Rel KE feat Revisions

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Currently, the rule on hyper-relativistic feats states this.

The relativistic kinetic energy value is only accepted up to 4 times the Newtonian value: The kinetic energy value calculated using the formula for relativistic kinetic energy is only accepted to the point where it is 4 times as high as the value of Newtonian kinetic energy. That is the case, if the speed of the moving object is above 93% of the speed of light. For kinetic energy values above that, which are not faster than light, 4 times the kinetic energy value should be taken. Reason for this rule is that the relativistic kinetic energy diverges towards infinity for speeds approaching the speed of light. So to not get inflated extremely high results setting a threshold at 4 times the kinetic energy value was decided upon.

However, this doesn't make any sense for a few reasons.

1. No basis whatsoever.
The claim that relativistic kinetic energy is limited to four times 93% of the speed of light value lacks scientific validity. In reality, hyper-relativistic kinetic energy is an established concept in physics and its formula can accurately calculate energy at any speed. Even speeds approaching the speed of light. Therefore setting a threshold or limit on the value of kinetic energy based on factors, like four times 93% of the speed of light lacks scientific evidence to support it. I have tried to google search for any possible scientific basis on which this limit was imposed, and have found nothing.

2. The purpose of the rule is contradictory.
The rule's purpose is to "prevent inflated feats" but it achieves that by deflating a good amount of feats. How is deflating feats perfectly okay, but the reverse is not? Most of the feats affected by this rule often have comparable showings just by eyeballing it, and imposing these rules makes the results of calculating these feats orders of magnitude lower than they should be.

3. Archaic rule.
Apparently, you used to be able to calc ke from any speed feat, and this led to inflated results, which is why this rule was set in place. Since this is no longer the case, does this really have any purpose in existing? The hyperinflated values that the rule tries to prevent pretty much no longer exists.

Now, I have 2 alternate proposals on how to handle this rule.

Proposal 1: Remove a limit on hyper-rel calcs. It's useless, archaic, and serves no purpose besides deflating feats.

Proposal 2: Keep the limit, but change the value.
This proposal involves using the Oh-My-God particle as a cap, which moves at 0.9999999999999999999999951c, as that's the highest record speed of an object with mass. This limit actually has somewhat of a basis, doesn't really produce hyper-inflated results, and any rel feat beyond this typically has explicit statements, so the scope of what it affects is a lot lower.

Agree: @Executor_N0 (1)
Disagree:
Neutral:

 

[KLOL506]

@DontTalkDT

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

@DontTalkDT

doom Could you @ some calc group members? I'm not that experienced with calcs, I immediately just looked at the rule and thought "Why?"

 

[KLOL506]

Can't, tagging rights across the site have been significantly neutered. You might have to message them on their walls one by one.

 

[Executor_N0]

I was never in favor of this rule, so for me, it's fine to be removed. However, I wasn't here when that rule was put in place, so asking DontTalkDT would be the most direct way of dealing with it.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I do have a lot of things to say; but currently tied up to explain. The formula isn't perfectly accurate and I don't think a foolproof way to properly calculate relativistic kinetic energy was ever decided among scientists. All we truly no is that it involves are formula like this. z = y / (x(c-v)). No one knows what x or y equals exactly, but v is the velocity with c being speed of light. But traveling at exactly the speed of light gets you a number divided by 0 which is undefined by most traditional calculators, but based on algorithm gives you infinite KE.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I do have a lot of things to say; but currently tied up to explain. The formula isn't perfectly accurate and I don't think a foolproof way to properly calculate relativistic kinetic energy was ever decided among scientists. All we truly no is that it involves are formula like this. z = y / (x(c-v)). No one knows what x or y equals exactly, but v is the velocity with c being speed of light. But traveling at exactly the speed of light gets you a number divided by 0 which is undefined by most traditional calculators, but based on algorithm gives you infinite KE.

