• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Galaxy level

Since this is referring to changes in the tiering system, DontTalkDT will probably be the best to check with on such matters
 
ElajRuengies said:
Because its not just GBE that's important in the Inverse Square law, it's also cross sectional area.

Giant stars are actually easier to destroy at a distance than the Sun, because while their GBE's may be several times higher than the Sun's, their cross-sectional area is gonna be dozens to hundreds of times higher than the Sun's.

Red dwarf stars by contrast are actually harder to destroy than the Sun at a distance for the same reasons just inverted- GBE is much smaller, but Surface Area is proportionately even smaller.

Neutron Stars, even with GBE's less than that of the Sun, are still the hardest thing to destroy at a distance due to how tiny their cross-sectional areas are.

(This also means that all space explosion based tiers and calcs except for Solar System level stuff should be using Red Dwarf GBE and Cross-Sectional Area, but I'm not even gonna pretend like that Revision is ever gonna happen.)
Click to expand...
 
A friend asked me to ask
why not use the average Neutron Star GBE(that they themselves made) which is>our sun for Baseline Galaxy level?
 
chosen said:
A friend asked me to ask
why not use the average Neutron Star GBE(that they themselves made) which is>our sun for Baseline Galaxy level?
Click to expand...
We don’t use that for baseline Galaxy level necessarily and especially since the GBE for a galaxy is a different ball game altogether. You basically have to calculate it since the galaxy (Milky Way Galaxy) contains all of our stars. Doesn’t matter what kind, it is all of them
 
Antvasima said:
Didn't we finish talking about this issue in the following thread?


Should we close this discussion?
Click to expand...
That's not what is said in the OP. What the OP mentioned is why we use the Sun's GBE for Galaxy level when there are neutron stars in the galaxy that'll need to get destroyed too. This is the same reasoning why the tiering system uses neutron stars for the destruction of the universe instead of just going with the Sun's GBE
 
Antvasima said:
Didn't we finish talking about this issue in the following thread?


Should we close this discussion?
Click to expand...
Up to the OP, but personally I don’t mind
Gilad_Hyperstar said:
That's not what is said in the OP. What the OP mentioned is why we use the Sun's GBE for Galaxy level when there are neutron stars in the galaxy that'll need to get destroyed too. This is the same reasoning why the tiering system uses neutron stars for the destruction of the universe instead of just going with the Sun's GBE
Click to expand...
Don’t remember of it being strictly neutron stars as that was already being debated in the thread being shown especially it is a assumption in calcs as well other things. There was even a old calc, but that was years ago at this point in time
 
Also if you destroy a galaxy, you already overcome the GBE of a neutron star which is calculated at 4B and accounting for the distance
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
Don’t remember of it being strictly neutron stars as that was already being debated in the thread being shown especially it is a assumption in calcs as well other things. There was even a old calc, but that was years ago at this point in time
Click to expand...
To destroy everything in the observable universe, one must also destroy all the neutron stars in there, which is why the calculation places a neutron stars to find the energy value. The same applies to galaxies as the Milky Way (which is the standard we use for Galaxy level) contains many neutron stars
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
Also if you destroy a galaxy, you already overcome the GBE of a neutron star which is calculated at 4B and accounting for the distance
Click to expand...
4-B is to destroy a neutron star at the epicenter of the explosion, not at a distance. Because of the inverse square law, the energy of the explosion per square unit weakens the farther away and object is. This is the sole reason why 4-A is so much higher than 4-B, and 3-C compared to even 4-A
 
Gilad_Hyperstar said:
To destroy everything in the observable universe, one must also destroy all the neutron stars in there, which is why the calculation places a neutron stars to find the energy value. The same applies to galaxies as the Milky Way (which is the standard we use for Galaxy level) contains many neutron stars
Click to expand...
Not just neutron stars though, but red giants, smaller stars, and so on.
It get further complicated since you need not just the distance, but energy for it.
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
Not just neutron stars though, but red giants, smaller stars, and so on.
It get further complicated since you need not just the distance, but energy for it.
Click to expand...
The red giants have far less GBE required to destroy them as they're very thinly held together actually. As for the energy, the blast is required to have enough energy to overcome the GBE of the neutron star at the set distance. For 3-A it's 93 billion lightyears, and for 3-C it's 50,000 lightyears
 
Gilad_Hyperstar said:
The red giants have far less GBE required to destroy them as they're very thinly held together actually. As for the energy, the blast is required to have enough energy to overcome the GBE of the neutron star at the set distance. For 3-A it's 93 billion lightyears, and for 3-C it's 50,000 lightyears
Click to expand...
For 3C, it is actually like around 1 millions of light years as that is the average distance between galaxies as shown in this page, https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/9780735421141_001

But I assuming you are referring to the nearest galaxy to Milky Way galaxy correct?
 
chosen said:
A friend asked
Is there a particular reason to not use neutron stars for the baseline Galaxy level value calculation instead of the Sun?
Click to expand...
As for this part that has technically been answered, we usually assuming the destruction comes from Sun being blown up within our solar system and having to expand from there.

IIRC, any energy that spreads from the destruction of the Sun and factoring the GBE and the energy that exceed the GBE is something that is taken into consideration. You have to take it up with the ones who did agree with using it as the basic.
 
Can somebody write an explanation post regarding what currently needs to be evaluated here?
 
Gilad_Hyperstar said:
It's basically why we're using the sun for the value for Galaxy level while there are also neutron stars in the galaxy which have a much higher GBE compared to the Sun
Click to expand...
Okay, but didn't DontTalk already address this issue about universal destruction calculations in another thread that I linked to above?
 
Antvasima said:
Okay, but didn't DontTalk already address this issue about universal destruction calculations in another thread that I linked to above?
Click to expand...
I don't know. And this was not about universe destruction, but rather galaxy destruction. I think maybe calling DontTalk will be good if he did said stuff abput this matter
 
Antvasima said:
Didn't we finish talking about this issue in the following thread?


Should we close this discussion?
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
Can somebody write an explanation post regarding what currently needs to be evaluated here?
Click to expand...
Gilad_Hyperstar said:
It's basically why we're using the sun for the value for Galaxy level while there are also neutron stars in the galaxy which have a much higher GBE compared to the Sun
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
Okay, but didn't DontTalk already address this issue about universal destruction calculations in another thread that I linked to above?
Click to expand...
Gilad_Hyperstar said:
I don't know. And this was not about universe destruction, but rather galaxy destruction. I think maybe calling DontTalk will be good if he did said stuff abput this matter
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT

My apologies for calling you about something like this, but should we close this thread or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Viott
A question about a neutron star.
Replies
2
Views
462
Viott
Viott
Youngwolf-0.1
Question about ap and speed
Replies
2
Views
547
Youngwolf-0.1
Youngwolf-0.1
Arceus0x
Questions regarding tier 4-3 feats
2
Replies
62
Views
4K
Arceus0x
Arceus0x
Question about the Naruto cosmology
Replies
2
Views
982
Tyrone_Dawson
Frey_Starlight
Time-less and Space-less "abyss" question
Replies
20
Views
2K
Orioreeem
Back
Top