Creation, Attack Potency, and Pocket Realities

[Dargoo_Faust]

I agree with Wok for the most part at the moment.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@Kaltias Let's please avoid turning this into a Creation Vs Evolution debate; that's more reserved for PM if you want to discuss this type of stuff.

 

[Wokistan]

I don't think anyone was though?

 

[Kepekley23]

@Kaltias Let's please avoid turning this into a Creation Vs Evolution debate; that's more reserved for PM if you want to discuss this type of stuff.

What Creation vs. Evolution debate?

We're talking about the physical facts of reality, not religious issues.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The whole Low 5-B impact happening and the moon was created, or "Was created by a multiple Tier 6 events happening over a 6 billion year time period." Those are theories, not facts. It's not like those same scientists have a time machine and actually witness the events. Nor have we seen every single puzzle piece in the universe to actually build every piece together; only certain parts. Those pretty strong theories, but not perfect hammered into the ground facts. Besides, even the Big Bang doesn't even follow the laws of chemistry.

 

[Kepekley23]

Except we're talking about the physical facts of reality and not about religious dogma. You might not believe them but that is wholly meaningless as we are going by the overwhelming scientifical consensus and study. No need to try and discuss pseudosciencitific "Controversy" in this thread.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

The whole Low 5-B impact happening and the moon was created, or "Was created by a multiple Tier 6 events happening over a 6 billion year time period." Those are theories, not facts. It's not like those same scientists have a time machine and actually witness the events. Nor have we seen every single puzzle piece in the universe to actually build every piece together; only certain parts. Those pretty strong theories, but not perfect hammered into the ground facts. Besides, even the Big Bang doesn't even follow the laws of chemistry.

Making a lot of assumptions here. ovo

 

[Jackythejack]

this sounds like it'll go spiraling dow

 

[Assaltwaffle]

How did talking about GBE get to this point? I go to look at LoL speed feats for 5 minutes and now we're debating creationism.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

I don't even know what's going on anymore tbh...

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

A scientific theory isn't discredited by virtue of being a theory in particular. It actually takes a metric ton of consensus among the scientific community for something to even be considered a theory.

That and arguing the validity of the Big Bang/Evolution/The Moon being formed by an impact will just have us going in circles for an enternity, while we're just talking about creation feats and how to evaluate them right now.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

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.

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion in the conventional sense though.

 

[Kepekley23]

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion in the conventional sense though.

And he wasn't saying it was.

 

[Antoniofer]

We can't even use explosion equations outside the planet Earth, so its far from accurate to use it.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I know that part, but they're still not "facts", just theories. And not everything I said is an "Assumption". Anyway, I agree to drop this. Keep this thread focused on the nature of pocket reality creation feats and how we should treat them. The GBE or talking about Earth or moon being created is completely off topic here.

And as Antoniofer said, the explosions thing is different based on gravity. Environments with gravity higher than Earth are act X^2 times greater in proportion with X being gravity compared to Earth. And explosion calcs are inapplicable of there's 0 gravity.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

And he wasn't saying it was.

He was agreeing to using an explosion formula and using the Big Bang to justify using it for creation feats, yet the Big Bang wasn't an explosion.

 

[Kepekley23]

He is talking about how we the Big Bang.

We use an omnidirectional explosion formula to rate it.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

We use an omnidirectional explosion formula to rate it.

Do we have a reason in particular why?

 

[Kepekley23]

Do we have a reason in particular why?

Said formula is the baseline for all of 3-A

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Said formula is the baseline for all of 3-A

That's all well and good, I'm just asking how we justified it when setting up the rating.

 

[Kepekley23]

That's the reason. Because it's a standard we have set up.

 

[AguilaR101]

Are there any dimension creation feats on a universal scale that are actually rated as 3-A instead of Low 2-C?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

That's the reason. Because it's a standard we have set up.

Uh-huh.

 

[Kepekley23]

Are there any dimension creation feats on a universal scale that are actually rated as 3-A instead of Low 2-C?

Must be a lot considering we don't treat creating a universal dimension as 3-A without confirmation of another space-time being created.

 

[Kepekley23]

Uh-huh.

Your whole point of view throughout this thread is a pure circle.

• "We should treat dimension creation based off of size"

• "But our baselines are based off of destructive energy!"

• "Common sense!"

Calling out common sense serves for exactly nothing in this scenario.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Your whole point of view throughout this thread is a pure circle.