I had trouble finding a uniform equation, so thats probably true. Regardless, the same issue you presented is still present in the 93% value

 

[DontTalkDT]

2. The purpose of the rule is contradictory.
The rule's purpose is to "prevent inflated feats" but it achieves that by deflating a good amount of feats. How is deflating feats perfectly okay, but the reverse is not? Most of the feats affected by this rule often have comparable showings just by eyeballing it, and imposing these rules makes the results of calculating these feats orders of magnitude lower than they should be.

We are using low-ends when in doubt. And doubt there is. Close to the speed of light a speed difference of a tiny % can inflate values vastly. The values our calculations determine can usually be glad if they are in the right order of magnitude.
Allowing the relativistic gamma to grow without limit would mean that whether some line is 1 pixel longer or not can make giant differences for results.

Incidentally, your cut off point makes it so that the speed being off by less than 1% can inflate the relativistic gamma by about 4.5714285714285714286e10 (45 billion times). (Or probably more, I just made one comparision)

It's not further uncommon in numerics to round away from 0 to prevent singularities and gain greater stability.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

We are using low-ends when in doubt. And doubt there is. Close to the speed of light a speed difference of a tiny % can inflate values vastly. The values our calculations determine can usually be glad if they are in the right order of magnitude.

Low ends have to have at least some basis besides arbitrarily placing them there. That's why I proposed the low end I did if it's absolutely necessary. Using the highest recorded speed an object with mass has been recorded to travel is much better than using a 93% value. Hell, even particle accelerators have produced much faster speeds.

Allowing the relativistic gamma to grow without limit would mean that whether some line is 1 pixel longer or not can make giant differences for results.

Which is why I proposed this cut-off point.

Incidentally, your cut off point makes it so that the speed being off by less than 1% can inflate the relativistic gamma by about 4.5714285714285714286e10 (45 billion times). (Or probably more, I just made one comparision)

I'm not seeing that large of a fluctuation here, are you sure you put the right amount of digits?

It's not further uncommon in numerics to round away from 0 to prevent singularities and gain greater stability.

If that's the case, why not use 99% or 99.9% percent? I still would consider that arbitrary, but at least it would make more sense, since it's a number you can round to.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Low ends have to have at least some basis besides arbitrarily placing them there. That's why I proposed the low end I did if it's absolutely necessary. Using the highest recorded speed an object with mass has been recorded to travel is much better than using a 93% value. Hell, even particle accelerators have produced much faster speeds.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "error bars"? That's the basis. Your value is, for the purpose we are having, actually a lot more arbitrary as it really comes from something pretty unrelated to the problem this is adressing.

Which is why I proposed this cut-off point.

I'm not seeing that large of a fluctuation here, are you sure you put the right amount of digits?

Yes, it is in fact that large. Formula is 1/sqrt(1-v^2 / c^2). Putting in 0.9999999999999999999999951c makes v^2/c^2 = 0.99999999999999999999999020000000000000000000002401 (by wolfram alpha... switched calculators to make sure). Now 1-0.99999999999999999999999020000000000000000000002401 = 9.79999999999999999999997599 × 10^-24.
The square root of that is 3.13049516849970557497283930... × 10^-12. 1/(3.13049516849970557497283930... × 10^-12) = 3.1943e11. Now, the value for 1% lower is about 7, so divide that and you get 4.5632857142857142857e10 as the relative difference.

If that's the case, why not use 99% or 99.9% percent? I still would consider that arbitrary, but at least it would make more sense, since it's a number you can round to.

Changing the error bar to something like 1% is more debatable, although I personally would go more for 5% (1% would be the difference of a 100px line being 1px longer... kinda beyond what we can judge). Putting the error bar where the relativistic gamma is 4 was simply the community agreement back then. 99% increases the relativistic gamma value from 4 to about 7, which I guess is still fine.

 

[Antvasima]

Can't, tagging rights across the site have been significantly neutered. You might have to message them on their walls one by one.

Please explain. I can ask our forum system manager about it.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, I think that DontTalk makes sense above.

 

[KLOL506]

Please explain. I can ask our forum system manager about it.

