Saitama and Garou tier 3 changes

[Bernkastelll]

As we can see, both Garou and Sanfona are 4-A, possibly 3-C because "matched Saitama's Serious Punch in a collision that caused countless stars to disappear, leaving behind a massive void in space, with the damage potentially extending out for intergalactic distances, given that galaxies are clearly depicted on other panels[4]"

but if the damage extended for intergalatic distances, by the sheer size alone, it is clearly more than a single galaxy, so, why are they 4-A, possibly 3-C instead of 4-A, possibly 3-B?

possibly multi-galaxy is more likely than just "galaxy", because if we acknowledge that the damage extended for intergalatic distances, the damage is clearly much higher than 3-C

 

[darkphantom9805]

No point of this the site is goofy and thinks anything past multi Solar is an outlier for the verse

 

[Bernkastelll]

No point of this the site is goofy and thinks anything past multi Solar is an outlier for the verse

Well, i don't think they think it is an outlier for the verse since Saitama's peak strength wasn't shown until this fight

 

[GarrixianXD]

The calculation only yielded 3-C.

Serious Punch Squared Recalc

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

Good, because we haven't seen any galaxies being obliterated, but I'm fine with them being 3-B (as long as there's evidence)

 

[Alexander]

Good, because we haven't seen any galaxies being obliterated, but I'm fine with them being 3-B (as long as there's evidence)

that is not specific at all, you only see lights being oblitered, the lights in the sky can also be galaxies

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

that is not specific at all, you only see lights being oblitered, the lights in the sky can also be galaxies

Don't you think we've already tried? This was clearly not accepted, but rather that 3-C is possible, which is more than fine with me.

 

[Farfetchedx]

Well there was a 3-B calc

The Ominous Future vs The Fist That Has Turned Against God

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Qawsedf234]

Well there was a 3-B calc

The calc made the same mistake as the last one, where it's assuming an omnidirectional explosion and not a beam at <45 degree angle. The surface area and therefore the total energy is inflated because of it. The feat is 4-A/3-C because it only covered a sector area rather than a general sphere.

The 3-C end for example still assumes they destroyed a star in another galaxy.

 

[Alexander]

The calc made the same mistake as the last one, where it's assuming an omnidirectional explosion and not a beam at <45 degree angle. The surface area and therefore the total energy is inflated because of it. The feat is 4-A/3-C because it only covered a sector area rather than a general sphere.

The 3-C end for example still assumes they destroyed a star in another galaxy.

a star in another galaxy? For that reason, should it be another galaxy directly?

 

[Qawsedf234]

a star in another galaxy? For that reason, should it be another galaxy directly?

There's not really a thing for a galatic GBE since its mostly just the Supermassive Black Hole attracting stuff. For the rating, as stated on the page, the assumption is an omnidirectional explosion that destroys both galaxies entirely

Multi-Galaxy level: Instead of doubling the value of Galaxy level, the distance between two galaxies needs to be accounted for as well. The calculation for energy required to destroy two galaxies was done with the assumptions:

• Distance between them as the minimum distance between Milky Way Galaxy and the next closest similar-sized galaxy, the Andromeda galaxy.
• A spherical blast, strong enough to obliterate the contents of both galaxies at the same time.

Hence, the value obtained is the energy required to destroy two galaxies at a realistic distance.

Because it's a single directional beam it would have to cover multiple galactic distances to get 3-B or explicitly destroy multiple galaxies in the beam wave.

 

[Lord_Farquaad69420]

No point of this the site is goofy and thinks anything past multi Solar is an outlier for the verse

mate your the guy who said goku loses to saitama unironically.......

 

[Lord_Farquaad69420]

Also disagree, the calc for multi-galaxy is omnidirectional, which the new calc avoids last I checked

 

[Alexander]

There's not really a thing for a galatic GBE since its mostly just the Supermassive Black Hole attracting stuff. For the rating, as stated on the page, the assumption is an omnidirectional explosion that destroys both galaxies entirely

it is not a supermassive black hole atracting stuff, is a blast that destroys stuff

 

[Passersby]

that caused countless stars to disappear, l

...uhh, is that how it works?

the light coming from several light years away won't excatly poof out of existence just because a high energy beam was shot in their general direction

is there even a single shred of evidence those stars were destroyed?

