Calculation was done incorrectly

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

I had made this calc, and when asked to fix it for a CRT, I made a mistake that gave it lower results than what it actually should be.

However I have come upon a better formula to get the acceleration, so what might be the right course of action to take here?

original formula = ((vf/sqrt(1-(vf/c)^2)) - vi/sqrt(1-(vi/c)^2))/t

new formula = a*c^4*sqrt((a*t/c)^2 + 1)/((a*t)^2 + c^2)^2

a = (v_2 - v_1)/t

This was the original calc: https://character-stats-and-profiles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Z's_Universe/The_Power_of_High_Republic_Jedi_(Disney_Star_Wars)

Redone calc: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Hagane_no_Saiyajin/Jedi_vs_Emergence_REDONE

Also, the original creator of that wanted me to include this:

-Light of the Jedi chapter 7

 

[Floxy178]

Just checking the math, both of your formulas seem almost correct, one being for known distance and the other for time. They won't work for finding acceleration though (since force-acceleration relationship isn't F=ma for for relativistic speeds, so you didn't really find acceleration) but since the objective is finding force then then just multiply the result by rest mass instead of relativistic mass and you'll get the force.

I'll suggest not writing the acceleration/deceleration and calculate force directly to avoid confusion:

F = (γf*m*vf - γi*m*vi)/t

F = m * c^2 * (sqrt(1-(vf/c)^2)^-1 - sqrt(1-(vi/c)^2)^-1) / d

As for new formula proposal:

new formula = a*c^2*sqrt((a*t/c)^2 + 1)/((a*t)^2 + c^2)^2

Would be better if you explain the reasoning (I needed to figure it oyt myself for previous ones) but it seems like in the end you'll multiply energy by that to get force? Anyway, as I said you'll at least need to find acceleration for it first, given that first 2 formulas are valid after corrections (if I'm not mistaken) I see no reason for using it.

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

Would be better if you explain the reasoning (I needed to figure it oyt myself for previous ones) but it seems like in the end you'll multiply energy by that to get force?

I had gotten that formula by asking some physicists on Reddit:



Edit: Let's also see what other calc members say

 

[Floxy178]

I had gotten that formula by asking some physicists on Reddit:

Then you've written it wrong it seems.

a*c^4*sqrt((a*t/c)^2 + 1)/((a*t)^2 + c^2)^2 is what's written there, no?

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

a*c^4*sqrt((a*t/c)^2 + 1)/((a*t)^2 + c^2)^2 is what's written there, no?

My mistake, must have been a typo

 

[Vietthai96]

@KLOL506 @Agnaa @Mr. Bambu @Dalesean027

Sorry for the ping, but i was requested to ping some calc members, and you guys are pro in this field

 

[KLOL506]

Unfortunately I didn't get that far in physics class to do astronomy-based calcs. But DT and Executor are the best experts in that realm.

 

[Floxy178]

@Hagane_no_Saiyajin what's the problem with initial 2 formulas?

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

@Hagane_no_Saiyajin what's the problem with initial 2 formulas?

Ass demonstrated by the r/AskPhysics post, they’re not correct with respect to three-acceleration or four-acceleration

Acceleration (special relativity) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Four-acceleration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Floxy178]

Ass demonstrated by the r/AskPhysics post, they’re not correct with respect to three-acceleration or four-acceleration

Obviously they aren't.

They won't work for finding acceleration though

But your objective is finding force in the first place, not acceleration. You said that your results vary drastically, is it possible that you used different assumptions for each one? Like, time assumption for one end and distance assumption for the other?

If so, it'd be very normal.

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

But your objective is finding force in the first place, not acceleration. You said that your results vary drastically, is it possible that you used different assumptions for each one? Like, time assumption for one end and distance assumption for the other?

That would be correct, although why I am finding acceleration, and thus force, first is because the feats involve speeding up or slowing down the object in question.

Of course since are dealing with relativistic speeds here, I want to make sure the correct formulas are used as nothing can be faster than c.

 

[Floxy178]

That would be correct, although why I am finding acceleration, and thus force, first is because the feats involve speeding up or slowing down the object in question.

Of course since are dealing with relativistic speeds here, I want to make sure the correct formulas are used as nothing can be faster than c.

