Originally posted by Kris Blazewriter statements are much different than character statements, though. writers speak from a third-person omniscient point of view, whereas character's generally don't.
Yup.A lot of people try to define a character's statement as the writer's word though, in cases with Spidey's comment about Sentry. That's when the real trouble starts 😐
imo, the only time a writer's word can be argued, is if the statement in question stinks of hyperbole [ie. 'millions of times > infinity' and such.]
Originally posted by Galan007
writer statements are much different than character statements, though. writers speak from a third-person omniscient point of view, whereas character's generally don't.imo, the only time a writer's word can be argued, is if the statement in question stinks of hyperbole.
Yeah. Omnipotent Odin and A million exploding suns, is probably the most popular one.
That's the problem I encounter in many debates. People try to do the math regarding certain things, and that is supposedly okay. When a writer states something in the narrative boxes however, it's supposedly hyperbole. How anything can be "hyperbole" regarding herald level characters, is beyond me. Superman and Thor can pull apart planets, but it's hyperbole if they lift like a hundred millions? I think not 😄
Originally posted by Kris Blazein some cases math is okay, so long as there were no specifics stated.
Yeah. Omnipotent Odin and A million exploding suns, is probably the most popular one.That's the problem I encounter in many debates. People try to do the math regarding certain things, and that is supposedly okay. When a writer states something in the narrative boxes however, it's supposedly hyperbole. How anything can be "hyperbole" regarding herald level characters, is beyond me. Superman and Thor can pull apart planets, but it's hyperbole if they lift like a hundred millions? I think not 😄
for instance, if superman travels from the sun to earth in mid-sentence, i think it's perfectly logical to assume he was traveling FTL, because we know the distance from the sun to earth, and the writer never gave any specifics [speed-wise.] same with azrael m* - if he moves from pluto to mars in a specified nanosecond, there's no reason to assume he was not traveling an absurd amount beyond c, based on the distance he covered and the amount of time he covered it in..
but in the flash instance, the writer made it a point to say he was moving slower than light. real world number crunching doesn't change the fact that a certain speed was specified. like i said before, had flash's speed not been stated, there would have been nothing wrong [imo] with ascertaining a quantifiable speed, based on the instance itself [as some have already tried to do.]
Originally posted by Galan007
in some cases math is okay, so long as there were no specifics stated.for instance, if superman travels from the sun to earth in mid-sentence, i think it's perfectly logical to assume he was traveling FTL, because we know the distance from the sun to earth, and the writer never gave any specifics [speed-wise.] same with azrael m* - if he moves from pluto to mars in a specified nanosecond, there's no reason to assume he was not traveling an absurd amount beyond c, based on the distance he covered and the amount of time he covered it in..
but in the flash instance, the writer made it a point to say he was moving slower than light. real world number crunching doesn't change the fact that a certain speed was specified. like i said before, had flash's speed not been stated, there would have been nothing wrong [imo] with ascertaining a quantifiable speed, based on the instance itself [as some have already tried to do.]
Bingo.
Meh.
It's not that cut and dried. While we do have the narrator's statement on the fact that Wally wasn't going faster than light, we also have him giving the exact number of persons, distance and time it took Wally to evacuate them. Should we ignore basic calculations and go soley on what the author said on the basis that it's a comic so real life numbers don't apply or ignore the sub-light statements and go the other route considering the evidence ? None of the stances is incorrect, imo.
Originally posted by Philosophíaimo, when the writer specifically tells us two different times that wally was going sub-c, i would certainly lean towards him travelling sub-c.
Meh.It's not that cut and dried. While we do have the narrator's statement on the fact that Wally wasn't going faster than light, we also have him giving the exact number of persons, distance and time it took Wally to evacuate them. Should we ignore basic calculations and go soley on what the author said on the basis that it's a comic so real life numbers don't apply or ignore the sub-light statements and go the other route considering the evidence ? None of the stances is incorrect, imo.
i look at it as nothing but blatant ignorance [or laziness] or the writer's part, having not done the math beforehand.
Originally posted by Galan007
sorry boss, but when it comes down to it the writer's word is generally > ALL.remember, it's a comic. if flash was intended to have gone FTL in that instance, the writer would have stated such. instead, he made it a point to tell us that flash was moving slower than light... two different times, on two different pages.
had flash's speed not been stated at all, you'd have a much better case. however, since his speed was stated to be sub-c [twice] by the writer, there's really no arguing it. imo.
No sir. If I'm writer and say X dude is running at 50mph but also say he ran 10000000000 miles in one second then I contradicted myself. Thus we can't except what I said and only can go by what is shown.
Another example, I the writer say X dude can't lift a car but while I'm stating it on panel X dude lifts the car on panel. What has more weight 'what I said' or 'what is shown'?
Last example, writers in the past said that classic Thor is not bulletproof yet we saw classic Thor being bulletproof. Is this Thor bulletproof or not?
Originally posted by h1a8in the flash instance, everything was stated - nothing was actually shown... so your examples really don't apply.
Thus we can't except what I said and only can go by what [b]is shown. [/B]
anyhow, do we have a specified distance? sure. do we have a specified time in which flash had to cover that distance? sure. do we have a specified amount of times he had to cover that distance? sure.
but what we also have are two different comments from the writer stating that flash was moving < c. therein lies the problem.
