- 951
- 430
- Thread starter
- #41
We can use 0.1 second for this reason. Does everyone think it's good?
-
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.
Saitama and Garou Jump Around Io
- Thread starter Shadow_x007x
- Start date
-
- Tags
- garou one punch man saitama
- Status
- 772
- 284
i believe that's honestly the best timeframe to use. we're doing it after garou continued to grow even more (considering he grew to the point of blitzing platinum sperm after 0.0013 second). then even Cosmic mode. and then both of them going all out. which this feat is supposed to be massively superior.
oh also. did this get accepted?
- 3,006
- 1,381
In my opinion the 0.1 second timeframe is like the worst proposed time frame.
1 second comes from the wiki standard for quick 1 panel feats.
To use any smaller timeframe we would need some point of reference that would indicate the smaller timeframe. We can't just make up small time frames because the results are disappointing otherwise. With any other feat and series, if there was no point of reference and the 1 second result was useless we would just drop the feat as useless for scaling.
The 13 milliseconds are also really bad. There is literally no real argument as to why Saitama did all those jumps in that time frame. Just because a stated timeframe exists doesn't mean you can apply it to every feat in the verse.
So I think there's 2 options.
1. We drop the feat as not useful for scaling and instead focus on other feats.
2. We find a point of reference that can be used to justify a smaller timeframe.
1 second comes from the wiki standard for quick 1 panel feats.
To use any smaller timeframe we would need some point of reference that would indicate the smaller timeframe. We can't just make up small time frames because the results are disappointing otherwise. With any other feat and series, if there was no point of reference and the 1 second result was useless we would just drop the feat as useless for scaling.
The 13 milliseconds are also really bad. There is literally no real argument as to why Saitama did all those jumps in that time frame. Just because a stated timeframe exists doesn't mean you can apply it to every feat in the verse.
So I think there's 2 options.
1. We drop the feat as not useful for scaling and instead focus on other feats.
2. We find a point of reference that can be used to justify a smaller timeframe.
- 13,228
- 21,044
The persistence of light trails is the justification for a smaller timeframe, as suggested by Chariot. There's no need for an arbitrarily high timeframe
- 3,006
- 1,381
So what are the light trails created by? What timeframe would that indicate?
- 772
- 284
those lights are afterimages being connected and it shapes like a snake cuz of it. at the very least, that seems like how flash does it.
- 772
- 284
by the way. why can't we use the sneeze for the speed of post balding saitama? even if it happened later. we accept it as weaker than the serious punch from before. both strength and speed wise.
- 31,398
- 27,689
1 second is not an arbitrarily high timeframe. It's a pretty standard assumption.
If that's unacceptable to people then the alternative is we can just dismiss the Io feat as something that can't be reasonably calced.
If that's unacceptable to people then the alternative is we can just dismiss the Io feat as something that can't be reasonably calced.
- 3,006
- 1,381
And how do we know how long the after images last? In fiction an after image can sometimes last only a short period of time even for an MFTL character while other times it can last really long even for a subsonic character.
Exactly what I've been saying
- 772
- 284
i see.
can't we say the shockwave's are frozen based on the images? or if not frozen, can't we scale it via scaling the distance one of the shockwave's move? we can find the speed of sound in IO and use it to find a timeframe?
- 31,398
- 27,689
No, we do not have enough evidence for them being frozen.
- 772
- 284
then we can use them to find how much an average shockwave move's?
because considering the colored page of IO. shockwaves size are close to each other. we can find the speed of sound in IO, then use it to compare them and find a timeframe. considering a shockwave goes around the size of garou. it would probably give something like 0.04 (guessing). would it be fine to do something like that?
because considering the colored page of IO. shockwaves size are close to each other. we can find the speed of sound in IO, then use it to compare them and find a timeframe. considering a shockwave goes around the size of garou. it would probably give something like 0.04 (guessing). would it be fine to do something like that?
Last edited:
- 772
- 284
why not though? apparently all of them are in the same page and the distance they move seems to be very close.
if it's not a problem, can you send me the thread pls? i would like to see the arguments for it.
also there is this page which seems to support it more
Last edited:
- 951
- 430
- Thread starter
- #58
I agree with DavidTPPM if the 1 second time frame is too much of a lowball. And we don't know any other time frames. Putting off this achievement until we know the exact time frame seems the most optimistic to me right now.
- 3,006
- 1,381
I don’t remember if there was a whole thread but multiple calc group members explained some reasons why it's wrong in the calc itself
That panel actually shows Garou and Saitama moving a comparable distance to the shockwave which, if anything, seems to contradict the idea that the shockwaves were frozen.
