Cooling and Cloud Calculations

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Could you please list of the similarities? This is explaining why the current calc cannot function per physics, and that making up pseudo-science to tier an ability shouldn't be done.

 

[RatherClueless]

Honestly, even if my arguments were 100% the same, there are still several new issues I talked about, that would need to be addressed regardless, like applying the "1 second rule" (dividing the energy output of a feat and cloud feats especially by the amount of seconds it took to create.) Another issue would be practically using what is frozen vs how much energy was released, as well as the issue with the "same power source" scaling arguments.

 

[Marius_the_grey]

Could you please list of the similarities? This is explaining why the current calc cannot function per physics, and that making up pseudo-science to tier an ability shouldn't be done.

remember the Problem with Freezing feats and therefore storm feats thread made by Jakuub? search for that page and you will find similarities to it in this because to me it feels like we are going to repeat the same thing we did in that thread.

 

[RatherClueless]

remember the Problem with Freezing feats and therefore storm feats thread made by Jakuub? search for that page and you will find similarities to it in this because to me it feels like we are going to repeat the same thing we did in that thread.

You do realize that literally half the op is quite literally debunking arguments from that thread, right? That aside, Jakuub was right with most of what he said. The biggest issue was that it was a massive mess along the lines of:

"Freezing is not legit"
"Yeah it is"
"Nu uh it's not"
"Yeah it is coz shared energy"
"Well, at least admit you are wrong, that's the least you can do"

And that went on for over two pages... somehow. Oh and it also had loads of pseudo science, which made absolutely no sense at all.

 

[InfiniteDay]

Watching the thread, I need to see where this is going.

 

[Marius_the_grey]

@RatherClueless i do realize that all too well what it was about because I watched that entire thread.

@InfiniteDay I bet that this thread will just make a mountain out of a molehill like the previous thread on this topic.

 

[ZackMoon1234]

Bump

 

[KLOL506]

Bump

RatherClueless already bumped this post.

 

[KLOL506]

Also, I sent DontTalkDT another message, he will reply to this tomorrow.

 

[DontTalkDT]

It is not the same thing tho. Applying force to a large object, canceling its momentum isn't the same as magically sucking energy from an object, which makes no sense, and then calculating it as if it was heated. Don't pretend it is.

It is. Just on a different size scale. At least if "magically sucking energy out of an object" means to use your own energy to cool it down by slowing the particles, decreasing the average KE of the particles aka the heat.

Here you go

I see, but in that case the feat isn't based on balanced forces. The force that slows down the meteor is greater than all the other forces. Its magnitude relates more to the meteors KE. Anyway, that's probably not really the point.

None of this was ever an issue to me.

Ok? Then what problem did you have with that point of my argument? If you have no problem with the claim that in fiction simple abilities like telekinesis can apply force in a fashion that decreases a system's total energy (in some reference frame), and that any simple kinetic energy (i.e. linear acceleration) feat can be formulated like such, then we are a step further.

It is not. My issue is that the energy to cool something/cause a phase transition is not directly linked to the energy released when something cools down/phase transitions. Ever.

That is because you assume that it operates based on a realistic freezing mechanism. A mechanism that can neither be implemented in a fashion that matches what is shown nor what actually work at remotely the speed it was shown.
You insist on assuming a method for quantification that is demonstrably wrong for the thing you try to apply it.

If you assume a method that can actually freeze a large volume of matter within a fraction of a second, not radiate great amounts of energy in the process and for which the character needs to expand its own energy, not absorb energy, then you either get weird hax or what I am stipulating. And I would not default to some unknown hax.

Unless you want to give every character with a feat like that energy manipulation and by default heat manipulation, since if they can use it to heat up the air, they can use it to heat up everything else. That obviously is headcanon though and I highly doubt that'd ever go through. If you want to argue the energy gets EE-ed, well, in that case all the previous threads made on this are mute, since the very reason for why we consider it legit is because energy can neither be made nor destroyed and heating is just opposite to cooling, which wouldnt be true under that assumption.

It is at much energy manipulation as fire manipulation is. We don't usually list such stuff, even if it technically is the case. Ice Manipulation is a subcategory of heat manipulation, yes. I find it weird that this is even a question. It manipulates heat to freeze things. That they can heat up the same things is an assumption on your part. Those are just different techniques.
I am not arguing energy EE in any sense beyond what telekinesis or a human character that stops an airplane mid-air without moving for an inch does. That fiction frequently ignores conservation of energy and similar laws is a fact that is already accepted in the wiki. For energy it is even stated on the Attack Potency page. If you expect magic to generally hold on to physics you would not get anywhere. That doesn't exactly stop us from calculating the work necessary to accomplish something.
I personally also already had debates about this subject that were led with these arguments. Some might also be essentially the same principle, just with a more detailed look. But whatever. No need to insist on precedence here.
In general, I speak for myself and different people can have varying opinions, but ultimately reach the same conclusion.

