- 16,932
- 7,380
Oryx, the Taken King has an attack that's a huge explosion of his pocket dimension, as he pushes it into realspace.Setsuna tenma said:
-
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.
Creation, Attack Potency, and Pocket Realities
- Thread starter Dargoo_Faust
- Start date
- Status
- 15,323
- 7,555
> An 8-D object wouldn't be, a string according to string theory would be.
Uh, string theory only has the 4 main dimensions be big. The others would all be compact and smaller ones, a billionth of a billionth the width of a Planck length.
I know our dimensional tiering is a mix of several things with a bit of Lovecraftian stuff thrown in, but even here, 8-D objects wouldn't really dwarf multiverses. That's what I corrected, being a bit pedantic.
Uh, string theory only has the 4 main dimensions be big. The others would all be compact and smaller ones, a billionth of a billionth the width of a Planck length.
I know our dimensional tiering is a mix of several things with a bit of Lovecraftian stuff thrown in, but even here, 8-D objects wouldn't really dwarf multiverses. That's what I corrected, being a bit pedantic.
- 10,758
- 6,501
What does a "big" dimension mean exactly? Isn't a dimension a parameter for measurement?
- 10,758
- 6,501
@Sera Destroying a constellation through an explosion is greater than creating it, so yes, Destruction ca be greater than creation depending on context.
- 6,104
- 5,108
Constellations are the worst example. You need something better than that, I'm afraid.
@Jobbo
I know and it's a serious problem altogether as it is a complete misunderstanding of both string theory and M-Theory, but I won't touch on that. Not now anyway.
@Jobbo
I know and it's a serious problem altogether as it is a complete misunderstanding of both string theory and M-Theory, but I won't touch on that. Not now anyway.
- 10,758
- 6,501
How?Sera EX said:
- 842
- 92
Can I just say something?
If you are going by the rules of equivalent exchange, as some science/magic related franchises do, before you can create, you need to be able to destroy.
If you are going by the rules of equivalent exchange, as some science/magic related franchises do, before you can create, you need to be able to destroy.
- 6,104
- 5,108
- 16,932
- 7,380
We can't assume equivalent exchange, but if the verse works off of that then it's ok.
Sometimes you can also end up with a lower destruction result, like if you do something that doesn't overcome GBE. I've seen planet destruction turn our 5-C or low 5-B before.
Sometimes you can also end up with a lower destruction result, like if you do something that doesn't overcome GBE. I've seen planet destruction turn our 5-C or low 5-B before.
- 10,758
- 6,501
Creating Solar Systems being rated the same as destroying one through an explosion has issues to me but, I am not getting into that unless I absolutely need to. Don't want to give the impression that I'm planning to carry out a major revision like that anytime soon.
- 6,104
- 5,108
But they aren't rated as the same, Andy. Multi-Stellar feats have always been an issue here. Creating a solar system is not 4-B, not automatically anyway. This has been a practice for some time now, that's why I said celestial body feats aren't the best example.
- 15,637
- 5,400
- Thread starter
- #258
@Matt
Yeah, I've flip flopped a lot on the issue but the only thing I'm pushing forward is that we shouldn't use the explosion feats. I was mostly frustrated that some people were trying to justfy using a random, unrelated equation just because the correct equation (E=mc2) and GBE doesn't work on those scales.
That and perhaps calcing them is the issue to begin with.
Yeah, I've flip flopped a lot on the issue but the only thing I'm pushing forward is that we shouldn't use the explosion feats. I was mostly frustrated that some people were trying to justfy using a random, unrelated equation just because the correct equation (E=mc2) and GBE doesn't work on those scales.
That and perhaps calcing them is the issue to begin with.
- 10,758
- 6,501
@Sera Oh, my mistake then. Probably should have realized since I know Constellation creation feats are rated as high 4-C instead of 4-B/A
- 15,637
- 5,400
- Thread starter
- #260
So, to look back at one of the main reasons I made the thread:
Are we cool with not using the explosion formula for pocket realities? That's legit the only thing I made this thread for outside of reworking the pages.
Are we cool with not using the explosion formula for pocket realities? That's legit the only thing I made this thread for outside of reworking the pages.
- 842
- 92
So I just read something and I'd like a second opinion.
According to scientists, before the creation of the universe, the Big Bang, there was a singularity of infinite density and intense heat, aka a singularity.
"In short, the Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago. At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity."
So does this mean that the creation of the universe happened because they took the matter from a previous one? Much like how the Marvel Universe was made?
I'm asking because it would mean that to create a universe... you would need to squeeze all matter into a single point of 'infinite density and intense heat'.
