Big Bang Questions & Clarifications

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

The title. Making this because I’ve been absent from the site for quite some time and this is new to me.

So it came to my attention recently that we treat Big Bangs as “non-physical” events since the Big Bang pretty much is just expanding space-time upon creation of whatever is getting created and it isn’t something that’s worth anything as far as tiering purposes are concerned. However, for “unnatural” big bangs, we treat them differently? At least, that’s what I’m being told based on the bolded here.

If it has generated a space-time expansion that creates an entire universal spacetime continuum from scratch, it is treated as Low 2-C. The difference between this and a 3-A Big Bang that also creates time being that the latter only creates a moment of a universe's time that will expand on its own after the Big Bang is over, therefore said Big Bang didn't create the length of time in the timeline, but kickstarted it from the beginning. Surviving a Low 2-C Big Bang isn't a Universe level+ feat in durability due to the non-physical nature of such an event. However, this ideally only applies to Big Bangs as natural events, instead of attacks with a destructive capacity independent of their size and tier.
Click to expand...

So, if I’m reading this note on the Big Bang page right, if an unnatural big bang causes the creation of expanded space-time, do we still not treat it as anything, besides creation because of the obvious creation feat component of this? Or do we treat this the same as a destructive attack and allow it to scale, even if it’s just creating X structure and not being used as destruction? If so, how come exactly?

Some clarification on this would be very appreciated as I can’t find a single most recent thread that addresses this matter to my limited knowledge and memory. The closest thread to this that I could find was this one here but it never got completed, and there were some pretty divided takes for this.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It's hard to tell exactly what it is and different verses portray it differently. But it's described as "A Cosmic inflation in time and space" is the main description. Of course, Hawking also described it as both a mass universe wide separation of matter and anti-matter as well as a mass universe wide separation of positive energy and negative energy. And of course some verses simply treat it as simply a big explosion that formed all celestial bodies in the universe. Some people also debate it's not an explosion but a reality altering wave while others will argue that the word "Explosion" is a loose term and that a Big Bang is technically a 4-D explosion. But of course 4-D force/energy is also a subjective term that people may doubt exists but some fictions may say otherwise.

Big Bangs are generally Low 2-C, but it depends on the verse. It could be lower or higher depending on context and there do exist characters who scale from multiverse wide Big Bangs. But it really depends on the context and it can be case by case.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

It's hard to tell exactly what it is and different verses portray it differently. But it's described as "A Cosmic inflation in time and space" is the main description. Of course, Hawking also described it as both a mass universe wide separation of matter and anti-matter as well as a mass universe wide separation of positive energy and negative energy. And of course some verses simply treat it as simply a big explosion that formed all celestial bodies in the universe. Some people also debate it's not an explosion but a reality altering wave while others will argue that the word "Explosion" is a loose term and that a Big Bang is technically a 4-D explosion. But of course 4-D force/energy is also a subjective term that people may doubt exists but some fictions may say otherwise.

Big Bangs are generally Low 2-C, but it depends on the verse. It could be lower or higher depending on context and there do exist characters who scale from multiverse wide Big Bangs. But it really depends on the context and it can be case by case.

I see. Now is this in regards to scaling them with it based on creation? What about “surviving” a big bangs expansion, do we scale that?

 

[KLOL506]

I see. Now is this in regards to scaling them with it based on creation? What about “surviving” a big bangs expansion, do we scale that?

Again, case-by-case.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Again, case-by-case.

No that I realize, I probably shouldve clarified the question better. What I meant was, in terms of surviving, how would durability from “surviving” a big bang scale exactly from this, in the cases that would accept scaling durability?

Basically, how can “tanking” creation be a thing in some cases.

 

[KLOL506]

No that I realize, I probably shouldve clarified the question better. What I meant was, in terms of surviving, how would durability from “surviving” a big bang scale exactly from this, in the cases that would accept scaling durability?

Basically, how can “tanking” creation be a thing in some cases.

Basically it depends. If it's an explosion that creates space-and-time then you just use it like any other durability feat.

Otherwise, good old UES (If there is one to begin with in the verse) and/or statements of "Can channel the power of the big bang through their fists" should take care of it.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Basically it depends. If it's an explosion that creates space-and-time then you just use it like any other durability feat.

Otherwise, good old UES (If there is one to begin with in the verse) and/or statements of "Can channel the power of the big bang through their fists" should take care of it.

Okay. The latter I understand because that’s pretty much the normal case of converting creation power into destructive AP via the characters attacks & UES.

But for the former, I’m confused. If the explosion is done to expand its energy for creating space-time, then what aspect of the explosion would have a destructive value component? Since it’s being used in the act of creating rather than destroying?

 

[KLOL506]

But for the former, I’m confused. If the explosion is done to expand its energy for creating space-time, then what aspect of the explosion would have a destructive value component? Since it’s being used in the act of creating rather than destroying?

