Request for calculation experts to evaluate the logic behind a certain calc

[Eficiente]

User_blog:CloverDragon03/Kirby%27s_Return_to_Dream_Land:_Magolor_Spins_the_Battlefield

A rotation is being calc'd, it's interstellar in range and applies every area as having air, which I take issue with. This goes to space, there isn't any air in space, but the user who made the calc ensures that that needs to be a standard assumption because the feat takes place in some other dimension, which is kinda weird and seems to have gravity in space if we go by what gameplay shows. I very much disagree with this, the fact that the dimension is weird doesn't mean it has air in space at all, it's only odd in the ways proven to be odd and not more to be assumed, otherwise it's identical to a regular universe.

I stand by this opinion very firmly but with the talking done, I would appreciate to hear what other calc experts think of this.

 

[KLOL506]

@CloverDragon03 @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 Assistance required, sorry for the annoyance on my part.

 

[Eficiente]

There isn't any, thanks.

 

[CloverDragon03]

God why, I hate being put front and center like this

I was initially gonna draw attention to literally everyone being able to breathe in Another Dimension but then I saw that they all have Self-Sustenance, and I’m guessing that’s why. I think the fact that Another Dimension has gravity all throughout, unlike outer space, is already something that sets it apart. I also think it’s rather fallacious to assume it’s outer space just because it “looks like outer space” when this is a completely unknown realm and thus can really be whatever it wants.

I’ll see what others have to say, but that’s my take on this whole thing.

 

[Eficiente]

I'm sorry about that, I'm just very sure about this.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I'm sorry about that, I'm just very sure about this.

Nah it's fine, I understand why you'd have concerns. I just needed to get past the initial shock of having my calc put front and center in a CGM thread

 

[Arceus0x]

Bump

 

[Arceus0x]

ayo can anyone actually ping some calc members here if they want this to go through

 

[CloverDragon03]

@DontTalkDT @KLOL506 @Executor_N0 Sorry for the tag, but would you mind helping out here?

 

[KLOL506]

Not sure how I can be of help here, I believe DontTalk and Executor would be smarter in this approach.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Not sure how I can be of help here, I believe DontTalk and Executor would be smarter in this approach.

You were in the thread initially so I thought you could help. My apologies.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Are we even sure it physically rotating matter there? It looks more like twisting space or a visual effect or something...

This also appears to be FTL, which means KE doesn't work anyway...

That aside: Personally I wouldn't assume atmosphere either when we are using assumptions about something being an actual star. If we assume it's a realistic star, then we should also assume it's not within athmosphere.

 

[Arceus0x]

Are we even sure it physically rotating matter there? It looks more like twisting space or a visual effect or something...

This also appears to be FTL, which means KE doesn't work anyway...

That aside: Personally I wouldn't assume atmosphere either when we are using assumptions about something being an actual star. If we assume it's a realistic star, then we should also assume it's not within athmosphere.

Would the LS values work though?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Would the LS values work though?

Hmmmm... not sure if we should allow force calculated from accelerating something past the speed of light. I think using proper relativistic formula that would also result in just infinite LS.

Although I'm interested in other opinions on that.

 

[Arceus0x]

Hmmmm... not sure if we should allow force calculated from accelerating something past the speed of light. I think using proper relativistic formula that would also result in just infinite LS.

Although I'm interested in other opinions on that.

in the case that it doesn't work out, should we just take a night sky worth of stars weight?

 

[Arceus0x]

so like over 4.22645e+34kg Multi-stellar

 

[DontTalkDT]

in the case that it doesn't work out, should we just take a night sky worth of stars weight?

Using the weight of the moved objects would probably be the alternative, yeah.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Are we even sure it physically rotating matter there? It looks more like twisting space or a visual effect or something...

This also appears to be FTL, which means KE doesn't work anyway...

That aside: Personally I wouldn't assume atmosphere either when we are using assumptions about something being an actual star. If we assume it's a realistic star, then we should also assume it's not within athmosphere.

I had honestly assumed that because translational velocity wasn't a part of the equation, it'd be fine to do this, but I do get your point.