Sun dipped Superman moved approximately 4.3 Octillion tons

#1 Posted by GeneralLuke (1 posts) - - Show Bio

Sun dipped Superman moved approximately 4.3 Octillion tons/4,325,781,841,303,900,090,000,000,000 tons

This happened post crisis and I don't know if anyone ever did the calculations. When Superman moved war world which has thrusters that enable it to move beyond light speed, he moved approximately 4.3 Octillion tons.

Superman said war world had the same mass, size etc... as Pluto.

Pluto's mass is 13,090,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg which is 14 Quintillion tons(14,429,255,060,000,237,568 tons specifically)

Since war world's thrusters enable it to move beyond light speed and it used it's thrusters in an attempt to prevent Superman from pushing it, you'd have to apply the momentum = velocity(m/s meters per second) x mass(kg) formula to get the true mass that Superman was actually pushing which would be far beyond just Pluto's mass.

13,140,000,000,000,000,000,000(Pluto's mass) kg x 299,792,458(speed of light in m/s) = 3,924,283,275,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg

In tons that would be 4.3 Octillion tons(4,325,781,841,303,900,090,000,000,000 tons)

To get more of an idea of how astronomical this number is, the combined mass of every planet in our solar system in tons is approximately 2.9 Septillion tons(2,940,408,474,000,000,000,000,000 tons).

You would have to multiply that combined mass by 1471 to get 4.3 Octillion tons. So basically, Sun dipped Superman practically moved the weight of 1471 solar systems that consist of planets with an equal amount of mass as our solar system's planets.

You would also have to multiply Earth's mass(6,583,212,587,989,520,610,000 tons) by 657092 to get that mass. Sun dipped Superman practically moved the weight of 657092(well over half a million) planets all at once that each have an equal mass to Earth.

#2 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (35028 posts) - - Show Bio

Don't use real life science with comics, it's pointless

Online
#3 Posted by NiKva (94 posts) - - Show Bio

Superman has soft hands, which is why he didn't just blast a whole through the planet while moving it.

/comics

#4 Posted by TheCrowbar (4286 posts) - - Show Bio

E=MC^2

Superman had to move infinite mass to move anything beyond the speed of light.

#5 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29510 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

Don't use real life science with comics, it's pointless

#6 Posted by AssertingValor (5456 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheCrowbar: No, it takes infinite energy to move anything with mass faster than light

#7 Posted by BiteMe-Fanboy (8086 posts) - - Show Bio

That's cool and all.

But I seriously doubt the writers considered that when writing it.

#8 Posted by TheCrowbar (4286 posts) - - Show Bio

@LordMaverick said:

@TheCrowbar: No, it takes infinite energy to move anything with mass faster than light

Yes and as you approach the speed of light, there's more mass.

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/anything-go-faster-than-light

#9 Posted by AssertingValor (5456 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheCrowbar: You don't gain mass because your moving faster, you gain momentum (meaning harder to stop)

#10 Posted by TheCrowbar (4286 posts) - - Show Bio

@LordMaverick:

"Einstein's theory of special relativity dictates that an object gains mass as it accelerates. The faster it goes, the more massive it becomes."

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/anything-go-faster-than-light

Please cite your source that says objects don't gain mass as it accelerates. I've cited mine.

#11 Edited by AssertingValor (5456 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheCrowbar: hang on mate

mo·men·tum (m-mntm)n. pl. mo·men·ta (-t) or mo·men·tums1. Symbol p Physics A measure of the motion of a body equal to the product of its mass and velocity. Also called linear momentum.

2.a. Impetus of a physical object in motion.

b. Impetus of a nonphysical process, such as an idea or a course of events: The soaring rise in interest rates finally appeared to be losing momentum.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Momentum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In classical mechanics, linear momentum or translational momentum (pl. momenta; SI unit kg m/s, or, equivalently, N s) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object.

My computer has been freezing constantly

#12 Posted by Urban_Ronin (9935 posts) - - Show Bio

He used an Einstein-Rosen Bridge and luckily ended up where he intended to :)

#13 Posted by TheCrowbar (4286 posts) - - Show Bio

@LordMaverick said:

@TheCrowbar: hang on mate

mo·men·tum (m-mntm)n. pl. mo·men·ta (-t) or mo·men·tums1. Symbol p Physics A measure of the motion of a body equal to the product of its mass and velocity. Also called linear momentum.

