[Invincible] The Infamous Sun Disk

[GodlyCharmander]

It's a lowball, it's only calculating the radiation. I doubt the thermal energy will make a big difference.

I'll calc it still. Using the Boltzmann constant.

For an ideal monatomic plasma (fully ionized hydrogen, reasonable for a hot fireball), the thermal energy density is

u(thermal) = 3n×k_B×T

Where:

n = number density of particles (m^-3)
k_B = 1.38 × 10^-23 J/K
T = temperature in Kelvin

T = 4000

For n we can use the solar corona as a generic space blast, which has a density of 10^15n/m3

u = 3×10^15×(1.38×10^-23)×4000 = 0.0001656 J/m3

This is far too low to even consider.

 

[FusionPrime0]

Me when I make claims that cannot be substantiated.

No. If the missiles were responsible for the bigger explosion, they would just cause it directly. It's a byproduct of the Disk itself exploding. It's also ludicrous not to expect something so massive not to have a ridiculous amount of energy stored in it.

There is nothing to substantiate it having BROWN DWARF destroying levels of energy, especially for a structure that's only purpose is to stay in orbit.

You're right tbh. Also the accepted version should be nuked from the verse page

It shouldn't even be on there

But anyway, what's left now that we have seemingly dismissed the sun disk explosion itself? Just calcing the missile explosions themselves? Does that even need a calc group discussion thread at that point? Is there much reason to keep this open now that its main subject is seemingly going to be dismissed?

None of the mods have looked at the thread since the start of the thread. Just because a few people agree that's a chain reaction doesn't mean it's necessarily going to be accepted as such. There are no inverse reasons for it to be a chain reaction, and saying it's a visual flair trick to save time is not unreasonable considering the show is notorious for it's subpar and png dragging animation.

The general consistency the calc may have is not an argument. And to be honest, I like the other calc’s pixelscaling more.

I think the main argument to use Saqphire's version is the light speed detail. On FusionPrime's version, the light would take 8 minutes to reach the planet, on Saqphire, it would take 10 seconds, and I think that's mainly it, unless there is something else I'm missing

Because using realistic formulas to assign some value is one thing, expecting realism and restricting the feat is different. You'll almost never get some celestial body feat with characters only acknowledging it after photons travel to the planet at SOL.

If the series respect the universal speed limit of c however, that'd make more sense. But we literally see explosion and scattered light being FTL (most likely, I didn't calc it) and in the very next scene we see that light already reached the planet. They're shown to see the change immediately. So I don't really get use of 10 seconds, it's much shorter with cinematic timeframe, size and distance should be much less with your method (which would at least fix FTL parts).

Since you all commented here, all of your input would be appreciated.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

There is nothing to substantiate it having BROWN DWARF destroying levels of energy, especially for a structure that's only purpose is to stay in orbit.

And the missiles that are completely incompatible with the narrative do?

Absolutely not. We see it exploding as a chain reaction, we don't need to substantiate that. We don't need a in universe reason.
Also, the Disk has that much energy JUST BY EXISTING AS A MATERIAL, I don't think you realized that. The calc used already claims that either way

 

[Qurbonboev]

Also, the Disk has that much energy JUST BY EXISTING AS A MATERIAL

Disk has Brown Dwarf level of energy as GBE. It obviously wouldn't convert into any kind of explosion energy, so it's irrelevant here.

There is nothing to substantiate it having BROWN DWARF destroying levels of energy, especially for a structure that's only purpose is to stay in orbit.

Maintaining the position that subsequent explosions were just visual flairs

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Disk has Brown Dwarf level of energy as GBE. It obviously wouldn't convert into any kind of explosion energy, so it's irrelevant here.

The point is, to sustain that much energy to even exist is already a stretch.

Again, I have no obligation to fulfill any sort of explanation as to why the Disk has that much energy. That is simply not a requirement to sustain my argument as anything in fiction can be explained by the rule of cool.

The disk main explosion was not directly caused by the missiles' sheer power, it is a chain effect from two localized explosions that are much smaller and scale and wouldn't exceed the GBE (Plus they don't seem to destroy any material)

Maintaining the position that subsequent explosions were just visual flairs

You can't just swipe the contradiction with a headcanon, Qur. Especially when it comes to a feat that would be a massive outlier, and is not present in any other CoP tech for the following 500 years.

