One Piece: Problem with earthquake calcs

[KingTempest]

you could probably still do cloud calcs by using normal density values it just wont be super high

Type in one piece cloud calculations and you’ll see why this is so “controversial”

I’ll go do some research cause this is stupid. Not even Floxy’s fault it’s just dumb

 

[Eminiteable]

Type in one piece cloud calculations and you’ll see why this is so “controversial”

I’ll go do some research cause this is stupid. Not even Floxy’s fault it’s just dumb

Well, good luck with that.

In the meantime someone's going to have to update all the profiles to "Unknown, possibly higher"

 

[KingTempest]

Well, good luck with that.

In the meantime someone's going to have to update all the profiles to "Unknown, possibly higher"

lmaooooo not gon be me

 

[Damage3245]

Well, good luck with that.

In the meantime someone's going to have to update all the profiles to "Unknown, possibly higher"

Assuming this thread gets accepted, I can open up a new CRT for it to save others the trouble. Obviously we won't be changing everyone to Unknown.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Assuming this thread gets accepted, I can open up a new CRT for it to save others the trouble. Obviously we won't be changing everyone to Unknown.

Change everyone back to High 7-A like Old Garp was eons ago

 

[Lilybitdun]

Change everyone back to High 7-A like Old Garp was eons ago

heeelllll no

Losing feats to a fundamental problem with how earthquake formula currently can't factor planets smaller/larger than earth and missing a shit load of feats from a 4 year segment of the story is incredibly unfair to One Piece

At minimum the Onigashima recalcs should be finished before any downgrades are done. With the current state there would be a massive jump between Zoro's Pica feat at 6-B to Whitebeard's likely/possibly 5-C feat with a bunch of uncalculated feats inbetween

 

[Damage3245]

heeelllll no

Losing feats to a fundamental problem with how earthquake formula currently can't factor planets smaller/larger than earth and missing a shit load of feats from a 4 year segment of the story is incredibly unfair to One Piece

At minimum the Onigashima recalcs should be finished before any downgrades are done. With the current state there would be a massive jump between Zoro's Pica feat at 6-B to Whitebeard's likely/possibly 5-C feat with a bunch of uncalculated feats inbetween

This isn't the thread to really debate this. That can be handled in a future CRT, if one is created.

 

[Lilybitdun]

This isn't the thread to really debate this. That can be handled in a future CRT, if one is created.

Fair enough, felt like pointing it out the current state of One Piece now instead later

 

[Lilybitdun]

KE. Peak ground acceleration.

Good luck finding the mass of the tectonic plates tho.

Maybe, but discussing mass of Planet isn't purpose of this thread, I'm just going with whatever is accepted.

Finding the mass of the tectonic plates would need me to know what density works best for Blue Planet (Either the current accepted calc's assumption of Earth's density
or the one that finds mass & density by using Earth's gravity). So the mass is the Planet is important here

 

[KingTempest]

Finding the mass of the tectonic plates would need me to know what density works best for Blue Planet (Either the current accepted calc's assumption of Earth's density
or the one that finds mass & density by using Earth's gravity). So the mass is the Planet is important here

Just use earth density

 

[KLOL506]

Finding the mass of the tectonic plates would need me to know what density works best for Blue Planet (Either the current accepted calc's assumption of Earth's density
or the one that finds mass & density by using Earth's gravity). So the mass is the Planet is important here

Pretty sure the norm would be Earth density and Earth-like gravity right from the get-go unless otherwise stated.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Project MUSE

muse.jhu.edu

Just from a scientific perspective, it is notoriously harder to detect seismic waves on a large gas planet compared to the more solid planets like Earth being used as a example.


Also, just to add, astronomers and other space related scientists have ways to measure moonquakes and other seismic activities that ain’t moon related and all.

Do Other Planets Have Earthquakes and Volcanoes?

We have been able to directly measure quakes on the Moon and Mars and refer to them as moonquakes and marsquakes.

airandspace.si.edu

However, there was a attempt to study the seismology of large planets here which is currently not feasible outside of our solar system.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267983318_Seismology_of_Giant_Planets

 

[Lilybitdun]

Pretty sure the norm would be Earth density and Earth-like gravity right from the get-go unless otherwise stated.

Doesn't that contradict itself like brought up before?

? How are we taking Earth density for planet mass, assuming planet being Earth-like/proportional to Earth but at the same time having normal gravity despite planet being bigger than Earth in size? These don't hold up together.

