Cant have it both ways. If they are obstacles on the path you are taking to go to a certain destination, which as shown in the clip here is the case, then that is enough to assert that dodging would be necessary without a straight path being proven to be in place.
To say otherwise, you might as well argue any flight speed case doesn't scale to anything at all.
When those "obstacles on the path" are all thousands of light years away, that does not prove that dodging is necessary. Any random path you'd take would be overwhelmingly likely to avoid them by mere chance.
Flight speed scales when you would have hit the obstacles with an ordinary path but didn't, and it would scale relative to how close you were to the object before you dodged it.
Yes and because of the distance put between yourself and the celestial body that you are avoiding, that distance being hundreds of thousands of kilometers, that makes the feat far less impressive when accounting for said distance.
That is why it gives a low result, yes, but it wasn't some bad-faith choice, it's in fact over-generous compared to the typical interstellar dodging event you'd expect. It's big in one sense (absolute value) but not in another (relative to the average interstellar dodging feat), and the latter is what matters for whether it's applicable in a case like this; you were trying to argue that DMUA's calc isn't applicable as a point of comparison here for one reason or another. First it's because you mistakenly believed it involved a speed change, and after that you began arguing that the distance was "absurdly big". Yet it is not "absurdly big" in the sense that it's inapplicable to feats such as these.
Yes because of said page being oddly specific and using completely different scenarios as examples. Not my fault. And it hardly matters to the actual point. Judging a universe crossing flight speed the same way as judging a flight feat between celestial objects is just flat out wrong.
It isn't flat out wrong. You just keep saying it is without giving reasons why, and you haven't responded to my reasons for why it is comparable.
And I did not say this either. Again, do not put words in my mouth.
If you did not intend to also say that, then your statement would be inherently self-contradictory. If you believe that characters were unmoving, reached a high velocity, then stopped moving, without them ever accelerating or decelerating, you are describing an inherently impossible situation.
You mean when they literally land....?
Yes.
Or they halted themselves at the exact same speed they were traveling. That is not deceleration, and it most certainly isn't prior to landing at the exact spot you want to halt yourself at.
That is deceleration. Deceleration is change in velocity. They went from a high velocity to zero velocity. That is, by definition, deceleration.
The deceleration being done prior to landing is not a necessity, as I've explained in my posts. They just need to be prepared to land and enact that landing precisely. This is an argument provided on the Speed page itself.
Because by being undamaged, it proves safely controlled descent. Halting at the exact place they want. Whether durability applies or not is a different discussion.
And the explosion implies otherwise. So to list both of our views side-by-side we have:
- The explosion happened and they tanked it with their durability. Environmental damage wasn't shown due to lazy artists.
- The explosion didn't happen, as proven by them being undamaged and the lack of environmental damage.
Why do you prefer option 2 over option 1?
And I would also like to point out that halting at the exact place they want isn't sufficient evidence for scaling to reactions, as explained on the Speed page.
That isn't what I said. I said it wasn't a crash landing, since if it was, the environment would suffer damage from the impact.
So, what, there just happened to randomly be an explosion at the exact same time, which had absolutely nothing to do with their landing, and which happened to not damage the environment for no reasons? Come on dude.
And I explained back about how they would need them, as you still need to properly perceive your target area and stop yourself in that exact position while simutaneously moving at the speed your traveling at. If you couldn't, you wouldnt be able to stop yourself to where you want.
You don't need to perceive your target anymore than you need to when you first leave to fly there. And it seems pretty obvious that you need to be able to move at a speed when traveling somewhere.
Okay and by doing that, it ends up completely different since in the latter cases, you are the one that has to perceive the movement accurately. Not having a scanner or tech do it for you like what would be the case with rocket thrusters or spaceships.
Do I need to repeat myself again? You don't need to perceive it, you just need to adequately prepare and predict ahead of time. The Speed page already outlines this reasoning for it not scaling.
Except, again, that is only the case if the path you are taking goes down a straight route. This isn't, especially when its involving going through universes.
What? It applies to any arbitrary predetermined path. I also don't see why going through universes makes the route no longer straight. If you're talking about the unquantifiable transfer between universes, that seems irrelevant since your calc is only about traveling to the edge of the observable universe. Whatever weird indeterminate shit happens after that is none of our business, since it's not the part of the feat on the profiles.
And for devils advocate, lets say the universe crossing for a second is only travel/flight speed. The Units, who would be upscaling from this and have their travel moments and flight movements MFTL+, would still have this end up scaling to their reactions (and then everything else)
Since Units can perceive each other traveling.
Can you explain what "perceiving each other traveling" means here? Preferably with the relevant part of the series included.
