• 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.

Tier 4 Revisions Round 2

I have already sent them 2 messages. Maybe you can send one this time around? I don't want to make it seem like I am the only one trying to get this rolling.
 
@Bluetrekking

This is very helpful. I will keep my eyes open for any potential candidates.
 
Assaltwaffle said:
A user has just brought up a good question.
"Why did you use the target for 4-A as the Sun and not Alpha Centauri, given you used the distance for Alpha Centauri?"

Despite the Sun being a standard fictional star the requirement of "being able to destroy the nearest star, Alpha Centauri A, and everything in between it" is met far more accurately by using the calculation with the values given from Alpha Centauri A.

Basically: Use Alpha Centauri A as the target in 4-A, rather than the Sun.
Click to expand...
The explosion is assumed to be triggered half way between the solar systems instead of in our system (or at least that was the assumption used to this point). Hence the distance you use would have to be half the distane between alpha centauri and the sun and the sun would be used for GBE, since it is the star with the higher GBE.
 
Well my distance would also need to be halved. Honestly is it better to use the full 4.132 LY? I don't know about you, but it seems like requiring the blast to reach from the Sun to Alpha Centauri as radius rather than diameter makes more sense.

Also it isn't like I am trying to make 4-A impossible to get to, since most blasts that destroy multiple stars via an explosion will cross way more than 4 LY.
 
Remember again that the tier will be slapped unto basically any feat where multiple solar systems are blown up in a giant explosion, if they are not calculated.

Hence it is better to assume the smallest explosion to do so as the low end of the tier.
 
Assaltwaffle said:
Fair enough. I'll recalculate it later tonight.
Click to expand...
I just remembered that the half way assumption should also apply to multi-galaxy level.
 
For multi-galaxy shouldn't we also add the diameter of Andromeda and Milky Way to the length between them before cutting it in half? That way we assume that someone midway between the galaxies could fully destroy them.
 
I have performed the calculation updates and used half the distance from the outer edges of Andromeda and Milky Way (essentially accounting for both galaxies' diameters in addition to the empty space between them).
 
So you have now used the same method as previously for 4-A and 3-B?
 
For 4-A, yes. 3-B is actually higher, which is odd. I think they only accounted for the distance between Andromeda and Milky Way, and didn't actually add on the diameter of the two galaxies. In the previous version I think the only requirement was the make an explosion big enough to fill the empty space between the two galaxies, not actually destroy everything between them, the galaxies themselves included.

So 4-A barely moved at all and 3-B actually went up despite using the "same" method.
 
Assaltwaffle said:
For multi-galaxy shouldn't we also add the diameter of Andromeda and Milky Way to the length between them before cutting it in half? That way we assume that someone midway between the galaxies could fully destroy them.
Click to expand...
Wether you need to add the diameter depends on the rotation of the galaxy "disks" to each other, though.

If they are in the same line you need the diameter, if they are parallel to each other you don't need it.

What I mean is the difference between blue "galaxies" and red "galaxies" in this:

00000000galaxyrotation
You have a point that some amount of thickness of the disk would come on top (2k ly for the milky way it seems. Probably no real difference if one considers that the distance we deal with is 2.54 +-0.11 million ly)
 
Ahh. Interesting. So are Andromeda and Milky Way horizontally or vertically oriented in comparison to each other?
 
Assaltwaffle said:
Ahh. Interesting. So are Andromeda and Milky Way horizontally or vertically oriented in comparison to each other?
Click to expand...
I don't know, given that it looks like this it seems to be somewhat inclined, albeit mostly in line.

The question is if we want parallel ones to drop below the lower end, though.
 
I mean other galaxies in our galactic group are probably closer to each other than we are to Andromeda. I mean we will be touching Andromeda in 4 billion years.

That said it is pretty assumptive to use anything but us as a baseline, or else we would need to find the closest together solar systems as well.
 
Well, I don't want to have said anything against using andromeda as distance.


Almost any practical calculation of multi-galaxy feats would use the assumptions that

1. The galaxies are as far apart as milky way and andromeda

2. the galaxies are approx. as large as the milky way

If you really want we can add

3. the galaxies are rotated the way the milky way and andromeda are rotated relative to each other (approximately in line)

to that list. Or we could leave it out of the calc assumptions and account for any rotation here.

I am fine with both.
 
I think we can leave it out. We don't need too much cosmology as long as we have a good standard. Fact of the matter is a lot of galaxies won't be too much like we are to Andromeda, but it work the best and is most consistent if we treat them as such.
 
I'm going to go ahead and slap this here. Basically destroying stars means jack on a cosmic scale. Even when using mass-energy for the creation of galaxies, it doesn't even get to our Galaxy level.

So... either Galaxy Creation feats don't get Galaxy level, or we need to change what we base our value on. Inverse Square is launching the energy requirement for the cosmic tiers into orbit (no pun intended).
 
I definitely think that we should keep the omnidirectional shockwave as a standard for destruction.

However, yes, the creation feats have always been a massive problem to scale properly, given that they technically do not require anywhere near as much energy, but if we change our standards regarding this, it should preferably be in a later unconnected project.
 
If we want to keep the standard of "destroying via omnidirectional blast" I am fine with that, but it should be noted that creation feats on a cosmic scale (4-B to 3-A) are inferior to destruction. Characters like Supernatural's God would be dropped, however.

According to NASA the universe has the hilariously pathetic density of 9.9x10^-30 grams per cubic centimeter. Given the radius of the universe, we can find our universe to be a staggering low 8.7x10^52 kg. Even if we assumed that all galaxies are the size of ours, and that the Milky Way has 1,000,000,000,000 solar masses, the result is 3.978x10^54 kg. For each of these, mass-energy doesn't get to 3-A or higher. 3.575x10^71 joules even for the highest estimate. Not even remotely close to 3-A.
 
I do not mind that as such, but we would have to work out an easy to use reference page for such creation feats, and incorporate other factors, such as initiating spreading out matter over the universe via movement at massive speeds.

Also, it may cause too much work to incorporate this into the other revision project, as lots of profiles would have to be reevaluated.
 
Well I hear through the grape vine that Executor and Kep are working on something that may help out with the spreading part. If this needs to happen at a later date, I am fine with that.

Seems like "Creation Feats" past an interstellar level made need something done with it.
 
Yes. Agreed, but in order for this to work, we would probably need an easy to use reference page with various examples of the required energy for such feats, as well as formulas to calculate them.
 
If there's a problem with the calcs regarding the tiers in relation to energy, the calcs to qualify for said tier should be changed, and not the tiers themselves. Creating a universe and then saying that that's only Multi-Solar System/Galaxy level is ludicrous. (It just sounds like a lot of work for the staff that could be avoided)

Not to mention, how do you even reliably calc creating something from nothing anyway? I can see how you would if it's related to the rearrangement of particles and molecules, but from the aether?

(Edit: I didn't know this was a staff thread >~>; I got linked to it from outside. Regardless, I still hold to my guns)
 
I feel that either:

1) The mass of the universe he's calcing is wrong

2) Assumptions are wrong.

He seems to be treating that universes are made only of stars, while ignoring stuff like black holes, nebulae and quasars.

A single quasar is like Multi-galaxy level.
 
Assalt, your universe calc is frankly completely unusable. Using mass-energy conversion for the observable universe is imprecise. Not impossible, but still very imprecise.

Regardless of the size of the universe, the law of conservation of energy doesn't apply to cosmology in this way.

The reason being the fact that the universe's gravitational potential energy and its positive kinetic energy cancel out each other perfectly, thus making E=mc┬▓ = 0 energy for the universe.

So your calculation is not at all applicable. Matthew is right here.
 
I would honestly feel that such a complicate discussion / revision should be handled by Executor N0, as he is the best mathematician on this wiki. But he doesn't have that much time.
 
Matt, he used the same method as before. See above, you will see a link from a blog of him doing the calculations for Tier 4 and Tier 3, they use Inverse Square Law to calculate this energy, it was myself that showed Assalt what the formula is.

The new blog has nothing to do with the Tier 4 and Tier 3 revisions, they are calculated that the Assalt did to find out what the Standard Star would be and in that it can check whether our method of creating celestial bodies is consistent with the position that they take in our hierarchical system.

I have something to talk about the feats of creation, but it will take a while for my comment to be ready.
 
Well, I find it much simpler for our members to continue to count creating and destroying galaxies in a similar manner, but do not know if this is technically accurate.

In any case, it is probably best to focus on the main revision, rather than getting sidetracked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CNBA3
Planets with GBE capacity limit?
Replies
6
Views
798
CNBA3
CNBA3
Finiznot
  • Locked
Tier 10-B to 9-B Gap Revision
Replies
20
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Locked
Why can't characters be assigned a 5-C tier without calculations?
Replies
32
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
BasedNecoScaler69
  • Locked
Rel KE feat Revisions
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Reiner04
Question regarding explosions energy density
Replies
2
Views
384
DontTalkDT
DontTalkDT
Back
Top