Already did countless times.

Staff members across the board, if they tag more than 5 people, the people after that 5-tag-mark just don't get notifications at all.

 

[Antvasima]

Already did countless times.

Staff members across the board, if they tag more than 5 people, the people after that 5-tag-mark just don't get notifications at all.

Okay. I likely forgot about it due to other tasks then. My apologies.

Are all staff members except for bureaucrats affected?

 

[KLOL506]

Okay. I likely forgot about it due to other tasks then. My apologies.

Are all staff members except for bureaucrats affected?

Maybe, maybe not, so far I have seen myself, Planck, Dereck and Lephyr be affected.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Have you ever heard of the concept of "error bars"? That's the basis. Your value is, for the purpose we are having, actually a lot more arbitrary as it really comes from something pretty unrelated to the problem this is adressing.

Yes, it is in fact that large. Formula is 1/sqrt(1-v^2 / c^2). Putting in 0.9999999999999999999999951c makes v^2/c^2 = 0.99999999999999999999999020000000000000000000002401 (by wolfram alpha... switched calculators to make sure). Now 1-0.99999999999999999999999020000000000000000000002401 = 9.79999999999999999999997599 × 10^-24.
The square root of that is 3.13049516849970557497283930... × 10^-12. 1/(3.13049516849970557497283930... × 10^-12) = 3.1943e11. Now, the value for 1% lower is about 7, so divide that and you get 4.5632857142857142857e10 as the relative difference.

ah, i see the issue, at least for visual feats. But what about textual feats?
What would be an acceptable lowball in this scenario? This is a common feat for hyper rel characters.

Character can accelerate themselves or other objects at any speed, as long as its below light, same character accelerates said object at the limit and launches it.

Changing the error bar to something like 1% is more debatable, although I personally would go more for 5% (1% would be the difference of a 100px line being 1px longer... kinda beyond what we can judge). Putting the error bar where the relativistic gamma is 4 was simply the community agreement back then. 99% increases the relativistic gamma value from 4 to about 7, which I guess is still fine.

While i still have many issues, 99% makes more sense than 93%.

 

[Antvasima]

Can't, tagging rights across the site have been significantly neutered. You might have to message them on their walls one by one.

Please explain. I can ask our forum system manager about it.

Already did countless times.

Staff members across the board, if they tag more than 5 people, the people after that 5-tag-mark just don't get notifications at all.

Okay. I likely forgot about it due to other tasks then. My apologies.

Are all staff members except for bureaucrats affected?

Maybe, maybe not, so far I have seen myself, Planck, Dereck and Lephyr be affected.

Okay. Thank you for your information.

@Damage3245 @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Agnaa @DarkGrath

Have any of you been affected as well?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I don't tend to ping groups of people, so I couldn't say. I also can't know if someone pinged me and it didn't go through, obviously.

 

[DontTalkDT]

ah, i see the issue, at least for visual feats. But what about textual feats?
What would be an acceptable lowball in this scenario? This is a common feat for hyper rel characters.

I definitely wouldn't go for something incredibly close to the SoL for that. Needless to say you get infinite energy going close enough, which is problematic.
I would just put it at the same as the cut off point.

 

[Flashlight237]

I'm personally fine with 99% as a happy medium (99% being about the highest DT would allow). I just think anything higher than 95% myself would get really finicky, especially since we haven't found any speed higher than the speed of light outside of a fluke involving neutrinos.

 

[GarrixianXD]

I agree with removing the limit.

 

[Jaften]

I'd agree with a limit of 99.6%, corresponding to a Lorentz factor of ~11.19, based on the upper limit for typical protonic galactic cosmic rays (10 GeV).

 

[Flashlight237]

Hmm, it seems everyone in this thread has their own set of ideas here.

 

[Jaften]

Proposal 2: Keep the limit, but change the value.
This proposal involves using the Oh-My-God particle as a cap, which moves at 0.9999999999999999999999951c, as that's the highest record speed of an object with mass. This limit actually has somewhat of a basis, doesn't really produce hyper-inflated results, and any rel feat beyond this typically has explicit statements, so the scope of what it affects is a lot lower.

