- 8,304
- 1,724
- Thread starter
- #401
-
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.
Hyperdimension Neptunia General Discussion Re;BirthMK2 Sisters Generation
- Thread starter AlexSoloVaAlFuturo
- Start date
- 8,304
- 1,724
- Thread starter
- #403
9-A and 8-C
9-A is with this method using the height from here.
But since the height of Celestia is unkwon, and you don't need to fall from space to catch in fire, (you can run at mach ~5 in the beach and you will be on fire) I used KE and it gave me a 8-C result with a really high speed and 9-A with mach 5 . But since the speed is making me doubtful, I will ask about it.
Orbital speed = 7902 m/s = 8-C
Mach 5 = 1715 m/s = 9-A
9-A is with this method using the height from here.
But since the height of Celestia is unkwon, and you don't need to fall from space to catch in fire, (you can run at mach ~5 in the beach and you will be on fire) I used KE and it gave me a 8-C result with a really high speed and 9-A with mach 5 . But since the speed is making me doubtful, I will ask about it.
Orbital speed = 7902 m/s = 8-C
Mach 5 = 1715 m/s = 9-A
- 8,304
- 1,724
- Thread starter
- #405
>Distance
It can't be with angsizing from the scene of the gif because that isn't the total distance that she moved. Neptune was moving from before so the distance will be faulty.
Also, angsizing give to you the distance between one object and the screen pov or the size of something.
>Time
The timeframe of that scene can't used because the scene before of that is showing us that Neptune has being falling at some point when the sun was visible, no need to explain you the why of this.
Also, you don't need to know anything about any kind of calc to know when one calc is correct or not.
Do the correct assumptions for different calcs > Do the calcs itself.
It can't be with angsizing from the scene of the gif because that isn't the total distance that she moved. Neptune was moving from before so the distance will be faulty.
Also, angsizing give to you the distance between one object and the screen pov or the size of something.
>Time
The timeframe of that scene can't used because the scene before of that is showing us that Neptune has being falling at some point when the sun was visible, no need to explain you the why of this.
Also, you don't need to know anything about any kind of calc to know when one calc is correct or not.
Do the correct assumptions for different calcs > Do the calcs itself.
- 8,304
- 1,724
- Thread starter
- #407
>distance
TFW you don't know if you should explain the thing or not to the others.And I actually wrote the explanation. Hit: acceleration and gravity.
>unless there's something wrong with the calc itself
The answer is yes and no.
TFW you don't know if you should explain the thing or not to the others.
>unless there's something wrong with the calc itself
The answer is yes and no.
- 724
- 50
I could try calcing it myself if y'all want. I know how to find the timeframe.
- 8,304
- 1,724
- Thread starter
- #409
How? The timeframe of both scene of the game aren't the correct one.
- 724
- 50
I could just watch it frame-by-frame using this:AlexSoloVaAlFuturo said:
http://www.watchframebyframe.com/
- 8,304
- 1,724
- Thread starter
- #412
@DreamcrosserSquad
That isn't the problem.
The time we need is the whole one, from the beginning of the feat to the end of it.
The first scene show Neptune falling while there is the light of the day, then a cut happen, then she is on fire in the night and then she hit the ground.
The game isn't showing us the exact, complect time. Thus, that timeframe isn't the correct one.
@RKGenki
Where comes from the air resistance? Look this calc.
That isn't the problem.
The time we need is the whole one, from the beginning of the feat to the end of it.
The first scene show Neptune falling while there is the light of the day, then a cut happen, then she is on fire in the night and then she hit the ground.
The game isn't showing us the exact, complect time. Thus, that timeframe isn't the correct one.
@RKGenki
Where comes from the air resistance? Look this calc.
- 724
- 50
Hm, I'll calc it using the average speed of a meteor instead since Compa said she fell "like a shooting star." (I don't know if this is hyperbole or not but because she appears to be falling like a shooting star, I suppose it's correct-ish. Correct me if I'm wrong though.)
According to Google, meteors enter the atmosphere at speeds of 11 km/s, which is 11,000 m/s, or Mach 32.069971.
Now to find KE.
Neptune's weight is 38 kg if I recall correctly.
KE = 0.5 * M * V ^ 2
0.5 * 38 * 11000 ^ 2 = 2299000000 joules, or 549.4741873805 kilograms of TNT. Building level.
Woah, pretty big difference. Probably because of how fast she was supposedly falling.
According to Google, meteors enter the atmosphere at speeds of 11 km/s, which is 11,000 m/s, or Mach 32.069971.
Now to find KE.
Neptune's weight is 38 kg if I recall correctly.
KE = 0.5 * M * V ^ 2
0.5 * 38 * 11000 ^ 2 = 2299000000 joules, or 549.4741873805 kilograms of TNT. Building level.
Woah, pretty big difference. Probably because of how fast she was supposedly falling.
- 8,304
- 1,724
- Thread starter
- #415
Neptune didn't enter the atmosphere.
- 8,304
- 1,724
- Thread starter
- #416
You don't need to fall from space to catch in fire, you can run at mach ~5 in the beach and you will be on fire.
- 724
- 50
Oh. Maybe I should use a different speed instead. I'll use the average speed of an asteroid according to this page, which is 25 km/s, or 25,000 m/s, or Mach 72.886297.
0.5 * 38 * 25,000 ^ 2 = 11875000000 joules, or 2.8381931166348 tons of TNT. Large Building level.
Well shit. I dunno if this is correct or not though.
0.5 * 38 * 25,000 ^ 2 = 11875000000 joules, or 2.8381931166348 tons of TNT. Large Building level.
Well shit. I dunno if this is correct or not though.
- 8,304
- 1,724
- Thread starter
- #418
I will be back later, so don't make something crazy while I gone.
I will respond to both replies then.
I will respond to both replies then.
- 8,304
- 1,724
- Thread starter
- #419
@DreamcrosserSquad
And you did something crazy even when I still here.
- 724
- 50
- 8,304
- 1,724
- Thread starter
- #422
Ok, I'm back.
@DreamcrosserSquad
As I said before, you can't angsizing and find a timeframe because the things I said before to RKGenki and you.
Regarding your calcs; there no evidence that Neptune was moving at those speeds, she didn't enter the atmosphere for the 11000 m/seg, and there is no reason to Neptune to move like an asteroid that is moving in the vacuum of the space at 25000 m/seg because that is orbital speed of some of them , AKA the averange speed.
The thing is that you are doing the wrong assumptions, but you are applying the equations on a good way, so keep the good work!
@RKGenki
My bad, I didn't explain myself in a correct way.
I already had an idea that you saw the calc when you said that you know that Neptune's falls from RB3 was only 9-B. We were speaking about the distance, so I was refering to the acceleration of the gravity because it will make Neptune go faster the more time that it pass, so the distance that you were speaking in the reply #407 it will be lower than you think because she don't have a constant velocity.
Also, there is a way to reach the KE equation while using the acceleration if you don't want go with the derivatio, so the acceleration is kinda and implicitly relevant.
I still don't see the air resistance, I don't think that she needs air resistance for this feat. And I not completely sure about the terminal velocity, if you reach the needed compression within the air at 53 m/seg from a big fall then you will be on fire anyway.
See what I told you?: Do the correct assumptions for different calcs > Do the calcs itself.
>pictures
Noice, where did you find them?
@DreamcrosserSquad
As I said before, you can't angsizing and find a timeframe because the things I said before to RKGenki and you.
Regarding your calcs; there no evidence that Neptune was moving at those speeds, she didn't enter the atmosphere for the 11000 m/seg, and there is no reason to Neptune to move like an asteroid that is moving in the vacuum of the space at 25000 m/seg because that is orbital speed of some of them , AKA the averange speed.
The thing is that you are doing the wrong assumptions, but you are applying the equations on a good way, so keep the good work!
@RKGenki
My bad, I didn't explain myself in a correct way.
