Multiple stars-moving feats tiering controversy

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

For the galaxy thing- should we the sum of all GBE of the stars and planets in a galaxy or should we just use the amount of energy needed to simply scatter stars in a galaxy. The second option would likely yield a lower result. The binding energy of milky way's structure for example is roughly 10^54 J. Which is 4-B.

However, we go by the first method, then the rough estimate of the GBE of stars and planets in the galaxy would still likely be in the high end of the 4-B range to lower part of the 4-A range.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I think we sould treat moving a Galaxy at FTL speeds like Reality Warping a galaxy. As a 3-C feat.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Matthew regarding the reality warping issue, but also think that that we should treat moving multiple solar systems at MFTL+ speeds the same way, for consistency's sake.

 

[Lina_Shields]

I agree with TLT1 and AidenBrooks on this subject, especially regarding the multiple solar systems and the galaxy issue.

Just because you are able to move something around =/= you can destroy said object in question.

Will draw a diagram if needed.

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

I personally think moving a Galaxy at FTL speeds should qualify as Galaxy level. Anything lower seems rather drastically low.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, again, the entire concept of moving a galaxy, or many solar systems, at MFTL+ speeds, completely breaks the laws of physics, cannot be calculated, and as such should probably be treated as a form of reality-warping.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

Well it doesnt work well with physics if we are in a relativistic world. But if we are in a classical mechanical (non relativistic) world, then I don't think any laws will be broken.

 

[Antvasima]

What do you think DontTalk?

 

[Gwynbleiddd]

I disagree with using classical mechanics as a way to quantify anything FTL.

It's an old model that doesn't work at high speeds, it would be the equivalent of using a made up formula.

 

[Gwynbleiddd]

Also why do we use relativistic kinetic energy only up to 0.93c?

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

@Gwyn: I think it was something that DT had thought up upon and we just went with it or something.

I can find the thread for it later if you want?

 

[Gwynbleiddd]

Ok, just seems weird.

There is no need to.

 

[Antvasima]

Because it would yield ridiculously inflated numbers extremely close to the speed of light. I think that the calc group had a long discussion about it. DontTalk might remember better.

 

[DontTalk]

I agree with Gwynbleiddd on not using newtonian physics to classify FTL stuff.

@Gwyn: It was decided some time ago to do it that way (unless speed is specifically stated). IIRC it was because for speeds calculated too close to c the relativistic gamma just gets so high that it basically inflates the results a lot considering the margin of error we have to realistically assume for our calcs.

Specifically it was decided as a specification of a rule not to use KE for "high relativistic speed" that was on the page before. While I can find the staff thread the specification was decided on, I can't remember which thread caused the initial "no high relativistic speed"-rule to be added.

 

[Gwynbleiddd]

I see the reasoning behind it, it's just that 0.93 seemed oddly specific.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

I disagree with using classical mechanics as a way to quantify anything FTL.
It's an old model that doesn't work at high speeds, it would be the equivalent of using a made up formula.

I know and I agree, just pointing out that most fictions don't really use. Not saying that we should use KE though. Just mentioning that most fictions don't use that concept. Then again the logic in fiction can be messed up, like using mass equivalency for creating matter out of energy, and maybe a few chapters later, characters go FTL with finite speed, they just pick and chose what they like.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

Well there are two ways of appraoching it, moving the objects in such a way that they are moved and yet intact would most likely imply that the energy used in the movement was not enough to destroy them. So by that logic, can we assume that the energy used in moving a galaxy with the galaxy being intact in the end implies that the energy used was less than the binding energy of the structure? Or should we just trate it as reality warping.

 

[Gwynbleiddd]

Treating them as reality wapring is the easiest thing to do.And the one that will probably cause the less rage over casual users and visiters.

Since: Moving a planet ~ planet level

moving a star ~ star level

etc.

But there is no right or wrong here.Just using the GBE also seems like a good idea.

 

[Ryukama]

I'm no calcer, but considering these are feats that entirely go against science and physics all together, I don't see much reason why we need to apply those things to it.

Treating such feats similar to Reality Warping these bodies seems to be fair and simpler like Gwyn said. However I'm fine with whatever the more knowledgable members agree upon, and using GBE doesn't sound too bad either.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

Treating them as reality wapring is the easiest thing to do.And the one that will probably cause the less rage over casual users and visiters.
Since: Moving a planet ~ planet level

moving a star ~ star level

etc.

But there is no right or wrong here.Just using the GBE also seems like a good idea.

Well, the energy to destroy a planet or a star vs the energy to destroy a galaxy come from 2 different viewpoints, one only uses GBE, while the other incorporates the square inverse law over large distances using a centre-point explosion. The thing about galaxy level energy is that the reason it is so high is because of the square inverse law for destroying stars over a huge distance. I don't think that kind of an explaination would apply to this scenario of moving a galaxy, at least intuitively speaking. And since we agree that it is pointless to use KE in this, I thought that the binding energy of a galaxy's gravity would be a more clear method of evaluating these feats.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Bumping this.

So, to my understanding, we are currently leaning towards using collective GBE when multiple planets or multiple stars are moved, which I am fine with.

Has anything been agreed upon in relation to moving a galaxy?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

If it's at FTL speeds, use the GBE.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

If it's at FTL speeds, use the GBE.

So GBE of the galaxy then?

