Random Comments

Originally posted by Astner
It's always entertaining to see poor old Mike show of his ineptitude by applying Newtonian physics to circumstances where they demonstrably do not apply.

Reminds me of the good old days.

No one is ever going to deserve my hand in a relationship.

I'm going to live a bitter, cynical life because of how snobby people are, and how ****ed up society is. I'll be a successful, law-abiding sociopath. My repressed need for companionship will be strangled by my rage, my discipline and denial of personal desires will make me further absorbed into my career to the point of maniacal obsession. I won't really care about what's going on around me anymore.

That is apparently all God ever wanted out of me, or society, or both.

There is a serenity in living in la-la land. My skills will develop to the point of me having paradigm-shifting epiphanies if I'm working a scientific field. I'm in a catatonic-state, my schizophrenia enclosed to conceptualizing the work I'll be doing. Literally, no dopamine will be left for me to consider myself or those around me. I won't care. I don't care. I don't want to be here anymore. I don't like how cold everyone is, how fake everyone is, I don't like how the societal machine deprograms its citizens. Desensitizes and brainwashes people so that I can no longer relate to them, and they can no longer relate to each other.

Originally posted by Oneness
In a way my calculation demystified the stigma of comic book feat-calculation. It is stated in that very same panel that The Flash was going just under the speed of light. Even if he only made, say; 75,000 trips; that's 75,000 x 35 miles covered in a millisecond. Light doesn't even come close to that.

Originally posted by Oneness
In a way my calculation demystified the stigma of comic book feat-calculation. It is stated in that very same panel that The Flash was going just under the speed of light. Even if he only made, say; 75,000 trips; that's 75,000 x 35 miles covered in a millisecond. Light doesn't even come close to that.

Take what the author gives you—"at a hair's breath short of the speed of light..."—and move on.

Originally posted by Oneness
In a way my calculation demystified the stigma of comic book feat-calculation.

That sentence is meaningless.

Originally posted by Astner
Not quite. The feat itself isn't quantifiable in the standard model of physics, so whatever value you mange to pump out is meaningless.

Take what the author gives you—"at a hair's breath short of the speed of light..."—and move on.

You know, comic books don't have to abide by real life physics, in fact they mostly don't.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You know, comic books don't have to abide by real life physics, in fact they mostly don't.

The point was that if you intend to use a certain model of physics it has to apply. Newtonian physics only yields good approximations when you're dealing with velocities that are an order of magnitude less than c, and the standard model breaks down as you approach c and doesn't account for superluminal travel.

So not only is the approach wrong, it's also not a quantifiable feat.

On top of all that it's pretty clear that the author messed up, so to use it to gauge the Flash's speed is silly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That sentence is meaningless.

So, "In a way, my calculation invalidated the applicability of comic book feat-calculations in general."

Originally posted by Astner
Not quite. The feat itself isn't quantifiable in the standard model of physics, so whatever value you mange to pump out is meaningless.

Take what the author gives you—"at a hair's breath short of the speed of light..."—and move on.

Yet, mathematically, I calculated the approximate speed he'd need to be moving at to pull it off. It is above light no matter how you slice it. I mean, they gave everything we needed to do this approximately, they gave the approximate distance he covered and the approximate time (to do this between detonation and the fireball's expansion) in which he covered it. Light simply does not move at a fraction of a percent of the rate required to cover that kind of distance in that amount of time.

Now, mathematically, we don't have enough information to know the exact speed he traveled at. He made a 35 mile trip close to a million times.

Originally posted by Oneness
Not quite, I calculated the approximate speed he'd need to be moving at to pull it off.

Originally posted by Astner
I'm fully aware of that, but that wasn't the point.

The point was that if you intend to use a certain model of physics it has to apply. Newtonian physics only yields good approximations when you're dealing with velocities that are an order of magnitude less than c, and the standard model breaks down as you approach c and doesn't account for superluminal travel.

So not only is the approach wrong, it's also not a quantifiable feat.

On top of all that it's pretty clear that the author messed up, so to use it to gauge the Flash's speed is silly.

Hmm, well, that's fair, I misunderstood what you were going for.

I also completely agree with the last sentence, that's what I would focus on as well. Obviously there was no thought put into the numbers, they were just meant to sound cool.

Originally posted by Oneness
It does if you replace "demystified" with "invalidated" and "stigma" with "applicability", make "feat-calculation" plural by adding an s, and then adding an "in general" at the end of the sentence.

So, "In a way, my calculation invalidated the applicability of comic book feat-calculations in general."

Yes, that sentence now makes sense. And I agree with it.

Originally posted by Oneness
Yet, mathematically, I calculated the approximate speed he'd need to be moving at to pull it off. It is above light no matter how you slice it.

I think the issue is that your calculations only work if newtonian formulas would be uniformly applicable far beyond the speed of light, which is not true.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think the issue is that your calculations only work if newtonian formulas would be uniformly applicable far beyond the speed of light, which is not true.

The formula you used was speed = distance / time, had you not used units then maybe. But you did, and this formula is an approximation and not applicable when talking about anything going faster than the speed of light, whatever that means.

Actually he's right, v = d/t is just a definition where v can be any real number.

Originally posted by Astner
Actually he's right, v = d/t is just a definition where v can be any real number.

Hence why I said it's not applicable, not "it can't be done".

Originally posted by Bardock42
The formula you used was speed = distance / time, had you not used units then maybe. But you did, and this formula is an approximation and not applicable when talking about anything going faster than the speed of light, whatever that means.

Ahh peacocking my old friend U make me laugh

Originally posted by Oneness
I never said anything was going faster than the speed of light. That's just what the formula churned out. That's the bare minimum requirement to do what the Flash did. If there was someone who could effect the laws of thermodynamics relative to his person, our understanding of physics is out and more simple maths will be more reliable. That simple algebraic formula works to a very rough approximation, but one that clearly indicates velocities trillions of times greater than c, actually.

He's stating you can't use that equation because it's merely an approximation for velocities much, much less than the speed of light. It is not accurate for relativistic speeds. You need to consider special relativity. srug

Originally posted by AbnormalButSane
He's stating you can't use that equation because it's merely an approximation for velocities much, much less than the speed of light. It is not accurate for relativistic speeds. You need to consider special relativity. srug

We apply special equations for superluminal motion and their effects. We don't apply special formulaic equations for superluminal objects, just to determine that they're superluminal objects. That doesn't make any sense, we wouldn't have known they were superluminal to apply the equation in the first place. lol!

What you two aren't understanding, apparently, is that it's a measurement of the speed of an object. We've measured the speed of tachyons to be superluminal as well.

Originally posted by Oneness
You obviously don't understand simple math, then.

You're trying to get velocity, there's no speed limit on velocity other than what the equation churns out.

We're not saying anything about relativity. Obviously, if goes from here to here in this amount of time, it doesn't even apply to him because light lacks sufficient speed to go from there to there in that amount of time.

I'm just telling you how physics actually works. srug

Originally posted by AbnormalButSane
I'm just telling you how physics actually works. srug

Okay, how would we know an object is in superluminal motion to apply this special
"superluminal equation" in the first place if we didn't measure it as such? How do we know light's velocity in a vacuum, in an atmosphere, under water if measuring light's speed required a special equation that didn't exist before we knew light's speed?

You can't tell me that which you aren't comprehending because you want to sound smart. That's psuedo-intellectualism. You don't actually know what you're talking about, but Bardock seems like he's more knowledgeable than me based on your subjective of our argument. However, I was right, as Astner said. The equation for velocity does not have any stipulations on macroscopic objects, that's a rule of relativity and if it were true in all instances than there's no way the Flash would have been able to do what he did, contrary to the author's guesstimate. He didn't plug in the equation.