Proposed Rules for Calcing Planet Sizes (CGM Only)

[M3X_2.0]

The Problem
This is something that has been bugging me for a while and I think we need a site-wide discussion about it. The current approach to planet size calculations is inconsistent and I want to propose a clear framework to fix that.

Right now we have verses where planet sizes are derived entirely from third party calculations that the authors never acknowledged, and those sizes are then used as the foundation for calculating feats. The issue isn't using calculations in general, it's that some of these results produce planets that are physically incompatible with their own settings, and we use the size when it's convenient while ignoring every other physical implication it carries. That's not consistent scaling, that's cherry picking.

A Concrete Example: The One Piece Planet
The One Piece planet is a good illustration of why this matters. The current accepted calc derives a planet size of roughly 1.5 million kilometers in diameter, larger than the Sun itself, based on in-universe measurements. Oda never stated or implied anything close to this size. The series portrays an Earth-like world with normal human life, breathable air, liquid oceans and standard gravity.

If we take that calc at face value and apply the physics consistently, the implications are immediately contradicted by the series itself. A planet that size would have a surface gravity of approximately 1154 m/s², meaning an 80kg human would weigh around 94 tons. Atmospheric pressure at the surface would be roughly 11,920 kPa, equivalent to being over 1,000 meters underwater, which would crush any human instantly. Liquid water on the surface would be physically unstable. The escape velocity would be around 121.5 km/s, which would trap every heavy gas and make the atmospheric composition completely incompatible with human life. The Red Line existing as a stable solid geological formation would be impossible because the internal pressure at the core would be around 5 billion GPa, turning the interior into fluid or degenerate matter. On top of all that, a naturally forming planet this size wouldn't even be rocky to begin with. Based on Rogers (2015) and Fulton et al. (2017), it would form as a gas giant at minimum, possibly crossing into brown dwarf territory.

None of these implications are acknowledged or addressed in the series because Oda never intended the planet to be this size. The calc produced the number, not the manga. And yet this size is currently being used as the foundation for calculating seismic feats in the verse, meaning we're invoking real physics to get our numbers while simultaneously dismissing the same physics when they produce inconvenient results. That's the inconsistency this thread is trying to address.

Proposed Rules
Rule 1: No statement or depiction, no size calc

If the planet is not shown or stated to be larger than Earth, default to Earth's dimensions. We have no business calcing a planet's size from indirect measurements if the author never implied it was anything other than Earth-sized.

Rule 2: Implied or stated larger but no specific size given

If the series implies or states the planet is larger than Earth without giving specific dimensions, cap the size at the maximum threshold for a rocky planet. Two independent studies converge on this limit. Rogers (2015), published in The Astrophysical Journal, analyzed Kepler mission data and found that planets with a radius above roughly 1.6 Earth radii are predominantly gaseous based on observed planetary populations. Fulton et al. (2017), also using Kepler data, independently identified a natural gap in the planet size distribution between 1.5 and 2.0 Earth radii, now known as the Fulton Gap or Radius Gap, where rocky planets effectively stop existing and gaseous ones begin. The fact that two separate studies using independent methodologies converge on the same threshold is why this number is widely accepted in planetary science rather than being a single contested result. This puts the cap at approximately 20,400 km in diameter at the upper end of Rogers (2015). Anything beyond that would naturally form as a gas giant, which directly contradicts Earth-like portrayals in fiction. If a verse shows an Earth-like planet and implies it is larger than Earth without specifying a size, this is the ceiling we should default to.

For reference, it is worth noting that the 1.6 Earth radii threshold from Rogers (2015) is not a hard line but a statistical tendency, meaning most planets above that radius are gaseous, not all of them. However, if the threshold itself has exceptions, that's even more reason to be skeptical of defaulting to a planet larger than the Sun as a baseline for calculations, since we'd be assuming the most extreme possible outlier with zero authorial backing.

Rule 3: Author explicitly states or shows a specific size

If the author explicitly establishes a specific size for their planet, use it regardless of physical implications. This reflects a conscious authorial decision about their universe and we respect that the same way we respect any other intentional worldbuilding choice, even if it contradicts real physics.

Why This Matters
The distinction being drawn here is not between "physics matters" and "physics doesn't matter". It's between authorial intent and calc-derived results. When an author decides their planet is a certain size, the physical inconsistencies that follow are their creative decision. When a third party calc produces a physically absurd result that the author never intended or acknowledged, we're not respecting creative intent, we're just using a number that happens to be convenient for scaling.

A calc that produces a result incompatible with the setting it's supposed to represent shouldn't be treated as valid just because no replacement exists yet. The absence of a better calc is an argument for finding one, not for keeping a bad one.

Happy to discuss and adjust the specifics, particularly the Rule 2 threshold if someone has a better source, and opening exceptions if there are any.

 

[HelloThere1089]

I agree with this. I always had an issue why we have such strict rules about black holes or KE (rightfully so), but never planet sizes.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Also, to make it clear since I mentioned One Piece, and this thread is a result of a discussion in a One Piece thread: I don't mind if the One Piece planet is held as an exception from the second rule, given enough proof their planet exceeds 20k kilometers. I just don't think there are enough arguments for such a big, sun sized planet to be true in the manga.

 

[Damage3245]

None of these implications are acknowledged or addressed in the series because Oda never intended the planet to be this size. The calc produced the number, not the manga. And yet this size is currently being used as the foundation for calculating seismic feats in the verse, meaning we're invoking real physics to get our numbers while simultaneously dismissing the same physics when they produce inconvenient results. That's the inconsistency this thread is trying to address.

