New value for baseline 3-A

[StrymULTRA]

Basically it was found that the Universe in its entirely is confirmed being at least of 7e12 LYs in diameter, shouldn't we use this instead of just the observable universe?

 

[Hellbeast]

I recall this came up once before

I’d suggest getting some of the staff involved here (just send them the link when you’re good to)

 

[AKM sama]

I am pretty sure this study was discussed earlier and it was decided that we should just stay with the observable universe because studies like these always come up and each study has a different value of how big the universe might be. We can't always keep changing our baseline which would probably lead to character revisions every time.

 

[StrymULTRA]

I am pretty sure this study was discussed earlier and it was decided that we should just stay with the observable universe because studies like these always come up and each study has a different value of how big the universe might be. We can't always keep changing our baseline which would probably lead to character revisions every time.

It never was discussed before

 

[StrymULTRA]

Also I'd like to keep the 7 Trillion LYs as a thing, since is the most consistent research more than anything

 

[Diinou_HotHead]

It was. For like 3 Threads too.

 

[StrymULTRA]

It was. For like 3 Threads too.

Nothing here suggest a new size for the universe tho

 

[Diinou_HotHead]

Nothing here suggest a new size for the universe tho

You literally proposed we use the universe diameters instead of observable universe size for baseline 3-A in the OP. Did I misinterpret what you were trying to convey?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

There are a lot of studies ranging from the Universe being 10^23 to 10^3000 times the radius/diameter of the Observable Universe. And using those would multiply the baseline of 3-A by 10^69 at minimum. But, it seemed far too speculative and it's best just to stick with what we know.

 

[Damage3245]

DarkDragonMedeus makes sense. If it can range that far, then there doesn't seem to be a reliable figure to pick.

 

[Ogbunabali]

@Ultima_Reality

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

I'm in agreement with Medeus here.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Cosmic Inflation Theory is the most widely accepted scientific theory. It withstood the test of time, and it even debunked the debunkers. Alan Guth the creator of the theory stated that the Universe must be at the very mininum of (10^23 x The size of the current observable Universe [All in light years]) in size in order to have a universe that can sustain life and not implode upon itself.

We know the universe is large, but we don't know how large.

however, a new scientific study suggest that the Universe is heating up as it expands. The universe is apparently hotter today than it was millions of years ago. Assuming nothing contradicts this in the future. If the Universe was truly infinite in size then it would be infinitely hot perhaps?

I was one of the participants in the original thread.

But yes, there is hundreds of different size calculations from different reputable scientist. Just like the one you posted which is dependent on taking the stance of a curved universe (iirc). The size of the universe is dependent on its shape. curved, flat, closed, etc.

Imo, either we keep it the same (The best solution) or we use Cosmic Inflation Theory due to the overwhelming evidence even NASA supports The Theory of Cosmic Inflation lol (just my opinion.)

Edit: This is the thread where Staff discussed it and made a final decision.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/changes-to-3-a-in-the-tiering-system-staff-only.47020/

 

[Eficiente]

Hey, didn't read all of this but if nothing is added then would it be appropriate to add a note in the tiering/AP page pointing out how respectable studies say the universe is bigger but that we don't use it because of our reasons?

 

[Ionliosite]

Hey, didn't read all of this but if nothing is added then would it be appropriate to add a note in the tiering/AP page pointing out how respectable studies say the universe is bigger but that we don't use it because of our reasons?

This seems like a nice idea. I honestly don't get how we didn't get to this from the last 3 threads about this.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, that was a really long thread a long time ago. The staff informingly rejected the proposals long story short. Also, the universe getting hotter as it expands seems contradictory as it wouldn't quite follow the laws of thermodynamics. Density becomes lower as the volume grows as mass nor energy in the universe can never raise or lower. It is possible for the Universe to be infinite in size, but there's no way to make 100% solid proof of that.

 

[Antvasima]

Hey, didn't read all of this but if nothing is added then would it be appropriate to add a note in the tiering/AP page pointing out how respectable studies say the universe is bigger but that we don't use it because of our reasons?

This seems like a good idea to me.