That red herring still doesn't answer my question on the justifications.

Also that grossly misrepresented my argument.

 

[Kepekley23]

Grossly misrepresented what? You have been saying for hundreds of posts now that you want to base the tiers off of some common sense-based size chart where creating a solar system = Solar System level, purely because it "should be common sense", while ignoring that the baseline for Solar System level is based off, guess what, the inverse square law destructive value of destroying a solar system, which we apply to creation for the sake of our system.

I have already answered your question on our justifications too many times in this thread. We, VS Battles Wiki, assume creation = destruction. Hence why.

And all I contest is an unfounded rating based off of a perceived "common sense" size chart, which is essentially pulling a rating out of nowhere to serve our senses. I am fully neutral on downgrading Starry Sky feats to High 4-C as I have said before.

 

[Agnaa]

Is it more energy to create a pocket reality with two stars a million km apart, or with two stars a million light years apart? Or do both of these take the same amount of energy.

If they're the same, we're using GBE. If they're different, we're using omnidirectional explosions.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Baseline for Solar System level is based off, guess what, the inverse square law destructive value of destroying a solar system, which we apply to creation for the sake of our system.

That's not any real justification though. I've discussed at length here and it's been repeatedly acknowledged that creation feats don't follow any form of physics, and that there is no relation to the inverse square law in creating something besides something we arbitrarily set as benchmarks in tiering.

I have already answered your question on our justifications too many times in this thread. We, VS Battles Wiki, assume creation = destruction. Hence why.

I've already acknowledged that here though. The issue here is that destroying space isn't possible. Deriving energy from space itself yields astronomically different results. An explosion wouldn't destroy the space. You argue that it would destroy the matter in said space, yes, however an explosion that large isn't needed to perform that. Applying energy equal to the GBE of each celestial body would according to your assertions, do the same effect.

And all I contest is an unfounded rating based off of a perceived "common sense" size chart, which is essentially pulling a rating out of nowhere to serve our senses. I am fully neutral on downgrading Starry Sky feats to High 4-C as I have said before.

Using explosive ratings as benchmarks is also pulling stuff from nowhere in regards to creation feats. It makes sense for large, solar-system sized attacks, but it falls flat when the character is only creating empty space alongside sparse objects within.

Surprisingly enough I've still yet to be provided for any reasoning for using an explosive equation for our Big Bang rating other than "it's our standard", which isn't an argument as I'm asking for why we have that standard when you yourself admitted that the Big Bang is not a conventional explosive.

My argument is that none of the methods have any grounding because you're trying to apply physics and energy to something that defies them. Maintaining what we have on the Celestial Body Creation page seems like the best bet here.

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.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Is it more energy to create a pocket reality with two stars a million km apart, or with two stars a million light years apart? Or do both of these take the same amount of energy.

The issue is that we can't define the energy used to create or destroy space, so there really isn't an answer to that question strictly going off of physics.

 

[Agnaa]

The issue is that we can't define the energy used to create or destroy space, so there really isn't an answer to that question strictly going off of physics.

I'm pretty sure in physics creating space doesn't use energy. Which is why space can expand without taking energy from everywhere else.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I'm pretty sure in physics creating space doesn't use energy. Which is why space can expand without taking energy from everywhere else.

If that's the case I'd say it's the same, although I'm not sure where that answer comes from.

 

[Andytrenom]

I agreed with this before but now I've changed my mind.

If pocket dimension feats are to be calced with sum of GBE, I don't see how universe creation feats would be any different. The same logic that makes pocket reality feats high 4-C would make Universes creation feats tier 4.

Assigning a rating by size also wouldn't work, because as i said before it's the same thing as if we were to assign a rating by explosion yields

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

The same logic that makes pocket reality feats high 4-C would make Universes creation feats tier 4.

Creating a universe with its own spacetime is Low 2-C, though. No one's contesting that.

 

[Andytrenom]

I'm talking about 3-A universe creation.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

What is even being debated here?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I'm talking about 3-A universe creation.

Do we have an example of that happening on-site?

And even then the dissonance is more a consequence of how we set the tiers in the first place, not really with the method used to find the energy if what Agnaa said is correct.

 

[Jackythejack]

Yeeeah I dunno what's being debated here anymore

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

What is even being debated here?

I'm not even sure myself, to be entirely honest.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Dargoo Any universe creation feat that isn't proven to involve creation of spacetime is rated at 3-A