• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Revised Attack Potency Chart

DontTalk said:
Ok, the GBE for the sun. I get a different one then the low end of Star level we use. This is important, because the value I get is the one currently used in the Multi-Galaxy level calc.
It also means I have to correct my Galaxy level calc.


GBE Sun:

Mass Sun: 1.98855 * 10^30 kg

Radius sun: 696342000 m

Per this formula (the one at the top of the article):

GBE Sun: (3*(6.674*10^-11)*(1.98855*10^30)^2)/(5*696342000) = 2.273986556440800641064304608942157732838174345364777652360478041e41

That is 1/3 of what we and some other blogs have listed.


Using that info I have redone the Galaxy level calc and get 4.19775218906802278e65 J as value. Which is a more reasonable distance between Galaxy and Multi-Galaxy level.

Now the question is if the value we currently have and some OBD guys use is more accurate / who is wrong here.
Click to expand...
no one is wrong here, the obd calc is for despersion of the galaxy struture and scattering consittuents away (thus effectively ending the galaxy) but the calc u made is for legitly destroying everything in a galaxy
 
Solar System destruction:

Mass Neptune: 1.0243 * 10^26 kg

Diameter Neptune: 49528 km
Radius Neptune: 24764000 m

GBE Neptune: (3*(6.674*10^-11)*(1.0243 * 10^26)^2)/(5*24764000) = 1.6965669512825068648037473752220965918268454207720885155871426264e34 J

Frontal Area Neptune: ¤Ç*(24764000)^2 = 1.9265995893256955509e15 m^2

Distance Neptune-Sun: 4503443661 km = 4503443661000 m

Area explosion has to cover: 4*¤Ç*(4503443661000 m)^2 = 2.5485862284642863478e26 m^2

Energy to destroy Solar System:
(2.5485862284642863478e26 m^2 / 1.9265995893256955509e15 m) * 1.6965669512825068648037473752220965918268454207720885155871426264e34 J

= 2.244289468171002345e45 J


Now that is higher than the OBD one. I believe the OBD one is lower because they used Neptunes surface area instead of frontal area. As far as I know that is wrong, it should be frontal area. (the OBD value is the one we currently have listed in the revised chart, I think?)
 
Could supernova be the low-end for 4-B? It is able to cripple and sterilize entire solar systems which is just below actually destoiyng it.
 
DontTalk said:
@The Living Tribunal1:
No, I didn't mean that in relation to the destruction of the Galaxy, but in relation to the GBE of the sun they use for example here.
Click to expand...
oh i see, yes the SA of neptune facing the center shud be used, since thats the part which will be exposed to the energy, so yes using full surface area wont be right, i think
 
FanofRPGs said:
Gerdkinerf said:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-11/1004909251.As.r.htmlI still think that this is a much more accurate value for Solar System Level, IMO.
"Most bombs go off and spread their energy out in all directions equally. This means that most of the blast energy will miss the planets. Each planet has to intercept the required amount of energy from the blast over its cross-sectional area (pi R2) when the initial ener'gy has been spread out of 4 pi a2 surface area (where a is the distance to the Sun). Working this out, you need 4(a/R)2 times more energy to blow up each planet to account for the wasted energy."

5.09e37 tons of TNT equivalent = 2.129656 KiloFoe

Also, I think Large Star Level should start at 4.51296311 Foe, as that's the GBE of the most massive star known, R136a1: http://lounge.moviecodec.com/vs-gen...ction-list-orders-of-magnitude-for-vs-349083/
Click to expand...
Wait one problem
Neptune's GBE is WAY off in the thing

Also I think Large Star Level should not start with the largest star, but with the most average blue supergiant.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is that Rigel's GBE is barely higher than that of the Sun. (164 tenatons vs. 350 tenatons)

A Large Star Level, or any "Large" version of a regular category in general, to me at least, implies overcoming the GBE of a star far larger, both in mass and diameter, than that of the Sun. Compare blowing up the Earth with blowing up Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, etc.

