Tier 2 Revision: Merging 3D Spaces and Destroying Empty Space

[Deagonx]

Rehashing an earlier thread that got side-tracked by a misunderstanding. There are two proposals, both seem relatively uncontroversial to an extent.

Proposal 1: The merging of two 3-D spaces that are universal in size is not Tier 2 unless those spaces are confirmed to be spacetime continuums (4-D). This tracks with our current standards, as we only treat spacetime continuums as Tier 2 whereas large 3-D spaces are Tier 3, so merging two Tier 3 spaces should naturally also be Tier 3.

Proposal 2: The destruction of a universe-sized space is often tiered based on the content of the space itself. However, if that space is considered empty it should not be considered tierable for AP as nothing has properly been destroyed, and should only be considered range. We tier destruction feats based on the energy required to destroy something, but there is no logical way to tier the destruction or creation of a space in which there is no matter.

Votes

Proposal 1:
Agree:
Neutral:
Disagree:

Proposal 2:
Agree:
Neutral:
Disagree:

 

[Deagonx]

@PrinceofPein @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara @Eficiente @Lonkitt @KLOL506 @Maverick_Zero_X @DarkDragonMedeus @Antvasima @CloverDragon03 @Theglassman12

 

[KLOL506]

Proposal 1: It should be explicitly noted that this is for 3D spaces only that have not been independently confirmed to be separate space-times, in which case I'd agree. BUT KEEP IT OUT OF PLACES WHERE WE ALREADY HAVE CONFIRMATION OF SEPARATE SPACE-TIMES, AND MARK IT IN BOLD, so that we do not have future confusions regarding the matter.

Proposal 2: I retain my disagreement from the previous thread due to the inherent nature of tiers High 3-A and above, and I am unfortunately inclined to agree with DarkDragonMedeus on that front. Hence, I propose that this be for 3-A and below, not any higher than that.

 

[KLOL506]

@AKM sama @Executor_N0 @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @Emirp sumitpo @Lonkitt @Planck69 @Theglassman12 @DarkGrath

Your evaluations here would be appreciated.

 

[Deagonx]

Proposal 2: I retain my disagreement from the previous thread due to the inherent nature of tiers High 3-A and above, and I am unfortunately inclined to agree with DarkDragonMedeus on that front.

It'd still be significant if you agree up to 3-A, but I'd like to explore the H3-A disagreement with DDM a bit more once he arrives.

 

[KLOL506]

It'd still be significant if you agree up to 3-A, but I'd like to explore the H3-A disagreement with DDM a bit more once he arrives.

Yes, I agree that it should be for 3-A and below, but not any higher than that.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Currently, I share KLOL's sentiments

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

I'm also in agreement with KLOL, what the hell happened while i was gone though

 

[PrinceofPein]

BUT KEEP IT OUT OF PLACES WHERE WE ALREADY HAVE CONFIRMATION OF SEPARATE SPACE-TIMES, AND MARK IT IN BOLD,

Only merging of universes that fit our separate space time continuum standards highlighted in our Universe page, qualifies for tier 2. That is the main point for one. Universes that do not fit that is tier 3. I do not think anyone will have a problem with that wording.

For point two, infinite times zero is effectively zero so you logically need zero energy to destroy such spaces. But let me wait for DDM.

 

[KLOL506]

Only merging of universes that fit our separate space time continuum standards highlighted in our Universe page, qualifies for tier 2. That is the main point for one. Universes that do not fit that is tier 3.

I think I remember making that painfully clear in the previous thread here already. So IDK why you're bringing this up again.

Whether the universes qualify for our Tier 2 standards or not is not relevant to this thread, that was already settled in your prior Tier 2 threads. This thread is only for verses where there is no confirmation of separate space-times as per the standards, not a discussion about the standards to qualify themselves. That's already case-by-case, verse-by-verse to see if they qualify or not.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Basically, if the universes are accepted as separate space-time continua, it's a Tier 2 feat. Otherwise, it's a Tier 3 feat. That's fine by me

 

[PrinceofPein]

I think I remember making that painfully clear in the previous thread here. So IDK why you're bringing this up again.

It is a suggestion on how it can be worded. Not an argument, idk why you read it as such.

