Tier 2 Requirements and Examples Revision

[Firestorm808]

It would appear that the current Big Bang page does not match our Tiering System standards.

Big Bang Page: Creating a supposed Big Bang that would create all the space of a universe or its space and time through a physical explosion is a 3-A feat, and grants Explosion Manipulation, limited Spatial Manipulation and limited Time Manipulation.

Tiering System:
3-A: Universe level
Characters who can destroy all celestial bodies within a volume at least equivalent to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion, alternately create or significantly affect[1] a universe of comparable size, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time.

High 3-A: High Universe level
Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D area or an infinite number of finite or infinite universes when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time, or more generally any realm of comparable size. Large numbers of infinite universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, only count for a higher level of this tier. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.

Additionally, the statement below needs to be revised because I can't think of any verses that actually show that sort of distinction between creating a moment vs the entire timeline. Do we have any examples to work with?

"If it has generated a space-time expansion that creates an entire universal spacetime continuum from scratch, it is treated as Low 2-C. The difference between this and a 3-A Big Bang that also creates time being that the latter only creates a moment of a universe's time that will expand on its own after the Big Bang is over, therefore said Big Bang didn't create the length of time in the timeline, but kickstarted it from the beginning."

Proposed Revision:

"Creating a supposed Big Bang that would create all the space of a universe with a volume at least equivalent to the observable universe or with an infinite 3-D volume, but not explicitly its time (unless this happens through a chain reaction of creating the space), through a physical explosion is a 3-A and High 3-A feat respectively, and grants Explosion Manipulation, Spatial Manipulation, and limited Time Manipulation."

"If it has generated a space-time expansion that creates an entire universal spacetime continuum from scratch, it is treated as Low 2-C. The difference between this and a 3-A or High 3-A Big Bang that also creates time being that the latter only creates time as a reaction to only explicitly creating space."

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @Promestein @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Agnaa
@DarkDragonMedeus

What do you think about this?

 

[Agnaa]

Eficiente should also be asked for comment, since he pushed for the relevant change in the Big Bang page that caused the disparity.

My view is that a big bang needs to be properly established as creating the entire axis of time to count as a Low 2-C feat, rather than simply kickstarting a new timeline that then generates new slices of itself according to the laws of physics.

To resolve this, I'd propose rewording 3-A and High 3-A to only exclude feats when the entirety of time is created/destroyed. That's how things function right now anyway, destroying 1 second of a timeline's existence doesn't count as a Low 2-C feat, as Low 2-C requires the entire timeline to be affected. If a Big Bang feat can be argued to be that low despite "creating time" in some sense, then it should similarly not be Low 2-C.

The Big Bang page should also be reworded slightly, in particular the first statement you pointed out, where it doesn't differentiate between creating an entire axis of time/an entire timeline and a mere moment of time that evolves on its own.

Since I'd like to reword it in a different way from you, I disagree with your rewording.

Additionally, the statement below needs to be revised because I can't think of any verses that actually show that sort of distinction between creating a moment vs the entire timeline. Do we have any examples to work with?

I'm not sure, since I'm not familiar with many verses, but at the very least I'd expect there to be an implicit distinction drawn in some. Where we can look at the context to argue whether it seems like the entirety of the timeline was created at that moment, and/or whether an axis of time already existed in some general sense to be expanded into.

 

[Antvasima]

@Eficiente

What do you think about this?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I basically agree with the OP, if a Big Bang only creates the space and physical matter, it's only Tier 3. But if it creates expansive time and thus gives birth to a space-time continuum, it should be Low 2-C.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the evaluation. I am also inclined to agree with that take.

 

[Eficiente]

It would appear that the current Big Bang page does not match our Tiering System standards.

Big Bang Page: Creating a supposed Big Bang that would create all the space of a universe or its space and time through a physical explosion is a 3-A feat, and grants Explosion Manipulation, limited Spatial Manipulation and limited Time Manipulation.

Tiering System:
3-A: Universe level
Characters who can destroy all celestial bodies within a volume at least equivalent to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion, alternately create or significantly affect[1] a universe of comparable size, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time.

This refers to the time in a timeline, not the present time created in a Big Bang that expands on its own. If you create a snowball on top of a mountain with a snowstorm around and let it fall then you do not create all the process that made it fall and get bigger, but if you create all the time in the snowball's existence from before it was created to where it got to its biggest then yes, you created the process of the fall too.

The tiering is vague by saying "time" like it means only 1 thing there, but later where it matters more in Low 2-C it does point it out as "the space-time continuum", time there being objectively referring to all the time in a timeline.

