- 323
- 312
Can you prove it to be true? Or are we going off pure speculation?
-
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 Piece Blue Planet Calc Revisions
- Thread starter Billybobjoe321
- Start date
-
- Tags
- one piece (verse)
- Status
- 5,291
- 1,997
To begin with, we already speculating on the One Piece’s planet’s climate, the size of said planet, and so on.
We are doing guessworks either way
- 323
- 312
That is not the same.
Speculation of a result and the evidence for that result is different. All powerscaling is speculation but that doesn't mean the evidence we use should allow a lack of compelling evidence.
- 5,291
- 1,997
Burden of Proof works both ways as it stand.
Also we using guesstimates as the results are the guesstimates/numbers to say the least.
As mentioned already, the fact we are relying on a fan made calculation in order to put numbers on the planet and other things is proof enough we are speculating on the specific number in question.
I don’t agree with this take tbh
- 65
- 82
The difference is that you had more concerns than hard evidence. With one piece at least, there is a key piece of evidence to support the size of the world, from the 10 to 20 million islands to the multiple planets orbiting it, even a moon with a satellite.
whereas more of these arguments are "But what if?" without any clear-cut evidence, only using assumptions. not even supporting evidence in the manga for these claims.
The reason it at the size it is. Is because there is nothing wrong with it by ONE PIECE'S logic. Real world logic? 100%, it makes no sense.
But just lowering the size because "it makes no sense in the real world" is not a valid reason without supporting evidence in the series for the assumption.
For the other arguments, they are of concern; however, they can't be applied without clear evidence. Sure, I could see that interpretation; however lacks backing for said ideas.
Unless we have a better way to calculate the planet with less concern, or we get the databooks numbers. This is the best we are going to get with the pixel scaling that is applied until stated otherwise.
- 5,291
- 1,997
Doesn't disprove the fact the calculation is still guesswork to say the least.
I don’t agree with you guy’s takes regardless on that part.
IbukiDoujisGiantTail
They/Them- 182
- 249
All powerscaling/pixelscaling calcs are fan made guesstimate calculations. There has never been a "canon" calc in any series.
- 65
- 82
It is. But we have no other choice until the author clarifies.
- 5,291
- 1,997
I am aware which is why I pointed that out.
IbukiDoujisGiantTail
They/Them- 182
- 249
So then what is even your argument against the proposed methods outside of "The planet size isn't realistic" and "Well we can't truly know what the size is"
- 750
- 791
The first panel is not right next to Drum Island, it happens the day before the one they reach Drum Island. By the night of that day the weather becomes calm and it stops snowing and it remains that way until they reach the island the next day when they reach the island so that calm weather is what the stable weather they are referring to is.
The second panel happens right after they leave the island so they can't be far, Kureha does mention that they must've set sail so they are very close to the island, so it doesn't prove that the snow covers thousands of kilometers.
Like I wouldn't be surprised if the only shaded cloud which happens to be the only one directly above the island (Here in black and white) is the one responsible for the snow, it's even shaded and drawn in the same way as this storm cloud causing lightning (Here in black and white). I don't recall clouds ever being shaded like that if they aren't responsible for snow/rain/lightning etc...
Even if we assume that the snow was covering the whole climate zone at this moment the weather being clear when the island first became visible to both the crew and to Wapol when he returned disproves that the climate zone must always be snowing and covered in clouds, yes the weather is stable and not turbulent but the weather in the climate zone could be snowing or clear, that's if we assume that it was snowing over all of the climate zone in the first place when the crew left Drum in the first place rather than the cloud just covering Drum.
Exactly that's my point, if the rain clouds here are beyond our POV then so the same should apply to the other rain and snow clouds in the area so you can't expect us to see them.
The areas between climate zones are unstable and change weather at random and different location have different wildly varying weather. You can't expect to be able to see storms, waves or cyclones when there isn't one big storm across the whole area but rather multiple small disconnected storms at different locations which change randomly at different time, they individually won't be big enough to be visible from that altitude. (Like look at how small this storm in the background is for example, that's insanely small). Same for cloud visibility alongside what I already addressed in the previous point.
Either way we can't prove whether in the bird's-eye view contains only Alabasta or few other islands along with it or the entire width of the Grand Line or beyond the width of the Grand Line.