Whether the universes qualify for our Tier 2 standards or not is not relevant to this thread, that was already settled in your prior Tier 2 threads. This thread is only for verses where there is no confirmation of separate space-times as per the standards, not a discussion about the standards to qualify themselves.

It is though since only verses that qualify for tier 2 (space-time continuums) merging is a tier 2 feat like I said and you also did.
And this thread is to cover what qualifies and what does not. And I am wondering where in my post I am trying to argue for what qualifies for separate universes like you claimed.

The wordings can be hashed out later but to clarify my post clearly
What qualifies for tier 2 merging is
1. Spatio-temporally separate universes
2. Space-time continuums (all of last, present and future of a universe)
3. Parallel timelines.

 

[KLOL506]

It is a suggestion on how it can be worded. Not an argument, idk why you read it as such.

Because that's what it looks like from a first glance.

It is though since only verses that qualify for tier 2 (space-time continuums) merging is a tier 2 feat like I said and you also did.

Yeah and? We judge the viability of those universes qualifying for the standards separately anyway so I don't see the need to go over it again and again.

And this thread is to cover what qualifies and what does not.

So why are you bringing up what it takes to qualify for Tier 2 here then?

And I am wondering where in my post I am trying to argue for what qualifies for separate universes like you claimed.

The wordings can be hashed out later but to clarify my post clearly
What qualifies for tier 2 merging is
1. Spatio-temporally separate universes
2. Space-time continuums (all of last, present and future of a universe)
3. Parallel timelines.

Cool, I don't see the need to repeat this all over again when a simple linking to the "Universe" page does the job better than whatever you typed up here.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Because that's what it looks like from a first glance

Try and relax not everything is an argument, also even if it was an argument how are you going to argue against me linking the universe page and saying only merging of what qualifies here is tier 2, when that is what you also support. You folks can be funny.

when a simple linking to the "Universe" page does the job better than whatever you typed up here

I literally did that and you attacked that also, I literally linked that page and you went hats out on it also, like what do you want?
You have no point, just being needlessly confrontational.

 

[KLOL506]

Try and relax not everything is an argument, also even if it was an argument how are you going to argue against me linking the universe page and saying only merging of what qualifies here is tier 2, when that is what you also support. You folks can be funny.

I literally did that and you attacked that also, I literally linked that page and you went hats out on it also, like what do you want?
You have no point, just being needlessly confrontational.

Pein, I'm going to urge you not to jump to accusations right outta the gate. We wouldn't even be here right now if not for your lapse in miscommunication, which is what led to this kerfuffle in the first place, and then there's the fact that I of all people had to point out that your OP was worded poorly to which you responded that you and I were arguing for the same points, yet you still kept your OP as is which gave off an impression contradicting what I wrote, until I pointed it out and Deagon stepped in and made this thread.

Long story short, you need to work on communicating your proposals better than this, like in the way we did (More direct and simplified approach instead of the wordy and complicated one), else we end up with confusions like this and end up wasting time for literally no reason at all.

 

[ImmortalDread]

If anyone wants me create draft (after the consensus) let me know. I actually prefer it if it is on universe page, but FAQ works too.

 

[KLOL506]

I think Deagon's wording suits our purposes, but it should preferably go to the "Merging Feats" pages, if one exists. Or wherever the topic of Merging Feats is covered in extensive detail.

How about this:

"For universes that are not confirmed to be separate space-times, merging said universes will be a Tier 3 feat. For universes that are confirmed to be separate space times, it will be a Tier 2 feat".

"Conditions to qualify for Tier 2/being a spacetime continuum here"

It's a bit short, but that's what we should be aiming for here.

 

[Deagonx]

"For universes that are not confirmed to be separate space-times, merging said universes will be a Tier 3 feat. For universes that are confirmed to be separate space times, it will be a Tier 2 feat".

I think the emphasis on separate here makes it seem like the focal point is whether they are distinct spaces, rather than that each space is a spacetime continuum, so I would phrase it as such:

"For spaces that are not confirmed to be spacetime continuums, merging of said spaces will be a tier 3 feat. For spaces that are confirmed to be spacetime continuums, it will be a Tier 2 feat."

 

[KLOL506]

I think the emphasis on separate here makes it seem like the focal point is whether they are distinct spaces, rather than that each space is a spacetime continuum, so I would phrase it as such:

"For spaces that are not confirmed to be spacetime continuums, merging of said spaces will be a tier 3 feat. For spaces that are confirmed to be spacetime continuums, it will be a Tier 2 feat."

