• 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: Issho Range

Status
Not open for further replies.
KingTempest

KingTempest

He/Him
VS Battles
Thread Moderator
21,122
30,075
Very simple.

Issho can yank meteors from outside of the planet and pull them to earth with his gravity.
I'm not about to start copying and pasting links over and over so I stole this from his respect thread on reddit
  • Can pull multiple meteorites down to Earth from space - 1, 2, 3.
Click to expand...

We already accept the minimum distance of him pulling meteors from out the planet, 70,679,000 meters, or Planetary Range
Planetary: 20,037 - 1,391,400 km

Now, another distance we can say he pulled it from beyond the distance of the moon, as the moon is weirdly still in the planet's atmosphere of the planet, or at least close enough in orbit.
The meteors would've been pulled naturally if they were that close.

So also, 3.5359e+5 km or 353,590 km.
Considering the other side of the moon as well, it'd be 564,955.254825 km.

That's Stellar Range

So Stellar Range with Zushi Zushi no mi

Edit: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:KingTempest16/One_Piece:_Size_of_Moon

New size is 457999.98967337 kilometers
Stellar
 
Last edited:
I'm sure everyone is going to read this and start malding off rip, but I have to ask. Why do we take that planet model to be size-scale accurate? Is there any indication of such within the series? I ask because irl planet system models are almost never size-scale accurate. "It's not just the distances between planets that are large. There are also huge differences in the size of each planet. Because of this, it can be difficult or even impossible to display both planet size and distance accurately." Ofc if we are told that the size-scale model in OP is 1:1 accurate in the series, that's a-okay, but if we aren't I don't believe we should entertain using a commonly impossible to replicate accurately 1:1 planet system model for determining accurate sizes and distances.
 
Arc7Kuroi said:
I'm sure everyone is going to read this and start malding off rip, but I have to ask. Why do we take that planet model to be size-scale accurate? Is there any indication of such within the series? I ask because irl planet system models are almost never size-scale accurate. "It's not just the distances between planets that are large. There are also huge differences in the size of each planet. Because of this, it can be difficult or even impossible to display both planet size and distance accurately." Ofc if we are told that the size-scale model in OP is 1:1 accurate in the series, that's a-okay, but if we aren't I don't believe we should entertain using a commonly impossible to replicate accurately 1:1 planet system model for determining accurate sizes and distances.
Click to expand...
spongebob-evil.gif
 
Arc7Kuroi said:
I'm sure everyone is going to read this and start malding off rip, but I have to ask. Why do we take that planet model to be size-scale accurate? Is there any indication of such within the series? I ask because irl planet system models are almost never size-scale accurate. "It's not just the distances between planets that are large. There are also huge differences in the size of each planet. Because of this, it can be difficult or even impossible to display both planet size and distance accurately." Ofc if we are told that the size-scale model in OP is 1:1 accurate in the series, that's a-okay, but if we aren't I don't believe we should entertain using a commonly impossible to replicate accurately 1:1 planet system model for determining accurate sizes and distances.
Click to expand...
Tbf we know the moon might be within the atmosphere range regardless because it got reached by balloons.
I do agree the model isn't meant to be 1:1 but there is proof since we see the little robots go up there via air balloons (unless it's some balloon air tech we don't yet know about)
 
SnookB said:
Tbf we know the moon might be within the atmosphere range regardless because it got reached by balloons.
I do agree the model isn't meant to be 1:1 but there is proof since we see the little robots go up there via air balloons (unless it's some balloon air tech we don't yet know about)
Click to expand...
It being within atmosphere is fine. That's not my contention, my contention is using the planet system size-scale model for sizes and scales.
 
Arc7Kuroi said:
I'm sure everyone is going to read this and start malding off rip, but I have to ask. Why do we take that planet model to be size-scale accurate? Is there any indication of such within the series? I ask because irl planet system models are almost never size-scale accurate. "It's not just the distances between planets that are large. There are also huge differences in the size of each planet. Because of this, it can be difficult or even impossible to display both planet size and distance accurately." Ofc if we are told that the size-scale model in OP is 1:1 accurate in the series, that's a-okay, but if we aren't I don't believe we should entertain using a commonly impossible to replicate accurately 1:1 planet system model for determining accurate sizes and distances.
Click to expand...
I share Arc's sentiment here.
 