Yes it is. A metiorite doesn't accelerate if you heat it up. A metiorite doesn't want to accelerate when surrounding metiorites get cooled down. Also, this assumes the character can telekinetically manipulate molecules and last time I checked heating/freezing calcs dont give a character telekinesis or matter manipulation. Also, yet again, this would mean the character in question also has heat manipulation by default.

Heating something up is the act of accelerating its molecules, i.e. raising the average kinetic energy of its particles. In analogy to the meteors that equates to increasing the meteors average kinetic energy, i.e. accelerating them. The reverse process is to lower their average kinetic energy i.e. to slow them down. If you think my argument was about heating meteors making them faster than you didn't get my point. I'm making an analogy here about how everything is particles and heat relates to their average kinetic energy. the point is a cooling process never is anything different than a particle slowing process, which is nothing but an object slowing process of small size. The object in my example being a meteor.
We give them the ability to freeze stuff, which is the specific subpower for the ability to slow down particles in an area. We don't give more general abilities, if there is an ability for the specific subset. Again, it's like saying every fire manipulator needs energy manipulation listed, because he has the ability to generate energy in the specific way necessary to create flames.
In other words, there is nothing unnatural about the assumption that the character has the ability slow down particles. Every way the freezing power is implemented has this effect.

Only that the second one is not legit. You can slow something down by applying force, but you can't cool something down by applying force.

In real life, yes. In a world without supernatural power, where every application of force creates an equal and opposite counter force it is not possible to cool down a system with force, because any attempt to slow down some particles in the system would inevitably accelerate other particles. However in fiction, with magic and similar, you can create a force to slow down something without there being any counter force or in general any related force being applied to anything else in the universe. It is not only possible, but as I have explained enough by now something that is extremely common.
You can realistically not slow down or accelerate a meteor without a counter force being applied to something. That doesn't mean that we don't calculate such things and just say that because telekinesis breaks physics in that respect it is inherently unquantifiable. We just look at the amount of work that was done, regardless of whether some other force that should have been produced in order to uphold energy conservation was created or not.

The molecules you try to slow down would just try to move even faster due to the energy used to slow them down just heating them up.

Wrong. Slowing down a single molecule is easily possible. In fact, you can do literally nothing and some molecules in an object will slow down upon colliding with other molecules. What keeps constant is the average kinetic energy, not that of any one molecule. And yes, as said, in real life if you build a device that slows down one molecule (e.g. by capturing it in an electromagnetic field or something) in the progress of slowing it that particle down, some other particles would be sped up by at least an equal amount of energy. (or released in a new particle like a photon that shortly after is absorbed by something in the system)
So in that case the average energy (heat) increases, while the particles decrease.
However, if you can magically manipulate the particle, via telekinesis or whatever, you can slow it down without affecting the other particles. Magic, by nature, doesn't have to follow all the physics, including the laws on how forces work. If you expect magic to obey physics in all rules, you won't get anywhere in fiction.

To get back to the metiorite, if you apply a force to it, that would slow it down, it would also heat up. That is why a metiorite that enters the atmosphere starts to ablate. This is why you'd need infinite energy to forcefully stop a molecules movements.

Why would it heat up? With friction that happens maybe, but with an equally distributed force? Nah. A meteor that hits the atmosphere ablates because of friction, i.e. the collisions with air particles converting some of its kinetic energy into heat (i.e. turn the ordered kinetic energy into chaotic kinetic energy distributed in different direction throughout its particles).
I'm not sure how you get from that to infinite energy ideas. Like, to absolute zero like stop a particle you probably do need this much energy in the real world for more complicated reasons, but how does that relate to this debate?

Yes, heat is just KE on a small scale, but that doesn't mean you can compare it to any KE feat on any scale and claim it's the same. There are several things in physics that work completely different, depending on their scale.

Yeah, but we aren't talking about matters that require quantum-gravity to unify. As far as the kinetic model of heat goes this is justified. Quantum effects and the like have no direct impact on the issue. This is a case where it does work the same.

First of all, uless the metiorite is the only object in the universe, there is a force applied to it and it applies a force. What do you think gravity is?

The point? I don't see how that is relevant or when I should have claimed this to be otherwise, outside of maybe simplified models for explanatory purposes.

Second of all, the moment you stopped it, there was a force, based on its deceleration, which is opposite to the force you had to apply to stop it.

Yes, there was a force. There however was not an opposite force. In reality there is, but not in fiction. There is not an opposite force acting on the meteor pushing it against my telekinesis (it of course does continue going in its direction, but does so with the decrease in speed F=m*a dictates; friction and gravity neglected for simplicity) and no force acting on the person using the telekinesis either. That's exactly the point where it breaks the conservation of energy.
The fact that the telekinesis user doesn't have a counter force pushing on it is btw. also the reason why telekinesis, by default, doesn't scale to the user's durability.
For comparison how those things would work in reality: Assume the user would be negatively charged. Then you could create a forcefield (i.e. a negative electrical field) and slow it with that. The difference to telekinesis is that while whatever generates the electrical field pushes on the meteor, the meteor would with equal force push on the device. However, that doesn't happen in fiction.

If you don't apply a force, it won't decelerate.

Usually true.

