Questions regarding tier 4-3 feats

[Ezaru]

You know, now that you mention it, I've been making attempts to find out just how much power it would take to destroy an entire timeline/spacetime continuum. One result I got was actually lower than the baseline we have for 3-A, but I didn't think I was doing it right. I'm still trying to calculate it even to this day.

Wouldn't you get like uncountably infinite energy

 

[JPTheGamer]

Wouldn't you get like uncountably infinite energy

Well, I have looked up different methods online and tried a few of my own ways and I've either gotten results higher (but not infinite) or lower than the baseline 3-A value.

 

[KLOL506]

I'm afraid they don't compensate for the fact that you are dealing with 4D shenanigans here. Uncountably infinite number of snapshots and shit.

Anyway, derailing.

 

[Arceus0x]

bumparoo

 

[Arceus0x]

bump

 

[Agnaa]

For a galaxy, that is possible, but not close to guaranteed.
For a universe, there being a neutron star somewhere close to the edge is very likely in comparison.

Not unlikely enough to justify raising the baseline level.

I'm surprised we're dealing with statements this vague.

These are things we can calculate!

If we use star-busting to define the edge, how much further in would we need to go to reach neutron-star-busting?

That different distance can give us a volume for any scale of these feats. If we can then find the density of neutron stars in our universe/galaxy, then we can present concrete numbers on how much this matters.

I think this could tell us something interesting to resolve the debate. The only hard part would be finding neutron star density, really.

 

[Arceus0x]

I'm surprised we're dealing with statements this vague.

These are things we can calculate!

If we use star-busting to define the edge, how much further in would we need to go to reach neutron-star-busting?

That different distance can give us a volume for any scale of these feats. If we can then find the density of neutron stars in our universe/galaxy, then we can present concrete numbers on how much this matters.

I think this could tell us something interesting to resolve the debate. The only hard part would be finding neutron star density, really.

first, any idea how to figure that kind of thing out?
second, what do you think of the current galaxy scaling I am proposing since I found neutron stars at the edge of Milky Way?

 

[Agnaa]

first, any idea how to figure that kind of thing out?

You get the borders by using known energy density and known distance to find necessary energy at the epicenter.

You get "how much further in to neutron-bust" by using known energy density and known epicenter energy to find necessary distance.

second, what do you think of the current galaxy scaling I am proposing since I found neutron stars at the edge of Milky Way?

No thoughts yet.

 

[KLOL506]

Well I'm still pining for the pulsar. Like, I was told there's a small chance there's a pulsar at the edge of the galaxy. I found a pulsar at the edge of the galaxy. Gotta work out.

Find the GBE and that should be that I reckon. Dump it into the formula and watch the magic happen. Assuming that pulsar really is at the edge of the galaxy, THE MILKY WAY GALAXY to be specific.

 

[Arceus0x]

Find the GBE and that should be that I reckon. Dump it into the formula and watch the magic happen. Assuming that pulsar really is at the edge of the galaxy, THE MILKY WAY GALAXY to be specific.

That's what I've been showing you the entire time man... I found a pulsar located at the very edge of the galaxy, I calculated the GBE of the pulsar and used it for the galaxy calc...

 

[KLOL506]

That's what I've been showing you the entire time man... I found a pulsar located at the very edge of the galaxy, I calculated the GBE of the pulsar and used it for the galaxy calc...

Aite. Message Executor and Migue and the other admin/thread mod CGMs and see what they have to say for it.

 

[Arceus0x]

Aite. Message Executor and Migue and the other admin/thread mod CGMs and see what they have to say for it.

Can you ping them?

 

[Arceus0x]

No thoughts yet.

Can you ping Executor, Migue and whoever else you think would be intersted in the topic here?
Pretty sure they'd care more if it came from you.

 

[Agnaa]

@Executor_N0 @Migue79 @Ugarik @Psychomaster35 @DemiiPowa

 

[DontTalkDT]

I would need to find the thread, but I'm fairly sure we consciously decided to choose standard star (the sun) to be destroyed at the edge of the standard galaxy (the milkyway) as baseline.

