Two different calcs for Boros' ship

[ByAsura]

That's just because we see different angles and cross-sections. I don't see why the earlier panels would matter, since they're clearly proportionally exaggerated on purpose so that Saitama is visible, whereas the proportions of the ship are highly consistent and intricate.

Also, the assumed height of clouds (assumed from a rejected calculation, mind you) is far more inconsistent than anything in my calculation.

Citation on the 5-B thing? This makes no sense because the cloud calculation places Boros' ship at 105.63 km, which is 5x larger (therefore 125 times more massive) than what I calculated.

 

[Cryo123]

Citation on the 5-B thing? This makes no sense because the cloud calculation places Boros' ship at 105.63 km, which is 5x larger (therefore 125 times more massive) than what I calculated.

Enderlord says it on his cloud calc, idk if it's true for sure.

That's just because we see different angles and cross-sections.

Also, the assumed height of clouds (assumed from a rejected calculation, mind you) is far more inconsistent than anything in my calculation.

What rejected calc? There's a difference between a calc being denied, and the cloud section of a calc being denied. Also, the "assumed" heights of the clouds are already agreed on on the wiki.

 

[ByAsura]

Enderlord says it on his cloud calc, idk if it's true for sure.

If they're talking about mine, then definitely not. Mine is far lower.

What rejected calc?

The calc used as justification for Enderlord's version.

There's a difference between a calc being denied, and the cloud section of a calc being denied. Also, the "assumed" heights of the clouds are already agreed on on the wiki.

This relies on the assumption that these clouds are altocumulus to begin with. That's what I meant by assumed.

 

[ByAsura]

I've looked at just about every panel I could find, and none of the clouds around the ship really resemble altocumulus clouds, or Lenticular clouds. They're also (go figure) highly inconsistent.

The only exception was the building shot in this panel, but that's pretty unusable for scaling.

 

[Cryo123]

I've looked at just about every panel I could find, and none of the clouds around the ship really resemble altocumulus clouds, or Lenticular clouds. They're also (go figure) highly inconsistent.

Does it resemble a different cloud type then?

 

[ByAsura]

They ones that I can even vaguely place around the ship's level don't look like anything in particular, except maybe cumulus mediocris.

 

[Cryo123]

They ones that I can even vaguely place around the ship's level don't look like anything in particular, except maybe cumulus mediocris.

Then we should probably try those.

 

[ByAsura]

I doubt it'd get much. They're only 1-2 km thick and about 500 m to 3 km high.

 

[NikHelton]

It seems to me that the most reliable way to determine the size of the ship is by scaling from buildings, which was done by Therefir.
The height of the HA building is 800 meters? If this is true, then I believe that we can use higher standards for the minimum size of skyscrapers.

By the way, can anyone tell me how to solve the problem with creating blogs?

 

[ByAsura]

It's 400 metres.

Given that there's a large distance between the ship and buildings, which also vary considerably in size, I disagree.

As for the blog situation, I don't know. Maybe you could try making a sandbox for someone else to copy onto a blog, or editing it into an old blog.

Edit: Therefir even disavowed this.

My calc shows that this spacecraft varies greatly in size and even using one of the small buildings and assuming it's a skyscraper barely gets the results of the anime.

 

[NikHelton]

A window pops up for me to switch to the new version of the site, but I can’t make a blog there.

 

[ByAsura]

Have you contacted any staff about this? I could bring it up to them if you haven't.

 

[NikHelton]

I would appreciate

 

[ByAsura]

I'll speak with you on your message wall if I get an update.

 

[Antvasima]

Have you tried to go to the page below?

NikHelton

vsbattles.fandom.com

If that does not work, you should ask the Fandom staff directly instead.

https://support.fandom.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

 

[KLOL506]

Hmmmm, very weird bug.

 

[NikHelton]

Have you tried to go to the page below?

NikHelton

vsbattles.fandom.com

If that does not work, you should ask the Fandom staff directly instead.

https://support.fandom.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

 

[Marvel_Champion_07]

You are signed out of your account

 

[NikHelton]

You are signed out of your account

Okay, that means I'm stupid. Apparently it happened automatically or by accident

 

[Antvasima]

It happened to me as well, likely due to Fandom's ongoing system upgrade, but I simply signed in again.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, which calculation here do our calc group members find more reliable?

 

[NikHelton]

I'm certainly not a member of the calculation team, but scaling from the sky is extremely unstable. Moreover, when we do calculations with clouds, we use their thickness, not their height.

