Creation, Attack Potency, and Pocket Realities

[Sera_EX]

To be fair we don't even treat dimension busting as a feat unless it's very specific. Obito's kamui dimension is not a real dimension, even if it was stated to be a separate spacetime. It's a double standard to not accept dimension busting but accept dimension creation (which is very inconsistent) without explicit evidence that this dimension is functionally a literal realm of that size, and not just a pocket space that is derived of hax.

 

[Kepekley23]

What Sera said is just basic logic, that fiction varies from series to series. Not any particularly good argument. We still have a method to quantify the distance between a dimension's hypothetical edge and its center and apply inverse square law.

 

[Kaltias]

Sera said "They are outliers"

You asked me "Address Sera's point"

I did, and used an example from the OP.

Sorry for the misunderstanding

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

What Sera said is just basic logic, that fiction varies from series to series. Not any particularly good argument. We still have a method to quantify the distance between a dimension's hypothetical edge and its center and apply inverse square law.

I'm fine with that. My only beef is with using explosion formulas.


@Kal Apologies for misunderstanding on my part as well.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Tri You need to take into account the context of the creation feat and the context of the destruction feat, before saying that they should be equal.

If I destroyed two mountains 1000 miles apart with an explosion, and later recreated those mountains at the same distance from each other, would both feats yield the same result if we say that creation=destruction?

 

[Kepekley23]

> Obito's kamui dimension is not a real dimension, even if it was stated to be a separate spacetime

Obito's Kamui teleports him to an alternate dimension. He does not create it by himself. This is a false analogy. Even if he did, we're never shown its size, at all.

> It's a double standard to not accept dimension busting but accept dimension creation (which is very inconsistent) without explicit evidence that this dimension is functionally a literal realm of that size, and not just a pocket space that is derived of hax.

We need explicit evidence that it's a realm of that size. This has always been a thing in our wiki, not sure what this is all about.

 

[TriforcePower1]

@Tri You need to take into account the context of the creation feat and the context of the destruction feat, before saying that they should be equal.

If I destroyed two mountains 1000 miles apart with an explosion, and later recreated those mountains at the same distance from each other, would both feats yield the same result if we say that creation=destruction?

If you shot a ray that exploded on contact with the mountains and you destroyed only the mountains, yes.

If you used an omnidirectional blast, you'd need to recreate everything else you've destroyed, not just the two mountains.

 

[Sera_EX]

I did not say they were always outliers. I said pocket realms do not follow the same logic across fiction like creating a planet does.

 

[Kepekley23]

And using GBE to quantify dimensions is horrible. Empty space with next to naught density between two celestial bodies doesn't count for GBE. Any astronomer will tell you that a galaxy isn't a celestial body.

 

[Kepekley23]

@Andy

No, because you are merely recreating the mountains in the places they were destroyed. Creating a dimension with the entire space between them included, however, should qualify for creation = destruction, yeah.

 

[Sera_EX]

Fiction varies, of course it does, but pocket realms are an inconsistency in the system. Can a three-dimensional being create an eight-dimensional object and hold it in their 3D hands? That's a 1-C creation feat if you say yes.

 

[Kepekley23]

And creating a planet does not follow the same logic across fiction either. It's even more inconsistent than creating a dimension, this I'll say for sure. This is making stuff seem more consistent, just to paint dimension creation as more "inconsistent" than it actually is.

 

[Kaltias]

Yes but that's just something that makes no logical sense. Actual 8-D objects dwarf multiverses. It's obvious that a human can't hold one in their hands

 

[TriforcePower1]

Fiction varies, of course it does, but pocket realms are an inconsistency in the system. Can a three-dimensional being create an eight-dimensional object and hold it in their 3D hands? That's an outlier if you find it.

My opinion.

 

[Kepekley23]

@Sera

Holding a 8-D object in 3-D hands is a logical impossibility, so that feat is 3-D. She manipulated the dimensions of the object down - this is hax.

 

[Kepekley23]

@Kaltias

Actually, 8-D objects are billions of times smaller than Planck lengths going by String theory.

 

[Kaltias]

@Kep

I know, I was talking about 8-D objects according to our tiering system

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

So, just to get this straight; are we clear on not using the explosion formula? I feel like the coversarion just sort of veered off from that.

 

[Andytrenom]

The problem is that creating space and destroying something through an explosion are vastly different things, to the point where it doesn't make much sense to try and apply the logic of "creation>destruction"

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

As Andy said.

I'm not creating a fireball that's releasing explosive force, I'm making a pocket dimension. We shouldn't use the equation if it doesn't describe what it's equating.

 

[Antoniofer]

I'm going to follow OP and said that explosions are definitively not the way to calculate pocket dimensions, and not sure about GBE neither since the space is mostly empty with, very likely, not conventional physical laws.

Its an old comment, but I will agree with Ryu to not scale it to ST nor Dura, most of the time its a reality warping power and the user brings its target to the pocket dimension since it has advantage there, if it has the same power outside of it bringing its opponent there would be pretty innecessary. Take into account that no always is about creating, sometimes is just moving to a pre-created pocket dimension, like a mindscape, dreamworld, or similar.

 

[Sera_EX]

So then tell me what's the difference between a realm and a pocket realm and why should we treat the creation of them the same?

Hades created Hell, Elysium, the Hyperdimension, etc. But these are separate dimensions, not pocket dimensions.

 

[TriforcePower1]

The problem is that creating space and destroying something through an explosion are vastly different things, to the point where it doesn't make much sense to try and apply the logic of "creation>destruction"

I think the thing is that we generally considers creation = destruction, which is why we use GBE for both the destruction and creation of celestial objects instead of the E=mc^2. So if we generally consider that creation = destruction, why consider creating Pocket dimensions (or dimensions in general) the only exception to this rule?

