3-A Tier revision

[The_Smashor]

To make a long story short, the observable universe being our standard for universal is absurd, and would be like only using the horizon for Planet level.

In the theory of Cosmic Inflation, a widely (albeit not universally) accepted theory, it's theorized that if the universe's inflation began 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the big bang happened, the universe currently is 150 sextillion times larger than our observable universe.

As such, here's my proposal:

3-A gets split up more. Create Low 3-A for the observable universe, change 3-A to be the universe as theorized up to any finite number, and High 3-A is unchanged.

This also would cause many AP and Speed upgrades for a variety of verses, although technically if everyone's getting upgraded nobody is. Most universal statements would be referring to this larger universe, after all. This also would result in multiple feats needing to be recalced, mainly speed feats (Since most universal feats are either baseline universal or vaguely higher)

Although the theory of Cosmic Inflation isn't universally accepted, a majority of scientists accept the theory, so I believe it should be fine to use here.

A video about Cosmic Inflation and the Wikipedia page for it.

 

[Xxiaa]

Following

 

[Stefano4444]

Most verses don't make distinction between observable universe and the actual universe, so how are we are going to know when a series its referring to the universe as a whole or just the observable part?

 

[Bernkastelll]

I don't think this is a good idea, it seems redundant

 

[DaReaperMan]

It's also too much work.

 

[The_Smashor]

Most verses don't make distinction between observable universe and the actual universe, so how are we are going to know when a series its referring to the universe as a whole or just the observable part?

No real reason to assume they're only referring to the observable universe, espesially if characters are strong and fast enough to destroy the whole universe.

 

[The_Smashor]

It's also too much work.

It's not that much work. Pretty much a single number needs to be changed for calcs, and most profiles with 3-A don't need that to be changed.

The only verse I can think of where you'd need to do some extra math is Dragon Ball Super with it's symbolic model.

 

[Berhann]

It's also too much work.

Whole point in scaling and debating is to find the most accurate one so if we just say it's too much work and leave it what's the point of tons of CRTs and scalings?

 

[The_Smashor]

I don't think this is a good idea, it seems redundant

I fail to see how making our wiki more accurate is redundant.

This also means verses like DC with larger universes than the observable universe don't have such a massive advantage over other verses (Albeit only through speed in this wiki), so I think changing how one of the biggest pillars of versus interacts with other versus is far from "redundant"

 

[Stefano4444]

No real reason to assume they're only referring to the observable universe, espesially if characters are strong and fast enough to destroy the whole universe.

But then who is going to become Low 3-A rather than 3-A?

We might as well drop Low 3-A and just have any feats involving the observable universe only as higher 3-B.

 

[Stefano4444]

This also means verses like DC with larger universes than the observable universe don't have such a massive advantage over other verses (Albeit only through speed in this wiki), so I think changing how one of the biggest pillars of versus interacts with other versus is far from "redundant"

You forget the 60 trillions of light years for second of the DC Big Bang, that still would make a DC Universe far larger than even the one you propose.

 

[The_Smashor]

You forget the 60 trillions of light years for second of the DC Big Bang, that still would make a DC Universe far larger than even the one you propose.

Except it's impossible to measure the exact passage of seconds in the DCU, so at most you could say the DC universe is larger to an unquantifiable extent.

 

[Stefano4444]

Except it's impossible to measure the exact passage of seconds in the DCU, so at most you could say the DC universe is larger to an unquantifiable extent.

Why? Do seconds have a different mean in the DCU compare to our world?

 

[The_Smashor]

Not exactly, but it's not like we can figure out the exact second of each feat in the DCU. Plus, with all the timey-wimey bullshit and cosmic retcons it becomes even harder to figure out exactly what's happening.

Anyways, this is derailing. I simply used DC as an example for how this isn't redundant. Touhou is another example of a verse with a larger universe than our own (Albeit it's even larger than this proposition).

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

There was once a revision thread for this once thar span 4 separate CRTs I was a massive supporters in using cosmic inflation theory.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Ill put my own 2 cents into this once in home unless you find my points supporting this on past threads then I might not have too lol

 

[The_Smashor]

Anyways, regardless of it's redundant or not, it's important to be accurate. If we suddenly found out the Sun and other stars are 100x larger than we thought they were, we'd change our rankings for Star level even if it wouldn't ultimately change much for the rankings of other characters.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Not sure where to start. I know I used to have some support for this and support the initial idea. But planets and stars have confirmed GBE, while the Universe doesn't quite. I do agree the Universe is massively larger than the observable universe and otherwise all 3-A characters are logically much stronger than what is currently rated, but it's best not to get AP borders 100% hypothetical.

