Is tanking a Supernova really tanking a Supernova?

[Serlock_Holmes]

So during a match regarding Magic School Bus I saw it's profile. There it's stated that it tanked a point blank supernova and thus has large star level durability. In the scene, while the ship does look close it's still not next to it and thus via inverse square law shouldn't the result from this be much less? In case there are problems with this a crt should be made to address this.

Here is the whole video to really make it clear how far the magic bus is.

 

[Padaruyos]

So during a match regarding Magic School Bus I saw it's profile. There it's stated that it tanked a point blank supernova and thus has large star level durability. In the scene, while the ship does look close it's still not next to it and thus via inverse square law shouldn't the result from this be much less? In case there are problems with this a crt should be made to address this.

Here is the whole video to really make it clear how far the magic bus is.

I'm pretty sure it's just impossible to fully scale to an explosion's yield if the exploding thing is way bigger than the thing withstanding the explosion. You only fully scale if your body fully covers the exploding thing (like a cartoon character eating a stick of dynamite for example) and you just can't do that if the exploding thing is way bigger than you.

The star is way, way, WAY, bigger than the bus, so it will downscale massively from the Supernova's yield.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

I'm pretty sure it's just impossible to fully scale to an explosion's yield if the exploding thing is way bigger than the thing withstanding the explosion. You only fully scale if your body fully covers the exploding thing, and you just can't do that if the exploding thing is way bigger than you.

The star is way, way, WAY, bigger than the bus, so it will downscale massively from the Supernova's yield.

And due to distance, because in a shot even further from the bus you can still see the whole star, the yield would be astronomically lower. I would like a cgm's opinion here though. @KLOL506 would you like to help if you see this?

 

[KLOL506]

You need to be really, really close to the source of an explosion (Or at the epicenter) to have any chance of scaling to its full yield, regardless of its size, but in cases of explosions from say... big stuff like this, its true epicenter would be at the core. So the gif is nowhere near point-blank, not even close. Point-blank would be 1 meter away from the dead center of the star.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

You need to be really, really close to the source of an explosion (Or at the epicenter) to have any chance of scaling to its full yield, regardless of its size, but in cases of explosions from say... big stuff like this, its true epicenter would be at the core. So the gif is nowhere near point-blank, not even close. Point-blank would be 1 meter away from the dead center of the star.

So this should be downgraded? Any idea of the total explosion actually taken by the bus? Also sorry for tagging you, but you reply to these sort of threads so figured I should take your opinion. Should a crt be made?

 

[Padaruyos]

Well looking at the gif in the AP section it seems the bus is creating the star by physically compressing the dust using its mechanical hands. In that case the bus's durability can just scale to its AP due to Newton's law and all that.

Now does compressing the star dust give 4-C AP tho?

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Well looking at the gif in the AP section it seems the bus is creating the star by physically compressing the dust using its mechanical hands. In that case the bus's durability can just scale to its AP due to Newton's law and all that.

Now does compressing the star dust directly scale to ap tho?

The start of the feat is here. This would require a serious calculation because as it is the star created is really really small. Like the spaceship can be seen in a large part of the curvature and it isn't really that big. No idea for the force needed to compress it though.

 

[KLOL506]

You'd need to look at something like the initial neutrino burst or similar.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

You'd need to look at something like the initial neutrino burst or similar.

What is that?

 

[StrymULTRA]

Yeah, saw it too and it's very damn weird, I guess it's a leftover of the old days.

 

[KLOL506]

What is that?

Nothing much, other than the shockwave where 99% of the blast is expended.

But since the explosion is shown on a screen on the bus and not the windshield, it might be extremely difficult, if not outright impossible to determine the distance between the source of the shockwave andd the bus.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Yeah, saw it too and it's very damn weird, I guess it's a leftover of the old days.

It's evident. Like look at abilties. No reference for anything. Also remember looking at some Thundercats profiles and they are also really bad. No idea how many pages are so so bad.

Nothing much, other than the shockwave where 99% of the blast is expended.

But since the explosion is shown on screen, it might be extremely difficult, if not outright impossible to determine the distance between the source of the shockwave andd the bus.

So the feat should be thrown out? What is your view on the star creation feat?

 

[KLOL506]

The tanking feat should be cast out, yes.

 

[Metalballrun]

For the reason of same, of the debates of old, where Freeza scale not to the explosion of the planet of Namek.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, these seems like it would generally require inverse square law; and it's a different story if someone's own attack was what caused the supernova as their own attack would be the entire AP result.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Yeah, these seems like it would generally require inverse square law; and it's a different story if someone's own attack was what caused the supernova as their own attack would be the entire AP result.

In general the profile is pretty bad though. Like the ap feat probably requires a calc. Also the star looks both city block and normal star sized that was created.

 

[StrymULTRA]

In general the profile is pretty bad though. Like the ap feat probably requires a calc. Also the star looks both city block and normal star sized that was created.

You can ask for deletion if you think it's extremely poor and no one is willing to fix

 

[Padaruyos]

Yeah that profile might actually be nuke worthy

 

[Mr. Bambu]

You need to be really, really close to the source of an explosion (Or at the epicenter) to have any chance of scaling to its full yield, regardless of its size, but in cases of explosions from say... big stuff like this, its true epicenter would be at the core. So the gif is nowhere near point-blank, not even close. Point-blank would be 1 meter away from the dead center of the star.