To think this another way: Even if we assumed that every galaxy had some neutron star some distance from the edge and even if we assumed fictional writers account for that, then you would still have some additional burden of proof.
Say you have a visual where it looks like someone blew up a galaxy. Now you have to confirm that one specific star at the edge doesn't actually still exist. In most zoomed out pictures you would likely not see its glow even if it still existed, so there is no way to do that. So straight up galaxy sized explosion wouldn't be galaxy level anymore. For a standard star, on the other hand, this can be confirmed in so far that if it doesn't reach that level of energy density at the edge a lot of stars would survive. (All sun-like stars at the edge)
And say you have a statement that someone destroyed a galaxy, or multiple. Now we would need to ensure that "destroying a galaxy" entails actually destroying every single star. And that's a tall ask when you consider that it usually doesn't involve destroying the black hole in its center. I.e. it doesn't have to mean destroy every single celestial body. Most people would consider shattering 99.99% of something as breaking it altogether.

 

[Agnaa]

The arguments provided there would also apply for the baseline of 3-A.

"Visuals would show if less-durable and more-common stars remained, but not if neutron stars remained" and "They don't need to destroy literally every object, just the vast majority" would both apply to that.

Also, I'm a lil concerned about how those arguments focus on destruction, when creation wouldn't have those issues.

But I really would like us to just shut up and calculate:

If we use star-busting to define the edge, how much further in would we need to go to reach neutron-star-busting?

That different distance can give us a volume for any scale of these feats. If we can then find the density of neutron stars in our universe/galaxy, then we can present concrete numbers on how much this matters.

 

[Arceus0x]

I would need to find the thread, but I'm fairly sure we consciously decided to choose standard star (the sun) to be destroyed at the edge of the standard galaxy (the milkyway) as baseline.

To think this another way: Even if we assumed that every galaxy had some neutron star some distance from the edge and even if we assumed fictional writers account for that, then you would still have some additional burden of proof.
Say you have a visual where it looks like someone blew up a galaxy. Now you have to confirm that one specific star at the edge doesn't actually still exist. In most zoomed out pictures you would likely not see its glow even if it still existed, so there is no way to do that. So straight up galaxy sized explosion wouldn't be galaxy level anymore. For a standard star, on the other hand, this can be confirmed in so far that if it doesn't reach that level of energy density at the edge a lot of stars would survive. (All sun-like stars at the edge)
And say you have a statement that someone destroyed a galaxy, or multiple. Now we would need to ensure that "destroying a galaxy" entails actually destroying every single star. And that's a tall ask when you consider that it usually doesn't involve destroying the black hole in its center. I.e. it doesn't have to mean destroy every single celestial body. Most people would consider shattering 99.99% of something as breaking it altogether.

...honestly if we use your logic of "authors not accounting for things" then we might as well just nuke the wiki in its entirety. I don't think this is reasonable. If we use the Milky Way then we use the Milky Way as it is, not as how the author might misunderstand it. This is the same for stars, galaxies, planets whatever. I don't see a reason to play all these mind-games.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I would need to find the thread, but I'm fairly sure we consciously decided to choose standard star (the sun) to be destroyed at the edge of the standard galaxy (the milkyway) as baseline.

To think this another way: Even if we assumed that every galaxy had some neutron star some distance from the edge and even if we assumed fictional writers account for that, then you would still have some additional burden of proof.
Say you have a visual where it looks like someone blew up a galaxy. Now you have to confirm that one specific star at the edge doesn't actually still exist. In most zoomed out pictures you would likely not see its glow even if it still existed, so there is no way to do that. So straight up galaxy sized explosion wouldn't be galaxy level anymore. For a standard star, on the other hand, this can be confirmed in so far that if it doesn't reach that level of energy density at the edge a lot of stars would survive. (All sun-like stars at the edge)
And say you have a statement that someone destroyed a galaxy, or multiple. Now we would need to ensure that "destroying a galaxy" entails actually destroying every single star. And that's a tall ask when you consider that it usually doesn't involve destroying the black hole in its center. I.e. it doesn't have to mean destroy every single celestial body. Most people would consider shattering 99.99% of something as breaking it altogether.

Tier 4 revisions

Relevant: 1. https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Assaltwaffle/Stars:_Standards_and_GBE 2. https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/1269115 Basically, we had a whole discussion about this and decided some of the stuff in the Tier 4, from Small Star to Large Star level, was incorrect. For...

www.vsbattles.com

Also there was a attempt to Tier 3A some years back too.

3-A Tier revision

To make a long story short, the observable universe being our standard for universal is absurd, and would be like only using the horizon for Planet level. In the theory of Cosmic Inflation, a widely (albeit not universally) accepted theory, it's theorized that if the universe's inflation began...

vsbattles.com

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Found the GBE of a "Typical Galaxy." Is it helpful for calc'ing feats?