Also another thing which you might consider a stretch and that's fine because this isn't even my main argument but I just wanted to point this out:
even if we consider that Drum Island can't be visible in the bird's-eye view for your reasons we can see a portion of the planet that is significantly wider than the Grand Line the reason for this is that the Grand Line's first half Paradise is much longer than it's wide and the path via the log pose doesn't contain many islands relative to the Grand Line's length, this is the path the straw hats took via log pose (Reverse Mountain->Cactus Island->2 or 3 other islands (one of them being little garden)->Alabasta->Skypiea (well they were going to another island but it would have been farther away so it doesn't change much for this argument in fact it helps it)->Long Ring Long Land->Water 7->Fishman Island). We can see that there are 9 or 10 islands in the route meaning 8 to 9 distances between them, we know from this panel what the relation between the planet's diameter and the Grand Line's width is (The corrected diameter would be sqrt(1-(tan(35)(505/773))^2/((tan(35)(505/773))^2+1))*505=459.23px). We know the length of the first half of the Grand Line is half of the planet's circumference which would be 459.23*pi/2=721.36px if we assume the distances are the same between the islands (yes they vary but we can't prove where the largest distances are, also Drum Island isn't in the chain so it should be farther than the island before Alabasta in the chain so this distance we're calculating is generous) and that there are 10 islands in the chain then the distance between two islands would be 721.36/9=80.15px which is above the 60px for the width of the Grand Line and if we assume that there are 9 islands in the chain then the distance would be 721.36/8=90.17px an even bigger difference compared to the width of the Grand Line. So yeah we can see beyond the Grand Line and even the Calm Belt without seeing Drum Island due to this and especially considering that this calculation accounts for islands in the Log Pose chain when Drum Island isn't part of it.
- 5,291
- 1,997
I think you are confused here as I not against the planet’s size being calculated as that wasn’t even my intention here. I cause a misunderstanding admittedly. My issue here is with the results to say the least.
Either way, the proposed methods are the alternatives by @Floxy178 and @YmTheSuper here when it comes to the planet’s size and all.
I honestly think normal users including myself should just stop commenting as it is difficult for calc members to get any solid opinion on the OP and the opposition.
- 24,281
- 37,683
I did not say that they're right next to drum island.
I said that they're outside of Drum Island's climate zone.
The clouds directly above drum island ≠ the clouds producing the snow outside of its climate zone. This is shown, because when it SNOWS and they approach Drum Island, the cloud is far from them, but it is ahead of them.
Incorrect. Not all rain clouds in one piece have the same height.
Some are 10km high. Some are less. Some are way more. This is an outlier because these clouds are caused by a dude who is literally holding air in the sky.
It's not small, it's just far in the background, that's why the lightning that lands is in the horizon
It's crazy to me that we're assuming that Alabasta has this apparent ginormous affect on the planet to where apparently it takes up the vas majority of the ocean but i'll talk about it in a different message
I don't even know what you're trying to say here
- 24,281
- 37,683
Ykw, Imma just dismantle every single point in the OP at once so that whatever future CGM can read the points, cause this is honestly ridiculous
- 5,538
- 1,961
Bump.
- 24,281
- 37,683
Response in the works
- 24,281
- 37,683
I contemplated not doing this but whatever.
There are a few reasons why this assumption is utilized.
First of all, the Grand Line is vast on a global scale to where it dwarves every known relevant island that we see, and if Alabasta was large to the scale that it's being assumed to be, we would be able to see Alabasta on the map.
Yet in every single shot we see of the planet, we see that Alabasta is never shown. Alabasta is a dot on the map in every instance when we see the grand line. We have never seen Alabasta on any world map.
Why is that?
It's because the Grand Line is an ocean extravagantly large that it takes you days just to get to the next island in the path.
In reality, we can take the biggest island that we can calculate that we know is on the Grand Line, and if it isn't shown on the map of the Grand Line, we can assume it's like... a pixel large and highball the hell out of it. But we didn't. We calculated the size of the climate zone for one island and said that that was the Grand Line's width, and apparently it's "too much".
Secondly, we know it doesn't contain the damn Calm Belt.
The Calm Belt is a textureless area of sea from birds eye views. We know this through the anime, which shows the difference between the water of the grand line and the water of the calm belt. This is because the Calm Belt has no wind or waves, hence the name "calm belt".
