-
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.
Changes to 3-A in the tiering system (Staff only)
- Thread starter The_King_of_Prudence
- Start date
- 15,332
- 7,563
10^23x as an estimate is not currently widely accepted by the scientific community. The reason people in this thread are automatically thinking it is acceptable is because it comes from the pioneer of an accepted theory, but the vast majority of current and updated estimates are only on the low hundreds of times.
Those gigantic 10^1000 estimates all rely heavily on speculation.
Those gigantic 10^1000 estimates all rely heavily on speculation.
- 31,462
- 34,325
I'm for accepting the Inflation Theory that puts the Universe at 10^23 times the diameter of the Observable Universe; and in turn, making the Universe diameter 9.3 * 10^33 light years. It was already agreed that the Observable universe is just a tiny spec of how big the actual universe is, and all 3-A characters are actually downplayed as Sera layed out multiple times. Also, the whole editing a bunch of calcs isn't really a reason to disagree with the upgrade. Also, Outlier is a strong word.
And besides, it's better than everyone trying to push for crossing universes to be Infinite/Immeasurable speed feats. Inflation Theory still has way too many scientists supporting it, so I think it's for the best.
And besides, it's better than everyone trying to push for crossing universes to be Infinite/Immeasurable speed feats. Inflation Theory still has way too many scientists supporting it, so I think it's for the best.
- 10,758
- 6,491
The result being big means nothing, explain how the logic of using this value over others is flawed in general if you have a problem with it
Really the reason people want it is to get characters moving at vigintillion times the speed of light every time universe crossing feats happen.
There's nothing i've seen in the entire series of threads that indicate this so I'm not sure where you're getting this impression fromm
Really the reason people want it is to get characters moving at vigintillion times the speed of light every time universe crossing feats happen.
There's nothing i've seen in the entire series of threads that indicate this so I'm not sure where you're getting this impression fromm
- 6,452
- 1,667
ÔÇïÔÇïÔÇïÔÇïÔÇïÔÇïI was given permission by Ant to comment here... Thank you for allowing me too..
1st section.) The size.
"According to the theory of cosmic inflatio, the entire universe's sizeis at least 10^23 times larger than the size of the observable universe."[Source is here futurism.com .]
" In fact, Guth's calculations suggest that the entire universe may be at least 1023 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." [Source is here. physics of the universe .com]
""And on top of that, the rate of expansion has not been uniform. For a brief fraction of a second after the Big Bang, there was a period of accelerated expansion called inflation, during which the universe grew at a much faster pace than it is growing now. Whole regions of space will never be observable from Earth for that reason. Mack noted that assuming inflation happened, the universe is actually 1023 times bigger than the 46 billion light-years humans can see. So if there is an edge to the universe, it's so far away Earthlings can't see it, and never will." [ Source is here . Live science .com]
""t Ôëê 10-35 s, 1027 K (1016 GeV, 10-32 m) : Inflation The rate of expansion increases exponentially for a short period of time. The universe doubles in size every 10-34 s. Inflation stops at around 10-32 s, by which time the universe has increased in size by a factor of 1050. This is equivalent to an object the size of a proton swelling to 1019 light years across!
The whole universe is estimated to have had a size of ~1023 m at the end of the period of inflation. " [Source is here the source here is cms.Cern]
"Implicit in Figure 10.6 is a remarkable prediction of the inflationary theory. Due to the enormous expansion during the inflationary period, the size of the observed universe before inflation was absurdly small. There is no reason, however, to suppose that the size of the entire universe was this small. While inflationary theory allows a wide variety of assumptions concerning the state of the universe before inflatio, it seems very plausible that the size of the universe was about equal to the speed of light times its age, or perhaps even larger. If the universe were smaller than this, then it almost certainly would have already collapsed into a crunch. Applying this reasoning to the sample numbers shown on Figure 10.6, we find that the entire universe is expected to be at least 10^23 times larger than the observed universe!"
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/ratio-between-the-sizes-of-the-observed-and-the-entire-universe.963721/ Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/ratio-between-the-sizes-of-the-observed-and-the-entire-universe.963721/
ÔÇïÔÇïÔÇïÔÇïÔÇïSection 2.) The most accepted in the scientific community, and the most reliable scientific theory about our universe.
