One Piece: Reevaluating Quakes.

[EtherealCrater]

Context:​

It was accepted in this thread that this and this feat are no longer viable and should be removed. The acceptance of the removal of these calcs will have disastrous consequences on the basis of the scaling of the verse and will require a massive make over. I've come to remedy some of the problems I've found with the "debunk" in the thread.

Update:​

In this thread, a new formula was accepted to replace the previous one.

"(Magnitude at distance) + 0.084 + 1.66*log10(arc length in KM)"

The Mother Flame Debunk:​

While it is true that KingTempest's method involved an extra step that increased the final value, that is only for the previously accepted method. By Migue79's, a CGM, own words claimed that Method 1 is still valid. The only problem is that KingTempest never did an updated version to align with the updated version of the size of Blue.

The current accepted diameter of Blue is 1576323.92381 km.

Furthermore, as pointed out by Floxy178, the diameter of the planet should not be used as the quakes propagate through the surface of the planet meaning we should use Blue's circumference. Which is 4,952,170 km and then divide by 2 since WB/BB aren't trying to hit themselves in the back of the head with a quake sent across the planet, which gives us 2,476,085 km.

If we plug in the new value, we get...

(6)+6.399+1.66×log10((2476085÷110)×((2×π)÷360)) = 16.7054553846

10^(1.5×(16.7054553846)+4.8) = 7.2141153e+29 Joules = 172.42 Exatons of TNT (Moon level)

Although, this is only using the lowest possible Magnitude and the narrative supports a far higher value.

In Chapter 1089, the Narrator states "No earthquake in recorded history matched the one felt that day. It caused untold destruction across the entire world." A Magnitude 6 Earthquake does not match the description provided by the Narrator nor would it be significant enough to be described as the strongest earthquake in history.

The actual strongest earthquake in history was a 9.5, so it is not too presumptuous to assume a Magnitude of 10 as it satisfies both statements provided by the Narrator, a trusted source. Let's plug that in...

(10)+6.399+1.66×log10((2476085÷110)×((2×π)÷360)) = 20.7054553846

10^(1.5×(20.7054553846)+4.8) = 7.2141153e+35 Joules = 172.4 Yottatons of TNT (Large Planet level)

Counter Arguments:​

“(r/110) can't work as it should use Blue's circumference divided by 360.”​

It should be Blue's circumference divided by 360. Makes sense, right?

No. While at a glance this makes sense. The result produced by using Blue's singular degree of latitude ends up with results that are SEVERELY deflated.

The new formula in question would be….

"(Magnitude at distance) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((r/13756.027777777777)((2π)/360)) = Richter Magnitude of Earthquake"

Instead of...

“(Magnitude at distance) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((r/110)((2π)/360)) = Richter Magnitude of Earthquake”

By my research, using Blue's circumference divided by 360 treats the radius of the quake ~123.57x smaller than it should. If we multiply the initial radius by 123.57x and use Blue’s SDoL, we get a nearly identical value. If we divide 100,000 by 123.57 and use Earth's singular degree of latitude, we also get a nearly identical value.

So, if we DO use the “13,756.02222222222” value, then we'd have to multiply the radius of the quake by 123.57x in order to get an accurate value.

(6) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((100,000/111.3194444444444)((2π)/360)) = 14.38320852

(6) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((12,357,509.59399498/13756.02222222222)((2π)/360)) = 14.3832236556

(6) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((100,000/13756.02222222222)((2π)/360)) = 10.9106179769

(6) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((809.2579104960750/111.3194444444444)((2π)/360)) = 10.9106328625

Using Blue's SDoL seems to just downscale the values inputted, for example let's do two quakes and assume they travel half of the planet's circumference but using the planet's respective SDoL.

(6)+6.399+1.66×log10((2,476,085÷13756.02222222222)×((2×π)÷360)) = 13.224269

10^(1.5×(13.224269)+4.8) = 4.33×10^24 J

(6)+6.399+1.66×log10((20,037.5÷111.3194444444444)×((2×π)÷360)) = 13.224

10^(1.5×(13.224)+4.8) = 4.32×10^24 J

Nearly identical result again. Now, how would an earthquake travelling 123.57x farther than another have nigh identical yields? This proposal simply doesn't work and should be thrown out.