Also, for those curious, I believe that the whole 164.196941 Tenaton figure for the Sun's GBE on the OBD comes from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)#cite_note-U-191
 
So, to summarize: Revision of Tier 4 and 3 are required. Also, to clarify: No annoying '+' will be listed in the revised chart.

Can somebody list the proposed energy levels? DontTalk? SchutzenDunkelZiel1217?

  • Small Star level: ??
  • Star level: ??
  • Large Star level: ??
  • Galaxy level: ??
  • Multi-Galaxy level: ??
 
Big thanks to DontTalk for all of the help. However, did you calculate by using the surface area and volume for the Milky Way galaxy or for a sphere with the same diameter? On second thought, it might be better to stick with the former.

@Lord Kavpeny

So far:

Star level: 2.27×10^41 J

Solar System level: 2.24 × 10^45 J

Galaxy level: 4.20 × 10^65 J (But this one depends on whether DontTalk used the surface area of the Milky Way, or a sphere with the same diameter)

Multi-Solar System and Multi-Galaxy have not been recalculated yet.
 
Thanks.

What about Small Star level and Large Star level? Because that's where Tier 4 will be starting.
 
@Lord Kavpeny DontTalk has not had the time to calculate either of those values yet.

@Viturino No. That is just an assumption.
 
@Antvasima: Hmm...that's fine. Like I said, if only Tier 3 and 4 are indeterminate by Jan 1, we will begin the revision for the other tiers, and fix up 3 and 4 later (around Jan 4).

@Viturino: No, because:

  1. The number of galaxies in the universe is an estimation.
  2. You are excluding Dark Matter.
  3. Lastly, that would not account for cosmic distances. The distances between clusters, is again, far greater than the distance between galaxies.
 
Well, it is best if DontTalk has the time to do this properly, and is not busy with revision work while doing so.

It also would probably be best to put a highly visible notice at the front page, and in a highlighted thread, that no other edits are allowed while the revision is going on.
 
well for universe level using a universe of 46.5 billion light years wide, the high end, as calculated by donttalk would be to take a massive nuetron star at the very edge of it, hence yielding a value upwards of 10^90J


but if we consider the universe to be infinite, then it automatically goes to high 3-A (which automaatically makes a separate high 3-A worthless :l )


so yeah, for high end of a 46.5 billion LY wide universe (that is if we think of it as a bubble), it can be calculated the way donttalk calculated the solar system value, by using gbe of a massive nuetron star, then correlating with the distance from center to star radius and then applying a scenario where we use frontal surface area of the star
 
We use the measurable visible part of the universe as a lower limit for regular 3-A, not all of the space surrounding it.
 
Antvasima said:
We use the measurable visible part of the universe as a lower limit for regular 3-A, not all of the space surrounding it.
Click to expand...
ok then, that was calced by donttalk to be upwards of 10^90 J (i dont rememebr the specs he used for the star exactly, but i think it was a massive neutron star)
 
I am not sure if we need that though, given that universe-busting feats tend to be self-evident. Still, I suppose that other feats could technically theorethically be calculated to be of that magnitude without actually destroying a universe.
 
Antvasima said:
I am not sure if we need that though, given that universe-busting feats tend to be self-evident. Still, I suppose that other feats could technically theorethically be calculated to be of that magnitude without actually destroying a universe.
Click to expand...
indeed they can be calculate based in special circumstances, but the point for the high end for a 46.5 billion LY radius universe wud be to establish like a limit for 3-A


i mean if a feat with low AOE comes out to be calculated at a particular energy and if it matches universe lvl then we can place the feat at 3-A
 
Possibly. But DontTalk's other calculations for Small Star, Large Star, Multi-Solar System, and Multi-Galaxy are prioritised at the moment, and it depends on what Lord Kavpeny thinks.
 
yes indeed those are the prioity as of now, i just mentioned this so its not fogotten, also it wont take him to present it since he already did it elsewhere, so he can just copy and paste

but yes those other calculations are the priority
 
Gerdkinerf said:
Also, for those curious, I believe that the whole 164.196941 Tenaton figure for the Sun's GBE on the OBD comes from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)#cite_note-U-191
Click to expand...
Now that is interesting. In the citation it writes down the formula I use as well and the following text is the same as for the source of the formula on this page.