 

[KLOL506]

Sometimes you just have to admit that concessions have to be made with jumbo-sized planets with Earth-like qualities and work off of that.

 

[KingTempest]

The composition of the one piece planet is the same as ours just proportionally ginormous
It having earth size qualities is just fiction logic and we work with that until it makes little to no sense

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Well, then as I already said above, if someone somehow comes up with completely adjusting formula for such factors, it should be fine.

? How are we taking Earth density for planet mass, assuming planet being Earth-like/proportional to Earth but at the same time having normal gravity despite planet being bigger than Earth in size? These don't hold up together.

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/08/visualizing-gravitational-pull-planets-solar-system/#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20planet's%20size,you%20will%20approach%20the%20surface.&text=According%20to%20Dr.,down%20slower%20than%20on%20Earth.

“It is a planet’s size, mass, and density that determines how strong its gravitational pull is, or, how quick or slow you will approach the surface.

According to Dr. O’Donoghue, large planets have gravity comparable to smaller ones at the surface—for example, Uranus attracts the ball down slower than on Earth. This is because the relatively low average density of Uranus puts the actual surface of the planet far away from the majority of the planet’s mass in the core.”


As for this part, it is not impossible for larger planets to have similar gravitational pull on the surface of said planets.

I have to look into that particular topic since it is technically not related to the main issue of seismology being used for One Piece though

 

[Demon_Lord18]

Would this calculation also be affected?

One Piece: Mag 6 Worldwide Quake

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[KingTempest]

Would this calculation also be affected?

One Piece: Mag 6 Worldwide Quake

vsbattles.fandom.com

no cause this is just KE

 

[HammerStrikes219]

no cause this is just KE

It kinda involves seismology so I would think that calc would been affected by the OP’s proposal (assuming I didn’t misunderstand the concerns the OP brought up and all), but I kinda completely unsure on that tbh.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Type in one piece cloud calculations and you’ll see why this is so “controversial”

I’ll go do some research cause this is stupid. Not even Floxy’s fault it’s just dumb

If you ask me, the calcs ain’t technically unusable since the calculation used for both calcs seems fineish from a scientific standpoint.


Hell, we used our own Earth earthquake measurements to measure Mars and Moon’s quakes and all. Planets and celestial bodies that are smaller than our own beloved Earth.

I see no reason to completely invalidate the calcs listed by the OP.

 

[Lilybitdun]

Yeah 110 should be changed to circumference of OP planet / 360.

Wait so is 110 meant to be the circumference of Earth? Since Earth's circumference is 40075 kilometers which is way higher than that. I'm confused where that value comes from

 

[KingTempest]

It kinda involves seismology so I would think that calc would been affected by the OP’s proposal (assuming I didn’t misunderstand the concerns the OP brought up and all), but I kinda completely unsure on that tbh.

it doesn't. it's literally just planet mass shaking at the speeds of a certain earthquake.
like come on

 

[Damage3245]

Wait so is 110 meant to be the circumference of Earth? Since Earth's circumference is 40075 kilometers which is way higher than that. I'm confused where that value comes from

Divide circumference of the Earth by 360 degrees.

 

[Floxy178]

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/08/visualizing-gravitational-pull-planets-solar-system/#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20planet's%20size,you%20will%20approach%20the%20surface.&text=According%20to%20Dr.,down%20slower%20than%20on%20Earth.

“It is a planet’s size, mass, and density that determines how strong its gravitational pull is, or, how quick or slow you will approach the surface.

According to Dr. O’Donoghue, large planets have gravity comparable to smaller ones at the surface—for example, Uranus attracts the ball down slower than on Earth. This is because the relatively low average density of Uranus puts the actual surface of the planet far away from the majority of the planet’s mass in the core.”


As for this part, it is not impossible for larger planets to have similar gravitational pull on the surface of said planets.

I have to look into that particular topic since it is technically not related to the main issue of seismology being used for One Piece though

Okay? That's literally what I'm saying. Bigger size with same density(what's currently accepted) will result higher g.

Would this calculation also be affected?

One Piece: Mag 6 Worldwide Quake

vsbattles.fandom.com

Nope.

Wait so is 110 meant to be the circumference of Earth? Since Earth's circumference is 40075 kilometers which is way higher than that. I'm confused where that value comes from

I wrote circumference / 360. Like what epicentral distance results in 1 degree? It's technically 111.2 but anyway.