“Using Earth's constants won’t be accurate on a non-Earth planet”​

The constants such as “1.66” and “6.399” are derived from empirical values based on Earth. While it would be great to use Blue's constants, this is just asking for the impossible as there is absolutely 0 way to attain these values.

While we strive to be as accurate as possible, we must simply make concessions on the values we must work with. If calcs had to be 100% accurate in order to be accepted then 99.99% of VSBW's calcs should also be thrown out.

Whitebeard Quaking the Planet:​

Seeing how it has already been accepted that WB and by extension BB are capable of quaking the ENTIRE planet; we can simply use the previous method of determining their exact values here.

Conclusion:​

Proposal 1: Use this method and yield to replace the previous value for the Mother Flame.

(10) + 0.084 + 1.66*log10(2,476,085) = 20.6976508117

10^(1.5×(20.6976508117)+4.8) = 7.0222 × 10^35 Joules = 167.83 Yottatons of TNT
(Large Planet level)

Proposal 2: Use the possible ends from the Gura-Gura no mi here to replace the scaling values used from here.

 

[KingTempest]

Moving to the appropriate section

Edit: I like this though

 

[Floxy178]

Pretty sure I've already said that I'd personally be fine with applying it to planets with bigger size, as long as it's accepted in a thread since we don't do it like that. The only part I disagree with:

Counter Arguments:​

“(r/110) can't work as it should use Blue's circumference divided by 360.”​

It should be Blue's circumference divided by 360. Makes sense, right?

No. While at a glance this makes sense. The result produced by using Blue's singular degree of latitude ends up with results that are SEVERELY deflated.

The new formula in question would be….

"(Magnitude at distance) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((r/13756.027777777777)((2π)/360)) = Richter Magnitude of Earthquake"

Instead of...

“(Magnitude at distance) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((r/110)((2π)/360)) = Richter Magnitude of Earthquake”

By my research, using Blue's circumference divided by 360 treats the radius of the quake ~123.57x smaller than it should. If we multiply the initial radius by 123.57x and use Blue’s SDoL, we get a nearly identical value. If we divide 100,000 by 123.57 and use Earth's singular degree of latitude, we also get a nearly identical value.

So, if we DO use the “13,756.02222222222” value, then we'd have to multiply the radius of the quake by 123.57x in order to get an accurate value.

(6) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((100,000/111.3194444444444)((2π)/360)) = 14.38320852

(6) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((12,357,509.59399498/13756.02222222222)((2π)/360)) = 14.3832236556

(6) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((100,000/13756.02222222222)((2π)/360)) = 10.9106179769

(6) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((809.2579104960750/111.3194444444444)((2π)/360)) = 10.9106328625

Using Blue's SDoL seems to just downscale the values inputted, for example let's do two quakes and assume they travel half of the planet's circumference but using the planet's respective SDoL.

(6)+6.399+1.66×log10((2,476,085÷13756.02222222222)×((2×π)÷360)) = 13.224269

10^(1.5×(13.224269)+4.8) = 4.33×10^24 J

(6)+6.399+1.66×log10((20,037.5÷111.3194444444444)×((2×π)÷360)) = 13.224

10^(1.5×(13.224)+4.8) = 4.32×10^24 J

Nearly identical result again. Now, how would an earthquake travelling 123.57x farther than another have nigh identical yields? This proposal simply doesn't work and should be thrown out.

Well, this won't work, you're supposed to use circumference/360. Obviously you're going to think result is deflated, you're using Earth constants after all.

That means if you're going to use formula for Earth, shaking the whole planet will be equal to shaking whole Earth for same magnitude at distance since both will have pi radian in the formula, while your proposal uses nearly 400 radians for arc length.