In that case a good example would be destructive interference. Actually, this might be an even better example, since it clearly shows that a system doesn't just "lose" energy, just because they "cancel each other out".

Nah, that example kinda misses my point entirely. Yes, in destructive interference energy isn't lost, but destructive interference also doesn't profit frommagic ignoring certain laws of nature.

First of all, if the heat isn't shifted, this entire debate is null and void, since that was the no.1 as to why we even accept cooling feats at all. You are literally contradicting all previous threads (not that it matters).

People have varying opinions. As long as I am not contradicting myself I don't care. From the threads I have seen most don't assume the heat was shifted tbh, even if it was something brought up on occassion.

Secondly, I never advocated for "legit cooling calcs", but for the complete "yeeting" of those calcs, unless the process is actually specified. I know that most feats don't follow legit cooling processes, (and you'd know that if you had read the op), but this is exactly the issue. They don't follow legit cooling processes and we can't just slap some pseudo science on it and say it's fine when it's not.

It's not anymore pseudo-science than any attempt at quantifying magic. I already told you how applying the same anal standards most calcs regarding kinetic wouldn't hold up, due to fiction breaking conservation of momentum. If you have a problem with quantifying the results of techniques that don't follow the laws of physics in some respects this might be the wrong hobby for you.
Telekinesis doesn't work any legit force application process either, so are those also all not legit? Of course not.

The issue isn't that the formula isn't based on anything, but our usage of it. Like I said in the op, the only way you could argue it to be viable is if you say the character can directly manipulate the energy of the object or its state. Now obviously that would give all the characters with cooling feats also several other abilities by default or at least that's what should happen (which would be a different issue all together). What actually happens is that we simply pretend that a character has an ability, which they don't have, just to justify using this formula. Then there is the "scaling issue" beyond the "legitimacy" issue. This issue revolves around the issue that we scale the energy a character pulled out from an object to their AP. After all, if the energy just "vanishes" into nothingness, then that can hardly be considered a feat worth anything, so we must assume that the character can actually use the energy they removed from the object, which yet again means we have to assume they have an ability they haven't shown, which we don't actually end up giving them, all for the sake of making them scale.

I think I have explained enough how the "that would imply bunch of other abilities" argument really doesn't work like that by now.
My explanation actually has them using their power on the object (which makes more sense given how it is usually portrayed), so over a common energy source you get applicability to other magic.

Also, to go by how you explained it in your original post: "In the 99.999% of feats where cooling magic just makes heat disappear into absolute nothingness doing it as we did makes the most sense.", the entire calculation would be pointless anyways, since it is based around tiering the amount of enrgy released and saying that the chracter scales to that, coz, urgh, energy manip or sth. WIth your rexplanation on the other hand, they'd just EE the enrgy they are supposed to scale to, which obviously isn't an AP feat. Unless of corse EE has become something we scale AP to, which I'd be unaware of.

No, as said my explanation doesn't "just" EE energy. It does decrease the total amount of energy, yes, but in a fashion where the character actually has to perform work on that level. It's just that, other than in reality, the character doesn't do work at some other part of the system than the one where he decreases the KE in. (i.e. breaks certain conservation laws by means of magic)
Since the energy released in the cooling process is equal to the kinetic energy by which you have to decrease the system's energy, applying the formula makes sense.

Quick side note, our formula for clouds is even worse, since that one is the latent heat of condensation. That means that we take the energy that the substance loses during its phase change as the energy a character scales to. Just to be clear, it takes literally no energy to cause water vapor in the atmosphere to condense. Just a small impulse. Just something the water vapor can condense on, which isn't so warm as to cause the water to stay vaporized.

Good that you bring phase change up. That was the last thing I wanted to mention. Yes, phase changes like freezing or condensation release the energy that was necessary to separate certain bonds in the form of heat again. That means if you want to cool something further down after phase change you have to overcome that energy as well.
So unless you wish to claim that all that heat remains in the water droplets this energy must be cooled as well.
But what would be the case if the heat remained? Well, in the extremely dry air, and with the heated water, evaporation would quickly reverse the process. Maybe not quite instantly but fairly quick.


In any case, I just spend 3+ hours writing this. So I'm going to leave it at this for now. Honestly, the way I estimate the situation I doubt either of us will be able to convince the other and what needed to be said was said. I don't have the time nor energy to regularly invest this much effort into arguing, so I will see which side other people take and may or may not reply here then. I'm not sure whether anyone else actually reads this debate in full anyway.

 

[RatherClueless]

Alright, 1st of all, sorry for the late reply, I was kind of busy.

It is. Just on a different size scale. At least if "magically sucking energy out of an object" means to use your own energy to cool it down by slowing the particles, decreasing the average KE of the particles aka the heat.

And how would you justify this happening without giving the character a bunch of abilities they don't have? Also, even then it isn't the same. After all, a metiorites speed is not even bound to its temperature. Things simply work differently at these scales.

I see, but in that case the feat isn't based on balanced forces. The force that slows down the meteor is greater than all the other forces. Its magnitude relates more to the meteors KE. Anyway, that's probably not really the point.