2.a. Impetus of a physical object in motion.

b. Impetus of a nonphysical process, such as an idea or a course of events: The soaring rise in interest rates finally appeared to be losing momentum.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Momentum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In classical mechanics, linear momentum or translational momentum (pl. momenta; SI unit kg m/s, or, equivalently, N s) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object.

My computer has been freezing constantly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity

You gain infinite mass as you accelerate to the speed of light.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080513114705AAqyeep

For a simpler answer

#14 Posted by GunGunW (1006 posts) - - Show Bio

Awesome

#15 Edited by AssertingValor (5456 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheCrowbar: finally it unfroze again,

what my definitions are saying is Momentum is mass in motion

#16 Posted by TheCrowbar (4286 posts) - - Show Bio

@LordMaverick said:

@TheCrowbar: finally it unfroze again,

what my definitions are saying is Momentum is mass in motion

ok so? How many sources do you need to show you that I'm not wrong? Momentum is mass in motion great. How does that prove my point wrong?

#17 Posted by comicace3 (6593 posts) - - Show Bio

Ummm I thought we were talking about comics but.... hmmmm... lets see .... Nah I'm too lazy to get technical unless it has to do with school but you have good calculations.

#18 Posted by AssertingValor (5456 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheCrowbar: Mass grows only relative to its velocity growing (meaning it stays the same):

As the object approaches the speed of light, the relativistic mass grows infinitely, because the kinetic energy grows infinitely and this energy is associated with mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc%5E2#Fast-moving_objects_and_systems_of_objects

E=MC^2

E=kinetic energy (Momentum)

Momentum is the product of the Mass * the growing Velocity

Therefore if the velocity increases, the Momentum, or product of the mass and velocity, also increases, not the relative mass.

#19 Posted by TheCrowbar (4286 posts) - - Show Bio

M is mass

C^2 is the speed of light squared

You can argue with me as much as you like, science disagrees with you. Until you show me a source that refutes what I've cited then I'm still right. It's infinite mass, and as a product of that infinite mass, you get infinite momentum.

#20 Posted by AssertingValor (5456 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheCrowbar: Here it is again

I suggest you minor in physics, so your can fully understand what im saying

As the object approaches the speed of light, the relativistic mass grows infinitely, because the kinetic energy grows infinitely and this energy is associated with mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc%5E2#Fast-moving_objects_and_systems_of_objects

@TheCrowbar said:

M is mass

C^2 is the speed of light squared

You can argue with me as much as you like, science disagrees with you. Until you show me a source that refutes what I've cited then I'm still right. It's infinite kinetic Energy (Momentum) , and as a product of that energy, The Mass is relative, and in theory is "infinite as well".

#21 Posted by evilvegeta74 (4530 posts) - - Show Bio

Big Bang Theory, here at comic vine, gotta love it!

#22 Posted by TheCrowbar (4286 posts) - - Show Bio

@LordMaverick:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass

Drop the attitude.

I suggest you read what is written as well. The mass in theory becomes infinite. I was still right, you're trying to make a correction that isn't unnecessary it makes you look like a giant tool.

#23 Posted by AssertingValor (5456 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheCrowbar said:

@LordMaverick:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mass

Drop the attitude.

I suggest you read what is written as well. The mass in theory becomes infinite. I was still right, you're trying to make a correction that isn't unnecessary it makes you look like a giant tool.

correct, and a tool is somebody that plagues the storm forums with negative comments all the time. I have not an attitude, just expanding your limited knowledge on the subject.

/thread

#24 Posted by jobbernos (1420 posts) - - Show Bio

cool.

#25 Posted by Squalleon (4887 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheCrowbar said:

@LordMaverick:

Drop the attitude.

I suggest you read what is written as well. The mass in theory becomes infinite. I was still right, you're trying to make a correction that isn't unnecessary it makes you look like a giant tool.

Says THE CROWBAR...............................sorry i just had to make that joke :-P

Online
#26 Posted by AssertingValor (5456 posts) - - Show Bio

Easy there's no reason for that

#27 Edited by boostergold321 (301 posts) - - Show Bio

You can't reach infinity. It's a neverending number line. "Increasing infinitely" is not the same as actually "reaching infinity" because as we know, infinity is just a neverending number line.

Gamma ray burst travel at the speed of light but we know that, though they have tremendous power, a single gamma ray burst is not infinite in power.

