• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

saint seiya speed upgrade!

@DontTalk

"I shall exceed the speed of the initial expansion of the universe."

That's what is stated in the manga.

Now, how can one logically interpret this statement?

Quite simply, by ultilizing the borders of the universe, as their expansion is what can be properly measured. Ultilizing any other measure of space within the universe would be completely illogical, and would contradict the written idea of Shura reaching a speed absurdly faster than light.

Most authors aren't crystal clear specific in their feats, mostly because that would break the flow of the story, and the result would likely resemble the Suggsverse.

"I shall exceed the speed of the initial expansion of the universe." Was what was stated, and the only way to interpret said statement in a way that makes sense and is quantifiable is by using the borders of the observable universe. Just because you COULD ultilize a distance of merely 10 kilometers, rather than 89 billion lightyears, based on the vagueness of the statement, doesn't mean that you should.
 
There's one thing I don't understand what you guys are arguing about...why are you talking in terms of light years? This calc uses a distance of 0.88 millimeters.
 
Let me give you an analogy as well. I have a balloon and draw a koordinate system on it.

And I ask "how fast will two points move away from each other if I blow up the baloon?"

The how fast is here the less problematic point for now. If you actually try to answer this question your first reaction will be to ask "which of the points are asked about", because otherwise you can not answer the question. "Baloon" just doesn't specify which points are meant.

So lets say the points get specified and the next question is asked:

"how fast would an ant sitting on the balloon have to be to be faster than the expansion of the baloon?"

If you think about the question the first things that would come to mind is that the ant should be able to outrun the expansion. So it should run so fast along the surface of the baloon that the expansion doesn't reach it. In the next step you would think about how to figure it out and instantly notice that this doesn't make sense, given that no matter where the ant runs since the expansion is everywhere on the surface of the baloon outrunning it is not really possible.

At that point you would notice that the answer to the question before doesn't help with answering this question. In other words adressing your one value to the otehr seems to somehow not give the property that you expect it to give, strange right?


The one sentence there is just no thought through, you are arguing that the one time universe was mentioned in the sentence is used to at the same time answer "which expansion speed are we talking about" and "which points are we spectating which grow in distance from each otehr through expansion". In a sentence an attribute can only answer one question at a time (I would like to give a more precise grammatical formulation here, but I don't know how) hence the idea that it is supposed to answer both can not be the case.
 
Alakabamm said:
There's one thing I don't understand what you guys are arguing about...why are you talking in terms of light years? This calc uses a distance of 0.88 millimeters.
Click to expand...
The 0.88 Milimeters is what the 89 Billion Light Years were at the time of expansion.
 
@DontTalk

Your analogy doesn't make sense whatsoever. There are no mention of coordinates in the statement, no mention of points, no mention of anything sitting on the boundary of the universe. You're taking flawed examples. Very flawed examples that do not relate in this context at all. A better example would have been: "A indestructible balloon is expanding behind me at the same rate. How fast must I move for all of eternity so that the balloon never touches me?" Now THAT is a more precise situation of what is going on here.

What you're doing is the same as if though someone would say: "The power of my attack is 5 joules!" Then, you jump on the statement, saying that it makes no sense whatsoever, that power isn't measured in joules, and that the feat is not acceptable at all, when it's crystal clear to everyone else what the statement is actually saying. You need to get out of "physicist mode" right now.

@Alakabamm

Because we're specifying that it's talking about the initial expansion of the observable universe, which is currently several billion light years big.
 
Alakabamm said:
There's one thing I don't understand what you guys are arguing about...why are you talking in terms of light years? This calc uses a distance of 0.88 millimeters.
Click to expand...

We basically use the distances before scaled down to what they were at the time of the big bang in since its easier, I guess. It also gives a better sense of which distances we are talking about in relation to density of space. 0.88 millimeters is the size of todays observable universe about 10^-26 seconds after the big bang.

So not really much on the subject.
 
@DontTalk

I believe you are overthinking this whole situation.

Tivanenk and I have made our reasonings as to why the Calc's interpreation is decent, and rather logical.

Your whole argument hinges on the fact that the feat is rather vague on panel, and that the explanation is a short rather than being a specific, physics accurate one.
 
I know, but I don't know why you guys are discussing the proposed size of the current universe when it has nothing to do with what Iwandesu calculated.

The calculation is supposing the expansion described is from a size close to zero to a size of 0.88 mm
 
Alakabamm said:
I know, but I don't know why you guys are discussing the proposed size of the current universe when it has nothing to do with what Iwandesu calculated.
The calculation is supposing the expansion described is from a size close to zero to a size of 0.88 mm
Click to expand...
To be honest, I don't really know why DontTalk is really hinging on that fact either. I think he only mentioned it because he thought that the statement could have referred to the entire universe (which was supposedly infinite even after the Big Bang) and not the observable one.
 
Tivanenk: My analogy makes much more sense than the bubble. WHat has to be clear is that we do not talk about expansion of something into something else (increase in the diameter of your bubble that you are thinking about), but of the expansion of something in itself (expansion of the distance between two points on the surface of your bubble)

I used a koordinate system in mine simply to make things somehow measureable.

Your analogy is actually flawed in the sense that expansion of diameter like you have it is measureable as an actual speed, which is the speed of a particle on the surface of the bubble. It lacks the property of importance on which points are chosen that we have in the practicle case.
 
@DontTalk

So pray tell me, why can't 'expansion' mean 'an increase in diameter' when used in layman's terms, instead of a physicist's? Give me a good reason for that and I'll concede.

After all, when something increases in diameter, it's said 'to expand'. I've even heard my physics professors say that. Doesn't even take a physicist to figure that out though.

See what I mean? You're constantly using physics' terms to limit the definition, even though the author isn't a physicist and was most likely not thinking of expansion as 'within something'.
 
