- 3,781
- 4,081
What’s the overall sentiment from CGM for this calc? Does anyone else have any further issues with it?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As far as I am aware, the following post from Therefir is the only Wiki related reasoning for not using the natural endWhat’s the overall sentiment from CGM for this calc? Does anyone else have any further issues with it?
This notion was debunked in the following posts [1] [2]"As for it being natural or not, the Japan Trench is only 8020 meters deep, and natural earthquakes occur hundreds of kilometers underground, far below the trench itself, it being the place where the tectonic plates meet doesn't mean causing an earthquake from there would make it natural."
Hey, just me again here bumping.
One must imagine Sisyphus is a JJK supporter trying to upgrade the verseBump
Sisyphus
gojowari daGojo never beating the Low 7-C allegations at this rate
Thank you for the response, and sorry for the late reply.This has certainly been one of the threads of all time.
So, calculation standards aren't my specialty. If they were, I would be a calc group member, which I'm obviously not. That being said, I do have my 2 cents to give here.
As it stands, calculating the energy involved in an earthquake feat by its radiated energy is always going to be an underestimation. The analogy Dr. Whiteee provided in the comments of the calculation - of calculating the impact of a cannonball by the energy of the splash of water the cannonball creates - is quite apt. In anything other than the most abstract, fantastical earthquake feats, those completely devoid of real-world physics, there is going to be some loss of energy between the cause of the earthquake and the radiated energy that we observe. We have a tendency to value conservative estimations of feats over higher estimations (most likely in part because conservative estimations tend to be easier to substantiate), but I would think that the calculation we use for a feat should always be the one that is most likely to be 'correct' - or more specifically, 'closer to the true value'. In most cases, the radiated energy would naturally be such an underestimation that I would rather it was only used in lieu of any context that could reasonably allow us to estimate the real impact of the feat.
In this case, where there would obviously be a huge loss of energy between Gojo's actions and the resulting earthquake, I would be remiss to claim that the radiated energy of the feat is an accurate estimation of the energy Gojo exerted in the feat. I would prefer the seismic moment calculation was used.
That being said, I am curious if there would be an even more accurate way to calculate the feat, given that we have values for how far below the surface Gojo was when he exerted the energy that produced the earthquake. I'll reiterate that this isn't my specialty - I have no idea how we would calculate that - but I'd struggle to think we could calculate the seismic moment and yet not be able to calculate this feat with the values we have.
It's not so much a strict rule as it is a general guideline. It's usually easier to substantiate the necessary information for lower-ends for calcs, so they're usually the more reliable option. I would rather it wasn't explicitly codified, as that could give people the wrong idea that lower-ends are inherently better or more reasonable, when it's entirely context dependent.If the wiki standard is that conservative ends are preferred, I don't mind that, but I think it should be more explicitly codified.
Normally, I would want more input on a thread like this. However, to be blunt, that's obviously not going to happen, and this thread has been delayed far beyond any reasonable length. If there were any counterpoints anyone wanted to express on this thread, we would have heard them by now.Unless there is some further disagreement I'm unaware of, is it okay to close this thread? It's been 4 months and Ant has tagged several times, so this seems about all the staff attention this thread is going to get.