• 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.

[Invincible] The Infamous Sun Disk

Theglassman12 said:
Has anyone done any calcs for Nolan pushing that one planet close to the sun to evaporate all water on the surface? If the random guesstimate calc I had is in anyway accurate then it would make the calc for the Sun Disk consistent in the verse.
Click to expand...
I did, but Drite never accepted it but rather Fusions calc being Small Star level. The exchange as to why he rejected mine's is found here
 
Tahoy49574 said:
Here
Click to expand...
Thinking about it even more, the calc's relativistic speed goes against the statement where such speeds cause irreparable harm to planets. Not sure if water vapourisation counts as that tho since that irreparable harm wasn't because of the speed but rather it's proximity to the sun
 
Saqphire said:
Thinking about it even more, the calc's relativistic speed goes against the statement where such speeds cause irreparable harm to planets. Not sure if water vapourisation counts as that tho since that irreparable harm wasn't because of the speed but rather it's proximity to the sun
Click to expand...
People are really adamant on keeping Comic and TV separate though I'm of the opinion that for effectively the same feats it should be fine to use TV on Comic, like sun disk here, so a statement from supplemental material from before the comic even hit #40 has no bearing here. It's not a be-all end-all statement either way, it's talking about Allen's speed in space which in his first appearance is FTL+
 
Saqphire said:
I did, but Drite never accepted it but rather Fusions calc being Small Star level. The exchange as to why he rejected mine's is found here
Click to expand...
It was only accepted at Brown Dwarf level
Saqphire said:
Thinking about it even more, the calc's relativistic speed goes against the statement where such speeds cause irreparable harm to planets. Not sure if water vapourisation counts as that tho since that irreparable harm wasn't because of the speed but rather it's proximity to the sun
Click to expand...
The comic and TV Series are treated as separate continuities on here, also that statement is only in the 20 year old outdated guidebook not even written by Robert Kirkman, so if anything contradicts it in the actual story that statement should be thrown out.
 
Viott said:
Since the star is far away, its diameter should not be used as a reference. It would inflate the result.

I think the other calculation is better.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure it would deflate them, Idk I haven't looked at the calc, just this.
 
@Saqphire would you be willing to recalc with your method but using Sun size?

If so could you get full disk size in pixels in scene you have the Star at 605 pixels? I'm asking it so that we don't assume disk is at the exact POV level in that scene. If you provide it I can find the disk diameter.
 
Floxy178 said:
@Saqphire would you be willing to recalc with your method but using Sun size?

If so could you get full disk size in pixels in scene you have the Star at 605 pixels? I'm asking it so that we don't assume disk is at the exact POV level in that scene. If you provide it I can find the disk diameter.
Click to expand...
Do you want me to pixel scale the disk diametre or reverse ang size it the way I did ? Cuz the former makes the disk bigger than the star which isn't really the case due to the corona surrounding the disk
 
Saqphire said:
Cuz the former makes the disk bigger than the star which isn't really the case due to the corona surrounding the disk
Click to expand...
Btw I did a brief test and it came to be ~65% of Star diameter. Assuming disk at POV level like you did in 605 px panel doesn't change much (got ~63%), it's just I drew Star's diameter in 82 px panel a little longer so it became different from your 85%.
 
Floxy178 said:
Btw I did a brief test and it came to be ~65% of Star diameter. Assuming disk at POV level like you did in 605 px panel doesn't change much (got ~63%), it's just I drew Star's diameter in 82 px panel a little longer so it became different from your 85%.
Click to expand...
How exactly did you get the disk to be smaller than the star? Cuz in the panel you suggested, the star was fully shown but the disk wasn't to the point that even one of the panels was like 30% of it's percieved size, which was why I was against raw pixel scaling it here


700
 
Viott said:
I think the size he used is more reliable because he used the radius of the smallest G-type star.
Click to expand...
Also there's no basis to use the Sun's size other than it being a yellow star that warms up planets, which any G-type star in the Universe can do, which it is in this scenario and not Sol. But consensus wanna use the Sun cuz reasons
 
Saqphire said:
How exactly did you get the disk to be smaller than the star? Cuz in the panel you suggested, the star was fully shown but the disk wasn't to the point that even one of the panels was like 30% of it's percieved size, which was why I was against raw pixel scaling it here
Click to expand...
Because if you have one shot you need to know both sizes to find distance, or need one of their size and distance to find other size. But since we have 2 different shots even knowing size of one will be enough.

