Saitama vs Wally West (The Flash)

Originally posted by carver9
He withstood a black hole.

Your first option isn't blood listed flash. He gets killed. Second fight, he gets killed even faster.

Zoom has star level durability?

Flash is willing to kill implies bloodlusted.
He withstood a black hole? How much force was that? How massive was this black hole? You know they come in different masses right?

All Flashes and Zooms have super durability against strikes when they are operating at superspeed. So you can either say that Zoom has star level durability IN THAT SCENE or it is PIS for Zoom.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Has Saitama ever lost a fight?

Or needed to land more than one punch?

He's not a very good choice for versus threads unless someone wants them instantly closed for spite, lol.

So far, he's proven to be easily capable of defeating every opponent he's confronted so far with a single punch if he really wanted. I'd caution against dismissing Saitama as plot-devicey capable of defeating anybody with a single punch whilst ignoring that he's simply strong enough to be able to.

Like.... we get that Superman will ultimately be triumphant... but you shouldn't utterly dismiss his measurable feats just because you think plot demanded them be performed.

The only way you could justify the Flash winning would be if you... [list=1][*]replaced the Flash with a murder-machine with the same portfolio of abilities,
[*]valued statements concerning the character as highly as feats,
[*]cherry-picked his best statements and feats, and ignoring everything that doesn't align with this interpretation,
[*]and didn't dispend the same courtesy to Saitama.[/list=1]

Originally posted by h1a8
The pressure inside a black hole can be less than 1000 tons.

Originally posted by Magnon
Speed doesn't increase mass, unless you live in the early 20th century.

In SR, E² = p²c² + m²c⁴ where the mass m is invariant.

There's a reason mass is distinguished from rest mass when it comes to particle physics.

Originally posted by Astner
There's a reason mass is distinguished from rest mass when it comes to particle physics.

These days the term mass, with the symbol m, simply refers to invariant mass. This quantity can be conveniently measured in the rest frame of the particle as its "rest mass", but the same mass (apart from a conversion constant) is obtained in any inertial frame by calculating the four-length i.e. the Minkowski norm of the particle's four-momentum vector. Thus, the mass is invariant by definition.

The frame-dependent quantity is simply the energy, i.e. the quantity E on the left-hand-side of the eqn in my previous post. There's not much value in introducing synonyms for this quantity; however, when the energy is expressed in mass units the term "relativistic mass" can be used for it. It's then important to include the word "relativistic" so that the reader doesn't confuse it with mass m (which is an invariant).

Originally posted by Magnon
That is the old convention in SR but not the modern usage, as I said in my post.

What you said was "speed doesn't increase mass," which is wrong. Your argument was that in the expression E² = p²c² + m₀²c⁴, m₀ does refer to the rest mass (and is therefore not relative), implying that this expression is not a function of relativistic mass. The problem is that p = mv = m₀γv.

And from the above expression if follows that m = m₀γ, and since γ is a function of v, so is m.

Originally posted by Magnon
These days the term [B]mass, with the symbol m, simply refers to invariant mass. This quantity can be conveniently measured in the rest frame of the particle as its "rest mass", but the same mass (apart from a conversion constant) is obtained in any inertial frame by calculating the four-length i.e. the Minkowski norm of the particle's four-momentum vector. Thus, the mass is invariant by definition.[/b]

Granted, a particle's relativistic mass is rarely talked about (normally it's addressed it in terms of energy), but a particle's mass does increase with its velocity. It's clear from the expression above that it has to. How you decide to interpret this increase in mass doesn't really matter, there is and increase, and saying that there isn't is wrong.

Originally posted by Magnon
The frame-dependent quantity is simply the [B]energy, i.e. the quantity E on the left-hand-side of the eqn in my previous post. There's not much value in introducing synonyms for this quantity; however, when the energy is expressed in mass units the term "relativistic mass" can be used for it. It's then important to include the word "relativistic" so that the reader doesn't confuse it with mass m (which is an invariant).[/B]

Mass = rest mass, according to the modern physics usage of the word. Nothing disingenuous or misleading there. Energy = relativistic mass (apart from a constant of proportionality).

Since there's no point in using multiple different words for the same concept, it is enough to simply use mass and energy. Speed increases energy, but not mass (which is invariant, by definition).

Originally posted by Magnon
That is the old convention in SR but not the modern usage, as I said in my post.

