Destroying infinite empty space

[SubaruN2000]

Would destroying infinite empty space still qualify for High 3-A, even though there's no mass inside it?

And similarly would destroying a spacetime continuum where the physical space is still infinite but empty and has no mass qualify for Low 2-C?

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Yes for High 3-A and Low 2-C. There wouldn't exactly be infinite matter in an infinite space either.

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

Yes. Matter is secondary to space-time.

 

[SubaruN2000]

But would it really require energy to destroy a space with no mass at all? Does the fact that its infinite mean you need infinite energy to affect it regardless of its mass? (And same with requiring low 2-C power for the space-time even though it has no mass?)

 

[KLOL506]

Yes. You'd need infinite energy to encompass an infinite amount of space regardless of whether it has contents or not.

Timeline busting does not require mass to begin with. Space-time exists above and beyond conventional mass.

 

[SubaruN2000]

Alright, thanks.

Would the same apply to higher dimensional spaces? Like affecting a 5th dimensional space (provided it has infinite length axes) with no mass being Low 1-C?

 

[KLOL506]

Alright, thanks.

Would the same apply to higher dimensional spaces? Like a 5th dimensional space (provided it has infinite length axes) with no mass being Low 1-C?

Mass stops being relevant beyond Tier High 3-A.

 

[SubaruN2000]

But isn't mass one of the reasons we don't consider higher dimensions to be automatically superior to lower ones? That a lower dimensional space can have more mass than a higher one?

 

[KLOL506]

But isn't mass one of the reasons we don't consider higher dimensions to be automatically superior to lower ones? That a lower dimensional space can have more mass than a higher one?

It's more so about existential superiority than solely about mass.

 

[KLOL506]

@DontTalkDT and @Ultima_Reality would be able to elaborate more on this.

 

[ImmortalDread]

But isn't mass one of the reasons we don't consider higher dimensions to be automatically superior to lower ones? That a lower dimensional space can have more mass than a higher one?

Mass? I assume you mean energy

 

[ImmortalDread]

Since energy has no dimensionality, we assume that 5D energy is nowhere suprior to 3D because energy is dimensionless.