I mean it's not going to matter if it's not universe-sized (At the moment that is, until Ultima cooks something up in the near future), so...

But if you want that to be the approach, by all means.

 

[Deagonx]

I mean it's not going to matter if it's not universe-sized (At the moment that is, until Ultima cooks something up in the near future), so...

Oh, good point, then I'd say this:

"For universes that are not confirmed to be space-time continuums, merging said universes will be a Tier 3 feat. For universes that are confirmed to be separate space-time continuums, it will be a Tier 2 feat"

What is Ultima planning to revise?

 

[KLOL506]

Oh, good point, then I'd say this:

"For universes that are not confirmed to be space-time continuums, merging said universes will be a Tier 3 feat. For universes that are confirmed to be separate space-time continuums, it will be a Tier 2 feat"

Meh. Little difference from what I wrote, minus the "continuum".

Still, I'd prefer we get some confirmation from staff beyond this.

What is Ultima planning to revise?

At this point, I have no idea anymore, and it's prolly not gonna be anytime soon. Certainly not happening within the next two years, I'd reckon. No point in worrying about it at the moment.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Ultima_Reality

 

[KLOL506]

@Ultima_Reality

I already tagged him here LOL, expect him to respond in either a few minutes or hours or a day, or potentially in about 1 business year. Or maybe never. Hopefully it isn't the latter two.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Hopping in here for a bit because this caught my eye. May or may not reply back.

Proposal 1: The merging of two 3-D spaces that are universal in size is not Tier 2 unless those spaces are confirmed to be spacetime continuums (4-D). This tracks with our current standards, as we only treat spacetime continuums as Tier 2 whereas large 3-D spaces are Tier 3, so merging two Tier 3 spaces should naturally also be Tier 3.

Seems fine.

Proposal 2: The destruction of a universe-sized space is often tiered based on the content of the space itself. However, if that space is considered empty it should not be considered tierable for AP as nothing has properly been destroyed, and should only be considered range. We tier destruction feats based on the energy required to destroy something, but there is no logical way to tier the destruction or creation of a space in which there is no matter.

This sounds flimsier, and depending on the method of destruction, may be completely invalid as well. If you have an infinite space that's completely empty, and a character destroys it by letting out an omnidirectional blast that engulfs the whole thing, or somesuch, then that's obviously still High 3-A. For a less obvious case: If you use Existence Erasure to do away with the entire fabric of an infinite (yet empty) space, we'd still rate that at High 3-A, since EE is deemed to be AP-like enough to be given a tier at sufficiently large ranges (Unless I am mistaken, that is)

Thirdly, to quote one of our pages:

Durability Negation

The ability that allows users to damage the target, regardless of their durability. In particular, it enables causing serious damage to an opponent, even with the user's lack of comparable or greater attack potency. A good example of ignoring durability would be poison, as it can kill a person...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Space-Time Manipulation - Characters who have the ability to manipulate space and time, can easily bypass physical durability of objects. Conventional durability does not matter, because the matter is secondary in relation to space and time. For example, it's as easy to distort a material object by distorting a portion of the space in which it is located. Or even send the object (or part of it) back or forward in time. The effect on the object will be the same, whether it's a sheet of titanium or a piece of cardboard).

It seems we consider the material contents of a realm to be ultimately secondary in relation to its spacetime fabric. By that token, destroying the very fabric of a space or spacetime, whether it's filled with things or not, would still net a tier. After all, if you remove all the contents of spacetime, it is still there, just without any curvature (Since there's no mass-energy to bend it anymore).

 

[Deagonx]

If you have an infinite space that's completely empty, and a character destroys it by letting out an omnidirectional blast that engulfs the whole thing, or somesuch, then that's obviously still High 3-A

To be honest, I am more or less okay conceding this, but I am curious as to why it's obviously High 3-A.

By that token, destroying the very fabric of a space or spacetime, whether it's filled with things or not, would still net a tier. After all, if you remove all the contents of spacetime, it is still there, just without any curvature (Since there's no mass-energy to bend it anymore).

The question would be what tier it would net, and why. The manip page just seems to suggest that manipulating space and time is tantamount to being able to manipulate matter. I am not sure this is sound physics wise, but I also don't think it has drastic consequences for this revision either.

