The Problem with the Pocket Dimension Star Feats

[Andytrenom]

I also agree with Kep

 

[AshenCrow777]

So were done here any true final verdict this time?

 

[Antvasima]

So is somebody willing to write a "Pocket Universe Creation Feats" instruction page, or somesuch?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I guess the conclusions are

• The dimension needs to be stated to be created by the chraracter as to distinguish them just teleporting a character into an already existing dimension

• Outliers and Power Consistency are still things

• If the dimension has defined limits on the ground we discount celestial bodies in the sky

• If the dimension doesn't have defined limits and we see a Sun or Constellations/Galaxies we automatically assume they're for real

 

[Andytrenom]

The dimension needs to be stated to be created by the chraracter as to distinguish them just teleporting a character into an already existing dimension

Honestly, this should go without saying.

 

[AguilaR101]

I take it if a character just outright busts the whole dimesnion they're exempt from this discussion right?

 

[Kaltias]

I take it if a character just outright busts the whole dimension they're exempt from this discussion right?

Yeah, in that case it's just a normal "calc what they have destroyed" situation.

 

[Hellbeast1]

^^

 

[The_Causality]

I guess the conclusions are

Wait, what? I see no reason to use this as a good assumption, it's because of the "author don't bother of the background"? Anyway we can discredit this arguments if the dimension possess a Background and à galaxy in the background, what the difference between Background with stars and galaxy?

 

[TartaChocholate]

I guess the conclusions are

• The dimension needs to be stated to be created by the chraracter as to distinguish them just teleporting a character into an already existing dimension

• Outliers and Power Consistency are still things

• If the dimension has defined limits on the ground we discount celestial bodies in the sky

• If the dimension doesn't have defined limits and we see a Sun or Constellations/Galaxies we automatically assume they're for real

Pretty neat, actually. It does put a tigher criteria to not just give away the 4-A rating, without becoming outright dismissive about the very idea of the starry sky feats themselves.

 

[Crzer07]

For the ones that are counting on the existence of stars in the sky for determining size and tier, and even if they are legit, it is not that far into 4-A anyway.



Your "dots in the sky" feat

 

[TartaChocholate]

That's still quite impressive if you ask me >_>, especially if the characters was just blowing up neighborhoods before. And to be fair, the higher you go from tier especially from 5 onwards, the magnitudes apart between become more and more humogonous.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

That's just with the naked eye right?

Also can't you see Andromeda with the naked eye if the sky is clear?

 

[The_Causality]

Actually yes, you can see Andromeda in the sky if someone want to know.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Although for skies that just show stars the picture Crzer presented could be used to calculate the baseline for the feat if we lack clear specifics.

 

[The_Causality]

@Drago i Still don't see why the limits in the ground denigrate the interstellar size of a dimension, someone have an explanation ?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Drago i Still don't see why the limits in the ground denigrate the interstellar size of a dimension, someone have an explanation ?

If the dimension is clearly defined to have a 2 km x 2 km ground area, and ends at that border, how the heck is there room for real stars in the sky, which are orders of magnitude greater than that?

 

[The_Causality]

Ah you talk about this? I thought that the presence of the ground denigrate the stary sky

In this case yes, Obviously the stary is false.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

In this case yes, Obviously the stary is false.

Yeah, I'm talking about when the ground has limits.

 

[Crzer07]

generally won't see stars at Andromeda distance, only when they are clustered into galaxies

 

[Assaltwaffle]

We can't even see Andromeda itself without aid.

 

[Kepekley23]

Destroying/creating a starry sky dimension is 140 PetaFoe

 

[SomebodyData]

@Kep We don't treat creation as equal to destruction anymore tho, do we? Just same tier but baseline now.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Kep We don't treat creation as equal to destruction anymore tho, do we? Just same tier but baseline now.

I think we agreed GBE is applicable but yeah, explosion calcs can't be used anymore.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Thread for reference.

 

[Andytrenom]

I don't think that thread was properly concluded was it?

Plus there were issues with disregarding the explosion method that I don't think were sufficiently addressed.

 

[Kepekley23]

Randomly treating it as baseline sounds like it's arbitrary in and out of itself. Going by that logic we'd need to treat it as High 4-C instead via stellar GBE.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

If anything was concluded from that thread it was that using the explosion formula is defunct for pocket realities/creation, unless the thing they created is, well, an explosion.

