- 8,127
- 12,355
So how on earth are you making the claim that she said she made the constellation?????You have the the book online to link for me? I don't have the book in english so I can't link it
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.
So how on earth are you making the claim that she said she made the constellation?????You have the the book online to link for me? I don't have the book in english so I can't link it
So you have no evidence that she actually said it? Or of any of the actual quotes from the book? Just prior knowledge that could be incorrect? And you’re daring to say WE are using headcanon when WE are the ones quoting the book directly?I read the book before and saw it, but I can't link the quote. It's has been some time since I last read the book
Yes I am. No need to be a prick. You want the scans? If you could link me the site where you took these lines, then I could show it to youSo you have no evidence that she actually said it? Or of any of the actual quotes from the book? Just prior knowledge that could be incorrect? And you’re daring to say WE are using headcanon when WE are the ones quoting the book directly?
Are you serious?
The fact you don’t even know the context of that scene from the Titan’s Curse, especially when the entire quote has been said like 3 times in this thread and I was paraphrasing the part that everyone was discussing, is not my burden. The full quote is higher up and I’m certain you can find the context of the scene very easily.
Ask Cryo, I don’t have an online copy, I have physical and my friend has my entire collection.Yes I am. No need to be a prick. You want proof? If you could link me the site where you took these lines, then I could show it to you
Dang, that sure looks a lot like NOT creating the stars going on in that quote. She brightened them and didn’t make them at all. I sure do wonder how the other gods made stars!"Artemis stood, said a kind of blessing, breathed into her cupped hand and released the silver dust to the sky. It flew up, sparkling, and vanished.
For a moment I didn't see anything different. Then Annabeth gasped. Looking up in the sky, I saw that the stars were brighter now. They made a pattern I had never noticed before? A gleaming constellation that looked a lot like a girl's figure?a girl with a bow, running across the sky.
"Let the world honor you, my Huntress," Artemis said. "Live forever in the stars."
Yep, wrap it up folks he just completely debunked Star lvl Gods. Just because Artemis makes constellations that way, doesnt mean nobody else does. Regardless of the fact Gods have been consistently shown to have feats similar (the sun chariot comes to mind)
Fallacy of assumption, to assume that a lesser god like Artemis brightening up the cosmos to make a constellation this one time negates all the others is ridiculous.Ask Cryo, I don’t have an online copy, I have physical and my friend has my entire collection.
Dang, that sure looks a lot like NOT creating the stars going on in that quote. She brightened them and didn’t make them at all. I sure do wonder how the other gods made stars!
Obviously all of them brightened pre-existing stars. That’s literally what this scene is showing about Star creation from the Greek gods. That they brighten already existing ones. They do not make new ones.
Unless, of course, you have something to add that is contradictory to this claim?
Reasoning?Obviously all of them brightened pre-existing stars.
She kinda did. The stars didn't exist before, and now they doDang, that sure looks a lot like NOT creating the stars going on in that quote. She brightened them and didn’t make them at all. I sure do wonder how the other gods made stars!
You got proof? Just because that's how she made them doesn't mean that's how the other gods did thatObviously all of them brightened pre-existing stars. That’s literally what this scene is showing about Star creation from the Greek gods. That they brighten already existing ones. They do not make new ones.
Zeus literally states that he turned Calisto into a star LMAOOOUnless, of course, you have something to add that is contradictory to this claim?
“the stars were brighter now” -> existing stars are brighter. That is all this means. This is the only reference to the stars in the entire quote. Nothing has been created. The stars are brighter. That’s it.She kinda did. The stars didn't exist before, and now they do
You got proof? Just because that's how she made them doesn't mean that's how the other gods did that
You mean similarly to how Artemis made Zoe a constellation? Unless you have the direct quote, and he says that he made a scientific Star or something to that effect, then that “feat” means nothing.Zeus literally states that he turned Calisto into a star LMAOOO
Then if the stars already existed and she made them move to create a new pattern, then this is still High 4-C regardless of anything since she causes the stars to move to form a new pattern that Percy didn't noticed before.“the stars were brighter now” -> existing stars are brighter. That is all this means. This is the only reference to the stars in the entire quote. Nothing has been created. The stars are brighter. That’s it.