Mass is synonymous with inertia or momentum, an object's resistance to movement in a state of excitement or rest which also the same as energy.

Things going at the speed of light or faster may have "uncountable mass" by our puny earthling standards, increased in inertia to a great degree, but not infinite. Saying things that go at the speed of light or faster have "infinite mass" is like saying any car going at 300mph is all-powerful. The energy of the universe is not limited to power of lightspeed, even if lightspeed is extremely fast and furiously mighty by human standards.

#28 Posted by PowerHerc (85336 posts) - - Show Bio

@NiKva said:

Superman has soft hands, which is why he didn't just blast a whole through the planet while moving it.

/comics

Lol.

#29 Posted by Fifthchild (625 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheCrowbar said:

@LordMaverick:

"Einstein's theory of special relativity dictates that an object gains mass as it accelerates. The faster it goes, the more massive it becomes."

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/anything-go-faster-than-light

Please cite your source that says objects don't gain mass as it accelerates. I've cited mine.

That doesn't apply (neither does pretty much any of Special/General relativity) in a universe where you can actually go faster than light as you apparently can in the DCU.

At any rate:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

Don't use real life science with comics, it's pointless

#30 Posted by coolguyr99 (3019 posts) - - Show Bio

I wonder if anyone will try to use this as a feat.

#31 Posted by ImTheDamnBatman (3548 posts) - - Show Bio

Nerds! *Smacks Books Out Of Hands, Steals Lunch Money*

#32 Posted by Glitch_Spawn (17132 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't know why but I have an affinity for these threads where people try to use logic and actual math with Superhero feats. That sounds like sarcasm bt it really isn't.

#35 Posted by undeadtribunal (11 posts) - - Show Bio

@glitch_spawn:

Then you'll love this (from another thread):

I'm an old-time comic book reader, having started reading in the mid-70s until about the mid-90s and only recently returned. I see that not only has DC gone back to the completely out of touch with reality power levels of the pre-Crisis era, they've caused Marvel to do this too. My nephew showed me this sometime ago, Superman "bench pressing the Earth for 5 days" crap, and not only is it just beyond ridiculous even by comic book physics, it goes against everything we know of the source of Superman's powers.

Let's look at what "bench pressing the Earth for 5 days straight" actually means.

The mass of the Earth = 5.972e24 kg. Assuming one bench per second and a distance of 0.5 m for each press we get the following information:

5.972e24 kg * 9.8 m/s^2 * 0.5 m = 2.93e25 joules of energy per rep.

5 days * 24 hours/day * 60 min/hour * 60 sec/min * 1 sec/rep = 432,000 reps.

This yields 1.26e31 joules of energy needed for Superman to "bench press the Earth for 5 days".

Now Superman gets his powers from our sun - specifically our yellow sun. The amount of power received from the sun on Earth is approximately 1.37 kW/m^2. The average man has about 2 m^2 of surface area, half of which we'll assume faces the sun for absorbtion. For simplicity's sake we'll also assume all of this energy is absorbed by Superman (even though we're told it's the "yellow" part of the sun that gives him his powers - and the "red" takes them away).

So we get 1.26e31 J / 1.37 kW = 9.23e26 seconds that Superman must spend absorbing sunlight in order to have enough energy to, again, "bench press the Earth for 5 days".

9.23e26 seconds = 2.93e20 YEARS. That's 2.93 hundred billion billion years. Even if Superman "sun dipped" at some optimal absorption point with the power output of 1,000,000 times that of the surface of the Earth (at the surface of the sun the power output is only about 10-20 times that on Earth), it would still take more than a 20 billion times the age of the universe in order for him to get that much energy. Like I said, beyond ridiculous.

Look I understand this is just a comic book character, but stupid crap like this completely destroys the suspension of disbelief in stories. Superman at this power level is so far beyond someone like Wonder Woman or the Hulk (at least the old 70 ton calm Hulk) that seeing Spider-man's Aunt May knock out Aquaman is actually more realistic than anyone ever hurting Superman. Even the "holds back" his full strength explanation makes no sense. He'd need to control not just each individual muscle cell, but every molecular fibril to a precision of parts per billion and he'd still risk obliterating every person he ever hit. Is it really so important to people that their guy be the strongest there is, that you need feats like "punching through dimensions" to satisfy you?

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.