Default size of a dimension/space-time/parallel universe....

[HelloThere1089]

The purpose of this thread is to know why the standards are the way they are. Let's start with the established standard:
Universe-sized Realms Guidelines

Let's say a verse is stated to have a separate timespace/spacetime/dimension/realm from the main universe.
1. It may have one star, two, or a starry sky.
2. It is never outright called a "universe". Mostly either spacetime or dimension.
3. It is definitely not referring to just a planet.

Then what would be the default assumption about its size? Looking at the standards, it seems the assumption would be either solar system sized or multi solar system sized. However I have a question regarding that. Why did we decide to differentiate between realms/realities/dimensions and universes? For example the default assumption regarding a random planet is that it is Earth sized. Same for a star, galaxy, so on and so forth. But when it comes to a dimension or a spacetime, it needs to be explicitly called a universe. Why? Why is the default assumption that a dimension/realm is a pocket dimension/realm?

 

[Saqphire]

following

 

[KLOL506]

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Executor_N0 @Agnaa @Qawsedf234 @Planck69 @Everything12

 

[Qawsedf234]

? For example the default assumption regarding a random planet is that it is Earth sized. Same for a star, galaxy, so on and so forth.

Because in those cases, they are (usually) similar to their real versions in everything but topography. A fantasy planet has Earth-like gravity and ecology. A star usually contains a solar system surrounding it and aligns with IRL stellar physics, etc. There's a couple cases where a planet or star is so unrealistic that they're not considered usable for tiering for this reason.

But when it comes to a dimension or a spacetime, it needs to be explicitly called a universe. Why? Why is the default assumption that a dimension/realm is a pocket dimension/realm?

Because, unlike the others, it's an "artificial" creation usually tied to the existence of someone or an object. Which is why their default size is different.

 

[HelloThere1089]

Because in those cases, they are (usually) similar to their real versions in everything but topography. A fantasy planet has Earth-like gravity and ecology. A star usually contains a solar system surrounding it and aligns with IRL stellar physics, etc. There's a couple cases where a planet or star is so unrealistic that they're not considered usable for tiering for this reason.

Right. What if the dimension has planets, stars, gravity, etc just like the real thing?

Because, unlike the others, it's an "artificial" creation usually tied to the existence of someone or an object. Which is why their default size is different.

Can you elaborate of a few things:
1. what's artificial in this context?
2. why does being tied to the existence of someone or an object have any bearing to it's size whatsoever?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Right. What if the dimension has planets, stars, gravity, etc just like the real thing?

Those are assumed to be real, which is why a sub-dimension with a bunch of stars is assumed to be 4-A unless something suggest otherwise.

1. what's artificial in this context?

Wasn't made by nature

2. why does being tied to the existence of someone or an object have any bearing to it's size whatsoever?

Because a black void with one star doesn't have the evidence of universal size

 

[HelloThere1089]

Those are assumed to be real, which is why a sub-dimension with a bunch of stars is assumed to be 4-A unless something suggest otherwise.

No I am asking, it mirrors how our universe is. Why isn't it universe sized then?

Wasn't made by nature

Neither were a lot of main universes in a lot of verses.

Because a black void with one star doesn't have the evidence of universal size

Why does a random planet do then? It can be half the size of Earth. A black void that is stated to be a separate timespace with the ability to hold celestial objects like planets and stars sounds like a universe to me. I have no other reference to draw from irl.

Edit: Also these reasons you're giving, are they mentioned in an FAQ or any page?

 

[Qawsedf234]

No I am asking, it mirrors how our universe is. Why isn't it universe sized then?

A mirror or parallel universe is usually considered 3-A unless proven otherwise for the reasons mentioned before.

Edit: Also these reasons you're giving, are they mentioned in an FAQ or any page?

Here

 

[HelloThere1089]

A mirror or parallel universe is usually considered 3-A unless proven otherwise for the reasons mentioned before.

That's not what I'm asking. I am saying if a separate spacetime is shown to contain a planet and a star at the very least, and in no material is it ever stated that it is limited to just those, and has gravity (meaning it is a spacetime that is bent by mass), then why isn't it considered universe sized. It checks the same number of boxes as a random planet when compared to Earth. This spacetime acts similar physics wise, has celestial bodies in it, stated to be a spacetime, it is in everyway similar to irl universe except how the planets actually look. Then why isn't this spacetime assumed to be universe sized.

