- 40,469
- 12,953
Again, I really want to help you out with that, Ant. I know how trying this is for you, and I want to remedy that.
-
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.
A DBZ calc
- Thread starter Antoniofer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dragon ball frieza
- Status
- 167,727
- 76,338
I am afraid that I cannot allow you to decide the DBZ rankings. We would have to discuss it in the staff after a new calculation was made.
However, I still think that we should wait for a response from DontTalk. I would appreciate if somebody could place a note on his message wall, linking to this thread.
However, I still think that we should wait for a response from DontTalk. I would appreciate if somebody could place a note on his message wall, linking to this thread.
- 40,469
- 12,953
Oh, no. I didn't want to decide it. Just to make good suggestions and help lead and such.
- 4,268
- 284
well the actual value should be close to the current one
so it wont be that much of a difference
so it wont be that much of a difference
- 9,978
- 2,015
- Thread starter
- #87
That method still sound a little odd for me, if it were possible, I'll suggest to use the typical constant of violent frag. or pulverization, but with a radious of the earth, that planet is made of another material that hasn't a constant yet...
- 3,260
- 293
Important thing: The original calc that was done for Frieza actually accounted both situations.
Now, what is going to be done here is find the median (basically finding the midpoint between one number and another) between the low end, and the high end of this Frieza calc. sqrt((4.142e31)/(6.9258e27))*(6.9258e27) = 5.356e29 Tons of TNT; Dwarf Star level
I would just remove the + sign for Namek Saga Vegeta and 1st Form Frieza's AP.
If not, then keeping Gallavant's calc is acceptable.
@Antoniofer: Still does not change the fact that the total mass of the debris of said planet was expanded outwards at a specific speed due to the explosion.
- The time it took for the entirety of Planet Vegeta to disperse from the screen (Low End)
- The time it took for just the majority of the planet to leave the screen (High End)
- Here, we know King Kai's planet gravity is 10 times of Earth
- Here, he says Saiyan planet has at least as much as his planet
Now, what is going to be done here is find the median (basically finding the midpoint between one number and another) between the low end, and the high end of this Frieza calc. sqrt((4.142e31)/(6.9258e27))*(6.9258e27) = 5.356e29 Tons of TNT; Dwarf Star level
I would just remove the + sign for Namek Saga Vegeta and 1st Form Frieza's AP.
If not, then keeping Gallavant's calc is acceptable.
@Antoniofer: Still does not change the fact that the total mass of the debris of said planet was expanded outwards at a specific speed due to the explosion.
- 40,469
- 12,953
How high in the dwarf star category is that? We might have to rescale Frieza saga characters and maybe a few androids. Cell Saga characters would likely stay the same.
- 3,260
- 293
I am not even sure if the above calc would even be accepted, since I just averaged between the low and high end. Also, it seems that the low end in that calc has been disregarded entirely, reading through the calc blog.
It even looks like all of the fragments of Planet Vegeta were flung out extremely quickly while the yellow glowing orbs that were shown after was Frieza's death ball blowing up Planet Vegeta from inside.
Honestly, I am leaning towards Sherlock's high end for this.
It even looks like all of the fragments of Planet Vegeta were flung out extremely quickly while the yellow glowing orbs that were shown after was Frieza's death ball blowing up Planet Vegeta from inside.
Honestly, I am leaning towards Sherlock's high end for this.
- 9,978
- 2,015
- Thread starter
- #91
Just a fragment of the planet were travelling at that speed, so if going with the KE just a part of the mass would be used; futhermore, if we use the KE of the explosion using the mass of the celestial body and the detonation speed, supernovas energy would be higher than 10^44 J since they detonate at one speed of around 10 - 20% SoL and has a mass of 1.4 times the Sun's, resulting over 12 times stronger than it should be.
Would be more accurate to just use the GBE or one of our constant of fragmentation or pulveritation, before just overlook for numbers there.
Would be more accurate to just use the GBE or one of our constant of fragmentation or pulveritation, before just overlook for numbers there.
- 3,260
- 293
This page here states that the shockwave of the explosion reaches 5,000 to 20,000km/s, with matter being hurled outwards at that speeds. Let's do a quick KE calculation.
Also, 10^44 Foe is likely a lowball since the supernova releases that much energy in only a few seconds, which means that the actual energy released is higher.
- Chandrasekhar limit = 1.44 solar masses = (1.44*(1.986e30 kg)) = 2.85984e30 kg
- Velocity (5,000km/s as low end; 20,000km/s as high end)
- KE (Low End) = (0.5)(2.85984e30)(5,000,000^2) = 3.576e43 Joules
- KE (High End) = (0.5)(2.85984e30)(20,000,000^2) = 5.739e44 Joules
Also, 10^44 Foe is likely a lowball since the supernova releases that much energy in only a few seconds, which means that the actual energy released is higher.