We already consider creation = destruction. I'm just stating the general standards of the wiki.

 

[Kepekley23]

So then tell me what's the difference between a realm and a pocket realm and why should we treat the creation of them the same?

Hades created Hell, Elysium, the Hyperdimension, etc. But these are separate dimensions, not pocket dimensions.

Because they are literally the same thing and the word "pocket" is just there to signify they were created and are readily accessible. There is no difference between a pocket dimension that is universal in size and a universe.

 

[Sera_EX]

Creation > Destruction. Tear up a sheet of paper and then try to create a new one. They are not equal in practice. Goku can destroy a universe but he can't create one. Creating something out of nothing is more impressive than reducing something to nothing.

 

[Antoniofer]

Eh, I wouldn't consider it to be the same: someone that has created the universe most likely has showed the powers of creating life, manipulate laws, or powers that can perform outside of its realm; meanwhile someone with pocket dimension generally has more powers (likely RW) only inside its personal domain. Guess we need to analyse a little, can the subject do stuff in the "real" world in the same magnitude that inside of its personal domain?

 

[Kepekley23]

It depends; Han Jee Han from The Gamer can instantly create Earth-sized pocket storage spaces that are replicas of our world, but he can't put it into combat because it's a specific ability done with a specific power.

 

[ProfessorLord]

I've said this before but I always felt there needed to be two things for a valid creation feat: timeframe and means.

TIMEFRAME: Creating a skyscraper of ice instantly with my ice powers? Sure, that's a valid timeframe, I am now large building level attack potency via my ice powers. Creating a skyscraper of ice in a few minutes with my ice powers? Yeah, no. It's not able to be calculated and it's definitely significantly less than large building level.

MEANS: Creating a skyscraper of ice instantly with my ice powers? Sure, that's a valid means, I am now large building level attack potency via my ice powers (and only through them, unless I demonstrate I can deal comparable damage with my fists as well). Creating a skyscraper of ice instantly with my mind, through a dream, with a button... can I attack with any of those? No? Then we can't assume I can use the same energy with every single action and attack I perform. It's non combat applicable High 8-C energy.

 

[Sera_EX]

I'm guessing my Gilgamesh example just flew over the rainbow. Or are we going to just claim that's an outlier?

Every single time it always comes down to outliers, but maybe, just maybe, pocket realities as a whole are just nonsensical and unless shown to function as whatever it is a semblance of it should just be ignored. Well, that's just me, so I'll keep it to myself now. It isn't an issue.

Please, continue.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Sera If you just say "Creation>Destruction" without keeping in mind what two things you are comparing, then creating a sandcastle would be a better feat than atomizing one and creating a thunderstorm would be a better feat than dispersing it in an instant

You have to take into account what a feat of "creating" something meant and what a feat of "destroying" it meant, and then examine whether they have such a relationship with each other that the creation feat can be logically considered as greater than the destruction feat.

 

[TriforcePower1]

@ProfessorLord We already have a name for that, and it's environmental destruction (or just "insert tier with that particular object" with that object). You also have to consider other factors like the power source. If I use a random magical artifact to create things and then attack using the same artifact, the creation feat scales to AP, unless stated or implied otherwise (like the artifact being made especially for creating things).

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

What even happened to this thread? It was okay when I left it yesterday but now I'm seeing a lot of ridiculous suggestions.

Ignore every single pocket dimension creation feat? Say they are all outliers? Get real. We're not going to do either of these.

This is supposed to be a thread focused on improving the pages, not changing the wiki.

 

[Sera_EX]

Hey!! I cleary said "that's just me", "I'll keep that to myself", and "please continue", so do that, please. I argued my piece, Kep and Kal gave reasonable responses, I conceded. May we move on?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Okay. That's good to hear. I had just woken up so perhaps I misunderstood.

 

[Agnaa]

@Kaltias

Actually, 8-D objects are billions of times smaller than Planck lengths going by String theory.

An 8-D object wouldn't be, a string according to string theory would be.

Misunderstandings of string theory are awful in general with sci-fi to blame, but those misunderstandings seem to go even further here.

 

[Sera_EX]

Let's not delve into String Theory, that's a different beast entirely from dimensional tiering. Especially when most Multiversal theories deal with dimensional axes rather than outright higher dimensional objects.

 

[NostalgiaTrip]

Can you give me one example where someone makes a pocket reality with an explosion?
Read through the link Matt gave, there is a number of joules per square meter of empty space, however it is highly variable.

I know that explosions are thought to be the primary force in the creation of our universe, but that does not mean that it has to be the same for every other one out there.

For example, in Ben Ten (God I love that series), when the universe was destroyed, it wasn't via explosion, but in fact, more like a wave that destroyed everything that it came into contact with. It also appeared to be that it was a 2-Dimensional wave. It only went left, right, up, and down. There was no 3-D.

Second of all, when he recreated it, he didn't do so via explosion but merely recreated everything that had been destroyed via using the stellar mass that existed within Alien X own body. I can't say for certain that's what happened, but for the most part that seems to be the case.

 

[Uradelbauer]

I always thought creation = destruction here was incredibly stupid and misunderstood, more like a good excuse for someone to make a character strong.

 

[Setsuna_tenma]

Can you give me one example where someone makes a pocket reality with an explosion?
Read through the link Matt gave, there is a number of joules per square meter of empty space, however it is highly variable.

Super Nova

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Lumine