-
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
- 6,014
- 2,122
I'm fine with 251x too
- 8,438
- 3,294
Speaking of which, is the extra space that cosmic inflation created full of matter, or is it just empty? Just because space is that big doesn't mean that it is filled.Sera EX said:
- 6,452
- 1,667
This came from the website with the a article 251x calc. i'll try to find more links about it.
"This means the unobservable Universe, assuming there's no topological weirdness, must be at least 23 trillion light years in diameter, and contain a volume of space that's over 15 million times as large as the volume we can observe. If we're willing to speculate, however, we can argue quite compellingly that the unobservable Universe should be significantly even bigger than that.
Before the Big Bang, the Universe underwent a period of cosmic inflation. Instead of being filled with matter and radiation, and instead of being hot, the Universe was:
"
We know the size of the Observable Universe since we know the age of the Universe (at least since the phase change) and we know that light radiates. […] My question is, I guess, why doesn't the math involved in making the CMB and other predictions, in effect, tell us the size of the Universe? We know how hot it was and how cool it is now. Does scale not affect these calculations?
Oh, if only it were so easy." "They tell us that if the Universe does curve back in on itself and close, the part we can see is so indistinguishable from "uncurved" that it much be at least 250 times the radius of the observable part."
That should contradict the 251x O.U. That too is a guesstimation, but they are also second guesing themselves within the article. It is also taking on the assumption that it is curved, but after recent experiements. We know the Universe is flat. They also mention inflation in the article several times for a total of 14. (refer to my long comments above.) The person who tried to calc the volume/size also admits that the scale of the universe (The curvature) will affect his results.Another error the article makes is that inflation happaned before the big bang, but it didn't. [source is here. ]
In summary: this article in particular has some contradictions, and almost seems it is unnreliable
Edit: my point here is both are estimations, and this article in particular has some problems with it.
"This means the unobservable Universe, assuming there's no topological weirdness, must be at least 23 trillion light years in diameter, and contain a volume of space that's over 15 million times as large as the volume we can observe. If we're willing to speculate, however, we can argue quite compellingly that the unobservable Universe should be significantly even bigger than that.
Before the Big Bang, the Universe underwent a period of cosmic inflation. Instead of being filled with matter and radiation, and instead of being hot, the Universe was:
- filled with energy inherent to space itself,
- expanding at a constant, exponential rate,
- and creating new space so quickly that the smallest physical length scale, the Planck length, would be stretched to the size of the presently observable Universe every 10―32 seconds."
"
We know the size of the Observable Universe since we know the age of the Universe (at least since the phase change) and we know that light radiates. […] My question is, I guess, why doesn't the math involved in making the CMB and other predictions, in effect, tell us the size of the Universe? We know how hot it was and how cool it is now. Does scale not affect these calculations?
Oh, if only it were so easy." "They tell us that if the Universe does curve back in on itself and close, the part we can see is so indistinguishable from "uncurved" that it much be at least 250 times the radius of the observable part."
That should contradict the 251x O.U. That too is a guesstimation, but they are also second guesing themselves within the article. It is also taking on the assumption that it is curved, but after recent experiements. We know the Universe is flat. They also mention inflation in the article several times for a total of 14. (refer to my long comments above.) The person who tried to calc the volume/size also admits that the scale of the universe (The curvature) will affect his results.Another error the article makes is that inflation happaned before the big bang, but it didn't. [source is here. ]
In summary: this article in particular has some contradictions, and almost seems it is unnreliable
Edit: my point here is both are estimations, and this article in particular has some problems with it.
- 15,881
- 12,239
I'm fine with 251x.
- 6,104
- 5,106
Can we stop trying to be the most accurate debate community on the web and accept we have to speculate a bit here? That's the whole point of universe debates, it's ambiguous and so low balling to a spherical region is not acceptable as if it's concrete like the size of the Earth or the size of the Milky Way which is the same across all fiction unless they specify otherwise.
- 15,332
- 7,563
Speaking of which, is the extra space that cosmic inflation created full of matter, or is it just empty? Just because space is that big doesn't mean that it is filled.
Probably the latter by default, as saying otherwise would violate conservation of mass and entropy.
Probably the latter by default, as saying otherwise would violate conservation of mass and entropy.
- 11,135
- 14,120
The point was to find the low end border of 3-A and one theory could seem to be more accurate than the other as per our very limited knowledge, but let's be real, at the end of the day they are just that, theories. None of them are 100% accurate, yet.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
10^23 is just too much and there isn't enough evidence to fully support that kind of change. We obviously can't select that number without enough evidence, I disagree.
