One Punch Man calc revision(one of the big ones)

[Alexander]

Which is on the opposite side of the blast. That isn't evidence.

Yes, of course, and the void of the reverse of causality is.
you are not knowing the problem with that?

It is very clear that the existence of galaxies is possible in the hole, because lights in space can literally be stars or galaxies,and those lights are far away that the visible ones(in jupiter)

 

[Recon1511]

We can also see galaxies near the Earth's atmosphere during the fight not only on Jupiter

 

[Qawsedf234]

Yes, of course, and the void of the reverse of causality is.
you are not knowing the problem with that?

Your complaint here doesn't make sense. Both things I said were true

• Garou was sent the opposite direction of the redirected blast. Meaning anything you see on Jupiter is not relevant to the hole
• The hole we see during the time Reversal is a void and a wave going through it.

We don't need to have narration confirm everything. We know Genos blew up a mountain because it looks like a mountain. We know Psykos lifted a plate because it's a plate.

It is very clear that the existence of galaxies is possible in the hole

But there's no indication that there is. Just an assumption, which is why we didn't go with it.

 

[Alexander]

Your complaint here doesn't make sense. Both things I said were true

• Garou was sent the opposite direction of the redirected blast. Meaning anything you see on Jupiter is not relevant to the hole
• The hole we see during the time Reversal is a void and a wave going through it.

We don't need to have narration confirm everything. We know Genos blew up a mountain because it looks like a mountain. We know Psykos lifted a plate because it's a plate.


But there's no indication that there is. Just an assumption, which is why we didn't go with it.

1.there are galaxies visible on jupiter, in the hole all visible lights were destroyed, all visible ones, that includes galaxies, because there are more galaxies than stars in space (actually, again, humans are limited by earth's atmosphere , but in space there is no atmosphere that prevents them from seeing further)
2.but it is not said, stop assuming that we assume, when you assume without proof, it is not said, nor is it clear, they are not the same.
3.Those two feats were clearer, but the feat of the void is not, it is very ambiguous, so any assumption that it is from stars to galaxies is possible.
4.

Like assuming that the void of the reversal of causality is the same void that saitama and garou caused without proof?

 

[ZillertheBucko]

We see an image of an empty space refilling once time has been reversed. The narration does not need to spell out everything to connect the dots.

We see a picture of space* and nothing more
It obviously could just be yet another panel of murata drawing stars and shit, you don’t have any evidence, all you have is a picture of space that doesn’t even resemble the area in space that the void was in, which could be accomplished by taking the same angle from the void panel and filling in the space with the same causality reversal text, but all we have is a random unidentifiable panel of space dots without necessarily connecting to the void
but this still overlooks the 2 bigger arguments
1. Anything in that panel could just be a galaxy drawn farther away
2. Galaxies are visible from Jupiter, meaning any hole to the furthest star must be further than a galaxy’s distance away

 

[Qawsedf234]

1.there are galaxies visible on jupiter, in the hole all visible lights were destroyed, all visible ones, that includes galaxies, because there are more galaxies than stars in space (actually, again, humans are limited by earth's atmosphere , but in space there is no atmosphere that prevents them from seeing further)

The galaxies visible on Jupiter aren't relevant. Because its in the opposite direction of the void. If anything it goes against your point because it means Murata would just draw a galaxy rather than a dot in the sky

2.but it is not said, stop assuming that we assume, when you assume without proof, it is not said, nor is it clear, they are not the same.

It doesn't need to be said for it to be true. We don't need a statement that Saitama moved clouds with a serious punch, we see it happen

3.Those two feats were clearer, but the feat of the void is not, it is very ambiguous, so any assumption that it is from stars to galaxies is possible.

All we know is that there were stars there and then there wasn't. After being restored all we see is stars back in the void.

4.Like assuming that the void of the reversal of causality is the same void that saitama and garou caused without proof?

Damage is being reversed -> A wave is going through space -> An empty stop with the wave has stars coming in through a void

The only way for it to be more explicit is if they stated it, but they also don't need to for it too work.

you don’t have any evidence

Neither do you or the OP in that case. All you have is assumptions with no evidence behind it.

1. Anything in that panel could just be a galaxy drawn farther away

Murata draws galaxies to look like galaxies, If there was a galaxy there it would've been shown or stated. Instead neither are shown or mentioned.

