-
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
- Thread starter Kepekley23
- Start date
- Status
- 8,438
- 3,293
Well as of now we would need a new thread for the star names. The Sun's GBE update is what is pressing atm.
- 8,438
- 3,293
"Just a change of name" is pretty big. It's a change spanning the names of 3 subtiers that would change hundreds of characters. As much as I want to implement less of a misnomer name, we can't rush into this.
- 8,438
- 3,293
Do we need to change them? Were they using an erroneous calculation method like the Sun? What stars are chosen to make up the baselines for the other tiers?
- 8,438
- 3,293
Also I don't think combining them is the best idea. The difference from baseline High 5-A to 4-B is 10,067,415.7 times. Ten million.
Having that kind of massive variance in a single tier can't be good.
Having that kind of massive variance in a single tier can't be good.
- 8,438
- 3,293
I know. And it isn't good lol.
- 167,679
- 76,256
I obviously agree that it wouldn't be good to merge the tiers, and I think that there are explanations for the GBEs in the Attack Potency page, possibly via a link to a blog post.
- 10,873
- 12,277
Sooooo....
I went to the library today.
I heard people want more values for the GBE of the sun? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
There I found this article.
They estimate, based on the density model in Landolt-Börnstein (1981), that the gravitational potential energy of the sun is 6.13*10^41 J.
However, it also mentions that the density model seems to assume a too strong concentration of mass towards the center, because under the given conditions the sun doesn't reach hydrostatic equlilibrum (or something like that).
Any opinions on that?
I went to the library today.
I heard people want more values for the GBE of the sun? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
There I found this article.
They estimate, based on the density model in Landolt-Börnstein (1981), that the gravitational potential energy of the sun is 6.13*10^41 J.
However, it also mentions that the density model seems to assume a too strong concentration of mass towards the center, because under the given conditions the sun doesn't reach hydrostatic equlilibrum (or something like that).
Any opinions on that?
- 15,332
- 7,563
- Thread starter
- #216
Wouldn't that be yet another proof that our value (3.8e+41) is closer to the real thing?
- 8,438
- 3,293
Seems like more support of a lower GBE.
Although I think the calc-able 2.24 is too low given what we have seen, 3.8 has many sources and seems accurate.
Although I think the calc-able 2.24 is too low given what we have seen, 3.8 has many sources and seems accurate.
- 8,438
- 3,293
So we now have a value we pretty much all agree on. Can we organize the revisions now? I would prefer to get this overwith so we can move on to other topics.
- 8,438
- 3,293
I'll need to bust out the old calc. Sadly I'm on mobile right now, so I can't check it.
- 31,372
- 34,118
3.8*10^41 joules = approx 90.8 Tenatons
- 8,438
- 3,293
So the tier Tier 4-C would look like this:
4-C | Star | 90.8 Tenatons to 350 Tenatons | 9.082x10^31 to 3.5x10^32 | 3.8x10^41 to 1.4644x10^42 | ~3.853x
Of course Low 4-C would need it's bounds moved, so we adjust that too:
Low 4-C | Small Star | 2.998 Tenatons to 90.8 Tenatons | 2.998x10^30 to 9.082x10^31 | 1.254x10^40 to 3.8x10^41 | ~30.30x
4-C | Star | 90.8 Tenatons to 350 Tenatons | 9.082x10^31 to 3.5x10^32 | 3.8x10^41 to 1.4644x10^42 | ~3.853x
Of course Low 4-C would need it's bounds moved, so we adjust that too:
Low 4-C | Small Star | 2.998 Tenatons to 90.8 Tenatons | 2.998x10^30 to 9.082x10^31 | 1.254x10^40 to 3.8x10^41 | ~30.30x
- 11,099
- 4,323
Does the GBE od Earth needs to be recalced as well, for the supposed more precise formula is inaccurate?
- 8,438
- 3,293
@Spino
Supposedly it already has been, although I can calc the result they got within a couple decimals.
Honestly my question of "does average density cover the increase for density approaching the center" wasn't answered to my knowledge, and I am not sure what the specific formula used to get 3.8x10^41 is, but it has many sources acknowledging it as correct.
Supposedly it already has been, although I can calc the result they got within a couple decimals.
Honestly my question of "does average density cover the increase for density approaching the center" wasn't answered to my knowledge, and I am not sure what the specific formula used to get 3.8x10^41 is, but it has many sources acknowledging it as correct.
- 11,099
- 4,323
So Tier 5 needs a revision as well?
- 8,438
- 3,293
As of now I don't think so. I'm going to read through some of the articles again and wait for DontTalk and Kep to weigh in here, since they are two other big players in this.
- 11,099
- 4,323
EDIT: Nvm, I misread something.
- 8,438
- 3,293
I am starting to get more confused reading back over our sources... seems Stellar Structure indicates that U = 2x10^41, which is total thermal energy, which our German guy attests is equal to GBE.
