Mountain sizes in Naruto

[Damage3245]

A number of calcs rely on the assumption that the mountains used for scaling are 3,000 m tall.

The logic for this comes from the fact that 'There are mountains in Japan that are over 3,000 m tall'.

While it is undeniably true that there are mountains in Japan that are over 3,000 meters tall, these are far from the majority as this vast list proves. If you want to use real-life Japanese mountains as a reference you need to take the average from them.

This recently created calc estimates the width of the Eight-Tails' crater to be 2,125.92 m wide.

Using that as a basis to scale the nearest mountai we get:

Eight Tails Crater = 130 px = 2,125.92 m

Mountain Height = 46 px = 752.25 meters

So by either using scaling, or by taking average mountain height as an assumption, it is pretty clear that the mountains are under 3,000 m.

Examples of affected calcs include this and this.

 

[BlackeJan]

Seriously r u just downgrading just for downgrades? ive never seen so many downgrade thread in rapid fire before that I'm honestly thinking yur just doing this for spite or cause u just want to. Kep had done 3km before and people had agree to it with no problem though yes he needs to come here and tell us why

 

[IMadeThisOn8-1-2017]

Yeah, I found the list recently of Japanese mountains and the average is closer to 1500-2000 meters than 3000.

Plus the fact that a previous calc proves those exact mountains are under 3000 meters shows we shouldnt even be using that number.

 

[M3X_2.0]

We have a lot of scenes to put mountains over 3km, using a single scene to this is ridiculous.

 

[MostPowerfull]

Almost will not change anything and I found them scalling the mountains for 3km because they were shown to have this size in the battle of Pain.

Neutral. It will not change much, however, it seems to me a great despair these successive and rapid downgrades.

 

[Callsign_Castle]

A lot of calculations have flawed size scaling, period.

 

[Xulrev]

If people are going to utilize Ad Hominem to assail the creator of a CRT instead of actually engaging in the evidence put forth, they ought to simply not comment on it at all. It's utterly useless drivel that doesn't belong on-site, honestly.

Be useful and assist in gaining the highest level of accuracy possible, or get out of the way of people utilizing evidence so that it can occur unimpeded, seriously.

On to the topic: The logic for why Naruto mountains should be assumed to be 3000 meters tall is horrid, flat out. The average for a mountain ought to be used to be as accurate as possible, as IMade posits.

Honestly the given calc by damage in the post is sound and utilizes a fairly inoffensive calc as reference; the math is self-sustaining and seems fair, it should be at least looked at by the Calc Group imho

 

[Sigurd_Snake_in_The_Eye]

Can Kurama be used to find a size if there is an issue?

 

[M3X_2.0]

No, the Shinju can

 

[Spinoirr]

Here we go again...

 

[Damage3245]

Seriously r u just downgrading just for downgrades? ive never seen so many downgrade thread in rapid fire before that I'm honestly thinking yur just doing this for spite or cause u just want to. Kep had done 3km before and people had agree to it with no problem though yes he needs to come here and tell us why

You must have missed the One Piece verse revisions.

@M3X, if the size scaling of the mountains is wrong, then the size of the Shinju itself would be a lot smaller.

 

[BlackeJan]

@Damage

So....u like making downgrade threads then? anyway someone contact Kep since he's the one that gotten 3km mountains and people agreed with him on it (many actually but I don't know why)

 

[AguilaR101]

It'd be better if this wasn't a naruto thread in specific, I think we need to set a general standard on what height we should assume for generic mountains.

 

[Damage3245]

@BlackeJan; whether or not I only do downgrade threads isn't really relevant. Though no, I sometimes do upgrade threads too. It just happens that many times when inaccuracies are fixed, it usually results in a downgrade.

@AguilaR101; I agree that it would be better if Naruto wasn't the sole focus here, but it just so happens that the calcs for Naruto is what uses this logic. So that's why I focused on it in particular.

 

[BlackeJan]

@Damage

I'll apologize for that but all I've seen really is just downgrade after downgrade without rest. Again someone ask Kep since he is the one that got 3km and majority of everyone agreed to it. I'm no calcer but if people r finding over 3km then we should use it but....why r we having to use IRL tress for animation that could be HIGHER then what we have in our world?

 

[MostPowerfull]

Shinju has its size through a part of the curvature of the planet, right? If so, I think its size is fine ... Unless someone says that Naruto's planet is much smaller than ours. However, I do not think it is a good method to find the size of the mountains, one that they are very inconsistent.
The size proposed by Damage is good. Between 2000 meters is a good alternative and much more accurate.

 

[Callsign_Castle]

If it's not an official size I wouldn't use it. I think the best thing would be to scale Hashirama's size to his wood golem, then scale that to his 1000 arm summon which is about mountain size.

 

[Damage3245]

Callsign, that doesn't help us for the mountains in the multiple Bijuu-dama feat. I did provide an example of how we could scale that with the Eight-Tails.

