Cardfight speed downgrade

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I haven't read the rest of the thread, so sorry if this has already been addressed, but that is not at all what the new rule is. Space travel always needs extra justification to scale to combat speeds, whether it's travel to another solar system or travel across the universe.

Not according to the speed page. The very fact that it mentions planets and stars as the typical destination points in space where reaction speed doesnt necessarily scale makes this not a thing.

 

[Agnaa]

Not according to the speed page. The very fact that it mentions planets and stars as the typical destination points in space where reaction speed doesnt necessarily scale makes this not a thing.

I don't know how to respond to this since I don't understand your reasoning.

The Speed page says that characters need to demonstrate the ability to react to sudden obstacles while traveling through empty terrain, and have a calculation made for reacting to that obstacle rather than the entire travel feat. And gives space travel to destinations such as stars as planets as an example.

And your reason for that not being required here is... The character flew to another universe rather than another planet? That doesn't make sense, the two examples of "stars and planets" aren't meant to be exhaustive; it's not implying that flying to a meteor, black hole, quasar, gas cloud, or galaxy does automatically scale the entire flight speed to reactions. That's pretty clear by text earlier saying that it applies to any travel through empty terrain.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

The Speed page says that characters need to demonstrate the ability to react to sudden obstacles while traveling through empty terrain, and have a calculation made for reacting to that obstacle rather than the entire travel feat. And gives space travel to destinations such as stars as planets as an example.

Yes, because those space-traveling feats are typically when the character is leaving one specific location to then travel to another specific location. From a planet to another planet, or a star to another star, etc etc. And in a straight path between point A and B nonetheless, as directly specified in the rule.

It is one thing if you are just flying around in an empty terriain in space to go from one planet to another, or from one star to another. But crossing the entire universe, which obviously includes numerous obstacles in an area that is very much not empty terrain, is a whole different ballpark. Especially when you are crossing the universe to reach its end, to then enter another universe, and do the same thing.

On top of that, the new speed rule for space-traveling feats is also seemingly very specifically centered towards traveling between celestial bodies. Not travel that goes across, and then into, whole realities.

 

[Agnaa]

As the thread where this rule was agreed on specifies, the universe as a whole is definitely empty terrain. Only 0.0000000000000000000042% of the universe contains any matter.

It is absolutely not created just for travel between celestial bodies. That's why it was worded to be much broader than that. I say this as someone who talked to AKM about the rule before the thread was made, and was active in the discussion of the rule.

There is no reason for travel across the universe to bypass this rule. Nothing on the speed page or the thread where it was discussed indicates this. In fact, the opposite is indicated.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Yeah this thread went down a hellhole pretty fast

Anyway since I was the one who brought up the traveling speed stuff I agree with agnaa here

 

[azontr]

Can what the MFTL+ scales to be saved for a separate CRT?

 

[Quangotjokes]

I agree with agnaa as well, very valid points.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

As the thread where this rule was agreed on specifies, the universe as a whole is definitely empty terrain. Only 0.0000000000000000000042% of the universe contains any matter.

Not when it comes to traveling through and past numerous stars, star systems, and galaxies. AKM himself even admits this when specifying "there's a small chance where they will run into any obstacles".

So if you are traveling in an area of space where there such obstacles, this does not apply.

It is absolutely not created just for travel between celestial bodies. That's why it was worded to be much broader than that. I say this as someone who talked to AKM about the rule before the thread was made, and was active in the discussion of the rule.

Then the rule needs to be updated to reflect on that. Having wording specifically geared towards specifically celestial bodies will cause that confusion, so it needs to be updated.

 

[azontr]

I agree with agnaa as well, very valid points.

You do realize agnaa isn't saying the feat isn't MFTL+ but is instead saying that they should only have MFTL+ in travel speed, right? Your downgrade isn't going through.

 

[DaReaperMan]

I agree with agnaa as well, very valid points.

Yes, those are. Not yers.

 

[Quangotjokes]

You do realize agnaa isn't saying the feat isn't MFTL+ but is instead saying that they should only have MFTL+ in travel speed, right? Your downgrade isn't going through.

I was arguing battle speed, so it still fits my narrative.