Your acceleration can be whatever you want. There's no "FTL acceleration" or anything. It can be 10^100 m/s^2 with no problem. You already assume/find both initial and final speed beforehand, so there's nothing to worry about that.

In short I'm leaning to use these unless it's proven they're flawed.

F = (γf*m*vf - γi*m*vi)/t

F = m * c^2 * (sqrt(1-(vf/c)^2)^-1 - sqrt(1-(vi/c)^2)^-1) / d

Just I'm fairly sure m is rest mass here, not relativistic mass as in your calc.

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

In short I'm leaning to use these unless it's proven they're flawed.

Okay, although what would you say based on here:

Acceleration (special relativity) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Four-acceleration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Relativistic Rocket

Also, should we see what @DontTalkDT and @Executor_N0 say too?

 

[Floxy178]

Okay, although what would you say based on here:

Acceleration (special relativity) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Four-acceleration - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Relativistic Rocket

New formula does seem to be correct (it can be written a lil more simplified) but idk if you have proper acceleration (because it's not (vi - vf)/t as far as I understand) and what you want to achieve with this considering you'd need just proper acceleration itself with rest mass to find force, no?

Also, should we see what @DontTalkDT and @Executor_N0 say too?

Yeah, I think so.

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 would any of you help with this please?

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

idk if you have proper acceleration (because it's not (vi - vf)/t as far as I understand) and what you want to achieve with this considering you'd need just proper acceleration itself with rest mass to find force, no?

I’ll be honest, I’m only getting confused now and wonder now how proper acceleration should be actually calculated

Although would it be best to start a new blog altogether once we get this settled?

 

[Floxy178]

I’ll be honest, I’m only getting confused now and wonder now how proper acceleration should be actually calculated

If you don't have it, I'm fairly sure you'll need to find force and divide by rest mass. Then you can also find coordinate accelerated at any point of time. Though, as I said, you just need force. Everything else doesn't matter.

Although would it be best to start a new blog altogether once we get this settled?

Probably.

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

If you don't have it, I'm fairly sure you'll need to find force and divide by rest mass. Then you can also find coordinate accelerated at any point of time. Though, as I said, you just need force. Everything else doesn't matter.

Well, if there is a correct way to calculate proper acceleration, I’m all ears

 

[Floxy178]

Well, if there is a correct way to calculate proper acceleration, I’m all ears

Basically, your formulas in the blog if I'm not mistaken. Though, I'm still confused why you're trying to find proper acceleration from force.

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

Probably

Would it be better to use Moon surface vaporization or Moon GBE?

 

[Floxy178]

Would it be better to use Moon surface vaporization or Moon GBE?

I haven't looked at context of feat.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

bump

 

[Floxy178]

@Hagane_no_Saiyajin I think Moon surface vaporization works best here. What you need to change:

For energy, just use relativistic KE difference between 0.75c and 99% of 0.75c. Otherwise you'll need to actually calculate distance through integration as coordinate acceleration isn't constant. You can't assume distance after you already assumed timeframe and initial/final speeds because it's already determined by your assumptions.

However that's only about energy method part. You can calculate LS by either way. Personally I think it's better to do via timeframe as it's accepted because you can account for feat being overtime for example. But if you or other verse supporters think that distance assumption is better, just use that honestly.

Mention that your mass is rest mass, not relativistic mass. (just a text fix)

And lastly, you calculated last ends using 0.75 m/s and 0.75 m/s * 0.99 for speed, instead of 0.75c and 0.99 * 0.75c. So you'll need to multiply your LS by 299792458 for last 3 ends.

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

@Hagane_no_Saiyajin I think Moon surface vaporization works best here

Even with the quote in the OP?

 

[Floxy178]

Even with the quote in the OP?

Huh. Could've sworn it wasn't there before. GBE can work I guess.

Tagging @Drite77 as he's the one who evaluated the calc. What do you think about using Moon's GBE?

 

[Drite77]

With that quote now revealed to me I wouldn't mind to use the Moon's GBE

 

[Floxy178]

Thanks for evaluation. @Hagane_no_Saiyajin would you be willing to make a new blog as you said, with these adjustments?

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

Thanks for evaluation. @Hagane_no_Saiyajin would you be willing to make a new blog as you said, with these adjustments?