I found these links that say that the "Typical gravitational binding energy of a galaxy" is 2 x 10^53 It also has on there the Typical gravitational binding energy of a cluster of galaxies at 5 x 10^{57} This one is probably easier to find than the other two above, but it also has the GBE of...

vsbattles.com

Oh, there was also this for galaxy related thing too


Edit: I find a a thread that also have a similar question to the OP as well.

Galaxy level

A friend asked Is there a particular reason to not use neutron stars for the baseline Galaxy level value calculation instead of the Sun?

vsbattles.com

Edit 2: I actually believe I find which thread @DontTalkDT was talking about which is this one:

Thread 'Tier 4 Revisions Round 2'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/tier-4-revisions-round-2.7186/

Edit 3: Never mind, it is the one above this link.

Thread 'Joule Requirement for Universe level Revision'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/joule-requirement-for-universe-level-revision.139443/

 

[DontTalkDT]

The arguments provided there would also apply for the baseline of 3-A.

"Visuals would show if less-durable and more-common stars remained, but not if neutron stars remained" and "They don't need to destroy literally every object, just the vast majority" would both apply to that.

Not really.
First, you can never really confirm a universe busting feat by visuals alone. That is inherently given. Red shift could always make stars invisible long before the observable universe edge is reached. Universe busting always comes with statements or context.
Second, baseline of universe level is meant to be more of a high-end by conscious choice. Which is to say, it is very much intended that something that leaves even a single neutron star behind doesn't reach the level. If you think a universe busting statement contextually (and they usually have quite different context) permits leaving some stars in the universe intact, that's a reason to doubt the 3-A rating.

Also, I'm a lil concerned about how those arguments focus on destruction, when creation wouldn't have those issues.

Our baseline for tiers are always based on destruction. Creation is entirely an after thought that has little to nothing to do with how the baselines are chosen.

But I really would like us to just shut up and calculate:

Don't know proper data on neutron star distribution. Given, one could pick some neutron star and a sun and calculate how the radius needs to be varied to reach the same energy level, if that's what you want.
Although not sure what to do with these numbers once we have them.

...honestly if we use your logic of "authors not accounting for things" then we might as well just nuke the wiki in its entirety. I don't think this is reasonable. If we use the Milky Way then we use the Milky Way as it is, not as how the author might misunderstand it. This is the same for stars, galaxies, planets whatever. I don't see a reason to play all these mind-games.

But we are not talking about the milky way. We are talking about a baseline level for galaxy busting.
And the main focus were the other arguments.
Albeit you will need to admit that all those arguments are inherently only meaningful if we do indeed play with "authors not accounting for things" because otherwise the black hole makes the feats worthless. Only a milky way without black hole is bustable.

Tier 4 revisions

Relevant: 1. https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Assaltwaffle/Stars:_Standards_and_GBE 2. https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/1269115 Basically, we had a whole discussion about this and decided some of the stuff in the Tier 4, from Small Star to Large Star level, was incorrect. For...

www.vsbattles.com

Also there was a attempt to Tier 3A some years back too.

3-A Tier revision

To make a long story short, the observable universe being our standard for universal is absurd, and would be like only using the horizon for Planet level. In the theory of Cosmic Inflation, a widely (albeit not universally) accepted theory, it's theorized that if the universe's inflation began...

vsbattles.com

Found the GBE of a "Typical Galaxy." Is it helpful for calc'ing feats?

I found these links that say that the "Typical gravitational binding energy of a galaxy" is 2 x 10^53 It also has on there the Typical gravitational binding energy of a cluster of galaxies at 5 x 10^{57} This one is probably easier to find than the other two above, but it also has the GBE of...

vsbattles.com

Oh, there was also this for galaxy related thing too


Edit: I find a a thread that also have a similar question to the OP as well.

Galaxy level

A friend asked Is there a particular reason to not use neutron stars for the baseline Galaxy level value calculation instead of the Sun?

vsbattles.com

Edit 2: I actually believe I find which thread @DontTalkDT was talking about which is this one:

Thread 'Tier 4 Revisions Round 2'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/tier-4-revisions-round-2.7186/

Edit 3: Never mind, it is the one above this link.

Thread 'Joule Requirement for Universe level Revision'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/joule-requirement-for-universe-level-revision.139443/

Oh, thanks for looking it up. So yeah, turns out we pretty much had this debate already, more than once apparently, and decided to use the sun as standard despite all of this.

