• 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)

I'm just going to wait for Kep's thought on this since I can't really really analyze the physics stuff myself.
 
The Problem I can see is for Verse which have a spherical Universe as Dragon Ball, in their case, we can't use the Flat model.
 
The Causality said:
Well, if NASA say that Cosmic Inflation is the most accurate model, why we still arg about another model ? Plus there is not even 1% of margin error.

Plus, i still agree with Low 2-C Universal bust unless specified
Click to expand...
The opposition is because it will wank results. I assume this is based off other communities using the observable universe as the baseline but Sera debunked that as untrue. Most versus debating sites are not indexing wikis (they have no tier system or attack potency chart) and multiple indexing wikis are copies of VSBW.
 
I have an issue with how the Dragon Ball cosmology uses guidebooks from pre-DBS, when DBS retconned various things about the verse.

That's for another time though. I think DB will be mostly unaffected but the interpretations of its cosmology have issues.
 
I'm pretty sure the mortal universe section of Universe 7 is flat, but the entire universe is spherical.
 
Sera EX said:
I'm pretty sure the mortal universe section of Universe 7 is flat, but the entire universe is spherical.
Click to expand...
When you least expect it, Sera saves the day yet agai

I'm still waiting for the day Dark makes Frieza saga characters High 4-C with his calc.
 
@Sera DB case is weird, DBS Show the Universe (1-12) as spherical but the databook show a flat Universe for mortal in a spherical structure
 
They were showing the totality of those universes (albeit in typical, galactic filament style), not just the mortal universes. U7 in its entirety is spherical, so the other eleven universes should be structured similarly, meaning they all have flat mortal universes.
 
Yeah, the physical Universe of U7 is pretty flat, but the afterlife on top of it is more dome shaped; and it's also got the same circular diameter, but Heaven and Hell are just much taller than the universe. But Inverse Square law for Attack Potency borders still use makes the Attack Potency 10^69 times. And Dragon Ball's 3-A feat does still start from the edge of the universe making the initial feat around 5 times the new baseline.

But yeah, it's keep the topic on the general consensus; seems NASA's 99.6% certain about the Universe being 9.3 * 10^33 light years in diameter as Agnaa laid out; so it seems that's the most reasonable estimate.
 
Btw regarding the suggestion of a high 3-B tier, why not make a Low 3-A tier using the observable universe as a baseline? That way we dont 3-B doesnt change that much and we still have a tier in case we have a feat that affect just the observable universe.
 
Ercosore said:
Btw regarding the suggestion of a high 3-B tier, why not make a Low 3-A tier using the observable universe as a baseline?
Click to expand...
I can't think of a single verse that has a feat of destroying the observable universe, except for maybe some scenarios like the 1100 Decibel Black Hole or some weird theories like that.
 
Yes. No problem. We can wait. I also hope that she recovers soon.
 
I'm still very much not a fan of using Cosmic Inflation because it would invalidate every single calculation that we have in this website regarding universes, and also render every single universe-crossing feat an outlier.

Plus, we cannot assert an umbrella definition over what is defined as a universe in each and any fictional universe. Because of that, the lower-end estimation is much safer to utilize.
 
Doesn't matter if it invalidates them. Accuracy is accuracy is accuracy. Like how we considered feats previously literally has zero relevance to how we process new information and make use out of a deeper understanding of the world around us. It isn't safer when literally NASA says this is over 99.whatever% more likely.
 
Matthew obviously has a point that this will cause problems for us since calculations have to be redone, but since it is the most accurate known value, we should probably use it.
 
I know I am not a staff member, but "for the sake of accuracy" is not a good argument. Nasa doesn't engage in ficitional battles now does it? Their job is too find out about the universe. Our job is to create an environment where we can compare the abilities of ficitional characters. Our goal should be to create a neutral stage with objective standards which can allow the discussion of such battles to happen. You must ask yourself if making this update something that will help that, go against that, or is just completely arbitrary to that. I believe it is arbitrary and will just cause more headache than solve.

