• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Garfield speed downgrade

Blahblah9755

Blahblah9755

7,675
1,370
Currently Garfield is rated as ftl for this feat, however there are two major problems with that.

First, Garfield doesn't move very far. With the way lights work, you have to flip the switch, then an Electromagnetic Field will travel through the wires to cause the electrons within them to begin moving, then the lights turn on and the light travels through the room. This would mean that at minimum, Garfield would have enough time for light to travel from the switch just off the floor to the ceiling and from the ceiling to the top of the panel to get to his bed. Typically rooms are around 2.5 meters in height, so this would probably be about 4 meters of travel. Garfield on the other hand is only traveling about three times his body length, which, considering average cat sizes, would be about 20 to 25 cm. He would only travel 60 to 75 cm, making this a relativistic feat in the best case.

The second and much larger problem is that lights take time to turn on and off. When a light turns on or off the filament is heating up or cooling. This can take varying times depending on the light, but it's typically around a few tens of milliseconds to a second (you can actually probably see this variance if you see check out different lights in your home). This would make the feat somewhere between below average human and subsonic.

I believe this feat should be replaced with whatever his next best feat is.
 
Thank you, since we haven't had any other responses, I'm going to post this on the walls of some of the series' supporters and see if they can take a look.
 
I disagree with this heavily allow me to explain.

The entire purpose of that comic is for Garfield to show he's faster then the speed of dark hence why he says "Faster then the speed of dark" at the end. The speed of dark has been consistently stated to be as fast/faster then light, so this is easily a FTL feat. It shouldn't be relativistic cause the entire point of that comic is him stating he's faster then it, not slower but can somewhat react to it. This goes on to your second point about electrons, you're taking far too many assumptions that the comic strip nor Jim Davis is even remotely thinking about when writing that. The clear intensive purpose of the comic is what I've said. I have no clue where you got "below average human" or "subsonic" from both of these fronts are pure assumptions with no basis, not even a peak human irl can outrun a light turning off or jump onto a bed before the light turns off.
 
Yeah uh, I disagree. Far too many assumptions and pretty sure some of these points were covered and refuted on the initial Garfield CRT.
 
"Faster than the speed of dark" can quite easily mean faster than the speed it takes for his room to get dark, considering the speed of dark isn't a real thing. This is just as many assumptions as you're making.

Additionally, by saying that we should take Garfield's statement at your version of face value, you are implying that Garfield knows the exact speed of light, and can accurately measure his own speed to tell if he is going faster than it, or just fast enough to reach the point in question before photons do. When you run, you don't magically know your speed.

The point of the comic is not to tell vs debaters that Garfield is ftl, but is to make a joke based on something children (and sometimes adults) frequently do: try to get to the bed before the lights go out, so they don't have to walk in the dark.

I don't think Jim Davis knows how wires and electromagnetic fields work, no. That part was primarily there to point out that even if these were magical instant lights, Garfield would still have moved far less distance than either the light or the electricity, and hold this feat, should it be deemed valid, to some semblance of accuracy.

Finally, you said nothing to dispute my second point. About light taking time to turn off. And simply hand waved it as impossible. What you said regarding "not even a peak human irl can outrun a light turning off or jump onto a bed before the light turns off" is incorrect. I, an average, unathletic human, just tested myself on two separate lights, on one I was able to cross a two meter distance and sat down before it turned off, on the other I was able to move about a quarter meter before it did. As I mentioned in my initial post, lights take time to turn off. That is where the below average human and subsonic speeds come from.

I am making the assumption that the author knows this, because it's something that can be easily seen by watching the lights in most houses, as some will take visible time to turn on.
 
May I ask what those assumptions are? The main point: light bulbs taking time to turn on isn't an assumption, it's a physical certainty.

Sorry for the double post, I didn't see all the replies before.
 
Gonna be blunt before I make my refute, I quite frankly don't believe you on that "I crossed a 2 meter distance before the light searched up". I'd like video proof from your side with youtube videos of people doing this.
 
""Faster than the speed of dark" can quite easily mean faster than the speed it takes for his room to get dark, considering the speed of dark isn't a real thing. This is just as many assumptions as you're making."

