4-A to 3-B calculation revisions

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

This is not my original idea, it can be found in Mand21's comment here .

Quoting the entire comment for convenience:

Haven't I protested the 4-A rating before? The Sun has a lower GBE than Alpha Centauri's so you should be using the Alpha Centauri's GBE to calculate 4-A from the mean point between them, not the Sun's. I remember you agreeing with me back then.

Also, doesn't a galaxy of the size of Andromeda (or our own galaxy for all that's worth) have at least one Neutron Star? A single neutron star would tremendously effect the power needed to destroy it, since you'd have to destroy the outermost neutron star of the galaxy.

Now honestly, I am completely neutral for the 4-A rating. Stars vary far too much in mass and size for us to nitpick with that unless specified in the fiction. If you guys have an opinion on it, you may of course discuss about it.

But the point I did fully agree with was the second paragraph of his comment.

Wikipedia states that "At present, there are about 2,000 known neutron stars in the Milky Way and the Magellanic Clouds, the majority of which have been detected as radio pulsars. ... RX J1856.5-3754 is a member of a close group of neutron stars called The Magnificent Seven. "

Neutron stars have been found in Andromeda since three years ago.

So neutron stars should replace the Sun in the 3-C and 3-B calculations.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

bump

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

bump

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

bump

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

bump

 

[Mephistus]

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/U...to_blow_up_the_Milky_Way_Galaxy_in_one_attack

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

bump

 

[Antvasima]

I do not think that this issue seems important enough to be a prioritised project, and we are already busy with trying to reevaluate the more questionable tier borders.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

4-A being changed wouldn't end up doing much and I'm impartial to its change.

As for 3-C and 3-B, yes there are neutron stars. However, they are visually undetectable on a galactic level; there is no way to detect their destruction or lack therefore in a galaxy bust. The only reason neutron stars are used for universe is because universe level is defined as the complete destruction of all matter in the universe, which would include even neutron stars. For all intents and purposes a galaxy would still be destroyed even if its neutron stars are still around.

 

[Antvasima]

So do you think that this seems like an unnecessary change?

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Well even the OP says the 4-A change is neutral and I believe rating galaxy level based on neutron stars which are nigh-conventionally unobservable is not the best method.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thanks. Should we close this then?

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Let's let OP respond, but I doubt anything will be changed.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

4-A being changed wouldn't end up doing much and I'm impartial to its change.
As for 3-C and 3-B, yes there are neutron stars. However, they are visually undetectable on a galactic level; there is no way to detect their destruction or lack therefore in a galaxy bust. The only reason neutron stars are used for universe is because universe level is defined as the complete destruction of all matter in the universe, which would include even neutron stars. For all intents and purposes a galaxy would still be destroyed even if its neutron stars are still around.

Wouldn't that same logic apply for universal? What makes it so different that they wouldn't be similar, especially when due to the size of the universe it would be even less negligible than a galaxy rating?

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Deathstroke

Definitely an argument to be made about not using neutron stars period. As for universe, it's special because it is the total destruction of all matter in the observable universe and not just the construct of a galaxy or the like.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

And isn't that the same logic that goes for the destruction of a galaxy and a solar system? The current calc goes by supposedly destroying all matter in the galaxy by using inverse square law to calc the force needed to destroy a sun at the edge of a galaxy with the explosion starting at the epicenter.

That's literally the same structure for the 3-A rating, so I don't see why it's such a big deal to not just replace the sun mass in the equation with a neutron star mass since it'd only take a minute.

 

[Mephistus]

Mainly think the 3-B calc would be used if an educated statement said an attack was gonna blow up the milky way and it being based on more than a visual cue and rather an umbrella inferred definition of all the matter in the milky way within said statement. Which would also include normally non-visible shiz like our local central black hole and smaller black holes being destroyed via some unknown means that violates physics.


You fellas can decide amongst yourselves if thats "baseline" since most series don't go beyond a visual cue of star's lights going away.