-
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.
Naruto Calcs (Calc Group members only)
- Thread starter Damage3245
- Start date
- 166,076
- 73,865
Because there is too much uncertainty and contradiction between the calc group members here, so in order to find the most reliable results, we should ask our most skilled mathematicians.
I will ask all 3 of them to help out with this.
I will ask all 3 of them to help out with this.
- 8,303
- 1,722
Calc 1: About the one from Narutoforums, ChaosTheory123's version assumes that Sasuke's arm span is similar to his whole height, which can be verified here. But the problem with this is the same perspective as with I am myself You are you's version of this feat, so I agree with Damage3245 regarding this point.
About the half ellipsoid and spherical cap from the other calcs, this is something of case by case, and with this perspective, again, doesn't help much. So whichever the other CGMs thinks is ok then I'm fine with it
Calc 2: Well, this is only a statement, so since it say "mountain" it can range from the 609 m I used and, dunno, mount olympus from mars perhaps. Although I don't really believe in low or high ends, in cases like this of only an statement using the lowest is the safest option so we wouldn't have to deal with inflated results.
That being said, I want to know what the other CGMs thinks about the destruction value in this case, since I have only read replies about that is fine but not about the value itself.
Calc 3: Kepekley23 made this calc before the clouds/stormm revisions. The calc was fine since then, but when these revisions were done, it needed to be changed according to the new stuff. So yeah.
Calc 4: I will see the chapter and reread all the replies before saying something about this one.
Calc 5: RinkakuKagune's Version have numerous problems with it, from assuming the clouds height just by its looks to the scaling he used for his "mountain", so it cannot be used.
Regarding Rocker1189 and Damage3245's versions, yeah, Matatabi is farther away than Gyuki in the former, but if this is the case then both are using a crater that is farther away than the TBB and mountain used to get the volume, which end up being the same as in this case there are from hundreds to thousands of meters away. If applies to one then it applies to another, but this would lead to "there is no other thing to scale other than the mountains", so yeah, that.
The main problem is no matter what size of the Tail Beasts, the vastly mayority of them will leas to different results.
Calc 6: Dunno about the size of the mountains and vaporization for tsb since I haven't read all the manga, so I won't really touch that. And Naruto's world isn't Japan, like, at all, so dunno how good would this comparation be.
DodoNova2's version for the depth is this:
Crater diameter that the explosion leave = Explosion diameter (Assuming that the explosion didn't grew bigger.)
Which makes: Crater depth that the explosion leave = Explosion depth
280 px = 233 px
280 px / 233 px = 1.201716738x (this would be the difference of sizes between panels)
23 px x 1.201716738x = 27.63948498 px (this would mean that, assuming that the two depths are totally equal between panels, it would have a size 27.63948498 px)
11 px = 3000 m
3000 m / 11 px = 272.7272727 m/px
27.63948498 px x 272.7272727 m/px = 7538.041358 m
And his depth is "Deph = 7537m", so yeah, that.
And Damage3245's vesion have this problem. You want to argue that I didn't put the circle in the right position? You can say that, Damage3245's line still wouldn't being the real diameter.
And I personally think that spherical cap is the correct volume in this case.
Calc 7: Eeeeeh, @Damage3245, you add it for later or it can be discussed now?
- 30,444
- 26,035
- Thread starter
- #125
@AlexSoloVaAlFuturo; we can discuss Calc 7 later.
Regarding Calc 4, this blog post may help. After you have reread the chapter I would appreciate it if you could give this a look.
Regarding Calc 4, this blog post may help. After you have reread the chapter I would appreciate it if you could give this a look.
- 8,303
- 1,722
Ok then.
Well, I leave a comment, not very helpful though.
Well, I leave a comment, not very helpful though.
- 30,444
- 26,035
- Thread starter
- #128
Both Crimson Azoth and AlexSoloVaAlFuturo have accepted my version of the Chibaku Tensei calc, and I've spoken to Ugarik and he has agreed that my version is more accurate. I'll wait to see if Kep or Tata have any new arguments against it, but from what I can tell it seems like my version should be what we go with.
