Murder Drones CRT: Black Hole Calculation Removal

[FreezerMonkey]

As the title suggests, I am suggesting the removal of all calcs from Murder Drones profiles that assume the Null's generated by the Absolute Solver are actually black holes, or black hole adjacent. I honestly don't know how this hasn't been addressed before, but here I am. So, as I implied earlier, nulls are not black holes, nor do they share any similarities to black holes. I am here to prove that.

The first thing we'll address is the solar system level calculation. The feat in question is below, 10:45-10:50



Now, let's calculate the mass of this black hole. We'll use the linked calculations radius of 27 155 500 meters, for the sake of convenience. According to A Black Hole - Up Close! from Nasa. According to them, a black hole with a radius of about 1 meter has about 120 times the mass of Earth. And according to Earth, also sourced from Nasa, Earth has a mass of 5.98e+24 kg, or 5980000000000000000000000 kg, converted to full number form for ease of use. Multiplied by 120, that's 7.176e+26 kg. So that's 1 meter/7.176e+26 kg. Mutliply both sides by 27 155 500 meters to get 1.9486787e+34 kg. According to Mercer, the sun has a mass of 1.9891e+30 kg, for reference. That's nearly 10 000 times as much mass.

Now, let's move back to the video I linked above. Does anyone here know of anything even remotely close to an actual black hole that emits expulsive force after being spawned inside a planet? Not only that, but this is supposed to be a black hole with more mass than the sun. Why is the solar system at large not being effected? Hell, forget the solar system. What about the moon? What about the fragments of Earth that are right there, and apparently moving away from our supposed black hole. As evidenced from all of this, this cannot be a black hole, and thus, a calc using it as a black hole also cannot be a black hole.

Second calc is a large planetary, and equally as not a black hole as the solar system level calc. Feat linked below.



The calc says that the black hole is 1.29351851853 meters in radius, so using all the prior information given, this black hole has a mass of 9.2822889e+26 kg. For reference, Saturn is 5.683 × 10^26 kg, according to the Las Cumbres Observatory. So does anyone want to explain why a supposed black hole with more mass than Saturn is having absolutely zero effect on its surroundings?

Given all thus, I think its safe to conclude that nulls are not black holes, and should not be calculated like black holes.

Possible Contentions:​

This'll be a short section. Some people may try to bring up the whole "gravitational waves" statement, and to that, I say feats>statements, or in other words, showing is better than telling, and what we're shown directly contradicts the idea that nulls are black holes?

 

[Monaitama]

Ok, so after reading your arguments as to why MD blackholes aren't actual blackholes, I'll reply with some counterpoints.

In Ep 4, we see this in the BG;

In the bottom right corner, you can see it brings up Einstein’s general relativity equation, which is commonly associated with black holes, which is this.

There is also a Twitter post that mentions the Schwarzschild radius formula, an equation which calculates the radius of a blackhole.

So, clearly, the writers intended for Nulls to be viewed as Blackholes. And for some more supplementary material, here's a mention of a Singularity.

Singularities are infinitely dense points that are usually associated with the Big Bang and black holes. Considering there's only been instances of blackholes which the show calls "Nulls", we can already ascertain that Nori is referring to said Nulls. At this point, it is very evident that Nulls are actual blackholes.

"But Blackholes do not have explosive force! The Nulls possessing that force would just disqualify them from being Blackholes!"

And here's the final point that I shall address. Nulls at times do not have the gravitational pull that Blackholes possess naturally, yes, but the Absolute Solver can literally modify them to lack attributes that would be naturally present on normal blackholes.

This is consistent as every time we see a Solver Drone use their powers, we see programs and code being displayed.

Here are some instances of this being the case;









Hope this satisfies any queries you have.

 

[Arceus0x]

When someone brings up an idea you support but say it in such a way that you'd rather just leave them be

 

[Monaitama]

When someone brings up an idea you support but say it in such a way that you'd rather just leave them be

Who are you referring to? The OP?

 

[Arceus0x]

Who are you referring to? The OP?

Yes

 

[FreezerMonkey]

Ok, so after reading your arguments as to why MD blackholes aren't actual blackholes, I'll reply with some counterpoints.

In Ep 4, we see this in the BG;

In the bottom right corner, you can see it brings up Einstein’s general relativity equation, which is commonly associated with black holes, which is this.

