Quote:
Originally Posted by ANB
A nuke would not kill Goku.
Calculating their speed is easy since we know even being 1.09x stronger makes you unbelievably faster. They would attain the speed of light and it goes to show how hard-headed you are if you cannot accept that. If it were flat-out STATED they were, would we be having this discussion???
@Chibi: I don't trust your Japanese. Not when you suddenly have an answer to every single one of my quotes. On top of that, I could care less really. Viz is an official translation company. Are you gonna try and tell me there is no word for "hyper" in Japanese...? I wonder what they call Hyper Sonic over there...:O
|
They probably call him Hypora Soniku or something. I thought Sonic was spelt with romaji in Japan. Anyway, high speeds =/= hyperspeed =/= definitively faster than light.
If it were stated, we would not argue it, because that would be an undeniable canon fact and I would accept it. But since there is no canon statement or proof that they can break the laws of physics, there's no reason to assume they can.
And Goku is not invincible. A nuke would kill him. Radiation would wipe him out. It doesn't have to be physical force to be deadly. Chi blasts contain no known radiation, so saying that he can survive being hit by one doesn't mean he can survive a nuke. The heart virus proved he can get sick, so there's no reason to assume radiation wouldn't damage him. That's yet another assumption you make without any actual evidence.
Also, why is it so hard to understand? A hummingbird's wings move so fast that we see only a blur, and if they sped up we'd see nothing, but they wouldn't be going at light speed. Eyes have a reactionary framerate and neural pathways have a neuro-chemical limitation to how fast that information can be processed, so if you're fast enough to move between the reactionary framerate and perception relay, then it would appear that you are invisible and/or not moving. This is a simple concept, and explains perfectly well why the Z fighters cannot see the death beam and the like, without having to deal with breaking physics and the unfathomable consequences of that.
Basically, it comes down to parsimony and occam's razor. Even if you ignore the evidence that we've presented, you can't ignore the fact that no physics-breaking is shown to happen, or that we have no idea what would happen if you did go beyond light speed. Thus, the simplest solution is that they didn't go faster than light, and until there is a definitive statement or action that proves this wrong (someone saying they go faster than light with reasonable proof, not just some cocky remark or the like, or someone flying from the Sun to Earth in six minutes when light takes 8 minutes to arrive) we can't assume that it's wrong.
I've said it once, I'll say it again. When debating the unknown you can only ever apply the known. Thus we have to apply our own physics in areas where there hasn't been any cases of other physics being shown. And moving faster than light falls into that category. So this is not a cop-out in a debate, it is actually one of the core principles of debating. If we don't have conclusive proof that something has happened (calculations on paper mean nothing without the supporting physical evidence) we have to apply what we know only, not random theories that defy what we know.