Creation, Attack Potency, and Pocket Realities Continued

[Kepekley23]

Thaat fallacious appeal to the extreme.

Can you actually answer the objections? Why is making a dimension above 4-A if we can't reason that destroying the dimension can be applied to the rating? The tiering system is fully based on destructive energy, bar none. Actually answer with evidence instead of saying "it is because it's a good guess that should be obvious"

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

We cannot mathematically quantify which Low 2-C is stronger than another and so we use scaling.

 

[Kepekley23]

Powerscaling is irrelevant to this subject. We're talking about a feat that is being performed, not scaling X to Y.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Powerscaling is irrelevant to this subject. We're talking about a feat that is being performed, not scaling X to Y.

It's relevant to the points you were making previously, however.

 

[Kepekley23]

Yes, you're trying to discredit the actual point I'm trying to make ("we can not differentiate between baseline 4-A and unquantifiably higher in the merits of the argument anyway") by appealing to the extremes and reaching.

Now can you answer the point I made above in my reply? This is irrelevant.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Yes, you're trying to discredit the actual point I'm trying to make ("we can not differentiate between baseline 4-A and unquantifiably higher in the merits of the argument anyway") by appealing to the extremes and reaching.

Now can you answer the point?

You're trying the deviate from the scaling discussion and attempting to pry out a conclusion while we're discussing something else entirely. I'd like to address that first before regressing back to the common sense discussion.

And this doesn't change the implications of what you're suggesting. Nor are any of my arguments without base. The statements and feats themselves are valid quantifications, there just seems to be an issue with you accepting something that lacks a number attached to it. If we can't quantify a city level statement, for example, we can't even use that statement going by your arguments, and would have to place the character as unknown since we can't assign a megaton value to them. We make educated assumptions with plenty of things, including the tiering list, as you mentioned with our rating of the Big Bang. I see no issue with recognizing the content of the verses themselves instead of finding a number and rounding each character to it until we have higher feats.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I still think using Inverse Square Law is best for interstellar or above sized pocket dimensions, which is 4-A. I suppose a solid High 4-C is for planet to star distances as opposed the the 4-B calc is fine. And for realities less than planetary, we use size and/or what it contains. It's Mountain level if it contains a large mountain, or City level if it contains a city, ect.

I agree.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I agree.

I definitely agree on the smaller scale, although I still doubt the validity of inverse square for interstellar creation feats as I've said many times we can't quantify the destruction of space, just what's inside of it.

 

[Kepekley23]

I'm trying to actually focus on the arguments relevant to this thread's subject, not a deviation from the original topic.

> The statements and feats themselves are valid quantifications

Meaningless rebuttal and dodging the question. The feats and the statements ("creating a pocket dimension with many stars") are being debated on what method to use. This is no different than answering a "Is destroying a star Star level or solar system level" question with "the feat itself is a valid quantification"

> there just seems to be an issue with you accepting something that lacks a number attached to it. If we can't quantify a city level statement, for example, we can't even use that statement going by your arguments, and would have to place the character as unknown since we can't assign a megaton value to them

This is a complete strawman amd misinterpretation of my point. When a character is stated to be able to destroy a city, we can low-ball and assume he is "At least Town level/Large Town level", depending on the case. While in your case, you're already arguing under a full circle and invalid argument, as if we can not use the energy to destroy a starry dimension and apply it to creating it, there is absolutely no basis in slapping an "unquantifiable 4-A" rating either, as our whole system is based off of destructive values. 4-A is based on destroying 4 light years of space. There is no correlation to be made in that case, and it contradicts itself.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

4-A is based on destroying 4 light years of space. There is no correlation to be made in that case, and it contradicts itself.

Incorrect, 4-A is based on an explosion that destroys a celestial body through inverse square law energy at a given distance.

You can't actually destroy space with physical force. Hence why creating the space itself is unquantifiable.

 

[Kepekley23]

> Incorrect, 4-A is based on an explosion that destroys a celestial body through inverse square law energy at a given distance.

