Naruto Calculation Discussion: Biju Dama Requiem

[Damage3245]

Damage, just chill. You don't need to attack the method every time you comment here. For now, using a mountain is rejected. Wait for DT.

Your comment is inappropriate. It has not been rejected at all yet.

I'm presenting my views here and the issues as I see them.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Inappropriate? No. Not even close. Wait for DT.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Ok, so first not every method is better than scaling from mountains. However, scaling from assumed mountain height isn't a very good method. The problem with scaling from mountains is mostly that there is no universally accepted measure of how high a mountain has to be and that the thing in question could also be a hill. So it's an issue of the size possibly being lower. (Of course the size could also be higher, but that's not the issue)

Now, I don't quite understand the full scaling steps of the other proposed methods, so I can't evaluate them without them being explained to me.
However, from a quick glance at the map scaling proposed here, I can already say that it doesn't meet our Planet Curvature Scaling standards.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Ok, so first not every method is better than scaling from mountains. However, scaling from assumed mountain height isn't a very good method. The problem with scaling from mountains is mostly that there is no universally accepted measure of how high a mountain has to be and that the thing in question could also be a hill. So it's an issue of the size possibly being lower. (Of course the size could also be higher, but that's not the issue)

Now, I don't quite understand the full scaling steps of the other proposed methods, so I can't evaluate them without them being explained to me.
However, from a quick glance at the map scaling proposed here, I can already say that it doesn't meet our Planet Curvature Scaling standards.

The calc doesn't use Planet Curvature for Pixel Scaling at all

It's merely there to show the consistency of landmarks on the planet

 

[DontTalkDT]

The calc doesn't use Planet Curvature for Pixel Scaling at all

It's merely there to show the consistency of landmarks on the planet

Doesn't it scale from the planet's diameter?

 

[KLOL506]

Doesn't it scale from the planet's diameter?

Not for the actual manga scans, the Earth diameter is to show the length of the country from outer space and is used only to measure the country length, after which said length of the country will be used to scale the tree in the manga scans. The actual crater itself does not rely on the curvature, only the country length.

But yes, I'd say to re-do it with the new curvature method. And yeah, DemonGod basically explained it, the Earth diameter is just there to show consistency.

 

[DontTalkDT]

But yes, I'd say to re-do it with the new curvature method.

Actually, since the country isn't close to the horizon in that shot, we would need to use more than just the curvature method. That would need a whole extra can of math.

Anyway, if that is just supporting evidence, then what is the main method that doesn't (directly or indirectly) use planet diameter?

 

[KLOL506]

Actually, since the country isn't close to the horizon in that shot, we would need to use more than just the curvature method. That would need a whole extra can of math.

Anyway, if that is just supporting evidence, then what is the main method that doesn't (directly or indirectly) use planet diameter?

The planet shot is in outer space, I thought we could just use the curvature formula for the diameter to get the country distance regardless of how far the camera was from Earth.

Also, didn't you once say that full on Earth shots or close-to-full-on Earth shots in outer space wouldn't need the curvature formula due to being fully visible or being close to being fully visible?

Again, it is the first picture with the Earth in outer space that we used to get only the country length, we didn't use curvature for the later scans.

EDIT: Actually, nah, screw this, M3X's actual calc doesn't even rely on curvature, it uses the maps in the manga.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Well, I'm not using any of the planet shots, they aren't even planet shots, it's just Kishimoto being Kishimoto during EoS. They are just to show that Kishimoto didn't forget what he is drawing, he always remember the details of every scene, it's just to add support for the landmarks, they are consistent even years after the manga ended, with The Last movie.

The main method is using the map, we have a distance, find the size of the country, use actual manga scans to scale the country and then find the crater. It's simple.

 

[M3X_2.0]

map scaling proposed here

Ah, now I see, I forgot to add the new calc.

My calculation was finally evaluated

Here is the calc being used.

 

[KLOL506]

Ah, now I see, I forgot to add the new calc.

Here is the calc being used.