Well no, not really. The moment the metiorite comes to a stop, the forces are balanced. But yeah, this wasn't really the point.

Ok? Then what problem did you have with that point of my argument? If you have no problem with the claim that in fiction simple abilities like telekinesis can apply force in a fashion that decreases a system's total energy (in some reference frame), and that any simple kinetic energy (i.e. linear acceleration) feat can be formulated like such, then we are a step further.

Urgh, no, that's not the thing I have no issue with. What I have no issue with is that we don't necessarily need to see the earth shatter, everytime a character catches the punch of a strong opponent. We still shouldn't assume that the enrgy just "vanished". After all, that could only mean two things. EE or there was no energy in the first place. Both of them wouldn't be AP feats.

That is because you assume that it operates based on a realistic freezing mechanism. A mechanism that can neither be implemented in a fashion that matches what is shown nor what actually work at remotely the speed it was shown.

We don't allow SoL/FTL KE, because we assume it operates on realistic laws of physics. We don't allow black hole destruction feats, because we assume it operates on realistic laws of physics. We do allow freezing feats, because it would be silly to assume that they are based on realistic freezing mechanics. I'd love it if you could explain to me why those are any different. Anyways, the speed is actually completely plausible, not sure what you mean by that. Sublimation and deposition are a real life thing after all.

If you assume a method that can actually freeze a large volume of matter within a fraction of a second, not radiate great amounts of energy in the process and for which the character needs to expand its own energy, not absorb energy, then you either get weird hax or what I am stipulating. And I would not default to some unknown hax.

Wait, but the thing you are saying assumes way more unknown hax, since it is literally impossible without them. I mean, you are liteterally saying the enrgy gets EE-ed. If we go by the previous threads we assume energy manipulation. I am just saying that ice creation shouldn't be an AP feat unless it has a clear method of cooling things that would allow us to do a calculation. An example of a character that has a fairly valid way would be Karim (and even then we should differentiate between energy released and practical AP).

It is at much energy manipulation as fire manipulation is. We don't usually list such stuff, even if it technically is the case. Ice Manipulation is a subcategory of heat manipulation, yes. I find it weird that this is even a question. It manipulates heat to freeze things. That they can heat up the same things is an assumption on your part. Those are just different techniques.

Urgh, no it's not. Fire manipulation assumes you burn through some sort of fuel, aka the characters energy. Cooling assumes you move energy from one place to another, using hax. We don't list such stuff, because it is a groundless assumption and people would call it out if suddenly every character with a freezing feat had energy manip. It is not an assumption, if we assume it was done via energy manipulation. If you can move energy from A to B, then why not from B to A? Saying they can't would be the real assumption here.

I am not arguing energy EE in any sense beyond what telekinesis or a human character that stops an airplane mid-air without moving for an inch does. That fiction frequently ignores conservation of energy and similar laws is a fact that is already accepted in the wiki. For energy it is even stated on the Attack Potency page. If you expect magic to generally hold on to physics you would not get anywhere. That doesn't exactly stop us from calculating the work necessary to accomplish something..

The depiction may be unrealistic, but we assume it is. Energy doesn't "vanish", nor do we assume it does. We assume it just wasn't conveyed properly. Also, I don't want magic to hold on to physics. Quite the opposite. I am more so an advocate of "let magic be magic and feats be feats". This wiki has some seriously weird obsession with wanting to tier everything, even if there is nothing to tier in the first place. There is also a difference between a plane not just being completely destroyed from it getting caught in mid flight and something that is straight up impossible irl.

Heating something up is the act of accelerating its molecules, i.e. raising the average kinetic energy of its particles. In analogy to the meteors that equates to increasing the meteors average kinetic energy, i.e. accelerating them. The reverse process is to lower their average kinetic energy i.e. to slow them down. If you think my argument was about heating meteors making them faster than you didn't get my point. I'm making an analogy here about how everything is particles and heat relates to their average kinetic energy. the point is a cooling process never is anything different than a particle slowing process, which is nothing but an object slowing process of small size. The object in my example being a meteor.

No, I got the point. Just saying you are comparing apples and oranges, because they clearly don't behave the same way at all. Do they both have KE? Yes. Can both move faster and slower? Yes. Does that make them comparable? Nope. You are a mathy guy, right? So I'll try it like this. Saying that 1/0 is well behaved in a Riemann Sphere, doesn't mean it is in every other system, even though they might allow for the same operations (addition/subtraction/etc.). That is kind of what you are trying to do though.

We give them the ability to freeze stuff, which is the specific subpower for the ability to slow down particles in an area. We don't give more general abilities, if there is an ability for the specific subset. Again, it's like saying every fire manipulator needs energy manipulation listed, because he has the ability to generate energy in the specific way necessary to create flames.

You are right, we don't give additional abilities. We just assume them to validate our calculations. However, we only need to do this for cooling feats, not heating feats.

In other words, there is nothing unnatural about the assumption that the character has the ability slow down particles. Every way the freezing power is implemented has this effect.