 

[King_Gorilla4002-8922]

...uhh, is that how it works?

the light coming from several light years away won't excatly poof out of existence just because a high energy beam was shot in their general direction

is there even a single shred of evidence those stars were destroyed?

What assumption do you suggest then? that the energy beam turned off the star switch?

 

[Passersby]

What assumption do you suggest then? that the energy beam turned off the star switch?

idk, the orginal suggestion doesn't make sens either ways

 

[Qawsedf234]

it is not a supermassive black hole atracting stuff, is a blast that destroys stuff

What I mean is that there's no GBE for a galaxy. It's not a uniform piece of matter so there's no figure you can get from it. It's just blowing up a star from a distance.

 

[Vlova]

As we can see, both Garou and Sanfona are 4-A, possibly 3-C because "matched

but if the damage extended for intergalatic distances, by the sheer size alone, it is clearly more than a single galaxy, so, why are they 4-A, possibly 3-C instead of 4-A, possibly 3-B?

possibly multi-galaxy is more likely than just "galaxy", because if we acknowledge that the damage extended for intergalatic distances, the damage is clearly much higher than 3-C

I don't see any galaxies there

 

[Vlova]

bu hiç spesifik değil, sadece ışıkların söndüğünü görüyorsunuz, gökyüzündeki ışıklar da galaksiler olabilir

Yıldızlarda veya gezegenlerde olabilir kesin bir olay yoktur

 

[Bernkastelll]

I don't see any galaxies there

there's a lot of galaxies in the background of the fight

Yıldızlarda veya gezegenlerde olabilir kesin bir olay yoktur

hushafy vonaks y baraki xorosklir basonla fasera

 

[AguilaR202]

there's a lot of galaxies in the background of the fight

hushafy vonaks y baraki xorosklir basonla fasera

But not exactly within the panel showing the destruction.

Also multigalaxy has a very weak argument, if the mangaka can draw clear spiral galaxies later in the fight why wouldn’t he draw some in the background of of the SP^2 scene? Its
Like he never intended to portray galaxy being destroyed there.

 

[Vlova]

Dövüşün arka planında birçok galaksi var

I didn't see any galaxies there

 

[GarrixianXD]

If y’all want to continue this discussion then best if y’all talk in English.

 

[Alexander]

If y’all want to continue this discussion then best if y’all talk in English.

yes, thanks

 

[Golden_Void]

Following. The hole they left in space is multiple times bigger than the smallest distant galaxy shown in any of the panels.=, calcs aside. Just by looks alone that should yield a "possibly"

 

[Passersby]

the assumption that anything was actually destroyed is based on faulty logic since it kinda ignores how light works, and it also isn't backed by a single shred of evidence, just saying

and forget even about "possibly" destroying galaxies part, the beam is far too small to make any noticeable dent in even the smallest of galaxies let alone actually destroying one

 

[Golden_Void]

"Ignoring how light works" isn't an argument when you have MFTL+ death beams engulfing millions of stars created by the kinetic energy of two punches. Unless the reader and verse should die waiting for light to properly reflect over several million, if not billion light years.

Also, Jupiter is only 5AU from Earth. That is to say, basically, the same amount of space (when looking at other stars) will generally be just as visible from Earth as it is from Jupiter. That being said, when you align the evidence, how is that not multiple galactic distances? One is from the viewpoint of a person on the moon, another is from the viewpoint of a planet shown small in scale to the background.

 

[Qawsedf234]

, when you align the evidence, how is that not multiple galactic distances?

Because we aren't told or shown and when the hole itself is repaired we see zero galaxies where the void used to be.

Also the 3-C end does assume an intergalactic distance. It's just that since it's a beam and not a sphere it doesn't get the absurd surface area that 3-B requires.

 

[Recon1511]

"Ignoring how light works" isn't an argument when you have MFTL+ death beams engulfing millions of stars created by the kinetic energy of two punches. Unless the reader and verse should die waiting for light to properly reflect over several million, if not billion light years.