Ah. Finally. Thanks. Guess the actual calc doesn't even use curvature. Nice.

 

[M3X_2.0]

I've changed the OP.

 

[DontTalkDT]

The planet shot is in outer space, I thought we could just use the curvature formula for the diameter to get the country distance regardless of how far the camera was from Earth.

Didn't you once say that full on Earth shots or close-to-full-on Earth shots in outer space wouldn't need the curvature formula due to being fully visible or being close to being fully visible?

If the camera is far away from the ground then the change that the planet curvature formula causes is indeed negligible. Although I'm not sure if this shot would be sufficiently far away for that.
However, what isn't necessarily negligible is the scaling from the background (planet diameter) to the foreground (country), which isn't covered by the current formula.

Anyway, it seems that that isn't used. I will evaluate the newly linked calc later. (As it's like 5am over here)

 

[M3X_2.0]

Ok thanks. Since the calc uses some old pixelscaling scans, I ask you to not take into account any numbers from the original scan in the white box, at least for the first one.

 

[KLOL506]

If the camera is far away from the ground then the change that the planet curvature formula causes is indeed negligible. Although I'm not sure if this shot would be sufficiently far away for that.
However, what isn't necessarily negligible is the scaling from the background (planet diameter) to the foreground (country), which isn't covered by the current formula.

Anyway, it seems that that isn't used. I will evaluate the newly linked calc later. (As it's like 5am over here)

Understood. In that case, yeah, M3X's calc doesn't use the planetary curvature.

And I do remember Jvando saying that his country distance was not properly measured because the clouds prevented him from getting the full length on the outer space planet shot. So going with M3X's version is a safer bet.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Actually, I couldn't help myself and started evaluating the calc a little before going to sleep.
So I thought I would bring up one question I had already.

The calc in question relies on this calc. The calc assumes that the ninjas ran without rest (and without stamina drop of any significance) based on the statement that they can "make journey of a thousand miles without a single break". However, as the author of that calc says, in the Japanese source material this was likely a thousand kilometres as japan uses the metric system.
The calc, in the end, concludes that the distance they travelled without rest must be "3,476.16 kilometers", which is, in fact, more than a thousand kilometres (and thousand miles).
If we take it as them needing a rest every 1000 km they would need 3 rests over that distance. (and would likely get somewhat slower due to stamina in parts)

The camel part doesn't really help either. Camels don't need to eat and drink a lot, but they walk only 120 miles a day on the high end and walk for 10 hours on end. It might not need food beyond that, but it does need rest. If we even want to take it as stamina statements, instead of being about food or whatever else tenacity potentially means.

Soooo... yeah, you get my question.

 

[M3X_2.0]

That's actually not a problem. Ninjas could ran hundred of kilometers during the 4th War after fighting for a long period of time and spending chakra (No chakra = can't run), and while going to Suna, they didn't stop to sleep or eat.

I also thought that we should take some sleep into account, but I was debunked regarding that.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Actually, I couldn't help myself and started evaluating the calc a little before going to sleep.

I was playing Battlefield 1 when I saw your reply, ****.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

The calc, in the end, concludes that the distance they travelled without rest must be "3,476.16 kilometers", which is, in fact, more than a thousand kilometres (and thousand miles).
If we take it as them needing a rest every 1000 km they would need 3 rests over that distance. (and would likely get somewhat slower due to stamina in parts)

But Jvando only reached that value by not assuming they took breaks in the first place. I don't think we can add the breaks to that distance after the fact, can we? We'd have to factor in the breaks initially, but then we run into the issue Jvando pointed out in his blog: there is no indication within that statement, or any other, that they required or took breaks. It'd be an additional unsupported assumption, like he said.
As M3X also pointed out, we've seen Shinobi travel vast, cross-country, distances in less than a day during the 4th World War, and they didn't stop for food or rest, despite spending hours fighting prior to making the trip. So that's another indication that they don't require much, if any rest, in order to make these extremely long journeys.

