Question for Calculation Group Members

[Ss3micah]

What standards does the Wiki use to Calculate FTL destruction of Star, Solar System and Galaxy sized Planets....

I was talking it over with a friend and the conversation went a Bit like this:

Them: Looking at these feats, I would say that most of these are 4-B feats due to the sheer size of the planets. For the calc itself I'm not sure if that can even really be calced aside from them being 4-B via size alone since they all involve FTL destruction so GBE and KE are out of the question

Me: Seriously lol. The feats are INCALCULABLE!?

Them: Not really. I just said I have no idea how we treat things like that I have no idea how we calc FTL destruction and by what standards the wiki uses for these types of destruction. But 4-B is pretty much guaranteed.

So I would just like to know if there is a standard that the Wiki uses to Calculate FTL Destruction Feats for Planets the Size of Stars, Solar Systems and Galaxies and if there is then what is it

 

[KLOL506]

For FTL destruction we just assume GBE as a baseline.

For stuff 4-B and above we just assume the inverse-square law explosion values that we use for our 4-B to 3-A tiers.

Galaxy-sized stuff we just leave at 3-C to 3-B.

 

[Greatsage13th]

For FTL destruction we just assume GBE as a baseline.

For stuff 4-B and above we just assume the inverse-square law explosion values that we use for our 4-B to 3-A tiers.

Galaxy-sized stuff we just leave at 3-C to 3-B.

How does one use inverse square law to determine ftl shockwave?

 

[KLOL506]

How does one use inverse square law to determine ftl shockwave?

You don't.

Inverse-square law does not use speed. In the case of celestial objects, it is purely determining the power of an explosion at the epicenter based on how much energy it has left at a certain distance away from said epicenter.

 

[Greatsage13th]

You don't.

Inverse-square law does not use speed. In the case of celestial objects, it is purely determining the power of an explosion at the epicenter based on how much energy it has left at a certain distance away from said epicenter.

I see.

 

[Ss3micah]

For FTL destruction we just assume GBE as a baseline.

For stuff 4-B and above we just assume the inverse-square law explosion values that we use for our 4-B to 3-A tiers.

Galaxy-sized stuff we just leave at 3-C to 3-B.

So is using GBE for Solar System sized planets allowed? Since I'm not sure if your saying if that should be used or inverse square law for 4-B sized objects

 

[KLOL506]

So is using GBE for Solar System sized planets allowed? Since I'm not sure if your saying if that should be used or inverse square law for 4-B sized objects

For solar System-sized planets, just assume them to be baseline 4-B.

What I meant with the inverse-square law is, it's mostly used to find the power of an explosion at the epicenter based on how much destructive power it has at the edge a certain distance from the epicenter.

As for stars, well, the solar system is 39.5 AU in radius, and GBE of stars can be determined using the formula U = (3*G*M^2)/(r(5-n)), in which U is GBE in joules, G is the gravitational constant of 6.67408x10^-11, M is mass in kilograms, r is radius in meters, and n is the polytropic value attributed to the type of star.

 

[Ss3micah]

For solar System-sized planets, just assume them to be baseline 4-B.

What I meant with the inverse-square law is, it's mostly used to find the power of an explosion at the epicenter based on how much destructive power it has at the edge a certain distance from the epicenter.

As for stars, well, the solar system is 39.5 AU in radius, and GBE of stars can be determined using the formula U = (3*G*M^2)/(r(5-n)), in which U is GBE in joules, G is the gravitational constant of 6.67408x10^-11, M is mass in kilograms, r is radius in meters, and n is the polytropic value attributed to the type of star.

Out of Curiosity Sake
Can you give me the Standard Radius, Diameter and Circumference IN KM the Wiki works with in regards to Baseline Solar System Size

 

[Ss3micah]

For solar System-sized planets, just assume them to be baseline 4-B.

What I meant with the inverse-square law is, it's mostly used to find the power of an explosion at the epicenter based on how much destructive power it has at the edge a certain distance from the epicenter.

As for stars, well, the solar system is 39.5 AU in radius, and GBE of stars can be determined using the formula U = (3*G*M^2)/(r(5-n)), in which U is GBE in joules, G is the gravitational constant of 6.67408x10^-11, M is mass in kilograms, r is radius in meters, and n is the polytropic value attributed to the type of star.

Out of Curiosity Sake
Can you give me the Standard Radius, Diameter and Circumference IN KM the Wiki works with in regards to Baseline Solar System Size

Im asking cause I wanna know if a planet that has a circumference of 4 Billion KM would be starsized of solar system sized because im seeing online that the Radius of the Solar System is 4.5 Billion KM and the Diameter is 9 Billion KM.