When there is already a lower end(250x) available to us, why would we take such huge risk based on insufficient evidence. Like I said in the previous thread, wikipedia gives 3 estimates and we need to be conservative and pick the lower one due to lack of 100% accuracy.
Lastly, I get why people want to be even more conservative and keep things as they are, 100% factual with no assumptions, hypothesis or risks involved. So I don't mind keeping the observable universe as the low end with a note that any feat calculated using this value is an absolute low end due to lack of sufficient information on the size of the universe and the real value is likely much higher.
TLDR; I vehemently disagree with using 10^23, at least for now. I am neutral about using 250x or keeping the observable universe as the lower border (with the addition of that note I mentioned.) But leaning more towards using 250x.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
10^23 is just too much and there isn't enough evidence to fully support that kind of change. We obviously can't select that number without enough evidence, I disagree.
When there is already a lower end(250x) available to us, why would we take such huge risk based on insufficient evidence. Like I said in the previous thread, wikipedia gives 3 estimates and we need to be conservative and pick the lower one due to lack of 100% accuracy.
Lastly, I get why people want to be even more conservative and keep things as they are, 100% factual with no assumptions, hypothesis or risks involved. So I don't mind keeping the observable universe as the low end with a note that any feat calculated using this value is an absolute low end due to lack of sufficient information on the size of the universe and the real value is likely much higher.
TLDR; I vehemently disagree with using 10^23, at least for now. I am neutral about using 250x or keeping the observable universe as the lower border (with the addition of that note I mentioned.) But leaning more towards using 250x.
- 6,452
- 1,667
The 250x is based around something already disproven. I posted evidence to links above with direct quotes. The 250 is based around a closed universe from what I am reading, and actual experiments done irl have shown the universe to be flat with 99.6% accuracy.
Edit: I do plan on finding more articles.
Edit: I do plan on finding more articles.
- 32,359
- 20,298
Use the Observable Universe or x250 at most. Everything higher is absurd.
- 6,104
- 5,106
The point was to find the low end border of 3-A and one theory could seem to be more accurate than the other as per our very limited knowledge, but let's be real, at the end of the day they are just that, theories. None of them are 100% accurate, yet.
Absolutely.
I'm okay with whatever estimate we choose so long as it's reliable enough. I will only accept keeping the observable universe as the baseline under one condition (as detailed by myself and Ven above). Unfortunately I doubt people will agree to it because again, there is a cultural mindset shared by almost every consistent member here due to having followed a certain line of thinking for so long.
Absolutely.
I'm okay with whatever estimate we choose so long as it's reliable enough. I will only accept keeping the observable universe as the baseline under one condition (as detailed by myself and Ven above). Unfortunately I doubt people will agree to it because again, there is a cultural mindset shared by almost every consistent member here due to having followed a certain line of thinking for so long.
- 8,438
- 3,294
Let's not needlessly insult a side of the debate, please.
- 8,438
- 3,294
The comment I removed wasn't even about the 251x side. Either way it didn't contribute anything and only served to try and provoke a group of users.
- 1,092
- 919
No it didn't... I even said I agree with that side but mentioned why I likewise agreed with Sera above.
- 8,438
- 3,294
My fault, then. I thought it was at me.Sera EX said:
However it was absolutely an insult.
- 8,438
- 3,294
@Sera
Not sure why, but saying how it's "funny" that the observable universe supporters are ignoring evidence is absolutely an insult to such supporters' judgement and intelligence.
Edit: This already derailed enough as is. I'm not arguing that further.
Not sure why, but saying how it's "funny" that the observable universe supporters are ignoring evidence is absolutely an insult to such supporters' judgement and intelligence.
Edit: This already derailed enough as is. I'm not arguing that further.
- 6,104
- 5,106
He didn't say they are ignoring evidence, he said they are ignoring concerns outside the size argument, which if you read everything in between my post about it and Matt's mos recent reply, that is definitely the case. I'm sure Matt just never read it, especially since it was a response to Saikou and was two hours ago.
- 32,359
- 20,298
I did read this whole thread and I still support either still observable universe or at worse the 251x estimation.
