vegata( when he first came to earth) vs superman

[buutenks]

Oh, he obviously did focus his energy. I doubt anybody will actually challenge that idea. But what I'm saying that planetary destruction energy necessity definitely changes in how you actually use it. If you're going to destroy someone from the inside out, the energy required is dramatically less than if you're trying to do it from the outside. Because, from the inside, you only need enough to let the pressure just erupt from the inside out. Where, if you attack from the outside, you'd basically have to overcome something, which would require much more energy.

I'm not saying Trunk's couldn't destroy a planet. It's just that he didn't need the energy necessary to destroy a planet to destroy Frieza if he focused his energy correctly.

Um what are you talking about?Freeza could survive the explosion of a planet,yet he was killed by a small blast.

That shows that the blast had more power then the explosion of a planet.

Edit: Ofcourse we don't know if he actually focused his energy,or he just fired a ki blast.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

What's your point? buutenks states,

Which means that their small ki blasts is MORE POWERFULL than a planetary explosion (not that a planetary explosion is weak..). He never said that the ki blast has more amount of energy of an entire planet explosion, but that this is more effective.

Yes it is effective. There are also a couple of characters in DBZ who have this skill.

My point was as I said. Smaller energy needed for an inner explosion, rather than the far larger amount of energy required in an outer explosion.

And I'd definitely rethink using Buutenks as your source o' info.

Speaking of which...

Um what are you talking about?Freeza could survive the explosion of a planet,yet he was killed by a small blast.

That shows that the blast had more power then the explosion of a planet.

Edit: Ofcourse we don't know if he actually focused his energy,or he just fired a ki blast.

Reread my post, and THEN tell me that again, after explaining how you came to this conclusion that it had to have more energy than what it took to destroy a planet.

Or I could just explain it again, which will be far easier for me.

Alright, here we go!

Object A. Let's give it the mass of a car. A fairly solid car. When you shoot a nuclear rocket somewhere within fifty feet of it, what happens? (Assuming this is a super dense metalloid that can withstand several pounds of pressure per square inch). It might move a whole lot, knick up a little bit from the fall to the earth and discolor from the energy, but other than that, not much.

"Why though, Miss Beaumonte?"

Good question, Tom. For that, we turn to the idea of pressure. See Tom, when you hit an object from the outside with some large broad force, you have one huge problem. See, the large broad force, to merely overcome the object and shatter it, must be very broad, meaning wide, with tons of power inside of it to compensate for the vast area it must have, with a massive amount of pressure to drive it. This of course, is heavily incumbered by the fact that energy in such a large spectrum tends to be far less than focused, and will dissapate a large amount of this energy, and when it hits the surface, even MORE energy will simply reflect to an area of far less pressure, such as something that isn't a surface, of course being decided just how much pressure is behind this energy. Such as, a lot of pressure will mostly likely just push an object as the energy itself tries to move around it. But this creates a much larger problem, of course. See, now we don't have enough energy to destroy this car, and so we must apply a LOT more energy just to destroy it.

"But you said that it knicked."

Ah, glad someone's paying attention, Sally. See, when the car hits the Earth, the Earth won't move out of the way, so the pressure simply stops right there, and has to divert to other directions. This now inquires through the rest of the mass, and since the rest of the mass becomes supercharged beyond it's point of tension, it moves, slightly, but it moves. Hence, creating knicks and scratches.

"But Miss Beaumonte, isn't there a far easier, efficient, and much easier way that wouldn't require the force of a nuclear weapon going off right next to the car?"

Why of course, Dean. There absolutely is. See, from an outer destructive force, like said, a lot of energy and pressure simply just does not affect the target car. However, there IS a way to make sure all of that energy and pressure could be used. See, a mass of any shape or size can be thought of as a sphere with a core. The outer parts rely on the stability of the inner parts, and so on and so forth. But let's now punch a small little hole inside of our little pet project. And inside of this hole, let's put an explosive in there, about one quarter of the power. We only really need about ten gallons of jet fuel, but I'm thinking a quarter of a city wide destructive weapon is more than enough. Anyways, for this experiment, we'll have to commit pressure to the hole we've drilled while the explosion goes off to emulate a closed environment. What happens.... Brian, who's been sleeping in class...

"Umm.. say what?"

Didn't think so.

"I can answer it!"

Go for it Pallaton.

"Since the pressure and energy have no where to go, but still are amassing inside of the object, it has to force the object outward with 100% of the effort provided, and bust apart the object."

Exactly! Gold stars all around. Except for Brian. You get the Board of Education. *Busts out a paddle with holes in it.*

 

[Gotenks]

I think you try to hard.

 

[MSGohan]

My point was as I said. Smaller energy needed for an inner explosion, rather than the far larger amount of energy required in an outer explosion.

And I'd definitely rethink using Buutenks as your source o' info.

1. "Buutenks as my source"??? I've too seen all of DBZ and I know where he was refering too. You really are negative aren't you?

2. You obviously just ignored my other comments.. *Sigh*... I do understand that it needs less but denser energy, but Trunks' attack will still be MORE POWERFULL than a planetary explosion, not saying it has more energy (never used the sentence "more energy" yet you still refer to it), just that it's BETTER.

3. Do you think we are a bunch of Physics n00bs, that understands nothing of Physics??? I know it will be energy pressure that can destroy the object in your example, but since the pressure only is exerted from one side it will only, if not enough energy presssure is exerted, push the object, by exerting a force on it, because there will be a pressure difference on the object. And if the bomb is inside the object, the explosion will create a pressure that will point outwards in 4Pi steradians. Now particles of the object won't be force in (almost) one direction like before, but all in different directions, which is what will tear the object apart.

