Polyphase Avatron wrote:Kamiccolo9 wrote:This is all nitpicking. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
Then you are not understanding my point. I'm not talking about having to apply scientific sense to everything, only about being inconsistent about it.
We see the train car feat happening. It's definable, because it's clear what is happening. No extrapolation is necessary. Now, if someone started assigning specific weights to the train car because there is a similar looking train car in real life, then I'd argue that's not a valid way to go about it, because we have no way of knowing how much the train car weighs.
By comparing it to similarly sized and looking real life train cars? After all, Spider-Man comics are set in New York City, and he interacts with things in the city based on real life. So why would it be unreasonable to use the weight of an identical-looking train car from real life used in that city?
The lifting infinity feat is both stated and shown. We know what it is. We don't know how it's possible, but that doesn't matter for the purposes of the feat itself. It violates the laws of physics, but the story itself clearly acknowledges that it is a real thing. If I recall correctly, story even mentions how it is "impossible."
So you think it's okay to accept something that is stated even if it makes no sense, but anything that isn't explicitly spelled out has to be nitpicked to death and you're allowed to use any kind of excuse you want to say it doesn't count?
If there were a caption or a statement or an interview by Toriyama that said that Goku and co. were capable of traveling at light speed, then it would be perfectly acceptable. If they were clearly shown traveling at light speed, it would be acceptable. We would know that the side affects of that kind of speed aren't applicable in the DB universe. But it's not ever said, by anyone, and it's never clearly demonstrated.
So if they travel X distance in Y time, how is it not reasonable to say their speed is X/Y?
For the Superman and Spiderman feats, they are clearly and inarguably trumping real life rules. The story itself has decided that. It's not up for debate.
For Dragon Ball, people are taking theories that are never stated by anything related to the series itself, and using those to justify ignoring certain rules, not all, but only the rules that inconvenience them.
It sounds to me like you're ignoring any rules that inconvenience you when you want, but applying them strictly when you don't like what is happening. Anything that is stated by a character or narrator is automatically true, even if it makes no sense or doesn't match up with what we see, but determining even the simplest information from visual data can't be done? That makes no sense.
The fact is that your position is inconsistent. If you want to claim that anything that doesn't perfectly match up to real life physics means that you can't get even the simplest information from any event that is not explicitly spelled out (i.e. a character moves x distance in y time, their speed isn't x/y because if it was they would be making sonic booms?) but you take any statement at face value (x can do y, therefore it's automatically true), you're ignoring the consequences of what this means.
For example, take Superman lifting infinity. Say you believe that's true because it was stated. Okay. But with no consistent laws of physics or even logic, what does that mean? If an infinitely heavy book doesn't become a singularity, then perhaps all that it takes to lift it is the equivalent of the strength of a mouse in another fictional continuity. You can't disprove that, if you apply the same standards you use here.
It's perfectly fine if you want to base the weight off the real life cars. You just can't treat it as a fact unless it is stated in universe.
If something is shown and stated, then it happened. If there is no way to definitively prove something, either by statements or if the feat itself is vague, then it
may have happened. Do you not see the difference? So yes, Spider-Man lifted a train car. This is a feat. Saying that Spider-Man lifted a 10 ton train car (or however much an average train car weighs) is not a valid feat, because you have no real way of extrapolating the weight of the car. I have never said you couldn't use such a feat, but you cannot treat it as a fact, because it isn't one.
None of the defined "travelled x distance in y time" feats that are actually stated in the manga are anywhere near lightspeed. And with most of the other speed "feats," we are missing either the distance, the time, or both. The only definitive thing you can say about their speed is that they are "really fast." Although I suppose that's relative as well, given the characters we are dealing with.
The closest thing we have to a complete speed feat in Dragon Ball is Goku's return down Snake Way after Kaio's training, and even that is unquantifiable, because we don't know the exact curvature of every part of the road, and Goku flew in a straight line.
So, yeah. You can say that DB characters are super fast, but you cannot ascribe a figure to that speed and treat it as a fact, because the information to quantify those feats does not exist in the series.
Direct, in-universe rules trump real life physics when they contradict. The difference is, in the Marvel and DC feats we are dealing with, these feats are explicitly spelled out, while in Dragon Ball, they are vague. The only real quantifiable strength feats in Dragon Ball are the turtle shells from Roshi's training, the gravity training, and Goku's weights in the Buu Arc. There may be a few other things thrown in there, but you get the point. There's also Goku punching a hole through Kaio's planet, but we don't know anything about Kaio's planet, other than the gravity, so that doesn't provide anything usable either.
So yeah, you can say that DB characters are really strong, and that anyone stronger than Buu Arc Base Goku can most likely lift more than 40 tons while flying, but you can't claim anything more than that as a fact, because it's not.
You're acting like I'm trying to shatter your perceptions of the series. I'm not. I'm pointing out that, in a logical debate, you cannot make assumptions and treat them as facts, and as you cannot definitively prove things such as Goku being able to move at light speed or not, you cannot treat it as a fact. Again, this is basic logic. I'm not saying people are wrong to treat these "feats" as legitimate, but you simply cannot express them as factual when there is not enough evidence to do so. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.