High 3A Saitama (Please read the post before making a decision)

[ZillertheBucko]

wait
it be argued as supporting evidence that saitama took a black hole point blank, thus making him high 3-A
the funny

 

[Cryo123]

wait
it be argued as supporting evidence that saitama took a black hole point blank, thus making him high 3-A
the funny

"Stop.You're embarissing me in front of the wizard".

 

[StekFence]

Wrong about what? The Theory of Relativity exists? You don't just get that wrong. Also that relies on headcanon.

But clearly, he’s not correct, since literally nothing related to an inf amount of energy and mass existing in the universe has happened anytime anyone went ftl. Like, Saitama would have had his own gravitational field. the universe would have been destroyed if genos was correct. Since it hasn’t, he isn’t. Either that or that law just doesn’t apply to opm chars for some reason

 

[DontTalkDT]

Not necessarily.

Just asking about usage of theory of relativity and usage of relativistic kinetic energy if it is explicitly mentioned to take effect when a feat of that caliber is being performed, like the Flash situation where they say that as they accelerate to the speed of light their mass goes up to infinity and they threaten to tear a hole in the fabric of the universe yada yada yada.

Like the example here:

Should the theory of relativity be usable only then if it is explicitly mentioned to take place?

For KE the theory of relativity is useable up to four times the newtonian value always. There is an exception for "if a specific value is explicitly stated". That applies to the scan you showed. What's relevant there is the destruction of the universe, more so than the mention of relativism, though.

What other, not energy-related, phenomenons are concerned it's mostly as useable as long as it is shown to properly work and is consistent with other rules, I think. And within the regular domain of relativism, of course (i.e. no FTL stuff with relativism and usual black hole considerations).

Yeah, when calculating relativistic feats. We're not doing that here.

Then what are we doing? OP talks about getting High 3-A from going FTL, which is a connection one can only make by calculating kinetic energy from speed. Without such a calculation, you wouldn't know that going FTL requires infinite energy.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Then what are we doing? OP talks about getting High 3-A from going FTL, which is a connection one can only make by calculating kinetic energy from speed. Without such a calculation, you wouldn't know that going FTL requires infinite energy.

Well the reason the rule exists is because of inflated calcs getting wildly different results with a small percent change, but there's really no way to inflate high 3-A so the rule shouldn't really apply here

 

[Cryo123]

But clearly, he’s not correct, since literally nothing related to an inf amount of energy and mass existing in the universe has happened anytime anyone went ftl. Like, Saitama would have had his own gravitational field. the universe would have been destroyed if genos was correct. Since it hasn’t, he isn’t. Either that or that law just doesn’t apply to opm chars for some reason

Minus 1 calc, nobody else goes FTL.

1st law of thermodynamics is still ignored here. Also AP and Destructive Capablities are different.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

I’m going to go back to being neutral on this btw

 

[StekFence]

Your relativity argument is that it would be Infinite energy feat because it takes infinite energy to move infinite mass. Which comes from moving at certain speeds. So you already presuppose he has that mass, but nothing suggests he does, when the effects would be obvious.

 

[Kingofwolves999]

No, because where is the infinite mass.

If relativity is the reason for the upgrade, where are the other affects of relativity that would occur from this feat.

 

[Sus]

Just a question

If the KE increases due to increased mass, then shouldn't we use regular kinetic energy for all relativistic feats? Since they don't show increase in mass

Unless im misunderstanding something

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Your relativity argument is that it would be Infinite energy feat because it takes infinite energy to move infinite mass. So you already presuppose he has that mass, but nothing suggests he does, when the effects would be obvious.

The issue with that is the fact that AP vs DC is still a thing, especially in the garou vs Saitama fight, since their punches go from nearly galaxy busting (probably galaxy busting” to not even destroying planets as a side effect of the far stronger serious punches being thrown around. The theory of relativity does explicitly exist, but that doesn’t mean that the Destruction vs AP discrepancy doesn’t still exist

 

[StekFence]

Not all the effects would have to be Attack related. For example, infinite gravity, which would end the universe so I guess it’s kinda attack related.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

point proven (I think)

 

[Cryo123]

No, because where is the infinite mass.

If relativity is the reason for the upgrade, where are the other affects of relativity that would occur from this feat.

He generates antimatter

 

[Kingofwolves999]

He generates antimatter

Note the plural part of my post. Does Saitama perform every single effect necessary to prove he did his feat with the theory of relativity taken into account.

