gladiator can crush planets with his fist

And the part where he did it by punching him twice?

Anarchist
05-10-2015, 02:37 AM
Yeah, hanging on to one of the numerous feats provided here, ridiculing it and not even mentioning how casual it was is not helping your case here.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 02:42 AM
And the part where he did it by punching him twice?

Did a planet break in the process? No? Ok then

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 02:45 AM
Yeah, hanging on to one of the numerous feats provided here, ridiculing it and not even mentioning how casual it was is not helping your case here.

My case doesn't need or want help. If fitting in here means blindly accepting the status quo and refusal to even acknowledge alternative view points..then Im glad im the ods man out.

Lol I mean youre all literally sitting here going ..ignore the newer gladiator feats.. All of them...in favor of two feats from one comic decades ago ..but im in the wrong? Logic like that I dont expect much but to post ny opinion and be done. Clearly theres no reasoning

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 02:46 AM
All of then...in favor of two feats from ine comic decades ago

And.. all the other ones that happened since then.

Anarchist
05-10-2015, 02:54 AM
Did a planet break in the process? No? Ok then
Did Gohan or Vegeta ever break a planet? No?
Then they can't.


Lol I mean youre all literally sitting here going ..ignore the newer gladiator feats.. All of them...in favor of two feats from one comic decades ago ..
You keep going on about this and ignore that we have by now listed more than a few feats, some of which aren't even a single real life-decade old.

The Drunkard Kid
05-10-2015, 02:55 AM
Is there any reason given in-story why a guy who normally travels interstellar/galactic distances without a spaceship suddenly needs minutes to travel across the USA while boosted? Was he feeling super-depressed or something?

Because while he does only rarely bust out the super-reflexes in his relatively rare appearances, the fact he gets to Earth at all in the timeframe he does so in would require travel speeds that make the 100c reading of him be spectacularly low-end.

Cody
05-10-2015, 02:55 AM
Did a planet break in the process? No? Ok then

Thor can take a planet busting attack and keep on trucking. For Glads to ko him in a couple hits like that, he would have to be striking with planet busting force.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 03:04 AM
Thor can take a planet busting attack and keep on trucking. For Glads to ko him in a couple hits like that, he would have to be striking with planet busting force.

Ive seen thor knocked out multiple times from planet busting and less than planet busting attacks. Lol when thor breaks a planet let me know. Also what happened to if it didnt happen on panel its not accepted? You seem to have accepted all the bias rules these guys have placed upon you

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 03:08 AM
Did Gohan or Vegeta ever break a planet? No?
Then they can't.

You keep going on about this and ignore that we have by now listed more than a few feats, some of which aren't even a single real life-decade old.

You literally just ignored everything i said and repeated yoyourself. I think we're done.

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 03:15 AM
Ive seen thor knocked out multiple times from planet busting and less than planet busting attacks. Lol when thor breaks a planet let me know. Also what happened to if it didnt happen on panel its not accepted? You seem to have accepted all the bias rules these guys have placed upon you

The Thor Ko and the planet busting both happened on panel, so... what would that even mean?

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 03:23 AM
The Thor Ko and the planet busting both happened on panel, so... what would that even mean?

No it didnt. Because thor doesn't have the strength

Nik Hasta
05-10-2015, 03:24 AM
As far as Thor planet busting goes, I recall him getting into a fight with Ego the living planet and being all "Don't push me Ego, I will end you," and then summoning a big ass energy storm that was chewing up a large chunk of the planet.

Thor was all like: "Unless you calm down, I'm going to obliterate you," and Ego backed down.

Also, you have Beta Ray Bill, a direct analogue of Thor, destroying a planet by nailing Stardust to it, taking being body slammed into the core of a planet which then explode on him and still functioning and eating a hit from Galactus which shattered the hemisphere of the planet behind him and still being alive.

Thor and dudes on his level have a big old shared history of working on a planetary scale.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 03:24 AM
And.. all the other ones that happened since then.

