• 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.

Problems with mountain related feats

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jaakubb

Jaakubb

Messages
648
Reaction score
97
There are several problems with calcs such as these. First of all, they assume that the minimum height of a mountain of 2000 feet. This is not true because [is no official minimum height for a mountain.] Mount wycheproof for example has a summit with an altitude of 486 feet above sea level, much shorter than 2000 feet and is still recognized as a mountain. Maybe other countries like japan or russia don't recognize it though.

The second problem is that it is assumed that the elevation of the summit is the same as the height of the mountain. This cant be true. When mountains are destroyed in fiction, they are destroyed from summit to base (unless there's a huge hole compared to the surrounding land, but that's a different situation). However, much of the material has lower elevation than the surrounding terrain but is above sea level. This can't be considered part of the mountain being destroyed. Going back to mount wycheproof, its height from base to peak is much lower than from sea level to summit. Also this is the source for mount wycheproof's peak altitude and base-to-summit height.
 
So what do you propose? Should the minimum requirement be 486 ft for mountains instead of the 2000 ft one? That will yield a 7-C value for both fragmentation and violent fragmentation, with pulverization needing High 7-C value (assuming the mountain is right circular cone with 148 m height and radius).
 
Wyvern7600 said:
So what do you propose? Should the minimum requirement be 486 ft for mountains instead of the 2000 ft one? That will yield a 7-C value for both fragmentation and violent fragmentation, with pulverization needing High 7-C value (assuming the mountain is right circular cone with 148 m height and radius).
Click to expand...
Sure.

Schnee One said:
</br>
Question, do these calcs have the same problems? https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Mountain_and_Island_level_requirements

These are important for a few verses.
Click to expand...
I dont get what would be wrong. The info is fine considering our pulverization values are accurate (theres actually a thread on that too, values cant possibly be THAT off though). However as i said earlier many people confuse summit elevation with mountain height. I proposed usong prominence instead on some message wall i think but thats not right either. Mt. Everest's prominence is the same as its summit elevation because the contour line is at sea level, but at the same time, its base is a few thousand meters ABOVE sea level. I dont know any better term for it since im not a geologist or whatever but height of summit above base is a better metric to use since mountains destroyed in fiction are destroyed from base to summit; otherwise, there would be a huge dip in the ground since the surrounding terrain is rarely near sea level.
 
Should this thread be moved to the calc group forum?
 
Has anybody invited DontTalkDT and some calc group members yet?
 
Yes, I have, but DT states on his profile wall that it'll be a few more days before he's back.
 
Okay. No problem.
 
Our source for mountain height is literally sourced. There is no universal source, sure, so we chose one of the lower bounds. I'm not sure of the point of your second paragraph or where you got that idea, so... I won't bother countering it, since I have no clue what it is intended to mean.

TL;DR we don't need to change anything, moving on.
 
Thank you for helping out. Should we close this thread then?
 
Okay.
 
Therefir said:
I agree with Bambu, there are several sources that claim 2000 ft. (609.6 m) is the minimum height of a mountain, such as Infoplease and Ordnance Survey.
In Wikipedia you can see that Whittow's Dictionary of Physical Geography, among other sources, also states the same thing.
Click to expand...
Both of those sources (infoplease and ordnance survey) literally state that the minimum of 2000 is not absolute. Generally does not mean always. Infoplease does NOT make a position on where exactly the minimum elevation of a mountain should be. The only source you're getting that supports your positio (other than the whittow's dictionary thing, I can't find it in the article, but it's from the 80s anyways so it's not the most reliable)is a second hand source stating that the british ordnance survey generally defines mountains as having summit elevations of 2000 feet or more. Most sources don't even have a minimum at all (including the USGS, the oxford dictionary [1989], the UN environmental programme) so I cannot understand how 2000 feet could possibly be interpreted as a lower bound when there's only two sources that could be interpreted to support this position. We don't even have a firsthand source from the Ordnance Survey stating this minimum. And I think the opinion of UN environmental program and the USGS holds more water than what a second hand source thinks the Ordnance survey thinks. Mount Wycheproof isn't even close to 2000 feet but is still recognized as a mountain. Here's the pdf where the UN says a mountain can be as low as 300 meters (go to page 74, for my pdf reader thingy it was page 78).

The point of the second paragraph is that we measure mountain volume by using the elevation of the summit as the height of the mountain instead of the height from base to peak. Base to peak is a better metric because mountains are nearly always surrounded by terrain that is above sea level itself. In fiction, when mountains are destroyed they are destroyed from base to summit. There would be a huge dent in the ground otherwise if it was destroyed from summit to sea level. A mountain could have a summit at 5000 meters above sea level but only rise 1000 meters from the base. If you said you climbed that mountain, you would be lying if you said that you climbed 5000 meters. You only climbed 1000!
 