It was explicitly agreed that rating by size would be done typically instead if GBE doesn't give reliable results, ant that exact numbers can't be reliably deduced outside of Mass-Energy/GBE.

Even then Agnaa argued creating space is more hax than AP.

 

[Kepekley23]

Either you assume creating the dimension is equal to collapsing it, which is 4-A, or you assume it's High 4-C. Saying it's "baseline 4-A" is pulling a number directly out of the ass.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Darg Rating it by size wouldn't actually be different from rating it via explosion tho. Our standards for AP is destroying the celestial formation of a certain size through an explosion.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Either you assume creating the dimension is equal to collapsing it, which is 4-A, or you assume it's High 4-C. Saying it's "baseline 4-A" is pulling a number directly out of the ass.

Define "collapsing it"

Using an explosion is even more of an asspull for numbers, by the way, considering there's no correlation.

You should seriously take this up on the thread I linked, though, since you're disagreeing with something we already came to a conclusion on.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Darg Rating it by size wouldn't actually be different from rating it via explosion tho. Our standards for AP is destroying the celestial formation of a certain size through an explosion.

There's no relation between explosions and creating something, though. You could take any other random calc method and it'd be just as accurate.

GBE and Mass-Energy are the only stuff that's actually related to forming these objects.

 

[Kepekley23]

Making the dimension collapse.

There's no correlation between the GBE of a star and creating it either, yet we still use GBE because mass-energy would yield inflated results.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Making the dimension collapse.
There's no correlation between the GBE of a star and creating it either, yet we still use GBE because mass-energy would yield inflated results.

Funny. Can't calc that though, sorry.

There is, though, the GBE is what holds the star together, arranging the matter into a star with a creation feat should at the very least require that energy, as we consider that energy would be needed at the very least to disperse it. Seems much more related than assuming there's an imaginary ball of fire covering the dimension's area.

Look, if you have a problem with the consensus go to this thread instead of derailing this one.

 

[Kepekley23]

Assuming creating a starry dimension is a high level of 4-A no different than assuming the Big Bang is baseline 3-A.

If anything, creation would be a more difficult feat than destruction one considering it requires violating the law of conservation of energy, while destroying the dimension's contents doesn't require that.

And no, there is no correlation between GBE and creation, as any astronomer would tell you. The only correlation is a personal standard we completely made up for the sake of our system, ie "destroying should be comparable to creating and vice-versa"

Your thread was never formally applied, as far as I know.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Assuming creating a starry dimension is a high level of 4-A no different than assuming the Big Bang is baseline 3-A.

Nor do I think it's wrong to assume it's a "High level of 4-A". Sometimes it's fine to not assign numbers to everything if it doesn't work out.

If anything, creation would be a more difficult feat than destruction one considering it requires violating the law of conservation of energy, while destroying the dimension's contents doesn't require that.

Sure. Doesn't explain to me why we assume a ball of fire covers the dimension for calculating it. If GBE and Mass-Energy, the correct methods, aren't satisfactory in solving for it, perhaps a calculation is warranted.

And no, there is no correlation between GBE and creation, as any physicist and astronomers will tell you. The only correlation is a personal standard we completely made up for the sake of our system, ie "destroying should be comparable to creating and vice-versa"

Nor can you create matter out of thin air, if you ask any physicist or astronomer

Like you said we use GBE as that's the base energy needed to destroy an object of that size, and we correlate creation and destruction. Hence why it's more related to the feat than, again, assuming there's something that isn't there for the sake of assigning arbitrary numbers. Again, if you can't use correct methods to find an "acceptable" result that's fine, it just means an exact number can't be found.

Your thread was never formally applied, as far as I know.

I'm speaking of the consensus there, hence why I've been repeatedly asking you to take this on that thread.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Kep

I mean busting massive areas of space already break physics on several levels, so that's not a huge argument.

 

[Kepekley23]

@Kep

I mean busting massive areas of space already break physics on several levels, so that's not a huge argument.

Other than FTL travel?

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Kep

Excessive energy density to the point of singularity formation.

Energy creation (that destructive power can be generated on the fly) violating the exact same law.

 

[Kepekley23]

Fair enough, though it doesn't affect much of anything in my point.