There is also a Twitter post that mentions the Schwarzschild radius formula, an equation which calculates the radius of a blackhole.

So, clearly, the writers intended for Nulls to be viewed as Blackholes. And for some more supplementary material, here's a mention of a Singularity.

Singularities are infinitely dense points that are usually associated with the Big Bang and black holes. Considering there's only been instances of blackholes which the show calls "Nulls", we can already ascertain that Nori is referring to said Nulls. At this point, it is very evident that Nulls are actual blackholes.

"But Blackholes do not have explosive force! The Nulls possessing that force would just disqualify them from being Blackholes!"

And here's the final point that I shall address. Nulls at times do not have the gravitational pull that Blackholes possess naturally, yes, but the Absolute Solver can literally modify them to lack attributes that would be naturally present on normal blackholes.

This is consistent as every time we see a Solver Drone use their powers, we see programs and code being displayed.

Here are some instances of this being the case;









Hope this satisfies any queries you have.

The problem is that most of this comes down to what I mentioned in the original post about showing, not telling. This is mostly just "telling".

And here's the final point that I shall address. Nulls at times do not have the gravitational pull that Blackholes possess naturally, yes, but the Absolute Solver can literally modify them to lack attributes that would be naturally present on normal blackholes

At times is different to "always". And we always see them lacking these necessary attributes. And besides, both calcs linked in my OG are examples where the nulls exhibit no attributes of a real black hole, and are treated like black holes anyway, for whatever reason

 

[FreezerMonkey]

Yes

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

 

[Ruby_R_Dracula]

man. rare Freezer Monkey appearing vsbw moment.


following

 

[FreezerMonkey]

man. rare Freezer Monkey appearing vsbw moment.


following

You know me?

Anyway, yes, I do rarely choose to interact with VSBW, unless I believe the topic worth addressing.

 

[Ruby_R_Dracula]

You know me?

05-1

and uh no you don't know me, we are liek mutuals at best tho, cuz both of us are friends with Everette

I don't really hang out on Quora anymore, but uh remember that entire trend on Quora where everyone kept making post of "Bullying Demon Slayer Verse" to the point it even gotten a whole group.

uh yeah I kinda started that.

 

[FreezerMonkey]

05-1

and uh no you don't know me, we are liek mutuals at best tho, cuz both of us are friends with Everette

I don't really hang out on Quora anymore, but uh remember that entire trend on Quora where everyone kept making post of "Bullying Demon Slayer Verse" to the point it even gotten a whole group.

uh yeah I kinda started that.

Interesting. Well, pleasure to meet you, even if had to be here.

 

[Ruby_R_Dracula]

Interesting. Well, pleasure to meet you, even if had to be here.

pleasure meeting you here too Freezer, and I'm really fine that it had to be here. I quite like the feel of Vsbw compared to Quora tbh, I dont surrounded by politics much here

 

[FreezerMonkey]

pleasure meeting you here too Freezer, and I'm really fine that it had to be here. I quite like the feel of Vsbw compared to Quora tbh, I dont surrounded by politics much here

Fair enough. It's more a me thing than anything else, tbh

 

[AyOgUyS]

Lowkey agree

 

[Monaitama]

The problem is that most of this comes down to what I mentioned in the original post about showing, not telling. This is mostly just "telling".


At times is different to "always". And we always see them lacking these necessary attributes. And besides, both calcs linked in my OG are examples where the nulls exhibit no attributes of a real black hole, and are treated like black holes anyway, for whatever reason

"Ah yes, despite Glitch, the studio that created Murder Drones, saying Nulls are straight up blackholes, I shall keep saying they aren't because they lack one attribute despite there being evidence that the Solver literally modifies them to not have said attribute."

And for the 2nd point, what else could those two instances be aside from being Nulls? There is no way those aren't Nulls considering there are no other instances of black spheres in MD outside of Nulls.
And again, them lacking gravitational pull is not enough to disqualify them because again, the Absolute Solver is just modifying them to not have said gravitational pull.

 

[FreezerMonkey]

"Ah yes, despite Glitch, the studio that created Murder Drones, saying Nulls are straight up blackholes, I shall keep saying they aren't because they lack one attribute despite there being evidence that the Solver literally modifies them to not have said attribute."

