Does flight speed equal combat speed

Originally posted by janus77
the petty attempts at diminishing Surfer's 100x FTL reactions are just laughable.

if any of their arguments were applied consistently across the board to other characters, no character would have any usable feats.

Surfer's established speeds are in excess of millions of times the speed of light, his range of vision is something like from one galaxy to another (iirc), thus to travel ANYWHERE at the speeds he is show ON-PANEL travelling at, he would need to be constantly taking in and processing information, because within hundredths of a second he would have passed the horizon of his vision before he set off.

it's is beyond argument, that Surfer possess 100x FTL reaction, processing and analysis abilities.

Yet it contradicts more than 50% of his appearances.
Also it is possible that before the trip SS calculates that he must travel at about X speed above C for 10 seconds then afterward he must slow down to maybe 5C for about 4 seconds and then afterward slow down to somewhere under C for 1 second. The entire trip takes him 15 secs and he has traveling many lightyears away.

Originally posted by h1a8
See the problem is that many are equating reflexes to time when they are not equal. Reflexes require both time and distance and not just time alone. Here's a paradox if one uses the term "nanosecond reflexes".

Originally posted by Mindship
"Millisecond" is the typical unit of measurement when testing reflex speed in the real world.

No it isn't. Battle reflexes is based off seeing motion. And motion implies displacement/distance. We are not talking about the reflexes when a Doctor hits you on the knee. We are talking about battle reflexes which require seeing and then responding.

Originally posted by h1a8
No it isn't. Battle reflexes is based off seeing motion. And motion implies displacement/distance. We are not talking about the reflexes when a Doctor hits you on the knee. We are talking about battle reflexes which require seeing and then responding.

As for battle reflexes: sounds like an h1a8 definition. It's certainly not real world; I'd be curious if you could find a comic-book definition which collaborates your statement. Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying but it's not the best route to take. I mean, if Superman can dodge a laser from 20 feet away, we'd say he has lightspeed reflexes. But if he can't dodge it from 10 feet away, does he still have lightspeed reflexes? The distance-factor is a complicating variable, which is why it's not a consideration in real-world reflex measurment.

Originally posted by h1a8
SS can sense the asteroids before he even starts to travel. He just don't see them and react to slow down. Again, more faulty reasoning. Let's say that I can block, catch, or dodge a bullet from 20 feet away. You can clearly say that I have bullet speed reflexes, right? But if the bullet is shot at 10 feet away instead then I fail and get hit. Do you still say I have bullet speed reflexes?

See the problem is that many are equating reflexes to time when they are not equal. Reflexes require both time and distance and not just time alone. Here's a paradox if one uses the term "nanosecond reflexes".

It takes a 100mph baseball a nanosecond to travel 1.47E-7 feet . Thus if I can hit a 100mph baseball then I indeed have nanosecond reflexes.
But if I have nanosecond reflexes then by the same logic I have 1trillionth of a second reflexes and so on.

Sorry for the double-post, but I found this. Fun stuff having to do with "seeing and then responding".

http://www.steriley.com/speed/

Good thing I'm not a superhero.

Originally posted by Mindship
In your post about reflex speed (see below), "battle reflexes" is not mentioned. And in the real world, milliseconds are in fact the typical unit of measurement, whether talking about a doc hitting your knee or, say, blocking a punch in boxing. Google up any article on measuring reflexes and you'll see "milliseconds."

As for battle reflexes: sounds like an h1a8 definition. It's certainly not real world; I'd be curious if you could find a comic-book definition which collaborates your statement. Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying but it's not the best route to take. I mean, if Superman can dodge a laser from 20 feet away, we'd say he has lightspeed reflexes. But if he can't dodge it from 10 feet away, does he still have lightspeed reflexes? The distance-factor is a complicating variable, which is why it's not a consideration in real-world reflex measurment.

Your last paragraph eludes me. Please explain how billionth-of-a-second reflexes means trillionth-of-a-second reflexes and so on.

The error occurs when one only gives a time element to defining visual displacement reflexes and not a distance vs. time ones. For example, let's say that a baseball traveling at 100mph can travel 147 feet per second. Since I can indeed hit baseball then I have 'second' reflexes. But the baseball also travels 1.47x10^-7 feet per nanosecond. Since I can indeed hit the baseball then I have nanosecond reflexes. But the baseball also travels 1.47x10^-10 feet per picosecond. And since I can indeed hit the baseball I have picosecond reflexes. And the logic goes on.

Originally posted by h1a8
Many here are using the notion that Battle Reflexes deals solely with seeing an action and then responding in time. I'm only trying to point out holes in some people's arguments here. Some here are using the logic that if someone can block a beam of light from 20 feet away then they can certainly block a punch traveling nearly the same speed from only 2 feet away.

