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

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

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

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

Expanding the References for Common Feats page

This calculation needs approval, but if it works it can be added to the References For Common Feats Page
There is too little for it to be accurate. You're using tensile strength which is good. But a torso is not a hollow cylinder, but I am not good at biology so I cannot suggest a replacement. You only used muscle tensile strength but forgot skin, bones (the spine), and more.

Force = Area x Tensile strength is wrong. Tensile strength makes sense, it is good to use here, but you are misapplying the idea of tensile strength. Tensile strength experiments are for uniformly, same density, objects, not for such a complex object such as this.

This is a very low number and we need to fix it.
@Damage3245 @TheRustyOne @Armorchompy @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @KLOL506 @M3X_2.0 @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment

What do you think about this? 🙏
 
I am inclined to not put much stock into this comment given it is from a banned member who may as well be a sockpuppet of Vzearr, who, let's be real, hasn't exactly been a bastion of proper calcs. I tend to not give such accounts the time of day, period.

Still, if you feel the need to address this, I suppose you can ask one of DontTalkDT or Executor_N0.
 
Were they banned?
Yes, but I am not willing to explain it here, so you'll just have to find it out yourself by investigating.

Aside from removing strikethrough text and adjusting the first-person pronouns to something less personal, I don't think there is anything else I need to do here.

So I guess just ping me again if I am needed somehow.
 
theres a typo on every ´´galaxy speed feats´´feat, you can tell the 1 month timeframe of all of them is 42x lower than the 1 week timeframe, despite months only being about 4.5x longer than weeks, the 1 year timeframes follows the errosr of 1 months timeframes, just make the 1 month and 1 year timeframes of all of them 10x times higher as they should

EDIT: also could the galaxy speed feats share the sources of the length/distance of those galaxies to earth? i cant find any source saying that abell 2218 galaxy is 13 billion lightyears away from earth, just some saying ´´over 2 billion lightyears´´
 
Could we replace the current car destruction calc with this one based on actual car crushers that's already been accepted by two calc group members? (48.47 MJ vs. 1.2 MJ)

(Keep in mind that a car slamming into a wall at 70 MPH and instantly coming to a dead stop is only 0.73 MJ, or about 65 times lower than the current yield for Car Destruction.)

The current calc on the page basically calcs the energy to destroy multiple uniform, homogeneous lumps of material that a car is made out of, when it reality everything being shaped and assembled introduces a bazillion points of failure, and makes the energy required to scrap a vehicle a lot lower.

Also, Wall level car destruction just feels more right than Small Building level car destruction.
 
Last edited:
theres a typo on every ´´galaxy speed feats´´feat, you can tell the 1 month timeframe of all of them is 42x lower than the 1 week timeframe, despite months only being about 4.5x longer than weeks, the 1 year timeframes follows the errosr of 1 months timeframes, just make the 1 month and 1 year timeframes of all of them 10x times higher as they should

EDIT: also could the galaxy speed feats share the sources of the length/distance of those galaxies to earth? i cant find any source saying that abell 2218 galaxy is 13 billion lightyears away from earth, just some saying ´´over 2 billion lightyears´´
Bumping this too, I think intergalactic travell speed should have more example ends, like ones based on being on different galaxy clusters than just nearest to furthest galaxies
 
Back
Top