I do think the inconsistency in how we approach it is an issue. We don't say "Even though the author never intended it, our size calculation nets a gravity this high so therefore every inhabitant of the planet is superhumanly strong or resistant to gravity." But for some reason we're sometimes saying "Even though the author never intended it, our size calculation nets a horizon on the planet that is this far away", or "It requires this much more energy to generate an earthquake felt on the other side of the planet."

 

[M3X_2.0]

I'm tagging some CGMs now: @KLOL506 @Floxy178 @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Armorchompy @SunDaGamer

 

[Chritin]

I'm honestly surprised this is a rule which hasn't been proposed sooner. While I didn't entirely disagree with fictional planets being larger than some others (especially in One Piece since it clearly has a larger planetary structure with multiple moons), I will admit it has gotten out of hand with some verses.

Either way, I know my vote isn't as major as the other CGMs, but for the time being unless someone has a REALLY good counterargument, I agree.

 

[KingTempest]

The OP said CGM Only.
That obviously isn't saying that only CGMs are able to type messages in here, but if your only purpose in the thread is to talk about how you thought this should've been implemented before the Heian era and you repeat it over and over then go away.

 

[Kachon123]

I don't mind if the One Piece planet is held as an exception from the second rule, given enough proof their planet exceeds 20k kilometers.

What would this proof even look like? If you don’t consider an overhead shot showing a stretch of ocean so vast that a 50 kilometer-wide river appears as a dot (despite the scene occupying only a small fraction of the planet’s surface) to be sufficient proof, are you only looking for explicit statements?

 

[Saqphire]

I'm in a mixed bag. Since we are appealing to IRL physics when it comes to actually quantifying fictional planet sizes, I see the merit of having some sort of guideline to base/limit oneselves to when it comes to such celestial bodies in the first place. That's completely fine here.

But fiction stretch the rules sometimes to fit their world building, no matter how many consequences that would come from having a planet that big. Again, with One Piece as an example here, because no matter how you spin it, the 50km river width statement will make Alabasta seem gargantuan and since Alabasta has been consistently shown in the manga and supplementary material that the planet straight up dwarfs that island, the planet will be much greater than Earth's as a result, even greater than 20000km in most, if not all versions of the planet being calculated, whether it results in being the size of the Sun or just a really big planet here.

So while I do agree that the first and second method should be used in fringe cases where the planet is unquantifiably bigger, they do not work in cases like One Piece's, because it will lead to a contradictory stance no matter how you argue both stances. That's because logically:

1. If you argue for method one, you'd have to agree Alabasta is like 1/3rd the size of Earth but also being dwarfed by the "Earth sized" planet, which is nonsensical unless you straight up debunk the 50km statement in itself.
2. If you argue for method two, you'd have to claim the maps are straight up wrong because of standards, which is not how the wiki should run here.

The third method is what I would agree with for that verse's case, but it seems incomplete imo, to which I would probably propose something like this:

Rule 3: Author explicitly states or shows a specific size

If the author explicitly establishes a specific size for their planet or if the stated contents in the planet forces the overall planet size to be bigger than Earth's, use it regardless of physical implications. This reflects a conscious authorial decision about their universe and we respect that the same way we respect any other intentional worldbuilding choice, even if it contradicts real physics.

Keep in mind, I don't necessarily agree that the planet of One Piece is the size of the Sun, but the stated sizes of the islands in the planet as well as the map portrayals of said islands makes it undeniable that it would be greater than 20000km without it being subject to becoming a gas giant here.

 

[M3X_2.0]

What would this proof even look like? If you don’t consider an overhead shot showing a stretch of ocean so vast that a 50 kilometer-wide river appears as a dot (despite the scene occupying only a small fraction of the planet’s surface) to be sufficient proof, are you only looking for explicit statements?

Going from "this ocean looks really vast" to "the planet is larger than the Sun" is an enormous leap that requires the calc itself to be reliable. If the calc methodology is sound and produces a result within a physically reasonable range, that's fine. The problem is when the calc produces a sun-sized planet and we accept it purely because the visual implies "big", without questioning whether the result is coherent with everything else the series shows. So to directly answer your question, explicit statements would be the cleanest proof, but well-supported visual calcs are acceptable as long as the result doesn't actively contradict the setting it's supposed to represent. Funny how the people with the strongest opinions on this seem to be making their case somewhere other than this thread though.

I'm in a mixed bag. Since we are appealing to IRL physics when it comes to actually quantifying fictional planet sizes, I see the merit of having some sort of guideline to base/limit oneselves to when it comes to such celestial bodies in the first place. That's completely fine here.

But fiction stretch the rules sometimes to fit their world building, no matter how many consequences that would come from having a planet that big. Again, with One Piece as an example here, because no matter how you spin it, the 50km river width statement will make Alabasta seem gargantuan and since Alabasta has been consistently shown in the manga and supplementary material that the planet straight up dwarfs Alabasta, the planet will be much greater than Earth's as a result, even greater than 20000km in most, if not all versions of the planet being calculated, whether it results in being the size of the Sun or just a really big planet here.

Thus I think the first and second method is way too strict in cases like One Piece's, because it will lead to a contradictory stance no matter how you argue both stances because logically, if you argue for method one, you'd have to agree Alabasta is like 1/rd the size of Earth but also being dwarfed by the "Earth sized" planet, which is nonsensical unless you straight up debunk the 50km statement in itself. If you argue for method two, you'd have to claim the maps are straight up wrong because of standards, which is not how the wiki should run here. The third method seems incomplete imo, to which I would probably propose something like this:



Keep in mind, I don't necessarily agree that the planet of One Piece is the size of the Sun, but it's pretty undeniable that the stated sizes of the islands in the planet as well as the map portrayals of said contents makes it undeniable that it would be greater than 20000km without it being subject to becoming a gas giant here.