This is absolutely false—my calculators won't even let me use a value with that many decimal places, but even the maximum of "merely" 0.999999999999999c nets a Lorentz factor of over 22,369,621. That's a big enough jump to turn a feat that should be Small City level into Large Country level, skipping seven entire tiers. And the Lorentz factor for 0.9999999999999999999999951c is apparently 320,000,000,000, enough to jump any calc up at least one tier (more likely several) regardless of their position in the original tier (Small City level becomes Multi-Continent level(+)), with the exception of Solar System level and Multi-Galaxy level. It's absolutely excessive.

 

[Tago238]

Incidentally, your cut off point makes it so that the speed being off by less than 1% can inflate the relativistic gamma by about 4.5714285714285714286e10 (45 billion times). (Or probably more, I just made one comparision)

A calc where the imprecision of a pixel makes it impossible to tell whether or not a character is going at 0.98 c or 0.9999...953 c or some shit is so hilariously unlikely. This problem with imprecision is not significant except at an abnormally close distance to SoL for a calc and an incredibly specific conversion to actual units for the pixel.

 

[DontTalkDT]

A calc where the imprecision of a pixel makes it impossible to tell whether or not a character is going at 0.98 c or 0.9999...953 c or some shit is so hilariously unlikely. This problem with imprecision is not significant except at an abnormally close distance to SoL for a calc and an incredibly specific conversion to actual units for the pixel.

It gets significant the moment people can start aiming for it to significantly inflate feats. There are enough laser dodging feats that can be fudged just a little to get really close. In practice, you can make a line a few percent shorter or longer without anyone noticing.
Also, if such calcs really won't happen, then there should be no problem having the error bars anyway, right?

 

[Tago238]

It gets significant the moment people can start aiming for it to significantly inflate feats. There are enough laser dodging feats that can be fudged just a little to get really close.

To inflate values to the level you mentioned the fudging should be kind of… obvious? Calc group members should just be capable of seeing that and reject it. It feels weird to adopt a standard just cause a calc group member could potentially be incapable of doing their job correctly, I feel like you would change a lot of stuff with that logic.

Also, if such calcs really won't happen, then there should be no problem having the error bars anyway, right?

I mean this change would obviously alter values produced from these calcs to some extent, it’s just that the circumstances where the imprecision of a pixel or moving the line you use to pixel scale provides a change of the significance you stated is borderline impossible. Although primarily, I see this as significantly affecting feats where the exact speed is stated or implied, rather than something you have to find through pixel scaling or some shit.

 

[Antvasima]

I'd agree with a limit of 99.6%, corresponding to a Lorentz factor of ~11.19, based on the upper limit for typical protonic galactic cosmic rays (10 GeV).

What do you think about this, DontTalk?

 

[Antvasima]

Already did countless times.

Staff members across the board, if they tag more than 5 people, the people after that 5-tag-mark just don't get notifications at all.

@KLOL506

Our forum system manager has hopefully fixed this problem now.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Antvasima @DontTalkDT @KLOL506 @Executor_N0 @DarkDragonMedeus @Flashlight237 @GarrixianXD Given how the OP self-requested a permaban and this thread's consensus is all over the place, what should we do?

 

[Jaften]

User may have been banned but the thread still has merit I think

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

DontTalkDT seems to be against it, and I tend to be more neutral but my opinion is pretty case by case. I don't think anyone is proposing we calculate the KE of someone dodging a laser and moving slightly slower. But I have nothing against blowing up a planet and the fragments moving slightly below the speed of light as something that can get high Relativistic KE results; something like that would be scientifically accurate especially when blowing up super large planets with high gravity.

 

[Antvasima]

@Antvasima @DontTalkDT @KLOL506 @Executor_N0 @DarkDragonMedeus @Flashlight237 @GarrixianXD Given how the OP self-requested a permaban and this thread's consensus is all over the place, what should we do?

