-
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
- 3,292
I never intended this. I meant for multi-star destroying feats (say a character makes 2000 stars disappear) using the Sun as average is ridiculous, since most stars are M class red dwarves.Matthew Schroeder said:
Sorry for the confusion, I never meant any other star aside from the Sun to be baseline star level.
- 8,438
- 3,292
Let's not forget about this thread. We still have to decide which value to use for the Sun's GBE and possible different names for the Star levels, considering the higher energy needed to destroy a small star as compared to what we currently implied.
- 15,332
- 7,559
- Thread starter
- #165
He is probably too busy with his life to do much of anything.
- 119
- 10
3.8E41J is still and underestimate.
If the escape velocity of the Sun was constant as we removed matter from it the it's GBE would be GM^2/r=3.795E41J.
However due to the dramatic increase in density as you go deeper the escape velocity actually increase signifcatly.
For example 34% of the Suns mass is contained within .2 radii so if you just take the core the escape velcoity from there would be 30% higher and take 70% more energy. The Suns denisty at .25 radii is roughly 20g/cm^3. If we assume this is constant between .2 radii and .25 radii (this is an underestimate) then this part has 10.8% of the Suns mass. The escape velocity at .25 radii is then 1.792^.5 of the surface. Lets say it's 1.7^.5 for all matter between .2 radii and .25 radii. So 70% more energy to remove that part of the sun then for our previous estimate. This part weighs 10.8% of the mass of the sun so this adds on 7.6% to the energy required and gives us adleast 4.08E41J
As such this results in a significantly higher figure, and is still and underestimate.
Via this here
https://www.astro.umd.edu/~jph/A320_Stellar_Structure.pdf
the last figure shows that the Suns mass is more concentrated then a polytrope with n=3 and as such has a GBE greater then 5/(5-3)*.6*GM^2/R=5.69E41
Honesty using this https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_density_vs_r.jpg
is should eb possible to calcuate a approxiamte estimate by diving the sun into sections.
If the escape velocity of the Sun was constant as we removed matter from it the it's GBE would be GM^2/r=3.795E41J.
However due to the dramatic increase in density as you go deeper the escape velocity actually increase signifcatly.
For example 34% of the Suns mass is contained within .2 radii so if you just take the core the escape velcoity from there would be 30% higher and take 70% more energy. The Suns denisty at .25 radii is roughly 20g/cm^3. If we assume this is constant between .2 radii and .25 radii (this is an underestimate) then this part has 10.8% of the Suns mass. The escape velocity at .25 radii is then 1.792^.5 of the surface. Lets say it's 1.7^.5 for all matter between .2 radii and .25 radii. So 70% more energy to remove that part of the sun then for our previous estimate. This part weighs 10.8% of the mass of the sun so this adds on 7.6% to the energy required and gives us adleast 4.08E41J
As such this results in a significantly higher figure, and is still and underestimate.
Via this here
https://www.astro.umd.edu/~jph/A320_Stellar_Structure.pdf
the last figure shows that the Suns mass is more concentrated then a polytrope with n=3 and as such has a GBE greater then 5/(5-3)*.6*GM^2/R=5.69E41
Honesty using this https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_density_vs_r.jpg
is should eb possible to calcuate a approxiamte estimate by diving the sun into sections.
- 15,332
- 7,559
- Thread starter
- #168
The method used to get to that number accounted for constant and non-constant density. Sorry, but I trust scientific papers more.
- 8,438
- 3,292
Doesn't the average density account for this dramatic increase in density approaching the center? As in the average density is actually higher than the density on the edge of the star. Does this not compensate? Or does this change yield a phenomena that makes it unreliable?
The Earth is calculated with mass derived from average density and is accurate, despite our core taking up around 33% of our mass.
The Earth is calculated with mass derived from average density and is accurate, despite our core taking up around 33% of our mass.
- 119
- 10
Does that paper even show where it got the number from?
And since it's in German it's difficult to understand it anyway.
And theres this paper which disagrees https://www.astro.umd.edu/~jph/A320_Stellar_Structure.pdf
It notes that for a sunliek star a more typical value would be equal to 1.5GM^2/R
As it shows that the Sun's density distribution is comparable to a polytrope with n=3.
And since it's in German it's difficult to understand it anyway.
And theres this paper which disagrees https://www.astro.umd.edu/~jph/A320_Stellar_Structure.pdf
It notes that for a sunliek star a more typical value would be equal to 1.5GM^2/R
As it shows that the Sun's density distribution is comparable to a polytrope with n=3.
- 15,332
- 7,559
- Thread starter
- #171
...That's the paper, lol.
- 8,438
- 3,292
Yeah, I like the 3.8 number the best. It is close to our calc-able number, and has several scientific sources backing it.
- 8,438
- 3,292
DT provided us with the 3.8x10^41 number originally, and has been present in this thread. I am sure he knows.
- 8,438
- 3,292
I hope not. This is a pretty big issue.
- 8,438
- 3,292
I'd prefer we not forget about this. Have we decided on a value?
- 8,438
- 3,292
That is what I am fearing will happen...
- 15,332
- 7,559
- Thread starter
- #182
We decided on the 3.8e+41 value.
- 8,438
- 3,292
We should probably move to implement this, then.
- 15,332
- 7,559
- Thread starter
- #184
Well, we should ask for help with this.
- 8,438
- 3,292
The names wouldn't change as of now. Too much work for too little change with other revisions going on right now.
The gap would go a bit more, but not significantly.
The gap would go a bit more, but not significantly.
- 15,332
- 7,559
- Thread starter
- #188
I think we don't need to change the names, just let people know destroying large stars is easier than destroying, say, the Sun.
- 4,652
- 1,328
Did we come to a conclusion on the names?
- 8,438
- 3,292
I believe we are forgoing names at the moment.
GreyFang82
He/Him- 2,769
- 328
I know names aren't going to be talked about but may I recommend calling it dense star level if we are talking about things like our sun or even smaller ones... just a thought... and it sounds cool
- 8,438
- 3,292
@Greyfang
We already discussed this; as of now such an implementation would not be practical. Maybe when some revisions finish we can bring that up again.
We already discussed this; as of now such an implementation would not be practical. Maybe when some revisions finish we can bring that up again.
- 10,393
- 3,344
I still strongly disagree with renaming the tiers.
- 8,438
- 3,292
That's fine. We still need to move baseline Star level down to 3.8x10^41.
- 5,501
- 714
Yeah the names would be misleading no matter what way you slice it.
- 8,438
- 3,292
Low and High make sense, but, like I said, it isn't practical right now.
- 8,438
- 3,292
Yes.
- Status
Similar threads
