FACTPILE IS BACK!!!
CLICK HERE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF
Take a Tour of the Admin's Mancave

Considering all the variables

Designated Debating Area! As Well As Expanded Mayhem!

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Authors

Considering all the variables

Postby Mea quidem sententia » Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:55 pm

I recently watched a video from Nerdist on YouTube where Kyle, the host of the show, calculates Saitama punching this sea king, causing the rain within the vicinity to cease. However, even if the sea king could take the punch, he doesn't get launched off his feet and neither the asphalt beneath the two, nor the windows or buildings get damaged. A little earlier before, even when Saitama's head was struck, it behaved like a small punching bag and Saitama didn't get launched or even stumble.

So, how is this addressed when everything else is used as a feat? Suppose the sea king's punch hit someone like Superman. Should Superman be unfazed and fail to stumble? Suppose Goku is in Saitama's place. The problem is with being selective. If it comes down to two people debating this example or others like it, it'll be an impasse. There are plenty of other examples I can use, but this one will do.
Mea quidem sententia
Ready For Action
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Considering all the variables

Postby Kitten Lord » Tue Apr 25, 2017 4:53 am

We have had this argument actually, with me pointing out what you said about Saitama....

And its true, its a factual impasse. You cannot argue past it. At most, you can hope that some members of your opposition if you want to push this argument forwards that Saitama is really strong and other things not being shown are inconsistencies but that would be PURELY reliant on the oppositions nature. If its someone like me your not going to get an agreement.

Factually taking the feat and tearing it apart we know for a fact that the physics demonstrated do not show force properly. Being a fiction we can attribute "possibilities" which can be argued separately like alternate timelines if you will. So instead of just saying "rubbish, it does not work that way!" and then closing the thread, we can argue the possibility that the power somehow affected the rain differently, or maybe the author is simply not aware of how impressive it is to affect weather like that and actually thinks its easy to clear rain if your just strong enough even if you cannot launch a mildly heavy opponent.

So instead of saying he has force enough to clear clouds, you can just as easily point out that this force is not enough to cause far more obvious physical interactions (some could agree but I would say its more obvious and evident even to a pre-schooler that if you hit something with force, the thing you hit at least is going to move in accordance with said force while atmospheric changes and air pressure is a bit more complicated, well dramatically so.

If you do not want to argue separate possibilities then yes, you have an impasse.

Now, what would happen if Saitama punched Superman, Goku, Kain etc? Nothing, probably less than what happened to the Sea King, but maybe the clouds would be affected if their in his universe. Personally I am more comfortable considering the force of the characters moving since that is what most determines how strong the attack was, you can handwave everything else as dramatic posturing, or maybe it just looked cool for cools sake! But I think most would agree the confrontation between and t he shown forces between them is far more central and in this case the force did neither launch the Sea King far or Saitama backwards (N third law) and them anchored on the ground caused no damage to the asphalt as you said.

Course that is my two cents on that particular scene. I have been doing that for all fictions, DBZ, OPM a little and some of the novel stuff recently argued and there is always a rub. Comic fans ignore the variables all the time, I had this back and forth with Ragnorke on the pile which I enjoyed immensely, especially that last thread.
Image
User avatar
Kitten Lord
Organ Grinder
 
Posts: 2024
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:04 pm

Re: Considering all the variables

Postby Friendlysociopath » Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:47 am

Mea quidem sententia wrote:So, how is this addressed when everything else is used as a feat? Suppose the sea king's punch hit someone like Superman. Should Superman be unfazed and fail to stumble? Suppose Goku is in Saitama's place.


That would be why people use various methods to measure the energy output of the punch- in reality that amount of energy would devastate the environment- in fiction it can be selective.
Saitama in particular seems to be able to control how the force of his punches act- as seen here
https://youtu.be/km2OPUctni4?t=2m57s
where he blasts a giant portion of the landscape away yet somehow spares Genos. We know from the rest of the series that the punch would've wrecked Genos but Saitama0 and fictional characters in general- can somehow direct the force of their attacks.
It ultimately matters little how he outputs that energy, it ultimately just matters that he can output that much energy, because canonically he does blast away the storm without harming everything around him; he does blow apart that cliff-face without destroying everything around him. Whether it matches up correctly is somewhat irrelevant for our purposes. The lack of everything around him being destroyed doesn't disprove that he did output that much force.
Superman would be unfazed because we can gauge feats where he's withstood greater amounts of energy and been unfazed- such as point-blank nuclear explosions without being moved at all and pushing around tectonic plates.
Were Goku in Saitama's place we would measure, gauge, or otherwise calculate Goku's potential output- such as punching hard enough to create small mountains or the various ki claims and feats- and compare it to what Saitama did to defeat Sea King to see if he can do as much damage. If he can output as much force or damage then the Sea King would fall all the same.


