- 24,390
- 37,962
Planet Size, Planet Physics, and Earth-Like Assumptions — Proposed Standard
Strictly Staff Only (Retired People Too). No Permission Is Being Granted. This Is Regarding Wiki Standards.
We have no guidelines on a lot of things. Because of that, we navigate the wiki through people arguing blindly about things that staff as a whole need to agree on. The introduction of fictional planets being absolutely massive is one of those things.
This is not a CGM thread. This is not solely about calculation values, but about logic and basic observations — something more than just CGM should have a say in.
I may sound like a broken record, but this problem doesn't just affect my personal verses anymore. It stretches across all of fiction, wherever people decide to calculate a planet the size of the sun or the size of America.
Background
Years ago, when we first discussed calculating bigger planets, Mori made these standards:
Years later, we got planets of increasingly large and contradictory sizes. Planets that were physically Earth-like but mathematically enormous. A thread was made by M3X proposing restrictions based on the physics a planet of a given size would require. Though it never left stasis, it shows how at least some staff view the issue.
This eventually restricted what could be calculated on a planet at all — no cloud calculations (different atmosphere), no earthquake-based calculations (different ground composition), and so on.
This creates a wall with no way through it. You can't go the high route because it's too similar to Earth. You can't go the average route because it's not Earth. Eventually nothing gets calculated at all.
The clearest current example is the One Piece planet. It was ruled too similar to Earth to allow amplified gravity-based acceleration. But when a calculation was made using the speed of seismic waves to determine size, the ruling flipped — now the planet is "too far from Earth" to use that same Earth-based assumption.
The Actual Problem
These examples show that the wiki is combining three separate questions into a single argument every time this comes up:
Anti-feats have the same problem. Anti-feats against a planet's size should be brought up when evaluating that size — not resurrected later to block ordinary local feats/calcs once the size has already been accepted.
Proposed Standard
This should not be all-restricting. The standard cannot be "too Earth-like for large-scale physics" and "too unlike Earth for baseline physics" at the same time.
It should also not be all-allowing. A larger size supported by a statement, map, model, visual, or calculation doesn't automatically mean higher gravity, higher GPE, higher escape velocity, thicker atmosphere, different cloud height, different seismic wave speed, or any other derivative property. Size and derivative physics are not a package deal — in either direction. Accepting a large size doesn't mean every other stat scales up with it, and rejecting inflated stats doesn't mean baseline Earth qualities stop working either.
If a planet is consistently shown as a regular, akin to earth, habitable world at surface level, Earth-like baseline assumptions should remain usable for ordinary local calculations unless the material directly contradicts them. Normal gravity, normal weather, normal breathing, normal infrastructure, normal human movement, and normal ground behavior count as evidence against those large planets — not as evidence against an already-accepted size.
With that, the proposed standard is:
Decision Path
Just so this doesn't become a repeated argument, this is the order as to how conversations regarding these types of feats should be.
1. Is there sufficient evidence to accept a non-Earth planet size?
No: Use Earth-equivalent size or no size value.
Yes: Accept size alone.
2. Is there separate evidence for higher gravity, GPE, escape velocity, atmosphere, seismic speed, etc.?
No: Those properties are not used.
Yes: Evaluate each individually.
3. Does the planet behave like an Earth-like habitable world at the surface level?
Yes: Earth-like baseline assumptions apply to ordinary local calculations.
No: Staff/CRT must specify which assumptions are invalid, and why.
4. Is there direct counterevidence against the accepted size?
Yes: Reject or limit the size.
No: The size may be used for geometry/distance-based purposes.
On Anti-Feats
Not all anti-feats carry the same weight, and the distinction matters:
Major anti-feats
Direct size statements, consistent maps/models showing a smaller size by a meaningful margin, irreconcilable travel times, explicit size comparisons, or worldbuilding that clearly depends on Earth-scale geography.
Minor anti-feats
Weigh only against derivative physics, not size
Normal gravity, normal human movement, normal breathing, normal buildings, normal oceans, normal weather, normal day/night cycles.
Minor anti-feats should only count against derivative big-planet physics, not against the size/circumference itself, absent stronger contrary evidence. Normal gravity doesn't disprove a larger size, it just means higher gravity shouldn't be assumed from that size alone.
Summary
Agree: KingTempest, DarkDragonMedeus, Planck69, KLOL506, Floxy178, Damage3245
Disagree:
Neutral:
Strictly Staff Only (Retired People Too). No Permission Is Being Granted. This Is Regarding Wiki Standards.
We have no guidelines on a lot of things. Because of that, we navigate the wiki through people arguing blindly about things that staff as a whole need to agree on. The introduction of fictional planets being absolutely massive is one of those things.
This is not a CGM thread. This is not solely about calculation values, but about logic and basic observations — something more than just CGM should have a say in.
I may sound like a broken record, but this problem doesn't just affect my personal verses anymore. It stretches across all of fiction, wherever people decide to calculate a planet the size of the sun or the size of America.
Background
Years ago, when we first discussed calculating bigger planets, Mori made these standards:
- The planet does not sharply resemble Real Life Earth.
- There are canonical measurements/references of measurement that don't require calculation stacking.
- There are multiple consistent statements or frames of reference regarding its size.
- There are multiple consistent shots/images/maps of its size.
