- 11,912
- 11,470
I'll make another attempt at this I guess. No, it has nothing to do with the graph. I promise.
Saitama is rated 4-A for making a part of the cosmos disappear alongside Garou.
We assume he only destroyed everything out to the farthest star we (with the naked eye) can visibly see in the night sky. That being V762 Cas.
This is a fair low-lowball and all, but I'd like to once again bring attention to some evidence that it could definitely be taken to be higher than that. I believe it's solid enough to at least warrant a "possibly" rating.
In the One-Punch Man manga, and even within the same chapter this shot is shown, we see multiple times that the perspective we have in these panels allows us to see way, way farther into the night sky than the naked eye.
Example 1. Example 2.
Along with that, many people tend to bring up the argument of "because the panel where the destruction is shown doesn't showcase any galaxies, we can't assume that it would reach out that far."
I'd like to challenge this idea.
Take a closer look at the panel again, and you'll realize that most of the white dots are really just ambiguous blobs that do have the real possibility of being galaxies.
You might then think, "Well that's clearly just how Murata draws stars, since it's pretty obvious when he draws a galaxy as seen in those examples."
And to that, I say, check out these panels. We see that his stars are way more uniform and circular there.
It also helps that in other panels like this one, there are blobs that are very not star-like.
So, if there's evidence we can see galaxies in other panels, and some arguments against all of those white dots being stars in the first place, I think it's reasonable that we at least consider the fact that this explosion could have went out for farther than we currently accept it as.
How far? Well, if this hole is to be completely dark in a space where we should be able to see out to other galaxies, then I think the Milky Way-Andromeda distance works.
We already have a calculation for this which puts the feat at 3-C.
I am only suggesting a "possibly" rating. Please be considerate of that.
This is new. So, basically, the old calculations were actually wrong because they assumed the explosion was omnidirectional, when we clearly see the explosion is cone-shaped and extends outwards.
Because of this, Qawsed has made a new calculation for this with three ends:
Farthest star end: 3.080705e+61 Joules (4-A)
Milky Way end: 5.6394e+63 Joules (4-A)
Andromeda Galaxy end: 3.638245e+66 Joules (3-C)
Thread proposes the 4-A value to be adjusted, and the 3-C value to be added as a possibly based on these calcs.
- - - - -
Bold = Staff Opinion
Those who agree (18: 6;12): @DarkDragonMedeus, @Maverick_Zero_X, @Damage3245, @KingTempest, @Therefir, @Marvel_Champion_07, @Maitreya, @Quangotjokes, @LuffyRuffy46307, @Quantu, @Benimōru, @Thelastmlg, @Kin201, @EnderLord8, @Kachon123, @Recon1511, @Excel616, @Apex_Predator_GX
Those who disagree (1: 1;0): @Qawsedf234,
Saitama is rated 4-A for making a part of the cosmos disappear alongside Garou.
We assume he only destroyed everything out to the farthest star we (with the naked eye) can visibly see in the night sky. That being V762 Cas.
This is a fair low-lowball and all, but I'd like to once again bring attention to some evidence that it could definitely be taken to be higher than that. I believe it's solid enough to at least warrant a "possibly" rating.
In the One-Punch Man manga, and even within the same chapter this shot is shown, we see multiple times that the perspective we have in these panels allows us to see way, way farther into the night sky than the naked eye.
Example 1. Example 2.
Along with that, many people tend to bring up the argument of "because the panel where the destruction is shown doesn't showcase any galaxies, we can't assume that it would reach out that far."
I'd like to challenge this idea.
Take a closer look at the panel again, and you'll realize that most of the white dots are really just ambiguous blobs that do have the real possibility of being galaxies.
You might then think, "Well that's clearly just how Murata draws stars, since it's pretty obvious when he draws a galaxy as seen in those examples."
And to that, I say, check out these panels. We see that his stars are way more uniform and circular there.
It also helps that in other panels like this one, there are blobs that are very not star-like.
So, if there's evidence we can see galaxies in other panels, and some arguments against all of those white dots being stars in the first place, I think it's reasonable that we at least consider the fact that this explosion could have went out for farther than we currently accept it as.
How far? Well, if this hole is to be completely dark in a space where we should be able to see out to other galaxies, then I think the Milky Way-Andromeda distance works.
We already have a calculation for this which puts the feat at 3-C.
I am only suggesting a "possibly" rating. Please be considerate of that.
Recalculation of the Feat
This is new. So, basically, the old calculations were actually wrong because they assumed the explosion was omnidirectional, when we clearly see the explosion is cone-shaped and extends outwards.
Because of this, Qawsed has made a new calculation for this with three ends:
Farthest star end: 3.080705e+61 Joules (4-A)
Milky Way end: 5.6394e+63 Joules (4-A)
Andromeda Galaxy end: 3.638245e+66 Joules (3-C)
Thread proposes the 4-A value to be adjusted, and the 3-C value to be added as a possibly based on these calcs.
- - - - -
Bold = Staff Opinion
Those who agree (18: 6;12): @DarkDragonMedeus, @Maverick_Zero_X, @Damage3245, @KingTempest, @Therefir, @Marvel_Champion_07, @Maitreya, @Quangotjokes, @LuffyRuffy46307, @Quantu, @Benimōru, @Thelastmlg, @Kin201, @EnderLord8, @Kachon123, @Recon1511, @Excel616, @Apex_Predator_GX
Those who disagree (1: 1;0): @Qawsedf234,
Last edited:
