-
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
- Thread starter Dr._whiteee
- Start date
- Status
Giannysmag
He/Him- 4,373
- 7,529
Fr every other JJK revision gets like 7 pages in a day
- 2,338
- 1,835
- Thread starter
- #123
Bump (this seems pretty pointless reopening the thread if those same people who had issues won't come here and air their grievances)
- 21,489
- 30,820
It's not the matter of having issues w/ it, it's that it wasn't truly accepted. A Thread Mod has no jurisdiction accepting CGM threads
I can try again to directly call some more though
I can try again to directly call some more though
- 2,338
- 1,835
- Thread starter
- #126
Executor stated he was under the impression that if Gojo's feat was done at the subduction zone, that he should be able to scale to the seismic energy.
After almost 5 months of limbo and several mass taggings, Grath evaluated and closed. I wasn't aware there was a "2 calc member" acceptance clause.
- 11,993
- 11,608
Oh yeah @DarkGrath what happened here?
- 4,621
- 6,672
Executor and I approved of the changes. As I mentioned in my above post, it would usually be preferable to have more than two staff input for a thread like this - however, the thread had gone 4 months with almost complete radio silence and a lack of any contentions. So I suggested closing the thread and letting a new thread be opened in the future if it needed to be explored in more depth or if anyone had counterarguments.
Contrary to what has been said, however, I'm quite confident I did not actually close this thread. I only suggested it should be. I don't know who did close it.
- 10,541
- 12,355
@Duedate8898 closed it
For the future, click on the thread options. You will see one saying "moderator actions". There you can check.
- 2,338
- 1,835
- Thread starter
- #131
Yeah, I just saw Ant's message confirming Duedate did it before him, as I had requested Ant to.
- 11,993
- 11,608
@KingTempest you mentioned to me you have issues with the feat and the calculation so please elaborate more.
- 21,489
- 30,820
Oh I already did-
It was just the evaluation of the points on the first page.
Correct me if I'm wrong in explaining your argument @Dr._whiteee
The OP basically said that a non-natural earthquake should be as powerful as an earthquake that is caused by the tectonic plates, and the fact that we don't accept it like that is based on suspension of belief
The thread's basically trying to say "this is what we accept. I don't agree because of (this). It should work." in order to ignore the radiated energy value and use the Total Seismic value.
Other members had different points, like PowerToScale saying that he moved the plates since he was in the subduction zone, which is just an assumption on how the quake started, which Arkenis argued against.
On top of that, the agreeal wasn't really... an agreeal.
Executor didn't say this situation fit the standards, he just said that
The OP says "a non natural quake should be ~ tectonic plate shaking quake", and the only evaluation was "if it directly affects the plates, then it should be fine to use total seismic energy".
Basically, it was never actually accepted, and the arguments in the OP don't align with our standards.
Again @Dr._whiteee, correct me if I'm wrong
Basically, saying "it should be relative"
It was just the evaluation of the points on the first page.
Correct me if I'm wrong in explaining your argument @Dr._whiteee
The OP basically said that a non-natural earthquake should be as powerful as an earthquake that is caused by the tectonic plates, and the fact that we don't accept it like that is based on suspension of belief
Which I tackled that we don't accept quakes not caused by natural causes to be relative to the energy needed to move tectonic plates, and that the energy that tectonic plates let off that actually cause said earthquake.
The thread's basically trying to say "this is what we accept. I don't agree because of (this). It should work." in order to ignore the radiated energy value and use the Total Seismic value.
Other members had different points, like PowerToScale saying that he moved the plates since he was in the subduction zone, which is just an assumption on how the quake started, which Arkenis argued against.
On top of that, the agreeal wasn't really... an agreeal.
Executor didn't say this situation fit the standards, he just said that
These arguments don't align.
The OP says "a non natural quake should be ~ tectonic plate shaking quake", and the only evaluation was "if it directly affects the plates, then it should be fine to use total seismic energy".
Basically, it was never actually accepted, and the arguments in the OP don't align with our standards.
Again @Dr._whiteee, correct me if I'm wrong
Basically, saying "it should be relative"
- 2,338
- 1,835
- Thread starter
- #134
My contentions were summed up nicely in this post.
More specifically, this was the stated logic given for the seismic end not being appropriate
Which I pointed out was incorrect via an actual example of an earthquake happening within 5km of the crust, and by pointing out that 10km is the assumed depth for earthquakes when data cannot give precise results because of the fact that 10km is the worldwide mean for depth of earthquakes.
My specific issue with only using radiated energy is that the logic is circular. What we are calling here is the initial energy event that propagated the observed effects at surface level. This being akin to calculating a shockwave without also accounting for the blast that propagated it (not directly by mechanics, this is just an analogy).
- 16,171
- 12,705
I'm in disagreement with using depth of where the feat happened as a reasoning for using TSE. Even if he were actually under the plates, which seems unclear from what I've seen, I don't think that implies actually affecting the whole ass plates.
- 32,835
- 38,111
Yeah no, even if you affected the entirety of the plates, you still wouldn't be allowed to use total seismic energy.
I will repeat to all those in this thread, YOU CANNOT USE TOTAL SEISMIC ENERGY FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN NATURAL EARTHQUAKES. Tampering with the plates physically yourself via brute force impact or by physically shaking them will not grant you total seismic energy approval. Ever. It will instantly neg it to being radiated waves only. Just ask the Godzilla goons.
