Pocket dimensions with stars in them

[Antoniofer]

I'm just talking about the Town level rating in a town sized pocket dimension, even not accounting for matter, is still arbitrary, cuz a) there's no size for a town (if any, they are measured in area units, not volume), and b) creating space through AP is simply not possible, and there's no equation for finding that, any other method that we use is arbitrary, there's no rl support for it.

 

[Overlord775]

@Antonio

Also pocket realities are three dimensional, so the ground would be going down as much as the realm extends on the X axis, so that adds a lot of matter

@Jaften

Unless stated otherwise, no, we shouldn't assume that

they are using their own energy to make stuff pop in to existance, the same energy they put in their own attacks

 

[Overlord775]

I'm just talking about the Town level rating in a town sized pocket dimension, even not accounting for matter, is still arbitrary, cuz a) there's no size for a town (if any, they are measured in area units, not volume), and b) creating space through AP is simply not possible, and there's no equation for finding that, any other method that we use is arbitrary, there's no rl support for it.

a.1) Just use the standard town size we use for 7-C AP

a.2) Just calculate the radius and use the formula of the sphere

b) Fiction is fiction and the impossible is possible, they are still creating space, so we have to acknowledge it

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Is still kind of arbitrary, if the domain is just empty space then what qualify as town? 1.5 km? 30 km? the dimension could be 100 km in radius, and would still have less matter than a town.

This is the same as saying creating a space-time continuum with no physical matter occupying it isn't Low 2-C. And we allow feats like this to qualify.

 

[Antoniofer]

That would be using the explosion calculation to rate pocket dimensions, despite not having any physical relationship at all, reason why it has been trashed in previous revisions.

 

[Overlord775]

The size of the explosion, the AP of the explosion doesn't matter at all

As seen in the Explosion Radius/Area, we consider 0.5 to 1.3 Km to be the size of a town, so a pocket dimension with a diameter in that range would be rated as 7-C

 

[InfiniteSped]

I don't think that's the size for a town, just the radius needed for a nuclear explosion to be town level.

 

[Antoniofer]

Yeah, the AP rating are previous to that page, I made it so users can have a reference to the size of siz eof an explosion is needed for having x AP.

 

[Dragopentling]

I disagree with the OP suggested changes. It would only cause even more inconsistencies with pocket dimension feats. Though I'm not sure what's the deal if said character doesn't have full or mostly full control over said created space.

 

[Overlord775]

I don't think that's the size for a town, just the radius needed for a nuclear explosion to be town level.

a town level explosion is by definition an explosion that encompasses and destroyes an entire town, so that size is the size for a town

 

[InfiniteSped]

Not really? We just have a value in joules for Town Level, and a nuclear explosion needs to be that big to reach that level. Large Mountain level is 28 - 45.5 kilometers, and mountains ain't that big.

It's not for the size of the thing, unless you wanna equate creating a dimension of X size to a nuclear explosion of the same size, for some reason.

 

[Overlord775]

montains ARE that big, they are much wider than they are taller as they are pyramidal/conical in shape so they have really big bases

also to further concrete the point, here's the formula for explosions in kilotons ((Radius in Kilometers/0.28)^3)

so reverse engeniering it and using the 5.8 Kilotons that is baseline 7-C

Radius= (3 5.8)*0.28= 1.7967*0.28=0.5031 Kilometers

We beyond the shadow of a doubt use 0.5 Kilometers as the lowest bound for what a town is

 

[Antvasima]

Somebody should probably ask all of the active bureaucrats and administrators to comment here.

 

[Agnaa]

Posting this quickly before reading the thread. But the conclusion we came to last time was that there's no accurate way to describe creation feats, so we always just pick the closest approximation.

We use GBE and inverse square for stellar creation feats, and eyeballing/loosely comparing to existing constructs for creation feats below that.

This required a long, long, long discussion last time it happened (it was part of removing them being calculated as explosions), and I kinda don't wanna go down it again if nothing new's brought to the table just because people forgot about it.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Given my prior opinions on the topic, I wholeheartedly agree with DMUA.

