Possible downgrade for Base Sonic tiers

[JJSliderman]

So, this calc was recently accepted, showing that the Eclipse Cannon is small Star level via piercing the sun. I don’t really have a problem with most of this Calc, with the exception of the width of the pierced space. It assumes the hole made in the sun is 20,705 km in order to be visible, but the feat itself is hypothetical. There’s no real requirement for it to be visible, and would require the Eclipse Cannon’s beam to be far larger than the ARK itself, which we see multiple times is not the case in games like SA2 and Shadow.

As such, using the beam dimensions from Mephistus’s old calc, the yield actually comes out somewhere around 100-109 yottatons, or Large Planet.

Granted, I might be missing something here, but if this was true then:

either Base Sonic should be downgraded to 567 yottatons based on scaling to 7 Emeralds, or go back to the original 3.7 ninatons version.

 

[Theuser789]

The Eclipse Cannon only fired with all seven emeralds once in order to destroy a comet close to Earth, suggesting it has to have a certain size because of lower showcases just doesn't work. Pretty sure in the calc itself there's comments explaining why that method was used

 

[JJSliderman]

All I really got was Rodri disagreeing for similar reasons.
We only really have a couple showings of the EC firing and all of them have a relatively small beam size in comparison to what the calc posted. The beam would have to be almost 30x bigger then the previous calced size of the ARK to match the current calc, which is just kind of crazy to assume

 

[Theuser789]

And people were countering him with solid arguments

And as I said, most of those weren't with all seven emeralds, so they are meaningless by itself

 

[JJSliderman]

Why would all seven emeralds make the beam ridiculously larger than before
And again, bigger than the actual station they’re firing from by several orders of magnitudes

 

[Theuser789]

Because that's what already happened? The beam with 5 emeralds was the size of the white house, and yet with six it can be visible in the Earth from the moon

"It's bigger than the ARK" ok and? Why does this matter? Why can't the beam not be larger than the ARK?

 

[JJSliderman]

Because the beam is 30x larger than the ARK. Not even the cannon itself, the whole ARK. You’d have to argue a straight line beam can come out of a barrel many many times thinner than the beam itself, which is impossible with what we currently know.

 

[Theuser789]

It's literally an energy beam, there's no reason to put a limit on it based on an argument from incredulity, fiction multiple times has energy beams that are massively bigger than it's source, and yet here you arguing it's wrong "because it's impossible". Furthermore nothing in the calc says the beam has to be as large as the hole it's making, afterall we seen it cause far more destruction than it's size shows, it wasn't as big as half the moon when it destroyed it, nor was it as big as the city when It did the same, it could simply be smaller than the hole, and yet with enough strengh to do it anyways

 

[JJSliderman]

I know that sometimes you can have beams that reach greater widths than the source, but usually that involves the beam expanding outwards in a way that it’s endpoint is far wider than it’s starting point, or making the barrel of the cannon/starting point of the beam larger if it’s a straight beam. Neither of these are how the Eclipse Cannon is shown to work. It’s just a straight beam fired from the cannon barrel, with the barrel itself not changing. There is no way to make the beam bigger than the cannon, or the ARK, with the information we know about the cannon.
Furthermore, the hole in the star being visible is an assumption in and of itself. Black Doom or any other character never states this, it’s just that the cannon can pierce stars. A consistent hole the size of a butter knife is still piercing a star. There’s no reason the cannon has to be absurdly big in radius to still pierce a star.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

A consistent hole the size of a butter knife is still piercing a star. There’s no reason the cannon has to be absurdly big in radius to still pierce a star.

There's also no need for the hole to be this small for no reason other than downplaying a feat for the sole purpose of semantics about how tiny the hole is. Just as you can use the same semantically-based argument to try and upgrade the feat using the same logic.

 

[Theuser789]

I know that sometimes you can have beams that reach greater widths than the source, but usually that involves the beam expanding outwards in a way that it’s endpoint is far wider than it’s starting point, or making the barrel of the cannon/starting point of the beam larger if it’s a straight beam. Neither of these are how the Eclipse Cannon is shown to work. It’s just a straight beam fired from the cannon barrel, with the barrel itself not changing. There is no way to make the beam bigger than the cannon, or the ARK, with the information we know about the cannon.

Read my second paragraph, the calc never assumes that the beam is the same size as the hole it makes, nor that it is even necessary, don't ignore arguments, this is all irrelevant because of this. Even then what you said doesn't work, you are making rules for something that doesn't have any, that it has to be this way because you say so, and using "this is how it always works" when we have one example doesn't work, not like this is relevant, before you end up cherrypicking this part and ignoring the part where the beam was never stated to be this size, again

Furthermore, the hole in the star being visible is an assumption in and of itself. Black Doom or any other character never states this, it’s just that the cannon can pierce stars. A consistent hole the size of a butter knife is still piercing a star. There’s no reason the cannon has to be absurdly big in radius to still pierce a star.

The calcer explained why he choose that size in the comments, an assumption isn't wrong just because it is, especially if it's informed, assuming the size of a knife is downplaying for downplay sake, the calcer doesn't even get a number out of his ass, he explains why he choose a hole that can be seen from Earth

 

[JJSliderman]

There's also no need for the hole to be this small for no reason other than downplaying a feat for the sole purpose of semantics about how tiny the hole is. Just as you can use the same semantically-based argument to try and upgrade the feat using the same logic.