But trying to explain the laws of physics in comic characters action is pointless, as the authors probably don't know anything about the laws, only some basics like the speed of light is the limit speed and simple stuff like that. You're trying to talk about laws of physics in DB?
Well how did Superman in the first place went INSIDE the sun and stayed, no matter how dense his body's molecylary structure (as I heard in the movies) is, he won't be able to stay inside a sun, because the 12 MK will his molecylary structure to the basics, Carbon, or even a ligther atom. The person have ad to be made of ionized He to survive in there...

Almost the same goes for the blackholes that you say Superman has squized, but this would be worse.

So you see the authors don't think about the laws of physics, they just make stuff up (even if it's impossible for the person doing) make the person do it to make the person loke really powerfull...

 

[buutenks]

My point was as I said. Smaller energy needed for an inner explosion, rather than the far larger amount of energy required in an outer explosion.

And I'd definitely rethink using Buutenks as your source o' info.

Speaking of which...



Reread my post, and THEN tell me that again, after explaining how you came to this conclusion that it had to have more energy than what it took to destroy a planet.

Or I could just explain it again, which will be far easier for me.

Alright, here we go!

Object A. Let's give it the mass of a car. A fairly solid car. When you shoot a nuclear rocket somewhere within fifty feet of it, what happens? (Assuming this is a super dense metalloid that can withstand several pounds of pressure per square inch). It might move a whole lot, knick up a little bit from the fall to the earth and discolor from the energy, but other than that, not much.

"Why though, Miss Beaumonte?"

Good question, Tom. For that, we turn to the idea of pressure. See Tom, when you hit an object from the outside with some large broad force, you have one huge problem. See, the large broad force, to merely overcome the object and shatter it, must be very broad, meaning wide, with tons of power inside of it to compensate for the vast area it must have, with a massive amount of pressure to drive it. This of course, is heavily incumbered by the fact that energy in such a large spectrum tends to be far less than focused, and will dissapate a large amount of this energy, and when it hits the surface, even MORE energy will simply reflect to an area of far less pressure, such as something that isn't a surface, of course being decided just how much pressure is behind this energy. Such as, a lot of pressure will mostly likely just push an object as the energy itself tries to move around it. But this creates a much larger problem, of course. See, now we don't have enough energy to destroy this car, and so we must apply a LOT more energy just to destroy it.

"But you said that it knicked."

Ah, glad someone's paying attention, Sally. See, when the car hits the Earth, the Earth won't move out of the way, so the pressure simply stops right there, and has to divert to other directions. This now inquires through the rest of the mass, and since the rest of the mass becomes supercharged beyond it's point of tension, it moves, slightly, but it moves. Hence, creating knicks and scratches.

"But Miss Beaumonte, isn't there a far easier, efficient, and much easier way that wouldn't require the force of a nuclear weapon going off right next to the car?"

Why of course, Dean. There absolutely is. See, from an outer destructive force, like said, a lot of energy and pressure simply just does not affect the target car. However, there IS a way to make sure all of that energy and pressure could be used. See, a mass of any shape or size can be thought of as a sphere with a core. The outer parts rely on the stability of the inner parts, and so on and so forth. But let's now punch a small little hole inside of our little pet project. And inside of this hole, let's put an explosive in there, about one quarter of the power. We only really need about ten gallons of jet fuel, but I'm thinking a quarter of a city wide destructive weapon is more than enough. Anyways, for this experiment, we'll have to commit pressure to the hole we've drilled while the explosion goes off to emulate a closed environment. What happens.... Brian, who's been sleeping in class...

"Umm.. say what?"

Didn't think so.

"I can answer it!"

Go for it Pallaton.

"Since the pressure and energy have no where to go, but still are amassing inside of the object, it has to force the object outward with 100% of the effort provided, and bust apart the object."

Exactly! Gold stars all around. Except for Brian. You get the Board of Education. *Busts out a paddle with holes in it.*

First don't apply science to fiction.

Trunks destroyed Freeza's skin with a ki blast and that skin can take the explosion fo a planet without being ripped.

That shows that his blast had more power then the explosion of a planet because it could rip the skin of a guy who's skin couldn't be broken by the explosion of a planet.

Is it that hard to understand.

And second I have the whole dbz manga,I've seen all the movies and I saw almost every episode.

So I'll give you a tip,don't use science to explain what a character did.

Edit:You're trying to hard,no one cares what energy it had or all that,who sees it will say that the blast had more power then the explosion of a planet and that's it,you don't need to bring scientists here to explain it or all that because no one cares.
And because you can't apply real life things to fictional things.

But if you're at it,explain this:
How in the world can a human run faster then the eye could see.

Do you think that Toriyama had books all around him?Nohe just made them how he wanted.

If I want I could make a character to destroy a planet with a shotgun,yes a normal shotgun,how do you explain that?

It's pretty simple to make,I just make a guy to shoot at a planet and the planet explodes,or if I want I could make a normal can,yes a normal cat to go through a black hole and then to come out wihtout loosing a hair.
How do you explain that?

If I remember PC Sups was lifting galaxies,how in the world could someone even lift a galaxy?It's made out of gas and all that,so how could he.

So next time,don't bring real life stuff into a fictional world.

 

[buutenks]

1. "Buutenks as my source"??? I've too seen all of DBZ and I know where he was refering too. You really are negative aren't you?

2. You obviously just ignored my other comments.. *Sigh*... I do understand that it needs less but denser energy, but Trunks' attack will still be MORE POWERFULL than a planetary explosion, not saying it has more energy (never used the sentence "more energy" yet you still refer to it), just that it's BETTER.

3. Do you think we are a bunch of Physics n00bs, that understands nothing of Physics??? I know it will be energy pressure that can destroy the object in your example, but since the pressure only is exerted from one side it will only, if not enough energy presssure is exerted, push the object, by exerting a force on it, because there will be a pressure difference on the object. And if the bomb is inside the object, the explosion will create a pressure that will point outwards in 4Pi steradians. Now particles of the object won't be force in (almost) one direction like before, but all in different directions, which is what will tear the object apart.