 

[Agnaa]

Not when it comes to traveling through and past numerous stars, star systems, and galaxies. AKM himself even admits this when specifying "there's a small chance where they will run into any obstacles".

Yes when it comes to traveling through and past them, as AKM pointed out, there is an astronomically low chance of encountering them.

So if you are traveling in an area of space where there such obstacles, this does not apply.

AKM's number was about the universe as a whole.

If you want I can call AKM in here, although he seems offline rn so it may take a bit.

Then the rule needs to be updated to reflect on that. Having wording specifically geared towards specifically celestial bodies will cause that confusion, so it needs to be updated.

The rule is already very clear. It specifies that it's for any travel through a very empty terrain. And it specifies that travel between planets/stars is just an example.

You do realize agnaa isn't saying the feat isn't MFTL+ but is instead saying that they should only have MFTL+ in travel speed, right? Your downgrade isn't going through.

Yes, those are. Not yers.

In the past dozen or so posts you two have seemed a little bit hostile. Chill out. There's no need to go parading around "HAHAHA YOUR DOWNGRADE ISN'T GOING THROUGH!!!!"

 

[azontr]

In the past dozen or so posts you two have seemed a little bit hostile. Chill out. There's no need to go parading around "HAHAHA YOUR DOWNGRADE ISN'T GOING THROUGH!!!!"

It's very frustrating when you get stonewalled, friend. If I was hostile, I apologize, but it's reaaaallly hard.

 

[DaReaperMan]

I wasn't being hostile there. I was pointing that out.

 

[Quangotjokes]

Why would a soul need to avoid terrain in the first place?

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Not when it comes to traveling through and past numerous stars, star systems, and galaxies. AKM himself even admits this when specifying "there's a small chance where they will run into any obstacles".

Yes when it comes to traveling through and past them, as AKM pointed out, there is an astronomically low chance of encountering them.

Okay? That doesnt matter when, in this particular case of this particular feat, they do encounter them. So it doesn't apply.

So if you are traveling in an area of space where there such obstacles, this does not apply.

AKM's number was about the universe as a whole.

See above. The feat not scaling is only an option when there are no obstacles to be encountered during the space flight. Which is not the case here.

If you want I can call AKM in here.

I have AKM personally on speed dial via discord so that isn't necessary.

Then the rule needs to be updated to reflect on that. Having wording specifically geared towards specifically celestial bodies will cause that confusion, so it needs to be updated.

The rule is already very clear. It specifies that it's for any travel through a very empty terrain. And it specifies that travel between planets/stars is just an example.

Okay, then as said above, this doesnt apply since the area of space traveled for this feat isn't in empty terrain. Numerous stars and galaxies are encountered along the way.

 

[Agnaa]

Okay? That doesnt matter when, in this particular case of this particular feat, they do encounter them. So it doesn't apply.

If by "They do encounter them" you mean "It is directly shown on screen that they are about to crash into a celestial object, and they perform a maneuver to avoid it" then, as is said on the Speed page, the avoidance of those obstacles needs to be calculated independently from the flight as a whole. Because, as is said in the thread where this was discussed, even with absurdly generous assumptions, this can be millions of times lower than the flight speed as a whole.

If instead you just mean something like "We see celestial objects nearby" that wouldn't be calcable, and thus wouldn't qualify.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Okay? That doesnt matter when, in this particular case of this particular feat, they do encounter them. So it doesn't apply.

If by "They do encounter them" you mean "It is directly shown on screen that they are about to crash into a celestial object, and they perform a maneuver to avoid it" then, as is said on the Speed page, the avoidance of those obstacles needs to be calculated independently from the flight as a whole. Because, as is said in the thread where this is discussed, even with absurdly generous assumptions, this can be millions of times lower than the flight speed as a whole.

If instead you just mean something like "We see celestial objects nearby" that wouldn't be calcable, and thus wouldn't qualify.

Yeah no. Very much disagreeing with this take. Asking for an instance of them "about to crash" makes this a very oddly specific requirement for a case that more than not doesnt apply since empty terrain isn't present here.

