On that point, I don't think there's any direct evidence that the density of Kaguya's ETSO remains fixed and does not change in any way as it's size increases. After all, all we know about it is that it expands. That isn't the same thing as it's density remaining constant.
But it's how it's accepted though.
If whatever was accepted is set in stone then why would I make a thread in the first place?
I mean, OP hasn't mentioned anything about your latest argument?
It only just came up now in response to you...
Looking back, yeah that looks stupid lmao nevermind on that
I will make a clarification on this one. Usually stuff like forests and such are assumed to be part of real life (With regards to common feats) so they are given leniency as long as the size and values of the object remains constant. Which is why seeing 3 people vaporized and then multiplying the vaporization value for one dude with 3 works, since the values for the humans themselves are not changing and can be assumed as constant. Calc stacking moreso applies for shit you derive from other in-verse calcs like say, finding a speed based on dodging someone elses's fan-calc'd speed.
It would have yeah but this method had them higher lol
I don't believe that version would be more accurate to use because the feat here is not an explosion originating from the planet that overcomes the stars GBE from a distance of 1AU. Which is why i suggested default creation calc for a dimension like this.
Shall i take you as neutral for now?
Ah, okay. Thanks for evaluating.
The star creation page literally tells you to use the cell calc even if it’s creation
you agree the method currently in use is calc stacking?
No, I disagree with the currently-in-use method for other reasons. I agree with using the dimension creation/destruction end.
if you disagree for a whole other sub topic then that deserves it's own cgt with its own staff votes, you clearly disagreed with Damage's premise of this being calc stacking so your vote should be neutral/disagree since this CGT hinges on the idea that it is calc stacking
No not really. You have 2 CGM votes (1 of which is you) with your calc stacking proposal and 1 CGM disagreement with the calc stacking proposal + 1 agreement with using a different calc instead for reasons unrelated to yours. Portraying it as 3 agreements by overgeneralizing the votes is just misleading.
KLOL506 said to count himself as agreement so I was merely abiding by his wishes.
I did respond to your posts alongside KingTempest, but this doesn't mean endless discussion.
Yes, with using a different calculation for entirely different reasons, not with your arguments against the current one. He literally disagreed with those and you didn't even remotely address his disagreements with your calc stacking arguments either.
You calling my arguments a strawman isn't an argument which I called out. It's the equivalent of saying "nuh uh" but in a more internet-nerd way.
I feel like I have answered it; an "IRL value gained from an off-wiki source" is a constant or a scientific measurement; it is something fundamental that we used which we don't treat as being actually calced. The speed of light, the speed of lightning, the melting point of steel, etc. Sure, these are things that can be "calced" but they're objective for our purposes. Even if they're arguably "calc stacking" because you can't calculate anything without making basic measurements first, we do make allowances for calc stacking in some scenarios and this would be one of them, otherwise we'd never calculate anything at all.
except that's intentionally dishonest, you know damn well he disagrees with your premise lmao
this excuse works as a shield only when the other person is going in circles without really countering your main point, that is not happening here
this is why average or low ends are taken as well as conservative destruction methods exist for this exact reason, because variability is contentious for use that's why we have a distinction between fragmentation, V Fragging, Vaping etc, using the lowest end when things arent verified, if you have issues and believe the calc cannot be correct in being conservative then make a CGT and change the calc itself, if you wanna say "this has potential to be incorrect so it cant be used" then we would have the same grounds to apply it to GBE and other calculations as both cases are calculated by imperfect humans and people have made mistakes with those types of calcs (lightning speed bullet speed) but we use the fixed versions because they got evaluated to be correct, exactly like the wiki, none of those values (GBE, bullet speed, lightning speed) are god given values, we as humans derived them ourselves, they carry the same weight and possibility for mistakes and that is why evaluations exist, your argument left the initial premise and now you're arguing validity of a calc you're not ready to even challenge
Damage are all planets the same size and composition? Are all stars? Are all galaxies? Are all lightning bolts the same speed?
Okay in that case any value that's not completely constant is calc stacking and we have to remove every single feat that uses a celestial body's GBE because the sizes can vary by orders of magnitude and same with lightning feats because rose can vary by up to 14x.
I'm not saying my calc is an exception, that would be saying this makes a massive amount of accepted calculations "exceptions". I'm saying this line of thinking is incorrect.
Okay, I respectfully disagree. I've said my piece; I'll let any other Calc Group Members who wish to comment leave their thoughts.
As someone who has behaved this way in the past, its better to just conceed
Okay, understood. Could you at least tell me why so I know what's acceptable and what not in the future?
can you stop begging people to concede? if you have nothing to add to the argument don't engage, this is unnecessary derailment
it's your freedom to abandon your arguments on why they wouldn't be arbitrary but should you really count your own vote if you aren't willing to even defend your point?
Difference between begging and earnestly giving advice. But you're right that its derailment
If my earlier posts didn't clarify this, then I'll try and think of a way of rewording it.
Firstly, I'm pretty sure that it's most simple and reasonable assumption we can go with. We have literally zero reason to assume that its density changes. It being identical to regular TSOs but more powerful version should be enough.
Can you say what are those reasons? Since you seem to disagree with OP reasons.
It changing size by it's nature introduces that possibility; as things grow larger their density doesn't necessarily remain constant. The Truth-Seeking Orbs are noted as being dense chakra spheres but are not noted to remain the same density as they change size or shape.
That assumes that Kaguya can create it at its maximum size to begin with, right? The fact that it swells up and increases in size suggests she can't.
It doesn't just get bigger, it gets bigger and also more powerful as Kaguya uses absorbed chakra. It doesn't just get bigger without any energy. Think of it like an object increasing both in volume and mass.
No, it doesn't? She uses that level of energy over time, not instantaneously. If she can make it less dense that just means she can create it at its maximum size which can be reached with given energy.
Think I explained it a comment or so before that. The energy density per unit volume just seems whack compared to when I used values for celestial bodies.
Okay but what's the problem here? We're just finding energy to make ETSO that big, not dimension destruction/creation thing.
Now that I'm actually looking at the calculation, I noticed something.