Honestly, I was initially in favor of factoring in the breaks, but after going over all the evidence Jvando presented, it just seemed like it'd be an arbitrary assumption in all fairness.

 

[Damage3245]

Thanks for getting involved DT.

Ok, so first not every method is better than scaling from mountains. However, scaling from assumed mountain height isn't a very good method. The problem with scaling from mountains is mostly that there is no universally accepted measure of how high a mountain has to be and that the thing in question could also be a hill. So it's an issue of the size possibly being lower. (Of course the size could also be higher, but that's not the issue)

Regarding this point, the geographical features next to the Biju Bomb explosions do seem to be identified as mountains in the manga by Kakashi so I thought it would be okay to treat it as a mountain.

And as I remember we do have a universally accepted lower bound of a mountain on the wiki which is this:

2000 feet (609.6 meters) is usually considered the minimum to be considered a "mountain".

From this page.

So without a specific figure being given to us, we'd use this as the variable for the mountain's height at a minimum.

As M3X also pointed out, we've seen Shinobi travel vast, cross-country, distances in less than a day during the 4th World War, and they didn't stop for food or rest, despite spending hours fighting prior to making the trip. So that's another indication that they don't require much, if any rest, in order to make these extremely long journeys.

Just because we don't see them throughout their journey doesn't mean they didn't take rests or breaks and had to be travelling constantly.

Even Ninjas have got to take toilet breaks, for example.

But Jvando only reached that value by not assuming they took breaks in the first place. I don't think we can add the breaks to that distance after the fact, can we? We'd have to factor in the breaks initially, but then we run into the issue Jvando pointed out in his blog: there is no indication within that statement, or any other, that they required or took breaks. It'd be an additional unsupported assumption, like he said.

There's no indication that they didn't take breaks either. Either you way you look at it, you'd be making an assumption.

Also, whether or not Naruto and company took breaks on their particular trip, the calc Jvando is doing for the distance is a generic travel between the villages of exactly 72 hours. Not the journey that Naruto made. And it isn't stated that is a "three day trip of non-stop travel without breaks".

 

[DontTalkDT]

That's actually not a problem. Ninjas could ran hundred of kilometers during the 4th War after fighting for a long period of time and spending chakra (No chakra = can't run), and while going to Suna, they didn't stop to sleep or eat.

I also thought that we should take some sleep into account, but I was debunked regarding that.

Did they run hundreds of kilometres throughout more than 3 days or were the ninjas in that war simply faster?
Can I see that feat?

And where does it say they didn't sleep or eat during this journey?

But Jvando only reached that value by not assuming they took breaks in the first place. I don't think we can add the breaks to that distance after the fact, can we? We'd have to factor in the breaks initially, but then we run into the issue Jvando pointed out in his blog: there is no indication within that statement, or any other, that they required or took breaks. It'd be an additional unsupported assumption, like he said.

That someone takes breaks / slows down due to stamina when travelling a long distance is the standard assumptions. You need a good argument to claim they don't happen, not to claim that they did.
And yes, we can't simply factor in the breaks after the time. However, it's actually rather easy to figure out what the result with a break every 1000km would be. If we agree to do so I can easily do it.
Although, if breaks are necessary we need to consider stamina when it comes to the "faster than a horse"-speeds.

As M3X also pointed out, we've seen Shinobi travel vast, cross-country, distances in less than a day during the 4th World War, and they didn't stop for food or rest, despite spending hours fighting prior to making the trip. So that's another indication that they don't require much, if any rest, in order to make these extremely long journeys.

If they travel cross-country distances in less than a day, then either those distances are smaller than what the ninjas in this feat are covering in three days, or those ninjas are considerably faster. In neither case, it would make for a good argument for this feat.

Honestly, I was initially in favor of factoring in the breaks, but after going over all the evidence Jvando presented, it just seemed like it'd be an arbitrary assumption in all fairness.

I mean, the quote is relatively specific on it being a thousand miles without rest. Doesn't sound like it indicates it being much more.