High 3-A: High Universe level
Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D area or an infinite number of finite or infinite universes when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time, or more generally any realm of comparable size. Large numbers of infinite universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, only count for a higher level of this tier. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.

As before, and now even they refer to "higher dimensions" as if saying that meant only 1 thing, to which again, when it matters more they elaborate to what they meant.

Additionally, the statement below needs to be revised because I can't think of any verses that actually show that sort of distinction between creating a moment vs the entire timeline. Do we have any examples to work with?

"If it has generated a space-time expansion that creates an entire universal spacetime continuum from scratch, it is treated as Low 2-C. The difference between this and a 3-A Big Bang that also creates time being that the latter only creates a moment of a universe's time that will expand on its own after the Big Bang is over, therefore said Big Bang didn't create the length of time in the timeline, but kickstarted it from the beginning."

What verse actually shows the sort of distinction between Wall level and Small Buiding level? City level and Mountain level? The argument doesn't make sense, of course a verse wouldn't go over logistics, a Big Bangs only creates a universe and sometimes it's a super notable explosion to take for characters, or to look at.

Proposed Revision:

"Creating a supposed Big Bang that would create all the space of a universe with a volume at least equivalent to the observable universe or with an infinite 3-D volume, but not explicitly its time (unless this happens through a chain reaction of creating the space), through a physical explosion is a 3-A and High 3-A feat respectively, and grants Explosion Manipulation, Spatial Manipulation, and limited Time Manipulation."

"If it has generated a space-time expansion that creates an entire universal spacetime continuum from scratch, it is treated as Low 2-C. The difference between this and a 3-A or High 3-A Big Bang that also creates time being that the latter only creates time as a reaction to only explicitly creating space."

No Big Bang creates only space because Big Bangs create time and space, it would need to be super customized for a verse to have its Big Bang not create time, at which point we don't need to go over it.

Meanwhile, if a verse is a bit normal and its Big Bang created time, like real life, they didn't created an entire universal spacetime continuum from scratch/at once, me writting this in the present wasn't created by our Big Bang, you reading it in the future wasn't created by the Big Bang, nor the day after it, nor the year after it and so on, those are created on their own as time keeps expanding, the Big Bang just created the start.

Other examples of the word "time" meaning only a present and punctual time rather than the whole timeline are asking what time is it, the answer is just 1 very specific hour, or a character stopping time, they just stop the present, not the past and not the future (or may they do stop the future as a side effect of stopping the present, as in me destroying a pillar destroys a building as a side effect, but saying that I destroyed a pillar is more accurate), etc.

 

[Firestorm808]

@Eficiente

But when analyzing a franchise how do we tell the difference. Take DC's Big Bang for example. What narrative signs point to either a moment or the entire timestream being created by that big bang. What should be the default if there isn't any clarification on the matter?

 

[Firestorm808]

Here's what I'm seeing as the order of increasing attributes. The question is how to properly divvy them up between 3-A, High 3-A, and Low 2-C.

1. All Matter in an at least observable universe / At least observable universe sized Pocket Dimension
2. All Matter in an infinitely sized universe / Infinite sized Pocket Dimension
3. A Moment of Time + At least observable universe sized Space
4. A Moment of Time + Infinite Space
5. An Entire Timeline + At least observable universe sized Space
6. An Entire Timeline + Infinite Space

 

[Agnaa]

I'll need to think more/see other people's views on what sorts of evidence to look for, but for the tiers of the constructs you described, I'd say...

1. 3-A, explosion manip, limited space manip
2. High 3-A, explosion manip, limited space manip
3. 3-A or Unknown, At least 3-A, explosion manip, limited space manip, limited time manip
4. High 3-A, explosion manip, limited space manip, limited time manip
5. Low 2-C, explosion manip, limited space manip, limited time manip
6. Low 2-C, explosion manip, limited space manip, limited time manip

 

[Eficiente]

@Eficiente

But when analyzing a franchise how do we tell the difference. Take DC's Big Bang for example. What narrative signs point to either a moment or the entire timestream being created by that big bang. What should be the default if there isn't any clarification on the matter?

The default is it not creating a whole timeline at once/from scratch because not even the real life Big Bang does that, we wouldn't give it a greater tier than the "real" Big Bang but its very same tier (Which even saying it out loud sounds like a lot but it isn't).

Here's what I'm seeing as the order of increasing attributes. The question is how to properly divvy them up between 3-A, High 3-A, and Low 2-C.