>https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/speed-of-darkness.htm

https://curiosity.com/topics/darkness-is-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-curiosity/

http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/06/20/what-is-the-speed-of-dark/

Getting these out of the way. No, it's clear as day what Garfield is referring to there. Feigning ignorance isn't going to suddenly change that.

"Additionally, by saying that we should take Garfield's statement at your version of face value, you are implying that Garfield knows the exact speed of light, and can accurately measure his own speed to tell if he is going faster than it, or just fast enough to reach the point in question before photons do. When you run, you don't magically know your speed."

>He makes the statement of how fast he is after he finishes said run. So this refute made legitimately no sense whatsoever and clearly didn't read the own feat in question.

"I don't think Jim Davis knows how wires and electromagnetic fields work, no. That part was primarily there to point out that even if these were magical instant lights, Garfield would still have moved far less distance than either the light or the electricity, and hold this feat, should it be deemed valid, to some semblance of accuracy."

>Already showed the several scans of how fast the speed of dark truly is.

"Finally, you said nothing to dispute my second point. About light taking time to turn off. And simply hand waved it as impossible. What you said regarding "not even a peak human irl can outrun a light turning off or jump onto a bed before the light turns off" is incorrect. I, an average, unathletic human, just tested myself on two separate lights, on one I was able to cross a two meter distance and sat down before it turned off, on the other I was able to move about a quarter meter before it did. As I mentioned in my initial post, lights take time to turn off. That is where the below average human and subsonic speeds come from." >Quite frankly don't believe you on this point and showed links as to why I don't. Light taking time to turn off isn't even being viewed in the feat and that's not what the comic is thinking of when Garfield does the feat.

"I am making the assumption that the author knows this, because it's something that can be easily seen by watching the lights in most houses, as some will take visible time to turn on." >Weird how every light I've turned off and the amount of people I asked just for this survey to turn off their lights said the exact same thing happened with them. Unless you have a faulty light system, but once again it takes far more assumptions to assume that Garfield's light system is just faulty then what the actual purpose of that comic is to show.
 
To go over your three articles:

1: "While it might seem logical that the existence of a speed of light means there must be a way to determine the speed of darkness, this isn't necessarily true. While it may be possible to define the speed of darkness, this determination is heavily dependent on just how you define the dark." The article starts by saying there's no "real" speed of dark, but literally just how you choose to view it

2: The article is literally about how the speed of dark isn't equal to the speed of light, because darkness nothing and can vary by the situation.

3:This is using a specific interpretation of the speed of dark, as the speed at which photons stop occupying a spot. Both your previous articles indicate that it can be things other than that.

Anyways: "Getting these out of the way. No, it's clear as day what Garfield is referring to there. Feigning ignorance isn't going to suddenly change that."

No, it's not. He just turned off the lights and got in bed before the lights turned off. That indicates that the speed of dark is the speed of the lights turning off, not the speed of the photons passing his head.

"He makes the statement of how fast he is after he finishes said run. So this refute made legitimately no sense whatsoever and clearly didn't read the own feat in question."

And how does he know this? Did he measure his speed to determine that he is faster than light? He crossed a much shorter distance than the light, so just getting there before the lights went out wouldn't automatically make him faster, it'd just mean he took less time.

"Already showed the several scans of how fast the speed of dark truly is."

Which means nothing when the point is about holding the distance he covered verse that darkness to accuracy in the case where we accept your view of the speed of dark.

"Quite frankly don't believe you on this point and showed links as to why I don't."

Those links have nothing to do with the point I made there, but I thought this would be a good point to address your disbelief stated prior to this response.

I admit that I cannot show you evidence of me doing those things, as I am not about to dox myself, nor can I show you videos of people doing that, because searching for something like that would take too long. I can show you a video of someone filming their light in slow motion turning it off: https://youtu.be/9HUrYoqxQpw

This video is filmed at 1200 fps, so each second is equal to .05 seconds. The last flicker (when the light would have been turned off)was about halfway through the 2nd second, while the light stayed quite bright partway into the third second. This light therefore took somewhere in the 2-4 centisecond range to get to a point of being significantly darker. Not slow enough that a human could outpace it, but certainly enough for a subsonic character.