 

[Lilybitdun]

I wrote circumference / 360. Like what epicentral distance results in 1 degree? It's technically 111.2 but anyway.

what that's part of why I was initially confused

 

[Lilybitdun]

Spoiler: Might be wrong tho

Basically you'd need to replace those 1.66, 6.399 and requirement of 700 km. However from what I understand you'll actually need values such as magnitude at distance and Richter magnitude to make a formula. As for how to do it without that (like through comparison with current formula) I don't know.

For example 1.66 scales how strongly magnitude decreases with logΔ, but a bigger planet may have different decay slope. Asking these to DT will be better imo.

If you want the source to analyze better here it is.(page 11) But there Richter C. F. 1958. Elementary seismology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman seems to be cited (page 342). Unfortunately on the table only distances up to 600 km are shown.

But logic is that (not sure but someone can correct me if needed), at some point (700 km in this case) graph becomes more linear and likely matches linear function a * logΔ + b.

So if you fit a good line that'll relatively represent those data points, its slope will be approximately ≈1.66. This means that amplitude attenuation follows 1 / Δ^1.66. So 1.66 here is average that fits best the observed data and it accounts for all factors that reduce wave energy.

Other than that we need to take a value for b, here 6.399 is calibration constant, to match result of formula to values we have. Shortly, we figure slope of line and additive constant that'd match equation to the needed result.

So to make one, you'll prob need a whole dataset of how magnitude decreases with distance in OP planet, and figure out at what distance magnitude change becomes likely linear with log of Δ. Then based on that make constants yourself.

Managed to find Elementary Seismology online https://ia601505.us.archive.org/8/i...35/2015.135935.Elementary-Seismology_text.pdf

All the stations used were equipped with torsion seismometers designed to have the same constants: To — 0.8 second, V = 2800, h = 0.8.

the method to find the graph was measuring a bunch of different magnitudes with seismometers put at the same calibration. I think you can understand what the problem would be trying to make a dataset for how magnitude decreases with distance on a fictional planet. The logarithmic function eventually becomes linear to a single value for >600km anyways

Plus if we're assuming it has both earth density and earth's gravity, why would 1.66 or 6.399 be different?
DT brought up in the old mag 10.5+ thread that one of the reasons is the planet's compositions being very different as why the formula doesn't work, but we're already assuming Blue Planet has both the same density and gravity; would it not have similar composition to earth? Changing the part of the formula that has the planet's size baked in isn't hard either. If I'm understanding what was said in that thread correctly those are the problems

Here's the math where 110km is changed to Blue Planet's circumference / 360.

Spoiler: math

Blue Planet's Diameter: 1576323.92381km
Blue Planet's Circumference: 2*π*(1576323.92381/2)= 4952167.65872km
4952167.65872/360= 13756.0212742km

Mother Flame (Method #5)

(11.6868517619) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((177396.5/13756.0212742)((2π)/360))= Magnitude 17.0107188578

10^(1.5*17.0107188578+4.8)= 2.0705145e30 joules / 494.86484225621421729 exatons (Small Planet level)

Blackbeard (Post 400k Low-end)

(11.4023208463) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10(([1,828.16518579-400]/13756.0212742)((2π)/360))=
Magnitude 13.249871378

10^(1.5*13.249871378+4.8)= 4.7294111e24 joules / 1.1303563814531549792 petatons (Continent level)

let me know if I f*cked up somewhere cause checking sources and stuff at 4am took a lot of brain power

 

[Floxy178]

the method to find the graph was measuring a bunch of different magnitudes with seismometers put at the same calibration. I think you can understand what the problem would be trying to make a dataset for how magnitude decreases with distance on a fictional planet. The logarithmic function eventually becomes linear to a single value for >600km anyways

But same 700km won't be same arc of planet as it was for Earth. It'll become likely linear way later.

Plus if we're assuming it has both earth density and earth's gravity, why would 1.66 or 6.399 be different?

How are you assuming same density and gravity if planet is bigger in size compared to Earth? That's impossible.

DT brought up in the old mag 10.5+ thread that one of the reasons is the planet's compositions being very different as why the formula doesn't work, but we're already assuming Blue Planet has both the same density and gravity; would it not have similar composition to earth?

As I said above we can't assume both if you claim planet being bigger than Earth in the first place, you can pick only one.

