Some questions about calculating planet sizes and even universe size.

[Agnaa]

If you need to pixel scale between 50 different panels to get the planet size, I agree. If it's just a statement of distance like in FT, where you can reasonably scale the rest of the planet, I don't see the problem.

It's a statement of distance, which is then used to pixel scale a map, which is then used to pixel scale to another map. And neither of those maps strike me as being absolutely perfect to-scale depictions of those regions (especially since the shape of the place differs between the two).

 

[The_Calaca]

If gravity is being ignored by the author why would that debunk the idea that the planet is larger than ours? Why can't we do the same?

The only example I can think of about this issue right now is Toriko. Does that planet follow the physics rules as it should happen despite being over 600x larger? Because I remember seeing normal humans in the manga, which doesn't disprove the idea of the planet being that big.

Same as for the inconsistencies. You won't find any verse using accurate physic description and info dumping to justify such things. It's too pretentious to wait for it just because there are details about the enviroment that don't match.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Fire Force uses in real physics to justify its Power^

Just a fun fact

 

[CNBA3]

I though that when a body reaches a certain density or mass, it would collapse in on itself or something like that

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

If you need to pixel scale between 50 different panels to get the planet size, I agree. If it's just a statement of distance like in FT, where you can reasonably scale the rest of the planet, I don't see the problem.

Not really. If the stated distance isn't something we can apply directly to the planet, there's a fairly large amount of room for error. Anyone who does calculations like this should be familiar with how size fluctuates across multiple drawings of the same planet in manga. In-universe maps are even worse in that matter.

I agree that, if the the author is saying "the planet is this big/dense", we can ignore the inconsistencies with gravity, as the author has a very clear idea of the size and likely sidelined the issues of gravity for the sake of storytelling.

But once you introduce extrapolations of size, even if they're extrapolations from a stated size, there's room for doubt.

See, that rhetorical question assumes that the author is ignoring gravity to begin with, which is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if we make a calc based on size, and that size would have large implications for gravity that the author didn't write in or address, our extrapolation of the size can be doubted.

Like I said above, if the author just goes out and says "the planet's this big", it's not that big of an issue.

To continue on my above argument:

• Is the '600x larger' size something directly mentioned in the story or accredited to the author, or is just an extrapolation done from various scalings by us?
• Are there supernatural forces involved in the series that could reasonably explain regular humans existing there, if it's not directly stated by the author?

If the first is a no, and the second is a no, then yes, I'd argue that the lack of increased gravity is a point against the calc that came to the 600x larger conclusion.

Same as for the inconsistencies. You won't find any verse using accurate physic description and info dumping to justify such things. It's too pretentious to wait for it just because there are details about the enviroment that don't match.

Please. We do that. And for us to do that for any calculation, we need to assume physics exists in the fictional story. Otherwise physics is subjective for every verse, we can't use RL physics to judge feats, and the whole point of our site kind of just falls apart.

Like, if I went through the MCU, and, frame by frame, determined that the bullets a character dodged were only moving at the speed of a running athlete, I wouldn't assume 'well, acceleration just doesn't right work there' and conclude that the MCU ignores the physical properties of guns and bullets and that the bullet-timing feats are Athlete to Peak Human. I'd say, 'maybe there's an issue with me going frame by frame to do this in the first place'.

Same goes for planetary size. If I extrapolated a bunch of sizes onto each other, and found that the planet should be 600x larger than Earth, but gravity and motion are unchanged, I wouldn't assume 'well, gravity just doesn't work right there' with no further explanation before I said 'well, maybe there was some issue with the scaling of size'.

 

[DragonEmperor23]

First is that there are statements in story and the second is no. While there are humans in the verse with SPH, the majority are normal and do not suffer any side effects from a planet being that size..

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

First is that there are statements in story

Yeah, should be fine then, if it's elaborated in the story specifically.

