Re-Evaluating the method for Kaguya's ETSO (Naruto)

[Damage3245]

I have an issue with the method used in Kaguya's current calculation.

This is the currently accepted version of the calculation for Kaguya's feat. It is an updated version of this calculation which explains the method used in greater detail.

To summarize, a databook statement on the Truth-Seeking Orbs used by Naruto, Madara & Obito says this:

Although each is the size of a fist, hidden inside these orbs is the power to easily obliterate an entire forest.

Because of this, a calculation is found for the AP of the volume of a single Truth-Seeking Orb, which is this City Block level calc of 4.946e10 Joules.

It is assumed that Kaguya's Expansive Truth-Seeking Orb will have a final radius of 300 million km by the time she is finished destroying & re-creating her dimension with it, so a comparison is drawn between the Orbs that have a radius of 0.04445 meters and Kaguya's Orb (well, more specifically the volumes are being compared), and if the ordinary Orbs have an AP of 4.946e10 Joules at their size, then Kaguya's has a Solar System level AP of 1.5192479e+49 Joules.

---

My issue in a nutshell is that the entire calculation potentially falls against our Calc Stacking guidelines which would make the result of it invalid for use.

The original calc references this, by saying:

Now the same databook page states it has "enough power to easily obliterate an entire forest". This is overall consistent with in-universe feats where they damage country level characters, but in order to avoid calc stacking we'll use the wikis standard calculation for forest destruction.

But... just because you acknowledge the issue of calc stacking and try using a calculation from our References for Common Feats, that doesn't make the situation not be calc stacking.

The AP value of the Orbs isn't a precisely stated variable. It's the product of a calc:

Calculation 1: The AP of the Truth-Seeking Orbs.

Calculation 2: The AP of Kaguya's Expansive Truth-Seeking Orbs, based on the results of Calculation 1.

There are two calcs here. One stacked on top of the other. Just because the first calc is using a value from our reference page, doesn't really change anything.

Our Calc Stacking page does offer up scenarios where calc stacking is permissable, but as far as I can tell the scenario here doesn't fall under any of them.

More importantly, I think there's one of our guidelines of an example of Calc Stacking that is not permitted, which is similar to the Kaguya case:

Character A has a certain attack potency through a calculation. They made a 1mm dent in character B's shield composed of a fictional material. But character C destroyed the whole 30mm thick shield, so character C is thirty times as strong as character A.

In this case:

Character A [Truth-Seeking Orbs] has a certain attack potency through a calculation. They have the power to destroy a forest contained within a certain volume. Character B [Kaguya's ETSO] has a volume 3.766548e+37 larger, so Character B is 3.766548e+37 times as strong as Character A.

Based on all of this, It's my view in consideration with our current standards that the currently used method is Calc Stacking and should not be allowed.


There is also a secondary reason to disapprove of the current method, as the current method assumes that the ETSO is completely solid with equal density to a TSO throughout, but as KingTempest has explained here, that doesn't seem to be the case in the manga or anime.

---

I had other issues with the calculation such as the timeframe, but I've been ninja'd by multiple threads on that topic since I began thinking about this calc more.

In conclusion, I propose we replace the calced value with the standard creation feat of a pocket dimension of this size, and we remove the timeframe. I would appreciated if any Calc Group Members could read through this OP, and check our Calc Stacking page to evaluate whether I am correct on this.

-Votes-

Agree: Damage3245, TheRustyOne, KLOL506

Disagree:

 

[Godernet]

Aye bro chill

 

[KingTempest]

Oh shit

 

[Damage3245]

Aye bro chill

The timing isn't great but I had this thread in mind for a while. If I didn't post it now, I may never get the chance.

 

[KingTempest]

Also technically this is the currently used calc, but yeah

 

[Damage3245]

Also technically this is the currently used calc, but yeah

Mm-hmm. That's the first linked calc at the top of the OP.

 

[KingTempest]

Mm-hmm. That's the first linked calc at the top of the OP.

