proof that haku goes lightspeed

Topic started by tronboy on Aug. 29, 2012. Last post by Destinyheroknight 1 year, 9 months ago.
Post by Supreme Marvel (5,047 posts) See mini bio Level 12

Why do people believe anything with "light" in it goes light speed?

Post by Killer_of_trolls (1,563 posts) See mini bio Level 11

@Fehafare: reaction speed for a living creature or a mechanical vehicle does not equal his travel speed. that is basic physics. there are a lot of factors to support that statement. a simple one is the raising of a velocity(acceleration during the travel that can't be done during a reaction. when have you ever seen a car start from 200 km/h. No, it needs to build up it's speed by accelerating longer.

you can ask any physics major or teacher. I don't just believe what I am saying. I've seen the numbers, I've done equations, and I've witnessed the experiments during that. they even teach this in high-school.

Post by Killer_of_trolls (1,563 posts) See mini bio Level 11

@Supreme Marvel said:

Why do people believe anything with "light" in it goes light speed?

didn't you know. stick a flash light up someone's ass, and it turns to a jet-pack XD

Post by Supreme Marvel (5,047 posts) See mini bio Level 12

@Killer_of_trolls said:

@Supreme Marvel said:

Why do people believe anything with "light" in it goes light speed?

didn't you know. stick a flash light up someone's ass, and it turns to a jet-pack XD

Oh come on, that's common knowledge.

Post by Killer_of_trolls (1,563 posts) See mini bio Level 11

@Supreme Marvel said:

@Killer_of_trolls said:

@Supreme Marvel said:

Why do people believe anything with "light" in it goes light speed?

didn't you know. stick a flash light up someone's ass, and it turns to a jet-pack XD

Oh come on, that's common knowledge.

also reminds me of that old Sega Genesis Game Buger-Man. where if you take the pepper item he flies by farting.

Post by Fehafare (8,061 posts) See mini bio Level 13

@Killer_of_trolls: Yeah... acceleration... but in 90% of fiction speed is achieved in an instant. And i agree, that if we actually see someone accelerating over time to reach a certain speed it has nothing to do with his combat or reaction speed.

BUT we are talking about fiction, people cross countries and even universes in way less than a second. And as i said, the fact that they can actually control their speed perfectly, supports that they also have the reactions to do the same.

Things were i would say that does not apply, is when we actually see someone not reacting to the said movement, like Sloth for FMA.

If you want me to say it simple, the time to accelerate in fiction (most of them time) is either not exsistant or is so low that we can ignore it.

Post by All_StarSupes (767 posts) See mini bio Level 10

Six pages later and this still isn't a battle, and yet this is the battle forum.

Post by DBZ_universe (15,385 posts) See mini bio Level 17

@All_StarSupes said:

Six pages later and this still isn't a battle, and yet this is the battle forum.

THIS!

Post by Killer_of_trolls (1,563 posts) See mini bio Level 11

@Fehafare: close but no cigar, still doesn't justify it. there are a ton of other reasons why not but I just explained the simplest one. I know fiction, I study literature in a university.

why you reply is false: your example i an specific exceptional situation. just because his travel speed' is so high and accelerates so quickly, it does not mean it would equal reaction speed cause we are not given data on how he accelerated exactly. they can be equal only if specified by a narrator statement or a showing-feat. plus the way you described it is poorly vague, due to generalizing all fiction together. A common rule in narratology is that everything is like our world in the story until specified/shown/denied in some way(like where is up). what you are trying to disprove is common physics that hasn't been contradicted till today and is not considered a theory but a concrete factual phenomena. Example: even Gravitational pull is both; both a theory & law, and when we start reading a story we assume from the start that all objects are affected by gravity(what goes up must come down) until we are proven otherwise by a third person Narrator or a showing feat that specifically shows that gravity does not affect that certain character.

here is another reason in physics but using algebra:

displacement (s)=initial velosity(u)*time(t) + 1/2 acceleration (a)*(t^2)

from a stationary start this simplifies to s=1/2a(t^2)

this arises from the fact that a is the second integral of s with respect to time eg.

d/dt=s: x=st+u (velosity v=distance*time +initial velosity)

(d^2)/d(t^2)= s(t^2)/2+ut+d=a

as we are measuring displacement and not position, the constant of integration d drops, leaving a=s(t^2)/2+ut -> a=s((t^2)/2)+ut which is a Centrifugal relation(meaning if S rises in amount, a would defaultly be more) unless the traveling object is slowing down instead of accelerating but that is off topic when a is a minus number.

Reaction speed's distance is smaller than traveling speed's distance.

Traveling speed in fiction can, but does not always equal the reaction speed according to what I said above

Post by Fehafare (8,061 posts) See mini bio Level 13

@Killer_of_trolls: I know physics... you don't need to explain.

And i pretty much said whet you said at the end. But i would like to touch upon that. First of all fiction contradicts laws of physics on an every-day basis but that does not really matter now.

