• 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.

Energy required to destroy half of the solar system calc evaluation

Bossbrosish said:
I wanted to see how much energy it would take to destroy half of the solar system out of curiosity so calculated. (I asked this this before and was given an answer different to what I calculated my self)

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Bossbrosish/Destroying_half_of_the_Solar_System
Click to expand...
You messed up the planet's GBEs


Jupiter is:
3(6.67408x10^-11×1.89800e27^2)/(5×69911512.7) = 2.06341401e36 J

Thus, 4*2.06341401e36 (778,600,627,200/69911512.7)^2 = *1.02371358e45 Joules (Large Star level)
 
Bossbrosish said:
Wait, I thought the Polytropic value was 1.5 for gas giants, but for Jupiter it's 3? Does this apply to the others?
Click to expand...
You don't use Polytropic value for this formula, I think. The GBE page just says to use the formula as it is, while using Polytropic values for stars.
 
TioKill said:
Destroying the entire solar system from the Sun is baseline 4-B. If you got 2x baseline via destroying half of it, you did something wrong.
Click to expand...
Solar System has no set baseline, we made it up by assuming the bare minimum power required to have Neptune busting power at the edge from the Sun's center.
 
However, the GBE formula used is wrong.

The correct formula is U = (3*G*M^2)/(r(5-n))

in which U is GBE in joules, G is the gravitational constant of 6.67408e-11 (Wikipedia states 6.6743015e-11), M is mass in kilograms, r is radius in meters, and n is the polytropic value attributed to the type of star (Or in this case, gas giant).
 
Last edited:
I am also unsure whether Uranus and Neptune would use polytropic values at all. AFAIK only Jupiter seems to qualify for the 1.5 polytropic value, not sure about Saturn either.

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 What do you think we should do here?
 
Bump.

Okay so I have seen and checked Assaltwaffle's old Tiering System revisions blog, and some numbers are slightly different from the wikipedia articles they link to.

Some have slightly different mass values and then there's the slightly different gravitational constant value which our GBE page on the wiki links to and mentions 6.67408e-11, this value however, links back to wikipedia, where the value is now 6.6743(015)e-11. Some of the mass values of our celestial objects and radii are also slightly different, for example, NASA cites the mass of the moon to be 7.347e+22 kg, but wikipedia's sources claim 7.342e+22 kg.

My only concern now is, are these values even that different enough to neccesitate any changes to the blog's values, if any at all? Because at the end of the day, these values wouldn't be overwhelmingly large enough to mean any massive site-wide revision changes at all, at best, only a few certain calcs would be affected as none of them would be that conveniently close to the baseline starting values.

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 Since you guys are the smartest with regards to astronomy here, what do you think we should do?
 
When the difference is very small I think that being in the same overall order of magnitude works well enough. I mean, we could update our values every time the measurement becomes 0.001% better because it's a more precise measurement, but I don't think there would be any real changes to profiles considering that everything should be in the same order of magnitude. I think that the effort to always update when a 0.002e+22 is added isn't worth enough.
 
Executor_N0 said:
When the difference is very small I think that being in the same overall order of magnitude works well enough. I mean, we could update our values every time the measurement becomes 0.001% better because it's a more precise measurement, but I don't think there would be any real changes to profiles considering that everything should be in the same order of magnitude. I think that the effort to always update when a 0.002e+22 is added isn't worth enough.
Click to expand...
Understandable, best to leave High 5-A to 3-A as is then.

Still, we should revise 5-A regardless. As neither the Planetary Parameter calculator nor the standard GBE formula give an energy yield of 1.13E+34 J, hell, 5-A and its reference planet, Uranus, is not even mentioned like how Moon, Small Planet and Planet are, or even the Stars.

Uranus has a radius of 25362.7 km or 2.5362e+7 meters and a mass of 8.681e+25 kg.

U = (3*G*M^2)/(5r)

in which U is GBE in joules, G is the gravitational constant of 6.6743015e-11 N.m.kg^-2, M is mass in kilograms, r is radius in meters.

GBE: (3*(6.6743015e-11)*(8.681e+25^2))/(2.5362e+7*5) = 1.1899072e+34 J or 2.84394646272 yottatons of TNT

The Planetary Parameter Calculator, when using the 50725.4 km diameter and 0.886 g, gives a yield of 1.107E+34 J or 2.6457935 yottatons of TNT.

Mean: (1.1899072e+34 + 1.107E+34)/2 = 1.1484536e+34 J or 2.74487 yottatons of TNT
 
Dread said:
Wait why 3-A?
Click to expand...
Uhhhhhhh... What do you mean?

The only differences would be the gravitational constant used to obtain GBE of certain objects which would then be used in the inverse-square law to find the potency of an explosion at the epicenter. And slight but negligible differences in the mass of objects used to obtain GBE.

Granted, this tiny variation in the value is way too low to warrant any change to the tiering system to the point where it would end up exactly the same as the values we have on the AP chart right now if we rounded off to it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bossbrosish
Energy required to destroy the whole Solar System (Eris) blog post evaluation
Replies
3
Views
804
Blahblah9755
Blahblah9755
Energy needed for destroy a celestial spherical object
Replies
16
Views
1K
Kudekuba
Bossbrosish
How much energy would be needed to destroy half of the solar system
Replies
5
Views
942
Bossbrosish
Bossbrosish
OFAtomicSamurai
The Eminence in the Shadows CRT
Replies
11
Views
1K
Godsatoshi23
Godsatoshi23
Hagane_no_Saiyajin
The current calc used for splitting the Earth in half is very faulty! Let's fix it!!
Replies
1
Views
1K
DastardlyDangerousDracoga
DastardlyDangerousDracoga
Back
Top