Saitama vs Wally West (The Flash)

Originally posted by Magnon
As I've already said, nothing misleading about my statement. The modern Minkowski-space formulation of special relativity is very clear and unambiguous about these concepts.

All these terms are related to the [B]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. [/B]

What does that have to do with this thread? Really? Are you arguing, for an object with rest mass m, that p (momentum) won't be magnitudes greater than m*v for very large v (very close to the speed of light)?

This is pretty interesting. I didn't know this at all

https://youtu.be/z4O-5eV4LiA

Originally posted by h1a8
There is no pressure in black holes. There is only force in one direction.

Originally posted by h1a8
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.

Originally posted by h1a8
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.

The only argument for the Flash with any merit is for him to vibrate and phase out Saitama's organs...but this is an argument that's based off a lack of evidence for Saitama's resistances against such an attack, i.e. it's highly speculative. And considering Saitama's portfolio of immunities to telekinetic abilities, energy-dense environments (like the gamma-ray burst), reality warping, etc. there's certainly a case to be made against it.

And it's not like Saitama even has to touch the Flash to win. All he has to do is sneeze.

Originally posted by h1a8
This is pretty interesting. I didn't know this at all

https://youtu.be/z4O-5eV4LiA

Originally posted by h1a8
What does that have to do with this thread? Really? Are you arguing, for an object with rest mass m, that p (momentum) won't be magnitudes greater than m*v for very large v (very close to the speed of light)?

I wrote this:
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.

Explicitly, the γ-dependence I mentioned is as follows (these formulas were already given by Astner earlier) :
E = γmc²
p = γmv

These four-momentum components most certainly depend non-linearly on v, and approach infinity as v approaches c. What I have been saying, though, is that the mass m does not. It is Lorentz-invariant.

Actually I think I might be misremembering the value for the pressure for black holes. It exists, but it might be really small. I'll have to check the program I wrote for it when I get home.

Originally posted by Magnon
No, quite the opposite. How did you even end up with that conclusion (because that's not what I said at all) ??

I wrote this:
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.

Explicitly, the γ-dependence I mentioned is as follows (these formulas were already given by Astner earlier) :
E = γmc²
p = γmv

These four-momentum components most certainly depend non-linearly on v, and approach infinity as v approaches c. What I have been saying, though, is that the mass m does not. It is Lorentz-invariant.

Ok well then Flash can use relativistic effects by traveling near the speed of light in order to punch with astronomical energy and momentum.

Originally posted by Astner
There is. It generated by the quantum mechanical corrections.

Black holes are modelled by quantum gravity, not classical mechanics.

Let me put it like this. The Flash has never punched someone to the Moon. The closest thing he has to such a feat (that I'm aware of) is when he hit Züm with an Infinite Mass Punch sending him to Africa.

The only argument for the Flash with any merit is for him to vibrate and phase out Saitama's organs...but this is an argument that's based off a lack of evidence for Saitama's resistances against such an attack, i.e. it's highly speculative. And considering Saitama's portfolio of immunities to telekinetic abilities, energy-dense environments (like the gamma-ray burst), reality warping, etc. there's certainly a case to be made against it.

And it's not like Saitama even has to touch the Flash to win. All he has to do is sneeze.

I haven't seen this particular video. But the Imaginary Axis frequently blends cherry-picking with head-canon. There was a video where he interviewed Scott Snyder where he repeatedly tried to correct the author on the Death Metal event. There's no doubt that this guy is a wanker. If he makes a good argument, feel free to recite it, but I'm not going to waste my time on his videos.

What does the distance Flash hit someone matter here?
Comics don't work that way. Lack of collateral damage doesn't imply lack of power.
A character can strike with the force to send someone to the moon but only knock them several feet (or nowhere).

Saitama (1st round) has never been hit the amount of energy of half the mass of a white dwarf times the square of the speed of light.
So Flash can win the first round.
In the 2nd round, things are totally different. Saitama durability is beyond Flashes best feat. So he may not be able to hurt him.

Originally posted by h1a8
What does the distance Flash hit someone matter here?

Originally posted by h1a8
Comics don't work that way. Lack of collateral damage doesn't imply lack of power.

Of course there's some grey-area where a character has feats on a certain scale and then you have statements pertaining abilities on a similar scale. But the Flash has never destroyed a planet or anything like that, and for a character with such an extensive publication history that becomes a problem.

Originally posted by h1a8
A character can strike with the force to send someone to the moon but only knock them several feet (or nowhere).