Mea quidem sententia wrote:The problem is with being selective. If it comes down to two people debating this example or others like it, it'll be an impasse. There are plenty of other examples I can use, but this one will do.


Technically, this is only a problem if everyone doesn't agree to the premises, but you can't debate anything if that's done- regardless of the field. Try debating the superiority of a certain car for example if the opposition doesn't agree on what makes a car superior- doesn't work very well.
People outputting high amounts of energy and not launching themselves and their opponents is fine so long as the same consideration is given to the opposition. So long as it's equally submitted that Saitama not wrecking the city doesn't discredit the feat anymore than Hideyoshi not wrecking his army doesn't discredit this feat-
https://youtu.be/q6a9RV1OZm8?t=16s
the debate will still be logically correct because the same premises are being followed. This is a theoretical exercise after all- these things won't happen in reality. Nobody can HAVE super strength according to physics- you can't output that much energy and not move yourself. The power existing at all means you need to compromise or you end up being unable to debate anything at all.


Rag's way of off-putting that was saying Super Strength effectively gives you Super Mass when you calculated things.
Force = Mass x Acceleration is the normal formula.
But, characters in fiction can output massive amounts of force without high mass or acceleration, sometimes without accelerating at all like stopping a car just by standing there; so Rag came up with his own version.
Force = (Mass x Super Strength) x Acceleration
^Admin, for the record, liked that formula. However he's got a lot on his plate at the moment so I don't expect he'll be by anytime soon to talk about it.

But, that's ultimately fiction in a nutshell, if someone doesn't agree to the same rules as the others then it's difficult to prove anything; that's why debating sites try to make their rules clear so people are all using the same premises and rules. Sure, you can have someone go against them, but then they're not actually proving you wrong since they're not operating under the same premises. If I operate under the principle that Cloud Strife, for example, can violate physics however he pleases (paraphrased but that was sort of said at one point) and thus can defeat anyone because he doesn't follow physics- the same argument can be used against me and citing anyone who doesn't follow physics.
User avatar
Friendlysociopath
Voice of the People
 
Posts: 4134
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 2:24 pm

Re: Considering all the variables

Postby Mea quidem sententia » Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:31 pm

Friendlysociopath wrote:That would be why people use various methods to measure the energy output of the punch- in reality that amount of energy would devastate the environment- in fiction it can be selective.


What various methods? Are they consistent for every fiction and media?

Friendlysociopath wrote:Saitama in particular seems to be able to control how the force of his punches act- as seen here
https://youtu.be/km2OPUctni4?t=2m57s
where he blasts a giant portion of the landscape away yet somehow spares Genos.


Genos may have been too close. Anyway, if you want to assume Saitama could control how the force of his punches act, then how do you explain anyone else who injures his opponent with such force that the surrounding area is hit, but remains intact?

Friendlysociopath wrote:We know from the rest of the series that the punch would've wrecked Genos but Saitama0 and fictional characters in general- can somehow direct the force of their attacks.


This is an assumption.

Friendlysociopath wrote:It ultimately matters little how he outputs that energy, it ultimately just matters that he can output that much energy, because canonically he does blast away the storm without harming everything around him; he does blow apart that cliff-face without destroying everything around him. Whether it matches up correctly is somewhat irrelevant for our purposes. The lack of everything around him being destroyed doesn't disprove that he did output that much force.


You're maintaining inconsistencies. I'm not concerned with how Saitama or others output energy, unless you mean it ultimately matters little on why such things within the vicinity aren't affected. If it doesn't match up, then it's inconsistent, and no argument is valid, nor sound, if it isn't logically consistent. I can't make you accept the fact that there's an elephant in the room. I can point it out, however.

Friendlysociopath wrote:Superman would be unfazed because we can gauge feats where he's withstood greater amounts of energy and been unfazed- such as point-blank nuclear explosions without being moved at all and pushing around tectonic plates.


And yet, a punch to the face from the likes of Darkseid or Doomsday will cause him flying.

Friendlysociopath wrote:Were Goku in Saitama's place we would measure, gauge, or otherwise calculate Goku's potential output- such as punching hard enough to create small mountains or the various ki claims and feats- and compare it to what Saitama did to defeat Sea King to see if he can do as much damage. If he can output as much force or damage then the Sea King would fall all the same.


We know Saitama has been launched by Lord Boros to the Moon. Why his head rapidly moves back and forth like a speed bag is curious.