This is actually the most reasonable response in the thread so far and I largely agree with the proposed Rule 3 amendment. Stated contents like island sizes forcing the planet to be larger than Earth is a completely valid form of evidence and should be treated as such.

The distinction I'd still push back on is between "the stated contents force the planet to be bigger than 20,000km" and "the stated contents force the planet to be sun-sized". Those are very different conclusions and the gap between them matters. If the 50km river statement and map portrayals reliably push the planet above the rocky planet threshold, that's a legitimate result we should accept and work with. But that same evidence doesn't necessarily validate every calc that uses those measurements, especially if different methodologies produce wildly different results. The question then becomes which calc is actually the most reliable representation of what the stated contents imply, not whether the planet is big, because at that point we agree it is.

 

[KingTempest]

But that same evidence doesn't necessarily validate every calc that uses those measurements, especially if different methodologies produce wildly different results. The question then becomes which calc is actually the most reliable representation of what the stated contents imply, not whether the planet is big, because at that point we agree it is.

Different methodologies produce wildly different results cause we're working with a bunch of lowballs climbing up because we know that calculating the full thing for what it is with the most consistent method would get a reaction like this.

For example, the current calculation calculates a small section of the sea by using as minimal panels as possible so that we don't dive into the "it's strictly pixel calced and wanked and gassed up".
We calced a section of an ocean with 1 page, then we said that that section was the entire ocean, then we calculated the planet from that.
Literally a 2 page calc of "area and planet".

The only reason why the mention of it being sun sized is such a large shouted argument is because those who repeat the argument don't look at the actual math and they just look at the end result and say "sun sized planet??? no wayyy!" when you gave a figure that's literally a dot on the map for the verse in question.

You gave a cap of 20,000 but a single island distance from a close one is already a fifth of that, and this isn't considering that there's dozens of long islands in a path away from each other that would easily break that gap for more than 2 islands away. Heck, the panel alone that is used to showcase the size of the calculation breaks your rule alone.

So what is the distinction for the proof between "bigger than earth" and "sun sized" other than "it's really big"? Because you aren't gonna find any actual proof anywhere.
Nobody is gonna compare these planets to earth when in half of these verses earth doesn't exist. You expect One Piece to say "oh man this planet when we have no other planets in the verse is so much heavier than this planet!" like?

 

[Kachon123]

Going from "this ocean looks really vast" to "the planet is larger than the Sun" is an enormous leap that requires the calc itself to be reliable. If the calc methodology is sound and produces a result within a physically reasonable range, that's fine. The problem is when the calc produces a sun-sized planet and we accept it purely because the visual implies "big", without questioning whether the result is coherent with everything else the series shows. So to directly answer your question, explicit statements would be the cleanest proof, but well-supported visual calcs are acceptable as long as the result doesn't actively contradict the setting it's supposed to represent. Funny how the people with the strongest opinions on this seem to be making their case somewhere other than this thread though.

You're contradicting yourself. If narrative intent, or an "intentional worldbuilding choice" as you've worded it in the OP is enough for a case to be considered an exception to the rule, there's no reason why Blue Planet being that big is an issue. The calc methodology is sound and the manga shows over a dozen hundred kilometers being a small piece of the planet. At this point it's really just sounding like you have an issue with the calced size without any reasonable explanation for why. Supporters have explained why it makes sense and why it has narrative backing.

 

[Saqphire]

This is actually the most reasonable response in the thread so far and I largely agree with the proposed Rule 3 amendment. Stated contents like island sizes forcing the planet to be larger than Earth is a completely valid form of evidence and should be treated as such.

The distinction I'd still push back on is between "the stated contents force the planet to be bigger than 20,000km" and "the stated contents force the planet to be sun-sized". Those are very different conclusions and the gap between them matters. If the 50km river statement and map portrayals reliably push the planet above the rocky planet threshold, that's a legitimate result we should accept and work with. But that same evidence doesn't necessarily validate every calc that uses those measurements, especially if different methodologies produce wildly different results. The question then becomes which calc is actually the most reliable representation of what the stated contents imply, not whether the planet is big, because at that point we agree it is.

Yeah I completely agree with this sentiment, that sounds reasonable as hell. Whether the planet is greater than Earth (and greater than 20,000km in diametre) is very hard to deny here unless one would straight up ignore evidence of maps and statements and shit.

However, claiming the planet is the size of the Sun would be a greater, more extraordinary claim than claiming it's "this much greater" than 20,000km in size. Especially when the tetriary evidences provided (like the 20 mill islands, everything being big in the verse, including islands, boats being faster than normal etc.) would equally support the more conservative interpretation of the two at that point and as such, claiming it would be the size of the Sun would need more explicit proof here.

 

[M3X_2.0]

You're contradicting yourself. If narrative intent, or an "intentional worldbuilding choice" as you've worded it in the OP is enough for a case to be considered an exception to the rule, there's no reason why Blue Planet being that big is an issue. The calc methodology is sound and the manga shows over a dozen hundred kilometers being a small piece of the planet. At this point it's really just sounding like you have an issue with the calced size without any reasonable explanation for why. Supporters have explained why it makes sense and why it has narrative backing.

There's no contradiction. The argument was never that the planet can't be big, it's that "the manga shows the planet is large" and "the manga validates a specific calc result of 1.5 million kilometers" are two different claims. Narrative intent establishes that the planet exceeds Earth's size, that's fine and I've conceded that multiple times in this thread. What narrative intent doesn't do is validate a specific number derived from a third party calc that Oda never acknowledged, especially when that number produces a planet larger than the Sun with zero depiction of the consequences that would follow. The calc methodology being sound is also a separate question from the result being reasonable. You can apply correct methodology to flawed assumptions and get a wrong answer. If the baseline measurements used in the calc are ambiguous or imprecise enough that different approaches produce significantly different planet sizes, then the specific sun-sized result isn't uniquely validated by the narrative, it's just one possible output among several. The narrative backing establishes a direction, bigger than Earth, not a precise destination.