These days the term [B]mass, with the symbol m, simply refers to invariant mass. This quantity can be conveniently measured in the rest frame of the particle as its "rest mass", but the same mass (apart from a conversion constant) is obtained in any inertial frame by calculating the four-length i.e. the Minkowski norm of the particle's four-momentum vector. Thus, the mass is invariant by definition.

The frame-dependent quantity is simply the energy, i.e. the quantity E on the left-hand-side of the eqn in my previous post. There's not much value in introducing synonyms for this quantity; however, when the energy is expressed in mass units the term "relativistic mass" can be used for it. It's then important to include the word "relativistic" so that the reader doesn't confuse it with mass m (which is an invariant). [/B]

Sounds like you been listening to some crackpot.

Originally posted by Magnon
Mass = rest mass, according to the modern physics usage of the word. Nothing disingenuous or misleading there. Energy = relativistic mass (apart from a constant of proportionality).

Since there's no point in using multiple different words for the same concept, it is enough to simply use mass and energy. Speed increases energy, but not mass (which is invariant, by definition).

Sounds like you are either making stuff up or have listened to some Crackpot. I've been talking to physicists for many years and no one talks like that.
Momentum isn't a linear function of velocity. A p =/= rest mass x velocity. For mass to be invariant then momentum would be a linear function of velocity.

Best case scenario, you are arguing semantics because Flash punches will be equivalent (especially in momentum) to getting hit with a more massive object traveling at the same speed (with no relativity intact).

Originally posted by h1a8
I call BS. I have spoken to many physicists (on physicsforums.com), saw many documentaries of famous physicists (like Neil) and they all explained the Lorentz transformation that calculates the amount of mass an object will have based off its relative velocity. They explain this is why it would take infinite energy to reach light speed.

Sounds like you been listening to some crackpot.

See for example:

Mass in special relativity: Popular science and textbooks

Yes, that is "just" a wikipedia article, but it has proper references to scientific literature -- feel free to check them out!

Edit. For some reason, the link leads to the main article instead of its last paragraph. Check the part "Popular science and textbooks" at the end.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Has Saitama ever lost a fight?

Or needed to land more than one punch?

He's not a very good choice for versus threads unless someone wants them instantly closed for spite, lol.

Boros took more than one punch.

Not a "serious series" punch though, where he still acts really bored and puts marginally more effort into it.

Garou also took many punches.

Basically it takes a cartoon character to "match" him, like Popeye;

YouTube video

I think THINK they took this idea from me. 😝

I was going on about this match for a time here and posted it to Death Battle, and it happened. Can't imagine it likely anyone else thought this up, kind of an unlikely scenario (May as well say "Buggs Bunny vs Saitama"😉

Heh, from the article I linked:

"It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m."
- Albert Einstein

Was Albert Einstein a crackpot, h1?

Originally posted by Magnon
Mass = rest mass, according to the modern physics usage of the word. Nothing disingenuous or misleading there. Energy = relativistic mass (apart from a constant of proportionality).

Since there's no point in using multiple different words for the same concept, it is enough to simply use mass and energy. Speed increases energy, but not mass (which is invariant, by definition).

But what you're saying "mass doesn't increase with speed," is confusing at best and misleading at worst. After all, relativistic mass is still a thing, and if we take the Flash's statement of his fist becoming as massive as a dwarf star (I'd assume he means a red dwarf, since brown dwarfs are not stars and white dwarfs are stellar remnants) at face value, it's quite easy to calculate how fast his fist would have to move.

You just solve for v in m = m₀/√[1-(v/c)²], and you should get v = c⋅√[1-(m₀/m)²]

If we assume that his fist is 0.4 kg, and the mass of a red dwarf is 10²⁹ kg we get.

So yeah, 99.999...2% the speed of light.

Originally posted by Astner
Don't get me wrong here. You're completely correct in that particle physicists generally use the term mass to refer to rest mass, because there little to no use for relativistic mass--it's not like you can evaluate it an plug it into a classical formula (e.g. for Newtonian gravity) and get a meaningful result. In fact, it's especially true when you're dealing of gravity, where you'll have to formulate and solve the problem connecting the two using the Einstein equations.

But what you're saying "mass doesn't increase with speed," is confusing at best and misleading at worst. After all, relativistic mass is still a thing, and if we take the Flash's statement of his fist becoming as massive as a dwarf star (I'd assume he means a red dwarf, since brown dwarfs are not stars and white dwarfs are stellar remnants) at face value, it's quite easy to calculate how fast his fist would have to move.

