Invincible Season 4 General Discussion Thread

[Alexander]

I made my own calculation of the Solar Disc feat, where alot of the problems, including people's suspension of disbelief, are adressed. No I am not calculating the KE because as I adressed in the other calc, it's a chain reaction

don't tell me this will become the next "viltrum get's destroyed" or "freeze blows up planet vegeta"

 

[Saqphire]

don't tell me this will become the next "viltrum get's destroyed" or "freeze blows up planet vegeta"

Viltrum KE feat is fine, I don't fw Frieza's tho for the same reason

 

[FusionPrime0]

The gun destabilize stellar structures it hits.

there currently aren't any statements about destabilization in the TV Series and even in the comic it was only stated to destabilize something when it was shot at viltrum. The asteroid field doesn't count since it was the recoil of the gun knocking asteroids into each other that caused a chain reaction

I made my own calculation of the Solar Disc feat, where alot of the problems, including people's suspension of disbelief, are adressed.

You're combining a lot of stuff from the comics canon with the TV Series canon which doesn't really work. Also considering how fiction generally ignores the implications of light only being 3e8 m/s I don't think that's a strong enough basis to decrease the size of the star and the distances between the disk and the planet. Also also using the L1 Lagrange point here kinda doesn't work since the disk blocks out the light on two other planets so unless the disk is actually many times larger than the sun it would not be able to block out the light reaching those planets at that distance.

No I am not calculating the KE because as I adressed in the other calc, it's a chain reaction

There is no stored potential energy in the disk that could cause it to violently explode like that so it can't be a chain reaction. The disk isn't a star that will collapse and violently explode if the core stops producing energy.

 

[Saqphire]

You're combining a lot of stuff from the comics canon with the TV Series canon which doesn't really work.

The only thing I added was stuff from the handbook. Unless it's elaborated on that the handbook doesn't cover an adapted version of those comics, I don't see the problem here.

Also considering how fiction generally ignores the implications of light only being 3e8 m/s I don't think that's a strong enough basis to decrease the size of the star and the distances between the disk and the planet.

That's not a valid rebuttal though, you actually have to justify why this specific star's sunlight (or sunlight in general) would be at any speed that's different from lightspeed here to justify the 1AU distance that is assumed, as that's an extraordinary claim. Simply saying "fiction generally ignores it so we will too" makes no sense and is just special pleading. Especially when the 1AU distance would concede that Allen, Nolan and Telia would have minute level reaction times

And as I said in your own calc, since this is a completely different solar system, we don't have to assume our parametres to get an approximate as a fictional solar system can have it's planets and stars be whatever size and whatever proximity, as long as it doesn't break thermodynamic relations

Also also using the L1 Lagrange point here kinda doesn't work since the disk blocks out the light on two other planets so unless the disk is actually many times larger than the sun it would not be able to block out the light reaching those planets at that distance.

That's... what I said in the calc??? For the disk to cover three planets worth of light, it has to have a size that is comparable to the star in the first place and given it's proximity to the star, it doesn't actually have to be "many many" times greater than it here. It simply has to be comparable in size enough to do so and from what we see, it has to be at least slightly smaller than the star as otherwise sunlight wouldn't leak from it's edges like that.

Your own calc is assuming it is EQUAL in size to the Sun when perspective alone debunks that, my calc derived it to be different with the Lagrange point factor in mind; however I can re-calc it without using L1 anyway so I'd be fine conceding this one

There is no stored potential energy in the disk that could cause it to violently explode like that so it can't be a chain reaction. The disk isn't a star that will collapse and violently explode if the core stops producing energy.

Clearly this isn't true as otherwise it wouldn't have blown up so violently from some fodder ass proton missiles + the fact that the GBE of the disk literally carries energies up to petatons or even zettatons levels of TNT. So yes it does, or the calc you're using is wrong lmao. These missiles have no evidence of carrying that much energy on their own either and even if that was the case, the KE that flies from an explosion is a secondary effect from the explosion. Thus it's just ED and not AP as that would be the explosion here

 

[Reyne]

The only thing I added was stuff from the handbook. Unless it's elaborated on that the handbook doesn't cover an adapted version of those comics, I don't see the problem here.

That's not a valid rebuttal though, you actually have to justify why this specific star's sunlight (or sunlight in general) would be at any speed that's different from lightspeed here to justify the 1AU distance that is assumed, as that's an extraordinary claim. Simply saying "fiction generally ignores it so we will too" makes no sense and is just special pleading. Especially when the 1AU distance would concede that Allen, Nolan and Telia would have minute level reaction times

And as I said in your own calc, since this is a completely different solar system, we don't have to assume our parametres to get an approximate as a fictional solar system can have it's planets and stars be whatever size and whatever proximity, as long as it doesn't break thermodynamic relations

That's... what I said in the calc??? For the disk to cover three planets worth of light, it has to have a size that is comparable to the star in the first place and given it's proximity to the star, it doesn't actually have to be "many many" times greater than it here. It simply has to be comparable in size enough to do so and from what we see, it has to be at least slightly smaller than the star as otherwise sunlight wouldn't leak from it's edges like that.

