- 7,904
- 14,966
A CRT is necessary to apply it to the profiles.Then it should be moved to a Calc Group Discussion Thread, idk why this was made a CRT to begin with
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.
A CRT is necessary to apply it to the profiles.Then it should be moved to a Calc Group Discussion Thread, idk why this was made a CRT to begin with
I can understand the sentiment but suddenly trying to get rid of a number of votes on this thread is a pretty important matter that could decide how this thread goesPeople, people. Please stop this derail.
Ninja'd by M3X
The question is not “is it applicable to profiles,” the question is “is this version of the calc actually valid”A CRT is necessary to apply it to the profiles.
Okay. I think we're on the same page.Then it should be moved to a Calc Group Discussion Thread, idk why this was made a CRT to begin with
The problem is, when the thread devolves into that, the actual discussion goes out the window. I agree CGM votes on threads like this should count, but for the time being, let's focus on the actual arguments.I can understand the sentiment but suddenly trying to get rid of a number of votes on this thread is a pretty important matter that could decide how this thread goes
It is valid, but that calc shouldn't be applied to profiles.The question is not “is it applicable to profiles,” the question is “is this version of the calc actually valid”
I agree.I think the majority of CGM's being in favor of it shows that the calculation is valid. The next phase is for staff members to discuss whether it is appropriate to be on the verse page / profiles.
I don't see why this would be the case. The argument for why it's still "valid" has nothing to do with calculation, it's attempting to resolve the inconsistency with in-verse events that happened off-screen. It's a perfectly fine calc, but the basis for whether or not we believe that the halves were 40 miles apart, and then Tenseigan was activated, and was then brought back together, has nothing to do with calculation, and if the "validity" of the calculation is based on accepting that these things happened in the movie but we just didn't see it, that should remain a CRT, not a CGT(calcs can be mathematically fine but not valid), and the assumption is an issue of “large size portrayal” (very much in CGM territory), CGM input is highly valid.
Read bro read:I don't see why this would be the case. The argument for why it's still "valid" has nothing to do with calculation, it's attempting to resolve the inconsistency with in-verse events that happened off-screen. It's a perfectly fine calc, but the basis for whether or not we believe that the universe was 40 miles apart, and then Tenseigan was activated, and was then brought back together, has nothing to do with calculation.
Let’s halt the derailing at least momentarilyIf people still disagree with that, I guess let’s reach a conclusion on the arguments before resuming this discussion ay?
I read it, yes.Read bro read:
Then stop derailing until we’ve finished the priority topics of the thread, other staff have asked of that, and so am I. Leave the discussion on “is CGM input important” for after we finish up the OP pertinent arguments.I read it, yes.
You're doing god's work, keeping me away from these wretched places. Much obliged.Mr. Bambu does not want to get involved with HST threads as far as I'm aware, so best not to tag them.
The below.Someone please quote KLOL and Clover’s points
If y’all managed to make KLOL agree to a HST thread then I gotta see this
Damn, Arc been cooking.
Anyway, I vehemently agree with the OP, I personally never agreed with the axing of the feat myself.
Plus, the whole idea of "Just because Tenseigan can move the entire moon doesn't mean it can move the two separate halves" is the peak epitome of utter horseshit.
I’m with Mitch here. I think the feat should continue to be used
Can you DM a link to your response postOh my God
That isn't the issue
Please read the OP instead of reading the comments
The issue is that it isn't a bad assumption that it can move the two separate halves. That is a perfectly fine assumption.
The issue is that you're making the imaginary issue where "the pieces moved" when nothing said the pieces moved and it could just be an art inconsistency.
Then you're saying "since Toneri can move the moon, he can move the pieces back together".