And as for the "can be millions of times lower than the flight speed", again, this only goes for the specific examples of traveling to and from celestial bodies (DMUA's example, which im assuming your pulling this from, specifically goes for this from that very specifically formed scenario he conjured up; a whole universe's distance across light years is a different story) and also for when the character slows or alters their descent onto the destination.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Also sidetone, now that I think about it, the feat being reaction speed too can also be proven by the fact that Takuto's soul literally flies into Cray at the same speed he flies at after leaving Earth, crash lands into Cray and causes a huge explosion, with no visible harm to him or Ultra Rare afterwards.

That implies reaction since the speed wasn't slowed or altered upon descent.

 

[Agnaa]

The rule doesnt specify the requirement that it need to be shown to us directly. Asking for an instance of them "about to crash" makes this a very oddly specific requirement for a case that more than not doesnt apply since empty terrain.

True, but for a calculation to be done we need to have something to go off of. We need to have an actual event in the story, either shown to us or described by statements. Given that it's an animated series, I don't expect they'd have a statement like "And then the souls almost crashed into a planet, but they dodged it just in the nick of time!" I'd more expect that, at most, there'd be some animation of them flying through space which we may be able to derive something from.

Knowing that they would have crashed unless they dodged is pretty important because if we're going through the 99.9999999999999999999958% empty terrain of space and a character doesn't have any indications of crashing into anything, we shouldn't just assume that they would have.

And as for the "can be millions of times lower than the flight speed", again, this only goes for the specific examples of traveling to and from celestial bodies (DMUA's example, which im assuming your pulling this from, specifically goes for this from that very specifically formed scenario he conjured up; a whole universe's distance across light years is a different story) and also for when the character slows or alters their descent onto the destination.

DMUA's example wasn't traveling to a celestial body, it was a character flying through empty space, not noticing a star system or planets, almost crashing into a planet, but avoiding it. It says nothing about a destination.

The reason it didn't say anything about a destination, is because that does not change things in any way. Traveling from a planet on one edge of the observable universe to a planet on the other edge of the observable universe is not meaningfully different from traveling from empty space on one edge of the observable universe to empty space on the other edge of the observable universe, as the part to be calculated would be any obstacles encountered along the way, which would be identical in both cases.

Large-scale distances do not matter, and in fact make things worse for the idea that it's "not empty"; the space between galaxies and between clusters of galaxies is even more empty than the space within galaxies themselves.

Also sidetone, now that I think about it, the feat being reaction speed too can also be proven by the fact that Takuto's soul literally flies into Cray at the same speed he flies at after leaving Earth, crash lands into Cray and causes a huge explosion, with no visible harm to him or Ultra Rare afterwards.

That implies reaction since the speed wasn't slowed or altered upon descent.

I don't know how that implies reaction speed. That just sounds like durability.

 

[Hasty12345]

I have AKM personally on speed dial via discord so that isn't necessary.

Weird flex but ok

 

[Quangotjokes]

Also sidetone, now that I think about it, the feat being reaction speed too can also be proven by the fact that Takuto's soul literally flies into Cray at the same speed he flies at after leaving Earth, crash lands into Cray and causes a huge explosion, with no visible harm to him or Ultra Rare afterwards.

That implies reaction since the speed wasn't slowed or altered upon descent.

The fact he crashes leans more towards lack of reaction speed.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

The rule doesnt specify the requirement that it need to be shown to us directly. Asking for an instance of them "about to crash" makes this a very oddly specific requirement for a case that more than not doesnt apply since empty terrain.

True, but for a calculation to be done we need to have something to go off of. We need to have an actual event in the story, either shown to us or described by statements. Given that it's an animated series, I don't expect they'd have a statement like "And then the souls almost crashed into a planet, but they dodged it just in the nick of time!" I'd more expect that, at most, there'd be some animation of them flying through space which we may be able to derive something from.

I edited my comment on this, so my bad, as I wasn't finished with the sentence here.

But yes, as the clip given from the very beginning shows, they are traveling through an area of space where numerous stars and even galaxies are in the middle of their space flight to where they are going.