So I wonder. Does the citation list the actual value possibly determined with a more accurate method or did they calculate that by themselfs? Because with the same formula I get my result of 2.27398 * 10^41 J, no matter how often I redo it...

So this is actually a matter that has to be decided on, wether we take the wikipedia value, or what the formula gives us.


@Antvasima: For Solar System level and Galaxy level I used a spherical explosion at this point, while for Multi-Solar System and Multi-Galaxy I used a cylindrical.

So I should use a cylindrical explosion for Galaxy level, as well?
 
Possibly yes. We are going for a minimum value after all, and even though it seems illogical for an omnidirectional energy discharge or shockwave to travel in a non-spherical fashion, our galaxy is by no means spherical in structure.

It is probably best to get both values, so Lord Kavpeny can decide on whichever is better to use.
 
I can see a cylindrical style explosion working only if the diameter / radius of said cylinder explosion is equivalent to the diameter of the object being destroyed (IE: the diameter of the solar system, the diameter of our galaxy, etc) as opposed to using the height of the cylinder being equal to diameter of said object.

Other wise, I just don't see a cylindrical explosion reaching all of the planets in our solar system or all of the stars in our galaxy, it'd probably end up missing a whole lot of things, in fact.

And by height and radius / diameter, I mean as its used here for the surface area of a cylinder calculator: http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/geometry-solids/surfacearea.php http://www.calculatorsoup.com/images/cylinder001.gif

It'd probably be better just to use the surface area of a sphere / omnidirectional blast for this sort of thing, IMO.
 
In other words, a cylindrical Solar System busting explosion for example, the height of the explosion should be equivalent to the diameter of the Sun and the radius / diameter should be equivalent to the radius / diameter of the Solar System itself.

http://orig14.deviantart.net/796f/f/2015/364/2/d/blerp_by_gerdkinerf-d9m0kkc.png

A similar method could likewise be used for Galaxy and Multi-Galaxy busting as well.

I also suggest that we use Neutron Stars and White Dwarfs as the basis for Galaxy busting, as theres no guarantee that the portion / surface area of the blast they'd be hit by would overcome their GBE if we used the Sun as the basis for our explosion. But then again, perhaps I could be wrong.
 
Well, if the entire galaxy, with the exception of Neutron Stars and White Dwarfs, is gone, that may be good enough for our purposes. Othervise we might end up with even more ridiculously high values.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, if the entire galaxy, with the exception of Neutron Stars and White Dwarfs, is gone, that may be good enough for our purposes. Othervise we might end up with even more ridiculously high values.
Click to expand...
True, and then theres also the fact that the surface area of the Milky Way dwarfs that of the Sun, so theres still the possibility that their GBE may be overcome either way.
 
Anyway, I just did a calc for Solar System Level using my idea for a cylindrical explosion:

Perihelion of Neptune = 29.81 AU (4.45951253 trillion meters)

Diameter of the Sun (low-end estimate) = 1,392,554,000 meters

Surface area of blast (treated as a cylinder) = 3.1258331901985e25 m^2

Surface area of the Sun (low-end estimate) = 6.0921973431774e18 m^2

Surface area difference = 5,130,879.74

GBE of the Su = 6.87e41 joules (164.196941 Tenatons of TNT equivalent)

6.87e41 * 5,130,879.74 = 3.52491438e48 joules or 35.2491438 KiloFoe.
 
Thank you, but I would appreciate if you would please stay out of this and let DontTalk work it out undisturbed.
 