“They made a pattern I had never seen before” -> The stars that have now been brightened are making a new constellation. This =/= she created new stars. The stars that she brightened are forming a constellation he had not noticed. Why had he not noticed it before? Because the stars were not as bright as they are now.
This is basic sentence structure. “The stars are now brighter -> oh look a new pattern I hadn’t seen before of those stars”
None of this implies she created anything. She brightened stars, and because of that, a new pattern could be seen from them. That is all.
This false takeaway that she literally created the stars and then pushed them into place to make a constellation is unfounded
She didn’t move them. She didn’t create them. She made them brighter.Then if the stars already existed and she made them move to create a new pattern, then this is still High 4-C regardless of anything since she causes the stars to move to form a new pattern that Percy didn't noticed before.
And if the constellation was always there (and it wasn't), then Artemis literally did nothing, which contradicts the entire statement, since making the stars brighter momentarily before they returned to their normal brightness doesn't mean anything when the constellation was always there and the stars were there too, since according to you Percy just now noticed the pattern, not that it didn't exists, which literally contradicts the entire point of this scene, since if she was always there, then why does Artemis saying the lines she says as if she only now became memorialized in the stars?
Except she also said to her "live forver in the stars", but if the stars already existed before, than that means that she already did before Artemis even made it??? Which completely cojtradict her statement, since if these stars already existed and in this pattern, why did she needed Zoë to be immortalized in the stars? Since according to you, she was already immortalized before her death, which makes absolutely no sense and contradict the narrative even furtherAlso she used the silver dust to make them brighter, and the dust was Zoe. I would call that being immortalized.
The pattern was almost impossible to notice before, so when she brightened up the stars in such away that that pattern was noticable, she "made a constelation", as all she needs to do is make existing stars more noticeable, which is what the text says she did.Except she also said to her "live forver in the stars", but if the stars already existed before, than that means that she already did before Artemis even made it??? Which completely cojtradict her statement, since if these stars already existed and in this pattern, why did she needed Zoë to be immortalized in the stars? Since according to you, she was already immortalized before her death, which makes absolutely no sense and contradict the narrative even further
What!? It literally says that specific stars were brighter than normal, which Formed a pattern he had not noticed before.Again, nothing says that they were there before.
So ignore the part where he said she blew a palmful of dust into the sky, and don't use basic literacy skills to know that the author is telling us what's happening whithout breaking the first person perspective Percy's story is written from.Percy only described what he saw, not what she did.
She actually made the constellation to immortalize Zoe. If the stars were already visible before, then how Artemis said that only NOW Zoe was immortalized in the stars? Because if it already existed before, then that mean she was always immortalized in the stars, even though Artemis did it only when Zoe died as a way to honor herThe pattern was almost impossible to notice before, so when she brightened up the stars in such away that that pattern was noticable, she "made a constelation", as all she needs to do is make existing stars more noticeable, which is what the text says she did.
No it doesn't explains it. If the stars were already there, it means the constellation was already there before, regardless of its visibility, which defeats the whole purpose of Artemis creating the constellation to honor Zoe.What!? It literally says that specific stars were brighter than normal, which Formed a pattern he had not noticed before.
Being brighter than normal shows they were there beforehand as they already had a pre-existing brightness, it affecting specific stars means it was targeted, and that's how the constelation was made.
Then you'd be 100% wrong as well. I don't care about the tiers, but when your method is clearly wrong I say against itI'm sorry but even my little brother is capable of understanding what this passage is saying, I'm 100% sure at this point you really don't care about the facts of the matter and just want to blindly maintain the status quo.
Percy's point of view is still subjective. Again, he only describes what he saw, not how the feat actually happenedSo ignore the part where he said she blew a palmful of dust into the sky, and don't use basic literacy skills to know that the author is telling us what's happening whithout breaking the first person perspective Percy's story is written from.
The blog was never approved by any calc member, so I wouldn't use it. Also, if the stars were not invisible before, then how did she created anything? Again, that means that Zoe was always immortalized in the stars even though the story makes it clear it happened after her deathAlso here's the link to the quote, which was in a blog post that got accepted. Artemis gives the stars a glow up or whatever but the math makes some massive assumptions and also the OP is making the same mistake you are, in that they're assuming that those stars were completely invisible before, which they were not.