Comparing this with the texture of the ocean surrounding Alabasta and you can see that the water around Alabasta is part of the Grand Line, not part of the Calm Belt.
I had to use the anime cause when I used the manga I was greeted with arguments about "Oda draws all water like that", which isn't even the case.
From close range, they have no waves. This is the water of the grand line vs the water of the calm belt.
The only reason why close range we see water appear like this in the Calm Belt is due to the presence of Sea Kings moving around, and even with that, it would be localized "textured water".
Yet in the far shot, like you said, each pixel contains an area of over 227km by 227km. Unless the sea kings moving around can manipulate hundreds of thousands of kms of water to make it look similar to the Grand Line, then no.
Oda might draw whatever he wants however he wants, but if he draws them both in the same map he would showcase a difference, like he did in the shot on chapter 101.
So when we show this shot intending to show Grand Line water and people try to say it's part of the calm belt, you can understand the frustration.
In regards to the size of Alabasta and trying to minimize the distance between Alabasta and other islands, it's just... wrong. Dangerously wrong.
First of all, Oda was able to show a crack on Alabasta in the far shot, representing the split in the island meant to show a 50km river. So if Oda is capable of showcasing a 50km crack on a 227x227 panel, he can do whatever he wants.
The closest island to them outside of their next location was Drum Island, and the Strawhats took 9 days to get to Alabasta from Drum Island.
(We know it's been 9 days that they were at sea due to Luffy eating all their food on their 5th day away from Drum Island, and prior to them arriving, Zoro notes that it's been 4 days since they last ate, which was on day 5).
Meanwhile, they were able to sail from the center of Alabasta and around in less than what, 12 hours? This is a giant highball since they slept for most of it then woke up and had to ride the Super Spot-Billed Ducks to get their ship, which canonically while making a mad dash on the ducks to the dock on the river takes like 3 hours, so realistically it was 9 hours maximum.
With the height of Alabasta being 8,000 km, and they went down the bottom then around it and up again, it would've been at least 10,000 kilometers that they covered in maybe, 9 hours?
Simple math to find the closest island, 216 (hours in 9 days) / 9 (hours) * 10,000 km (minimum distance) = 240,000 km. More than double what's even calced in the panel. This is the distance to the LAST ISLAND.
We see that the width of the actual grand line dwarves every "island to island" distance. The distance between 2 islands is a fraction of the size of the grand line.
Yet we said that this was the size of the entirety of the Grand Line. We highballed it and said that the distances on the panel that we can see of Alabasta, an island that is a dot on the map of the world, and we're saying that the shot showing its surroundings is the entirety of the ocean that dwarves it, and apparently this is too much?
No.
If there were other islands so close, then it would imply that Alabasta is actually super close in proximity to the Rd Line since there's only a few islands behind it. But guess what we don't see in the birds eye view. The Red Line.
These things are not close, and trying to flip the large result of the Alabasta climate zone onto us by saying "an island would have to be 200km long to be a dot on the map so maybe there's islands close" is just... dishonest.
Next you said this.
Which shows a lack of general understanding of the series.
Alabasta is canonically in the central path of the Grand Line's 7 paths. We know this because the Straw Hats took the central path.
We know this because the Straw Hats eventually had to hit Fishman Island on their log path, the Island in the center of the planet, shown on the map of the paths to be in the center.
We know it's in the center of the planet because it's directly stated to be under Marijoa, the Island in the center of the grand and red line.
We know it's in the center of the red and grand line because it's stated to be in the center of the red and grand line, which is why it's called the center of the world.
Even if none of this was said, the central path is literally highlighted in chapter 105. Hinted to be the path that Crocus, the doctor speaking, took when he went with Roger, and Crocus and the Straw Hats took the same damn path.
To say that Alabasta could be on the outskirts of the grand line is just... ignoring canon for bad reasons.
You then proceeded to say this
It isn't inconsistent to say that they sail over 250 km/h. Not in the slightest.
I noted prior the scenarios where the ship has canonically moved over 250 km/h to prove a point that "Oda can allow ships to be as fast as he wants them to be", but instead you guys focused on the 1 relativistic statement and smeared that through pages.
