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.
You're right, technically they haven't been refuted. But I'm saying scaling to the meteor is still as much a non-proof as you're making out scaling to be. And, as I said before, even if we scale the meteor that Bec destroys to be the size of Skaia we're still stuck with Island/Country sized planets, possibly smaller if we scalled the meteor to Skaia's outer shell.Matthew Schroeder said:I am still in complete disagreements for all the same reasons that I have said and which have not been refuted, merely rejected.
There's no contradictions with the cosmology, if DC was consistently shown to be 1 obersevable universe big and then suddenly showed a scene where Superman flies 1,000,000 quintillion lightyears the latter would be considered the outlier, not the former.Matthew Schroeder said:So, using one method is scaling that doesn't require pixel scaling and doesn't create contradictions with the Verse's cosmology or require any big assumptions is inaccurate, but your scaling is accurate despite doing all that simply though a sheer number of examples?
I think it's a quality vs quantity issue here.
Matt no offense you aren't an authority on what is and isn't the "right way" to do calculations to determine size, especially considering 2 (albeit including me) calc members disagree with you on this.Matthew Schroeder said:You're still using the argument of quantity and claiming that your pixel scaling very likely to be failing to mesh with the intentions and the series' plot, as it has been shown to here repeatedly, is the superior way of doing things.
Evidence provided by both me and Ant, and the series' proper proves that you are not wrong, and the fact that you yourself have to appeal to the author's ignorance of physics, claiming tha the Meteor's size on Earth is meaningless and just exists to look cool and that the "minor planet" term doesn'tp orve a thing, makes it appear that you are reaching now.
Matt no offense you aren't an authority on what is and isn't the "right way" to do calculations to determine size, especially considering 2 (albeit including me) calc members disagree with you on this.LordXcano said:
Whats wrong with getting twenty instances of a planet looking small; saying that the one or five instances the planet would look big are anomalous and therefore shouldnt be factored when coming up with a mean size for the planet?Matthew Schroeder said:You're still using the argument of quantity
And the fact that you yourself have to appeal to the author's ignorance of physics, claiming tha the Meteor's size on Earth is meaningless and just exists to look cool and that the "minor planet" term doesn'tp orve a thing, makes it appear that you are reaching now.