There is a difference between assuming that a character can directly manipulate an objects paticles and doing it indirectly (which is pretty much all of irl cooling). Especially since we have to make an assumption as to what exact ability is being used. For exaple when it comes to cloud creation and latent heat of condensation. Is it telekinesis that slows down the atoms (and why can it only slow them down? Why only atoms/molecules?) or is it matter manipulation, that creates the connections between the molecules (and why can it only be used in this one scenario?) or maybe it is energy manipulation, which directly transfers the kinetic energy from one atom to another (But only from A to B and not from B to A, even though A = B initially). We have to make all these assumptions, just to calculate a feat, which is not only unlogical to begin with, but also likely doesn't scale to anything, since most of the time it's just ED anywas. And after all of this, you don't see how that's an "unnatural assumption"?

In real life, yes. In a world without supernatural power, where every application of force creates an equal and opposite counter force it is not possible to cool down a system with force, because any attempt to slow down some particles in the system would inevitably accelerate other particles. However in fiction, with magic and similar, you can create a force to slow down something without there being any counter force or in general any related force being applied to anything else in the universe. It is not only possible, but as I have explained enough by now something that is extremely common. You can realistically not slow down or accelerate a meteor without a counter force being applied to something. That doesn't mean that we don't calculate such things and just say that because telekinesis breaks physics in that respect it is inherently unquantifiable. We just look at the amount of work that was done, regardless of whether some other force that should have been produced in order to uphold energy conservation was created or not.

Ok, just to make this really clear. My main issue here isn't necessarily energy conversion, but our assumptions to validate this method. Cooling exists irl. There are several irl methods to cool things. Fictional feats of cooling have bad ways of showing propper cooling mechanisms. Instead of assuming it's badly presented, yet normal cooling, (just like we assume badly presented, fictional KE feats, are still normal KE feats) we assume it is based on some fictional power that a character can only apply in a very specific way. Also, huge difference between seeing a character telekinetically move an object and saying "yeah, idk, probably manupulates the particles of this object with super restrcited and weird telekineses. I know this coz my gut tells me so". I mean, this is a huge assumption, especially since you can't even decide whether it is energy manipulation (the ability to move energy from A to B) or the ability to magically stop the particles with telekinesis.

Wrong. Slowing down a single molecule is easily possible. In fact, you can do literally nothing and some molecules in an object will slow down upon colliding with other molecules. What keeps constant is the average kinetic energy, not that of any one molecule. And yes, as said, in real life if you build a device that slows down one molecule (e.g. by capturing it in an electromagnetic field or something) in the progress of slowing it that particle down, some other particles would be sped up by at least an equal amount of energy. (or released in a new particle like a photon that shortly after is absorbed by something in the system)
So in that case the average energy (heat) increases, while the particles decrease.
However, if you can magically manipulate the particle, via telekinesis or whatever, you can slow it down without affecting the other particles. Magic, by nature, doesn't have to follow all the physics, including the laws on how forces work. If you expect magic to obey physics in all rules, you won't get anywhere in fiction.

Well, there is a difference between trying to "physically" hold down a particle (assuming you don't have to deal with things like superpositions) and shifting its momentum. Also, the point was never "one molecule", but "all" the molecules in an object. Also, seriously? "via telekinesis or whatever"? At the very least assume a consistant power that allows for cooling feats, rather than just being like:

Out of curiosity, why would it be so bad to assume that magic is just magic, without any underlying physics or logic or that ice manip is just that, ice manip. I mean, you continuously say we can't just assume physics to apply to these things like it is irl (which I am not even advocating for), but instead we have to use some hypothetical power they may or may not have, which was never specified, because we assume that the atoms slowing down part is still essential, because that's how it works irl, just so that we can get AP from it. I mean, this just makes it sound like you hand pick which parts carry over from real life and which don't, just so that we can get a value out of it. The amount of hoops we have to jump for that doesn't matter.

Why would it heat up? With friction that happens maybe, but with an equally distributed force? Nah. A meteor that hits the atmosphere ablates because of friction, i.e. the collisions with air particles converting some of its kinetic energy into heat (i.e. turn the ordered kinetic energy into chaotic kinetic energy distributed in different direction throughout its particles).

I mean, if you assume all the kinetic energy just disappears, then yeah, it wouldn't heat up.

I'm not sure how you get from that to infinite energy ideas. Like, to absolute zero like stop a particle you probably do need this much energy in the real world for more complicated reasons, but how does that relate to this debate?

Well, first of all, absolute zero is impossible due to quantum superpositions. Secondly, well, the infinite energy assumes that the energy either doesn't leave the system or wants to immediatle re-enter it, without getting moved away. This way all you'll do is continuously increase the energy in the system, trying to slow them down, as the particles use exactly that energy to accelerate (and likely change energy levels, but that's a different issue alltogether). How does it relate? Just saying that forcefully stopping particles isn't as easy as it sounds. (unless you use photons.)

Yeah, but we aren't talking about matters that require quantum-gravity to unify. As far as the kinetic model of heat goes this is justified. Quantum effects and the like have no direct impact on the issue. This is a case where it does work the same.