Lol...sure

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 03:26 AM
As far as Thor planet busting goes, I recall him getting into a fight with Ego the living planet and being all "Don't push me Ego, I will end you," and then summoning a big ass energy storm that was chewing up a large chunk of the planet.

Thor was all like: "Unless you calm down, I'm going to obliterate you," and Ego backed down.

Also, you have Beta Ray Bill, a direct analogue of Thor, destroying a planet by nailing Stardust to it, taking being body slammed into the core of a planet which then explode on him and still functioning and eating a hit from Galactus which shattered the hemisphere of the planet behind him and still being alive.

Thor and dudes on his level have a big old shared history of working on a planetary scale.

They're clearly talking about strength. Summoning a storm..or threatning too blow up a planet with a strom isnt the same

That wasnt a planet. It was a small moon and he also used an energy attack

They do not

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 03:30 AM
No it didnt. Because thor doesn't have the strength

Gladiator busting a planet happened on panel. Gladiator KOing Thor in two punches happened on panel.

You said this:


Also what happened to if it didnt happen on panel its not accepted? You seem to have accepted all the bias rules these guys have placed upon you

In response to this:


Thor can take a planet busting attack and keep on trucking. For Glads to ko him in a couple hits like that, he would have to be striking with planet busting force.

At this point it seems like you're not even responding to the posts made to you.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 03:34 AM
Gladiator busting a planet happened on panel. Gladiator KOing Thor in two punches happened on panel.

You said this:



In response to this:



At this point it seems like you're not even responding to the posts made to you.


Well let me make it official by ignoring any post you make in the future. You're arguing for the sake of arguing. Feel free to keep quoting my post tho

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 03:36 AM
Listing a series of feats from across several years is arguing for the sake of arguing?

Beadle
05-10-2015, 03:42 AM
Look. You're new. That's fine. Everybody was new once.

I'm not going to get into the details of the actual debate in question, because I really don't feel the need.

However:
Telling people you're going to ignore their posts (instead of just, y'know, ignoring them);
Repeated snark and hostility;
Dismissing others posts as "fan-wanking";
etc.

None of this is cool.

Neither is talking about the "bias rules". We have rules for a reason. So that we can have a system of debate that actually functions. If you don't like those rules, then you have an obvious solution. If you DO want to stay, then I would politely suggest that you familiarise yourself with those rules and adhere to them.

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 03:45 AM
He's not really new though, according to him. The talk about the whole arguing against the posts of "our lot" before, noting other boards, references to past arguments, being familiar with "battleboards", that kind of thing.

Nik Hasta
05-10-2015, 03:46 AM
They're clearly talking about strength. Summoning a storm..or threatning too blow up a planet with a strom isnt the same

Alrighty, so the Bill stuff still works then.


That wasnt a planet. It was a small moon

No... it was a planet. It had a small moon but the art clearly shows Bill slamming Stardust into the planet and nailing her to it with enough force to make it explode.


and he also used an energy attack

Again, also wrong. He hit Stardust's lance with his hammer to nail it through her and the planet exploded. Let me just get a scan...

Slightly low quality as it's just on my phone but, it sure looks like a planet. Has a little moon near it and such.

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


They do not

Gladiator wrecked a planet with his fists, Surfer wrecked a planet by grappling with Morg, Drax blew up a planet by hitting it, Champion subconsciously drawing on the Power Gem busted up a planet while trying to attack Thanos, Bill busted a planet by nailing Stardust to it...

Seems like a bit of a history to me.

Heck, if you want to talk durability - Thor has wandered around inside the sun without undue concern, Surfer has flown through suns without even really noticing it, Bill had the aforementioned "bodyslammed to core of a planet and it exploded on him," thing, Nova Prime has shields that took the Galactus wave that wiped multiple star systems - Marvel's low end cosmic brigade, of which Thor is one, is quite comfortable with planetary shenanigans.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 03:47 AM
If this is Nova Prime, he can simply shield his team and anyone capable of spooky action at a distance can bombard away - Surfer can transform the ground into a black hole, as a "for example."