Your own calc is assuming it is EQUAL in size to the Sun when perspective alone debunks that, my calc derived it to be different with the Lagrange point factor in mind; however I can re-calc it without using L1 anyway so I'd be fine conceding this one

Clearly this isn't true as otherwise it wouldn't have blown up so violently from some fodder ass proton missiles + the fact that the GBE of the disk literally carries energies up to petatons or even zettatons levels of TNT. So yes it does, or the calc you're using is wrong lmao. These missiles have no evidence of carrying that much energy on their own either and even if that was the case, the KE that flies from an explosion is a secondary effect from the explosion. Thus it's just ED and not AP as that would be the explosion here

I like the way you talk, funny man.

I hadn't even considered the time in which it took for sunlight to reach the planet. I don't see how this point could be ignored.

Also, looking at the explosion, I figured it really was that the missiles are just crazy potent and had multiple sets of charges, but the blinding explosion is visibly singular. We know absolutely nothing about Coalition weaponry or the sun disk other than what we can see here, and the larger explosion originates from the center of the sun disk and not at the two impact points we're shown.

 

[FusionPrime0]

The only thing I added was stuff from the handbook. Unless it's elaborated on that the handbook doesn't cover an adapted version of those comics, I don't see the problem here.

The handbook was released almost 20 years ago, far before there were even talks of a live action movie, let alone a TV Series. It's already considered outdated to the comics continuity, and has many contradictions with the source material. We only use it when there's no contradictions as a secondary source, and extending it to the TV Series which which has many changes that causes far more inconsistencies just doesn't work.

That's not a valid rebuttal though, you actually have to justify why this specific star's sunlight (or sunlight in general) would be at any speed that's different from lightspeed here to justify the 1AU distance that is assumed, as that's an extraordinary claim. Simply saying "fiction generally ignores it so we will too" makes no sense and is just special pleading.

To my knowledge this is why we allow FTL speeds without High 3-A AP/Dura and or some hax/higher level of existence and why we still assume they can see when moving at FTL speeds when there's no statements or visuals showing otherwise. So if that line of reasoning makes no sense then FTL becomes the new immeasurable speed along with things like AP, Speed, and Lifting Strength no longer being separated statistics.

Especially when the 1AU distance would concede that Allen, Nolan and Telia would have minute level reaction times

They reacted to the disc's explosion in the next shot we see them in. Where is this minute level reaction time bs even coming from?

And as I said in your own calc, since this is a completely different solar system, we don't have to assume our parametres to get an approximate as a fictional solar system can have it's planets and stars be whatever size and whatever proximity, as long as it doesn't break thermodynamic relations

Assuming our parameters is the standard on this wiki and in general to my knowledge, and shots of parts of solar systems can be dubious due to the fact that most authors don't take into account the sheer distance between celestial bodies.

That's... what I said in the calc??? For the disk to cover three planets worth of light, it has to have a size that is comparable to the star in the first place and given it's proximity to the star, it doesn't actually have to be "many many" times greater than it here. It simply has to be comparable in size enough to do so and from what we see, it has to be at least slightly smaller than the star as otherwise sunlight wouldn't leak from it's edges like that.

I didn't see the distance you found between the disc and the star was so small mb.

Clearly this isn't true as otherwise it wouldn't have blown up so violently from some fodder ass proton missiles

We have no other showings from them so there's no basis to assume they're fodder

+ the fact that the GBE of the disk literally carries energies up to petatons or even zettatons levels of TNT. So yes it does, or the calc you're using is wrong lmao.

The speed of the explosion makes the KE of the disc blowing apart insanely high. Just overcoming the GBE of the disk does not yield speeds anywhere near this high. Also what are you even saying here? The disk requiring that much energy to overcome the gravity holding it together isn't stored energy that is orders of magnitude above said GBE.

These missiles have no evidence of carrying that much energy on their own either

They completely destroyed the disk, wdym no evidence?

and even if that was the case, the KE that flies from an explosion is a secondary effect from the explosion. Thus it's just ED and not AP as that would be the explosion here

Okay, a secondary effect. So what was it that supplied the energy to cause that secondary effect? The disk itself isn't a bomb so please enlighten me in what is causing the fragments of the disk to be launched that fast if not for the explosion?

Also if you're saying we can't scale characters to the secondary effects of things then earthquake feats wouldn't be usable for scaling unless I'm misunderstanding?

 

[Saqphire]

I like the way you talk, funny man.

I hadn't even considered the time in which it took for sunlight to reach the planet. I don't see how this point could be ignored.

Yep, that's a major discrepancy with pretty much every other calc that uses 1AU for this feat.

