• 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.

DBS: Destruction of Planet Vegeta, Frieza Upgrade

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not a calc member, but don't we divide by 12 instead of 2 for things that are omnidirectional KE, as not all parts may be moving at the same velocity (such as scattering debris omnidirectionally or storm/cloud dispersal)?

If so, then wouldn't the yield be a 1/6 of the calc'd value?
I dont think so because as @DarkDragonMedeus stated the speed of the debris scattering is already lowballed to "average" to compensate for that but a CGM probably knows better
 
Not a calc member, but don't we divide by 12 instead of 2 for things that are omnidirectional KE, as not all parts may be moving at the same velocity (such as scattering debris omnidirectionally or storm/cloud dispersal)?

If so, then wouldn't the yield be a 1/6 of the calc'd value?
Couldn't find such a formula for relativistic KE so until something like that comes up (DT didn't greenlight it AFAIK), we stick with the Relativistic KE calculator.
 
You missed my point. My point was: If you don't have an argument to post ATM, then maybe just wait until you do, or maybe just don't comment at all.
KLOL506; please stop posting. I never said I don't have an argument to post. I'm going to delete the last few comments that are derailing the hell out of this thread. If you've got a problem with me, take it elsewhere for the love of God.
 
Couldn't find such a formula for relativistic KE so until something like that comes up (DT didn't greenlight it AFAIK), we stick with the Relativistic KE calculator.
Could you not just multiply the KE value by the Lorentz factor (the multiplier that tells you how much higher your KE would be than its Newtonian counterpart) at whatever speed it is?
 
The Lorentz factor multiplier appears to be barely a 1x multiplier using the speed difference according to this calculator.

So KE: (1/12) * 5.083E+26 * 15606258.2721^2 = 1.0316596e+40 J or 2.4657256 quettatons of TNT, High 5-A+

I can't evaluate my own calc so make that of what you will.
 
Last edited:
Wait why exactly is there being different methods used for the flying debris if 1/2 has been used before? Shouldn't you just use that one?
 
Wouldn't all of this warrant a different blog with multiple methods out of which one method gets accepted? i feel like the currently accepted one with 2 CGM votes and an admin vote should be kept as it is
 
Wouldn't all of this warrant a different blog with multiple methods out of which one method gets accepted? i feel like the currently accepted one with 2 CGM votes and an admin vote should be kept as it is
No? You'd only need to dump in the correction and job's done.
 
I think Planet Vegeta being much bigger than Earth seems accurate since it's a rocky planet with 10 times Earth's gravity. Usually Planets like this are pretty big, especially when Earth is specifically mentioned by King Cold to be very small and insignificant (unlike Vegeta)
 
Planet destruction calcs involving flying debris don’t use any alterations to the KE or relativistic KE formula, it’s that simple. I don’t think this is the thread to try and change that
this is what I was trying to say. That seems like a topic for a staff discussion thread standard change rather than something to be decided on the fly for a calc that has always been done using the same method
 
I think Planet Vegeta being much bigger than Earth seems accurate since it's a rocky planet with 10 times Earth's gravity. Usually Planets like this are pretty big, especially when Earth is specifically mentioned by King Cold to be very small and insignificant (unlike Vegeta)
Also not to mention planet Vegeta in the broly movie seems to look to have way more water then earth does, thus it seems more in line with a water world that are normally larger then earth is
 
Even though both Toriyama and Shueisha consider GT to be canon?

I mean, GT is even on the official timeline by Shueisha
It’d only be in use for Toei iterations of the characters. So you could get a revision for Toei Frieza, Bardock, etc and scale from there if you wanted, but you couldn’t apply it to canon.
 
unfortunately we can’t really use it. while the cosmologies are the same it doesn’t mean planet sizes are gonna be the same too
It's the only actual reference we have to Planet Vegeta's size; it's either this or no true reference. Pick your poison.

Also, why would planet sizes change in a different timeline? Occum's razor would suggest they are the same more than likely (Also pretty sure GT splits from Post-Buu Saga, which is tied to the main timeline anyways)
 
It's the only actual reference we have to Planet Vegeta's size; it's either this or no true reference.

Also, why would planet sizes change in a different timeline? (Also pretty sure GT splits from Post-Buu Saga, which is tied to the main timeline anyways)
We're not having this discussion now, this was already decided before and trying to overturn it would require it's own thread)

Also, Toeiverse deviates from the main timeline much earlier than that. Filler episodes and movies comprise such deviations
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top