It really isn't the same though? Also, I never said quantum-gravity. Quantum mechanics (superpositions and energy levels in particular) still apply however (assuming you actually want to assume that the cooling happens at such scale). And no, it doesn't do work the same. Even if it did, there would still be many aforementioned issues with it.

Yes, there was a force. There however was not an opposite force. In reality there is, but not in fiction. There is not an opposite force acting on the meteor pushing it against my telekinesis (it of course does continue going in its direction, but does so with the decrease in speed F=m*a dictates; friction and gravity neglected for simplicity) and no force acting on the person using the telekinesis either. That's exactly the point where it breaks the conservation of energy.

Um, wait what? If they don't push against each other, then there is no feat. Anyways, just to get this straight, the metior in our example always has a force, since it wouldn't be accelerating/decelerating if there wasn't. The telekinesis also has a force, because if it didn't, then nothing would happen. The telekinesis acts upon the meteor and the meteor upon the telekinesis. I don't really get your point here. Are you saying that just because there is no physical contact between telekinesis and meteor, the meteor can't exert any force onto the telekinesis? Because if that's the case then I hate to break it to you, but physical contact isn't needed for forces to act upon one another (gravity and magnetic forces would be great example of that). If that isn't what you want to say, then, um, not sure what it is.

The fact that the telekinesis user doesn't have a counter force pushing on it is btw. also the reason why telekinesis, by default, doesn't scale to the user's durability.
For comparison how those things would work in reality: Assume the user would be negatively charged. Then you could create a forcefield (i.e. a negative electrical field) and slow it with that. The difference to telekinesis is that while whatever generates the electrical field pushes on the meteor, the meteor would with equal force push on the device. However, that doesn't happen in fiction.

Um, more like the ability to remotely turn an electric magnet on and off. Honestly, the way you describe telekinesis you just make it sound like vector manip. Telekinesis, afaik, is just like magnetic or gravitational manipulation, but uses a supernatural force instead of an existing, natural one. However, considering our telekinesis page is absolutely awful, with basically no desription at all, I guess it can easily come to misunderstandings on this.

People have varying opinions. As long as I am not contradicting myself I don't care. From the threads I have seen most don't assume the heat was shifted tbh, even if it was something brought up on occassion.

Fair enough, but just to be clear, it wasn't "on occasion", but literally the main argument. So if everyone ends up agreeing with you, that would still mean all the previous threads, as well as the "this has been debated before" arguments are invalid.

It's not anymore pseudo-science than any attempt at quantifying magic. I already told you how applying the same anal standards most calcs regarding kinetic wouldn't hold up, due to fiction breaking conservation of momentum. If you have a problem with quantifying the results of techniques that don't follow the laws of physics in some respects this might be the wrong hobby for you.

Wait, but aren't you the guys that want to quantify magic by getting AP out of it, by assuming lots of weird things? The heck is an anal standard? Anyhow, to go back to one of your examples of a character stopping/accelerating a really heavy object really fast, without damaging the ground. Do we ever assume that that character has some kind of telekinesis or energy manipulation, to justify that feat? No? What about heat feats? No? We only need to assume that a character can use their own energy as a fuel, which wouldn't require an assumption as massive as "the ability to telekinetically manipulate and object on an atomic level" or "they can manipulate the kinetic energy of an atom directly". Then why do we need to do so for cooling feats? Well, because it is the only way it can be justified. There is a difference between a feat being inaccurately portrayed compared to how it would work irl, but pretending everything is fine and us assuming a feat to work in a very specific way, to make everything fine. TL;DR In one case we ignore issues, in the other one we make stuff up to solve issues we can't ignore. I don't mind simplifications, but I do mind making stuff up without any evidance.

I think I have explained enough how the "that would imply bunch of other abilities" argument really doesn't work like that by now.
My explanation actually has them using their power on the object (which makes more sense given how it is usually portrayed), so over a common energy source you get applicability to other magic.

And I have countered it just as often. And my explanation actually has them using their power on the object, but I don't hand out AP values left right and center for something that clearly doesn't follow anything and only works when using fictional powers the characters are only assumed to have. I also mentioned common energy source and why that's an issue in the op. Nobody even dared to touch that one at all though.

No, as said my explanation doesn't "just" EE energy. It does decrease the total amount of energy, yes, but in a fashion where the character actually has to perform work on that level. It's just that, other than in reality, the character doesn't do work at some other part of the system than the one where he decreases the KE in. (i.e. breaks certain conservation laws by means of magic)
Since the energy released in the cooling process is equal to the kinetic energy by which you have to decrease the system's energy, applying the formula makes sense.

So it's EE with extra steps. But you just made up this entire scenario. Nothing of this is "proven" to be how it actually works. It is quite literally just your assumption and headcanon of how a cooling feat might work. I mean, at this point we don't use a formula based on the feat, but we create a feat based on the formula.