2. Galaxies are visible from Jupiter, meaning any hole to the furthest star must be further than a galaxy’s distance away

Galaxies are visible from Earth. This is evidence that Murata will draw galaxies like galaxies, not like stars.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Murata draws galaxies to look like galaxies, If there was a galaxy there it would've been shown or stated. Instead neither are shown or mentioned.

he could have done that, but not all galaxies are equally as close as each other to the point where you’d see them at the same size. It doesn’t matter, what does matter is that galaxies can be seen from earth, meaning the hole must have reached stars that are more than a galaxy’s length away.
on top of that, you still have absolutely nothing but completely assumed bullshit to support that the causality reversal panel is in any way related to the void except for your headcanon. Burden of proof really is something these days isn’t it. You claim that it’s where the void was, now support it, or your claim will be ignored.

 

[Damage3245]

From what I'm seeing, there isn't sufficient evidence for this upgrade to go through.

It's basically conjecture that they destroyed galaxies.

 

[Maitreya12]

From what I'm seeing, there isn't sufficient evidence for this upgrade to go through.

It's basically conjecture that they destroyed galaxies.

Tbh yeah I personally don’t prefer the argument that galaxies were destroyed.

If Garou and Saitama are to be upgraded to be tier 3 through this feat I would argue it be done through using the distance between the Milky Way and the nearest galaxy Andromeda instead of the current distance the calc uses of the furthest visible star.

No galaxies need to be destroyed just the distance used which makes the results 3-C instead of the proposed 3-B or the current 4-A.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

I’m not down for just assuming galaxies were destroyed based on guesswork. I disagree for Qawsedf’s reasons. 4-A for this feat is fine.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Burden of proof really is something these days isn’t it.

I wouldn't really try to tie this into the whole general thread thing, since you failed to understand the burden of proof there and never provided any evidence to back your claims once challenged.

You claim that it’s where the void was, now support it,

I did support it, you just ignore my points and asked for more.

, meaning the hole must have reached stars that are more than a galaxy’s length away.

There's no "must have". What you have is an argument that one of the dots was possibly a galaxy, which isn't supported anywhere and is conjecture based off of different locations.

As before nothing provided in the OP is new. We addressed all of these originally and decided there just wasn't a solid foundation for anything other than Tier 4. Though I will say that if the anime or collected volume gives more or better detail, an upgrade can be warranted. But not based on current information.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

I wouldn't really try to tie this into the whole general thread thing, since you failed to understand the burden of proof there and never provided any evidence to back your claims once challenged.

I never brought up any other thread.

I did support it, you just ignore my points and asked for more.

Your points went no deeper than “we saw a panel of causality reversing and there was a picture of space there” which does not support your claim in any way

There's no "must have". What you have is an argument that one of the dots was possibly a galaxy, which isn't supported anywhere and is conjecture based off of different locations.

this is alarmingly telling of the fact that you’re not actually paying attention to my argument
I am not saying that a galaxy was necessarily destroyed, I am saying that because galaxies are clearly able to be seen, the furthest visible star must have been more than a galaxy’s length away
The fact that you are quite blatantly getting my entire claim here wrong makes me concerned that you don’t intend to actually listen to the opposing side’s points, which is not how discussion is really supposed to go.

I’m not down for just assuming galaxies were destroyed based on guesswork. I disagree for Qawsedf’s reasons. 4-A for this feat is fine.

The furthest visible star was more than a galaxy’s distance away, so it doesn’t matter if there was actually a galaxy there

No galaxies need to be destroyed just the distance used which makes the results 3-C instead of the proposed 3-B or the current 4-A.

Precisely

It's basically conjecture that they destroyed galaxies.

See above

 

[Qawsedf234]

I never brought up any other thread.

You used the same language, so I thought you were doing a callback. My mistake for misreading it.

Your points went no deeper than “we saw a panel of causality reversing and there was a picture of space there” which does not support your claim in any way

It does though. We see things being reversed and stars returning to a void. That's very clear.

I am not saying that a galaxy was necessarily destroyed, I am saying that because galaxies are clearly able to be seen, the furthest visible star must have been more than a galaxy’s length away

I get that's what you're saying, but my point is that if Murata wants to draw a galaxy he never draws them as stars. He always shows them as galactic disks or with large nebula clouds. Those things are absent from the void return panel and none of them are present around the void in the initial panel.