 

[Qurbonboev]

The point is, to sustain that much energy to even exist is already a stretch.

What?!?!
"Sustain that much energy"?!?!
Bro, it's just giant piece of materials. Any giant objects like this would be in pocession of giant amount of gravitational binding energy. This is just how gravity works.
What exactly is a scratch here?

Especially when it comes to a feat that would be a massive outlier, and is not present in any other CoP tech for the following 500 years.

I don't care about whether it's outlier or no. This is CGM thread not CRT. Bring up only issues related to calc itself

 

[GodlyCharmander]

What?!?!
"Sustain that much energy"?!?!
Bro, it's just giant piece of materials. Any giant objects like this would be in pocession of giant amount of gravitational binding energy. This is just how gravity works.
What exactly is a scratch here?

I'll try to explain to you in a better way.

The fact such object is able to be constructed already requires us to suspend disbelief. Thus saying it has thay much energy to blow up is not a far fetched thing at all.

I don't care about whether it's outlier or no. This is CGM thread not CRT. Bring up only issues related to calc itself

I already did. The calc attributes the explosion that shatters the disk to the missiles, when that association is incorrect.

All the calc does is calculate a GBE that can't be used by anything or anyone.

 

[Qurbonboev]

I already did. The calc attributes the explosion that shatters the disk to the missiles, when that association is incorrect.

At least thus objection does makes sense and have place in here, unlike outlier arguments

The fact such object is able to be constructed already requires us to suspend disbelief

?!? What beliefs are you actually suspending?

 

[FusionPrime0]

And the missiles that are completely incompatible with the narrative do?

Absolutely not. We see it exploding as a chain reaction, we don't need to substantiate that. We don't need a in universe reason.
Also, the Disk has that much energy JUST BY EXISTING AS A MATERIAL, I don't think you realized that. The calc used already claims that either way

Yea, the Earth has planet level energy by just existing as a material, gravitational binding energy, as in the energy that holds it together and is the minimum amount of energy required to destroy it. That doesn't mean a 1 Teraton explosion is gonna annihilate Earth, that's just nonsensical.

The point is, to sustain that much energy to even exist is already a stretch.

Again, I have no obligation to fulfill any sort of explanation as to why the Disk has that much energy. That is simply not a requirement to sustain my argument as anything in fiction can be explained by the rule of cool.

Ah yes the "rule of cool", wouldn't it be cooler that the missiles were just that powerful? rather than a disk which has no indications or reasons in or out of universe to contain that level of energy to suddenly get nuked from comparatively fodder missiles, that you would have no idea was the case unless you went frame by frame and saw the two missile explosions before the entire thing explodes from the center?

Also if the missiles are only in the Multi-Continental range, or 7 Petatons as you claimed, then a single solar flare or cme, let alone a super flare hitting the disk would completely annihilate it considering how close the disk is to the star.

The disk main explosion was not directly caused by the missiles' sheer power, it is a chain effect from two localized explosions that are much smaller and scale and wouldn't exceed the GBE (Plus they don't seem to destroy any material)

Don't seem to destroy any material, yet they somehow caused the entire disk to blow up. That is completely impossible but could easily be explained away by saving on animation and visual flair. Which is exactly what some of us have been saying...

You can't just swipe the contradiction with a headcanon, Qur. Especially when it comes to a feat that would be a massive outlier, and is not present in any other CoP tech for the following 500 years.

The point of the thread is the feat and calculations for it, the consistency will be handled in another thread.

I'll try to explain to you in a better way.

The fact such object is able to be constructed already requires us to suspend disbelief. Thus saying it has thay much energy to blow up is not a far fetched thing at all.

There are levels to this. We know the universe has very advanced technology, well into the sci-fi realm, even when just looking at Earth and not one of the most advanced civilizations in the galaxy. A massive disk just sitting there in orbit is not unreasonable for the world that has been established. Saying it somehow has High 5-A levels of stored energy or a reactor with an output putting stars to shame is ludicrously beyond that and requires WAY more suspension of disbelief when all you're going off of is two explosions making the structure they're destroying go boom from the center in a few frames most people would miss and has a far simpler explanation, that being visual flair and saving on animation that this serious is notorious for...

 

[GodlyCharmander]

the Earth has planet level energy by just existing as a material

That's a planet. The Sun Disk is a manmade construct. The fact it's not being pulled or is not pulling anything inwards is already proof it's not realistic.

Earth does not have mechanical compontents. Also, yes, a blast strong enough on the core can start a chain reaction.

wouldn't it be cooler that the missiles were just that powerful?

That's subjective, and the missiles weren't that powerful. There is no in-universe reason for the missiles to be that powerful WHILE not being a threat to Viltrumites.

Don't seem to destroy any material

The fact it didn't destroy any materials doesn't contradict the fact it caused a chain reaction. If the Disk had any sort of core, or anything, just the violent addition of energy could do that.

The point of the thread is the feat and calculations for it

You successfully calculated the GBE of the object, there is a lot of problems in terms of logic considering gravity, and it's far too inconsistent for us to accept the GBE in the first place.

Yes, if the results of the calculation don't make sense, then the calculation itself is discarded. Using the GBE here is non-sense, because it implies the sun disk is pulling the star, which it isn't.

We know the universe has very advanced technology

So the Disk having a core or holding enough energy to explode is not far fetched.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

There are levels to this. We know the universe has very advanced technology, well into the sci-fi realm, even when just looking at Earth and not one of the most advanced civilizations in the galaxy. A massive disk just sitting there in orbit is not unreasonable for the world that has been established. Saying it somehow has High 5-A levels of stored energy or a reactor with an output putting stars to shame is ludicrously beyond that and requires WAY more suspension of disbelief when all you're going off of is two explosions making the structure they're destroying go boom from the center in a few frames most people would miss and has a far simpler explanation, that being visual flair and saving on animation that this serious is notorious for...

You're making an extra assumption, and yet you claim it's the most simple explanation.

The GBE doesn't make sense, the central explosion far outscales the missiles even though it was completely changed from the comics, yet you're claiming they went ahead and animated an extra explosion for ***** and giggles when we know well this animation team is on a time crunch. No, it was a deliberate decision.

There is no assumption in saying the Disk had something that made it blow up via a chain reaction, because that's literally what we see happening in front of our eyes.

 

[Tahoy49574]

bump

also removed calcs added to the verse page without a CRT, why are people like this

 

[FusionPrime0]

That's a planet. The Sun Disk is a manmade construct. The fact it's not being pulled or is not pulling anything inwards is already proof it's not realistic.

The principle of gravitational binding energy remains the same between the two. There's nothing for it to pull towards that we see in panel so moot point.

Earth does not have mechanical compontents. Also, yes, a blast strong enough on the core can start a chain reaction.

No, there is no chain reaction that blows up the planet with anything to do with Earth's core. The Earth doesn't have 60 Zettatons of Energy just sitting around in the core waiting for a spark to make it go boom, planet's aren't bombs. Mechanical components also don't mean anything on their own.

That's subjective, and the missiles weren't that powerful.

Your interpretation is also subjective that's the point I was trying to make.

There is no in-universe reason for the missiles to be that powerful WHILE not being a threat to Viltrumites.

Beyond the scope of this CRT Viltrumites scaling above them

The fact it didn't destroy any materials doesn't contradict the fact it caused a chain reaction. If the Disk had any sort of core, or anything, just the violent addition of energy could do that.

Yes it does, if none of the disk was damaged at all then there is no "chain reaction", if the energy can't even damage the outside of the disk, it sure as hell isn't setting a reactor off. Also actual nuclear and fusion reactors irl don't just blow up if something explodes next to them, and there are many many protocols to make sure the process stops if anything goes wrong. And again there is no reason for a disk to have a "core" with a reactor or stored energy at High 5-A levels of energy.

You successfully calculated the GBE of the object, there is a lot of problems in terms of logic considering gravity, and it's far too inconsistent for us to accept the GBE in the first place.

Yes, if the results of the calculation don't make sense, then the calculation itself is discarded. Using the GBE here is non-sense, because it implies the sun disk is pulling the star, which it isn't.