 

[The_Smashor]

I mean, even if we haven't definitively proven it, it is what most scientists agree on. If we can trust a random scientist in a work of fiction for statements I think we can trust IRL scientists.

 

[Jasonsith]

So I assume this, if accepted, makes most current 3-A characters low 3-A, with a few exceptions to those on a definitively large multiplier.

I am not against that one, but it seems I am (again) the minority.

As a side note: which verses will be 3-A under the new standard? (High 3-A should still apply as anyone able to destroy "every matter in an infinitely large universe but not the universe as a space-time continuum itself" amirite)

 

[The_Smashor]

As a side note: which verses will be 3-A under the new standard?

Probably most of the ones currently 3-A since they presumably destroyed the entire universe, not just the observable universe.

 

[Bernkastelll]

Yeah, most of Universal feats in fiction are something like ''destroyed the universe'' instead of ''observable'', I still don't know which verses will be Low 3-A, but then, Low 3-A should just be rated as At least 3-B, if 3-A will be rated as Universal now

 

[Berhann]

So who/how many people have to accept this in order to change it?

 

[Cropfist]

No real reason to assume they're only referring to the observable universe, espesially if characters are strong and fast enough to destroy the whole universe.

Except that the obserbable universe is the only solid number known, and that is the best option to use rather than theoretical technicalities that no author ever has in mind.

 

[The_Smashor]

It's not really a theoretical technicality since it's supported by most scientists.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Well, if we don't want to revise the tiering maybe we should revise Big Bang feats. It won't change tiers but instead change the AP of the Big Bang when no cosmological context is given (Via temporal dimensioms being involved, or infinite distance for example.) Hopefully I made sense here. Im typing fast...

 

[RisingIons]

It's also too much work.

I hate this argument tbh, I've been seeing this on way too many threads. Who participates in a wiki and complains about having to make massive changes? It's almost like no system has perfect foundations and information doesn't change daily.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

It would make more sense to have baseline 3-A be cosmic inflation level instead of adding a low 3-A imho.

The real problem here is that universe sized explosions are 17 million times weaker than baseline 3-A.

EDIT: Don’t agree or disagree with this btw.

 

[Orange]

I heavily agree with this.

 

[Eficiente]

I put this as a Staff Discussion for reasons that should be self-evident.

We 100% know that the universe is at least the size of the observable universe, we can't take other theories with exactly the same level of objectivity, which isn't the same as a complete disagreement from my part. How accepted the theory is isn't the same to a percentage of accuracy it has, and it's not even 100% accepted. Nothing, aside from dogmatism, can assure us that the theory can't be proven wrong in the future, and nothing objectively forces anyone to subscribe to that theory if they want to know how big the universe is in numbers.

If it's going to be used then sure, but it cannot be done in a way that completely dismisses the objective size of the universe we know it at least has.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the input Medeus and Eficiente.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @AKM sama @Promestein

What do you think about this?

 

[DontTalkDT]

We had a similar discussion in the past.
There are various theories that make lots of predictions of minimum universe size, however, none of them could be confirmed with certainty at this point. More questionable than the theory of cosmic inflation itself are the assumptions that the inflation started at the specific time assumed and that the universe at that point had the specific size assumed btw. I imagine those have far less of a consensus.

In any case, the observable universe is simply the reasonable low-end.
In addition, I think all larger estimates assume a cosmological structure that finite universes in fiction tend to not have, i.e. a universe without a border.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

I asked @Eficiente for permission to talk here as this was moved to staff threads.

There is a number of equations and hypothesis that exist that attempt to extrapolate the size of our Universe behind the Observable Universe. The truth is we may never know its true size. It will take us thousands of years to possibly find out if there is even trillions of light years to Our Universe.

It is probably best to keep the Tiering how it is now. You know, keep to what we know best and we are very certain about/in.

The only possible way for our Observable Universe to shrink in size is

1. Our math is wrong.
2. We find out that the theory that our OU is actually only < 13 Billion light years, and we are a closed Universe. Where light loops around endlessly.

both of those are very unlikely to happen.

---

However, I have a proposal.

Alan Guth the creator of the Cosmic Inflation is very firm on his stance of "10^23 times bigger than the size of the observable universe at its inflation"

This is due to Cosmic Inflation being very reliant on the concept of "Fine-Tuning."

To give you an example; "A Universe with too much matter-and-energy for its expansion rate will recollapse in short order; a Universe with too little will expand into oblivion before it's possible to even form atoms."

