-
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.
"Complete matter destruction"
- Thread starter Kaltias
- Start date
- 61,177
- 14,747
I know its possible to calc sub-atomic destruction but im not sure about anything smaller than that...
- 3,747
- 901
I remember a Supernatural calc that put the complete subatomic destruction of a human at High 7-C.
- 61,177
- 14,747
High 7-C? It should be High 7-A to completely subatomize a human.
- 3,747
- 901
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Kkapoios/Raphael_Smites_on_a_subatomic_levelWeeklyBattles said:
Well, it's likely outdated since it was made WAAAY back in 2015.
- 61,177
- 14,747
@Kal Probably but i'd get some more input just to be sure
- 61,177
- 14,747
@Teen Yeeeeah that's really outdated. All you have to do is take the volume of a human and multiply it by 5.403e+13
- 12,239
- 1,112
- 1,673
- 289
Volume in cubic centimetres right?
- 61,177
- 14,747
@Aguila Yes
- 19,123
- 6,335
- Thread starter
- #12
@J-Man
I already know how to calculate the various degrees of destruction (although that blog will be useful in the future, thanks), the question is more which degree of destruction we consider for calc purpose with a statement like this one.
I already know how to calculate the various degrees of destruction (although that blog will be useful in the future, thanks), the question is more which degree of destruction we consider for calc purpose with a statement like this one.
- 1,673
- 289
A quick googlesearch says atoms are considered the smallest unit of matter, but that doesn't seem right.
- 12,239
- 1,112
I'd take a shot and say annihilation, which is why I linked that.
- 3,747
- 901
Fun fact, I using the values TheJ-ManRequiem gave for other feats to see what the highest possible values for feats can be.
I did one for this feat from My Hero Academia:
http://m.*************/manga/boku_no_hero_academia/c093/16.html
Apparently, if you use Annihilation of Rock, this feat is 24 Petatons or Multi-Continent/High 6-A
I did one for this feat from My Hero Academia:
http://m.*************/manga/boku_no_hero_academia/c093/16.html
Apparently, if you use Annihilation of Rock, this feat is 24 Petatons or Multi-Continent/High 6-A
- 3,747
- 901
We should make a fun and games thread where we take feats and replace it with Annihilation to see how high they can get.
- 21,783
- 4,826
If you make that thread, link please
- 19,123
- 6,335
- Thread starter
- #19
- 40,469
- 12,953
I remember Darkanine calculated subatomizing a bucket at 7-A, and a small jet at somewhere in tier 6 (iirc, Island level, but that doesn't sound right)
- 40,469
- 12,953
I confused. What's the difference between annihilation and sub-atomization (or the others), and what makes the former give higher values? I though sub-atomizing was the highest we could go?
Anyway, to answer your question, it's hard to tell for every instance. According to our calculations page, we need explicit mention of the scale of destruction (or something similar/reminiscent) once you pass vaporization, so you might have to use that. Or even as low as pulverization. But if I'm not being a low-ending jerk, assuming it's not flowery language, it'd likely be the highest scale of destruction, which is apparently annihilation now.
Anyway, to answer your question, it's hard to tell for every instance. According to our calculations page, we need explicit mention of the scale of destruction (or something similar/reminiscent) once you pass vaporization, so you might have to use that. Or even as low as pulverization. But if I'm not being a low-ending jerk, assuming it's not flowery language, it'd likely be the highest scale of destruction, which is apparently annihilation now.
- 19,123
- 6,335
- Thread starter
- #24
Annihilation is a poor man's mass-energy, basically. It's the thing that happen when antimatter and matter collide. It's higher than sub-atomization, although the gap isn't as hilariously big as the one between sub-atomization and atomization.
It doesn't only happen with antimatter though, enough energy can do it as well.
It doesn't only happen with antimatter though, enough energy can do it as well.
- 40,469
- 12,953
I see. In that case, sub-atomization at best.
- 40,469
- 12,953
Seems more like unquantifiable hax now, unless it's Saint Seiya-esque in its execution.
- 15,181
- 1,535
I thought that if the level isn't specified, it's assumed to be on a molecular level.
- 10,883
- 12,296
To my knowledge that calc is pretty up to date. Where do you take 5.4e+13 from?WeeklyBattles said:
I know that as sub-atomic destruction of rock.... which is obvisouly different than that of a human.
In regards to the statement... Well, as the calculation pages state atomization, subatomic destruction and mass energy (annihilation) are only used if specifically stated.
Technically even an electron is technically matter, so if we go strictly it's either unquantifiable or mass-energy. But there are reasons for mass-energy requiring specific statement.
Without further information it probably is not a good idea to calc it, since it could very well be turning matter into nothingness which results in it being hax, as others said.
As a low end one could use vaporization if it isn't hax, but that is probably not satisfying given the statement.
It doesn't only happen with antimatter though, enough energy can do it as well.
Interesting. I only ever read of annihilation as collision of particle-antiparticle. Do you have some article on that? I am curious.
- 19,123
- 6,335
- Thread starter
- #34
It doesn't appear to be erasure, given that it's visibly destroyed instead of simply disappearing.
About the antimatter thing, not sure exactly where I read but it was something about enough energy being (theoretically) able to generate the antimatter and causing the annihilation.
About the antimatter thing, not sure exactly where I read but it was something about enough energy being (theoretically) able to generate the antimatter and causing the annihilation.
- 10,883
- 12,296
What do you mean with "visibly destroyed"?
That there is an explosion or something? Parts being turned to nothing doesn't exclude things like causing explosions.
Well, the answer stays basically the same either way. Wouldn't assume E=mc^2 if that isn't what it is stated to be.
Well, energy can do pair production creating matter and antimatter equally (always equally as far as I am aware, due to conservation law reasons). I suppose the resulting antimatter can then again annihilate with matter. (Albeit the total amount of matter would stay the same in that case)
That there is an explosion or something? Parts being turned to nothing doesn't exclude things like causing explosions.
Well, the answer stays basically the same either way. Wouldn't assume E=mc^2 if that isn't what it is stated to be.
Well, energy can do pair production creating matter and antimatter equally (always equally as far as I am aware, due to conservation law reasons). I suppose the resulting antimatter can then again annihilate with matter. (Albeit the total amount of matter would stay the same in that case)
Similar threads