I don't think you understand what GBE is. Gravitational binding energy has nothing to do with the gravitational force of the disk or the star pulling on each other. It is the internal gravitational energy holding the disk together. Also literally everything in the universe with mass applies a force of gravity on each other so the disk is literally pulling the star yes.

So the Disk having a core or holding enough energy to explode is not far fetched.

It is when the disk is generating more energy than a baseline Kardashev Type 3 Civilization or stores the same amount of energy every star in the galaxy releases for a minute for absolutely no reason.

You're making an extra assumption, and yet you claim it's the most simple explanation.

What extra assumption am I making? That the show consistently uses limited animation? That they used limited animation in this scene? The animation was not impressive and was mostly just expanding bright lights. Is saying they animated those like 3 frames the way they did due to limitations not a simpler explanation than asserting there's a massive reactor/energy storage that has no in or out of universe reason to be apart of a solar disk

The GBE doesn't make sense, the central explosion far outscales the missiles even though it was completely changed from the comics, yet you're claiming they went ahead and animated an extra explosion for ***** and giggles when we know well this animation team is on a time crunch. No, it was a deliberate decision.

Yes it's a deliberate decision to save on animation. It's easier to animate a singular thing exploding rather than two explosions both interacting with each other and blowing the disk apart. This would be the exact thing they would do on a time crunch.

There is no assumption in saying the Disk had something that made it blow up via a chain reaction, because that's literally what we see happening in front of our eyes.

Yes there is, we don't see anything inside the disk, we don't have any statements of it having some crazy energy storage, the only thing that supports your argument is a few frames of the disk having an explosion in the center. Also, big thing here, the captain of the venture would have zero idea there would be any High 5-A reactor/energy storage inside the disk considering he knows nothing about it, Nolan literally told everyone the basics about the disk after they arrived so he wouldn't be informed beyond that. He could clearly see the size of the disk in comparison to the star and he had full confidence that the missiles would annihilate it.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

There's nothing for it to pull towards that we see in panel so moot point

The literal star VERY CLOSE TO IT.

if none of the disk was damaged at all then there is no "chain reaction",

That is literally incorrect, energy phases through material without shattering it and can still damage the inside, the fact the missiles didn't destroy any material makes it questionable that you're attributing the larger explosion to the missiles themselves.

No, there is no chain reaction that blows up the planet with anything to do with Earth's core. The Earth doesn't have 60 Zettatons of Energy just sitting around in the core waiting for a spark to make it go boom, planet's aren't bombs. Mechanical components also don't mean anything on their own.

The thermal energy alone is already at 10-20% of the Earth's GBE, that's just in the core. The gravity that holds the planet together is also energy. You could absolutely cause a chain reaction by releasing the thermal energy which would essentially destroy the planet.

Your interpretation is also subjective that's the point I was trying to make

Mine is supported by visuals, yours is supported by vibes.

I don't think you understand what GBE is. Gravitational binding energy has nothing to do with the gravitational force of the disk or the star pulling on each other. It is the internal gravitational energy holding the disk together. Also literally everything in the universe with mass applies a force of gravity on each other so the disk is literally pulling the star yes.

I admit my mistake.

What I meant to say is, the mass and overall proportions and distance the Disk is from the star doesn't make sense, thus, the GBE calculated using these statistics don't make sense as well. A Disk that massive, that close to the star, would inevitably be pulled in by it, and vice versa. Which is why the GBE isn't valid, because the stats used to calculate it aren't valid.

The Disk doesn't appear to move while on screen. It is a literal metal disk in front of the star, placed to block the star's light from reaching a planet, which implies the angular momentum of the Disk is equal to the planet's year-round trip around it.

I will calculate it's gravitational pull, and show how it doesn't make sense for it to be so close, or so massive.

Given:

• Distance r ≈ 1.35 × 10^9 m
• Disk mass M_d ≈ 2.94 × 10^28 kg
• Star radius ≈ 5.94 × 10^8 m
• Star mass M_s ≈ 2 × 10^30 kg
• r_com = r × (M_d / (M_s + M_d))≈ 1.35e9 × (2.94e28 / 2.03e30)≈ 1.35e9 × 0.0145≈ 1.96 × 10^7 m
• That is ~19,600 km from the star’s center.
• The star’s radius is ~5.94 × 10^8 m.