@DontTalk: I dislike saddling you with even more work, but I would prefer if we had values for omnidirectional blasts.
 
Okay. Sorry. Never mind me asking about a cylindrical blast then.
 
I will do a few calcs so that the specifications can simply be choosen from. (Sorry for the delay btw. was at university doing most of my math excercises for the holidays)


One VERY IMPORTANT thing: Before the revision is done there has to be someone other then me that properly recalcs all the taken calcs in order to make sure that I didn't make some mistake (like just typing something into the calculator wrong for example). I am as careful as I can be, but such things can always happen and oneself often misses them. Given the work that changing the values causes we have to be sure that all values are calculated correctly beforehand. So if Gerdkinferf, The Living Tribunal1, FanofRPGs , a calc group member, or really anyone else that understands the calculation method wants to do that I would be very thankful for that (I would suggest starting with that once the choice of calcs is finalized, in order to reduce the workload and keep everything in order).
 
DontTalk said:
I will do a few calcs so that the specifications can simply be choosen from. (Sorry for the delay btw. was at university doing most of my math excercises for the holidays)

One VERY IMPORTANT thing: Before the revision is done there has to be someone other then me that properly recalcs all the taken calcs in order to make sure that I didn't make some mistake (like just typing something into the calculator wrong for example). I am as careful as I can be, but such things can always happen and oneself often misses them. Given the work that changing the values causes we have to be sure that all values are calculated correctly beforehand. So if Gerdkinferf, The Living Tribunal1, FanofRPGs , a calc group member, or really anyone else that understands the calculation method wants to do that I would be very thankful for that (I would suggest starting with that once the choice of calcs is finalized, in order to reduce the workload and keep everything in order).
Click to expand...
so u want help in re-checking or help in distributing the calc work for the star levels, i am fine with either
 
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/U...r_System_to_Multi-Galaxy_level_with_variables

I made the Solar system to multi-galaxy calcs a blog for easier readibililty (not sure wether I should deactivate the comments or not, left them on for now).

Next are Star levels, right?

In that case we first need to agree on suitable Large and small stars. I will look around (going through some of FanofRPGs blogs and wikipedia and stuff) and see what I think is best. Now as mentioned in the blog post again, we also need to decide which GBE is the most reliable to use for Star level (for that our sun would be mandatory, of course)
 
DontTalk said:
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/U...r_System_to_Multi-Galaxy_level_with_variables
I made the Solar system to multi-galaxy calcs a blog for easier readibililty (not sure wether I should deactivate the comments or not, left them on for now).

Next are Star levels, right?

In that case we first need to agree on suitable Large and small stars. I will look around (going through some of FanofRPGs blogs and wikipedia and stuff) and see what I think is best. Now as mentioned in the blog post again, we also need to decide which GBE is the most reliable to use for Star level (for that our sun would be mandatory, of course)
Click to expand...
r u going to use r136a1 as an upper benchmark for large star level?
 
The Living Tribunal1 said:
r u going to use r136a1 as an upper benchmark for large star level?
Click to expand...
I don't think Large star level needs a upper benchmark. After Large star level follows solar system level and its close enough to large star level anyways. So an additional category between Large star level and Solar system level isn't necessary, in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spider_Kaiju
A Supernatural Isekai Role Play - Recruiting
Replies
7
Views
1K
Spider_Kaiju
Spider_Kaiju
Continuum19
The King of Fighters 15: Kim Kaphwan Stamina, Attack Potency & Lifting Strength Additions
Replies
15
Views
1K
Lonkitt
Lonkitt
William_Joee
Doraemon 2-B Attack Potency Upgrade
Replies
37
Views
2K
William_Joee
William_Joee
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Ninjago Attack Potency update
7 8 9
Replies
331
Views
16K
Lloydblitzed
Lloydblitzed
Frxwins
Unconventional Existance Classification
Replies
1
Views
1K
Frxwins
Frxwins
Back
Top