Friendlysociopath wrote:Technically, this is only a problem if everyone doesn't agree to the premises, but you can't debate anything if that's done- regardless of the field.


I don't know what these premises would be. Perhaps you could show me.

Friendlysociopath wrote:Try debating the superiority of a certain car for example if the opposition doesn't agree on what makes a car superior- doesn't work very well.


That depends on what you mean by "superiority". "Superiority" is abstract, just like success. Taking an analytical approach would help minimize what's meant by "superiority".

Friendlysociopath wrote:People outputting high amounts of energy and not launching themselves and their opponents is fine so long as the same consideration is given to the opposition. So long as it's equally submitted that Saitama not wrecking the city doesn't discredit the feat anymore than Hideyoshi not wrecking his army doesn't discredit this feat-
https://youtu.be/q6a9RV1OZm8?t=16s
the debate will still be logically correct because the same premises are being followed. This is a theoretical exercise after all- these things won't happen in reality. Nobody can HAVE super strength according to physics- you can't output that much energy and not move yourself. The power existing at all means you need to compromise or you end up being unable to debate anything at all.


I don't believe ceteris paribus has been maintained consistently in many of our debates.

Friendlysociopath wrote:Rag's way of off-putting that was saying Super Strength effectively gives you Super Mass when you calculated things.


That's not necessarily true. You could increase mass and acceleration, increase mass and decrease acceleration, or decrease mass and increase acceleration.

Friendlysociopath wrote:
Force = Mass x Acceleration is the normal formula.
But, characters in fiction can output massive amounts of force without high mass or acceleration, sometimes without accelerating at all like stopping a car just by standing there; so Rag came up with his own version.
Force = (Mass x Super Strength) x Acceleration
^Admin, for the record, liked that formula. However he's got a lot on his plate at the moment so I don't expect he'll be by anytime soon to talk about it.


What SI units are used for "super strength"?
Mea quidem sententia
Ready For Action
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Considering all the variables

Postby Mea quidem sententia » Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:32 pm

Kitten Lord wrote:We have had this argument actually, with me pointing out what you said about Saitama....


Who's "we"?

Kitten Lord wrote:Factually taking the feat and tearing it apart we know for a fact that the physics demonstrated do not show force properly. Being a fiction we can attribute "possibilities" which can be argued separately like alternate timelines if you will. So instead of just saying "rubbish, it does not work that way!" and then closing the thread, we can argue the possibility that the power somehow affected the rain differently, or maybe the author is simply not aware of how impressive it is to affect weather like that and actually thinks its easy to clear rain if your just strong enough even if you cannot launch a mildly heavy opponent.


If I was standing at the same distance at the building, and Saitama did his punch, am I going to launch off my feet, or will I just remain unmoved? If you want to talk about possibility, then pretty much anything goes, which includes the possibility that the shock wave dissipated faster so that anyone or anything outside of the vicinity isn't affected. Or Saitama's punch only served a coolness factor. Otherwise, there's a discrepancy.

Kitten Lord wrote:So instead of saying he has force enough to clear clouds, you can just as easily point out that this force is not enough to cause far more obvious physical interactions (some could agree but I would say its more obvious and evident even to a pre-schooler that if you hit something with force, the thing you hit at least is going to move in accordance with said force while atmospheric changes and air pressure is a bit more complicated, well dramatically so.


Clouds, which weigh 1.1 million pounds. This is entering physical and logical impossibilities.

Kitten Lord wrote:Now, what would happen if Saitama punched Superman, Goku, Kain etc? Nothing, probably less than what happened to the Sea King, but maybe the clouds would be affected if their in his universe. Personally I am more comfortable considering the force of the characters moving since that is what most determines how strong the attack was, you can handwave everything else as dramatic posturing, or maybe it just looked cool for cools sake! But I think most would agree the confrontation between and t he shown forces between them is far more central and in this case the force did neither launch the Sea King far or Saitama backwards (N third law) and them anchored on the ground caused no damage to the asphalt as you said.


If you suppose the reason why nothing else was affected was because Saitama and the Deep Sea King were the main focus, then it's arbitrary.
Mea quidem sententia
Ready For Action
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Considering all the variables

Postby Kitten Lord » Tue Apr 25, 2017 3:36 pm

Who's "we"?


I think it was Friendly and I. Friendly seems to prefer to take into account what looks impressive and take the best you can from a feat, at least as far as his favored fictions go anyway. He would rather ignore the fact many forms of physics are not being adhered to that would reduce the quality of the feat.

