• 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.

Problem with Celestial Body Feats

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan

Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan

VS Battles
Calculation Group
11,095
4,317
Problem

Currently, we are allowed to calculate the KE for celestial body feats, but when it surpasses light speed we use the gravitational binding energy of the celestial body instead. The problem is, when you move a planet close to light speed, it actually gets a higher AP than moving a planet faster than light. Which makes zero sense.

For example, the GBE of the Moon is 1.24e29 Joules. However, Christopher Reeve's Superman moving the Moon at massively hypersonic speeds was calculated to be 1.23e34 Joules, way higher than the value you get when you move the Moon at FTL speeds.

Solutions
There are 2 possible solutions I propose, as well as 1 non-solution.

Solution 1: Gravitational Binding Energy
The first solution is to simply cap the upper end of planet moving feats by their gravitational binding energy. Which means that when higher than a certain speed, we are not allowed to calculate KE but use their GBE.

Let me try to calculate the "speed limit" of various different celestial bodies.

Moon: sqrt(1.24e29/0.5/7.342e22) = 1837.89 m/s or Mach 5.40

Earth: sqrt(2.487e32/0.5/5.97237e24) = 9125.98 m/s or Mach 26.82

Sun: sqrt(5.693e41/0.5/1.98847e30) = 756 704.08 m/s or Mach 2223.70

Solar System: sqrt(2.277e45/0.5/1.9912539e30) = 47 822 601.04 m/s or 15.95% SoL

Milky Way: sqrt(1.053e66/0.5/3.0622438e42) = 829 295 485 938.83 which is far beyond the speed of light, so the speed limit should just be the speed of light

Solution 2: Maximum Kinetic Energy
My second solution is to use the maximum kinetic energy possible for celestial body moving feats above the speed of light, which is to calculate the KE for roughly equal to the speed of light (99.9999999...).

So the "KE limits" would be:

Multiply by four, since relativistic KE is accepted only maximum to be 4 times the newtonian KE according to our Kinetic Energy Feats page.

Moon: 0.5*7.342e22*299792458^2*4 = 1.319732104457143e40 Joules, or 3.15 tenatons, Dwarf Star level

Earth: 0.5*5.97237e24*299792458^2*4 = 1.0735396933664815e42 Joules, or 256.58 tenatons, Star level

Sun: 0.5*1.98847e30*299792458^2*4 = 3.5742954205255995e47 Joules, or 3.57 kiloFoe, Solar System level

Solar System: 0.5*1.9912539e30*299792458^2*4 = 3.5792995096097704e47 Joules, or 3.58 kiloFoe, Solar System level

Milky Way: 0.5*3.0622438e42*299792458^2*4 = 5.5044149476094233e59 Joules, 5.50 petaFoe, Multi-Solar System level

I'm fine either way.

Solution 3: Disregard FTL Celestial Body Feats
The last solution is to just disregard FTL feats like any other KE feat.
 
"The problem is, when you move a planet close to light speed, it actually gets a higher AP than moving a planet faster than light. Which makes zero sense."

I thought we dont use it because scientifically speaking for something to move FTL it would achieve infinite mass?
 
Yeah but doesn't it make no sense for moving something at SoL to be rated weaker than moving something at 99.9% SoL?

EDIT: I get what you mean now, according to our Celestial Body Feats we rate FTL planet moving feats using their GBE.
 
Hmm, right now both Solution 1 and Solution 3 sound pretty good to me.
 
I disagree with there being a problem.

Since moving something past the speed of light would require infinite energy no method of quantification solves KE being higher than what using some FTL quantification gets.

The 4x rule is only there because we acknowledge our calcs to have a certain margin of error, which we don't want to quantify by making it so that taking 1 pixel more or less making a gigantic difference. We don't disregard KE.

None of the solutions is truly any better than what we have.


That FTL KE feats, that are inherently unquantifiable, end up lower than high end quantifiable KE feats is not only unavoidable, but also natural/desirable as any unquantifiable feat should be approached with greater reserve than quantifiable ones.

Additionally at follows the overarching principle we employ for all physics wise unquatifiable feats that is: We go by size.

That we "use GBE" is technically only the result of people wishing to be more precise than "moving Planet FTL = Planet level". We don't actually do it because we believe GBE has any greater relevance to the feats.

Basically not ranking moving a planet FTL as anything would look strange, so we rank it as what the author/most casual readers most likely think it equals.

Is it just me or is this thread a yearly event by now?
 
If so why don't we just disregard planet moving feats, like any other KE feat? Your logic at the end applies to any KE feat.
 
As said, 4 times newtonian is not a matter of disregard, but of acknowledging our margin of error.

And... we don't disregard FTL feats? This entire thread is about how we consider FTL feats for celestial bodies.

I don't think we have a rule to disregard other FTL feats either. Like, I don't think anyone would complain if you rank moving a building FTL as building level...
 