Here

I don't see the following criteria that you mentioned in this link. I might have missed them so can you please quote them:
1. A realm being tied to an object or person being a disqualifier
2. Artificial creation being a disqualifier
Thanks

 

[Qawsedf234]

then why isn't it considered universe sized.

Our standards have just always been that a place is only as big as you can prove it. Having a single star isn't enough proof for universal size.

I don't see the following criteria that you mentioned in this link.

They're not in the link, I was just showing how typical standards of treating a space. The stuff I mentioned are ideas going into those reasonings not mentioned on the page.

 

[HelloThere1089]

Our standards have just always been that a place is only as big as you can prove it. Having a single star isn't enough proof for universal size.

But a random planet isn't proven to be as big as Earth. It is only proven to cross the minimum threshold of being big enough that it becomes spherical due to it's own gravity and have an atmosphere (if it supports life). Why is this discrepancy present?

They're not in the link, I was just showing how typical standards of treating a space. The stuff I mentioned are ideas going into those reasonings not mentioned on the page.

Okay. I think it is important to state those on the page. Because these disqualifiers aren't in the standards currently. Which makes it hard to argue. I still don't understand how artificial creation (something that a lot of verses have for their main universes) is a disqualifier. Also why a dimension being tied to a person or object is a disqualifier from this default assumption (considering this doesn't apply to planets and moons tied to or created by specific characters).

 

[Damage3245]

But a random planet isn't proven to be as big as Earth.

If it was proven to be as big as Earth, we wouldn't need a default assumption.

 

[Saqphire]

If it was proven to be as big as Earth, we wouldn't need a default assumption.

The opposite is kind of the point he is making, we use default assumptions when we don’t have enough information on all these celestial bodies, so the question is why isnt the same standard applied for dimensions/space times/starry skies

 

[Damage3245]

The opposite is kind of the point he is making, we use default assumptions when we don’t have enough information on all these celestial bodies, so the question is why isnt the same standard applied for dimensions/space times/starry skies

There is at least some reason in most of these cases to consider these celestial bodies Earth-like. They display ordinary effects of gravity that we'd expect. Humans or human-like beings can live there comfortably. Sometimes they contain continents, oceans, have a breathable atmosphere etc.

A random dimension that contains only a single star, or stars, isn't enough reason for it to be Universe-like. It only shows that the dimension is big enough to contain those celestial bodies. It doesn't show that it is comparable to our own Universe.

 

[Testarossa002]

Our standards have just always been that a place is only as big as you can prove it. Having a single star isn't enough proof for universal size

Real talk, has there ever been a situation where a dimension with planets and gravity was proven to not be uni size?
I'd imagine cases like that are what prompted the standard in the first place

 

[HelloThere1089]

In general, if the only example of a spacetime IRL is our universe, wouldn't the burden of proof fall on the person claiming it is NOT universe sized?

 

[DavidTPPM]

There is at least some reason in most of these cases to consider these celestial bodies Earth-like. They display ordinary effects of gravity that we'd expect. Humans or human-like beings can live there comfortably. Sometimes they contain continents, oceans, have a breathable atmosphere etc.

A random dimension that contains only a single star, or stars, isn't enough reason for it to be Universe-like. It only shows that the dimension is big enough to contain those celestial bodies. It doesn't show that it is comparable to our own Universe.

That is true for the 3 dimensional space but I still find it a bit silly that we consider the finite 3D size to dictate infinite 4D scope.

Compared to most things on the wiki that at least try to be as scientifically accurate as possible here we suddenly drop the ball and straight up make up arbitrary rules of our own

 

[DavidTPPM]

In general, if the only example of a spacetime IRL is our universe, wouldn't the burden of proof fall on the person claiming it is NOT universe sized?

Not exactly. Technically even your very mass is bending a little bit of spacetime. The word doesn't necessarily have to be referring to an entire spacetime continuum but rather just a piece of it.

