Questions regarding tier 4-3 feats

[Arceus0x]

So I have an issue.
In the calcs that are calculating tier 4-A to 3-B attack potency we are using the GBE of the sun being at the edge of the galaxies or solar systems. For 3-A we use a neutron star, specifically, RXJ1856.5-3754.
Now find this to be unreasonable. I can understand the neutron star to some extent, I mean we are talking about destroying the observable universe here, but at the same time shouldn't we apply similar rules to 4-A to 3-B feats? The sun is at most an average star, and yet in our spatial locale we have neutron stars (there's one 400ly away), gigantic stars like Rigel and Betelguese or Sirius. Instead...we're using the sun. Why? It is practically guaranteed that at the edge of the stars we see at night there are some giant stars, its also highly likely that there's neutron stars. When it comes to galaxies, it is practically a guarantee that at the edge there's gonna be a neutron star there somewhere. So why aren't we using it?

Now one can say that, as mentioned in the GBE calcs section, the universe needs to be destroyed completely to be destroyed...why does the same not apply to galaxies and such? Also, basically most 4-A feats are creation in the first place so they'd have to be created from scratch and their collapse would also be a complete destruction. We shouldn't assume that a galaxy wasn't fully destoyed for whatever reason but that the universe was. The universe in the end is basically just a bunch of galaxy clusters.

So what am I suggesting?
First, either use neutron star GBE for 4-A and up calcs or, if you're veeerry picky, use the highest normal star GBE. There may be some scrutiny over the former but the latter shouldn't even be a question.
Second: revise 4-A starry night sky feats
As in
-if the starry night sky realm is composed of uniform glowing orb stars - have it use the current formula
-if the starry night sky realm has various stars and nebulae - use what I am suggesting, a revised version
-if the starry night sky is our starry night sky or any other real sky just use the revised version as well

Third: tier 3 feats should all use neutron star or giant star GBE, probably the former.

If you have issues with the aforementioned suggestions, please provide the answer to the question "why?" that isn't based on vauge semantics of destroying the universe.

 

[KLOL506]

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Migue79

 

[DontTalkDT]

The question isn't "is there a neutron star somewhere in the galaxy", it's "is there a neutron star somewhere specifically at the very edge of the galaxy". A neutron star too close to the center of the explosion wouldn't change things, as the inverse square law dominates.
For a galaxy, that is possible, but not close to guaranteed.
For a universe, there being a neutron star somewhere close to the edge is very likely in comparison.

To that comes that these describe the lower bounds of a tier. If you bust a galaxy that doesn't happen to have a neutron star at the edge are you not galaxy level? Nah, you are still galaxy level, just lower in it.
For universe level it makes sense to take the end we have, as if you leave neutron stars behind isn't really proper universe busting. The minimum idea of universe level is to destroy everything physically destructible in a reality, after all.

 

[Arceus0x]

The question isn't "is there a neutron star somewhere in the galaxy", it's "is there a neutron star somewhere specifically at the very edge of the galaxy". A neutron star too close to the center of the explosion wouldn't change things, as the inverse square law dominates.
For a galaxy, that is possible, but not close to guaranteed.
For a universe, there being a neutron star somewhere close to the edge is very likely in comparison.

To that comes that these describe the lower bounds of a tier. If you bust a galaxy that doesn't happen to have a neutron star at the edge are you not galaxy level? Nah, you are still galaxy level, just lower in it.
For universe level it makes sense to take the end we have, as if you leave neutron stars behind isn't really proper universe busting. The minimum idea of universe level is to destroy everything physically destructible in a reality, after all.

I do think a galaxy almost always guarantees neutron stars. I understand somewhat why you wouldn't use neutron stars for galaxy, but multi-galaxy calculations should have them as in the end most are just the lower version of universe level.
For galaxy and below we should still use the biggest non-neutron star GBE as there are absolutely giant stars basically everywhere.

 

[Arceus0x]

Just to add to my point, there are a billion neutron stars in the milky way. That's 0.25-1% of all stars in the whole galaxy. Galaxies shouldn't differ too much and we use Milky Way as a galaxy level baseline anyways. Are we really saying that there's not at least one or two neutron stars at the edge? Seems rather unlikely to me.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Not unlikely enough to justify raising the baseline level.

 

[Arceus0x]

Not unlikely enough to justify raising the baseline level.

First - why? This seems extremely arbitrary.

Second - Different story with bigger stars though, especially for 4-A feats

 

[KLOL506]

I don't think the question is necessarily "Is the thing there" but moreso the "is the thing at the very edge of the bigger thing", keyword: At the very edge, since that's where inverse-square law kicks in.

The keyword also needs to be a consistent and constant feature of the stuff you're blowing up.

 

[Arceus0x]

I don't think the question is necessarily "Is the thing there" but moreso the "is the thing at the very edge of the bigger thing", keyword: At the very edge, since that's where inverse-square law kicks in.

The keyword also needs to be a consistent and constant feature of the stuff you're blowing up.