Okay

First bit: Yes. We know. I acknowledged this. What I did say, had you bothered to read, is that we went with a consistent lower-bounds idea of what qualifies as a mountain. Per your own admission, there is no official height. But we should use something with some amount of standard to it, which is what we do. What does this mean? It means this is a non-issue. Once again, moving on.

Second bit: Where do we do this though
 
First: Yes but literally every other source contradicts the lower bound you chose. "Small mountain" is automatically assumed to be 2000 feet tall and wide when it could be MUCH smaller allowing for inflated calcs like the one canon palpatine scales to.

Second: What do you mean? This applies to pretty much every mountain calc.
 
First: we chose a standard and that standard isn't illegitimate. that's the beginning and end of it. sure, there are smaller ones. but you're just wrong by calling ours "inflated"- it isn't inflated at all. All you've proven is that there are other numbers that can apply.

Second: I don't know what you mean though, in what way does it apply to "pretty much every mountain calc"?
 
First: Why this number instead of other numbers? I think the opinion of the USGS and the UN environmental programme should have priority of what the Ordnance survey apparently thinks according to a secondhand source. Even if the two did have equal amounts of evidence for them, Occams razor is still a thing and assuming every time a character destroys a mountain the mountain is 2000 feet tall and wide isnt very parsimonious compared to a lower value.

Second: All of the mountain volumes would have to be recalced. Most terrain isnt at sea level.
 
First: Because we have it established based on multiple sources. I believe the phrase is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". This isn't broken, our sources still state the same thing. Sure, you could say "I think these sources are better", but as I said, there is no official height needed to be called a mountai. So your new sources are no more legitimate, thus offer no superior accuracy, and thus the revision is pointless.

Second: Sure, but that height applies even to sea level. So 609 meters is still valid as a mountain height assumption from base to tip. You're making the extra assumption that all mountain calcs aren't at sea level- not hard to believe, but hard to prove, and thus Occam's Razor kicks in, I believe. More assumptions means we don't go with it. So I don't see the issue, still.
 
First: What are the other sources you're talking about? Also, if my sources are better, then wouldn't that inherently make mine more legitimate?

Second: Are you seriously suggesting that "this mountain is surrounded by terrain at sea level" is the default assumption? Most terrain is much above sea level, and thats a fact. If you look at pretty much any country its mean elevation ranges from hundreds to thousands of meters above sea level. Source [[1]] It's from wikipedia but its sourced
 
Bruh the source says "usually". Mount wycheproof is way under 2000 feet but is still recognized as a mountain. Any other sources because bambu referred to multiple?
 
The baseline for a mountain requirement varies from country to country, but at the very least; I though 300 meters is at the very least a requirement for any area. Any shorter than that would be called a hill and not a mountain. And in places such as Japan, 1000 meters is the minimum to be called a mountain; however. It appears that 609 meters is on average the mountain requirement.

I'm leaning towards agreeing with Bambu here however.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
It appears that 609 meters is on average the mountain requirement.

I'm leaning towards agreeing with Bambu here however.
Click to expand...
I have given multiple sources that contradict this, such as the UN document that recognizes mountains with summit elevations of MUCH less than 2000 feet. Keep in mind that the UN isnt just one country. 193 countries in fact. On the other hand, the only firsthand source ive seen that supports your guys' position is a definition on infoplease, which doesnt even make any definitive statements.
 
And a lot of them also don't have English as their native language + people have called hills mountains despite the latter being much larger. It's common for those of other languages to often use the words interchangeably or often mix the words up.
 
What does that have to do with my point? I doubt they made a mistake, they went really in depth with their descriptions of mountains. The burden of proof is on you guys; otherwise we have to take their word for it.
 
It addressed that link in the OP, also; that UN document does mention 300 m mountains, but looking up the Wikipedia page for Mount Wycheproof, it mentions that it's often called a hill rather than a mountain. Calling it a mountain is like calling Pluto and Ceres planets. Yes, anything less than 300 meters would just be a hill and not a mountain. But I will say that we kind of already had many discussions regarding mountain heights iirc. It appears 609 meters was considered our lowball.
 
It doesn't matter if you provide sources if you openly admit no source is actually better. Which you have done in saying "there is no official height". Stop trying to add to a workload that doesn't need added to.
 
I agree with Mr. Bambu. What is suggested is very unnecessary. We should close this thread.
 
Okay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MattSatire
Purification Magic Banaza
Replies
7
Views
801
MattSatire
MattSatire
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnmmmmm
  • Locked
problems with the calculations of one punch man
2 3
Replies
115
Views
4K
Maverick_Zero_X
Maverick_Zero_X
HakutoRei000
How big is this?
Replies
1
Views
543
HakutoRei000
HakutoRei000
Lycoris4812
Where Would You Scale The Explosion Of A Volcano?
Replies
2
Views
509
Lycoris4812
Lycoris4812
Vzearr
Problems with Beastar calculations.
Replies
11
Views
1K
Metalballrun
Metalballrun
Back
Top