Also, looking at the explosion, I figured it really was that the missiles are just crazy potent and had multiple sets of charges, but the blinding explosion is visibly singular. We know absolutely nothing about Coalition weaponry or the sun disk other than what we can see here, and the larger explosion originates from the center of the sun disk and not at the two impact points we're shown.

I mean yeah, that kinda just further shows my point. The explosion from the missiles were multiple and then it exploded later as a result of that. That later explosion's potency and eventual KE is separate from the potency of the missiles (which would be at best the smaller ones). Viltrumites should still scale though cuz of the "we got no weapons that can harm them" statement, which would include these missiles not blowing these mfs up to pieces; however this would not include the KE as a Viltrumite's mass isn't the same as the disk obviously.

The handbook was released almost 20 years ago, far before there were even talks of a live action movie, let alone a TV Series. It's already considered outdated to the comics continuity, and has many contradictions with the source material. We only use it when there's no contradictions as a secondary source, and extending it to the TV Series which which has many changes that causes far more inconsistencies just doesn't work.

That's only if the contradictions would be in-line with the relevant aspects of the feat (i.e. the gravities of the planets), not irrelevant parts of the handbook in the first place like Amber's race or some shit like that. They actually further reinforce the handbook statement in the episode here with Nolan's statement about the gravity being the reason why the Rognarrs were so strong.

To my knowledge this is why we allow FTL speeds without High 3-A AP/Dura and or some hax/higher level of existence and why we still assume they can see when moving at FTL speeds when there's no statements or visuals showing otherwise. So if that line of reasoning makes no sense then FTL becomes the new immeasurable speed along with things like AP, Speed, and Lifting Strength no longer being separated statistics.

That's not how this works and you're positing a slippery slope. FTL speeds with High 3-A potency would be allowed if they explicitly elaborate that that would be the case. Arguing the light is "simply FTL or relativistic" to handwave an issue like this doesn't fly here without evidence of said light being FTL.

They reacted to the disc's explosion in the next shot we see them in. Where is this minute level reaction time bs even coming from?

That's my point. The disk explodes, the light from the explosion (which would originate from the disk, which isn't too far from the star mind you), in an instant and not 8 minutes and 20 seconds after. On top of that, the light from the star itself also emerges on the planet faster than the Sun would light up the Earth in a scenario like this; this is literally in the narrative which is why I mentioned the Rognarrs thawing super quickly as well and the urgency that emerged from this as well as Talia saying it happened in real-time. Otherwise you'd be saying everyone reacted to that in timeframes slower than a snail which is absurd.

Assuming our parameters is the standard on this wiki and in general to my knowledge, and shots of parts of solar systems can be dubious due to the fact that most authors don't take into account the sheer distance between celestial bodies.

Those assumptions are only valid if they're not contradictory. The speed of light that I am arguing is a huge contradiction to that.

We have no other showings from them so there's no basis to assume they're fodder

They completely destroyed the disk, wdym no evidence?

Okay, a secondary effect. So what was it that supplied the energy to cause that secondary effect? The disk itself isn't a bomb so please enlighten me in what is causing the fragments of the disk to be launched that fast if not for the explosion?

All of these points can be replied with this; we see the smaller explosions from them, they weren't the direct cause of the massive one that blew it up entirely which is what made the mass fly off in the first place, thus it would effectively act like a bomb in this scenario.

The speed of the explosion makes the KE of the disc blowing apart insanely high. Just overcoming the GBE of the disk does not yield speeds anywhere near this high

The KE isn't even accepted as the velocity is FTL, so this point is irrelevant honestly. And the mass flies slower than the light from the explosion due to light being massless (which is why it moves at SOL in the first place) so the KE part is actually wrong here.

Also what are you even saying here? The disk requiring that much energy to overcome the gravity holding it together isn't stored energy that is orders of magnitude above said GBE.

What I am saying is that you claiming the disk "has no stored potential energy that could cause it to violently explode like that" is wrong because it literally contains energies that are beyond petaton levels. A petaton level blast can cause the energy to fly off this fast if we convert energy to speed (which wouldn't be valid either as any energy beyond City levels is FTL)

Also if you're saying we can't scale characters to the secondary effects of things then earthquake feats wouldn't be usable for scaling unless I'm misunderstanding?

If the earthquake was separate from the person enacting on it, then no, they would not scale to that. That's literally what Environmental Destruction is

 

[ReturnofKhadz]

Robert Kirkman might’ve been referring the planet moving statement when he made this comment back in 2025 when ragebaiting Superman fans

 

[LaTorreRoja205]

By the way, a couple of months Kirkman said something that could back up the planet shifting thing.