@DontTalkDT

What do you think that we should do here?

 

[DontTalkDT]

To inflate values to the level you mentioned the fudging should be kind of… obvious? Calc group members should just be capable of seeing that and reject it.

No. No they wouldn't be obvious. As said, we are talking about inflating by billion times by making a 100px line instead be 101px or something like that. Lines in manga are often drawn several pixels wide. In practice whether a line is 4 pixel longer or shorter is pretty subjective and almost impossible to check.

DontTalkDT seems to be against it, and I tend to be more neutral but my opinion is pretty case by case. I don't think anyone is proposing we calculate the KE of someone dodging a laser and moving slightly slower. But I have nothing against blowing up a planet and the fragments moving slightly below the speed of light as something that can get high Relativistic KE results; something like that would be scientifically accurate especially when blowing up super large planets with high gravity.

High gravity would hardly fall into weight. And I don't think size really matters either. Like, we are not talking about whether such a feat can be calculated to impressive stats. We always allow KE calculation.
The question is if we want to risk the calculation being 1% off with the speed and due to that inflating the value by a factor of 45 billion. That's a giant increase for making some line one or two pixels longer.

So:

@DontTalkDT

What do you think that we should do here?

Keep the current standard or require 5% error bars. 1% is the most I could compromise on, although I think it's a bad idea. Anything beyond that is IMO just asking for trouble.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I trust your sense of judgement as usual. Thank you for helping out.

 

[Tago238]

No. No they wouldn't be obvious. As said, we are talking about inflating by billion times by making a 100px line instead be 101px or something like that. Lines in manga are often drawn several pixels wide. In practice whether a line is 4 pixel longer or shorter is pretty subjective and almost impossible to check.

A change of 100 to 101 px causing the speed to go from 98% to 99.9999999999999999999999951% c would be hilariously lucky, idk why I'm the only person who's seeing this.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

High gravity would hardly fall into weight. And I don't think size really matters either. Like, we are not talking about whether such a feat can be calculated to impressive stats. We always allow KE calculation.
The question is if we want to risk the calculation being 1% off with the speed and due to that inflating the value by a factor of 45 billion. That's a giant increase for making some line one or two pixels longer.

I agree to some points; the issue with RKE calculations for velocities between 99% and 100% SOL has less to do with scientific legitimacy accuracy and more to do how overcomplicated and nonlinear the formula for calculating it would be and often gets high results to the point where even feats that barely look impressive on surface are stacked to absurdly high results and thus makes a lot of those calculations prone to outliers.

I brought up high gravity because I have been asked questions such as moving at Mach speeds on environments with 10 G's should typically qualify for characters moving Mach 10 on normal gravity given how much more G force they'd need to fight against to move at said speeds. Which I thought lower levels were fine ish but once you get to near light speeds, moving that fast on multiplier Gs would not qualify for FTL given how RKE works at near light speeds because as you said, going from 99% to 99.6% would be large multitudes high KE just to move slightly faster. Like wise, gravity can often cause launched projectiles to slow down and higher gravity typically makes processes like that go faster. Likewise given how nonlinear RKE is, it's also harder for gravity to slow projectiles of those speeds down. It is why I consistently mention that technically most of our calculations that involve planets or moons getting blown up are actually lowballed since they have often been calculated using average velocity rather than initial velocity (Which is the more accurate method). And especially calculations that involve high density planets with high gravity blowing up (Such as Vegeta or Zebes), the initial velocity for planets like those blowing up would often be especially high.

I can agree that lifting the restrictions may be a bad idea in the long run given how overlooked and overcomplicated the calculation methods may be. Though there are a few things worth considering and overall I lean towards either your idea or some middle ground approach.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I agree to some points; the issue with RKE calculations for velocities between 99% and 100% SOL has less to do with scientific legitimacy accuracy and more to do how overcomplicated and nonlinear the formula for calculating it would be and often gets high results to the point where even feats that barely look impressive on surface are stacked to absurdly high results and thus makes a lot of those calculations prone to outliers.