Just did: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Hagane_no_Saiyajin/Jedi_vs_Emergence_REDONE

Although I took a quick look at the known sizes of Moons in the Disney Canon of Star Wars, this was what I could find on Wookiepedia:

Moon Name	Diameter (km)
Ajan Koss	11353
Endor	4900
Jedha	11263
Kef Bir	3725
Nakina 5	988
Nur	4000
Yavin 4	10200

​

Based on these sizes, is the 4900 km size still usable?

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

I think this should be brought up also: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/U...h_Republic_Jedi?commentId=4400000000003863295

 

[Phsccarvalho]

I think this should be brought up also: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/U...h_Republic_Jedi?commentId=4400000000003863295

You cant say you're using the already accepted velocity and energy and then adding acceleration and time to get a better distance, because that's not what ends up happening in this calc.

Once you start introducing specific relativistic speed drops and fixed timeframes, these stop being secondary details and drive the whole calc. You're just redefining the velocity entirely instead of just applying it. The energy yield from the original calc is being used completely differently.

Basically, this is a fully different interpretation of the feat using the same energy yield. This would be better as a completely separate calc than using references from another calc, since it's teetering the line of calc-stacking.

@DemiiPowa wrote that in the calculation you mentioned.

 

[Floxy178]

I think this should be brought up also: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/U...h_Republic_Jedi?commentId=4400000000003863295

I've already seen it in a blog.

Just did: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Hagane_no_Saiyajin/Jedi_vs_Emergence_REDONE

Why did you find coordinate acceleration? Seems correct anyway but you'd need to use proper acceleration for force, so just divide energy by distance.

Edit: forgot to meantion moon size, I think it still works, considering average is even higher than 4900.

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

Seems correct anyway but you'd need to use proper acceleration for force, so just divide energy by distance.

I thought I had calculated the proper acceleration in the calculation, did I do it incorrectly?

 

[Floxy178]

I thought I had calculated the proper acceleration in the calculation, did I do it incorrectly?

You did everything correct, but then you calculated coordinate acceleration. (neither of these are needed)

After KE difference, just divide by distance for Force. No need to find other stuff.

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

After KE difference, just divide by distance for Force. No need to find other stuff.

I was attempting to also calculate for different time ends also, as asked to do in the previous CRT, is there just no way to do that? Is there no way to find proper acceleration?

Edit: Also, with that comment on distance, would AU be a better distance to use than lunar distance?

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

Yeah, I think so.

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 would any of you help with this please?

Still waiting for these guys and other calc members to say something?

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

Of course, this thread does not just affect the Emergence calc, but also these calculations as well:

Power of Revan's Telekinesis

vsbattles.fandom.com

Kanan and Ezra throw some asteroids REDUX

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Of course, this thread does not just affect the Emergence calc, but also these calculations as well:

Power of Revan's Telekinesis

vsbattles.fandom.com

Kanan and Ezra throw some asteroids REDUX

vsbattles.fandom.com

why?

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

why?

Because they also rely on relavistic acceleration to get the results, with one using time and the other using distance

I keep offering to teach how to read calculations

 

[Floxy178]

I was attempting to also calculate for different time ends also, as asked to do in the previous CRT, is there just no way to do that? Is there no way to find proper acceleration?

I'm saying that you did it. And then you calculated coordinate acceleration too. But these don't matter for our calc if you don't want to calculate something like "traveled distance knowing timeframe".

You found KE difference, that's your AP.

Divide by distance, that's your LS.

If you assumed timeframe instead of distance, use (γf*m*vf - γi*m*vi)/t and that'll be your LS.

You can find proper and coordinate acceleration as you did in your blog, just they aren't needed for us.

Edit: Also, with that comment on distance, would AU be a better distance to use than lunar distance?

To be honest I'm not sure. Maybe lunar distance is better better but personally I'd rather pick 60 sec timeframe end. Though, which end to go with I'd let for supporters to decide. If we have a CGM who's supporter that's better.

Still waiting for these guys and other calc members to say something?

I'll call other CGMs as soon as you fix what I said above. It'll be easier to receive input if everything's already handled.

Edit: nevermind I just looked at the calc again and it seems you already fixed it. I'll give an evaluation rn and you can call me whenever you add timeframe end.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

So... is it over yet?

 

[Floxy178]

So... is it over yet?

IIRC Hagane_no_Saiyajin also wanted to make ends with assumed timeframe. As soon as it's done I'll tag other CGMs.