'Invincible' Creator Has Settled the Superman vs. Omni-Man vs. Homelander Debate: "Superman Sucks" [Exclusive]

Invincible creator Robert Kirkman has settled the debate between Superman, Homelander, and Omni-Man with a bold declaration about DC's golden boy.

collider.com

"Well, Homelander is a weakling. And that's not any kind of antagonistic thing. It's a very grounded world, and so Homelander, on the scale of other superheroes, is very low. But Superman sucks. Omni-Man takes him down easily. I've said this before. Every time I say it, a bunch of Superman fans, if you can believe there is such a thing, come out of the woodwork and attack me online as if I said something that's not definitively and indisputably true. But Omni-Man would completely trash that guy. Superman, 'Oh my gosh, in the golden age, he moved planets.' Okay, whatever. Who knows if Omni-Man could do that? Maybe he could. Maybe pay attention to Season 4. Who knows? But, yeah, I think that Superman is absolute trash."

 

[Saqphire]

Robert Kirkman might’ve been referring the planet moving statement when he made this comment back in 2025 when ragebaiting Superman fans

Cryinggggg

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

So for the Comics side of things I gathered some statements that should suggest Viltrumites upscale from the Coalition of Planets' weaponry (in particular the ship that nuked the Solar Disk)

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Maverick_Zero_X/Viltrumite_Supremacy_Propaganda

So hopefully the only thing to hash out about the feat is how to accurately calculate it rather than whether anyone should scale.

 

[Saqphire]

So hopefully the only thing to hash out about the feat should be how to accurately calculate it rather than whether anyone should scale.

That's kinda what we're talking about. I'm waiting for a CGM approval

 

[Tahoy49574]

Robert Kirkman might’ve been referring the planet moving statement when he made this comment back in 2025 when ragebaiting Superman fans

By the way, a couple of months Kirkman said something that could back up the planet shifting thing.

'Invincible' Creator Has Settled the Superman vs. Omni-Man vs. Homelander Debate: "Superman Sucks" [Exclusive]

Invincible creator Robert Kirkman has settled the debate between Superman, Homelander, and Omni-Man with a bold declaration about DC's golden boy.

collider.com

"Well, Homelander is a weakling. And that's not any kind of antagonistic thing. It's a very grounded world, and so Homelander, on the scale of other superheroes, is very low. But Superman sucks. Omni-Man takes him down easily. I've said this before. Every time I say it, a bunch of Superman fans, if you can believe there is such a thing, come out of the woodwork and attack me online as if I said something that's not definitively and indisputably true. But Omni-Man would completely trash that guy. Superman, 'Oh my gosh, in the golden age, he moved planets.' Okay, whatever. Who knows if Omni-Man could do that? Maybe he could. Maybe pay attention to Season 4. Who knows? But, yeah, I think that Superman is absolute trash."

Lmao he was very cheritable to Homelander in the Invincible vs everyone video saying he could give S1 problems and now he says he's just a weakling

Also final proof that he clearly sees these guys as casual planet-busters and any kind of arbitrary cap people want to put on viltrumites is unwarranted

 

[TyranoDoom30]

I feel like the main reason people want to cap Invincible at Tier 6 at maximum is ALWAYS because of the Viltrum feat and how they "were going to die to it", despite the fact the trio was heavily damaged from the fighting they were already having. I feel like it comes in part from the era when casuals were hyping Omni Man and sh*t like that. 90% of these people also didn't read the comics before the show came out, and much less read stuff like Tech Jacket that has some insane stuff in it

 

[Saqphire]

however I can re-calc it without using L1 anyway so I'd be fine conceding this one

Alright, I re-calced the feat and removed these things:
1. The L1 Lanrange assumption (and thus the masses for the planet and star), as that assumption coulda been countered via interpretations that woulda been equally valid such as powered stationkeeping, orbiting structured, it being anchored to something, artificial gravity stabilisation or simply just fiction ignoring orbital mechanics
2. The handbook stuff, as they were only used for the L1 Lanrange Point part anyway

Instead I just reverse ang sized the star, ang sized the star from a distance where the disk is super close to the screen anyway to find the distance between the star and the disk and reverse ang sized again using the full distance minus the star-disk distance to find the Disk's size, instead of trying to find it using the L1 point here. Idk if that's more valid or not but if it isn't I can simply re-roll the calc back to what it used to be

I feel like the main reason people want to cap Invincible at Tier 6 at maximum is ALWAYS because of the Viltrum feat and how they "were going to die to it", despite the fact the trio was heavily damaged from the fighting they were already having. I feel like it comes in part from the era when casuals were hyping Omni Man and sh*t like that. 90% of these people also didn't read the comics before the show came out, and much less read stuff like Tech Jacket that has some insane stuff in it

What if Viltrum is just bigger than 5-B... the infinity ray argument comes to mind

 

[Tahoy49574]

I feel like the main reason people want to cap Invincible at Tier 6 at maximum is ALWAYS because of the Viltrum feat and how they "were going to die to it", despite the fact the trio was heavily damaged from the fighting they were already having. I feel like it comes in part from the era when casuals were hyping Omni Man and sh*t like that. 90% of these people also didn't read the comics before the show came out, and much less read stuff like Tech Jacket that has some insane stuff in it

The main reason is that's how it used to be rated here for a long time through a very flawed calc, and as you say people not bothering to read the comic so they just default to the wiki

 

[Tipper17]

issiles provided all the energy for the feat. There's no potential energy being stored within the disk that would cause it to be annihilated when an in comparison miniscule amount of force is applied to the disk.

we still saw multipler explosions for the feat and this ignores that the disc didn't nuke at FTL speeds eithergicen

because the gun not destroying a planet while it has been shown to destroy a star would mean the planet is more durable than the star. Unless you think the gun should be downscaled to sub planet level and the star busting feat is an outlier.