Granted, Surfer likely doesn't need the shielding, and BRB can probably manipulate the crap out of any energy they can throw, but they can literally just stand there and ignore the Z-fighters with the kind of shield Nova can throw up, given what it did to the Galactus wave.

Another one off feat people try and pass off.

Surfer transforms the ground into a black hole and dies himself. He needed a shield to go in one and still almost died. Another instance he used one he was almost killed until transported to another dimension

Surfer gets blasted by ships and vegeta and goku are stated to make stars supernova from their fights. both thor and brb have been repeatedly hit with energy attacks that are much slower than z fighters.

He did nothing but didnt die from help of the worldmind

Pendaran
05-10-2015, 03:55 AM
The Surfer didn't open a singularity in Annihilation: Silver Surfer that he himself emerged from unharmed? Because.. he did. The scans for that are even in this thread since you seem to be combing through it.

Nik Hasta
05-10-2015, 03:57 AM
As a note, it's not like the Z Fighters consider being hit with planet busting attacks something that doesn't worry them.

When Kid Buu fired off his big old planet busting attack thing, which was like... the explosion consumed an area a couple of times the size of Earth, so like... planet busting+ I guess? Anyhow, he prepped the ball and Goku and Vegeta were both like "Shit, we can't stop that and we'll die if we don't run from it," So it's not like they can just ignore planet busting attacks.

Hell, even more recently in the Revival of F manga, Bills fired off a big old planet busting attack at Vegeta and Goku and Goku explicitly says; "If we'd taken that head on then there'd be nothing left of us,"

So yeah, planet busting hits are still a problem for the Z fighters.

Bluekey
05-10-2015, 04:03 AM
As a note, it's not like the Z Fighters consider being hit with planet busting attacks something that doesn't worry them.

When Kid Buu fired off his big old planet busting attack thing, which was like... the explosion consumed an area a couple of times the size of Earth, so like... planet busting+ I guess? Anyhow, he prepped the ball and Goku and Vegeta were both like "Shit, we can't stop that and we'll die if we don't run from it," So it's not like they can just ignore planet busting attacks.

Hell, even more recently in the Revival of F manga, Bills fired off a big old planet busting attack at Vegeta and Goku and Goku explicitly says; "If we'd taken that head on then there'd be nothing left of us,"

So yeah, planet busting hits are still a problem for the Z fighters.
I think the main problem is.....they kinda need a planet to breathe.

A Planet Buster like Frieza couldn't make piccolo flinch.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 04:09 AM
As a note, it's not like the Z Fighters consider being hit with planet busting attacks something that doesn't worry them.

When Kid Buu fired off his big old planet busting attack thing, which was like... the explosion consumed an area a couple of times the size of Earth, so like... planet busting+ I guess? Anyhow, he prepped the ball and Goku and Vegeta were both like "Shit, we can't stop that and we'll die if we don't run from it," So it's not like they can just ignore planet busting attacks.

Hell, even more recently in the Revival of F manga, Bills fired off a big old planet busting attack at Vegeta and Goku and Goku explicitly says; "If we'd taken that head on then there'd be nothing left of us,"

So yeah, planet busting hits are still a problem for the Z fighters.

Lowball all you want. They have galaxy busters in the ranks

You forget the part where vegeta easily blocks buus first attempt to destroy earth. And his second attack had more power too it.

Planet busting...is galactus a planet busting only being? No? ARe there not scans in which he hits people with energy attacks that dont destroy planets or solar systems? This is the logic behind this same tired attempt at low balling.

Except Frieza was bouncing them off his body like crumbs..so there goes that theory

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 04:15 AM
Alrighty, so the Bill stuff still works then.



No... it was a planet. It had a small moon but the art clearly shows Bill slamming Stardust into the planet and nailing her to it with enough force to make it explode.



Again, also wrong. He hit Stardust's lance with his hammer to nail it through her and the planet exploded. Let me just get a scan...

Slightly low quality as it's just on my phone but, it sure looks like a planet. Has a little moon near it and such.