Changing the part of the formula that has the planet's size baked in isn't hard either. If I'm understanding what was said in that thread correctly those are the problems

Here's the math where 110km is changed to Blue Planet's circumference / 360.

Spoiler: math

Blue Planet's Diameter: 1576323.92381km
Blue Planet's Circumference: 2*π*(1576323.92381/2)= 4952167.65872km
4952167.65872/360= 13756.0212742km

Mother Flame (Method #5)

(11.6868517619) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((177396.5/13756.0212742)((2π)/360))= Magnitude 17.0107188578

10^(1.5*17.0107188578+4.8)= 2.0705145e30 joules / 494.86484225621421729 exatons (Small Planet level)

Blackbeard (Post 400k Low-end)

(11.4023208463) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10(([1,828.16518579-400]/13756.0212742)((2π)/360))=
Magnitude 13.249871378

10^(1.5*13.249871378+4.8)= 4.7294111e24 joules / 1.1303563814531549792 petatons (Continent level)

let me know if I f*cked up somewhere cause checking sources and stuff at 4am took a lot of brain power

Shouldn't you divide by 8827.29695032 there? (OP diameter * pi * 360)

Anyway, that's not main problem. Adjusting log part is possible as I replied to Damage earlier in thread. But same constants won't work. (see 2nd and 3rd parts of this post)

Second problem is applying that over tsunami method. That issue was main point of this thread.

Maybe we should focus on figuring out if that formula applied on bigger/smaller planet would that be lowball/highball?

 

[Lilybitdun]

But same 700km won't be same arc of planet as it was for Earth. It'll become likely linear way later.

Got a way to quantify that?

How are you assuming same density and gravity if planet is bigger in size compared to Earth? That's impossible.

Pretty sure the norm would be Earth density and Earth-like gravity right from the get-go unless otherwise stated.

Sometimes you just have to admit that concessions have to be made with jumbo-sized planets with Earth-like qualities and work off of that.

I had already asked about that and KLOL said it would be both

Shouldn't you divide by 8827.29695032 there? (OP diameter * pi * 360)

wdym? I got the circumference and then divided 360 like I was told to, where does 8827.29695032 come from

Second problem is applying that over tsunami method. That issue was main point of this thread.

I thought KingTempest explained that he already factored in the tsunami thing in his calcs?

Tsunami formula is 1.5667 * Log(700.14309942296) + 7.0781
Moment to Richter is ABOVE + (-4.9 + 4.7)/1.5
Richter from a distance is 6.399 + 1.66*log10((r/110)((2π)/360))

So it just compresses it all into one. Same for the other one.

If you want to fact check them to make sure the math is right then be my guest. But the actual calculation is just migue's formula but at a distance.

 

[Floxy178]

Got a way to quantify that?

No, but if you were able to find constants you'd be able to do it anyway. Quantifying will be same way as constants. (Alternatively if you could prove that same constants are applicable, 700 km * planet radius/Earth radius(proportion) should work IMO)

I had already asked about that and KLOL said it would be both

I mean if you assume both then formula is usable but assuming both means planet is Earth sized.

wdym? I got the circumference and then divided 360 like I was told to, where does 8827.29695032 come from

Huh? Won't that value equal to 8827.29695032 km?

I thought KingTempest explained that he already factored in the tsunami thing in his calcs?

Lida's regression doesn't compare maximum tsunami height to magnitude at distance, does it?

 

[Floxy178]

Type in one piece cloud calculations and you’ll see why this is so “controversial”

I’ll go do some research cause this is stupid. Not even Floxy’s fault it’s just dumb

Looked through that thread, I might be able to do something.

Though I'd probably need someone who's knowledgeable in OP to know how certain things work there.

Btw aren't 2 votes enough for this thread?

 

[Damage3245]

This isn't directly related to the two calcs in the OP, but it is related to earthquake calcs in One Piece so I hope it's okay to post here while we're waiting on more responses:

@KLOL506 You recommended here for the Whitebeard calculation that kinetic energy be used, just by plugging in the planet's mass, but it seems to me that wouldn't necessarily be accurate. If an earthquake was felt everywhere across a planet, it wouldn't require the mass of the entire planet would shake evenly - it would only require that the surface, or at least the crust, of the planet would be shaking. Peak ground velocity is how fast the ground at a particular site on the surface moves during shaking; not that the entire mass of the ground beneath that site moves at that same speed.