Technically we can write formula as:
(Magnitude at distance) + 0.084 + 1.66*log10(arc length in KM)

However I'm not sure if we can assume same attenuation over same distance traveled instead of over same fraction of circumference which would obviously be a lowball. If the assumption is reasonable (you'd probably need to ask DT about this I guess), I'll be fine with this part too.

 

[EtherealCrater]

Pretty sure I've already said that I'd personally be fine with applying it to planets with bigger size, as long as it's accepted in a thread since we don't do it like that. The only part I disagree with:

Well, this won't work, you're supposed to use circumference/360. Obviously you're going to think result is deflated, you're using Earth constants after all.

That means if you're going to use formula for Earth, shaking the whole planet will be equal to shaking whole Earth for same magnitude at distance since both will have pi radian in the formula, while your proposal uses nearly 400 radians for arc length.

Technically we can write formula as:
(Magnitude at distance) + 0.084 + 1.66*log10(arc length in KM)

However I'm not sure if we can assume same attenuation over same distance traveled instead of over same fraction of circumference which would obviously be a lowball. If the assumption is reasonable (you'd probably need to ask DT about this I guess), I'll be fine with this part too.

So, instead of using this formula...

"(Magnitude at distance) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((r/110)((2π)/360)) = Richter Magnitude of Earthquake"
~
"(Magnitude at distance) + 0.084 + 1.66*log10(arc length in KM)"

would be more accurate?

"(6)+6.399+1.66×log10((2476085÷110)×((2×π)÷360)) = 16.7054553846

10^(1.5×(16.7054553846)+4.8) = 7.2141153e+29 Joules = 172.42 Exatons of TNT (Moon level)"
~
(6) + 0.084 + 1.66*log10(2,476,085) = 16.6976508117

10^(1.5×(16.6976508117)+4.8) = 7.02224888065097e+29 Joules = 167.8 Exatons of TNT (Moon level)

Well, it doesn't result in yields too far off. So, I'd be fine with using this new formula.

I guess this would change the result in the proposal, too.

(10) + 0.084 + 1.66*log10(2476085) = 20.6976508117

10^(1.5×(20.6976508117)+4.8) = 7.022248880650912e+35 Joules = 167.83 Yottatons of TNT (Large Planet level)

 

[Floxy178]

So, instead of using this formula...

"(Magnitude at distance) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((r/110)((2π)/360)) = Richter Magnitude of Earthquake"
~
"(Magnitude at distance) + 0.084 + 1.66*log10(arc length in KM)"

would be more accurate?

No, both are the same. I just wrote it in KM term so it doesn't look like you're using 400 radians (simply first one does the same, but it converts the value to radians based on Earth circumference) but it's still a different assumption than using OP planet circumference/360.

 

[EtherealCrater]

No, both are the same. I just wrote it in KM term so it doesn't look like you're using 400 radians (simply first one does the same, but it converts the value to radians based on Earth circumference) but it's still a different assumption than using OP planet circumference/360.

So, if we can get a thread to accept this formula "(Magnitude at distance) + 0.084 + 1.66*log10(arc length in KM)", my proposals would be able to go through or do we have to come up with an entirely new formula, constants and all in order to calculate earthquakes on larger planets?

 

[Floxy178]

So, if we can get a thread to accept this formula "(Magnitude at distance) + 0.084 + 1.66*log10(arc length in KM)", my proposals would be able to go through or do we have to come up with an entirely new formula, constants and all in order to calculate earthquakes on larger planets?

Formula is already correct for Earth, it's just you need to get this assumption accepted:

However I'm not sure if we can assume same attenuation over same distance traveled instead of over same fraction of circumference

 

[KingTempest]

However I'm not sure if we can assume same attenuation over same distance traveled instead of over same fraction of circumference which would obviously be a lowball. If the assumption is reasonable (you'd probably need to ask DT about this I guess), I'll be fine with this part too.

What's the current attenuation used in the formula, how was it deduced, and what can we do to calculate a new one?

 

[Floxy178]

What's the current attenuation used in the formula, how was it deduced, and what can we do to calculate a new one?

It's done with gathering empirical data and deducing constants. So I don't think we'll be able to make a new one.