And for the 2nd point, what else could those two instances be aside from being Nulls? There is no way those aren't Nulls considering there are no other instances of black spheres in MD outside of Nulls.
And again, them lacking gravitational pull is not enough to disqualify them because again, the Absolute Solver is just modifying them to not have said gravitational pull.

I shall address this line by line

Ah yes, despite Glitch, the studio that created Murder Drones, saying Nulls are straight up blackholes,

Falls under telling, not showing, which I explained in the original post

I shall keep saying they aren't because they lack one attribute despite there being evidence that the Solver literally modifies them to not have said attribute.

1. Lack one attribute? No, they display attributes against it
2. What evidence?

And for the 2nd point, what else could those two instances be aside from being Nulls? There is no way those aren't Nulls considering there are no other instances of black spheres in MD outside of Nulls

What? I... never said anything about those two instances not being nulls? I said nulls aren't black holes

And again, them lacking gravitational pull is not enough to disqualify them because again, the Absolute Solver is just modifying them to not have said gravitational pull.

And why is that? Is the Absolute Solver just braindead? It wants to destroy the universe, but also doesn't want to destroy the universe. What possible reason, or evidence is there fore it modifying the nulls every time we see them used to not have any gravitational influence?

 

[Niko]

Falls under telling, not showing, which I explained in the original post

10/10 Self debunk

 

[FreezerMonkey]

10/10 Self debunk

Feel free to explain why, given all the information presented both in my post and in the comments under it.

 

[Monaitama]

I shall address this line by line

Falls under telling, not showing, which I explained in the original post

So you just want ignore Glitch saying Nulls are literal blackholes by providing equations related to blackholes, and referencing Singularities which are related to blackholes? Really?

1. Lack one attribute? No, they display attributes against it
2. What evidence?

What attributes exactly? The big Null not sucking in the Earth being enough to disqualify Nulls as true blackholes is not a good argument considering we can see two beams coming out of opposite sides of the black hole. This is likely a quasar, which occurs when a black hole has consumed too much matter all at once. It pushes other matter away, causing the black hole to be incapable of consuming things while the quasar is active. Quasars are also capable of being active for months at a time, making this all the more likely.

Nulls having explosive force is not enough of a disqualifier either considering Hawking Radiation is a phenomena related to black holes where they emit the matter they eat back in the form of Hawking radiation. Big black holes radiate very slowly so you basically don't even notice, but small black holes radiate much faster. For a very small black hole they radiate energy faster than they can eat it and just explode.

Small blackholes exploding in MD happens as shown here and here.

What evidence? Oh, I don't know, the fact the Absolute Solver being used on screen is consistently shown as data and programs.

And ftr, Glitch said in a Glitch Inn slide that the visuals for the Absolute Solver is just not there to look cool but is very much intentionally designed to look that way, so no, don't try to argue the effects are purely for flashy effects.

Also the Absolute Solver being described to manipulate quantum particles and is even said to be like magic.

What? I... never said anything about those two instances not being nulls? I said nulls aren't black holes

And why is that? Is the Absolute Solver just braindead? It wants to destroy the universe, but also doesn't want to destroy the universe. What possible reason, or evidence is there fore it modifying the nulls every time we see them used to not have any gravitational influence?

It's vague as to why the Solver wants to destroy the Universe.
It's even debatable if the Solver itself wants to achieve that or if the one trying to destroy the universe is purely Cyn.
It's difficult to ascertain what the Solver really wants considering Cyn should have won every exchange with Uzi considering her goals aligned more with the Solvers than it did Uzi's goals if we were to go that route. But alas, Uzi resisted Cyn's influence and won.
More or less, lore on the Solver is pretty much non-existent thanks to a rushed finale.

 

[FreezerMonkey]

So you just want ignore Glitch saying Nulls are literal blackholes by providing equations related to blackholes, and referencing Singularities which are related to blackholes? Really?

What attributes exactly? The big Null not sucking in the Earth being enough to disqualify Nulls as true blackholes is not a good argument considering we can see two beams coming out of opposite sides of the black hole. This is likely a quasar, which occurs when a black hole has consumed too much matter all at once. It pushes other matter away, causing the black hole to be incapable of consuming things while the quasar is active. Quasars are also capable of being active for months at a time, making this all the more likely.