- 951
- 430
- Thread starter
- #60
I would like to review it again. Now we have a proposal is this thread
- Proposal 1: Use a 1 second time frame for immediate events and vary the distance.
- Proposal 2: Use the same 0.0013 second time frame, but change the distance.
- Proposal 3: Delete the calculation and wait until we receive confirmation of a suitable time frame.
- 31,398
- 27,689
Proposal 1 or 3 seems best to me.
- 13,228
- 21,044
We don't have to go with either of these, no
- 772
- 284
can i ask something? i'm not sure if it would work so... they are in IO. if we find the speed of sound there. can't we just compare the first shockwave and one of the shockwave's from the colored page then divide it with the speed of sound there. would it give an acceptable timeframe?
- 31,398
- 27,689
Well, we have to do something.
- 772
- 284
we might open another thread for the sneeze scaling. if it gets accepted. since saitama's sneeze after his growth is still massively inferior to their punches. and saitama&garou should have relative speed to their punches unlike sp^2 since the increase in velocity, we might choose an suitable timeframe based on the result?
- 31,398
- 27,689
Not a solution to this thread's issue though.
- 772
- 284
- 13,228
- 21,044
I agree, and I apologize for not being as proactive about this (got hit with the real life debuff and all), but I don’t agree with what you said being the only two options available
- 31,398
- 27,689
Okay, I'll rephrase it as those are the two most reasonable options to me so far. I'm open to considering any other practical alternatives.
- 15,680
- 13,180
Well, in theory we could calc the timeframe? But we'd need the width and length of the trails, given the bigger an object is, the quicker it'd need to be to leave an afterimage, among a bunch of other wacky stuff.
How long did it take the light trails to vanish in the other scene?
How long did it take the light trails to vanish in the other scene?
- 951
- 430
- Thread starter
- #72
Yes
- 951
- 430
- Thread starter
- #73
What we do know is Movement in the 0.1 second to 0.5 second time frame cannot create light trails. (or the light trail disappears first) and moving in the time frame of 0.0001 seconds to 0.0013 seconds, the light trail still appears and does not disappear.
- 20,541
- 17,454
Not without seeing the feat animated or the 13 ms figure.
Well other than like, the sneeze scaling I guess, but that only applies to post-amp Saitama/Garou.
- 15,680
- 13,180
Well, 0.1 might work, better than nothing. That's like a ch before the light fuckery too so pretty safe to say at 0.1, light stuff ain't possible or it vanishes in that timeframe, and given the feat in question had them across the moon without vanishing...
- 951
- 430
- Thread starter
- #76
Ok I'll create a 4th option and add your name for those who agree with the 0.1 second time frame.
Second22
They/Them- 1,384
- 721
If there are no other numbers or standard figures for afterimages, 0.1 seconds is considered the best option for me. 1 second is too long a timeframe for the trailing light streaks to persist anyway. To give a simple example, if a normal human runs at a speed of 10 m/s, there's no way they would leave an afterimage in the position 10 meters behind where they were running before.
Even if it's just one panel, we should consider the feat that the character is performing in that scene. Saitama creating afterimages or light streaks clearly indicates a very short timeframe. The one panel we see is not just a feat that shows the character's movement. Even if 0.1 seconds isn't applicable, 0.2 seconds is still better when considering normal human reaction times.
Even if it's just one panel, we should consider the feat that the character is performing in that scene. Saitama creating afterimages or light streaks clearly indicates a very short timeframe. The one panel we see is not just a feat that shows the character's movement. Even if 0.1 seconds isn't applicable, 0.2 seconds is still better when considering normal human reaction times.
- 3,006
- 1,381
We don't how the light trails are generated at all and this time frame doesn't make any sense in general. Saitama isn't moving the same distance as Garou was in that scene in that time frame.
In other words, even if the time frame was 1 second Saitama would still move a LOT larger distance in less time than Garou did in the 0.1 second feat you mentioned. Hell given that the 1 second calc gives us 2c results while the PS calc gives us 4c with a timeframe of 13 milliseconds, that means Saitama is still moving the same distance as that feat but in around 26 milliseconds. Which while wrong based on in-universe scaling, is not illogical while separated
I feel like saying "moving at hypersonic speeds didn't create light trails so moving at ftl speeds shouldn't either unless it happened in a shorter timeframe" doesn't make any sense at all.
Yeah, the problem is that Saitamas Io feat covers FAR larger range. You're focusing on the timeframe difference while ignoring the enormous distance difference
- 772
- 284
why though? we know this sneeze scales lower than their punches before the amp in any way. wouldn't it be fine to give them the scaling before amp?
- 951
- 430
- Thread starter
- #80
I know that. I'm just trying to offer one more option, but to me option 3 always looks the best.
- Status
Similar threads
