• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

The Problem with the Pocket Dimension Star Feats

Dargoo Faust said:
It's not really being strict as much as it's considering relativity when judging objects in the sky.

An immensely bright star thousands of light years away will look just the same as a dim star one lightyear away.
Click to expand...
A full night-sky is bound to contain stars that are hundreds to thousands of light years in away. It is the same as on Earth.
 
Kepekley23 said:
Yes, as that's how Occam's Razor works. You see the Sun, you assume a star of plasma, not a small light under a Dome on a flat earth..
Click to expand...
Yet not all "stars of plasma" are as large and as far away as the Sun is to earth.

And if the dimension has established limits on the ground I fail to see why we'd assume it still covers such immense distances in the sky. It's not Okham's razor as much as it is noticing a contradiction with the possibilities.
 
> Yet not all "stars of plasma" are as large and as far away as the Sun is to earth.

What? Unless you're trying to say that there are stars that are closer to the Earth than the Sun is (I really hope this not what you're trying to say here), every single star on the sky is, by default, more than 4 light years away.
 
Kepekley23 said:
What? Unless you're trying to say that there are stars that are closer to the Earth than the Sun is (I really hope this not what you're trying to say here), every single star on the sky is, by default, more than 4 light years away.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about Earth, I'm talking about the pocket dimension a character magically conjured separate from Earth.

There are plenty of exoplanets that are much closer to smaller stars, and in the case of a pocket dimension which has established limits on the ground, those same limits should be considered when judging the sky.
 
> There are plenty of exoplanets that are much closer to smaller stars

Those don't have plants, surface life, or even bacteria, so unless we see that they're fighting on a fully desolate planet then this option is to be discarded instantaneously.

> and in the case of a pocket dimension which has established limits on the ground, those same limits should be considered when judging the sky.

What established limits? The fight taking place on a specific location, like Central Park, doesn't mean the dimension isn't bigger than that.
 
Kepekley23 said:
Those don't have plants, surface life, or even bacteria, so unless we see that they're fighting on a fully desolate planet then this option is to be discarded instantaneously.
Click to expand...
And whose to say that those weren't pooped into existence like the rest of the dimension? Not sure what you're jabbing at here. Plant life being present also has nothing to do with a planet's distance from a star unless we first know how large the star is, which we wouldn't be able to define by just looking at the sky and calling it a day.

Even then the dimension can already lack the characteristics of a normal planet, such as being limited in scope on the ground.

Kepekley23 said:
What established limits? The fight taking place on a specific location, like Central Park, doesn't mean the dimension isn't bigger than that.
Click to expand...
Yet if we know that it ends at the borders, but just as a visible sky, considering High 4-C is just silly. The ground limits should be first considered before we go crazy with the sky, as a 1 km by 1 km pocket reality with a visible sky probably doesn't have something billions of ones greater in scope in said sky.
 
If a pocket realm is horizontally limited stars should of course not be assumed real.

In general, I think it depends on a lot on the kind of pocket realm.

Things like dream dimensions, pocket realms contained in books or similar or stuff in virtual reality should certainly not be assumed to be that large just due to a nightsky.

Similarly I would question it for typical pocket realms, like hammer spaces or generally spaces contained within some object.

If a character can very freely change the looks of the entire dimension that can also speak against it under certain circumstances.


For dimensions/realms that are pretty much separate from the main reality I think the assumption is probably fine as long as not contradicted, though.


Aside from that consistency should of course be considered. That is a bit different from outliers as in the fact that there are actually plausible alternate assumptions, meaning that even lesser inconistencies than for outliers can qualify.
 
> And whose to say that those weren't pooped into existence like the rest of the dimension?

We go by the assumption that this dimension is similar to our own in laws, as per Occam's Razor, instead of making a string of unbacked assumptions. Plant life can't exist in a planet too close to a small star.