Originally posted by h1a8
Saitama (1st round) has never been hit the amount of energy of half the mass of a white dwarf times the square of the speed of light.

I take it one step further and dismiss the Serious Punch² because it's not it's not explicit enough. Despite that I think he wins.

In the white martian's case

Pretty sure the comic itself actually never called it "Infinite Mass Punch" in the white martian's case

Rather, the description seems more likely a "its mass can increase infinitely punch", and Flash punched the white martian at near lightspeeds which packed enough force to koe him

So it's indeed not a "infinite mass punch", since Flash only punched him at near lightspeeds and Flash's mass only approaching/toward infinity(not his mass is infinity)

I'm at work, so I'm just citing these feats off memory.

I'm fairly certain I got the "dwarf star" feat wrong too based off h1a8's comment. It probably does specify it to be a "white dwarf star," (technically a white dwarf isn't a star, but whatever).

Originally posted by Astner
I'm at work, so I'm just citing these feats off memory.

I'm fairly certain I got the "dwarf star" feat wrong too based off h1a8's comment. It probably does specify it to be a "white dwarf star," (technically a white dwarf isn't a star, but whatever).

Thawne's scene
https://ibb.co/P6fQVjP

Originally posted by carver9

Saitama and Garou destroyed stars and left a hole in space and Saitama endured those same punches onwards. I don't know why you keep mentioning star level punches. Who has Flash punched at star level hits?

Brooooo, nooooo, that's not what happened during that fight. You read that super wrong.

That wasn't a hole in space. Look at all the images of space before that. The artist drew it always as a pitch black space with only Earth visible. Saitama and Garou attached each other and Blast used his worm holes to absorb their energy. We also saw how residue of their energy flew outward (which is what you believe to be stars) and the "black hole" in the middle of it is just empty space, where Blast teleported the energy away.

It was drawn poorly and I understand why you think that was stars destroyed in the space, but no. Absolutely no. And that's straight up not even up for discussion. Look at the manga again while keeping in mind what I just explained.

Originally posted by Astner
Because we use physics to quantify feats.

Of course it does. Unless there's an explanation clarifying why there's no collateral damage then we're free to interpret any descriptive statement however we want (which includes dismissing it as hyperbole), you can't do that for explicit feats.

Of course there's some grey-area where a character has feats on a certain scale and then you have statements pertaining abilities on a similar scale. But the Flash has never destroyed a planet or anything like that, and for a character with such an extensive publication history that becomes a problem.

If they can counter-act it somehow, maybe with flight? Then sure. Otherwise it's just physics. In this case, Züm didn't have flight. This feat is particularly interesting because this "Infinite Mass Punch" explicitly sent Züm way at "escape velocity."

See, this is the issue. You're accepting a statement from the Flash at face value (despite no evidence in terms of collateral damage). But you dismiss Saitama brushing off Garou's Gamma-ray Burst. Why? Because the collateral damage of his Gamma-ray Burst didn't cause enough collateral damage.

I take it one step further and dismiss the Serious Punch² because it's not it's not explicit enough. Despite that I think he wins.

Bro you are wrong here. If the comic states a particular force is being used but the collateral damage (using real world physics) contradicts it then we ignore the collateral damage. Mods even stated this multiple times. This is comics, nearly all feats can be invalidated if we use real world physics. Writer's intent is everything.

We only use collateral damage if the comic doesn't quantify the force AND the collateral damage is close to or above the character's average for strength (power, etc).

For example, Hulk weighs 1000lb. Thor uppercuts Hulk with his hammer. Hulk doesn't leave his feet but stumbles back a few feet and is dazed. Does that mean Thor hit Hulk with less than 1000lb of force?

The existence of collateral damage that matches or exceeds the character's strength can be used as evidence but collateral damage that is significantly BELOW a character's average strength must be ignored.

Originally posted by h1a8
Bro you are wrong here. If the comic states a particular force is being used but the collateral damage (using real world physics) contradicts it then we ignore the collateral damage.

Take Hulk's cracking of the moon which was measured 123 on the Richter scale at face value.

For reference that far exceeded the mass-energy of the entire universe (~10⁷⁰ J), heck you can throw in dark matter and dark energy too (~10⁷¹ J), and it still won't get anywhere close to the above value.

You'd argue that this moon-busting is an extra-universal feat. Which makes absolutely no sense. No one win their right mind would interpret the feat like that.

Originally posted by h1a8
Mods even stated this multiple times.

Originally posted by h1a8
This is comics, nearly all feats can be invalidated if we use real world physics.