Also still haven’t addressed the MFTL+ attack that destroyed stars which Blast reacted to and moved at MFTL+ speeds to divert, so that already means the entire upgrade is gone if those above haven’t made that clear already.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

I would like to once again bring up hyperspace
hyperspace is finite 4d, meaning that garou and saitama being able to overload it suggests high 3-A power
it's supporting evidence, and kinda memed on, but important to bring up nonetheless
still neutral tho, I would like to hear more discussion about specifically platinum sperm's ftl value

 

[Braking]

disagree for the reasons above

 

[Sus]

Just a question

If the KE increases due to increased mass, then shouldn't we use regular kinetic energy for all relativistic feats? Since they don't show increase in mass

Unless im misunderstanding something

Can someone explain this?

 

[sanicspood]

how is this thread still open

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Note the plural part of my post. Does Saitama perform every single effect necessary to prove he did his feat with the theory of relativity taken into account.

Also still haven’t addressed the MFTL+ attack that destroyed stars which Blast reacted to and moved at MFTL+ speeds to divert, so that already means the entire upgrade is gone if those above haven’t made that clear already.

blast would scale to high 3-A since he directly scales to the sp^2

disagree for the reasons above

not an argument

 

[Cryo123]

Note the plural part of my post. Does Saitama perform every single effect necessary to prove he did his feat with the theory of relativity taken into account.

Also still haven’t addressed the MFTL+ attack that destroyed stars which Blast reacted to and moved at MFTL+ speeds to divert, so that already means the entire upgrade is gone if those above haven’t made that clear already.

In the example above of a Flash character approaching the speed of light, they don't generate atimatter, yet the feat is still valid.

 

[KLOL506]

For KE the theory of relativity is useable up to four times the newtonian value always. There is an exception for "if a specific value is explicitly stated". That applies to the scan you showed. What's relevant there is the destruction of the universe, more so than the mention of relativism, though.

What other, not energy-related, phenomenons are concerned it's mostly as useable as long as it is shown to properly work and is consistent with other rules, I think. And within the regular domain of relativism, of course (i.e. no FTL stuff with relativism and usual black hole considerations).

Prolly should be mentioned in the KE rules page then.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

how is this thread still open

not a contribution

 

[Kingofwolves999]

blast would scale to high 3-A since he directly scales to the sp^2

Except the SP^2 didn’t go back in time, create antimatter, become infinite in mass or obey the theory of relativity in any way. So no, that feat is not high 3-A nor would Blast scale to High 3-A. So idk what you’re talking about honestly

In the example above of a Flash character approaching the speed of light, they don't generate atimatter, yet the feat is still valid.

Not an answer. Your entire premise is that Genos said the theory was possible, therefore it must be what Saitama did, which is a very egregious assumption when surrounded by the instances of that exact theory being broken or disregarded within the verse. The flash example at least is very explicit, this feat is not and is contradicted.

If the Flash feat has issues you would like to bring up than it shouldn’t be used either, not as an example of allowing things that are incorrect to be used.

 

[Braking]

not an argument

Denied

 

[Kingofwolves999]

not an argument

This is a CRT, people are free to agree and disagree as they please, it’s what determines if it’s usable or not. I would be far more worried about proving what you’re saying is true than someone agreeing with your opposition.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Disagree FRA

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Except the SP^2 didn’t go back in time, create antimatter, become infinite in mass or obey the theory of relativity in any way. So no, that feat is not high 3-A nor would Blast scale to High 3-A. So idk what you’re talking about honestly

well the infinite mass part is actually plausible, blast focused all the force of it into a beam that blitzed him and his crew, and shot through the universe with no sign of stopping
the antimatter and time travel thing is the same point, both of which used a specific technique of manipulation said atoms, so it still could have produced them without actually having done it

Not an answer. Your entire premise is that Genos said the theory was possible, therefore it must be what Saitama did, which is a very egregious assumption when surrounded by the instances of that exact theory being broken or disregarded within the verse. The flash example at least is very explicit, this feat is not and is contradicted.

That's the point of possibly ratings.