I'm just offering if someone could prove that assuming same attenuation for same distance on bigger planet would be a lowball assumption or not.

 

[EtherealCrater]

If I am correct, the "1.66" value seems to be the attenuation value which directly affects the final magnitude. Higher attenuation means more energy loss, lower attenuation means less energy loss.

Normal:

(6) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((1,000/110)((2π)/360)) = 11.071

Lower:

(6) + 6.399 + .83*log10((1,000/110)((2π)/360)) = 11.735

Higher:

(6) + 6.399 + 3.32*log10((1,000/110)((2π)/360)) =9.74

If my research is correct...using "1.66" may not be entirely accurate but it would be considered a lowball.

If on Earth and Blue, the antipode is a Mag 6 on the other side of the planet, then the attenuation MUST be lower than 1.66 on Blue due to the difference in distance. Again, it may not be 100% accurate but it would result in a lowball value which is still usable. If it was the opposite, then I'd agree that this wouldn't work but using 1.66 seems fine to me.

Edit: Here's an example.

Lets say an EQ on Planet 1 must travel 10,000 units of distance with 100,000 units of energy and it loses .1 units of energy per unit of distance. That would leave us with 10,000 units of energy left.

Lets repeat it but on Planet 2, this time we KNOW that the final energy amount must be no less than 10,000. If the distance it must travel is greater than 10,000 units of distance then the loss of energy per unit of distance MUST be lower than .1.

 

[Floxy178]

Edit: Here's an example.

Lets say an EQ on Planet 1 must travel 10,000 units of distance with 100,000 units of energy and it loses .1 units of energy per unit of distance. That would leave us with 10,000 units of energy left.

Lets repeat it but on Planet 2, this time we KNOW that the final energy amount must be no less than 10,000. If the distance it must travel is greater than 10,000 units of distance then the loss of energy per unit of distance MUST be lower than .1.

You don't know about initial energy though, for your assumption to be true you should know that initial energy can't be greater than 100,000 units of energy for 2nd planet (which is literally opposite of the OP's claim).

 

[Billybobjoe321]

Seeing how it has already been accepted that WB and by extension BB are capable of quaking the ENTIRE planet; we can simply use the previous method of determining their exact values here.

I’m pretty sure it was decided KE was better for calculating that. Here is the accepted calculation.

One Piece: Mag 6 Worldwide Quake

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[KingTempest]

I’m pretty sure it was decided KE was better for calculating that. Here is the accepted calculation.

One Piece: Mag 6 Worldwide Quake

vsbattles.fandom.com

yeah then another thread said that KE wasn't able to be used so it got scrapped

 

[Billybobjoe321]

yeah then another thread said that KE wasn't able to be used so it got scrapped

What thread?

 

[KingTempest]

What thread?

One Piece: Problem with earthquake calcs

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

vsbattles.com

 

[EtherealCrater]

So, currently what we need to proceed is to make another thread to approve the use of a formula like this on planets larger than Earth?

"(Magnitude at distance) + 0.084 + 1.66*log10(arc length in KM)"

 

[Floxy178]

Yeah.

 

[EtherealCrater]

Yeah.

If you don't mind me asking. Can you tell me where this formula came from and how the "0.084" value was derived?

"(Magnitude at distance) + 0.084 + 1.66*log10(arc length in KM)"

 

[Floxy178]

If you don't mind me asking. Can you tell me where this formula came from and how the "0.084" value was derived?

"(Magnitude at distance) + 0.084 + 1.66*log10(arc length in KM)"

Sure. Original formula is "(Magnitude at distance) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10(arc length in radians)".

We'll write it as 1.66*log(arc length in KM / planet radius in KM) so it'll be 1.66*log(arc length in KM) - 1.66*log(6371).

And 6.399 - 1.66*log(6371) roughly equals to 0.084. So formula becomes:

(Magnitude at distance) + 0.084 + 1.66*log10(arc length in KM)

 

[EtherealCrater]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

I would appreciate if more calc group members are willing to help out here. Thanks in advance for any help.