This is an issue with consistency.One supporting piece of evidence AKM uses is that the width of the Toneri sword is comparable to the split separation. Well that's cool and all but the moon isnt even fully split here yet. One might be tempted to point to this scan and say "but oh it is". It isn't. 1) the moon hasnt split apart yet in that scan, 2) the sword emits light (so when youre that far away from the blade you cannot actually see where the physical blade ends and it turns to just the light emitted from the sword, think of a bubble of light around a lit city at night), and 3) if we assume the blade is only ~Bijuu width you'd have to argue the moon is like the size of a small island (which I'm going to dismiss in a joking matter, because I don't think anyone is arguing the Naruto moon is like a mountain in size). So, this point is bunk, but lets look at the others.
No, it can't, because we see the movie and nobody can even see the split from earth.There's also the fact that the novelization supports the split being large enough to see from earth, and the novelization is literally written by the same person who wrote the screenplay of the movie, so there's no discussion to be had in terms of conflict of intention.
NO?, for someone claiming that others need to rewatch the movie, you seem to not understand what cinematic timing is. kakashi and the Raikage reactions aren't happening right after the moon gets split.No, it can't, because we see the movie and nobody can even see the split from earth.
They tell from the cut pieces around it, and only the astronomer with the telescope could see it.
No because they blatantly needed the astronomers to tell them about the Kanji on the moon, i have no idea why your bringing up false equivalencesIf we're using that as a counter, then that means Kurama must be ******* hundreds of kilometers tall since he was similar to the size of the Kanji they could "see" from earth.
I agreeEverybody here needs to go watch that damn movie again cause yall are liking wrong comments and agreeing with wrong points.
Yes, I'm neutral right now. I haven't seen the movie in forever so I can't give much in the way of arguments.@LordGriffin1000 Since you gave a tentative agreement before, I wonder if your position has changed since the beginning of the thread?
Do you know what this means?NO?, for someone claiming that others need to rewatch the movie, you seem to not understand what cinematic timing is. kakashi and the Raikage reactions aren't happening right after the moon gets split.
The light around the moon comes from the blade as it bursts out.
The Split happens several seconds after the beam and the light have dissipated
Kakashi and the Raikage's reactions are happening at the same time from different POV's but what they are reacting to is the blade being swung and cutting the moon in real time not the split. the split has not occurred yet.
This is why there's a glow around the moon and why literally seconds after this, we get an announcement that the moon has been split. this 1:1 consistency with what we just watched, the only difference is that we are viewing it from different POV. hence why they are called reaction shots.
However unlike the movie which cuts away at Kakashi saying "what" the novel just continues.
"The moon has been cut in half!” “What!?” When Kakashi looked up, there was indeed a fissure in the moon’s surface. There was ten minutes left until the space-time chakra cannon would fire. There was nothing Kakashi could do but pray for the safety of Naruto and the others."
And they need the astronomer to tell them that the moon split.No because they blatantly needed the astronomers to tell them about the Kanji on the moon, i have no idea why your bringing up false equivalences
That's normal. A lot of things are a matter of interpretation and one's personal sense of reason/logic. Unfortunately not everything can be completely proven or disproven, so the 'argument' if you can call it that just comes down to "What do you, personally, find to be more reasonable?" and in those circumstances the best we can do is try to reach a consensus, but there will always be disagreement that can't be resolved.
Honestly, after reading everything, I agree most with this stance.@Arc7Kuroi For what it's worth, I think I would agree with a "possibly/likely 5-C+", just not with a full 5-C+ for it. I'm just also fine with not using the calc altogether.
I think you can put me in neutral for now.
they see both which is whats supported in the novel, because kakashi looks up right after being told and confirms itDo you know what this means?
It means that they saw the moon getting cut in half, but they don't see the actual cut.