This is a CRT, people are free to agree and disagree as they please, it’s what determines if it’s usable or not. I would be far more worried about proving what you’re saying is true than someone agreeing with your opposition.

technically not opposition, I'm still neutral
it's just that FRA trains blatantly do not require you to actually know what's going on. You can be a schizo 2nd grader with internet access (hypothetical) and say FRA to literally anything. It's just a method of inflating results without actually contributing to the argument, or proving you're even able to discuss it if people try to debate with your decision.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

I literally never use FRA anymore, I say my own arguments with my own words and mind, and take Ls when a L presents itself through good logic. I do not vote on things I know nothing about "FRA" and then unfollow thread like some people do

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Disagree FRA. Astounded that this is still going on tbh

 

[ZillertheBucko]

changing from neutral to agree again purely to spite everybody who says "FRA"
the "reasons above" suck ass, the only good one is what I brought up, about how it would make sperm scale to ftl, but somehow you all decided to disagree for the WRONG REASONS
I'm gonna shit myself if this keeps up

 

[Quantu]

Disagree FRA

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Disagree FRA

Agree FRA

 

[Braking]

Agree FRA

Disagree fra

 

[Kingofwolves999]

well the infinite mass part is actually plausible, blast focused all the force of it into a beam that blitzed him and his crew, and shot through the universe with no sign of stopping
the antimatter and time travel thing is the same point, both of which used a specific technique of manipulation said atoms, so it still could have produced them without actually having done it

So we’re cherry-picking? You either obey the theory of relativity or you do not, that’s how real life works. If we’re applying a real life theory to this fictional verse, than the verse needs to display all qualities of the theory when feats that would suggest their existence are performed. The punch should have immediately displayed every single function that would occur from moving even NEAR the speed of light, let alone far far faster than it.

Not to mention Blast would also have to display every single quality of surpassing the speed of light as well for catching that attack, and he himself would be an antimatter creating, black hole gravity sink hole of infinite mass that is traveling through time, and would rip the fabric of the universe apart by existing for the infinitesimal time he exists.

That's the point of possibly ratings.

“Possibly” ratings are for things that are incredibly plausible that simply don’t have enough evidence to definitively say are true.

That does not apply here, where the idea that Saitama obeys the theory of relativity is so wildly and impossibly false that putting a possibly is honestly insulting and requires 100x the assumptions needed than just believing his verse doesn’t follow the irl version of the theory of relativity.

technically not opposition, I'm still neutral
it's just that FRA trains blatantly do not require you to actually know what's going on. You can be a schizo 2nd grader with internet access (hypothetical) and say FRA to literally anything. It's just a method of inflating results without actually contributing to the argument, or proving you're even able to discuss it if people try to debate with your decision.

Welcome to the wiki where you can get FRA trained while having a winning argument because the fanboys found your vs thread, that’s how it is, don’t draw attention to it.

I literally never use FRA anymore, I say my own arguments with my own words and mind, and take Ls when a L presents itself through good logic. I do not vote on things I know nothing about "FRA" and then unfollow thread like some people do

good for you, others are still gonna do it, no point getting upset over it.

Enough derailing.

High 3-A Saitama via the theory of relativity is wrong and ridiculous and quite frankly insane to insinuate for the reasons outlined by myself and others. The fact that the argument against the opposing stance is literally “we don’t know, it could have happened, the attack was pretty big,” and “well that other verse doesn’t do them all so we shouldn’t have to either” is very telling.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Disagree fra

disagree with disagree fra fra

 

[RandomGuy2345]

Disagree FRA

 

[Franako]

Disagree fra

 

[Cryo123]

Except the SP^2 didn’t go back in time,

I mean it was the only thing left over from Saitama's time travel.

So we’re cherry-picking? You either obey the theory of relativity or you do not, that’s how real life works. If we’re applying a real life theory to this fictional verse, than the verse needs to display all qualities of the theory when feats that would suggest their existence are performed. The punch should have immediately displayed every single function that would occur from moving even NEAR the speed of light, let alone far far faster than it.

High 3-A Saitama via the theory of relativity is wrong and ridiculous and quite frankly insane to insinuate for the reasons outlined by myself and others. The fact that the argument against the opposing stance is literally “we don’t know, it could have happened, the attack was pretty big,” and “well that other verse doesn’t do them all so we shouldn’t have to either” is very telling.

You clearly didn't read the post or the prior comments.

 

[Kingofwolves999]

I mean it was the only thing left over from Saitama's time travel.

You clearly didn't read the post or the prior comments.

These aren’t addressing what I’m saying, so I assume this means you don’t have much else to comment on that I haven’t already seen.

This CRT seems quite unanimously disagreed upon, so a mod should either close it down or someone needs to input new, valid ideas for it to be plausible.