 

[KLOL506]

Im asking cause I wanna know if a planet that has a circumference of 4 Billion KM would be starsized of solar system sized because im seeing online that the Radius of the Solar System is 4.5 Billion KM and the Diameter is 9 Billion KM.

Circumference and diameter are not the same thing.

Circumference is the perimeter AKA the measurement of the outer round length of the circle.

Radius measures the straight line length from the epicenter of the circle to the far edge. Diameter is twice that.

Though speaking from a physics perspective it is practically impossible to measure the GBE of a planet the diameter of the solar system because it'd turn into a star with that kind of density and mass. Being a star that size however, is another story, 39.5 AU radius for a star is nothing compared to the largest stars out there.

 

[Ss3micah]

Circumference and diameter are not the same thing.
Circumference is the perimeter AKA the measurement of the outer round length of the circle.
Radius measures the straight line length from the epicenter of the circle to the far edge. Diameter is twice that.

Most of this I already knew lol
I was just curious and asking if a Planet with a Circumference (yes a Circumference NOT diameter) of 4 Billion KM would be Star Sized OR Solar System Sized (Im curious because online im getting multiple difference calculations for what the Solar System size is.... the most popular being that the Radius is 4.5 Billion KM and the Diameter is 9 Billion KM. and since he formula for Circumference is C = 2πr = 2 x 3.14 x 4.5 Billion = 6.28 x 4.5 Billion = 28.26 Billion KM)

If my calculations are Correct then that would mean that a Planet with a Circumference of 4 Billion KM, would be almost HALF the radius of the Solar System and approximately 7 times lesser than the size of the Circumference of the Solar System.

 

[KLOL506]

Most of this I already knew lol
I was just curious and asking if a Planet with a Circumference (yes a Circumference NOT diameter) of 4 Billion KM would be Star Sized OR Solar System Sized (Im curious because online im getting multiple difference calculations for what the Solar System size is.... the most popular being that the Radius is 4.5 Billion KM and the Diameter is 9 Billion KM. and since he formula for Circumference is C = 2πr = 2 x 3.14 x 4.5 Billion = 6.28 x 4.5 Billion = 28.26 Billion KM)

If my calculations are Correct then that would mean that a Planet with a Circumference of 4 Billion KM, would be almost HALF the radius of the Solar System and approximately 7 times lesser than the size of the Circumference of the Solar System.

Incorrect. The Solar System is 39.5 AU (5.9 billion km) in radius. A planet with the circumference of 4 billion km would only have a radius of 636619772 km, barely above a tenth of the Solar System's radius.

radius = circumference/(2pi)

radius = 4000000000/(2pi) = 636619772.368 km

 

[Ss3micah]

Incorrect. The Solar System is 39.5 AU (5.9 billion km) in radius. A planet with the circumference of 4 billion km would only have a radius of 636619772 km, barely above a tenth of the Solar System's radius.

radius = circumference/(2pi)

radius = 4000000000/(2pi) = 636,619,772.368 km

Ahhh I see
So the Solar System having a Radius of 5.9 Billion Km would mean it's circumference is
C = 2πr = 2 x 3.14 x 5.9 Billion = 6.28 x 5.9 Billion = 37.052 Billion Km

Planet Radius: 636,619,772.368 KM
Planet Circumference: 4 Billion KM
Solar System Radius: 5.9 Billion KM
Solar System Circumference: 37.052 Billion KM

So OVERALL:
The planet would be a little over 1/10 of the Circumference of the Solar System and ultimately be smaller/lesser than half the radius of the Solar System (5.9 billion km)
So this would be a STAR sized planet not a SOLAR SYSTEM sized planet

As for stars, well, the solar system is 39.5 AU in radius, and GBE of stars can be determined using the formula U = (3*G*M^2)/(r(5-n)), in which U is GBE in joules, G is the gravitational constant of 6.67408x10^-11, M is mass in kilograms, r is radius in meters, and n is the polytropic value attributed to the type of star.

Going back to what you said here ^^^^
Would this be the calculation method to use for FTL Destruction of such a planet?

 

[KLOL506]

Going back to what you said here ^^^^
Would this be the calculation method to use for FTL Destruction of such a planet?

No.

Planets cannot have polytropic values. Only stars can.

Once you reach a certain point you can no longer apply GBE for a planet on said object. Which is what makes this particularly tricky to do, as a planet of this size would exceed the Sun's mass by roughly 30,000 times. It is simply not possible for a planet to remain a planet beyond a certain mass limit, in the case of Neptune, Saturn and Jupiter, they become gas giants, beyond that near the Sun's mass you see super-dense neutron stars, and then finally, stars themselves.