I will repeat to all those in this thread, YOU CANNOT USE TOTAL SEISMIC ENERGY FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN NATURAL EARTHQUAKES. Tampering with the plates physically yourself via brute force impact or by physically shaking them will not grant you total seismic energy approval. Ever. It will instantly neg it to being radiated waves only. Just ask the Godzilla goons.
- 2,338
- 1,835
- Thread starter
- #137
You don't need to. I would appreciate if you responded to my evidence.
Using this logic, the M6 Earthquake I linked above would not qualify as a "natural earthquake" because it happened < 5km. You'd also being saying you disagree with the literal agreed upon international depth for earthquakes who true depth can't be measured. Is there a reason you are taking such a position?
- 16,171
- 12,705
... What KLOL said, yeah.
- 2,549
- 2,147
Can I see the Godzilla thread where this rejection happened?
- 32,835
- 38,111
This one:
vsbattles.com
MUTO Prime upgrade
The author of Godzilla: Aftershock said this: Prime can manipulate Tectonic Plates She can create New fault lines She attacked Godzilla with the same force as she destroys fault lines She can manipulate fault lines She can destabilize fault lines Can generate earthquakes that can rip through...
Arkenis
They/Them- 17,242
- 7,963
Is this just due to how natural earthquakes happen or is this a site rule?
- 3,346
- 1,912
probably a site rule
- 2,338
- 1,835
- Thread starter
- #143
This doesn't address my points above, but also doesn't appear to be what happened in that thread.This one:
MUTO Prime upgrade
The author of Godzilla: Aftershock said this: Prime can manipulate Tectonic Plates She can create New fault lines She attacked Godzilla with the same force as she destroys fault lines She can manipulate fault lines She can destabilize fault lines Can generate earthquakes that can rip through...
Kiernan (who I presume is a retired calc member?) gave the following reasonings for the dismissal of that thread, which DDM than agreed to.
Regarding the latter feats
That doesn't seem like a standard, rather a very nuanced situation where people were trying to scale from Q&A's on social media, and the more direct answer directly contradicted the idea of any titan manipulating a plate, as opposed "manipulating a plate" not being something that could scale.
- 32,835
- 38,111
- 2,338
- 1,835
- Thread starter
- #146
No? The stated reason reason was not accurate. My points also still remain unaddressed.
- 4,716
- 4,224
I mean it seems to me White just refuses to take no for an answer and is stonewalling
This thread has gone on for months and basically every calc member agrees that Total Seismic Energy shouldn't and cant be applied to Gojo's case unless we have explicit confirmation he is moving the plates themselves (Which we do not)
So the normal and conservative method should be the one used in this case, simple as
- 21,489
- 30,820
I'm not a CGM so I don't know what really constitutes as "shut this shit down" in a situation like this.
- 3,781
- 4,081
Mfer how I see you being asked to make and evaluating calcs all the time
- 11,559
- 10,996
Turn me into a cgm and everything will be solved
- 25,026
- 6,328
- 2,338
- 1,835
- Thread starter
- #153
I am curious as to how you believe I am stonewalling when I am simply asking for the reasoning behind the decision, since it seems inconsistent between members and I have already shown the other stated logic about Earthquake depth being incorrect. I really don't think I am being unreasonable here.
- 1,680
- 1,161
I honestly don't see any great explanation for the disagreement yet so far imo. Most are just countered with a better argument, and some disagreements imo feels lacking. Some points from Dr's side doesn't look like they were addressed either yet. Though I suppose that's because the discussion hasn't reached a true conclusion yet, as the discussion is ongoing. That's my opinion on this thread so far, and waiting to see how the discussion will go so I'll be "neutral-ish" atm.
- 4,716
- 4,224
The points he brings up dont really matter unless they for sure prove Gojo is moving the tectonic plates in order to create these earthquakes
That's what every calc member is waiting on, proof Gojo moved the plates
Which so far from what I have seen there has been none
He can argue all about how wrong our current method for categorizing earthquake energy is but as of rn those are the standards
If he has a problem with them I recommend that he gets them changed first in another thread
As it stands currently the quake doesn't meet our standards for total seismic moment energy and until they do the calc wont be accepted
No amount of arguments about how earthquake energy is measured is going to change that
Last edited:
- 1,680
- 1,161
pretty sure it was proven earlier in thread by two others or more.
? I never argued here anything.
I never took that position whatsoever? You're confusing what I said entirely. Please re read.
as for the rest of what you said, idk why this is relevant to what I said. you should perhaps be saying this to dr white instead.
- 11,993
- 11,608
Mind showing me the proof?
- 4,716
- 4,224
Only the first part of my response was towards you
The rest was aimed at Mr White
I apologize for not formatting that better
- 1,680
- 1,161
the back and forth between Dr and KT? and PowerToScale's eventual response to that? if you read the full discussion between these two (or technically three) i think you could decide things for yourself whether these are sufficient enough as proof or nah.
edit: powertoscale's response inbetween these two's arguments imo convince me enough as valid proof.
- 1,680
- 1,161
oh, my bad too then. thanks for the clarification.
- Status
Similar threads