The larger stars are very much a key feature. I think neutron stars would be common enough but even if they aren't, there's gonna be some rigel or sirius type stars at the edge of the galaxy

 

[Arceus0x]

Just to prove my point this object is basically at the edge of the galaxy or maybe even slightly over the edge.

NGC 1851 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It had a crap ton of red dwarves and a pulsar. It itself is a weird ahh structure. Supports my idea.

 

[KLOL506]

Not unlikely enough to justify raising the baseline level.

Okay, so neutron stars are out of the question. But what about large-sized stars? Surely we can assume as a default those are commonly found at the edge of a galaxy and such?

 

[Arceus0x]

and I also just provided proof there's a pulsar at the edge of our galaxy so uhhhh

 

[KLOL506]

and I also just provided proof there's a pulsar at the edge of our galaxy so uhhhh

Do we know the GBE of the pulsar

 

[Arceus0x]

Do we know the GBE of the pulsar

The pulsar is PSR J0514-4002A but it only seems to have superficial information. We could arguably compare it to some similar pulsar but idk if we'll be succesful

 

[Arceus0x]

Found this ig

Meertime

 

[Arceus0x]

also this

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346207058_Analytical_model_of_millisecond_pulsar_PSR_J0514-4002A

can't find the radius anywhere though, although maybe i am blind

 

[Arceus0x]

nvm I am blind it is 12.39km

 

[Arceus0x]

(3*(6.67408x10^-11)*(1.807999999E+30)^2)/(5*12390)=1.0564968e+46 joules...did I do sth wrong? Or is it just THAT big?

 

[KLOL506]

Something something polytropic value but yeah I think it's normally supposed to be that big.

 

[Arceus0x]

ok so apparently there's a different formula rn? I don't even know anymore, correct me if I am wrong.

n is polytropic value and the value for neutron stars is between 0.5 and 1 and idk whether i am gonna use the right one on the first place. Average is 0.75, don't know if that's allowed, don't care no more bruh correct me later.
(3*(6.67408x10^-11)(1.807999999E+30)^2)/(12390(4.25)) = 1.2429375e+46 joules
it's bigger now

 

[Arceus0x]

what is target radius in the inverse square law formula btw, the radius of the object being destroyed?

 

[KLOL506]

what is target radius in the inverse square law formula btw, the radius of the object being destroyed?

Yep, radius of the thing you're blowing up.

 

[Arceus0x]

if we were to accept it then uhh

Galaxy:
4*1.2429375e+46*(499999605475855240000/12390)^2 = 8.0966617e+79, a difference of 7.6818422e+13x with the current galaxy level value. Oof.

 

[KLOL506]

On one hand, that's a lot of downgrades.

On the other, it's a lot of upgrades. For baseline galaxy busts anyway. IF ACCEPTED.

 

[Arceus0x]

On one hand, that's a lot of downgrades.

Pokemon hitting 4-A all of a sudden...gonna have to just make it plain High 3-A cause the universe was stated to be infinite like thrice already idk why they still haven't done that

On the other, it's a lot of upgrades. For baseline galaxy busts anyway. IF ACCEPTED.

if we do end up going for a lowball with this, which star's GBE should I use? Would Rigel be allowed?

 

[KLOL506]

if we do end up going for a lowball with this, which star's GBE should I use? Would Rigel be allowed?

Find the smallest "large star" viable, since we tend to lowball our shit here.

 

[Arceus0x]

Find the smallest "large star" viable, since we tend to lowball our shit here.

Pistol Star - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

?

 

[Arceus0x]

(3*(6.67408x10^-11)(2.5E+32)^2)/(292320000000(2)) = 2.1404454e+43j for the GBE
4*2.1404454e+43*(499999605475855240000/292320000000)^2 = 2.504877e+62 j

this time, the boundary would lower...huh

 

[KLOL506]

(3*(6.67408x10^-11)(2.5E+32)^2)/(292320000000(2)) = 2.1404454e+43j for the GBE
4*2.1404454e+43*(499999605475855240000/292320000000)^2 = 2.504877e+62 j

this time, the boundary would lower...huh

Well, bigger the surface area of the target, the less energy required to hit it. Smaller targets are harder to get at for some reason and thus, require higher energy at the far edge. Bummer.

 

[Arceus0x]

Well, bigger the surface area of the target, the less energy required to hit it. Smaller targets are harder to get at for some reason and thus, require higher energy at the far edge. Bummer.

Well I'm still pining for the pulsar. Like, I was told there's a small chance there's a pulsar at the edge of the galaxy. I found a pulsar at the edge of the galaxy. Gotta work out.

 

[Ezaru]

I don't think the question is necessarily "Is the thing there" but moreso the "is the thing at the very edge of the bigger thing", keyword: At the very edge, since that's where inverse-square law kicks in.

The keyword also needs to be a consistent and constant feature of the stuff you're blowing up.

This is weird phrasing to me

The ISL applies to the entire thing the edge is just the weakest

No?

 

[KLOL506]

This is weird phrasing to me

The ISL applies to the entire thing the edge is just the weakest

No?