What matters is that in most cases where travel feats are used as a speed indication they, travel speed does equal the combat reactions. The biggest difference is that in travel you have to sustain said speed, while in combat they are only short bursts.

Pretty much, 90% cases of travel speed used for combat speed calculations are those "specific" examples i gave.

Post by Killer_of_trolls (1,563 posts) See mini bio Level 11

*sigh* this isn't something up for debate. don't play with the battle bible.

@Fehafare said:

What matters is that in most cases where travel feats are used as a speed indication they, travel speed does equal the combat reactions.

you see. right there you are helping me prove you wrong, cause you can't say in all cases. also, with no in-textual evidence that they are equal, you can't say it.

@Killer_of_trolls: I know physics... you don't need to explain.

I had a feeling you did. that's why I resorted to algebra.

@Fehafare said:

@Killer_of_trolls: , 90% cases of travel speed used for combat speed calculations are those "specific" examples i gave.

that is a guess and you know it. Moreover, even if it wasn't cause, it's not a rule that applies by default.

@Fehafare said:

@Killer_of_trolls: First of all fiction contradicts laws of physics on an every-day basis but that does not really matter now.

you didn't understand my first argument about fiction. what I said was in Narratology 101. contradicting it in an essay means a failed grade. I advise you to read it again, and if you don't then we have a problem, and I can't continue arguing. In general all, as the writer starts developing the story all "our world" laws apply. However he has complete control over them as he proceeds in writing, which mean he can alter them as he pleases, but what he does not change is still from "our world". Furthermore, it doesn't matter what you think happened, if it isn't stated then it's your personal subjective narrative-perception. just because a character's movement seemed instantaneous does not mean it is unless specified (like Goku's IT).

@Fehafare said:

people cross countries and even universes in way less than a second. And as i said, the fact that they can actually control their speed perfectly, supports that they also have the reactions to do the same.

No it does not. you don't know what their full capabilities are to say they have reached it during said travel. they can possibly surpass or not reach that during reaction(the latter is the default). This statement only works if it is specified by author or measured in the discourse of the story.

to write the conclusion of my previous post more clearly this time:

Travel speed is always more than reaction speed, unless 1-proven by an OMNISCIENT NARRATOR, 2-feats that have been shown to compare the two delicately, or 3-disproven by Calculation of both.

Post by Fehafare (8,061 posts) See mini bio Level 13

@Killer_of_trolls:

I said "most of the time" and "90%" because i believe that there are some cases that are not like that but i barely know any so it's rather me assuming that there is something that contradicts the rule and said "rule" that does not apply, is not a rule but rather the fact that most of it works in the exact same way.

You are saying that i "generalize" fiction, well it's true because this certain action takes place in the exact same way in most works of fiction, and i do not bother with exceptions of any kind. You can't use one instance to deconstruct the whole thing.

You are taking things too literal. First there are thousands of cases where a law of physics (or any field for that matter) is completely massacred in fiction without it being stated that it's different in any way, from ours and is "portraited like it is real". You could say that the author simply does not care.

Disregarding short time frame because they were not stated is a weak argument, because they are obviously shown to be that in some other way.

In the end it's the other way around. Travel speed = combat speed, unless that has been shown or proved to be different in that fiction (and it rarely does).

Post by Killer_of_trolls (1,563 posts) See mini bio Level 11

@Fehafare said:

@Killer_of_trolls:

Travel speed = combat speed, unless that has been shown or proved to be different in that fiction (and it rarely does).

that is groundless, illogical, and is purely your opinion. you believe it is that way because you think that is common sense. weather you like it or not, you are trying to force a default physics rule cooked up by your subjective judgement on all fiction.

@Fehafare said:

@Killer_of_trolls:

You are taking things too literal.

please share with me how I, the world's literary theorists, and narratology professors are taking it too literal.

@Fehafare said:

@Killer_of_trolls:

First there are thousands of cases where a law of physics (or any field for that matter) is completely massacred in fiction without it being stated that it's different in any way, from ours and is "portraited like it is real".

You could say that the author simply does not care.

you didn't understand what I told you. reread it. this is not something the author controls. I am not saying that he tries to make it real. I am saying that all the laws exist from the beginning and he takes them out as he goes along, and what he doesn't take stays. this is not not debatable. ( eg: up is still up until the author says otherwise ). it is basic chronotopic information, coined by Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin, I would love to see you disprove him, no seriously you might get stinken rich, but with those false arguments I can't see it happening. I have acadimic articles backing me up, you are going by a mere deluded opinion.

@Fehafare said:

@Killer_of_trolls:

Disregarding short time frame because they were not stated is a weak argument, because they are obviously shown to be that in some other way.

damn, you really don't understand what I wrote. I didn't disregard any frame length, that is irrelevant. it doesn't matter how short/long it is.

my conclusion in the previous comment sticks. you are raping literature laws, and physics laws simultaneously.

Post by Fehafare (8,061 posts) See mini bio Level 13

@Killer_of_trolls:

That is an "opinion" that is largely accepted, when it comes to VS Debating.