We see it punch thru the Planet and the other 3 follow thru a

The gun destabilize stellar structures it hits. A star collapsing and going supernova when its core is damaged while a planet being able to resettle does not mean the planet is more durable, it just means the destabilization isn't as catastrophic.

You drop an ant from the Empire State building and it'll be fine. Drop and elephant and you have a dead elephant.

Better said

I feel like the main reason people want to cap Invincible at Tier 6 at maximum is ALWAYS because of the Viltrum feat and how they "were going to die to it", despite the fact the trio was heavily damaged from the fighting they were already having. I feel like it comes in part from the era when casuals were hyping Omni Man and sh*t like that. 90% of these people also didn't read the comics before the show came out, and much less read stuff like Tech Jacket that has some insane stuff in it

Planetary Invincible is fine quite frankly kirkman kinda ****** himself how he handled the feat in the comic for that

The show version will probably be better we're just waiting ATP

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Btw are we gonna use cecil saying mark could tear up planet with his bare hands as support for any tier he ends up as?

 

[FusionPrime0]

Yep, that's a major discrepancy with pretty much every other calc that uses 1AU for this feat.

okay

I mean yeah, that kinda just further shows my point. The explosion from the missiles were multiple and then it exploded later as a result of that. That later explosion's potency and eventual KE is separate from the potency of the missiles (which would be at best the smaller ones). Viltrumites should still scale though cuz of the "we got no weapons that can harm them" statement, which would include these missiles not blowing these mfs up to pieces; however this would not include the KE as a Viltrumite's mass isn't the same as the disk obviously.

But where is the energy coming from that propelled the fragments of the disk at that speed if not from the torpedoes??

That's only if the contradictions would be in-line with the relevant aspects of the feat (i.e. the gravities of the planets), not irrelevant parts of the handbook in the first place like Amber's race or some shit like that. They actually further reinforce the handbook statement in the episode here with Nolan's statement about the gravity being the reason why the Rognarrs were so strong.

We already treat the TV Series and Comics as separate continuities with the guidebook being a lose secondary continuity to the comics. If we apply the guidebook to the TV Series like 90% of the stuff in there is gonna be conflicting with the TV show. This is ignoring the fact that the guidebook was made almost a decade before the idea of a TV Series was even conceived, it was not created with any intention of being applicable to the TV Series and I heavily doubt the Showrunners were consulting the guidebook during the creation of the show. Also also none of the writers of the handbook actually worked on the mainline comic and were seemingly brough on just for that project.

That's not how this works and you're positing a slippery slope. FTL speeds with High 3-A potency would be allowed if they explicitly elaborate that that would be the case. Arguing the light is "simply FTL or relativistic" to handwave an issue like this doesn't fly here without evidence of said light being FTL.

I'm not arguing the light is FTL. I'm saying the same reasoning of fiction ignoring real world effects like this in most media to handwave the light reaching them so quickly as a distance downgrade is a substantiated argument, because this same reasoning is used for the FTL standards on this wiki.

That's my point. The disk explodes, the light from the explosion (which would originate from the disk, which isn't too far from the star mind you), in an instant and not 8 minutes and 20 seconds after. On top of that, the light from the star itself also emerges on the planet faster than the Sun would light up the Earth in a scenario like this; this is literally in the narrative which is why I mentioned the Rognarrs thawing super quickly as well and the urgency that emerged from this as well as Talia saying it happened in real-time. Otherwise you'd be saying everyone reacted to that in timeframes slower than a snail which is absurd.

Okay, I think I'm more neutral on this argument now, this makes sense.

All of these points can be replied with this; we see the smaller explosions from them, they weren't the direct cause of the massive one that blew it up entirely which is what made the mass fly off in the first place, thus it would effectively act like a bomb in this scenario.

How do we know they weren't the direct cause of the massive one? I think nitpicking frame by frame here to say that's the explosion was caused by a chain reaction here when there is no in or out of universe explanation for that being the case is dubious at best. You could just as easily argue something along the lines of the torpedoes having multiple charges or a smaller charge to ignite a larger charge kinda like how hydrogen bombs work.

The KE isn't even accepted as the velocity is FTL, so this point is irrelevant honestly. And the mass flies slower than the light from the explosion due to light being massless (which is why it moves at SOL in the first place) so the KE part is actually wrong here.