- 8,303
- 1,722
Well, I still have to give my full opinion about the calc 4 in general before I give my thoughts of which version is better to use, so I have to reread the replies in this thread and see the chapter itself in both black and white + colored to give my full thoughts.
- 30,444
- 26,035
- Thread starter
- #132
The consensus so far is that the first three calcs seem to be settled, and we're currently waiting on Alex to get back to us on calc 4.
The majority of calc group members seem to be in favour of my version, but we're waiting on Alex's final thoughts.
The Biju Bomb calcs are going to be a whole other conversation once calc 4 has been settled. These will likely be some of the most important calcs for ratings in the verse.
Either the Tailed Beasts become consistently 6-C with my interpretation, or they vary from 6-C to High 6-C / High 6-B with other calcs.
The majority of calc group members seem to be in favour of my version, but we're waiting on Alex's final thoughts.
The Biju Bomb calcs are going to be a whole other conversation once calc 4 has been settled. These will likely be some of the most important calcs for ratings in the verse.
Either the Tailed Beasts become consistently 6-C with my interpretation, or they vary from 6-C to High 6-C / High 6-B with other calcs.
- 8,303
- 1,722
Well, about the calc 4.
First of all, the tree used to get the whole height of the mountain is barely visible in said panel. Trying to get the whole height to use it for the mountain is, like how my teachers say, throwing arrows to the sky hoping that it will hit the thing that you are searching for.
Looking at both versions, black and white version and colored version, of the panel that shows the tree itself and that you all used to get the height, it seems that the top of it is alone, then a small part that is wood alone and then the other trees appear. Going from that, and looking that the panel that was used to get the height of the mountain is nothing more than a big green thing, trying to use the whole height of the tree for the mountain isnt very reliable.
About what mountain to use, as I said before, this one is all green, the panel that was used to get the height of the mountain shows that it isnt much taller or smaller than the other mountains since the angle isnt too low or high and the closest mountain, the right one, doesnt show that isnt massively bigger than the one where Nagato is. So its better to assume that it is around the same size of a mountain like Damage3245 did for the 1.2 version he made.
So I agree with Kepekley23 regarding recalculating it with a downgrade using a calulated size for the mountain.
First of all, the tree used to get the whole height of the mountain is barely visible in said panel. Trying to get the whole height to use it for the mountain is, like how my teachers say, throwing arrows to the sky hoping that it will hit the thing that you are searching for.
Looking at both versions, black and white version and colored version, of the panel that shows the tree itself and that you all used to get the height, it seems that the top of it is alone, then a small part that is wood alone and then the other trees appear. Going from that, and looking that the panel that was used to get the height of the mountain is nothing more than a big green thing, trying to use the whole height of the tree for the mountain isnt very reliable.
About what mountain to use, as I said before, this one is all green, the panel that was used to get the height of the mountain shows that it isnt much taller or smaller than the other mountains since the angle isnt too low or high and the closest mountain, the right one, doesnt show that isnt massively bigger than the one where Nagato is. So its better to assume that it is around the same size of a mountain like Damage3245 did for the 1.2 version he made.
So I agree with Kepekley23 regarding recalculating it with a downgrade using a calulated size for the mountain.
- 30,444
- 26,035
- Thread starter
- #136
Thank you for the input Alex.
Based on the comments from calc group members, the value I've calced at 9993.71 m for the crater width seems to be the best compromise for the Chibaku Tensei calc.
I'll re-create the Chibaku Tensei calc with that value, and get it evaluated.
Based on the comments from calc group members, the value I've calced at 9993.71 m for the crater width seems to be the best compromise for the Chibaku Tensei calc.
I'll re-create the Chibaku Tensei calc with that value, and get it evaluated.
- 1,178
- 401
Okay I guess I need to explain why all versions of 4th feat are wrong.