Because our current galaxy level evenrgy is based on an explosion starting from the centre, which then destroys all stars including the outer parts.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

@TLT1

Is the GBE smaller than that?

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

@TLT1
Is the GBE smaller than that?

Yeah, the GBE of milky way is ~10^54 J.

Which is in the solar system range. On the other hand, we could just add up the GBE of all individual stars and planets. This will give us a slightly higher value, but still in the solar system levels of energy.

The third option is to consider it unquantifiable on a scale of galactic range, which does not give us an AP range (rather just pure distance range). But the reason for our current galaxy lvl energy doesnt apply to moving it.

On the other hand, someone can play the devil's advocate and use newtonian/classic styled KE in the classical formula which can give us High end 4-A to 3-C tiers of energy depending on the speed. But we don't use KE for FTL stuff.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I think we should treat moving an entire galaxy like we would Reality Warping an entire galaxy to a large extent. I.e, a 3-C feat.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

I think we should treat moving an entire galaxy like we would Reality Warping an entire galaxy to a large extent. I.e, a 3-C feat.

I would say that, that would be RW on a galactic scale with an unquantifiable power. The 3-C tier puts an energy value, and just moving a galaxy doesnt equate o the energy needed to destroy all of its stars from a centre point blast.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

What's the KE from moving the galaxy at 90% of the SoL?

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

I dunno the exact value, but it's within the Solar System level spectrum.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we cannot use GBE for moving multiple solar systems at MFTL+ speeds, and reality warping principles for galaxies. To be consistent, we have to use either option for both of them.

However, I am definitely favouring the reality warping option in general.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

Well, we cannot use GBE for moving multiple solar systems at MFTL+ speeds, and reality warping principles for galaxies. To be consistent, we have to use either option for both of them.
However, I am definitely favouring the reality warping option in general.

Then that would mean that the range is galaxy level, but not the actual level of power. In our case, 3-C level of energy is based on a particular method of destruction based on a centre-point blast.

 

[Antvasima]

So, since I seem to be outvoted, and we generally end up rating multiple stars-moving feats as 4-B anyway, is anybody willing and able to properly rewrite the standards for our Celestial Body Feats page in a well-structured rational manner?

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

So, since I seem to be outvoted, and we generally end up rating multiple stars-moving feats as 4-B anyway, is anybody willing and able to properly rewrite the standards for our Celestial Body Feats page in a well-structured rational manner?

I am fine with the 4-B thing.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, but somebody still needs to properly rewrite part of the Celestial Body Feats official regulation page.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

Oh and another question, what about creating a star system? Keep in mind the current 4-A energy value is based on destroying stars from a centre point explosion, on the other hand, anyone can individually create stars on a large region using mere 4-B levels of energy. Should we discuss this as well?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we generally treat creation feats as reality warping, based on the relevant volume.

These types of inconsistencies that we open for here is one reason why I think that the new policy might cause problems for us.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

Well, we generally treat creation feats as reality warping, based on the relevant volume.
These types of inconsistencies that we open for here is one reason why I think that the new policy might cause problems for us.

If it is reality warping, then it has an MSS range, but an unquantifiable energy value (because it is general RW). But, I don't see why the centre point expansion logic would apply to this, I mean, from one's position, one can just assemble several stars in the sky with just 4-B levels of energy and doesnt necessarily need the 4-A energy values based on a spherical explosion required to destroy all of those stars.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am uncertain how we should handle this. Further input would be appreciated,

 

[DontTalk]

In case of reality warping feats there are two options:

A) you say they are not feats (in which case you can also completely scratch FTL feats as well due to the same reason) and just not rank any character for them. That is in my opinion a rather terrible idea in regards to characters which main power is reality warping. I mean that would, for example, mean reality warping a universe isn't universe level, because it is done with reality warping.

B) You equalize it to some AP, even if it doesn't follow the reasoning of the AP value.


I think we definitely want to take option B here.


So, sure, reality warping doesn't involve the energy spread of an omnidirectional explosion, after all it doesn't even involve energy.

Than again it also doesn't involve the spreading of mass that would be the requirement for using GBE.

Neither does it involve breaking a material like for destruction values.


So every quantitative idea one can take here is flawed, which is the reason reality warping feats can't be quantified.

Given that they are all equally wrong saying we shouldn't just intuitively equalize things to the AP values due to the calculation involving energy spread can be done for every other form of classification as well.


The only important argument for this is that there is an idea behind it and that it is in itself consistent.


Now, while I would personally use the reality warping classification for Moving Celestial objects at FTL speed, other classifications are fine with me as long as they fulfil just that. (and are not Newtonian ke)

It's just that there isn't any hugely important reason to take any of the possibilities before the other.


For Reality warping feats them self (creating star systems etc.) I am rather armament about keeping it at the current system. That is due to two reasons:

a) this system is consistent with universe creation/destruction through reality warping is universe level, which I would much prefer to keep.

b) Different than the moving feats we have a ton of reality warpers (at least 1200) and given that the current regulation for reality warping was in place for quite some time I would also assume they are more or less ranked according to it.

Given that in my opinion there isn't that good of a reason to prefer one above another, given that all are equally wrong if you think about them in detail, I see no good argument for doing the work of a revision on it.


Lastly, and this is only my subjective opinion, I think that if one makes wrong equalizations taking the simplest is not that bad of an idea.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with DontTalk.