If Star goes from 100px to 500px then POV-Star distance and size/px value gets 5x lower between 2 panels. The same goes for the disk, then knowing size of one of them you can solve the rest. For example disk there is around 0.167 * Star diameter away from POV where it's partially visible. I'll try to make a blog tonight.
 
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.
 
Saqphire said:
Also there's no basis to use the Sun's size other than it being a yellow star that warms up planets, which any G-type star in the Universe can do, which it is in this scenario and not Sol. But consensus wanna use the Sun cuz reasons
Click to expand...
We don't lowball for the sake of lowball
Generally if we know that object A belongs to some Group X, we assume that it has average characteristics of objects in this Group.
Exhibit 1: We know nothing about Character A except him being adult male. We would use average adult male height in calcs involving him, not minimum possible healthy height for adult male.
Exhibit 2: We know nothing about material C, other than it being some kind of steel. We use average values of strength for steel, not minimum values possible for steel materials
Exhibit 3: Lightning range in speed considerably. We use average speed for it, not the minimum speed.
 
Qurbonboev said:
We don't lowball for the sake of lowball
Generally if we know that object A belongs to some Group X, we assume that it has average characteristics of objects in this Group.
Exhibit 1: We know nothing about Character A except him being adult male. We would use average adult male height in calcs involving him, not minimum possible healthy height for adult male.
Exhibit 2: We know nothing about material C, other than it being some kind of steel. We use average values of strength for steel, not minimum values possible for steel materials
Exhibit 3: Lightning range in speed considerably. We use average speed for it, not the minimum speed.
Click to expand...
All of these examples are examples that are based on our solar system, hell, just our planet, with numerous examples to go off of for an average here (I personally think the lightning average is wrong too but that's another discussion).

This is not the same thing, we know next to nothing about this solar system while we have plenty of info on males, steel, lightning etc cuz that info is easily accessible to us, so we shouldn't assume the variables in this solar system are the same as our own just because Sol happens to be the average.

In fact, the variables cannot be the same Rognarr's don't exist in our solar system's Goldilocks Zone and our Golidlocks Zone is light minutes away from the sun, not light seconds. Plus, the smallest G-Type can do what Sol does; there is legit no basis for using Sol other than "it's the average yellow star and we use averages!" which isn't actually a basis
 
Bruh imagine if the Sun disk feat was somehow 4B, Bardock fans would be convulsing right now.

But FR though why the hate?
 
What is the position of the two planets ruined by the Solar Disk relative to the planet they were at?

Depending on the answer, the Disk really shouldn't be comparable to the star whatsoever.
 
GodlyCharmander said:
What is the position of the two planets ruined by the Solar Disk relative to the planet they were at?

Depending on the answer, the Disk really shouldn't be comparable to the star whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Actually, the current favoured calc doesn't take that into account
 
GodlyCharmander said:
Oops! I only saw the lower end one-

I will check it out, see how they got the Disk's size.
Click to expand...
Wow, nevermind, quite the clever way to get the Sun Disk's size, it has basically no contradictions, and all the logic is consistent. The amount of assumptions made were reasonable enough.


I would include at least some corrections because the screenshot used has the disk at an angle, not facing directly the camera, it matters because it's a disk, and not a sphere like the star.
It's a minor adjustment, but we can use the cosine law to compensate for the angle, assuming a low angle of 15° since they are so close together.

I could try it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ARandomDude127
  • Locked
Sick Man vs Boy who can’t get sick; The Drifter vs Invincible (Hyper Light Drifter vs The Invincible TV Series) [7-2-0]
Replies
37
Views
5K
Soul80
Soul80
FuriousFieryFist
Invincible TV Series Changes + More Comic Changes
2
Replies
53
Views
7K
FuriousFieryFist
FuriousFieryFist
Tahoy49574
  • Locked
TV Invincible Season 3 CRT
2
Replies
68
Views
8K
Tahoy49574
Tahoy49574
Omni-Man (TV-Series) Update and Upscaling?
Replies
24
Views
3K
GodlyCharmander
GodlyCharmander
Tahoy49574
TV Invincible Speed CRT
2 3
Replies
83
Views
10K
InfinityUltron
InfinityUltron
Back
Top