The point is the fragments of the disc are moving far faster than they would by just having it's GBE overcome. We see the fragments of the disc in the flash of light and the intention of the showrunners/animators is that it was completely blown apart. If you can measure the speed of the fragments and not have them come out to be FTL with your calc please do so.

What I am saying is that you claiming the disk "has no stored potential energy that could cause it to violently explode like that" is wrong because it literally contains energies that are beyond petaton levels. A petaton level blast can cause the energy to fly off this fast if we convert energy to speed (which wouldn't be valid either as any energy beyond City levels is FTL)

It doesn't contain beyond petaton level energy, that's not how GBE works. GBE is the force of gravity holding the body together, a blast would need to have at least the same energy as the disk's GBE here just to fling the fragments away from each other at just enough speed that they won't reform and clump back together. There is no chain reaction energy release mechanisms here. The explosion is just flinging the fragments of the disk through the force of said explosion here, it's not more complicated than that.

Alright, I re-calced the feat and removed these things:
1. The L1 Lanrange assumption (and thus the masses for the planet and star), as that assumption coulda been countered via interpretations that woulda been equally valid such as powered stationkeeping, orbiting structured, it being anchored to something, artificial gravity stabilisation or simply just fiction ignoring orbital mechanics
2. The handbook stuff, as they were only used for the L1 Lanrange Point part anyway

Instead I just reverse ang sized the star, ang sized the star from a distance where the disk is super close to the screen anyway to find the distance between the star and the disk and reverse ang sized again using the full distance minus the star-disk distance to find the Disk's size, instead of trying to find it using the L1 point here. Idk if that's more valid or not but if it isn't I can simply re-roll the calc back to what it used to be

Okay nice

What if Viltrum is just bigger than 5-B... the infinity ray argument comes to mind

I think the infinity ray argument is at least strong enough to not cap Viltrumites at 5-B for struggling to destroy Viltrum. I think the majority consensus here is that the planet is abnormally durable to some extent.

 

[Saqphire]

Btw are we gonna use cecil saying mark could tear up planet with his bare hands as support for any tier he ends up as?

That's 99% referring to how Nolan did it so no

 

[FusionPrime0]

Btw are we gonna use cecil saying mark could tear up planet with his bare hands as support for any tier he ends up as?

Ig it's another supporting statement but we already have an accepted High 5-A calc (Nolan moving a planet) and a 5-A or High 5-A calculation for the solar disk that is still being debated.

 

[Saqphire]

But where is the energy coming from that propelled the fragments of the disk at that speed if not from the torpedoes??

The disk itself

We already treat the TV Series and Comics as separate continuities with the guidebook being a lose secondary continuity to the comics. If we apply the guidebook to the TV Series like 90% of the stuff in there is gonna be conflicting with the TV show. This is ignoring the fact that the guidebook was made almost a decade before the idea of a TV Series was even conceived, it was not created with any intention of being applicable to the TV Series and I heavily doubt the Showrunners were consulting the guidebook during the creation of the show. Also also none of the writers of the handbook actually worked on the mainline comic and were seemingly brough on just for that project.

I'd argue on this point further, but my re-calc doesn't even use it anymore so

I'm not arguing the light is FTL. I'm saying the same reasoning of fiction ignoring real world effects like this in most media to handwave the light reaching them so quickly as a distance downgrade is a substantiated argument, because this same reasoning is used for the FTL standards on this wiki.

Those standards are strictly for applying secondary effects from FTL speeds, not dismissing lightspeed as a valid argument to point out a contradiction

Okay, I think I'm more neutral on this argument now, this makes sense.

Thank you for understanding what I'm trying to say here

How do we know they weren't the direct cause of the massive one? I think nitpicking frame by frame here to say that's the explosion was caused by a chain reaction here when there is no in or out of universe explanation for that being the case is dubious at best. You could just as easily argue something along the lines of the torpedoes having multiple charges or a smaller charge to ignite a larger charge kinda like how hydrogen bombs work.

It's not even a nitpick, we literally see smaller explosions bring forth a bigger one in real time. And that argument needs substantiation or it leads nowhere; the only plausible explanation is that it had multiple charges (hencewhy we see more than two explosions from two projectiles) which still can bring forth a chain reaction.

The point is the fragments of the disc are moving far faster than they would by just having it's GBE overcome. We see the fragments of the disc in the flash of light and the intention of the showrunners/animators is that it was completely blown apart. If you can measure the speed of the fragments and not have them come out to be FTL with your calc please do so.

The intent was for it to be blown apart, I'm not denying that at all. I'm denying the cause of it being from the weapons and that's why I'm not calcing the KE part because it wouldn't lead anywhere

It doesn't contain beyond petaton level energy, that's not how GBE works. GBE is the force of gravity holding the body together, a blast would need to have at least the same energy as the disk's GBE here just to fling the fragments away from each other at just enough speed that they won't reform and clump back together. There is no chain reaction energy release mechanisms here. The explosion is just flinging the fragments of the disk through the force of said explosion here, it's not more complicated than that.