Lifting something in the air is simply a mechanical work feat. Yes, the total mechanical work is equal to the potential energy of that ball but we do not rate characters based on the mechanical work they can produce because work is not instant hence it's principally the same as destruction over time.
I'll give you an example: Let's say my weight is 1000 Newtons and using a ridiculously tall ledder I slowly climb on the roof of a 500 metres tall skyscraper. The total amount of mechanical work I produced is 50000 jouls. Does it make me 9-B? Of ciurse not because just because I can produce that amount of work doesn't mean I can withstand the same ammount of kinetic energy. (the kinetic energy of the fall from 500 m height at the moment I hit the ground, which is also equal to the PE)
Lifting something in the air is simply a mechanical work feat. Yes, the total mechanical work is equal to the potential energy of that ball but we do not rate characters based on the mechanical work they can produce because work is not instant hence it's principally the same as destruction over time.
I'll give you an example: Let's say my weight is 1000 Newtons and using a ridiculously tall ledder I slowly climb on the roof of a 500 metres tall skyscraper. The total amount of mechanical work I produced is 50000 jouls. Does it make me 9-B? Of ciurse not because just because I can produce that amount of work doesn't mean I can withstand the same ammount of kinetic energy. (the kinetic energy of the fall from 500 m height at the moment I hit the ground, which is also equal to the PE)
- 30,444
- 26,035
- Thread starter
- #138
(Part of the reason why we needed the size settled is because there is a speed calc tied to it).
But in other words, no Chibaku Tensei feats should be considered applicable for AP? I'd appreciate it if any other calc group members watching could tune in to see if Ugarik is completely right here.
But in other words, no Chibaku Tensei feats should be considered applicable for AP? I'd appreciate it if any other calc group members watching could tune in to see if Ugarik is completely right here.
- 6,014
- 2,121
Chibaku Tensei don't scale to AP/Dura, it's a special attack which don't scale to any of the user stats. After a second thought, Ugarik make sense, it's an overtime feat, if the CT had been controlled (like Diane's Mother Catastrophe), it could be calc'd with KE, which it isn't the case here, on a side note, Nagato's chakra maintain the final CT in the air so it's probably AP for this utilization (?)
The crater suffer of the same problem, it's an overtime feat.
At worst, we could probably calculate this with a timeframe but i doubt it work.
I'll wait to someone find a solution then.
The crater suffer of the same problem, it's an overtime feat.
At worst, we could probably calculate this with a timeframe but i doubt it work.
I'll wait to someone find a solution then.
- 1,178
- 401
What people really need to understad is that even though mechanical work and mechanical energy are measured and calculated the same way they are completely different things.
It's might be over simplyfied but energy is the ability to create work. So in the other hand if I can just jump straight on the roof of a 500 m tall skyscraper I am indeed 9-B because I can generate the energy that can instantly create 50000 jouls of work. The same thing is if I can survive a fall from 500 m tall building because the KE (= PE) then I hit the ground will be 50000 jouls.
It's might be over simplyfied but energy is the ability to create work. So in the other hand if I can just jump straight on the roof of a 500 m tall skyscraper I am indeed 9-B because I can generate the energy that can instantly create 50000 jouls of work. The same thing is if I can survive a fall from 500 m tall building because the KE (= PE) then I hit the ground will be 50000 jouls.
- 6,014
- 2,121
I see, but btw, it could scale to the CT since it maintain the rock in the air whith his Chakra? by using your analogy, it need (insert the result of the calc) to maintain the rock in the air, no?
- 30,444
- 26,035
- Thread starter
- #142
@The Causality; is he keeping it in the air by constantly supplying it with chakra? He only seemed to be pushing himself to his limits when actually creating the CT.
And suspending it in the air would logically be a lot more demanding than constructing it in the first place, but it doesn't appear that way.
And suspending it in the air would logically be a lot more demanding than constructing it in the first place, but it doesn't appear that way.
- 6,014
- 2,121
To be exact, it's the Gravitaional ball created which maintain the rock in the air, in the same way as a planet (if you want an exemple), it's not "him" which maintain the things but the ball.
