Transmutation Calcs

[Arkenis]

Right now, this is the only one I know from Frieren where they transmute a city to gold. Why are these type of calcs accepted if we don't for example accept characters creating matter without clear cut e=mc2 stated? Both require the manipulation of atoms and increasing mass (rock to gold), something which is mentioned in the mass-energy page states:

In fiction, where laws of physics are broken in various forms, the assumption that it has to have worked in this way doesn't hold and it may just be some other application of fictional science or just working, because it works, without any explanation considered.
One could further argue that depiction generally doesn't fit the actual phenomena (for example because of a lack of anti-particles being created and annihilated) and that, most of the time, characters or devices that perform the feat are officially aren't even mentioned to have anything similar to such abilities.

Unlike the e=mc2 feats, this calc would be asserting through nothing as far as I can see in the chapters, the pages and the calc, that Frieren or Macht have matter manipulation at the atomic level. Let alone the fact Magic in verse is Subjective Reality, I don't see why this was accepted.

 

[Floxy178]

Mass table isn't based on mc^2 though.

 

[Arkenis]

I didn't say that. I said e=mc2 and transmutation both require atomic structuring and mass increasing, rock to gold means an absurd mass increase, it's 19.3 g/cm³ to 2.7 g/cm³ after all. So it doesn't make sense something which inherently requires atomic manipulation isn't scrutinized in similar fashion.

 

[Epyriel]

Right now, this is the only one I know from Frieren where they transmute a city to gold. Why are these type of calcs accepted if we don't for example accept characters creating matter without clear cut e=mc2 stated? Both require the manipulation of atoms and increasing mass (rock to gold), something which is mentioned in the mass-energy page states:

Unlike the e=mc2 feats, this calc would be asserting through nothing as far as I can see in the chapters, the pages and the calc, that Frieren or Macht have matter manipulation at the atomic level. Let alone the fact Magic in verse is Subjective Reality, I don't see why this was accepted.

The use of the Creation Feats Mass Table for transmutation feats was decided here.

I didn't say that. I said e=mc2 and transmutation both require atomic structuring and mass increasing, rock to gold means an absurd mass increase, it's 19.3 g/cm³ to 2.7 g/cm³ after all. So it doesn't make sense something which inherently requires atomic manipulation isn't scrutinized in similar fashion.

Huh? The difference between using the Creation Feats Mass Table (which is essentially just based on the non-scientific but intuitive logic that creating a mountain = mountain level, or in this case transmuting a city’s worth of mass = city level) and using the Mass-Energy Equivalence formula is astronomical.

In this case the mass of 4.50 x 10^16 kg would give 4.04 x 10^33 joules (Planet level).

I have no idea why it would make sense to have the same standards for a formula that almost always produces astronomical outliers vs the table that was literally designed to be used for cases that don’t qualify for the above formula.

 

[Arkenis]

The use of the Creation Feats Mass Table for transmutation feats was decided here.


Huh? The difference between using the Creation Feats Mass Table (which is essentially just based on the non-scientific but intuitive logic that creating a mountain = mountain level, or in this case transmuting a city’s worth of mass = city level) and using the Mass-Energy Equivalence formula is astronomical.

In this case the mass of 4.50 x 10^16 kg would give 4.04 x 10^33 joules (Planet level).

I have no idea why it would make sense to have the same standards for a formula that almost always produces astronomical outliers vs the table that was literally designed to be used for cases that don’t qualify for the above formula.

Since we're ignoring the science of creation feats, the results as a reason really doesn't matter. The issue I have is why is the same not applied when no science is stated for the other.

Unlike the e=mc2 feats, this calc would be asserting through nothing as far as I can see in the chapters, the pages and the calc, that Frieren or Macht have matter manipulation at the atomic level. Let alone the fact Magic in verse is Subjective Reality, I don't see why this was accepted.

E=mc2 feats require clear cut mention of the formula, but changing an element to another does not require stated science of the feat even though changing rock to gold or silver require atomic manipulation, something closely related to creation feats in general.

 

[Epyriel]

Since we're ignoring the science of creation feats, the results as a reason really doesn't matter. The issue I have is why is the same not applied when no science is stated for the other.

E=mc2 feats require clear cut mention of the formula, but changing an element to another does not require stated science of the feat even though changing rock to gold or silver require atomic manipulation, something closely related to creation feats in general.

Except the results do matter. The entire reason our standards are so restrictive for using the Mass-Energy Equivalence Formula for creation feats is precisely because of its tendency to produce enormous outliers.

That is the whole reason we made an entirely separate non-scientific table for creation feats - because the most applicable actual science would give results way beyond was the authors of fictional works actually intend in 99% of cases.

 

[Arkenis]

Except the results do matter. The entire reason our standards are so restrictive for using the Mass-Energy Equivalence Formula for creation feats is precisely because of its tendency to produce enormous outliers.

Doesn't matter in what I'm talking about is what I mean, sorry for not clarifying.

 

[Agnaa]

They're different cases.

The value, and how inflated it is, matters. Not whether or not matter appeared out of nowhere.