You and the other One Piece supporters would do much better if you guys stopped bitching on a Discord server and actually argued here, rather than being a bunch of cowards hiding from a simple discussion. And I don't even know why you're all so desperate thinking this thread somehow caps the planet at 20,000 km in diameter when I clearly said there can be exceptions and acknowledged One Piece as one.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Different methodologies produce wildly different results cause we're working with a bunch of lowballs climbing up because we know that calculating the full thing for what it is with the most consistent method would get a reaction like this.

For example, the current calculation calculates a small section of the sea by using as minimal panels as possible so that we don't dive into the "it's strictly pixel calced and wanked and gassed up".
We calced a section of an ocean with 1 page, then we said that that section was the entire ocean, then we calculated the planet from that.
Literally a 2 page calc of "area and planet".

The only reason why the mention of it being sun sized is such a large shouted argument is because those who repeat the argument don't look at the actual math and they just look at the end result and say "sun sized planet??? no wayyy!" when you gave a figure that's literally a dot on the map for the verse in question.

You gave a cap of 20,000 but a single island distance from a close one is already a fifth of that, and this isn't considering that there's dozens of long islands in a path away from each other that would easily break that gap for more than 2 islands away. Heck, the panel alone that is used to showcase the size of the calculation breaks your rule alone.

So what is the distinction for the proof between "bigger than earth" and "sun sized" other than "it's really big"? Because you aren't gonna find any actual proof anywhere.
Nobody is gonna compare these planets to earth when in half of these verses earth doesn't exist. You expect One Piece to say "oh man this planet when we have no other planets in the verse is so much heavier than this planet!" like?

Didn't see your comment.

And I don't even know why you're all so desperate thinking this thread somehow caps the planet at 20,000 km in diameter when I clearly said there can be exceptions and acknowledged One Piece as one.

 

[Kachon123]

There's no contradiction. The argument was never that the planet can't be big, it's that "the manga shows the planet is large" and "the manga validates a specific calc result of 1.5 million kilometers" are two different claims. Narrative intent establishes that the planet exceeds Earth's size, that's fine and I've conceded that multiple times in this thread. What narrative intent doesn't do is validate a specific number derived from a third party calc that Oda never acknowledged, especially when that number produces a planet larger than the Sun with zero depiction of the consequences that would follow. The calc methodology being sound is also a separate question from the result being reasonable. You can apply correct methodology to flawed assumptions and get a wrong answer. If the baseline measurements used in the calc are ambiguous or imprecise enough that different approaches produce significantly different planet sizes, then the specific sun-sized result isn't uniquely validated by the narrative, it's just one possible output among several. The narrative backing establishes a direction, bigger than Earth, not a precise destination.

Islands described as close being 4000+ kilometers apart and a 50 kilometer river being a dot in a small portion of a large planet alone necessitates said planet being larger than your proposed cap and far closer to whatever any calced value is. The narrative intent is that the planet is bigger than what real life physics allows for. For anyone with a brain, just looking at those panels without making a calc for it would make you wonder why Blue Planet is rocky with normal gravity, without a liquified Red Line, yet it's only people like you who try to force it within objectively stupid confines to appease your need for a sub-sun sized planet.

You and the other One Piece supporters would do much better if you guys stopped bitching on a Discord server and actually argued here, rather than being a bunch of cowards hiding from a simple discussion. And I don't even know why you're all so desperate thinking this thread somehow caps the planet at 20,000 km in diameter when I clearly said there can be exceptions and acknowledged One Piece as one.

Damn, it's almost as if we're actually arguing here. I'll talk wherever and however I want about your threads if they're as idiotic as this one regarding something as blatant as the Blue Planet's size. You claim that it can be acknowledged as an exception to the rule, yet every single proof that's being brought to you is being denied because of essentially "nuh uh." Call it bitching, moaning or whatever, but if your methods are dumb, I have the right to call it out as dumb.

 

[Eminiteable]

Right now we have verses where planet sizes are derived entirely from third party calculations that the authors never acknowledged, and those sizes are then used as the foundation for calculating feats.

Rule 1: No statement or depiction, no size calc

If the planet is not shown or stated to be larger than Earth, default to Earth's dimensions. We have no business calcing a planet's size from indirect measurements if the author never implied it was anything other than Earth-sized.

Rule 2: Implied or stated larger but no specific size given

If the series implies or states the planet is larger than Earth without giving specific dimensions, cap the size at the maximum threshold for a rocky planet.

The author wrote that the width of the river is 50 km. The author then drew the country as being a certain size, and within a single page the surrounding ocean exceeded your proposed cap on the size of the planet listed in “Rule 2.” It was not only the author’s intent for the island to fit within the Grand Line, but also for the Grand Line to be populated with enough space and islands that do not make Alabasta a large outlier in size.

What you're proposing in this thread is that we disregard finding consistency and accuracy for the country of Alabasta, the ocean surrounding it, and subsequently the Grand Line, for the sake of appeasing real-world physics in a fictional world.

Oda acknowledged this size when he wrote and drew the island to be this big in such a small space of portion of the world.

 

[KingTempest]

Everybody chill btw

 

[Planck69]

I am no calc group member so I'll default the finicky details to those more well versed on that but "a Sun sized planet is less sensible than being "larger than Earth" seems like a horrendous argument of increduility rather than anything actually founded on a concrete problem.

The point on planets in fiction not simulating the effects of said physics for those on it seems even less sensible than that. Multiple planets aside from One Piece in fiction (cultivation novels for example) have stated sizes for countries and geographical objects that would make their planets at minimum exceed any physically possible size. And yet, there they exist.

