• 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.

Planet Sizes Discussion (Fairy Tail Included) - STAFF ONLY

But it would still be inconsistent anyway compared to the estimated size of the ocean to Fiore which is all wrong.
 
CNBA3 said:
But it would still be inconsistent anyway compared to the estimated size of the ocean to Fiore which is all wrong.
Click to expand...
Could you explain why?
 
Agnaa said:
CNBA3 said:
But it would still be inconsistent anyway compared to the estimated size of the ocean to Fiore which is all wrong.
Click to expand...
Could you explain why?
Click to expand...
Because the distance between the continents Ishgar (Fiore) and Alakitasia would be around the same distance as that of the Atlantic Ocean, as it takes 10 days to sail there, which contradicts the size on the map with Fiore, as it would make it smaller than what the 400 km distance would make
 
CNBA3 said:
Because the distance between the continents Ishgar (Fiore) and Alakitasia would be around the same distance as that of the Atlantic Ocean, as it takes 10 days to sail there, which contradicts the size on the map with Fiore, as it would make it smaller than what the 400 km distance would make
Click to expand...
I don't understand. Why is the ocean between those continents small? Why do you assume a particular speed of sailing? What map gives the size of the ocean?
 
Firstly, that's a completely different map than the one we used to scale for Fiore's size.

Like I said before:

A calc leading to a bad result if you stack more pixel scaling on top of it doesn't invalidate the original calc.
But I guess that does just show that the size of Fiore is inconsistent, so we should reject the size for giving wildly different results when approached through multiple equally valid methods. Which is kinda a separate issue from rejecting it due to being too big.
 
They are of the same map as they leave from the same country as Fiore as it still has a similar shape and geographic features, It would still be inconsistent anyway regardless.
 
CNBA3 said:
They are of the same map as they leave from the same country as Fiore as it still has a similar shape and geographic features, It would still be inconsistent anyway regardless.
Click to expand...
No, they are different maps. They are of the same area, but there's differences in how they're drawn.

The shape's "similar" overall, but is still quite off. This one has the river in the top-middle 50.89% of the way from the top-left corner to the river on the far right. This one has that same river 65.88% of the way between those two landmarks.

I'm sure I could find more, similarly egregious, inconsistencies between landmarks on those two maps.
 
I think that this seems to make sense.
 
@CNBA3

Fiore is staying the size it is, this was just for planet size, also the whole reason we're using earth is because it's a safe lowball, I'm sure everyone can agree that the planet is potentially bigger, but they just see it as safer to use earth and the such, unless given new info
 
But it would still apply to the planet being bigger anyway and it contradicted by other statements as well which makes it unusable.
 
@CNBA3

That doesn't matter, there can still be large countries, the planet size isn't necesarily restricted to be just earth size, it's that there isn't enough info to imply it being bigger, but it still possibly could be, meaning it's not restricting things smaller than it on the planet, either way, I'm not arguing on this since everyone else agrees with me
 
There can be small countries too, it is then important to note that Etherion has to be revaluated then since we cannot use a country that has no stated size.
 
DemonGodMitchAubin said:
@CNBA3

That doesn't matter, there can still be large countries, the planet size isn't necesarily restricted to be just earth size, it's that there isn't enough info to imply it being bigger, but it still possibly could be, meaning it's not restricting things smaller than it on the planet, either way, I'm not arguing on this since everyone else agrees with me
Click to expand...
I disagree, and I outlined why above.

Most importantly, its size should be rejected due to inconsistent results for it. You can't just take the one statement that gives the highest results, and use pixel scaling on inconsistent maps to get a ludicrously sized country.
 
That one statement is far more reliable than using boat speed as a measurement, It's not perfect but it is the best we have, using in verse measurements is far more reliable than other assumptions that use boat speed as a measurement

Not to mention no one has actually presented opposing ways and other evidence to measure the size for the country, we pixel scale plenty of other stuff this way, I don't see how this is that big of an issue, I'm ok with limiting most Planet sizes to Earth size, but the country size should stay the same since it doesn't rely on calc stacking
 
it isn't assumption when we know the values for measurement. Well maps have always been the most unreliable as they tend to be just unterpretation of what we believe to be the location of something rather than the physical visualization of said location.
 
DemonGodMitchAubin said:
That one statement is far more reliable than using boat speed as a measurement, It's not perfect but it is the best we have, using in verse measurements is far more reliable than other assumptions that use boat speed as a measurement

Not to mention no one has actually presented opposing ways and other evidence to measure the size for the country, we pixel scale plenty of other stuff this way, I don't see how this is that big of an issue, I'm ok with limiting most Planet sizes to Earth size, but the country size should stay the same
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be so fussed about this if the maps were the same, but the stark differences between landmarks, as I pointed out above, make me not really trust pixel scaling to the maps. But if I'm in the minority, I'm in the minority.

To clarify, I think that in this specific case the country is small enough to not contradict the planet size rule, but if a verse had a continent with a surface area of 3 billion square kilometers, I think it's fine to apply this sort of rule.
 
Antvasima said:
I think that this seems to make sense.
Click to expand...
I agree with this as well.
Density does throw in a wrentch into a lot of near-Earth-size calculations, but assuming Earth density is fine in most cases where the size difference isn't crazy.
 
So should we go with AKM sama's suggestions then?
 
Okay. How should we apply this then?
 
Calaca makes sense to me too, but in which page should we write this instruction? The Attack Potency footnotes section?
 
There wouldn't be enough regulation text for an entire separate page.
 
I suggest that there should be a list of the different ways that a planet could be suggested to have a large size. (Unless it having rings is the only indicator of size in planets, I don't know that much about planet size.)
 
The Calaca said:
We dismiss every size that has to be calculated to be larger than Earth if there is no indication that said planet is larger, either by confirmation (author giving a number) or by suggestion (the planet showing features like having rings) and use Earth size.
Click to expand...
Is somebody willing to write a draft text for this? I might be able to improve on the text flow afterwards.
 
To confirm a calculation regarding a fictional planet's size, it must be first be confirmed with little doubt that:

  • There are legitimate reasons to believe the planet may be larger beyond the calculation itself.
    • Examples of this can vary from confirmation from the author, suggestion or statements from characters in-verse, or features resembling that of later planets (such as rings around the planet).
  • There are limited anti-feats regarding the planet's size, such as defying physics that would come with a planet of such size.
  • The planet does not directly resemble our planet Earth, and thus, can be assumed to be of different size.
  • The planet calculation is consistent with any other shots or models of the planet in the verse.
How does this sound? Anything else to note?
 
I am not sure. What do the rest of you think?
 
I slightly modified the post to more closely follow our standard structure for this sort of thing.
 
Antvasima said:
I slightly modified the post to more closely follow our standard structure for this sort of thing.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I forgot how to use bulletpoints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fixxed
  • Locked
Bigger infinity should be uncountable infinity
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Omegabronic
  • Locked
Dragon Ball's Earth: A wide planet full of wonders
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
The_Yellow_Topaz
The_Yellow_Topaz
Sus
calculating the size of a planet and its GBE
Replies
8
Views
794
Requiem_Yoriichi
Requiem_Yoriichi
McHael15
Mashymre New ability
Replies
2
Views
1K
Zeinx1
Zeinx1
Gravitational wave is often ignored in calculations
Replies
0
Views
471
VictoriaGenesisBOA
Back
Top