But trying to explain the laws of physics in comic characters action is pointless, as the authors probably don't know anything about the laws, only some basics like the speed of light is the limit speed and simple stuff like that. You're trying to talk about laws of physics in DB?
Well how did Superman in the first place went INSIDE the sun and stayed, no matter how dense his body's molecylary structure (as I heard in the movies) is, he won't be able to stay inside a sun, because the 12 MK will his molecylary structure to the basics, Carbon, or even a ligther atom. The person have ad to be made of ionized He to survive in there...

Almost the same goes for the blackholes that you say Superman has squized, but this would be worse.

So you see the authors don't think about the laws of physics, they just make stuff up (even if it's impossible for the person doing) make the person do it to make the person loke really powerfull...

I could make a character that can lift galaxies,how do you explain that?

Or Superman flying faster then light or PC Sups flying so fast that he almost destroyed the universe or who knows what crazy stuff PC Sups has done.

And to tell you the truth,I didn't even read what she/he wrote,like I care if it takes less energy to destroy something form the inside out.

And what's with the inside out thing?Did Trunks made his blast to go inside Freeza and then explode?I think not,he just fired his ki blast and Freeza was completely destroyed.

Edit:Though she probably meant that Freeza was cut in many pieces so you could see his inside,so that's what she/he probably meant.

But it still doesn't matter because Freeza was cut in half when the planet went boom and he still wasn't ripped apart,yet he was by a normal blast.

 

[buutenks]

I think you try to hard.

She does,it's pointless to prove something by using real life science.

In the real world,things are impossible to make,only God can make the impossible possible.

But in fiction,like I said, could make a guy to destroy a planet with a shotgun.

Or I could make a guy to punch so hard that the whole universe gets destroyed.

 

[ster]

Vegeta (when he first came to Earth) vs Superman.... hmm... lemme think about this one now... yep, Goku wins.

 

[buutenks]

Vegeta (when he first came to Earth) vs Superman.... hmm... lemme think about this one now... yep, Goku wins.

Always Goku,eh?

 

[MSGohan]

And to tell you the truth,I didn't even read what she/he wrote,like I care if it takes less energy to destroy something form the inside out.

And what's with the inside out thing?Did Trunks made his blast to go inside Freeza and then explode?I think not,he just fired his ki blast and Freeza was completely destroyed.

Edit:Though she probably meant that Freeza was cut in many pieces so you could see his inside,so that's what she/he probably meant.

But it still doesn't matter because Freeza was cut in half when the planet went boom and he still wasn't ripped apart,yet he was by a normal blast.

1. Well the Gluon was trying to able some scientific facs about destroying something from within or from outside, which wasn't incorrect. But the fact is Akira probably never knew about such facts (besides this a show to all not only those who understands Physics), the thought behind it seems like this: Frieza can survive a planetary explosion, but not Trunks' blast. This means that Trunks have a more powerfull attack than a planetary explosion!!!

2. The thing with destroying an object from within-thing, was probably (How I see it) another way of saying that destroying a planet isn't a big deal, because the planet explods from within, and therefore less energy is needed to destroy the planet from within then a blast that destroys the planet from outside. As for this fact, for Akira they should have blasts that destroys planets, not something like, "well their blasts can destroy a planet from within but not from outside"...

And you stated this perfectly.

 

[Gotenks]

She does,it's pointless to prove something by using real life science.

In the real world,things are impossible to make,only God can make the impossible possible.

But in fiction,like I said, could make a guy to destroy a planet with a shotgun.

Or I could make a guy to punch so hard that the whole universe gets destroyed.

Yeah I know. I mean she is very smart but, that world and are world are different.

 

[Sloth7d]

1. Well the Gluon was trying to able some scientific facs about destroying something from within or from outside, which wasn't incorrect. But the fact is Akira probably never knew about such facts (besides this a show to all not only those who understands Physics), the thought behind it seems like this: Frieza can survive a planetary explosion, but not Trunks' blast. This means that Trunks have a more powerfull attack than a planetary explosion!!!

2. The thing with destroying an object from within-thing, was probably (How I see it) another way of saying that destroying a planet isn't a big deal, because the planet explods from within, and therefore less energy is needed to destroy the planet from within then a blast that destroys the planet from outside. As for this fact, for Akira they should have blasts that destroys planets, not something like, "well their blasts can destroy a planet from within but not from outside"...

And you stated this perfectly.

The thing is Akira Toriyama never uses scientific logic.
In his head a planetary explosion can be condensed to the point of not blowing up planets, but still have the same power.

 

[Leto Atrides]

The thing is Akira Toriyama never uses scientific logic.
In his head a planetary explosion can be condensed to the point of not blowing up planets, but still have the same power.

I don't think he bothered to think it out at all. I think if Toriyama said something can blow up a planet, he just did it to emphasize its power. I very much doubt he was analyzing its implications. Stuff like that is not meant to be anything quantitative. It's just, "It's powerful!" more than "The chi-blast has enough power to destroy a planet, and as such can destroy anything with a lesser durability or resistance to damage."

 

[Sloth7d]

Yeah. I'll go with that.
Unfortunately for Akira he caused major inconsistencies with his writing, but-
He still made a kickarse anime.

 

[Warhammer]

DBZ being so far from real-world physics is the exact reason why it shouldn't even be compared to Superman.

 

[Sloth7d]

Unfortunately it always will be........
Atleast until the Naruto anime is complete.

 

[buutenks]

1. Well the Gluon was trying to able some scientific facs about destroying something from within or from outside, which wasn't incorrect. But the fact is Akira probably never knew about such facts (besides this a show to all not only those who understands Physics), the thought behind it seems like this: Frieza can survive a planetary explosion, but not Trunks' blast. This means that Trunks have a more powerfull attack than a planetary explosion!!!