Nulls having explosive force is not enough of a disqualifier either considering Hawking Radiation is a phenomena related to black holes where they emit the matter they eat back in the form of Hawking radiation. Big black holes radiate very slowly so you basically don't even notice, but small black holes radiate much faster. For a very small black hole they radiate energy faster than they can eat it and just explode.

Small blackholes exploding in MD happens as shown here and here.

What evidence? Oh, I don't know, the fact the Absolute Solver being used on screen is consistently shown as data and programs.

And ftr, Glitch said in a Glitch Inn slide that the visuals for the Absolute Solver is just not there to look cool but is very much intentionally designed to look that way, so no, don't try to argue the effects are purely for flashy effects.

Also the Absolute Solver being described to manipulate quantum particles and is even said to be like magic.


It's vague as to why the Solver wants to destroy the Universe.
It's even debatable if the Solver itself wants to achieve that or if the one trying to destroy the universe is purely Cyn.
It's difficult to ascertain what the Solver really wants considering Cyn should have won every exchange with Uzi considering her goals aligned more with the Solvers than it did Uzi's goals if we were to go that route. But alas, Uzi resisted Cyn's influence and won.
More or less, lore on the Solver is pretty much non-existent thanks to a rushed finale.

Let's do this ig

So you just want ignore Glitch saying Nulls are literal blackholes by providing equations related to blackholes, and referencing Singularities which are related to blackholes? Really?

Yes, considering the SHOWING debunks the TELLING.

What attributes exactly? The big Null not sucking in the Earth being enough to disqualify Nulls as true blackholes is not a good argument considering we can see two beams coming out of opposite sides of the black hole. This is likely a quasar, which occurs when a black hole has consumed too much matter all at once. It pushes other matter away, causing the black hole to be incapable of consuming things while the quasar is active. Quasars are also capable of being active for months at a time, making this all the more likely.

Oh, so now we're asserting that it's not just a black hole with no gravity, but it's a quasar with no gravity. Last I checked, quasar's emit gravitational influence.

Nulls having explosive force is not enough of a disqualifier either considering Hawking Radiation is a phenomena related to black holes where they emit the matter they eat back in the form of Hawking radiation. Big black holes radiate very slowly so you basically don't even notice, but small black holes radiate much faster. For a very small black hole they radiate energy faster than they can eat it and just explode

That's... that's not how black holes work at all. Hawking Radiation is released outside the event horizon, and it is most certainly not an example of black holes emitting expulsive force, which is contradictory to how a real black hole works.

And ftr, Glitch said in a Glitch Inn slide that the visuals for the Absolute Solver is just not there to look cool but is very much intentionally designed to look that way, so no, don't try to argue the effects are purely for flashy effects.

That's... an irrelevant argument on a topic I never mentioned.
The rest of your arg is basically "It's prolly a black hole, cause who knows"

Anyway, let's just summarize real quick

1. Null's have no gravitational influence on anything around them, despite some of them being supposed to have nearly 10 thousand times the mass of the sun
2. If the nulls consistently have no gravitational influence on anything around them, they cannot actually be black holes
3. Hawking radiation doesn't debunk anything, as hawking radiation isn't expulsive force. What we see from Cyn's nulls is expulsive force.

 

[Monaitama]

Let's do this ig

Yes, considering the SHOWING debunks the TELLING.

Why are you so against using author statements here? Glitch has been very obvious with how they want Nulls to be viewed as black holes, I don't see why we shouldn't treat them like actual blackholes.
Are you saying you have more power on the matter than the studio behind MD regarding Nulls being black holes and whatnot?

Oh, so now we're asserting that it's not just a black hole with no gravity, but it's a quasar with no gravity. Last I checked, quasar's emit gravitational influence.

I pointed that out considering you said that that if it were an actual black hole, it would have sucked in the solar system. The Quasar does have gravitational influence, yes, but thats whats pushing the Earth away which allows for that to happen. Also, this is the only time we see a black hole of that size, and we have no reason to assume it doesn't have its own gravitational pull considering the Quasar would push away any matter the Blackhole could be pulling into it.

Those two lines being from a Quasar is even more likely as Glitch has already said Nulls are black holes, meaning its very likely that is a Quasar.

That's... that's not how black holes work at all. Hawking Radiation is released outside the event horizon, and it is most certainly not an example of black holes emitting expulsive force, which is contradictory to how a real black hole works.

Small black holes can explode...they emit more matter than they can eat in the form of Hawking Radiation, therefore they just ceast to exist.