From what i know, those kind of feat aren't scalable to anything but special AP
From what i know, those kind of feat aren't scalable to anything but special AP
- 1,178
- 401
No.The Causality said:
Energy (including potential one) is the ability to create work. Work is a force applied over a distance. If you're mantaining the rock in one place the distance is 0. If distance is zero mechanical work is also zero, and therefore no energy is needed. You however do need to provide enough force is order to compensate the weight of that ball. Because if you don't the ball will be the one generating work. So it's lifting strength feat rather than AP
I can give you another example. Let's say you have an object that weights 100 newtons. Is holding that object 10 meters above the ground (that object was lifted by someone else, you're just holding it) going to be harder than holding the same weight 1 meter above the ground?
- 6,014
- 2,121
Ah i get it, that's indeed pretty clear.
- 2,519
- 1,364
Ugariki what are you talking about?
The CT completely works when talking about gravitational potential energy, the examples you used are no way comparable to what Nagato is doing with Chibaku tensei
"it's not "him" which maintain the things but the ball."
Except "Him" is the person who provides chakra/energy for the ball to exist, so yes it does indeed completely scale to Nagato, this is the equivalent of saying Frieza isn't as strong as his Supernova because it's his supernova that destroys planets not him
" Let's say my weight is 1000 Newtons and using a ridiculously tall ledder I slowly climb on the roof of a 500 metres tall skyscraper. The total amount of mechanical work I produced is 50000 jouls."
Are you genuine with this or? How are you comparing climbing a ladder to lifting something in the air without the support of the ladder which HAS to be touching the ground, thus making the distance between the ladder and the ground 0, meaning GPE doesn't work here at all because the upper ends of the 500 meter ladder are being supported by the lower ends which are already touching the ground.
"If you're mantaining the rock in one place the distance is 0"
Except that's not what GPE is, at all, at this point i'm unsure of whether you know what Gravitational potential energy is or if we need DontTalkDT (the guy who made our Calculation pages) to explain it to you.
GPE is in its simplest form, energy an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field, the gravitational field being the earth
This is why the Formula for GPE is Mass x Height x Gravitational acceleration at surface value
All 3 of these apply for Nagato's CT, it's the most clear cut GPE calc ever.
The CT completely works when talking about gravitational potential energy, the examples you used are no way comparable to what Nagato is doing with Chibaku tensei
"it's not "him" which maintain the things but the ball."
Except "Him" is the person who provides chakra/energy for the ball to exist, so yes it does indeed completely scale to Nagato, this is the equivalent of saying Frieza isn't as strong as his Supernova because it's his supernova that destroys planets not him
" Let's say my weight is 1000 Newtons and using a ridiculously tall ledder I slowly climb on the roof of a 500 metres tall skyscraper. The total amount of mechanical work I produced is 50000 jouls."
Are you genuine with this or? How are you comparing climbing a ladder to lifting something in the air without the support of the ladder which HAS to be touching the ground, thus making the distance between the ladder and the ground 0, meaning GPE doesn't work here at all because the upper ends of the 500 meter ladder are being supported by the lower ends which are already touching the ground.
"If you're mantaining the rock in one place the distance is 0"
Except that's not what GPE is, at all, at this point i'm unsure of whether you know what Gravitational potential energy is or if we need DontTalkDT (the guy who made our Calculation pages) to explain it to you.
GPE is in its simplest form, energy an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field, the gravitational field being the earth
This is why the Formula for GPE is Mass x Height x Gravitational acceleration at surface value
All 3 of these apply for Nagato's CT, it's the most clear cut GPE calc ever.