The blast having the same energy is the point I'm making. That energy, when converted into speed for these fragments, would also reach FTL and also have similar results as the 0.93c one.

Okay nice

Thanks. Still not counting the KE tho

I think the infinity ray argument is at least strong enough to not cap Viltrumites at 5-B for struggling to destroy Viltrum. I think the majority consensus here is that the planet is abnormally durable to some extent.

Even if they do struggle to destroy 5-B Viltrum, the current accepted calc of them pushing the mass is a lowball. They coulda simply pushed more mass then what was calced, the planet coulda been sturdier (and thus have a higher GBE) and plus, the calc forgets the fact that they would also downscale from the explosion since they're pretty close to it anyway. There are so many factors that aren't accounted for that simply capping their strength to below Earth levels is beyond disingenious

 

[FusionPrime0]

It's not even a nitpick, we literally see smaller explosions bring forth a bigger one in real time. And that argument needs substantiation or it leads nowhere; the only plausible explanation is that it had multiple charges (hencewhy we see more than two explosions from two projectiles) which still can bring forth a chain reaction.

that's still a chain reaction of charges from the missile meaning the yield of the missiles as a whole would still scale to KE here

The blast having the same energy is the point I'm making. That energy, when converted into speed for these fragments, would also reach FTL and also have similar results as the 0.93c one.

So you're not adding KE because it would still get to FTL speeds? Just say that instead of arguing for the whole chain reaction, speed of the fragments coming from energy stored within the disk thing.

Thanks. Still not counting the KE tho

If the speed of the fragments get to FTL in your calculation then yea okay, there's no point then.

Also one minor thing I noticed with your calculation, or I guess major thing.

Is that this is not the radius of the disk. We can't see the width of any of the panels there, from either orientation. The distance you measured is a slight indent on the panel that we see on every panel with the base facing up there. I think this is a better way to measure the panel's width due to the viewing angle being slightly from the side, though its still not great so if there are any better ways to measure its width I'm all ears.

Even if they do struggle to destroy 5-B Viltrum, the current accepted calc of them pushing the mass is a lowball. They coulda simply pushed more mass then what was calced, the planet coulda been sturdier (and thus have a higher GBE) and plus, the calc forgets the fact that they would also downscale from the explosion since they're pretty close to it anyway. There are so many factors that aren't accounted for that simply capping their strength to below Earth levels is beyond disingenious

100%, the calculation is just using what we can verifiable prove, and once we get a timeframe at the end of this season, just them pushing that less than 2% of the planet's mass should yield 5-B to 5-A results. Also I remember seeing someone calcing the energy that the Viltrumite's in the ring took from the explosion and it got to around baseline Low 5-B making literally every Viltrumite heavily upscale from that lol. Also your image isn't loading for me.

 

[Saqphire]

that's still a chain reaction of charges from the missile meaning the yield of the missiles as a whole would still scale to KE here

So you're not adding KE because it would still get to FTL speeds? Just say that instead of arguing for the whole chain reaction, speed of the fragments coming from energy stored within the disk thing.

It's both.

Also one minor thing I noticed with your calculation, or I guess major thing.

Is that this is not the radius of the disk. We can't see the width of any of the panels there, from either orientation. The distance you measured is a slight indent on the panel that we see on every panel with the base facing up there. I think this is a better way to measure the panel's width due to the viewing angle being slightly from the side, though its still not great so if there are any better ways to measure its width I'm all ears.

I interpretted that part as the width but you're right. In fact, watching the scene again, we can see the width being tinier than that if we look at the diffusion of light on the second, third and fourth panels from the left.

100%, the calculation is just using what we can verifiable prove, and once we get a timeframe at the end of this season, just them pushing that less than 2% of the planet's mass should yield 5-B to 5-A results.

Definitely, definitely

Also I remember seeing someone calcing the energy that the Viltrumite's in the ring took from the explosion and it got to around baseline Low 5-B making literally every Viltrumite heavily upscale from that lol.

That's clever. Might try that honestly

Also your image isn't loading for me.

It's this page,. We could actually get their durability via ISL from the full explosion + KE here, similar to how that person calced the energy of the Viltrumite Ring durability

 

[FusionPrime0]

I interpretted that part as the width but you're right. In fact, watching the scene again, we can see the width being tinier than that if we look at the diffusion of light on the second, third and fourth panels from the left.

The outer panels are thinner yea, though it seems like the outer panels are thinner than the inner disks.

It's this page,. We could actually get their durability via ISL from the full explosion + KE here, similar to how that person calced the energy of the Viltrumite Ring durability

Yea for sure

 

[Saqphire]

The outer panels are thinner yea, though it seems like the outer panels are thinner than the inner disks.