That's... an irrelevant argument on a topic I never mentioned.
The rest of your arg is basically "It's prolly a black hole, cause who knows?

The basis of your argument is literally "We shall ignore author statements that are consistent and hyperfixate on details that can be explained via the black holes being modified by the Absolute Solver which manipulates quantum particles as STATED by Glitch."

Like, no, I am not saying that the Nulls are black holes because they look like it, I have given you multiple paragraphs of evidence and you still cling to the same arguments that started this thread despite me answering said arguments.

Anyway, let's just summarize real quick

1. Null's have no gravitational influence on anything around them, despite some of them being supposed to have nearly 10 thousand times the mass of the sun

Again, they can be modified by the Solver to not possess the gravitational pull they would usually have.

Also, we can just assume a black hole being visible while being destructive in a realistic way would be almost impossible to convey in animation, that's why the small ones don't have the gravitational pull.

2. If the nulls consistently have no gravitational influence on anything around them, they cannot actually be black holes

I already said we can attribute that to the Solver modifying them.

3. Hawking radiation doesn't debunk anything, as hawking radiation isn't expulsive force. What we see from Cyn's nulls is expulsivem force.

Hawking Radiation can cause small enough black holes to explode considering the tiny ones would usually emit more energy than they can eat, "killing" them.

 

[FreezerMonkey]

Why are you so against using author statements here? Glitch has been very obvious with how they want Nulls to be viewed as black holes, I don't see why we shouldn't treat them like actual blackholes.
Are you saying you have more power on the matter than the studio behind MD regarding Nulls being black holes and whatnot?

I pointed that out considering you said that that if it were an actual black hole, it would have sucked in the solar system. The Quasar does have gravitational influence, yes, but thats whats pushing the Earth away which allows for that to happen. Also, this is the only time we see a black hole of that size, and we have no reason to assume it doesn't have its own gravitational pull considering the Quasar would push away any matter the Blackhole could be pulling into it.

Those two lines being from a Quasar is even more likely as Glitch has already said Nulls are black holes, meaning its very likely that is a Quasar.

Small black holes can explode...they emit more matter than they can eat in the form of Hawking Radiation, therefore they just ceast to exist.

The basis of your argument is literally "We shall ignore author statements that are consistent and hyperfixate on details that can be explained via the black holes being modified by the Absolute Solver which manipulates quantum particles as STATED by Glitch."

Like, no, I am not saying that the Nulls are black holes because they look like it, I have given you multiple paragraphs of evidence and you still cling to the same arguments that started this thread despite me answering said arguments.

Again, they can be modified by the Solver to not possess the gravitational pull they would usually have.

Also, we can just assume a black hole being visible while being destructive in a realistic way would be almost impossible to convey in animation, that's why the small ones don't have the gravitational pull.

I already said we can attribute that to the Solver modifying them.

Hawking Radiation can cause small enough black holes to explode considering the tiny ones would usually emit more energy than they can eat, "killing" them.

Aight, let's do this

Why are you so against using author statements here? Glitch has been very obvious with how they want Nulls to be viewed as black holes, I don't see why we shouldn't treat them like actual blackholes.

I have no problem with author statements in general. I have a problem with author statements that directly contradict the feats, yet people still push them as fact

Are you saying you have more power on the matter than the studio behind MD regarding Nulls being black holes and whatnot?

I'm saying feats>statements

I pointed that out considering you said that that if it were an actual black hole, it would have sucked in the solar system. The Quasar does have gravitational influence, yes, but thats whats pushing the Earth away which allows for that to happen. Also, this is the only time we see a black hole of that size, and we have no reason to assume it doesn't have its own gravitational pull considering the Quasar would push away any matter the Blackhole could be pulling into it.

What? Quasars are literally formed because of matter falling into the black hole, not matter getting pushed away. A black hole with nearly 10 000 times the mass of the sun should do something and yet it does nothing

Those two lines being from a Quasar is even more likely as Glitch has already said Nulls are black holes, meaning its very likely that is a Quasar.

Again, showing, not telling

Small black holes can explode...they emit more matter than they can eat in the form of Hawking Radiation, therefore they just ceast to exist.

Hawking radiation is matter that hasn't yet fallen past the event horizon. It's not black holes exhibiting no gravity. And they don't cease to exist. It's the Law of Conservation of Mass.