I never said that they can see the full hundred kilometer cut from earth. just that the damage as in the split that was happening was visible. and for it to be visible by the naked from that distance doesnt support the split being so small.The argument is "they can see a hundred kilometer cut from earth", but they can't.
no because those are two separate scenes your conflating, this is addressed in my first post. go reread itThey just see the effects from said light instead of being able to see the actual cut, which ***** on "it's big cause they can see it from earth".
they doYou said "There's also the fact that the novelization supports the split being large enough to see from earth", but they don't see it.
meaning of Fissure: "That's probably why it said "there was indeed a fissure in the moon’s surface" instead of "the moon split", because they can't even see the split
that's irrelevant you would still notice irregularities if the cut was on that scale. the moon isnt a 2-D sticker. and the fact that they do notice these fissures means that the scale is exponentially larger that what the later scenes depict., cause the split is at the x axis when they're looking from the Z,
every other visual that your referencing happens before the cutwhich is why every other visual of the moon from earth doesn't show it being split, cause they don't see it split.
your making things up, fissure has a very specific meaning your avoiding using."A fissure on the moon's surface" means "the surface of the moon broke". They'd just say "the shit split", but they don't even see it from the right angle.
we dont see what they see when the moon actually splits. we see everything prior to that, go reread my postSaying they saw the moon cut in half when we can literally see what they see and they don't see it doesn't make sense.
they don't, kakashi literally confirms this by looking up.And they need the astronomer to tell them that the moon split.
go read my prior post, it addresses this. the raikage and kakashi's scenes are happening concurrentlyEven the Raikage said "what's happening" after they revealed the split cause he couldn't tell it split.
because the split happens afterwards not during the time the beam travels.Same with Kakashi in the movie. If he could easily see the split, he wouldn't need to question the light.
Indeed!@LephyrTheRevanchist Would it be fair to say you're Neutral then, but fine with a "Possibly" if it is added?
Yet in the movie they don't see the fissure and it's on the side where they can't see till the lady says it was cut in half. We should we take the novel over the movie that gives us the visual?"The moon has been cut in half!” “What!?” When Kakashi looked up, there was indeed a fissure in the moon’s surface. There was ten minutes left until the space-time chakra cannon would fire. There was nothing Kakashi could do but pray for the safety of Naruto and the others."
I’d concede further arguing to this conclusion btw, but I’ll keep going if peeps wanna keep going. Just thought I’d put it out there that I’m satisfied with a partial rating being accepted.@LephyrTheRevanchist Would it be fair to say you're Neutral then, but fine with a "Possibly" if it is added?
There's...no such thing as "parallel to earth"Really guys? Have we just thrown irl knowledge out? The Split happens where the light and dark sides of the moon meets. Irl, the moon is tidal locked so it doesn’t rotate. The POV of the ppl of earth is that of the Light Side of the moon and they see the light of Toneri’s GWRE creating the ring they see. THE SPLIT IS NOT FACING EARTH, IT’S PARALLEL TO EARTH!
Even though you’re not wrong, this is a nitpick…There's...no such thing as "parallel to earth"
Also where's the proof of the split happening right down the middle? I don't recall ever seeing that in the movie?Even though you’re not wrong, this is a nitpick…
Point is, the cut doesn’t happen across the half of the moon facing earth.
No, I am 100% deducing an event. We explicitly see the moon split apart by a wide margin and then afterwards it's no longer as far apart. I am deducing that the Tenseigan pulled the halves together.You're not trying to deduce an event. You're trying to implement something that wasn't implied. This isn't "A hurt B, so I'm assuming that A hurt B with C". This is "A happened, nothing says it happened but I see things that could either be an inconsistency or I can headcanon that A happened, so I'm gonna say that A happened, then I'm gonna say that since the character can do B, A happened cause of C".
Splitting something in half =/= both halves slamming into each other and destroying each other completely. One is a minor inconvenience the other is ass.Toneri wouldn't destroy the fortress since he said that he had a powerful chakra (from the tenseigan) covering the fortress that wouldn't destroy it. He clearly doesn't give a damn about the wellbeing of the fortress if he's splitting the moon that it resides in. It's very relevant.