> Plant life being present also has nothing to do with a planet's distance from a star unless we first know how large the star is

Uh...life is primarliy dependent on how far away you are from a star.

> which we wouldn't be able to define by just looking at the sky and calling it a day.

You can calculate the circumference of the Earth and the distance to the celestial bodies by looking at the sky and at the ground and nothing more. Something as basic as determining whether the star's rough parameters are similar to Earth's parameters is laughably easy, considering that if this star appears to be just as big as the Sun from the point of view of an observer on an Earth-like planet, the basic assumption follows that it's just as distant from said planet as our Sun is from our Earth.

> Even then the dimension can already lack the characteristics of a normal planet, such as being limited in scope on the ground.

You keep saying this - this is meaningless and unknowable. Unless we're outright told the dimension ends at that point, then this is far from anything resembling an argument.

> Yet if we know that it ends at the borders, but just as a visible sky, considering High 4-C is just silly.

Less than 0.00001% of fiction will tell you the dimension's general size with words. Unless we're told that the dimension is only as big as the Central Park or a few kilometers, this is an irrelevant point as your eyes can't see that far due to the curvature of the earth.

Unless you are, again, advocating for us to assume dimensions go by some ancient mythological Flat Earth with a Firmament-Dome system.
 
Kepekley23 said:
Plant life can't exist in a planet too close to a small star.
Click to expand...
It can, though, considering atmosphere, magnetic fields, and how small the star is. Not every Goldilocks zone is like ours.

Kepekley23 said:
Uh...life is primarliy dependent on how far away you are from a star.
Click to expand...
Ignored the context of that claim. I said it depends on the size of the star too, which we can't quantify, therefore the distance can't be quantified either.

Kepekley23 said:
You can calculate the circumference of the Earth and the distance to the celestial bodies by looking at the sky and at the ground and nothing more.
Click to expand...
Cool. We're not talking about the Earth. Unless we explore the dimension enough to define the planet or ground area that claim is unsubstantial.

Kepekley23 said:
You keep saying this - this is meaningless and unknowable. Unless we're outright told the dimension ends at that point, then this is far from anything resembling an argument.
Click to expand...
I'm claiming if the ground has limits the sky should have comparable limits. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Something the size of Yellowstone can have a very real looking sky, but if we understand the pocket dimension has limits on the ground like that assuming the sky is, as I've said, such a larger degree in scope ignores what we already know.


Kepekley23 said:
Less than 0.00001% of fiction will tell you the dimension's general size with words. Unless we're told that the dimension is only as big as the Central Park or a few kilometers, this is an irrelevant point.
Click to expand...
Mhm. So why does a sun change something we'd assume is 7-C in scope normaly to High 4-C if you're already assuming what we see on the ground to be the limits in the first instance?

Clearly we should define the ground area first, identify it as a whole planet, and then we should judge the sky. As if it has limits on the ground, any claims of the sky instantly becomes dubious.

Unless you'd want to suggest any given pocket dimension whose limits aren't explored are planetary at a minimum.
 
@DontTalk

Yeah, obviously if we're outright told that the dimension's size is only a few kilometers or only Earth-sized, then we can assume that the night sky is either illusory or a mirrored see-through of the actual Earth's night-sky that wasn't created by the character and doesn't scale to them.

This, in no way, applies to general fiction as the number of series that will outright tell you the size of the dimension in relevant numbers is close to zero.

This is my entire point - if not contradicted, legit.
 
I think the problem I have is when the pocket dimension creation is when it's never shown as being combat applicable.

Dracula's starry backgrounds and eclipses have never been shown as combat applicable, and in the latter case it's debatable whether it's even Dracula himself doing that.
 
I think that DontTalkDT seems to make sense.
 
DontTalk makes sense to me as well, even if I disagree on some minor points.
 
It's not about if the stars are real or not...