- 5,141
- 290
. . .
Clearly an outlier.
Clearly an outlier.
- 5,141
- 290
There's no proof that Frieza's Supernova is equal to a real one.
Is like if we put Android Saga Vegeta at 3-A because of his "Big Bang Attack"
Is like if we put Android Saga Vegeta at 3-A because of his "Big Bang Attack"
- 3,260
- 293
Well, the above calc isn't really for Frieza's supernova. It was against Antoniofer's statement that the explosion of a Supernova happens at Relativistic speeds (it happens at Sub-Relativistic speeds instead)
That being said, it would be very much preferable if we kept Frieza's calc as it is, although I could ask for assistance if it is needed.
That being said, it would be very much preferable if we kept Frieza's calc as it is, although I could ask for assistance if it is needed.
- 4,268
- 284
yeah i agree with lina, even a re-calc would probably downgrade frieza to dwarf star level, but thats not much of a change
also considering how he did it without much effort, the rankings of his other forms still wont change
also considering how he did it without much effort, the rankings of his other forms still wont change
- 340
- 15
why it would be?AidenBrooks999 said:
- 4,268
- 284
actually he was refering to alina post, which lina himself made to counter antonio, it wasnt actually meant to upgrade frieza, just to counter antonio's pointLuciferSPN said:
- 40,469
- 12,953
To be fair, laughing doesn't mean you're doing an act casually, especially when you're a sociopath like Frieza.
- 3,260
- 293
Frieza seemed to exert a lot more effort during his battle with Vegeta compared to when he performed the Supernova judging by their expressions (DBZ, chapter 295), so I think that Frieza would be capable of a lot more.
- 40,469
- 12,953
Never said it was or wasn't casual. Just pointing out a fact.
- 3,260
- 293
Still, I think an "At least" beside Frieza's rating would be viable, and those who scale to it.
- 9,978
- 2,015
- Thread starter
- #103
I see... both results seems pretty similar compared with the Supernova energy, so the calc doesn't seems as farfetched as I though, and GBE is just minimum energy to destroy it; I would prefer equation tho.
Welp, so @Lina, are you going to recalc or something? I asked to Xcano if the method seems alright anyway, I would prefer to wait until he give his opinion.
Welp, so @Lina, are you going to recalc or something? I asked to Xcano if the method seems alright anyway, I would prefer to wait until he give his opinion.
- 3,260
- 293
I would wait until LordX gives his thoughts on the calc. However, I did ask Chaos and Sherlock on NF as well, as they were also the ones who did the original calc for Frieza (apparently Gallavant's calc wasn't accepted at NF and at T5 for some reason).
- 40,469
- 12,953
I agree with you that it wouldn't be an outlier, but your most iconic thing can be an outlier. Kirby's Ultra Sword was featured on boxart, was the only cutscened Super Ability, and became Kirby's new final smash. Still an outlier. Heck, Roshi's moonbust was the second most iconic thing he's ever done, and that's the go-to outlier for Dragon Ball. Also, Frieza's most iconic feat is Krillining Krillin.
- 3,260
- 293
@Fan: He was referring to my calculation in regards to an actual supernova's kinetic energy. Antoniofer said that the matter is flung out at Relativistic speeds, but they only move at low-end Sub-Relativistic speeds, so I did a KE calc on it.
If someone wants to do a re-calc on it, be my guest. However, my vote is that we keep the calc as it is.
If someone wants to do a re-calc on it, be my guest. However, my vote is that we keep the calc as it is.
- 9,978
- 2,015
- Thread starter
- #108
Welp, another option that we have for not depend of the cinematic timing, is using the average speed detonation of, I think is 10 000 km/s, that still being High 5-A, but without the "+"; now wont depend of cinematic time, that was one of the complaints of the re-calc
- 227
- 19
let it die
- 3,260
- 293
DT needs to finalize this issue at hand, and we can get this thread over with. However...
That is all. *sigh
- The point of a planetary mass ejection calc is to calculate the how fast the planet's matter is dispersed from start to finish.
- 10,000km/s is an assumption on speed without any direct proof whatsoever. This will overinflate/deflate the actual value.
- A speed of a supernova explosion is used for something that is not even a supernova (the only reason that a supernova explodes at that speed is because of how much heavier an exploding star is compared to a regular planet really)
- Alternatively, we are not shown how much the fragments of the planet are spaced from each other, or if those fragments even stopped moving at all. The Moon split examples are exceptions because we can clearly see how far the Moon has moved due to the split, unlike this one.
That is all. *sigh
- 14,195
- 2,574
I believe no one has, so I have done the deed now
- 2,512
- 261
OK, so I finally read through the thread. So to get this finished.
