One Piece: Black Hole Mechanics

[KingTempest]

Law's fruit alone has like 4 other devil fruit abilities.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[KingTempest]

With all due respect, I'm not trying to go through waiting for a few people to voice why they disagree for over a month again just like every OP CG discussion thread

Can everybody please voice what they need to voice, otherwise don't waste time

 

[Kachon123]

I mean, pretty much all of the opposition's arguments have been addressed without any rebuttal, even though it's been like 4 days.

I think this may be good to apply, since the majority of staff and CGMs agree with the calc and OP. If not, then pinging more staff members would be fine as well.

 

[KingTempest]

I mean, pretty much all of the opposition's arguments have been addressed without any rebuttal, even though it's been like 4 days.

I think this may be good to apply, since the majority of staff and CGMs agree with the calc and OP. If not, then pinging more staff members would be fine as well.

I'll give it till midnight est tomorrow then I'm straight closing this shit

 

[Ryuga21]

Unless we'd end up scaling these normal Marines and prison guards to Moon level but that's a whole other topic.

We should scale Speed and Tama to 6-A them, since they survived a direct hit from a messed up and Drunk Kaido.

 

[Damage3245]

I mean, pretty much all of the opposition's arguments have been addressed without any rebuttal, even though it's been like 4 days.

I think this may be good to apply, since the majority of staff and CGMs agree with the calc and OP. If not, then pinging more staff members would be fine as well.

I don't think any of the other Calc Group Members who have posted on here have necessarily even seen DontTalkDT's response to the OP.

I would rather we wait until we see if they agree or disagree with his post.

@Executor_N0 @KLOL506 Can you share your thoughts on DT's assessment?

 

[CloverDragon03]

I very much have, and my stance remains the same

Also I don’t think KLOL wants anything to do with HST stuff

 

[Damage3245]

I very much have, and my stance remains the same

Also I don’t think KLOL wants anything to do with HST stuff

Oh, sorry, I forgot about your earlier comment, you're right.

 

[Kachon123]

Bump. Can we wrap this up?

 

[Sinpokefan]

I already agreed and yeah it should be wrapped up

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

yea, get this shit closed!

 

[KingTempest]

I wanna wait for at least 1 more CGM evaluation

 

[That_moron2]

Bump

 

[Khanhba01]

Waiting for one more CGM evalution is seems a bit long and makes this topic drag on

 

[Damage3245]

@Executor_N0 When you have the time, could you read through DontTalkDT's posts on this thread and post if your stance is the same or not?

 

[Executor_N0]

@Executor_N0 When you have the time, could you read through DontTalkDT's posts on this thread and post if your stance is the same or not?

My initial opinion was more on the idea that if there was enough information about the understanding of a black hole in what matters for the calculation and its function was enough. Since it isn't, I'm fine with what DontTalkDT said.

 

[KingTempest]

I'm sorry, didn't we debunk... all of DT's points?

 

[Khanhba01]

Yes, I think you should read KT, Based and SnookB's counter arguments on this

 

[Damage3245]

At present, DontTalkDT, Executor_N0 and myself are against the calc being used.

CloverDragon03 is in favor of the calc.

KLOL506 has no stated opinion on the matter.


That's where we currently stand.

 

[SnookB]

My initial opinion was more on the idea that if there was enough information about the understanding of a black hole in what matters for the calculation and its function was enough. Since it isn't, I'm fine with what DontTalkDT said.

To Tldr it;
It's described as being capable of having the gravitational pull of a black hole by the author. DT/Damage's argument is "But it doesn't show it constantly on every target."
The counter argument is the user of the ability himself specifying he can pick and choose who he hurts, when he hurts it. Otherwise the pull is seemingly always equally as powerful, and by his words, can suck in even light with 'Infinite Gravity'.
The arguments against it not being legitemate (despite the author saying it is) are easily debunked by the user himself saying he can specifically pick his targets even if they're all within the same darkness. Hence why there's an instance where his allies walk through the darkness while it's actively swallowing up prison guards and are unphased due to him not wanting to hurt them.

 

[Damage3245]

@SnookB; Blackbeard has never actually displayed gravity yet on the same intensity as absorbing even light itself. Maybe that's something he'll actually be capable of, maybe not, but it sure seems like none of his current gravity feats have been that powerful yet.

I'm against the idea that we have to treat all of his uses of darkness so far as having the mass of a realistic black hole, when none of its effects yet match what a realistic black hole would perform.