"Light taking time to turn off isn't even being viewed in the feat and that's not what the comic is thinking of when Garfield does the feat."

Light taking time to turn off is exactly what the comic is thinking of in this feat, whether it's your interpretation or mine, the author is assuming it takes time for the lights to go out after the switch is flicked. I am simply holding that to real world accuracy.

"Weird how every light I've turned off and the amount of people I asked just for this survey to turn off their lights said the exact same thing happened with them. Unless you have a faulty light system, but once again it takes far more assumptions to assume that Garfield's light system is just faulty then what the actual purpose of that comic is to show."

Though I am certainly interested in hearing about what I'm sure was a very rigorously taken survey (I apologize for the sarcasm and disbelief, I simply believe in responding in kind), I would rather point you to an actual scientific article regarding the time lights take to reach 90% brightness and to fully cool:

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...-filament-lamps.pdf?origin=publication_detail

If you look at pages 11 and 12 (61 and 62 as labeled on the page) you can see that the time it took for the 10 and 100 Watt bulbs to reach 90% brightness was 0.02 seconds to 0.06 seconds. Most household lights tend to be in the range of 40-100 Watts (based on what I see in stores and sites like Quora, admittedly not flawless sources, but the best I could find with a quick search) for incandescent bulbs (what Garfield would have had given when this comic was released, and what was being tested in the study) so it would be within that timeframe that Garfield had to move.
 
I think that what is referred to here is simply the time it takes for a room to get dark after flipping the light switch, not the speed of darkness itself as an actual concept.

It is probably best to ask the more skilled calc group members to properly calculate the speed required to do this.
 
Point of all of them was go to by the idea that even if the concept doesn't exist if we were to go by an idea for it's "speed" it'd be light speed/faster. It's clear as day the comic panel was treating it as an actual speed.

It indicates that he's surpassing the speed of dark (hence why he said it) not the speed of light turning off.

Nothing in that scan is him outrunning it, why would this be subsonic? His light bulb also seems to be an older model/he said in the comments itself that this one flickers before turning off.

The comic is thinking of that at all hence why Garfield is claiming to be faster then the speed of dark.

I don't see what here debunks much. That would mean Garfield outpaced the speed of the light turning off, which you didn't even indicate how this is Subsonic. FTL sounds like the most sense here.
 
Antvasima said:
I think that what is referred to here is simply the time it takes for a room to get dark after flipping the light switch, not the speed of darkness itself as an actual concept.

It is probably best to ask the more skilled calc group members to properly calculate the speed required to do this.
Click to expand...
^
 
Bump.

I fundamentally disagree with the logic of the comic's purpose. If we follow the purpose of everything to the footnote, we'll find ourselves with a billion 1A characters in no time.
 
Oh, wow. Was just about to make a thread on this before I saw this. I'll post what I had. Basically, he should be Transonic, not FTL.


"Garfield is listed as FTL because of this strip.

Speed of dark


However, this is an unreliable feat for numerous reasons.

1.) It is more reasonable to assume that via Occam's Razor, the light switch in Jon and Garfield's house is delayed by a couple of seconds, rather than Garfield being faster than light. This is a common electrical problem and likely to occur in the Arbuckle residence.

2.) Just because Garfield says he's faster than the speed of dark doesn't mean he is. By this logic, I could say I'm the strongest man in the world, and VSBattles would peg me down as at least Class 5 in Lifting Strength.

3.) Garfield is canonically transonic, according to Garfield's Law.

Garfield's law


Garfield can exceed the speed of sound. He has not been proven to be FTL in a definite feat. As such, he should be "at least Transonic." Now, if some Garfield superfan wants to direct me to a strip where Garfield definitively proves he's faster than the speed of light, I'd be glad to see it. But until then, I see no reason for Garfield to be FTL."
 
Nope.

"Transonic (Mach 0.9-1.1) (308.7-377.3 m/s)" from the page on Speed.

Transonic includes speeds that are faster than Mach 1.
 