The furthest visible star was more than a galaxy’s distance away, so it doesn’t matter if there was actually a galaxy there

Your argument was also addressed before. To assume any star is inter-galactic distances away isn't supported by the text or by the art. It's an assumption based on other celestial bodies that don't follow how Murata draws space.

There's just no enough of anything to suggest more than our 4-A rating. At least not without further clarification or my evidence from later sources.

 

[Alexander]

You used the same language, so I thought you were doing a callback. My mistake for misreading it.

It does though. We see things being reversed and stars returning to a void. That's very clear.

I get that's what you're saying, but my point is that if Murata wants to draw a galaxy he never draws them as stars. He always shows them as galactic disks or with large nebula clouds. Those things are absent from the void return panel and none of them are present around the void in the initial panel.

Your argument was also addressed before. To assume any star is inter-galactic distances away isn't supported by the text or by the art. It's an assumption based on other celestial bodies that don't follow how Murata draws space.

There's just no enough of anything to suggest more than our 4-A rating. At least not without further clarification or my evidence from later sources.

the number of proof for 4-A is not very large either, in fact, I would say that they are the same

 

[Qawsedf234]

the number of proof for 4-A is not very large either, in fact, I would say that they are the same

4-A is just "Stars were destroyed, this is the minimum distance we can prove". The other is "Based on the idea that galaxies are present in other quadrants of space, one of those stars must be in another galaxy".

 

[Alexander]

4-A is just "Stars were destroyed, this is the minimum distance we can prove". The other is "Based on the idea that galaxies are present in other quadrants of space, one of those stars must be in another galaxy".

And the problem would be? I don't see any problem with that, it's not like the first one has more proof than the other, that is, we've seen more galaxies than stars in the entire combat.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

It does though. We see things being reversed and stars returning to a void. That's very clear.

We see a bundle of stars. There is nothing proving the “things being reversed” part of that.
We see stars, nothing is indicating that they’re returning from anything or being reversed.

I get that's what you're saying, but my point is that if Murata wants to draw a galaxy he never draws them as stars. He always shows them as galactic disks or with large nebula clouds. Those things are absent from the void return panel and none of them are present around the void in the initial panel.

Ignoring this insanity about the “void return panel” it still has no bearing on my argument
If galaxies are visible in opm, then that means the furthest visible star must be further away than a galactic distance, so assuming there were no galaxies destroyed, the feat is still 3-B.
Clearly you still misunderstood what I was saying, because my claim still wasn’t that there had to be galaxies in the void (which is still likely by itself given the size of the hole, though)

 

[Kachon123]

Given how 3 admins rejected the OP, I think this topic can be dropped?

 

[Alexander]

Given how 3 admins rejected the OP, I think this topic can be dropped?

not gonna say anything

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Given how 3 admins rejected the OP, I think this topic can be dropped?

There’s been nowhere near enough discussion to determine that
I heavily am against prematurely closing threads with ongoing debate

 

[Damage3245]

We can give it another 24 hours.

But if three knowledgeable staff members still disagree after that and no other staff member agrees with the proposal, then it's safe to call it rejected.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

The opposition has literally completely misinterpreted my claim twice now, and multiple staff members have agreed with reasoning against a claim that I’m not even arguing
until the staff acknowledge what my actual claim is and we start an ACTUAL discussion, there’s no point in setting a dumb time limit on this crt.

You people claim there were no galaxies in the void, I am claiming that there don’t NEED to be any galaxies in the void for it to have been 3-B, and you continue explaining to me that there’s no evidence of galaxies being in the void despite the irrelevance of it, and then other people say “FRA” to a completely unrelated response to my argument.
Stop trying to rush threads when your entire counter argument is a misunderstanding of what the argument in favor of 3-B even was.

 

[Kachon123]

.

.

.

.

I think what the OP and Ziller are arguing is that since we able to see galaxies in difference scenes, the furthest star should at least be a Galaxy away.

I don't think there's any real way to refute that argument with the Reversal of Causality scan, as it doesn't necesarily defeat the original argument.

No one is saying that SSP^2 destroyed a galaxy, it's just saying that the furthest star is actually much further away then the currently accepted calc suggests.

I think that it's important to understand this instead of jumping to disagreeing, as that's what I did at first, but now after reaading both arguments, I think that the OP has a point.

 

[Alexander]

I think what the OP and Ziller are arguing is that since we able to see galaxies in difference scenes, the furthest star should at least be a Galaxy away.