 

[Wrath_Of_Itachi]

Bump.

 

[Wrath_Of_Itachi]

I'd like to bump this thread, since I was planning on making one of my own. But now I don't need to since we already have one. We have multiply calcs and a statement that put the Naruto mountains at far higher than 609m which is the minimum height required to be considered a mountain.

 

[Damage3245]

There are multiple mountains in real life which exceed 609 meters.

So that's not exactly a great point WoI.

The point is that 609 meters is a reasonable baseline.

 

[BlackeJan]

No it's not. If we have multiple mountains that's exceed 609m that's far higher then that is what we can use. I honestly don't even know why u trying to go baseline if there are even mountains that go past 609m

 

[Damage3245]

@BlackeJan; is there some kind of universal law I'm not aware of that says all mountains in Naruto are the same size?

Are all mountains in real life the same size?

 

[BlackeJan]

What r you on about? Is that what you are arguing about?

 

[AstralKing7]

Damage hey are obviously saying the baseline shouldn't be lowballed anymore. Naruto and real life are clearly different things when they have statements.

Stop comparing the two of them

 

[Damage3245]

I'm pretty sure most of the affected calcs by this topic have been revised anyway, or are due to be replaced.

Anyway, my point still stands. Saying "There's some tall mountains in Naruto" isn't an excuse to try and wank calcs with higher values.

 

[Wrath_Of_Itachi]

There are multiple mountains in real life which exceed 609 meters.

So that's not exactly a great point WoI.

The point is that 609 meters is a reasonable baseline.

No it's not. You are assuming the lowest possible value and applying it to a verse that has statements and calcs proving otherwise. You say it's "wank" by using higher values, but its downplay to assume the smallest mountain when we have evidence otherwise.

 

[Damage3245]

No it's not. You are assuming the lowest possible value and applying it to a verse that has statements and calcs proving otherwise. You say it's "wank" by using higher values, but its downplay to assume the smallest mountain when we have evidence otherwise.

It's only "downplay" if there is a specific reason to believe the particular mountain is bigger than that.

I compromised on the Pain calc by not assuming a 609 meter value for scaling a mountain to the CT.

So what is the issue?

 

[Wrath_Of_Itachi]

In your very own OP you calced the mountains in the battlefield at 752.25 meters which is more proof that the mountains in that area are larger.

 

[Damage3245]

@Wrath of Itachi; you may not have noticed but the OP was made in April. It's a bit outdated since things have moved on since then, including an agreement to avoid using the Biju to scale large objects like that.

Which is still irrelevant since my earlier point is still as fine as ever. The point is that it is a baseline to scale to if there is no more info available.

 

[Wrath_Of_Itachi]

I think you have a misconception of thinking I want to make every mountain in the verse 3,000m. That's wrong, I think the mountains in the Naruto verse are bigger than the 609m we assume and its wrong to use that for every calc.

 

[Damage3245]

Well, mission accomplished. Not every calc uses that.

 

[Wrath_Of_Itachi]

@Wrath of Itachi; you may not have noticed but the OP was made in April. It's a bit outdated since things have moved on since then, including an agreement to avoid using the Biju to scale large objects like that.

Which is still irrelevant since my earlier point is still as fine as ever. The point is that it is a baseline to scale to if there is no more info available.

That's fine, but my other points still stand, we can use the ten tails since it's the most consistently drawn out of all of them. Or we can use the sizes that we have calced and a statement from the new Sasuke novel.

 

[Wrath_Of_Itachi]

Well, mission accomplished. Not every calc uses that.

It's not since we assume 609m for every calc that scales from mountains.

 

[YungManzi]

There are like, a lot of other Naruto revisions happening at the moment.

Can we actually finish any of them without pilling more on top?

 

[Damage3245]

@YungManzi; good point. I agree.

 

[Wrath_Of_Itachi]

@YungManzi; good point. I agree.

Considering you're the one whos continually made new threads without finishing old ones, thats an interesting opinion to have.

 

[AstralKing7]

@Wrath of Itachi; you may not have noticed but the OP was made in April. It's a bit outdated since things have moved on since then, including an agreement to avoid using the Biju to scale large objects like that.

Which is still irrelevant since my earlier point is still as fine as ever. The point is that it is a baseline to scale to if there is no more info available.

We dont even need to use the Biju to scale anymore in the first place

 

[Damage3245]

Considering you're the one whos continually made new threads without finishing old ones, thats an interesting opinion to have.

I always finish threads as quickly as I can. It's waiting for other people that slows me down.

 

[Wrath_Of_Itachi]

The issue is you make even more threads, without bumping other ones. And those other threads also suffer from lack of interest by staff. This thread is a simple one, we have a statement and calcs that give use sizes as well as the ten tails height which can also be ise to calc as well.