Feats are always above statements. If Character A consistently struggles to beat a guy who can destroy 1 building at max power, statements of Character A being universal can be dismissed, because they directly contradict the consistent struggle to beat the building level guy.
THAT IS SO FAR OUT OF LEAGUE LIKE COME ON, WHAT IN THE ******* WORLD IS THIS EXAMPLE?
Baseless claim
Contextual statements can contradicts/make feats invalid too. Your example is bad too
This response is essentially just "you're wrong" with no substance. And do calm down.
I'll give you the same example I gave the other dude
They can yes, but there's a difference between statements designed to add on context, and statements that directly contradict the fundamental nature of things given to us.
your responses sound like the same thing
except that the fundamental nature of things giving to us is thanks to the statements, not thanks to the things themselves.
The background picture is straight up contextual evidence for the feat. Idk why we should ignore a billboard and a character calling it a "singularity"
That twitter post is just showing more detailed bg's from some of the Eps, wdym its not reliable.
A singularity has gravity. The two examples given in my post have none.
My posts actually have explanations beyond "nuh uh"
It's ALWAYS the things themselves. A statement does not trump that.
ignoring that the Solver can control gravity?
Question then.
And to further reiterate that Nulls are black holes, let's talk about the instances where Nulls show the properties of black holes.
posted on like 4 staff walls.
Your argument is just a straw-man fallacy, because in Murder Drones that’s not the case at all.
Hardly. I said in specific to the two examples given, which objectively displayed no gravity
This is all just either statements, or you just straight up agreeing that they're not black holesTo begin with, it is a singularity, that’s explicitly confirmed through multiple easter eggs in the series.
There's also another easter egg outside the show itself, included in official merchandise. When you purchase a JCJenson pen, you receive a note addressed to Cooper9 scientists. It explains how to survive various catastrophes, and one of the events listed is a "singularity event"
So, why doesn’t the Null behave exactly like a black hole?Simple: it’s not exactly a black hole. It’s more like a Big Crunch, as implied in the ester egg, a point where the laws of the universe collapse in on themselves.
That’s why there’s no gravitational pull around the Null. However, black holes and big crunches follow the same physics in terms of mass and density, so the math still checks out when doing calculations based on their size and gravitational characteristics.
So yes, the calculation is still correct, but if we want to nitpick, yes, it won't suck everything in like a black hole, but it will create a local collapse, which is not instantaneous throughout the entire solar system. The result is the same, and the calculation proves it. In my opinion, when they use the term “black hole” is mainly a simplification, not a literal black hole.
First of all, the gravitational waves reference isn't even a statement, it's an easter egg. And easter eggs are confirmed canon within the series. Because the glitch confirms the canonicity of one of the Easter eggs, and encourages people to look for the other Easter eggs, referring to them as “extra details.” So he confirms once again the canonicity of the other Easter eggs with this sentence.
Second, this line is also a textbook case of the argument from ignorance fallacy, because saying “feats > statements” is usually just a rhetorical device, not an actual argument.
Just because feats are generally seen as more reliable doesn’t automatically make a statement false. To actually claim a statement is false, you need a feat that directly contradicts it. Only then can you use “feats > statements” as a valid argument rather than a rhetorical slogan.
But that’s not what’s happening here, so the argument is fallacious.
This is just a red herring.
seriosly, the being who controls gravity and clearly can create black holes, apparently, does not create black holes even when it was shown that they control gravity???????????????
With how vague the scene is, your interpretation is as likely to be the case as it is to be mine, lol.
Hey, this is totally unrelated, but there's another stupid debunk about murder drones, so I'll give you the link if you want to debunk it too. Since I consider the work done here.
Hi citrus, surprised to see ya here
Idk, man. It's either a black hole or it's not (going off Wiki standards anyways) and I've already provided plenty of stuff to suggest the former is more true.
So technically, yes, there aren’t different types of black holes. However, in this case, we’re talking about a singularity. People might say it’s the same thing, but not exactly, because a singularity is a concept that describes a region where all the known laws of the universe no longer apply, whereas a black hole is what surrounds the singularity. Technically, both the Big Crunch and the Big Bang are singularities, yet neither of them are black holes. So yes, there aren’t multiple types of black holes, but there are different types of singularities. Still, all these phenomena are calculated in the same way, which is why I stand by this calculation.
Not really, in MD case, it can elaborated that Nulls is a controlled black hole that can balance functions of black holes for users as they want it, but they still should have all black hole properties from other evidences
Wanna bet it's void manipulation? Because Null and codes and all...
The void doesn’t produce gravitational waves.
This and That. Those really are the 2 closest instances I can say they have the appearance of a blackhole.
Just a combination of different abilities under the classification "NULL" because it's generally used for many different stuff.