Also what you're talking about here is the 3D space within a 4D spacetime. That's what we assume to be smaller than the universe unless proven otherwise. And if we use that logic you'd basically have to say "since the only example of space we have is our real life space that means every single spatially separate dimension has to be 3-A" regardless of whether it's a spacetimes or not, which would not only be a pretty hilarious upscale for hundreds if not thousands of verses, but also just plain wrong.


Also also that would be a hasty generalization. Us having only 1 spacetime as an example doesn't mean every other spacetime has to be that size, it means we don't have enough examples to conclude how big an average spacetime is

 

[HelloThere1089]

Also what you're talking about here is the 3D space within a 4D spacetime. That's what we assume to be smaller than the universe unless proven otherwise. And if we use that logic you'd basically have to say "since the only example of space we have is our real life space that means every single spatially separate dimension has to be 3-A" regardless of whether it's a spacetimes or not, which would not only be a pretty hilarious upscale for hundreds if not thousands of verses, but also just plain wrong.

Can you elaborate why it would be wrong?

Also also that would be a hasty generalization. Us having only 1 spacetime as an example doesn't mean every other spacetime has to be that size, it means we don't have enough examples to conclude how big an average spacetime is

No it won't be hasty generalization. Hasty generalization only occurs if you're drawing conclusions about a population just by testing a small and insufficient sample. However in the case of universes, we don't have a "population". Multiverse theory isn't proven. So for all we know this is the only universe that exists and can exist. It would be hasty generalization if we had confirmed instances of multiple universes but assumed they are similar to ours without proof. So I don't know what you mean by average spacetime since we only have one confirmed one.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

A random dimension that contains only a single star, or stars, isn't enough reason for it to be Universe-like. It only shows that the dimension is big enough to contain those celestial bodies. It doesn't show that it is comparable to our own Universe.

I can understand for dimensions that people make. But what for dimensions that exist naturally?

Just as with our universe, don’t we have to assume that dimension was created via a big bang and is also undergoing expansion?

Or do we assume the dimension is small and static?

 

[DavidTPPM]

Can you elaborate why it would be wrong?

Because it's extremely common for pocket dimensions and similar places in fiction to be WAY smaller than the universe and majority of pocket dimensions that are in fact the size of the universe tend to be specifically mirrors of our universe.

No it won't be hasty generalization. Hasty generalization only occurs if you're drawing conclusions about a population just by testing a small and insufficient sample. However in the case of universes, we don't have a "population".

No, a hasty generalization is generally making a conclusion based on a small sample / insufficient evidence. You can read the description of the fallacy here, here, here, or even on the wiki itself. It has nothing to do with population, it just so happens that the fallacy mostly occurs with studies around population.

Multiverse theory isn't proven. So for all we know this is the only universe that exists and can exist. It would be hasty generalization if we had confirmed instances of multiple universes but assumed they are similar to ours without proof. So I don't know what you mean by average spacetime since we only have one confirmed one.

No, that would be making the assumption that there are no other spacetimes outside our spacetime continuum. You are effectively holding the claim that there are no other universes for this and that's a claim you can't prove.

 

[HenshinIntervention]

I can understand for dimensions that people make. But what for dimensions that exist naturally?

I'm curious on how the method of creation matters for the creation itself. We don't assume characters making planets or cities, one way or another, is somehow less real or significant as the real thing. It's a case by case basis every time.

Just as with our universe, don’t we have to assume that dimension was created via a big bang and is also undergoing expansion?

Or do we assume the dimension is small and static?

Both are weird assumptions. Again, why does the creation of a structure define how the structure is? Just because I made something differently than someone else doesn't mean it's inherently inferior.

 

[HelloThere1089]

Because it's extremely common for pocket dimensions and similar places in fiction to be WAY smaller than the universe and majority of pocket dimensions that are in fact the size of the universe tend to be specifically mirrors of our universe.

Wouldn't the dimension need to be specified as pocket dimension or smaller than the universe to qualify for this condition then?

No, a hasty generalization is generally making a conclusion based on a small sample / insufficient evidence. You can read the description of the fallacy here, here, here, or even on the wiki itself. It has nothing to do with population, it just so happens that the fallacy mostly occurs with studies around population.

