• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

One Piece: Black Hole Mechanics

Status
Not open for further replies.
SnookB said:
Law's fruit alone has like 4 other devil fruit abilities.
Click to expand...
www.youtube.com

Law has 5 Devil Fruits #shorts

Law is not fair... Sub To The Channel Fam: http://tinyurl.com/BDALawPatreon:https://www.patreon.com/bragodaceTwitter: https://twitter.com/BragoDaceDiscord: ...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com

Law has EVEN MORE Devil fruits

Law is not fair... Sub To The Channel Fam: http://tinyurl.com/BDALawPatreon:https://www.patreon.com/bragodaceTwitter: https://twitter.com/BragoDaceDiscord: ...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
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
 
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.
 
Kachon123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'll give it till midnight est tomorrow then I'm straight closing this shit
 
Kachon123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
@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?
 
Damage3245 said:
@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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Executor_N0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
@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.
 
Damage3245 said:
@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.
Click to expand...
He specifically said that's what it does, then proceeded to render Ace helpless to its pull.
Damage3245 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Damage3245 said:
@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.
Click to expand...
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
 
@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.
 
Damage3245 said:
@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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Damage3245 said:
@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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Kachon123 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Damage3245 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Damage3245 said:
I don't need four users arguing against me simultaneously here.
Click to expand...
Then don't argue things that are irrelevant to this thread.
 
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?
 
@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.
 
SnookB 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Executor_N0 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Executor_N0 said:
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.
Click to expand...
BasedNecoScaler69 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

How do i go about this?
Replies
0
Views
608
Jaakor48
CNBA3
A Way to calculate the speed inside Black Holes?
Replies
7
Views
2K
CNBA3
CNBA3
Vzearr
  • Locked
One Piece downgrade thread
3 4 5
Replies
186
Views
11K
Damage3245
Damage3245
KingTempest
  • Locked
One Piece: ANOTHER Dressrosa Size Revision
4 5 6
Replies
222
Views
12K
KingTempest
KingTempest
Arcker123
Kings Born In Darkness: Yhwach Vs Blackbeard (Bleach Vs One Piece) 0-0-0
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
Arcker123
Arcker123
Back
Top