You just solve for v in m = m₀/√[1-(v/c)²], and you should get v = c⋅√[1-(m₀/m)²]

If we assume that his fist is 0.4 kg, and the mass of a red dwarf is 10²⁹ kg we get.

So yeah, 99.999...2% the speed of light.

Originally posted by Magnon
Heh, from the article I linked:

"It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m."
- Albert Einstein

Was Albert Einstein a crackpot, h1?

Ok but that's where gamma comes into play.
That factor effectively increases the momentum of an object in a way that is equivalent to increasing the mass. Hence relativistic mass.
We have Lorentz calculators all over the place for determining relativistic mass.

Your initial statement is misleading at best (mass doesn't increase with speed). It implies momentum increases linearly with velocity

Originally posted by Astner
The only way you could justify the Flash winning would be if you... [list=1][*]replaced the Flash with a murder-machine with the same portfolio of abilities,
[*]valued statements concerning the character as highly as feats,
[*]cherry-picked his best statements and feats, and ignoring everything that doesn't align with this interpretation,
[*]and didn't dispend the same courtesy to Saitama.[/list=1]
What kind of bullshit is this? Tons is a measure of mass, not pressure. Secondly the pressure inside of black holes supersedes that of neutron stars, which is enough to generate neutron degeneracy, which already goes beyond any "defenses" that could be explained by physics.

Except that the momentum, p, is not mass invariant. Particularly, p = mvγ, where γ is the Lorentz factor.

There's a reason mass is distinguished from rest mass when it comes to particle physics.

All of this

Double post

Originally posted by Astner
The only way you could justify the Flash winning would be if you... [list=1][*]replaced the Flash with a murder-machine with the same portfolio of abilities,
[*]valued statements concerning the character as highly as feats,
[*]cherry-picked his best statements and feats, and ignoring everything that doesn't align with this interpretation,
[*]and didn't dispend the same courtesy to Saitama.[/list=1]
What kind of bullshit is this? Tons is a measure of mass, not pressure. Secondly the pressure inside of black holes supersedes that of neutron stars, which is enough to generate neutron degeneracy, which already goes beyond any "defenses" that could be explained by physics.

Except that the momentum, p, is not mass invariant. Particularly, p = mvγ, where γ is the Lorentz factor.

There's a reason mass is distinguished from rest mass when it comes to particle physics.

There is no pressure in black holes. There is only force in one direction.
Now you can claim pressure since the force is acting on an object with surface area (P= F/A). That's like saying gravitational pressure instead of gravitational force in general physics problems. Which is unconventionally and rather silly.

When you enter some black holes (the event horizon) the force is very small. You can even fall for sometime before being spaghettified. I was generous with the 1000 tons. It can be much much smaller.

The op states Flash is willing to kill and knows how powerful Saitama is. Put the two together and then logically Flash is going to punch with the highest mass he can achieve. This is not rocket science. It's clear the intent of the OP.

Originally posted by Magnon
Speed doesn't increase mass, unless you live in the early 20th century.

In SR, E² = p²c² + m²c⁴ where the mass m is invariant.

Google says

Another result of the theory of special relativity is that as an object moves faster, its observed mass increases. This increase is negligible at everyday speeds. But as an object approaches the speed of light, its observed mass becomes infinitely large.

Originally posted by h1a8
Ok but that's where gamma comes into play.
That factor effectively increases the momentum of an object in a way that is equivalent to increasing the mass. Hence relativistic mass.
We have Lorentz calculators all over the place for determining relativistic mass.

Your initial statement is misleading at best (mass doesn't increase with speed). It implies momentum increases linearly with velocity

All these terms are related to the four-momentum vector of the object:

P = (P₀, P₁, P₂, P₃ ).

Here, apart from some constants of proportionality:

- the component P₀ is the energy E
- the components P₁ - P₃ are the components of the familiar momentum (three-)vector p
- the Minkowski norm or (pseudo)length of P, denoted |P| or ||P||, is the mass.

The individual components of P, i.e. energy and (three-)momentum, are frame-dependent. For a massive object (m > 0) they can be expressed with help of the Lorentz factor γ i.e. the components depend on γ. However, the length |P| and thus the mass is manifestly Lorentz-invariant, independent of γ. Einstein himself supported these notions once special relativity had been put on a rigorous Minkowski-space footing.