- 8,438
- 3,293
OK, going through the sources, here is what I'm seeing. This source actually kinda supports 2.27, not 3.8. Why? Because their formula is identical to ours, yet they treat Omega not as GBE, but rather U as total thermal energy. As stated by our German source, total thermal energy equals GBE. However, according to Virial Theorem, total thermal energy doesn't EQUAL GBE, it is half of it. This would lean to 4x10^41, which is closer to 3.8x10^41.
Next, an astrophysics lecture cites the GBE of the Sun to be 2.4x10^41, which is very close to our calculated 2.27.
But Bladema brought up a different formula, using a new variable, n, which is used to get a different result. However from what I can see this is calculating Gravitational Potential Energy, not Gravitational Binding Energy.
So yeah, take that as you will.
Next, an astrophysics lecture cites the GBE of the Sun to be 2.4x10^41, which is very close to our calculated 2.27.
But Bladema brought up a different formula, using a new variable, n, which is used to get a different result. However from what I can see this is calculating Gravitational Potential Energy, not Gravitational Binding Energy.
So yeah, take that as you will.
- 167,679
- 76,256
So, do you have concrete plans for how to move the borders for Low 4-C and High 4-C as well, and what will those border be based on in that case?
Perhaps it would be best if you ask all calc group members (including Executor N0) to help out with this by commenting here? It is a very important topic to get right after all.
In lack of better options, I also think that we should probably use Low Star level and High Star level as substitute titles.
Perhaps it would be best if you ask all calc group members (including Executor N0) to help out with this by commenting here? It is a very important topic to get right after all.
In lack of better options, I also think that we should probably use Low Star level and High Star level as substitute titles.
- 8,438
- 3,293
I'm going to make another thread, since this is already getting long, exclusively about the bounds of the tiers. I have submitted a question to a physics forum, so maybe I can get some answers concerning the value in question.
Either way I will bring them in given time.
As for names, I'll forgo that right now, as getting our values right is far more important than naming.
Either way I will bring them in given time.
As for names, I'll forgo that right now, as getting our values right is far more important than naming.
- 8,438
- 3,293
I figured getting as much info and clarification as possible is a good idea. I am reposting the question to both the Physics and Astronomy subreddits as well.
GreyFang82
He/Him- 2,748
- 330
Heh... I just imagined Neil Degrasse Tyso tweeting out how much energy it would take to destroy celestial bodies and how he's glad to be your personal astrophysicist
- 167,679
- 76,256
@Assaltwaffle
Okay. Thank you for the dedication to get this properly done. However, please remember that we need the GBE for a few other types of stars as well, so we can set up different borders for the tiers.
Okay. Thank you for the dedication to get this properly done. However, please remember that we need the GBE for a few other types of stars as well, so we can set up different borders for the tiers.
- 8,438
- 3,293
@Ant
I figured the Sun's GBE question can snowball into finding values for all the other stars. Once we have a hard-and-fast way to get proper GBE, we can go from there.
If the other bounds (not just baseline 4-C) need to be adjusted, I'll wait until Naruto and Bleach wrap up, since that kind of change would be massive.
I figured the Sun's GBE question can snowball into finding values for all the other stars. Once we have a hard-and-fast way to get proper GBE, we can go from there.
If the other bounds (not just baseline 4-C) need to be adjusted, I'll wait until Naruto and Bleach wrap up, since that kind of change would be massive.
- 8,438
- 3,293
Great news, guys! This has been much more fully fleshed out by a staff member of the astrophysics branch of the Physics Forum. Here is his response. It is basically what Blademan originally brought up, and this user even brought up the specific value, as being Polytrope. Now we have a direct formula to calculate GBE of stars!
This new formula would be 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. For example, for giants and brown dwarves would be 1.5, while n for main-sequence and degenerative core (white dwarves, for example) is 3, and extremely dense stars, such as the neutron pulsars, have an value of 1.
Using this new formula, we get a value of 5.6928564x10^41 joules for our Sun's GBE. This is closer to the original value, and actually has a new, cited, and hard-and-fast formula behind it. I believe this should be the number, and we should update our GBE page with this new polytrope-compensated formula, as well as the polytrope values for the different types of stars.
That said UY Scuti is still frail as crap.
This new formula would be 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. For example, for giants and brown dwarves would be 1.5, while n for main-sequence and degenerative core (white dwarves, for example) is 3, and extremely dense stars, such as the neutron pulsars, have an value of 1.
Using this new formula, we get a value of 5.6928564x10^41 joules for our Sun's GBE. This is closer to the original value, and actually has a new, cited, and hard-and-fast formula behind it. I believe this should be the number, and we should update our GBE page with this new polytrope-compensated formula, as well as the polytrope values for the different types of stars.
That said UY Scuti is still frail as crap.
- 2,861
- 224
That's excellent!... if I'm reading this right, Star level will generally remain in about the same place its in right now, using this value? (Current low-end for Star level being 6.276x1041 Joules)
Which would be what, 136.06 Tenatons of TNT, about?
Which would be what, 136.06 Tenatons of TNT, about?
- Status