This is the same thing with calling galaxies "not real galaxies". What even is this argument? If it's a reasonable size, it's a galaxy. If they look like stars, they are stars. It's cherry-picking to suggest otherwise.
 
Sera EX said:
It's not about if the stars are real or not...
This is the same thing with calling galaxies "not real galaxies". What even is this argument? If it's a reasonable size, it's a galaxy. If they look like stars, they are stars. It's cherry-picking to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...
"Reasonable size" isn't defined by sight alone.

Like I've said the ground having set limits is an active contradiction of what you're suggesting. Also as DontTalk suggested if the appearance of the reality can be changed at will there's noting suggesting the 'star' isn't just an application of that power.
 
> It can, though, considering atmosphere, magnetic fields, and how small the star is. Not every Goldilocks zone is like ours.

Yes they are, considering we only look for habitable zones that are proportionately nigh-identical to our system. Such an exoplanet, in order to be relatively close to such a star, would need to be smaller, and this would reflect on the curvature.

> Ignored the context of that claim. I said it depends on the size of the star too, which we can't quantify, therefore the distance can't be quantified either.

We can quantify it by assuming, as a standard, that you are standing on an Earth-like planet.

> Cool. We're not talking about the Earth. Unless we explore he dimension enough to define the planet or ground area that claim is unsubstantial.

We're talking about an area that is to be assumed similar to Earth unless otherwise proven.

> I'm claiming if the ground has limits the sky should have comparable limits. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Something the size of Yellowstone can have a very real looking sky, but if we understand the pocket dimension has limits on the ground like that assuming the sky is, as I've said, such a larger degree in scope ignores what we already know.

You're starting off assuming another flawed assumption is true. If there is no evidence that the ground has actual limits other than the fact we can't see very far due to the curvature, then neither should the sky - especially when said sky is shown to contain stars. Unless you want to revert to a mythological dome cosmology, I'm going to keep disagreeing with this ridiculous claim over and over.

> Mhm. So why does a sun change something we'd assume is 7-C in scope to High 4-C if you're already assuming what we see on the ground to be the limits in the first instance.

Maybe because it isn't, actually, the limits?
 
We're talking about fiction here, most of which is 2D, we can only define it by sight and/or word of mouth.
 
Why should we determine whether or not stars or whatever in the sky of a pocket dimension are real based on where you can walk on the ground? Using A Link to the Past for example, you travel to another dimension called the Dark World where Link can only walk a country sized area before being blocked off by mountains but there's a setting sun in the sky. Why assume that the setting sun isn't real just because the game won't let Link magically fly into space or over those mountains to prove that the dimension has a real sun?
 
Kepekley23 said:
Yes they are, considering we only look for habitable zones that are proportionately nigh-identical to our system. Such an exoplanet, in order to be relatively close to such a star, would need to be smaller, and this would reflect on the curvature.
Click to expand...
And yet in most of the examples of these feats we see we don't see the planet being defined.

Kepekley23 said:
We can quantify it by assuming, as a standard, that you are standing on an Earth-like planet.
Click to expand...
Yet this is a pocket dimension separate from standard reality, not some average planet in a fictional universe orbiting around a star.

Kepekley23 said:
We're talking about an area that is to be assumed similar to Earth unless otherwise proven.
Click to expand...
So what, every pocket dimension with earth-like gravity is the size of Earth until proven otherwise? I feel like we're entering the area of a No Limits Fallacy here.

Kepekley23 said:
You're starting off assuming another flawed assumption is true. If there is no evidence that the ground has actual limits other than the fact we can't see very far due to the curvature, then neither should the sky - especially when said sky is shown to contain stars. Unless you want to revert to a mythological dome cosmology, I'm going to keep disagreeing with this ridiculous claim over and over.
Click to expand...
Once again we're talking about a supernaturally created pocket dimension, not an actual planet, nor do I understand why you're throwing around the "mythological dome cosmology" argument when I've hardly even mentioned it in my arguments.