 

[EtherealCrater]

You and the other One Piece supporters would do much better if you guys stopped bitching on a Discord server and actually argued here, rather than being a bunch of cowards hiding from a simple discussion.

Is this not an extremely inappropriate thing for a CGM to say? Please don't call fellow members of the community "*******" and "cowards".

 

[KingTempest]

The points of personal attacks have been said.
They have been understood.
They have been deaded.
We do not need to build on them at all, nor does this thread need to get more heated than it is.

 

[Planck69]

You and the other One Piece supporters would do much better if you guys stopped bitching on a Discord server and actually argued here, rather than being a bunch of cowards hiding from a simple discussion. And I don't even know why you're all so desperate thinking this thread somehow caps the planet at 20,000 km in diameter when I clearly said there can be exceptions and acknowledged One Piece as one.

This is in very poor taste and completely unprofessional so I hope it starts and ends here in this thread.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Islands described as close being 4000+ kilometers apart and a 50 kilometer river being a dot in a small portion of a large planet alone necessitates said planet being larger than your proposed cap and far closer to whatever any calced value is. The narrative intent is that the planet is bigger than what real life physics allows for. For anyone with a brain, just looking at those panels without making a calc for it would make you wonder why Blue Planet is rocky with normal gravity, without a liquified Red Line, yet it's only people like you who try to force it within objectively stupid confines to appease your need for a sub-sun sized planet.

The panels establishing the planet is large are not being disputed, that point has been conceded repeatedly. The issue is that "larger than what real life physics allows for" and "specifically 1.5 million kilometers in diameter" are still two different claims. One follows from the panels, the other follows from a specific calc methodology applied to those panels, and calc methodologies can produce different results depending on assumptions and measurements used. If the narrative intent is that the planet defies real life physics, that's fine, but it doesn't uniquely validate one specific calc output over any other.

Also, the Rocky planet with normal gravity point actually works against you here. If the narrative intent was truly for the planet to be sun-sized with all the physics that entails, we'd expect some acknowledgment of that in the series. Instead we get normal gravity, breathable air, liquid oceans and a solid Red Line, which are all consistent with a large but not sun-sized rocky planet. The series depicting Earth-like conditions isn't evidence for a sun-sized planet, if anything it's evidence against it.

Damn, it's almost as if we're actually arguing here. I'll talk wherever and however I want about your threads if they're as idiotic as this one regarding something as blatant as the Blue Planet's size. You claim that it can be acknowledged as an exception to the rule, yet every single proof that's being brought to you is being denied because of essentially "nuh uh." Call it bitching, moaning or whatever, but if your methods are dumb, I have the right to call it out as dumb.

Glad you feel comfortable enough to discuss it somewhere, even if it took a public callout to get you here. Funny how "idiotic" threads still manage to bring people out of their servers when they realize the argument isn't going the way they wanted.

The author wrote that the width of the river is 50 km. The author then drew the country as being a certain size, and within a single page the surrounding ocean exceeded your proposed cap on the size of the planet listed in “Rule 2.” It was not only the author’s intent for the island to fit within the Grand Line, but also for the Grand Line to be populated with enough space and islands that do not make Alabasta a large outlier in size.

What you're proposing in this thread is that we disregard finding consistency and accuracy for the country of Alabasta, the ocean surrounding it, and subsequently the Grand Line, for the sake of appeasing real-world physics in a fictional world.

Oda acknowledged this size when he wrote and drew the island to be this big in such a small space of portion of the world.

Nobody is proposing we disregard Alabasta's size or the river statement. The point is that those measurements establishing the planet is large doesn't uniquely validate a sun-sized result. If a single page showing the ocean around Alabasta already exceeds the Rule 2 cap, then One Piece qualifies as an exception under Rule 3 by authorial depiction, which is exactly what the rules allow for. The framework isn't broken by this, it's working as intended. The remaining question is whether the specific calc methodology used produces the most accurate representation of what Oda drew, not whether the planet is big, because at this point everyone agrees it is.

Everybody chill btw

Gotta control your goons.

I am no calc group member so I'll default the finicky details to those more well versed on that but "a Sun sized planet is less sensible than being "larger than Earth" seems like a horrendous argument of increduility rather than anything actually founded on a concrete problem.

The point on planets in fiction not simulating the effects of said physics for those on it seems even less sensible than that. Multiple planets aside from One Piece in fiction (cultivation novels for example) have stated sizes for countries and geographical objects that would make their planets at minimum exceed any physically possible size. And yet, there they exist.

The incredulity argument cuts both ways. Yes, fiction has planets that exceed physically possible sizes all the time, nobody is disputing that. The difference is that "sun-sized" isn't just slightly beyond physical limits, it's a result that actively contradicts what the series itself portrays. A cultivation novel stating their continent is massive and implying a huge planet is consistent worldbuilding. One Piece showing normal gravity, breathable atmosphere, liquid oceans and a solid Red Line while supposedly having a planet larger than the Sun is not consistent worldbuilding, it's a calc result that disagrees with the source material it was derived from.

The bar here isn't "does it exceed real physics." The bar is "does the result align with what the series actually depicts." Those are different questions and the second one matters a lot more for our purposes.

Is this not an extremely inappropriate thing for a CGM to say? Please don't call fellow members of the community "*******" and "cowards".

No, it is not. I didn't call them "*******" because I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Also, you're the same person who kept making non-arguments, clearly showing you don't really know anything about what we're discussing, so I'd ask you not to comment unless you have something to add, because you clearly don't right now.