The character can make claims of having infinite gravity, but if everything they do isn't supporting those claims then it's not a solid foundation for the calcs.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

@SnookB; Blackbeard has never actually displayed gravity yet on the same intensity as absorbing even light itself. Maybe that's something he'll actually be capable of, maybe not, but it sure seems like none of his current gravity feats have been that powerful yet.

the character himself and numerous data books all state he can absorb light.

 

[SnookB]

@SnookB; Blackbeard has never actually displayed gravity yet on the same intensity as absorbing even light itself. Maybe that's something he'll actually be capable of, maybe not, but it sure seems like none of his current gravity feats have been that powerful yet.

He specifically said that's what it does, then proceeded to render Ace helpless to its pull.

The character can make claims of having infinite gravity, but if everything they do isn't supporting those claims then it's not a solid foundation for the calcs.

Where's the lack of support?
He told Ace "It's infinite gravity. Not even light can escape." Then Ace was immediately fodderized so hard by its gravity he himself didn't even comprehend he got yanked

 

[KingTempest]

@SnookB; Blackbeard has never actually displayed gravity yet on the same intensity as absorbing even light itself. Maybe that's something he'll actually be capable of, maybe not, but it sure seems like none of his current gravity feats have been that powerful yet.

I'm against the idea that we have to treat all of his uses of darkness so far as having the mass of a realistic black hole, when none of its effects yet match what a realistic black hole would perform.

The character can make claims of having infinite gravity, but if everything they do isn't supporting those claims then it's not a solid foundation for the calcs.

Damage

For the love of everything on this website

Stop using this argument of "he hasn't shown to absorb light yet", when he says he can, Oda says he can, and even more.

Now it's just giving "I don't want to accept that this is true even though it's stated he can do so", and I know that's not the view you have

If you don't have anything outside of "he hasn't shown it yet", then you need to find another argument, now

 

[Damage3245]

@KingTempest; sorry, but I don't think there's sufficient evidence for Blackbeard's darkness to be treated as a realistic black hole. It has similarities, but that's it so far.

 

[SnookB]

@SnookB; Blackbeard has never actually displayed gravity yet on the same intensity as absorbing even light itself. Maybe that's something he'll actually be capable of, maybe not, but it sure seems like none of his current gravity feats have been that powerful yet.

I'm against the idea that we have to treat all of his uses of darkness so far as having the mass of a realistic black hole, when none of its effects yet match what a realistic black hole would perform.

The character can make claims of having infinite gravity, but if everything they do isn't supporting those claims then it's not a solid foundation for the calcs.

He says, and I quote:
"My darkness is gravitation. It's a force that sucks in everything!! NOT EVEN LIGHT CAN ESCAPE! .... INFINITE GRAVITATION!
I'm not attacking you just yet. Just stay there and see what happens to the town!"
He doesn't say his darkness will eventually pull that off.
He doesn't say " I GUESS IT MIGHT DO THAT"
He doesn't say "My darkness is akin to infinite gravity"
He doesn't say "My Darkness is so powerful, probably even light can't escape"
He doesn't say "One day, even light won't escape it"

He says everything present tense, factually. Backed up by every description of his devil fruit, and the author slapping a real blackhole for reference.

 

[Kachon123]

@SnookB; Blackbeard has never actually displayed gravity yet on the same intensity as absorbing even light itself. Maybe that's something he'll actually be capable of, maybe not, but it sure seems like none of his current gravity feats have been that powerful yet.

I'm against the idea that we have to treat all of his uses of darkness so far as having the mass of a realistic black hole, when none of its effects yet match what a realistic black hole would perform.

The character can make claims of having infinite gravity, but if everything they do isn't supporting those claims then it's not a solid foundation for the calcs.

Can you save this for a later CRT to see if it can even be applied to the profiles?

This thread's purpose is just to validate the calc itself and its methods.

 

[KingTempest]

@KingTempest; sorry, but I don't think there's sufficient evidence for Blackbeard's darkness to be treated as a realistic black hole. It has similarities, but that's it so far.

Then use the part of the calculation that doesn't quantify it as a real black hole, but quantifies the light absorption

 

[SnookB]

@KingTempest; sorry, but I don't think there's sufficient evidence for Blackbeard's darkness to be treated as a realistic black hole. It has similarities, but that's it so far.

For the morbillion time, Damage
NOBODY IS SAYING IT'S A REALISTIC BLACKHOLE
This whole thread is about the INFINITE GRAVITY aspect of it. THE ONLY THING that's solid

 

[Damage3245]

Can you save this for a later CRT to see if it can even be applied to the profiles?

