- 17,718
- 13,261
i am very sorry but this did appear in the trailer for the arc, episode lists also have them
-
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.
Necrozoma: Absorbing the light of the universe
- Thread starter Iamunanimousinthat
- Start date
-
- Tags
- calculations necrozma pokémon
- 10,462
- 4,102
Bump because of this.
- 10,545
- 12,399
Has the calc been put on a blog and evaluated?
- 6,594
- 1,713
Source? Your link to the number leads to the Sun energy production. Either way this is 5 times higher than Assaltwaffles amount in his blog, and even he admitted that was a high number. Use the number of stars in the average galaxy (100 million) x 2 trillion instead. That's 2.0e+20 stars. Also, why are you assuming each star is like the Sun when Assalt's blog implies the average star is significantly smaller than that?
Source on 100 million/galaxy. You can literally look up "average number of stars in the average galaxy".
If what you say is indeed true then wouldn't that make the number of stars significantly less, since a lot of them would have already been dead and gone? Or outside the observable Universe?
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Assaltwaffle/The_Average_Star
Look at this, then find the lifespan of the most common star, then find the energy it gives per second, multiply by its lifespan, and redo the calc based on it.
Last edited:
- 6,594
- 1,713
All of this is banking on the idea that each galaxy is the size of the Milky Way, which is supposed to be large compared to other galaxies. The first link arbitrarily assumed an average based on the larger than normal Milky Way. If it's bigger than average, then it's an outlier. We'd be using a very unjustified high end.
- 1,019
- 665
- 16,965
- 4,865
Since the OP was the one who calced this in the first place, we should wait to get his input on why.
- 3,515
- 1,373
- Thread starter
- #50
I made an error linking it. If you copy and past the link shown, it would go to the page that I got it from. It has been fixed though.
Anyways if you need a better source, I can provide you an excerpt from a 2015 text book that claims that the universe:
Now, the text book is before the research in 2016 that declared there to be at least 2 trillion galaxies, but it till lists the average galaxy to have 100 billion galaxies and the amount of stars in the universe to be 10^23.
I can adjust my calc to 10^23 instead of 10^24 but that's just a power of ten.
They are gone but the light they produced still exists and will always exist and should be counted.
These are all averages for destruction. What I'm using is light output and lifespan. There is no such thing as an average star. And you can't get an average light output or lifespan either because that is all dependent on the type of stars and is all proportional.
Even if I use red dwarfs, the most abundant type of stars in the universe, they have an output that's as low as 1/10,000 of the Sun's Light, with 1000 times the life span. It comes off to 10^66. If you see above, Professor asked to use Sirius and that came up to a 2.5x difference. It doesn't matter what kind of star you use, it will be around each other.
Now, the reason I use the Sun as the standard is because across the vs battling world, the sun is used as the standard for all star calcs.
- 6,594
- 1,713
Normally I wouldn't question this stuff, but the textbook would have to provide a source on the average galaxy housing that many stars for a few reasons I find contradictory to their claims. Such as the Milky Way being the second-largest galaxy in the Local Group. Heck, most websites I've been to tell me the Milky Way is bigger than average anyways, not the largest by any means, but certainly not the average or most common type in terms of star count.
Yeah, but equating the leftover light to the total light energy they'd produce over the course of their lifespan? I kinda doubt that would still be left over by this point. All we're seeing is the last remnants of light from those stars.
Averages that are taken from the mass and radius of several star classifications. Different stars of different sizes and colors won't give off the same amounts of energy as the Sun and won't have the same lifespan.
76% of all stars are red dwarfs. When I say "average" I mean "most common", since these stars are going to make up a huge bulk of your calculations total energy as a result of their commonness. Say there are 2.0e+23 stars out there. If red dwarfs make up 76% of all stars, then 1.52e+23 of them are going to be red dwarfs. Give or take.
Where did this come from? I'm not as doubtful as I am the number of stars, but I just want to be certain.
I'm not sure why that is the way it is since the Sun is a class G star, making up 7.5% of stars. The odds of encountering a Sun/Sunlike Star aren't very high in terms of percentage. I just personally feel it is safest to use the most common star classifications since they are the ones you are going to be seeing the most of.
Last edited:
- 3,515
- 1,373
- Thread starter
- #52
I would take a text book that's written to teach people astronomy as a better source than websites. Even the one you linked just quotes the professor and doesn't give us his methodology or the research he's quoting from. Of course if there is some scientific journal or research to go by we should use those.
The leftover light is the total light energy. Remember that light is travelling through the universe from the moment of birth to the star's death. All of it being emitted and will keep traveling after the stars death.
Wikipedia page for Red Dwarfs which then links to this article.
That's just how it is. I think it has to do with the sun being people's reference for stars in fiction and most stars in fiction are shown to be like the sun.
