- 21,491
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #241
Wait a damn minute
Wouldn't that be the hawking radiation?
Wouldn't that be the hawking radiation?
-
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.
One Piece: Black Hole Mechanics
- Thread starter KingTempest
- Start date
- Status
- 19,233
- 28,305
Last time Migue commented, they said DT was a bit more convincing. And I believe Exec is leaning towards DT as well. Albeit, the last time Migue made a comment on if he supports the schwarzschild radius being used or not was page 2, so maybe they changed their mind.
- 21,491
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #245
He said he found the responses to DT's points more convincing. Aka the opposition
- 19,233
- 28,305
My b, I retract that then, thanks for pointing that out
- 21,491
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #247
So we not allowed to calculate it with the method of absorbing light utilizing mass
We're not allowed to call it a black hole
We're allowed to say it has a gravitational pull akin to a black hole
But we're not allowed to utilize any of the methods in order to calculate that
So wtf can we do
- 4,374
- 2,879
Yes we can.
- 21,491
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #249
No I did but they're saying we can't use said calc
- 19,233
- 28,305
What can you do? You can calc the level of destruction it's shown, but ik that's not what you want since that wont go beyond tier 7. It might just not be calculable atm too, at least not to a degree which nets an upgrade. You can get more opinions from other knowledgeable experts on how we treat BH and BH-related feats on wiki as a good place to start.
- 21,491
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #251
That's like saying you can't calculate somebody's vague statement of destroying the planet but you can assume at the baseline that they could crack the ground so you use cracking the ground for the feat
- 13,330
- 21,304
Mf ninja'd me
- 19,233
- 28,305
Yes, sometimes there are no good formulas or valid equations to calc something in fiction. You've cracked the code. Now I'm not saying that with absolute certainty maybe a better method will be revealed as we see more of BB fighting. But if this method isn't accepted, then it appears to me like there is not a magic High 6-A to 5-C BB darkness equation. And KT you should know very well that most of the time when we have "vague planet busting" statements we do not calc anything from them or use them to scale lol. Complaining about that isn't going to change that.
- 19,233
- 28,305
Going through the thread again reading the CGM posts
Agree: Clover (strongly), Migue (slightly)
Disagree: Damage (strongly), DT (strongly), Exec (isn't comfortable giving a concrete answer due to not being super knowledgeable on BH standards, but is fine with what DT says)
Neither Exec nor Migue have given any updated stance since pages 1-2, so maybe they've changed their minds or maybe they haven't
- 19,526
- 17,163
- 21,491
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #257
Migue passively coccslapping Arc
- 4,374
- 2,879
Cope.Fr, only L I’ve taken this entire thread
- 4,374
- 2,879
Should we contact another cgm since Exec isn't comfortable giving a concrete answer, and we are otherwise split?
- 19,233
- 28,305
Nothing’s wrong with trying to snag more CGM
- 2,372
- 2,182
if you calced it like a BH and you know how far a character is standing from its center (while resisting its pull), you can use (Gm1m2)/(r^2) to see the force on their body
- 31,582
- 28,037
This is not a thread for any random person to chime in if they don't have anything relevant to the thread to bring. Some of the last few posts have not been contributing anything other than filling up the page, so I will be removing them.
EDIT: Won't be able to respond to the thread today.
EDIT: Won't be able to respond to the thread today.
Last edited:
- 4,374
- 2,879
I think he did that.
- 2,372
- 2,182
what he calculated was the surface gravity. someone "standing" at its edge would have to withstand that force to not collapse. it's basically g, 9.81m/s^2, but for the BH instead. g changes the further away you are from the object.
the further away you are from a mass, the weaker its gravity gets, so i'm suggesting just calc the mass and then if anyone withstands the pull from a given distance away, use (Gm1m2)/r^2
- 106
- 95
Well as i said, i agree
- 3,346
- 1,912
doesnt shueisha look over the translations?
- 21,491
- 30,820
- Thread starter
- #268
idk but they've been wrong time and time again
- 3,346
- 1,912
force can mean a similar context , which is likely in this case
- 4,374
- 2,879
Please stop acting like the density scan was my whole argument.
- 3,346
- 1,912
name isnt sounding so accurate
- 4,374
- 2,879
Bump
- 11,056
- 19,449
There are no disagreements that you can use the escape velocity formula for calcing purposes. The issue lies with the fact that people are using the escape velocity formula to find this object's mass, and using properties explained by Oda to assume that mass generates that gravitational pull, similar to how an actual black hole in our world generates its gravitational pull.
What the calc is doing is effectively bypassing our black hole standards by assuming properties similar to, but not exact replicas of, black holes in our world and through using those properties, assuming it gains them through the exact same means as our black holes in real life. It's hiding a presumption being made, which isn't good and is inherently faulty.
I explained why, and so has DontTalk, that using a basic escape velocity formula doesn't matter with our contentions. Our contentions don't extend to the formulas themselves in terms of fundamental, mathematical disagreements, it extends to assumptions made by the calc.
That's an issue going on in this thread.
You can't assume properties and similarities of an actual black hole for calculations, but then not abide by our black hole standards when all the math you're doing in regards to the calculation are those used for calculating the mass of a black hole. That's you bypassing our standards directly.
I don't have an issue with Blackbeard being capable of controlling the crush strength of his gravity. I can see valid arguments against the interpretation of this gravity producing infinite force, but that's an issue for someone else to bring up, not me.
Mistranslation gg.
No one has disagreed with this object having mass, the contention lies with the amount of mass it has. Y'all believe it has mass equivalent with its gravitational pull, we don't.
- 4,374
- 2,879
So basically your argument is that it just doesn't seem right. That's weak. The Yami Yami no mi is special because it has a physical form, i.e mass. It using mass in its power makes sense. The gravity manipulator of Fujtora has an entirely different fruit that is never compared with Blackbeard, and devil fruits are always unique, save for those select fruits(i.e superiors). You admit it has mass, but somehow it doesn't suck things in with mass even though its gravitational pull was noted by Oda himself to be similar to a black hole which pulls things in with mass and not gravity manipulation.
- 19,233
- 28,305
Deceived’s argument
That moron’s head
But seriously how did you pull that asinine conclusion from Deceived’s post?
- 31,582
- 28,037
I think that Deceived and DontTalk have said it best here. I think a summary from me would just be repeating their points mainly.
- 4,374
- 2,879
- 4,374
- 2,879
Jesus christ I am getting tired of explaining this.
Those points have been debunked. Y'all are just saying that we can't calc it with no other argument than "ma standards" which it doesn't even violate. KT put this well, earlier in the thread.
- 31,582
- 28,037
You're acting like that one characteristic of absorbing light is the only thing we can judge Blackbeard's darkness by, regardless of how much it doesn't act like how an object with that amount of mass should.
- 4,374
- 2,879
It crushes everything it touches, it has an inescapable gravitational pull, its described as having infinite gravity many times. How doesn't it act right?
- Status