Regarding this point, the geographical features next to the Biju Bomb explosions do seem to be identified as mountains in the manga by Kakashi so I thought it would be okay to treat it as a mountain.

And as I remember we do have a universally accepted lower bound of a mountain on the wiki which is this:


From this page.

So without a specific figure being given to us, we'd use this as the variable for the mountain's height at a minimum.

609m is indeed accepted as mountain assumption on the wiki. That said, there is a difference between an acceptable assumption and a good assumption.
609m is the definition used by some dictionary and IIRC based on some countries definition. (I think it's the definition used in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland specifically)
That isn't universally accepted in real-life. For example, the UN Environmental Programme's definition of "mountainous environment" also includes "Elevation of at least 300 m (980 ft), with a 300 m (980 ft) elevation range within 7 km".
As someone born in a very flat area I can say that the things we call mountains around here aren't necessarily mountains by any proper definition either. Everyday use of the term is just even vaguer.

So, I'm not saying the calc with mountain scaling isn't usable at all. However, it's not my ideal on scaling either, so I'm not immediately disregarding other methods.

Although, tbh, travel time based calcs aren't all that great of a method as well. Fiction is just not very consistent with that stuff. Like, how many times did MHS characters need days to travel through japan in fiction?

So currently I absolutely don't have an opinion on what the best-suited method is yet. Maybe I will make up my mind based on what seems like the most realistic result in the end.

 

[M3X_2.0]

And yes, we can't simply factor in the breaks after the time. However, it's actually rather easy to figure out what the result with a break every 1000km would be. If we agree to do so I can easily do it.

I'm curious of that the result would be, can you do it? I'm fine with considering some breaks, I was in favor for that too long ago.

Fiction is just not very consistent with that stuff. Like, how many times did MHS characters need days to travel through japan in fiction?

It's consistent as **** in Naruto actually, they do take some days to travel from country to country, even years after the manga ended, with Retsuden novels (released last year), they take some time to travel (Like 30 days to reach a "new country")

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

And yes, we can't simply factor in the breaks after the time. However, it's actually rather easy to figure out what the result with a break every 1000km would be. If we agree to do so I can easily do it.

I'm very curious how this would turn out. Could you show us the results if you don't mind? I'm not inherently opposed to factoring in the breaks, at all, but I thought it'd be more consistent to not use them via Jvando's argument. I'm fine with it though, personally.

 

[KLOL506]

Assuming they take 6 hour breaks per day (Bare minimum that an adult should sleep), that'd be 54 hours worth of running and 18 hours of rest, I'd say this is accurate given that the Konoha-Suna runs are usually shown in the series to be undertaken in emergency situations, running for 54 hours at 30 mph gives you 2607.14 km worth of distance between Konohagakure and Sunagakure. Take that as you will.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Keep in mind that Jvando's calc is a generic calc of 3 days without a break, if we actually calc a feat of them running to Suna, the time is lower (iirc they took less than 3 days to reach there) but I don't think we should use breaks at all.

 

[KLOL506]

bump

 

[Damage3245]

To divert slightly from the topic of the distance calculation, I want to at least mention this alternative method of scaling since I brought it up earlier in the thread.

A couple of years ago I re-calced the original calc for this feat by doing a size scaling from Naruto, to the Eight-Tails, to the Eight-Tails' tornado crater, and from that tornado crater to the Biju Bomb Explosion & Mountain.

I'm not endorsing this old calc as a replacement, but just want to point out that from the size scaling based on the characters (whose official height is canonical information as the foundation) we get a height of the mountain as being roughly 855 meters (strictly speaking the actual value of this should be lower since the mountain is closer to the viewer's perspective than the Eight-Tails' tornado crater) and this value is a lot closer to a baseline assumption of 609 meters than it is to scaling it based on the distance between Suna and Konoha which currently gives you roughly 3503 meters for the height of the mountain.