- The Going Merry was able to swim up 7000 meters of water in 1 exact minute in a spiral formation prior to the usage of its wings. In a straight line, this would be 116.666666667 m/s, or 420 kilometers per hour, which only increases substantially when you consider they went in a spiral around it, in contrast to the ridiculous 4 meters per second figure that Damage found.
- It was stated in here that the Knock up Stream was the only reason as to why it moved that fast. That is incorrect. They already moved that speed, they just couldn't vertically move upwards. We know this because they were going to fall off by falling backwards, which anyone who's ever ran through a train before can tell you, if you move too much slower than the thing accelerating you, you fall backwards. When they fully harnessed the environment, they could fly up the stream and in the air.
- My point regarding covering the 10,000 km distance of the Sandora River in 9 hours. This is over 1000 km/h for the Going Merry ship.
- The ability of Viola allows her to see 4,000 km away. Her vision noted the Straw Hats entering her 4,000 km range the previous night, and they arrived through the Thousand Sunny within the day. 4,000 km. Assuming 12 hours for the timeframe to arrive, since she spotted them in the middle of the night and they got to her in the morning (far before their 3pm meeting time on the connected island), this would be 333 km/h. Again, faster than the figure you gave.
- It was Damage that tried to minimize their speed by saying "if they could travel a km in a second". A kilometer in a second is 3600 km/h, far above the speeds both me and the OP gave. This is in reference to the coup de burst which shoots the ship into the air a kilometer away. Distance doesn't matter, speed does, and the speed of this ship is ridiculous.
Then later, you proceeded to tackle this
Which is a sandbox. A sandbox is not a blog. I did not publish the sandbox, so it is not grounds for an argument.
Being nosy and peering into my thought process does you no favors.
Then on top of that, you attempted to tackle the moon.
You've pulled what I like to call "delete and deter". You see things that are shaky and you try to delete every single potential way of calculating it until/unless you find something reasonable, which means... reasonable to you, then after every possible way of calculating it is removed, you say "oh, it can't be calcable, too bad".
I know this cause you removed the planet and moon size and you didn't even give an alternative. You expect us to go and pick up the bits and pieces of YOUR WORK.
We agreed on the tertiary canon shot because a shot showing the actual moon is better than showing a model.
Then you said the tertiary canon shot wasn't good enough, so we relied on the model, and now you're saying the model isn't good enough so that we can't calculate anything with the moon.
You're effectively trying to create barriers on things that we already discussed. Nothing of your thread regarding the moon is new, you said it in the last thread and it was shut down by MonkeyOfLife.
Everybody in here is attempting to find "alternatives that they like". The shot of Alabasta alone showcased a 8,000 kilometer Alabasta, yet they were trying to use YmTheSuper's calculation that said the grand line is 8,000 kilometers in width. I have no issue with YmTheSuper, but people of shameless nature attempted to act like that was objectively better.
I understand that you guys have the evaluation rights to evaluate things you disagree with, and everybody on this wiki is allowed to disagree with what they want, but when you become unreasonable due to preconceived biases, you will be disregarded.
This thread had someone make a thread trying to minimize large planets strictly cause One Piece has a large planet when we have light novels on this wiki that have mountain ranges the size of solar systems. This thread has given random ridiculous scrutiny based on "big planet" from a select few people evaluating it, and it's unfair and just dumb.
Last edited:
- 21,511
- 36,031
KT makes sense to me here
- 34,543
- 34,967
It might've just been so long that I've forgotten about it but could you give me a reminder on where I calculated it to be 4 m/s?
EDIT: Ah wait, is this just a reference to typical sailing ships being roughly 4 meters per second IRL?
- 24,281
- 37,683
yeah. i didn't say you calculated it, just say you found it
- 34,543
- 34,967
No problem, misinterpreted your post.
- 1,025
- 1,094
KT makes sense to me as well on difference of Grand Line and Calm Belt, though I'd still prefer scaling moon from the model instead of panel with bad perspective for direct measurement. In case if we had 2 such shots, even if bad for pixelscaling, we could still figure out size of moon from them.
For the record, results of horizon calcs aren't a contradiction for higher results. Since what we get is essentially minimum planet size needeed to see very top part of the object.
For the record, results of horizon calcs aren't a contradiction for higher results. Since what we get is essentially minimum planet size needeed to see very top part of the object.
