Ok this is called moving the goal post. 11 milliom star systems destroyed should be labeled as multi solar system. If the yield comes up higher than what our current 4-A scale is, it would just increase the yield requirements for 4-A and above.
You're the one moving the goalpost. The GBE of a galaxy is how much energy it would take to destroy one. It's not my fault that destroying 11 million stars 16,000 light years away happens to be greater than the GBE of an average galaxy. Blame the inverse square law.
Then maybe inverse square law isn't that accurate tbh
It is the opposite afaik. Galaxy level accounts for energy drop but destroying everything isn't necessity
Remember when people thought Boros was stronger than Garou just because Saitama massaged his ego before he died out of pity?
Dude it’s so simple why would we label and attack multi galaxy if it didn’t destroy multiple galaxies?
for the 8th time
Argue with the physical law that has built our entire understanding of astrophysics. Go ahead. You definitely know better than the hundreds of astrophysicists who have run hundreds of painstaicking experiments, and made thousands of acute observations that all support the inverse square law being a universal constant in our universe. The only thing the inverse square law doesn't apply to in terms of energy fall off is gravity.
It’s not about the math it’s about the label itself.
Not necessarily. In different shots in the same chapter we could clearly see galaxies, and even IRL, you would still be able to see at least 1 galaxy from where Garou and Saitama were. The fact that they made the entire area dark means that the destruction of galaxies is possible.
3-C, 3-C, 3-B. 4-A. 4-A
DTG said that galaxies weren't destroyed, which isn't entirely true. I never mentioned the calc.
And we do our tiers based on the energy released. You know, like a sane person. It just so happens this feat released more energy than destroying the galaxy.
I get your point, but my point is that they're only referring to the parameters of the calc.
This I can get behind. The point I’m trying to make is that the current calculation is labeling 11 million stars as multi galaxy.
Explain to me, in the most generous way possible, what you think my argument is?
"The point I’m trying to make is that the current calculation is labeling 11 million stars as multi galaxy."
It doesn't matter tbh. It's like calcs that rate someone as Low 7-C because they destroyed a building. Which has happened before on this wiki, a single building being destroyed was calced to have a bigger number than Hiroshima, where several buildings were pulverized.
When you write a book report there’s a reason a teacher will fail you if you just copy and paste the book word for word into your essay. In your own words put together a clear and concise description of my argument. Because I don’t think you understand what I am trying to say.
Links?
I mean if they destroyed that building with a shockwave from kilometers away, it makes sense.
His calc probably is wrong
I simply thought you were trying to put me in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. Where no matter what I say, it either has me concede to your argument, or you get to pick apart the slight discrepancies in my description of your argument. I know how english essays work.
I believe that a 3-B rating is warranted, I want a 3-B rating for one punch man. I do not believe this is the way to get to it.
No it was just destroying the building. People realized it was weird and it was revised. Calcs can be inflated through method just as they can be through assumptions.
Bucko.
Yes, please
Could that be applied to all the other 4-A and above calcs on the wiki?
