The Problem with Storm/Clouds Calculations

[Ricsi-viragosi]

That's just false eequivalency. Matter creation almost never creates the byproducts energy-mass should. Also, how does this putting the storms end above the horizon better?

Neither of those is an argument against it. New ideas tend to be, well, new. You have to point out what is wrong about it. And the result being too high does not make the method wrong.

And yet assuming the storm ends above the horizon is better? This has logic behind it, a storm would not ubscure the horizon if it stopped right above it unless the clouds dropped in altitude the farher they get, which is mnuch more of an assumption.

Exept you using it as an argument against me while arguing with me and andy, both of us having aknowoledged that it would not lead to upgrades, is completly out of nowhere. People think it leads to upgrades? Doesn't matter in this argument.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Neither do storms? I'm not sure what your point even is other than appealing to the fact that this is more mathematically exact and thus should be used above all other alternatives.

A human wouldn't even notice the difference over something that faraway to begin with. The notion that the storms must behave like the OP suggests is ridiculous becaus at such a distance it's nearly impossible to discern specifics.

I agree that the storm would continue but the way the OP suggests, with a storm continuing in a straight line for over twice the distance is absurd. It could simply curve alongside the horizon and it would obscure our view so quickly it wouldn't even matter.

 

[Andytrenom]

The storm continuing completely parallel to the earths surface is absurd?

 

[Hellbeast1]

^^^

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Matter creation in fiction doesn't conserve quantum numbers. Pretty sure storm do. And what other alternatives are used for matter creation?

Again, we are not looking through human eyes, it being several hundred meters above ground and still being just above the horizon shoul leave a small part that is not covered by it, and the same logic contradicts saying it's right above it.

Straight line is the exact oposite of what the OP suggests. It suggests it has a curvature like the earth. The OP litirally shows that it curves. And I don't see how that makes it ending above the horizon the reasonable middlepoint.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

What's absurd is the result given by the formula. At one point we need to realize that being so completely anally retentive with scientific accuracy is counterintuitive to a wiki which deals with unscientific fiction.

Such a method is not consistent with fiction and its portrayals, and it's almost impossible to demonstrably prove in 99% of cases while also rendering 99% of storm feats unusable outliers.

It's simply not practical to apply and would lead to more problems than it's worth.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Yes, we do look through human eyes in 100% of visual fiction for the simple fact that the fiction is created by humans for the consumption of humans. The camera viewpoint is almost always a human viewpoint, all it does is use angles and close-ups that a person normally wouldn't reach, but the resolution and definition is still comparable to the human eye.

If not far worse than it in a lot of cases.

And for matter creation we use destruction to calc it as a lowball.

 

[Antvasima]

Matthew makes a good point. I will ask DontTalkDT for further help with this.

 

[Antvasima]

I have done so: https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2444156

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Yes. You know what we do when the scientific result is unrealistic? We don't aply science period. I don't see any calculation for the matter most magic in verses create, period. We don't make a low-ball for it, we just don't calculate it.

Beyond them giving extremly high results as is, fiction ignoring science should just mean that we shouldn't aply science to it.

What do you mean by practical? That it would take a lot of work to change stuff and remove other stuff? That really isn't a reason to refute something.

You can't really equate it like that. You also don't even bring up my point on how a human would still see that not all of the horizon is covered if it was right above it by hundreds of meters. Nor do you say anything about how this makes the idea of assuming it's right above it also unusable.

Far worse eh? Man, if I only said that this makes saying "the storm is above the horizon" also wrong...

That also feels completly baseless. Also, destruction how? Like, assuming they can destroy every atom in it? Because that would also inflate several verses. Or do we just say "he made a house sized thing, so building level"?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I have done so: https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2444156

Thank you.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

"Yes. You know what we do when the scientific result is unrealistic? We don't aply science period. I don't see any calculation for the matter most magic in verses create, period. We don't make a low-ball for it, we just don't calculate it."

Actually we often look for a more conservative, simpler and more reasonable method. It's how it's always being. This new method is so absurd it makes calcs that were mountain level before jump to country level+

And yes, visual media features depictions of visuals akin to a human eye view. That is so obvious, we humans cannot realistically depict in drawings - much less in recorded cameras - perspectives which go beyond what the human eye can see. We can only use analogues at best.

 

[Kepekley23]

Of course, the result doesn't suit our verses so we're changing the actual methods to suit what we believe again. Truly lovely.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

No ned to be so sarcastic and smug about it, Kep. That's not the reason it's not being accepted and you know it.

 

[Kaltias]

Legit i'm not getting what's the deal with users saying "I agree" being a problem.

I don't know and I don't care about the reasons behind it. The only thing I care about is hearing people making points for or against it.

I'm not listening to the OP because I care about some of my characters being upgraded. It's because the reasoning seems logical to me and the math checks out.

If half the wiki shows up saying that they agree, and then a person mathematically proves that this method doesn't work and a different formula should be used, i'll agree with the latter.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

No ned to be so sarcastic and smug about it, Kep. That's not the reason it's not being accepted and you know it.

You're litirally saying that it's results are too large, so we can't accept it...

 

[Kepekley23]

No, actually I'm being factual here because that's the actual, non-shoehorned reason. No need to pretend it's not.

It's one thing if the method itself proves incorrect, but the reasons provided as of now are "this is unrealistic, let's make up something that is even more wrong to replace it".

Why not just make up an arbitrary result while we're at it?

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Also what Kal said.

I am arguing because I know that majority agreeing doesn't matter.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

No, that's a strawman of my argument. Shall I have to quote my own posts to put the discussion back on track?

