Originally posted by DarkSaint85
A third reading, is that he was both faster and slower than the speed of light.We know the Flash carried the Koreans at 'a hair breadth's short of the speed of light'.
But when he's running BACK into the city, empty handed, without anyone in his arms and when's he's not having to worry about civilians..he's running faster.
So, rather than assuming a constant speed (the speed that he carried them there = the speed he runs back into the city), he probably took a bit more care+time when he was carrying a little old Korean lady, than ramping it up to max gear when he's on his own.
Also:
He's making two trips, of 35 miles each (assuming the city is concentrated in 1 spot - this is grossly underestimating, as Chongjin is 104 square miles;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chongjin). This would be for every rescue.
To be honest, the writer intent was that he was moving at just under the speed of light. That's how I've seen it for a while now, and while I don't want to make a mod ruling on it, I really don't see why the writer would have been so... Convoluted.
Either way, it's not nearly the best feat Wally has, so it should be moot anyway.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
How am I doing gymnastics?He gives the number of trips.
He gives the distance travelled.
He gives the time taken.
He gives the info that part of the rescue was under the speed of light.
You know what's unambiguous and straightforward? When it states on panel under the speed of light.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Nah, he could've carried them at a speed that was less than the speed of light, but still run at a speed which meant that OVERALL, he was travelling at many many times the speed of light.
I mean, you guys accuse me of injecting speculation, but aren't you doing the same?
The full sentence reads that they were carried there at a hair breadths short of the speed of light.
I'm not ignoring that he, whilst carrying them, was under the speed if light.
You guys are injecting speculation that the entire operation was thenccarried out at the same constant speed.
I'm injecting speculation that he didn't.
But I have evidence to support my speculation (the distance to the hill, the time taken and the number of trips).
What evidence do you guys have that he ran at the same constant speed?
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
He did. I'm not saying he didn't.He said they were carried there under the speed of light. That's the end of it.
He also said how long the entire rescue operation took. And how many trips were taken.
We have to take writer ignorance and or stupidity in to account, you know. 😛
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I mean, you guys accuse me of injecting speculation, but aren't you doing the same?The full sentence reads that they were carried there at a hair breadths short of the speed of light.
I'm not ignoring that he, whilst carrying them, was under the speed if light.
You guys are injecting speculation that the entire operation was thenccarried out at the same constant speed.
I'm injecting speculation that he didn't.
But I have evidence to support my speculation (the distance to the hill, the time taken and the number of trips).
What evidence do you guys have that he ran at the same constant speed?
Originally posted by Ambient
Was it not the purpose of the operation, the rescue ? which was performed under the speed of light. Adding another element to what was quite specific statement is where u fail to grasp the actual/might intent.
But this is the problem.
I AM being specific. It is everyone else who is 'adding another element'.
The statement is:
They were carried there....one at a time, sometimes two...at a hair's breadth short of the speed of light...
It's all one sentence. I'm not adding anything, nor am I disputing that they were carried there at that speed.
So there are two statements in operation on that page. The first, is implied through the use of the specific distances (why 35 miles away? Why not 40? 25?), a specific time frame (why 0.00001 microseconds? Why not 0.1? 0.001?) and a specific number of people saved (why 532,000? Why not just say 500,000).
And this first statement gives a speed of googlywimey times the speed of light.
The second statement, is that they were carried there under the speed of light.
Now:
1. Statement A is right, Statement B is wrong. Flash travelled at trillionty google times the speed of light.
2. Statement B is right, Statement A is wrong. Flash travelled under the speed of light.
How can you be so sure that Conclusion #2 is the right one? Maybe he phucked up the numbers....or maybe he phucked up the statement.
Hence, conclusion #3. Where Statement A and B aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not arguing that Statement B is incorrect or wrong, so any attempts to convince me they are correct is just preaching to the choir. If I am arguing Conclusion #1, then maybe you'd have a point.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
But this is the problem.It is everyone else who is 'adding another element'.
The statement is:
It's all one sentence. I'm not adding anything, nor am I disputing that they were carried there at that speed.
What you propose I's that flash carried each rescue in less than light speed , you inserted the element "per rescue" in your equation which was not stated but possibly can be added - possibly = missing element = unquantifiable = not admissible as proof.
So it's either the rescue took place in < light speed or we can't quantify how long the rescue took place because of missing element.
Anyhow my two cents.