Verse-Wide Katekyo Hitman Reborn Downgrades

[Expectro2000xxx]

“Nature that is so attractive” isn’t even the argument it was to lay up for the mountain argument so I don’t know how you think that’s an actual argument.

Again, mount Fuji is considered a very beautiful and iconic mountain despite being a volcano.

Again When it’s an unnatural event( For Mountains that do not contain any lava) Speed/ Volume can be different when you are comparing it to natural occurring phenomenons. I again said it can be recalculated if it must but it should be recalculated under the assumption that it isn’t a natural volcano and limiting it to such

Alright, good, then please provide the proof that supports the eruption having a speed of 25145.3m/s, so double the escape velocity of earth, and the justification as to why it wasn't shown or mentioned the absurdly impressive event of the lava reaching space, I'm all ears.

 

[Majinere566]

Again, mount Fuji is considered a very beautiful and iconic mountain despite being a volcano.

You are literally comparing Mount Fuji, a dormant volcano to random mountains. I genuinely don’t know why you’re stressing this entire point because I decided to use what is said in the manga to leeway to my actual point.

Alright, good, then please provide the proof that supports the eruption having a speed of 25145.3m/s, so double the escape velocity of earth, and the justification as to why it wasn't shown or mentioned the absurdly impressive event of the lava reaching space, I'm all ears.

I verbatim said that it should be recalculated for better accuracy. I only said that it should not be limited to natural phenomenons because “the strongest volcanic eruption was _ strong or _ fast”. Or unless you want to tell the average mountains contains lava ready for eruptions at any given time?

 

[Tetsuya1029]

There are consistent Tier 7 feats, but literally no Tier 5 or even Tier 6 feats other than this one. That is pretty much by definition an outlier.

And I think black hole feats are extremely unreliable anyway, since by nature they will always be vastly inflated from what we are actually shown. I get that DC =/= AP, but black holes are unreliable since they are a fairly common thing in fantasy that shouldn't by default come with the assumption that the author intends that to mean that every character can blow up planets now.

Well, like I stated, contextually, it checks out. Do people need to show another tier 7 feat afterward for a feat to be valid? Why can't a feat be valid by itself? When people say "outlier," they think of a bunch of data points with one sticking way out. But what we are talking about here is linear progression. They gradually grow stronger and stronger and when graphed, this would be the highest and most current feat. That isn't an outlier, that graph would show exponential growth. I also think black holes are a case-by-case thing. Attacks named "Black Hole Attack" or "Hole that is Black" and they're just some weird sphere being thrown at an opponent, I'd chalk that up to a name fallacy, but when they take the time to go through and explain how a black hole is made and show it happen, well that's clear what the author is trying to depict and convey.

This is what people think of when an outlier is called. The difference is, where the outlier occurred, the progression afterward shows another pattern. In this case, There isn't any linear progression afterwards to call it an outlier. Its called growth in this instance.

 

[Expectro2000xxx]

You are literally comparing Mount Fuji, a dormant volcano to random mountains. I genuinely don’t know why you’re stressing this entire point because I decided to use what is said in the manga to leeway to my actual point.


I verbatim said that it should be recalculated for better accuracy. I only said that it should not be limited to natural phenomenons because “the strongest volcanic eruption was _ strong or _ fast”. Or unless you want to tell the average mountains contains lava ready for eruptions at any given time?

Because you are trying to use that as an argument to defend a calc that assumes that lava was ejected at 25145.3m/s, so 2x faster than escape velocity and far faster than any other volcano calc in the wiki as far I could find. But alright, you are arguing that it looks like a mountain range so I'm going to change my example to, say the Hakkōda Mountains, which are collectively considered among the 100 most famous Japanese mountains so chances are the author is aware that volcanoes can exist in close groups, unlike you who seems to assume that they can only be stand-alone mountains instead of volcanic groups. Also, in case you didn't know, through volcanic eruptions tons of rock are also ejected, so the bits of rock you marked don't mean what you argue they do. Your argument has honestly zero strength, and is a baseless claim to try to justify a ridiculously wrong calc through the use of faulty logic.

It can be absolutely limited by natural phenomena if the calc use faulty logic, like, again, assume such a massive speed in a why that a mass lower than the biggest volcanic eruptions gives results hundreds of times higher. Common sense and logic are the basis of calculations, so even if fiction can take some liberties you can't just ignore irl science when trying to calculate feats, if you go that route you may as well argue that what doesn't look and behave like blackholes are indeed black holes but wait, you also actually believe that (as you disagree with the 5-A downgrade) so I guess it's no wonder why you would have such a take with this stuff.

