Originally posted by PhilosophíaI can dissect every single one of your straw-mans if you want. But doing so would only serve to counter your thinly veiled insults, which I just don't care about. Because you've done nothing to rebut my argument that each cited quantification can be equally be as wrong as the next.
"I finally [b]re-wrote all of the data given, the way it suits me, in order for it to go in line with my agenda. Hooray.But I'll just say that "time" is the problem because otherwise it would have totally been under lightspeed! Yeah, not really. I would have to re-write all the statistics to my liking. But I hope they're dumb enough to think otherwise! "
I feel like in every thread I go, I find you say even dumber things that the last time to further your agendas. [/b]
In fact, you ended up discrediting one of those quantifications definitively with your pleas to utilize the "real world." Heck, I was just trying to say you can't take any of them for granted, not that any particular one of them was conclusively wrong. Ironic, to say the least.
Your conspiracy theories and personal diatribe are boring.
Originally posted by Galan007I did not claim in that post that the sub light speed quantification is free from doubt. Indeed, it being doubtful, like the others, is the core premise of my unextraordinary conclusion that the feat is speculative, and thus, one interpretation is as justifiable as the next. So your observation is irrelevant.
I find it funny how you are passively trying to discredit the numerics given to us by the writer, yet are clinging to his 'sub-light' comments in that very same scene as though they are the end-all/be-all evidence. It doesn't work that way. You cannot claim half of a scene's narration is false, and claim the other half is fact in the very same breath....That's bordering on Mr Master's 'universe=omniverse' line of
idiocylogic. g007-psyduck
And make no mistake, I wasn't "passively" discrediting the other numbers. What I was doing was directly and actively discrediting them because of the hypocritical hasty assumptions that they're far freer from doubt than the speed quantification. No, they're not. Especially when we now know (i) how the population was off by the hundreds of thousands (taking for granted N. Korea's dubious census results), and (ii) that we apparently have a FTL mushroom cloud forming at million times light speed from the .00001 microsecond timing.
Originally posted by OneDumbG0You should direct your angst elsewhere. In nearly every post I've made in this thread, I've explained the extreme ambiguity of said feat, and why neither side can be deemed correct or incorrect. That said, if you're saying the specific values the writer noted in that scene are incorrect (which you apparently are), then you must also take note of the blatant falsity in his "sub-c" comments as well. Fair is fair, after all.
I did not claim in that post that the sub light speed quantification is free from doubt. Indeed, it being doubtful, like the others, is the core premise of my unextraordinary conclusion that the feat is speculative, and thus, one interpretation is as justifiable as the next. So your observation is irrelevant.And make no mistake, I wasn't "passively" discrediting the other numbers. What I was doing was directly and actively discrediting them because of the
how the population was off by the hundreds of thousands (taking for granted N. Korea's dubious census results), and (ii) that we apparently have a FTL mushroom cloud forming at million times light speed from the .00001 microsecond timing. [/B]hypocriticalhasty assumptions that they're far freer from doubt than the speed quantification. No, they're not. Especially when we now know [b](i)
Originally posted by Galan007I addressed your incorrect observation that I am committed to the sub light speed quantification. Nothing else. Context helps.
You should direct your angst elsewhere. In nearly every post I've made in this thread, I've explained the extreme ambiguity of said feat, and why neither side can be deemed correct or incorrect.
Originally posted by Galan007It's as blatantly false as the other numbers that haven't already been proven to be blatantly false.
That said, if you're saying the specific values the writer noted in that scene are incorrect (which you apparently are), then you must also take note of the blatant falsity in his "sub-c" comments as well. Fair is fair, after all.
On the street level, this kind of thing happens all the time... You get, say, Cap, blatantly moving faster than a bullet. Or, Daredevil deflecting bullets with his club. Than you have either character claiming they can't outrace a bullet.. Yet, they "did" outrace bullets.
So they outraced bullets, even if they claim they can't.
Originally posted by OneDumbG0Good gravy you like arguing just to argue. g007-psyduck
I addressed your incorrect observation that I am committed to the sub light speed quantification. Nothing else. Context helps.It's as blatantly false as the other numbers that haven't already been proven to be blatantly false.
If you need to have the last word, that's fine. At least you seem to understand the ambiguity of that feat, by essentially restating what I have been saying- ie. you could call it a sub-light feat, and I could call it a FTL feat, and neither of us could be definitively proven correct or incorrect. The on panel narration supports both opinions.
You two are just best pals.
This is just like the thread I made not long ago though.
Originally posted by cdtmWhich is my point. Or saying things like "XXx is faster than me or hits harder than the Hulk."
On the street level, this kind of thing happens all the time... You get, say, Cap, blatantly moving faster than a bullet. Or, Daredevil deflecting bullets with his club. Than you have either character claiming they can't outrace a bullet.. Yet, they "did" outrace bullets.So they outraced bullets, even if they claim they can't.
We street level debaters know this. 😉
I ask again which nobody can seen to answer....
Do we know FOR CERTAIN that the writer wanted to use the number of people, time etc etc to quantify flash's speed? Do anybody have ANY interview or ANYTHING stating this was his intent? Which is exactly the point.. I agree it CAN be argued both ways.. but lets not kid ourselves here... one is clearly and without question the writers intent in talking about flash's speed (even mentions it twice for good measure) the other is just facts related to the plot and the feat which we have NO IDEA whether the writer really wanted those numbers to be crunched to come up with a speed. To say those levels of proof are the same when talking about speed and speed only isn't accurate.