This thread's purpose is just to validate the calc itself and its methods.

Three calc group members - one of which is DontTalkDT, arguably the most knowledgeable staff member for this topic - aren't in favor of it being used.

I don't need four users arguing against me simultaneously here.

 

[SnookB]

aren't in favor of it being used.

For the wrong reasons.

 

[Kachon123]

Three calc group members - one of which is DontTalkDT, arguably the most knowledgeable staff member for this topic - aren't in favor of it being used.

You pinged them to look at DT's arguments, and not what people said in response to them. That isn't a fair way to decide things.

I don't need four users arguing against me simultaneously here.

Then don't argue things that are irrelevant to this thread.

 

[SnookB]

Everyone against it is ignoring the fact that this is about the gravity, not about it being a one to one black hole with atomization and space-time manip.
This entire threat is about just the gravity's power. That's it.
Could've at least asked them to look at the counter argument and not only read DT's?

 

[KingTempest]

Or can we also get DT to refute the points?

 

[Damage3245]

@DontTalkDT; could you take another look at some of the posts that have been made in response to you here, please?

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

also, migue approved of the calc on the blog, ping him and see if his stance changed

 

[Damage3245]

@Migue79 As you evaluated the calc in the OP, can you comment here on which, if any, parts of it you think are suitable? Also, check out posts from DontTalkDT here and the responses made to him, please.

 

[Executor_N0]

To Tldr it;
It's described as being capable of having the gravitational pull of a black hole by the author. DT/Damage's argument is "But it doesn't show it constantly on every target."
The counter argument is the user of the ability himself specifying he can pick and choose who he hurts, when he hurts it. Otherwise the pull is seemingly always equally as powerful, and by his words, can suck in even light with 'Infinite Gravity'.
The arguments against it not being legitemate (despite the author saying it is) are easily debunked by the user himself saying he can specifically pick his targets even if they're all within the same darkness. Hence why there's an instance where his allies walk through the darkness while it's actively swallowing up prison guards and are unphased due to him not wanting to hurt them.

My point is more on what the standards are, I wasn't here when they were decided, so that really isn't something I can decide in cases like this.

I do know that certain high-level physical events require more adherence to real-life examples than low-level ones, even stuff like climate change from sheer power isn't accepted when it doesn't make 100% physical sense from what I remember. So from that logic, the more something behaves not as the real thing, or the most we can expect to be, the less it's acceptable to use physical calculations even if the physical effects are the same under certain situations. In this case, it can behave like a black hole, but the moments it doesn't are the reason why it shouldn't be calculated.

That is more stuff from the standards and not really something I can define.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

My point is more on what the standards are, I wasn't here when they were decided, so that really isn't something I can decide in cases like this.

I do know that certain high-level physical events require more adherence to real-life examples than low-level ones, even stuff like climate change from sheer power isn't accepted when it doesn't make 100% physical sense from what I remember. So from that logic, the more something behaves not as the real thing, or the most we can expect to be, the less it's acceptable to use physical calculations even if the physical effects are the same under certain situations. In this case, it can behave like a black hole, but the moments it doesn't are the reason why it shouldn't be calculated.

That is more stuff from the standards and not really something I can define.

well there is an alternative version of the calc where it doesnt assume it is a black hole (basically everything above the rating of the black hole.), could you review that?

Also, you would still have to take the gravity it takes to absorb light into account.

 

[SnookB]

My point is more on what the standards are, I wasn't here when they were decided, so that really isn't something I can decide in cases like this.

I do know that certain high-level physical events require more adherence to real-life examples than low-level ones, even stuff like climate change from sheer power isn't accepted when it doesn't make 100% physical sense from what I remember. So from that logic, the more something behaves not as the real thing, or the most we can expect to be, the less it's acceptable to use physical calculations even if the physical effects are the same under certain situations. In this case, it can behave like a black hole, but the moments it doesn't are the reason why it shouldn't be calculated.

That is more stuff from the standards and not really something I can define.

well there is an alternative version of the calc where it doesnt assume it is a black hole (basically everything above the rating of the black hole.), could you review that?

Also, you would still have to take the gravity it takes to absorb light into account.

Correct. The one Migue accepted actually only uses the scientific statements of the pull. Doesn't assume it's a real blackhole (the GPE calc).
It's why the counter arguments were always "It's not a calc based on it being a real black hole, but based on its repeated statements of gravity". Excluding the high end of course