We see the gap vary from its initial showing of 10s of km to its later showings of 10s of meters. It isn't like the split is varying from 10s of km to 1s of km to 100s of metes to 10s of meters, such that it is wholely inconsistent. It's very consistent that the moon split goes from really wide to not wide.In AKM's threads, he sent the moon's split at varying distances. We see the split when Naruto is rising from the chasm, and the other half of the moon is not coming together. It's not as close as the later instances, but we see the gap varying, but we don't see the other side of the moon coming together.
Not only is that not inherently true, but it's flat out not provable. Maybe they should have heard stuf maybe not.There was the loudest sound ever when the moon just moved apart after they were already separated. They would've heard shit colliding, especially probably a few meters under where they're standing.
I certainly agree that the moon split is emphasized, I wonder why... The contents wouldn't fly out of the moon no, so there are no issues there.Nothing is being emphasized except "the moon split", not "the shit came back together". 95% of your argument is guesswork. You have more guesswork than arguments. That's an issue. You think if they yank the right back to the left, the contents of the insides wouldn't fly to the other side too? Where are all the issues from that too.
The difference is moving 1 million needles vs moving 1 million and 1 needles, the difference in travel is not significant to impact the work done to a noticeable degree at all.It would be easier to just shoot both halves straight instead of pulling it back just to push it back the other way again, but logic's out the window.
No, my arguments are all "what likely happened" and I've been explaining that the entire thread. My arguments are all based on claims of likelihood.The difference between your arguments and my arguments are that my arguments are "what happened" or "what should've happened" and your arguments are all "what could've happened". Literally every reply of yours was "it could've", which means "there's nothing saying it did, but it could've done this".
I hate to do you like this, but those other feats aren't relevant to the feat I'm arguing. I'm not required to respond to them, nor does it harm or help my argument to do so. If you wanna talk about other feats, do it in another thread.clipped point of KT ranting about other feats and their potential inconsistencies
You misunderstand the point, when you can no longer optically resolve something, you cannot use it to comment explicitly on its size.2) The light doesn't mean shit since the length of the cut of the moon is relative to the beam we see, and we can see the amount of light there is. Unless you wanna now say that the beam was cutting a width dozens of thousands of times larger than it.
Not really.No, I am 100% deducing an event. We explicitly see the moon split apart by a wide margin and then afterwards it's no longer as far apart. I am deducing that the Tenseigan pulled the halves together.
I don't think cutting something like a fortress in half counts as a minor inconvenienceSplitting something in half =/= both halves slamming into each other and destroying each other completely. One is a minor inconvenience the other is ass.
We see many different things in comparison to the gap. The bijuu that was next to the diameter of the cut that wasn't that big being compared to a cut that can be calced to thousands of meters in size, the sword that we can measure from, even the fragments itself, and much more.We see the gap vary from its initial showing of 10s of km to its later showings of 10s of meters. It isn't like the split is varying from 10s of km to 1s of km to 100s of metes to 10s of meters, such that it is wholely inconsistent. It's very consistent that the moon split goes from really wide to not wide.
aightNot only is that not inherently true, but it's flat out not provable. Maybe they should have heard stuf maybe not.
They would fly to other sides inside the moon. The artificial sun, the fortress, everything inside the moon would've been destroyed and sent flying.I certainly agree that the moon split is emphasized, I wonder why... The contents wouldn't fly out of the moon no, so there are no issues there.
You can't tell me that yanking something back just to push it back to the direction you pulled it from is that insignificant from just pushing it forward.The difference is moving 1 million needles vs moving 1 million and 1 needles, the difference in travel is not significant to impact the work done to a noticeable degree at all.
Your arguments are "what could've happened".No, my arguments are all "what likely happened" and I've been explaining that the entire thread. My arguments are all based on claims of likelihood.
That was a counter to a useless point, ignore itI hate to do you like this, but those other feats aren't relevant to the feat I'm arguing. I'm not required to respond to them, nor does it harm or help my argument to do so. If you wanna talk about other feats, do it in another thread.
Nada.You misunderstand the point, when you can no longer optically resolve something, you cannot use it to comment explicitly on its size.