2. The thing with destroying an object from within-thing, was probably (How I see it) another way of saying that destroying a planet isn't a big deal, because the planet explods from within, and therefore less energy is needed to destroy the planet from within then a blast that destroys the planet from outside. As for this fact, for Akira they should have blasts that destroys planets, not something like, "well their blasts can destroy a planet from within but not from outside"...

And you stated this perfectly.

I read a bit and I understand what she was trying to say.

It's just that science doesn't really apply in fiction.

And I still don't understand why in the world did she even said that it takes less energy to destroy something for the inside?Did Trunks sticked his ki blast in Freeza's body or something?I think not.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

1. "Buutenks as my source"??? I've too seen all of DBZ and I know where he was refering too. You really are negative aren't you?

I'm a physicist, I believe the continued existance of human's is some greater beings cruel joke.

2. You obviously just ignored my other comments.. *Sigh*... I do understand that it needs less but denser energy, but Trunks' attack will still be MORE POWERFULL than a planetary explosion, not saying it has more energy (never used the sentence "more energy" yet you still refer to it), just that it's BETTER.

If I ignore one thing, I ignore all things. Hence, no I didn't. But you just contradicted yourself there. You said it takes less energy, but still requires more energy than a planetary explosion? Hardly. It simply takes LESS energy. Can Frieza pull up all his energy inside himself and hold it there as a shield? No. And when you say "MORE POWERFULL" (which is spelled without the extra "L", not trying to be horrible about this, I just want Gotenks to jump on me for that one.) you have to imply HOW it's more powerful. How is it more powerful? Does it have more energy being an ENERGY BASED attack? Physically more powerful, despite the fact it's an energy based attack? Or is it somehow ELSE more powerful, such as a SMARTER, MORE EFFICIENT attack? If you go with the third one, I'll definitely agree. But when you refer to energy type things, you have to explain it. Because the only way energy things become more powerful, is when you apply MORE energy.

3. Do you think we are a bunch of Physics n00bs, that understands nothing of Physics??? I know it will be energy pressure that can destroy the object in your example, but since the pressure only is exerted from one side it will only, if not enough energy presssure is exerted, push the object, by exerting a force on it, because there will be a pressure difference on the object. And if the bomb is inside the object, the explosion will create a pressure that will point outwards in 4Pi steradians. Now particles of the object won't be force in (almost) one direction like before, but all in different directions, which is what will tear the object apart.

Given the fact that nobody around here seems to know too much about it aside from two other people in another forum, yes, I do. I do indeed think people's understanding of physics is sub par. But then again, most people don't STUDY physics, or even observe it. Hence, I'm not really upset over people's lack of understanding of it, until they decide they're going to attempt to use it incorrectly and argue with me against it. And energy isn't simply an "all directions" sort of deal, and using math is really less than useless here, since we're not comparing energy output. So put your fancy words that only you, I, and Wikipedia know. I'm comparing the difference between annihilating a planet from the outside, the inside, and the energy requirements for both.

But trying to explain the laws of physics in comic characters action is pointless, as the authors probably don't know anything about the laws, only some basics like the speed of light is the limit speed and simple stuff like that. You're trying to talk about laws of physics in DB?

Actually, you think the Japanese are really all that dense? Japan has one of the top FIVE scientific communities worldwide. Top ten in physics. America being in neither. And most of it is general everybody should know stuff.

Well how did Superman in the first place went INSIDE the sun and stayed, no matter how dense his body's molecylary structure (as I heard in the movies) is, he won't be able to stay inside a sun, because the 12 MK will his molecylary structure to the basics, Carbon, or even a ligther atom. The person have ad to be made of ionized He to survive in there...

For someone who's trying to say he's not a physics "n00b" (God I hate spelling it like that), you made the cardinal mistake of not utilizing logic to back yourself up there. You have to rethink all of Superman, and THEN come up with the reason. The reason being his own atomic structure, and cellular absorption leading to a stronger atomic structure. The point is, is that not all things in the universe are melted at 5 MK, or the core's possible 14 MK (roughly). Atomic chains in the universe may very well be able to withstand that. Especially if you can set up a refractory energy barrier that simply just denies energy, (or large quantities of energy) to simply invade your area. The same goes for DBZ, you're going to assume they simply rely on a physical structure, when hardly anything in the universe simply relies on a physical structure alone.

And ionized helium isn't exactly the only thing to endure such heat. It can't even really endure such heat. It's super pressured alongside the plasmic energy of the sun to be forced into such position, then ignited fairly quickly.

Almost the same goes for the blackholes that you say Superman has squized, but this would be worse.

Actually, again, it relies all on atomic structure. Do I agree that his atomic stucture should have such a super tight bond to resist the tremendous gravitational forces that rock a black hole? Hell no. Nothing, including elementary particles, have ever seem to have done that. But the severe energy and atomic alignment are not even known to be possible.

So you see the authors don't think about the laws of physics, they just make stuff up (even if it's impossible for the person doing) make the person do it to make the person loke really powerfull...

And I'm not saying they don't make stuff up. Things such as instant movement through purely physical power is obviously impossible. I'm just saying that (since this is a fricking arguement about the energy required to destroy a god damned planet) the Z fighters are obviously smarter than to use heavy pay loads of their own energy, or spend time charging energy from around themselves, simply to destroy a target from the inside, when a far easier, and much more efficient solution was at hand.

The only one I would think to be that thick skulled would possibly be Goku, but even I think he's better than that.