- 24,281
- 37,683
Yeah if we have to use the model instead then I'm not against it. Another thread can be used to talk about how we use it and to fully accept it, but at the end of the day trying to nuke the model of the solar system is just... bad
- 1,025
- 1,094
If we have two Moon shots where Earth is visible then we could try something as well.
Edit: Wait now that I remember something from a calc I saw about explosion on the Moon, we have a panel of the Moon from the surface right? I might be able to find Moon size with these two I think (ofc if canonity isn't a problem which isn't really within my field of expertise).
Edit: Wait now that I remember something from a calc I saw about explosion on the Moon, we have a panel of the Moon from the surface right? I might be able to find Moon size with these two I think (ofc if canonity isn't a problem which isn't really within my field of expertise).
- 24,281
- 37,683
unfortunately we never get any (yeah i would've angsized the earth to moon distance)
1179 chapters and none show the view of the earth
- 1,025
- 1,094
Yeah this will probably be enough, thanks. I'll try to do a recalc tomorrow to account for perspective for the shot that's used in current calc.
- 24,281
- 37,683
- 24,281
- 37,683
I do need to recalc the planet though because i used the wrong directions
the green line is what i need calculated since the grand line isn't an "east to west" thing, it's northwest to southeast
either that, or we use the distance between Drum and Alabasta and just upscale that
the green line is what i need calculated since the grand line isn't an "east to west" thing, it's northwest to southeast
either that, or we use the distance between Drum and Alabasta and just upscale that
- 1,025
- 1,094
I'd suggest excluding parts covered by clouds
- 221
- 95
- Thread starter
- #271
I might make a response, if I do, give me at least a week.
- 24,281
- 37,683
fair enough
i'll sandbox an end with the alabasta -> drum distance, and i'll do one with the aerial shot calc
Eminiteable
He/Him- 7,507
- 6,800
KT's post makes sense to me, but I'll wait frb before I agree or disagree
- 24,281
- 37,683
Imma knee you
@Floxy178 how do you feel about using the calc in the message for the closest island instead of the Alabasta shot since I knew you had problems with the Alabasta shot from before, unless you think the Alabasta shot is good now
- 1,025
- 1,094
I didn't really have problem with the shot itself, my point was that from only one vertical shot you can't determine anything regarding arguments with clouds (size, distance, how much area they're covering relative to surface, etc.) so there's no problem with the shot itself.
But I disagreed with "ship speed not aligning with current sizes" counter argument exactly because ship's travel speed is massively inconsistent inverse. So I wouldn't use travel speed for finding distance over direct pixelscaling either to be honest, otherwise there would've been no reason to oppose travel speed inconsistency argument in the first place.
But I disagreed with "ship speed not aligning with current sizes" counter argument exactly because ship's travel speed is massively inconsistent inverse. So I wouldn't use travel speed for finding distance over direct pixelscaling either to be honest, otherwise there would've been no reason to oppose travel speed inconsistency argument in the first place.
- 24,281
- 37,683
Last edited:
Qurbonboev
He/Him- 2,718
- 1,607
On this question (it's not main priority now, since I don't know any calcs on the verse page that currently use mass of celestial bodies).
To calculate mass of the celestial body you can either calculate it via A) using radius and density B) using it's radius and surface gravity, like this.
Current calc of size and mass of Blue(and Moon) assumes that they have similar density to Earth and Moon(which is fine assumption in the vacuum). But no matter how you slice this (everyone here agrees that Blue is much bigger than Earth, it's undeniable), Blue with same density as Earth would have massively higher surface gravity.
So questions are:
Is Blue surface gravity consistently shown to be stronger than Earth one? And by how much?
What method should be used for calculating mass?
If method A is chosen, should we account for Blue having massively higher surface gravity in calcs?
My personal opinion is that method B should be used, since we can directly observe how strong is surface gravity of Blue, unlike density which we can't directly access. But I hold no horse in this
(Same reasoning is for calculating mass of the Moon)
Saqphire
She/Her- 1,573
- 1,884
No
I personally use (gravity x (radius in m^2)) / gravitational constant. Density in fictional earth-like planets that are bigger is unproveable without a direct statement so it's better to be ignored
No
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
