Originally posted by Jesse7
To bad its been proven he was going faster.How about I post some scans SS being hit by a thunder bolt from storm and narration stating it nearly killed him.
😆 why get your panties in a bunch about it saying he was going close to light speed and fanboys raoring about him going trillion of times light speed. LOL 🤣 🙄
And why take it out on surfer? 😕
Originally posted by Jesse7
To bad its been proven he was going faster.How about I post some scans SS being hit by a thunder bolt from storm and narration stating it nearly killed him.
Proven by what, your physics calculation? If you look carefully at previous responses to this you will see my argument to coutner this. I seem to remember you pulling out E=MC^2.
Yeah that doesn't work, and I refuse to type all that junk again.
Originally posted by Stupid Rookie
Proven by what, your physics calculation? If you look carefully at previous responses to this you will see my argument to coutner this. I seem to remember you pulling out E=MC^2.Yeah that doesn't work, and I refuse to type all that junk again.
I didn't use E=mc2 to explain Flash's speed feat, i used that during the time I tried to explain the impact his IMP punch would have traveling at twenty trillion times the speed of light with the mass of a exploding white dwarf star.
Originally posted by Jesse7
I didn't use E=mc2 to explain Flash's speed feat, i used that during the time I tried to explain the impact his IMP punch would have traveling at twenty trillion times the speed of light with the mass of a exploding white dwarf star.
Either way, how can it have relevance if E=MC^2 doesn't allow you to go faster than the speed of light?
Originally posted by Jesse7
Thats a theory, E=MC2 still functions fine with faster then the speed of light.Its never been proven that once you reach the speed of light you lose all mass.
You are right, it has not been proven, but you are taking a theory, of which a fundamental point is the inability to travel faster than ligth, and that mass decreases, and also lets not even get into the time factor.
The point is that you can't say it applies when you break major rules.
Originally posted by Stupid Rookie
You are right, it has not been proven, but you are taking a theory, of which a fundamental point is the inability to travel faster than ligth, and that mass decreases, and also lets not even get into the time factor.The point is that you can't say it applies when you break major rules.
Its not the point, I didnt use E=MC2 for the speed feat, my explination of the speed feat which I quoted in part, is fine and is not theory.
Originally posted by Mindship
[It is .00001 microseconds, not .0001 seconds. In other words, Flash did this, not in 1/10,000 of a second, but in 1/100,000,000,000 -- one-hundred-billionth -- of a second.
(Damn! For shame again for getting the speed-of-light wrong, too!)So...532,000 x 70 x 100,000,000,000 divided by 186,000 = (about)...
20 trillion times lightspeed.DC comics
Shame on you, then, for calling this "near-light travel." [/B]
Originally posted by Jesse7
Its not the point, I didnt use E=MC2 for the speed feat, my explination of the speed feat which I quoted in part, is fine and is not theory.
Fine fine, understood, but you still applied a theory on Energy to explain your point, when the theory states what you claim is not possible. Anyway, I am out so no more arguing from me. Have a good weekend Jesse
Why is it that the calcualtions were right and the phrase "near light speed' was wrong?
what about if "near light speed" was correct and the rest was wrong?
maybe near light speed is what the writter actually was going for.
I dont think he was going for trillions of times. that would sound stupid in his part
Originally posted by Stupid Rookie
Fine fine, understood, but you still applied a theory on Energy to explain your point, when the theory states what you claim is not possible. Anyway, I am out so no more arguing from me. Have a good weekend Jesse
Alrighty, I do understand what your saying though so no worries, have a good weekend! 🙂
Originally posted by Inhuman
Why is it that the calcualtions were right and the phrase "near light speed' was wrong?what about if near light speed was correct and the rest was wrong?
Why is that Silver surfers durability is right, and the phrase "nearly killed" was wrong?
what if the he was nearly killed is right and the rest was wrong?
Maybe silver surfer's durability being weak to physical impact being thrown at him is what the writter was going for.
I dont think Surfers durability can take nova explosions, that would sound stupid on his part.
Originally posted by Jesse7
Why is that Silver surfers durability is right, and the phrase "nearly killed" was wrong?what if the he was nearly killed is right and the rest was wrong?
Maybe silver surfer's durability being weak to physical items being thrown at him is what the writter was going for.
we are not talking about sufer.😬
The writter was most likely going for near light speed. I dont think he was going for the trillions thing. I dont think he would like to look like an idiot stating ridiculous feats like that.
Again he even stated "NEAR LIGHT SPEED". there it is in plain sight. quit ignoring it.
Originally posted by Inhuman
we are not talking about sufer.😬The writter was most likely going for near light speed. I dont think he was going for the trillions thing. I dont think he would like to look like an idiot stating ridiculous feats like that.
Again he even stated "NEAR LIGHT SPEED". there it is in plain sight. quit ignoring it.
This is a debate, your trying to downplay Flash's speed feat, and I am trying to show you the logic your using to come to your skewed conclusions.
Concerning the Silver Surfer's durability
The writter was most likely going for near death. I dont think SS can fly through sun. I dont think he would like to look an idiot stating rediculous feats like that
again he was stated "NEARLY KILLED" (by a brick being thrown at his head). there it is in plain sight. quite ignoring it.