Tier 4 Revisions Round 2

[Assaltwaffle]

Continued from here. Now that we have made some significant headway, I believe it is time to order up what we need to do.

As of now, we have a new formula that is cited, confirmed and elaborated o by a Staff Member of the astrophysics branch of the Physics Forums, and applicable to find any GBE we set out sights on. Thanks to Bladema for initially bringing this to my attention.

This formula is U = (3*G*M^2)/(r(5-n)), in which U is GBE in joules, G is the gravitational constant of 6.67408x10^-11, M is mass in kilograms, r is radius in meters, and n is the polytropic value attributed to the type of star.

Polytrophism accounts for the non-uniform density of a star, and gives a specific value, , which can be used for stars and is widely applicable, so long as we know the star type. So, as an order of business, here is what needs to happen before we can change anything:

• 1. Verify the formula is accurate: Of course we need to know that the formula doesn't have any problems and is usable before we proceed.

• 2. Identify the Objects used for the Tiers: We need to determine what celestial objects are used as the baseline for Tiers High 5-A through 3-A. As of now we know that OTS 44 serves as the baseline for High 5-A, the Sun as the baseline of 4-C, and Rigel as the baseline of High 4-C. We still need to know the baseline for Low 4-C. I believe 4-B through 3-A was calculated via the Sun's GBE, but we need to confirm that this is the case.

• 3. Recalculate the Baselines: Using the new formula we will need to recalculate the baselines of the tiers given their celestial bodies newly revised GBE. This includes adjusting 4-B through 3-A, if they are indeed taken from the Sun's GBE. This also includes not only the joule value, but the prefixed TNT value, as well as the Tons of TNT value, and all multiplicative differences between the tiers.

Done here.

• 4. Apply the Changes: This will be a very large endeavor. As such, we may need to wait on a break in order for more staff to be present. First, the Attack Potency chart would need to be updated with the new values. Next, the Gravitational Binding Energy page would need to be updated with the new formula used for stars. Then, every page that has its rating based off of a calculation that is at or above Large Planet level+ will need to be looked at and properly adjusted. If the amount is now within the new bounds of the tier, it needs to be rolled up or down.

So that is currently where we are, and what will need to be done. Huge thanks to Antvasima, Kepekley, DontTalk, Bladema, and everyone else who has helped and will help with these revisions. I couldn't do it without y'all.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I have now invited all the Calculation Group Members, DontTalk, and BladeMan.

Suffice to say both Blademan and DT can post here despite the lack of staff membership.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thanks.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Formula seems accurate.

 

[Kaltias]

Low 4-C is VB 10 according to this thread

 

[Antvasima]

@Kaltias

Thank you very much for the information.

 

[Antvasima]

The thread also says that Large Star is based on the GBE of Rigel.

 

[Golden_Void]

Woo, this seems fine. :^)

 

[Antvasima]

I updated the attack potency page with the new information:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/index.php?title=Attack_Potency&diff=2083870&oldid=1810202

 

[Executor_N0]

For 3-A the PSRJ0348+0432 was used as the base.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will add that information as well.

 

[Antvasima]

Updated:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/index.php?title=Attack_Potency&diff=2083979&oldid=2083870

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

Since a staff member of Physics Forums (a typically trustworthy site in my experiences) has said this formula is more accurate, then I'm all for it.

Gotta redo a couple of my calcs once/if this is accepted.

 

[Antoniofer]

So, according to wikipedia the polytropic index of the sun and star of the same type has an index of 3. Looking at these tables I could comfirm that the index is around 3.3 - 3.4, that will turn the GBE of the sun in at most 1.3335*10^41 J. Has anyone find similar tables that relate the index with any knowned characteristic of the sun? that would be pretty useful.

 

[Liger686]

I'm fine with using this formula.

 

[Kepekley23]

I also noticed what Antonio pointed out. An answer would be appreciated.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Using 3.3-3.4 gives different results than we have seen so far. I am more comfortable using the safe and given 3.0, as we know this is very close to the original value and should be pretty accurate.

Also Antonio the value should be higher with an increasing n value; I'm not sure what you did to get that number but I'm pretty sure it's not correct.

 

[Antoniofer]

Isn't the equation GBE*1/(5 - n)? that is what is writen above, with n = 3, then the equation would be GBE*1/2 = GBE*0.5, that is less that the mathematical result.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

No, it is integrated into the formula, with n being present at the (5-n) position.

 

[Antoniofer]

Here's another document with a table, this time is Solar Oblateness vs. Polytropic Index (No idea what's the first one); it says that n vary from 2.4 to 4.1

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Well the avaeragw between those is 3.25, which is pretty close to 3. I still think 3 is looking good. It gives close results to the original and is widely applicable, which is hugely needed.

 

[Kepekley23]

Well, 3 seems reasonable.

 

[Antoniofer]

Oh right, 3 seems good as an average, is just that I like to use graphics as reference, but result could vary depending of the source.

So, equation would be 3/(5 - n)*G*M^2/r, replacing the previous result 2.267*10^41 or 0.6*3.7783*10^41, then it would be 3/(5 - 3)*3.7783*10^41 = 5.6675*10^41 J (could vary a little), right?

 

[Assaltwaffle]

That is correct. It can also be written as (3*G*M^2)/(r*(5-n)).

