Pocket dimensions with stars in them

[Dragopentling]

The 4A thing is something, cause if it involves an unspecified number of stars, then it's practically impossible to actually properly quantify it based off detailed calcs if we are to somehow used empty space in the equations.

 

[Greenshifter]

Could we use vacuum energy to calculate the energy for creating a certain volume of space-time? I know there is a very big discrepancy between is's theoretical and experimental value (10^-9 joules/m^3 vs 10^113 joules/m^3) but maybe if we delve deeper into this we can figure something out?

 

[Dragopentling]

Could we use vacuum energy to calculate the energy for creating a certain volume of space-time? I know there is a very big discrepancy between is's theoretical and experimental value (10^-9 joules/m^3 vs 10^113 joules/m^3) but maybe if we delve deeper into this we can figure something out?

It's possible. Just not sure if everyone else on the same stance.

 

[Arceus0x]

imma just say one thing here, like always, my practically meaningless opinion which was arleady most likely discussed above without me noticing.

Imagine destroying a pocket dimension along with the stars inside which are far apart. Technically you destroyed the stars, but you were not spesifically destroying them, you were destroying everything as a whole. Basically the same energy you used to wipe out stars is spread across all of the space.

Now about the creation=destruction thing, i understand that it feels wrong to make someone who made an empty dimesnion the size of a town town level... but those types of feats are so rare that i can't even think of one. It is always of either unknown size or has stars in it... or is an actual universe. If i were to say so myself then creation is somwhat better than simple destruction as destroying is simple while creating is literally making every atom with it's own energy and every celestial body with it's own capabilities appear.

anyways, i do not agree with the op.

 

[Greenshifter]

@Arceus Breach would benefit from this most likely since the pocket dimension was created empty.

 

[Dragopentling]

@Arceus0x Thanks for the honest thoughts. I still don't agree with the op, either, btw.

honestly, I think it's more of the destruction part that needs tweaking, if anything.

 

[Antvasima]

Building on what Greenshifter said, would dark matter factor into this? It is probably best if somebody asks DontTalkDT, Executor N0, Ugarik, Ultima Reality, and Antoniofer to comment here.

 

[Antoniofer]

That matter is what [theorically] causes the formation and movements of celestial bodies such galaxies, not much to do with space-time. But I'm not knowledgeable enough in this kind of physics to confirm it.

 

[KLOL506]

Building on what Greenshifter said, would dark matter factor into this? It is probably best if somebody asks DontTalkDT, Executor N0, Ugarik, Ultima Reality, and Antoniofer to comment here.

I think Executor and DT are the best to ask about this and last I remember, Ugarik really isn't much of an expert in stuff like this.

 

[KLOL506]

One could also mention Kep, since he's done some dimension-related calcs.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Perhaps Executor, DTDT, Kepekley, and Ultima then?

 

[Greenshifter]

Vacuum energy relates to dark energy, not dark matter. It also only interacts through gravity with it's surroundings and apparently vacuum fluctuations (in vacuum energy) could cause particle-antiparticle pairs to come into existence which is one of the theories being used in Hawking radiation. So I think an option is that if we assume a pocket dimension can contain mass but does not contain any mass and we use the lower value for vacuum energy of 10^-9 joules/m^3 of our own universe then we can produce a result which is somewhat backed up by science and a better alternative than assuming creation = destruction.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm pretty sure they've all said their peace many times before. And Kepekley said he's been really busy with RL stuff and might not be interested in stuff like this; though his opinion on these feats have been changing a lot as of late. But DontTalk and Executor from what I recall are still on board with treating creations feats in the same vein as destruction feats. Let's say a constellation or galaxy was formed using an explosion; then we should keep using Inverse Square law for examples like that. Though, it's forming pocket realities containing those are what we're talking about.

I still think we should go by a some form of common sense; using a combination of size and components within the pocket realities. For pocket realities less than planetary, we just say it's City level if it has a city, or Mountain level if it has a large mountain, or Country level if it's country sized. But for ones that contain celestial bodies, I still think we should still use inverse square law given the size but I'd say we should still be careful with them.