My brain doesn't work, my bad

 

[Crabwhale]

:Beelips:

 

[Nierre]

bro LMFAO

Edit: Didn't notice this was a CGD, apologies

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

What makes this hilarious is the fact that it actually is a coincidence

 

[DavidTPPM]

I thought of this as a possible issue back when I made the original calc. But personally I'm not really convinced it's against calc stacking rules

The AP value of the Orbs isn't a precisely stated variable. It's the product of a calc:

Calculation 1: The AP of the Truth-Seeking Orbs.

Calculation 2: The AP of Kaguya's Expansive Truth-Seeking Orbs, based on the results of Calculation 1.

Here's the issue. If we consider a calculation for destroying a forest as enough to be considered calc stacking basically every feat would become calc stacking.

Take destroying a dimension full of stars for example. You need one calculation to get the GBE of a star and another calculation for the feat itself.

As far as I could think of, there isn't anything that would make the example different than my ETSO method. The only real difference is that the GBE calculation doesn't come from the wiki but form scientists, something that has no relevance to the issue.

Even more similarly take electricity. Many calculations (such as this one for example) use electricity as a point of reference when the speed of electricity comes from a calculation made on the wiki. Do we now consider every electricity, lightning, light, etc calcs calc stacking. If not then what's the difference?

More importantly, I think there's one of our guidelines of an example of Calc Stacking that is not permitted, which is similar to the Kaguya case:

In this case:

I don’t think it's similar at all. In that case they specifically calc an in-universe feat and use another in-universe calculation to upgrade it further, hence why it's calc stacking. But the ETSOs power isn't being scaled off of an in-universe calc but a calculation far more similar to those I mentioned previously (such as a celestial objects GBE or the speed of electricity).

What the example says would be like calculating Kaguyas speed by comparing it to Sasukes speed while what my calculation does is like calculating Kaguyas speed by comparing it to the speed of electricity.

Instead I would argue it's much more similar to this:

• Using a reliable stated timeframe and reliably stated speed something travels during that timeframe one can calculate the distance travelled. Said distance can then usually be used for calculations. (Take heed that paths don't need to be straight and that speed reliably has to be constant)

Only difference is that instead of a reliable stated timeframe we're using a reliable stated energy value. From a logical perspective these 2 things are far more similar than the shield example of a calc that's not allowed.

In a way it's like a reverse multiplier. Where we usually calculate the base value and the author gives us the multiplier, here we get the base value from the author and get the multiplier from a calculation.

 

[sageof8paths]

Now that I'm actually looking at the calculation, I noticed something
The expansive truthseeking orb is actually... hollow? AKA volume doesn't really apply since the vast majority of it is... air?

With that, volume is actually very inaccurate because it doesn't really fill up a truthseeking orb with a bunch of energy, but rather it just (adds chakra to do this) expands by increasing the surface area.

Surface area of a ball with a 300 million km radius is 1.13e18 km2, or 1.13e24 m2
Surface area of a ball with a fist size would be 0.099 m2

So the multiplier would really just be
(1.13e24)/(0.099), or 1.14141414e25x larger than the yield of the forest destruction calc

4.946e10 * 1.14141414e25 = 5.6454343e+35 joules.
That's 5-A. Low end 5-A in fact. So even if this calculation "wasn't" calc stacking... the method of the calc would be... wrong.

those scans don’t prove it hollow. regular tso are NOT hollow across all other interpretations, and the data book clarifies its just a bigger version of it.

It’s also stupid to assume this because if this was the case, naruto dem would just break into it, kamui into it, etc, and the ENTIRE threat is eliminated.

This based of a dodgy interpretation and practically contradicts the entirety of what the attack is supposed to be.

That aside i disagree.