 

[DanielX7]

Everyone talking only about the size and the gravity, but forgot one part of the equation, the mass. A planet can has lower density than Earth.

 

[Agnaa]

Everyone talking only about the size and the gravity, but forgot one part of the equation, the mass. A planet can has lower density than Earth.

Different density = different materials = different energy required to destroy. If we assume this then many calcs involving planet size would be rendered invalid.

 

[DanielX7]

Everyone talking only about the size and the gravity, but forgot one part of the equation, the mass. A planet can has lower density than Earth.

Different density = different materials = different energy required to destroy. If we assume this then many calcs involving planet size would be rendered invalid.

You're going in the good direction, but your conclusion is wrong.

And not forget the internal geometry, like the hollow moon in Naruto.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Neither Fairy Tail Calcs thankfully involve Mass and Density, they just involve Size

 

[DanielX7]

Neither Fairy Tail Calcs thankfully involve Mass and Density, they just involve Size

That's horrible!

And the internal geometry?

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

The calc's that use the Fairy Tail Planet's size only involve Diameter needed to calculate distance for a calc, the actual energy, mass, and everything else about the planet aren't needed for the calcs we use

This isn't a case where we need to know how much energy to destroy the Planet

 

[DanielX7]

The calc's that use the Fairy Tail Planet's size only involve Diameter needed to calculate distance for a calc, the actual energy, mass, and everything else about the planet aren't needed for the calcs we use
This isn't a case where we need to know how much energy to destroy the Planet

Makes sense...

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Everyone talking only about the size and the gravity, but forgot one part of the equation, the mass. A planet can has lower density than Earth.

That's entirely true, although I'm sure there's some limtations on how large a planet can be with lower-than-Earth density before it kind of collapses into itself due to gravity.

Like, to use the 600x example, a planet 600 times larger than Earth with Earth-like gravity would have to be a cloud of loose gas/rock dust rather than a proper planet.

 

[BlackeJan]

Have we reached an conclusion yet cause this is gonna be going around in circles with no one budging on the matter. What are we doing?

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

At this point, I just wanna know if I can use a calced planet size for Fairy Tail or not, either answer, I just want it soon

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I know this is pretty far in, but I want to reaffirm that I still support my statement that was used in the OP.

 

[AKM sama]

Dargoo is making good points. Scaling different things to inflate the planet size is a far stretch. And in case if it really was THAT obvious, the fact would have been easily noted directly in the series.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

How can a series compare a Planet's size to real life Earth if real life Earth doesn't exist in the series

I'll accept if the majority decision is just use Earth size, but I still strongly believe FT's Planet is bigger

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

I think that at this point we need a Staff Only Thread for this, nothing can likely be settled without it, plus this thread is pretty derailed, the main topic is about Universe and Planet Sized Calcs, fairy Tail will likely need a new thread to determine whether or not it can be accepted for a larger planet size

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

If we actually have statements about planets being much larger than Earth, then those are fine obviously. There are cases where some planets seem to be larger than Earth due to certain features and/or One Piece planet having multiple moons, but I will say the Jupiter/Sun size calcs are super high-balled with earth size being safer till we get more context. Though, not sure for stuff like a setting being a planet sized plateau which was assumed to be a flat planet throughout most of the series, but later revealed that the same planet sized plateau is a spec compared to the rest of the round planet.

 

[Moritzva]

Literally nobody in this thread has enough of an understanding of physics and biology to accurately write or judge a fictional planet by it's environment based on mass.

Why the hell should we hold authors to these standards?

Regarding calcs, calc stacking is a hard no, and any planet measurements should be using confirmed sizes.

To repost:

Planet calculations are not to be used unless:

The planet does not sharply resemble Real Life Earth.
There are canonical measurements/references of measurement that don't require calculation stacking.
There are multiple consistent statements or frames of reference regarding it's size.
There are multiple consistent shots/images/maps of it's size.
There is little to no counterevidence or antifeats as to the planet's size.
—

Any problems with this?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Literally nobody in this thread has enough of an understanding of physics and biology to accurately write or judge a fictional planet by it's environment based on mass.

Why the hell should we hold authors to these standards?

Is this the part where I bring up, yet again, that we hold fictional stories under the scrutiny of physics every time we make a claclulation, or no?

If your argument is that no one on the site is a physics major and neither are the authors, and that means we can't discuss stuff in the context of physics, it kind of invalidates any attempt to quantify feats objectively.

 

[Moritzva]

There is a difference between calculating something the author may not know, and denying a calculation based on something they may not know. We do the former, and are far more hesitant with the latter.

To expect all authors to have detailed understandings of how size affects planets for planet calcs would be to completely get rid of planet calcs altogether.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

There is a difference between calculating something the author may not know, and denying a calculation based on something they may not know. We do the former, and are far more hesitant with the latter.
To expect all authors to have detailed understandings of how size affects planets for planet calcs would be to completely get rid of planet calcs altogether.

Now hold on. Your claim was that "nobody in this thread" had the prerequisite knowledge to make judgement like this. Clearly you aren't just talking about authors here, at least initially. Although I'd say that what I've posted in regards to evidence comes from reputable people with degrees, so I suppose they aren't knowledgeable enough under your argument, either.

Also, that really doesn't make much sense. You're giving an arbitrary preference to the affirmative of calcs "we make a calc based on something the author didn't care about when writing their story", when the negative of calcs "we question a calc based on something the author didn't care about when writing their story" has nothing intrinsically different about it, other than it typically negatively impacting stats on a profile. There's no real reason you're giving why the former is more preferred than the later other that "we prefer it". So I'll kindly ask for an explaination on that; we use physics to debunk calcs all the time, since they opertate on physics as a given.

To expect all authors to consider the implications of calculations made by fans, and not themselves, is more-so ridiculous. As I've said previous, statements made in the story and by the author, given they are internally consistent, are fine. However, when us, the fans, make a calc of a planet being X size, but the writing doesn't support this in the form of gravity, absolutely there's doubt to the calc

 

[Moritzva]

Contrary to popular belief, spending twenty minutes researching rudimentary physics online does not make you able to accurately predict the exact evolution of a species and planet across thousands of years.

(And no, the authors of those sources aren't here on the wiki to help us analyze just how accurate fictional planet evolutionary lines are.)

I'm not the one who is proposing a change to how we treat overall accuracy to physics, Dargoo. We don't deny calcs based on the AoE fallacy- and to deny a planet calc simply because "The gravity would of dramstically shifted the environmental development of the species and stuff" is something so nit-picky of fictional stories involving buff guys tossing giant fireballs of death at eachother.

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if we could treat it as a factor, not a reason that can single-handedly deny a calc. So, how about we treat it that way, closer to an 'antifeat'? If the gravity or development does not support it, it's fair reason to support the rebuke of a calc, but should not be used as the only reason.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Contrary to popular belief, spending twenty minutes researching rudimentary physics does not make you able to accurately predict the exact evolution of a species and planet across thousands of years.

That's great, because that's not what anyone here is doing. I claimed that "higher/lower gravity would affect biology this way", but I didn't make that conclusion based on my own academic knowledge, I'm using a source from actual reputable scientists who have mused on the situation. It's like saying that, because the person reciting the Theory of Relativity isn't as smart as Albert Einstein, that the Theory of Relativity is thereby incorrect, or they have no merit to discuss what Einstein has already proven.

No one on the site has actually researched thermodynamics for that long either, why are we doing kinetic energy calculations and specific heat calculations? I'll answer, because we're pulling those constants from reputable sources who have already proved them several times over. Granted, theoretical evolution isn't nearly as provable, but I'd imagine the words of people who have studied the evolution on this planet's life for their entire lives on how gravity would alter trends is reputable enough here.

I'm not the one who is proposing a change to how we treat overall accuracy to physics, Dargoo. We don't deny calcs based on the AoE fallacy- and to deny a planet calc simply because "The gravity would of dramstically shifted the environmental development of the species and stuff" is something so nit-picky of fictional stories involving buff guys tossing giant fireballs of death at eachother.

Ah, but we'll accept the calcs of those giant fireballs of death, even though they couldn't possibly operate under physics. But when someone brings up how the physics used to calc it might have been applied incorrectly, we fall back on the "well, the authors don't get physics so we don't need to either" argument, despite that same argument applying to the calcs themselves. Unsurprisingly you haven't substantiated any meaningful difference here.

If the planet is calced by our members and not from direct statements, we're talking about something the fictional story isn't concerned with to begin with. If the planet's size isn't explained it isn't really relevant to the story to begin with, so when fans make an extrapolation based on secondary information, that extrapolation is fallible to other extrapolations that shows there is doubt with it.

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if we could treat it as a factor, not a reason that can single-handedly deny a calc. So, how about we treat it that way, closer to an 'antifeat'? If the gravity or development does not support it, it's fair reason to support the rebuke of a calc, but should not be used as the only reason.

When have I said that it'd be the sole reason to deny a calc? I've said many times that it puts "doubt" on the calc, and that the calcs are fallible to begin with, but obvious context plays into any calc like this.

 

[Moritzva]

Since further debating everything but the last bit is pointless, and I don't think either of us are understanding each other properly-

What do you officially suggest the written rules of the matter be, including this?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

The rules you proposed are actually fine, I was just concerned with what specifically constitutes "antifeats" in the last line.

Putting aside the gravity issue, could you provide some examples of what you'd personally consider an antifeat in regards to planet size?

 

[Moritzva]

Well, I suppose the issue you brought up, surely. It could also be more blatant things, such as inconsistent sizes of the planet, be it due to art or contradictory statements.

So, overall inconsistent physics and inconsistent images/statements as to the planet's size, would be the two topics that come to mind.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

I can agree with the idea of holding those things as anti feats, but not to hold it to unnecessarily high standards of strictness.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Seems fine to me. I'll willing to concede that, if gravity inconsistency is the only point against the calc, it would not discount the calc entirely, although if it's among, let's say, 2-3 other points against it, we should disregard the calc.

Nice talk, otherwise. I wish I was a bit more clear on what exactly I was arguing for, since we seemed to be kind of agreeing to begin with, so apologies on that.

 

[Moritzva]

Right. I agree with that standard.

No worries. I feel as if I jumped the gun as well. But now that it is clarified, are there any last objections?

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

Toriko does come to mind as a very obvious stand hold for the disregarding of authors for the physics of increased gravity when their planets are pretty big (but then again, in Toriko physics seem centered around different standards or just food at times, so may not be the best case).

Like, literally. You see the real world continents in the Toriko Map, and it is absolutely dwarfed by the human world, which is completely dwarfed by the Gourmet world.

 

[Damage3245]

Toriko is pretty much irrelevant to this. We have a stated canon circumference of the planet which is about 220,000 kilometers.

It is vastly different from trying to pixelscale on a map to estimate a planet's size.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Yeah, no one here is disagreeing with Toriko's planet size, I just used it was a hypothetical example after it was established that there are official statements.

 

[BlackeJan]

Alright....so what's the proposal here? let's get this over with since this is pretty much going nowhere

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

I never said nothing about disagreement, merely that Toriko has a much more massive size than most estimations we do by calcs and still doesn't show things like higher gravity, emphasizing how little authors can be aware of these things. Especially so when an official circumference for the world wasn't a thing for a long time, not something stated early on.

 

[DragonEmperor23]

Toriko is pretty much irrelevant to this. We have a stated canon circumference of the planet which is about 220,000 kilometers.

That statement was actually replaced with one from a more accurate source that had it at 696X the size of Earth later in the story.