Creation, Attack Potency, and Pocket Realities

[Kepekley23]

> I'm honestly erring more towards High 4-C now, however I've never argued for baseline 4-A anywhere, so yeah, your claim of me arguing it does come from nowhere.

Yes you have. There is no difference between saying something is above baseline or baseline when it ends up being unquantifiable 4-A. By default, unquantifiable 4-A is baseline. This is pure semantics and dances around the actual point.

> It's related to destruction, which we relate to creation.

Yep, thanks for demonstrating my point here.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

It addressed your point. They aren't poofed into existence, they're just expanded quickly. Unless you believe anyone above Supersonic "poofs into existence" because your eye is unable to perceive them moving and they appear to be teleporting from your view.

That's sort of what creation is a lot of the time. Poofing stuff into existence. Creating matter from nothing. If the matter is created already in a certain position no expansion of any sort is needed.

Okay then. It's High 4-C in your view and not an unfounded baseline 4-A rating, right?

Never have and never will argue baseline, but yeah, if the need to have a defined value for the feat is needed so bad to the point where we should disregard common sense, sure.

So creating a solar system isn't Solar System level in your view either, right? Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I'm arguing.

Like I said I'd prefer just using common sense when the explosion method isn't usable, but since common sense isn't applicable apparently, for sake of argument, sure.

Which leads to the dimension collapsing, most of the time. Thus the dimension collapsing is, at least, equal to the explosion.

In which case an explosion isn't needed, but just the destruction of the matter, which would be derived through GBE.

Yes it is. There is no difference between saying it's "above baseline" and "baseline" if it's unquantifiable 4-A.

I strongly disagree here. I'll use statements as an example. Someone being said to "demolish large cities" is clearly superior to someone who is said to be able to "destroy a city". Since we would assume the second statement is baseline, the previous one can be reasoned to be above baseline. Neither can really be evaluated due to lack of details but the difference can be seen in comparing the two in logic.

Really, I'd rather just use common sense with this.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

If there's an issue with reaching the thread limit I don't mind discussing this on a message wall and coming to a conclusion, then coming back.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I still agree with Kepekley here, and I also agree with Antvasima that the long posts going back and forth don't really get far; especially with the 500 post limit.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Just for reference, this is the current standard:

Furthermore creating whole Solar Systems is ranked Solar system level, multiple Solar Systems is Multi-Solar System level, Galaxies is Galaxy level and multiple Galaxies are Multi-Galaxy level.
	~ Celestial Body Feats​

So whatever we land on should probably be edited into the page, or we should just revise the page entirely.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I agree with the current standard, but creating just an Earth-Sun dimension is High 4-C.

 

[Wokistan]

I think I fall more into the High 4-C camp.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I also don't see why people are so obsessed with asigning a number to everything.

 

[Antoniofer]

I also don't see why people are so obsessed with asigning a number to everything.

Pardon me when I say that most people lacks of debating skill, and prefer to just read the profile.

Personally I wouldn't upgrade/downgrade anyone from just create/manipulate a Personal Domain, putting it as just another facet of Reality Manipulation.

 

[Wokistan]

Having an actual point of comparison as opposed to being vague makes it easier to compare characters. It's a lot nicer to just conclusively be able to say "This one is numerically stronger" as opposed to guesswork. It's sorta the whole point of calcs.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm fine with Complete Triforce being downgraded to High 4-C, but it at the very least deserves an At least.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Sometimes things are just vague though, and that's all we have to work with. It doesn't mean we try filling in the blanks ourselves.

 

[Wokistan]

Generally people do tend to look for more concrete feats to supplant more abstract stuff. In this case we can use GBE of objects created to try and fill in the blanks, which we have been doing for creation feats already.

 

[The_Causality]

I think that we use numbers for some Cosmic feats because some exemple of those feats are pretty low into the scale they are.

• For Exemple, Creating all the stars in the galaxy is just Solar System level, same with the energy of a galaxy itself but in the common sense, they should be Multi SS or Galactic.

I think that it's pretty hard to found the exact energy for some cosmic feats like create a dimension with a stary sky inside. Calculate the energy for the Creation is impossible, and it involve more to RW than AP (but people aren't really agree with that) so The best way is assuming that the energy for the creation is the same, if not superior to the Destruction of it (The Space increase to an unknown scale the creation feat)

In my point of view, it's the most safe way.

 

[Kaltias]

I also don't see why people are so obsessed with asigning a number to everything.

Because in vs debating terms, "above baseline 4-A" means absolutely nothing (due to no character ever having a baseline 4-A feat)

That's why people want to know "how far above baseline"

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Creation does require a lot more precision than destruction does; pretty important to point out.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

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.

 

[Kaltias]

GBE is just as arbitrary as the explosion formula, though.

Pretty sure I went over that back then, but this is a matter of "which arbitrary method would you use to calculate the feat", because there is absolutely no physical law that can explain creation feats.

The only one that comes close is mass-energy, and even then you are creating energy out of nowhere which is impossible irl

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Keep in mind, for Mass-energy conversion feats; creating the Earth would be Small Star level+ and creating the sun would be 4-B.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

GBE is just as arbitrary as the explosion formula, though.
Pretty sure I went over that back then, but this is a matter of "which arbitrary method would you use to calculate the feat", because there is absolutely no physical law that can explain creation feats.

The only one that comes close is mass-energy, and even then you are creating energy out of nowhere which is impossible irl

GBE relates to the actual matter created, though, not the entire dimensional space. It accounts for what's actually created, as you can't define the empty space in terms of energy beyond vacuum energy, which was decided against using. Although perhaps GBE + The lower end of vacuum energy would be reasonable.