It’s shouldn’t be calc stacking when the exact size and damage level based off official accepted calcs is stated.

as you said, this is even a lowball seeing as it hurts far stronger characters. As we saw them explode, they atomized an incredibly larger area, making them far above city block level.

with that being said i think it should be fine considering it’s a lowball based off statements

 

[KingTempest]

So I just remembered this is Damage's thread so imma keep my counterpoints inside of a sandbox and delete the points pertaining to mine unless he wants to include them in his thread, cause I know how this derailment shit works

 

[Ghostimuscrime]

Mehh, just like david said most things that use statements for calcs are all more or less calculated things, light speed statements, lightning speed statements speed of horses, theyre all based on calculated figures and all of those are applicable via site standards for calcs as long as theyre stated statistics, tryna say "oh but this is a calc too" is just ignorance

the etso calc just follows the same rule as the examples permitted in the CS page

• Using the calculated speed of a projectile to calculate the speed of a character dodging said projectile on the very same occasion is usually permitted, as long as the projectile wouldn't have changed its speed mid flight.
• Using a reliable stated timeframe and reliably stated speed something travels during that timeframe one can calculate the distance travelled. Said distance can then usually be used for calculations. (Take heed that paths don't need to be straight and that speed reliably has to be constant)

just being a calculation inherently is not the ultimate defeater


and the listed example doesnt even work because its reliant on an on screen calc of the 1mm damage, that is an event you have noticed, that's not what is happening in our case because the evidence we begin with is a stated level, it would be the same if you could see it bust a forest and then list said ability for being forest level which does not happen at all

so yeah its wrong i disagree.

---

as for the hollowness part, its another presupposition with no basis

 

[Floxy178]

Disagree for David's reasons.

That isn't different from calculating bullet's speed IRL and than scale character from it. That'd be true if we actually used that value based on a feat rather than statement.

 

[karo_senpaii]

David seems to make the most sense here

 

[Damage3245]

I'll respond to the counter-arguments later today.

Can regular users stop leaving votes though, please? This is a Calc Group Members thread; arguments are fine, but don't chime in just to say you agree or disagree with someone.

 

[KingTempest]

All of y’all are saying the exact same thing so I’ll just say this.

There is a huge difference between a value in real life accepted (GBE of real celestial bodies, light speed, accepted bullet speeds) and values the wiki calculate (breaking a wall, destroying a forest, characters dodging an attack).

Calc stacking follows the latter. The destroying a forest calculation is a calc done on the wiki which is now being applied to an attack, now being expanded and upscaling via a volume multiplication calculation. That is calc stacking.
The wiki is skeptical on using 2 attacks side by side being an added yield alone. This in itself is just a large abuse of the rules.

This has been denied on this wiki in many departments. Upscaling characters who have gotten larger. Attacks that have gotten larger upscaling. Upscaling speeds of characters who have gotten larger with calced values.

A regular TSO scaling far exceeding the yield of the forest destruction calculation does not stop this from being calc stacking. This is now just saying “no it ain’t” to a wiki rule that has been applied to many verses. I’m not a fan.

 

[Damage3245]

KT more or less said what I was going to. The GBE example is not valid because GBE is a universal constant based on stellar mass; it is not a fictional calc like blowing up a building or a forest.

Just like how we have an averaged value for lightning speed accepted on the wiki that we can apply to lightning speed calculations and how characters dodge lightning bolts. This isn't a case of unacceptable calc stacking because the speed of lightning is a real-world property.

The TSO's however do not fall under this; even if it's based on a statement we don't have a value for them that we can't find without making another calc first with assumptions.

 

[Ghostimuscrime]

All of y’all are saying the exact same thing so I’ll just say this.

There is a huge difference between a value in real life accepted (GBE of real celestial bodies, light speed, accepted bullet speeds) and values the wiki calculate (breaking a wall, destroying a forest, characters dodging an attack).

Calc stacking follows the latter. The destroying a forest calculation is a calc done on the wiki which is now being applied to an attack, now being expanded and upscaling via a volume multiplication calculation. That is calc stacking.
The wiki is skeptical on using 2 attacks side by side being an added yield alone. This in itself is just a large abuse of the rules.

This has been denied on this wiki in many departments. Upscaling characters who have gotten larger. Attacks that have gotten larger upscaling. Upscaling speeds of characters who have gotten larger with calced values.

A regular TSO scaling far exceeding the yield of the forest destruction calculation does not stop this from being calc stacking. This is now just saying “no it ain’t” to a wiki rule that has been applied to many verses. I’m not a fan.

