Then finally Deceived
manifested himself into the thread, noting how he aligns with DT's point about how it doesn't necessarily copy the Black Hole's property of having that gravity through the generated mass mass (contradicting Damage's argument), but then he says that the infinite gravity point isn't actually infinite gravity (contradicting DT's point).
There are two wrong things in this section. I didn't say that the "infinite gravity point" wasn't actually "infinite gravity". What I specifically claimed was that it's contentious on if the statement itself was direct or hyperbolic, explaining why through the fact of arguable contradicting evidence. I never made the claim that it does or doesn't. It's even extremely implied by the name of that specific section, with it being called "
potential problems with assumptions made".
For those quotes:
"There are also other problems like assuming the "infinite gravity" in the first place is in-fact infinite gravity when the feats provided don't support this interpretation.
It doesn't inherently disprove the interpretation, I agree.
But it also doesn't support it, and can actively be used to discredit it."
As for what DT said, DT never claimed he agreed with the point, in actuality he specifically calls into question
how truthful the "infinite gravity" statement actually is. What he was doing was addressing the fact that the statement provided only brings up the infinite gravity part, not actually anything directly related to the mass of the object or not.
For those quotes:
"But well, as said,
the quote doesn't say the darkness has black hole mass in it at all.
It says it has infinite gravity and the way it pulls in light is similar to a black hole."
"stuff is basically coming out in the same state it entered. Crushed, yes, but not crushed as much as that gravity should.
Not even the strength of gravity inside his darkness is depicted close to matching the suggested "infinite" value."
Then they're all contradicted by the simple facts of the series.
Blackbeard's darkness has mass. It doesn't just manifest gravity, it is tangible and
it can push things.
Damage's point about its changing mass are accurate, because
it can move through the ground and not affect it, but when it increases in its density,
it gains more darkness and starts to absorb.
The darkness isn't the gravity. The darkness generates its own gravity. So Blackbeard doesn't just "generate gravity", it generates darkness which generates gravity.
The mechanics of the innards of his dimension are unknown and don't need to necessarily output that effect in its pocket dimension, as black holes don't have pocket dimensions, and it's one of the few things that differ between
BB's black hole and realistic black holes.
Blackbeard's mechanic is specifically tied to the real world application of it, as it says
There's numerous issues in this post.
Starting off with something light, most people, with the possible exception of Arc, haven't disagreed with the idea of Blackbeard's Devil Fruit having mass. The contention exists because of the argument that this mass is proportional to the amount needed to create gravitational pull strong enough to absorb light.
You're making an assumption about how the Devil Fruit functionally works, you're presupposing why this fruit was previously capable of flowering under the buildings, and after which, was capable of then absorbing them. There's nothing that proves it's a change of density and mass that's causing the structures to be absorbed. It's equally as possible, within a vacuum, that the shadows were intangible previously, and then through Blackbeard's manipulation of these esoteric properties, became tangible to affect objects around it. Nothing concretely says there's a change of density and mass going on.
It's especially true in Blackbeard's case since Blackbeard's manipulation of this property isn't explicitly related to "mass" or "density" changes, but rather the manipulation of gravitational pull and push of his darkness.
This is also discarding the fact that even if there is a change of density and mass going on, it doesn't prove that change would inherently be proportional with the gravitational pull it creates.
That distinction doesn't matter as both fundamentally are the same, Blackbeard generates his gravity through the darkness while most gravity manipulators generate their gravity through other means. Both still are generating and manipulating gravity.
I'm not entirely sure what exactly this "effect" means, but I'm guessing it's in reference to the infinite gravity statement. As if it is, then that's heavily implied not true as the statement of it having "infinite gravity" was made when it was sucking objects into that
pocket dimension and crushing them. It's in clear reference to the gravitational force being applied onto the objects.
The paragraph doesn't name "mechanics" existing but rather those "phenomena" exist, which can be interpreted multiple different ways. The "phenomena" of something is just the "existence" of the thing. It's actually stated that "similar phenomena" exist in our world, not 1-1 iterations. So there's a level of ambiguity regarding what's comparable or not.
And Oda making an entire magazine page to just say "they both absorb light and they both have gravitational forces" and him giving a full explanation on how black holes do what they do because of mass... and not correlating it to the other because it's not verbatimly stated.
He didn't say that the gravitational portion of BB's Black Hole technique was akin to irl black holes because it can absorb things, but he specifically said that the part of how it attracts light is what's similar to an irl black hole.
Him explaining how IRL black holes operate and him explaining how Blackbeard's Devil Fruit has similar properties to those black holes isn't him saying Blackbeard's Devil Fruit expresses those properties through the same means. Literally nothing of this is implied, it's you presupposing such because of the aforementioned comparison of properties.
It's similar to how it attracts that light, as in its gravitational pull. Not how it creates that gravitational pull that's strong enough to attract light. Two massive distinctions.
So basically.
You all disagree for completely different reasons, and somehow you each manage to support my argument by essentially damaging each others' points.
This just isn't true, we all agree on the fundamental point and most of the supplemental arguments provided.