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



Gladiator wrecked a planet with his fists, Surfer wrecked a planet by grappling with Morg, Drax blew up a planet by hitting it, Champion subconsciously drawing on the Power Gem busted up a planet while trying to attack Thanos, Bill busted a planet by nailing Stardust to it...

Seems like a bit of a history to me.

Heck, if you want to talk durability - Thor has wandered around inside the sun without undue concern, Surfer has flown through suns without even really noticing it, Bill had the aforementioned "bodyslammed to core of a planet and it exploded on him," thing, Nova Prime has shields that took the Galactus wave that wiped multiple star systems - Marvel's low end cosmic brigade, of which Thor is one, is quite comfortable with planetary shenanigans.

It does not.

It was a moon. And even if it wasn't a noon..which it was. It Clearly shows energy attack destroyed it making this argument even more pointless. But im sure it's going to be brought up 15 more times anyway.

Gladiator wrecked a planet...in one comic...decades ago. .never did again. Has shown to be considerably weaker in recent appearances since the 90s....so you all can keep ignoring that fact...but its not going to change. And repeating it won't make me change my mind. If anything it shows how desperate you all are that you need this one obsolete feat to even keep up with z fighters.

And surfer has almost been killed by the power of a Sun..and stated he didnt have enough power to effect another. thor by planet busters...but hey as long as they can resist heat

Nik Hasta
05-10-2015, 04:19 AM
Lowball all you want. They have galaxy busters in the ranks

No they don't.


You forget the part where vegeta easily blocks buus first attempt to destroy earth. And his second attack had more power too it.

You... seem to have not actually read my post very well. Vegeta stopped Buu's first attack - your standard planet buster - by shooting it with an energy blast. He doesn't block it with his face so that's kind of irrelevant. The second attack was stronger, which I noted in my post as being an explosion that consumed an area several times larger than the Earth. But it wasn't a star sized explosion or system buster or anything that far above planet busting.

So, what was Goku and Vegeta's reaction to that?

"Oh no, we can't stop it. We have to Instant Transmission away and let the planet be destroyed because we can't stop it,"


Planet busting...is galactus a planet busting only being? No? ARe there not scans in which he hits people with energy attacks that dont destroy planets or solar systems? This is the logic behind this same tired attempt at low balling.

I don't follow you. Galactus not blowing up planets whenever he exerts even the merest fraction of his power is a different argument to what I'm talking about here. There's no underlying "logic" to my argument, it's a description of what happened.

To wit, when presented with a high end planet busting attack being thrown at them, Goku and Vegeta's response was to run away commenting how they couldn't do anything to stop it.

This isn't lowballing, this is factually what happened.


Except Frieza was bouncing them off his body like crumbs..so there goes that theory

Bouncing what? Planet busters? If this is Revival of F Freiza, I'd like to see the context for that if you please.

Heck, in Battle of Gods, an angry Bills shot off small blasts in all directions and succeeded in destroying all of a cave and Goku still had to dodge them because they could hurt him. Now, I'm not saying that Bills isn't a planet, he's actually a sun buster according to Whis, but similar to what you were saying about Galactus - not every blast a Z fighter throws out is a planet buster.

Nik Hasta
05-10-2015, 04:30 AM
It does not.

It was a moon. And even if it wasn't a noon..which it was. It Clearly shows energy attack destroyed it making this argument even more pointless. But im sure it's going to be brought up 15 more times anyway.

Okay, if you're going to actively just... ignore the content of scans then I think this argument might not go anywhere fast.

Bill and Stardust are flying at the planet, admittedly wreathed in energy. Bill takes Stardust's spear and uses it as a nail to hammer her into the planet which promptly explodes from the force of the hit.

Like... I don't know what more I can do here. You've got the scan and you're pretending it doesn't show the things it emphatically shows.


Gladiator wrecked a planet...in one comic...decades ago. .never did again. Has shown to be considerably weaker in recent appearances since the 90s....so you all can keep ignoring that fact...but its not going to change. And repeating it won't make me change my mind. If anything it shows how desperate you all are that you need this one obsolete feat to even keep up with z fighters.

Well, if you want to play that game, Goku has technically /never/ destroyed a planet.