 

[ObberGobb]

Well, like I stated, contextually, it checks out. Do people need to show another tier 7 feat afterward for a feat to be valid? Why can't a feat be valid by itself? When people say "outlier," they think of a bunch of data points with one sticking way out. But what we are talking about here is linear progression. They gradually grow stronger and stronger and when graphed, this would be the highest and most current feat. That isn't an outlier, that graph would show exponential growth. I also think black holes are a case-by-case thing. Attacks named "Black Hole Attack" or "Hole that is Black" and they're just some weird sphere being thrown at an opponent, I'd chalk that up to a name fallacy, but when they take the time to go through and explain how a black hole is made and show it happen, well that's clear what the author is trying to depict and convey.

This is what people think of when an outlier is called. The difference is, where the outlier occurred, the progression afterward shows another pattern. In this case, There isn't any linear progression afterwards to call it an outlier. Its called growth in this instance.

But it's not really linear progression. We are explicitly told that Enma only becomes 7x stronger, not quadrillions of times stronger. And then immediately after this incredibly vague and indirectly "Tier 5" feat, nothing is ever shown or implied to be near that level again.

Based on the standards of the wiki, it is absolutely a outlier. And again, it is Tier 5 not by any virtue of what is actually shown or stated in the series, but by applying real-word logic to fictional magic black holes that don't line up with irl black holes at all.

 

[Majinere566]

Because you are trying to use that as an argument to defend a calc that assumes that lava was ejected at 25145.3m/s, so 2x faster than escape velocity and far faster than any other volcano calc in the wiki as far I could find.

Man.


First of all, From the get go I said this

Let me start with the 6-C stuff actually, I don't completely agree with you on most of the argument made, I can only agree that it probably needs to be recalced. First of all you're under the assumption that it was a volcano in the first place

1. I never explictiy defended the calculation's entirety. As I already Bolded, I stated from the get go that IT PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE RECALCED.

But alright, you are arguing that it looks like a mountain range so I'm going to change my example to, say the Hakkōda Mountains, which are collectively considered among the 100 most famous Japanese mountains so chances are the author is aware that volcanoes can exist in close groups, unlike you who seems to assume that they can only be stand-alone mountains instead of volcanic groups. Also, in case you didn't know, through volcanic eruptions tons of rock are also ejected, so the bits of rock you marked don't mean what you argue they do. Your argument has honestly zero strength, and is a baseless claim to try to justify a ridiculously wrong calc through the use of faulty logic.

2. I never once asserted that they can only be stand-alone mountains let alone Volcanic Groups stop strawmaning my point. According to the wikipedia you linked the hakkoda mountain ranges are classified as a Stratovolcanoes which according to Brittania have craters at the vent. And as far as i am concerned I don't see any form of crater at the top of the mountains provided.

Your Arguments have been mostly about misundertstanding where i stand with the usage of the calc, I stated before it can be recalcaluted, I never once defended its "absured mass" or "impossible speed" All i asserted was that the OP was under the assumption it was a regular volcano and I claimed that it was a regular mountain range.

 

[Expectro2000xxx]

The op argument relied in the impossibility one the absurdity of something with 8x less mass being 743x more powerful, and so the calc was wrong and needed to be redone. I then pointed out that the reason for the massive result is the ridiculous speed assumed for the feat, then I pointed out the speed of real examples of volcanic eruptions to use for the speed due to a lack of timeframe from which to get a speed (as well as point out a more reliable way to calculate volcanic eruptions). Then you began to argue against the downgrade with an argument that essentially boiled down to "it was a fictional eruption so it can't be compared with irl eruptions" based on the fact that "they looked like mountains (specifically looked like a mountain range, despite the fact that volcanoes can also be grouped like mountain ranges)" using as evidence "mountain tops being blown off (showing just small bits or rock in the eruption, despite the fact that I pointed out how real eruptions send tonnes of rock flying)", and now that I refuted those points with evidence of irl examples you go "I don't see craters so they clearly are normal mountains (essentially if I don't see it it doesn't exist)" to which I would like to ask you if see any crater in the image of the wiki page of the Hakkōda Mountains because I certainly don't see anything like that (does that mean that they are just normal mountains instead of volcanoes?) but I won't ask you that because I sincerely believe is a waste of time as you clearly don't want to recognize that you were in the wrong and complained just for complaining. I also asked you to provide evidence of how, going with your narrative of them being normal mountains, the numbers of the calculation would be affected in a significant way that could make it far above the eruptions of real volcanoes (as you argue that they clearly can't be compared), and your only response was just "it can" without further elaboration, so you lack both the evidence that it would affect the result of the calculation and an explanation of how much it can affect it, so effectively you contributed zero things to the debate of how to make a more accurate calculation of the feat that is valid to use.

This is my last post in regard to you, as this discussion is clearly pointless.

 

[Aernasilver]

I think it would be best to ask a CGM to have a second look at that calc or do a recalc instead of going back and forth.

Other than that the Planet level thing is dubious and the Black Hole stuff still violates the standards.