• 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.

4-A to 3-B calculation revisions

DeathstroketheHedgehog

DeathstroketheHedgehog

1,160
186
This is not my original idea, it can be found in Mand21's comment here .

Quoting the entire comment for convenience:

Haven't I protested the 4-A rating before? The Sun has a lower GBE than Alpha Centauri's so you should be using the Alpha Centauri's GBE to calculate 4-A from the mean point between them, not the Sun's. I remember you agreeing with me back then.

Also, doesn't a galaxy of the size of Andromeda (or our own galaxy for all that's worth) have at least one Neutron Star? A single neutron star would tremendously effect the power needed to destroy it, since you'd have to destroy the outermost neutron star of the galaxy.

Now honestly, I am completely neutral for the 4-A rating. Stars vary far too much in mass and size for us to nitpick with that unless specified in the fiction. If you guys have an opinion on it, you may of course discuss about it.

But the point I did fully agree with was the second paragraph of his comment.

Wikipedia states that "At present, there are about 2,000 known neutron stars in the Milky Way and the Magellanic Clouds, the majority of which have been detected as radio pulsars. ... RX J1856.5-3754 is a member of a close group of neutron stars called The Magnificent Seven. "

Neutron stars have been found in Andromeda since three years ago.

So neutron stars should replace the Sun in the 3-C and 3-B calculations.
 
I do not think that this issue seems important enough to be a prioritised project, and we are already busy with trying to reevaluate the more questionable tier borders.
 
4-A being changed wouldn't end up doing much and I'm impartial to its change.

As for 3-C and 3-B, yes there are neutron stars. However, they are visually undetectable on a galactic level; there is no way to detect their destruction or lack therefore in a galaxy bust. The only reason neutron stars are used for universe is because universe level is defined as the complete destruction of all matter in the universe, which would include even neutron stars. For all intents and purposes a galaxy would still be destroyed even if its neutron stars are still around.
 
So do you think that this seems like an unnecessary change?
 
Well even the OP says the 4-A change is neutral and I believe rating galaxy level based on neutron stars which are nigh-conventionally unobservable is not the best method.
 
Assaltwaffle said:
4-A being changed wouldn't end up doing much and I'm impartial to its change.
As for 3-C and 3-B, yes there are neutron stars. However, they are visually undetectable on a galactic level; there is no way to detect their destruction or lack therefore in a galaxy bust. The only reason neutron stars are used for universe is because universe level is defined as the complete destruction of all matter in the universe, which would include even neutron stars. For all intents and purposes a galaxy would still be destroyed even if its neutron stars are still around.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that same logic apply for universal? What makes it so different that they wouldn't be similar, especially when due to the size of the universe it would be even less negligible than a galaxy rating?
 
@Deathstroke

Definitely an argument to be made about not using neutron stars period. As for universe, it's special because it is the total destruction of all matter in the observable universe and not just the construct of a galaxy or the like.
 
And isn't that the same logic that goes for the destruction of a galaxy and a solar system? The current calc goes by supposedly destroying all matter in the galaxy by using inverse square law to calc the force needed to destroy a sun at the edge of a galaxy with the explosion starting at the epicenter.

That's literally the same structure for the 3-A rating, so I don't see why it's such a big deal to not just replace the sun mass in the equation with a neutron star mass since it'd only take a minute.
 
Mainly think the 3-B calc would be used if an educated statement said an attack was gonna blow up the milky way and it being based on more than a visual cue and rather an umbrella inferred definition of all the matter in the milky way within said statement. Which would also include normally non-visible shiz like our local central black hole and smaller black holes being destroyed via some unknown means that violates physics.


You fellas can decide amongst yourselves if thats "baseline" since most series don't go beyond a visual cue of star's lights going away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Omnificence
Super Revision Bros (4-A proposals, Grand Star key, and two calculations)
2 3
Replies
105
Views
5K
Omnificence
Omnificence
Valxxroyz
  • Locked
Tartaglia Genshin Upgrade Attack Potency Atleast To Star Level 4-C
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
Dereck03
Dereck03
Omnificence
  • Locked
Super Multiplier Bros REVAMPED (4-B AP proposal for Mario Bros)
2
Replies
56
Views
4K
Omnificence
Omnificence
Omnificence
  • Locked
Super Revision Bros 2.0 (Mario and the Power Stars)
2 3
Replies
116
Views
7K
Omnificence
Omnificence
Omnificence
  • Locked
Super Multiplier Bros (3-B key proposal for Mario Bros)
Replies
3
Views
989
Maverick_Zero_X
Maverick_Zero_X
Back
Top