According to scientists, before the creation of the universe, the Big Bang, there was a singularity of infinite density and intense heat, aka a singularity.
"In short, the Big Bang hypothesis states that all of the current and past matter in the Universe came into existence at the same time, roughly 13.8 billion years ago. At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity."
So does this mean that the creation of the universe happened because they took the matter from a previous one? Much like how the Marvel Universe was made?
I'm asking because it would mean that to create a universe... you would need to squeeze all matter into a single point of 'infinite density and intense heat'.
- 1,673
- 289
Just so we're clear, it doesn't matter which consensus is reached all methods to "calculate" these types of feats are completely arbitrary and no more valid than the other.
- 15,637
- 5,400
- Thread starter
- #265
That's incorrect, to be fair.AguilaR101 said:
Some methods correlate with the feat more. Forming a planetary object? GBE comes into place. Making energy from matter? Mass-Energy is the dictionary definition.
Some methods correlate less or not at all. Making a pocket dimension? Unless there's a fireball encompasing the entire area or it formed via an explosion there's no connection between the two statements.
I do think at the small scale calcing them is unreasonable, though.
- 1,673
- 289
Except neither of those things are commonly portrayed in creation feats, which is what this is about, the lack of correlation between the assigned values and what's actually happening.
Even GBE is an arbitrary assumption as planets are just being poofed into existence, not destroyed or explicitly stated to be held together by gravitational forces the character created, it really is no more valid than other methods.
Even GBE is an arbitrary assumption as planets are just being poofed into existence, not destroyed or explicitly stated to be held together by gravitational forces the character created, it really is no more valid than other methods.
- 15,637
- 5,400
- Thread starter
- #267
Fair point, actually.
Although it's fair to say there is significantly less correlation when you're talking about explosions, unless, as you say, it is stated to be like that.
As many have suggested, perhaps these feats just can't be calced, and we should look for better, more consistent and numerically specific feats if you don't want to go baseline.
Although it's fair to say there is significantly less correlation when you're talking about explosions, unless, as you say, it is stated to be like that.
As many have suggested, perhaps these feats just can't be calced, and we should look for better, more consistent and numerically specific feats if you don't want to go baseline.
- 4,868
- 1,315
I agree with Dargoo, Sera and others here.
Btw, if the explosion formula is unusable, would the dimensions, like in PMMM, be simply unquantifiable?
Btw, if the explosion formula is unusable, would the dimensions, like in PMMM, be simply unquantifiable?
- 34,635
- 41,957
As stated above, pocket realities containing planets and/or stars should combine GBE with Inverse Square law.
- 4,868
- 1,315
But dimensions like Reality Marbles and the Labyrinths have nothing of the like.DarkDragonMedeus said:
- 15,637
- 5,400
- Thread starter
- #271
The feat wouldn't be invalidated, but it would make the calcs incorrect.RebubleUselet said:
- 4,868
- 1,315
That's what I was saying. But okay, got it.
- 15,637
- 5,400
- Thread starter
- #273
Okay, I think we're all on the same page for using explosion calcs for pocket reality feats.
Can we focus on updating the Creation, Attack Potency, and Tiering System pages? I have a draft for the creation page on my sandbox here, please give me feedback.
And also, can we possibly make a comprehensive size/mass list for smaller-than-planetary objects in relation to tier, or should we leave it to eyeball judgement and focus on finding other, more reliable feats?
Can we focus on updating the Creation, Attack Potency, and Tiering System pages? I have a draft for the creation page on my sandbox here, please give me feedback.
And also, can we possibly make a comprehensive size/mass list for smaller-than-planetary objects in relation to tier, or should we leave it to eyeball judgement and focus on finding other, more reliable feats?
- 15,637
- 5,400
- Thread starter
- #275
Large Size defines "Building sized" as 13-14 meters tall, "Skyscraper sized" as between 100 and 1000 meters tall, and "Mountain sized" as between 1000 and 1000000 meters tall.
Of course that hardly counts for for subtiers and most of the entirety of Tier 7 and likely lots of Tier 6, but it's a start.
Of course that hardly counts for for subtiers and most of the entirety of Tier 7 and likely lots of Tier 6, but it's a start.
- 11,199
- 1,727
How far will Madoka Magica be downgraded?
- 32,354
- 20,297
Why would Madoka be downgraded?
- 19,139
- 6,352
@Matt
Regular magical girls scale from this kind of feats. But asthe professor Oak Genki said, it's a discussion for another day (and another thread)
Regular magical girls scale from this kind of feats. But as
- Status
Similar threads
