- 19,537
- 15,838
The calc is assuming at at intergalactic distances stars are still being destroyed.
-
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.
"Possibly" 3-C Saitama
- Thread starter Phoenks
- Start date
-
- Tags
- garou one-punch man saitama
- Status
- 17,946
- 15,574
That is absolutely not the same as calcing the destruction of an entire galaxy
- 11,087
- 2,389
One thing, doesn't the inverse square law only work if the attacks were. Ya'know—omnidirectional—.
- 19,537
- 15,838
Oh right. It would require a cone formula wouldn't it, rather than inverse square law.
Actually that would mean both calcs are wrong.
- 11,381
- 1,757
Let me get this straight your fine with Saitama getting possibly 3-C via massively upscaling chain from his current 4-A feat currently accepted?
- 19,537
- 15,838
Yeah.
- 11,087
- 2,389
I KNEW IT THAT SOMETHING WAS VERY OFF!
- 3,167
- 1,830
I mean that sneeze is like Large Planet level...
- 19,537
- 15,838
The calc is, but the sneeze itself threatened to harm Garou and he was one shot afterwards.
- 29,894
- 30,909
The sneeze was calculated to be Star level+ looking at the blogs.
- 10,641
- 9,332
- Thread starter
- #53
So we can just recalculate this stuff first I suppose
Also, would you mind doing the recalculations using a cone/cylinder explosion? I think that'd fit better as well.
Do you have anything that'd fit as a middle ground? I also found this to be very weird.
Also, would you mind doing the recalculations using a cone/cylinder explosion? I think that'd fit better as well.
- 19,537
- 15,838
Well we have the length (just distance from Blast to Star). After that we need an angle. To use 45 degrees as a random number and the current accepted distance we would get a "Size" of 3.1350e+19 meters.
After that point we would use that to get a Surface area (since we're treating it as a cone it would be a circle) which is 7.71907E+38 meters^2. From there is the frontal surface area of the Sun (6.07 x 10^18 / 2) then multiply it by the GBE.
- 5.693e+41 * (7.71907e+38 / 3.035e+18) = 1.44792967e+62 Joules
- 1.44792967e+62 / 2 = 7.23964835e+61 Joules
- 11,087
- 2,389
Instead of using 4piR² which is the surface area of a sphere; calculate the degrees the cone occupied to find the length of it's arc it would lead to (∅piR)² squaring the value gives us the arc area instead.
Last edited:
- 10,641
- 9,332
- Thread starter
- #56
Can you do the andromeda distance as well?
- 19,537
- 15,838
With this the only difference is that the sector area becomes 9.6488373e+37 meters^2 which would make the result 1.8099e+61 Joules or 9.049e+60 Joules which is still 4-A.
- Size = 1.9907e+22 Meters
- Radius = 9.9535e+21 Meters
- Sector Area = 3.8905547e+43 m^2
- 5.693e+41 * (3.8905547e+43/ 3.035e+18) / 2 =3.648917e+66 Joules or about 3x over baseline 3-C.
EDIT: If the above math is fine I can just make a Calc Blog to update their current ratings. Though this would torpedo a "Possibly 3-C" rating through upscaling. It would solely have to be the assumption that the blast went into another galaxy. Even if travelled 100,000 lightyears (which is the diameter of the entire galaxy) it would still only be a 4-A feat. So 3-C is a sketchy imo.
Last edited:
- 11,087
- 2,389
Already has been.
- 10,641
- 9,332
- Thread starter
- #60
I mean, the premise of the thread is still the same, so you can still give your input. The math will have to be changed regardless of if this thread passes or not.
- 21,100
- 30,034
Should I flip this to a cgm thread or leave it as it is
On my vote though, I think a possibly can work. How would you word it on the profile
On my vote though, I think a possibly can work. How would you word it on the profile
- 674
- 305
Following
- 11,087
- 2,389
We already solved the math problem, so it wouldn't be necessary.
- 19,537
- 15,838
Serious Punch Squared Recalc
vsbattles.fandom.com
- 3,737
- 4,037
Just assume the end of the Milky Way galaxy.
If I’m getting my numbers right, the farthest star visible to the naked eye is like 16,000 light years away, but if we assume it went to the end of the radius of the milky way then it would be 50,000 light years would be the assumed distance.
For reference using the andromeda end, that’s about 2.5 million light years away.
Excellence616
He/Him- 5,279
- 3,584
I agree with a Possible 3-C
- 5,103
- 2,539
I don’t get why it assumes the explosion was a cone, when it clearly shows the beam of energy exploding in the sky, with a “boom” onomatopoeia, i don’t get why assume it just exploded differently just because the energy was propulsed in a beamSerious Punch Squared Recalc
- 21,100
- 30,034
That would be how a punch would transfer the energy?
- 19,537
- 15,838
Because we see the beam was a cone.
That would actually be a different assumption. Since at that point you would need to find the diameter of the hole and then assume it destroyed everything within that volume. But that still has issues since we don't know distance and would still be lower than the current used calc.
- 11,087
- 2,389
Is inverse square law applicable to all explosions and in some cases even energy beams as long as it breaks something from afar?
- 19,537
- 15,838
No, it's specially about a spherical explosion.
- 10,476
- 11,168
What Qawsedf234 is doing in his calculation is Inverse Square Law, at least according to our page.
But the original calc was wrong, since it was treating it like a spherical explosion that started from Earth and reached those far away stars.
Which is obviously wrong and inflated the results.
But the original calc was wrong, since it was treating it like a spherical explosion that started from Earth and reached those far away stars.
Which is obviously wrong and inflated the results.
Last edited:
- 6,930
- 3,717
I agree with the proposals of this Thread.
- 9,354
- 8,112
A good middle ground would be using the end of the Milky Way, and then using the distance to another galaxy as a high end possible rating.
- 11,087
- 2,389
Then why are applying it to a non-spherical destruction here?
- 19,537
- 15,838
Probably just misunderstood how to apply the math rather than anything malicious.
- 19,537
- 15,838
I'm still against it, but if I'm outvoted then yeah, Saitama and/or Garou would get a "possibly 3-C" key.
- 1,822
- 2,006
"4-A, possibly 3-C" seems to be the best we're getting based on Qawsed's recalc, none of the results are close to the + rating for their tiers so upscaling to 3-C or 3-B isn't gonna happen.
- Status