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

No, that's a strawman of my argument. Shall I have to quote my own posts to put the discussion back on track?

Qoute it I guess. I might have missed an important point going back and forth.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2399654#194

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2399654#201

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2399654#208

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

It's one thing if the method itself proves incorrect, but the reasons provided as of now are "this is unrealistic, let's make up something that is even more wrong to replace it".

Why not just make up an arbitrary result while we're at it?

It's not even more wrong? It's a perfectly valid and easily quantifiable method. And asking to make the results arbitrary as well as an irony is just poisoning the well.

I would like if people didn't kep making false equivalences with my arguments.

 

[Hellbeast1]

Kal'a right, it's not about upgrading our favourite verses just for the hell of it, it's because this method seems to be more scientifically sound. Now if this gets debunked that's another thing but just claiming everyone wants this just because it upgrades stuff they like and no other reason is frankly ridiculous.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2399654#194
https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2399654#201

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2399654#208

The first is plain wrong. The iumage in the OP shows the litiral opposite of going in a straight line. It shows it bending with the earths curvature, the blue line.

That only works on a flat earth, and it has clouds litiraly forming a dome. And it isn't assuming it goes in a straigh line. Again.

"Man, if I only said that this makes saying "the storm is above the horizon" also wrong..."

 

[Kepekley23]

It's not valid because it's a wrong method. Unless the OP gets proven wrong, we're all debating with the assumption the formulas themselves are correct, which makes our current method wrong.

If it's wrong it's wrong, whether it appears reasonable to some or not. Facts don't change to suit opinions. Why don't we invent a number for storms if we're going to adhere to a wrong method just because it doesn't suit our beliefs?

And I don't shoehorn my words.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

It's not a matter of facts changing to suit opinions nor a 100% right or wrong thing. I think DontTalkDT already argued quite well over the problems of this method in his posts.

 

[Kepekley23]

I already said it is another thing entirely if the method that the OP presents is proven to be wrong. That I'm fine with.

But 99.99% of the arguments beforehand are "it makes things inflated" or "unrealistic". That's not a reason, at all.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Now, I want to ask this, and please answer it directly.

Even if the OP is wrong, how is assuming it's right above the horizon right?

Whenever this leads to a lot of work, to results people don't like, etc. how is this anysthing but an arbitrary point?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Now, I want to ask this, and please answer it directly.
Even if the OP is wrong, how is assuming it's right above the horizon right?

I never said this. I said that the OP's assumptions are too ridiculously high, and it's quite possible for storms to obscure vision of their end from a much lesser distance, even when stopping by the horizon. Human eyes aren't good at discerning details from such distances.

And it's a good, decent lowball to go by.

 

[BlackeJan]

You know....instead of arguing, is there a way we can find a different solution to this?

 

[Kepekley23]

99.9% of fiction has storms be perfectly visible in the horizon, without fog or mist obscuring the actual end. Likewise, the vast majority of faction has storms be seen from a third person view and not from any character's PoV. So that's not a valid reason.

If you see a mountain in the horizon, it isn't a mere 4 kilometers away, it's actually dozens of kilometers away.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

You know....instead of arguing, is there a way we can find a different solution to this?

Both myself and DontTalkDT have been proposing something else that's not as controversial.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

99.9% of fiction has storms be perfectly visible in the horizon, without fog or mist obscuring the actual end. Likewise, the vast majority of faction has storms be seen from a third person view and not from any character's PoV. So that's not a valid reason.

IT actually is. The Third Person Camera Viewpoint is still drawn or filmed by humans and depicted with a level of detail that will actually be inferior to the real world human view.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

the only assumptions are that the storm stays at an equal altitude from sealevel overall, which does make it curved and not a straight line.

The only legitimate argument against is here is that the eye can't see that far. Because a storm creating a dome is far more of an assumption.

So I ask, what makes it a decnt lowball? If a storm a hundred meters above the sealevel were above the horizon directly, you would see some difference. if you go with the dome thing, it could be a forth that distance. The suggestion of the OP is a higball, but a logically correct one. If it was directly above the horizon then it wouldn't look like that, unless you say it's a dome, in which case there would be much extra mass.


And shots about the universe are drawn from humans, as are db ki attacks pulverizing planets. Good eyesight they got there.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

The eye can't see that far, exactly. Also a storm would simply curve along with the horizon and would quickly obscure the view anyway.

We can't determine how big the storm actually is so using the horizon is a good lowball.

And that's a pure false equivalency. Those shots still have the level of resolution of the human eyesight, merely depicted from a coloquial bird's eye view.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

The image in the OP shows how bit it curving along the horizon would make it.

You say it's a good low-ball. I asked why it is? It isn't backed up by any logic, it isn't the middlepoint of the largest and smallest possible point, and it ending there would make the calc plain out wrong.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

The eye can't see that far, exactly.

And yet artists keep seamingly having the ability to draw things despite not being able to see as much themselfs. Almost like a drawing is not limited to their eyesight.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Nobody said it ends there, all that was said is that we can't reliably determine where it ends.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

And yet artists keep seamingly having the ability to draw things despite not being able to see as much themselfs. Almost like a drawing is not limited to their eyesight.

Is this non-point going to consider forever? I think I responded to this argument like five times already.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Nobody said it ends there, all that was said is that we can't reliably determine where it ends.

And I didn't ask that.

I asked why is it a good lowball? What part does it make a good cut off point? If it goes up to the horizon, it is objectively farther away then the horizon itself by a lot.

If it's the eye not being able to see it, it's plain impossible to ddeduce how far it is. No low or higball, it's just impossible.

If it's a dome, the calculation used now isn't even aplicable.