- 2,478
- 2,992
There's no proof that Neutron stars were destroyed.
-
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 recent 4-A or 3-C One-Punch Man feat
- Thread starter Antvasima
- Start date
-
- Tags
- garou one-punch man saitama
- Status
- 3,089
- 1,687
Could you give me this formula?
- 2,941
- 1,408
I can put my calculations on a blog if you want
- 20,611
- 17,611
Here you go.
But the paper that discuss how to calculate it also gives standard measurements were the most dense Neutron star comes to about 1/3rd to 1/2th of the Sun's GBE
- 2,478
- 2,992
...Wait, doesn't this mean that the calculation for Baseline 3-A needs to be redone? Since that one uses Solar System level GBE for neutron stars?
- 19,569
- 17,211
Hey Ant. The One-Punch Man side of the wiki have already agreed to having a Calc Group Thread once the fight/arc concludes. I've been compiling all of the calculations into a single thread that will be posted once the time comes. Thanks.@Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Mr._Bambu @Therefir @DMUA @DemonGodMitchAubin @Jasonsith @Wokistan @Armorchompy @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @CloverDragon03 @KLOL506 @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @Zamasu_Chan
Hello.
Since the comment section of the following blog has turned into a disordered mess, with several suggested calculations for the feat, and this is a very prominent upgrade for a very popular series, I would appreciate if our calc group members could reach a consensus regarding which of the calculations that should be used, or if another type of calculation for the feat should be used instead.
Garou blows a hole through space
vsbattles.fandom.com
- 32,835
- 38,116
- 2,478
- 2,992
(I mean, the majority of Universe level folk are there via statement, not calculation, so I doubt it would change much, but still if the joule value is out of date then it needs to be updated)
- 3,662
- 275
Okay, if that energy was more than enough to delete a whole bunch of stars, we have to consider the meaning behind the presence of that black empty void left behind. Now idk how this will add up with the fact that it takes millions to billions of years for the light of distant stars to reach us (and whether or not we should take that into account), but you'd have to consider that a countless number of stars and/or galaxies behind the initial visible ones prior to the blast were possibly affected as well. So the feat might be even more impressive if we put depth into consideration.
All I said is probably redundant, though, considering that there may not be enough scientific evidence to back this up.
All I said is probably redundant, though, considering that there may not be enough scientific evidence to back this up.
- 20,611
- 17,611
If it uses the 4-B end that Nik's calc uses, then yes.
- 168,792
- 77,727
- Thread starter
- #51
Okay. No problem.
I suppose that we should probably wait for DontTalk and Executor before we close this thread though.
- 252
- 160
Let's just hope they don't redraw this.
Tapuang_
He/Him- 24
- 26
do my calculations look good using the 0.0013 timeframe? because what we see is Garou's monster mode creates a traces light with a time frame of 0.0013, while Saitama traces light has a larger distance, if the time frame is slow, Saitama's traces light will disappear, especially with such a large distance.
what do you think?.
vsbattles.fandom.com
what do you think?.
Speed Saitama in Satelit Io
vsbattles.fandom.com
- 32,359
- 20,298
You can't justify the timeframe because the distance is completely different.
Tapuang_
He/Him- 24
- 26
then how to find the framework? Saitama's traces light is still imprinted, it takes a very fast time to do this, I assume the time frame is like Garou making traces light, this should be considered a low ball.
- 7,429
- 3,801
Following
- 1,280
- 880
Following
Fikriskps
He/Him- 1,462
- 1,329
Lol I just found out that the function of the button is to provide a notification if someone gives a message in the thread that we click "watch"
- 5,124
- 2,640
I legitimately thought that people were writing "Following" as a way to express their support and to tell people that they are watching the thread now. The fact that they might have not known about the "Watch" button didn't cross my mind, so I'll keep that in mind for the future.
- 3,089
- 1,687
- 361
- 238
NO, many forget several factors that prevent proving the destruction of galaxies in the fact. The first reason: James Webb can only photograph galaxies because he has a camera of millions and millions of pixels, which allows him, through a zoom, to capture quality images of galaxies thousands of light years away. The image that presents the feat, however, is on a macro scale, without zoom, it is totally possible that there are points in this region that present thousands and even millions of galaxies, but it is impossible to see them because we don't have James Webb's Zoom to verify their presence. The second point, this one more conclusive: From here, from the region of Space we are in, we can only see 1% of the Stars in our Galaxy with the naked eye, the reason? Much of the starlight ends up losing energy along the way, becoming practically invisible to the naked eye, the only way we can see beyond this "Horizon" is through Infrared, which by the way is the way James Webb takes pictures, the images that we see, not only of James Webb, but also of other space photos are digitally colored precisely because of the fact that only the Infrared of the photos reaches us. Due to these factors, due to the impossibility of proving the destruction of Galaxies in the deed, I do not agree to use this
- 2,478
- 2,992
Again. (Even if Neutron star GBE is a lot smaller than I thought, the absolutely tiny cross sectional area compared to any other kind of star massively inflates the calc.)
- 2,478
- 2,992
SECONDING THIS.
- 7,429
- 3,801
Why are we applying real world logic when the artist intent was to show that everything in the hole was destroyed. I highly doubt Murata drew with the thought of being 100% scientifically accurate.
- 5,124
- 2,640
Would we then assume that everything in that specific direction was destroyed? That seems like a big assumption without a statement. Since this is a visual medium and the only evidence we have is visual I would work with what we can actually see.
- 7,429
- 3,801
Maybe not assume the distance, which I still assume to be lowball, but I'm sure we'll get a view of the distance as well.
- 168,792
- 77,727
- Thread starter
- #77
Yes, that makes sense to me at least.
- 5,124
- 2,640
Well, if we will indeed get a view for that, then that would be good but currently we have only one panel for the feat, so there isn't much to examine there.
- 11,769
- 11,151
My opinion is we should use the distance between Milky Way and Andromeda. I believe this is an understandable distance.
My reasoning is that we can very clearly see galaxies on other panels in the same chapter. This means for a space that big to be completely blacked out like that, there would need to be no luminous source of light in that section for at least an intergalactic distance.
If you think this reasoning is flawed, I'd like to hear why.
My reasoning is that we can very clearly see galaxies on other panels in the same chapter. This means for a space that big to be completely blacked out like that, there would need to be no luminous source of light in that section for at least an intergalactic distance.
If you think this reasoning is flawed, I'd like to hear why.
- Status
Similar threads