I think it's not so much the creation aspect but rather the blunt-force aspect kickstarting the universe that contributes to AP, like say, creating space-time continuums with the clashing of fists and legs and so on and so forth. 4D shockwaves can't be calc'd after all and that energy covering a universal range would then fall under the aspect of "significantly affecting" it, thereby qualifying for AP.

 

[Reiner04]

It's case by case, i remember it was brought up before and It really depends on nature and extent to which bigbang goes, if it creates spacetime in unnatural way (like not starting the timeline but rather creating it whole) then and is known to be harmful in nature then u have it. Dimensions are physical, 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D and all this what it created and to how far it goes scales. Same as usual bigbang that creates 3D universe scales to it. A bigbang that creates infinite D universe scales to it.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I think it's not so much the creation aspect but rather the blunt-force aspect kickstarting the universe that contributes to AP, like say, creating space-time continuums with the clashing of fists and legs and so on and so forth. 4D shockwaves can't be calc'd after all and that energy covering a universal range would then fall under the aspect of "significantly affecting" it, thereby qualifying for AP.

So like if blunt force strikes or attacks from characters caused energy to burst out and kickstart a universe, multiverse, etc etc?

 

[KLOL506]

So like if blunt force strikes or attacks from characters caused energy to burst out and kickstart a universe, multiverse, etc etc?

Or something like shockwaves. Like, there could be a machine dumping a huge amount of energy that causes shockwaves to form or something of the sort.

 

[Reiner04]

Basically a short summary of the bigbang page. (Note that our big bang page assumes standard universe which is low 2-C, same as our universe page assumes standard low 2-C universe not higher dimensional universe)

1. Bigbang naturally scales to physical dimensions. By standard low 2-C model, it's 3D. Any further depends on how many physical dimensions verse has.
2. Time is non physical in nature by default unless verse describes them being physical, but incase bigbang spanning to the non-physical part as in all of it's uncountable infinite snapshots (like fist spacetime bigbang, machine or smth) rather than just creating spacetime and let it flow. It scales.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Alright. I requested for more staff to be pinged to see this thread, as in the thread I linked, this was pretty divided.

Some such as @DontTalkDT arguing it shouldn’t scale to survival (durablity) really at all because of creation not having the offensive force to also destroy at the same time. So hopefully more insight can be provided on this topic

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Qawsedf234 @Ultima_Reality

What do you think about this?

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Bump

 

[Forthegood]

Bump

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Bump

 

[Forthegood]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

Well, DontTalk is taking a two months break to focus on real life work.

@Qawsedf234 @Agnaa @DarkGrath @Ultima_Reality

What do you think?

 

[Qawsedf234]

A big bang feat will always just depend on the cosmology. Generally though I'd imagine anything that replicates it (as in a total universe reset or destruction) would qualify for at least 3-A.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Okay, thank you for taking the time to respond. While I have the opportunity, I’ll guess I’ll say this.

I obviously have no issue or confusion with big bang feats having their creations scaled to X tier since they’re creating something on the same scale as what the tier is. So the creation aspect of big bangs is fine.

What I see to be the issue here is the destruction aspect of big bang feats. The destructive output. Because from how the standard apparently treats this right now, we’re saying an action of creation can also simultaneously have destructive output relative to it, and that’s an issue as it doesn’t make sense. Power that is used to create something also can’t simultaneously have the destructive force behind it to destroy you, because it’s doing literally the exact opposite of destruction. It’s not destroying anything, but creating, so what destructive output would there be here? And while power that’s used to create can most certainly be put into destruction, that’s only when it’s specifically converting that power into an actual destructive action, because of UES shenanigans as mentioned.

Example: You poof a universe into existence and then convert that very same energy into an energy blast, or convert it to you physically punching someone. That’s scaling the destructive AP. But not while the creation is happening.

Not to mention, if you argue a creation feat still has the destructive output aspect to it at the same time, then you are also essentially saying that a creation feat automatically scales to destruction on the same level without needing to fulfill the requirements that our Creation feat standards go through the efforts of establishing in the first place. Which is something that is obviously a concern.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Bump

 

[Reiner04]

Everyone has already answered it so why bump again.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Well for one, no one gave a response to the thing I pointed out above yet. About how a creation can still produce destructive output relative to it.

And from the previous answers, it looks as though they’re saying a big bang becomes X tier based on either what’s getting created (so just standard creation) or if it’s done through UES shenanigans like we normally already require for creation feats.

 

[Reiner04]

Well for one, no one gave a response to the thing I pointed out above yet. About how a creation can still produce destructive output relative to it.

And from the previous answers, it looks as though they’re saying a big bang becomes X tier based on either what’s getting created (so just standard creation) or if it’s done through UES shenanigans like we normally already require for creation feats.

Again, you disagreeing with how we go with stuff is not really a place to argue in QnA. Debating on why smth shouldn't be smth is a place to argue in CRTs. This thread has been answered and it's going beyond the scope of QnA at this point.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Again, you disagreeing with how we go with stuff is not really a place to argue in QnA. Debating on why smth shouldn't be smth is a place to argue in CRTs. This thread has been answered and it's going beyond the scope of QnA at this point.

