-
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.
Mother Brain Downgrade
- Thread starter Jobbo
- Start date
- 14,195
- 2,574
Looking at the DBZ calc, it forgot that the original calc already factored the 10Gs.
- 1,418
- 311
- Thread starter
- #3
They actually didn't, the only thing they used the 10G for was to obtain the mass of an Earth sized planet with that gravity (which would also be 10x greater than our Earth's) and the DBZ calc addresses this:
"This is all good, but there's another important detail. Planet Vegeta is 10x the gravity of Earth. Yes, they did already factor the mass/density being 10x greater, but mass =/= weight. Meaning all the physical elements Vegeta's composed of is naturally 10x heavier regardless of gravity; meaning in terms of weight is 100x heavier in actuality. But that's off topic."
Basically the point is that they used the gravity value to obtain 10x greater mass, but didn't account for the gravity itself.
"This is all good, but there's another important detail. Planet Vegeta is 10x the gravity of Earth. Yes, they did already factor the mass/density being 10x greater, but mass =/= weight. Meaning all the physical elements Vegeta's composed of is naturally 10x heavier regardless of gravity; meaning in terms of weight is 100x heavier in actuality. But that's off topic."
Basically the point is that they used the gravity value to obtain 10x greater mass, but didn't account for the gravity itself.
- 31,372
- 34,119
I'm going to create a Calc Group Discussion regarding both calcs, but I just need to wait for an appropriate time to do so; perhaps in like 2 or three days from now. I'll just need to gather the important details and everything like that and what not.
Anyway, we can't quite downgrade the Zebes calc by 960^2, because we'd get result that be less the the GBE of Zebes. The GBE of Zebes is like 38 Ninatons or Large Planet level+ using the GBE calculator The original calc not counting the gravity multiplier was only 9.55 Ninatons, which is not enough energy to destroy Zebes. But using the multiplier by 960^2 was a proposal by Lina Shields; who credited me with the strong philosophical idea. So if anything, the calc should considerably be above 38 Ninatons which proves we got to use some kind of multiplier.
Though there is one error, Kep kind of assumed a foe = 1000 Tenatons, when it's more like 24,000 Tenatons. So that should be 8.802 KiloTenatons, not 8.802 foe.
There are really three things to be taken accounted for when blowing up planets with higher gravity; the mass/density of the planet, the extra weight multiplied by the already great mass, and the fact that all explosions need to be fighting against the automasphere of everything falling G times faster and rising at G times slower speeds. The original Frieza calc only takes the first one into account.
Anyway, we can't quite downgrade the Zebes calc by 960^2, because we'd get result that be less the the GBE of Zebes. The GBE of Zebes is like 38 Ninatons or Large Planet level+ using the GBE calculator The original calc not counting the gravity multiplier was only 9.55 Ninatons, which is not enough energy to destroy Zebes. But using the multiplier by 960^2 was a proposal by Lina Shields; who credited me with the strong philosophical idea. So if anything, the calc should considerably be above 38 Ninatons which proves we got to use some kind of multiplier.
Though there is one error, Kep kind of assumed a foe = 1000 Tenatons, when it's more like 24,000 Tenatons. So that should be 8.802 KiloTenatons, not 8.802 foe.
There are really three things to be taken accounted for when blowing up planets with higher gravity; the mass/density of the planet, the extra weight multiplied by the already great mass, and the fact that all explosions need to be fighting against the automasphere of everything falling G times faster and rising at G times slower speeds. The original Frieza calc only takes the first one into account.