Like I said, it really doesn't matter what type of star you use, it all is around the same ball park give or take a few exponents.
XSOULOFCINDERX
They/Them- 21,675
- 9,204
It was already reported on the Rule Violations Thread.
XSOULOFCINDERX
They/Them- 21,675
- 9,204
Speaking of which, how many more supporters do we need for this to get accepted?
- 477
- 459
Yeah I reported that, and DDM fixed it.
XSOULOFCINDERX
They/Them- 21,675
- 9,204
I'm kinda surprised Cal hasn't seen this yet.
- 16,965
- 4,865
Funny thing is I saw from a glance that UN was edited, but I never thought it would be a whole tier edit.
- 17,718
- 13,261
it was just some dude with 0 edits or replies. Must've seen our thread or tried to use a headcanon. They literally changed all of the tiers listed to 4-A and in the description there they only changed one stating that at full power it attacks with MSS level attacks. Newbies man!
- 17,718
- 13,261
Anyways on another note... What if we prove that the universe in pokemon is infinite? Would that affect anything? Lighting up an infinite universe is different from the observable one after all. Don't get me wrong, the only proof i have is that one statement a kid who Gou was friends with said where he mentioned sth along the lines of everything being cool in this infinite universe.
- 3,515
- 1,373
- Thread starter
- #61
No idea. You’d have to prove stars go on and on and on rather than just stop at some point followed by empty space.
- 17,718
- 13,261
seems legit
- 6,594
- 1,713
And does the textbook provide a source for where it gets these numbers? I have good reason to suspect why it might be faulty: That it's basing the number of stars in the average galaxy off the Milky Way, which; ya know, isn't average size. While you may be right that the textbook was made before 2 trillion galaxies, it seems as the number of stars changed because of the number of galaxies changed. Being designed to teach people astronomy doesn't make it wrong where it is, and if it makes an assumption like that, it needs to be pointed out.
Fair enough, you might have actually given me an idea for something else myself.
Hmm, so it sounds like 9.5 trillion years (2.99790797e20 seconds) and 3.846e22 joules per second which comes out to 1.15299541e43 joules of light total for a single red dwarf. That comes out to (2.0e20 x 0.76) x 1.15299541e43 = 1.75255302e63 joules (Using my average for galaxies that is). Mind you, this doesn't take into account other stars, but still. You get similar results if you take into account the number of Suns there are and how much energy they give off.
That doesn't make it right nor accurate to do so, which I'm trying to ensure this is.
Honestly, it depends on the Star and how many there really are.
XSOULOFCINDERX
They/Them- 21,675
- 9,204
I just realized that you should probably put tags on this so the Staff will Notice it better so it can be Accepted or Rejected.
- 3,515
- 1,373
- Thread starter
- #65
Tags?
XSOULOFCINDERX
They/Them- 21,675
- 9,204
Yes. Tags. You know, the things that actually allow you to search for Threads without having to type out the titles? There should be a Tag symbol above your title.
- 3,515
- 1,373
- Thread starter
- #67
I've learned something new. I added pokemon and necrozma tag. let me know if I should tag it something else too.
- 16,965
- 4,865
....yeah I didn’t know that either. Good reminder.
XSOULOFCINDERX
They/Them- 21,675
- 9,204
So have you put your Calc in a blog post to get it looked at by the Calc Group yet?
- 40,473
- 12,955
XSOULOFCINDERX
They/Them- 21,675
- 9,204
If it was, I wasn't around for that. I'm a relatively recent addition to VSB. Only been here for about a year now.
- 25,042
- 6,338
Well now that I actually look
I dunno about the logic of absorbing all the light that was ever produced thus ramping it all the way up to 3-C
Like, basic entropy says you could still just do the inverse of the 4-B feat and get mostly the same result, even if there is still some light lurking in other places
I dunno about the logic of absorbing all the light that was ever produced thus ramping it all the way up to 3-C
Like, basic entropy says you could still just do the inverse of the 4-B feat and get mostly the same result, even if there is still some light lurking in other places
- 477
- 459
Well what about TIA’s video on the subject? It seems more accurate then the one we use.
- 3,515
- 1,373
- Thread starter
- #76
The calc on the necro's page is for him lighting up the universe. That is a different feat than absorbing all the light.
For when absorbing light, you have to factor in how long the light has been on to get the total amount of energy radiated.
For when absorbing light, you have to factor in how long the light has been on to get the total amount of energy radiated.
- 25,042
- 6,338
you should have followed this up with a link
- 477
- 459
- 25,042
- 6,338
- 477
- 459
Well, there are fundamental differences between the equations used. We used meters, and divided by the distance the the sun, while they used parsecs and divided by 10.