My Proposal is this; I believe if a verse has sufficient proof (I.E a direct statement or heavy implication) of Cosmic Inflation. Then perhaps we should use Alan Guth's minimum size.

A simple statement of; "I created a Big Bang!" would not be considered sufficient proof without implications, or direct showing/statement of an expansion/inflation occurring.

This will keep everything the same with no changes, but just an upgrade to any verse where a character scales to a provable inflationary big bang feat.

Additionally, it should be considered only Tier 3-A unless the/a verse can prove a time axis/dimension is involved, or infinite space/matter/distance/etc is involved to some degree or another (Aka some other cosmological verse context).

Edit: It is also unlikely that many Authors research too much into any theory regarding the "Big Bang." Cosmic Inflation theory may be well known in the scientific community but outside of it. It's surprisingly not that well known. Which to me, in my opinion, most "Big Bang" feats in fiction are probably the outdated thinking of a "Giant Explosion" as that is the most common thought process for it.

 

[Jasonsith]

Well I do want to stress several points
1. Most authors of fiction do not give a crap on character versus debates. I highly doubt they would distinguish between an observable universe and an aggregate seen and unseen universe
2. The aggregate universe size is still countable and therefore does not fit into High 3-A. High 3-A should be applicable, like I said and what in the attack potency profile: "every matter in an infinitely large universe but not the universe as a space-time continuum itself"
3. It will be a mess to determine the true size of the aggregate universe, not to say further application across thousands of profiles.
4. I do want to ask one thing however:
To some authors, some multiple universes/dimensions whatever can be just physically located right next to another universe/dimension - each universe or dimension be given a defined and definitive size. Such that one big explosion will engulf multiple dimensions or universes as if a smaller explosion will engulf multiple planets.
How should we distinguish such?

 

[Eficiente]

To some authors, some multiple universes/dimensions whatever can be just physically located right next to another universe/dimension - each universe or dimension be given a defined and definitive size. Such that one big explosion will engulf multiple dimensions or universes as if a smaller explosion will engulf multiple planets.
How should we distinguish such?

I always imagined that this could lead to their universes/dimensions not always expanding as our does via physics, because if they have a clear, always-present edge and stuff on the other side of where they should expand, then they do not expand, and if they do not expand now, they did not yesterday. They have no reason to hold real physics inapplicable to their cases much like a thunder with the solid shape of a yellow zig zag has no reason to behave like a real thunder and a sun overly proven to be smaller than our sun has no reason to be as big as ours for simplicity's sake on calcs.

Of course, those other universes/dimensions would need to be right next to each other just as saying that implies it to be and the expansion of time and space would never need to be said in-universe for this be the case.

 

[DontTalkDT]

To some authors, some multiple universes/dimensions whatever can be just physically located right next to another universe/dimension - each universe or dimension be given a defined and definitive size. Such that one big explosion will engulf multiple dimensions or universes as if a smaller explosion will engulf multiple planets.
How should we distinguish such?

IMO a universe, for our purposes, should always be assumed to be the entirety of 3D space. So if you have multiple "universes" within 3D space, all of them together, and the space they're in, would count as a universe for our purposes.

I mean, we logically can't rate them higher than 3-A as an infinite 3D space is objectively larger than them.

However, I have a proposal.

Alan Guth the creator of the Cosmic Inflation is very firm on his stance of "10^23 times bigger than the size of the observable universe at its inflation"

This is due to Cosmic Inflation being very reliant on the concept of "Fine-Tuning."

To give you an example; "A Universe with too much matter-and-energy for its expansion rate will recollapse in short order; a Universe with too little will expand into oblivion before it's possible to even form atoms."

My Proposal is this; I believe if a verse has sufficient proof (I.E a direct statement or heavy implication) of Cosmic Inflation. Then perhaps we should use Alan Guth's minimum size.

A simple statement of; "I created a Big Bang!" would not be considered sufficient proof without implications, or direct showing/statement of an expansion/inflation occurring.

This will keep everything the same with no changes, but just an upgrade to any verse where a character scales to a provable inflationary big bang feat.

Additionally, it should be considered only Tier 3-A unless the/a verse can prove a time axis/dimension is involved, or infinite space/matter/distance/etc is involved to some degree or another (Aka some other cosmological verse context).

Edit: It is also unlikely that many Authors research too much into any theory regarding the "Big Bang." Cosmic Inflation theory may be well known in the scientific community but outside of it. It's surprisingly not that well known. Which to me, in my opinion, most "Big Bang" feats in fiction are probably the outdated thinking of a "Giant Explosion" as that is the most common thought process for it.