Now that you've brought it up repeatedly, though, I'll point out again that you've actually agreed with using that if the ground has established limits.

Kepekley23 said:
Then we can assume that the night sky is either illusory or a mirrored see-through of the actual Earth's night-sky that wasn't created by the character and doesn't scale to them.
Click to expand...
Why can't we assume this if we never see the full extent of the ground, when we assume limits when a sun/stars aren't present? Seems like a double standard to me.

Kepekley23 said:
Maybe because it isn't, actually, the limits?
Click to expand...
Again, we would only assume what we see of the pocket reality before a star is introduced for the area of the ground. If a pocket reality without a star is created and the extents we see are limited to a city but not fully explored, we would use the minimum of a city.
 
> "Reasonable size" isn't defined by sight alone.

Relativity is about motion, not size, Dargoo.
 
Kepekley23 said:
> "Reasonable size" isn't defined by sight alone.Relativity is about motion, not size, Dargoo.
Click to expand...
I'll admit I used an incorrect link, however that doesn't make the point any less correct.

Perceived size changes with distance from the viewpoint, and two objects of different sizes can be made to look similar in size through distance.
 
> And yet in most of the examples of these feats we see we don't see the planet being defined.

The presence of a star means that the planet is defined.

> Yet this is a pocket dimension separate from standard reality, not some average planet in a fictional universe orbiting around a star.

Yeah, and said pocket dimension is assumed to be equal to our dimension in basic physics.

> So what, every pocket dimension with earth-like gravity is the size of Earth until proven otherwise? I feel like we're entering the area of a No Limits Fallacy here.

Every pocket dimension with earth-like gravity, stars in the sky, and a Sun in the sky which by means of Occam's Razor work the same until otherwise proven.

> Why can'y we assume this if we never see the full extent of the ground, when we assume limits when a sun/stars aren't present? Seems like a double standard to me.

In such a case we have no size indicators other than the linear view, while the presence of a Sun and a night-sky is, in and of itself, a size indicator.
 
Yes - basic geometry and parallax (which is based on visual changes) is a concept that is known to the time of the Ancient Greeks. If you travel to different areas on Earth you'll note that the Sun casts shadows of different angles on each of them - this can be used to calculate the Earth's circumference, or even the distance to the Sun if you have the correct tools (they didn't, sadly) to an astoundingly accurate degree.

That actually goes against your point.
 
Also, most pocket dimensions in fiction that are limited to such a confined space ("city-wide") tend to be the type of dimensions that are literally mirrored versions of these locations on the real world, stacked atop one another.
 
Alright, I'll concede on that point with that comment. Fair point.

We at least agree that if the ground itself has strictly defined limits that would contradict the sky containing a sun and stars, and that outliers and feat consistency should be considered greatly.

I also believe it was agreed it needs to be proven that the character created the pocket dimension as opposed than transporting a character to one.
 
> We at least agree that if the ground itself has strictly defined limits that would contradict the sky containing a sun and stars, and that outliers and feat consistency should be considered greatly.

Yes to both.
 
tfw people still vote when you give up your argument

@Kep

Alright, I'm at least fine with that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lloydblitzed
Ninjago Star Tiering and Possible New Value
6 7 8
Replies
307
Views
11K
REX9097
REX9097
Peter1129
Ultra Series Heisei Era Re:Upgrade
Replies
23
Views
1K
Peter1129
Peter1129
RavenSupreme
Martial Peak Novel Cosmology revision (2025 edition) - Part 2 - Star Fields
Replies
11
Views
609
BreezeHM
BreezeHM
James_Plays_4_Games
Warp Star Immeasurable Peak Speed (Kirby Series)
Replies
29
Views
838
CloverDragon03
CloverDragon03
Shiedaisthepeak
League Of Legends Tier 1 Upgrade!
2 3
Replies
106
Views
6K
Spinoirr
Spinoirr
Back
Top