Arc7Kuroi said:
It being within atmosphere is fine. That's not my contention, my contention is using the planet system size-scale model for sizes and scales.
Click to expand...
It looks like a normal moon. Can it be assumed anything outside of it scaling to it the same way our moon scales to ours?


I don't disagree with you either. But I'm 100% sure the Angsizing KT did is the only method available. We don't see the planet from the moon, or an outer space shot of the two.
The alternative is "assume it's the same as earth's until further notice" (aka until TOP 1 Enel makes a comeback)
 
Last edited:
SnookB said:
It looks like a normal moon. Can it be assumed anything outside of it scaling to it the same way our moon scales to ours?


I don't disagree with you either. But I'm 100% sure the Angsizing KT did is the only method available. We don't see the planet from the moon, or an outer space shot of the two.
The alternative is "assume it's the same as earth's until further notice" (aka until TOP 1 Enel makes a comeback)
Click to expand...
Gimme a hot minute, I have some alternative suggestions in mind but I’m not at my computer rn
 
KingTempest said:
7138b1d749dfe89a7a2bfaf3abd34b66.png


Should we just use Boichi's drawing of it?
Click to expand...
Doesnt this just outright contradict the globe scaling thats used to get the planet size? Since we see the moon within the planet atmosphere along with other celestial bodies around, but in this image the moon is far in the distance with no other planets around the earth.
 
Wrath_Of_Itachi said:
Doesnt this just outright contradict the globe scaling thats used to get the planet size? Since we see the moon within the planet atmosphere along with other celestial bodies around, but in this image the moon is far in the distance with no other planets around the earth.
Click to expand...
The globe used to get the planet's size isn't that model (that just got declined)
It's this
1000.png


Which doesn't show the moon or any other celestial object

Also, that model's showing of the other satellites is a theory that even in canon isn't supported since the only celestial object we see in space is the moon
 
Wrath_Of_Itachi said:
Doesnt this just outright contradict the globe scaling thats used to get the planet size? Since we see the moon within the planet atmosphere along with other celestial bodies around, but in this image the moon is far in the distance with no other planets around the earth.
Click to expand...
The planet size is unrelated to the ohara model.
The moon distance/size is. Or was, after today
 
That panel of the One Piece planet & Moon comes from Boichi's one-shot of the Mihawk vs. Zoro duel. The panel is an original invention of that one-shot not appearing anywhere in the original work. I do not know why we would take that as being canon. Some scenes in the one-shot are not from the original chapters and some scenes from the original chapters are not included in it.

I'm fine with the range being updated to Planetary, but that's all.
 
Damage3245 said:
That panel of the One Piece planet & Moon comes from Boichi's one-shot of the Mihawk vs. Zoro duel. The panel is an original invention of that one-shot not appearing anywhere in the original work. I do not know why we would take that as being canon. Some scenes in the one-shot are not from the original chapters and some scenes from the original chapters are not included in it.
Click to expand...
Supporting canon. We don't get a shot in the manga, so until the manga contradicts it, this is our best bet
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Eseseso
  • Locked
Issho and Sabo upgrades.
2 3
Replies
115
Views
4K
Eseseso
Eseseso
Fireld
  • Locked
One Piece Admirals CTR
2 3
Replies
101
Views
5K
Fireld
Fireld
Kachon123
  • Locked
One Piece: Dressrosa Calc Additions
Replies
26
Views
2K
KingTempest
KingTempest
KingTempest
  • Locked
One Piece: Dinkleberg Quinkleturd Big Planet Shake
7 8 9
Replies
357
Views
25K
KingTempest
KingTempest
Her4cl3s14
Naruto's Planet size update
Replies
36
Views
2K
sageof8paths
sageof8paths
Back
Top