- 2,519
- 1,364
Also damage the scan you used to scale the hokage mountain in the six tails calc doesn't really work, the ground lifts and goes back down at an angle that obstructs the bottom
It might not look like a lot of difference but we don't even completely see where the ground really evens out, and we need to make it as accurate as possible, where even a few pixels can make the world of difference in accuracy
- 1,178
- 401
How does lower end of the ladder being supported by the ground change anything? The ground is always assumed to be 0 potential energy level and that level doesn't rise rising with each step I take. The resultant force acting apon the ledder is still 0 due to Newtons' third law so all the force is applied on my own. I honestly don't understand what do you mean by that. I'm still moving to the opposite direction to vector of my body weight, therefore I am generating work. And I absolutely can compare it to PE because PE is weight times height.TataHakai said:
I can make another analogy. I have a weight of 1000 newtons and 500 meters long rope connected to it. I'm standing on the roof of a 500 m tall building. I slowly lift the weight by pulling the rope up, generating work in the process. The total amount of mechanical work I produced is 500000 joules. Does it make any difference?
- 2,519
- 1,364
It doesn't rise because you aren't supporting your own weight against the gravitational acceleration of the planet, the ladder is supporting your weight
Whereas with the Chibaku tensei the energy comes completely from the core who's energy is provided by Nagato
PE isn't what we're Calculating here, it's Gravitational PE that we're calculating, this seems to be where you're getting stuff mixed up
PE is energy that an object holds because of its position relative to other objects with other stresses and factors taken into consideration
In this case the
Object = Chibaku tensei
Position = Height
Stresses and Factors = Gravitational acceleration
The formula for GPE is not only Weight x Height but it's Weight x Height x Gravitational acceleration at surface level
Your building analogy again, makes no sense, because you aren't supporting the rope alone, when you hold something really heavy above you it's not only yourself supporting its weight but the force of the ground pushing against Gravity, the ground being the building you're standing on in this case.
This CAN'T be applied for Chibaku tensei because it's floating in the air, only supported by its own GPE
Whereas with the Chibaku tensei the energy comes completely from the core who's energy is provided by Nagato
PE isn't what we're Calculating here, it's Gravitational PE that we're calculating, this seems to be where you're getting stuff mixed up
PE is energy that an object holds because of its position relative to other objects with other stresses and factors taken into consideration
In this case the
Object = Chibaku tensei
Position = Height
Stresses and Factors = Gravitational acceleration
The formula for GPE is not only Weight x Height but it's Weight x Height x Gravitational acceleration at surface level
Your building analogy again, makes no sense, because you aren't supporting the rope alone, when you hold something really heavy above you it's not only yourself supporting its weight but the force of the ground pushing against Gravity, the ground being the building you're standing on in this case.
This CAN'T be applied for Chibaku tensei because it's floating in the air, only supported by its own GPE
- 10,602
- 11,866
Too Long
So I was asked to comment on the PE discussion here.
I haven't read the entire thread, but looked at the last few posts.
So, to adress what I think are the points of debate:
Wikipedia states well "Work transfers energy from one place to another, or one form to another."
When we talk about AP we want to know how much work an attack can do on its target, which is the energy of the attack. More strictly speaking the part of the energy that can do damage, as the mass-energy of a stone is for example not part of the AP of a stone throw.
Usually this energy can be well measured by the amount of work the attack does on a target, that is the difference in the energy state of a system before and after the attack. E.g. throwing a rock adds KE but lets the mass-energy the same. So the change in KE is the energy of the attack.
Where I want to go with all that rambling is that if the amount of energy in a system changes at no point, then no work is done, which in turn means that likely nothing AP relevant happens.
Now the amount of work necessary to keep something in the air is 0. No energy is used up in order to do that.
That sounds pretty counterintuitive at first, since for example holding something up tires us out and for a helicopter to fly in place it needs fuel, but in principle it really needs no work or energy.
Work, and by thetransfer of energy, can be defined as force * change in distance. "Change" being the keyword here. If something doesn't move (distance doesn't change) no work is done.
The reason holding something up or a helicopter flying in place needs energy is due to the fact that in order to produce the upwards force necessary to hold something in place these mechanisms do perform work (e.g. the helicopter needs to spin it rotor blades), but producing this force does in fact not necessarily need energy. Which is why for example a table can hold something up indefinitely, producing an upwards force pushing against gravity, and never run out of energy.
