-
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.
Destroy a 2D space-time continuum
- Thread starter Kulf_Boba
- Start date
- 4,507
- 3,045
11-A
Oliver_de_jesus
He/Him- 23,325
- 17,015
10-C?
- 1,664
- 2,594
- 869
- 564
- Thread starter
- #7
Well, if someone destroys the space-time continuum I mentioned, at what level would it be?
Note that the length and width of the dimension are equal to the size of the observable universe.
- 869
- 564
- Thread starter
- #8
Ok according to what some friends have told me to destroy this "2D" space-time continuum would be 3-A:
To destroy the 3D universe by an explosion requires an explosion of 2.825E+92 joules and to destroy the 2D universe by an explosion requires an energy transfinitely less than 2.825E+92 joules.
Therefore, by destroying the space-time axis of the 2D universe, one would be destroying instantaneous transfinites of 2D space.
And that means that the value for destroying the space of the 2D universe is multiplied by an uncountable infinity and is now equal to the value for destroying the space of the 3D universe.
To destroy the 3D universe by an explosion requires an explosion of 2.825E+92 joules and to destroy the 2D universe by an explosion requires an energy transfinitely less than 2.825E+92 joules.
Therefore, by destroying the space-time axis of the 2D universe, one would be destroying instantaneous transfinites of 2D space.
And that means that the value for destroying the space of the 2D universe is multiplied by an uncountable infinity and is now equal to the value for destroying the space of the 3D universe.
TheGreatJedi13
Username Only- 5,018
- 3,191
Thats not how it works unless the spacetime or it has infinite independent timeline/multiverse for a 2D space.
Best approach i would do is math. Since potency is unlikely quantifiable when it lacks an axis for it to work in our measurement of potency.
Its probably gonna be the weakest 10-C like the smallest unit in 3D space which would be a single quark or maybe an atom depends on how you frame the smallest unit possible that still has 3 axis.
Best approach i would do is math. Since potency is unlikely quantifiable when it lacks an axis for it to work in our measurement of potency.
Its probably gonna be the weakest 10-C like the smallest unit in 3D space which would be a single quark or maybe an atom depends on how you frame the smallest unit possible that still has 3 axis.
- 869
- 564
- Thread starter
- #10
The 2D universe would be a transfinitely smaller portion of the 3D universe, doesn't that mean that if multiplied by uncountable infinity it would now be equivalent to the 3D universe?
Why would it be so? If the 2D universe is not the size of these things, but the size of the observable universe.
Vietthai96
He/Him- 9,241
- 12,291
To be fair the "2 spatial dimensions with 1 temporal dimension" make it 3d, not 2d bruhh
But anyway, it can yield up to High 3-A iirc, still with our current system, it is hard to do anything about this kind of feat
But anyway, it can yield up to High 3-A iirc, still with our current system, it is hard to do anything about this kind of feat
- 869
- 564
- Thread starter
- #12
By 2D I mean the spatial axes, not including time.
Vietthai96
He/Him- 9,241
- 12,291
Because you mentioned space-time continuum, the term itself already including time
But anyway to answer your question, it still can yield up to High 3-A, if the length of those axes is infinite, and you destroy the entire axis
But anyway to answer your question, it still can yield up to High 3-A, if the length of those axes is infinite, and you destroy the entire axis
TheGreatJedi13
Username Only- 5,018
- 3,191
After thinking a bit longer i can see the point of it being possible universal or 3-A. In geometrical standpoint not math tho cause idk wtf is transfinite and such
- 5,879
- 1,069
Vietthai96
He/Him- 9,241
- 12,291
Energy doesn't really care about dimension, so if you require infinite energy to destroy 2 infinitely long dimensional axes it still is High 3-A..
- 3,881
- 1,113
A time dimension makes it 3-D and infinite 3-D is High 3-A
Anyways it should be 3-A but IDK what the tiering system treats it as
- 1,664
- 2,594
Yes it does. Infinite energy on a 3D scale, and infinite energy on a 2D scale are completely different things.
This is why on the tiering system it specifically says:
If they destroy all of time and not just a snapshot, then it would be the most insignificant 3D being. That’s gonna be really hard to prove tho tbh.
Vietthai96
He/Him- 9,241
- 12,291
On 3D scale, not 3D energy. There is no 3d energy or 2d energy, since even 1d line can still contain energy and mass, it is infinitely long mean it contain infinite energy and mass, thus still High 3-A, in a sense
Guardian_Doge
He/Him- 625
- 601
Scalars and Vectors 
- 4,507
- 3,045
No... Mass and Energy are interlocked, they can be converted between one another, and are under the rules of dimensionality. You wouldn't say an infinite planet's mass in a 2D Space is High 3-A, so you can't say infinite energy in a 2D Space is High 3-A.
The whole idea behind how we treat dimensions is that a lower dimensions infinity is nothing to a higher dimensions.
- 5,879
- 1,069
Yes it does, energy cares about size. An infinite 2D thing would be infinitely smaller than anything 3d
- 2,126
- 1,725
High 3-A.
I am unsure whether to call a 2-D space as 2-D space-time continumn.
I am unsure whether to call a 2-D space as 2-D space-time continumn.
- 2,126
- 1,725
I guess it's a flaw in tiering system ,maybe it would get fixed soon.
Vietthai96
He/Him- 9,241
- 12,291
Energy don't care about size or volume. Or you would be stronger than the singularity of a Black Hole
- 21,139
- 30,098
Everybody thinks they're a scientist smh
Cat275
He/Him- 1,428
- 788
You hate to see it.Scalars and Vectors
- 5,879
- 1,069
So you're saying it doesn't take more energy to destroy a larger object than it does a smaller object? Black hole's are powerful because of their mass as well
Guardian_Doge
He/Him- 625
- 601
I sometimes fear the initial future for the vs community. Scalars are values of magnitude in which can be distributed over an area (the inside space of the n-dimensional object), any quantity, both vector and scalar however are defined on a scale from 0 and can expand to a given size, the difference between the two being, one extends in a direction and the other expands regardless.
That's why you can apply mass on a 2-D object and make it heavier than a 3-D one, the reasoning being that you simply put more within its density, which is also the basis for why smaller objects can be heavier than larger ones. I am also referring to volume (in reference to density) as a scalar. As a summation of my point: Something 2-D has size, regardless of direction, you can apply scalars onto anything with size. Joules, mass, gravity even are all dimensionless quantities, so an infinite amount of mass will always be the same value in whatever vector. The only difference lies in the distribution of that mass or energy in density for particular objects.
That's why you can apply mass on a 2-D object and make it heavier than a 3-D one, the reasoning being that you simply put more within its density, which is also the basis for why smaller objects can be heavier than larger ones. I am also referring to volume (in reference to density) as a scalar. As a summation of my point: Something 2-D has size, regardless of direction, you can apply scalars onto anything with size. Joules, mass, gravity even are all dimensionless quantities, so an infinite amount of mass will always be the same value in whatever vector. The only difference lies in the distribution of that mass or energy in density for particular objects.
- 13,730
- 3,677
Mass and Energy are dimensionless in this new system
So yes, destroying an infinite 2-D plane would be High 3-A (This was also asked on vsb's discord and the answer was the same)
- 5,879
- 1,069
A 2D object won't even have volume so its density is always none
- 4,507
- 3,045
Wha- How- TF!
- 5,879
- 1,069
So destroying an infinite 4D structure will be high 3-A now? Makes sense
Similar threads
- Locked
