-
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.
Our current black hole formula
- Thread starter Kepekley23
- Start date
- Status
- 15,332
- 7,559
- Thread starter
- #42
Alright. Should you add it?
- 15,332
- 7,559
- Thread starter
- #45
Okay then.
- 15,332
- 7,559
- Thread starter
- #47
I didn't see it in a page, but I saw several calc group members using this formula, and Executor N0 initially agreed with me on it being iffy.
- 8,438
- 3,292
Yeah it isn't official or listed anywhere. It is a way several calc group members were deriving results from black holes, since there isn't a great way to do it.
- 32,339
- 20,255
Most of our accepted Black Hole calculations use Mass-Energy I think.
- 165,669
- 73,375
Okay, but I think that our Black Hole Feats in Fictio page explicitly says that it is not possible to destroy a black hole through physical strength, and as such we should disregard such feats as unquantifiable reality warping, or as black holes in name only.
- 15,332
- 7,559
- Thread starter
- #51
Not really. I used mass-energy because I thought it was the best way to go.
- 32,339
- 20,255
The collapse of a Black Hole singularity can be calculated, though I've seen plenty of calcs of that.
- 8,438
- 3,292
With what DontTalk and Executor have presented I don't see how.Matthew Schroeder said:
- 32,339
- 20,255
https://www.narutoforums.org/xfa-blog-entry/thanos-tanks-a-black-hole.17692
^ This is probably the most well-known Black Hole collapse calc.
The method EM presented is incredibly straightforward. Such a collapse would release all it's mass-energy content in one huge burst.
^ This is probably the most well-known Black Hole collapse calc.
The method EM presented is incredibly straightforward. Such a collapse would release all it's mass-energy content in one huge burst.
- 15,332
- 7,559
- Thread starter
- #56
Well, I trust Endless Mike.
- 32,339
- 20,255
But we're not talking about that.
- 8,438
- 3,292
@Matthew
That is just mass-energy conversion of the black hole creation. The collapse of said black hole was not calced, as such a thing shouldn't be possible.
That is just mass-energy conversion of the black hole creation. The collapse of said black hole was not calced, as such a thing shouldn't be possible.
- 15,332
- 7,559
- Thread starter
- #60
What Assalt said.
- 32,339
- 20,255
It was exactly what he calced. He reasoned that the collapse would have released all it's mass-energy content.
- 32,339
- 20,255
Unrelated but I think that demanding a direct mention of E=MC^2 for Mass-Energy to be used is quite simply absurd, and does not at all reflect into the standards this wiki's members use. Something like "He was dematerialized into pure energy" would be more than enough I feel.Executor N0 said:
- 165,669
- 73,375
But Thanos would have had to tank an infinite singularity that breaks down space-time if it had been a real black hole, so Mike seems to have gone outside of how physics actually work to get a quantifiable feat out of it.
- 32,339
- 20,255
I mean that's how all black hole calculations do to an extent.Antvasima said:
- 165,669
- 73,375
Well, black holes in fiction almost constantly use different and variable standards that do not at all conform to what the concept actually means, so it is inappropriate to calculate feats for physically destroying or withstanding them, as there is no way to approximate whichever standard that is used for every occasion.
- 32,339
- 20,255
I am not, actually. I am just asking if the calculation is valid.
- 32,339
- 20,255
I feel that this is probably an exaggeration. Hell, I've seen fictions which literally mention Schwartzschild radius when Black Holes are concerned.Antvasima said:
- 32,339
- 20,255
Guilty Gear for example. Both Mass-Energy conversion and the Schwartzschild radius are explicitly mentioned.
- 165,669
- 73,375
Okay, but is that a feat for creating a black hole, or destroying or withstanding one? The former is possible to calculate, whereas the latter two feats are impossible/unquantifiable for physical 3D characters.
Anyway, I have to go to sleep now. Goodnight.
Anyway, I have to go to sleep now. Goodnight.
- 15,332
- 7,559
- Thread starter
- #71
@Ant
Creating one.
Sorry for not being helpful here, I'm busy with the Naruto revisions, which might be finished today.
Creating one.
Sorry for not being helpful here, I'm busy with the Naruto revisions, which might be finished today.
- 32,339
- 20,255
It's for creating. And have a good sleep.Antvasima said:
- 9,962
- 2,003
Mass-Energy convertion can be used when stated and only when creating a black hole, but when destroying/collapsin one is not quantificable. Other methods of creating black holes that isn't not mass convertio energy is used the old formula and it will considered reality warping.
- 15,332
- 7,559
- Thread starter
- #75
A black hole.
- 8,438
- 3,292
I get it. Just made me laugh though.Antvasima said:
- 11,098
- 4,321
So what's the conclusion here? We continue using Solar Mass*GBE?
- 165,669
- 73,375
I do not think that our Black Hole Feats in Fictio page allows for any calculations for destruction of black holes by 3D characters, and not withstanding them either.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