Sure maybe, but it's legit unquantifiable at that point so I just calced the tiny (3px!) width and got 5-B

 

[FusionPrime0]

Sure maybe, but it's legit unquantifiable at that point so I just calced the tiny (3px!) width and got 5-B

I think any of these 3 could work for the width. Also we need a calc mod to review your calc too and decide which to use since mine was already accepted.

 

[Saqphire]

I think any of these 3 could work for the width. Also we need a calc mod to review your calc too and decide which to use since mine was already accepted.

Before they can rate it, I gotta fix the width. I'll fix mine's tomorrow

 

[Tahoy49574]

I still feel like we should make a Calc Group Discussion thread regarding the sun disk destruction, there's a whole lot of variables at play

 

[Excellence616]

Robert Kirkman might’ve been referring the planet moving statement when he made this comment back in 2025 when ragebaiting Superman fans

So glad it was confirmed that he did it physically.

 

[Spinoirr]

I feel like the main reason people want to cap Invincible at Tier 6 at maximum is ALWAYS because of the Viltrum feat and how they "were going to die to it", despite the fact the trio was heavily damaged from the fighting they were already having. I feel like it comes in part from the era when casuals were hyping Omni Man and sh*t like that. 90% of these people also didn't read the comics before the show came out, and much less read stuff like Tech Jacket that has some insane stuff in it

Also you know... the heat problem too

 

[ReturnofKhadz]

Also you know... the heat problem too

Hmm do we hold Marvel and DC characters to the same standard in this regard?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Hmm do we hold Marvel and DC characters to the same standard in this regard?

Ngl I don't think bringing up the anit-feat game with TV Invincible is going to work out for you.

 

[ReturnofKhadz]

Ngl I don't think bringing up the anit-feat game with TV Invincible is going to work out for you.

What point are you making here? Did you misunderstand why I linked that? TV Invincible also had nothing to do with that since they were referencing the comic

 

[Saqphire]

Sure maybe, but it's legit unquantifiable at that point so I just calced the tiny (3px!) width and got 5-B

Width fixed, got it to 5-A. Hopefully that's the last time I'm pixel calcing ts lmfao

 

[Qawsedf234]

What point are you making here? Did you misunderstand why I linked that? TV Invincible also had nothing to do with that since they were referencing the comic

You were bringing up DC/Marvel anti-feats and I had misunderstood your point as show canon rather than comic canon.

 

[Imaginym]

Following this thread.
I have not seen any of the new episodes yet, but I am interested in doing so when I have the opportunity. I am very hype & hopeful for that.
Should I indeed see new Invincible content, I will likely post about it here.
However, naturally, much of the new season is spoilers for me.
So that will impede my ability to evaluate Invincible CRTs, as I will be averse to seeing them & their potential spoilers.

Of course, such spoiler aversion may not affect other Staff Members the same as me, so unless there's a spoiler embargo on CRTs based on the new content (IMHO, folks are free to do so or not as long as there is a reasonably accepted consensus on which approach they take regarding level of spoiler cautioning.), do not let me saying this deter you from seeking out Staff Members for CRTs. (Presuming their circumstances & content are reasonable, of course.)

Best wishes, all! Here's hype! Looking forward to the results of the new season!

 

[Anonymous_Learner]

nice

 

[Reyne]

I feel like the main reason people want to cap Invincible at Tier 6 at maximum is ALWAYS because of the Viltrum feat and how they "were going to die to it", despite the fact the trio was heavily damaged from the fighting they were already having. I feel like it comes in part from the era when casuals were hyping Omni Man and sh*t like that. 90% of these people also didn't read the comics before the show came out, and much less read stuff like Tech Jacket that has some insane stuff in it

I don't feel comfortable with much above it because it dwarfs basically everything else (until people starting taking a look at the sun disk and came up with numbers that rivaled the biggest feat in the comic).

 

[Qawsedf234]

"Well, Homelander is a weakling. And that's not any kind of antagonistic thing. It's a very grounded world, and so Homelander, on the scale of other superheroes, is very low. But Superman sucks. Omni-Man takes him down easily. I've said this before. Every time I say it, a bunch of Superman fans, if you can believe there is such a thing, come out of the woodwork and attack me online as if I said something that's not definitively and indisputably true. But Omni-Man would completely trash that guy. Superman, 'Oh my gosh, in the golden age, he moved planets.' Okay, whatever. Who knows if Omni-Man could do that? Maybe he could. Maybe pay attention to Season 4. Who knows? But, yeah, I think that Superman is absolute trash."

While the statement is funny, Superman has moved planets in the modern era.

Overall, though I do feel bad for Kirkman based on these comments. While not shipping levels of deranged, power scalers are still super cancer to deal with.

If you use Supreme scaling Omni-Man has direct scaling to an overt planet-buster but then you get into Image crossover scaling weirdness.