Incorrect - 4-A is based on an omnidirectional explosion that hits Alpha Centauri 4 light years away with enough force to overpower its GBE. There is no special "inverse square law energy" that makes this possible.

See, I can nitpick the wording and pretend you don't know how the Inverse Square Law works too. Still does none of a job as far as answering what I asked you to prove, though.

> Hence why creating the space itself is unquantifiable.

Okay. Not 4-A at all then, under your belief.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Great nitpicking of the wording, acting as if I don't know how the Inverse Square Law works while still managing to dodge the question.

I was just correcting that in case people who didn't know what it was got the wrong idea from your post. Apologies if it came off that way.

Okay. Not 4-A at all then, under your belief.

Yes, if we're going off of calculations. That's been half of my argument this entire time.

I was saying unquantifiable 4-A if there was no proper way of calculating it.

 

[Kepekley23]

Okay, then it's not an "unquantifiably above baseline 4-A feat", but rather, by your beliefs, a High 4-C feat going with what Assalt said.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Okay, then it's not an "unquantifiably above baseline 4-A feat", but rather, by your beliefs, a High 4-C feat going with what Assalt said.

I personally believe it to be a "unquantifiably above baseline 4-A feat" given that there is no way of properly calculating it.

I consider GBE to be more accurate than inverse square in regards to calculating the feats themselves, so yes, if we're going strictly numbers it would be High 4-C. I've said this before a couple of times:

I've been equally arguing High 4-C and common sense this whole time. I would perfer the latter but I've already asserted if we're strictly going by equations I would choose the former.

I'll just lay out my opinion here:

• If we agree that via size is fine and it's alright to not assign calcs to the feat in general I consider a starry sky 4-B/4-A. I'd personally perfer this and holding up the current standard.

• If we agree that there absolutely needs to be a calculation the best bet we have is GBE, which would place the feat at High 4-C.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I vehemently disagree with High 4-C multistellar feats as it is a double standard to how we handle Galaxy and universe creation

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I vehemently disagree with High 4-C multistellar feats as it is a double standard to how we handle Galaxy and universe creation

We'd apply the same to galaxies and non-Low 2-C universe creations should we land on that, so no double standard would really be present.

We actually have a similar standard for constellation creations though. The only difference here is that space is created between them as well, which can't be quantified in any way.

Assuming we go with that it's more a consequence of how we set up the ratings system than how the feats are evaluated.

 

[Wokistan]

I don't see how it's too different from those. Tier 2 universe stuff is via spacetime shenanigans.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

But space has energy albeit unquantifiable.

Which is why I say unquantifiable 4-A is enough.

 

[Kepekley23]

Unquantifiable 4-A is creating a relation where there's none. If creating the dimension = \ = destroying it, by default from that you can not equate 4-A, which is based off of a destructive energy value that wouldn't be able to be related to the feat. People have yet to comprehend it. I can say I am never going to agree with such a rating myself. If it's decided I will go along with it but it's a completely self-contradictory rating.

I support just equating creation to destruction like we always do.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

But space has energy albeit unquantifiable.
Which is why I say unquantifiable 4-A is enough.

I think Agnaa contested that earlier actually.

Space has energy but you can't use energy to destroy it. If our assumption is creation >/= destruction we can't say how much energy it would take (or even say if it takes energy) to create it as by default it's physically impossible to destroy it.

I honestly agree. If the consensus is that we can't say it's unquantifiable though GBE is the only other method I'm really satisfied with.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I am either unquantifiable but I support Kep in equating creation to destruction.

 

[Kepekley23]

If the High 4-C option is accepted, then we will also have to, as a result, make a massive revision thread to reconsider anyone who creates universes, galaxies, etc., as well as anyone who moves solar systems, galaxies, etc. at FTL speeds/or who reality warps an area of said size.

Not a point to be made against it- but it'd need far more than just this tiny thread. The sheer revisions would be insane and we'd need to redefine our standards.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

equating creation to destruction.

