• 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)

"Won't ever really be used" is a bad argument as Sera just said. We don't know every verse in fiction and new verses are being discovered all the time. She already used how Monarch of Pointland was our only 11-C for a long time yet we didn't get rid of 11-C.

Upscaling exists, there's things like galactic filaments or statements of destroying significant parts of the universe and so forth that would easily qualify for a Low 3-A.
 
Dragoo is right here, i don't think this solve the main problem of our assumption of "i will blow away the universe" so will still need to resove the basic assumption of that before adding more tier.
 
"All physical matter" would be 3-A obviously. Keeping High 3-A as it is would solve the concerns Agnaa, Andy, and others had and Low 2-C remaining the same solves everything else. At the risk of sounding rude, if you really think there's no such thing as "Low Universal" feats you got another thing coming.
 
I don't talk about that tho (even if you brough this subject again, i still agree with Low 2-C Universal Busting) i talk about the size assumed.
 
No one said that would solve that issue. Low 3-A comes from an entirely different but still relevant side off the argument and as said multiple times would reach a synergy we all should be able to work with because it solves all our differences.
 
Sera EX said:
"All physical matter" would be 3-A obviously.
Click to expand...
A bit of a nitpick, but destroying all matter in the universe isn't actually what we'd rate as 3-A unless it's done with a massive shockwave or explosion.

Similar to how destroying all the matter in the Solar System isn't 4-B by a long shot, but an explosion of that size is.
 
The Causality said:
I don't talk about that tho (even if you brough this subject again, i still agree with Low 2-C Universal Busting) i talk about the size assumed.
Click to expand...
That was directed at Medeus. I didn't see your reply.

Anyways I give up. I really can't continue arguing anymore. I wish this would've been put on hold until that thing I mentioned above blew over but I guess not. Do whatever you want, I really shouldn't care about this anymore. Priority calls, and mama must answer.
 
I'm fine with freezing this thread while you're busy, Sera. Did you request this earlier to Ant or Matt?
 
I just mentioned how I won't be able to respond which got over a dozen kudos (so I'm sure people have read it) then Medeus and Ant said "ok, we can wait". Five hours later the discussion just continued, which is fine. I don't want to seem like an authoritative mouthpiece for this thread, I'm not.
 
There's more concerns than just the size of the universe we use for baseline. Observable to infinite 3-A is definitely an inconsistency in the tiering system and it just gets rid of High 3-A despite the only thing that needed to be removed from High 3-A was limited/less than universal 4D.
 
Sera EX said:
I just mentioned how I won't be able to respond which got over a dozen kudos (so I'm sure people have read it) then Medeus and Ant said "ok, we can wait". Five hours later the discussion just continued, which is fine. I don't want to seem like an authoritative mouthpiece for this thread, I'm not.
Click to expand...
We can still wait. Some of us, here, have proven we can even wait for months for a revision.
 
Sera EX said:
I just mentioned how I won't be able to respond which got over a dozen kudos (so I'm sure people have read it) then Medeus and Ant said "ok, we can wait". Five hours later the discussion just continued, which is fine. I don't want to seem like an authoritative mouthpiece for this thread, I'm not.
Click to expand...
I first and formost apologize, I didn't notice that post and was responding to posts after it.

I suggest other users stop commenting here or that this be closed until Sera can more properly respond then.
 
I believe the information on "Flat Universe" and "Spherical Universe" should have already been resolved, but I believe we need a better explanation.

There is a difference between the "format" being a sphere and the "fabric of space" being a sphere. The same occour with "flat". For example, a ball is a sphere, it is a spherical object, but its geometry as we know it is "Flat." A "spherical" geometry occurs when the properties of geometric shapes as we know behave in a "spherical" way.

Take the Earth and draw two points on the equator, use each of these two points to form a line following a "straight" trajectory, even following this trajectory they will end up meeting at the poles of the Earth. This is a proprity of a spherical geometry, in which case the fabric of space itself is a sphere and everything is drawn on it. Other rules of this geometry have to do with the sum of the inner or outer angles of a triangle, angles between perpendicular lines, and so on.

The space being "flat" is not a reference to a two-dimensional plane, but the specific rules of a dimensional space referred to as plane. Since the sum of the inner angles of the triangle are 180 ┬░, two parallel lines never cross, etc. Basically the rules of a Euclidean space.So the universe is flat means that the universe follows the rules of a Euclidean dimensional space, not that the universe is literally a plane.