Also, Jupiter is only 5AU from Earth. That is to say, basically, the same amount of space (when looking at other stars) will generally be just as visible from Earth as it is from Jupiter. That being said, when you align the evidence, how is that not multiple galactic distances? One is from the viewpoint of a person on the moon, another is from the viewpoint of a planet shown small in scale to the background.

Uhh but you see they actually punched away the photons bro!!1!1111

 

[JustANormalPerson01]

"Ignoring how light works" isn't an argument when you have MFTL+ death beams engulfing millions of stars created by the kinetic energy of two punches. Unless the reader and verse should die waiting for light to properly reflect over several million, if not billion light years.

Also, Jupiter is only 5AU from Earth. That is to say, basically, the same amount of space (when looking at other stars) will generally be just as visible from Earth as it is from Jupiter. That being said, when you align the evidence, how is that not multiple galactic distances? One is from the viewpoint of a person on the moon, another is from the viewpoint of a planet shown small in scale to the background.

I want to add that there explicitely is an explosion-like boom sound effect after the attack was made, along with what seems to be particles of something? But that's more like stretching it, and right a panel after we see the hole in space. So the attack definitely destroyed something

 

[Golden_Void]

Because we aren't told or shown and when thee hold is repaired we see zero galaxies where the void used to be.

Also the 3-C end does assume an intergalactic distance. It's just that since it's a beam and not a sphere it doesn't get the absurd surface area that 3-B requires.

Except we see several galaxies on panel drawn as no more than 10-20x wider than the smallest visible star. And like you said, galaxies don't have GBE as individual objects. So even if there were galaxies drawn on that page, they would've been wiped out just from viewing the sheer size distance of the hole that resulted vs how big the galaxies are in comparison to stars.

As far as omnidirectional, there was a boom after their blast went off into space, which implies an explosion. It didn't just continue endlessly in one direction and eventually die off. If omnidirectional is just in reference to the inverse square law where the point energy would be stronger than the energy at X distance when engulfed and destroyed two galaxies, then the resulting beam from their clash would be functionally the same as that stronger point energy, would it not?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Except we see several galaxies on panel drawn as no more than 10-20x wider than the smallest visible star. And like you said, galaxies don't have GBE as individual objects. So even if there were galaxies drawn on that page, they would've been wiped out just from viewing the sheer size distance of the hole that resulted vs how big the galaxies are in comparison to stars.

I don't think you're understanding how the calc is working. To quote the Andromeda section

Andromeda Galaxy End
Distance from Earth to Andromeda = 2.4030255e+22 meters
AngSize Calculator = 1.9907e+22 meters
1.9907e+22 / 2 = 9.9535e+21 meters
Sector Area = 3.8905547e+43 meters^2
5.693e+41 * (3.8905547e+43 / 3.0438995e+18) = 7.27649e+66 Joules (3-C)
7.27649e+66 Joules / 2 (Saitama + Garou) = 3.638245e+66 Joules (3-C)

I bold the 1.9907e+22 meter point because that's the diameter of the giant circle the beam would've made.

The diameter of Andromeda Golden is 152,000 light-years or 1.438031e+21 meters. The calc is literally assuming the entire galaxy was demolished in the beam already. My point is that in order for the beam to get 3-B you have to assume it covered galatic distances far outside the realm of standard assumptions at like 4 million lightyears or greater.

As far as an omnidirectional, there was a boom after their blast went off into space, which implies an explosion.

A boom just means an explosion. We see the Blast crew compress the angle of the blast until it becomes a cone that shoots outwards. It's not omnidirectional which is why it had to be rrecalled.

then the resulting beam from their clash would be functionally the same as that stronger point energy, would it not?

No, because the total energy volume would be the same, which would be changed is the vector and intensity of direction. Putting your finger on a water hose doesn't increase or decrease the amount of water, you just cause a pressure increase which makes the water shoot further out. It's the same principle but with a energy blast.

 

[Golden_Void]

I don't think you're understanding how the calc is working. To quote the Andromeda section

I bold the 1.9907e+22 meter point because that's the diameter of the giant circle the beam would've made.

The diameter of Andromeda Golden is 152,000 light-years or 1.438031e+21 meters. The calc is literally assuming the entire galaxy was demolished in the beam already.