 

[Arkenis]

I am not referring to the values or if the feat is inflated. I don't know why that matters more than the fact science was or wasn't stated for the feat.

This is about the science of both feats. One requires stated science like e=mc2 for it to be usable. The other, while also being an explicit form of matter manipulation, doesn't require science stated? Why is this?

If the reason truly is "one just gets higher results than the other" then that sounds like obfuscation from the fact some feats of matter changing also don't have stated science backing up their usability.

The same reasoning given on the mass-energy page fits the issue I have with the feats.

In fiction, where laws of physics are broken in various forms, the assumption that it has to have worked in this way doesn't hold and it may just be some other application of fictional science or just working, because it works, without any explanation considered.
One could further argue that depiction generally doesn't fit the actual phenomena (for example because of a lack of anti-particles being created and annihilated) and that, most of the time, characters or devices that perform the feat are officially aren't even mentioned to have anything similar to such abilities.

 

[Agnaa]

If you want to say that it shouldn't be calculated this way because we don't know that they spent energy to create matter, then make that argument! Saying "It needs to be disqualified because e=mc2 feats are disqualified" ignores the primary reason why those feats are disqualified. Most of the time when we're talking about not using e=mc2, we're talking about not using it for explicit creation feats.

You're just completely missing the mark here, to the point where it's hard to even engage.

 

[Arkenis]

If you want to say that it shouldn't be calculated this way because we don't know that they spent energy to create matter, then make that argument! Saying "It needs to be disqualified because e=mc2 feats are disqualified" ignores the primary reason why those feats are disqualified. Most of the time when we're talking about not using e=mc2, we're talking about not using it for explicit creation feats.

You're just completely missing the mark here, to the point where it's hard to even engage.

I bring it up here, both feats involve increasing mass. Aka the energy required for the feat.

Both require the manipulation of atoms and increasing mass (rock to gold)

No one is saying it needs to be disqualified just because e=mc2 are without stated science.
I am very blatantly saying why are they accepted if something similar like mass-energy feats need stated e=mc2 process.

I feel like you didn't read this, so I'm gonna bring it up again since it's in the op.

In fiction, where laws of physics are broken in various forms, the assumption that it has to have worked in this way doesn't hold and it may just be some other application of fictional science or just working, because it works, without any explanation considered.
One could further argue that depiction generally doesn't fit the actual phenomena (for example because of a lack of anti-particles being created and annihilated) and that, most of the time, characters or devices that perform the feat are officially aren't even mentioned to have anything similar to such abilities.

If it's not clear, I'm suggesting this same line of reasoning be applied to feats like Frieren's is all.

 

[Agnaa]

You're selectively-quoting. Read the rest of the page.

Matter-energy conversion should only be used for a calculation if it is clearly stated that this is the progress used.

Why is that?

One of the most important reasons is that it simply produces unrealistic values in virtually all cases. The energy required to do so is so ridiculously high that it is almost never realistic by any means.

The other reason is that creating matter from nothing, be it now by creating objects out of nowhere,

It is explicitly and clearly said that the most important reason is due to the unreliably high values.

And it is explicitly and clearly said that this disqualification applies to feats which are creating out of nowhere.

You are not asking for the same line of reasoning, since the same line of reasoning says "Find the mass, then use the table on the Creation Feats page, unless the piece of media explicitly invokes e=mc2".

You are instead saying "This should not be calculated at all."

 

[Arkenis]

You're selectively-quoting. Read the rest of the page.

It is explicitly and clearly said that the most important reason is due to the unreliably high values.

And it is explicitly and clearly said that this disqualification applies to feats which are creating out of nowhere.

You are not asking for the same line of reasoning, since the same line of reasoning says "Find the mass, then use the table on the Creation Feats page, unless the piece of media explicitly invokes e=mc2".

You are instead saying "This should not be calculated at all."

I'm quoting the specific reason because beside this "Matter-energy conversion should only be used for a calculation if it is clearly stated that this is the progress used.", its the other reasoning that I think applies to Frieren's type of feat.
Whether the value is high or low is insignificant to my own issues completely. Not once did I say I want to follow the exact line of reasoning, which is why I have only pointed out two things.
If me bringing up e=mc2 is distracting from the main issue then you can just ignore the e=mc2 mentions and just look at the two reasonings I take from the page, because those are the things I'm referencing here.

And I literally reference what line of reasoning I'm referring to right above me saying it.

In fiction, where laws of physics are broken in various forms, the assumption that it has to have worked in this way doesn't hold and it may just be some other application of fictional science or just working, because it works, without any explanation considered.
One could further argue that depiction generally doesn't fit the actual phenomena (for example because of a lack of anti-particles being created and annihilated) and that, most of the time, characters or devices that perform the feat are officially aren't even mentioned to have anything similar to such abilities.

If it's not clear, I'm suggesting this same line of reasoning be applied to feats like Frieren's is all.

 

[Agnaa]

That reasoning is not actually something we require. We do not require creation feats to show anti-particles being created and annihilated in order to rate them by the table on the Creation Feats page.

You're following fluff that has nothing to do with our actual standards, and is not applied towards anything on the site.