- 7,416
- 7,866
Does destroying a space-time that is smaller than a Universe count as High 3-A? I say this because of how spacetimes are counted as having infinite snapshots of what's inside of them.
-
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.
Small Space-Times
- Thread starter ActuallySpaceMan42
- Start date
CosmicWreck
He/Him- 674
- 386
We used to. I don't know why we don't anymore.
Probably since we decided dimensions of insignificant sizes are irrelevant.
Probably since we decided dimensions of insignificant sizes are irrelevant.
- 8,874
- 5,709
No. Only space times of universal sizes grant a higher dimensional tier so as to be non trivial. Space times that are not universal in size are scaled according to their size.
- 7,416
- 7,866
- Thread starter
- #4
But how exactly does that work? I thought the concept was every Space-Time no matter the size has an Infinite Number of Copies of whatever that Space-Time Contains. Destroying that Space-Time would include those Infinite Copies, so that would be High 3-A.
Why is that no longer valid?
- 8,874
- 5,709
Because apparently space times aren't portrayed to be higher dimensional if they're really small, so the universal border was chosen as the baseline for a space time to be considered non trivial, if I recall correctly. However destroying a space time which is explicitly shown to be higher dimensional structure (requires lot of proof) would qualify for universe level+ even if not universal sized.
By the way it's universe level+ not high universe level.
- 7,416
- 7,866
- Thread starter
- #6
That's the argument I was trying to make. I know the minimum for Universal+ is a Universe-sized Space-Time, so I was just wondering if you could get at least High 3-A if you destroyed one under that Universe size threshold.
- 8,874
- 5,709
You don't understand. A space time, no matter how small, is always uncountably infinite snapshots of the 3D realm, which means it's always universe+.
According to standards however, a space time under universe size is scaled to it's size for example a solar system sized space time would scale to solar system level.
- 7,416
- 7,866
- Thread starter
- #8
Oh... Damn, that really sucks but ok then thanks for the help!
- 15,317
- 22,633
Because if we using that logic everyone can get High 3-A just by destroying a bed-sized space-time, thus inflating the result, very very simple. Unless the verse specific on the matter and make things consistent
- 7,416
- 7,866
- Thread starter
- #10
I get it but I still find it weird we follow the snapshot logic but completely ignore it under a certain point without any real logical reason.
- 15,317
- 22,633
You can't have anything, or you could make someone High 3-A just by slice a cut on space-time with raw power. So anyone destroy space-time of smaller scale will be equate to the scale of the space-time along with space-time hax or pocket reality hax, same with creation or everything will be inflate and create inconsistency.
- 7,416
- 7,866
- Thread starter
- #12
Like I said I understand why not, it's still weird.
- 15,317
- 22,633
Complain doesn't change anythingz make CRT if you want
- 20,235
- 22,204
A timeline with any sized 3-dimensional component would qualify for Low 2-C technically. That being said, while the intent is self-evident for entire timelines and universe sized space-time continuums, you would have to get really, really specific for anything smaller to qualify. Which most verses aren't.
- 7,416
- 7,866
- Thread starter
- #15
You're being annoyingly snarky for no reason at all. I said I get it, I'm not complaining I just found it weird.
- 487
- 477
OP pointing out how a standard is weird doesn't count as a "complaint", and even if it does, it doesn't take away from the fact that the logic is inconsistent.
CosmicWreck
He/Him- 674
- 386
Why? Do we assume the time dimension is some incredibly thin structure like planck length for smaller space-time continuums? That's the only way that kind of thinking can be the case without being contradictory imo.
- 20,235
- 22,204
We have zero indication that it's a proper temporal dimension in the case of most small pocket space-times whereas the feats involving universe sized ones involve creating a full past, present and future most of the time. So we go with the safer alternative. It's not a perfect system but at the moment, it's the best we can do.
That and the power levels showcased by most characters who destroy smaller space-times are contradictory to them being Low 2-C anyway.
- 12,542
- 3,495
4D High 3-A no longer exists. The absolute baseline for 4D constructs is Low 2-C. Anyways, it would be pretty wonky to have the space-time of a small pocket dimension be Low 2-C when it is shown to not be on the level of a conventional space-time continuum, so naturally it wouldn’t function the same as one. Therefore it can only be scaled by the contents inside.
- 7,416
- 7,866
- Thread starter
- #20
So hypothetically what are proper statements that could allow a temporal dimension smaller than a universe to count?
- 20,235
- 22,204
A full on elaboration as to their nature being as such would work I guess. I doubt any Verde on the wiki has statements that fit the bill.