It is one thing if the terrain of space is empty, OR, if a character travels a path explicitly in a straight line. That I can agree on needing something to prove crashing since both scenarios already set up the circumstance of safe flight without needing to dodge anything at all. But if the terrain isn't empty and their stellar flight isn't going straight through in a line, that should give us enough factors to generally rate their reaction speeds, since that gives enough factors to assume dodging or safe descent within their perception is being done.

Knowing that they would have crashed unless they dodged is pretty important because if we're going through the 99.9999999999999999999958% empty terrain of space and a character doesn't have any indications of crashing into anything, we shouldn't just assume that they would have.

See above in my response for this pretty much.

And as for the "can be millions of times lower than the flight speed", again, this only goes for the specific examples of traveling to and from celestial bodies (DMUA's example, which im assuming your pulling this from, specifically goes for this from that very specifically formed scenario he conjured up; a whole universe's distance across light years is a different story) and also for when the character slows or alters their descent onto the destination.

DMUA's example wasn't traveling to a celestial body, it was a character flying through empty space, not noticing a star system or planets, almost crashing into a planet, but avoiding it. It says nothing about a destination.

Small error on my part then. Still, my earlier point still stands. The speed value was only lowered to MHS+ reactions because the speed of the flight was altered at the last moment (when noticing the planet and avoiding it by altering his path by turning to the side). And this scenario only really fits for passing by and encountering celestial bodies like stars and planets since they are things that one can view from a distance to pre-determingly prepare for. Or not notice but then avoid.

Compare that to general space flight that crosses the entire universe and reaches it's end before moving into another one. How can the former apply to the latter? You can't exactly "notice" or "not notice" a universe's end. Much less a whole new one that you're about to fly into.

Also sidetone, now that I think about it, the feat being reaction speed too can also be proven by the fact that Takuto's soul literally flies into Cray at the same speed he flies at after leaving Earth, crash lands into Cray and causes a huge explosion, with no visible harm to him or Ultra Rare afterwards.

That implies reaction since the speed wasn't slowed or altered upon descent.

I don't know how that implies reaction speed. That just sounds like durability.

Because the landing onto the planet was a safe landing while moving at the same speed simutaneously, which needs reaction speed in order to accomplish that.

 

[Agnaa]

But yes, as the clip given from the very beginning shows, they are traveling through an area of space where numerous stars and even galaxies are in the middle of their space flight to where they are going.

It is one thing if the terrain of space is empty, OR, if a character travels a path explicitly in a straight line. That I can agree on needing something to prove crashing since both scenarios already set up the circumstance of safe flight without needing to dodge anything at all. But if the terrain isn't empty and their stellar flight isn't going straight through in a line, that should give us enough factors to generally rate their reaction speeds, since that gives enough factors to assume dodging or safe descent within their perception is being done.

I don't think showing stars/galaxies in the general vicinity of where they fly proves that they had to dodge them in the middle of the flight.

Small error on my part then. Still, my earlier point still stands. The speed value was only lowered to MHS+ reactions because the speed of the flight was altered at the last moment (when noticing the planet and avoiding it by altering his path by turning to the side).

This is factually incorrect. The speed value was not lowered to MHS+ reactions because the speed changed. Only the trajectory was changed, the character was still moving at 1 million times the speed of light. The speed value was lowered to MHS+ because space and objects in it are ******* huge, and when being stupidly generous (not noticing a planet that is in your flight path until it is this size) still gives you a massive amount of leeway to angle your course slightly differently and avoid it.

And this scenario only really fits for passing by and encountering celestial bodies like stars and planets since they are things that one can view from a distance to pre-determingly prepare for. Or not notice but then avoid.

Compare that to general space flight that crosses the entire universe and reaches it's end before moving into another one. How can the former apply to the latter? You can't exactly "notice" or "not notice" a universe's end. Much less a whole new one that you're about to fly into.

Why would you need to "notice" or "not notice" it? The end of a universe isn't something that you have to dodge. You're the one saying that the character in question reacts during this flight, so their flight speed scales to their reaction. Why would something being fundamentally impossible to react to be evidence supporting that?

Because the landing onto the planet was a safe landing, which needs reaction speed in order to accomplish that.