All Matter in an at least observable universe / At least observable universe sized Pocket Dimension

3-A.

< All Matter in an infinitely sized universe / Infinite sized Pocket Dimension

High 3-A if there is an infinite amount of matter. Maybe the space is infinite but the matter in it isn't in which case High 3-A to due to creating infinite space.

< A Moment of Time + At least observable universe sized Space

3-A.

< A Moment of Time + Infinite Space

High 3-A.

< An Entire Timeline + At least observable universe sized Space

It says so there, Low 2-C, which kinda should be called Timeline level.

< An Entire Timeline + Infinite Space

Low 2-C. And all the abilities Agnaa said.
------------
Something like recreate a universe at one's image with everything in the past being changed and even the future should likey be Low 2-C if it happens at once and time was said to have been created, but if the changes in history happen due to messing with events by Causality Manip, Fate Manip, Time Travel or messing up with people and events manually without having created all the time in the timeline with those events already changed then it's not Low 2-C.

Also, 3-A takes into account the "current" observable universe, but as the universe always expands it is really accurate to say that the Big Bang created a universe the size of our current observable universe? It created a smaller universe than the one we have now and over time it expanded on its own to be as big as it is now. What was the size of the universe when the Big Bang happened? I know it's not an explosion in real life and simply the start, but even in fiction where it's an explosion why should be assume that it leaves the universe at its peak size? That would assume that the universe/time and space don't grow bigger over time, which ironically is the Big Bang.

 

[Agnaa]

Also, 3-A takes into account the "current" observable universe, but as the universe always expands it is really accurate to say that the Big Bang created a universe the size of our current observable universe?

There's a bunch of stuff about how we tier cosmic stuff that's inaccurate, since 3-A is based on busting a neutron star at the edge of the universe with an energy wave that exponentially degrades in power as it expands. Even when not talking about the big bang, you'd be hard-pressed to find a creation feat that functions like that, but that's how we tier them anyway.

 

[Antvasima]

Should I send a notification to the remaining sysops to participate here as well?

 

[Firestorm808]

Yes. We'll need help setting the guidelines for each level.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

@AKM sama @Promestein @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @SomebodyData @Dragonmasterxyz @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Saikou_The_Lewd_King @DarkDragonMedeus @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions

Would you be willing to help out here please?

 

[Qawsedf234]

I agree with the premise, but in my option the best thing to do is include and example from a franchise of a 3-A, High 3-A, and Low 2-C feat. I can see the explanation becoming a word salad to some users like some of our Tier 1 explanations.

 

[N_Kardashev]

Question remains is how much time there must be in order for to be considered a "timeline"? For space its 93 billion lightyears to be Low2c. So all 13.7 billion years of history? Also I hardly consider the creation of the universe via the Big Bang a chain reaction feat like this thing is trying to imply, as its all part of the same force. Only the acceleration part of the inflation model is not.

 

[Agnaa]

Question remains is how much time there must be in order for to be considered a "timeline"? For space its 93 billion lightyears to be Low2c. So all 13.7 billion years of history? Also I hardly consider the creation of the universe via the Big Bang a chain reaction feat like this thing is trying to imply, as its all part of the same force. Only the acceleration part of the inflation model is not.

Our current standard is just "The entire axis of time" or in other words "The totality of that timeline's time". If a series has a timeline that's only 100 years long, destroying/affecting/creating all of that is Low 2-C.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

@Eficiente Gave permission me to comment here.

Strictly talking about "Big Bangs" here. The Cosmic Inflation theory is the most widely accepted scientific theory of the Big Bang. It's also already implemented into standard models of Cosmology.

According to these 2 articles

Inflation in the standard cosmological model

The inflationary paradigm is now part of the standard cosmological model as a description of its primordial phase. While its original motivation was to solve the standard problems of the hot big bang model, it was soon understood that it offers a natural theory for the origin of the large-scale...

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

Inflation in the standard cosmological model

The inflationary paradigm is now part of the standard cosmological model as a description of its primordial phase. While its original motivation was t…

www.sciencedirect.com

Nasa loves the theory

WMAP Inflation Theory

Public access site for The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and associated information about cosmology.

wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov

According to "An International Team of Physicist" Inflation cannot have more than 3 dimensions. It is something strictly only limited to the 3dimensions.

The net result is that inflation would have been limited to three dimensions. Additional dimensions, if they exist, would remain infinitesimal in size, far too small for us to perceive.