Technically wasn’t Artemis’ feat 5-C via expanding the luminosity of starsNo, Zeus got bodied by a 4-B character who performed a 6-A feat. The highest feat HE’S performed is 6-A, however he scales far above gods who can create REAL stars. Your argument would only apply if the specific 6-A attack that Typhon did was capable of extremely harming Zeus
True, point stands though. There has not yet been a debunk for Hera’s featI thought the reasoning for High 4-C was Hera causing supernova when Zeus committed Affairs?
Pretty sure there’s also a 5-A feat (Jupiter (the god) turns into Jupiter (the planet)I mean....
It comes squarely from Percy and he's known as being quite unreliable and prone to exaggeration
Also while I'm not strictly knowledgeable on the verse it does seem magnitudes above the next best feats (Such as Artemis/' star thing)
Which comes from the same source as the High 4-C and is shifty as hellPretty sure there’s also a 5-A feat (Jupiter (the god) turns into Jupiter (the planet)
Because the pattern wasn't really noticable before, fun fact, irl there are a near infinite amount of patterns you could make off of the stars in our sky. The human brain just has to notice them (Which is what she did to immortalize her), and you're trying to discredit the point of an entire paragraph with no evidence.She actually made the constellation to immortalize Zoe. If the stars were already visible before, then how Artemis said that only NOW Zoe was immortalized in the stars? Because if it already existed before, then that mean she was always immortalized in the stars, even though Artemis did it only when Zoe died as a way to honor her
I mean every constelation was techincally there in this world before the gods even existed, so you're not saying much. And if it's not really noticeable, it might as well not be there.No it doesn't explains it. If the stars were already there, it means the constellation was already there before, regardless of its visibility, which defeats the whole purpose of Artemis creating the constellation to honor Zoe.
Basically, you could make any pattern you wanted out of the stars alredy in the sky rn.Basically, if the constellation was already there before, then Artemis brightening the stars wouldn't change the fact that it still exists, meaning that Zoe was always immortalized in the sky, which is completely false as the story makes it clear that she only immortalized Zoe after her death
1. The quote on goodreads has us see exactly what she does. From her taking dust from the dead body to sending it up in the air. Also, stop using the subjectivity thing, because then any feat in first person is invalid, the narrative is describing something through Percy's eyes, that doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. When subjective wording is used such as "bright as a supernova" by a first person character, that's different. And it seems clear that Anabeth observed the same phenomenon regardless, as she's the one who pointed it out the change to Percy in the first place.Percy's point of view is still subjective. Again, he only describes what he saw, not how the feat actually happened
The blog was never approved by any calc member, so I wouldn't use it. Also, if the stars were not invisible before, then how did she created anything? Again, that means that Zoe was always immortalized in the stars even though the story makes it clear it happened after her death
That was a rumor, and they say he either is, or goes to Jupiter. It's a rumor, and it's his Roman form, and they give two distinct possibilties of what he's doing.Pretty sure there’s also a 5-A feat (Jupiter (the god) turns into Jupiter (the planet)
Uh yeah there was, I don't think you were online when it was.True, point stands though. There has not yet been a debunk for Hera’s feat
Wasn't noticable doesn't mean wasn't existing. Again, look at the final quote Artemis says. She says "live forever in the stars", but if the constellation was always there, then she was immortalized before her death, which makes no sense because the scene clearly implies that she was only immortalized in the stars as the onstellation AFTER her death, meaning the stars didn't exist before hand, or they did and they changed their formations to form the shape of a huntressBecause the pattern wasn't really noticable before, fun fact, irl there are a near infinite amount of patterns you could make off of the stars in our sky. The human brain just has to notice them (Which is what she did to immortalize her), and you're trying to discredit the point of an entire paragraph with no evidence.