 

[MSGohan]

If I ignore one thing, I ignore all things. Hence, no I didn't. But you just contradicted yourself there. You said it takes less energy, but still requires more energy than a planetary explosion? Hardly. It simply takes LESS energy. Can Frieza pull up all his energy inside himself and hold it there as a shield? No. And when you say "MORE POWERFULL" (which is spelled without the extra "L", not trying to be horrible about this, I just want Gotenks to jump on me for that one.) you have to imply HOW it's more powerful. How is it more powerful? Does it have more energy being an ENERGY BASED attack? Physically more powerful, despite the fact it's an energy based attack? Or is it somehow ELSE more powerful, such as a SMARTER, MORE EFFICIENT attack? If you go with the third one, I'll definitely agree. But when you refer to energy type things, you have to explain it. Because the only way energy things become more powerful, is when you apply MORE energy.

Well this an error from me, because my english is weak. I didn't say that it requires more energy (quote me if I said that). I said Trunks' attack was more "powerful". Maybe it's the word I used in a wrong way, but what I meant, was that Trunks attack was better. Actually it most also exert more power on Frieza, since it destroyed him, than planetary explosion. I'm not saying than a planetary explosion has less power overall, it's just that you can't get hit by all the p. explosion's power, only a SMALL fraction of it (dependend on your surface area). I don't think I contradict myself.

Given the fact that nobody around here seems to know too much about it aside from two other people in another forum, yes, I do. I do indeed think people's understanding of physics is sub par. But then again, most people don't STUDY physics, or even observe it. Hence, I'm not really upset over people's lack of understanding of it, until they decide they're going to attempt to use it incorrectly and argue with me against it. And energy isn't simply an "all directions" sort of deal, and using math is really less than useless here, since we're not comparing energy output. So put your fancy words that only you, I, and Wikipedia know. I'm comparing the difference between annihilating a planet from the outside, the inside, and the energy requirements for both.

""all direction" sort of deal"...? I was refering to the situation where a bomb goes off inside an object. "All direction" is wrong. I say that after I explain how the the energy/the pressure "will point outwards in 4Pi steradians", so you should have known what I meant by that. I used the term steradians, so I didn't have to make examples of what I mean, which would be like "bomb center of an sphere - explosion will point radially outwards from the center of the sphere".
There is nothing fancy about the term steradians... This is a discussion, stop being so negative.

For someone who's trying to say he's not a physics "n00b" (God I hate spelling it like that), you made the cardinal mistake of not utilizing logic to back yourself up there. You have to rethink all of Superman, and THEN come up with the reason. The reason being his own atomic structure, and cellular absorption leading to a stronger atomic structure. The point is, is that not all things in the universe are melted at 5 MK, or the core's possible 14 MK (roughly). Atomic chains in the universe may very well be able to withstand that. Especially if you can set up a refractory energy barrier that simply just denies energy, (or large quantities of energy) to simply invade your area. The same goes for DBZ, you're going to assume they simply rely on a physical structure, when hardly anything in the universe simply relies on a physical structure alone.

And ionized helium isn't exactly the only thing to endure such heat. It can't even really endure such heat. It's super pressured alongside the plasmic energy of the sun to be forced into such position, then ignited fairly quickly.

Here you are again critizing ppl for not knowing as much as you about (particle)physics. Negative as usual... Well I've only just finished Secondary school, where I had very LITTLE about particle and nuclear physics so I wouldn't know that some molecylary structure can be able to exist inside the suns core (can you provide some references about this fact btw?).
I thought that maybe Supes had an energy field around him, so he doesn't get destroyed, and be able to absorb energy from there, but since I've never seen/heard that Superman can create energy fields, I assumed that it was an error from the authors, like so many other things...
"not utilizing logic to back yourself up there" - this is not logic, this knowledge that I didn't posses.

Actually, again, it relies all on atomic structure. Do I agree that his atomic stucture should have such a super tight bond to resist the tremendous gravitational forces that rock a black hole? Hell no. Nothing, including elementary particles, have ever seem to have done that. But the severe energy and atomic alignment are not even known to be possible.

So you agree that's impossible even for Superman.

And as for your last statement, I don't even think we're discussing about the same thing.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

First don't apply science to fiction.

Ah. I will definitely enjoy getting into this one at the end of this post.

Trunks destroyed Freeza's skin with a ki blast and that skin can take the explosion fo a planet without being ripped.

Trunks cut up Frieza, who definitely wasn't powered up for planetary destruction, and then destroyed his bits with a ki blast. Frieza, by that point, was definitely not charging much up since he was dead and all.

The only person in this fight who has continuous durability is Superman, since the others are dependent on energy manipulation.

That shows that his blast had more power then the explosion of a planet because it could rip the skin of a guy who's skin couldn't be broken by the explosion of a planet.

This is wrong, and I've already explained it.

Is it that hard to understand.

I'll assume it's a question. But yet I do not think you do.

And second I have the whole dbz manga,I've seen all the movies and I saw almost every episode.

And I've read comics and watched anime for nearly my entire life. Useless information as well, but I figure as long as we're comparing guns.

So I'll give you a tip,don't use science to explain what a character did.

This will definitely have to be answered in the end of the post.

Edit:You're trying to hard,no one cares what energy it had or all that,who sees it will say that the blast had more power then the explosion of a planet and that's it,you don't need to bring scientists here to explain it or all that because no one cares.
And because you can't apply real life things to fictional things.

End of post stuff. Can you tell I just figured I'd have to address this point by point originally?

But if you're at it,explain this:
How in the world can a human run faster then the eye could see.

Humans can only comprehend around 30% visually what's around them travelling at 40 mph. And we can only determine about 30% of the detail of an object passing 40 mph in front of us. So if something is moving several times the speed of sound, or sub light, then of course you're either going to see a blur or nothing at all.

Do you think that Toriyama had books all around him?Nohe just made them how he wanted.

I love how people think that cartoon writers are dumb. They say that unless they have degrees or books around them, that they basically can't come up with basic elementary laws, or even think of them.

Japan is considered in the top ten nations to have the smartest students. Actually, I believe top five.