If I was standing at the same distance at the building, and Saitama did his punch, am I going to launch off my feet, or will I just remain unmoved?


No idea, the glass shattering around the buildings may suggest you would be affected somewhat but at the same time, there is the discrepancy with forces on the clouds and himself. Its a difficult thing to discuss a universe with such holes in its feats which is my point initially and would require the opposition to be open to arguing all the possibilities you suggest.

If you want to talk about possibility, then pretty much anything goes,


Anything possible could be discussed yes. That often is the heart of a debate if facts are not obvious or have holes. If you just had the facts then there would be little point in a debate.

Friendly


Rag's way of off-putting that was saying Super Strength effectively gives you Super Mass when you calculated things.


I sucker punched him though with that attempt at an argument. It was just nonsensical.
Image
User avatar
Kitten Lord
Organ Grinder
 
Posts: 2024
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:04 pm

Re: Considering all the variables

Postby Friendlysociopath » Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:54 pm

Mea quidem sententia wrote:What various methods? Are they consistent for every fiction and media?


Measuring force, velocity, etc.
Force is usually joules or tons of tnt.
Velocity tends to be m/s
It depends on the circumstances and the feat.


Mea quidem sententia wrote:Genos may have been too close. Anyway, if you want to assume Saitama could control how the force of his punches act, then how do you explain anyone else who injures his opponent with such force that the surrounding area is hit, but remains intact?


So Saitama produces more force the farther away you are? That doesn't follow physics either.

Mea quidem sententia wrote:You're maintaining inconsistencies. I'm not concerned with how Saitama or others output energy, unless you mean it ultimately matters little on why such things within the vicinity aren't affected. If it doesn't match up, then it's inconsistent, and no argument is valid, nor sound, if it isn't logically consistent. I can't make you accept the fact that there's an elephant in the room. I can point it out, however.


Congrats, you've pointed out what everyone over 10 years old or so realizes- this stuff isn't possible.
That sounds far more hostile than it is.

Mea quidem sententia wrote:And yet, a punch to the face from the likes of Darkseid or Doomsday will cause him flying.


That would be because the former is a universal conceptual force and the latter produces a field that kills everything in it. Darkseid is (apparently) not just some alien dude.

Mea quidem sententia wrote:We know Saitama has been launched by Lord Boros to the Moon. Why his head rapidly moves back and forth like a speed bag is curious.


To be funny I expect fir the bag. Saitama wasn't moved by the building-sized bullet that he kicked prior to Boros.

Mea quidem sententia wrote:I don't know what these premises would be. Perhaps you could show me.


For example, fictional characters like Goku can fly? And punch people through mountains? Even though such things should be physically impossible?



Mea quidem sententia wrote:That depends on what you mean by "superiority". "Superiority" is abstract, just like success. Taking an analytical approach would help minimize what's meant by "superiority".


And that's, paraphrased, what we do here in regards to fictional characters fighting. We set goals for victory and go about trying to figure out the winner. We do this by posting arguments, premises, calcs, conclusions, etc.

Mea quidem sententia wrote:I don't believe ceteris paribus has been maintained consistently in many of our debates.


I'm aware, you've been complaining about lasers for some time now. However, the examples you gave of stuff like Saitama punching have been uniform to the best of my knowledge.

Mea quidem sententia wrote:That's not necessarily true. You could increase mass and acceleration, increase mass and decrease acceleration, or decrease mass and increase acceleration.


You could, yes, but we typically can SEE acceleration to know it isn't that; that's something that changes from site to site though. Have you seen The Incredibles? Mr. Incredible benches train cars, acceleration won't help there.

Mea quidem sententia wrote:What SI units are used for "super strength"?


He made it up, obviously. However, it did address how characters could be durable enough that a car or train could hit them and they wouldn't move. I suppose it would be SS?
User avatar
Friendlysociopath
Voice of the People
 
Posts: 4134
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 2:24 pm

Re: Considering all the variables

Postby Mea quidem sententia » Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:53 pm

Friendlysociopath wrote:So Saitama produces more force the farther away you are? That doesn't follow physics either.


I was thinking of it more like the Doppler effect.

Image

Friendlysociopath wrote:Congrats, you've pointed out what everyone over 10 years old or so realizes- this stuff isn't possible.
That sounds far more hostile than it is.


I think you're giving most 10-year-olds a lot of credit.

Friendlysociopath wrote:That would be because the former is a universal conceptual force and the latter produces a field that kills everything in it. Darkseid is (apparently) not just some alien dude.


All right, let's try Aquaman.

Friendlysociopath wrote:To be funny I expect fir the bag. Saitama wasn't moved by the building-sized bullet that he kicked prior to Boros.


