• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Major PTJ Universe Speed Upgrade

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dino called for backup 🥶 (that's a joke, dino don't cry)

Sinu​


Sinu’s calculation is wrong and substantially overestimates the distance moved. It assumes incorrect joint angles, specifically, a 150° lift of the thigh and a 120° flex at the knee, while the scan clearly shows the knee rising by roughly 90° and indicates that most of the motion is at the knee rather than the entire leg. That implies either 1 the actual reach to strike Old Face and the other target is much less than what is shown in the feat (as reaching them is impossible with a 90 degree thigh rise) meaning the distance old head moved is actually much more, or 2 Sinu’s kick did not involve direct head contact. There is also an error in the motion assumption. If the thigh was raised 150°, the knee would only need an additional 30° rise to hit them. When you think about it, 150° moved up by the thigh means he only has to move his knee about 30°. You assumed he moved his full leg back to its starting position which makes literally no sense, what makes sense is him moving his knee to the starting position of his thigh being raise 150°. I declare this calculation debunked.

Manager Kim​


This feat displays inconsistency, the dude is crying in one panel and in the next panel his face is contorted to the side, meaning scaling to his nose bridge is flawed as the distance moved by him creates larger distance between him and the bullet, meaning the bullet moved more distance. Onto my second reasoning as to why the calc is flawed, we use the diameter of the bullet here which is closer to the Point of View of the camera then the slash, using something closer to the camera to scale something further than the camera actually makes the thing further than the camera look much larger. Onto the third reason, once the bullet is touched, the velocity slows down significantly, so using the end of the bullet as scaling is flawed because the bullet has already slow'n down due to being cut from the front. I also declare this calculation, debunked.
 
Who mf's turn into once it's time to debunk lookism.
Albert-Einstein.jpg
 
Why is that a low-end when we know it can't be the distance? You're literally suggesting to do something that is wrong as a "low end" (we both know that's not a low end btw, you can say high end man, i'm not gonna fight you or sum) when we do have already have a low end. How does that even make sense.
Because the bullet is traveling a greater distance than it normally should.


Alright so first of all, the bullets can't even be angsized properly as they're on different planes which makes angsizing unreliable and inconsistent. You literally get different results from each of them.
Even if the piece of the bullet on the right moves slightly to the side, the pixel at the base of the bullet won't change, so this is not important. Also, when I checked the bases of the two bullet fragments with pixels, the difference wasn't very big, so it won't really affect the result.

Lastly, like I said above, we know that distance isn't the distance the bullet traveled. What you're doing is essentially estimating how much the bullet traveled, which would only be valid if we didn't already have a concrete proven distance the bullet would ve traveled.
Finding the maximum distance the bullet traveled would be a Lowball anyway, so it's already quite reliable.

Concrete distance>estimated distance.
Estimated distance = the maximum distance the bullet will travel > the distance the bullet did not cover.

That's what I think at least. So no, I don't agree with your method. Period.
Your disagreement doesn't change anything.

That reply wasn't towards you but whatever. You're essentially agreeing to Sinu being 14 times faster than MK. Better change the scaling chain ig
No, you didn't understand what I meant. I'm saying that the hypersonic calculation is a supporting calculation.

That's not even what I meant. I'm talking about the fact that MK uses weapons in the feat. Even an average person can swing a sword faster than they can punch. Apply the same logic here. MK's speed in this feat should upscale from MK's combat speed (his barehanded combat should still be comparable as I don't have proof that he's exceptionally faster with a weapon). What you're saying is that MK's speed that upscales from his base speed is 14 times slower than Sinu. How is that even consistent?
Since a relevant CGD has been opened about which calculation would be good, I won't waste my time discussing it further.

This feat displays inconsistency, the dude is crying in one panel and in the next panel his face is contorted to the side, meaning scaling to his nose bridge is flawed as the distance moved by him creates larger distance between him and the bullet, meaning the bullet moved more distance.
Since the bullet travels a greater distance, the result comes out lower. Therefore, it should be calculated as the Low End.

Onto my second reasoning as to why the calc is flawed, we use the diameter of the bullet here which is closer to the Point of View of the camera then the slash, using something closer to the camera to scale something further than the camera actually makes the thing further than the camera look much larger.
No, I don’t do it that way. To find the distance between the tip of the bullet and the face, I calculate how far the base of the bullet and the character’s face are from the camera using Angsize, then I subtract these two values and subtract the bullet’s length from the result. It’s that simple.

Onto the third reason, once the bullet is touched, the velocity slows down significantly, so using the end of the bullet as scaling is flawed because the bullet has already slow'n down due to being cut from the front.
Looking at the motion lines, it's quite clear that it only fell downward and did not move.

I also declare this calculation, debunked.
You didn’t debunk anything.
 
Since the bullet travels a greater distance, the result comes out lower. Therefore, it should be calculated as the Low End.
What mate.
No, I don’t do it that way. To find the distance between the tip of the bullet and the face, I calculate how far the base of the bullet and the character’s face are from the camera using Angsize, then I subtract these two values and subtract the bullet’s length from the result. It’s that simple.
That literally applies to my debunk mate.
Looking at the motion lines, it's quite clear that it only fell downward and did not move.
WHAT.
 
Because the bullet is traveling a greater distance than it normally should.
How does that even make your "lowball" distance valid? Are you like, actually using your thinking skills here?

