Feats involving constellations

[Lina_Shields]

@DT: Are you suggesting that moving a planet at FTL speeds is Planet level? I am not sure if I agree with this...

 

[DontTalk]

@DT: Are you suggesting that moving a planet at FTL speeds is Planet level? I am not sure if I agree with this...

Pretty much what I suggest. How would you rank it?

 

[Antvasima]

@LordAizenSama Well, the crucial issue is whether or not rearranging constellations of stars at astronomical distances from each other should be rated as Multi-Solar System level, given the power dispersal?

 

[Lina_Shields]

Considering that most fiction writers usually have no idea in regards to the laws of physics for the most part, they likely intended to show that moving objects FTL is a highly impressive feat.

Using your example, moving the Earth at FTL = Planet level. At the same time, you only need to move the Earth at 8939m/s in order to reach Planet level. This does not make sense as kinetic energy should be increasing as you move things faster, not decreasing.

Thus, I would propose that we add "At least" beside the AP/kinetic energy of the object being moved. For example...

• Moving the Earth at FTL = "At least (Energy required to move an object at 99% speed of light)"
• Finding the KE required to move the Earth at 99% SoL, I got a value of 3.288e42 Joules, or Star level.
• This would mean that moving the Earth at FTL speeds would be written as "At least Star level" in terms of AP.
• So basically, what you do is calculate the KE required to move that object at 99% SoL, and then add the "At least" beside it at the end.
• Also, if you move the Sun at 99% SoL, it gives us Solar System level values, meaning that moving the Sun at FTL should be "At least Solar System level"

Edit: Keep in mind that even while using the rule I suggested, moving multiple stars at FTL would still yield Solar System level values. This means that making a constellation should at least be a Solar System level feat, if not higher.

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

@Lina: That does seem pretty high tho either way, don't you think?

 

[Antvasima]

I think that seems reasonable, but according to our Kinetic Energy feats regulations, we only accept relativistic energy up to 4 times the Newtonian value.

 

[Lina_Shields]

Hmm, perhaps. However, it makes less sense for you to be losing kinetic energy as you go faster, even if you reach FTL speeds.

Using the GBE in regards to forming constellations out of nothing sounds good though, as even stars formed out of nothing (assuming they are actual stars) would require a sufficient amount of energy to completely break them apart.

 

[DontTalk]

My opinion:

Well, in terms of creation it is basically long established to use GBE.

For the FTL KE, by 99%:

I don't think fiction writers intend that to be impressive, due to moving something that fast, I believe fiction writers usually think it to be something impressive due to the objects being so large.


For the 99% suggestion I can just repeat what I said before when it comes to that reasoning. Since the KE of objects goes towards infinity in relativity, the argument that KE of a FTL object should be higher than that of a relativistic object just doesn't hold.

So for all purposes we have to end up with KE of FTL < KE of high relativistic objects, so personally I believe the feats should be treated closer to reality warping quantification (which would be creating a planet = GBE of planet, and star = GBE of star, Galaxy = Galaxy level etc.), than to a KE feat.


The KE quantification would also result in throwing a galaxy being Multi-Solar system level...


An "at least" is a good idea in my opinion.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. DontTalk is likely our most intelligent member along with DarkLK, so I think that we should listen to him.

 

[DontTalk]

Well, if the majority staff prefers it otherwise, that is fine as well.

LordXcano's approach seemed to go in the same direction as the last one I made and LordAizenSama and CrossverseCrisis agreed (even though that was before Lina's suggestion).

I suggest waiting for a bit for input (since the concrete suggestions were only made today) and tomorrow I will at least ask the staff members, that haven't commented until then on their wall for input.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the help.

 

[Lina_Shields]

So, moving an object at FTL speeds would be considered a reality warping feat then? It would be considered reality warping because it is normally impossible to move something at FTL speeds, correct?

Although fiction in general tend to disregard that rule...

 

[DontTalk]

I don't mean that it should be taken as actually being reality warping.

What I mean is that I would apply the same standards as for reality warping, since it is unquantifiable in terms of calculation just like reality warping, so that the "straight forward" approach that we use for reality warping might be reasonable here as well.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that seems reasonable.

 

[Lina_Shields]

After reading DT's comment more carefully, I think this makes sense.

So, how should we write DT's suggestions to the Constellations page?

 

[Antvasima]

I am afraid that I am too tired and overworked to come up with a good wording at the moment.

 

[Lina_Shields]

I will come up with a good wording. Will have to discuss with DT in chat however.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Promestein]

I agree with what DT suggested.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

I agree with DT's suggestion.

 

[Reppuzan]

I'm not a math or a physics specialist, but what DontTalk says sounds reasonable. We've disavowed Relativistic KE for a while now, so it wouldn't make sense for us to suddenly start using FTL KE (heck, I remember one of my first posts here being disavowed for that reason).

I'm heading out for a while, but I'll definitely be back later to write up the explanations if needed.

 

[A6colute]

I agree with DT's suggestion.

 

[Austrian-Man-Meat]

I say we should treat constelliations akin to reality warping a country, in short. I agree with DT's & LordX's proposals.

 

[KamiYasha]

Well, i agree with DontTalk and LordXcano. Seems to be the most reasonable thing to do about such feats.

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

I think DT makes sense.

 

[Tivanenk]

In my opinion, I don't think authors ever intend for the fast movement of celestial bodies to ever be related to energy. Since such a thing as faster than light doesn't in real life without the violation of causality, I think it is sensible to take the author's intentions and rank according to the combined sum of GBEs of all the moved bodies.

In essence, I agree with DT.

 

[Ryukama]

I like many others here, agree with what DT and Xcano are proposing.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I'm gonna agree with what Kkh said at the beginning. It seems to be a best option. You're still moving them using relativistic mass. But it might be best to use DT's reasoning regardless.

 

[SomebodyData]

Using KE for these cases, even if placed at 99% Sol doesn't sound very good, and as DT stated it would result in MSS+ levels for a galaxy, so I have to agree with DT's current suggestion of treating it more like Reality Warping.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Yeah. My final sentence has changed from "might be" to "would certainly be." The values are kinda wonky when you get down to it. It wouldn't scale to durability at all, I know that much, but would it be ____ level via telekinesis, or would it just put telekinesis in the powers and abilities

 

[Grudgeman1706]

I find DTs reasoning to be the most adequate decision here, what KK said made sense, but I find my self agreeing with what he's saying more.

 

[The_Everlasting]

Just to make sure I'm up to speed (There's a lot to sort through in this thread), we'll be treating moving celestial bodies at FTL speeds as whatever the celestial body is? I.E. Constellation feats will become Multi-Solar System level, while moving a planet at FTL speeds is just Planet level?

If so, I agree as well.

 

[Antvasima]

I think so, yes.

 

[Antoniofer]

I would agree with DT's reasoning too, moving a celestial body in fiction usually means than that could blow up that celestial body.

But what if the writers state something else? for example: That planet was moving so fast that it impact cac crack a star, should we consider something like that?

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, explicit descriptions should probably be considered, as long as they are not hyperbole for dramatic effect.

 

[Lina_Shields]

So, is this settled then? We are going with DT's proposal for this, yes?

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

So do we treat this as being a sort of reality warping feat as what DT proposed? I'm kind of still tired atm to remember what he said. ^^;

 

[Antvasima]

@Lina Shields I think so, yes.

 

[Lina_Shields]

Right. This should be settled then.

I'll incorporate DT's proposal to the constellations page. He needs to come to chat and check what I have written however.

Edit: To Ant: I will discuss with LordX on how to write this up then.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. He is very busy however.