• 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.

Anime Buu saga/GT upgrade.

Status
Not open for further replies.
No it's not. Shaking our universe is 4-A at best. I don't know what you got that from. The numbers have been crunched and it is 4-A.

99,9999999% of the universe is made out of empty space that holds no mass.
 
Why is Heaven not as wide as the Universe? Are you taking the Toriyama.map to scale? The one that portrays Snake Way being half as long as the Universe?
 
You're taking info that comes from Videl and Bulma gossiping, though. I'm not sure how that's any better.

Plus, why did you use the map as an argument if it's out of scale?
 
Yes, gossip that was confirmed in the Daizenshuu. I never used the map to scale in my arguments, have no idea where you got that from my post.
 
Alright Kep. If you could do that id like to see how it comes out. I am fairly certain though that just the 4 galaxy model was 4-A.

Also it is backed up in daizenshuu, and the map is mostly to scale, minus snake way, or at least daizenshuu considers it to be taking direct reference from it at times.

Edit: Heaven is a planet, the size of the universe, if you could do a calc for that to since it would have a lot more mass than a mostly empty universe that would be great, thanks.
 
Anyhow, no one has yet to give any rebuttal to why the 4 "infinite" galaxy model can't be used. In this thread made by RM97, people were ok using the fact that GT mentions the 4 galaxies model in episode 1 of GT

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/1127170?useskin=oasis

So, I was under the impression the 4 galaxies model is what was accepted pre DBS. Daiz states each one ia made up of innumerable nebula, each nebula made up.of innumerable stars, and the 4 galaxies exist infinitely in all the Universe, an endless expansive space.

So going by that, Buus feat were he wipes out a Galaxy is.undeniably 3-B. There's also him nearly destroying Grand Kais planet which hasn't even been touched upon.
 
Afaik, we completely got rid of the daizenshuu's interpretation of the universe because of how contradictory and vague it was.
 
People claim pre DBS the db verse was only 4 galaxies, at least on RM97s Dragonball Cosmology Thread. As for what the Daiz says, it's clear that, if you go by the 4 galaxies portrayal as literal, they are supermassive. The only other interpretation is them being 4 clusters of GGalaxies though if we are taking things at face value that doesn't seem to be the case. Herms even says the anime specifies there are only 4 galaxies.
 
The Janemba thing is irrelevant to my post. Im not using it to.prove anything. But, from what I've seen ia 3B a reasonable upgrade? That's what I was going for initially. The original Shadow Dragon destroy a galaxy/Galaxies instantly is the most relevant for GT, and nobody has offered a rebuke for the 4 massive galaxies design Herms states the Anime uses. So Buus galaxy scene should be upgraded to account for 25% of a universe and Omegas as well, even more with Omega if we are going with the Galaxies translation.
 
Interesting, but there is an issue I think Kep. You calculated the surface area as being effected only, wouldn't you need the Volume instead since it is all the stuff inside the object as well being shook correct? its not like you are just shaking the outer planets or the energy is only present on the planets alone. Also it would take significantly more to shake stars etc.

Even applying it to volume with your value for joules though on a planet, it would be more like E = 2760000000*3.5198262303222676026e81 = 9.7147203956894586e90 joules Or multi Galaxy level.

Then also again, heaven etc is a solid object, not a bunch of planets.
 
how so though? Isn't it effecting the volume, not surface area? Also maybe apply shaking stars as opposed to a planet.
 
Why would it only be surface area? If EVERYTHING is being shaken, shouldn't it be volume as well? Since, well, everything is being shaken. Unless somehow the energy knows how to stop at only a planet's crust (Surface) and continue onward to the next
 
Yeah im confused on why your using just surface area. Also in this particular case we are talking about shaking a universe sized planet for heaven, so the calc is vastly different I would assume shaking a solid object of that size. Also the rest still stands, the GT statements alone warrant 3-B for GT.
 
Shaking calcs use the surface area of the object being shaken. Heaven is not the size of a universe, that should be dropped.
 
Kepekley23 said:
I'm using surface area because the correct method only warrants surface area, Ryu.
Click to expand...
Well, if somebody sahkes the whole universe, the whole volume should be considered. It's not like only the surface is being shaken, universe doesn't even have a surface though.
 
Even taking the estimated mass of the universe and using KE with a generous velocity yielded 4-A for me. I can do the numbers in a bi.
 
Then the correct method is not yielding a result which does justice to the feat, because considering only the surface area over the volume is a super massive lowball.
 
There is no such thing as "justice to the feat". Some feats are lower than what they are eyeballed at. It's what calcs are for. Using volume is inaccurate in this case. Ask Endless Mike, he has some calcs on seismic energy for stellar levels.
 
It's not about eyeballing anything. The fact that the calc is for shaking the surface of something which doesn't even have a surface to begin with, even when the feat is of shaking the entire volume, makes the method incorrect for that particular feat in question.
 
The method isn't incorrect. I searched after doing the calc, the OBD has similar calcs that were evaluated. The series isn't getting an upgrade.
 
Also, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that method quite similar to calculating seismic effects of an earthquake, which only shakes the surface?
 
Yep, but it uses the inverse square law to compensate for the emptiness of the universe.
 
Never said the method is incorrect. It is correct for a surface shaking feat, not a volume shaking feat.

Also, it isn't about getting an upgrade. It's about the flawed method of calculating these things.
 
It isn't the flawed method, though. A similar method was evaluated by the OBD. Stop saying it is flawed without reasoning.
 
Inverse square law is already used in surface shaking feats too. So that's not something new which compensates anything.
 
I already provided the reasoning. The method is specifically for a surface shaking feat. While it is correct for those feats, it shouldn't be used where volume is involved.
 
Again, the OBD has done an universe shaking calc that used the same method with only two or three nitpicks, and it has been evaluated and accepted.
 
Well, OBD using it doesn't necessarily makes it correct.

I am not an expert and I may be missing something here. But from what I saw, a method which is specifically for calculating surface-shakes, is being used to calculate volume-shakes.

Now, there might be no method known to us for volume-shakes. But using the above method for feats like shaking a universe will provide a very lowballed result.

That's all I am saying.
 
Someone saying it is wrong doesn't make it so either.

If several calculators have evaluated this method and said it's more accurate, there's zero reason for them to be wrong just because you believe volume is involved in this calculation. You need to give reasoning.

Also, the guy I linked assumed a Mercalli scale that leads to the result being 10 to 100 times higher. And even then it's not above 4-A. So even a higher end of this calc is 4-A.
 
"Someone saying it is wrong doesn't make it so either."

And that's correct.

"If several calculators have evaluated this method and said it's more accurate, there's zero reason for them to be wrong"

In that case, you should be able to give me a proper reasoning as to why considering only the surface area (of something which doesn't have a surface) is correct where the entire volume is being shaken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LuffyRuffy46307
  • Locked
Back to the beginning
Replies
9
Views
741
Hasty12345
Hasty12345
Ednaxel2
  • Locked
Toeiverse Cell Upgrade (3-A)
Replies
15
Views
1K
Damage3245
Damage3245
omegabronic
  • Locked
Dragon Ball MWI undoing continuation thread
17 18 19
Replies
750
Views
31K
omegabronic
omegabronic
LuffyRuffy46307
  • Locked
Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Two Worlds Revision
Replies
5
Views
1K
LordGriffin1000
LordGriffin1000
omegabronic
Spaces in Times Dragon Ball revision
4 5 6
Replies
207
Views
12K
omegabronic
omegabronic
Back
Top