That’s not true. I’m asking about this because, again, I don’t see any thread having been made before that shows where this supposed standard for the Big Bang page came from, or a thread that even really discussed this. Besides the one I linked in the OP, and that one never finished.

It’s fine to discuss things in a Q&A thread that you yourself don’t understand and want clarification for. Otherwise, where else should this be talked about?

 

[Reiner04]

That’s not true. I’m asking about this because, again, I don’t see any thread having been made before that shows where this supposed standard for the Big Bang page came from, or a thread that even really discussed this. Besides the one I linked in the OP, and that one never finished.

It’s fine to discuss things in a Q&A thread that you yourself don’t understand and want clarification for. Otherwise, where else should this be talked about?

It's doesn't need a thread since I've already explained what our standards are which Qawsed said too. I don't know what u mean by threads or whatever.

Basically a short summary of the bigbang page. (Note that our big bang page assumes standard universe which is low 2-C, same as our universe page assumes standard low 2-C universe not higher dimensional universe)

1. Bigbang naturally scales to physical dimensions. By standard low 2-C model, it's 3D. Any further depends on how many physical dimensions verse has.
2. Time is non physical in nature by default unless verse describes them being physical, but incase bigbang spanning to the non-physical part as in all of it's uncountable infinite snapshots (like fist spacetime bigbang, machine or smth) rather than just creating spacetime and let it flow. It scales.

 

[Reiner04]

It’s fine to discuss things in a Q&A thread that you yourself don’t understand and want clarification for. Otherwise, where else should this be talked about?

This QnA is trying to stall the CRT u made and so, won't get hold off indefinitely because a user doesn't find other's answer satisfactory and wanna argue regardless, so, beware that this thread is concluded for those who knows the answer and were waiting for any of pinged one's. Incase u disagree, that's your own problem and we aren't obligated to wait any further. For me, this thread is concluded.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

It's doesn't need a thread since I've already explained what our standards are which Qawsed said too.

2 people, out of several that were pinged, and based on the thread I linked in the OP, some like @DontTalkDT certainly have different opinions about this, so one or 2 people giving their take may mean to you this is finished, but it doesn’t mean the thread is finished.

Hence why I want this clarified. I asked a relevant question about it, so I’m bumping to get an answer to that question.

And the summary you gave of the Big Bang page standards only explains how the given big bang can be considered a creation feat when it’s proven to be physical rather than non-physical expansion. It doesn’t explain how it can be considered a destructive feat while in the midst of doing its creation feat like you and the others tried considering it as.

This QnA is trying to stall the CRT u made and so, won't get hold off indefinitely because a user doesn't find other's answer satisfactory and wanna argue regardless, so, beware that this thread is concluded for those who knows the answer and were waiting for any of pinged one's. Incase u disagree, that's your own problem and we aren't obligated to wait any further. For me, this thread is concluded.

Obviously this thread of mine has an effect on my other one because it involves a Big Bang related feat as a big discussion point. I made this thread because of the other thread where this topic was brought up.

I’m not “stalling” for my thread to last longer, I want this to get an actual discussion about its application to our site, and my thread hinges quite a bit on the result of this one.

 

[Reiner04]

DonttalkDT is out for months. Qawsed is just as much knowledgeable.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

DonttalkDT is out for months. Qawsed is just as much knowledgeable.

Of course? I didn’t say he wasn’t.

 

[Reiner04]

Actually, I think there's no point in arguing any further tbh. I've and everyone else has said their thing. We tier Bigbangs that are explosions rather than hax as what it is has always been a thing. Sayonara.

https://imgur.com/gallery/ECIKatK

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Actually, I think there's no point in arguing any further tbh. I've and everyone else has said their thing. We tier Bigbangs that are explosions rather than hax as what it is has always been a thing. Sayonara.

https://imgur.com/gallery/ECIKatK

“Probably”

No but to give a real answer, just because we’ve “always done this” (which I don’t remember here but whatever) does not mean it’s immune to being called out as a standard being applied wrongly. Like I said, the creation part of the feat getting a tier is fine (so, 2-A in that case), it’s the destruction / attack potency scaling aspect of it that’s more of a problem because of the very nature of the explosion.

 

[Forthegood]

“Probably”

No but to give a real answer, just because we’ve “always done this” (which I don’t remember here but whatever) does not mean it’s immune to being called out as a standard being applied wrongly. Like I said, the creation part of the feat getting a tier is fine (so, 2-A in that case), it’s the destruction / attack potency scaling aspect of it that’s more of a problem because of the very nature of the explosion.

If this is actually what you meant, then aren't you suppose to make a thread on wiki management or something? Instead of QnA?

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

If this is actually what you meant, then aren't you suppose to make a thread on wiki management or something? Instead of QnA?

I made it as a Q&A thread to get feedback first on why it was like that since this was something I didn’t know about (as again, I wasn’t on the site when this was added I don’t think) rather than try and change a standard before first getting answers .

 

[Reiner04]

Probably