"The most widely accepted theory as to how this might have been possible is known as The Cosmic Inflation Theory, which was first proposed in 1980 by the American physicist Alan Guth, developed out of Steven Weinberg's Electroweak Theory and [[]]." [Source is here. ]
"Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted" [Source is here. ]
Nasa uses the "cosmic inflation theory." Sources is below.
Section 3.) It is slowly being proven true with several experiments backing it. So much so, that Nasa is 99.6% confident in the "Cosmic Inflation Theory" being valid at this time.
This came from a NASA.Gov website. A official website by Nasa, and the article is written by a NASA official. It was written on 1-24-2014
"Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe." [This is the website it was taken from. An official Nasa website .]
The website used above mentions "Cosmic inflation theory."
"The simplest version of the inflationary theory, an extension of the Big Bang theory, predicts that the density of the universe is very close to the critical density, and that the geometry of the universe is flat, like a sheet of paper."
"If the density of the universe exactly equals the critical density, then the geometry of the universe is flat like a sheet of paper, and infinite in extent."
"In an attempt to prove the inflation theory, the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) probe was launched in 1992, and its initial results confirmed almost exactly the amount of variation in the cosmic microwave background radiation that was predicted by inflationary theory. In 2003, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) demonstrated the existence of these non-uniformities with even greater precision. As recently as 2014, astronomers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced that they had detected and mapped "gravitational waves" within the cosmic microwave background radiation, providing further strong evidence for inflation (and for the Big Bang itself), although further peer reivew of these new findings are still ongoing."
[Link to the source is here. Physics of the universe. com ]
It has has actual experiements and findings supporting it, and Alan Guth's calculations is a lowball for the universe. He admits that too. He is assuming the speed of light was constant since its birth, and been expanding at that speed. That is what he said, so he guesstemited because we have a speed (the speed of light.) and an age (a time frame.). The reason he says its an estimation is because there is currently no way of knowing how large the universe really is. Other than following the S=D/T forumal.
This maybe subject to edits
Edits: Section 4.) Links to exerpiments, and studies supporting Cosmic Inflation as being true.
"discovery of the first direct evidence for cosmic inflation was made possible by the contributions of hundreds of scientists—including many from Department of Energy national laboratories. The discovery, which looks back at the infant universe when it was only a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second old, was made possible by researchers from 11 institutions in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.The collaboration was managed by four co-leaders including Chao-Lin Kuo, an assistant professor at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and Stanford University, who led the development of the BICEP2 detector.The detector is one of the most advanced in the world and the success of the experiment—which managed to detect a far stronger signal than most scientists had expected—is thanks in great part to its transformational technology.That technology includes a new generation of sensors, called modified "transition-edge sensor bolometers," or TESs, that were developed at institutions including Argonne National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Stanford University over the course of a decade."
[Source is here . ]
Offtopic stuff:
This site uses dimensional tiering, which even the 4th dimension is debated. dimensional tiering isn't a scientific fact, and it is also split widely in the scientific community which resulted in many diverging scientific theories about it. I don't see why we don't use "Cosmic inflation Model" which doesn't have the same divergencies as dimensional theory. It is also more accepted than M-Theory will be, and its actually been studied with scientific experiments backing it. Very much unlike higher dimensional theory. I am not saying those theories don't, but that was just a comparison to cosmic inflation theory and this is all probably poorly worded... But to disagree with cosmic inflation model, but still use other scientific theories (as if they are fact) on the site....
1st section.) The size.
"According to the theory of cosmic inflatio, the entire universe's sizeis at least 10^23 times larger than the size of the observable universe."[Source is here futurism.com .]
" In fact, Guth's calculations suggest that the entire universe may be at least 1023 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." [Source is here. physics of the universe .com]
""And on top of that, the rate of expansion has not been uniform. For a brief fraction of a second after the Big Bang, there was a period of accelerated expansion called inflation, during which the universe grew at a much faster pace than it is growing now. Whole regions of space will never be observable from Earth for that reason. Mack noted that assuming inflation happened, the universe is actually 1023 times bigger than the 46 billion light-years humans can see. So if there is an edge to the universe, it's so far away Earthlings can't see it, and never will." [ Source is here . Live science .com]
""t Ôëê 10-35 s, 1027 K (1016 GeV, 10-32 m) : Inflation The rate of expansion increases exponentially for a short period of time. The universe doubles in size every 10-34 s. Inflation stops at around 10-32 s, by which time the universe has increased in size by a factor of 1050. This is equivalent to an object the size of a proton swelling to 1019 light years across!