By population I don't mean people. By population I mean the total set of all elements. Hasty generalization only occurs when your set of elements is much larger than your set of sample. But if your set of elements is 1, then you have to draw conclusions from that.

No, that would be making the assumption that there are no other spacetimes outside our spacetime continuum. You are effectively holding the claim that there are no other universes for this and that's a claim you can't prove.

I am not claiming that there cannot be other spacetimes outside of our own. I am saying the only spacetime we know exists is our own. So there is no scope for getting an average since we don't know if there are more. So my default assumption would be that most fiction that is modeled from our reality to some extent, treat their spacetimes/dimensions/realms similar to ours unless stated otherwise.

 

[HelloThere1089]

No, a hasty generalization is generally making a conclusion based on a small sample / insufficient evidence. You can read the description of the fallacy here, here, here, or even on the wiki itself. It has nothing to do with population, it just so happens that the fallacy mostly occurs with studies around population.

Also genuinely not trying to be funny here but....in your very first link it says

Exception: When statistics of a larger population are not available, and a decision must be made or opinion formed if the small sample size is all you have to work with, then it is better than nothing. For example, if you are strolling in the desert with a friend, and he goes to pet a cute snake, gets bitten, then dies instantly, it would not be fallacious to assume the snake is poisonous.

IRL all we have to work with is our own universe/dimension/realm/spacetime.

The page ends with

Tip: Don’t base decisions on small sample sizes when much more reliable data exists.

 

[DavidTPPM]

Wouldn't the dimension need to be specified as pocket dimension or smaller than the universe to qualify for this condition then?

I mean, probably not? If it's not a parallel universe then what reason do we have to believe it's a full-blown universe rather than a random pocket dimension?

By population I don't mean people. By population I mean the total set of all elements. Hasty generalization only occurs when your set of elements is much larger than your set of sample. But if your set of elements is 1, then you have to draw conclusions from that.

Can you prove the set of elements is 1? Just because we only know about 1 spacetime continuum doesn't mean only 1 exists.

I am not claiming that there cannot be other spacetimes outside of our own. I am saying the only spacetime we know exists is our own. So there is no scope for getting an average since we don't know if there are more.

Which means we don't have the sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.

So my default assumption would be that most fiction that is modeled from our reality to some extent, treat their spacetimes/dimensions/realms similar to ours unless stated otherwise.

Which is both objectively incorrect and something that you can't prove.

Also genuinely not trying to be funny here but....in your very first link it says

"When statistics of a larger population are not available, and a decision must be made or opinion formed if the small sample size is all you have to work with, then it is better than nothing."
A decision doesn't have to be made. This refers to cases such as when 10 people are infected with a newly discovered deadly disease. Of course the sample is too small to draw a proper conclusion, but since the situation is so severe, an example can be made.

That doesn't mean it's logical to make hasty generalizations, it means that in absolutely necessary situations it's better to work with what you have than idk, risk people's lives for more data.

IRL all we have to work with is our own universe/dimension/realm/spacetime.

Which is fine because we're not in a situation where an absolute decision must be made or people's lives are at stake. AND we have a mountain of evidence of fictional stories containing dimensions that are either proven to not be universes or logically cannot be universes due to known circumstances.

The page ends with

Yeah? Don't base your decision on the small sample size of our universe when a much more reliable data, that being the countless fictional dimensions that aren't universal in size, exist.

 

[HelloThere1089]

I mean, probably not? If it's not a parallel universe then what reason do we have to believe it's a full-blown universe rather than a random pocket dimension?

Can you prove the set of elements is 1? Just because we only know about 1 spacetime continuum doesn't mean only 1 exists.

Set of elements refers to available data. So yes. The set is 1.

"When statistics of a larger population are not available, and a decision must be made or opinion formed if the small sample size is all you have to work with, then it is better than nothing."
A decision doesn't have to be made. This refers to cases such as when 10 people are infected with a newly discovered deadly disease. Of course the sample is too small to draw a proper conclusion, but since the situation is so severe, an example can be made.

But you are making a decision tho. By indexing a fictional dimension as 4A instead of being universe sized. It's not like you're calling it unknown.