That's why holding something in place via telekinesis or similar can not be calculated as an attack potency feat. There just is no real way to figure out if and how much energy that needs to produce the force.
Different it stands when it comes to lifting something. Now we have a force (at least stronger than the force of gravity pulling downwards) and a change in distance (the height lifted).
So now we can calculated potential energy as gravitational force (9.81 m/s^2 * mass of object) times height lifted.
For the application to attack potency a little consideration is still necessary. If something is lifted very slowly it might be worth not considering the entire lifted as AP. The reason is that I can lift something arbitrarily slow and still do the same lifting work. Lifting something 10km high over 100 years is no AP feat.
As usual for most singular relatively short lasting attacks we will adress the entire lifting energy for the attack. For very time consuming techniques we take 1 second of energy/work as standard, like for heat.
It should be noted that of course an object lifted over a longer time could be dropped on the opponent for its entire PE. So that technique in particular would always get the full PE.
I think I repeated a bunch of the stuff already stated, but hope it was still somewhat helpful.
So I was asked to comment on the PE discussion here.
I haven't read the entire thread, but looked at the last few posts.
So, to adress what I think are the points of debate:
Wikipedia states well "Work transfers energy from one place to another, or one form to another."
When we talk about AP we want to know how much work an attack can do on its target, which is the energy of the attack. More strictly speaking the part of the energy that can do damage, as the mass-energy of a stone is for example not part of the AP of a stone throw.
Usually this energy can be well measured by the amount of work the attack does on a target, that is the difference in the energy state of a system before and after the attack. E.g. throwing a rock adds KE but lets the mass-energy the same. So the change in KE is the energy of the attack.
Where I want to go with all that rambling is that if the amount of energy in a system changes at no point, then no work is done, which in turn means that likely nothing AP relevant happens.
Now the amount of work necessary to keep something in the air is 0. No energy is used up in order to do that.
That sounds pretty counterintuitive at first, since for example holding something up tires us out and for a helicopter to fly in place it needs fuel, but in principle it really needs no work or energy.
Work, and by thetransfer of energy, can be defined as force * change in distance. "Change" being the keyword here. If something doesn't move (distance doesn't change) no work is done.
The reason holding something up or a helicopter flying in place needs energy is due to the fact that in order to produce the upwards force necessary to hold something in place these mechanisms do perform work (e.g. the helicopter needs to spin it rotor blades), but producing this force does in fact not necessarily need energy. Which is why for example a table can hold something up indefinitely, producing an upwards force pushing against gravity, and never run out of energy.
That's why holding something in place via telekinesis or similar can not be calculated as an attack potency feat. There just is no real way to figure out if and how much energy that needs to produce the force.
Different it stands when it comes to lifting something. Now we have a force (at least stronger than the force of gravity pulling downwards) and a change in distance (the height lifted).
So now we can calculated potential energy as gravitational force (9.81 m/s^2 * mass of object) times height lifted.
For the application to attack potency a little consideration is still necessary. If something is lifted very slowly it might be worth not considering the entire lifted as AP. The reason is that I can lift something arbitrarily slow and still do the same lifting work. Lifting something 10km high over 100 years is no AP feat.
As usual for most singular relatively short lasting attacks we will adress the entire lifting energy for the attack. For very time consuming techniques we take 1 second of energy/work as standard, like for heat.
It should be noted that of course an object lifted over a longer time could be dropped on the opponent for its entire PE. So that technique in particular would always get the full PE.
I think I repeated a bunch of the stuff already stated, but hope it was still somewhat helpful.