The second sentence isn't an insult because "I don't know how much more clearly I can say this".
Even if the piece of the bullet on the right moves slightly to the side, the pixel at the base of the bullet won't change, so this is not important. Also, when I checked the bases of the two bullet fragments with pixels, the difference wasn't very big, so it won't really affect the result.
Sharpnels don't move to the side after being cut. They move forward while also moving to the side. So the pixel at the base would change.
Estimated distance = the maximum distance the bullet will travel > the distance the bullet did not cover.
No. Estimated distance is not equal to the exact distance the bullet traveled. That's my entire point. Also the maximum distance the bullet would travel is the distance between the dude's face and the bullet in the first scan.
Your disagreement doesn't change anything.
A regular member disagreeing to a calc doesn't change anything !? 🤯

My disagreement not "changing anything" is not the point. The fact that I disagree with your method is the point. It's pretty much a way of saying "Agree to disagree with someone".
No, you didn't understand what I meant. I'm saying that the hypersonic calculation is a supporting calculation.
If the supporting calc in question is inconsistent with the scaling chain of the verse, it's not a supporting calc.
Since a relevant CGD has been opened about which calculation would be good, I won't waste my time discussing it further.
CGD threads don't deal with outliers (as far as I know) so even if that method somehow gets accepted, you still have to come back to this CRT and get it accepted to apply it.
He does get like that when you disagree with him.

If it's not blatantly obvious, I agree with Vzearr's debunks. He brings up great points.
 
How does that even make your "lowball" distance valid? Are you like, actually using your thinking skills here?
I’ve already explained this many times by repeating it. I’m not going to explain the same thing again. Instead of ignoring my arguments, go read them.

Sharpnels don't move to the side after being cut. They move forward while also moving to the side. So the pixel at the base would change.
Looking at the motion lines, it’s quite clear that it isn’t moving forward, only downward.

No. Estimated distance is not equal to the exact distance the bullet traveled. That's my entire point. Also the maximum distance the bullet would travel is the distance between the dude's face and the bullet in the first scan.
Because he turned his head, the distance between the bullet and the face slightly decreases, which means the distance the bullet traveled is a bit longer. If he hadn't turned his head in the next panel, the distance between the bullet and the face would have been a little greater and therefore the distance the bullet traveled would have been a little shorter. Therefore the result comes out lower. As long as the result isn't higher than it should be, this can be used.

My disagreement not "changing anything" is not the point. The fact that I disagree with your method is the point. It's pretty much a way of saying "Agree to disagree with someone".
I’ve debunked all your arguments. Despite that, I couldn’t care less if you don’t agree with my method.

If the supporting calc in question is inconsistent with the scaling chain of the verse, it's not a supporting calc.
That’s not how it works. Since the difference isn’t that big, this is a supporting calculation.
CGD threads don't deal with outliers (as far as I know) so even if that method somehow gets accepted, you still have to come back to this CRT and get it accepted to apply it.
What nonsense are you talking about? A CGD has already been opened regarding which calculation will be used. The result of the MHS calculation may change, so you can’t argue whether this is an outlier right now.

He does get like that when you disagree with him.
Really? Despite me repeatedly debunking your terrible arguments, you keep ignoring mine and continue posting the same awful arguments. I'm tired of responding to them over and over. It's truly pathetic how desperate you are to bring down the feat.

If it's not blatantly obvious, I agree with Vzearr's debunks. He brings up great points.
He didn’t really make that good points. Still, it’s normal for you to side with him since he’s your friend.
 
Guys, let’s cool it a bit. Debating calcs is fine, but turning it personal doesn’t help. Focus on the arguments, keep it respectful, and let’s make the discussion constructive.
 
Guys, let’s cool it a bit. Debating calcs is fine, but turning it personal doesn’t help. Focus on the arguments, keep it respectful, and let’s make the discussion constructive.
Yeah idk why the hostility got turn up to max level tbh.

@Viott I don't like having heated arguments over some comic dudes fighting, and I'd rather not get reported to the RVR thread cuz of that massive wall of provocation (more so ragebait) filled text, so I'm stopping the MK calc discussion. We can continue if your calc gets accepted, okay?
 
@Viott I don't like having heated arguments over some comic dudes fighting, and I'd rather not get reported to the RVR thread cuz of that massive wall of provocation (more so ragebait) filled text, so I'm stopping the MK calc discussion. We can continue if your calc gets accepted, okay?
Ok.
 
Last edited:
Would someone mind summarizing the debate here thus far?
What’s going on with viott dinoxd and vzearr is unrelated to the discussion since their talking about a different calc not mentioned here.

Before that it was whether or not this new calc here is even correct and which version of the calc between the previously accepted version and this one is more accurate
 
What’s going on with viott dinoxd and vzearr is unrelated to the discussion since their talking about a different calc not mentioned here.

Before that it was whether or not this new calc here is even correct and which version of the calc between the previously accepted version and this one is more accurate
Alright, well it's not my job to determine whether or not a calculation is correct.

What is the consensus among the Calc Group?
 
Alright, well it's not my job to determine whether or not a calculation is correct.

What is the consensus among the Calc Group?
I think this CRT should be closed for now, since a CGD has been opened regarding which calculation should be used.
 
I think this CRT should be closed for now, since a CGD has been opened regarding which calculation should be used.
Alright. I will do so then.
Let me (or someone) know when the calculation issue has been sorted out.

I'll edit the CGD into the OP for anyone who stumbles across this in the meantime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top