Inverse Square doesn't do that for creation feats though. That only applies for explosions that destroy a given object from a distance, not just making the objects inside of the dimension. You can't use that energy to destroy space itself, so it wouldn't count for the space created.

GBE is the best assumption for the objects actually created since the space can't be quantified.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

who reality warps an area of said size.

We use Inverse-Square to calc reality warping over a given area?

 

[Kepekley23]

We equate Reality Warping a galaxy as being baseline 3-C, warping a large galaxy a higher end of 3-C, warping thousands of light years as comparable to the energy to destroy that much, etc. It's a very old standard.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Ah.

I feel like the precedent set with constellation calcs is safer to use since you can't calculate the energy needed to create space or really relate explosive force to it.

If more people think Inverse Square should be used, I hope it's at least recognized that it's an arbitrary value decided simply to match how we designed our tiering system, not anying actually related to the creation of space and a number of given objects.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

If the High 4-C option is accepted, then we will also have to, as a result, make a massive revision thread to reconsider anyone who creates universes, galaxies, etc., as well as anyone who moves solar systems, galaxies, etc. at FTL speeds/or who reality warps an area of said size.

Not a point to be made against it- but it'd need far more than just this tiny thread. The sheer revisions would be insane and we'd need to redefine our standards.

Kep has a point. I am now firmly on the Inverse Square Law side.

 

[Kepekley23]

To be frank, in my view the High 4-C would parallel with how we treat black holes and how we treat planetary creation in a "list of liberties we kinda need to take in order not to shit all over fiction"

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

To be frank, in my view the High 4-C would parallel with how we treat black holes and how we treat planetary creation in a "list of liberties we kinda need to take in order not to shit all over fiction"

Yeah. It's the least we can relate to what is being done since we can't properly rate the stuff that breaks physics.

 

[Kepekley23]

I didn't mean that as a support to it. I meant that, while physically it'd be that result, it'd be one of the liberties we'd take (ie black holes not being instantly High 3-A because physics dictate they have infinite GBE, or planets not only being remotely quantifiable via mass-energy)

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I didn't mean that as a support to it.

Oh, lol. My point's still there though, we can't rate any of the space shenanigans so all we have to look at is the actual matter created.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Since we've seemed to default on "GBE vs. Inverse Square for creation feats", would a vote be appropriate now?

 

[Agnaa]

But space has energy albeit unquantifiable.

Which is why I say unquantifiable 4-A is enough.

Space has energy that is quantifiable.

The reason you'd hear two different results is due to a failure in certain theories; some older theories predicted a different value for the energy of space than we experimentally measured. Obviously this isn't a problem with the universe itself or measuring it, just that the theories gave the wrong answer, and they've since been adjusted for this my bad, there hasn't been a resolution to this issue in physics yet. It's known as the "Cosmological constant problem" if anyone wants to look into it further.

However, even though space has energy, energy is not used in creating space. And there cannot be space with no energy, or less energy than zero-point energy. You don't need to funnel energy in to create space; the universe isn't losing energy to expansion.

EDIT: This is why I'd push for GBE. Creating two stars 4 light years apart takes the same energy as creating two starts a quadrillion light years apart, it's just a matter of range.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I think Agnaa put better than me in regards to using GBE. I'd rather use a more reasonably correct method than one that is used so that the end result just lines up with the way we set up the tiering system, which sadly isn't relatable to the feat in question here.

 

[Kepekley23]

My final point of view is as I said above.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Alright. My final view would be in-line with what Agnaa posted.

 

[Agnaa]

My final point of view is as I said above.

Which post are you referring to specifically? Post 102?

 

[Kepekley23]

Post 110. Regarding GBE.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I think Kep meant Post 110, @Agnaa

EDIT: Ninja'ed

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I still strongly agree more with Matt and Kep. Creating Galaxies is galaxy level and creating thousands of lightyears worth of stars in the from of mini big bangs is 4-A.