Low 2-C Big Bang isn't technically Low 2-C ?

[Aachintya31]

The Big Bang Page states that :

Surviving a Low 2-C Big Bang isn't a Universe level+ feat in durability due to the non-physical nature of such an event.

What is this supposed to mean ? What does a non physical nature even mean ? Anything beyond tier 2 is Non physical in nature.

 

[Reiner04]

Low 2-C attacks aren't technically low 2-C either ( ´◡‿ゝ◡`)

 

[Aachintya31]

Low 2-C attacks aren't technically low 2-C either ( ´◡‿ゝ◡`)

Yayyyyyy!!!!

 

[Abstractly_a_Protagonist]

Anything beyond tier 2 is Non physical in nature.

Laugh in conceptual attack that erase the past, present, future and all infinite timelines at conceptual level.

But seriously, I'm interested in the outcome of this QnA.

 

[Shadowbeast]

̶I̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶l̶r̶e̶a̶d̶y̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶r̶e̶a̶d̶ ̶g̶e̶t̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶3̶ ̶p̶a̶g̶e̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶a̶l̶k̶

 

[DontTalkDT]

A big bang isn't a big explosion. As minute physics puts it "everywhere stretch" would be a more fitting term. The point is that, since a big bang is technically just a rapid extension of spacetime, one can't really put a tier on it. One can say surviving at the time of the big bang is 3-A, due to the immense energy density at the time, but beyond that we get nothing.
Now, one could argue some kind of equivalence due to big bangs not being realistic in fiction, but then a big bang is a creation feat. And surviving inside of a creation feat gives no tier either.

 

[Fixxed]

Bruh big bang is expansion of time and space by default, so it is low 2C

 

[Reiner04]

Bruh big bang is expansion of time and space by default, so it is low 2C

Yeah but the question is referring to surviving the bigbang.

 

[Fixxed]

Yeah but the question is referring to surviving the bigbang.

Yeah then if it in the time the big bang just happened it can be low 2C because that character can endure the output energy that can push the time and space

 

[Aachintya31]

The point is that, since a big bang is technically just a rapid extension of spacetime, one can't really put a tier on it. One can say surviving at the time of the big bang is 3-A, due to the immense energy density at the time, but beyond that we get nothing.

Still the energy of extension of space-time in question is Low 2-C. Surviving it should also be Low 2-C and not 3-A.

 

[Reiner04]

A big bang isn't a big explosion. As minute physics puts it "everywhere stretch" would be a more fitting term. The point is that, since a big bang is technically just a rapid extension of spacetime, one can't really put a tier on it. One can say surviving at the time of the big bang is 3-A, due to the immense energy density at the time, but beyond that we get nothing.
Now, one could argue some kind of equivalence due to big bangs not being realistic in fiction, but then a big bang is a creation feat. And surviving inside of a creation feat gives no tier either.

Okay, that put things into perspective but what if aside from "time", the "Space" at the moment which is being created is Higher Dimensional? Like 11D or 26D in nature? Given that Dimensions here are qualitative superior to each other for the purpose of question.

 

[Nullflowerblush]

Surviving it should also be Low 2-C and not 3-A.

You can't feel time.

 

[Reiner04]

You can't feel time.

You can... In anycase, you can't feel space as well.

 

[Aachintya31]

You can't feel time.

Anything beyond tier 2 which does not work on joules can't be felt either, doesn't mean surviving it is capped to 3-A.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

A big bang isn't a big explosion. As minute physics puts it "everywhere stretch" would be a more fitting term. The point is that, since a big bang is technically just a rapid extension of spacetime, one can't really put a tier on it. One can say surviving at the time of the big bang is 3-A, due to the immense energy density at the time, but beyond that we get nothing.
Now, one could argue some kind of equivalence due to big bangs not being realistic in fiction, but then a big bang is a creation feat. And surviving inside of a creation feat gives no tier either.

I'd still find that an arbitrary rule, while not saying creation by default isn't something that causes harm. Also a "Big Bang" has a lot of mix, some people say it's a 4 dimensional explosion while others say it's just a reality warping wave. But I do think a destruction and recreation on a Tier 2 and above scale is still easily Tier 2.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Still the energy of extension of space-time in question is Low 2-C. Surviving it should also be Low 2-C and not 3-A.

No, there is no low 2-C energy in physics (in general) and the expansion of spacetime isn't really associated with energy to begin with. Spacetime doesn't expand due to (regular) energy.
So while creating a timeline with a big bang is low 2-C (due to being a timeline creation feat) same can't be said for survival. Power that's used to create something isn't power used to destroy you.

Okay, that put things into perspective but what if aside from "time", the "Space" at the moment which is being created is Higher Dimensional? Like 11D or 26D in nature? Given that Dimensions here are qualitative superior to each other for the purpose of question.

That's still just a creation feat. You don't tank creation.

I'd still find that an arbitrary rule, while not saying creation by default isn't something that causes harm. Also a "Big Bang" has a lot of mix, some people say it's a 4 dimensional explosion while others say it's just a reality warping wave. But I do think a destruction and recreation on a Tier 2 and above scale is still easily Tier 2.