The error occurs when one only gives a time element to defining visual displacement reflexes and not a distance vs. time ones. For example, let's say that a baseball traveling at 100mph can travel 147 feet per second. Since I can indeed hit baseball then I have 'second' reflexes. But the baseball also travels 1.47x10^-7 feet per nanosecond. Since I can indeed hit the baseball then I have nanosecond reflexes. But the baseball also travels 1.47x10^-10 feet per picosecond. And since I can indeed hit the baseball I have picosecond reflexes. And the logic goes on.

How then would you rank a (superhuman) person's reflexes? If (eg) Superman can dodge a red sun laser from 2 feet away but not 1 inch away, does he or does he not have lightspeed reflexes?

Originally posted by h1a8
Yet it contradicts more than 50% of his appearances.
Also it is possible that before the trip SS calculates that he must travel at about X speed above C for 10 seconds then afterward he must slow down to maybe 5C for about 4 seconds and then afterward slow down to somewhere under C for 1 second. The entire trip takes him 15 secs and he has traveling many lightyears away.

just to say it, mathematically, to travel even a single lightyear in fifteen seconds, you'd need to be travelling at over 2 million times the speed of light.

Originally posted by Mindship
Understood.

Again, I understand your position, but I think this highlights why distance is not a factor in real-world measurements.

How then would you rank a (superhuman) person's reflexes? If (eg) Superman can dodge a red sun laser from 2 feet away but not 1 inch away, does he or does he not have lightspeed reflexes?

IMO, I would probably say that lightspeed reflexes should require one to react to a light beam fired at most 30m (or 100ft) away. The same is with bullet speed reflexes and all other ones (at most 30m). This means if one can dodge an X speed projectile under 30m then they have X speed reflexes. But if they can't then they don't.

30m is probably not a good amount. Maybe 10m is a better estimate. I'm trying to relate it to battle as best I can. I'm open for suggestions.

Good question though!

Originally posted by Disappear
just to say it, mathematically, to travel even a single lightyear in fifteen seconds, you'd need to be travelling at over 2 million times the speed of light.

On average.

Originally posted by Disappear
just to say it, mathematically, to travel even a single lightyear in fifteen seconds, you'd need to be travelling at over 2 million times the speed of light.

You'd have to be traveling 391,046,400,000x the speed of light. 😐

Originally posted by batdude123
You'd have to be traveling 391,046,400,000x the speed of light. 😐

Your math is off.
If it takes 15secs for one to travel a distance vs. 3600x24x365secs (1 year) to travel that same distance, then by division we get 2,102,400 times faster.

Or Number of times faster= R1/R2 where R1=1LightYear/15sec and R2=1LightYear/1Year

somebody else here likes math...

Originally posted by h1a8
IMO, I would probably say that lightspeed reflexes should require one to react to a light beam fired at most 30m (or 100ft) away. The same is with bullet speed reflexes and all other ones (at most 30m). This means if one can dodge an X speed projectile under 30m then they have X speed reflexes. But if they can't then they don't.

30m is probably not a good amount. Maybe 10m is a better estimate. I'm trying to relate it to battle as best I can. I'm open for suggestions.

Good question though!

In an attempt to simplify, I standardized the Distance Factor to "point-blank range," generally defined (in the real world) as the range at which little/no aiming is required. But thinking about it now, even this could vary, depending on the nature of the attack (for a handgun, point-blank might be ten feet; for a laser gun, it might be 100 feet).

In terms of an absolute range, I would go with arm's length (ie, standard humanoid 😉 ). In other words, if (eg) Superman was fighting toe-to-toe with someone who could throw lightspeed punches, and Supes could dodge/block them, then he qualifies for lightspeed reflexes.

if something is moving at the speed of light, you can't "see it" until it "hits you." no matter how fine-tuned your senses or reflexes are, you won't see what's happening because the object is moving at the exact same speed as the light reflecting off it.

basically, you can't see light in motion, because the ability to see light depends entirely on the light hitting your eye, meaning it's already there. and if you can't see light in motion, how could you practically avoid a beam of light before it hits you?

Originally posted by Disappear
if something is moving at the speed of light, you can't "see it" until it "hits you." no matter how fine-tuned your senses or reflexes are, you won't see what's happening because the object is moving at the exact same speed as the light reflecting off it.

basically, you can't see light in motion, because the ability to see light depends entirely on the light hitting your eye, meaning it's already there. and if you can't see light in motion, how could you practically avoid a beam of light before it hits you?

FTL senses are actually quite common in Marvel. It's called "Cosmic Awareness"

Ah, so that's how the Surfer has FTL reflexes. 😖hifty:

Originally posted by Endless Mike
FTL senses are actually quite common in Marvel. It's called "Cosmic Awareness"

or till Surfer stops killing Superman with the red sun-kryptonite combo ...

cosmic awareness isn't necessarily faster than light, it's beyond the normal scope of perception. it's processing information from all across the universe at once, not necessarily processing it more quickly. i suppose if you considered that there could be alternate visual vantage points, like thousands of cameras pointing at a single area, that you could 'see' the light after it's moving but before it strikes your eyes.

still, i remember a scan that said the surfer [or maybe gladiator] was listening to something lightyears away, and i just gave up.