Well, you said it was a crash landing. But more importantly, your claim that them stopping at their destination means flight speed qualifies for reaction speed goes directly against the standards on the Speed page.

Simply being able to stop accurately at the target destination does typically not qualify, as it can be spotted from a large distance to make preparations to stop or the character could even slow down before reaching the destination, assuming we only know the average speed with which they moved.

I'd also add to this that being able to fly towards the destination in the first place is substantial evidence against requiring reactions to land there. If you know the precise angle to travel to reach a planet, that means you already have precise awareness of its position in space, which can be used to make a safe landing without needing to react when you're 1m away (since we derive our reaction speed timeframes using a distance of 1m, that's the distance they would need to be at before they start reacting to scale to 100% of the flight value).

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I don't think showing stars/galaxies in the general vicinity of where they fly proves that they had to dodge them in the middle of the flight.

Ofc I don't mean if you're just flying in a place that has stars and galaxies in the vicinity of where you are, since the context here isn't them passing them or them being obstacles on their path.

I mean that if the stars/galaxies come up as blurs, and are shown to be passed in the middle of the flight, that puts it beyond just being in the vicinity. It would show you are passing by them on your path to where you are going and set it apart from the former.

This is factually incorrect. The speed value was not lowered to MHS+ reactions because the speed changed. Only the trajectory was changed, the character was still moving at 1 million times the speed of light. The speed value was lowered to MHS+ because space and objects in it are ******* huge, and when being stupidly generous (not noticing a planet that is in your flight path until it is this size) still gives you a massive amount of leeway to angle your course slightly differently and avoid it.

Then this would be because of the distance between the character and the planet up until the point of avoiding of them being absurdly big (and DMUA's example specifically in the speed thread is based off of this since his example has the character alter their trajectory when they are not close to the planet, but barely within the moons orbit).

And this scenario only really fits for passing by and encountering celestial bodies like stars and planets since they are things that one can view from a distance to pre-determingly prepare for. Or not notice but then avoid.

Compare that to general space flight that crosses the entire universe and reaches it's end before moving into another one. How can the former apply to the latter? You can't exactly "notice" or "not notice" a universe's end. Much less a whole new one that you're about to fly into.

Why would you need to "notice" or "not notice" it? The end of a universe isn't something that you have to dodge. You're the one saying that the character in question reacts during this flight, so their flight speed scales to their reaction. Why would something being fundamentally impossible to react to be evidence supporting that?

That point on them reacting during the flight has absolutely nothing to do with my point here. It's about the part of the speed rules where the rule for space-flight travel gives random scenarios of the character noticing their destination beforehand to slow down or alter their course.

My question is how can that apply for universe crossing when the end of the universe isn't something noticeable like a celestial body is.

Because the landing onto the planet was a safe landing, which needs reaction speed in order to accomplish that.

Well, you said it was a crash landing.

When I say "crash landing" I don't mean one just being slammed into it without safely landing. Though thats my mistake for the incorrect term to describe what im talking about, so my bad.

But more importantly, your claim that them stopping at their destination means flight speed qualifies for reaction speed goes directly against the standards on the Speed page.

Not if the speed wasn't lowered or altered before safe descent. Which it wasn't.

I'd also add to this that being able to fly towards the destination in the first place is substantial evidence against requiring reactions to land there. If you know the precise angle to travel to reach a planet, that means you already have precise awareness of its position in space, which can be used to make a safe landing without needing to react when you're 1m away (since we derive our reaction speed timeframes using a distance of 1m, that's the distance they would need to be at before they start reacting to scale to 100% of the flight value).

This gives very weirdly and oddly formed assumptions of them having cosmic awareness specifically capable of this, which is a burden of proof on the opposition to provide. For one.

And I hard disagree with knowing where a place is means reacting to it at the speed you travel at isn't required. The 1m away point would, again, need to rely on speed being decreased or altered before making a safe landing.

 

[Quangotjokes]

There was a huge explosion upon landing. It was a crash landing.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

There was a huge explosion upon landing. It was a crash landing.

With no visible damages or anything around them on Cray. Aka, a safe landing on Takuto's part.

