Moving here since it feels a bit too in-the-weeds
Or if you wanna keep that logic, go ahead and multiply all destruction calcs by 10x, because I once made a calc that converted to joules incorrectly, leading to a result 10x higher than it should have been, which was accepted by another CGM and implemented onto profiles. While that one was fixed, I wouldn't be surprised if something like it was still lurking out there.
I don't see why. Human bites measured when the teeth make contact with the stress testing device don't involve anything moving in space, but it does involve forces being exerted on objects that would move them if they weren't counterbalancing that movement with an equal force in the opposite direction. Pushing a block into a wall still involves force (and therefore, acceleration, and therefore, speed), even though the block's not being moved.This feels like dodging the issue
I don't like that reasoning. Sometimes calcs have errors. Sometimes people accept calcs that have errors because they don't realise that the errors exist. That doesn't mean that we're validating the errors for use forevermore, and if someone points out that the error exists, and no CGM goes "actually I don't think that's an error", it shouldn't still be able to get added to profiles.Exactly. And CGM's have been accepting feats like this for ages, it's you who needs to make a new consensus and overturn what we do. Just because you, personally haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, as evidenced by the handful of accepted and implemented calcs, by CGM's (obviously, otherwise they wouldn't be accepted) where this is utilized.
What? This isn't a matter of you rejecting a calc, it's a matter of you rejecting a calc because you "think" we don't do that.
In which there's no rule on it, and on the contrary, something we do accept.
As it stands, the formula is accepted, used, and implemented, you must change that as a whole before you can reject it on those grounds.
Other way around, currently, there's nothing wrong with the calc based on our, as of now, accepted practices and implemented calculationsexcept the area aspect of it, but that'd just make it higher. You'd need to deal with that too btw because the Naruto formula calculates it via area^2, even if it's wrong.
Or if you wanna keep that logic, go ahead and multiply all destruction calcs by 10x, because I once made a calc that converted to joules incorrectly, leading to a result 10x higher than it should have been, which was accepted by another CGM and implemented onto profiles. While that one was fixed, I wouldn't be surprised if something like it was still lurking out there.
That ultimately only results in Dio, Jotaro and Enya and maybe part 4 Kira.
Enya is JoJonium, it says her strength of will and stand power is comparable to that of stopping time (Aka Jotaro and Dio, who are above Kak in Stand Power and will). Dio and Jotaro speak for themselves, lots of stuff in the later half of Part 3 saying they have the strongest will and stand power (Jtar doing it in a lightnovel with Kak is just a bonus). Kira was just a maybe due to a force of will statement putting him above Jotaro, although only briefly, plus Part 8 Kira has it, but that's a hard maybe.
There's also Pol, but I can't think of anyone who's confirmed more Stand power than him except Jotaro and Dio. Not even Diavolo was flat-out stated to be above him in pure will or stand energy.
I would say Bruno, Gio and Mista, based on just the shit they've done, but, no statements actually exist saying they're > Kak/Pol in stand power.
I should note that being stronger in stats than these dudes doesn't mean you have more "Stand Power", it's more circumstantial and dependent on what the Stand itself is.