Our current black hole formula

[Antvasima]

I corrected it.

 

[Kepekley23]

Alright. Should you add it?

 

[Antvasima]

I can do it.

 

[Antvasima]

I did not notice the "Solar Mass * GBE = GBE of the Black Hole" formula anywhere within the page.

It seems redundant to add an explanation for something that is not stated there.

 

[Kepekley23]

Okay then.

 

[Antvasima]

In what explanation page did you see it used in the first place?

 

[Kepekley23]

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.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

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.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Most of our accepted Black Hole calculations use Mass-Energy I think.

 

[Antvasima]

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.

 

[Kepekley23]

Not really. I used mass-energy because I thought it was the best way to go.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

The collapse of a Black Hole singularity can be calculated, though I've seen plenty of calcs of that.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

The collapse of a Black Hole singularity can be calculated, though I've seen plenty of calcs of that.

With what DontTalk and Executor have presented I don't see how.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I think that we cannot use reliably calculate feats of characters somehow physically wrestling with black holes, as that would mean that they do not remotely work like real black holes.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

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.

 

[Kepekley23]

Well, I trust Endless Mike.

 

[Antvasima]

I mean, it is not uncommon to present them as somehow physically tangible, as amorphous blobs, as space-time portals, or not possessing a singularity. That would make them something other than black holes.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

But we're not talking about that.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@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.

 

[Kepekley23]

What Assalt said.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

It was exactly what he calced. He reasoned that the collapse would have released all it's mass-energy content.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I've been in one of the discussions about this in the past. It was the DT who suggested using it for me, it happens here.
I agree that Mass-Energy is the best way to find the energy to create a Black Hole. The problem with using this is not even with black holes, but our page of Mass-Energy Feats in Fiction that sets the need for a direct mention of E = MC^2 for the use of this formula.

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.

 

[Antvasima]

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.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

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 worked outside of how physics actually work to get a quantifiable feat out of it.

I mean that's how all black hole calculations do to an extent.

 

[Antvasima]

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.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, you promised me to permanently stop pushing for abolishing our thorough regulations regarding such feats.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I am not, actually. I am just asking if the calculation is valid.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

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.

I feel that this is probably an exaggeration. Hell, I've seen fictions which literally mention Schwartzschild radius when Black Holes are concerned.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Guilty Gear for example. Both Mass-Energy conversion and the Schwartzschild radius are explicitly mentioned.

 

[Antvasima]

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.

 

[Kepekley23]

@Ant

Creating one.

Sorry for not being helpful here, I'm busy with the Naruto revisions, which might be finished today.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

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.

It's for creating. And have a good sleep.

 

[Antoniofer]

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.

 

[Antvasima]

@Kepekley23

Creating what?

No problem.

 

[Kepekley23]

A black hole.

 

[Antvasima]

Sorry. Stupid question. I sometimes get a bit disoriented from handling so many different tasks at once.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Sorry. Stupid question. I sometimes get a bit disoriented from handling so many different tasks at once.

I get it. Just made me laugh though.

 

[Antvasima]

No problem.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

So what's the conclusion here? We continue using Solar Mass*GBE?

 

[Antvasima]

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.