That’s why I’m arguing we should use the actual size of the cannon barrel instead of arbitrarily picking a size.

 

[Theuser789]

Why? The Eclipse Cannon consistently does more damage than the size of it's beam, this is just lowball for lowball sake

 

[ZephyrosOmega]

Like most sonic upgrades, this went through without anyone stopping to think about basic common sense for a moment, cause nobody who cares about accurate sonic stats wants to deal with the hell that is every thread made about them.

Obviously I agree with this.

 

[Theuser789]

That’s why I’m arguing we should use the actual size of the cannon barrel instead of arbitrarily picking a size.

Btw, if we actually did this, the feat would end up below the continent feat, which is obviously wrong

 

[ZephyrosOmega]

Btw, if we actually did this, the feat would end up below the continent feat, which is obviously wrong

Still closer to accurate than Low 4-C

 

[ShakeResounding]

I disagree FRA. If a calc member had very little issue with it, there's probably a damn good reason for it.

 

[JJSliderman]

Calcs members are viable to, you know.
Make mistakes.
Or change their minds.
And for the record the feat would still be 100 or so yottatons, above the continent feat.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

That’s why I’m arguing we should use the actual size of the cannon barrel instead of arbitrarily picking a size.

The size of the beam has nothing to do with the size of the hole.

Nowhere in the calc it was stated that the hole is caused because of a beam this big

 

[ElixirBlue]

Beam size doesn’t matter for the size of the hole

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

Calcs members are viable to, you know.
Make mistakes.
Or change their minds.
And for the record the feat would still be 100 or so yottatons, above the continent feat.

You realize that just 2 Emeralds are above your value right?

 

[Theuser789]

The original calcer said it would be 32, which is below the 81, even so assuming the hole has to be as big as the beam is objectively incorrect, the assumption in the og blog is a perfectly valid middle ground with solid reasoning

 

[ShakeResounding]

Beam size doesn’t matter for the size of the hole

As seen here, something can create a much larger hole if there's enough force/energy/ehatever the math people say it is. Nice extra example, since it's even from the same franchise.

 

[JJSliderman]

The robot wasn’t that much smaller than the turret, unlike in this case where the cannon barrel is about a thousand times smaller than the hole claimed to be made.

 

[ShakeResounding]

... Sonic used a lance there, bud. And a pretty thin one at that. And those turrets are ******' HUGE.

 

[JJSliderman]

I thought we weren’t supposed to use whataboutisms here.
Actually, thinking about it, the cannon never atomizes things in general, it always pulverizes.

 

[ShakeResounding]

Now I know you didn't read the calc, JJ. At all.

 

[ElixirBlue]

The robot wasn’t that much smaller than the turret, unlike in this case where the cannon barrel is about a thousand times smaller than the hole claimed to be made.

Ok there buddy.

 

[ShakeResounding]

I thought we weren’t supposed to use whataboutisms here.

Also that is not at all a whataboutism in the way you're trying to frame it. That's a horrible example.

 

[JJSliderman]

I did read it. And honestly it still doesn’t make sense, it assumes many things that the cannon can do and almost none of them are substantiated by the games themselves.

 

[Theuser789]

I don't even know what you are suggesting right now, your two main points in the OP seem to be solidly debunked

 

[ShakeResounding]

I did read it.

So then tell me. Why did the calc use atomization rather than pulverization? Because the calc says exactly why it's used.

 

[Antvasima]

Looks like Zephy is getting cranky again, must've forgotten to drink their warm bottle of milk this morning KEK. "It's more accurate than Low 4-C because uhhh it is"

Stop being rude and mocking other members please.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

Actually, thinking about it, the cannon never atomizes things in general, it always pulverizes.

Pulverize what exactly? The Sun is made of plasma

 

[JJSliderman]

I know why it was used, because it was the easiest way to have the materials in the Star destroyed without causing as many consequences.
But it still is inconsistent with how the cannon is portrayed in every other instance of its use, where it causes pulverization and debris chunks to fly everywhere.
I will definitely say that the cannon has had instances where it’s blast potential ended up exceeding it’s width, but in most of those cases the cannon resulted in a widespread AOE, not a straight line blast that had a far wider width than the original blast.

 

[ElixirBlue]

You and your brain dead legion of wanking shitheads

and would require the Eclipse Cannon’s beam to be far larger than the ARK itself,

I disagree with the downgrade partly because of the point.

I don’t believe I’m dead brain about this.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

-----

You realize that to destroy anything in the Sun you'd have to break the atoms themselves right? Even Vaporization will do nothing as Plasma is even beyond gas, in which the only things that remains from the atoms are protons and neutrons with electrons being completely free

 

[JJSliderman]

My problem is just that breaking the atoms is not what the Eclipse Cannon is shown to do, ever. So it sort of contradicts the calc method.

 

[ElixirBlue]

My problem is just that breaking the atoms is not what the Eclipse Cannon is shown to do, ever. So it sort of contradicts the calc method.

So, how would you pierce stars?

 

[JJSliderman]

Not sure, admittedly