Filling the early universe with knots can explain why the world is three-dimensional

Filling the universe with knots shortly after it popped into existence 13.8 billion years ago provides a neat explanation for why we inhabit a three-dimensional world. That is the basic idea advanced by an out-of-the-box theory developed by an international team of physicists.

www.sciencedaily.com

Although, most Physicist when talking about inflation use "Spacetime" as in the expansion of space and time. Alan Guth for example, the creator of the theory interchanges Universe, and Spacetime often. not sure if there is any special meaning to that or not though.

---

Cosmic Inflation Theory also has 4 critical observations verified with 2 that don't have sufficient evidence yet. this more than any other theory.

Since inflation was first proposed and refined during the early-to-mid 1980s, we've learned a lot about our cosmic origins. In addition to reproducing the hot Big Bang's successes and explaining these otherwise inexplicable initial conditions, it made six novel predictions about properties the Universe should have today, with four observationally verified and two not yet sufficiently tested to know for certain. Among most people who study the early Universe, inflation is accepted as the new consensus theory. We might not know everything there is to know about inflation, but either it — or something so similar to it that we don't have an observation to tell them apart — must have happened.

What Came First: Inflation Or The Big Bang?

The origin story for our Universe got a major revision nearly 40 years ago. Time to catch up.

www.forbes.com

Cosmic Inflation setups the conditions that led to the "Bang"

The answer lies in his theory of cosmic inflation. “It sets up the conditions for the big bang—like a prequel,” says Guth, a professor of physics at MIT. For developing that theory, Guth and two of his colleagues, Andrei Linde at Stanford University and Alexei Starobinsky at the Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences near Moscow, were awarded the 2014 Kavli Prize in astrophysics.

The Founder of Cosmic Inflation Theory on Cosmology's Next Big Ideas

Physicist Alan Guth, the father of cosmic inflation theory, describes emerging ideas about where our universe comes from, what else is out there, and what caused it to exist in the first place.

www.scientificamerican.com

The problem is determining a size for the inflation, as no one has a solid answer but the renown, and reputable physicist believe the inflation of the Universe had to be on a gargantuan scale (Bigger than a Grapefruit or just a few meters). The universe was fragile at this time that any shift anywhere would then later lead to a "Dead Universe." (this is a scientific term here for what im trying to describe but i don't remember it lol. I think it was something like "Fine-Tuning of the Universe?")

However, i think we should also consider context of a verse. For example, if a verse has an "Infinite sized' universe but they also had a big bang. That should be "High 3-A." Where as if a verse states that the Big bang gave birth to time, and the Universe. That should likely be low 2-C? Those were just some random examples.

Anyways, This research document suggest this massive size for example.

"After 10e-30 seconds of inflation, even a Universe initially of Plank size 10e-33cm attains a large size of 10^10^10 cm. Clearly, inflation increases the size of the Universe by many orders of magnitude which is a major concept behind how inflation solves problems of the BigBang Cosmology"

(PDF) A Review on Cosmic Inflation

PDF | The Standard Big Bang Cosmology gives the most accepted concept about the beginning and evolution of the Universe. However, it has problems: the... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

The original creator of the theory (Alan Guth) has his own number.

"In fact, Guth's calculations suggest that the entire universe may be at least 10^23 times bigger than the size of the observable universe (the part within the horizon, that we are able, at least in principle, to see), roughly equal to the ratio of the size of the observable universe to the planet Earth. Thus, although the observable universe may appear to be effectively flat, the entire universe may be completely different in nature. Also, although an enormous number of magnetic monopoles could well have arisen in the inflationary early universe, the chances of actually observing even one magnetic monopole are infinitesimally small in a universe of such immense size.

Thus, the incredibly vast and fast expansion of the universe caused by inflation "solved" both Robert Dickes flatness problem and Guth's own monopole problem. But it also solved the horizon problem: according to the inflation theory, the universe blew up so quickly that there was no time for the essential homogeneity to be broken, and the universe after inflation would therefore have been very uniform, even though the parts of it were not still in touch with each other."

Cosmic Inflation - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

The Physics of the Universe - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - Cosmic Inflation

www.physicsoftheuniverse.com

An Alternative Math problem suggest a volume of 10e78 (10e156) times as large in volume, thus including about 10e100 (10e178) stars.

