• 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: Planet Size Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
"The lightest rock" come on now
We shouldn't have to lowball it. There's barely anything against it
 
Like, if One Piece's world was sun sized or larger then you could easily just point out how it'd collapse in on itself.
This question deals more with the composition of the planet rather than strictly it’s size.


"The lightest rock" come on now
We shouldn't have to lowball it. There's barely anything against it
I’m more so saying, even using the least dense rock still nets larger than earth gravity.
 
I'm not saying you need to use water density or the lightest rock density. Use normal Earth density if you like.


I just think we should continue to use normal Earth gravity however until something else comes up in the manga that would change that.
 
There's arguments for both higher gravity and not.

- It's a fictional universe. It can have regular earth gravity and reasonable density as well because it's fictional and doesn't NEED to make sense, as many other cases in other media.
OR
- It DOES have gravity to match its mass, but it doesn't effect the inhabitants of the world because it's a verse where humans don't get turned to soup when getting shot into the sky by a knock up stream.

While I absolutely agree with the bigger size I'm always in favor of suspension of disbelief, because exmaning fiction with logic shouldn't be done unless the author specifically tries to apply said logic to a tee.
 
Remember when I said maybe we make a “planetary parameter/assumptions thread for calc’d planet sizes” thread.
 
That's been accepted. The size is what needs to be determined. This one seems the safest to use

I would agree that one is the safest so far at least.
Shouldn't a new thread in the calc group discussion be created so CGMs can discuss which calc is the safest.

Since this thread's purpose has been fulfilled, it wouldn't be a stretch to close it.
 
There's arguments for both higher gravity and not.

- It's a fictional universe. It can have regular earth gravity and reasonable density as well because it's fictional and doesn't NEED to make sense, as many other cases in other media.
OR
- It DOES have gravity to match its mass, but it doesn't effect the inhabitants of the world because it's a verse where humans don't get turned to soup when getting shot into the sky by a knock up stream.

While I absolutely agree with the bigger size I'm always in favor of suspension of disbelief, because exmaning fiction with logic shouldn't be done unless the author specifically tries to apply said logic to a tee.
I'd like to mention that by this logic we wouldn't use calculations at all as they rely on authors being aware of several kinetic/physical semantics, yet we assume so for the sake of having nearly anything whatsoever measurable for our purposes.
 
Shouldn't a new thread in the calc group discussion be created so CGMs can discuss which calc is the safest.

Since this thread's purpose has been fulfilled, it wouldn't be a stretch to close it.
^^^^
Indeed. The point of this thread was just to discuss whether or not the world was going to be accepted as bigger to begin with.

I don't know if a seperate thread altogether should be made for the SPECIFIC size passable, but if that's the case then I'm all for it-
 
I'd like to mention that by this logic we wouldn't use calculations at all as they rely on authors being aware of several kinetic semantics, yet we assume so for the sake of having nearly anything whatsoever measurable for our purposes.
Entirely different things to compare. Feats have visual evidence behind them at least. And if not, we do go by statements attached to feats at times as well.
 
0802-003.png

Late 🐵 just wanted to show idk
 
If the 6.88 times Jupiter gets accepted. That means when they traveled roughly half the world in 6 months. The ship traveled around 2500 KM a day
 
If the 6.88 times Jupiter gets accepted. That means when they traveled roughly half the world in 6 months. The ship traveled around 2500 KM a day
That means they travelled 0.15852885225 meters in a day
 
Not really. I'll just make a CGM thread to discuss the current calcs we have.

Closing
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top