-
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.
One-Punch Man CGT: Settling the Topic of Serious Punch²
- Thread starter Kachon123
- Start date
-
- Tags
- one-punch man
- Status
- 4,773
- 1,668
We wait for calc members opinion on which versions to use in this case
- 32,835
- 38,111
One could argue the stars were coming back as everything was getting reversed.
- 32,835
- 38,111
I also wonder if the star GBE could be replaced with the large star GBE since big ass stars are most likely to exist? An idea I got from this thread.
- 4,773
- 1,668
That is a reasonable interpretation as the fact it was explicitly mentioned traveling back in time and causality.
The stars being restored . Also you saying the same thing I just say. It got reversed.
https://**********/read/imgur/mUagtWL/1/63/I
- 32,835
- 38,111
Ded link
- 4,773
- 1,668
They do exist, but DonTalk doesn’t agree with that since they prefer our Star (Sun) as the average as doing calcs on a cosmic scale is complicated and I believe we have some discussion of this in the past
Last edited:
- 4,773
- 1,668
https://**********/read/imgur/mUagtWL/1/63/
- 32,835
- 38,111
So the case of the universe is different because there you have to destroy all stars and galaxies existing?
- 4,773
- 1,668
Correct
- 32,835
- 38,111
Ah yes. This one.
I just saw it. Literally has "Reversal of Causality" written in bold. Can't be anything other than reversal of events
- 32,835
- 38,111
Understandable.
- 4,773
- 1,668
Also it is in our Tiering System :
3-A: Universe level
Characters who can destroy all celestial bodies within a volume at least equivalent to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion, alternately create or significantly affect[1] a universe of comparable size, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time.
- 32,835
- 38,111
I wonder what yield we'll get if we use the neutron star end with the 12.336 km radius and the 0.57x Sun GBE since there's a neutron star bound to be within that void based on the whole "Every 1000th star is a neutron star" statistic...
4 * 3.24501e+41 * (1.54286e+20 / 12336)^2 = 2.0303941e+74 J (3-B, Multi-Galaxy level)
HOLY ******* SHIT.
EDIT: BTW, y'all can ignore this, this was just for fun.
4 * 3.24501e+41 * (1.54286e+20 / 12336)^2 = 2.0303941e+74 J (3-B, Multi-Galaxy level)
HOLY ******* SHIT.
EDIT: BTW, y'all can ignore this, this was just for fun.
- 4,773
- 1,668
… I think you should leave that up to the other calc members as that is assuming they are destroying multiple galaxies, but we do have a zoomed out scan in the latest chapter that show galaxies not necessarily been destroyed.
Also, we literally have multiple calculations posted on the OP.
- 32,835
- 38,111
Don't worry, I didn't intend on getting it accepted, just wanted to brainstorm it.
- 20,606
- 17,607
So in my view, USK's low end calc should probably be used. Its just a better version of my calc and requires the least amount of assumptions to work.
The closest Neutron star that would fit those parameters is over 4,600 light years away from Earth. Your calc would need to be adjusted for that end.
As a note that's a max density Neutron star that was or is becoming a quark star. The vast majority of Neutron Stars do not reach such levels of density/size and are much lower (typically only 1/10th the Sun's GBE)
The closest Neutron star that would fit those parameters is over 4,600 light years away from Earth. Your calc would need to be adjusted for that end.
- 32,835
- 38,111
And the diameter would remain the same? Or would it be smaller? Or bigger?
EDIT: NVM, it'd be bigger based on the link you gave, but not by much.
- 20,606
- 17,607
Diameter is 13-15.1 kilometers for that Neutron Star
Distance would be 16,308 ly - 4,600 ly (11,708 ly) assuming everything was in a straight-ish line.
- 32,835
- 38,111
Was mostly asking about diameter.
- 20,606
- 17,607
Then diameter would be 26-30.2 kilometers since what I gave was the radius
- 32,835
- 38,111
Yeah well we'd use the radius anyway since the formula relies on target radius and not diameter.