In this verse, they weren't. The ancient myths where the Gods created the constellations are still true in this verse, but the science is also true. Both co-exist, so it could be that the gods simply created them at the age they would've been had they formed naturally. Also, might as well not been there = / = not been there, because even if Percy and the others could see it, it would still existI mean every constelation was techincally there in this world before the gods even existed, so you're not saying much. And if it's not really noticeable, it might as well not be there.
That's irrelevant to the conversationBasically, you could make any pattern you wanted out of the stars alredy in the sky rn.
This have nothing to do with being dramatic. What are you suggesting literally contradict the entire narrative point of the scene. If she would already be immortalized, then Artemis wouldn't need to do anything, nor declare that she became immortalized now AFTER she did her feat. It literally makes no sense and the scene has no purpose to exist had it been like you saidAnd saying that something dampens the dramatic impac of a story event does not make it invalid anyways. So what if it ended up being a hollow gesture that's clearly what she did.
Then how is Percy's description is completely reliable, while Jason's isn't? I don't say I agree with Jason's description, but you still need to explain it1. The quote on goodreads has us see exactly what she does. From her taking dust from the dead body to sending it up in the air. Also, stop using the subjectivity thing, because then any feat in first person is invalid, the narrative is describing something through Percy's eyes, that doesn't mean it didn't happen that way. When subjective wording is used such as "bright as a supernova" by a first person character, that's different. And it seems clear that Anabeth observed the same phenomenon regardless, as she's the one who pointed it out the change to Percy in the first place.
Jason says "as bright as a supernova". He never mentions it having comparable power, it never shows a comparable amount of power, and he is directly comparing it to something else that he has never seen before/has never had experience with. Percy just saying the stars were brighter than before is an objective statement, and also Annebeth, who is more logical and objective, also experiences the same phenomenon.Then how is Percy's description is completely reliable, while Jason's isn't? I don't say I agree with Jason's description, but you still need to explain it
It is very relavent, because it means that the constelation already existed no matter what.That's irrelevant to the conversation
She DID do something, she made the constelation noticeable. There is no contradiction here, you're pulling at straws.This have nothing to do with being dramatic. What are you suggesting literally contradict the entire narrative point of the scene. If she would already be immortalized, then Artemis wouldn't need to do anything, nor declare that she became immortalized now AFTER she did her feat. It literally makes no sense and the scene has no purpose to exist had it been like you said
This is HEADCANON! Your only solution to reconcile the scientific stars being older than the gods is headcanon. Yes both magic and science are true, but they are shown to be seperate things many, many times. Also co existing and being congruent is different. You're ignoring the stars in both science and the verse are not the same, even if they hold the same role in each verse****.In this verse, they weren't. The ancient myths where the Gods created the constellations are still true in this verse, but the science is also true. Both co-exist, so it could be that the gods simply created them at the age they would've been had they formed naturally.
Yeah, and it did already exist, that's what I and the text is trying to tell you! The stars were already there! You saying "well in that case she might as well have done nothing" doesn't mean anything at all. She was letting everyone notice and see her by brightening up those specific stars, which immortalized her image to hundereds of millions of people that would not have noticed her before.Also, might as well not been there = / = not been there, because even if Percy and the others could see it, it would still exist
How? His reasoning is headanon and saying it makes the scene feel pointless, which disproves/proves nothing.Honestly I agree with Gilad here
Because he makes more sense then you or King does. Is that not enough?How? His reasoning is headanon and saying it makes the scene feel pointless, which disproves/proves nothing.
But that doesnt make sense. Isn't the whole point of this sight to provide the most accurate ratings? It may dampen the story, but the facts clearly point in that direction.Because he makes more sense then you or King does. Is that not enough?
Sounds reasonable, my only issue is that the SA stars would be massively older than the gods themselves, which is the only reason I'm hesitant to agree with 4C via Creation Hax.There's also the argument to be made that even if prior feats were examples of the Greek gods creating SA constellations and stars, since they do not show that level of power in combat, they would only be 4-C via Creation Hax and their durability and AP should be altered regardless.
This could be interpreted as science being a seperate force compared to the various mythos, or all of them working together.Of course, even without my help, other forces would keep the cosmos chugging along. Many different belief systems powered the revolution of the planets and stars. Wolves would still chase Sol across the sky. Ra would continue his daily journey in his sun barque. Tonatiuh would keep running on his surplus blood from human sacrifices back in the Aztec days. And that other thing—science— would still generate gravity and quantum physics and whatever.