"There are many models and scenarios about how inflation occurred in the early universe42, but all of them consider an epoch of exponential expansion as a ∝ exp(Hi ti), where a is the scale factor of the universe, Hi the Hubble parameter at the time of inflation, and ti the duration of inflation. If the inflation occurred at the energy scale of the grand unified theory of particle physics (10e16 GeV), Hi would be about 10e37 s−1. To solve the horizon and flatness problems, the e-folding number of inflation (Ni ≡ Hi ti) must be larger than44,45Ni,min ~ 60. If Ni = Ni,min, a causal patch region expanded by the inflation has now the same size as the observable universe. It would be a fine tuning if the inflation duration is extremely close to the minimal value to solve the problems (i.e., Ni − Ni,min ≪ Ni,min). Rather, we naturally expect Ni − Ni,min ≳ Ni,min. If the inflation duration is twice (three times) as much as that required to solve the problems, the homogeneous universe should extend e60 (e120) times as much as the currently observable universe, which is 10e78 (10e156) times as large in volume, thus including about 10e100 (10e178) stars."

Emergence of life in an inflationary universe - Scientific Reports

Abiotic emergence of ordered information stored in the form of RNA is an important unresolved problem concerning the origin of life. A polymer longer than 40–100 nucleotides is necessary to expect a self-replicating activity, but the formation of such a long polymer having a correct nucleotide...

www.nature.com

 

[Agnaa]

I don't quite understand the point of that post. Our universe beginning with a period of rapid inflation didn't seem to be under question.

 

[Firestorm808]

I don't quite understand the point of that post. Our universe beginning with a period of rapid inflation didn't seem to be under question.

I believe the post in proposing that the natural big bang created the entire time axis rather than a moment, though I may be mistaken. That time didn't need to grow/inflate like space.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I believe the post in proposing that the natural big bang created the entire time axis rather than a moment, though I may be mistaken. That time didn't need to grow/inflate like space.

No, the point wasn’t about the the natural big bang created the entire time axis, but rather we should take into consideration the context of the Verse involving any big bang feats.

I apologize for the interruption, but it is more related to the scientific theories relating to the Big Bang if anything.

 

[Eficiente]

The idea was to point out how this bit I said

Also, 3-A takes into account the "current" observable universe, but as the universe always expands it is really accurate to say that the Big Bang created a universe the size of our current observable universe? It created a smaller universe than the one we have now and over time it expanded on its own to be as big as it is now. What was the size of the universe when the Big Bang happened? I know it's not an explosion in real life and simply the start, but even in fiction where it's an explosion why should be assume that it leaves the universe at its peak size? That would assume that the universe/time and space don't grow bigger over time, which ironically is the Big Bang.

was wrong.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

There is kind of multiple points to it.

1.) Showing the reliability of Cosmic Inflation theory.

2.) What efficient has said above me

3.) The Inflation (Big Bang) is limited to only the 3rd dimension, according to this article. (So no Time axis stuff involved, unless we take each mention of "Spacetime" in every article at full value?)

Filling the early universe with knots can explain why the world is three-dimensional

Filling the universe with knots shortly after it popped into existence 13.8 billion years ago provides a neat explanation for why we inhabit a three-dimensional world. That is the basic idea advanced by an out-of-the-box theory developed by an international team of physicists.

www.sciencedaily.com

4.) A verses cosmological context should be taken into consideration when reviewing "Big Bangs." Edit: For Example, Infinite Sized Universes are shown and stated, but so is a big bang that characters scale too (High 3-A). The Big Bang explicitly stated to create time alongside the Universe, and characters scale to it. Just a couple examples. (Low 2-C?)

5.) Perhaps a default level of power should be established for "Big Bangs?" (A question)

Edit: I apologize for the sloppy manner that I have posted it in..

 

[Agnaa]

The idea was to point out how this bit I said

was wrong.

It isn't necessarily wrong, we know that the universe is at minimum 10x larger than our observable universe, and we know that the size of our observable universe would've been compressed into a tiny, tiny space at the time of the big bang. I wouldn't put too much stock into the various estimates scientists have given over the years of the kind Unshakable listed because there are so many of them that differ wildly in their end answer.

And hell, if we took those estimations seriously and applied them to fiction we'd still end up with the same issue; the universe has grown since, so destroying a contemporary universe would involve affecting a far greater volume than creating the big bang. The stuff brought up is only a resolution if you use different estimates for deriving creation and destruction.

There is kind of multiple points to it.

I guess, but most of those didn't really seem under contention to me. We were already trying to establish default power levels, incorporate a verse's cosmological context, and were taking cosmic inflation theory as reliable.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

It isn't necessarily wrong, we know that the universe is at minimum 10x larger than our observable universe, and we know that the size of our observable universe would've been compressed into a tiny, tiny space at the time of the big bang. I wouldn't put too much stock into the various estimates scientists have given over the years of the kind Unshakable listed because there are so many of them that differ wildly in their end answer.