All you said is just "no its a wiki calc so its not usable" without actually justifying why wiki calcs would be different from off site calcs, both scenarios use real life calculation methods

then repeated a bunch of stuff and then said "it happens to other verses", that's just whataboutism

 

[Damage3245]

All you said is just "no its a wiki calc so its not usable" without actually justifying why wiki calcs would be different from off site calcs, both scenarios use real life calculation methods

then repeated a bunch of stuff and then said "it happens to other verses", that's just whataboutism

Real-world physical constants, i.e. the GBE of a star, the acceleration of gravity on Earth, the speed of lightning, etc. These don't count as "calcs" for the purpose of the wiki. Not when it comes to calc stacking at least.

It's not the same thing as calcing a feat off of a statement instead of a visual of the feat.

 

[TheRustyOne]

I agree with OP that this is calc stacking. We don't use the results of one calc to inflate another calc. The forest destruction is something we calculated based off a statement, using very iffy assumptions in my opinion as well. I actually don't like our forest calculation in general, but that's a topic for another thread.

If that energy value was stated, yeah it'd be fine, but we're doing it ourselves and that's not allowed.

 

[Floxy178]

Real-world physical constants, i.e. the GBE of a star, the acceleration of gravity on Earth, the speed of lightning, etc. These don't count as "calcs" for the purpose of the wiki. Not when it comes to calc stacking at least.

It's not the same thing as calcing a feat off of a statement instead of a visual of the feat.

Actually, energy for fist-sized(or any certain sized) TSO is also constant. This case is different from calculating characters who don't necessarily show same statistics always consistently.

There's no reason to assume that energy for fist-sized TSO can be different.

 

[Damage3245]

I agree with OP that this is calc stacking. We don't use the results of one calc to inflate another calc. The forest destruction is something we calculated based off a statement, using very iffy assumptions in my opinion as well. I actually don't like our forest calculation in general, but that's a topic for another thread.

If that energy value was stated, yeah it'd be fine, but we're doing it ourselves and that's not allowed.

Thank you for evaluating.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

Actually, energy for fist-sized(or any certain sized) TSO is also constant. This case is different from calculating characters who don't necessarily show same statistics always consistently.

There's no reason to assume that energy for fist-sized TSO can be different.

The point is that "destroying a forest" is not in any way shape or form the same as a constant energy value such as the Earth's GBE or the Speed of Light. Those values are obtained through real life measurements and are pretty much universal constants.
The forest calc, on the other hand, is a hypothetical value for the destruction of a generic forest obtained through a fan calculation. It's in no way some objective measurement, nor is it a constant.
It is a calc used to obtain a value in another calc, ergo it is calc stacking.

 

[Floxy178]

The point is that "destroying a forest" is not in any way shape or form the same as a constant energy value such as the Earth's GBE or the Speed of Light. Those values are obtained through real life measurements and are pretty much universal constants.
The forest calc, on the other hand, is a hypothetical value for the destruction of a generic forest obtained through a fan calculation. It's in no way some objective measurement, nor is it a constant.
It is a calc used to obtain a value in another calc, ergo it is calc stacking.

I think you misunderstood me. Forget what I said in my first response but focus on second one.

It's not that I take forest destruction feat in general as a constant or something. It's just it(energy of fist-sized TSO) actually can be used in another calc if energy of certain sized TSO remains undeniably constant.

 

[Damage3245]

I think you misunderstood me. Forget what I said in my first response but focus on second one.

It's not that I take forest destruction feat in general as a constant or something. It's just it(energy of fist-sized TSO) actually can be used in another calc if energy of certain sized TSO remains undeniably constant.

If the energy value was directly stated for us, such as "The Truth-Seeking Orbs contain the potential energy of 500 tons of TNT", then you'd have a point. But that's not what is happening here.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

I think you misunderstood me. Forget what I said in my first response but focus on second one.

It's not that I take forest destruction feat in general as a constant or something. It's just it(energy of fist-sized TSO) actually can be used in another calc if energy of certain sized TSO remains undeniably constant.

Yes, but the value of the TSO is obtained through another fan calc, which is then "stacked" on top of another calc in order to obtain the ETSB's energy value. You see the problem there?

