Project - Attack Potency revision

[DontTalk]

"Either way, since I still have school tomorrow and Friday, would it be a problem if I started the edits now?"

It would be less chaotic if you would start tomorrow.

But if you don´t think you will be able to finish tomorrow if you don´t start now, I guess it can´t be helped.

 

[The_Everlasting]

In that case, I'll start later tonight when it's October 1st for some users.

 

[Sheoth]

@DontTalk:

That's the official table/chart we are using, right?

 

[DontTalk]

The fact that the admins (you for example) acknowledge it as such is what would make it official.

But de facto to this point it is pretty much just a chart I made, but since nobody else made one it is the best we have.

So in other wordsLord Kavpeny hasn´t ackknowledged it yet, so if you say all edits should wait until he approves of it that is fine with me as well.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

so when is the chart going to come into effect? by next week?

 

[Sheoth]

I personally have no problem with your chart. But yes, perhaps we should wait for Lord Kavpeny to give his approval.

 

[DontTalk]

@The Living Tribunal1 At the first of october.

 

[DontTalk]

@Sheoth: Ok.

@The Everlasting: In that case I would ask you to only start with the edits after Lord Kavpeny gave his ok.

 

[The_Everlasting]

No problem.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

1st oct?

wow thats fast!!

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

The chart's pretty legit, DT. I think it's perfectly fine, as anything above 3-B cannot be calced.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

i think anything till 3-A can be calced as the mass - energy of the universe

after that it gets tricky

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

We don't know the mass-energy of the universe, though. The observable universe is only a small part of the universe and we don't know how much larger it is, hence why universe level feats tend to be self evident.

You can't really calc anything higher as energy is a 3-D concept that cannot destroy space-time.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

mass energy of observable universe = 4 x 10^69J

it is expected to be possibly 800 x observable universe at full scale


but still, thats only the calc for the matter, dark matter and all other physical stuff, not the spacetime dimensions (keep in mind spacetime dimensions can be damaged, or twisted, but idk how much energy is needd to damage of of univers's dimensions, they are not like the static maathematical ones, but destroying the dimensions as well will be much higher thaan destroying physical stuff, since to make even small holes, u need like massive near ss lvl of energy

simply put- energy to destroy all stuff in the universe can be measured, but idk if the energy to tear a whole as big as the universe can be measured

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Yeah, but that's why I think it's a good idea for DT to leave the highest end of 3-B as undefined.

 

[FanofRPGs]

For 4-D and above characters. What unit would be used for their attack power? Square joules?

 

[The_Everlasting]

Unquantifiable.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

For 4-D and above characters. What unit would be used for their attack power? Square joules?

nah, you will need to add a new unit, since your vector calcs will now have 4 coeffs

but technically a universe, and multi-universes and normal beings are all 4-D - height, width, breadth and time

so i think u r refering to 5-D space then, in which case, vectors have 5 components, calcs wont be hard but tedious

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Indeed. A 4-D being is already beyond the concept of energy as we know it, which means it is impossible for us to determine the "energy" output of anything on that level, as it is beyond our ability to calculate, as well as the components of the calculations, themselves.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

Unquantifiable.

it is quantifiable with an extra component

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

Indeed. A 4-D being is already beyond the concept of energy as we know it, which means it is impossible for us to determine the "energy" output of anything on that level, as it is beyond our ability to calculate, as well as the components of the calculations, themselves.

you mean 5-D right also, no they can still have energy, but they will have an extra compotnent for direction

 

[FanofRPGs]

nvr mind

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

you mean 5-D right also, no they can still have energy, but they will have an extra compotnent for direction

No, I mean 4-D. We are 3-D beings who live in a universe of 4-dimensions. While we live in 4-D space, we are not technically 4-D unless you consider time, which is not a spatial dimension. This is the reason a cube is considered 3-D (and has the same number of spatial dimensions as we do), but a tesseract is considered 4-D and has more dimensions than we do.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

we are 4-D beings living in a 4-D universe

we posss 4 distinct dimensional properties..................................

time is inseparable from space, thats why it is called spacetime

if you mean 4 ditinct non time dimensions, then 5-D is a more accurate term

we have same overall dimensions as the universe

if the universe had another dimension, then we wudnt be able to perceive anything around us (unless we ourselves were 5-D beings)

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

we are 4-D beings living in a 4-D universe
we posss 4 distinct dimensional properties..................................

time is inseparable from space, thats why it is called spacetime

if you mean 4 ditinct non time dimensions, then 5-D is a more accurate term

we have same overall dimensions as the universe

if the universe had another dimension, then we wudnt be able to perceive anything around us (unless we ourselves were 5-D beings)

No, we are typically referred to as 3-D, not 4-D. Like I said, this is because we possess three spatial dimensions, which are what is considered when determining something's dimensional structure. Like I said, this is why you do not refer to a cube as 4-D, because it only possesses three spatial dimensions, which are what's important here. 3-D beings are beings that possess three spatial dimensions, just as 4-D beings possess four spatial dimensions.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

If you would like more of an explanation on why we are considered 3-D and not 4-D, here is an explanation directly from a physicist.