Originally posted by h1a8
Writer's intent is everything.

It's not a good method for figuring out who'd win.

Originally posted by h1a8
For example, Hulk weighs 1000lb. Thor uppercuts Hulk with his hammer. Hulk doesn't leave his feet but stumbles back a few feet and is dazed. Does that mean Thor hit Hulk with less than 1000lb of force?

Originally posted by h1a8
The existence of collateral damage that matches or exceeds the character's strength can be used as evidence but collateral damage that is significantly BELOW a character's average strength must be ignored.

Originally posted by Astner
There are so many problems that can be derived from the assumptions you're making....

Take Hulk's cracking of the moon which was measured 123 on the Richter scale at face value.

For reference that far exceeded the mass-energy of the entire universe (~10⁷⁰ J), heck you can throw in dark matter and dark energy too (~10⁷¹ J), and it still won't get anywhere close to the above value.

You'd argue that this moon-busting is an extra-universal feat. Which makes absolutely no sense. No one win their right mind would interpret the feat like that.

If it's not in the rules then I don't care.

You don't have to be overly stringent and examine every minute implication. But when you interpret someone tearing down a few skyscrapers in Manhattan to be a planet-busting feat then it's an issue.

I disagree. First and foremost you can't always reliably infer writer intent, secondly: the writer intent is for Saitama to win. Always.

It's not a good method for figuring out who'd win.

Yes. I'm not sure why this would be controversial as even Captain America has staggered the Hulk with his punches. Granted, that doesn't necessarily mean that it always will stagger him or that it paints a consistent picture of the Hulk's durability. But it's something that can happen.

I don't ignore showings, period, because you can't determine consistency by ignoring showings. All showings have to be taken into consideration. You can't just brush away the ones you don't like and then establish some kind of consistency.

I cant QUOTE you. Can you please not use the ios apostrophe. Use a different keyboard.

Anyway there are clearly exceptions to the rule. The writer clearly didn't know how much energy was in 123 Richter scale. Clearly it wasn't his intent. Writer's know how much white dwarf mass are. Writer's intent is usually clear.

Galan stated that lack of collateral damage doesn't always imply lack of power. You can choose to ignore that. That's your choice.

It's not an issue. If the writer wanted a character to strike with planet busting power but doesn't want the character hit out of the solar system because that would wreck the story then that's his right to do so.

Nearly all feats shit on real world physics far worse than the issue you have with collateral damage. You just can't cherry pick what you choose to ignore going against writer's intent.

You can't always reliably infer from writers intent. But that doesn't mean you can't ever either. We use common sense and logic.

You missed my point. Thor is clearly a high class 100 level being. That means any strike to Hulk should send him flying over a mile away. Many strikes don't even take Hulk off his feet. Does that mean Thor hits Hulk 99% of the time with less than 1000lb of force? Does Hulk hit Thanos and other strong beings with less than 1000lb of force?
Please answer that question.

Originally posted by h1a8
I cant QUOTE you. Can you please not use the ios apostrophe. Use a different keyboard.

Originally posted by h1a8
Anyway there are clearly exceptions to the rule. The writer clearly didn't know how much energy was in 123 Richter scale. Clearly it wasn't his intent. Writer's know how much white dwarf mass are. Writer's intent is usually clear.

Originally posted by h1a8
Galan stated that lack of collateral damage doesn't always imply lack of power. You can choose to ignore that. That's your choice.

That said, Galan has also taken a stand against the author's intent.

Originally posted by Galan007
I'm guessing this is why writer interviews and whatnot aren't admissible as evidence on the forums. Carey is inadvertently trying to faux-retcon decadeS-worth of canon history in a single formspring response, lol.

Originally posted by h1a8
It's not an issue. If the writer wanted a character to strike with planet busting power but doesn't want the character hit out of the solar system because that would wreck the story then that's his right to do so.

This isn't even a controversial take on my part. Al Ewing is one of those writers that have been bombarded by powerscale tweets, and even he is clear in that his (or any other writer's) interpretations shouldn't matter to any powerscaler.

Originally posted by h1a8
Nearly all feats shit on real world physics far worse than the issue you have with collateral damage.

Originally posted by h1a8
You can't always reliably infer from writers intent. But that doesn't mean you can't ever either. We use common sense and logic.

