• 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.

Gojo Calc Resolution/Earthquake Calcs

Status
Not open for further replies.
What’s the overall sentiment from CGM for this calc? Does anyone else have any further issues with it?
 
Maitreya said:
What’s the overall sentiment from CGM for this calc? Does anyone else have any further issues with it?
Click to expand...
As far as I am aware, the following post from Therefir is the only Wiki related reasoning for not using the natural end
"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."
Click to expand...
This notion was debunked in the following posts [1] [2]

If there is no other stated wiki reasoning that bars Earthquakes at these depths from being calculated using the natural method, then I would say we can move on with the Gojo calc and then edit our standards.
 
Dr._whiteee said:
Hey, just me again here bumping.
Click to expand...
q24Pg3n.jpg
 
I've contacted some CGMs, hopefully we can break the bump chain eventually 😭
 
This is no way to get calc members to interact with the thread. It's rude and annoying, I'll be deleting all the off topic post. I understand the frustration but behavior like this only further discourages members from interacting with this verse
 
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.
 
DarkGrath said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the response, and sorry for the late reply.

If the wiki standard is that conservative ends are preferred, I don't mind that, but I think it should be more explicitly codified. The given reason by an experienced calc member, of earthquakes seismic moments only appearing at depths of >50km, I believe I have proven is simply incorrect. So ultimately the non JJK related aspect of this thread would come down to addressing that aspect.

I'm not quite too sure about alternative means since seismic moment encapsulates both ends we were looking at. I could ask Powertoscale (the person who called the Gojo calc in the OP) if he knows of any other methods.
 
Dr._whiteee said:
If the wiki standard is that conservative ends are preferred, I don't mind that, but I think it should be more explicitly codified.
Click to expand...
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.

Though that's ultimately a side-comment. It may prove useful to look for alternate methods of calculating feats like this, but to do that would likely entail revising our standards for earthquake feats, which could drag out this thread even longer and add a lot of unnecessary baggage to the start. Personally, I would think a better option is to settle on the seismic moment calculation for now, and to make another thread in the future regarding standards for these kinds of situations.
 
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.
 
Dr._whiteee said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

I'd think closing this thread should be fine. If anyone wants to debate this topic further, they can make another thread in the future to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Arceus0x
Valdivia earthquake revision or maybe deletion
Replies
9
Views
376
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
PowerToScale
Earthquake Calcultion: Which end to use?
Replies
1
Views
657
PowerToScale
PowerToScale
MaybeWantsToEdit
Question regarding earthquake calcs.
Replies
5
Views
767
MaybeWantsToEdit
MaybeWantsToEdit
Deceived3596
Earthquake Question
Replies
3
Views
659
ByArrow
ByArrow
Epyriel
A Call Beyond Calc Conflict
Replies
1
Views
572
Chritin
Chritin
Back
Top