 

[DavidTPPM]

All of y’all are saying the exact same thing so I’ll just say this.

There is a huge difference between a value in real life accepted (GBE of real celestial bodies, light speed, accepted bullet speeds) and values the wiki calculate (breaking a wall, destroying a forest, characters dodging an attack).
Calc stacking follows the latter. The destroying a forest calculation is a calc done on the wiki which is now being applied to an attack, now being expanded and upscaling via a volume multiplication calculation. That is calc stacking.
The wiki is skeptical on using 2 attacks side by side being an added yield alone. This in itself is just a large abuse of the rules.

What's the difference? How does a calculation being made on or off wiki change the logic behind its application?

The real issue with calc stacking isn't whether it's on wiki or off wiki but whether it's an in-universe calculation or not.

Upscaling characters who have gotten larger. Attacks that have gotten larger upscaling. Upscaling speeds of characters who have gotten larger with calced values.

Yes but that's because those are calc stacking and this isn't. Because again saying "small rasengan is this strong because of [in-universe calculation] and big rasengan is this much bigger based on [in-universe calculation]" is blatant calc stacking, unlike the ETSO one which only uses a single in-universe calculation.

A regular TSO scaling far exceeding the yield of the forest destruction calculation does not stop this from being calc stacking. This is now just saying “no it ain’t” to a wiki rule that has been applied to many verses. I’m not a fan.

Okay but then again using GBEs in calcs should be also calc stacking. Because far exceeding the yield of star destruction doesn't make it not calc stacking.

If there is any logical difference between them then I'll be happy to see it and let the calc get removed. But so far it just looks like the only difference between using the destruction value of a star or a speed value of certain objects is cherry picking that essentially comes down to "because we said so"

 

[Floxy178]

If the energy value was directly stated for us, such as "The Truth-Seeking Orbs contain the potential energy of 500 tons of TNT", then you'd have a point. But that's not what is happening here.

Well, no. I'm not denying that we're using 2 calculations. Just that if we get an energy density value for TSO, that's it, it's not changing, just constant.

Yes, but the value of the TSO is obtained through another fan calc, which is then "stacked" on top of another calc in order to obtain the ETSB's energy value. You see the problem there?

I don't, to be honest. The reason behind calc stacking is that characters/attacks don't necessarily move at same speed every time. Which isn't the case here.

 

[DavidTPPM]

Btw I don't actually have notifications on so the thread doesn't spam me, so if you're addressing my arguments of generally making a new point against the calc please reply to my comment so I'm notified.

 

[Damage3245]

I don't, to be honest. The reason behind calc stacking is that characters/attacks don't necessarily move at same speed every time. Which isn't the case here.

That isn't the sole reason:

The reason it is usually disregarded is because it has shown itself inconsistent many times and usually gives inflated results. Through the method any long running franchises could also scale their stats infinitely upwards without actually ever showing any feats in the range they are listed.

However, even for these parameters calc stacking is avoided as much as possible. That means that results taking less such steps are usually taken over results that rely on more calc stacking.

We avoid calc stacking as much as we can even in situations that allow it, and it often gives inflated results.

 

[Damage3245]

The real issue with calc stacking isn't whether it's on wiki or off wiki but whether it's an in-universe calculation or not.

Yes but that's because those are calc stacking and this isn't. Because again saying "small rasengan is this strong because of [in-universe calculation] and big rasengan is this much bigger based on [in-universe calculation]" is blatant calc stacking, unlike the ETSO one which only uses a single in-universe calculation.

The "power to easily obliterate a forest" is an in-Universe calculation. Just because it's based off of a statement and not a visual of an actual forest being destroyed on-screen doesn't change that. You're still assuming a method and variables and calculating a result.

 

[DavidTPPM]

Real-world physical constants, i.e. the GBE of a star, the acceleration of gravity on Earth, the speed of lightning, etc. These don't count as "calcs" for the purpose of the wiki. Not when it comes to calc stacking at least.

Why not? How is GBE of a star less of a constant than destruction of a forest?

