- 11,099
- 4,323
Though Universe level is supposed to be the Universe, not Observable Universe
-
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.
Galaxy News: The Milky Way just got bigger
- Thread starter Assaltwaffle
- Start date
- 10,758
- 6,491
Baseline Universe level is only the observable universe iirc.
- 11,099
- 4,323
That's only a lowballed calculation.
- 6,014
- 2,122
I would like to know if the value I calculate will be the new baseline (although I doubt it)The Causality said:
- 11,099
- 4,323
Don't think so.
- 3,032
- 394
Should we recalc Universe Level, then?
That'll sure make 3-B a lot bigger... I mean, every time you multiply the radius of the explosion, the energy needed is multiplied by the square of that, right? Making so that we have to multiply the present value by 62 500.
That buffs Tier 3-A's baseline all the way up to 4,44375e+97 Joules, or 444.3 Tenazetafoe. 3-B's bottom to cap ratio also goes from 23 orders of magnitude to 28 orders of magnitude.
Of course, if the universe is actually so large it makes the googolplex look like shit, then we might as well have characters who destroy the observable universe be 3-B.
That'll sure make 3-B a lot bigger... I mean, every time you multiply the radius of the explosion, the energy needed is multiplied by the square of that, right? Making so that we have to multiply the present value by 62 500.
That buffs Tier 3-A's baseline all the way up to 4,44375e+97 Joules, or 444.3 Tenazetafoe. 3-B's bottom to cap ratio also goes from 23 orders of magnitude to 28 orders of magnitude.
Of course, if the universe is actually so large it makes the googolplex look like shit, then we might as well have characters who destroy the observable universe be 3-B.
- 9,978
- 2,015
Besides what DT said, Matt and me already make notice that the spiral hasn't increased its size, if not that celestial bodies outside of it are affected by the galaxy's gravity, the spiral still has its common size, what is generally addressed in the feats.
- 8,438
- 3,293
- Thread starter
- #90
The stars on the outer rim of our galaxy would still be visible, even if not in the main spiral. Reducing our galaxy into nothing/destroying it would indeed require the destruction of the outer stars out else the outer galaxy would still be visible.
This is different than treating every object in the Sun's gravity as solar system level.
On the baseline universe, I am totally against using any hypothetical projection of the universe's true size. The universe's size is completely unknown and this is agreed on by science. The estimates are nice, but they are nothing but vaguely scientific estimations. We know the size of the observable universe; we can't observe or measure anything else and shouldn't use anything else.
This is different than treating every object in the Sun's gravity as solar system level.
On the baseline universe, I am totally against using any hypothetical projection of the universe's true size. The universe's size is completely unknown and this is agreed on by science. The estimates are nice, but they are nothing but vaguely scientific estimations. We know the size of the observable universe; we can't observe or measure anything else and shouldn't use anything else.
- 15,332
- 7,563
The universe can actually be smaller than what we can observe.
- 26,331
- 3,127
how ?Kepekley23 said:
- 15,332
- 7,563
The galaxies we observe near the edge of the observable universe may be actually copies of other nearby galaxies when they were "younger", which means they're not actually there. That'd take a few billions light years out of the universe's diameter.
- 15,332
- 7,563
That said, there's a less than 0.04% chance of that being the case, since the universe is very, veeery likely flat.
- 26,331
- 3,127
nah, it the universe is a 4th dimensional shape we cannot percive in it's totality, so to our eyes snd scienze the universe is flatKepekley23 said:
ovo
- 8,438
- 3,293
- Thread starter
- #97
Still utterly unfathomable. Anything beyond 1 LY is just absurd.Mand21 said:
- 15,332
- 7,563
I've seen people unironically saying sun rays are just the Sun reflecting on the dome.
ABoogieYesSir
They/Them- 6,164
- 239
No wonder why that the week's go fast now.
- 3,032
- 394
You think so? >.> I kinda tend to think that the way the size ratios start to scale more lightly once you get to the size of tiny galaxies makes up for the ridiculous difference from the size of a star to that of even the smallest dwarf galaxy.Assaltwaffle said:
But, welp, we can't even properly grasp sizes like that of the Earth in terms of storytelling unless they're broken into smaller bits we can chew.
Similar threads
- Locked