- 1,178
- 401
@DontTalkTD
Thanks a lot for your input but I want to point out that this is almost exactly what I was saying in my posts #157, #159 and #163. So can you please respond once again but this time paying more attention on TakaHakai's responses #169 and #171. Apparently I was told that the table analogy doesn't work as long as something is touching the ground. (I really hope this is not a strawman)
Thanks a lot for your input but I want to point out that this is almost exactly what I was saying in my posts #157, #159 and #163. So can you please respond once again but this time paying more attention on TakaHakai's responses #169 and #171. Apparently I was told that the table analogy doesn't work as long as something is touching the ground. (I really hope this is not a strawman)
- 1,178
- 401
PE isn't what we're Calculating here, it's Gravitational PE that we're calculating, this seems to be where you're getting stuff mixed up
Isn't it the same thing unless the source of acceleration in case of GPE is gravity?
The formula for GPE is not only Weight x Height but it's Weight x Height x Gravitational acceleration at surface level
Lol no. GPE formula is GPE = m×g×h (where m - mass, g - free fall acceleration, h - height) and weight formula is m×g (mass×free fall acceleration). Since m×g stands for weight the final formula can be simplified as just weight times height.
Isn't it the same thing unless the source of acceleration in case of GPE is gravity?
The formula for GPE is not only Weight x Height but it's Weight x Height x Gravitational acceleration at surface level
Lol no. GPE formula is GPE = m×g×h (where m - mass, g - free fall acceleration, h - height) and weight formula is m×g (mass×free fall acceleration). Since m×g stands for weight the final formula can be simplified as just weight times height.
- 10,602
- 11,866
I mean, it's not hard to also construct an example with stuff not connected to the ground.
Like a negatively charged plate being used to levitate a negatively charged ball or an object orbiting earth or something.
Fundamentally going by formula really does solve this (even more if one knows how it's derived). On the calculations page its M*g*h, where h is "how high the object was lifted / how far down the object fell in meter" were the lifting/falling thing denotes the change in distance. Other pages denote it as Ôêåh or Ôêåy to denote that a change in height is meant, though some also skip it for simplicity.
There are even pages dedicated to this topic.
What I have yet to understand is why we are talking about this. The chibaku tensei thingy is a lifting feat, no?
Like a negatively charged plate being used to levitate a negatively charged ball or an object orbiting earth or something.
Fundamentally going by formula really does solve this (even more if one knows how it's derived). On the calculations page its M*g*h, where h is "how high the object was lifted / how far down the object fell in meter" were the lifting/falling thing denotes the change in distance. Other pages denote it as Ôêåh or Ôêåy to denote that a change in height is meant, though some also skip it for simplicity.
There are even pages dedicated to this topic.
What I have yet to understand is why we are talking about this. The chibaku tensei thingy is a lifting feat, no?
- 1,178
- 401
It SHOULD be a lifting strength feat only (or at least that's what I'm trying to prove)DontTalkDT said:
But still the technique had its 6-B rating entirely because of the position of that ball in relation to ground level and many people, including some calc group members, agree with Country level AP from keeping the ball in the air. That's why I asked for your input.
Thank you once again, DontTalk
- 2,519
- 1,364
It isn't a lifting feat at all
Nagato isn't telekinetically lifting that mass, he creates a ball of energy with the gravitational power to lift the mass into the air, all we're calculating is how much energy it takes to keep that much mass in the air against the power of gravity
If we're going by "The ball isn't moving so the energy to keep it afloat is 0" then we might as well start removing 99% of PE calcs on this website since most of them go by that logic
Nagato isn't telekinetically lifting that mass, he creates a ball of energy with the gravitational power to lift the mass into the air, all we're calculating is how much energy it takes to keep that much mass in the air against the power of gravity
If we're going by "The ball isn't moving so the energy to keep it afloat is 0" then we might as well start removing 99% of PE calcs on this website since most of them go by that logic
- 1,178
- 401
Besides I'm almost certain your premise is false. As far as I'm aware most of the calc that use PE formula either involve launching something verticaly, leaping high in the air or surviving a fall from some form of an elevation.
And saying "Despite being physicaly inaccurate Pain's calc is still usable because it's not something special on this wiki" is not a good argument
And saying "Despite being physicaly inaccurate Pain's calc is still usable because it's not something special on this wiki" is not a good argument
Similar threads