Good that you bring phase change up. That was the last thing I wanted to mention. Yes, phase changes like freezing or condensation release the energy that was necessary to separate certain bonds in the form of heat again. That means if you want to cool something further down after phase change you have to overcome that energy as well.
So unless you wish to claim that all that heat remains in the water droplets this energy must be cooled as well. But what would be the case if the heat remained? Well, in the extremely dry air, and with the heated water, evaporation would quickly reverse the process. Maybe not quite instantly but fairly quick.

The . . . energy must be cooled? Also, who said something about cooling something further down after that? In that specific quote I was only talking about cloud creation, which needs nothing but condensation. No further cooling necessary, since the temperature is already way lower than what is needed for condensation. It wouldn't want to change back either, since it didn't want to be in the state of vapor to begin with. Besides, the heat can just disperse into the surroundings, like it does with regular, irl clouds. Anyways, I don't really see how that would contradict anything I have said up until now? I guess maybe the infinite energy thing, since that one assumes the heat doesn't really disperse, but that is kind of it. I mean, I never said cooling doesn't lower the energy of a system or anything like that. Nor did I say heat energy doesn't disperse into the surroundings. Quite the opposite, it is very clearly in the op . . . several times.

In any case, I just spend 3+ hours writing this. So I'm going to leave it at this for now. Honestly, the way I estimate the situation I doubt either of us will be able to convince the other and what needed to be said was said. I don't have the time nor energy to regularly invest this much effort into arguing, so I will see which side other people take and may or may not reply here then. I'm not sure whether anyone else actually reads this debate in full anyway.

Well, 1st of all i am glad you took that time. 2ndly, yeah, you probably won't change my mind, but I will keep trying to change that of others. That's why I made this thread in the first place after all. Well, either way, see you whenever this concludes . . . or not.

 

[Antoniofer]

Look, we can't just go and turn any possible power/ability into AP just cuz "it involve moving atoms or molecules so that means it translate to KE"; our standards are turning more loosely the more time it passes, I've see attemps to translate EE and acid into AP...

Going to say to limit to calculate stuff physically possible, destruction caused by concussive impacts and extreme heats is factible, realistic explosions (not simply aoe attacks), or dispersing great amounts of mass across distances. If we go with calculating based simply based in altering matter then people will start to calculate transmutation, biological manip, gravity manip, etc.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

So now we need to passive aggressively nudge other mods to comment here, then be ignored and aggressively nudge at them by @-ing them a few times.

I've never though this would come so far... how fast they grow.

 

[Antoniofer]

Not much can say that I haven't said in other threads. I don't want to say a character performing a breath of heat/cold in a 10 meter cone, be calculated as high 8-c, but without caused the destruction is pressumed to have.

Heat/cold power's "AP" output depends of their temperature, of course it wield "yield" more the bigger the aoe is, the more changes the higher the energy, but the AP applied within an individual it ultimately depends of the temperature, independently of aoe.

Plus, stop acting like there's physical principle behind every power: one do not get AP due manipulating and accelerating gravitons that then interact with electrons and whatever when the user use gravity manip; don't calculate atomization cuz the character has the power to erase matter out of existance; do not find KE of ocean waves and moving lava cuz a character is using probability manip to cause natural disaster...

 

[Ugarik]

Well yes, this make sence but let's ignore it like we did with destruction values

 

[Ugarik]

Btw I wasn't even suggesting to use a new, overcomplicated method for material destruction. I was merely trying to replace our current values with something more realistic using the same oversimplified method.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Big sad. Anyways, I assume you agree with it at least?

 

[Ugarik]

I agree with OP's premise.

But I'm against any changes to be made just for the sake of consistency. I don't see how it's any different than this

 

[Planck69]

Isn't the main change just stopping taking freezing feats as AP by default? I don't think that's too big a change.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I'm sorry, but the idea of "it's wrong but we let other wrong stuff slide so **** it" is such a petty stance to take.

Crabwhale's "argument" was dumb, and the fact that near every profile is in some way wrong isn't exactly justifiable by "nah, you are over complicating it", but it doesn't apply here. Removing freezing based tiers would not be hard at all.

 

[Cyberblader90]

Bump

 

[RatherClueless]

bump

 

[RatherClueless]

bump

 

[Antoniofer]

What's next? I don't think the ones opposing the changes would like to bring their reasoning once again; although at this point, and personally, involving moving atoms/particles, comparing to real life refrigerators and sharing same source of supernatural energy no longer is a valid reasoning to keep the standards as they currently are.

 

[RatherClueless]

What's next? I don't think the ones opposing the changes would like to bring their reasoning once again; although at this point, and personally, involving moving atoms/particles, comparing to real life refrigerators and sharing same source of supernatural energy no longer is a valid reasoning to keep the standards as they currently are.

well, if they can't bother to oppose, I guess it's accepted.

 

[Antoniofer]

We can't perform any change without at least them "consenting"; there's staff between those who disagree.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Us staff have lives outside the wiki and it isn't our job to be nannies and babysitters 24/7. Also, another reason why it's taking so long is because it seems the only way people listen to reason is we make a 30+ paragraph long research paper which is normally supposed to take several months to write especially if people aren't used to Xenforo's coding compared to Fandom's. Plus both sides don't agree for different reasons. Both sides have people proposing "Delete thermal energy" is the primary policy with one side saying it is AP while other says it's not.