The whole universe is estimated to have had a size of ~1023 m at the end of the period of inflation. " [Source is here the source here is cms.Cern]
"Implicit in Figure 10.6 is a remarkable prediction of the inflationary theory. Due to the enormous expansion during the inflationary period, the size of the observed universe before inflation was absurdly small. There is no reason, however, to suppose that the size of the entire universe was this small. While inflationary theory allows a wide variety of assumptions concerning the state of the universe before inflatio, it seems very plausible that the size of the universe was about equal to the speed of light times its age, or perhaps even larger. If the universe were smaller than this, then it almost certainly would have already collapsed into a crunch. Applying this reasoning to the sample numbers shown on Figure 10.6, we find that the entire universe is expected to be at least 10^23 times larger than the observed universe!"
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/ratio-between-the-sizes-of-the-observed-and-the-entire-universe.963721/ Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/ratio-between-the-sizes-of-the-observed-and-the-entire-universe.963721/
ÔÇïÔÇïÔÇïÔÇïÔÇïSection 2.) The most accepted in the scientific community, and the most reliable scientific theory about our universe.
"The most widely accepted theory as to how this might have been possible is known as The Cosmic Inflation Theory, which was first proposed in 1980 by the American physicist Alan Guth, developed out of Steven Weinberg's Electroweak Theory and [[]]." [Source is here. ]
"Since its introduction by Alan Guth in 1980, the inflationary paradigm has become widely accepted" [Source is here. ]
Nasa uses the "cosmic inflation theory." Sources is below.
Section 3.) It is slowly being proven true with several experiments backing it. So much so, that Nasa is 99.6% confident in the "Cosmic Inflation Theory" being valid at this time.
This came from a NASA.Gov website. A official website by Nasa, and the article is written by a NASA official. It was written on 1-24-2014
"Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe." [This is the website it was taken from. An official Nasa website .]
The website used above mentions "Cosmic inflation theory."
"The simplest version of the inflationary theory, an extension of the Big Bang theory, predicts that the density of the universe is very close to the critical density, and that the geometry of the universe is flat, like a sheet of paper."
"If the density of the universe exactly equals the critical density, then the geometry of the universe is flat like a sheet of paper, and infinite in extent."
"In an attempt to prove the inflation theory, the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) probe was launched in 1992, and its initial results confirmed almost exactly the amount of variation in the cosmic microwave background radiation that was predicted by inflationary theory. In 2003, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) demonstrated the existence of these non-uniformities with even greater precision. As recently as 2014, astronomers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced that they had detected and mapped "gravitational waves" within the cosmic microwave background radiation, providing further strong evidence for inflation (and for the Big Bang itself), although further peer reivew of these new findings are still ongoing."
[Link to the source is here. Physics of the universe. com ]
It has has actual experiements and findings supporting it, and Alan Guth's calculations is a lowball for the universe. He admits that too. He is assuming the speed of light was constant since its birth, and been expanding at that speed. That is what he said, so he guesstemited because we have a speed (the speed of light.) and an age (a time frame.). The reason he says its an estimation is because there is currently no way of knowing how large the universe really is. Other than following the S=D/T forumal.
This maybe subject to edits
Edits: Section 4.) Links to exerpiments, and studies supporting Cosmic Inflation as being true.
"discovery of the first direct evidence for cosmic inflation was made possible by the contributions of hundreds of scientists—including many from Department of Energy national laboratories. The discovery, which looks back at the infant universe when it was only a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second old, was made possible by researchers from 11 institutions in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.The collaboration was managed by four co-leaders including Chao-Lin Kuo, an assistant professor at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and Stanford University, who led the development of the BICEP2 detector.The detector is one of the most advanced in the world and the success of the experiment—which managed to detect a far stronger signal than most scientists had expected—is thanks in great part to its transformational technology.That technology includes a new generation of sensors, called modified "transition-edge sensor bolometers," or TESs, that were developed at institutions including Argonne National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Stanford University over the course of a decade."