Also if the universe was a sphere, it would mean that the fabric of space is a sphere and we would be "drawn" into it, obeying rules of non-Euclidean geometry. There's also other types of geometry and also other types of "universes".
 
Tier 11 exists even though it's rarely used because it's necessary to complete the system as an opposite to the top end, and to address all reasonably likely fictional characters.

Extra tiers within the 3D range need to have a certain number of characters in them to justify their existence. Just like how extra tier within tier 1 need a certain number of characters to justify their existence. Isn't this why Low 1-B was removed?
 
It's not as if Sera can respond to you. And there's nothing saying 3D requires "enough characters" to have a sub tier.

I'm not even gonna argue for Low 3-A at this point, but it feels wrong that no one is willing to compromise here. Everyone could've been happy but...oh well.
 
I did explained multiple times as well what is meant by "Flat Universe" It's not flat in the 2-dimensional sense; it's 3-D. But what is meant is that it's more roughly like a cylinder where the height is miniscule compared to the length and width. But others have elaborated upon that.
 
I'm officially dropping out of this discussion in its entirety. There's a lot on my plate at the moment, and let's just say a lot of it isn't easy to swallow, let alone chew. I'm not expecting anyone to wait on me, not like they will anyway (that's kinda been proven just now) and yes I do still have plenty to say. It's just not worth it right now, especially with a sick child in the mix. I'm sorry this spanned three threads and literally went nowhere, I usually plan and expect these things to be a lot more productive and intuitive at the very least, but you can't do everything perfectly. Hopefully this can be resolved with everyone's concerns at least being addressed, but I doubt it considering how these threads have turned out thus far. Good luck to everyone, and again, my sincerest apologies at poorly handling this.
 
No need to close this over me. It's not fair to everyone else who's put in the effort. It's not like you need me here anyway. I just can't hang around and am not expecting you to wait. I'm actually tired of arguing about this and well, it's been like fifteen days. It's not that important.
 
All Sera asked was just to take a break and for the rest of us to take over. She's got a little girl to nurse back to health; which is far more important than any type of major content revision.

Unless it's been 100% concluded or if we reach the post limit; there's no need to close this at all.
 
Question.... Should we keep track of who is for/pro, and against the changes? Is it okay to message other staff and ask for their input??? I think there are some who haven't commented yet... (I think.)
 
I didn't realize some people already got a notification until i was far into the list... so if anyone got more than one notification about this thread.. I am really sorry.................... But i notified some other staff..
 
In the defense of the using scientific theory,(and to break the silence a little) Considering that our universe is accelerating away from us and everything 15 billion light years away is moving away from us at faster speeds than light. There will come a point in time when we will no longer see anything else. Simply due to space itself is expanding at speed > light. So we may never know what is beyond a certain point, or distance out. The speed also doubles when certain increments in time have been reached so it moves even further away from us even faster. in truth, we are only seeing the past when we look out into space. Also, as the universe ages. It will become increasingly more difficult to do other experiements as there are some things that are time sensitive from what i read. Im still going through a lot more articles as i have the next 4 days off. (i hope this paragraph made sense///was worded good enough lol.)

[Edit]

"And because the expansion of the Universe is continuously accelerating, each year, more and more regions of space pass beyond our cosmic horizon and enter the unobservable Universe. If that's not enough, this expansion has some rather bleak implications for the ultimate fate of the Universe. Assuming that expansion continues indefinitely, the horizon of the visible Universe will gradually shrink." [Source: https://www.sciencealert.com/the-inevitable-abyss-each-year-a-new-section-of-the-cosmos-disappears ]

"When we talk about our Universe, we make a distinction between "the Universe" and "the Observable Universe". The latter includes only what we can see. By "can see", I don't mean what we have the technology to detect. Rather, I mean all objects out there from which light has had time to reach us given the age of the Universe, the speed of light, and the history and future of the expansion of the Universe. The age of the Unvierse is 13.8 billion years. Because the speed of light is finite, we can't see anything that is so far away that light would have taken longer than that from us to reach us. This isn't a technological limitation; this is a limitation on whether or not there is light, even in principle, for us to see given as much technological prowess as you could want." [Source: http://galacticinteractions.scientopia.org/2012/02/27/the-minimum-size-of-the-whole-universe/ ]