If I want I could make a character to destroy a planet with a shotgun,yes a normal shotgun,how do you explain that?

Yeah, because then you'd say it'd contain just as much energy as a planetary destruction energy wave.

It's pretty simple to make,I just make a guy to shoot at a planet and the planet explodes,or if I want I could make a normal can,yes a normal cat to go through a black hole and then to come out wihtout loosing a hair.
How do you explain that?

How do I explain two fairly unrelated guaging points? Not very well. One could easily be explained and pondered, while one came from you.

If I remember PC Sups was lifting galaxies,how in the world could someone even lift a galaxy?It's made out of gas and all that,so how could he.

Actually, no, I do not remember that. And if he did, this has already been covered. By tactile telekinesis. Useful stuff.

So next time,don't bring real life stuff into a fictional world.

End of post stuff finally!!


This is what I love. And I apologize, I promised myself I wouldn't make a jab about the American education standard, but here we go.

This, where I come from, is taught in our middle schools. (So while I say congrats to MSGohan for actually taking an interest in physics, I'll go back to the "fancy words" thing relating to this in my response post to that).

What is it that we're doing here?

Arguing over fanboyism, that's what.

This is a comparison vs. thread. And while I'm sure Warhammer has probably pondered this all on his own, I will flat out say it.

DBZ fanboys are not smart.

Zero smart.

Sans intelligent.


This is how it goes. They want to compare a hero in a comic universe that usually has some form of definition and limit against a DBZ character.


Okay, so far so good, I can see the reasoning behind it. But it all goes wrong....here:

They don't want to use comparative analysis. They basically want to ONLY have comic book characters follow laws and such, and have DBZ characters have zero limits or explanations, so there's this easy out little back door for them to win in without much thought.

"Don't try to use reasoning in fiction" arguement.


It's about as dumb as "Superman wins simply because Super is in his name."

How the hell does Superman win? How does Goku, Vegeta, Piccolo, Iron Man, Thor, Bomb Queen, Lady Death, or Mr. Manhattan win for that matter?

"Because we don't want to give them limits or definition, and so we don't have to have an absolute, or even good, reason for them to win. We can simply just pawn it off on lack of thought and declare victory."

And this is true of DBZ fans. Not once, not ONCE, have I seen one well thought out convincing arguement that didn't turn a critical eye upon DBZ. Not once. Hell, I haven't seen one at ALL.

Here people talk about the weight of the rock and the metal, and that should compare his strength, but they don't want to use any other form of thought, since it might portray Goku in a bad light.

People (read: DBZ fanboys) only criticize comic characters and say that DBZ characters can destroy planets like crazy because they've done it a few times. But they're not even going to consider how that might work in a comparative thought pattern. What they will say is that it has been done, more than once, and must be something they can do at the bat of an eye with normal energy waves.

While with Superman, they will compare his solar absorption, his strain under doing heavy feats, and everytime he's been defeated and the circumstances it was under.

Goku? No. They won't say anything but, "He was simply overpowered."

Overpowered? What does that mean? Physically, mentally, what? Have most fanboys even pondered it? No. They simply use this super vague term, give their favorite character super vague limitations and unreal and inconsistent abilities, and use that as something they like to think of as a "convincing reason." If this were Goku vs. Vegeta, I wouldn't care. Because then you just have two vague ass characters (courtesy fanboys), and the only people who would even be interested would be said fanboys.

But guess what. You stepped up into the comicdom now, and now you have to face REAL thoughts, and REAL reasons. Not just some crap, and then pawn it off on being "fiction." Doesn't work that way. Even fictional universes have laws. Even they have barriers and limits. I've yet to see ONE universe that doesn't. (Feel free for someone to correct me on this though, as it would be most interesting to analyze).

Yet, people will just give the DBZ (read once again: fanboys and people that just don't want to see Superman win) universe just these unrealistic points, criticize DCU, and won't even CONSIDER doing that to their own.


The fact that Buutenks totally ignored my post and said, "Nobody cares" is a perfect example of fanboyism. Have I read everything YOU guys posted about DBZ. Hell yes, duh. Hard to conduct an argument against someone unless you have your head on right.

Because if you don't WANT to debate actual thoughts about this, then don't. Shut up, put your post as "Goku wins" and leave it there. I don't care, everybody has an opinion. But if you're going to want to prove that Goku IS stronger, more powerful, capable of defeating Superman, you're going to have to use all that criticizm and thought against Goku too.

The only way to compare two beings is to utilize science in fiction. You HAVE to analyze possibilities and limitations. You can't just give unreasonable demands on one without the other. Sorry, doesn't work. Don't like it? Tough. Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it. You want to debate on who's actually going to win? Utilize that gray matter in your head.


And I absolutely refuse to respond to any further posts in this thread that have not been thought out. Unless you guys are obviously trying, then I'll go ahead and respond.

Off to my next response now.

 

[Sloth7d]

Too much science in a topic about a character who isn't based around it.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

See, now I'm starting to like this guy. This one's cooking with gas.

Well this an error from me, because my english is weak. I didn't say that it requires more energy (quote me if I said that). I said Trunks' attack was more "powerful". Maybe it's the word I used in a wrong way, but what I meant, was that Trunks attack was better. Actually it most also exert more power on Frieza, since it destroyed him, than planetary explosion. I'm not saying than a planetary explosion has less power overall, it's just that you can't get hit by all the p. explosion's power, only a SMALL fraction of it (dependend on your surface area). I don't think I contradict myself.

My English is secondary as a language as well. I can easily empathize. But it's obvious you have a good enough handle on it's vocabulary to definitely select a better phrase.

And you did contradict yourself, in this post alone. You said that Frieza must have been hit with more power, but that Trunks utilized less power (power being actual energy exerted in the attack.)