Pocket Dimensions and calculations (analyzing the energy needed to create them scientifically) is nearly an oxymoron. What we've come to here after much discourse is a weird pseudo-science not backed even by the wildest and least supported theories in physics, namely because the method of calculation was chosen to fit our tiering system, since it was so semantically unacceptable to call those feats a lower tier even if it was more accurate to call them such that we bended math and science to keep them where it "made sense".

We already have constellation standards that apply to creating stars but not the space in-between them, however suddenly we decided to add orders of orders of magnitude to that method for no reason other than it sounding off that someone creating a Solar System isn't "Solar System level".

We've already established that calculating the energy needed to create empty space is impossible with our current understanding of physics previously, for reference.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

That isn't going to fly here unless you want to nuke creation feats a whole. And we've had several threads about that topic on why its wrong and never going to be accepted.

 

[Agnaa]

Alright, after reading the thread I think Kukui summed up my thoughts nicely.

There is no correct method for this. This is the best option we have aside from throwing away Creation feats entirely.

 

[Paul_Frank]

I agree with Ed, Overlord and Kukui here

 

[DarkGrath]

Isn't the very reason we don't use things like E=MC2 (beyond simply inflated statistics) because of how fiction treats such feats?

Fiction almost always treats these feats as if "creation = destruction". If you can create a star, you can destroy a star. If you can create a dimension, you can destroy a dimension of equal size. If you can create a universe, you can destroy that universe, etc.

We intentionally ignore physics in a lot of places if it contradicts how the vast majority of fiction depicts it (such as the conservation of energy when it comes to attack potency/destructive capacity, which we outright state on the Attack Potency page is only ignored because fiction ignores it). Given that fiction almost entirely ignores the disparity between creation and destruction, why wouldn't it be acceptable to do the same thing here?

 

[DMUA]

Given my prior opinions on the topic, I wholeheartedly agree with DMUA.

Honestly I folded the towel immediately upon Ed pointing out it would lead to Solar system level universe creation so ugh, just agree with yourself okay buddy

Though I do think we should toss the petafoe figure as it pertains to starry skies, since calculations shouldn't be a thing for creation like this

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I personally don't know what to say to you, then, as you're not entertaining the argument in the first place, Kukui. I can't really have a discussion with someone who doesn't think the discussion should happen in the first place.

If we aren't going to accept discussing our calculations in the context of physics, and it's acceptable to simply make up science to calculate when we would normally be unable to, then we don't have very much of a standard or precedent for our calculation system other than us just shaping it to what we 'feel is right'.

 

[Agnaa]

@Dargoo If you have a way to calculate creation feats that won't nuke every creation feat below 5-B, and won't cap every other creation feat to tier 4, then I'd be interested at least.

 

[Antoniofer]

Still think the method to find the AP is arbitrary, I could say that creating x volume of space equals to atomization of air atoms within that space and it would have as much sense as rating as nuke yield. The most simply to do would be to just grant that character with Space, Dimensional or Spate-Time Manipulation, but users do not like unknown ratings for some reasosn.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

There is a very large and fundamental difference between ignoring aspects of physics that a specific series might choose to ignore as well, and us actively making up physics to satisfy our tiering system.

We can accommodate the work itself when it's necessary, but this isn't us accommodating what the work itself is trying to portray, this is just accommodating our own system.

There is nothing in the series themselves nor the real world that supports this calculation method. It's a complete fabrication.

@DMUA

That's sad to hear. I still feel like your OP put forward a number of good points in regard to our system's inconsistencies.

 

[DarkGrath]

I'm not sure if I can agree with us just "accommodating our own system".

I'm not saying "Versus Debaters in general agree that creation = destruction, therefore it should be used". I'm saying that fiction almost never makes a distinction between the power of a creation feat and the power of an equivalent destruction feat. This is accommodating what the work portrays by treating these feats as equivalent in the same way that fiction does.

