Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There seems to be a problem here with a unspecified time frame. Is there any reason why 1715 multiplier would have to be added? A person traveling at 17 200 000 m/s or 0.057373024374082 c would be traveling 50145.772595 the speed of sound or 10 000 times faster than someone at Mach 5. We can't see things that are usually 100 times faster than our speed, so the fact that they have hypersonic reaction speeds doesn't really help them see something that is traveling literally 10 000 times faster. Thus my point is the 1715 multiplier is completely groundless as someone traveling 10 000 times your speed would look instantneous and there's no need for a further multiplier. As there is no indication of the time frame you cannot simply assume that the time frame occured in 1/1715th of a second. (I tried to do this with another Calc but it was rejected due to unspecified time frame even though it showed pretty it pretty clearly).Blahblah9755 said:If you don't mind I'd like to suggest that we at the very least multiply Don't talk's result by 1715 (it takes 1/1715 seconds for a Mach 5 object to travel 1 meter) to adjust for hypersonic reaction speed, which would give us a result of 97.755 times the speed of light, as a low end
1. Single strike from nanometer blade is not enough for destroying cell. So, she can cut another cells, but concentrates on one cell in time.A6colute said:I have to say that what Aizen says seems to make sense.
Sigh...
1. Single strike from nanometer blade is not enough for destroying cell. So, she can cut another cells, but concentrates on one cell in time.
2. It's not 1 sec and 1 meter. It's at least 0.001 sec and 2-3 meters.
3. We cannot accuratly calculate how many cells have been cutted by 1 strike.
So, this calc is completely useless.
I'm just taking the standard minimum base reaction time of a hypersonic being, not using a calc or anything. Would that still be calc stacking?LordAizenSama said:@BlahBlah that sounds like Calc Stacking to me.
Well it's clear that neither side is going to give up here, I'm not sure what else can be done..
Don't you think you're being a bit bias towards your series here? I admit I am bias towards index as well but at least I made a calc to back up my statements.A6colute said:Aurasuke, You stupid hater. And I'm very tired of you.