[Source is here . ]
Offtopic stuff:
This site uses dimensional tiering, which even the 4th dimension is debated. dimensional tiering isn't a scientific fact, and it is also split widely in the scientific community which resulted in many diverging scientific theories about it. I don't see why we don't use "Cosmic inflation Model" which doesn't have the same divergencies as dimensional theory. It is also more accepted than M-Theory will be, and its actually been studied with scientific experiments backing it. Very much unlike higher dimensional theory. I am not saying those theories don't, but that was just a comparison to cosmic inflation theory and this is all probably poorly worded... But to disagree with cosmic inflation model, but still use other scientific theories (as if they are fact) on the site....
- 9,978
- 2,015
I also prefer to keep using the Observable Universe as the standard 3-A; if one these calculations that would change the tier of many just cuz people decided to interpreted that, in those case we generally go for the minor interpretation, like what currently is.
- 32,359
- 20,298
This.Antoniofer said:
Let's be real, the reason people are pushing so heavily for 10^23 is because of the ridiculous boost it would give to everyone.
- 31,462
- 34,325
And in regards to Saikou's comment, I don't think it's fair to compare Inflation Theory to M Theory, as the later is solely based on philosophies and speculation. The Inflation Theory is different in that it actually has in depth physics and chemistry mentioned in the article. Arguing against that would be the same thing as arguing that anti matter doesn't exist. And actually, it is widely believed by non scientists that the universe is infinite.
Also, Andy said it well. It's only because the Universe's size well above the Observable Universe and many Universal Tier characters are well intended to literally mean the whole universe and not just Observable Universe. No one's pushing for a boost and simply trying to be more reasonable and using some common sense. Also, it would supposedly upgrade characters opposite of their favorite characters in turn, so it's not as much "Fan service" at what's being implied. 3-A's are also already so much higher than 3-B's so it's hardly an exaggeration.
Also, Andy said it well. It's only because the Universe's size well above the Observable Universe and many Universal Tier characters are well intended to literally mean the whole universe and not just Observable Universe. No one's pushing for a boost and simply trying to be more reasonable and using some common sense. Also, it would supposedly upgrade characters opposite of their favorite characters in turn, so it's not as much "Fan service" at what's being implied. 3-A's are also already so much higher than 3-B's so it's hardly an exaggeration.
- 10,758
- 6,491
@Matt How about actually looking at the reasonings people gave for the 10^23 value instead of assuming what thier intentions are.
- 15,332
- 7,563
Nobody here is questioning cosmic inflation exists (at least I hope we haven't degraded enough as a race that such conspiracy theories are held on this site, of all things), it's just that the 10^23 times estimate is not a necessary conclusion of cosmic inflation, it's merely an educated guess by the theory's creator, with starting assumptions that haven't been corrobrated by any conclusive evidence so far.
- 32,359
- 20,298
Kep is absolutely correct here. It's not acceptable in the slightest.
- 9,651
- 8,711
Perhaps it would be better to wait for the Inflation Theory to be widely accepted by the scientific community, as these estimates are always subject to change due to new discoveries over time.
I agree with keep using the observable universe as the baseline 3-A.
I agree with keep using the observable universe as the baseline 3-A.
- 6,452
- 1,667
Its already accepted in the community.. Nasa is 99.6% confident in the Theory... There was a team of scientist from 11 different institues and over a hundred of them that discorved more evidence to the theory... and Alan Guth has a really good reason to believe the Universe is 10^23 times our O.U's size...TheUpgradeManHaHaxD said:
The universe is expanding at 3.16 million light years every second. Even if we somehow see more of the observable universe. it won't change that the true universe will be much bigger... It is expected to accelerate faster than de-accelerate...
[I don't mean to annoy anyone with a long quote.. i edited it a lot.. and just bumping it...]
- 9,978
- 2,015
Although not wrong at all, the minor issue is that feat performed while the theory weren't accepted still use the former standard, so even if the standard change they could still use the former one as reference.Therefir said:
- 31,462
- 34,325
Upgrade also mentions names of some of the biggest, scientific communities in the world; this includes, Argonne National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Stanford University over the course of a decade. And that's literally more than 90% of scientists. All of those accept the 10^23 end. The big 10^1000 and above I can agree are educated guesses, but 10^23 is based on lowballed mathematics actually.