Originally posted by h1a8
You missed my point. Thor is clearly a high class 100 level being. That means any strike to Hulk should send him flying over a mile away. Many strikes don't even take Hulk off his feet. Does that mean Thor hits Hulk 99% of the time with less than 1000lb of force? Does Hulk hit Thanos and other strong beings with less than 1000lb of force?
Please answer that question.

If there is sufficient evidence, e.g. the shock-wave from the impact brings down surrounding buildings, then we can have oversight with the fact that the Hulk isn't knocked off the ground and focus on the energy of the shock-wave instead. But that's it.

Originally posted by Astner
It's the superscripts that the issue, they're non-ASCII.

No, you don't know that. It's an arbitrary assessment on your part.

It doesn't always imply a lack of power. But there has to be an explanation for why there is no collateral damage if we are to infer the feat to be on a particular scale. If there is no such explanation then you shouldn't rely on it, especially not if the character in question have no explicit feats on that scale.

That said, Galan has also taken a stand against the author's intent.

I don't care about the author's intent. I care about what's on the page, and explicit feats should always be the foundation for a character's power.

This isn't even a controversial take on my part. Al Ewing is one of those writers that have been bombarded by powerscale tweets, and even he is clear in that his (or any other writer's) interpretations shouldn't matter to any powerscaler.

Right, but we're applying it locally. If a planet is destroyed we don't get overly stringent as to whether it was depicted correctly. We simply agree that the planet was destroyed, and that the scale of the feat roughly corresponds to the least amount of energy required to destroy such a planet.

I don't think you have reasonable grounds for assuming that the Flash's statement isn't hyperbole. It could very well be, and the Flash has no explicit feats anywhere near this scale. You may think it's common sense, but I disagree.

No. I understand what you meant. My points was that there's no reason to assume that every time Thor strikes the Hulk he hits him as hard as he can. It's not like Thor's power is consistent across all stories, nor can we discern how hard Thor strikes unless it's explicitly made clear.

If there is sufficient evidence, e.g. the shock-wave from the impact brings down surrounding buildings, then we can have oversight with the fact that the Hulk isn't knocked off the ground and focus on the energy of the shock-wave instead. But that's it.

Again. 1000lb of force wouldn't tickle Hulk. Yet Thor dazes Hulk with hits that doesn't take Hulk off his feet. This is just one example, you can use other examples where Thor is clearly trying to kill (Mangog, Destroyer, etc). Or millions of other examples all over fiction. Characters (who can't fly) who are class 100 beings known to withstand forces well over 100 tons being koed by strikes that doesn't take them off their feet.
Millions of examples. And you are telling me that in all those cases those characters were koed with forces LESS than their weight? That goes against all common sense.

If a writer gives a force of application then that supercedes the distance a character travels. Everyone here would agree with me on that.

And if you still disagree then you have to chalk up any feats well above weight level as PIS since that vast majority of showings have characters strike other characters with distances less than weight level force. That means almost no one has superhuman strength.

Last thing. The Imp implies infinite. Not moon level, not planet level, and not star level. It's based of SR. The writer's intent is clear. Flash can literally gain any mass below infinite mass. Flash doesn't kill. So you won't see him striking humans with moon level mass. Flash can casually move his fingertip faster than a bullet. In his mind he can barely touch you and his finger passes through you like you are a ghost, which would cause your body part to explodes due to all the kinetic energy imparted in you. Like watching a bullet penetrate a watermelon in slow motion.

H1, so you agree Hulk punched the moon with Universal power?

Originally posted by h1a8
Bro you are wrong here. If the comic states a particular force is being used but the collateral damage (using real world physics) contradicts it then we ignore the collateral damage.

Glad you agree Hulk withstood 100 thousand exploding stars. We debated pages about this and you just didn't want to accept it, hypocrite.

Originally posted by Astner
That said, Galan has also taken a stand against the author's intent.

Anyway, I certainly agree that trying to apply real world physics to a form of media that is entirely fictional is not always a reliable endeavor. Comic book writers aren't physicists, nor do they always make an effort for their works to mesh with real world logic. That's the thing with this type of fiction: it doesn't have to make any sort of logical sense, and rarely does. Comics are not scientific textbooks, and should never be regarded as such.

I also believe that writer intent should be the primary metric we use when discussing comic book feats -- and writers typically make their intent clear/known(be it narratively or artistically.) However, there are of course instances where the writer's intent isn't explicitly stated, and/or the feat(s) in question are rather ambiguous. That, I believe, is when logical power-scaling and whatnot holds more validity... Because at that point we are just trying to make sense of what is going on, rather than trying to refute what the writer has already told/shown us within the material itself.