 

[Agnaa]

Not really.
First, you can never really confirm a universe busting feat by visuals alone. That is inherently given. Red shift could always make stars invisible long before the observable universe edge is reached. Universe busting always comes with statements or context.

Eh, I could imagine something like, a hall showing various universes within bubbles, with many visually twinkling with stars and galaxies, and one under attack by a certain threat being visually empty.

Second, baseline of universe level is meant to be more of a high-end by conscious choice. Which is to say, it is very much intended that something that leaves even a single neutron star behind doesn't reach the level. If you think a universe busting statement contextually (and they usually have quite different context) permits leaving some stars in the universe intact, that's a reason to doubt the 3-A rating.

I don't think "This blast will destroy the galaxy" and "This blast will destroy the universe" are meaningfully different in terms of whether one could leave neutron stars behind or not, and I don't think we'd ever use that possibility to prevent the latter from being 3-A.

Also, from the destruction method we suppose, it seems like it would leave things behind. We envision an omnidirectional blast of energy, whose density at the edge is high enough to impart a neutron star's GBE across its surface. Where GBE is the energy such that, applying varying amounts of it to successive shells of an object, would cause it to never reform under its own gravity.

An omnidirectional blast can't really apply this energy selectively in this way; I'd expect many things on the edge to be blown apart but ultimately reform. This doesn't typically matter, but with strong claims like "something that leaves even a single neutron star behind doesn't reach the level" I think this particular does.

Our baseline for tiers are always based on destruction. Creation is entirely an after thought that has little to nothing to do with how the baselines are chosen.

Not for choosing the baselines, but for reconsidering how we place creation into that system.

Don't know proper data on neutron star distribution. Given, one could pick some neutron star and a sun and calculate how the radius needs to be varied to reach the same energy level, if that's what you want.
Although not sure what to do with these numbers once we have them.

To verify whether your guesses about the probabilities in play are correct.

You think there's a small chance that a neutron star would be at the edge of any given galaxy, but that there's a nigh-certain chance that a neutron star would be at the edge of the observable universe.

Given how the relevant "edge" here is the gap where this destruction matters, we can empirically vet this claim.

Edit: I find a a thread that also have a similar question to the OP as well.

Galaxy level

A friend asked Is there a particular reason to not use neutron stars for the baseline Galaxy level value calculation instead of the Sun?

vsbattles.com

Edit 2: I actually believe I find which thread @DontTalkDT was talking about which is this one:

Thread 'Tier 4 Revisions Round 2'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/tier-4-revisions-round-2.7186/

Edit 3: Never mind, it is the one above this link.

Thread 'Joule Requirement for Universe level Revision'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/joule-requirement-for-universe-level-revision.139443/

Oh, thanks for looking it up. So yeah, turns out we pretty much had this debate already, more than once apparently, and decided to use the sun as standard despite all of this.

Welp, that solves it ig.

 

[DemiiPowa]

@Executor_N0 @Migue79 @Ugarik @Psychomaster35 @DemiiPowa

I'll be active again when I find a new manga I like

 

[Arceus0x]

Eh, I could imagine something like, a hall showing various universes within bubbles, with many visually twinkling with stars and galaxies, and one under attack by a certain threat being visually empty.

I don't think "This blast will destroy the galaxy" and "This blast will destroy the universe" are meaningfully different in terms of whether one could leave neutron stars behind or not, and I don't think we'd ever use that possibility to prevent the latter from being 3-A.

Also, from the destruction method we suppose, it seems like it would leave things behind. We envision an omnidirectional blast of energy, whose density at the edge is high enough to impart a neutron star's GBE across its surface. Where GBE is the energy such that, applying varying amounts of it to successive shells of an object, would cause it to never reform under its own gravity.

An omnidirectional blast can't really apply this energy selectively in this way; I'd expect many things on the edge to be blown apart but ultimately reform. This doesn't typically matter, but with strong claims like "something that leaves even a single neutron star behind doesn't reach the level" I think this particular does.

Not for choosing the baselines, but for reconsidering how we place creation into that system.

To verify whether your guesses about the probabilities in play are correct.

You think there's a small chance that a neutron star would be at the edge of any given galaxy, but that there's a nigh-certain chance that a neutron star would be at the edge of the observable universe.

Given how the relevant "edge" here is the gap where this destruction matters, we can empirically vet this claim.


Welp, that solves it ig.

Solves it? Where is it even stated that we agreed upon it over any other option. Not only can we still vet it the same way you suggested, I still don't see how we can ignore a star cluster with a pulsar at the edge of the Milky Way.