That doesn't mean it's logical to make hasty generalizations, it means that in absolutely necessary situations it's better to work with what you have than idk, risk people's lives for more data.

People's lives being at risk isn't the point here. If a decision is being made, it is better to go with available data in the absence of additional data. If not then it is of an unknown size. You can't have it both ways and say, I reject the use of available data because a decision doesn't have to be made, but I will index it as 4A.

Yeah? Don't base your decision on the small sample size of our universe when a much more reliable data, that being the countless fictional dimensions that aren't universal in size, exist.

I don't think making rules of default assumptions should include fictional universes as a set of observations. Real world is the observation, fiction is the application. We don't do this for any other thing (planets, stars, galaxies, we all make benchmarks for these using real world observations). And these fictional universes rarely are confirmed to be smaller than ours. Most of the time it's just us assuming they are.

 

[Kaydee1648]

I don't think making rules of default assumptions should include fictional universes as a set of observations

In this case it does. It includes the fictional scope as the set of observations needed to draw a conclusion on if it should be comparable to real-life sizes or not.

to make a default assumption; In this case, the fictional one, there has to be some kinda consistency within the diversities of said category. For example; A fictional planet is often depicted to have certain properties that are similar to Earth, like having the same continents, experiencing the same gravity, seasons, and other earth like properties. These consistent properties tip in the favour of the assumption that all fictional planets are like ours unless proven otherwise.

A dimension on the other hand, even while having some properties like stars that can be used to infer a universal size, lacks that consistent size portrayal across fiction. Most fictional dimensions we see in fiction doesn’t have any mention of having a galaxy, Infact, most of them are usually just depicted to be solar system sized or confined in a material. So the default assumption tips in the favour that it’s not universal sized until proven otherwise.

 

[Saqphire]

Also what you're talking about here is the 3D space within a 4D spacetime. That's what we assume to be smaller than the universe unless proven otherwise.

This is the very thing OP is calling out as a double standard. If the axiom is our Universe and we lack information on a celestial object other than it being said type of celestial object, we use real life to fall back on unless proven otherwise. Either use the axiom or don’t, you can’t have it both ways

And if we use that logic you'd basically have to say "since the only example of space we have is our real life space that means every single spatially separate dimension has to be 3-A" regardless of whether it's a spacetimes or not, which would not only be a pretty hilarious upscale for hundreds if not thousands of verses, but also just plain wrong.

This is a massive slippery slope. Dimensions/starry skies being considered as 3-A doesn’t necessarily lead to thousands of verses getting an upscale because that is a case by case basis on whether they follow that or not for their separate reasons, this case by case makes your posited conclusion irrelevant. And denying consistency on standards just because you believe their rating would be wrong is neither here or there

There is at least some reason in most of these cases to consider these celestial bodies Earth-like. They display ordinary effects of gravity that we'd expect. Humans or human-like beings can live there comfortably. Sometimes they contain continents, oceans, have a breathable atmosphere etc.

In cases with starry skies, we have more than enough evidence from their existence alone that it acts Universe-like, and there are cases where we only know it to be a planet in the narrative so we fall back on a standard assumption of it being planet sized, and as OP mentioned earlier, one of the standards quite literally say ”it’s better to use a small example than no example”.

Hell, that’s one of the reasons we lowball feats, because of insufficient information proving an object to be anything different than another object of the same type (Thriller Bark being calced with an assumed size of Big Mom’s ship cuz it’s the largest ship in the verse, yet we don’t know how much bigger it is). This follows the same/similar logic, we wouldn’t know how big a starry skied dimension is, the only reference is our Universe, so we fall back on that until information shows otherwise, same as we do for galaxies

Real talk, has there ever been a situation where a dimension with planets and gravity was proven to not be uni size?
I'd imagine cases like that are what prompted the standard in the first place

Either that or baseless lowballing because… reasons

 

[DavidTPPM]

Set of elements refers to available data. So yes. The set is 1.

Then that's just blatantly insufficient. You're unironically trying to form a conclusion about thousands of fictional places based on 1 unrelated example irl…

But you are making a decision tho. By indexing a fictional dimension as 4A instead of being universe sized. It's not like you're calling it unknown.