The fact is, is that most pressure energy is wasted in an outer attack, so the demand for actual energy to create the feed required to destroy an object from the outside is far greater than if the energy were in the inside, where none of it is wasted.

It's not really a mathematical thought, it's just a fact inside of physics.

""all direction" sort of deal"...? I was refering to the situation where a bomb goes off inside an object. "All direction" is wrong. I say that after I explain how the the energy/the pressure "will point outwards in 4Pi steradians", so you should have known what I meant by that. I used the term steradians, so I didn't have to make examples of what I mean, which would be like "bomb center of an sphere - explosion will point radially outwards from the center of the sphere".
There is nothing fancy about the term steradians... This is a discussion, stop being so negative.

Oh, I knew what you meant by that. But this is where I got to my promised American education system problem. Not everybody knows what a Sterdian is. And the fact that it's more of a 2d geometry thought over a 3d physical thought is somewhat not accurate, though it does serve it's job well enough since there's really not an easier way to measure pressure inside of a contained environment concerning angles.

However, you and I might easily understand this. Unfortunately, and it's very much to my dismay (and also a great cause of a lot of my frustration here), is that most Americans (and this is a primarily American site) will not. And so, if we're going to debate, we HAVE to make it fair. Especially since this is all elementary physics. We can't sit here, go off the handle with each other, and leave it to the point that the only way anybody could know what we're saying is with a book of some sort. Several actually, but that's not the point.

Keep it simple, keep it neat. The true explanation to all things in the universe starts at the very smallest and simplest points. Basically the motto to Quantum Physics.

Here you are again critizing ppl for not knowing as much as you about (particle)physics. Negative as usual... Well I've only just finished Secondary school, where I had very LITTLE about particle and nuclear physics so I wouldn't know that some molecylary structure can be able to exist inside the suns core (can you provide some references about this fact btw?).

Actually, I am a quantum (read: particle) physicist, but these physics are elementary. This stuff is what's taught at the middle school level here in France and most of the world. If not, at least the high school level.

As for me being negative. I'm extremely negative. Especially when it comes to arguing with Americans over this stuff.

And it comes from personal frustration, which I apologize for, but feel my frustration is all too warranted. A country that literally has the best biological advantage in being able to attain, direct, and utilize knowledge, yet aren't even taught basic logical thought patterns.

(Big reason on that, but it's really not the American's fault as much as it is their structure's fault. Though one could argue that they don't move to rectify it as they should.)

As for the "fact"? It's nothing more than a possibility. On Earth, we have several atomic chains that survive several different degrees of heat. It's not too unthought provoking to think there might be one (especially with chemicals we have no knowledge about) or two out there that could survive direct solar heat.

I thought that maybe Supes had an energy field around him, so he doesn't get destroyed, and be able to absorb energy from there, but since I've never seen/heard that Superman can create energy fields, I assumed that it was an error from the authors, like so many other things...

It was explained off as a great conspiracy of tactile telekinesis. It's considered that all beings who can lift buildings and such without breaking them apart are endowed with this. It would be entirely reflexive, and would amplify their durability as such. Do I believe it? Not really. It doesn't really make all that much sense, but it is Superman's ability allegedly.

"not utilizing logic to back yourself up there" - this is not logic, this knowledge that I didn't posses.

Close. But logic and knowledge are just as akward bedfellows as they are total strangers. Logic is the pursuit of an answer through knowledge, but logic isn't knowledge itself. Though most people can confirm logical points without all the necessary knowlege as long as they use a logical system to obtain that point.

So you agree that's impossible even for Superman.

I agree tons of things are impossible for Superman.

And as for your last statement, I don't even think we're discussing about the same thing.

I was stating a way that Superman could possibly be the way he is, and then stating an impossibility for him.

 

[MSGohan]

Now I really didn't want to post in this thread anymore, but I just had to reply to your statement:

And you did contradict yourself, in this post alone. You said that Frieza must have been hit with more power, but that Trunks utilized less power (power being actual energy exerted in the attack.)

There is a difference between power and energy, I didn't say Trunks used less power (quote me if I did), I said that he used less energy. Maybe it's not called power in english, but I'm refering to energy rate per second. I hope this clears up the mistake...

Besides that, I don't think there is more to say about this subject*, as I believe all the points about it have been stated (some which you have ignored, but it doesn't matter).

* Even though _many_ of your statements in #220 is debatable, but I don't want to wast my time, because you keep overlooking some arguments.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Now I really didn't want to post in this thread anymore, but I just had to reply to your statement:

There is a difference between power and energy, I didn't say Trunks used less power (quote me if I did), I said that he used less energy. Maybe it's not called power in english, but I'm refering to energy rate per second. I hope this clears up the mistake...

Besides that, I don't think there is more to say about this subject*, as I believe all the points about it have been stated (some which you have ignored, but it doesn't matter).

* Even though _many_ of your statements in #220 is debatable, but I don't want to wast my time, because you keep overlooking some arguments.

You have to provide the difference in power and energy in their attacks, since you guys continually talk about their energy.

And I really didn't ignore anything.

 

[buutenks]

Ah. I will definitely enjoy getting into this one at the end of this post.



Trunks cut up Frieza, who definitely wasn't powered up for planetary destruction, and then destroyed his bits with a ki blast. Frieza, by that point, was definitely not charging much up since he was dead and all.

The only person in this fight who has continuous durability is Superman, since the others are dependent on energy manipulation.



This is wrong, and I've already explained it.



I'll assume it's a question. But yet I do not think you do.



And I've read comics and watched anime for nearly my entire life. Useless information as well, but I figure as long as we're comparing guns.



This will definitely have to be answered in the end of the post.



End of post stuff. Can you tell I just figured I'd have to address this point by point originally?


Humans can only comprehend around 30% visually what's around them travelling at 40 mph. And we can only determine about 30% of the detail of an object passing 40 mph in front of us. So if something is moving several times the speed of sound, or sub light, then of course you're either going to see a blur or nothing at all.



