Qurbonboev
He/Him- 2,716
- 1,602
Even if we assume that most qualities of One piece planet(gravity strength, rock rigidity, and so on) are magically similar to Earth, we would still need to modify our used formulas to account for increased radius
-
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 earthquake calculations
- Thread starter Snakes
- Start date
- 45
- 79
- Thread starter
- #42
I don't wanna turn this into an OP thread. But just using it as an example. The planet is mostly covered in water rather than land. To a far greater extent than in our world. I'd say that's a bigger deal than the size. And would more than likely lead to incorrect results.
There are also implications for the Naruto planet being quite large and it seemingly has several super continents. Etc etc
It would really have to be a case by case thing imo.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 25,025
- 29,520
The surface of the planet isn't much the point. The mass of the stuff on the surface of the planet is orders of magnitude less than the mass of the planet itself. This, and the fact that we operate in the broad strokes and margins of error, means that my opinion is firm. We do not need to micromanage calculations for One Piece, nor any other verse with a weirdly high calculated planet size. If they are basically Earth-like, then we can treat them as such.
I'm returning to this so as to offer my thoughts, if it is not implicitly understood; this middle bit is added later. Basically, our EQ calcs look at two things, seismic activity and radiated waves. Seismic activity has to do with the tectonic plates and their movements, whereas radiated waves have to do with the surface materials themselves shaking. Presuming that the phrase "earthquake" is not applied inappropriately (I assume the One Piece thing, for example, is not shaking water, but rather solid ground), then I can think of no reason as to why the EQ calc method wouldn't be usable.
I don't care about these verses, and indeed actively wish to avoid conversation on them. I feel I have made my distinction rather clear at this point, and would like to move past them barring the stated votes/beliefs of voting staff, or the offering of some other context to sway my stance.
Last edited:
Arkenis
They/Them- 25,169
- 12,990
Hueco is not made of sand. It's surface has endless sand. How would a planet even exist being made entirely of sand?
- 45
- 79
- Thread starter
- #45
I really see no point in going further into the OP planet or any other verse for that matter. So I simply won't. It's not what the thread is about in the first place.
I do think that dismissing things that are difficult to account for. Like the surface even if they are not the most impactful factor of a calc. Is dangerous territory to enter. As even if we work with margins of error we should still try to be as accurate as possible.
Anyway yes your stance is clear. Thank you for your input and time
- 45
- 79
- Thread starter
- #46
It's stated to be covered in sand yes. We don't know much else about the planet. We can safe further discussion on that for another thread.
- 45
- 79
- Thread starter
- #47
@Damage3245 Sorry to bother you I'm not really sure what the next step should be for this thread. Do I need to get people to vote or? Thanks in advance!
- 1,024
- 1,092
He won't get your tag, try to message on his wall instead.
Arkenis
They/Them- 25,169
- 12,990
This is in cgm so there's no voting and the convo hasn't really finished.
- 45
- 79
- Thread starter
- #50
Thank you
- 45
- 79
- Thread starter
- #51
What's cgm? Are you saying I should let it run it's course for a while longer?
Arkenis
They/Them- 25,169
- 12,990
Oh my fault, cgm is calc group members. You posted in discussions, no one really votes in this. I think staff threads is where something like this would be for voting. And yeah, something this massive will likely be seen and commented on by other cgm, you will just have to wait for more conversation/opinions.
- 45
- 79
- Thread starter
- #53
All right I"ll just wait then thank you!
- 34,540
- 34,954
At this point we just need more input from additional Calc Group members.
- 547
- 272
I find this argument misleading. All of PowerScaling is based on readapting rules and laws to reach a certain evaluation. If this is to be treated as a standard, then for the sake of consistency it should also be applied to other types of evaluations on the wiki, but that would generate many controversies within the calculation standards themselves, as it would rely excessively on real-world assumptions.
For example:
When dealing with a planet different from Earth or with distinct characteristics, this should consequently lead to slight or drastic variations in its laws or functioning compared to terrestrial ones.
A metal that on Earth deforms at a certain pressure threshold might not react the same way on a planet with an altered gravitational field or with different atomic cohesive forces. In such cases, directly applying the law of pressure to evaluate explosions, impacts, or structural damage risks producing results that are overly tied to real-world assumptions and poorly compatible with a fictional context.
“Terminal velocity, KE, Potential Gravitational Energy, Acceleration, etc.” are calculations that function based on Earth’s characteristics. Characteristics that are not always present in fictional worlds. This should therefore lead to the invalidation of such methods, as they would be inconsistent, imprecise, or not clearly definable. I agree with Bambu that if the planet in question is somewhat similar to Earth and does not have completely opposite traits, such as being composed entirely of ice, then such calculations should remain valid. I find it better to apply reasoning based on similarity rather than equality, which is also the approach current standards tend to follow.