 

[KingTempest]

This isn't directly related to the two calcs in the OP, but it is related to earthquake calcs in One Piece so I hope it's okay to post here while we're waiting on more responses:

@KLOL506 You recommended here for the Whitebeard calculation that kinetic energy be used, just by plugging in the planet's mass, but it seems to me that wouldn't necessarily be accurate. If an earthquake was felt everywhere across a planet, it wouldn't require the mass of the entire planet would shake evenly - it would only require that the surface, or at least the crust, of the planet would be shaking. Peak ground velocity is how fast the ground at a particular site on the surface moves during shaking; not that the entire mass of the ground beneath that site moves at that same speed.

If an earthquake is shaking an entire planet, entirely from 1 side to the other, and the vibrations of said earthquake is traveling through the center of the planet to reach the other side, then the entire mass of the planet will shake. You cannot have a planet shake only the outskirts that are absolutely thick as hell.

 

[Damage3245]

If an earthquake is shaking an entire planet, entirely from 1 side to the other, and the vibrations of said earthquake is traveling through the center of the planet to reach the other side, then the entire mass of the planet will shake. You cannot have a planet shake only the outskirts that are absolutely thick as hell.

Seismic waves travelling throughout the planet is not the same thing as the entire planet shaking side to side at peak ground velocity. The peak ground velocity is local shaking speed; not the speed for the entire mass of a volume affected by an earthquake. The planet is not a solid, rigid ball that is being affected uniformly; kinetic energy for an object only makes sense if the mass of that object is all moving at the same speed in the same direction.

 

[KingTempest]

Seismic waves travelling throughout the planet is not the same thing as the entire planet shaking side to side at peak ground velocity. The peak ground velocity is local shaking speed; not the speed for the entire mass of a volume affected by an earthquake. The planet is not a solid, rigid ball that is being affected uniformly; kinetic energy for an object only makes sense if the mass of that object is all moving at the same speed in the same direction.

I hope you remember the calculation was based off of a statement that said "shakes the world". The peak ground velocity is usually the only thing shaking because usually earthquakes are local. When earthquakes affect larger masses, they all shake uniformly.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I hope you remember the calculation was based off of a statement that said "shakes the world". The peak ground velocity is usually the only thing shaking because usually earthquakes are local. When earthquakes affect larger masses, they all shake uniformly.

Unfortunately I gonna have to side with Damage on this particular point regarding Earthquake as even earthquakes that affect larger masses (Using the earthquakes especially in larger scale from our Earth) don’t shake uniformly scientifically speaking.

Why Earthquake Waves Spread Unevenly

Propagation of earthquake waves within the Earth is not uniform. Experiments indicate that the velocity of shear waves in Earth's lower mantle between 660 and 2900 km depth is strongly dependent on the orientation of ferropericlase.

www.sciencedaily.com

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-details-earthquake-effects-on-the-earth/

Earthquake shaking

Magnitude is a measurement of the energy produced by an earthquake and is not a measure of the shaking you feel. What you feel is very complex - hard or gentle, long or short,

www.earthquakecountry.org

To quote the third link:

“Several other factors can affect shaking. Earthquake waves do not travel evenly in all directions from the rupture surface; the orientation of the fault and the direction of movement can change the characteristics of the waves in different directions. When the earthquake rupture moves along the fault, it focuses energy in the direction it is moving so that a location in that direction will receive more shaking than a site at the same distance from the fault but in the opposite direction. This is called directivity.”


Other than that, I will stay out of the Earthquake calcs and their validity entirely since I ain’t sold of them invalidated from a scientific standpoint

 

[Antvasima]

You are allowed to summon other calc group members here to check if you wish, KingTempest.

Also, what would we replace these calculations with if they are rejected? And I did not notice DontTalk commenting here.

 

[Floxy178]

Was that shaking felt around the world like, more or less equal? If so I'd lean to Earth shaking evenly.

 

[Damage3245]

Was that shaking felt around the world like, more or less equal? If so I'd lean to Earth shaking evenly.

It's not a feat that ever took place on screen; more like a speculative calc of if Whitebeard did create an earthquake felt across the entire world.

 

[Floxy178]

It's not a feat that ever took place on screen; more like a speculative calc of if Whitebeard did create an earthquake felt across the entire world.

Understood. Then I'll leave that to knowledgeable members of verse and CGMs. Feel like I don't have valuable input on that. (at least for now)

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

Are 2 calc votes enough to implement these changes? (bump)