 

[YmTheSuper]

I don't think the magnitude 10 value should be used for the earthquake at Loguetown, just because the narrator said that that no earthquake in recorded history matched the one felt that day doesn't mean that the earthquake had a higher magnitude than the strongest earthquake in history (IRL) in the location that's the furthest from the epicenter of the earthquake on the opposite side of the planet (the narrator's statement most likely refers to the locations that are relatively close to Lulucia) especially considering that the strongest effects that we see from the earthquake in Loguetown are the shaking of buildings.

If an earthquake of magnitude 10 happened there the buildings would be rubble, the landscape would be severely damaged and people wouldn't be able to stand up. Also if we assume that Loguetown which is the furthest from the epicenter has a 10 magnitude earthquake then every other island and location in the planet would have earthquakes with higher magnitude than 10 which would lead to their landscapes and terrain being completely altered and reshaped and to essentially most structures and buildings being destroyed and turning to rubble which from what we've seen didn't happen. Using magnitude 5 to 6 is probably best for Loguetown.

 

[KingTempest]

The currently accepted quake magnitude for the worldwide quake for Whitebeard is magnitude 7.

For the loguetown quake just use an 8, that's the minimum for destructive tsunamis

 

[EtherealCrater]

I don't think the magnitude 10 value should be used for the earthquake at Loguetown, just because the narrator said that that no earthquake in recorded history matched the one felt that day doesn't mean that the earthquake had a higher magnitude than the strongest earthquake in history (IRL) in the location that's the furthest from the epicenter of the earthquake on the opposite side of the planet (the narrator's statement most likely refers to the locations that are relatively close to Lulucia) especially considering that the strongest effects that we see from the earthquake in Loguetown are the shaking of buildings.

If an earthquake of magnitude 10 happened there the buildings would be rubble, the landscape would be severely damaged and people wouldn't be able to stand up. Also if we assume that Loguetown which is the furthest from the epicenter has a 10 magnitude earthquake then every other island and location in the planet would have earthquakes with higher magnitude than 10 which would lead to their landscapes and terrain being completely altered and reshaped and to essentially most structures and buildings being destroyed and turning to rubble which from what we've seen didn't happen. Using magnitude 5 to 6 is probably best for Loguetown.

If 10 is too much then I'd compromise and use an 8 like KT suggests, as it would have to be above the one from the Gura-Gura no mi and would make sense from the statements from the Narrator. A Mag 5 or 6 wouldn't be strong enough to cause "untold destruction across the entire world."

 

[Damage3245]

If 10 is too much then I'd compromise and use an 8 like KT suggests, as it would have to be above the one from the Gura-Gura no mi and would make sense from the statements from the Narrator. A Mag 5 or 6 wouldn't be strong enough to cause "untold destruction across the entire world."

That could just mean that Whitebeard has never actually caused a global earthquake.

 

[EtherealCrater]

That could just mean that Whitebeard has never actually caused a global earthquake.

Doesn't that go against the entire scaling chain for YC and upwards? They were already accepted here, if the worldwide earthquake never happened then all those characters wouldn't scale to that value.

 

[Damage3245]

Doesn't that go against the entire scaling chain for YC and upwards? They were already accepted here, if the worldwide earthquake never happened then all those characters wouldn't scale to that value.

Yeah, but i was planning on removing that anyway before we had the calcs issue to overcome.

 

[Kachon123]

I think he means these threads.

 

[EtherealCrater]

I think he means these threads.

Those included but my point was that if the worldwide earthquake never happened then other characters couldn't possibly scale to it. For example, if WB never attacked Kaido with the same power of a worldwide quake then Kaido can't scale off it.

 

[Kachon123]

Those included but my point was that if the worldwide earthquake never happened then other characters couldn't possibly scale to it. For example, if WB never attacked Kaido with the same power of a worldwide quake then Kaido can't scale off it.

They all scaled to it prior to that thread. The thread you linked just applied additional scaling through Luffy's gears.

 

[EtherealCrater]

They all scaled to it prior to that thread. The thread you linked just applied additional scaling through Luffy's gears.

