Wait, that's actually insane! What in the world? In what world are people thinking he was exerting himself, while he was clearly not trying to kill and was also not using one of his hands.
Saitama used his full power against Garou, but then his full-power increased. There's no need to put "At least" or "Likely far higher" to appease people on the profile anymore.
But, we're back to square one. As seen in the latest chapter, it says: "There was no longer anybody left to measure what level Saitama's strength had reached." Then he sneezed (serious sneeze), and nearly blew Jupiter up. He had exceeded the need to go full power against him by then. There's no appeasing here, it's just facts. It seems like you're hellbent on lowballing/nerfing him for the sake of it. Explain how you could go full-power and also hold back.
He used his full power, Garou matched him, then Saitama's Accelerated Development kicked him and made him far stronger than Garou. It's not rocket science.
it goes from likely higher to being "far higher with accelerated development and power mimicry"
the 3-C calc is based on the fact that in OPM, multiple galaxies are easily visible, which vastly increases the range in which the serious punch^2 must have most likely destroyed, which is reasonable but not confirmed
I won't agree he was going full-power, as he never intended to kill him. Perhaps full-power within the confines of that restriction that he put on himself. But, even you agree he's far stronger than Garou. And that's his level now, that's how his growth works. So, yes, it's still "likely higher." Also, just saying, but no need to be condescending.
Doesn't Saitama word for word stay he was using his full power? Heck the chart showing Saitama growth showed that at the start of the fight him and Garou were physically equal.
Over here, they aren't even agreeing on the "At least" part, let alone "possibly 3-C."
It is from Chapter 167.
But, the graph doesn't matter in the scaling from what I have seen in this thread (also, it doesn't show the beginning of it, anyways). It could very well be full power within the restriction of not killing Garou, as that's what he had promised the kid.
You'd have to disagree with Saitama himself to argue that.
Yes, he evolved to far surpass Garou in the end, ergo "Higher with Reactive Power level"
p sure that was a mistranslation, but still the graph is incontestible evidence and it's very clear he went full powerYou'd have to disagree with Saitama himself to argue that.
You can not claim it is mistranslation like at all though.
How so? Also, the graph, from the first panel in which it's shown, shows that Saitama is higher on it.
Three. Out of 9 we can see from Earth.
It's Saitama growing stronger, it's quite literally stated as such. He was at full power, then grew stronger at a faster pace than Garou could catch up.
I'm arguing why the 3-C calc isn't valid, so yeah, ratings are a definitely part of that.
I think the most logical course of action is to see what direction the earth was facing and use it to determine if there should be a galaxy there then, which is something that can be done in calc
I'm saying that trying to decide on ratings comes later. Be patient. As of now we should be trying to figure out which calc makes the most sense logically and contextually.
on second thought, opm earth doesn't seem to be very 1:1 with real earth so we can't actually determine what directon the camera was facing most likely
I can count like 11 galaxies in this panel alone lol
I know there are panels with galaxies in them. I'm specifically talking about the panel of their destruction feat.
The star density is just unfathomably higher than the galaxy density in space, believe it or not.
Why would we need that? In different shots at around the same area, we see that far away, there are in fact galaxies that can be seen. If we can see Galaxies right next to where the Hole happened, then I don't know why we can't apply it to the Hole itself.
Already said so, these galaxies are impossibly big, and would debunk intergalactic distances anyway as they are far less than 1 mil ly away
I know that. The thing is that since we see galaxies in other shots around the hole, there's nothing to be wary of. There is no 'safe' end.
I agree. The very page where the destruction takes place we see no indication of any galactic density on the cosmos, the odds of one of them being in that general direction (while still being visible) is drastically low, too low for us to give a possibly rating even.
Galaxies being hit isn't being argued, it's the range reaching over to galaxies that's being argued