I never looked at the calcs. The implication of the calculation is that giant hole that was created was only the diameter of a single galaxy (if I'm understanding correctly), when in the panel there are several galaxies that can be clearly made out in the same panel. It is based on Andromeda being visible from Earth/Space. That either means those galaxies are way bigger than Andromeda, or way closer.

A boom just means an explosion. We see the Blast crew compress the angle of the blast until it becomes a cone that shoots outwards. It's not omnidirectional which is why it had to be recalced.

Yes, a cone smaller than Earth at its origin shooting outwards until it explodes and the resulting space is missing. Your post reads to me that the beam itself eventually grew to be multiple stellar distances wide, which is not shown. That detail would be the determining factor of what the calc is based on.

 

[Golden_Void]

I understand completely what you mean as far as omnidirectional, andromeda/milk way etc, my argument is that conflicts with what is on the pages. For example, the distance between the milky way and andromeda is 2.5 million LY, and the distance between the average galaxy is nearly 10 million LY, and we see on panel that the resulting explosion destroys the space/length of several galaxies if they were to be visible.

 

[Qawsedf234]

The implication of the calculation is that giant hole that was created was only the diameter of a single galaxy (if I'm understanding correctly),

It's 10x the diameter of a galaxy. It's much bigger.

when in the panel there are several galaxies that can be clearly made out in the same

No there's not. The panel when it's restored only shows stars that Murata usually draws. You can't simultaneously say that Murata draws galaxies in space and then claim the stars he draws are also actually galaxies. If he wanted them to be galaxies he would've drawn them in his usually galaxy style as he did in plenty of other scenes. It's why the assumption was just that the beam went to Andromeda in that version.

Even if it was multiple galaxies Andromeda would still be the only acceptable end because there's dwarf galaxies between the Milky Way and Andromeda.

Yes, a cone smaller than Earth at its origin shooting outwards until it explodes and the resulting space is missing.

A cone expands outwards until it reaches its base, as shown here. It starting small is irrelevant to its final size at the base of the beam.

The only way to get 3-B is that the beam flew multiple galactic distances and then explodes which destroyed different galaxies. Which isn't backed by the scene at all. Remember the beam isn't a actual beam, but it's the already generated explosion form the Serious Punch Clash being redirected. An explosion can't explode twice.

panel that the resulting explosion destroys the space of several galaxies if they were to be visible.

We see on panel that the beam fired in a direction and destroyed things. We have no indication that it flew 10 million lightyears and then made a spherical explosion. If anything that would go against the giant hole in space since that would mean the stars in front of those galaxies would still be visible.

 

[Golden_Void]

It's 10x the diameter of a galaxy. It's much bigger.

A cone expands outwards until it reaches its base, as shown here. It starting small is irrelevant to its final size at the base of the beam.

I see, it can be visually 3-B and only be 3-C. But the end result of the cone as you describe it would be ~21 times bigger than the diameter of the milk way, which is only about ~4x short of 3-B before accounting for their exponential increases. It seems fine to include a possibly 3-B the same way we're including two possible ends of the same calculation as justifications for all the ratings between Garou/Saitama.

The only way to get 3-B is that the beam flew multiple galactic distances and then explodes which destroyed different galaxies. Which isn't backed by the scene at all. Remember the beam isn't a actual beam, but it's the already generated explosion form the Serious Punch Clash being redirected. An explosion can't explode twice.


We see on panel that the beam fired in a direction and destroyed things. We have no indication that it flew 10 million lightyears and then made a spherical explosion. If anything that would go against the giant hole in space since that would mean the stars in front of those galaxies would still be visible.

I think an energy beam heading in one direction will continue to expand until it runs out of energy, and then dissipate. An omnidirectional explosion with light expanding in all directions is clear to me, even though what should happen should be completely different.

 

[Qawsedf234]

It seems fine to include a possibly 3-B the same way we're including two possible ends of the same calculation as justifications for all the ratings between Garou/Saitama.

Eventually Saitama would've got there, but I'm not really seeing it a valid justification to give them at the moment. A 4x difference is to large to upscale and we account for it anyway in the OPM limiter page.

 

[Wesker018]

I don't know why I feel like this discussion will become obsolete in the next chapters

 

[Qawsedf234]

We can close and just wait for the arc to finish if that's what the OP wants.