You can't explode/destroy empty space in the conventional sense so using an explosion whose radius is defined by the radius of the dimension, or even Inverse Square is flawed in that assumption. If we assume destroying the matter = destroying the dimension, an explosion isn't necessary, just breaking apart the matter contained therein.

If physical law can truly not explain their creation or the energy associated with it, perhaps it's hax in the same way existence erasure is.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

That being said, it also kind of needs to be considered how a sun being pulled by a planet's gravity would actually work, wouldn't that require a planet that is outrageously dense or has absurdly massive gravity? Sounds like something where the calc would be too vague probably.

 

[Kaltias]

GBE relates to the energy needed to blow up a planet so hard that it won't come back into its previous shape. It has nothing to do with creation.

I mean yeah, it's hax, but creation feats are way too abundant in fiction so you have to find a compromise, unless you plan to discard all of them, which we obviously can't do.

 

[Wokistan]

I think you could probably calc the mass of a planet that has a sun orbiting it but that makes every other feat a mess because gravity would be insane

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Actually, GBE is the energy being used to hold a planet together. Of course busting a planet to the point where it's not a planet anymore and won't just reform has GBE as the baseline. But it does scientifically require harnessing the GBE of a planet to even form one that's held together.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

GBE relates to the energy needed to blow up a planet so hard that it won't come back into its previous shape. It has nothing to do with creation.
I mean yeah, it's hax, but creation feats are way too abundant in fiction so you have to find a compromise, unless you plan to discard all of them, which we obviously can't do.

If your point is that GBE and Explosions are equally unassociated with creation that doesn't really mean much other than making calculations even more unreliable.

Hence why going by size instead of trying to define something that breaks physics with physical laws.

Keep in mind, for Mass-energy conversion feats; creating the Earth would be Small Star level+ and creating the sun would be 4-B.

Using an explosion formula, creating the earth is Multi-Continent level and creating the Sun is Large Planet level. There isn't really any "one size fits all" way of doing this.

 

[Kaltias]

@DDM

It doesn't though.

Earth was formed thanks to a bunch of asteroids aggregating into a planet. No 5-B energy anywhere.

The one time something hit Earth with Low 5-B energy, the impact was so strong that a chunk of the planet was sent into orbit and it formed the Moon.

If at any point in its history the planet had been hit by a 5-B asteroid or whatever, we wouldn't be here talking

 

[Jinsye]

@Dargoo

You're using the Near Total Fatalities formula which stops working when you get off of the planet's surface

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Dargoo
You're using the Near Total Fatalities formula which stops working when you get off of the planet's surface

Oh, lol. Which equation should I use, then?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

It doesn't though.
Earth was formed thanks to a bunch of asteroids aggregating into a planet. No 5-B energy anywhere.

The one time something hit Earth with Low 5-B energy, the impact was so strong that a chunk of the planet was sent into orbit and it formed the Moon.

That's over time, though, we're talking about instantly creating one.

 

[Kepekley23]

Actually, GBE is the energy being used to hold a planet together. Of course busting a planet to the point where it's not a planet anymore and won't just reform has GBE as the baseline. But it does scientifically require harnessing the GBE of a planet to even form one that's held together.

No it doesn't. Earth's formation was a gradual, billion-year process of Tier 6 events. No scientist will tell you that planet formation has anything to do with GBE - we only assume as much because of a standard we made up for our systems' sake.

 

[Kaltias]

And i'm saying that "create something instantly" is not something quantifiable using rl science.

So either you throw literally every creation feat out of the window, or we look for a standard that we can agree on.

Just like we rate FTL movement of celestial bodies as their GBE even if the correct answer to "energy required to throw an object at FTL speed" is "you can't"

 

[Jinsye]

For cosmic explosions we use Inverse Square Law, E = 4*U*(Er/Tr)^2, which E is energy in joules, U is GBE in joules, Er is explosion radius in meters, and Tr is target radius in meters.

Look here for how it works if you don't know/remember

 

[Kepekley23]

Let me scroll up to answer the posts in this thread - I was off for a while.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

And i'm saying that "create something instantly" is not something quantifiable using rl science.
So either you throw literally every creation feat out of the window, or we look for a standard that we can agree on.

Each 'standard' brought up causes issues at one level or another, though. GBE stops making sense when solar systems are introduced, Mass-Energy presents issues for nearly all ratings, and explosions fail to work on the relatively smaller scales reasonably.

Like I said, we should make a size chart, something we agreed on above (almost) for feats like this. It's not perfect and it won't give exact values but we're working with something that can't be determined through physics anyways.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Let me scroll up to answer the posts in this thread - I was off for a while.

Alright. I'll wait until your next comment before posting again, then.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@Kepekley + Kaltias, I meant creating a planet with one fell swoop still requires harnessing the GBE. Not talking about doing it piece by piece. And of topic, but don't even believe all those other events actually happened IRL; the only well to tell for sure is to actually travel back in time, to see what happens so it's more so speculative rather than proof.

 

[Kepekley23]

Size charts are completely impossible since they're...wait for it...based off of Inverse Square Law destructive values! Unless you want to throw out calculations altogether and revert to some primordial system where we base off of eyesight instead of scientifical values.

 

[Kaltias]

I meant creating a planet with one fell swoop still requires harnessing the GBE.

It doesn't.

GBE is simply not related to that, because "creating a planet out of nowhere" is not something that physic allows irl.

Also, which events? Earth being hit by another planetoid leading to the creation of the Moon?

 

[TriforcePower1]

I agree with the Kepekley. The closest IRL thing to creating a Pocket Dimension is a "mini Big Bang", which would probably use the explosion formula due to how we consider Big Bang feats here.

 

[Wokistan]

Spatial manipulation doesn't really need AP. I still prefer sticking to what's created within the dimension itself as opposed to trying to quantify the creation of < universal space.