If you're that committed to your arguments and beliefs about the results of the Z Fighters vs the Annihilators, why are you even here? You've been given facts and you seem to be doing your best to ignore them. If you've got nothing else to add beyond "I don't believe this," then you're not adding much of anything to the discourse.


And surfer has almost been killed by the power of a Sun..and stated he didnt have enough power to effect another. thor by planet busters...but hey as long as they can resist heat

Surfer has flown through suns while not paying attention to them. Like he was monologing to himself about his cosmic angst, he hit a sun and flew through it and didn't even break his train of thought. Thor has likewise been fine hanging out in the sun.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 04:33 AM
No they don't.



You... seem to have not actually read my post very well. Vegeta stopped Buu's first attack - your standard planet buster - by shooting it with an energy blast. He doesn't block it with his face so that's kind of irrelevant. The second attack was stronger, which I noted in my post as being an explosion that consumed an area several times larger than the Earth. But it wasn't a star sized explosion or system buster or anything that far above planet busting.

So, what was Goku and Vegeta's reaction to that?

"Oh no, we can't stop it. We have to Instant Transmission away and let the planet be destroyed because we can't stop it,"



I don't follow you. Galactus not blowing up planets whenever he exerts even the merest fraction of his power is a different argument to what I'm talking about here. There's no underlying "logic" to my argument, it's a description of what happened.

To wit, when presented with a high end planet busting attack being thrown at them, Goku and Vegeta's response was to run away commenting how they couldn't do anything to stop it.

This isn't lowballing, this is factually what happened.



Bouncing what? Planet busters? If this is Revival of F Freiza, I'd like to see the context for that if you please.

Heck, in Battle of Gods, an angry Bills shot off small blasts in all directions and succeeded in destroying all of a cave and Goku still had to dodge them because they could hurt him. Now, I'm not saying that Bills isn't a planet, he's actually a sun buster according to Whis, but similar to what you were saying about Galactus - not every blast a Z fighter throws out is a planet buster.

They do. Its been stated by multiple beings. Saying no they don't does not change that either.

I did read it. You're just not making any sense. Nor are you attempting to even try and understand whats being said.

You dont know how much energy buu put into the attack...size has never been relevant. Which just tells me debating this is pointless because you dont know how ki works.

Ok he didnt block it with his face.. .so? Weaker people have blocked planet busters and attacks powered by a solors systems energy. And that was namek saga.

No the argument is the same. Z fighters condense their attacks...which is what I already told you. Asking why no suns blow up. Why no moon blow up...its the same answer its been since ki was introduced.....they condense thier attacks.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 04:43 AM
Okay, if you're going to actively just... ignore the content of scans then I think this argument might not go anywhere fast.

Bill and Stardust are flying at the planet, admittedly wreathed in energy. Bill takes Stardust's spear and uses it as a nail to hammer her into the planet which promptly explodes from the force of the hit.

Like... I don't know what more I can do here. You've got the scan and you're pretending it doesn't show the things it emphatically shows.



Well, if you want to play that game, Goku has technically /never/ destroyed a planet.

If you're that committed to your arguments and beliefs about the results of the Z Fighters vs the Annihilators, why are you even here? You've been given facts and you seem to be doing your best to ignore them. If you've got nothing else to add beyond "I don't believe this," then you're not adding much of anything to the discourse.



Surfer has flown through suns while not paying attention to them. Like he was monologing to himself about his cosmic angst, he hit a sun and flew through it and didn't even break his train of thought. Thor has likewise been fine hanging out in the sun.

Lol declaring something true is not me ignoring something. It was a moon And the feat literally does not matter...he destroyed it with an energy attack. Is an energy attack a punch? Was this dicussion not about planet crushing punches? Was it a punch? But im ignoring yiu right? Smh


Im here to debate same as you. Im sorry i didnt realize not declaring the annihilators victory meant i was here for something else.

What have I iignored? The fact that no one can produce a current gladiator feat, but want to dictate how one feat from one comic decades old is the standard because it supports your argument more?