- There is little to no counterevidence or anti-feats as to the planet's size.
These were made to address Fairy Tail years ago, and came with the unspoken rule of not inflating the parameters of calculations alongside size — no higher gravity, no higher GPE, no higher escape velocity, no "characters are faster because conditions are harsher."
Years later, we got planets of increasingly large and contradictory sizes. Planets that were physically Earth-like but mathematically enormous. A thread was made by M3X proposing restrictions based on the physics a planet of a given size would require. Though it never left stasis, it shows how at least some staff view the issue.
This eventually restricted what could be calculated on a planet at all — no cloud calculations (different atmosphere), no earthquake-based calculations (different ground composition), and so on.
This creates a wall with no way through it. You can't go the high route because it's too similar to Earth. You can't go the average route because it's not Earth. Eventually nothing gets calculated at all.
The clearest current example is the One Piece planet. It was ruled too similar to Earth to allow amplified gravity-based acceleration. But when a calculation was made using the speed of seismic waves to determine size, the ruling flipped — now the planet is "too far from Earth" to use that same Earth-based assumption.
The Actual Problem
These examples show that the wiki is combining three separate questions into a single argument every time this comes up:
- Can the fictional planet's size even be accepted under our current standards?
- If accepted, what does that size actually allow us to calculate or scale?
- Do Earth-based assumptions still apply to ordinary local calculations on that planet, or does accepting a non-Earth size invalidate those too?
Anti-feats have the same problem. Anti-feats against a planet's size should be brought up when evaluating that size — not resurrected later to block ordinary local feats/calcs once the size has already been accepted.
Proposed Standard
This should not be all-restricting. The standard cannot be "too Earth-like for large-scale physics" and "too unlike Earth for baseline physics" at the same time.
It should also not be all-allowing. A larger size supported by a statement, map, model, visual, or calculation doesn't automatically mean higher gravity, higher GPE, higher escape velocity, thicker atmosphere, different cloud height, different seismic wave speed, or any other derivative property. Size and derivative physics are not a package deal — in either direction. Accepting a large size doesn't mean every other stat scales up with it, and rejecting inflated stats doesn't mean baseline Earth qualities stop working either.
If a planet is consistently shown as a regular, akin to earth, habitable world at surface level, Earth-like baseline assumptions should remain usable for ordinary local calculations unless the material directly contradicts them. Normal gravity, normal weather, normal breathing, normal infrastructure, normal human movement, and normal ground behavior count as evidence against those large planets — not as evidence against an already-accepted size.
With that, the proposed standard is:
- Planet size and planet physics are evaluated separately.
- A larger planet size may be accepted with sufficient evidence — direct statements, maps, models, repeated consistent visuals, astronomical references, or consistent travel/geography.
- Accepting a larger size doesn't automatically grant higher gravity, higher GPE, higher escape velocity, greater density, altered atmosphere, altered cloud height, altered seismic speed, or similar properties, unless separately showcased or implied by the source material.
- Those other require their own evidence, whether they are separate (databooks, interviews, etc), or a clear in-verse basis tying them to the accepted size without contradiction.
- If the planet is consistently showcased to have Earth-like surface conditions, Earth-like baseline assumptions remain usable for normal local calculations should be fine unless directly contradicted.
- Normal gravity, normal weather, and normal human movement count against unproven derivative big-planet physics, not against the accepted size itself.
Decision Path
Just so this doesn't become a repeated argument, this is the order as to how conversations regarding these types of feats should be.
1. Is there sufficient evidence to accept a non-Earth planet size?
No: Use Earth-equivalent size or no size value.
Yes: Accept size alone.
2. Is there separate evidence for higher gravity, GPE, escape velocity, atmosphere, seismic speed, etc.?
No: Those properties are not used.
Yes: Evaluate each individually.
3. Does the planet behave like an Earth-like habitable world at the surface level?
Yes: Earth-like baseline assumptions apply to ordinary local calculations.
No: Staff/CRT must specify which assumptions are invalid, and why.
4. Is there direct counterevidence against the accepted size?
Yes: Reject or limit the size.
No: The size may be used for geometry/distance-based purposes.
On Anti-Feats
Not all anti-feats carry the same weight, and the distinction matters:
Major anti-feats
Direct size statements, consistent maps/models showing a smaller size by a meaningful margin, irreconcilable travel times, explicit size comparisons, or worldbuilding that clearly depends on Earth-scale geography.
Minor anti-feats
Weigh only against derivative physics, not size
Normal gravity, normal human movement, normal breathing, normal buildings, normal oceans, normal weather, normal day/night cycles.
Minor anti-feats should only count against derivative big-planet physics, not against the size/circumference itself, absent stronger contrary evidence. Normal gravity doesn't disprove a larger size, it just means higher gravity shouldn't be assumed from that size alone.
Summary
- Accepting a bigger size does't automatically justify bigger-planet physics.
- Bigger-planet physics require separate evidence.
- Earth-like baseline assumptions remain usable where the world behaves like an Earth-like world.
- Planet size, planet physics, and Earth-like local assumptions are three separate questions and should be evaluated as such.
Agree: KingTempest, DarkDragonMedeus, Planck69, KLOL506, Floxy178, Damage3245
Disagree:
Neutral:
Last edited:
