- 32,359
- 20,298
Occam's Razor and going with the simplest / least amount of assumptions.
-
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.
The Problem with Storm/Clouds Calculations
- Thread starter Ugarik
- Start date
- Status
- 26,160
- 3,653
And how is assuming that the storm is litirally above the horizon less of an assumption?Matthew Schroeder said:
- 1,673
- 289
For the model proposed by OP to work you only need to assume a type of cloud keeps an uniform altitude through its diamater, whereas the model propesed by Mike literally requires the storm to be like a dome, which requires the clouds to drop in altutide just where your horizon starts for some unknown reason, and complely disregards the fact how unlikely this is to happen IRL.
- 32,359
- 20,298
Yeah, and they'll just turn alongside the curvature and block our view.YAguilaR101 said:
- 26,160
- 3,653
Matt, the image given shows how far the storm would need to go with the curvature to block our view.
It has it's own problems, yeah, but saying that it suddenly stop above the horizon is just baseless.
It has it's own problems, yeah, but saying that it suddenly stop above the horizon is just baseless.
- 24,974
- 6,285
No, Endless Mike's model just shows how far a human can actually see relative to what we're suggesting.AguilaR101 said:
The storm itself would still be cylindrical, but it definitely wouldn't stretch into space just to make it beyond a shadow of a doubt impossible to see it's edge
- 26,160
- 3,653
There is a difference between looking endless and blocking the horizon.
And again, an actual drawing explaining how far that would be would help, since just saying "above the horizon" isn't any more logical.
And again, an actual drawing explaining how far that would be would help, since just saying "above the horizon" isn't any more logical.
- 1,673
- 289
>"Ignoring the first two issues, the storm wouldn't have to stretch to the farthest visible horizon to appear to cover it, as long as it took the form of a dome that covered the entire field of view of someone on the ground"
That's literally what the image is supposed to represent.
DMUA wrote: The storm itself would still be cylindrical, but it definitely wouldn't stretch into space just to make it beyond a shadow of a doubt impossible to see it's edge
The storm doesn't need to reach space for its edge to be beyond or view in a curved planet, point to where this was ever implied because it most certainly wasn't.
That's literally what the image is supposed to represent.
DMUA wrote: The storm itself would still be cylindrical, but it definitely wouldn't stretch into space just to make it beyond a shadow of a doubt impossible to see it's edge
The storm doesn't need to reach space for its edge to be beyond or view in a curved planet, point to where this was ever implied because it most certainly wasn't.
- 1,673
- 289
Storm is written in blue, the dome is drawn in blue, mike is saying the storm shaped like a dome would block or field of view, put 2+2 together.
- 167,863
- 76,487
Like Matthew, I am also concerned that this would lead to inaccurate inflated results for lots of verses.
I would much prefer if DontTalkDT handles this. He is likely our most skilled mathematician, and is experienced with writing calculation instruction pages.
I would much prefer if DontTalkDT handles this. He is likely our most skilled mathematician, and is experienced with writing calculation instruction pages.
- 10,758
- 6,491
I really don't think it would lead to inaccurate results.
The logic is pretty simple, if an object close to the ground is placed 5 kilometers away from an observer, it will be hidden by the horizon. But if that object starts to rise in the air, perpendicular to the ground, then at some point it will emerge out of the horizon and be visible.
Translating that to storm calcs, since clouds aren't on the ground they won't be obscured by the horizon if their radius is only equal to the observer's distance to the horizon, so the current method is what is inaccurate for storms that extend beyond the horizon.
The logic is pretty simple, if an object close to the ground is placed 5 kilometers away from an observer, it will be hidden by the horizon. But if that object starts to rise in the air, perpendicular to the ground, then at some point it will emerge out of the horizon and be visible.
Translating that to storm calcs, since clouds aren't on the ground they won't be obscured by the horizon if their radius is only equal to the observer's distance to the horizon, so the current method is what is inaccurate for storms that extend beyond the horizon.
- 5,510
- 718
^^
- 5,510
- 718
Fair enough
- 32,359
- 20,298
I get the logic, but I disagree with the extent of it. The cloud wouldn't need to extend THAT much farther to cover it
- 26,160
- 3,653
Sure.
But giving a concrete substitute would make it much better.
Saying this is not really right because it doesn't need to be that far does not make using dome other arbitrary distance better.
But giving a concrete substitute would make it much better.
Saying this is not really right because it doesn't need to be that far does not make using dome other arbitrary distance better.
- 10,758
- 6,491
@Matt And your explanation for why it wouldn't to me seems to make more unreasonable assumptions than this method, so I don't know if I can agree with you.
- 32,359
- 20,298
So go with the horizon distance we already go as a lowball, only fair. This new method is proposing the highest possible distance to be the standard, as opposed to the minimum.
We know clouds go beyond the horizon already, we just don't calc it because it's not quantifiable.
We know clouds go beyond the horizon already, we just don't calc it because it's not quantifiable.
- 26,160
- 3,653
The lowball is completly baseless. The minimum is in no way the horizon distance, and this has logical reasons for going that far, your suggestion doesn't.
- 10,758
- 6,491
It's not the highest possible distance, this is the minimum distance assuming the storm is maintaining a constant altitude.
- 5,510
- 718
PLus shouldn't we be going with the average rather then the absolutely lowest interpretation/conclusion
- 32,359
- 20,298
We're not going with the absolute lowest either, the lowest would be less than the horizon.
- 10,758
- 6,491
What's an average interpretation?
And yeah we shouldn't be going with the lowest possible interpretation, but rather the most reasonable.
And yeah we shouldn't be going with the lowest possible interpretation, but rather the most reasonable.
- 15,442
- 15,410
Lowballing for the reason that this character would be too strong is not really a good way to go about it, we should just go with the correct and most logical method for each storm, even if they are outliers
- 26,160
- 3,653
Yeah.Matthew Schroeder said:
But assuming it's over the horizon is absolutly out of nowhere.
- 32,359
- 20,298
The lowball isn't so that people won't get strong, the lowball is so that storm calcs as a whole won't become unusable outliers in nearly 100% of the cases. It's for practicality. The scientifically accurate argument is akin to argue mass-energy conversion for all feats.
- 32,359
- 20,298
The most reasonable is what we've went with for over three years now. Over the horizon, but not quantifiable, so it works good as a low-end.Andytrenom said:
- 26,160
- 3,653
Saying that you want to lowball it so that it doesn't become an outlier isn't an argument for using an arbitrary limit, saying it's above the horizon.
How long you went with it doesn't matter, and how is it more reasonable? The things given here have a logical reason behind them, what part of assuming it ends right above the horizon does? There is absolutly no reason to assum it ends there and not much before, so it is not a good low-end when it comes from nowhere.
How long you went with it doesn't matter, and how is it more reasonable? The things given here have a logical reason behind them, what part of assuming it ends right above the horizon does? There is absolutly no reason to assum it ends there and not much before, so it is not a good low-end when it comes from nowhere.
- 10,758
- 6,491
Comparing it to Mass-Energy also seems odd. We don't use it because normally the feat doesn't give evidence of this being the method used, it leading to outliers isn't the only reason behind it not being used.
- 32,359
- 20,298
It's not an arbitrary limit, it's just a fair and reasonable assumption. I already explained how at length in multiple posts. And I also proved how my method isn't an absolute low-end that comes out of nowhere by showing even smaller, equally as reasonable assumptions.
We absolutely don't need to go with a formula which more than doubles all storm diameters to get an accurate result, and really the only reason a lot of regular users are for it is because it upgrades people.
We absolutely don't need to go with a formula which more than doubles all storm diameters to get an accurate result, and really the only reason a lot of regular users are for it is because it upgrades people.
- 32,359
- 20,298
And neither do every storm give evidence for the method suggested in the OP. It's an arbitrary assumption that says that all storms must conform to his idea.Andytrenom said:
- 10,758
- 6,491
> and really the only reason a lot of regular users are for it is because it upgrades people.
Appeal to Motive fallacy much.
Appeal to Motive fallacy much.
- 32,359
- 20,298
It's not appeal to motive, it's literally plain to see. The fact that some users are jumping on about "Woo, this will upgrade [insert character] to Country level, I support!" shows that the method being accurate or not has nothing to do with the support it's getting.
- 26,160
- 3,653
It not being the absolute low-end doesn't matter either, and woute the part that explains why it should logically stop above there. Most verses don't use energy to mass conversion because it contradicts the science of the real world. Weren't there verses that do use it in here?
It more than dubling the diameter is a non-factor. Please stop thinking about the results it gives and start taking the logic behind it first. Appeal to Motive shall be ignored, alright? I plain said that this would not upgrade people, so I don't see how it comes up in a conversation with me anyways.
And this takes the logical assumption that the storm stays at a similiar height and doen't form a dome or such. Yours just says that the method in the OP is too high, so we use this low-ball out of nowhere.
It more than dubling the diameter is a non-factor. Please stop thinking about the results it gives and start taking the logic behind it first. Appeal to Motive shall be ignored, alright? I plain said that this would not upgrade people, so I don't see how it comes up in a conversation with me anyways.
And this takes the logical assumption that the storm stays at a similiar height and doen't form a dome or such. Yours just says that the method in the OP is too high, so we use this low-ball out of nowhere.
- 26,160
- 3,653
And they were told that they are wrong.Matthew Schroeder said:
That has nothing to do with why we should assume that it stops above the horizon instead of before or after. The clouds becoming lower and obscuring your vision is just plain unquantifiable, and saying thjat bad eyesight so you can't see it makes it even more unquantifiable.
Not using the method in the OP does not make using what was used up to now any better.
- 32,359
- 20,298
It really is the opposite. Matter creation not being mass-energy contradicts science. Should we suddenly start using it for everything? No.
And yes, it does matter. People should at the very least raise their eyebrows in suspiction given how large the gap becomes with this new method. The fact that it's never been so much proposed anywhere online before is grounds for serious suspiction on the accuracy of the method.
And naturally, quick observation shows that this really isn't a 100% applicable formula, because it relies on certain assumptions that aren't necessarily always true and never demonstrably provable.
Please, stop trying to argue that I'm using appeal to motive, I'm not. This is a Vs Debating wiki, so of course people will consider something if it upgrades people. I've been here for over three years and seen it happen all the time.
And yes, it does matter. People should at the very least raise their eyebrows in suspiction given how large the gap becomes with this new method. The fact that it's never been so much proposed anywhere online before is grounds for serious suspiction on the accuracy of the method.
And naturally, quick observation shows that this really isn't a 100% applicable formula, because it relies on certain assumptions that aren't necessarily always true and never demonstrably provable.
Please, stop trying to argue that I'm using appeal to motive, I'm not. This is a Vs Debating wiki, so of course people will consider something if it upgrades people. I've been here for over three years and seen it happen all the time.
- Status
Similar threads