Are you suggesting we calculate other FTL feats via the energy required to destroy said thing? I'm fine with that. But currently according to our Kinetic Energy feats guidelines:

No kinetic energy for faster than light speeds: Kinetic energy calculated for faster than light objects, or more precise for objects for which $ v \ge 299 792 458 m / s $, is not considered legitimate. That is because the kinetic energy of an object, using the correct physical description through relativistic mechanics, would require infinite energy to reach the speed of light, and for objects above the speed of light the equations wouldn't return real values. Since the energy would approach infinity towards the speed of light it also isn't allowed to use relativistic speed as an approximation for the kinetic energy of faster than light objects, since by using an approximation close enough to the speed of light any given value could be reached through that method.
So yes, we pretty much disregard KE feats, as every calc group member has told me before I became one myself. Idk was it allowed in some ancient times, but it was always disregarded since I came to this wiki.

Also

The relativistic kinetic energy value is only accepted up to 4 times the Newtonian value: The kinetic energy value calculated using the formula for relativistic kinetic energy is only accepted to the point where it is 4 times as high as the value of Newtonian kinetic energy. That is the case, if the speed of the moving object is above 93% of the speed of light. For kinetic energy values above that, which are not faster than light, 4 times the kinetic energy value should be taken. Reason for this rule is that the relativistic kinetic energy diverges towards infinity for speeds approaching the speed of light. So to not get inflated extremely high results setting a threshold at 4 times the kinetic energy value was decided upon.
An exception to this rule would be if a specific value is explicitly stated: For example, the Flash hitting with the force of a white dwarf star.
Our page mentions nothing about margin of error for relative KE, so I suppose we should explain it on the page to avoid future confusion, assuming you are correct of course.
 
The current rule states that we don't use KE to quantify FTL feats. Which is because we don't use KE to quantify FTL feats, not even for planets. Historically people just cared more about planets than about other things.


"Reason for this rule is that the relativistic kinetic energy diverges towards infinity for speeds approaching the speed of light. So to not get inflated extremely high results setting a threshold at 4 times the kinetic energy value was decided upon."

That is the part about margin of error, even if it doesn't mention it verbatim. A result wouldn't be inflated if it's 100% precise, but our calcs aren't and hence we could have inflated extremly high results because we measure feats slightly off their true value.

Also "An exception to this rule would be if a specific value is explicitly stated". The reason for that exception makes sense if read like that, no?
 
So we are allowed to calculate the destruction energy to quantify FTL KE feats? If so that should be added on the KE Feats page.

I always assumed that that part was to not get to inflated KE values because fiction doesn't make sense, but apparently I was mistaken.
 
I agree with DontTalk 100%, while it is true that it theoretically uses FTL speeds for inverse square law explosions that are interplanetary and above on linear KE calculator systems, the Relativistic calculator argues otherwise. Also, I recall there was a problem saying the Relativistic calculator is based on some outdated theories such as the fact that it assumes the speed of light is infinite. Keep in mind that it has scientifically been proven the speed of light does have finite speed, and before that; most people just assumed that light had Infinite speed meaning anything FTL was technically considered Immeasurable.

But the Relativistic calculator actually has a 3-A explosion being something like really high up Relativistic+ speeds. Something like 99.999999999% times the SoL. So I don't think we should knit pick them about the speed, but just use inverse square law regarding the size. Furthermore, there are fictional stories that have planets with thousands of times stronger gravity than Earth or even FTL escape velocity. Which would make it appear to be black hole like. But we can't ignore how super dense the planet would have to be, so we would have to do something to avoid downplaying it.

Also, busting universes is only an AP feat and not really a speed feat as Calc Stacking is a thing. But I agree with DontTalk that our Tier 4 and above borders are fine where they are on our AP chart.
 
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
So we are allowed to calculate the destruction energy to quantify FTL KE feats? If so that should be added on the KE Feats page.

I always assumed that that part was to not get to inflated KE values because fiction doesn't make sense, but apparently I was mistaken.
Click to expand...
This is my question atm. If we are allowed to calculate destruction energy for all KE feats it should be added to the KE page. I want to see what other people think though.
 
I'm fine with what DontTalkDT said, but we should add a section on our KE feats page saying that we calculate FTL moving feats using the destruction of the object.
 
Also I can already think of two situations where I'm not sure if using the destruction of said object is fine.

1. Fictional material: For example if someone moves Captain America's shield at FTL feats, should we rate him as 4-B since vibranium is 4-B?

2. Humans: If someone throws a human at FTL speeds do we literally calculate the fragmentation of that human or what?
 
The 4x rule is only there because we acknowledge our calcs to have a certain margin of error, which we don't want to quantify by making it so that taking 1 pixel more or less making a gigantic difference. We don't disregard KE.

This doesn't make a whole ton of sense to me though. Aside from it going against the reason stated on the Kinetic Energy Feats page, it seems like a bad way to respond to margins of error. Couldn't we require that any pixel scaling at this level undershoots the objects it's measuring to lowball the feat? I've done that in my own calcs before where there's a large margin of error in measuring.