The only legitimate counter argument is those who believe the is younger than 6 billion years, but those are the same people who believe the universe to be infinite. Which I respect, but won't especially considering my beliefs, but won't use it as the primary basis.
The only legitimate counter argument is those who believe the is younger than 6 billion years, but those are the same people who believe the universe to be infinite. Which I respect, but won't especially considering my beliefs, but won't use it as the primary basis.
- 10,758
- 6,491
@Anto Why would that need to be the case?
- 6,014
- 2,122
In fact, according to many source, this theory still have some Problems and contradiction such as the Flatness Problem.TheUpgradeManHaHaxD said:
- 32,359
- 20,298
Just copypasting a bunch of sources won't make it more true. It's still a theory that isn't confirmed. And it is ridiculously wanky for the calcs.
- 6,452
- 1,667
@The causality
"The horizon problem is solved by inflation because regions that appear to be isolated from each other were in contact with each other before the inflation period. They came into equilibrium before inflation expanded them far away from each other. Another bonus is that the GUTs that predict inflation also predict an asymmetry between matter and antimatter, so that there should be an excess of matter over antimatter." [Source is here ]
"The inflation theory predicts that the ultra-fast inflation would have expanded away any large-scale curvature of the part of the universe we can detect. It is analogous to taking a small globe and expanding it to the size of the Earth. The globe is still curved but the local piece you would see would appear to be fairly flat. The small universe inflated by a large amount and the part of the universe you can observe appears to be nearly flat. That solves the flatness problem." [Same source as above.].
"The horizon problem is solved by inflation because regions that appear to be isolated from each other were in contact with each other before the inflation period. They came into equilibrium before inflation expanded them far away from each other. Another bonus is that the GUTs that predict inflation also predict an asymmetry between matter and antimatter, so that there should be an excess of matter over antimatter." [Source is here ]
"The inflation theory predicts that the ultra-fast inflation would have expanded away any large-scale curvature of the part of the universe we can detect. It is analogous to taking a small globe and expanding it to the size of the Earth. The globe is still curved but the local piece you would see would appear to be fairly flat. The small universe inflated by a large amount and the part of the universe you can observe appears to be nearly flat. That solves the flatness problem." [Same source as above.].
- 6,452
- 1,667
It is more well accepted, and has actual evidence, comapred to higher dimensional theory which has many conflicting and divergingly different theories. May I ask why is this any different than accepting higher dimensional theories...?
Edit: its been answered... I am sorry..
Edit: its been answered... I am sorry..
- 10,758
- 6,491
@Upgrade Well we only use higher dimension theory when the verse confirms it, that's a difference.
- 32,359
- 20,298
Cosmic INFLATION also inflates calcs.
- 32,359
- 20,298
I was just pointing out the irony.
- 10,758
- 6,491
Probably a troll.
- 32,359
- 20,298
"Matthew Cabrão" is undoubtedly a troll.
- 167,862
- 76,482
Can the people who feel the urge to take potshots at Matthew over nothing please stop doing so? The paranoia and obsession is ridiculous, especially as he is constantly making an effort to be polite and rational.
- 31,462
- 34,325
By the way, I'm fine with the 251x volume end, but prefer the 10^23 times diameter as Upgrade really elaborated. And yesh, the witch hunts against Matt really needs to stop.
I will need to go to work soon, so I'll be unable to post in the mean time.
I will need to go to work soon, so I'll be unable to post in the mean time.
- 6,104
- 5,106
@Saikou
Let me explain. Were we not so fact-based and calculated up the arse, I wouldn't have a problem keeping the observable universe as a reference for baseline. The issue is we treat it as if it's the absolute maximum that feat can be.
Other debaters don't do that. They'd say something along the lines of "Since our own observable is 93 billion light years, the feat is at least that much" and they would state how due to the universe's undefined size, it is possibly much, much higher. And that's not even wank. That's admitting universal feats (physical ones) are ambiguous. This makes it a bit more malleable because they aren't saying it absolutely is observable universe level, and only is that. Mostly, this is because they have no system but the practice is still far more preferable.