I don't think there's any real way to refute that argument with the Reversal of Causality scan, as it doesn't necesarily defeat the original argument.

No one is saying that SSP^2 destroyed a galaxy, it's just saying that the furthest star is actually much further away then the currently accepted calc suggests.

I think that it's important to understand this instead of jumping to disagreeing, as that's what I did at first, but now after reaading both arguments, I think that the OP has a point.

everything you see at a distance from earth will be limited by the atmosphere.
but if you are in space,then you will see more

 

[Sisyphusx]

Imo rather than assuming that "there may be some galaxies in the void..."
The calc should be redone, as already based in this thread itself...galaxies are very easily visible from space, Jupiter and even earth's atmosphere also those galaxies are visually huge asf.
The point is, the accepted calc took the value of the "farthest star visible by naked eyes" for the distance of the impact, which is totally irrelevant to use here
We can't see so much galaxies that huge with naked eyes randomly in space IRL but we can see that in OPM verse
So taking the distance of the farthest visible star by naked eyes where we can even see many galaxies so huge is absurd to scale it.

I understand that the void panel doesn't shows any galaxies in it but distant galaxies do look like stars and murata could had also drew it like that because of art and aesthetic.

We can even take the distance to the nearest galaxy to calc it rather than the farthest star because of the reasons above.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

By the way the calc on the profiles with furthest visible galaxy is only 3-C, which I find a little weird since it was said here that a single galaxy being in the void would make the end result 3-B
but either way, it should be recalced using galactic distances as the furthest visible star, rather than the irl distance of the furthest visible star.

 

[Alexander]

By the way the calc on the profiles with furthest visible galaxy is only 3-C, which I find a little weird since it was said here that a single galaxy being in the void would make the end result 3-B
but either way, it should be recalced using galactic distances as the furthest visible star, rather than the irl distance of the furthest visible star.

hey,this gonna continue

 

[Qawsedf234]

Im still not for it, but go ahead with a secondary calc I guess.

 

[Alexander]

Im still not for it, but go ahead with a secondary calc I guess.

ok,then you will agree if the calc is good?(i don't know how to do it)

 

[Sisyphusx]

I think even taking the distance value of the nearest visible galaxy rather than the farthest visible star by naked eyes to calc the feat would be better FRA

 

[Null]

It's not that bad for me, but we can assume, by taking benchmarks in IRL, and in a manner exploratory it is true, I found on some websites from results of research there are some lost galaxies in it, this allows Murata to take reference from here,

At least this is more either getting a Possible 3C or 3C is reasonable.

 

[Alexander]

It's not that bad for me, but we can assume, by taking benchmarks in IRL, and in a manner exploratory it is true, I found on some websites from results of research there are some lost galaxies in it, this allows Murata to take reference from here,

At least this is more either getting a Possible 3C or 3C is reasonable.

that's practically what i am saying,is similar to that

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Bump

 

[NiniAtheist2005]

You know well that even taking the low ball the stars are still not really sure and now you've thrown a galaxy at it, just because it's a random and inconsistent source of information and even you're not sure about it, so if it's mentioned it's just midball, lowball should still be used because the information has to dig into every nook and cranny on google and the information from the work itself shows clearly, which one you should choose, you probably already know, but by the way...Murata not really good at astronomy or cosmology just through that Twitter status

 

[SlendVeny]

Alexander is no ordinary member

FOR YOU SEE, FRIEZA-

 

[Alexander]

You know well that even taking the low ball the stars are still not really sure and now you've thrown a galaxy at it, just because it's a random and inconsistent source of information and even you're not sure about it, so if it's mentioned it's just midball, lowball should still be used because the information has to dig into every nook and cranny on google and the information from the work itself shows clearly, which one you should choose, you probably already know, but by the way...Murata not really good at astronomy or cosmology just through that Twitter status

What else in space? Stars, nebulas, galaxies, black holes.
But what shines the most are the stars and galaxies, and again, galaxies were shown in the manga, and the lights of the void are much more distant than those of Jupiter.
I only show the galaxies in Jupiter so that you can see that it is not an art inconsistency, yes, you can see Jupiter galaxies (if you are directly on the planet)

 

[ZillertheBucko]

what happened here

 

[Marvel_Champion_07]

Thread just kinda died

 

[ZillertheBucko]

alright then I guess it's time to put the batteries back in

 

[Sisyphusx]

Thread just kinda died

Kinda...yes