Originally posted by ScreamPaste
And I could counter this by saying your fictional bullets are at arrow speed until you prove otherwise, just because. 😐
Proving a gunshot is a gunshot to proving the laser shown is the exception to all other laser-guns and is at laser speed. Big difference.
You can say that just because but that would be petty, I know you're above that.
Originally posted by BloodRainActually no, see, that's the thing. You're making a gross generalisation, and it's a physical impossibility for a laser to be that slow. You're claiming, based on a blaster, which isn't a laser, even if it was derived for one. (note that laser sights on one of them, haermm), that laser = bullet.
Proving a gunshot is a gunshot to proving the laser shown is the exception to all other laser-guns and is at laser speed. Big difference.You can say that just because but that would be petty, I know you're above that.
This is like me claiming bullet = arrow. It's just the same. We can take that as far as you want.
Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
The bullet taking two seconds to reach Ultimecia is supposedly something cool to look at. A faster projectile which we even see for less time is supposed to be slower.Bayonetta punches that thing at "Light Speed" across the solar system, yet we see it all. Sight is being used as the basis against these lasers being faster than bullets.
^ double standards. Just some examples.
The problem is that speed is distance over time.
We have a distance and we have a time.
That's why no amount of discredit for Bayo punching Jubelius faster than light can ever remotely make sense.
Yet when you're trying to figure out how fast the muzzle velocity of various weapons in fiction, you run into more problems when you're trying to figure exactly what it compares to in RL
Originally posted by LLLLLink
That's merely a concept of perception. The argument is invalid.
No its not at all, if someone is fireing at ground level at you, a machinegun, theres more of a chain the bullets are going to be coming at you with more accuracy. This thing was flying about, fiering its lasers and it didnt look much of a marksman, fiery at that angle with a pair running towards you, ofc your going to fire wide.
Originally posted by Burning thought
No its not at all, if someone is fireing at ground level at you, a machinegun, theres more of a chain the bullets are going to be coming at you with more accuracy. This thing was flying about, fiering its lasers and it didnt look much of a marksman, fiery at that angle with a pair running towards you, ofc your going to fire wide.
That has nothing to do with the ability to dodge a bullet from an angle.
The accuracy fluxuation is reliant on the user's skill and is therefore fallacious when arguing about dodging a bullet. The shots should be assumed to be on target.
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
Actually no, see, that's the thing. You're making a gross generalisation, and it's a physical impossibility for a laser to be that slow. You're claiming, based on a blaster, which isn't a laser, even if it was derived for one. (note that laser sights on one of them, haermm), that laser = bullet.This is like me claiming bullet = arrow. It's just the same. We can take that as far as you want.