Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-45051074-20200620005016/@comment-38952966-20200628032212

Firstly, I'd just like to restate: I'm not advocating for GER being the strongest, most powerful thing in the entirety of existence. I'm saying that we have no evidence to confirm what limitations GER does or doesn't have.

All the mathematic and linguistic evidence you have is based purely on your own interpretation of an already very vaguely described ability. You describe Tusk as being more powerful since it's force working towards an infinite ending, while GER is working towards a relative zero. Your theory states that, because GER's ability is only relative to a specific zero, it produces less power than an infinite ending.

But that's assuming GER actually works that way, as we can't say with proof that it does. The only description we get of GER is that it can set any action to zero. There's no in universe mechanics that describe GER's concepts of relative zero vs absolute zero. Your theory is based on an assumption of how GER works that we cannot confirm. GER has already shown it doesn't give a shit about time and space, so standard rules of mathematics cannot be properly applied to it. Just because it's ability uses the term "zero" in its description does not mean it has any mathematic basis.

You say RtZ can't interrupt an infinite, but why? We have no idea if it can or not. You say the force pushing towards a relative zero should be weaker than the force pushing to infinity, but why do you think it's about conflicting forces? Why do you interpret it as two forces pushing against each other? Why interpret RtZ as a force at all? There's no evidence for any of these things, you've just assumed them for the sake of argument and presented them as fact for your theory.

In order to prove a theory, you need to not only provide compelling evidence, but you must also disprove the prevailing theory. We can't disprove the prevailing theory, because no new evidence has been produced since GER was introduced 20 years ago. Your theory is fine as a theory, but is by no means definitive.

I don't take issue with saying GER is limited. I take issue with saying your theory is absolute and should be taken as fact, even within a specific context. It's all, at the end of the day, speculation, and a speculation that bases itself in assumptions we can't confirm. This is merely one interpretation of how GER works that, without any more incoming evidence, is no more valid than any other interpretation.