Orbital speed required to not fall in:
v = sqrt(G M_s / r)


v ≈ sqrt(6.67e-11 × 2e30 / 1.35e9)
≈ sqrt(9.88e10)
≈ 3.14 × 10^5 m/s

So the disk needs ~314 km/s sideways speed to stay in orbit. That would make for a 7.5 hour orbit. This doesn't make any sense, the Disk is supposed to follow the planet's orbit so it constantly blocks it, it needs to orbit the star in a year, but it couldn't at that distance. So either the distance is incorrect, or the mass is incorrect. The disk has ~15 Jupiter masses, it would also collapse under its own weight.

At that proximity, it would suffer strong tidal forces from the star. It should absolutely fall in.

The reason why using the star's apparent radius on the screen might've led to the deflated distance is because of this effect:


The sun should be way smaller than it appears.

 

[Tahoy49574]

Mine is supported by visuals, yours is supported by vibes.

I mean, this is ultimately reduction to absurdity

Like, none of the weaponry used throughtout the Viltrumite War have anywhere near that AoE but regardless they are for a fact magnitudes above the Venture. AP =/= DC and all that.

 

[Ultimate-Rex1]

Bump

 

[Tahoy49574]

bump

 

[AguilaR202]

Im sorry but where are people getting the depth of the larger disc from? None of the scans show the thickness of it, and you can block out light rays the sun with opaque materials not even mms thick, even less if the material is reflective.

Edit I see it now, but the calc uses average thickness for the whole thing when different sections of it are clearly thicker than it, all in all I find it to be very inflated just from this, furthermore it should be 90% hollow ( minus the disc panels) because it’s a built structure, no reason for it to be a solid all the way through.

 

[FusionPrime0]

The literal star VERY CLOSE TO IT.

it's in orbit and we only have a few shots of it so obviously we're not gonna see them moving relative to each other all that much

That is literally incorrect, energy phases through material without shattering it and can still damage the inside

using a material that durable to protect the insides but somehow a big explosion can damage inside components without damaging the material. I don't see how that makes sense

the fact the missiles didn't destroy any material makes it questionable that you're attributing the larger explosion to the missiles themselves.

it's another victim of the limited animation

The thermal energy alone is already at 10-20% of the Earth's GBE, that's just in the core. The gravity that holds the planet together is also energy. You could absolutely cause a chain reaction by releasing the thermal energy which would essentially destroy the planet.

neither of those are something that you can "release". Physical damage doesn't suddenly change thermal energy to mechanical energy like that and the gravity holding it together is what is actively making it hard to destroy the planet.

Mine is supported by visuals, yours is supported by vibes.

you explained a bunch of added ramifications of your interpretation away by the "rule of cool"

What I meant to say is, the mass and overall proportions and distance the Disk is from the star doesn't make sense, thus, the GBE calculated using these statistics don't make sense as well. A Disk that massive, that close to the star, would inevitably be pulled in by it, and vice versa. Which is why the GBE isn't valid, because the stats used to calculate it aren't valid.

okay, that's a completely different argument

The Disk doesn't appear to move while on screen. It is a literal metal disk in front of the star, placed to block the star's light from reaching a planet, which implies the angular momentum of the Disk is equal to the planet's year-round trip around it.

I will calculate it's gravitational pull, and show how it doesn't make sense for it to be so close, or so massive.

Given:

• Distance r ≈ 1.35 × 10^9 m
• Disk mass M_d ≈ 2.94 × 10^28 kg
• Star radius ≈ 5.94 × 10^8 m
• Star mass M_s ≈ 2 × 10^30 kg
• r_com = r × (M_d / (M_s + M_d))≈ 1.35e9 × (2.94e28 / 2.03e30)≈ 1.35e9 × 0.0145≈ 1.96 × 10^7 m
• That is ~19,600 km from the star’s center.
• The star’s radius is ~5.94 × 10^8 m.