Originally posted by Galan007Before you joined the conversation, I was already concluding it was equally ambiguous... several times. So to be fair, you were essentially restating what I had been saying.
Good gravy you like arguing just to argue. g007-psyduckIf you need to have the last word, that's fine. At least you seem to understand the ambiguity of that feat, by essentially restating what I have been saying- ie. you could call it a sub-light feat, and I could call it a FTL feat, and neither of us could be definitively proven correct or incorrect. The on panel narration supports both opinions.
And then you compared me to Mr. Master for not concluding it was equally ambiguious.
Let's just say, I don't believe I'm being difficult or angsty here. To be frank, it's your general congeniality that averred a knee-jerk missive like, "Try reading just two of my prior posts, you phuckwit."
Originally posted by Galan007And even if we choose to ignore those specifications and simply look at what took place - Wally evacuating the whole town, carying the occupants miles away, after the bomb had blown up, and everyone being unharmed - it still is a feat which couldn't have been performed at lightspeed.
^ He contradicted his 'intent' by giving us exact numerical figures. And using those figures, it's easy to see that Flash could not have accomplished that feat if he were moving sub-light. Not even close.That, again, is why the feat is ambiguous at best.
But yes, this discussion is rather annoying by this point.
Flash/Zoom stomp, unquestionably.
Originally posted by OneDumbG0Yeah, that was a low blow. I apologize wholeheartedly for that.
And then you compared me to Mr. Master
You certainly didn't deserve it. sadhug
Originally posted by PhilosophíaI'd tend to agree, but the ambiguity is still there.
And even if we choose to ignore those specifications and simply look at what took place - Wally evacuating the whole town, carying the occupants miles away, after the bomb had blown up, and everyone being unharmed - it still is a feat which couldn't have been performed at lightspeed.
Originally posted by PhilosophíaI forgot this was even a vs. thread, tbh. 😮
But yes, this discussion is rather annoying by this point.Flash/Zoom stomp, unquestionably.
what was the author's intent? who is the author's target audience? i'd say the answer to the first question he wanted to have flash moving below c. it was said not once, but twice. the general audience for comics? probably kids? young teens? at the least, i'd certainly doubt the book was 'targetted' at math majors, or at a group of people like those here who dissect and apply real world math to comicbook feats.
i'd say that in the minds of most who read the book, who did no more than they were SUPPOSED to do (ie-read and enjoy the story) what happened was what was SAID to have happened. how was this logical contradication between 'facts' and 'story' discovered? by viewing the story in a way it was NOT intended to be viewed.
is there ambiguity? of course there is. there is almost ALWAYS ambiguity of some sort or another. should this scene be tossed out like sm vs fl? sure. but just note that no problem would have arisen if a specified and, imo, unintended level of scrutiny were not applied to the scene in the first place. i've never had a problem simply taking the scene at face value.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
So then the question is how complex should something be before it is discarded. I think by looking at it, that it appears to be a c> feat by a large amount. I think the most important thing he wanted to do was to have Flash save the city. IMO of course.
the people intended to read it wouldn't think it was so obviously beyond c, least not imo. speaking for myself, i simply read it, and never thought anything of it until it was brought up here years back.
i agree--he wanted the city saved. but he went out of his way--twice--to specify BELOW c. do you disagree that that was his intention?
imo, it was pretty clear his intention was to have flash moving below c. for me, that's good enough.
Originally posted by leonidas
what was the author's intent? who is the author's target audience? i'd say the answer to the first question he wanted to have flash moving below c. it was said not once, but twice. the general audience for comics? probably kids? young teens? at the least, i'd certainly doubt the book was 'targetted' at math majors, or at a group of people like those here who dissect and apply real world math to comicbook feats.i'd say that in the minds of most who read the book, who did no more than they were SUPPOSED to do (ie-read and enjoy the story) what happened was what was SAID to have happened. how was this logical contradication between 'facts' and 'story' discovered? by viewing the story in a way it was NOT intended to be viewed.
is there ambiguity? of course there is. there is almost ALWAYS ambiguity of some sort or another. should this scene be tossed out like sm vs fl? sure. but just note that no problem would have arisen if a specified and, imo, unintended level of scrutiny were not applied to the scene in the first place. i've never had a problem simply taking the scene at face value.
Once again, agreed on all accounts.
Originally posted by Naija boy
Once again, agreed on all accounts.
tbh, i think the VAST majority of people have entirely no concept at all of the speed of light. certainly i'd feel safe in wagering the intended target audience for most comicbooks wouldn't understand c, or the implications of that scene. 😬
Originally posted by leonidas
the people intended to read it wouldn't think it was so obviously beyond c, least not imo. speaking for myself, i simply read it, and never thought anything of it until it was brought up here years back.i agree--he wanted the city saved. but he went out of his way--twice--to specify BELOW c. do you disagree that that was his intention?
imo, it was pretty clear his intention was to have flash moving below c. for me, that's good enough.
I guess when Leo says the same thing I've been saying.. since it's Leo.. people go.. you're right.. DAMN YOU LEO for being THAT GOOD of a fellow 😄