¯\(°_o)/¯

Friendlysociopath wrote:For example, fictional characters like Goku can fly? And punch people through mountains? Even though such things should be physically impossible?


That's fine. That's not what's being doubted.

Friendlysociopath wrote:I'm aware, you've been complaining about lasers for some time now. However, the examples you gave of stuff like Saitama punching have been uniform to the best of my knowledge.


I'll always complain about lasers, even if it gets annoying for the both of us.

Friendlysociopath wrote:You could, yes, but we typically can SEE acceleration to know it isn't that; that's something that changes from site to site though. Have you seen The Incredibles? Mr. Incredible benches train cars, acceleration won't help there.


Muscle fibers accelerate. If I could only find that book that I saw at the library one time, exerting one's muscles in a single direction would allow 20 tons of force.

Friendlysociopath, I appreciate you.

Edit
If we can all agree on what's treated equally in fiction, then it'd make a lot of things simpler. I suppose some things would be applicable in some media, but not in others. For example, while I asked why Saitama's punch didn't destroy the vicinity, this is understandable in fiction like video games because developers aren't going to make everything breakable. This is probably due to the engine's limitations or not permitted because if one could do something like blow up a wall to lead oneself outside of a room.

An example of where going through a wall (clipping?) is Young Link rolling into Sakon's hideout to wear the Fierce Deity mask outside of boss rooms. In fiction like comics or animations, this isn't applicable, just like how game mechanics aren't applicable to the aforementioned media. So I understand some things in one medium might be different in another, but I think if we make this apparent, then we can all focus on other things in debates, rather than straying away. Or I'd hope it would at least mitigate this.
Mea quidem sententia
Ready For Action
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:36 pm

Re: Considering all the variables

Postby Friendlysociopath » Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:36 pm

Mea quidem sententia wrote:
Friendlysociopath wrote:You could, yes, but we typically can SEE acceleration to know it isn't that; that's something that changes from site to site though. Have you seen The Incredibles? Mr. Incredible benches train cars, acceleration won't help there.


Muscle fibers accelerate. If I could only find that book that I saw at the library one time, exerting one's muscles in a single direction would allow 20 tons of force.


It's always annoying to know there's a book out there that you want but be unable to find it. It brings the needle in a haystack analogy into perspective. I still don't know how I managed to relocate a book I was looking for when I knew neither the title or author.


Mea quidem sententia wrote:Edit
If we can all agree on what's treated equally in fiction, then it'd make a lot of things simpler. I suppose some things would be applicable in some media, but not in others. For example, while I asked why Saitama's punch didn't destroy the vicinity, this is understandable in fiction like video games because developers aren't going to make everything breakable. This is probably due to the engine's limitations or not permitted because if one could do something like blow up a wall to lead oneself outside of a room.

An example of where going through a wall (clipping?) is Young Link rolling into Sakon's hideout to wear the Fierce Deity mask outside of boss rooms. In fiction like comics or animations, this isn't applicable, just like how game mechanics aren't applicable to the aforementioned media. So I understand some things in one medium might be different in another, but I think if we make this apparent, then we can all focus on other things in debates, rather than straying away. Or I'd hope it would at least mitigate this.


The Raiden vs Samus debate had generally poor showings on both sides (I include myself in that, albeit minimally due to being a minor factor in that debate) so I'd hope it at least doesn't return to those levels anyways. Personally, I go for consistency within the game and the series, which requires levels of analyzing I can't really use on games I haven't played.
For example- If Tifa can still suplex WEAPONS in the FF7 Remake then I'm definitely going to start pushing for that to be her true power- SE would then be reaffirming that they're okay with showing that level of strength from Tifa when they were given the chance to change it. I can also cite how all of the recent entries (13,13-2,13-3,15) were all perfectly okay with showing the heroes being capable of similar feats of bashing and throwing around giant creatures.


All of that said-
Technically, Kitten was totally right when he said fictional character feats can't be measured using tons of TNT and such, but he was also totally wrong because they're technically not measured like that.
To, again, cite the Hideyoshi punch:
The answer doesn't mean he detonated x tons of TNT to achieve the effect.
The answer means the effect he achieved required as much energy as x tons of TNT.
The distinction is minor- yet at the same time incredibly important. The first opens up the can of worms about how you can't use that much energy like that and not hit the people immediately behind him. The second just points out that you're measuring what happened and putting a value to it.
User avatar
Friendlysociopath
Voice of the People
 
Posts: 4134
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 2:24 pm


Return to FactPile Arena

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest