• 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.

Giving the Lifting Strength page proper values

Status
Not open for further replies.
DontTalkDT

DontTalkDT

A Fossil at This Point
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Bronze Supporter
10,883
12,297
Something we should do at some point is to properly define lifting strength values, I think.

We have values up to stellar, but not further.

So to make it short, I suggest:

Multi-Stellar: Should start at 2 suns worth of mass, I guess, so about 3.97694 * 10^30 kg

Galactic: Should start at the mass of the milky way. So about 1.590776e42 kg going by wikipedia.

Multi-Galactic: Should start at 2x Galactic, I guess?

Universe level: Wikipedia says about 1.5*10^53 kg of ordinary matter. Though one finds varying values around the net, especially if one wants to include dark matter.
 
This seems fine to me. You can ask some other bureaucrats and administrators to comment here if you wish.
 
Bump, as this seems like a rather important thread to finish.
 
Makes sense. Idk about using dark matter or not since iirc its still more hypothesized and verses may not take thst into account, but that's up to the msth leople.
 
I am not sure about separating Galactic and Multi-Galactic, as they are very close for such high numbers.
 
Stellar and Multi-Stellar are kind of the same category; as two suns doesn't sound much more. Plus it gives the impression that moving a large star is multi-stellar. I personally thing the baseline for Multi-Stellar should be the mass of the largest star. I honestly don't have a problem for Multi-Galaxy, but maybe the combined mass of Milky Way Galaxy and Andromeda Galaxy could work better.
 
I am fine with changing the minimum for Multi-Stellar to the largest star.
 
Most massive star would be 315 solar masses, I guess.

Though wikipedia notes that most of those statistics are contested.
 
Okay. Somebody would have to Google search for all of our profile pages that currently use Multi-Stellar and update them if necessary though.
 
Solar Mass = Mass of the Yellow Sun or 1.989 * 10^30 kg. 1.989*10^30 * 315 = 6.265*10^32 kg. Guess that would be high end for stellar and then baseline for Multi-stellar.
 
Thanks for reminding us.

I haven't changed my views from my earlier comments here.
 
I used the wikia's search function and found only about 99 profiles with Multi-Stellar on.
 
Should we start Multi-Galactic at the biggest known galaxy, if we start multi-stellar at the biggest star?


Though, to be honest, I'm not sure if we should start at the biggest star / the biggest galaxy.

It would be some rather difficult revisions, as the vast majority of profiles aren't clear on exactly how much mass was lifted. (If they have a justification at all)

If we do it like this, we likely need to make it an organized effort or at least have more attention, as we will need people that know why the profiles are placed where they are.
 
Yes, we would need several other staff members to be willing to help out with handling such a revision, which may not be likely, given that school has started.
 
Does the Wikipedia value for the universe's mass have a credible source? Because if it doesn't I'm not comfortable with us using it.
 
Sera EX said:
Does the Wikipedia value for the universe's mass have a credible source? Because if it doesn't I'm not comfortable with us using it.
Click to expand...
According to wikipedias references it is found using the energy density given in a NASA article, with the percentage of ordinary matter given in a ESA article with the volume of the observable universe.
 
Yes. That seems fine, but we still need to make the suggested revisions applicable in practice, and that requires collaboration and hard work from the community.
 
This seems like the best suggestion regarding how to make this work btw.
 
DT was asking what galaxy would have the most mass if we added up every star and planet in said galaxy. And I think ESO 146-5 seems like the most reasonable one so far.

Edit: that article mentions having a mass of 100 trillion stars, while the ESO 146-5 has 30 trillion solar masses. So baseline for multi-galactic class I'm fine with being 100 trillion solar masses.
 
100 trillion stars doesn't necessarily mean 100 trillion solar masses, though.


After thinking more about the idea of using the biggest known star/galaxy as border, I'm also not so sure about it anymore.

The idea is fine in the present, but science keeps progressing. What the mass of the largest known galaxy/star is can easily change by the scientists pointing their best telescopes at a new part of the nightsky and finding a bigger one. Or using a better tool/method to predict the mass.

As wikipedia notes, many of these mass values are already contested today.

While new facts, estimates and measurements are something that can influence anything in science, we are building our standard on particularly instable foundation here, in my opinion.
 
The question would be what alternatives we have.

Using just 2x the basic galaxy/star value would be easiest, as it would also need no large scale revisions, but would leave small relative gaps between the tiers.

Alternatively we could of course do a somewhat arbitrary choice of a large star/galaxy as representative or even just use some round value that is somewhere near the upper border of star and galaxy mass.
 
I still prefer most massive known star for Multi-Stellar, using the two times would probably upgrade much of the DC cast back to Multi-Stellar given the moving large stars. But I suppose 2x for Milky Way Galaxy's mass is fine given the lack of better options. Open for more suggestions though.

I don't think many characters have Multi-Galactic Class lifting strength in a sense that it would change much. And everyone with that rating are pretty much well into it via lifting large parts of the universe. Same with Galactic class, don't think anyone is that far above baseline. So there's probably little to know work as far as wherever that one leads to.
 
I still think that just multiplying by 2 at this scale seems very redundant, and would require lots of revision work that would not really bring us any benefits.
 
Oh, I forgot to spell my opinion.

Multi-Stellar should start with 315 solar masses, which is 6.265 x 1032 kg, R136a1's (The MOST massive star's) mass (Suggested by DontTalkDT). Galactic's suggested mass value is fine. And about Multi-Galactic... Are there any scientific researches that confirm ESO 146-5's 30 trillion solar masses? The reference is not credited.

Universe's mass is probably fine.
 
Haven't found a source for the ESO mass either. Multi-galactic is the most difficult tier.
 
Is Multi-Galactic really necessary to apply then? I think that we can make do with just Galactic instead.
 
Guess we can use ESO for multi-galactic then, which would give us values for everything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Flashlight237
Something About Multi-Galactic Lifting Strength
Replies
13
Views
2K
KLOL506
KLOL506
[Lookism] Lifting Strength Upscale
Replies
1
Views
669
Success0906
Success0906
Celestial_Scaler25
  • Locked
Alien X and the Contumelia have immeasurable lifting strength!
2 3 4
Replies
127
Views
8K
Celestial_Scaler25
Celestial_Scaler25
Lou_change
Why is creating a galaxy, galaxy level?
Replies
7
Views
634
Astral_Trinity439
Astral_Trinity439
REX9097
Ninjago Lifting Strength Update
Replies
19
Views
2K
REX9097
REX9097
Back
Top