Even a 1-meter distance can divide the value of the full blast by like 16x, using human surface area. Point blank means on the ******* blast. Ideally that shit will start inside you.

Our page on explosion yield calcs explains this fairly in-depth but I don't suppose that's a super well-known article.

 

[KLOL506]

Even a 1-meter distance can divide the value of the full blast by like 16x, using human surface area. Point blank means on the ******* blast. Ideally that shit will start inside you.

Was gonna say that. The actual distance for the human surface area would be less than a feet but at that point the formula breaks.

Not like either of them would be possible in this scenario. It's literally at the core of the star.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

About the compressing dust to a star feat. Isn't that higher than star level if it's a normal sized star?

Was gonna say that. The actual distance for the human surface area would be less than a feet but at that point the formula breaks.

Not like either of them would be possible in this scenario. It's literally at the core of the star.

 

[KLOL506]

About the compressing dust to a star feat. Isn't that higher than star level if it's a normal sized star?

Compressing stuff like that is a wee bit out of my expertise. Ask DT, Executor or Migue on that front.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Compressing stuff like that is a wee bit out of my expertise. Ask DT, Executor or Migue on that front.

Oh ok ok thanks. Can you maybe tag Executor here?

 

[KLOL506]

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Migue79 Any idea on how to calculate star-dust compression feats?

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Thanks a lot!

 

[Migue79]

Any idea on how to calculate star-dust compression feats?

Uh... Not atm, no. I can maybe research into it in my spare time.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Uh... Not atm, no. I can maybe research into it in my spare time.

Did you see the vid? Would you say the assumption the star is normal sized to be the most valid one? And if it is wouldn't it be significantly higher than just star level due to the compression involved?

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Bump

 

[Migue79]

Did you see the vid? Would you say the assumption the star is normal sized to be the most valid one?

The star that is compressed by the Magic Bus? Well, if you want to be conservative sure. I’d argue it would have to be bigger than a normal star though (aka larger than our Sun). We know supergiants when they go supernova eject 75% of their mass into outer space and 25% collapses to form either a neutron star or a black hole. And given it went supernova? The core alone would have to be from 1.4x to 5x the mass of the entire Sun bare minimum (also stated in the link). So… yeah. Sun-sized compressed star is, if anything, a bit of a conservative estimate IMO. Idk if we have enough info to calc its precise mass, so I guess one could just use one of the listed masses in the link to estimate.

And if it is wouldn't it be significantly higher than just star level due to the compression involved?

Yeah, it would be. Normally it takes millions of years for stars to be compressed from dust clouds via gravitational collapse, and here, the Magic Bus literally compresses it in mere seconds.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

The star that is compressed by the Magic Bus? Well, if you want to be conservative sure. I’d argue it would have to be bigger than a normal star though (aka larger than our Sun). We know supergiants when they go supernova eject 75% of their mass into outer space and 25% collapses to form either a neutron star or a black hole. And given it went supernova? The core alone would have to be from 1.4x to 5x the mass of the entire Sun bare minimum (also stated in the link). So… yeah. Sun-sized compressed star is, if anything, a bit of a conservative estimate IMO. Idk if we have enough info to calc its precise mass, so I guess one could just use one of the listed masses in the link to estimate.

I was originally thinking it would be much smaller because you can see the hands grabbing it and how they scale to the magic bus which is the size of a normal bus which would make the star the size of a city block, but yeah the star beings actual star sized makes sense.

Yeah, it would be. Normally it takes millions of years for stars to be compressed from dust clouds via gravitational collapse, and here, the Magic Bus literally compresses it in mere seconds.

Pretty casually to note. But we have nothing to calc the power needed huh?

 

[Migue79]

I was originally thinking it would be much smaller because you can see the hands grabbing it and how they scale to the magic bus which is the size of a normal bus which would make the star the size of a city block, but yeah the star beings actual star sized makes sense.

Well, the gloves were still growing in size when they were heading to the star, and we know the gloves can grow, so the glove portrayal can just be the gloves changing in size before and after the compression.

Pretty casually to note. But we have nothing to calc the power needed huh?

No concrete general method quite yet... At least that doesn't resort to making assumptions and that doesn't need complex variables.

I may have something in mind for this specific feat, though. From the top of my head, maybe find the GBE difference between the dust cloud before compression vs. after compression (when it's a star). To find the size of both, reverse calculate the volume of the star after compression using mass and density of a massive star (which you'll have to find), and then reverse calculate again to find the radius of the star (assuming a sphere volume ofc). Then use that to find the size of one of the fingers of the glove, and then use that to find the radius of the dust cloud before compression. And then using that to find the GBE of the dust cloud. And finally find the difference of both.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Well, the gloves were still growing in size when they were heading to the star, and we know the gloves can grow, so the glove portrayal can just be the gloves changing in size before and after the compression.

There's also this image to compare the sizes, but yeah average sized star would be good.

I may have something in mind for this specific feat, though. From the top of my head, maybe find the GBE difference between the dust cloud before compression vs. after compression (when it's a star). To find the size of both, reverse calculate the volume of the star after compression using mass and density of a massive star (which you'll have to find), and then reverse calculate again to find the radius of the star (assuming a sphere volume ofc). Then use that to find the size of one of the fingers of the glove, and then use that to find the radius of the dust cloud before compression. And then using that to find the GBE of the dust cloud. And finally find the difference of both.

Oh damn...no idea who supports the verse and if they can do calcs.