And hell, if we took those estimations seriously and applied them to fiction we'd still end up with the same issue; the universe has grown since, so destroying a contemporary universe would involve affecting a far greater volume than creating the big bang. The stuff brought up is only a resolution if you use different estimates for deriving creation and destruction.

There is kind of multiple points to it.

I guess, but most of those didn't really seem under contention to me. We were already trying to establish default power levels, incorporate a verse's cosmological context, and were taking cosmic inflation theory as reliable.

The original creator had to come up with a size to solve some issues. This revision solved the monopole problem, flatness issue, and the horizon problem. It's probably the most reliable estimation for the size of the universe at its inflation (Not grapefruit sized)

When a character references the big bang I imagine refencing it's moment of inflation before it started to slow down. (When refencing a power)

But I digress. I'm a bit confused on what this thread is working towards. I am sorry for causing any issues. I'll go back to watching and reading..

 

[Agnaa]

The original creator had to come up with a size to solve some issues. This revision solved the monopole problem, flatness issue, and the horizon problem. It's probably the most reliable estimation for the size of the universe at its inflation (Not grapefruit sized)

When a character references the big bang I imagine refencing it's moment of inflation before it started to slow down. (When refencing a power)

Right, it's just that even if that's true, Eficiente's concern about the universe being smaller at the moment of inflation than it is now would still be causing issues. All using a different estimate would change would be the minimum for reaching 3-A.

But I digress. I'm a bit confused on what this thread is working towards.

Trying to co-ordinate how to handle Big Bang feats, since our Big Bang and Tiering System pages both have different ways of handling the temporal factor involved, where some verses involve a "Big Bang" "creating time" (or more generally, starting a universe where time didn't exist beforehand). We'd need to determine what to rate this, and what bits of evidence a series could provide to alter what rating we give it.

 

[Kulf_Boba]

bump

 

[Antvasima]

@Agnaa

What are the conclusions here?

 

[Agnaa]

It seems like Firestorm, DDM, and Qawsed agree, while Eficiente and I (at least partially) disagree. We all agree that one or both of the pages should be changed, but not the exact ways in which they should.

Although, Firestorm heard Eficiente and I out without pointing out a host of problems. I'd expect this to reach a good compromise with more input.

 

[Antvasima]

@Firestorm808 @DarkDragonMedeus @Qawsedf234 @Eficiente

I would appreciate if you all try to reach an agreement here.

 

[Agnaa]

DT also provided insights on this in the last thread about it, so I'd suggest pinging him too.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

@DontTalkDT

We would appreciate further help from you as well here.

 

[Firestorm808]

@Antvasima

We seem to have settled on Tiers for the different Big Bang outcomes, but we still have to identify what narrative clues to look out for when classifying that series' Big Bang.

If there are no details, the default seems to be a "moment of time" being made, but how do we tell if an entire timeline is made or not.

With this in mind, we would have to look at the various profiles that need to be adjusted in accordance with the ending agreement.

 

[Firestorm808]

@Antvasima

Now that I think about it, you don't need to destroy multiple entire timelines to be Multiversal, you just need to destroy universes on a 4-D scale. You don't need to destroy the entire past or future as well. So, why are we applying that to Low 2-C Big Bangs? Creating/destroying a 4-D space, in general, should qualify, right?

Take a hypothetical marvel character that destroys ten universes but not necessarily 10 entire timelines.

 

[Agnaa]

Technically, destroying 10 universes (but not entire timelines) should only be 3-A. I thought that was a part of our system we applied. I've given some characters "3-A, possibly 2-C" since it was ambiguous whether they destroyed entire timelines or not.

 

[Antvasima]

I am uncertain where exactly that we are supposed to draw the line in that regard, but think that destroying 10 entire universal spacetime continuums is counted as 2-C.

 

[N_Kardashev]

dont tell me the big bang IRL is also only 3-A(?)

 

[Agnaa]

I am uncertain where exactly that we are supposed to draw the line in that regard, but think that destroying 10 entire universal spacetime continuums is counted as 2-C.

I see "entire universal spacetime continuums" as being synonymous with "entire timelines". If the entire timeline isn't destroyed then it wouldn't be the entire spacetime continuum.

 

[DaReaperMan]

dont tell me the big bang IRL is also only 3-A(?)

We don't know if its 3-A, High 3-A, or Low 2-C.