It also doesn't feel like it makes sense when talking about feats where relativistic KE would give results in the tens of thousands above newtonian KE. In those cases we're nerfing the feats to a laughable degree, even though no error we make could bring it down to 4x.

I agree with this sort of limit being in place but this reason for including it seems weird. The KE feats page acknowledges an exception, but in that exception the AP is given not the speed. Would we really accept stated speeds of 299792457.99999 m/s, where the relativistic value is on the order of tens of millions of times faster than the newtonian value?

On the main part of the thread, I'm not really fussed with whatever way we do these feats, really.
 
Don't we use inverse square law for explosions in fiction that usually exceed lightspeed anyway? So what's the problem here?
 
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
Also I can already think of two situations where I'm not sure if using the destruction of said object is fine.
1. Fictional material: For example if someone moves Captain America's shield at FTL feats, should we rate him as 4-B since vibranium is 4-B?

2. Humans: If someone throws a human at FTL speeds do we literally calculate the fragmentation of that human or what?
Click to expand...
1. Not really, since we don't count KE feats for low-weight objects like his shield as valid in the first place.

2. Highly-situational and depends on multiple factors.
 
@KLOL506 That's what I thought, but currently DontTalkDT is saying that for FTL moving feats we can just calculate the destruction of the object.
 
I mean, for celestial objects that big we just use Inverse Square Law to calculate its destruction.
 
Ah.

I really don't think there is a feat for celestial object that goes above FTL, at least as far as I've checked.

Feats that do make use of FTL and are on blogs have already been rejected.
 
There is, we simply rate them with the GBE of the celestial object.

Now, DontTalkDT is saying that we can do that for all objects, which I think should be specified on the KE feats page if he is correct, since the KE feats page seems to imply that we disregard FTL feats.
 
Read the thread KLOL, all of your questions are already answered...
 
I still think we should make it clear on the Kinetic Energy Feats page that we calculate FTL moving feats (if valid) through destruction, if other calc group members have no objections of course. However I would also like someone to answer whether fictional materials and organisms can be calculated via this method.

I also agree with Agnaa on the 4x Newtonian KE thing.
 
We obviously shouldn't scale anybody moving small objects made of Adamantium at FTL speed as 4-B. We should only use this as an "in lack of better options" solution for large celestial objects.

That said, I could see that we should use some set relativistic movement speed for estimating this instead.
 
What is our current upper limit for this? 4x the standard kinetic energy formula?
 
What about things like boulders, buildings or organisms? DontTalkDT says it's fine, at least for buildings, although I would like more input on this.

Yes. I thought it was to not get inflated values, but DontTalkDT claims it's to account for margin of error. If that is the case, as Agnaa said, why don't we just low-ball the pixel scaling, low-ball the distance, high-ball the timeframe, low-ball the mass, etc? To be safe?
 
Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan said:
Also I can already think of two situations where I'm not sure if using the destruction of said object is fine.
Click to expand...
We are going by size not destruction, so if the object is made out of a black hole that still doesn't give you infinite power. And I would rather not even get into any kind of precise quantification. This isn't a physics based method so don't try to get overly precise with it.

Agnaa said:
Couldn't we require that any pixel scaling at this level undershoots the objects it's measuring to lowball the feat?
Click to expand...
I would rather have a clear cut off to the exponential growth than saying everyone should apply what they consider a low end. I know this wiki long enough to say that if we just require a low end, than the low end the error considered will get smaller and smaller over time. 4x was an arbitrary decision, but does its job. Also consider that the error doesn't purely lie in how you draw the line.

The KE feats page acknowledges an exception, but in that exception the AP is given not the speed. Would we really accept stated speeds of 299792457.99999 m/s, where the relativistic value is on the order of tens of millions of times higher than the newtonian value?

Personally I would be fine with it, if the statement is sufficiently trustworthy and not contradicted. Of course trustworthy here doesn't just mean that the character isn't lying, but also that the in universe error of measurements is reliably small enough to rely on the value.

That's just my opinion, though.
 
@DontTalkDT

So do you think that it might be a good idea to scale FTL movement feats by 4x the standard kinetic energy formula for each object?
 
No. We should keep it to real life physics or what is basic reasonability.

I'm firmly against inventing any new physics to quantify feats.
 
Just to verify: Should we use our current GBE standard or do you prefer something else?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SheevShezarrine
Question about eclipse calcs
Replies
5
Views
960
It_is_i_wyatt
It_is_i_wyatt
ElajRuengies
  • Locked
Impossibly Massive Celestial Body Destruction Calcs are just Faster Than Light Kinetic Energy Calcs
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Energy needed for destroy a celestial spherical object
Replies
16
Views
1K
Kudekuba
Abstractly_a_Protagonist
  • Locked
CFE Hax Addition
Replies
8
Views
1K
Dereck03
Dereck03
Agnaa
Force From KE
Replies
17
Views
1K
Agnaa
Agnaa
Back
Top