For example, an Earth to Sun distance would still be High 4-C given the 1 AU radius or 2 AU diameter. And if it's implied the creator can warp anything in it, which would include causing the sun/star to go supernova; that's a blatant High 4-C feat right there. I will however say that using Earth at the center and Sun at the edge where the sun rotates around the Earth is not en excuse to highball it at 4-B much like how Zelda top tiers used to be rated based on.

And ones with starry skies would still have to be multiple lightyears in diameter, which it's arbitrary for that to simply be High 4-C or 4-B if it's that big with that many stars. And it's already agreed that forming the Observable Universe via the Big Bang would still have to be 3-A. And I still believe creating pocket realities with multiple galaxies should be 3-B.

I can agree that all finite sized pocket realities that are nothing but empty space are difficult to tier and thus probably something we shouldn't use.

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

Creating the stars themselves is High 4-C, but if you're creating a pocket dimension with multiple stars, you're not just creating the stars but also the space that holds them which makes it 4-A.

 

[Greenshifter]

All right so I did a calc and using vacuum energy I got 3.700*10^40 Joules or solar system level for creating a spherical region of space with the middle point being half the distance from the sun to the Centauri System. This could also be used for pocket dimensions that contain mass btw.

Edit: doing a calc for creating an "empty" observable universe gives 4*10^71 Joules or 3-B.

 

[AKM sama]

@Shadow creating and destroying space on a lower scale should be unquantifiable. Idk how it reaches 4-A.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Perhaps Executor, DTDT, Kepekley, and Ultima then?

Is somebody willing to ask them to help out here?

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

@AKM sama Matter exists as a part of space, based on how large that area of space being created/destroyed would constitute as the tier value of it.

 

[Greenshifter]

@Ant I have done so.

 

[TartaChocholate]

Ironic because the whole reason this thread exists was because Zephyr brought up that both Bahamut zero and Sephiroth have pocket dimensions with stars in them and I didn't remember if we actually had that be 4-A

So does Bahamut Fury and Knights of the Round actually... >_>;

There was a 3-B feat that was considered and outlier due to it being done by a more fodder summon. I only recall their pocket realities being 4-B sized via lore statements, not having starry skies. And Sephiroth's Supernova was like 3 Megafoe until it got recalculated with even higher results.</s>

Knights of the Round has Galaxies floating around in the background. There are no real lore statements per se that mention dimensions or Solar Systems, to be honest, only Sephiroth's Supernova is mentioned to destroy the Solar System in the Ultimania Omega (and implications that it's actually a Galaxy sized dimension), everyone else is based on the animations in-game. Sorry, not gonna derail anymore, wanted to mention that and follow the thread to see what is concluded here.

 

[DontTalkDT]

-stuff-

I'm with that.

To avoid double standards, creation feats would look like this.

Amongst other because of this. There is no real good way to classify these anyway. We aren't going to change the (pocket reality) universe creation value and rating reality warping mountains into existence by GBE in my opinion makes no sense either.

Applying a rough size scale to reality warping (and similar unquantifiable) feats seems like the best option to get realistic results.

We should probably be careful which techniques we scale to creation feats, though.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Another thing I did say somewhere else is that the method and timeframe to destroying/creating things is also important to consider. Like creating/destroying planets and stars one by one over time as opposed to creating/destroying everything in a single omnidirectional blast almost instantly.

 

[Agnaa]

Could we use vacuum energy to calculate the energy for creating a certain volume of space-time? I know there is a very big discrepancy between is's theoretical and experimental value (10^-9 joules/m^3 vs 10^113 joules/m^3) but maybe if we delve deeper into this we can figure something out?

We can't. This has been brought up and considered multiple times.

Essentially the issue is, when space is created that energy isn't lost. Creating space doesn't cost 10^-9 joules/m^3 to create, that energy just comes along as an inexorable law of the universe when space is created. It makes no sense to say that a character who creates space expends that energy to do so.

 

[Greenshifter]

@Agnaa I thought of it as a low ball, I mean a character would essentially be exciting 0 joules of nothingness into space with a constant of 10^-9 joules/m^3 since that extra energy needs to come from somewhere. But if it's been discussed before and decided to not be used then I'm fine with that.