Obviously I don't prefer this calc compared to just assuming a baseline mountain height and scaling it directly to the explosion, but the size scaling based on the characters does not support the much larger sizes you'd get from basing it on the Konoha to Suna distance calc.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Regarding the 8-Tails, I thought there were disagreements over that considering the inconsistent height with which the Biju are drawn in Naruto?

That is the main reason why we switched over to scaling the explosion to a mountain.

I honestly hate using large size characters to scale things.

I was told this wasn't a valid excuse when it came to the topic of revising the Seireitei. Inconsistency is inconsistency. Your method of scaling to the Biju requires far more scaling steps, escalating the margin for error.

Sorry, but I'll ignore your comment. Don't change the narrative just because it fits you.

 

[Damage3245]

Sorry, but I'll ignore your comment. Don't change the narrative just because it fits you.

You must have missed the parts of the comment where I said:

I'm not endorsing this old calc as a replacement
Obviously I don't prefer this calc

If we're changing up the narrative now to "This is the calc based on the most canon values so it is better" then I will have to bring up alternative methods that show that your method is not the sole conclusion from using "canon values".

I hate using "large size characters" too like Tempest said, but I dislike the roundabout way of calculating distances through assumed variables and apply that to maps and other perspectives to scale an explosion even more.

You can ignore my comment all you like, but I'm posting it more for the sake of others on the thread, not for you.

 

[M3X_2.0]

And the others here should also ignore you, at least when you talk about it.

You had rejected that method, Tempest too. Basically everyone did. Now, just because you magically discovered that using Biju helps you here, you are using it. Stop being dishonest.

Focus here, Damage. Your method against mine. Only that.

 

[Damage3245]

@M3X; sorry, but you don't get to dictate what I post or what other people on the thread should ignore. Chill out M3X and don't try and force the narrative of it being "only these two methods, nothing else".

We're striving for accuracy here, not just who should have priority over calcing this particular feat.

 

[KLOL506]

Honestly why are the Bijuu being used in the first place when their sizes are not consistent enough with the canon values in the first place?

 

[M3X_2.0]

Please stop mentioning me. I already get notifications on this post.

I am not dictating anything, I cannot do this. I'm just suggesting what others should do now: Ignore a stupid point about a rejected method. Stop mentioning something that isn't accurate, and something rejected.

You suddenly found that it helps you, and now you're using it. Anyone realizes this, seriously, for, this is getting bad for you.

 

[Damage3245]

Honestly why are the Bijuu being used in the first place when their sizes are not consistent enough with the canon values in the first place?

I'm trying to see what, if anything, can be used to support this method of using the calculated distance between Konoha and Suna to find the size values of other things in the series like the Biju Bomb explosion.

If we tried a third method - such as scaling from the characters themselves - then which end does it end up being closer to? The low end or the high end?

Please bear in mind my words when I'm saying that I'm not arguing we need to suddenly accept this other calc. I'm trying to establish what is the most consistent end. If you get a consistent size using a multiple methods, and one drastically higher (or lower) size using a different method, then maybe that other method is less likely to be accurate.

You suddenly found that it helps you, and now you're using it.

If it helps me at all, then does that mean you admit that I might have a point?

 

[M3X_2.0]

If it helps me at all, then does that mean you admit that I might have a point?

The quarantine must be driving people crazy. You have to have a lot of interpretation problems to understand that.

 

[KingTempest]

Aye,

Relax

 

[M3X_2.0]

For now, my method against Damage's method AND ONLY THAT. I'll wait for DontTalk's help for the distance calc.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Guys, calm down...

 

[KLOL506]

Yeah, let's not escalate this any further. Let's just wait for what further modifications DT wants to make to the calc and then we can go comparing.

 

[Rocker1189]

I have just barely been watching this thread however using Damage's Gyuki crater linked above, the destruction would have to be recalced using the method he used in the current calc as well. As for M3X's idea obviously I agree with it using the revised method KLOL calced. We still have the planet shot to tell us the the distance is indeed in the thousands of km regardless of result.