I already had an idea that you saw the calc when you said that you know that Neptune's falls from RB3 was only 9-B. We were speaking about the distance, so I was refering to the acceleration of the gravity because it will make Neptune go faster the more time that it pass, so the distance that you were speaking in the reply #407 it will be lower than you think because she don't have a constant velocity.
Also, there is a way to reach the KE equation while using the acceleration if you don't want go with the derivatio, so the acceleration is kinda and implicitly relevant.
I still don't see the air resistance, I don't think that she needs air resistance for this feat. And I not completely sure about the terminal velocity, if you reach the needed compression within the air at 53 m/seg from a big fall then you will be on fire anyway.
See what I told you?: Do the correct assumptions for different calcs > Do the calcs itself.
>pictures
Noice, where did you find them?
- 724
- 50
Huh, so it's pretty consistent in 9-A then. Aight.
- 8,304
- 1,724
- Thread starter
- #426
>2000-4000 m/s.
The calculations page says: "If the meteor in question was shown to be Ablated, but didn't come from space, we will use Ablation speeds, which are the minimum speed an object needs to move in order for it to be ablated by its own friction with the atmosphere, the values range from 2000-4000 m/s."
From wikipedia: "'If that object withstands ablation from its passage through the atmosphere as a meteor and impacts with the ground, it is then called a meteorite." and "Ablation is removal of material from the surface of an object by vaporization, chipping, or other erosive processes. Examples of ablative materials are described below, and include spacecraft material for ascent and atmospheric reentry, ice and snow in glaciology, biological tissues in medicine and passive fire protection materials."
Did Neptune even touch the atmosphere? Or fulfill the second criteria?
Also, there is something about ablation speeds that I want to investigate. Look what happened in this calc.
- 8,304
- 1,724
- Thread starter
- #429
Maybe, maybe not.
The friction with the air and the compression of it at thousands m/seg are some of the things the on fire if them doesn't come from the space and if doesn't hit the atmosphere.
But I want to be 100% sure, since I'm doubtful:
With a speed of 2000 m/seg you just need seconds to reach the ground unless the planet is bigger than ours and there is not official statement backing it up, but Neptune start to fall at some point when the sun was visible then to finish at night.
The friction with the air and the compression of it at thousands m/seg are some of the things the on fire if them doesn't come from the space and if doesn't hit the atmosphere.
But I want to be 100% sure, since I'm doubtful:
With a speed of 2000 m/seg you just need seconds to reach the ground unless the planet is bigger than ours and there is not official statement backing it up, but Neptune start to fall at some point when the sun was visible then to finish at night.
- 8,304
- 1,724
- Thread starter
- #430
Ok, I literally wrote a fat ass long explication regarding the problems of this calc, I even found Neptune's real terminal velocity for 4 different cases.
But then, I see the clouds. Yeah, not light but clouds.
We can see in the video that Celestia is surronded by clouds.
Now, the highest clouds that can exist are the noctilucent cloud, that are at altitudes of around 76 to 85 km. And they are located in the mesosphere, where the meterors, AKA shooting stars or falling stars, typically occur in it at altitudes from 76 to 100 km, due to the friction with the air and the compression of the same at thousands m/seg.
So, this is giving to us some back up for the 2000 m/seg to 4000 m/seg.
And yeah, I know that some of the assumptions here are still faulty, like the time that this feat lasted or the look of the noctilucent clouds and so on, but with this we have some back up now for Celestia's height and Neptune becoming a shooting star. Is not like any of you want to read how I found Neptune's real terminal velocity, how I was messing with 3 differents free fall with air calculator and my real, tangible calculator to give some sence to this feat while not assuming something crazy or how I was becoming something similar to Medaka because I study something related to physics and I was thinking to much the things, AKA: thinking to much that I go back to stupidity. Tee hee~
I will still ask about this, and about S-Sha meteor, because of the things that RavenSupreme said in this calc.
And with the new Neptune's terminal velocity, the result of the fall that happened in RB3 will be a little higher, still a 9-B result though.