You are too literal with "What the author does not take out stays", hundreds of little details are thrown out of the window without the intention to do so, i agree that when something general like up is up is not shown but you can't apply something like that on more complex things that vary between fictions. Even a slight changes makes for a chain-reaction and in the end said verse does not respond to any of our laws.

And i see where you going with "t doesn't matter how short/long it is.", you say "there is a time-frame thus travel speed is not combat speed".

That's a pure logical fallacy, if the time frame is so short that it is not possible to notice it (something that's the case most of them time) it is ignored. Someone who is still gripping onto that time frame to try and deny the feat should probably stop debating because they miss the point.

The fact that every case used for speed calcs, perfectly fits into everything and does not contradict canon goes in hand with that. If the case with the speed isn't stated or shown to be achieveable in travel only, it goes with character portrait to assume they can use that speed in an offensive way. Or simple, for sake of smiplicity we ignore any difference.

That's how VS is, give or take.

Post by Killer_of_trolls (1,563 posts) See mini bio Level 11

@Fehafare: nope. as far as I know, you are the first to contradict the reaction speed and travel speed thing. it works here, on lounge, on Comicvine, on OBD, and everyother battle forum I ever been on. you are the first person I know to accept this.

if it is not possible to be noticed by you, on-screen. it does not mean that other characters can view him/her as slow. remmember Master Roshi's funny fight with krilin, now remember sayian saga when Picollo explained this to Gohan, there is a great speed difference there. forget that now, simpler: one character can move so fast that another can't see him, but another character can blitz the first one that he looks frozen. you can make this go even further. extremely fast character is not infinite colocity. yes you have a point, a wrong one nontheless.

also the fact that it makes reaction is not always affecting everything. maybe the up example wasn't the best thing to make you understand the whole point. the fact that a character can blitz the viewers in some scenes does not mean we should consider it unmisueable, you can easily create another charcter that blitzes him. HOWEVER, unless it has one of the conditions I've stated in the bolded conclusion, travel speed will be more than reaction speed due to basic physics. you said it was wrong due to fiction seperating from reality(you should study the phrase fiction better btw, even historical writings are technically fiction according to Haden White's famous article Historical text as a litirary artifact). and I proved you wrong by explaining how it would work in fiction. the chain reaction does not nessessarly affect everything in every situation, you even mentioning it like that is sneakly vague.

Post by Fehafare (8,061 posts) See mini bio Level 13

@Killer_of_trolls: So far only people that i encotered are the louge morons. On pretty much every other thing (inculding the OBD) people accept speed done while traveling for the reactions.

I don't see why you are bringing speedblitz into this as it really has nothing to do with anything i said.

Also, what do you mean with "travel speed is more than reactions"?

Post by Killer_of_trolls (1,563 posts) See mini bio Level 11

@Fehafare: I know the launge are idiots, that's not the point. of course I mentioned blitzing because that's all what your last argument lead to.

tell you what, the theoritical stuff is obviously not getting to you for some reason. that's the problem with Litriture, you can't argue in it with anyone who hasn't studied it in high acadimics. so I'll just bring examples: Spider-Man can dodge machine gun bullets at blank point range but he sure as hell can't outrun one. Kenshiro can fight insanely fast but he's never ever been shown running as fast as he fights couldn't even keep up with motorbyke. There is a big difference.

Post by Fehafare (8,061 posts) See mini bio Level 13

@Killer_of_trolls: I was never against seperating that... i was against saying that you can't fight at the same speed you travel and that argument i only encountered at the launge.

And really saying that you need academic education on literature for VS debates is bullshit.... and that is if i say it nice.

Post by Killer_of_trolls (1,563 posts) See mini bio Level 11

@Fehafare: @Fehafare said:

@Killer_of_trolls: I was never against seperating that... i was against saying that you can't fight at the same speed you travel and that argument i only encountered at the launge.

WTF man! that is irrelevant. I never said they can't be the same. I already explained the diferent conditions for that perfectly.

if you are not against the example, then you agree with me 100% because they only are an implementation of what I explained earlier.

I agree that most of the launge are sick in the head XD

@Fehafare said:

@Killer_of_trolls:

And really saying that you need academic education on literature for VS debates is bullshit.... and that is if i say it nice.

it's not that. it is that you didn't seem to grasp some of the points I raised. it's not relevant that are talking about VS. Now you are the one taking things to litiral.

once a battle thread is made you will have to prove the reaction speed is equel to the travel speed if you think they are. but if you can't, then you have to prove each one alone. However, that doesn't mean that one can't prove in proximity a bit about the other, that is the only way your "short time" argument can be of use, however it cannot indicate anything in exact.

offtopic: where are you from. I've been wanting to ask you this for months :) just kept forgetting.

Post by Fehafare (8,061 posts) See mini bio Level 13

@Killer_of_trolls: In other words we were more or less agreeing all the time...

Lol why are you interested? Bosnia, a small (really small, probably won't find it on the map) country in middle Europe.

Top Editors
Top Posters
Mandatory Network

Submissions can take several hours to be approved.

Save ChangesCancel