For evaluations beyond planetary contexts, I agree with using a different method of assessment
- 24,280
- 37,678
this wouldn't change much. the OP planet's surface is dominated by waters for only 200 meters of depth. Less than a kilometer. Meanwhile the planet has a radius of over 500 thousand kilometers. It's not as full of water than you think. Not even by a fraction of a fraction of a percent.
- 35,060
- 41,649
Agreed. Only thing that matters is that it depicts Earth-like properties like habitability, gravity, plate tectonics and other natural phenomena like ours.
- 35,060
- 41,649
Then modify the exact quantities that need to be modified, provide a draft and I'll get the experts on the wiki to verify it.
Qurbonboev
He/Him- 2,716
- 1,602
Last edited:
- 1,024
- 1,092
It was already done in OP thread, it's just adjusting radial distance wasn't enough.
Qurbonboev
He/Him- 2,716
- 1,602
1. Modifying for increased size of the planet was already done. Checking for seismology literature, it doesn't seems to have any immediate answers(obviously, given physical impossibility of rocky planets as big as One piece) to any other difference that such planets would have. So either don't do EQ calculations at all on large planets, or just be content with only adjusting radial distance.
2. Seems to be that E=10^(4.4+1.5M) is better than E=10^(4.8+1.5M)(currently used) for calculating total radiating wave energy. 1.5M is just connotation of fact that energy released scales to power of 3/2 of amplitude, don't see any reason to think that relationship is any different on bigger planets. 4.4(currently 4.8) is Earth specific constant, but we either are forced to use it, or don't do EQ calcs at all.
Radiated seismic energy and energy magnitude :: GFZpublic
Author: Choy, George L. et al.; Genre: Book Chapter; Finally published : 2012; Open Access; Title: Radiated seismic energy and energy magnitude
gfzpublic.gfz.de
- 749
- 788
I would say the best solution depends on how different the planet is from earth.
Case 1 - Planets that differ only in size and dimensions from earth but have Earth-Like properties:
In case the planet only differs from earth in size but has similar composition, seismology and other Earth-like properties the best solution in my opinion would be:
1. Only use the radiated waves energy formulas used for earthquakes that are artificial and not the Total Seismic Moment Energy resulting from natural earthquakes since natural earthquakes and Total Seismic Moment Energy rely directly on tectonic plates, faults and other specific geological features on earth.
2. Change the values in the formulas used that directly rely on the planet's dimension, for example:
(Magnitude at distance) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((r/110) * ((2 * π)/360)) becomes (Magnitude at distance) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((r/(Planet's circumference/360)) * ((2 * π)/360)) since the 110 is an approximation of the distance of 1 degree of latitude on the surface of the earth in km which is calculated by taking the planet's circumference and dividing it by 360.
3. Keep the constants that are derived from seismological data since the planet functions essentially as just a scaled-up Earth within the verse with a structure and physics that are Earth-like. (This is a concession since I believe this would be a better alternative than making many important feats for multiple verses essentially impossible to calculate. A concession would be needed in all cases since many planets in fiction are essentially impossible to exist IRL due to their sheer size and mass).
Case 2 - Planets that completely differ in composition and properties from earth:
These planets are so different from Earth in a way that makes using the present earthquake calcs for them impossible and they will probably remain incalculable and I'm unsure of how they could be fixed. Their physical properties, structure, composition, etc... are so wildly different from Earth that even making the concession shown proposed earlier wouldn't make sense.
Case 1 - Planets that differ only in size and dimensions from earth but have Earth-Like properties:
In case the planet only differs from earth in size but has similar composition, seismology and other Earth-like properties the best solution in my opinion would be:
1. Only use the radiated waves energy formulas used for earthquakes that are artificial and not the Total Seismic Moment Energy resulting from natural earthquakes since natural earthquakes and Total Seismic Moment Energy rely directly on tectonic plates, faults and other specific geological features on earth.
2. Change the values in the formulas used that directly rely on the planet's dimension, for example:
(Magnitude at distance) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((r/110) * ((2 * π)/360)) becomes (Magnitude at distance) + 6.399 + 1.66*log10((r/(Planet's circumference/360)) * ((2 * π)/360)) since the 110 is an approximation of the distance of 1 degree of latitude on the surface of the earth in km which is calculated by taking the planet's circumference and dividing it by 360.
3. Keep the constants that are derived from seismological data since the planet functions essentially as just a scaled-up Earth within the verse with a structure and physics that are Earth-like. (This is a concession since I believe this would be a better alternative than making many important feats for multiple verses essentially impossible to calculate. A concession would be needed in all cases since many planets in fiction are essentially impossible to exist IRL due to their sheer size and mass).
Case 2 - Planets that completely differ in composition and properties from earth:
These planets are so different from Earth in a way that makes using the present earthquake calcs for them impossible and they will probably remain incalculable and I'm unsure of how they could be fixed. Their physical properties, structure, composition, etc... are so wildly different from Earth that even making the concession shown proposed earlier wouldn't make sense.
- 6,432
- 4,295