And all his feats clearly showing he does not have a planet buster strength or ftl through 80s to now should be ignored? Lol no thank you I think id much rather have a free thinking mind.



And superman gets powers from the sun but was knocked out by one exploding in his face. Also a moon kod him. So who cares? Stop talking to me like the feats i mention don't matter..and then turn around and act like im just being ddifficult. Because as far as im concerened all I see are a bunch of dudes who takes this way too seriously and refuse to admit wrong.

master of read
05-10-2015, 04:43 AM
and this is why we can't have nice DBZ threads anymore. :(

Beadle
05-10-2015, 04:45 AM
They do. Its been stated by multiple beings. Saying no they don't does not change that either.

I did read it. You're just not making any sense. Nor are you attempting to even try and understand whats being said.

You dont know how much energy buu put into the attack...size has never been relevant. Which just tells me debating this is pointless because you dont know how ki works.

Ok he didnt block it with his face.. .so? Weaker people have blocked planet busters and attacks powered by a solors systems energy. And that was namek saga.

No the argument is the same. Z fighters condense their attacks...which is what I already told you. Asking why no suns blow up. Why no moon blow up...its the same answer its been since ki was introduced.....they condense thier attacks.
Just to take this bold part.

Comments by characters, or narrative hyperbole in commentary boxes, are not taken as any evidence. Because they're meaningless. I could say I'm a multiverse-buster, but it doesn't make it true.

We go by feats. Actual demonstrated capabilities. And yes, they're high end feats, as long as they're consistent with the character's portrayal, hence Gladiator (since he hasn't suffered any in-story depowering) gets feats that may be higher than some of his more recent ones maybe portray.

This is one of the reasons I suggested a familiarity with the rules might be useful here. And I use the word 'might' very loosely.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 04:50 AM
Just to take this bold part.

Comments by characters, or narrative hyperbole in commentary boxes, are not taken as any evidence. Because they're meaningless. I could say I'm a multiverse-buster, but it doesn't make it true.

We go by feats. Actual demonstrated capabilities. And yes, they're high end feats, as long as they're consistent with the character's portrayal, hence Gladiator (since he hasn't suffered any in-story depowering) gets feats that may be higher than some of his more recent ones maybe portray.

This is one of the reasons I suggested a familiarity with the rules might be useful here. And I use the word 'might' very loosely.

Funny people been arguing hyperbole and character statements for the annihilators. Guess that rule only applies for dbz. Im not going to bother explaining yet again why the statements should be allowed because no one cares. But theyll come back with hyperion gladiator punches = planet buster with no planet's busted on panel...brb =thor because odin said so. But if 3 gods who iver see the universe makes a claim about a god damn god it's just too much for this forum to accept. So I might as well just do me

moonknight11
05-10-2015, 04:55 AM
How is the planet destroyed by beta ray bill a moon?

moons usually dont have other moons orbiting them.

King_Hellion
05-10-2015, 04:58 AM
How is the planet destroyed by beta ray bill a moon?

moons usually dont have other moons orbiting them.

Quote the part it ssys its a planet. Quote the part that says energy attacks = fists too since people forget why this was even brought up

Hazard
05-10-2015, 06:02 AM
Since the galaxy thing is being brought up here too, I'll repeat myself.

The galaxy thing only came up during the trailer.

Movie proper the term used was solar system.

They guy whom it referred too isn't even in this Rumble.

Duskman
05-10-2015, 06:11 AM
and this is why we can't have nice DBZ threads anymore. :(

Anymore?

When were they ever nice?

Anarchist
05-10-2015, 06:25 AM
Quote the part it ssys its a planet. Quote the part that says energy attacks = fists too since people forget why this was even brought up

Seriously now?
'It's not a planet because the narration didn't say it during this specific time, despite the Arc being about Beta Ray Bill smashing planets in order to starve Galactus'


Oh wait, I guess we've all been wrong, King_Hellion is here to enlighten us. All these decades, Galactus has never been the Devourer of Worlds, he secretely is the Devourer of Moons!
Naughty, naughty.