But then, I see the clouds. Yeah, not light but clouds.
We can see in the video that Celestia is surronded by clouds.
Now, the highest clouds that can exist are the noctilucent cloud, that are at altitudes of around 76 to 85 km. And they are located in the mesosphere, where the meterors, AKA shooting stars or falling stars, typically occur in it at altitudes from 76 to 100 km, due to the friction with the air and the compression of the same at thousands m/seg.
So, this is giving to us some back up for the 2000 m/seg to 4000 m/seg.
And yeah, I know that some of the assumptions here are still faulty, like the time that this feat lasted or the look of the noctilucent clouds and so on, but with this we have some back up now for Celestia's height and Neptune becoming a shooting star. Is not like any of you want to read how I found Neptune's real terminal velocity, how I was messing with 3 differents free fall with air calculator and my real, tangible calculator to give some sence to this feat while not assuming something crazy or how I was becoming something similar to Medaka because I study something related to physics and I was thinking to much the things, AKA: thinking to much that I go back to stupidity. Tee hee~
I will still ask about this, and about S-Sha meteor, because of the things that RavenSupreme said in this calc.
And with the new Neptune's terminal velocity, the result of the fall that happened in RB3 will be a little higher, still a 9-B result though.
- 8,304
- 1,724
- Thread starter
- #433
Cumulus clouds are low-level clouds, generally less than 2,000 m (6,600 ft) in altitude unless they are the more vertical cumulus congestus form.
- 7,017
- 1,076
He's going to calc the KE of the sword / the hole in the ground due to the size of the sword itself probably giving results higher that the KE of the cloud
"Yes but the part of the cloud that we see dispersed is only a bit bigger than the sword itself. The sword is relatively big, but cloud feats are worth calcing only on a huge scale. Like, the KE of the sword itself is probably higher, but idk how to get that. I could do it, but I need a scan where an enemy can be used as "measuring stick" for the size of the sword"
Then I gave him something to scale from
"Alright. I should be able to calc it tomorrow if i'm not struck by laziness Looking at it i'm probably better off calcing the sword piercing the terrain."
"Yes but the part of the cloud that we see dispersed is only a bit bigger than the sword itself. The sword is relatively big, but cloud feats are worth calcing only on a huge scale. Like, the KE of the sword itself is probably higher, but idk how to get that. I could do it, but I need a scan where an enemy can be used as "measuring stick" for the size of the sword"
Then I gave him something to scale from
"Alright. I should be able to calc it tomorrow if i'm not struck by laziness Looking at it i'm probably better off calcing the sword piercing the terrain."
- 8,304
- 1,724
- Thread starter
- #435
- 7,017
- 1,076
- 8,304
- 1,724
- Thread starter
- #437
You know what will happen if the result is 9-B/9-A?
- 7,017
- 1,076
What?
Anyway do you know how to calc ice formation feats? There's This one by Rom that doesn't seem bad. She can do the same in base form too
Edit: once I get a scan for the size of the squeed I'll ask Kep
Anyway do you know how to calc ice formation feats? There's This one by Rom that doesn't seem bad. She can do the same in base form too
Edit: once I get a scan for the size of the squeed I'll ask Kep
- 8,304
- 1,724
- Thread starter
- #439
Nothing in particular, I just wanted to jinx it. Don't worry, when I do it the universe always say --> "lul nope, better luck next try... And even better the one after that, and so on."
Kinda, I just need to look the thing carefully and look similar feats. Yeah, this one should be above 9-A.maybe, jinxed it agai
If you want to ask him, since I have some coming exams and you need some confidents boost.So you don't trust in me, why I'm not surprise?
What think Kaltias about the thing I said in the reply #431?
Kinda, I just need to look the thing carefully and look similar feats. Yeah, this one should be above 9-A.
If you want to ask him, since I have some coming exams and you need some confidents boost.
What think Kaltias about the thing I said in the reply #431?
Similar threads
- Locked