Oh, I didn't realize but my point still stands.

 

[YmTheSuper]

A Mag 5 or 6 wouldn't be strong enough to cause "untold destruction across the entire world."

The thing is the magnitude at distance we're talking about is the magnitude at Loguetown, approximately the furthest place from the epicenter on the planet. The rest of the planet which is closer to the epicenter would get earthquakes equivalent to magnitudes that are higher. Even if we assume that the magnitude at distance in Loguetown is 6 the magnitude of the earthquake would be around 16 (intensity at the epicenter) which would mean that the rest of the planet would get earthquakes with intensities equivalent to earthquakes between 6 to 16 which would be enough to cause untold destruction across a lot of the planet from the earthquake alone.

Also most of the destruction from what we've seen seems to be caused by the rise of sea levels rather than by the earthquakes directly. (Also I think we should get the raws translated since the TCB version says "No earthquake in recorded history matched the one felt on that day it caused untold destruction across the entire world" while the official version says "The earthquake on this day had no parallel in recorded history it caused destruction on a vast, worldwide scale". One version seems to emphasize the strength of the earthquake while the other seems to emphasize the range of the earthquake.)

For the loguetown quake just use an 8, that's the minimum for destructive tsunamis

We don't see a tsunami at Loguetown. Also tsunamis and their heights should only be used to find the magnitude of the earthquake (the one at the epicenter) and not the magnitude at distance. Destructive and tall tsunamis can happen and have happened very far away from the epicenter while remaining tall and destructive and with the shaking being barely or mildly felt at the location of the tsunami.

I will give an example from real life on how using the presence of destructive tsunamis to find the magnitude at distance at the location of the tsunami rather than the one at the source can easily inflate the earthquake's magnitude. (Which I believe was the same problem that was present with the previous tsunami calculations)

Spoiler: Example

The 1960 Valdivia Earthquake is the strongest earthquake recorded in history with a magnitude of 9.5 with its epicenter being near Lumaco, Chile. It caused destructive tsunamis that were 10.7 meters tall over 10000 kilometers away in Hilo, Hawaii. It was absolutely a destructive tsunami as it lead to the death of 61 people, left 281 injured and caused 24 million dollars of damage there. If we were to assume that the magnitude at distance there was 8 due to the presence of a destructive tsunami we would get the value for the earthquake magnitude at the source to be:
8 + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((10000/110)((2π)/360))=14.73
Which is ridiculously inflated above the actual earthquake's magnitude being 9.5.

So yeah tsunami's should only be used to find the magnitude of the earthquake at the epicenter not the magnitude at distance.

 

[Floxy178]

So yeah tsunami's should only be used to find the magnitude of the earthquake at the epicenter not the magnitude at distance.

Yeah, I brought it up in previous thread as well. (which was main focus anyway, everything else got added later on)

 

[Nierre]

very interesting thread.

following + bump

 

[Floxy178]

I just noticed I haven't commented here regarding evaluation. Since the thread is accepted (even tho I would've preferred DT's input too), method 1 should still be usable.

 

[Antvasima]

So what has been accepted here?

 

[EtherealCrater]

So what has been accepted here?

So far? Everybody seems to agree with the formula/method used but disagree with the magnitude used for the Mother Flame and so far no input on my second proposal to replace the old scaling values with the new ones from my worldwide shaking calc. I'm not sure if some of these topics should be reserved for another thread or not.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. So what, if anything, can currently be applied based on this thread?

 

[EtherealCrater]

Okay. So what, if anything, can currently be applied based on this thread?

With the formula being accepted alongside a Mag 6/7 quake being accepted, this calc just needs to be evaluated and should be good to be officially added. The only problem is that, in conjunction with the previous Tier 5 calcs being removed, it would serve as the foundation for old scaling chain.

The exact magnitude for the Mother Flame is still being debated but as it uses the recently accepted formula, all that needs to be done after that is to evaluate the calc.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the information.

Are any of our calc group members here willing to evaluate that calculation blog please?