Originally posted by Galan007
in the flash instance, everything was stated - nothing was actually shown... so your examples really don't apply.anyhow, do we have a specified distance? sure. do we have a specified time in which flash had to cover that distance? sure. do we have a specified amount of times he had to cover that distance? sure.
but what we also have are two different comments from the writer stating that flash was moving < c. therein lies the problem.
But
It was indeed shown, depending on your interpretation of what 'being shown' means. Do you see the first panel with no people on the land. In the next panel you see the people starting to materialize. Then in the third panel more people are materializing. We don't see flash because he is moving too fast. But those people are materializing for some reason. Now don't tell me flash isn't the one doing it.
Anyway this reminds me when I argued that Namor is 100 ton strength max in water. Writers showed him lifting much heavier weights because they didn't know how much that stuff weighs. But with direct writer's information handbook writers were told that his strength in water was 90-100 tons.
We saw a small number of people on land. It's only a large number if you take the writer's word on it. And if you take the writer's word on it, then you must take his word on the sub-c speeds as well. Taking the higher value because you feel like it is nothing but bias.
IMO, if there isn't an agreement on which statements to go by, nobody should be using those scans at all.
Originally posted by King Kandy👆
We saw a small number of people on land. It's only a large number if you take the writer's word on it. And if you take the writer's word on it, then you must take his word on the sub-c speeds as well. Taking the higher value because you feel like it is nothing but bias.IMO, if there isn't an agreement on which statements to go by, nobody should be using those scans at all.
Originally posted by King Kandy
We saw a small number of people on land. It's only a large number if you take the writer's word on it. And if you take the writer's word on it, then you must take his word on the sub-c speeds as well. Taking the higher value because you feel like it is nothing but bias.IMO, if there isn't an agreement on which statements to go by, nobody should be using those scans at all.
Should we take his word moving 500,000 people 35miles away in .00001 microseconds?
Originally posted by h1a8
Um no!What happened > What writer says when writer contradicts himself (He said 35miles and .00001 microseconds as well).
You know that the radiation from a nuclear blast moves at the speed of light yet it was at a standstill when flash saved those people.
Thus [b]what is shown > what is said
[/B]
incorrect what we see vs what happened can be to very differnt things, it's the writter telling the story and the artist who illistrates what the writter is writting. if their is a conflict you go by what the writters is saying onpanel not your own asumptions
Originally posted by h1a8
Here's the math. First let us ignore him traveling halfway around the world to even get to North Korea. The island he carried them to was 35 miles away from the blast so each trip he travel 70miles. So for 500,000 people he traveled at least 70 times 500,000 or [b]35,000,000 miles in .00001 microseconds.Now a microsecond is 1x10^-6 seconds (or .000001 seconds for those who don't like scientific notation). But he traveled in .00001 microseconds. That means that he traveled in .00001(.000001) = 1x10^-11 seconds (or .00000000001 seconds).
Thus his average speed was 35,000,000miles/.00000000001sec
= 3.5x10^18miles per secondNow light moves at 186,282 miles per second. So dividing we get
(3.5x10^18)/(186,282) = 1.88x10^13 times the speed of light.
WTF! All I can say isWOW!!! [/B]
i think this speaks for itself, the flash is the man!
Originally posted by h1a8
Should we take his word moving 500,000 people 35miles away in .00001 microseconds?
Originally posted by h1a8
Here's the math. First let us ignore him traveling halfway around the world to even get to North Korea. The island he carried them to was 35 miles away from the blast so each trip he travel 70miles. So for 500,000 people he traveled at least 70 times 500,000 or [b]35,000,000 miles in .00001 microseconds.Now a microsecond is 1x10^-6 seconds (or .000001 seconds for those who don't like scientific notation). But he traveled in .00001 microseconds. That means that he traveled in .00001(.000001) = 1x10^-11 seconds (or .00000000001 seconds).
Thus his average speed was 35,000,000miles/.00000000001sec
= 3.5x10^18miles per secondNow light moves at 186,282 miles per second. So dividing we get
(3.5x10^18)/(186,282) = 1.88x10^13 times the speed of light.
WTF! All I can say isWOW!!! [/B]
Exactly, flash is at least a million times faster than Azrael 1M.
Heh. I like the debate over those scans, because the writer has to be incorrect about something in the narration. It's possible that more than one thing is incorrect (number of people, travel speed of Flash, the time it took, etc.) but at least one of them has to be.
So it does in fact shoot down the argument that we have to take the writer's word for things. As a general rule I don't disagree with that hierarchy of importance, but it can't apply to this situation, because then we're believing a literal contradiction.
So where does that leave us? For me personally, I have to default it to an unreliable narrator and then deduce as much as I can from the scans and context. Were there more people in the city, Flash would not have simply stopped. So I can feel confident that he saved all of them. And with reasonable estimates about the number of people in the city, he would have to be going faster than light. Imo, at least.
It's not without precedent for Flash comics. We've seen Flashes and Flash villains move "instantaneously" (i.e. no passage of time)...I wish I remembered the exact scan (it was used against me in a tourney one time). Again, it seems to make little sense, but our basic assumptions are usually made to look silly by the Speed Force. But I have no problem placing Wally > lightspeed.