IIIII don't understand what you're trying to say. Sorry.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

IIIII don't understand what you're trying to say. Sorry.

4-D energy is a thing in fiction however, or even 1-A energy stuff. I mean, take the Xeno franchise (Xenogears/Xenosaga/Xenoblade) where there is an infinite number of universes that all share the exact same "Birth of the Universe" origin story that was caused by some ancient universe getting destroyed and an infinite number of universes with birthed in the same interdimensional big bang.

 

[Lewis]

BigBang Theory could be wrong. Because it looks like nasa has found a galaxy that has been around longer than Big Bang.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

BigBang Theory could be wrong. Because it looks like nasa has found a galaxy that has been around longer than Big Bang.

Irrelevant

 

[Lewis]

Irrelevant

really!!!? This is new knowledge.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

really!!!? This is new knowledge.

They already found a star before that dates back before big bang. What they simply did is readjust the timeline of events

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

BigBang Theory could be wrong. Because it looks like nasa has found a galaxy that has been around longer than Big Bang.

Big Bang Theory could be wrong and for all we know, static universe theory is more reliable. Or better yet, for all we know one of the many Creationism religions are more correct than any scientific theory we can possibly discover. But this is off topic. Though a galaxy that "Predated the big bang" could also just be wrong and that it means the big bang is older than we thought and the universe is already much bigger than we know.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Based

 

[HammerStrikes219]

4-D energy is a thing in fiction however, or even 1-A energy stuff. I mean, take the Xeno franchise (Xenogears/Xenosaga/Xenoblade) where there is an infinite number of universes that all share the exact same "Birth of the Universe" origin story that was caused by some ancient universe getting destroyed and an infinite number of universes with birthed in the same interdimensional big bang.

While late on my end, that doesn’t necessarily mean energy itself is dimensional all the time, in fact, one can make a fine argument that energy itself is dimensionless and would apply to both lower dimensional and higher dimensional space regardless of it being 4D (Or higher) or not.

So in my honest opinion, this point is usable, but only to a extent. Beside, energy being tied to dimensionality isn’t something I tend to abide by given how energy still affects all regardless of dimensionality and so on.

Added this:


Also I do find it odd you use that example, but regardless, the main point is energy itself can been considered dimensionless. It has no width, no height, and no length which is 3 dimensional, but I digress on that matter.

It does concern me when people forgets that energy isn’t strictly tied to dimensionality in the first place.

 

[Firestorm808]

Simply put, it all comes down to how a character interacts with its energy.

• Situations scaling to Low 2-C Big Bangs
  • Supplying the energy for it in the first place
  • Undoing the energy of the Big Bang
  • Taking the 3 and 4 D energy of a Big Bang.
    • If a character is standing at the center where a big bang goes off, you need context to show that all the 4-D energy affected you instead of just the 3-D energy.

 

[Reiner04]

But even if we go with irl theories, most of fiction I know do not follow actual big bang theory as Universe and galaxies, stars gets created right after bigbang happens, also it's not shown to be an expansion of mass but an actual explosion of energy that created whatever exist (it's not just a creation where things came into existence by reality wrapping or smth). Is it fine to abide with irl stuff

 

[1st_Virtue_of_Pure_Void]

Big Bang Theory could be wrong and for all we know, static universe theory is more reliable. Or better yet, for all we know one of the many Creationism religions are more correct than any scientific theory we can possibly discover. But this is off topic. Though a galaxy that "Predated the big bang" could also just be wrong and that it means the big bang is older than we thought and the universe is already much bigger than we know.

Well, the most often accepted account is that the universe came from nothing.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Anyway, regarding the OP’s

But even if we go with irl theories, most of fiction I know do not follow actual big bang theory as Universe and galaxies, stars gets created right after bigbang happens, also it's not shown to be an expansion of mass but an actual explosion of energy that created whatever exist (it's not just a creation where things came into existence by reality wrapping or smth). Is it fine to abide with irl stuff

It being depicted as a explosion technically doesn’t matter since it is creating a universe ie. Expanding physical matter and time.

Hell, even the Big Bang theory itself technically has a physical component to it mixed with the non physical IIRC so it shouldn’t been that big of a deal.

Beside, we have calculations that involve applying some irl mathematical formula in order to make the math work.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Well, the most often accepted account is that the universe came from nothing.

Not necessarily true, but also not impossible

Big Bang Theory could be wrong and for all we know, static universe theory is more reliable. Or better yet, for all we know one of the many Creationism religions are more correct than any scientific theory we can possibly discover. But this is off topic. Though a galaxy that "Predated the big bang" could also just be wrong and that it means the big bang is older than we thought and the universe is already much bigger than we know.

Not disagreeing with the possibility, if memories served right, it was kinda decided at the time at how old the Big Bang was is when the matter expanded, but since more interesting things has come up, it wouldn’t surprise me if they decided to revised the age for the Big Bang as it was initially designated at being over 13 billion years old and keep in mind, the age of the universe is estimated, not set in stone IIRC