- 10,502
- 11,573
Yeah, no. If you agree that it's gravity manipulation, and not actual incredibly dense matter generating an event horizon (i.e. a black hole), then you have no leg to stand on for your estimation of the mass. I explained as much.
As said, your escape velocity approach is just reinventing the Schwarzschild radius formula. As it stands, you use all the black hole stuff in the calculation, but claim that you know it's not a black hole to not run into the black hole standards. If you assume that Blackbeard's darkness is an object of incredibly dense mass, with that mass producing gravity so strong that not even light can escape, then you are just saying in different words that you think Blackbeard is controlling a black hole. And, if so, it should be held to the black hole standards.
On the other hand, if you're not saying it's that, then your calculations don't work.
Honestly, there really is no need for all of us to reject it for the same reasons. We are each doing our individual analysis and reach our conclusion for ourselves. It's not like we have organized to debate this together.
Let me further say that not believing the infinite gravity thing is in no real contradiction to my points. One of my points was how his gravitation clearly doesn't match the predicted value. That the gravity isn't actually infinite is perfectly in line with how the stuff doesn't get crushed inside the darkness. And it also fits with the whole aspect of it not matching an actual mass thing, as such a dense mass object would have inescapable gravity past the point at which light can't escape due to its gravity anymore (i.e. the black hole past the event horizon should have unresistible (in some sense infinite) gravity).
Neither do I inherently see a problem with Damage's statement. Worst case, it's not relevant until my argument is disproven, but becomes relevant then.
But, in general, I didn't say that Blackbeard's darkness has no mass at all. I said it evidently doesn't have the mass you predict it to have. It could have some degree of mass for entirely unrelated reasons. That also answers your point about it having mass. Although, your showings don't really proof it being tangible and having mass. All they show is that they are able to project force on things. And... given that it can push things out of itself it clearly can project force on things in ways completely unrelated to it being tangible or having gravity.
The darkness generating gravity adds nothing to your argument. It's like saying "my laser is real, because I don't generate the laser, my magic staff generates the laser!" Not that the argument even makes sense, as this is a logia fruit, meaning that Blackbeard is the darkness.
Anyway, the point is, that the darkness generating the gravity in no way implies that it's not done supernaturally rather than through actual mass. Especially, as the gravity of said darkness clearly can supernaturally be controlled to sometimes be present and sometimes not. There is really no argument that no supernatural stuff is going on with the gravity.
And again, no it doesn't say Blackbeard's technique works like a black hole. It only says that the way the darkness swallows light is like a black hole.
Furthermore, if you acknowledge that the darkness is actually an entrance to a pocket dimension your point stands even less. As then it isn't an event horizon anymore, like your calc assumed. The volume of the portal leading into the pocket dimension (which Blackbeard's darkness would then function as) would have no real bearing on the volume of a black hole inside of it. I.e. you couldn't quantify black hole mass from the darkness.
It obviously also completely negates the KE idea to begin with, as it would be the entrance to a pocket dimension moving, rather than the mass in it.
And Oda didn't make that page for the purpose you say. It's just a page that is supposed to present interesting science facts and how Oda might have been inspired by them. That's why it also features explanations completely irrelevant for the manga, like "The telescope used to take this photograph has a resolution equivalent to three million human visual acuity." or the entire rest of the first few paragraphs. It's an immense reach to correlate these explanations where the text itself didn't. Arguably, the fact that Oda gave such a detailed explanation and then decided to not mention any connection other than "they both absorb light", even noting that specifically "This part of the technique is similar to that of a celestial black hole" and not anything else, makes it sound more as if he meant for it to specifically not be taken to be black hole like in any other way.
But ultimately that's subjective and we should keep to what the text is actually saying.
Anyway, none of us is contradicting each other in any way that would support your argument.
Which just supports even more that it's really just magical gravity? It goes to show that not even in the pocket dimension inside the darkness an actual event horizon is generally present. And that the gravity produced couldn't come from directly inside a black hole (or "object of incredible density which produces gravity so strong that not even light can escape" if you prefer the paraphrasing), as otherwise, the stuff would be inside the black hole the moment it enters.
Also, a black hole doesn't turn things into nothingness. It just disintegrates.