 

[Saqphire]

I am no calc group member so I'll default the finicky details to those more well versed on that but "a Sun sized planet is less sensible than being "larger than Earth" seems like a horrendous argument of increduility rather than anything actually founded on a concrete problem.

The point on planets in fiction not simulating the effects of said physics for those on it seems even less sensible than that. Multiple planets aside from One Piece in fiction (cultivation novels for example) have stated sizes for countries and geographical objects that would make their planets at minimum exceed any physically possible size. And yet, there they exist.

I mean duh, if a fictional planet is Sun-sized without it being a gas planet, then it's Sun-sized no question. I think I proposed a reasonable compromise however that while in One Piece, it's undeniably over 20,000km of course, but claiming it's the size of a star and it being the size of, idk, Jupiter or Saturn as an example, are two different claims with two different standards of evidence here.

What I mean is that both calcs can use a gargantuan Alabasta as a basis for example, yet find different ways of getting the planet diameter which would both be equally valid in this scenario. Thus it would be on the guys who claim the planet is greater to justify why it has to be that great in size in the first place, as an equal interpretation would favour the lesser size otherwise.

 

[Kachon123]

Also, the Rocky planet with normal gravity point actually works against you here. If the narrative intent was truly for the planet to be sun-sized with all the physics that entails, we'd expect some acknowledgment of that in the series. Instead we get normal gravity, breathable air, liquid oceans and a solid Red Line, which are all consistent with a large but not sun-sized rocky planet. The series depicting Earth-like conditions isn't evidence for a sun-sized planet, if anything it's evidence against it.

I'll give you benefit of the doubt since it seems you misread my post. Oda in the same breath where he depicts the planet as larger than what physics allows depicts the planet's conditions as being Earth-like. This simply means that his intentional worldbuilding calls for the planet to be an exception to your rules.

Glad you feel comfortable enough to discuss it somewhere, even if it took a public callout to get you here. Funny how "idiotic" threads still manage to bring people out of their servers when they realize the argument isn't going the way they wanted.

I'm not sure if you've noticed but there was an entire thread prior to this one where One Piece fans were arguing in.

 

[Planck69]

The panels establishing the planet is large are not being disputed, that point has been conceded repeatedly. The issue is that "larger than what real life physics allows for" and "specifically 1.5 million kilometers in diameter" are still two different claims. One follows from the panels, the other follows from a specific calc methodology applied to those panels, and calc methodologies can produce different results depending on assumptions and measurements used. If the narrative intent is that the planet defies real life physics, that's fine, but it doesn't uniquely validate one specific calc output over any other.

Also, the Rocky planet with normal gravity point actually works against you here. If the narrative intent was truly for the planet to be sun-sized with all the physics that entails, we'd expect some acknowledgment of that in the series. Instead we get normal gravity, breathable air, liquid oceans and a solid Red Line, which are all consistent with a large but not sun-sized rocky planet. The series depicting Earth-like conditions isn't evidence for a sun-sized planet, if anything it's evidence against it.

Glad you feel comfortable enough to discuss it somewhere, even if it took a public callout to get you here. Funny how "idiotic" threads still manage to bring people out of their servers when they realize the argument isn't going the way they wanted.

Nobody is proposing we disregard Alabasta's size or the river statement. The point is that those measurements establishing the planet is large doesn't uniquely validate a sun-sized result. If a single page showing the ocean around Alabasta already exceeds the Rule 2 cap, then One Piece qualifies as an exception under Rule 3 by authorial depiction, which is exactly what the rules allow for. The framework isn't broken by this, it's working as intended. The remaining question is whether the specific calc methodology used produces the most accurate representation of what Oda drew, not whether the planet is big, because at this point everyone agrees it is.

Gotta control your goons.

The incredulity argument cuts both ways. Yes, fiction has planets that exceed physically possible sizes all the time, nobody is disputing that. The difference is that "sun-sized" isn't just slightly beyond physical limits, it's a result that actively contradicts what the series itself portrays. A cultivation novel stating their continent is massive and implying a huge planet is consistent worldbuilding. One Piece showing normal gravity, breathable atmosphere, liquid oceans and a solid Red Line while supposedly having a planet larger than the Sun is not consistent worldbuilding, it's a calc result that disagrees with the source material it was derived from.

What is functionally the difference between a statement of "the river flowed for 2 million miles" existing and every normal mortal breathing fine, no implied supergravity etc. and this? This is a completely arbitrary distinction.

The bar here isn't "does it exceed real physics." The bar is "does the result align with what the series actually depicts." Those are different questions and the second one matters a lot more for our purposes.

Almost no physics defying planet in fiction meets these standards despite very blatantly being supermassive compared to Earth though. Most of them have no stated gravity differences nor do they ever really harp on that cause most authors don't think about it.

I'm for more rigorous standards but if this is the crux of the arguments then I disagree for now.

 

[M3X_2.0]

I'll give you benefit of the doubt since it seems you misread my post. Oda in the same breath as depicting the planet as larger than what physics allows depicts the planet's conditions as being Earth-like. This simply means that his intentional worldbuilding calls for the planet to be an exception to your rules.

Happy to discuss and adjust the specifics, particularly the Rule 2 threshold if someone has a better source, and opening exceptions if there are any.

Also, to make it clear since I mentioned One Piece, and this thread is a result of a discussion in a One Piece thread: I don't mind if the One Piece planet is held as an exception from the second rule, given enough proof their planet exceeds 20k kilometers. I just don't think there are enough arguments for such a big, sun sized planet to be true in the manga.

I largely agree with the proposed Rule 3 amendment. Stated contents like island sizes forcing the planet to be larger than Earth is a completely valid form of evidence and should be treated as such.

If the 50km river statement and map portrayals reliably push the planet above the rocky planet threshold, that's a legitimate result we should accept and work with.