Edit 4:

"But it does mean that the Universe is far larger than we'll ever see. Even taking the minimum allowable estimate for the size of the Universe means that, at most, less than 0.0001% of the volume of the Universe is presently or will ever be observable to us. Once you put our knowledge about dark matter and dark energy in there, you'll realize that we'll never see more of the Universe than we can right now." [Source:[http:// https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/18/how-big-is-the-entire-universe https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/18/how-big-is-the-entire-universe] ]

"But not every galaxy is visible. Our Universe has expanded based on what's in it: a mix of radiation, neutrinos, normal matter, dark matter, and dark energy. Over the history of the Universe, that means light can arrive from distances as great as 46 billion light years away. Of' course, that doesn't mean an object that's 46 billion light years away today is going to emit anything that we can ever see. It means that if an object emitted light 13.8 billion years ago, from a very small distance away, that light would be arriving now, 13.8 billion years later, and that the object that emitted it would today be 46 billion light years distant. That's the limit of how far we can see in the observable Universe." '''''[Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...isappeared-from-our-perspective/#773adecb5100 ]

The human race is likely to go exctinct before we are able to see past 200 billion light years out. Our telescopes can only pick up photons as well, or light, so even our techonology will be bounded by the speed of light, unless we can devlop some sort of MFTL warp drives to go colonize other planets. Which is more likely than us developing telescopes that can see 200 billion light years out.

Edit 3: my overall point here is that scientific theory might be needed at some point due to our cosmiclogical limitiations.The speed of light has a top speed it caps out at, then factor in the time it takes for light to get here from 125 billion light years away, and our technology will only allows us to see so far. Then you have to factor in economics and other stuff with technology, but anyways.... We will be unlikely to see any more of the universe due to our limitations some of which are not within our control such as the universes expansion rate, and the speed of light.
 
the 251/250x calc that a group of astronmers did should now be unusabe due to a new cosmoiclogical study done today. First, the calc of the 251/250x uses the old expansion rate of the universe. The link to the source of the original calc is here. https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/413/1/L91/1747653

"We also add the Hubble Key Project determination of the Hubble constant today, as a Gaussian datum with mean and standard deviation H0= 72 ┬▒ 8kmsÔêÆ1MpcÔêÆ1 (Freedman et al. 2001). SNIa data are included in the form of the UNION08 data set sample (Kowalski et al. 2008)."

"(where c is the speed of light and H0 the Hubble constant today in km s1 Mpc1)"

The new estimation on how fast the universe is expanding today is in the links below. This study came out today. It now raises new questions which i will talk about soon.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/25/world/universe-expanding-faster-scn/index.html?no-st=1556235477

https://www.space.com/amp/universe-expanding-fast-new-physics.html

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-hubble-universe-faster.amp

https://relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/science/2019/04/hubble-constant-universe-expanding-faster-than-all-expectations

The 251/250x calc is also dependent on dark energy. Which the link of the calc has this to say about it.

"The dark energy time evolution is described by the present-day dark energy density in units of the critical density, ╬®de, and by its equation of state, w(z), as given in equation (10). In extracting constraints on cosmological parameters from luminosity or angular diameter distance measurements, one has to be careful to consider the potential impact of degeneracies between the assumed models. In this case, the strong degeneracy between curvature and dark energy evolution (see e.g. Clarkson, Cortes & Bassett 2007) is at least partially accounted for by admitting in our space of models an evolving dark energy equation of state." [I highlighted the important part.]

Dark energy is only partially accounted for.

According to the articles i posted about the new expansion rate of the universe. One hypothesis in the sudden change in expansion rate.

"One explanation for the mismatch involves an unexpected appearance of dark energy in the young universe, which is thought to now comprise 70% of the universe's contents. Proposed by astronomers at Johns Hopkins, the theory is dubbed "early dark energy," and suggests that the universe evolved like a three-act play.

Astronomers have already hypothesized that dark energy existed during the first seconds after the big bang and pushed matter throughout space, starting the initial expansion. Dark energy may also be the reason for the universe's accelerated expansion today. The new theory suggests that there was a third dark-energy episode not long after the big bang, which expanded the universe faster than astronomers had predicted. The existence of this "early dark energy" could account for the tension between the two Hubble constant values, Riess said.