 

[Quangotjokes]

It's more a durability feat, he just endured the explosion.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

It being durability doesnt debunk the requirement to needing to properly react for a safe landing. There's no damage on Cray when Takuto landed on it, proving the descent onto Cray was a safe landing for him (and Ultra Rare's souls that he had with them).

And the speed of the flight wasn't decreased or altered to be slower.

 

[Quangotjokes]

It wasn't a safe landing though, he crashed into Cray.

 

[Agnaa]

Ofc I don't mean if you're just flying in a place that has stars and galaxies in the vicinity of where you are, since the context here isn't them passing them or them being obstacles on their path.

I mean that if the stars/galaxies come up as blurs, and are shown to be passed in the middle of the flight, that puts it beyond just being in the vicinity. It would show you are passing by them on your path to where you are going and set it apart from the former.

Which specific video at which time should I watch to see this?

Then this would be because of the distance between the character and the planet up until the point of avoiding of them being absurdly big (and DMUA's example specifically in the speed thread is based off of this since his example has the character alter their trajectory when they are not close to the planet, but barely within the moons orbit).

It astounds me that you'd call DMUA's example not close to the planet. It goes to great lengths to get a distance as close as possible without requiring ludicrous assumptions.

That point on them reacting during the flight has absolutely nothing to do with my point here. It's about the part of the speed rules where the rule for space-flight travel gives random scenarios of the character noticing their destination beforehand to slow down or alter their course.

My question is how can that apply for universe crossing when the end of the universe isn't something noticeable like a celestial body is.

Those examples are responding to the argument of "Well they landed safely at their destination, so it scales to reactions." What you've done here is taken a page giving a counterargument to argument A for reactions scaling to flight speed, pointed out that the counterargument doesn't apply to your situation X, and said that therefore reaction speeds scale, but that does not follow logically. A counterargument not applying to your situation doesn't mean that the opposite of the counterargument is true in your situation.

People not being able to react to the end of a universe does not prove that traveling to the end of a universe is a reaction speed feat.

Not if the speed wasn't lowered or altered before safe descent. Which it wasn't.

I do not buy the argument that "We saw them leaving one planet at roughly the same speed we saw them arriving at the other planet, therefore they accelerated to/from max speed almost instantly." I think it's more credible that they gradually accelerated while leaving and traveling through space, and then gradually decelerated when landing, ending up with their entrance/landing velocities being similar. This can be substantiated by, if we were to pixel scale the feat, it likely ending up nowhere near 500 quintillion times the speed of light (given by how we can see the feat in the first place).

And again, your only argument for it being a 'safe descent' as you say is that they didn't sustain damage, which only proves durability. Since there's apparently a visual explosion that runs contrary to the environmental damage shown, I'd more take that to mean that the artists didn't care to draw the environmental damage, rather than arguing that an explosion didn't happen.

This gives very weirdly and oddly formed assumptions of them having cosmic awareness specifically capable of this, which is a burden of proof on the opposition to provide. For one.

Like I said in the text you quoted, the evidence for that is them being able to accurately fly in that direction in the first place. I'm not assuming anything there, I'm just using the text as evidence.

And if your argument is that they don't demonstrate anything like this at other points in the series, I'd point out how they don't demonstrate any speed feats within 18 orders of magnitude of this one at other points in the 10-season-long series. What makes your one-feat explanation better than my one-feat explanation?

And I hard disagree with knowing where a place is means reacting to it at the speed you travel at isn't required. The 1m away point would, again, need to rely on speed being decreased or altered before making a safe landing.

No. If you know that your instant-stop anti-thrusters will take 1 second to activate, you can activate it 1 second before you would be 1 meter above the surface of the planet to make a 'safe landing' without decreasing speed beforehand, and without reacting to the speed you're traveling at. All that's required for this is knowing where you are, where the place you're going to be is (two requirements for accurate travel at these distances in the first place), and a good degree of precision.

Humans can already do similar things to get a great degree of precision beyond their reaction times of 200ms (1/5th of a second). Speedrunners can hit tricks with a precision window of 1/20th or even 1/60th of a second. Basically, being able to do something at a precise moment by knowing your delay of activating it is something that occurs in real life.