 

[DMUA]

Fiction is never consistent with this and I'm uncertain about having universe creation be the energy yield of destroying a solar system to attempt to remedy such a fact

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I'm saying that fiction almost never makes a distinction between the power of a creation feat and the power of an equivalent destruction feat. This is accommodating what the work portrays by treating these feats as equivalent in the same way that fiction does.

"Fiction almost never makes a distinction between the power of a creation feat and the power of a destruction feat" is a very misleading premise, intentional or unintentional. Namely, fiction almost never makes this distinction because fiction almost never has to compare destruction and creation "feats" in the first place. Most of the time fiction doesn't even have them, or even consider them 'feats' to begin with if they do. It's also a negative statement; it's not something the work is portraying but something it *isn't* portraying that is leading you to believe we're accommodating them.

Just because fiction *doesn't* distinguish them doesn't mean they are the same. It's just them not even thinking about entertaining the question, since it never came up.

Which is why I believe this is us accommodating ourselves, because unlike normal calculations we aren't using real world physics to judge feats the authors wouldn't think about in that way, or is ignoring real world physics due to what the authors have thought about, but rather us using uniquely VSBW physics to judge feats that the authors wouldn't have thought about. It lacks both the real-world's and verse's basis.

As I have said before, it's plausible and better for for us to just not give a specific number to a feat instead of us making one up.

 

[Naeblis495]

I disagree with the OP .

Creation should be kept equal to destruction .

 

[Pulinno]

Which is why I believe this is us accommodating ourselves, because unlike normal calculations we aren't using real world physics to judge feats the authors wouldn't think about in that way, or is ignoring real world physics due to what the authors have thought about, but rather us using uniquely VSBW physics to judge feats that the authors wouldn't have thought about. It lacks both the real-world's and verse's basis.

We are using normal physics and that is the problem, because fiction doesn't have normal physics most of the time

 

[DMUA]

Wrong thread

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

We are using normal physics and that is the problem, because fiction doesn't have normal physics most of the time

I don't see how any of the equations we utilize in these cases have anything to do with what they are calculating.

It'd be like applying an explosion formula to someone freezing an object, saying "look, we're using real science!", as if the problem being critiqued is the heavily-proven formula and not the grossly misappropriated use of it.

 

[Ionliosite]

I agree with equalizing creationg with destruction.

 

[Pulinno]

No, we, as far as I am aware, aren't applying it wrong, because we are not using explosion formulas for creation feats. And we shouldn't

 

[Antoniofer]

We apparently are tho, the 0.5 km radius comes from the explosion calculation.

 

[Wokistan]

There's a problem with saying it's creation=destruction though. The issue is that you can't really destroy empty space, so there's no real energy measurement to scale to. You'd be destroying all the stuff in it, which wouldn't be 4-A if it's not off one big explosion. For that matter, why is ISQ the default method for generic destruction anyways? Like if it's an actual explosion sure, but given how high the results get i really don't think we should default to that in every circumstance.

Agree with lowering the creation feats to be more with the stuff inside them, and also lowering unspecified destruction.

 

[Sigurd_Snake_in_The_Eye]

shouldn't this like be highlighted?

 

[Elizhaa]

shouldn't this like be highlighted?

It is already highlighted.

 

[Agnaa]

We apparently are tho, the 0.5 km radius comes from the explosion calculation.

The 0.5km radius comes from our arbitrary standards for tiers. This is used in the explosion calculation, but isn't the source of the radius.

 

[RegisNex1232]

Honestly gotta agree with Dargoo here. Even if that means stuff will be lower, it's still a lot better than just equating two different types of feats just for what feels right, rather than attempting a more reasonable evaluation.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

This thread has been attempted so many times. But anyway, I agree with Edward for reasons he laid out. There's is a major limit for how knit picky we can be with creation feats; and the final conclusion is still the same about it being equal to destruction. Furthermore, Space actually does have energy, it's just it has an unknown amount of energy. So creating realms that are nothing but empty space are unquantifiable perhaps. But if it has empty space combined with having many stars and the distance between each and every star needs to be considered without any doubt.