I didn't misread anything. You're just not keeping up with thread.

 

[Da3ggman]

Gotta control your goons.

You said goons, banned for a year

 

[EtherealCrater]

No, it is not. I didn't call them "*******" because I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Also, you're the same person who kept making non-arguments, clearly showing you don't really know anything about what we're discussing, so I'd ask you not to comment unless you have something to add, because you clearly don't right now.

The validity of my arguments is irrelevant to how you conduct yourself. I'm politely asking that you don't insult others. I don't care if you think my arguments are horrid, just act with due decorum when debating with others.

 

[Nierre]

Yeah, I find myself agreeing with Planck here. Not really convinced by the line of argumentation from the OP currently.

finally voting on time for one of these threads but it's a cgt so really what am i good for

 

[M3X_2.0]

What is functionally the difference between a statement of "the river flowed for 2 million miles" existing and every normal mortal breathing fine, no implied supergravity etc. and this? This is a completely arbitrary distinction.

Almost no physics defying planet in fiction meets these standards despite very blatantly being supermassive compared to Earth though. Most of them have no stated gravity differences nor do they ever really harp on that cause most authors don't think about it.

I'm for more rigorous standards but if this is the crux of the arguments then I disagree for now.

That's actually a fair point and I'll concede it partially. You're right that most fictional planets with absurd sizes don't depict supergravity or atmospheric consequences, and that's a pattern we generally accept across the wiki. The distinction I'd draw is that in most of those cases the size comes directly from the author, stated or shown explicitly, which means we're respecting a worldbuilding decision even if physics are ignored. The One Piece planet size doesn't come from Oda, it comes from a calc. So the question isn't just "does the series ignore the physical consequences" but also "did the author actually intend this size in the first place." Those are two separate issues and conflating them is what makes this case different from the cultivation novel examples or similar cases. If Oda had stated the planet was sun-sized and then depicted normal gravity, fine, that's his creative decision. But we're the ones producing the sun-sized number, not him.

 

[Planck69]

That's actually a fair point and I'll concede it partially. You're right that most fictional planets with absurd sizes don't depict supergravity or atmospheric consequences, and that's a pattern we generally accept across the wiki. The distinction I'd draw is that in most of those cases the size comes directly from the author, stated or shown explicitly, which means we're respecting a worldbuilding decision even if physics are ignored. The One Piece planet size doesn't come from Oda, it comes from a calc. So the question isn't just "does the series ignore the physical consequences" but also "did the author actually intend this size in the first place." Those are two separate issues and conflating them is what makes this case different from the cultivation novel examples or similar cases. If Oda had stated the planet was sun-sized and then depicted normal gravity, fine, that's his creative decision. But we're the ones producing the sun-sized number, not him.

I mean, the very same applies to several cultivation stories too. You will almost never, ever get a "this planet is X km wide" statement in these stories. It's always "the city 300 million li away" or "this sea takes 100 years for at least supersonic beings to fly across it with no sleep or rest" and "the sea is a tiny one".

And then you calc planet size from what information you have. I've done those calculations before, even. So at what point is a size "from the author"? If even calculating it at all is an issue then that's an entirely different beast, sure. If not, then there's once again no difference between One Piece and those worlds apart from scale - scale that One Piece is outright reasonable about compared to them.

 

[M3X_2.0]

I mean, the very same applies to several cultivation stories too. You will almost never, ever get a "this planet is X km wide" statement in these stories. It's always "the city 300 million li away" or "this sea takes 100 years for at least supersonic beings to fly across it with no sleep or rest" and "the sea is a tiny one".

And then you calc planet size from what information you have. I've done those calculations before, even. So at what point is a size "from the author"? If even calculating it at all is an issue then that's an entirely different beast, sure. If not, then there's once again no difference between One Piece and those worlds apart from scale - scale that One Piece is outright reasonable about compared to them.

The methodology being the same doesn't mean the results are equally valid. Calcing a planet size from in-universe distances is standard practice and nobody is saying it's inherently wrong. The issue is specifically when the result is so extreme that it contradicts the setting it was derived from. A cultivation novel calc producing a massive planet that the series never depicts consequences for is one thing. A One Piece calc producing a planet larger than the Sun, derived from a single river width statement and map scaling, where the same series explicitly shows Earth-like conditions at every level, is a different situation entirely. The methodology being identical doesn't make the outputs equally reliable, the quality of the baseline measurements and the coherence of the result with the source material both matter. One Piece isn't just "outright reasonable compared to them", it's producing a result that actively conflicts with its own portrayal in a way those cultivation novel calcs don't.

I mean duh, if a fictional planet is Sun-sized without it being a gas planet, then it's Sun-sized no question. I think I proposed a reasonable compromise however that while in One Piece, it's undeniably over 20,000km of course, but claiming it's the size of a star and it being the size of, idk, Jupiter or Saturn as an example, are two different claims with two different standards of evidence here.

What I mean is that both calcs can use a gargantuan Alabasta as a basis for example, yet find different ways of getting the planet diameter which would both be equally valid in this scenario. Thus it would be on the guys who claim the planet is greater to justify why it has to be that great in size in the first place, as an equal interpretation would favour the lesser size otherwise.

Also this.

 

[Planck69]

The methodology being the same doesn't mean the results are equally valid. Calcing a planet size from in-universe distances is standard practice and nobody is saying it's inherently wrong. The issue is specifically when the result is so extreme that it contradicts the setting it was derived from. A cultivation novel calc producing a massive planet that the series never depicts consequences for is one thing. A One Piece calc producing a planet larger than the Sun, derived from a single river width statement and map scaling, where the same series explicitly shows Earth-like conditions at every level, is a different situation entirely. The methodology being identical doesn't make the outputs equally reliable, the quality of the baseline measurements and the coherence of the result with the source material both matter. One Piece isn't just "outright reasonable compared to them", it's producing a result that actively conflicts with its own portrayal in a way those cultivation novel calcs don't.

