Originally posted by Enyalus
The argument is that based on the time given, Flash's speed was something like 19 trillon times light speed.
No, even based on the time and distances given, Flash wasn't faster than light.
Originally posted by Philosophía
We have the time it took Flash to evacuate the city, the way he did it, and how far he took them. So, we're just going to ignore these, because the writer did a stupid mistake and said he was going sub-lightspeed, when it's obvious he didn't ?To each his own though.
If we're going to bring basic science into the discussion, why are we excluding somewhat more advanced science? Speed = Distance/Time doesn't hold up at speeds near light - which the writer says Flash was traveling.
What holds up at near-luminal speeds? Special relativity. Special relativity says the Flash was, in fact, a hair's-breadth of lightspeed.
Writer's on panel word is copasetic with the calculations now, so both sides of the field should be happy - those that want to take the writer's word, and those that want to bring math into the picture.
The only people that would remain unsatisfied are those that are too ignorant to properly understand time dilation and those that really just want to further wank the Flash - wanking he doesn't need, as even with the 'dumb' calculations that peg this feat at trillions of c, it wouldn't be the fastest he's traveled.
Originally posted by Starscream M
isn't there a problem with accepting Astner's calculation...it would mean that you can't go faster than speed of light.
Not true. As we've seen in the past, the speed force allows the Flash to utilize and ignore whatever laws of physics he pleases.
If he wants to go near-light without the extra mass, he can. If he'd rather allow his mass to approach the infinite in order to deliver a punch, he can.
If he wants to ignore time dilation and actually break the light barrier, he can, if he'd rather utilize that time dilation to make the tiny fraction of a microsecond enough time to evacuate the city, he can do that too.
The speedforce is a fix-all.
Originally posted by Soljerbecause comics are aimed at casual readers with no expectation of science backgrounds and often written by writers with no science background of any kind
If we're going to bring basic science into the discussion, why are we excluding somewhat more advanced science?
just because the laws of gravity (which the average laymen are familiar with) are followed in comics doesn't automatically mean that much more complex and theoretical scientific basis is also followed in comics.
Originally posted by Philosophía
Speedforce.Applying Einstein to comics.
Idiots.
The infinite mass punch relies on special relativity. DC has already applied Einstein to comics. Take it up with them.
Furthermore, I still don't see the problem. If we're going to apply basic mechanics to comics, what's wrong with applying slightly more advanced physics?
Originally posted by Starscream M
because comics are aimed at casual readers with no expectation of science backgrounds and often written by writers with no science background of any kind
What kind of casual reader looks at the time it took to evacuate that city, looks at what the writer says, namely, that he went just under light speed to do it, and goes - no! That isn't right.
?
Originally posted by Soljerso isn't Flash using the speedforce in that feat...hence applying Einstein's theory is unwarranted since the laws of physics no longer applied
Not true. As we've seen in the past, the speed force allows the Flash to utilize and ignore whatever laws of physics he pleases.If he wants to go near-light without the extra mass, he can. If he'd rather allow his mass to approach the infinite in order to deliver a punch, he can.
If he wants to ignore time dilation and actually break the light barrier, he can, if he'd rather utilize that time dilation to make the tiny fraction of a microsecond enough time to evacuate the city, he can do that too.
The speedforce is a fix-all.
if they did, everyone he transported would've been dust.
Originally posted by Starscream M
doesn't automatically mean that much more complex and theoretical scientific basis is also followed in comics.
I'm not even sure what the hell this clause means.
theoretical scientific basis is also followed...
I mean, I understand what you were trying to say, but I feel you failed miserably at that attempt.
Admirable try, though.
Originally posted by Enyalusthey don't...hence why I don't think the writer had the special theory of relativity in mind when he wrote that feat
What kind of casual reader looks at the time it took to evacuate that city, looks at what the writer says, namely, that he went just under light speed to do it, and goes - no! That isn't right.?
Originally posted by Starscream Mnot really, comics are technically science fiction. and i can't speak for everyone else but on first glance at the page in question, I already knew the flash was in fact NOT surpassing light speed regardless of the writer cosigning it.
because comics are aimed at casual readers with no expectation of science backgrounds and often written by writers with no science background of any kindjust because the laws of gravity (which the average laymen are familiar with) are followed in comics doesn't automatically mean that much more complex and theoretical scientific basis is also followed in comics.
a lot of new scientific technologies appeared in comics far before the military or the scientific community could create them. (i.e strength enhancing battle suits are still in the beginning phases currently, tony stark made his in the 60's)
You want me to apply this kind of theories to comics, and point out Superman and other trans-luminal must have infinite energy and such in order to reach lightspeed, and this is not even getting into them surpassing it ? The last thing on this comic's writer, and in fact in pretty much any other writers dealing with these type of (trans)lightspeed stuff, is Einstein's theory. And, you'd really have to be an idiot to try and rationalize it in comic context, especially since in this one there are also other factors such as the speedforce. As far as I recall, according to current science, lightspeed is the maximum speed attainable, so whatever calculations you do, unless there are very special conditions, with real-life formulas you won't find something surpassing it.
facepalm
What the f*ck is up with this stupidity invasion ?
Originally posted by Enyalusfor me, writer's intent trumps all
Okay. So, what the writer says is taken at face value. He says Flash was sub-light during that run.Official DC writers > Average Joe Blogger.
he intended for Flash to be sub-light speed
so even if he showed Flash doing something that everyone can agree with faster than light speed, we would have to dismiss the feat as mistake on the writer's part and accept Flash as sub-c
Originally posted by Philosophía
As far as I recall, according to current science, lightspeed is the maximum speed attainable, so whatever calculations you do, unless there are very special conditions, no matter what calculation you do with real-life formulas you won't find something surpassing it.
exactly.
if you want to use STR in comics, then nobody without some convenient explanation (magic, speedforce, etc) could go faster than light
so Superman, Gladiator, Silver Surfer and others who regularly on KMC are said to be faster than light all must be slower than or just as fast as light and many of their feats must be nullified as a result.