I'd also like to point out that your explanation of them stopping nigh-instantly would also require some sort of insta-stop technique. You're just asserting that they're not prepared at all to activate it until they're 1m away from the planet.

 

[Quangotjokes]

This is the feat.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Which specific video at which time should I watch to see this?

0:35. When approaching a galaxy, a large number of stars are quickly being passed, becoming blurs.

It astounds me that you'd call DMUA's example not close to the planet. It goes to great lengths to get a distance as close as possible without requiring ludicrous assumptions.

You do know how far away the moon is from the earth right? Hundreds of thousands of kilometers of distance between each other. That is not close at all, even under the circumstances of not getting "too close" without more assumptions added in.

Those examples are responding to the argument of "Well they landed safely at their destination, so it scales to reactions." What you've done here is taken a page giving a counterargument to argument A for reactions scaling to flight speed, pointed out that the counterargument doesn't apply to your situation X, and said that therefore reaction speeds scale, but that does not follow logically. A counterargument not applying to your situation doesn't mean that the opposite of the counterargument is true in your situation.

It most certainly makes it more likely of being true than the opposite result for being a blatantly different case where the former's scenario does not apply. At bare minimum, that just makes universe crossing a separate situation to be analyzed differently instead of automatically put in the same boat of traveling to and from celestial bodies.

People not being able to react to the end of a universe does not prove that traveling to the end of a universe is a reaction speed feat.

See above.

I do not buy the argument that "We saw them leaving one planet at roughly the same speed we saw them arriving at the other planet, therefore they accelerated to/from max speed almost instantly."

Don't put words in my mouth. I never once said anything about deacceleration or acceleration. I said the speed is constant (which is a more reasonable and more believable point to argue).

I think it's more credible that they gradually accelerated while leaving and traveling through space, and then gradually decelerated when landing, ending up with their entrance/landing velocities being similar.

Considering that this descent forcefully busts through with great force (as it busts through a whole cloud layer immediately) and immediately lands on the planet, nothing suggests there's deceleration going on.

And even then, that would be something you would need to prove happened.

And again, your only argument for it being a 'safe descent' as you say is that they didn't sustain damage, which only proves durability.

It does not. Durability being a factor or not has nothing to do with the requirement of needing reaction speed to control your descent safely.

Since there's apparently a visual explosion that runs contrary to the environmental damage shown, I'd more take that to mean that the artists didn't care to draw the environmental damage, rather than arguing that an explosion didn't happen.

So a copout. Got it.

Like I said in the text you quoted, the evidence for that is them being able to accurately fly in that direction in the first place. I'm not assuming anything there, I'm just using the text as evidence.

Okay and I disagree with this being evidence. Flying accurately to where one wants to go doesnt mean they don't still need to proper reactions and perceptions required to halt your self at the exact position you desire.

And if your argument is that they don't demonstrate anything like this at other points in the series, I'd point out how they don't demonstrate any speed feats within 18 orders of magnitude of this one at other points in the series. What makes your one-feat explanation better than my one-feat explanation?

For one, there are other universe crossing feats replicated later on, so no, I wasn't going to argue that.

And two, my explanation isn't built on a bunch of what if scenarios that are case by case circumstances.

No. If you know that your instant-stop anti-thrusters will take 1 second to activate, you can activate it 1 second before you would be 1 meter above the surface of the planet to make a 'safe landing' without decreasing speed beforehand,

Okay and this applies to beings who can fly in space without thrusters...how? The fact your example here starts off immediately with using space flight tech like thrusters (or what I'll assume to be next on the table being spaceships) makes this scenario, again, very specifically formed as a case completely different than whats happening here.

 

[Agnaa]

For anyone coming afterwards, the relevant part is 0:30 to 0:45.

I see no reason at all to take that as indication that planets had to be dodged. It just showed a far-off view of a galaxy and then them landing at the relevant planet. They are just objects in the vicinity, nothing indicating a close call or a requirement to dodge at all.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

For anyone coming afterwards, the relevant part is 0:30 to 0:45.

I see no reason at all to take that as indication that planets had to be dodged. It just showed a far-off view of a galaxy and then them landing at the relevant planet. They are just objects in the vicinity, nothing indicating a close call or a requirement to dodge at all.