What about bullets and electricity? Bullets sure as hell aren't a universal constant and like I said, speed of electricity is a wiki-made calculation. Are we going to ban all electricity and bullet feats from being calced?

Or what about other size calcs? Apparently sized calculations can be reused as long as the size remains constant.
So what's the difference between calcing the size of an object and then it's destruction (for example our kn6 calc) and this? Both simply calculate a canon size shown/stated on screen and while the kn6-type calcs then stack another calculation for its destruction, mine simply adds an out-of-universe value to it. From what I can tell the ETSO calc is in a way, less calc stacky than the kn6 calc and similar ones to it.

It's not the same thing as calcing a feat off of a statement instead of a visual of the feat.

Why not? You're saying that's how it is but not actually giving a reason and the calc stacking page doesn't say anything specific about it except for the stuff I already mentioned which actually supports it.

 

[DavidTPPM]

The "power to easily obliterate a forest" is an in-Universe calculation.

No it's not. An in-universe calculation would be calculating a specific shown feat. This is simply using a stated value.

You're still assuming a method and variables and calculating a result.

Yes same as every other calculation on the wiki. I repeatedly asked what's the actual difference between them and so far the closest thing to a reason I've been given essentially boils down to "because we said so" and is contradicted by countless super commonly accepted calculations.

Again are all bullet dodging calc stacking? If not then this isn't either.

 

[Damage3245]

Are we going to ban all electricity and bullet feats from being calced?

Are we going to knock down any other Straw Men? I get being skeptical of this, but surely you can see that nobody here is actually proposing this?

Yes same as every other calculation on the wiki. I repeatedly asked what's the actual difference between them and so far the closest thing to a reason I've been given essentially boils down to "because we said so" and is contradicted by countless super commonly accepted calculations.

Again are all bullet dodging calc stacking? If not then this isn't either.

And if you just wanted to do that for a calc, you can. It's then using that value in another calc which is the problem.

 

[DavidTPPM]

Are we going to knock down any other Straw Men? I get being skeptical of this, but surely you can see that nobody here is actually proposing this?

Simply calling something a strawman isn't an argument, you actually have to explain how is it a strawman.

So what's different about calculating the speed of bullets and using them in other calcs, and this? I gave you like 5 examples of similar methods being used in widely accepted calculations and you haven't explained how any of them are different. You just said they are or called them a strawman without explaining what makes it a strawman

 

[Floxy178]

That isn't the sole reason:





We avoid calc stacking as much as we can even in situations that allow it, and it often gives inflated results.

It's not that it's shown to be inconsistent tho.

Only parameters that can't change between calculations can be re-purposed.

If you agree that it's allowed, then why should we reject it because "we avoid it as much as possible"? Genuinely haven't seen a single scaling using multiplier or stated speed getting rejected because "it's allowed but we still avoid it as much as we can".

If you think that result is inconsistent through calc stacking that's just another topic(and probably a CRT thing).

 

[Damage3245]

It's not that it's shown to be inconsistent tho.

If you agree that it's allowed, then why should we reject it because "we avoid it as much as possible"? Genuinely haven't seen a single scaling using multiplier or stated speed getting rejected because "it's allowed but we still avoid it as much as we can".

If you think that result is inconsistent through calc stacking that's just another topic(and probably a CRT thing).

I don't agree that this is a situation where the Calc Stacking is allowed.

In a way it's like a reverse multiplier. Where we usually calculate the base value and the author gives us the multiplier, here we get the base value from the author and get the multiplier from a calculation.

On this point, our Multiplier page says this:

Multipliers come from direct statements instead of being reasoned from something else. That means, for example, that if a verse has powerlevels or statistics, the doubling of a statistic or power level should not be concluded to correspond to the power of the character doubling, unless it is clearly specified to work that way.

We can't just treat this as a multiplier scenario and assume it to work with this way.

 

[Floxy178]

don't agree that this is a situation where the Calc Stacking is allowed.

Ok, I've misunderstood.

Then what do you think about the fact that TSO's energy density value perfectly fits this?

Only parameters that can't change between calculations can be re-purposed.