- 7,904
- 14,966
No he does not. It says his speed is beyond physics, beyond imagination. Speed itself is a physical concept.Superman also literally states he transcends imagination during the feat though
What?Those suns could also be 1-A suns
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No he does not. It says his speed is beyond physics, beyond imagination. Speed itself is a physical concept.Superman also literally states he transcends imagination during the feat though
What?Those suns could also be 1-A suns
that is what I was thinking...What?
We currently accept an abstract realm to have low 1-C planets my dude, Apokolips is an example.that is what I was thinking...
People with speed beyond the concepts of space and time have irrelevant speed. Superman using the word speed does not mean he is still in a realm with concepts as we know them. Heck when Superman was in limbo which is also accepted as 1-A on-site everything also looked normal, so this isn’t the first time this happened by a long shot.Speed itself is a physical concept.
I mean currently it's 2-A, but if it's downgraded to 2-C, sure, the Multiverse he created would be 2-C. Although if Alpheus is directly using Multiverse as 52 Universes, whether it's used by the wiki or not, I guess it would be what he'd be recreating for his Multiverse? So I might agree here.World Forger explains that the multiverse used to be infinite, but was then reduced to 52. Perpetua mentions the number as 52 often in the story as well.
I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you saying that he only has 52 Universes that aren't in the form of a Multiverse? If so, I don't really see within the story where that's implied. The closest thing I see is him implying that is that Universes will take up the space of the vanished ones, but that's not saying that's only what will happen, so is there a different scan you have for that? It also really doesn't make much sense for only the future JL world to be stable/in the structure of a Multiverse. The only reason I could think of is if that was the only one finished, but the entire Multiverse of his was finished. None of them would be stable if they weren't in a proper Multiverse, yet the JL world was, so unless I'm misunderstanding your point, I don't think this is very logical.I think it is. I explained this in another comment, but Forger's meaning regarding unstable is a bit different than what Andrew Marino most likely meant. World Forger is referring to the long term viability of the universes, what will last and what wont. That's not what Marino means, he's saying that until WF strikes his anvil for these universes to replace the current multiverse, they are unstable structurally.
Now that I think about it, him stopping the anvil wouldn't destroy the Multiverse in the first place, it would just stop the replacement. All the anvil would do is make the Universes/Multiverse descend, so if that was stopped all it would do is take out the means of replacing it, not destroying his Multiverse.His actions destroyed it, certainly.
I already explained why this can just mean being outside of sufficient sunlight, the Justice League, etc.To give a short summary the Galaxy Superman is in that is outside of everything, is literally outside of everything.
Despite being above 5D imps, they're still not 6D, so I don't see what this proves.There’s no “regular multiverse” in the sixth dimension since it’s all made out of pure possibility. The not being able to exist in the sixth dimension isn’t a madness problem since Superman doesn’t go mad from seeing Quantum Zealots who are above 5D imps.
Yeah, the portal being altered was a good point and it was a pretty big mistake of mine to miss it. However, where does Alpheus say he can't exist on the same plane as Batman? Lastly, Alpheus was worried people would notice there was time missing when the Multiverses were replaced, if he was going to replace it with a 1-A Multiverse, that would be really easy to notice.Mxy used his full power to make the portal to the 6th dimension and stated even he himself couldn’t exist there. The league probably can exist there due to Alpheus altering the portal. Alpheus also says he can’t exist on the same plane of reality as Batman. In short the multiverse you see in the sixth dimension is way bigger than the regular multiverse similar to how Apokolips is way bigger than the multiverse and it is where Alpheus’ true form exists, who is 1-A.
Do you mean this? If so it's just him saying we can do more than we think we can. Especially since Alpheus felt this too, and felt it as underestimating the heroes.Superman also literally states he transcends imagination during the feat though.
This is pretty interesting, I think I could get behind using this for the scaling.Oh btw Nia also told me that the multiverse WF created contained their own New Gods
Superman isn't using the words. This is the narration.Superman using the word speed does not mean he is still in a realm with concepts as we know them
Sure, but I'm not saying everything looks normal, I'm saying the information we are given about Superman in this scene doesn't support metaphysicalityeverything also looked normal
Can barely?do you read comics at all?Since WF clearly can barely make a multiverse made of 52 universes
He created hypertime with his own hands, smh.If he were really 2-A he could do it with no effort.
Honestly, I don't think he's doing him any high damage.Injuring someone is enough to scale to their Durability
My opinions are pretty straightforward, I think the editor's explanations make it clear that Superman didn't punch or destroy the multiverse directly and that wasn't the intention of the story. If wiki standards are that punching someone to an effect is scalable then I agree Superman's amp here scales to World-Forger. I agree with the comments that WF is most likely in the 2-C range, I think 2-A is an overestimate but the AM thread also addresses that. So we can wait until after that is resolved.What do you think that we should do here?
It's a case by case basis. The reality is, twitter statements are no different from interview statements or any other kind of author statement. It is good to avoid answers based on obviously leading questions, but this explanation was clearly not pushed by anyone asking.I think accepting a twitter statement as fact for comics sets a bad precedent, but that's just my opinion.
The statement doesn't contradict what happened. When Superman did his punch, he was clearly hitting World Forger. The whole build up was WF seeing a fist and then getting punched right in the face. We could posit that the reason his "masterpiece" was destroyed was some sort of shockwave or backlash from the punch hitting WF, but this is never specified or hinted at. The official explanation from DC as to why punching WF in the face destroyed his multiverse was because striking his hammer down would've cemented it, but since Superman prevented that by punching him, it fell apart.The main source is the comic, right? I dont think that a twitter statement is more reliable than the original source if the statement contradicts what happend
It is a clarification for what happened in the story, so it might work in this case.I think accepting a twitter statement as fact for comics sets a bad precedent, but that's just my opinion.
I think a new one would probably be ideal as this one became cluttered, and the main points can likely be condensed once AM's rating is settled, that's just my opinion.Should I lock this thread, and somebody remind me to unlock it after we are done with the Anti-Monitor thread, or should one of our knowledgeable members (the ones that I usually call on) start a new one afterwards?
Thank you.It is a clarification for what happened in the story, so it might work in this case.
Then I very much expect this to be the new standard.It's a case by case basis. The reality is, twitter statements are no different from interview statements or any other kind of author statement.
Sure, I can do that once the AM thread is done and the revisions have been implemented.Okay, would you or one of the others be willing to handle restarting it please?
Again, it's a case-by-case basis. Generally speaking, author statements of any kind (not just twitter) that directly and expressly contradict the comics are rejected. Author statements (including twitter) which clarify an on-panel ambiguity can be accepted. Sometimes a statement on twitter can be invalid due to what is clearly a leading question, or something taken out of context specifically to confuse the writer, those kinds of things. It's case-by-case.Then I very much expect this to be the new standard.
This is correct, yes. It is roughly what is written in our rules already as far as I recall.Again, it's a case-by-case basis. Generally speaking, author statements of any kind (not just twitter) that directly and expressly contradict the comics are rejected. Author statements (including twitter) which clarify an on-panel ambiguity can be accepted. Sometimes a statement on twitter can be invalid due to what is clearly a leading question, or something taken out of context specifically to confuse the writer, those kinds of things. It's case-by-case.
I prefer reasonable facts than anything.Why are you thanking me? I thought that you favour a more extreme interpretation of this feat.