We here at VSB on the other hand by the very nature of our system and due to the culture that's been programmed into our minds, we instead say "the feat cannot be any higher than the obersvable universe" and in a vs. match that means baseline 3-A feats are always considered at most 2.825 TenaexaFoe. We don't consider it to be potentially higher in debates, and if we weren't so tight when it came to AP differences, I also wouldn't have an issue with it because we wouldn't assume someone with 10x the assumed baseline 2.825 TenaexaFoe would one shot them anyway. Here at VSBW, there is no real fluidity, everything is systematic, akin to machine work.
For the record: I don't mean the tier modifiers "at least" or "likely higher" either, just using general vocabulary. So please don't say "if we wrote "At least 3-A" that would be wank or misleading because I'm not saying that. Now if you still don't see the issue with this, I don't know how else to explain it.
Let me explain. Were we not so fact-based and calculated up the arse, I wouldn't have a problem keeping the observable universe as a reference for baseline. The issue is we treat it as if it's the absolute maximum that feat can be.
Other debaters don't do that. They'd say something along the lines of "Since our own observable is 93 billion light years, the feat is at least that much" and they would state how due to the universe's undefined size, it is possibly much, much higher. And that's not even wank. That's admitting universal feats (physical ones) are ambiguous. This makes it a bit more malleable because they aren't saying it absolutely is observable universe level, and only is that. Mostly, this is because they have no system but the practice is still far more preferable.
We here at VSB on the other hand by the very nature of our system and due to the culture that's been programmed into our minds, we instead say "the feat cannot be any higher than the obersvable universe" and in a vs. match that means baseline 3-A feats are always considered at most 2.825 TenaexaFoe. We don't consider it to be potentially higher in debates, and if we weren't so tight when it came to AP differences, I also wouldn't have an issue with it because we wouldn't assume someone with 10x the assumed baseline 2.825 TenaexaFoe would one shot them anyway. Here at VSBW, there is no real fluidity, everything is systematic, akin to machine work.
For the record: I don't mean the tier modifiers "at least" or "likely higher" either, just using general vocabulary. So please don't say "if we wrote "At least 3-A" that would be wank or misleading because I'm not saying that. Now if you still don't see the issue with this, I don't know how else to explain it.
- 1,092
- 919
It's crazy that I agree with Saikou, Kep, Matt, and Sera despite their varying perspectives regarding the issue.
I told Sera it might be better to revise our "culture" (as she calls it) regarding 3-A feats but she thought "because we're system-based down to the simplest detail" it would be far more practical to just change the system. Can't blame that mentality really, especially since it did accomplish removing "less than universal 4D".
If we didn't downplay 3-A in actual debates/revisions, I wouldn't even mind keeping the tier the same as it is either.
I told Sera it might be better to revise our "culture" (as she calls it) regarding 3-A feats but she thought "because we're system-based down to the simplest detail" it would be far more practical to just change the system. Can't blame that mentality really, especially since it did accomplish removing "less than universal 4D".
If we didn't downplay 3-A in actual debates/revisions, I wouldn't even mind keeping the tier the same as it is either.
- 6,198
- 16,503
I agree that using the 10^23 estimate as a baseline for the Unobservable Universe is immensely inflated and would make most calculations moot at this point. I am far more comfortable with the 251x estimate, like Sera said above.
Although, I really am curious about how we are going to treat, say, destroying an infinite area of space, rather than just affecting an infinite extension of matter within a given cosmos. Grouping both feats into a single Tier seems kinda weird, mainly because the former is far more extensive and fundamental than the latter.
Although, I really am curious about how we are going to treat, say, destroying an infinite area of space, rather than just affecting an infinite extension of matter within a given cosmos. Grouping both feats into a single Tier seems kinda weird, mainly because the former is far more extensive and fundamental than the latter.
- 6,452
- 1,667
This is a 12 minutes video i found explanining 1 reason why Alan Guth got 10^23 which is the power of doubling/expotential expansion... it is explained in the first 6 minutes. He says its the mininum/(at least). 100 extra doublings is the min. I think watching the video might be better for an explanation lol.
But I think 251x is better than nothing... But i do prefer 10^23...
But I think 251x is better than nothing... But i do prefer 10^23...
Similar threads