Orbital speed required to not fall in:
v = sqrt(G M_s / r)


v ≈ sqrt(6.67e-11 × 2e30 / 1.35e9)
≈ sqrt(9.88e10)
≈ 3.14 × 10^5 m/s

So the disk needs ~314 km/s sideways speed to stay in orbit. That would make for a 7.5 hour orbit. This doesn't make any sense, the Disk is supposed to follow the planet's orbit so it constantly blocks it, it needs to orbit the star in a year, but it couldn't at that distance. So either the distance is incorrect, or the mass is incorrect. The disk has ~15 Jupiter masses, it would also collapse under its own weight.

At that proximity, it would suffer strong tidal forces from the star. It should absolutely fall in.

This kinda becomes a debate on whether we should use what we see on screen or what makes more sense with irl physics. Recalculate the feat using the L1 Lagrange point or something if you want. Maybe KE would actually be usable if the disk size gets way smaller.

The reason why using the star's apparent radius on the screen might've led to the deflated distance is because of this effect:


The sun should be way smaller than it appears.

That's a good point, I agree with that.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

it's in orbit

It CAN'T be in orbit at that distance and not circle the star in MINUTES

THAT'S NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE

Also it also CAN'T orbit the star in MINUTES because it has to follow the orbit of the planet. Be so fr.

I'm not even engaging with the rest, what the original calc is proposing is impossible, and assumes the disk is solid, which as an engineering choice is absolutely nonsensical.

 

[FusionPrime0]

It CAN'T be in orbit at that distance and not circle the star in MINUTES

THAT'S NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE

Also it also CAN'T orbit the star in MINUTES because it has to follow the orbit of the planet. Be so fr.

Narratively it's meant to be in orbit, the entire disk is probably physically impossible irl

I'm not even engaging with the rest, what the original calc is proposing is impossible, and assumes the disk is solid, which as an engineering choice is absolutely nonsensical.

I agree it shouldn't be solid, I don't think either of the current calcs work now. And atp I don't think we're gonna get anywhere by discussing whether or not the disk exploding from the center is limited animation/visual flair or not. We need a recalc and calc mods to respond to get anywhere atp

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Narratively it's meant to be in orbit

So using the visuals of a "limited animation" to calculate its size and mass is already a bit unproductive. Also the sun thing, the apparent size of a star is never meant to be used like that.

We need a recalc and calc mods to respond to get anywhere atp

Fair enough. Yes, assuming the Disk is 90% hollow is already a start.

 

[Tahoy49574]

The general consistency the calc may have is not an argument. And to be honest, I like the other calc’s pixelscaling more.

I think the main argument to use Saqphire's version is the light speed detail. On FusionPrime's version, the light would take 8 minutes to reach the planet, on Saqphire, it would take 10 seconds, and I think that's mainly it, unless there is something else I'm missing

Scans

With the reasoning above;

0.633 / 0.106 = 5.97

2.767 / 0.08 = 34.59

Visually it should look like this

So x roughly equals 6.75855y, which means in the second scan Star is 6.75855 times further than disk so their actual size ratio will be (disk size in pixels/6.75855) / Star size in pixels.

Which equals to 0.646773

Alternatively you can do the same for first scan but with (33.59 + 6.75855) / (33.59 + 1) = 1.16648 instead of 6.75855, which also gives roughly 0.647 for disk size/star size.

@FuriousFieryFist We don’t know if those missiles are stronger than a viltrumite, and even then the Solar Disk is predominantly a supporting feat to the main one every Viltrumite would scale to, which is Nolan moving an entire planet.

We're at a stalemate right now, any ideas ?

 

[FuriousFieryFist]

We're at a stalemate right now, any ideas ?

It actually seems like were in agreement though? Everyone seems to agree that the existing calculations, both of them, are flawed. It's clear a new calculation is needed that takes into account everything that has been discussed so far, including both interpretations of the missiles power. The only thing that really still needs to be discussed is the proper way to scale the disks size.

 

[Saqphire]

Can yall summarise everything that is needed to be done for the recalc ?

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Can yall summarise everything that is needed to be done for the recalc ?

We need a new method to use the sun's real size as per this video, via this, calculate a new disk size, and finally, assume hollowness to the overall disk, as a full solid Disk is just unnecessary for its purposes