The fact that you can not even explain what my complain is is a bit disappointing.

The calculation uses 0.88 millimeters because its the size of the observable universe shortly after expansion and assumes we go from 0. So for 2 points with close to 0 distance it increases that much But who stated the observable universe is what we are talking about?

Lets take instead the galaxy. The galaxy would also initially be almost 0 and after expansion about 0.00000170322580648 millimeters = 0.00000000170322580648 meters.

So this time I have chosen another distance. New result 1.70322580648e23 m/s.

I can do that further with always smaller ones and get always smaller results. fact is 0.88 millimeters is very large in relation to the cosmic distances at the time of the big bang and we have literally no distance given or even suggested. What we are given is an expansion speed in (m/s)/m which is not useable for a character.
 
The increase in diameter in yur bubble example would for the universe case mean that parts of space move into a 4th dimension. Similar to how in your bubble example the diameter increases in a third dimension, compared to the 2-D surface of the bubble.
 
But it doesn't. The boundary of space is not the space itself and it dimensionally lower than it in the first place.
 
DontTalk said:
The fact that you can not even explain what my complain is is a bit disappointing.
The calculation uses 0.88 millimeters because its the size of the observable universe shortly after expansion and assumes we go from 0. So for 2 points with close to 0 distance it increases that much But who stated the observable universe is what we are talking about?

Lets take instead the galaxy. The galaxy would also initially be almost 0 and after expansion about 0.00000170322580648 millimeters = 0.00000000170322580648 meters.

So this time I have chosen another distance. New result 1.70322580648e23 m/s.

I can do that further with always smaller ones and get always smaller results. fact is 0.88 millimeters is very large in relation to the cosmic distances at the time of the big bang and we have literally no distance given or even suggested. What we are given is an expansion speed in (m/s)/m which is not useable for a character.
Click to expand...
I understood that, but I still don't understand why talk about this when it's talking about the universe itself, not vague amount of space.
 
Let's take an example. I set up an enclosed 1x1x1 m^3 space that has a perimeter and I don't allow anyone to enter this boundary of space. Every hour, I steadily increase the perimeter by a meter in every direction. The space that no one is allowed to enter is expanding three dimensionally, but the perimeter itself remains two dimensional. There is no 4-D involved here.
 
DontTalk said:
We basically use the distances before scaled down to what they were at the time of the big bang in since its easier, I guess. It also gives a better sense of which distances we are talking about in relation to density of space. 0.88 millimeters is the size of todays observable universe about 10^-26 seconds after the big bang.

So not really much on the subject.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the speed after the first cosmic inflation is much smaller, if we are talking about the universe as a whole. So I don't see why we care about our current universe at all in regards to this calc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

"Following the inflationary period, the Universe continues to expand, but at a less rapid rate."

Also, where does 10^-26 come from? I saw Iwan use 10^-32.
 
Ehhh.. the 10^-26 was probably a brain bug, no idea where that figure came from.

About the distances: Its easier to talk about them then to talk about something 0.000000001 meters in side. I am not suggesting they are to be used for the calculation, see it as an analogy.


Either way. I guess I can see why one coul except expansion speed as movement speed if one wants to.

If some other members of the calculation group are fine with assuming a distance that is not stated, which in relation to the cosmic distances at that time is absolutely gigantic, I am fine with accepting it.

My day was too much bad news to care.

@Tivanek: There is no 4-D involved, but then you are measuring expanion of a cube here not of spacee. In other words you measure the expansion of something that has absolute position in space, while we talk about the change of space itself. That doesn't work well. Hence I talk about surface with an ant on it, since a surface relative to the surface itself has no absolute position in space. It really a standard example to envision expansion of the universe btw.

The statement is talkig about the expansion speed of the universe, but any given region or point in the universe or even that we talk about the universe here (we talk about a property of the universe, but not universe as region) is not mentioned.

But as said, today I don't have the energy to lead such a discussion and don't care about the franchise in general so do as you like. Alakabamm is fine with it you can use it if you want.
 
I think so too, since DontTalk now seems to be okay with it.
 
just upgrade shura and the rest will get scalling all by thier selfs imo. no need to update every single profile here
 
Victor2 said:
just upgrade shura and the rest will get scalling all by thier selfs imo. no need to update every single profile here
Click to expand...
Well, every Gold Saint and above can perform this feat, so everyone gets an MFTL+ to this degree.
 
lower gold saints should not get this scalling as i said imo. but yea every other characters will get this thus i said we should only update shura and others will get the scalling no need to update every single profile.
 
LOL I can't believe no one noticed that, including several calc members XD

I guess it goes to show how infrequently we deal with big numbers. Still, it's a nice upgrade for Gold Saints.
 
Also someone should edit the Apollo profile what it says is pure nonsense he didn't simply erase the memories of seiya & Athena his attack while in the gods realm even reached the mortal universe so it was cross dimensional and the interview proved nothing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kaiou1991
Saint Seiya: 3-B Aiolia [STAFF NEEDED]
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
ActuallySpaceMan42
ActuallySpaceMan42
Hasty12345
  • Locked
Saint Seiya: VIrgo Shaka intelligence downgrade
Replies
5
Views
503
Antvasima
Antvasima
AlexZiggy
  • Locked
Saint Seiya The Lost Upgrade (2-A)
Replies
26
Views
3K
AlexZiggy
AlexZiggy
Kaiou1991
  • Locked
[STAFF NEEDED] Saint Seiya: Gold Saint Downgrade and Profile Split
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
Theglassman12
Theglassman12
Reiner04
Saint Seiya; Low 1-C thread.
2 3
Replies
87
Views
8K
Huesito88
Huesito88
Back
Top