 

[KLOL506]

Planet Mass = (acceleration * (radius in meters)^2) / gravitational constant

The constant is 6.67408e-11

636619772368 meters radius then.

Planet mass assuming Earth-like acceleration = (9.81 * (636619772368^2)) / (6.67408e-11) = 5.9571405e+34 kg

As you can see, this exceed's our Sun's mass by almost 30,000 times. It'd literally kick off fusion of hydrogen into helium at the core almost instantly.

 

[Ss3micah]

No.

Planets cannot have polytropic values. Only stars can.

Once you reach a certain point you can no longer apply GBE for a planet on said object. Which is what makes this particularly tricky to do, as a planet of this size would exceed the Sun's mass by roughly 30,000 times. It is simply not possible for a planet to remain a planet beyond a certain mass limit, in the case of Neptune, Saturn and Jupiter, they become gas giants, beyond that near the Sun's mass you see super-dense neutron stars, and then finally, stars themselves.

Planet Mass = (acceleration * (radius in meters)^2) / gravitational constant

The constant is 6.67408e-11

636619772368 meters radius then.

Planet mass assuming Earth-like acceleration = (9.81 * (636619772368^2)) / (6.67408e-11) = 5.9571405e+34 kg

As you can see, this exceed's our Sun's mass by almost 30,000 times. It'd literally kick off fusion of hydrogen into helium at the core almost instantly.

Dang
So what do you think would be the optimal method to calculate the FTL Destruction of these Planetary bodies with their immense Size?

 

[Greatsage13th]

Ftl destruction of a planet can't be measured. What about sending an ftl shockwave throughout the sun?

 

[Ss3micah]

No.

Planets cannot have polytropic values. Only stars can.

Once you reach a certain point you can no longer apply GBE for a planet on said object. Which is what makes this particularly tricky to do, as a planet of this size would exceed the Sun's mass by roughly 30,000 times. It is simply not possible for a planet to remain a planet beyond a certain mass limit, in the case of Neptune, Saturn and Jupiter, they become gas giants, beyond that near the Sun's mass you see super-dense neutron stars, and then finally, stars themselves.

Planet Mass = (acceleration * (radius in meters)^2) / gravitational constant

The constant is 6.67408e-11

636619772368 meters radius then.

Planet mass assuming Earth-like acceleration = (9.81 * (636619772368^2)) / (6.67408e-11) = 5.9571405e+34 kg

As you can see, this exceed's our Sun's mass by almost 30,000 times. It'd literally kick off fusion of hydrogen into helium at the core almost instantly.

So would the optimal solution be to treat these supersized Planets as Stars and Calculate them as such since GBE cant account for planets of this size and magnitude???

 

[KLOL506]

So would the optimal solution be to treat these supersized Planets as Stars and Calculate them as such since GBE cant account for planets of this size and magnitude???

You can't. Planets don't have polytropic values.

 

[Ss3micah]

You can't. Planets don't have polytropic values.

Lol
This is tricky...
So i cant calculate using GBE because the planets are too big....
And I cant treat them as stars nor calculate them as such...

So how does one calculate this lolol...

 

[KLOL506]

Lol
This is tricky...
So i cant calculate using GBE because the planets are too big....
And I cant treat them as stars nor calculate them as such...

So how does one calculate this lolol...

You could always try the Stardestroyer calculator.

Don't forget to use planetary diameter tho, diameter is 2*radius

 

[Dienomite22]

You can calculate the GBE of star, solar system and galaxy sized planets. There are calcs for plenty of verses that have accepted calcs for such feats.

 

[KLOL506]

You can calculate the GBE of star, solar system and galaxy sized planets. There are calcs for plenty of verses that have accepted calcs for such feats.

Pretty sure those are hotly-contested andd are currently on extremely shaky grounds as is.

 

[Dienomite22]

Pretty sure those are hotly-contested andd are currently on extremely shaky grounds as is.

I'm sure they're controversial for a good amount of verses but I'd imagine they are generally accepted for verses where impossibly large planets and continents are common and/or verses that have canon sizes for those planets. But as of right now they can be calc'd and accepted until rule changes are set in stone.

 

[KLOL506]

I'm sure they're controversial for a good amount of verses but I'd imagine they are generally accepted for verses where impossibly large planets and continents are common and/or verses that have canon sizes for those planets. But as of right now they can be calc'd and accepted until rule changes are set in stone.

Hmmmmm

I guess you could just run the StarDestroyer calculator for planets then.

Stars are still a bit complicated because it will be ridiculously harder to find their GBE without their polytropic value, which varies depending on their size.