It has indeed changed to what Assalt proposed.
What quote are you talking about? The Pulsar thing was used only to determine the new starting cap for 3-A feats. Any proper universe-busting feat or feats on this level will automatically default to this specific value, provided it's not empty and it's at least 93 billion light years in diameter.
I mean his quote where he said in regards to tiering, we treat the objects as secondary.
Destroying the realm itself, an explosion that can cover the realm would still scale to high 3-A regardless.
The objects only stand as reference for calculating the energy yield for that tier. Most feats in this realm are statement-based (Usually) so it doesn't affect them to start with, as Assalt had repeatedly insisted before.
I don't see the need. It would still be the size of the observable universe that we know of, simply using the number itself is too vague, because the key term here is "observable universe". And until the worldwide scientific community comes to a brand new consensus about a new size value for the universe, and/or gives the crown of "Most conventionally durable object in the known universe" to some other celestial object, there will be no changes in either the distance value of the universe or the name it goes by, those are the site rules for now, as was decreed in a CRT.
This is for 3D spaces alone, not tier 2
And in an empty space there is no energy yield or a way to determine what it will be.
Not really an issue for High 3-A and above.
Cool, I'm not talking about EE-based destruction, I'm talking about destruction based on physical attacks like explosions, shockwaves and whatnot, or complete collapse of the realms. Whatever happens in the EE thread depends on Ultima and DT anyway. And specifically for High 3-A stuff and above (Tier 2 and 1 as well).
Hopefully he responds in 15 minutes and not in 2 years, or worse.
I can agree that methods of destructions such as explosion and shockwaves would scale regardless but collapse of the realm would still depend on the method.
Like KLOL I actually also forgot about this.
In this case, I'd be inclined to disagree due to the "significantly affect" part.
At that stage it honestly wouldn't matter so long as it's done with pure physical brute force or some other similar offensive maneuver (This would actually apply doubly so for infinite-sized realms and above), so I disagree.
And how can an empty space be significantly affected? It cannot be shaken or stabilized or what we will call affected.
Can you explain? I cannot understand.
Sending shockwaves propagating through it, explosions engulfing it, some other supernatural attacks that completely change its appearance or characteristics, so on and so forth. The list is near endless.
All the first examples like explosions and things that travel will still scale like I said previously, supernatural attacks and haxes on the other hand would not, since that cannot be quantified to begin with.
Guess we'll agree to disagree on that front.
Prolly the best move for now, yes.
If the two realms are proven to indeed be separate spacetime continuums, then I believe the past visibly not being affected isn't much of an issue. If time is monolithic and past, present and future exist all at once as part of a single structure, then the merging could (And would have to, at least) affect the future of the two realms, merging them into one. And since we consider time to have no end, this would be a feat of affecting infinite time, and thus still Tier 2.
I either forgot about that thread (This happens a lot) or I haven't participated in it. Mind directing me to it?
If we consider matter to be secondary to the spacetime fabric and completely subject to whatever alterations happen in it, then destroying that entirely absolutely is tierable, yes, even if there is no content to speak of, in there, since even if there was, it would be destroyed when the aforementioned fabric is.
It isn't, but it is how it's currently treated on the wiki, at least.
Someone pointed out that our Tier 3 standards are described as being able to create a blast which, if detonated from Earth, would destroy stars on the outskirts of the Universe. I'm not necessarily opposed to tiering the destruction of empty space but the question is how? Do we treat it as though it were filled with matter anyways? That seems a bit off to me.
Perhaps that should also be revised.
I should note that this assumption was merely used to find out the new Tier border of 3-A. It wasn't the sole and only way to be designated as 3-A, it's just one of many ways to get there.
Maybe so, but in any case I doubt it'd ultimately impact on the matter at hand that much, upon giving it further thought. Feynman's bead argument has to do with gravitational waves, which are spacetime curvature. Meanwhile this is (At least partly) about outright destruction of spacetime, which isn't really a thing in physics (Technically speaking, even the ideal case of a singularity isn't really spacetime being "destroyed" so much as curved infinitely)
Yeah that's sort of my thing. In our universe we generally assume all space has energy but the exact nature of this is a bit fuzzy to me, but it appears to be extremely small (though on a universal scale it'd still be considerable) but it appears to be the subject of a lot of controversy in terms of just how much it has. So I guess my question is, if we would treat the destruction of our own universe as 3-A, how would we treat that same destruction if we considered the universe absent of any matter or energy?
Nothing that produces energy that causes destruction can destroy space-time, the only thing that came close in all the stuff I went to is a black hole merger. That in itself does not even destroy space-time it alters it significantly.
My point for this argument is that, if it was said to be done with raw power, we can grant the tier and maybe the hax. If it was not we should just grant the hax.
Space-time distortion warps/alters space and not destroy it, so I would not really count it, if the argument is what tier is for destroying just space itself.
Occupied today, so, whatever threads request my input I'll check later. Just noting this down as a heads-up.
I'm fine with this for now, although I may attempt to revise the infinite size thing later on as I think there are still some problems to be solved, but this thread is losing momentum fast so it's best we get this wrapped up sooner than later.
It's inherently a physics-breaking thing, yes, as I pointed out above. That said, DontTalk expressed an opinion in the aforementioned EE thread that I find myself very much agreeing with, namely:
Personally, I'd apply the above logic to this case as well. Just tier it by however large the space in question is.
Looks okay, as long we dont scale such things to normal statistics
Ultima, DontTalk, DatkGrath and Qawsedf.
The all agreed with proposal 1.