 

[Darkness552]

we are 3-D beings because we can't percieve all of time nor interact with it, we can only percieve some of time(the present) we live in the 4th dimension but we are not 4 dimensional ourselves

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

we are 3-D beings because we can't percieve all of time nor interact with it, we can only percieve some of time(the present) we live in the 4th dimension but we are not 4 dimensional ourselves

Pretty much this. We're 3-D beings who can perceive 3-dimensions and live in a 4-D continuum.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

we are 4-D beings living in a 4-D universe
we posss 4 distinct dimensional properties..................................

time is inseparable from space, thats why it is called spacetime

if you mean 4 ditinct non time dimensions, then 5-D is a more accurate term

we have same overall dimensions as the universe

if the universe had another dimension, then we wudnt be able to perceive anything around us (unless we ourselves were 5-D beings)

No, we are typically referred to as 3-D, not 4-D. Like I said, this is because we possess three spatial dimensions, which are what is considered when determining something's dimensional structure. Like I said, this is why you do not refer to a cube as 4-D, because it only possesses three spatial dimensions, which are what's important here. 3-D beings are beings that possess three spatial dimensions, just as 4-D beings possess four spatial dimensions.

we are 4-D beings mate

and the universe is 4-D as well, if it has one extra dimension, then please mention which one it is

there is no separating spacial and time based dimensions

if the space around us was 4-D we wud not be able to percieve it

a cube wud be 4-D if it is moving, but if it never moves, and is incapable of moving, and remains in that same positonal frame, then it is 3-D, in effecr, if it not in time, it will remain like that with only 3 points describing any part of it

but if it were to have 4 coefficients in its column vector form, then it will be able to move through time, in the real world, all cubes and shapes are 4-D, if they werent, they wud be incapable of moving and will remain timeless

4 spacial idmensions do not exist separately, they exist in a 5-D space

also, if the universe is described with the 3 space and one time dimension

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

we are 3-D beings because we can't percieve all of time nor interact with it, we can only percieve some of time(the present) we live in the 4th dimension but we are not 4 dimensional ourselves

of course we percieve time, if we can perccieve something moving, then we percieve the object in all of its 4 distinct physics chaarcteristics.

we live in the 4th dimension but we are not 4 dimensional ourselves

are you telling me that we are idependent of time?

 

[Darkness552]

EDIT

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

u say we cant interact with time: yet anything with mass tugs on it, you say we cant percieve it, yet we can percieve an object movingl with in a coordinate system requires 4 components of a vector

the truth is, the first order of infinity above us is 5-D spacetime- or if u wannacall it 4-D space (+1-D time)

 

[Darkness552]

@LT

yea but we only percieve some of time not all of time otherwise we would be able to move at any speeds we want and almost basically be able to see into the past and future

Are you telling me that we are independent of time?

no but we are below it to the point we are not time itself and instead just made of Length x Width x Height

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

anyway, back to the main point- was saying that the biggest amount of energy calculable using our methods is 3-A, since i think that involves destroying all matter

this can be done for the observable universe, and th unobservable one, if i can find how much bigger it is expected to be than the observable one

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

@LT
yea but we only percieve some of time not all of time otherwise we would be able to move at any speeds we want and almost basically be able to see into the past and future

Are you telling me that we are independent of time?

no but we are below it to the point we are not time itself and instead just made of Length x Width x Height

no one can see into the future- since it has not happened, but we can peer into a probable one via calculate,

also, as far as peering into the entirity of the timeline of a continuum is concerned, thats more like 5-D

we are not below time- time is a part of the coordinate sysetms that defines us, using that arguement, we can not really imagine length, bredth of height, since we always need reference points and shpes for those too

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Literally every source I can find online states that we are 3-dimensional and we perceive the world in 3-D. If we were 4-D, we could perceive incredibly long periods of time at once, which we cannot. This is why were are not considered 4-D.

A tesseract is 4-D.

We are 3-D.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

no one can see into the future- since it has not happened, but we can peer into a probable one via calculate,

This would be irrelevant for an entirely 4-D being, as again, it would experience immense periods of time at once, and not just the "present" as we do.

 

[Darkness552]

but is it actually seeing into the future and not just a calculation which has a possibility to be wrong?

no being time itself would mean well you are time or as infinite as time which like i said is not the case

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

all those sources are most likely redering to spatial dimensions, but techically, time is always included, if u are talkign about only 4-D spacial dimensions, then thats actually 5-D (along the lines of mxy)

the terrasact is 4-D if it is independent of time, but if its coordinate system includes time (which is the case for all shapes in reality or any situation with time), the terrasect becomes 5-D (which it technically is as we now deal with 5 dimensions including time)

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

all those sources are most likely redering to spatial dimensions, but techically, time is always included, if u are talkign about only 4-D spacial dimensions, then thats actually 5-D (along the lines of mxy)

Which is why, as I've said, every single source refers to spatial dimensions.

A circle is not considered 3-D because time exists.

A cube is not considered 4-D because time exists.

We are not considered 4-D because time exists.