- 32,835
- 38,111
Okay so, as per Qaws' suggestions...
The 4600-light-year-away-from-Earth neutron star has a radius of 13-15.1 km. I'll just use the big value to be safe. And a 16308 ly end.
GBE is 1/10 that of the Sun. 5.693e+41 * (1/10)= 5.693e+40 J
Formula: 4 * U * (Er/Tr)^2, where U is the GBE of the body, Er is the explosion radius in meters and Tr is Target Radius also in meters (The target you wanna blow the **** up to kingdom come)
4600 ly end (4.3519e+19 m)= 4 * 5.693e+40 * (4.3519e+19/15100)^2= 1.8914946e+72 J (3-B, Multi-Galaxy level)
16308 ly end (1.54286e+20 m)= 4 * 5.693e+40 * (1.54286e+20/15100)^2= 2.3773894e+73 J (3-B, Multi-Galaxy level)
DO NOT USE THIS AS ONE OF THE ACCEPTED ENDS YET. THIS IS JUST A TEST DRIVE.
But if you want to use it, you are free to copy-paste it into your own blog, if you want to credit me, go right ahead.
The 4600-light-year-away-from-Earth neutron star has a radius of 13-15.1 km. I'll just use the big value to be safe. And a 16308 ly end.
GBE is 1/10 that of the Sun. 5.693e+41 * (1/10)= 5.693e+40 J
Formula: 4 * U * (Er/Tr)^2, where U is the GBE of the body, Er is the explosion radius in meters and Tr is Target Radius also in meters (The target you wanna blow the **** up to kingdom come)
4600 ly end (4.3519e+19 m)= 4 * 5.693e+40 * (4.3519e+19/15100)^2= 1.8914946e+72 J (3-B, Multi-Galaxy level)
16308 ly end (1.54286e+20 m)= 4 * 5.693e+40 * (1.54286e+20/15100)^2= 2.3773894e+73 J (3-B, Multi-Galaxy level)
DO NOT USE THIS AS ONE OF THE ACCEPTED ENDS YET. THIS IS JUST A TEST DRIVE.
But if you want to use it, you are free to copy-paste it into your own blog, if you want to credit me, go right ahead.
- 4,773
- 1,668
Attack Potency - Solar System to Multi-Galaxy level with variables
vsbattles.fandom.com
Again, we not trying to take the higher possible interpretation so….
- 32,835
- 38,111
Once again, I did say not to actually use it for CRT purposes as it is a test drive, so...Attack Potency - Solar System to Multi-Galaxy level with variables
Again, we not trying to take the higher possible interpretation so….
- 19,524
- 17,162
- Thread starter
- #70
It is. I would really like those who aren't CGM to only input when necessary.
- 4,773
- 1,668
You did, but it is kinda confusing ppl since I think you technically doing a calc that involves multi galaxy busting calcs in general.
Anyway, aside from that, time to wait on other calc members to formulate their opinion on different calculations of the same feat displayed.
- 7,409
- 3,790
I'm leaning g towards the 3B calc but open to the 3A version as well.
- 32,835
- 38,111
- 7,409
- 3,790
Hey so since this is somewhat related to the feat, could we use this graph as a multiplier to multiply the results of the calc?
If it's too off topic we can ignore it.
If it's too off topic we can ignore it.
- 4,773
- 1,668
No as it is calc stacking. Edit: Also off topic.
- 7,409
- 3,790
I dont believe that's how calc stacking works here. It's only one calc.
- 32,835
- 38,111
No official multiplier value, no multiplying. That's how it goes.
- 4,773
- 1,668
It is not even usable since that is after the feat in question.
- 1,418
- 1,214
I mean I get that but if his place on the graph literally doubles or triples, doesn’t it make sense that his power doubles or triples
- Status
Similar threads