Because we can prove the 4-A size. We can't prove it being a universe. It would be absurd to ignore the probable 4-A size just because we can't prove a 3-A size lmao.

We don't HAVE to make a definitive conclusion on whether it's 3A or not, so we don't make that decision. Instead we focus on something completely different - the actual visible size of the space.

People's lives being at risk isn't the point here.

No the point is that an exception can be made in crucial and highly important situations. This is not one.

The whole point is that the exception can lead to illogical and incorrect results but it's preferable over taking the risk of not using the data…

If a decision is being made, it is better to go with available data in the absence of additional data. If not then it is of an unknown size. You can't have it both ways and say, I reject the use of available data because a decision doesn't have to be made, but I will index it as 4A.

Dude we're not rejecting available data we are doing literally the exact opposite and only specifically sticking to available data.

There's no available data that dictates all spacetimes or even entire spacetime continuums MUST be universal in size but the fact that we SEE STARS IN THE DIMENSION proves that the dimension has a starry sky.

I don't think making rules of default assumptions should include fictional universes as a set of observations.

It should, it does, and it always did. Even something as fundamental as the Attack Potency concept is based on what happens in fiction rather while actively contradicting real life. Same with speed.

What ACTUALLY shouldn't be used as a default assumption for all dimensions/spacetimes is 1 single example of a spacetime continuum that we have irl because that's an absurdly small sample for something so extremely diverse as pocket dimensions.

Real world is the observation, fiction is the application.

Additional spacetimes, dimensions, or any other pocket realities have not been observed in real life. It's purely your assumption to say that if they were to be observed they would have the same 3 dimensional size as the main universe we live in.

And the fact that the only 1 spacetime continuum we have seen is this size is in no way evidence that every spacetime continuum has to be this size on a 3D level because that's insufficient evidence to come to such conclusions to begin with.

We don't do this for any other thing (planets, stars, galaxies, we all make benchmarks for these using real world observations).

Because we have observed thousand planets stars, galaxies, etc. We have not observed a single pocket reality or additional universe.

And these fictional universes rarely are confirmed to be smaller than ours. Most of the time it's just us assuming they are.

We're not talking about fictional universes but fictional dimensions in general. If something is said to be a universe in fiction we generally accept it as universal in size.

Again the issue isn't the assumption that all universes are universal in size but that any form of spacetime is universal in size.

 

[Ghostimuscrime]

they started bible swapping in a QnA thread now too

 

[DavidTPPM]

This is the very thing OP is calling out as a double standard. If the axiom is our Universe and we lack information on a celestial object other than it being said type of celestial object, we use real life to fall back on unless proven otherwise. Either use the axiom or don’t, you can’t have it both ways

It's not a double standard because for other objects we have an overwhelming amount of observed quantifiable examples and often times rules of physics as well as definitions that dictate the size must be in a certain range.

In the case of spacetime continuums we don't have any of them. You can call it a double standard once you can show me as many observed and measured spacetime continuums as we have observed planets.

This is a massive slippery slope. Dimensions/starry skies being considered as 3-A doesn’t necessarily lead to thousands of verses getting an upscale because that is a case by case basis on whether they follow that or not for their separate reasons, this case by case makes your posited conclusion irrelevant.

Starry skies are a completely arbitrary standard you came up with that has no bearing on reality or how fiction portrays them. Is any section of the sky that contains multiple stars it's own universe?

And the OP was never about starry skies but alternate dimensions/spacetimes/realities in general.

 

[DavidTPPM]

they started bible swapping in a QnA thread now too

There's a point at which a QnA stops being about someone asking a question and becomes someone trying to force room sized dimensions to be 3-A

 

[Ghostimuscrime]

tru tru, idk what been going on but qaws makes sense

 

[Saqphire]

It's not a double standard because for other objects we have an overwhelming amount of observed quantifiable examples and often times rules of physics as well as definitions that dictate the size must be in a certain range.

In the case of spacetime continuums we don't have any of them. You can call it a double standard once you can show me as many observed and measured spacetime continuums as we have observed planets.