 

[Assaltwaffle]

1.5 is n for Giants and non-main-sequence stars, and 1 is for Neutron pulsars.

3 of course is normal main sequence.

 

[Antoniofer]

Other variations of the equations would be changed to:

• 3/(5 - n)*(1/G)*r^3*g^2
• 1/(5 - n)*16/3*pi^2*G*r^5*¤ü^2

 

[Assaltwaffle]

As long as they all lead to the same result I think we're golden.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

So now that it seems we have our new formula, we can cross that off the list and begin the next. So now we need to do the following: Identify what is calculated for High 5-A to 3-A. As of now we have this:

High 5-A: OTS 44

Low 4-C: VB 10

4-C: Sol, the Su

High 4-C: Rigel A

4-B: ?

4-A: ?

3-C: ?

3-B: ?

3-A: PSR J0348+0432; there has to be more to this, though, as the GBE of this neutron pulsar is nothing compared to the rating of 3-A.

(3*(6.67408×10^-11)*((1.989×10^30)*2.01)^2)/(((6.957×10^8)*(1.89×10^-5))*(5-1)) = 6.0845792x10^46 joules

So we still need to know what was done to PSR's GBE to find out how we got this value.

Edit: Now that we have confirmed that this value should be usable, I will highlight this, as I think pretty much anyone can help at this point.

Edit 2: Still staff only, unless you know what we need to know, please don't comment unless you're staff. Of course, as I have said, DontTalk and Blademan can comment as they wish.

 

[Executor_N0]

@Assalt Inverse Square Law. It is the energy to destroy this star with it located at the end of the universe through an omnidirectional explosion with epicenter at the center of the universe.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Ah ok. So is PSR used to get 3-C and 3-B as well?

Also what is the specific formula for inverse square law?

 

[Executor_N0]

Inverse Square Law. This page brings the whole explanation. From what I know, 3-C and 3-B use our Sun. I believe this can be revised using stars with GBE greater than our Sun existing in our galaxy.

 

[Executor_N0]

being more direct formula to calculate 4-B and above can be summarized as: 4 * GBE * (Explosion Radius/Target Radius)^2

 

[DontTalkDT]

I will basically just repeat what I wrote in the last thread:

I am fine with using this formula for stars in general.

However: Polytropes are an older model and less accurate than current stellar models (which are too hard for us to calculate, unless someone knows how to numerically solve systems of differential equations) and hence not used for scientific purposes anymore. IIRC the polytrope model was used more than 100 years ago.


Hence it is worth debating if we should use a cited source for the GBE of stars, instead of using the formula, if such a source is available.

Since the Sun is probably the only star for which we would find such a value, this would only apply to it.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Honestly, I would rather be consistent and use something that is valid for ALL stars. The polytropes may be an older model, but they are calcable without using differential equations, and are still pretty close to the more advanced model.

I don't think we should try to site specific star GBEs, and instead use what we can all apply our calculations to. That's my take on it.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Inverse Square Law. This page brings the whole explanation. From what I know, 3-C and 3-B use our Sun. I believe this can be revised using stars with GBE greater than our Sun existing in our galaxy.

Yep, the old values calculatio used our sun. (4-B and 4-A also have the sun involved) When you recalculate those values you can basically just modify the formulas with the new GBE values.


To just copy over my pro/contra list regarding the choice of the baseline star from the old thread (for those that didn't want to read through the entire thing):

List
I think there are mainly two options for choosing the baseline star for galaxies that would have arguments going for them:

1. Sun:


Pro

-the most common star in fiction and often other stars in fiction are somewhat similar

-only slight change to the current value (few revision necessary)

-low end

-star we use as standard for star level


contra

-other stars would give higher results, meaning it is a low end


2. Star with high GBE/frontal area ratio

pro
-Makes sense, as those stars also need to be destroyed when the galaxy is destroyed (less of a low end)


contra

-which star to take? -> better choices could come up later causing yet another revision

-Technically no clear upper end (the closer a star is to a black hole the higher its GBE gets, with the upper end being the infinite/undefined GBE of a black hole)

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Thanks for the threads, DT.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I personally think the Sun is fine. Is there a reason we used PSR for 3-A instead of the Sun? Just because it is the most durable star?

 

[DontTalkDT]

I personally think the Sun is fine. Is there a reason we used PSR for 3-A instead of the Sun? Just because it is the most durable star?

Pretty much. Destroying the observable universe means to destroy basically everything we know of, so high end assumptions are justified.

There were a few other things considered as well, but that was the most important one.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Makes sense. So 4-B and 4-A are calced with the Sun, so what are 3-C and 3-B calced with? I assume PSR, since it is in our galaxy.

 

[DontTalkDT]

3-C and 3-B where calculated with the sun to this point.


I am not sure if I am comfortable with using something like neutron stars for calculating the low end of galaxy level.

They are rather exotic and hence often not considered.

And if someone destroys the galaxy except the neutron stars one wouldn't see, cause they aren't very bright.

(For galaxy level the position of it would also matter)


Personally I would be more comfortable with using something more conventional for the low end here, as we are going basically going to slap it on any feat of someone destroying some galaxy in the future. (And having a low end here is the opposite of a problem if you look at the gap to the next lower tier...)