• 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)

TheUpgradeManHaHaxD said:
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.
I do agree with the premise. Both would still OneShot 3-B anyway, this is how it is. 10^23 observable universe has more supporrt scsientifically. Honeslty, I don't care about about the speed or AP boost from te change for vs threads. All I care about is accuracy.
 
Sera EX said:
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.
I can understand your perpective and from this, I think you don't need to go with the NPC point since your opinions are well respected, Sera EX.
 
Sera EX said:
Are metaphors taboo or something?
Sera EX, the NPC points tends to have more negative connectations now unlike what they used to in the past becoming almost derogatory on political matter, to be honest. We do have this Site Rules below and I believe no one went this far:

  • Derogatory comments on religious or political matters (both highly sensitive issues) will not be tolerated, as it almost always leads to massive hate-commenting and negativity. Doing so will result in a deletion of the post, and possibly a ban, depending on the severity.
Sera EX, you are allowed to do whatever you want but I still agree with my original opinion. Anyway, I will stop adding on this point because I don't wan't to derailed the thread.
 
I don't care if people consider a video game term derogatory for political purposes, this is a vs debating sites. But fine.
 
I just noticed that out of all estimations on the universe I have seen... 250x is the most out of place. Every other estimate is 10 to the power of something to Infinity as the most... But that one.. it's just.. a tiny 250x lol ... It's just something I found interesting with no real meaning to it...

Edit: that jump in estimation is really high. It goes from 250x to 10^23

There is a lower estimate at 10^18 but I can't find anything else about it.

Edit2: I'll be slower to do research, and respond from here on it due to issues irl.
 
TheUpgradeManHaHaxD said:
I just noticed that out of all estimations on the universe I have seen... 250x is the most out of place. Every other estimate is 10 to the power of something to Infinity as the most... But that one.. it's just.. a tiny 250x lol ... It's just something I found interesting with no real meaning to it...
It came from this message:
 
This may sound really crazy, and possibly dumb (lol), but why not try coming up with our own calc to estimate the size??????????
 
Monarch Laciel said:
Well it seems to me that we're just throwing darts at a board when it comes to deciding which multiplier for the size of the universe there is and just hoping that one of them seems a reasonable enough size for everyone to accept.
I don't think NASA gives a 99.6% confidence rating for throwing darts at a board.
 
That actually makes a lot of sense....

[Edit] I can see it making news headlines lol. ( don't mean to derail. so i'll stop the thought there.)
 
@Sera Upgrade's big post included NASA claiming 99.6% confidence in the theory (I think I haven't really gone through the links myself)
 
Sera EX said:
Who said anything about NASA?
I did. A new experiment done in 2014 now gives the cosmic inflation theory a big boost in validity. They use the inflation model which uses the flat universe model. There is a 0.4% margin of error chance. My English is poor.. I'm sorry if things I say don't make much sense..
 
Huh, well 10^23x isn't wrong and neither is 250x, but I can see Sera's point about being bound by some vs debating ideology that makes these seem really uncomfortable. Uhh given our limited knowledge of the cosmology of the real life verse, I don't see the problem of not limiting our options in regards to this area.
 
If NASA is 99.6% certain of the 10^23x observable universe size theory, it definitely seems like the most reliable to use.

However, given that the universe has a flat shape, we should probably take this into account when calculating new values for a shockwave expansion sufficiently powerful to destroy all matter within one.
 
As I said earlier, I think "The universe is flat" probably means that the universe is flat on a 4D scale, not on a 3D scale.

As in, the universe is still a sphere, but the fabric of spacetime itself is not curved. If it were curved, we'd see parallel lines no longer being parallel at long distances, and triangles wouldn't have their angles add up to 180 degrees.

If our universe was 2d, our universe being flat doesn't mean that it can't be a circle, it means that it's on a flat piece of paper, rather than on the surface of a balloon.
 
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you said that, I was trying to make an analogy.

Using an analogy of a 2D universe to make it simpler, I think you're saying that the universe is like a rectangle on a piece of paper, extending wide very far but not too tall.

I'm saying that this isn't what it means for the universe to be "flat". The "flatness" being talked about isn't the height of the universe, but the curvature of space itself. So in this analogy of a 2D universe, the universe could be a circle on a piece of paper and still be considered "flat", as long as the piece of paper itself isn't curved through 3D space.

Our 3D universe is probably a sphere, but is "flat" in 4D space.
 
Hey sorry it took a bit to get here, I wanted to look into cosmic inflation stuff on my own and I just woke up.

In my opinion it should be safe to use cosmic inflation for 3-A. If such a large swathe of the scientific community finds the idea to be not only feasible but likely, then I find no problem with using that size. I'm neutral/iffy on the High 3-B idea suggested way above but I agree merging High 3-A with 3-A to just make a tier for infinite space. I absolutely agree Low 2-C should be the basic assumption unless specified.

Dem's the opinions asked for, dem's the opinions given.
 
Thank you for the support Bambu.
 
I just agreed with other points but yes my minions, agree with me kek
 
Back
Top