This is a different method of using inverse-square law, where you figure out the power at the center based on how much energy is left at the edge. It can be used both ways.

 

[Ezaru]

This is a different method of using inverse-square law, where you figure out the power at the center based on how much energy is left at the edge. It can be used both ways.

Ah sorry, didnt know that

Wouldnt the second be based on the general application of the first though?

 

[KLOL506]

Ah sorry, didnt know that

Wouldnt the second be based on the general application of the first though?

A bit different for heavenly bodies I'd reckon. DT would know more.

 

[Ezaru]

A bit different for heavenly bodies I'd reckon. DT would know more.

Do you have any example calcs where the celestial forumla is used?

The Inverse Square Law is so basic

I₁ * d₁² = I₂ * d₂

Wouldnt you just do like

I1: x
I2: 10^32 J
D1: 1m
D2: 1AU

solve?

Maybe the cross section needs to be done too

 

[KLOL506]

Do you have any example calcs where the celestial forumla is used?

The Inverse Square Law is so basic

I₁ * d₁² = I₂ * d₂

Wouldnt you just do like

I1: x
I2: 10^32 J
D1: 1m
D2: 1AU

solve?

Maybe the cross section needs to be done too

Cell's feat comes to mind. Formula used is as follows:

Energy at center = 4 * U * (Er/Tr)^2, where U is the GBE of the target, Er is the explosive radius and Tr is the target radius.

 

[Ezaru]

Cell's feat comes to mind. Formula used is as follows:

Energy at center = 4 * U * (Er/Tr)^2, where U is the GBE of the target, Er is the explosive radius and Tr is the target radius.

Huh, curious how that works, it does seem to be related to the inverse square law and I guess the Radius accounts for surface area?

But yeah, not going to derail the thread, ill go on askphysics or something

 

[SeijiSetto]

Huh, curious how that works, it does seem to be related to the inverse square law and I guess the Radius accounts for surface area?

But yeah, not going to derail the thread, ill go on askphysics or something

it's essentially taking the energy to destroy the celestial body (say, our Sun) and dividing that by the cross-sectional area of it to get an energy intensity in Joules per meter^2
if you know the energy intensity (J/m^2) at the very edge of the explosion as well as the surface area of the explosion (which can be calculated from its radius, given in m^2), then [J/m^2] * [m^2] will give you the strength of the explosion in Joules.

 

[JPTheGamer]

So I have an issue.
In the calcs that are calculating tier 4-A to 3-B attack potency we are using the GBE of the sun being at the edge of the galaxies or solar systems. For 3-A we use a neutron star, specifically, RXJ1856.5-3754.
Now find this to be unreasonable. I can understand the neutron star to some extent, I mean we are talking about destroying the observable universe here, but at the same time shouldn't we apply similar rules to 4-A to 3-B feats? The sun is at most an average star, and yet in our spatial locale we have neutron stars (there's one 400ly away), gigantic stars like Rigel and Betelguese or Sirius. Instead...we're using the sun. Why? It is practically guaranteed that at the edge of the stars we see at night there are some giant stars, its also highly likely that there's neutron stars. When it comes to galaxies, it is practically a guarantee that at the edge there's gonna be a neutron star there somewhere. So why aren't we using it?

Now one can say that, as mentioned in the GBE calcs section, the universe needs to be destroyed completely to be destroyed...why does the same not apply to galaxies and such? Also, basically most 4-A feats are creation in the first place so they'd have to be created from scratch and their collapse would also be a complete destruction. We shouldn't assume that a galaxy wasn't fully destoyed for whatever reason but that the universe was. The universe in the end is basically just a bunch of galaxy clusters.

So what am I suggesting?
First, either use neutron star GBE for 4-A and up calcs or, if you're veeerry picky, use the highest normal star GBE. There may be some scrutiny over the former but the latter shouldn't even be a question.
Second: revise 4-A starry night sky feats
As in
-if the starry night sky realm is composed of uniform glowing orb stars - have it use the current formula
-if the starry night sky realm has various stars and nebulae - use what I am suggesting, a revised version
-if the starry night sky is our starry night sky or any other real sky just use the revised version as well

Third: tier 3 feats should all use neutron star or giant star GBE, probably the former.

If you have issues with the aforementioned suggestions, please provide the answer to the question "why?" that isn't based on vauge semantics of destroying the universe.

You know, now that you mention it, I've been making attempts to find out just how much power it would take to destroy an entire timeline/spacetime continuum. One result I got was actually lower than the baseline we have for 3-A, but I didn't think I was doing it right. I'm still trying to calculate it even to this day.

 

[Arceus0x]

it's essentially taking the energy to destroy the celestial body (say, our Sun) and dividing that by the cross-sectional area of it to get an energy intensity in Joules per meter^2
if you know the energy intensity (J/m^2) at the very edge of the explosion as well as the surface area of the explosion (which can be calculated from its radius, given in m^2), then [J/m^2] * [m^2] will give you the strength of the explosion in Joules.

how do you yourself feel about the suggested changes?