The basis of your argument is literally "We shall ignore author statements that are consistent and hyperfixate on details that can be explained via the black holes being modified by the Absolute Solver which manipulates quantum particles as STATED by Glitch."

No, the basis of my argument is "Author statements are inconsistent with the fact that EVERY TIME we see nulls used, they do not exhibit properties of a black hole, and so I will use the feats over the statements"

Like, no, I am not saying that the Nulls are black holes because they look like it, I have given you multiple paragraphs of evidence and you still cling to the same arguments that started this thread despite me answering said arguments.

No, you've given me the same tired old statements I've debunked time and time again with actual feats

Also, we can just assume a black hole being visible while being destructive in a realistic way would be almost impossible to convey in animation, that's why the small ones don't have the gravitational pull.

None of them have gravitational pull, not even the big ones.

Hawking Radiation can cause small enough black holes to explode considering the tiny ones would usually emit more energy than they can eat, "killing" them.

As I said, that's matter that has not yet fallen past the event horizon, not the gravity of a black hole being reversed ig?

 

[Niko]

I have no problem with author statements in general. I have a problem with author statements that directly contradict the feats, yet people still push them as fact

If you have no problem with author's statement in general, then you agreed it is 100% a black hole. Good game.

 

[FreezerMonkey]

If you have no problem with author's statement in general, then you agreed it is 100% a black hole. Good game.

So let me you ask this: did you actually read what I said? Author statements as a concept I have no problem with, however, as the LITERAL NEXT LINE SAID had you bothered to read, is that I DO have a problem when author statements directly contradict the feats, and I will take feats over statements any day of the week.
I swear, 95% of VSBW users have a problem with reading or smth.

 

[Niko]

and I will take feats over statements any day of the week.

Subjective = opinion

 

[AyOgUyS]

Not too much of a MD expert, but FreezerMonkey's arguments make more sense to me.

 

[Niko]

Not too much of a MD expert, but FreezerMonkey's arguments make more sense to me.

But have you watched it?

 

[AyOgUyS]

But have you watched it?

I watched everything up to like Episode 7 but barely remember anything

 

[Monaitama]

Not too much of a MD expert, but FreezerMonkey's arguments make more sense to me.

Why though? Can you explain why they make more sense?

 

[FreezerMonkey]

Subjective = opinion

Good thing it's not subjective.

 

[FreezerMonkey]

Why though? Can you explain why they make more sense?

Probably because I just do. I mean, I've tried and I still can't think of any examples of real black holes that radiate expulsive force, and that exhibit no gravitational influence on things, despite having 10 thousand times as much mass as the sun.

 

[Monaitama]

Probably because I just do. I mean, I've tried and I still can't think of any examples of real black holes that radiate expulsive force, and that exhibit no gravitational influence on things, despite having 10 thousand times as much mass as the sun.

I'm asking them, not you...if they want to agree with the thread, then they should say why they agree, otherwise their input is kinda pointless and can be ignored.

 

[AigerTheKing]

Good thing it's not subjective.

I wonder where the wiki says that

 

[AigerTheKing]

Contentions:
This'll be a short section. Some people may try to bring up the whole "gravitational waves" statement, and to that, I say feats>statements, or in other words, showing is better than telling, and what we're shown directly contradicts the idea that nulls are black holes?

Im reading the thread, and Im just wondering based on what can statements just be randomly ignored without any contradictions?

 

[Alexander]

Why are you going to discredit statements about the background just because?
do you think people just put that stuff there just for the lols?

 

[AigerTheKing]

Why are you going to discredit statements about the background just because?
do you think people just put that stuff there just for the lols?

Exactly, this just sounds dishonest

 

[FreezerMonkey]

I wonder where the wiki says that

Right in the message you responded to. It was on this wiki, therefore the wiki said it.

 

[FreezerMonkey]

Im reading the thread, and Im just wondering based on what can statements just be randomly ignored without any contradictions?

Based on the fact said statements themselves are contradictions of the feats.

 

[FreezerMonkey]

Why are you going to discredit statements about the background just because?
do you think people just put that stuff there just for the lols?

Feats>statements. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Alexander]

Based on the fact said statements themselves are contradictions of the feats.

feats should not be above statements, they should be equal

Feats>statements. I'll leave it at that.

that is not a explanation, you are just saying it for saying it.