- 2,926
- 1,399
The point is that his tentacle moved a short distance before the projectiles passed through the POV
-
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.
geryuganshoop's speed possible upgrade
- Thread starter Panpanpanjeidj
- Start date
- 194
- 15
May I ask you to calculate the speed?
- 2,926
- 1,399
0.18c
- 194
- 15
Wow, that's definitely a relativistic speed. I think we need a significant speed upgrade.
- 194
- 15
Let me show youguys why the speed of flying the stones of Geryu should be accepted as sub-light.
Let's suppose there's an apple picture.
If you want to know the exact identity of the painting because it doesn't say it's an apple,
you can guess that the person who drew the apple was trying to express a fruit apple or deliver the message of an apple,
and you find out what it is.
We don't call it flowers, ignoring the assumptions of the author.
the story is already famous for understanding the writing through the intentions of the speaker.
Yes,seeing the picture or story accurately is the process of accepting the intentions that the person who created it wants to convey.
Especially in the case of cartoons, it's all the more so because they accept and enjoy the message that the author wants to show.
So readers, unconsciously or consciously, can accept what the author has designated as the description.
So what if the author says it's a picture of a flower that looks like it's a picture of a flame?
Should readers accept the author's intentions and understand the painting and see the author's limited description as a flower with more accuracy than speculation?
Shouldn't we have to accept the intention only if it looks similar to something?
so we doesnt take that intention?
Let me give you an example.
The intentions of the artist are very important to see abstract works of art accurately.
In extreme cases like modern art, when you take a line and say "break-off sadness,"
you take it as an expression and understand it as the right way to interpret it.
We are treated with the same exact interpretation as the way we interpret the picture of an apple.
Because even if the middle course is omitted, it's the process of accepting what the writer intended, and what's important in terms of seeing what's described is that it's only a secondary process, and what's important in terms of seeing exactly is accepting intentions.
We're already dealing with feat as an understanding of the description, even though we're not sure if the story writer, the author, thinks so. For example, if flash attacks look hundreds of thousands of times the speed of sound, it looks like hundreds of thousands of times the speed of sound, Atomic Samurai is not sure if it's thousands of times the speed of sound or if it's set. In the case of Wind and flame, they're not saying anything, but they're just looking at the description and they're guessing they're trying to portray 100,000 times the speed of sound, and they're evaluating it without setting
so you can understand the paint according to the paint artist's intention.
And, it's different not to think that way and not think much. Just as the basic idea of the character is in your story author head and doesn't have a specific idea, so you don't have the idea of colliding with the paint artist's description (the throwing of the Geryu's stone is super fast)
like you can say that if you say if author say sam is human, Sam is the next thing you're an old man or child.. . Either way, it follows the writer's intentions, or it follows the writer's message, and the way he reads the cartoon correctly is to accept the writer's message, so the information in the artist's description can be a fit, and if he doesn't think so, he is directly involved in the description itself.
So I'm not sure if the story author thinks so, but if paint author description is a description that describes a speed that is not so speculated, wouldn't we have to accept it as a speed that is close to light?
Let's suppose there's an apple picture.
If you want to know the exact identity of the painting because it doesn't say it's an apple,
you can guess that the person who drew the apple was trying to express a fruit apple or deliver the message of an apple,
and you find out what it is.
We don't call it flowers, ignoring the assumptions of the author.
the story is already famous for understanding the writing through the intentions of the speaker.
Yes,seeing the picture or story accurately is the process of accepting the intentions that the person who created it wants to convey.
Especially in the case of cartoons, it's all the more so because they accept and enjoy the message that the author wants to show.
So readers, unconsciously or consciously, can accept what the author has designated as the description.
So what if the author says it's a picture of a flower that looks like it's a picture of a flame?
Should readers accept the author's intentions and understand the painting and see the author's limited description as a flower with more accuracy than speculation?
Shouldn't we have to accept the intention only if it looks similar to something?
so we doesnt take that intention?
Let me give you an example.
The intentions of the artist are very important to see abstract works of art accurately.
In extreme cases like modern art, when you take a line and say "break-off sadness,"
you take it as an expression and understand it as the right way to interpret it.
We are treated with the same exact interpretation as the way we interpret the picture of an apple.
Because even if the middle course is omitted, it's the process of accepting what the writer intended, and what's important in terms of seeing what's described is that it's only a secondary process, and what's important in terms of seeing exactly is accepting intentions.
We're already dealing with feat as an understanding of the description, even though we're not sure if the story writer, the author, thinks so. For example, if flash attacks look hundreds of thousands of times the speed of sound, it looks like hundreds of thousands of times the speed of sound, Atomic Samurai is not sure if it's thousands of times the speed of sound or if it's set. In the case of Wind and flame, they're not saying anything, but they're just looking at the description and they're guessing they're trying to portray 100,000 times the speed of sound, and they're evaluating it without setting
so you can understand the paint according to the paint artist's intention.
And, it's different not to think that way and not think much. Just as the basic idea of the character is in your story author head and doesn't have a specific idea, so you don't have the idea of colliding with the paint artist's description (the throwing of the Geryu's stone is super fast)
like you can say that if you say if author say sam is human, Sam is the next thing you're an old man or child.. . Either way, it follows the writer's intentions, or it follows the writer's message, and the way he reads the cartoon correctly is to accept the writer's message, so the information in the artist's description can be a fit, and if he doesn't think so, he is directly involved in the description itself.
So I'm not sure if the story author thinks so, but if paint author description is a description that describes a speed that is not so speculated, wouldn't we have to accept it as a speed that is close to light?
Last edited:
- 2,926
- 1,399
Man, this is already accepted as Near lightspeed
- 194
- 15
Yeah, I know.
But I wrote it down because I saw what was written below, and I was worried about a possible change in the future.