Stars are being blatantly passed while they are closing in on the galaxy as they are also being closed in on and then going off screen as they go closer. Hence, it's not just objects in the vicinity. They are being passed.

 

[Antvasima]

I was asked to close this thread. Is that acceptable?

 

[Agnaa]

0:35. When approaching a galaxy, a large number of stars are quickly being passed, becoming blurs.

If you're interpreting those as stars being passed by, they must be so laughably far away that no dodging would be necessary. Those would have to be thousands of light years away.

You do know how far away the moon is from the earth right? Hundreds of thousands of kilometers of distance between each other. That is not close at all, even under the circumstances of not getting "too close" without more assumptions added in.

It's extremely close in terms of astronomical objects and being able to notice something to react to it.

It most certainly makes it more likely of being true than the opposite result for being a blatantly different case where the former's scenario does not apply. At bare minimum, that just makes universe crossing a separate situation to be analyzed differently instead of automatically put in the same boat of traveling to and from celestial bodies.

It does not make it more likely. I was not the one presenting that argument in those terms, YOU are the one who dug it up from the speed page when it was irrelevant.

You cannot dig out someone else's irrelevant argument against someone else's irrelevant point and then act like proving that it doesn't apply to your situation bolsters your logic.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never once said anything about deacceleration or acceleration. I said the speed is constant (which is a more reasonable and more believable point to argue).

• Me: You said that they accelerated/decelerated near-instantly.
• You: I didn't say that! I said that they were always at the same speed, except for the exact moment they left and the exact moment they arrived.

...

Considering that this descent forcefully busts through with great force (as it busts through a whole cloud layer immediately) and immediately lands on the planet, nothing suggests there's deceleration going on.

And even then, that would be something you would need to prove happened.

The thing that proves that deceleration happened is that at one point they were no longer moving.

If they never ever decelerated they would have kept moving on at 500 quadrillion times the speed of light, never being at the planet for more than a nanosecond.

It does not. Durability being a factor or not has nothing to do with the requirement of needing reaction speed to control your descent safely.

I don't understand why you'd bring up them not appearing damaged, then.

So a copout. Got it.

And you think your argument that there wasn't an explosion because there was no environmental damage isn't a copout?

Okay and I disagree with this being evidence. Flying accurately to where one wants to go doesnt mean they don't still need to proper reactions and perceptions required to halt your self at the exact position you desire.

Well, I provided a mechanism for how they don't need those. If you just disagree with that without saying why, there's not much more I can say.

For one, there are other universe crossing feats replicated later on, so no, I wasn't going to argue that.

Oh okay, I blame everyone earlier on in the thread who said there weren't any other FTL feats, and everyone who responded to them without correcting them on that, then.

Okay and this applies to beings who can fly in space without thrusters...how? The fact your example here starts off immediately with using space flight tech like thrusters (or what I'll assume to be next on the table being spaceships) makes this scenario, again, very specifically formed as a case completely different than whats happening here.

"Thrusters" aren't a necessary part of the argument. Replace "thrusters" with "magic anti-speed" or "flexing really hard so that you stop moving" or whatever else you want to say is the case here.

Stars are being blatantly passed while they are closing in on the galaxy as they are also being closed in on and then going off screen as they go closer. Hence, it's not just objects in the vicinity. They are being passed.

Of course stellar objects were passed. If you were to cross the universe without passing by any stellar objects the universe would have to be completely 100% empty. The point is that they're so far away and that hitting them is so unlikely that maneuvering to dodge them is not required. And given the visuals of the scene in question (where the stars only look like tiny dots of light) they're clearly thousands of light years away.

 

[Agnaa]

I was asked to close this thread. Is that acceptable?

Kukui and I are currently discussing a speed downgrade for a different reason. The OP wanted to downgrade due to not believing that the souls physically traveled there, I'm suggesting that the speed is only flight speed, not combat/reaction speed, because it doesn't meet our recently-implemented standards for scaling the two.

As such, I'd prefer that this thread isn't closed.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem then.

 

[Antvasima]

Have any staff members evaluated this yet?