Why though? Why is a cultivation novel where a random country side is an astronomical unit wide more reliable than the other calc? You've went on about it at length but I have so far yet to see why One Piece is any more or less sensible here. Xianxia worlds have completely regular humans living on them making up 99.999% of the population.

If we concede that hyper accurate physics portrayals aren't something to be expected then what else is left that makes the calculation inherently wrong? You haven't told me why One Piece having a massive planet is "going against its portrayal". It's a fantasy world that has no relationship to Earth. There's no inherent standard it is deviating from.

If there were issues with the calculation itself then sure, those can be pointed out. But it seems like without the angle of realistic portrayal of consequences (which is functionally nonexistent in fiction unless the plot demands it let's be real), there isn't really anything of substance left here.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Why though? Why is a cultivation novel where a random country side is an astronomical unit wide more reliable than the other calc? You've went on about it at length but I have so far yet to see why One Piece is any more or less sensible here. Xianxia worlds have completely regular humans living on them making up 99.999% of the population.

If we concede that hyper accurate physics portrayals aren't something to be expected then what else is left that makes the calculation inherently wrong? You haven't told me why One Piece having a massive planet is "going against its portrayal". It's a fantasy world that has no relationship to Earth. There's no inherent standard it is deviating from.

If there were issues with the calculation itself then sure, those can be pointed out. But it seems like without the angle of realistic portrayal of consequences (which is functionally nonexistent in fiction unless the plot demands it let's be real), there isn't really anything of substance left here.

The issue isn't physics accuracy in fiction, you're right that expecting that is unreasonable. The issue is calc reliability. A xianxia world stating a country is an astronomical unit wide is a direct authorial measurement, the calc is just converting units. The One Piece planet size isn't derived from a direct measurement Oda gave, it's derived from scaling a river width against a map and extrapolating a global size from that. Those are fundamentally different levels of reliability. One is converting what the author told you, the other is inferring a global result from a local measurement using assumptions about map accuracy and proportionality that Oda never validated.

So the question that's actually left is whether that specific calc methodology is reliable enough to produce a result we should treat as definitive. A river width statement scaled against a map that Oda drew for narrative purposes, not cartographic accuracy, producing a planet larger than the Sun, is not the same as an author stating their planet is that size. The reliability of the baseline measurement and the assumptions baked into the methodology are exactly what's in question here, and "fiction doesn't need to be physically accurate" doesn't address that at all.

Also worth pointing out that this thread isn't specifically about One Piece. One Piece is being used as an example of a broader problem that applies to any verse where planet sizes are derived from third party calcs. The framework being proposed here would affect every verse equally, so arguing about whether One Piece specifically deserves an exception is kind of missing the point of the thread entirely. It does, but I'm not here to say exact how and why. And @KingTempest already said he's working on a different Planet size, anyway.

 

[KingTempest]

And @KingTempest already said he's working on a different Planet size, anyway.

Unfortunately (all transparency) it's larger

 

[M3X_2.0]

I know it is.

 

[KingTempest]

I know it is.

Yay

 

[Planck69]

The issue isn't physics accuracy in fiction, you're right that expecting that is unreasonable. The issue is calc reliability. A xianxia world stating a country is an astronomical unit wide is a direct authorial measurement, the calc is just converting units. The One Piece planet size isn't derived from a direct measurement Oda gave, it's derived from scaling a river width against a map and extrapolating a global size from that. Those are fundamentally different levels of reliability. One is converting what the author told you, the other is inferring a global result from a local measurement using assumptions about map accuracy and proportionality that Oda never validated.

See, if the issue is inconsistent map sizes used in calculation then sure, that's something I agree should be addressed. My main issue was the argument that "the author never intended this size" based on the mundane effects of that big planet.

No author really thinks about these things, or gives any direct indicator one way or the other, so any calculation is still valid until that changes or is directly contradicted.

If Oda said the One Piece world wasn't super big then yes, that would be an instant debunk. But until that happens, arguing about narrative intention is just a guessing game on both ends.

Also worth pointing out that this thread isn't specifically about One Piece. One Piece is being used as an example of a broader problem that applies to any verse where planet sizes are derived from third party calcs. The framework being proposed here would affect every verse equally, so arguing about whether One Piece specifically deserves an exception is kind of missing the point of the thread entirely. It does, but I'm not here to say exact how and why. And @KingTempest already said he's working on a different Planet size, anyway.

I mean, One Piece is the main example being used so I figured it would make sense for me to address it. Likewise, cultivation novels are what I have most experience with (for this topic specifically) so I'd naturally use them as an example.

 

[M3X_2.0]

See, if the issue is inconsistent map sizes used in calculation then sure, that's something I agree should be addressed. My main issue was the argument that "the author never intended this size" based on the mundane effects of that big planet.

No author really thinks about these things, or gives any direct indicator one way or the other, so any calculation is still valid until that changes or is directly contradicted.

If Oda said the One Piece world wasn't super big then yes, that would be an instant debunk. But until that happens, arguing about narrative intention is just a guessing game on both ends.

I mean, One Piece is the main example being used so I figured it would make sense for me to address it. Likewise, cultivation novels are what I have most experience with (for this topic specifically) so I'd naturally use them as an example.

Fair enough, and I'd agree that narrative intention alone is debatable. The stronger argument was always about calc reliability, not authorial intent, and it sounds like we're actually on the same page there. A more reliable calc replacing a questionable one is exactly the kind of outcome this thread was meant to produce, not to cap One Piece.