I don't think cosmic inflation alone actually suffices as an assumption to justify Alan Guth's stance. At least if the video in the OP is correct it requires the assumption that cosmic inflation started at a very very specific time and that the universe at that point had a very very specific size. These assumptions might not be unplausible, but I have yet to see a reason why they must hold true either.

Of course, there are also influences like dark energy in there which we know nothing about.

I'm sure someone actually knowledgeable on the topic could say something in favour of the theory, but then I'm also sure they could tell you in detail why just a mentioning of inflation wouldn't justify this assumption.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

I don't think cosmic inflation alone actually suffices as an assumption to justify Alan Guth's stance. At least if the video in the OP is correct it requires the assumption that cosmic inflation started at a very very specific time and that the universe at that point had a very very specific size. These assumptions might not be unplausible, but I have yet to see a reason why they must hold true either.

Of course, there are also influences like dark energy in there which we know nothing about.

I'm sure someone actually knowledgeable on the topic could say something in favour of the theory, but then I'm also sure they could tell you in detail why just a mentioning of inflation wouldn't justify this assumption.

The massive sizes is needed to solve several issues.

"Thus, the incredibly vast and fast expansion of the universe caused by inflation "solved" both Robert Dickes flatness problem and Guth's own monopole problem. But it also solved the horizon problem: according to the inflation theory, the universe blew up so quickly that there was no time for the essential homogeneity to be broken, and the universe after inflation would therefore have been very uniform, even though the parts of it were not still in touch with each other.""

A truly massive sizes is needed to solve the Monopole problem, Flatness problem The Horizon Problem, and the essential Homogeneity (fine-tuning) issues. Thus, a truly massive size was needed to solve these for the theory of inflation.

The assumption in the video is correct at the point being made of that inflation happened at a very specific time and blew to a very specific size before slowing down its expansion.

Edit: Full quote of the paragraph mentioning some issues got solved are in the box below.

"In fact, Guth's calculations suggest that the entire universe may be at least 10^23 times bigger than the size of the observable universe (the part within the horizon, that we are able, at least in principle, to see), roughly equal to the ratio of the size of the observable universe to the planet Earth. Thus, although the observable universe may appear to be effectively flat, the entire universe may be completely different in nature. Also, although an enormous number of magnetic monopoles could well have arisen in the inflationary early universe, the chances of actually observing even one magnetic monopole are infinitesimally small in a universe of such immense size. Thus, the incredibly vast and fast expansion of the universe caused by inflation "solved" both Robert Dickes flatness problem and Guth's own monopole problem. But it also solved the horizon problem: according to the inflation theory, the universe blew up so quickly that there was no time for the essential homogeneity to be broken, and the universe after inflation would therefore have been very uniform, even though the parts of it were not still in touch with each other."

Edit 2: Hopefully I understood what you were trying to say.. i am sorry if i didn't...

Edit 3: Question, is it the timeframe and size what you are questioning?

 

[OnsokunoSonic]

Huh, I don't know about this one, I'm pretty sure this is gonna downgrade a lot of verse but at the same time upgrade a lot of verse. I don't like the idea that we don't assume that the universe is at least the size of the observable universe, most author would probably assume that their verse is at least universe sized too, therefore why they don't specify their universes size, because they think it's common logic to think that the universe is...universe sized. And to me, assuming the universe is at least the size of the observable universe is a very reasonable low end. Basically, I disagree.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out DontTalk. It is very appreciated.

 

[Jasonsith]

Huh, I don't know about this one, I'm pretty sure this is gonna downgrade a lot of verse but at the same time upgrade a lot of verse. I don't like the idea that we don't assume that the universe is at least the size of the observable universe, most author would probably assume that their verse is at least universe sized too, therefore why they don't specify their universes size, because they think it's common logic to think that the universe is...universe sized. And to me, assuming the universe is at least the size of the observable universe is a very reasonable low end. Basically, I disagree.

And to me, assuming the universe is at least the size of the observable universe is a very reasonable low end.

This is reasonable.

Basically, I disagree.

Disagree on what?

Given how USUALLY the authors do not care about the universe size, I would say:
"creation / destruction of 'all' random things in a universe" - assume just observable universe; low 3-A
"destruction of 'all' random things in seen and unseen part of the universe" - 3-A (merit should be given to authors who distinguish the seen and unseen part of the universe)
Big bang is at least Low 3-A, 3-A over time.

So likely just a rename of the current 3-A brands into low 3-A, then a "bigger 3-A" be applicable to destroying things in a bigger universe, "high 3-A" remains for destroying things in a universe known to be infinite in size.