We constantly deal with things like ftl speed, reality warping, souls, conceptual beings, the outerverse for petes sake. All these things are made up nonsense. They have no bearing in science or reality. We can't be like well accuracy is accuracy, science is science and then turn around and talk about infinite trancendence.

I feel like this is moving us to closer to a point were verse battling goes from being a fun hobby anyone who likes battle fiction can participate in, to one where you need to be a physics or philosophy major to understand why one character wins another doesn't.
 
Iamunanimousinthat, every profiles to every pages is too based on accuracy hence the revisions made to improved them. I don't see the point of nitpicking what we like beacuse it is easier. Revisons happen in general and the 3-A feats can be revised later. In short, accuracy is the basis of this wiki not convinience.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
Accuracy to the source material not accuracy to science.
Click to expand...
For baseline size of universe here, the source material, is science unless the verse universal cosmlogy is different.
 
Not true.

We use the earth as the standard size of planets even though most planets are not earth size.

We use the sun as the standard size of stars even though most stars are not sun size.

We use the milky way as the standard size of galaxies even though most galaxies arent milky way size.

Same for the moon and others.

Why do we use those? Because its an easy accessible reference that we all see each day and can understand and is the same across cultures, languages and countries. And throughout modern time.

The new estimate you are propsing for the basline universe, share none of those qualities. The observable universe does though.
 
The observable universe tends not be shared by most fictional cosmology anyway. It was a substitute for a baseline of the universe size, now we try to find the correct size. Your observable universe point follows the same premise as baseline size of universe here.
 
It is shared by most fictional universes. The observable universe is everything we can see and detect.

When you google an image of the universe, you are shown the observable universe. People's depictions of the universe are all based on the observable universe. Because thats what we see when we look up into space.

It is the basis for all universes because its what we see in actuality. It's physical. What is proposed here is not physical, is not something that can be tangiblably seen or proven, it is something theorizes by scientists who are all smarter than most of us.

When people think the universe, they think of the night sky not a theory.
 
Observable universe size is not universe size, this is the point of change. What people believe in general should not matter because a billions of people in the believe the universe is made by religious figure(s) and the universe size follows their cosmology. Again, what matter is accuracy, Iamunanimousinthat.
 
But were talking about fiction. People create fiction based on what they see, hear, and feel in reality.

What they believe in irrelevant because, people who all believe in different things but see the same world and base their fictional creations based on what they see.

Across all beliefs and non-beliefs the majority of humans think of the night sky when you ask them what does the universe look like.
 
Again. My point is practicality should take precedence.

Thats all i have to say. I shant make anymore noise. You guys do what you think is best. I just wanted to say my piece.
 
I 100% agree with Iam. The "But Nasa says it is likely to be true!" is a terrible argument, really. It's not a matter of being "accurate", if we were to be completely accurate our tiering system would end at High 3-A and we'd have no Higher-Dimensions stuff. Obviously practicality and concessions for fiction must be done, or else things get ridiculous. And this whole thing of a universe 10^30 times larger than the observable is ridiculous. We cannot apply this to all of fiction as an umbrella because how the universe works obviously varies from series to series. Plus, what if it is an old work from before this theory was mostly accepted? What if it's a work of fantasy which blatantly does not care for how our universe works? What if this theory changes tomorrow?

Doo you see the issue?Taking this as fact and that's that will bring it's own can of worms beyond just invalidating all 3-A calcs and leading to ridiculous wank (Can't wait for 10^69 times ftl characters).
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
Again. My point is practicality should take precedence.
Thats all i have to say. I shant make anymore noise. You guys do what you think is best. I just wanted to say my piece.
Click to expand...
If your point is about asking the universe size to random people, then it is irrelevant when the wide majority people don't believe in the observable universe but in religious universal size.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DontTalkDT
Context is always important - Changing a bad formulation of the Tiering System
Replies
17
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
The Dread Tiering System Revisions
4 5 6
Replies
216
Views
40K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
Data/Information Tiering Revision
Replies
14
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Laxxius
Post your personal Tiering System here
Replies
0
Views
153
Laxxius
Laxxius
demonwarrior2266
  • Locked
Tier 11 Needs a Revamp
Replies
23
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top