Using cinematic time is ok in this case according to our rules on the matter and kinetic energy of the remains is an acceptable way to calc such things as explained by posters before me.
So in that regards I still have no problem with the calc.
Aside from that there was the question of mass distribution, yes?
Personally I think that the parts that are thrown outwards and vastly higher speed (with ^2 way more KE) + the part of the GBE that has to be overcome + the vaporization energy for some parts of the planet would in total balance against any parts that move slower than the current lower end estimate.
Lets do some numbers to see how likely that would be: The gas front of the explosion after my measurements travels at about 16 124 831.85 m/s. If the entire planets mass moved that fast the KE would be 7.76e39 J. The solid parts being blown away move between 34 279 362 m/s and 114 264 542.773 m/s (they move with different speed seemingly, even though that likely is due to perspective not taking into account that some parts go towards or away from the POV making those parts appear slower than they are), meaning their speed is 2 to 7 times higher than the speed the gas approximation would account for. That means their kinetic energy would be 4 to 49 times higher than what is accounted for their part of the planets mass.
To that comes that in order to reach those velocity over the measuring distance they had to overcome a major part of the GBE, which is 2.240E+34 J. I am too lazy right now to quantify which percentage of that goes into it, but since the gravitational force gets less with the square of the distance, likely a majority. I would guess 70% or something would be already overcome here.
Not going to do the vaporization part, because of the unknown material and since it is in most cases of planet destruction not all to major.
So all in all I think one can argue that the unconsidered energies that would make the result higher than the estimation could be assumed to outbalance mass possibly remaining in the glowing ki ball in the center.
Using cinematic time is ok in this case according to our rules on the matter and kinetic energy of the remains is an acceptable way to calc such things as explained by posters before me.
So in that regards I still have no problem with the calc.
Aside from that there was the question of mass distribution, yes?
Personally I think that the parts that are thrown outwards and vastly higher speed (with ^2 way more KE) + the part of the GBE that has to be overcome + the vaporization energy for some parts of the planet would in total balance against any parts that move slower than the current lower end estimate.
Lets do some numbers to see how likely that would be: The gas front of the explosion after my measurements travels at about 16 124 831.85 m/s. If the entire planets mass moved that fast the KE would be 7.76e39 J. The solid parts being blown away move between 34 279 362 m/s and 114 264 542.773 m/s (they move with different speed seemingly, even though that likely is due to perspective not taking into account that some parts go towards or away from the POV making those parts appear slower than they are), meaning their speed is 2 to 7 times higher than the speed the gas approximation would account for. That means their kinetic energy would be 4 to 49 times higher than what is accounted for their part of the planets mass.
To that comes that in order to reach those velocity over the measuring distance they had to overcome a major part of the GBE, which is 2.240E+34 J. I am too lazy right now to quantify which percentage of that goes into it, but since the gravitational force gets less with the square of the distance, likely a majority. I would guess 70% or something would be already overcome here.
Not going to do the vaporization part, because of the unknown material and since it is in most cases of planet destruction not all to major.
So all in all I think one can argue that the unconsidered energies that would make the result higher than the estimation could be assumed to outbalance mass possibly remaining in the glowing ki ball in the center.
- 4,268
- 284
keep in mind through adding KE and GBE dont make sense, since it is the KE wwhich cancels out the GBE requirement to begin with .....
- 2,512
- 261
It applies in parts as said. For example if I measure a 10 kg ball having a KE of 100J at 10 meter height from the ground while flying upwards, I know that it must have had a KE of 9.81 m/s^2 *10 kg*10m = 981 J larger when initially on ground. So when I measure speed of the planet parts over a large distance, I do not fully take into account that they lost part of their KE from overcoming gravitational attraction.The Living Tribunal1 said:
- 2,512
- 261
Not gauged too low either for the facts we actually now. I think that the uncertain parts that would return higher values and those that would return lower values, probably approximately cancel each other.Antvasima said:
So all in all the stats can stay as they are in my opinion.
- 3,260
- 293
Just to add a bit here, with all the stuff that DT mentioned in the post above, those factors would need to have been overcome (vaporization, GBE, gas approximation) before the speed of those chunks of the planet could even hope to reach the speeds calculated.
Also, the GBE part isn't really relevant anyways as the KE of the exploding planet was calculated to be WAY over the GBE of Planet Vegeta, meaning the GBE and all that other stuff has been already factored into the explosion before the chunks of the Planet would even hope to move at the shown speed anyways.
Just a final note.
Also, the GBE part isn't really relevant anyways as the KE of the exploding planet was calculated to be WAY over the GBE of Planet Vegeta, meaning the GBE and all that other stuff has been already factored into the explosion before the chunks of the Planet would even hope to move at the shown speed anyways.
Just a final note.
- Status
Similar threads