I mean, he's three rooms away in and the sound is still in the same spot he said it. Bare maximum, he's travelled 3 rooms and the sound has only cross halfway through one. Pretty sure you could get a calc out of that.
 
He started from off panel, so we can't say how much farther he moved for sure, but his house would need to be at least 22 rooms long for that to only be transonic, so supersonic or supersonic+ would be the likely result of that feat.
 
Well, we still have to decide what else that we should scale Garfield's speed to.
 
I have that Garfield Faster than sound feat a try myself. It was like Supersonic+ at its low end. And MHS at its high end. Tho it hasnt been evaluated yet


And if I may give my opinion. I believe the feat is fine. The Garfield comic was clearly intending for him to be such a speed. Garfield comics often describe such things like with the above FTS feat. The intended idea was he is Faster than Dark. That was what was meant to be displayed. And since it's both intended that way. And things like that are normal. I say the downgrade shouldn't go through
 
I stand by my last statement about Garfield's "faster than dark" strip.

Would you mind posting the Supersonic+ to MHS calc here? I'm curious to see it.

Also, assuming the calc gets approved, we could probably calculate a definite Attack Potency for Garfield by using the kinetic energy of an obese housecat moving at those speeds.
 
Nemo212 said:
I stand by my last statement about Garfield's "faster than dark" strip.

Would you mind posting the Supersonic+ to MHS calc here? I'm curious to see it.

Also, assuming the calc gets approved, we could probably calculate a definite Attack Potency for Garfield by using the kinetic energy of an obese housecat moving at those speeds.
Click to expand...


here ya go
 
there is two arguements for this feat 1 side is that the joke is garfield was able to go to bed at the speed of light hence the phrase "faster than the speed of dark" which would give garfield the feat via statements but then the arguement for this comes in which it's just jon's house sucks and might have poor electric wiring and there are better feats for garfield like in garfield's law.

i feel mixed about the speed feat because there are 2 ways to talk about the joke 1. garfield is so lazy he is excited to go to bed so fast that he was the speed of light or 2. jon has horrible house quality and i believe that the horrible house quality is better as a reason that he isn't FTL because we don't actually see that garfield moved at that speed because i think that the team would make it more visual and actually showing garfield moving faster than the light in his room but still believe the garfield's law feat
 
We don't have proof it was the wiring. If he didn't say anything. Then that's a lot more believeable that It's just the electricity and Garfield outpaced that. But he says he is moving faster than Dark. It very much was meant for him to move Faster than Dark which makes him FTL
 
Buttersamuri said:
But he says he is moving faster than Dark. It very much was meant for him to move Faster than Dark which makes him FTL
Click to expand...
Actually, it would depend on the difference between:

1. The distance between Garfield and the bed

2. The distance between the light source and the bed

Unless I'm mistaken about something, Garfield would only be FTL in this scenario if he and the light source were the same distance from the bed, and Garfield made it into the bed before the last photon from the light source hit it. That's clearly not the case, and the light appears to be in the room somewhere off-panel.

Additionally, if we're really taking this feat seriously, I think we should also count the electricity needed to power the light that has been shut off, which should be traveling at 285,102,627 m/s (0.95c), which would be assuming he moves immediately after flicking the switch and doesn't arbitrarily wait for the remaining electricity to stop flowing first, which I feel is a fair assumption to make. Since the speed of electricity is Relativistic+, Garfield would very likely only need to be Relativistic+ to accomplish this feat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CuteAnimeNekoGirl99
Garfield (Comics) Revisions Draft/Feat Discussion
Replies
34
Views
2K
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Garfield vs Tom (Tom and Jerry)
Replies
19
Views
1K
Robo432343
Robo432343
Second22
  • Locked
JoJo's Bizarre Adventure - Massively FTL Downgrade
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
M3X_2.0
M3X_2.0
MaybeWantsToEdit
OFF game Nothingness buff (possibly)
Replies
6
Views
965
MaybeWantsToEdit
MaybeWantsToEdit
  • Locked
Chowder needs some serious upscaling
Replies
3
Views
340
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Back
Top