This should probably apply to Artemis's feat too, and she would be using spiritual/Greek magic rather than affecting 'real' stars.Thalia slammed her foot on the brake, and the sun bus pitched forward at a forty-five- degree angle, slamming into the Camp Half-Blood canoe lake with a huge FLOOOOOOSH! Steam billowed up, sending several frightened naiads scrambling out of the water with half- woven wicker baskets.
This is simply the alternative I proposed if it cannot be agreed that the lack of evidence regrading the energy it takes to manipulate/create a GM stars is enough for a downgrade.Sounds reasonable, my only issue is that the SA stars would be massively older than the gods themselves, which is the only reason I'm hesitant to agree with 4C via Creation Hax.
The whole Hermes shoe calc took multiple quotes disgustingly out of context.
Its whole logic is based on the fact that Percy and Annabeth fell for 9 days before reaching Tartarus and that Kronos in TLT had to react to Grover's flying shoes traveling that same distance when they entered Tartarus in order to attempt to suck them into it.
Anybody who has so much as read the books could point out multiple issues with that rationale and because I have the time I'm going to list them all.
1. Percy and Annabeth didn't fall for 9 days, she was referencing that the poet Hesiod:
"Nine days. As she fell, Annabeth thought about Hesiod, the old Greek poet who'd speculated it would take nine days to fall from earth to Tartarus. She hoped Hesiod was wrong. She'd lost track of how long she and Percy had been falling - hours? A day?"
2. There's no reason to assume that the shoes fell the distance that Percy and Annabeth did as they fell in a completely different entrance that was in Rome, not in the underworld. Even if you factor the distance to Hades given in SoN and subtract that from the distance Percy and Annabeth fell, we still don't know how deep that section of Tartarus goes.
3. There's no reason to assume that Kronos reacted to the shoe's travelling that distance as he was in a scattered form that did not reside in a single place within Tartarus and would not need to see the shoes to react as he is capable of sensing beings in the mortal world.
4. The shoes had never shown comparable speeds before in any of the several fights they were used in the book prior. The value calc'ed would be an outlier on principle of it being orders of magnitudes faster than its best feat.
The fact that Percy and Annabeth were able to keep up with said shoes on foot should be enough to debunk the calc.
As for Riordan being inconsistent, the lighting reaction feats aren't even outliers considering they all have in universe explanations.
Percy fails to react to lightning every time its fired at him and Jason has never explicitly reacted to lightning.
The feat used to give most of the verse "Massively Hypersonic" speeds never mentions Jason reacting to the lightning:
"The second spirit let loose a bolt of lightning, but Jason's blade absorbed the charge."
The fact that Jason was subconsciously using his powers to direct attacks away from himself even with amnesia and that he can control lightning already alone casts enough doubt on the feat as it is, but the fact that Percy couldn't react to lightning from further away when there was a clear wind-up on the attack back in TTC and still couldn't react to it again in his fight with Jason later on (who is evenly matched with Percy in terms of reaction speed) debunks the calc outright.
I should also note the distances mentioned in the calc of 21 meters is also bogus as the 2 Venti attacking Jason charged him at the same time, the first of which he cut with his sword, the second being the one who then launched lightning at him, meaning the distance was closer to 5 meters than 20.
Thanks, I definitely agree with this.And, as requested:
There's not much evidence either way, we know that the SA stars are seperate from GM stars, and we've only ever seen the gods affect GM stars. We also know that Apollo only affects his GM Sun, and has no connection to the SA Sun. Through this quasi-scaling chain, it is more likely than not that gods only create GM stars, and while the mist could solve this, it would just be a baseless assumption unless someone has a scan on the mist doing this.And remember we do not know the exact workings of how the Riordanverse works in regards to new stars being created.
Its entirely possible that the Mist makes stars appear older than they are, or that some other reality-altering shenanigans takes place, we simply do not know enough to say that is or isn't the case. That is why evidence should be brought up and discussed to determine that.