Another idea is that the universe contains a new subatomic particle that travels close to the speed of light. Such speedy particles are collectively called "dark radiation" and include previously known particles like neutrinos, which are created in nuclear reactions and radioactive decays.

Yet another attractive possibility is that dark matter (an invisible form of matter not made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons) interacts more strongly with normal matter or radiation than previously assumed." [1]

Dark matter/energy is believed to be involved heavyily. Which drastically alters the calc.

Something else we have too account for. is that we are judging the expansion of the universes based on the distant light we observe from stars in distant galaxies. this is not a "present day and time" speed for the expansion rate, but that is the new expansion rate for that time in our universe. However many billions of years old the light we are seeing is. The rate of expansion for the universe is expected to speed up, and not slow down. its expected to accelerate even faster. Its safe to say the current expansion rate of the universe is exceedingly huge, and expotentially more massive.


In summary: With the new expansion rate of the universe raising questions in the scientific community. It all makes the 251/250x the observable universe size obselete and unusable, as any new scientific hypothesis and study would drastically alter it given the current suggestions by astroscientist.

Changes in Dark energy/Dark matter. Changes in the expansion rate, and changes in "Light from distant stars" such as age, and distance. Would all affect the calc of that size. The new expansion rate now changes all that, and is raising questions by scientist to look for a cause/answer.

If someone could edit this to make it look neater and more legdible.. i would appreciate it.. Thank you..
 
Another big update today! Another strong gravitional wave was detected making this the 2nd! When the 1st time a strong gravitional wave was detectd. It proven to be a big and massive feat for the "Cosmic Inflation theory." Now, we have a 2nd source for it! Studying these new gravitional waves is still in process as this just recently occored today (maybe yesterday.) Links are below for anyone wanting to read them.

https://gizmodo.com/gravitational-wave-detectors-spot-two-potential-black-h-1834010764

https://www.universetoday.com/14204...s-finding-a-black-hole-merger-every-week/amp/

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2019/...tional-waves-from-another-neutron-star-merger

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d...cts-another-neutron-star-merger/#.XMOZmpwrLIW

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2019/04/ligo-makes-two-gravitational-wave-detections-in-just-two-days

I also found new links about the new expansion rate for the universe for anyone wanting to read them.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/sci-t...rse-expanding-faster-and-is-younger-1.4396761

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2019/...iverse-expands-faster-than-it-did-in-the-past

https://www.sciencealert.com/new-me...erse-confirm-something-is-definitely-awry/amp

https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...pand-forever-how-does-the-universe-expand/amp

https://releases.jhu.edu/2019/04/25...acing-all-expectations-of-its-expansion-rate/

https://amp.livescience.com/65332-hubble-wrong-speed.html

https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/new...-faster-than-we-thought-and-no-one-knows-why/

https://www.apnews.com/fac50d45a19f4239848b1712cfd22c36

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/04/26/universe_expanding_faster_than_expected/

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/new-...verse-expanding-too-fast-for-science-11703857

Note: The new expansion rate does not affect Cosmic Inflation theory, and its 10^23 x the observable universe size. The 10^23 is a bare mininum/the least allowed/ limit. What this does change is "What the universe was like" 380,000 years after "The Great Inflation" occored.

Note 2: This does, however, drastiically affect the 251/250x the Observable universe size calc.

These are some big cosmological events that happened in the last few days. There is likely to more information on them in the coming weeks.
 
Okay. We still need some form of consensus with the rest of the staff if this revision is going to go through though.
 
I think it's 4 who are adamantly against using the entire universe (matthew shroeder, kepkley, assault waffle, kaltias) and 1 who's just leaning slightly against it (the lewd king), the rest are either fine about it or neutral/don't care.

And Sara says she got some sort of solution to patch up some concerns I'll probably just wait.

Either way this is pretty interesting stuff to learn I gotta say, keep us updated Hax Man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
The Dread Tiering System Revisions
4 5 6
Replies
216
Views
39K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
Data/Information Tiering Revision
Replies
13
Views
3K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
demonwarrior2266
  • Locked
Tier 11 Needs a Revamp
Replies
23
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Firestorm808
Acceptable Narrative Examples of "Uncountably Infinite" Addition to the Tiering System Explanation Page
2
Replies
57
Views
11K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Peter1129
High 3-A downscaling
Replies
13
Views
925
Peter1129
Peter1129
Back
Top