I love how people think that cartoon writers are dumb. They say that unless they have degrees or books around them, that they basically can't come up with basic elementary laws, or even think of them.

Japan is considered in the top ten nations to have the smartest students. Actually, I believe top five.



Yeah, because then you'd say it'd contain just as much energy as a planetary destruction energy wave.



How do I explain two fairly unrelated guaging points? Not very well. One could easily be explained and pondered, while one came from you.



Actually, no, I do not remember that. And if he did, this has already been covered. By tactile telekinesis. Useful stuff.



End of post stuff finally!!


This is what I love. And I apologize, I promised myself I wouldn't make a jab about the American education standard, but here we go.

This, where I come from, is taught in our middle schools. (So while I say congrats to MSGohan for actually taking an interest in physics, I'll go back to the "fancy words" thing relating to this in my response post to that).

What is it that we're doing here?

Arguing over fanboyism, that's what.

This is a comparison vs. thread. And while I'm sure Warhammer has probably pondered this all on his own, I will flat out say it.

DBZ fanboys are not smart.

Zero smart.

Sans intelligent.


This is how it goes. They want to compare a hero in a comic universe that usually has some form of definition and limit against a DBZ character.


Okay, so far so good, I can see the reasoning behind it. But it all goes wrong....here:

They don't want to use comparative analysis. They basically want to ONLY have comic book characters follow laws and such, and have DBZ characters have zero limits or explanations, so there's this easy out little back door for them to win in without much thought.

"Don't try to use reasoning in fiction" arguement.


It's about as dumb as "Superman wins simply because Super is in his name."

How the hell does Superman win? How does Goku, Vegeta, Piccolo, Iron Man, Thor, Bomb Queen, Lady Death, or Mr. Manhattan win for that matter?

"Because we don't want to give them limits or definition, and so we don't have to have an absolute, or even good, reason for them to win. We can simply just pawn it off on lack of thought and declare victory."

And this is true of DBZ fans. Not once, not ONCE, have I seen one well thought out convincing arguement that didn't turn a critical eye upon DBZ. Not once. Hell, I haven't seen one at ALL.

Here people talk about the weight of the rock and the metal, and that should compare his strength, but they don't want to use any other form of thought, since it might portray Goku in a bad light.

People (read: DBZ fanboys) only criticize comic characters and say that DBZ characters can destroy planets like crazy because they've done it a few times. But they're not even going to consider how that might work in a comparative thought pattern. What they will say is that it has been done, more than once, and must be something they can do at the bat of an eye with normal energy waves.

While with Superman, they will compare his solar absorption, his strain under doing heavy feats, and everytime he's been defeated and the circumstances it was under.

Goku? No. They won't say anything but, "He was simply overpowered."

Overpowered? What does that mean? Physically, mentally, what? Have most fanboys even pondered it? No. They simply use this super vague term, give their favorite character super vague limitations and unreal and inconsistent abilities, and use that as something they like to think of as a "convincing reason." If this were Goku vs. Vegeta, I wouldn't care. Because then you just have two vague ass characters (courtesy fanboys), and the only people who would even be interested would be said fanboys.

But guess what. You stepped up into the comicdom now, and now you have to face REAL thoughts, and REAL reasons. Not just some crap, and then pawn it off on being "fiction." Doesn't work that way. Even fictional universes have laws. Even they have barriers and limits. I've yet to see ONE universe that doesn't. (Feel free for someone to correct me on this though, as it would be most interesting to analyze).

Yet, people will just give the DBZ (read once again: fanboys and people that just don't want to see Superman win) universe just these unrealistic points, criticize DCU, and won't even CONSIDER doing that to their own.


The fact that Buutenks totally ignored my post and said, "Nobody cares" is a perfect example of fanboyism. Have I read everything YOU guys posted about DBZ. Hell yes, duh. Hard to conduct an argument against someone unless you have your head on right.

Because if you don't WANT to debate actual thoughts about this, then don't. Shut up, put your post as "Goku wins" and leave it there. I don't care, everybody has an opinion. But if you're going to want to prove that Goku IS stronger, more powerful, capable of defeating Superman, you're going to have to use all that criticizm and thought against Goku too.

The only way to compare two beings is to utilize science in fiction. You HAVE to analyze possibilities and limitations. You can't just give unreasonable demands on one without the other. Sorry, doesn't work. Don't like it? Tough. Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it. You want to debate on who's actually going to win? Utilize that gray matter in your head.


And I absolutely refuse to respond to any further posts in this thread that have not been thought out. Unless you guys are obviously trying, then I'll go ahead and respond.

Off to my next response now.

First I'm not a fanboy.

Second,Post-crisis Superman could beat ssj3 Goku.
PC Sups beats the crap out of any dbz character.

I know that the z-fighters can destroy a planet.

There are no feats to prove that they can move or fly at the speed of light.
and we don't know their strength or durability.

So before you actually post do your research okay?because you can't tell the difference between a fanboy and a normal fan.

I'm a big fan of dbz but I am not a fan boy.
Edit:And to tell you how we say who wins,we compare the feats that both characters did and which one has the better feats wins.

And I hope I wasn't rude by ignoring your post,but it's just that I use feats to show how powerful a character is,I don't really care about science and al that.

Like I said,I look at what Goku did an see what feats he has and look at what the other character did and who has the better speed feats,strength and durability feats wins.

For e.g. Goku vs Hulk,I would go with Goku,just becuse he is faster then him and if IIRC Hulk can't survive planet destroying blasts,but if he can then I'll go with Hulk.
But seeing hoe he can't then Goku wins.

Goku vs Sups,Sups wins,he can take Goku's punches and his strongest attack.
So yeah Sups wins even though I don't like it,but this is how it is.

And this is coming from a big dbz fan.