Another rule in our calc stacking page:
we aren't calculating luffy's speed, that would be using this for another instance which we aren't doing
That's simply not a thing we do. To convert the speed (lightspeed) to a perception timeframe (0.000000003336 seconds) involves a calc. There's no way of getting around that.
So for reference... If someone is stated to be able to perceive the speed of light, how would one use that for a calculation of someone moving faster than their perception?
The statement "perceiving the speed of light" doesn't get you a specific timeframe by itself. Simply put you wouldn't use it in a calculation for the scenario you mentioned.
So then what scenario can you use ls perception for a calculation? Because at this point there doesn't seems to be any at all
From our rules on the Reactions and Perceptions page:
it makes no sense! 
I think you're equating a completely different thing to that, which isn't meant for what we're currently discussing
because ain't no way can I support untruth! 
Or we could bring other Calc members to either explain the page/statements or fix it to where one doesn't get confused/misinterpret from what it's trying to actually say (that can be made for another thread tho)
I've been trying to explain it to you for the past couple hours, and so has ZawierJ. If you want to bring in other people to try and explain it to you then go ahead.
You can't say it's just me when another Calc member just said something completely different from what you were saying, and also when there are many other users who've thought that the argument doesn't make sense
Listen, please.
That's only when it comes to converting from speed to a timeframe (aka assuming a SoL character has those same reactions) as stated in the thread addressing all this, not for a character being outright stated to perceive light speed. So no, that's an apples to oranges situation, and using the 0.000000003336 seconds figure in this hypothetical scenario would not be calc stacking
Clover, the figure of "0.000000003336 seconds" only comes from a calc here. You can't claim that "1 m / 299792458 m/s" is not a calc.
You’re also ignoring that this is not what the thread concluded. You’re creating a conclusion that wasn’t reached
I have been but sure
Well it is also, as that's what you said you couldn't use and that the stated perception is a calculation...
There are no results of that calculation, it's a statement which gives you a value the same way any other value work by getting megaton from a megaton statement or getting 299 792 458 m / s from a statement of moving at light speed
said above why there are no calculation to find a timeframe, the timeframe already exist from a statement
which again many people don't see it as that and doesn't specifically say that, which is why I said this
Isn't this what the kaido Calc is already doing? Otherwise there are nothing else that says anything about the kaido calc or stated perception for a calc which the kaido Calc is from what I've seen
I can kind of understand what you mean, but again, it seems misconstrued from the fact that statements for a Calc are acceptable, and you've tried to turn the statement into a calculation to then make into a Calc stack in my view
Do you know how/why that figure means "light speed reactions"? It didn't come out of thin air. It came from a calc.
I assume this isn't the case when the two feats are happening in the same scene?
It came from a statement which give you a value the same way any other Calc does by getting values from a statement... You interpreting them as a full on Calc doesn't make sense
'Fraid it's the case even then, unless like, you got a bulletproof statement that the guy with said reactions was operating at his absolute fastest of reactions with no fluctuation whatsoever (Yeah you need something as verbatim and direct like that for stuff like this).
it is stated... Luffy said he was reading the future and everything
Okay, so an inferior Luffy with inferior Kenbunshoku Haki perceiving light as too slow is a valid reactions statement (not a calc), which can then be used to calc the speed of Kaido outspeeding a superior Luffy using superior Kenbunshoku Haki. You seem to agree that stated reactions are fair game, so there really shouldn't be any disagreement
Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's wrong though.
Just because you say "not a calc" doesn't actually make it not a calc.
Actually, now that I look at it, nah.
You agreed with what KLOL said, then proceeded to go "no this is still a calc." Luffy perceiving light as slow is an in-universe statement, not a calc. You quite literally can't get around that no matter how you explain it away.
And that statement means nothing in terms of specific values until you use a calc. How do you get from one number (lightspeed) to another number (the timeframe)? You can only get there by performing a calculation.
So basically, you're not allowed to use the reactions page ever even when the reactions are stated and you pretty much need a statement of the exact timeframe. Got it. Get that accepted yourself before pushing that mentality.
Not as it stands right now, no. The perceptions page uses 1 meter, which we use as a standard. So unless you propose to render the usage of perception timeframes on our table as calcs, your argumentation legitimately holds no ground here.
Yee but that's not what's happening... Luffy dodging the beam or moving that fast does not matter, his statement of the speed is what does
I'm so confused. If what determines whether this is calc stacking or not is dependent on if calculating 1 m / 299792458 m/s (light speed) to get the 0.000000003336 seconds figure, then wouldn't using literally any timeframe in this page including the average human reactions be considered calc stacking as they're all derived from the speeds in this page (0.13 s- 0.1s reactions for average humans comes from the 5 m/s and 7.7 m/s respectively by dividing 1 by them)?
That is pretty much what's being insinuated despite that not being the conclusion that was reached in the thread on this matter, yes