But be patient, it doesn't matter if it takes months or years, something is only going to go through if the primary staff have time or energy to invest and no sooner. Not to mention, it's strongly against the rules to be forcing wiki wide revisions that are literally going to effect thousands of profiles via nuking hundreds of blog calculations in periods outside of summer time. Doing so can potentially fall into the "Plotting to destabilize the wiki" habits.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Are you for real? I understand that this wiki isn't a job, but a hobby. I understand the times right now are harder than usual. I understand the wiki will never be precise in its ratings due to the tiering system being flawed at its core.

But "plotting to destabilize the wiki" for pointing out a flaw in the system?

Just say "we can't deal with it right now, we'll be back later in summer" without the overreaction. I mean, it's not like commenting that instead of "this again?" wouldn't have been a possibility.


And, I mean... when changes can't be applied without mods, saying "it's not our job to be babysitters" doesn't really cut it. It is the rule that we explicitly need "babysitting" to do this, ain't it?

 

[Planck69]

How is pointing out a genuine flaw even destabilizing the wiki?

 

[InfiniteDay]

That's a massive overreaction. This is genuine flaw. The nuking of thousands of 'incorrect' calcs in this case should be a good thing for the wiki. Also, it would destabilize people whose only genuine feat is a cloud calc. This is a issue that has been going on for a long time, and it is always 'eventually'. I/O revisions are always 'eventually' coming to. How many more cloud/cooling calcs need to be made, as every day this situation gets worse. This a deep hole this situation keeps digging, and demonizing this issue as "destabilizing the wiki" is a terrible way to combat this issue.

 

[Ugarik]

Unless THIS revision is based on the real world physics and as far as I can say the premise IS true. So it's not a matter of opinion. Those thousands of calcs are incorrect for a fact.

Though I don't know if it's reasonable to "nuke" them at this point

 

[InfiniteDay]

Unless THIS revision is based on the real world physics and as far as I can say the premise IS true. So it's not a matter of opinion. Those thousands of calcs are incorrect for a fact.

Though I don't know if it's reasonable to "nuke" them at this point

Then it will never be reasonable to 'nuke' them at any point in the future. As I said, it's now or never, this won't solve itself, and we finally have a legit breakthrough in our grasp. We cannot leave this to "not now, we need time" when the answer in the future is obvious. I recommend pulling a Ant and getting alot of the staff team messaged to come here, and waiting (like a couple weeks) for them to put their opinion in.

 

[ZackMoon1234]

Bump
Unites
Most
Pages

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I mean, we got the answer mostly? The science behind it isn't accurate, but implementing this now would be too taxing, so we will delay it 'till summer...

I'd suggest to at least tell people not to base stuff on heat entirely until then, but that couldn't really be made to be a rule.


Also, is assuming that the creation of water means that you are moving electrons to create h2o, and that the resulting heat scales to your AP, the standard assumption for water creation feats? It came up and I was told I need to make a crt to stop those too, so if it's deemed not too taxing for the wiki I guess I'll get on to that. (This is totally not derailing because water creation calc also relies on chain reaction and scaling to supposed heat creation)

 

[Jackof_noTrades068]

Also, is assuming that the creation of water means that you are moving electrons to create h2o, and that the resulting heat scales to your AP, the standard assumption for water creation feats? It came up and I was told I need to make a crt to stop those too, so if it's deemed not too taxing for the will I guess I'll get on to that. (This is totally not derailing because water creation calc also relies on chain reaction and scaling to supposed heat creation)

I thought there was already a standard for not using those
Since for a verse I like a dude calced water creation to get a High 7-C to Low 6-B and was told water creation calculations were invalid and it got rejected

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I thought there was already a standard for not using those
Since for a verse I like a dude calced water creation to get a High 7-C to Low 6-B and was told water creation calculations were invalid and it got rejected

Weird, I'd have thought Naruto of all verses would have that caught. I guess I'll bring that up.

 

[Jackof_noTrades068]

Weird, I'd have thought Naruto of all verses would have that caught. I guess I'll bring that up.

If your curious here is the calc blog which got rejected for water creation
The dude who calced it even mentioned how Nanatsu no Taizai and Naruto get away with it.
Although let’s not derail this thread any further this is about freezing and storm calcs

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

This thread is still alive? Why?

Thought we dealt with this shit so many times before...

Also what DarkDragonMedeus said is true, a lot of people don't edit profiles and don't understand how much time it takes to apply a shit ton of revisions like this, I am used to it and can do it well, but it takes a shit ton of time

So people who don't edit profiles saying it's easy are flat out wrong, something that effects all the profiles would take forever

 

[Antoniofer]

There's new info that may be considered legit, so we now waiting for the time where most of staff have the free time to take a better look.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

There's new info that may be considered legit, so we now waiting for the time where most of staff have the free time to take a better look.

I mean probably, it will take a long time to ever get done since this effecst so many profiles, once again, this is the 3rd time we're revisiting this topic, so it's understandable a lot of staff don't want to go over it again