I brought up high gravity because I have been asked questions such as moving at Mach speeds on environments with 10 G's should typically qualify for characters moving Mach 10 on normal gravity given how much more G force they'd need to fight against to move at said speeds. Which I thought lower levels were fine ish but once you get to near light speeds, moving that fast on multiplier Gs would not qualify for FTL given how RKE works at near light speeds because as you said, going from 99% to 99.6% would be large multitudes high KE just to move slightly faster. Like wise, gravity can often cause launched projectiles to slow down and higher gravity typically makes processes like that go faster. Likewise given how nonlinear RKE is, it's also harder for gravity to slow projectiles of those speeds down. It is why I consistently mention that technically most of our calculations that involve planets or moons getting blown up are actually lowballed since they have often been calculated using average velocity rather than initial velocity (Which is the more accurate method). And especially calculations that involve high density planets with high gravity blowing up (Such as Vegeta or Zebes), the initial velocity for planets like those blowing up would often be especially high.

I can agree that lifting the restrictions may be a bad idea in the long run given how overlooked and overcomplicated the calculation methods may be. Though there are a few things worth considering and overall I lean towards either your idea or some middle ground approach.

@DontTalkDT

 

[DontTalkDT]

A change of 100 to 101 px causing the speed to go from 98% to 99.9999999999999999999999951% c would be hilariously lucky, idk why I'm the only person who's seeing this.

It's about in the same order of likelihood as that a feat resulting in a number so very close to the SoL to begin with.

I agree to some points; the issue with RKE calculations for velocities between 99% and 100% SOL has less to do with scientific legitimacy accuracy and more to do how overcomplicated and nonlinear the formula for calculating it would be and often gets high results to the point where even feats that barely look impressive on surface are stacked to absurdly high results and thus makes a lot of those calculations prone to outliers.

I brought up high gravity because I have been asked questions such as moving at Mach speeds on environments with 10 G's should typically qualify for characters moving Mach 10 on normal gravity given how much more G force they'd need to fight against to move at said speeds. Which I thought lower levels were fine ish but once you get to near light speeds, moving that fast on multiplier Gs would not qualify for FTL given how RKE works at near light speeds because as you said, going from 99% to 99.6% would be large multitudes high KE just to move slightly faster. Like wise, gravity can often cause launched projectiles to slow down and higher gravity typically makes processes like that go faster. Likewise given how nonlinear RKE is, it's also harder for gravity to slow projectiles of those speeds down. It is why I consistently mention that technically most of our calculations that involve planets or moons getting blown up are actually lowballed since they have often been calculated using average velocity rather than initial velocity (Which is the more accurate method). And especially calculations that involve high density planets with high gravity blowing up (Such as Vegeta or Zebes), the initial velocity for planets like those blowing up would often be especially high.

I can agree that lifting the restrictions may be a bad idea in the long run given how overlooked and overcomplicated the calculation methods may be. Though there are a few things worth considering and overall I lean towards either your idea or some middle ground approach.

I will say that in the blowing up planet part, the amount of KE lost by taking not the initial speed would be less than the GBE. One can in fact account for that by doing a potential energy calculation (well, might be a lot of work). It usually is rather pointless, though, as the GBE in these kinds of calcs typically is a small fraction of the KE result. They rarely end up within the same order of magnitude. If they do, one could probably check if it's worth doing the more complicated calculation.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

It's about in the same order of likelihood as that a feat resulting in a number so very close to the SoL to begin with.

I will say that in the blowing up planet part, the amount of KE lost by taking not the initial speed would be less than the GBE. One can in fact account for that by doing a potential energy calculation (well, might be a lot of work). It usually is rather pointless, though, as the GBE in these kinds of calcs typically is a small fraction of the KE result. They rarely end up within the same order of magnitude. If they do, one could probably check if it's worth doing the more complicated calculation.

@DarkDragonMedeus