-
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.
STRONGEST One-Punch Man Discussion Thread!
- Thread starter Phoenks
- Start date
- 56
- 93
You theOkay, it wasn't as hard as I thought
Saitama and Garou are hurting the cosmos
vsbattles.fandom.com
for this.
- 3,069
- 1,659
Saitama and Garou are hurting the cosmos
vsbattles.fandom.com
I added a serious table flip
- 360
- 239
Rate this cool fanmade
- 3,069
- 1,659
OPM's calculations have some kind of curse. Every time we want to get a calculation of one level, we get one level more, but this is the most basic line.
The baseline of the Moon, Multi-continent, Country, and so on. And now the baseline of the Big Planet. It looks like Saitama's fate is to lose on this wiki until he gets a level+
The baseline of the Moon, Multi-continent, Country, and so on. And now the baseline of the Big Planet. It looks like Saitama's fate is to lose on this wiki until he gets a level+
- 2,509
- 2,112
Nice. But what about lifting strength?Saitama and Garou are hurting the cosmos
I added a serious table flip
- 13,903
- 5,405
Ok cool thanks
now time to ask 1000 more questions about cosmic garou
- 3,690
- 646
Are the shockwave speed calc can be use?Okay, it wasn't as hard as I thought
Saitama and Garou are hurting the cosmos
Spinoirr
He/Him- 16,145
- 9,110
Only the surface of io was lifted
USklaverei/sandboxGarouvsSaitama
- 3,069
- 1,659
Added
- 2,280
- 1,850
Because that energy has to travel the span of light years, decreasing in energy over that entire timeframe.
- 2,280
- 1,850
When Planet Level was considered Saitama wank.
- 2,509
- 2,112
Do you remember when we were thinking that Garou's feats might top at island level and we had to scale him to Boros?
- 2,619
- 544
4-A feats have to travel the span of light years too. Energy traveling the span of 16,000 light years is called being 4-A.
- 2,280
- 1,850
Actually not true. Galaxy level energy on this site is just calculated from the raw energy to destroy each thing in the galaxy, not accounting for the energy drop of over distance, at least to my knowledge.
- 15,449
- 15,859
- 2,280
- 1,850
- 2,619
- 544
Ok this is called moving the goal post. 11 milliom star systems destroyed should be labeled as multi solar system. If the yield comes up higher than what our current 4-A scale is, it would just increase the yield requirements for 4-A and above.
- 32,359
- 20,298
The reason the calcs are getting inflated numbers is because modern calculations in general use inflated methods while the AP Tiering parameters were established earlier.
- 2,280
- 1,850
You're the one moving the goalpost. The GBE of a galaxy is how much energy it would take to destroy one. It's not my fault that destroying 11 million stars 16,000 light years away happens to be greater than the GBE of an average galaxy. Blame the inverse square law.
You understand you are pretty much saying that if a character, from 200 miles away, levels a building with their punch's shockwave, that we should move their Multi City Block level feat down to Building Level, right?
- 32,359
- 20,298
Then maybe inverse square law isn't that accurate tbh
- 2,509
- 2,112
It is the opposite afaik. Galaxy level accounts for energy drop but destroying everything isn't necessity
- 1,738
- 842
Remember when people thought Boros was stronger than Garou just because Saitama massaged his ego before he died out of pity?
- 2,619
- 544
Dude it’s so simple why would we label and attack multi galaxy if it didn’t destroy multiple galaxies?
If the math on his calculation ends up being right, that would just mean stellar, interstellar and cosmic level feats would get upgraded.
- 19,355
- 16,976
for the 8th time
Yeah, I'm still making one. I'm just waiting for the fight to be over to post it. So far there are 5 calcs including Nik's new one.
- 2,280
- 1,850
Argue with the physical law that has built our entire understanding of astrophysics. Go ahead. You definitely know better than the hundreds of astrophysicists who have run hundreds of painstaicking experiments, and made thousands of acute observations that all support the inverse square law being a universal constant in our universe. The only thing the inverse square law doesn't apply to in terms of energy fall off is gravity.
I don't get the trend on this site where some people go "well maybe (insert objective fact grounded in hundreds of scientific papers) isn't accurate". Like wtf do you know? Show me your college degree, or write me a paper explaining why this constant of our universe doesn't exist, using experiments and observations. Put that through peer review, and then we'll talk.
- 2,619
- 544
It’s not about the math it’s about the label itself.
- 19,355
- 16,976
Not necessarily. In different shots in the same chapter we could clearly see galaxies, and even IRL, you would still be able to see at least 1 galaxy from where Garou and Saitama were. The fact that they made the entire area dark means that the destruction of galaxies is possible.
- 19,355
- 16,976
3-C, 3-C, 3-B. 4-A. 4-A
- 19,355
- 16,976
DTG said that galaxies weren't destroyed, which isn't entirely true. I never mentioned the calc.
- 2,280
- 1,850
And we do our tiers based on the energy released. You know, like a sane person. It just so happens this feat released more energy than destroying the galaxy.
- 22,383
- 18,589
I get your point, but my point is that they're only referring to the parameters of the calc.
- 2,619
- 544
This I can get behind. The point I’m trying to make is that the current calculation is labeling 11 million stars as multi galaxy.
- 2,619
- 544
Explain to me, in the most generous way possible, what you think my argument is?