- 6,104
- 5,106
That's the thing, we wouldn't mind keeping the current baseline were it not for the reasons listed above. Admittedly it's not even a problem with the tier system and more so a problem with how absolute the system is within debates but that feels more like an entirely different thread which is why I hardly elaborated on it until now.Matthew Schroeder said:
- 1,092
- 919
Well if those on that side were offended by my comment, I do apologize.
- 9,978
- 2,015
If the x251 is as unaccurate as few people says I'll suggest to conserve the observable universe. Starting to use use the 10^23 will simply makes character 10^69 times stronger simple cuz we decide to interprete it that way.
- 6,104
- 5,106
By the way, that is also the one criticism against this site I agree with more than anything. However, this might be for another time (it does feel like a separate discussion).
I never wanted to suggest we be unreliable. I don't portray myself as an objective mouthpiece for anything. If anyone truly and most certainly wants to keep the current baseline, at least address my concerns (the reply to Saikou). I just want closure on this. :/
I never wanted to suggest we be unreliable. I don't portray myself as an objective mouthpiece for anything. If anyone truly and most certainly wants to keep the current baseline, at least address my concerns (the reply to Saikou). I just want closure on this. :/
- 1,092
- 919
Not to speak for them but I assume because it'd be treateing 3-A differently from pretty much any other tier.
- 6,104
- 5,106
That's what I meant by "systematic" thinking. It's a logical paradox.
"We know the universe is likely far larger than the observable universe but because the observable universe is the only concrete estimate size for the universe that we can use, we will lock all baseline 3-A feats for fictional verses with physical universes of no definite size as being at most the size of the observable universe".
It assumes these fictional universes assume the size of the observable universe rather than assume they do not have a defined size much like our own universe.
The universe is the only thing we don't know it's definitive size for, so of course we couldn't do the same for other tiers. We know the factual size for the Earth (not just a region), We know the factual size for the Solar System (not just a region), We know the factual size for the Milky Way Galaxy (not just a region). We don't know the factual size of the actual universe, only a spherical region as observed from Earth.
"We know the universe is likely far larger than the observable universe but because the observable universe is the only concrete estimate size for the universe that we can use, we will lock all baseline 3-A feats for fictional verses with physical universes of no definite size as being at most the size of the observable universe".
It assumes these fictional universes assume the size of the observable universe rather than assume they do not have a defined size much like our own universe.
The universe is the only thing we don't know it's definitive size for, so of course we couldn't do the same for other tiers. We know the factual size for the Earth (not just a region), We know the factual size for the Solar System (not just a region), We know the factual size for the Milky Way Galaxy (not just a region). We don't know the factual size of the actual universe, only a spherical region as observed from Earth.
- 1,092
- 919
I don't think changing the baseline solves that issue. Pritti said on the second thread that any size we choose is arbitrary. However, the option of using no estimate whatsoever may be even more opposed than using 10^23x the observable universe.
- 6,104
- 5,106
However, the option of using no estimate whatsoever may be even more opposed than using 10^23x the observable universe.
Because we're systematically programmed as a community. There is literally no room for flexibility without having to change the system as the result. But no one will ever agree on everything. Think about how many threads were made because a few people disagreed about something on a versus thread.
Because we're systematically programmed as a community. There is literally no room for flexibility without having to change the system as the result. But no one will ever agree on everything. Think about how many threads were made because a few people disagreed about something on a versus thread.
- 32,359
- 20,298
Making every 3-A character 10^69 times stronger just because "Lol why not use this seems accurate" is very, very bad.
We should stick to Observable Universe or x250. I don't understand how this is controversial at all.
We should stick to Observable Universe or x250. I don't understand how this is controversial at all.
- 6,452
- 1,667
Both are rough guesstimations, but will either low-ball, or high-ball the universe as we learn more about it. Both estimations are "why not use this. It seems accurate." I don't see the issue tbh. Both are one in the same just a different number.
Edit: it's late into the day here, so my contribution here will start to slow. I have some irl stuff to do.
Edit: it's late into the day here, so my contribution here will start to slow. I have some irl stuff to do.
- 6,104
- 5,106
I literally just explained how at least twice on this thread. I'm not even for claiming every 3-A is 10^69 times stronger (than whatever they are supposed to be stronger than) but I also am not for claiming every baseline 3-A should be assumed to have affected a spherical regional universe of only 93 billion light years or two trillion galaxies simply because "lol that's the only estimate we know". I addressed several different points across what is now three threads as to my issues with using the observable universe. However all I do is get dismissed and told "lol that's your personal problem" as if I'm an NPC.
Similar threads