And Timi's version is wrong because it uses the wrong bullet scale, the wrong scale object, and a value of 1 pixel.

I guess we should either go with building height calculations, or go with the ByAsura version.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the evaluation. What do the calc group members here think?

 

[Marvel_Champion_07]

I doubt it'd get much. They're only 1-2 km thick and about 500 m to 3 km high.

EnderLord got this (I think it's supposed to say 105630km not 10563km)
Edit: No typo, I'm just dumb

 

[Cryo123]

EnderLord got this (I think it's supposed to say 105630km not 10563km)

Okay, this seems good.

Someone should probably do the rotational KE with this calc. I would, but I've never done this type of calc before, so I would probably make a mistake.

 

[NikHelton]

I'm certainly not a member of the calculation team, but scaling from the sky is extremely unstable. Moreover, when we do calculations with clouds, we use their thickness, not their height.

And Timi's version is wrong because it uses the wrong bullet scale, the wrong scale object, and a value of 1 pixel.

I guess we should either go with building height calculations, or go with the ByAsura version.

 

[KLOL506]

Okay, that means I'm stupid. Apparently it happened automatically or by accident

Ah I remember now, Fandom upgrading to MediaWiki 1.37 accidentally caused a few people to be logged out automatically.

 

[Cryo123]

I'm certainly not a member of the calculation team, but scaling from the sky is extremely unstable. Moreover, when we do calculations with clouds, we use their thickness, not their height.

What's the problem with using the cloud height? It definitely more reliable than assuming building heights.

 

[Therefir]

EnderLord got this (I think it's supposed to say 105630km not 10563km)

"Cumulus mediocris are 3 km high"
ByAsura said they are 500 m to 3 km high, with the average being 1750 m, which results in a ship 57 kilometers long.

I still think ByAsura's version is better though, as cloud heights tend to vary greatly.

 

[Cryo123]

"Cumulus mediocris are 3 km high"
ByAsura said they are 500 m to 3 km high, with the average being 1750 m, which results in a ship 57 kilometers long.

I still think ByAsura's version is better though, as cloud heights tend to vary greatly.

Which one is Byasura's calc again?

 

[ByAsura]

EnderLord got this (I think it's supposed to say 105630km not 10563km)

The problem with this one is that the clouds (even if they were exclusively 3 km up) are some distance away from the ship, so the results are exaggerated.

That's why I was doubtful they could be used for scaling earlier.

Which one is Byasura's calc again?

Here.

 

[XVII]

both seem pretty good, but since city A has a accepted size of 139 km and boros' ship completely devastated it, we should use enderlord's calc because a 105km sized ship using it's momentum to haze a city 1,27x it's size can be consistent

however we do not know exactly how it happened. this calc assumed 90% hollowness while enderlord's accepted recalc used 50% hollowness

and that calc was by using a old calc of the ship size (approximately 9000 m) which is much closer to byasura's calc, so i believe, since a 9km ship did a high6-A feat, a 23km ship is most acceptable as a lowball then a 105km ship

the 105km can be used as a high ball tho, but as of now the most logical one would be byasura's calculation

so yeah, count my vote on that one for now

edit: this one should be recalculated too since we will change stuff

 

[XVII]

because i'm sure the 105km ship would yield a 5-C+ or higher KE

of course, the earth in OPM could be huge and such but since we are assuming it's a normal sized earth then yeah, 5-C or more in just a city could be inflated

 

[XVII]

because i'm sure the 105km ship would yield a 5-C+ or higher KE

of course, the earth in OPM could be huge and such but since we are assuming it's a normal sized earth then yeah, 5-C or more in just a city could be inflated

actually i forgor boros' ship is ftl so yeah, no KE sorry

 

[ByAsura]

The city's size is based on Boros' ship to begin with, so consistency there is entirely immaterial.

 

[EnderLord8]

Well, I still have three more ways to calculate the size of the ship... This is surprisingly fun and considering the counter-arguments, at least one passes.

 

[Cryo123]

The city's size is based on Boros' ship to begin with, so consistency there is entirely immaterial.

Oof, then City A's size is going to change.

 

[ByAsura]

Wait, no, my mistake, it's based on clouds.

I can probably use the ship to get higher results, though.

 

[Cryo123]

Wait, no, my mistake, it's based on clouds.

I can probably use the ship to get higher results, though.

So could we use the size of the city to find the ship's size?

 

[Qawsedf234]

So could we use the size of the city to find the ship's size?

It'd be hard to do since there's no clear visual comparison between the two. The most we can say is that the ship cannot be physically larger than City A.