For space-time continuums, we have one example and that’s the one OP talked about from the start. He already mentioned the standards talking about cases with small sample sizes so I wont parrot

Starry skies are a completely arbitrary standard you came up with that has no bearing on reality or how fiction portrays them.

If anything, starry skies merely being 4-A is what’s arbitrary and inherently flawed because star quantity don’t determine the size of the space around it due to star distance being literally light years away from each other. OP’s conclusion is more consistent standards-wise if anything and has a basis from reality

Is any section of the sky that contains multiple stars it's own universe?

If we have information stating that a dimension with stars can be sustained in an area exponentially smaller than our universe, then of course not. Otherwise, we have an axiom to fall back on, like always.

And the OP was never about starry skies but alternate dimensions/spacetimes/realities in general.

The very first post talks about dimensions with stars/starry skies

 

[Vietthai96]

When a fictional verse mention a planet (whatever it is), default it to be Earth due to Earth being the very baseline of Planetary tier, smaller than earth is dwarf planet

A dimension with starry sky is 4-A, that is default assumption, because it is the very baseline of starry sky

The reason we can default a planet to be Earth size is because it is baseline, and at least stated to be a planet, dimension with starry sky have default assumption to be multi-solar system sized because of the starry sky, not the dimension, the dimension part in itself have no default assumption for size, a generic mention of dimension without any other things to work will be considered unqualifiable in size and almost unusale. If you have statement mentioned the universe, then automatically universe size is default assumption

That is one reason, the other reason is why dimension with starry sky is only multi-solar and not universal?, simple, our site almost always assume the lowest end to avoid inflatation of rating, of course you can interpreting since the dimension have starry sky, like real universe, thus it should be universe in size, while it isn't a completely wrong interpretation, it is the highest end interpretation, the multi-solar system sized is the lowest end. So at the end of the day, we need to choose one of the two interpretations, so we chose the lowest end, which to avoid inflatation and also have better supporting ground due to the fact that you can't deny starry sky mean multiple stars, and multiple stars by default with have a system of planet and other thing following them individually thus creates multiple star systems

So all and all, dimension with starry sky being 4-A is default assumption due to having better supporting ground and is the lowest end which avoid inflatation

 

[HelloThere1089]

We don't HAVE to make a definitive conclusion on whether it's 3A or not, so we don't make that decision. Instead we focus on something completely different - the actual visible size of the space.

Yeah nvm. This makes sense actually. So the dimension's actual size stays at unknown but is greater than 4A for example.

If anybody else has any doubts they may use this thread for that. My query has been cleared. (Though I see some claims floating around that a planet with an atmosphere needs to be Earth sized which is not true. But that's not that important)

 

[Qawsedf234]

But a random planet isn't proven to be as big as Earth. It is only proven to cross the minimum threshold of being big enough that it becomes spherical due to it's own gravity and have an atmosphere (if it supports life). Why is this discrepancy present?

Random planets in space will vary in size for calcs depending on surroundings context. Its why there's stuff like "Mercury end" or stuff like that.

Earth-like planets are usually treated as being comparable to Earth size wise unless implied otherwise like with Toriko's Earth or MCU Ego's moon size.

Okay. I think it is important to state those on the page. Because these disqualifiers aren't in the standards currently. Which makes it hard to argue. I still don't understand how artificial creation (something that a lot of verses have for their main universes) is a disqualifier. Also why a dimension being tied to a person or object is a disqualifier from this default assumption (considering this doesn't apply to planets and moons tied to or created by specific characters).

The dimensions in general have to showcase charactistics suggesting they're universal in size. Its why just having spatial features isn't enough, you need to show something implying the size of the area is similar to a standard universe.

Real talk, has there ever been a situation where a dimension with planets and gravity was proven to not be uni size?

It's more that we can only accept what we can prove. As an example Goku's Destructo Disk has never failed in slicing someone, would it be correct to assume that his Destructo Disk is High 1-A+ and one shots everyone in DB?

It's in the same vein as a no limits fallacy. A dimension is only as large as you can prove. Most planets and stars have visual primary or secondary characteristics implying they're equivalent to IRL objects, while most sub-dimensions do not.