 

[Agnaa]

They're not exciting it, the energy doesn't have to come from somewhere. Vacuum energy is very weird, the energy for it just appears, but since it can't be extracted, it doesn't violate conservation of energy.

If you doubt that the energy has to come from somewhere, try to mentally picture what happens when space expands. If the energy has to come from somewhere, then empty space right at the vacuum energy wouldn't be able to expand, or wouldn't be able to expand for very long, which is nothing like what we see in the real world.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Being 4-A for creating a universe is one of the dumbest things I ever heard.

 

[Dragopentling]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but would creating "empty" space twice the size of the observable universe be just 3A? If so, what happens if that same amount of volume is divided into two "empty" pocket dimensions? It still qualifies as low 2C or 2C? Just want some clarification.

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

Yes, that would be 3-A.

 

[Crzer07]

If its done through incalculable/unquantifiable means (i.e. reality warping, existence erasure, creation ex nihilo, etc) then like always go by size.

 

[GrathOfLux]

Being 4-A for creating a universe is one of the dumbest things I ever heard.

I've never been particularly fond of bluntness in important discussions like these... but this.

As I've mentioned above, fiction almost always goes under the logic that "Universe Creators = Universe Destructors". If someone is depicted creating a universe, it's almost always heavily implied they are capable of destroying the universe, and vice versa. Considering Universe Destructors to be very, very far beyond even trillions of times stronger than Universe Creators is genuinely absurd, and completely antithetical to what fiction actually depicts.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. We ignore IRL physics in major ways that fiction ignores as well. Just because something occurs in IRL physics, if it's recurrently ignored in fiction, we intentionally ignore it. So why are we suggesting using IRL physics in a way that fiction never accepts for measuring fictional entities?

 

[Duedate8898]

But does fiction keep this standard when its smaller then a universe? Does fiction treat someone who can create a pocket dimension of x-size to be capable of destroying something of that same size?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

If anything, creation feats are often thought to be superior to destruction feats as the characters often need to be just as self controlled as they are powerful to create. Where as any mindless berserker can destroy stuff given they have the power and AoE to do so.

We do treat creating planets as equal to destroying planets for similar reasons as the creation of the Universe/Multiverse. And yeah, bluntness aside, Matt's statement does hammer the nail in the entire thread.

 

[Dragopentling]

Idk why would one with common sense call a feat clearly stated as a creation of a single physical universe as merely multi solar system level. That's silly as hell. Especially when there can easily be literally countless star/solar systems in a single galaxy by itself.

 

[Antoniofer]

Welp, the issue was (at least my concern) more about empty space being rated arbitrary, and getting the AP value by associating it to explosions.

As for creations in general, they despited as more difficult not cuz it requiere more energy, but cuz is impossible to do if one do nit have the power to do so; plus, creation is rarely used in combat in the same way destruction is, first one in general requieres preparation and reserves, whenerver a destructor can perform say feat any time it perform an attack, forming planets (for example) in middle combat and using them in some way is not common.

 

[Antvasima]

Should we also write in our Celestial Body Feats page that creation feat might be treated the same way as Environmental Destruction and give characters a separate extra tier if they would contradict the other statistics too much otherwise?

 

[Overlord775]

Wouldn't really make sense to have it like ED, unless specified otherwise we shouldn't assume that the energy they put to create pocket dimensions is different than that they put in their attacks

if the rating they get from that contradicts all their other showings it would just be threated as an outlier

 

[DatOneWeeb]

As of now, I disagree with the op.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, not sure about directly comparing them to ED feats. This feat is blatantly 4-A; that's pretty obvious I'm going to say. Creating/destroying a pocket reality containing celestial bodies isn't to far off than simply creating/destroying a collection of celestial bodies all at once.

 

[Antvasima]

I was thinking about cases like Kaguya Ōtsutsuki and similar or more extreme differences between regular demonstrated attack statistics and creation feats.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Oh yeah, for cases like that, it's shown that she cannot destroy planets or stars outside of said realm. And that she uses a different power separate from her main chakra abilities. But there are plenty of examples of physical and magical feats being interchangeable with each other.