Why don’t we use E=Mc2 for creation?

[Majinere566]

The title is pretty self explanatory

 

[Oliver_de_jesus]

We can but only case by case, reality warping ignore the laws of physics when you create something

most of Matter manipulation rather than create something from nothing, it grab molecules/atoms/etc that are around free and turn them into what you want to create

We accept them if there is a proof you create something with E=MC²

 

[Majinere566]

We can but only case by case, reality warping ignore the laws of physics when you create something

most of Matter manipulation rather than create something from nothing, it grab molecules/atoms/etc that are around free and turn them into what you want to create

We accept them if there is a proof you create something with E=MC²

What if the character creates something out of presumably nothing?

 

[Oliver_de_jesus]

What if the character creates something out of presumably nothing?

Still cant, is mad hard you get E=CM² accepted without a statement, hell is more easier to get it accepted turning matter into energy and later absorbs it becuase most of case it indicate a great increasement

 

[Majinere566]

Still cant, is mad hard you get E=CM² accepted without a statement, hell is more easier to get it accepted turning matter into energy and later absorbs it becuase most of case it indicate a great increasement

Not trying to use t ngl, I’m actually against the use of it and trying to inquire why it isn’t accepted because .

 

[Oliver_de_jesus]

Alright then

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It's merely a hypothetical formula and not really a scientifically proven fact. We do not even know if it is possibly to do a 1 to 1 transform mass of matter into raw energy or use raw energy to materialize matter. So we only use it in very specific scenarios. So we only it t for those very specific demonstrations. Not to mention, ISL is hard to justify for using methods like that; we consider space between two or more objects created at the same time via miniature versions of Big Bangs to also be important.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

It inflates scaling.

Using a E=mc^2, a character creating a star would yield Solar System level AP.

 

[SheevShezarrine]

Pretty sure we do, but only in exceptional circumstances where energy to matter conversion is either directly confirmed or strongly implied, and there's at least some effort by the author to depict it with some accuracy. For example: if Bruce Banner transforms into The Hulk and packs on 2000lbs with damage done other than to his clothes, then E=MC² shall not be considered whatsoever. However, if he is described in narration to use his gamma radiation powers to condense energy into matter, and he transforms in a explosive burst of radiation that utterly wipes out Sicily, then perhaps E=MC² can be considered

 

[TheOrangeGuy09]

It inflates scaling.

Using a E=mc^2, a character creating a star would yield Solar System level AP.

I mean, vaporizing/atomizing a wall can get you to Tier 8 so...

 

[Majinere566]

It's merely a hypothetical formula and not really a scientifically proven fact. We do not even know if it is possibly to do a 1 to 1 transform mass of matter into raw energy or use raw energy to materialize matter. So we only use it in very specific scenarios. So we only it t for those very specific demonstrations. Not to mention, ISL is hard to justify for using methods like that; we consider space between two or more objects created at the same time via miniature versions of Big Bangs to also be important.

Is it? I’m searching it up and it’s telling me it’s scientifically proven?

 

[Napoleondevious]

What if the character creates something out of presumably nothing?

well then hes not converting energy into mass

 

[Majinere566]

well then hes not converting energy into mass

Can you explain further?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Unanimous pretty much nailed it. Most instances of fiction don't treat it as following that equation, and it returns literally absurd results, especially on modest scale. Iirc E = mc^2 on a person returns like, tier 7 results? It's comically off base, so we only use it if it is explicitly defined.

 

[Napoleondevious]

Can you explain further?

i dont understand what i need to explain further, e=mc^2 involves the conversion of energy into mass, creating mass out of nothing already disqualified for this its out of the question