 

[Eficiente]

I believe the topic of merging realities could use its own page here. I don't think people realize how easy it is to screw over what they might think is a 2-C feat. Here's an altered bit from a comment I made in the other thread:

if it's proven in-universe that all of time wasn't affect then we agree it's not 2-C. -> In many verses where this happens, legit everyone remembers the times where the universes weren't fused, it was a notable thing of the past and how they have to live is the now. Structures and characters' lives likewise stay with their life up to the point being the same, rather than with their history changed for the new context given by the 2 universes being fused. -> So needless to say, those cases don't count.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Proposal 1: It should be explicitly noted that this is for 3D spaces only that have not been independently confirmed to be separate space-times, in which case I'd agree. BUT KEEP IT OUT OF PLACES WHERE WE ALREADY HAVE CONFIRMATION OF SEPARATE SPACE-TIMES, AND MARK IT IN BOLD, so that we do not have future confusions regarding the matter.

Proposal 2: I retain my disagreement from the previous thread due to the inherent nature of tiers High 3-A and above, and I am unfortunately inclined to agree with DarkDragonMedeus on that front. Hence, I propose that this be for 3-A and below, not any higher than that.

I agree with this above.

 

[Deagonx]

I am not as persuaded that an infinitely sized space should scale to infinite power, but I don't feel so strongly about it to hold up the revision. I have looked into the notion of whether empty space has energy and the results are a bit more complicated than I think people realize.

 

[Antvasima]

Like Ultima, I think that suggestion 1 seems fine, but not suggestion 2.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I was given permission by OP to say my little piece.

I disagree with proposal 2. An empty universe is not actually empty. Empty space is teeming with energy. When one destroys the universe they will also be destroying the quantum fields that exist throughout space.

 

[Deagonx]

Empty space is teeming with energy. When one destroys the universe they will also be destroying the quantum fields that exist throughout space.

Can you provide a source for this? My understanding is that when we say empty space "has energy" we are actually talking about things travelling through it or within it (gravitational waves, dark energy/matter, light), not the actual empty space itself.

Further, even if we do consider empty space to have energy (an assertion I would like to debate further, pending your source/fuller argument), we would still need to determine how much energy is in empty space in order to scale it.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Can you provide a source for this? My understanding is that when we say empty space "has energy" we are actually talking about things travelling through it or within it (gravitational waves, dark energy/matter, light), not the actual empty space itself.

Vacuum energy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quantum field theory - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Further, even if we do consider empty space to have energy (an assertion I would like to debate further, pending your source/fuller argument), we would still need to determine how much energy is in empty space in order to scale it.

One measurements of energy is an upper limit of 10^-9 J per cubic meter.

 

[Deagonx]

From what I can tell, the exact value or even existence of the cosmological constant based on these theories is extremely controversial, so if theoretical physicists cannot come to a definitive answer I am not sure how to implement it into our tiering system. It also warrants consideration whether we should assume that an empty space in a fictional setting should be thought of as containing dark energy by default.

The discovery of dark energy (or, more appropriately, the extremely well supported theory of dark energy) was largely derived from the observation that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. For a fictional space which is not accelerating (or for one that is infinite) need we assume that there is a "cosmological constant" in the same fashion as our universe which is not only expanding, but whose expansion is accelerating?

This is not an easy question to answer. Again I'll say I don't feel so strongly that I'll stand in the way of continuing to assess infinite spaces as High 3-A (though I do not believe this conclusion is so easily reached), but either way we need to reach a satisfactory conclusion about how to tier a large empty space and I am not sure vacuum energy is an appropriate way to do so, given these issues.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Sorry I wanted to reply earlier but i got in trouble and was in the Dean's office.

This sounds flimsier, and depending on the method of destruction, may be completely invalid as well. If you have an infinite space that's completely empty, and a character destroys it by letting out an omnidirectional blast that engulfs the whole thing, or somesuch, then that's obviously still High 3-A. For a less obvious case: If you use Existence Erasure to do away with the entire fabric of an infinite (yet empty) space, we'd still rate that at High 3-A, since EE is deemed to be AP-like enough to be given a tier at sufficiently large ranges (Unless I am mistaken, that is)

There is a revison going on for EE to treat it like all other hax, the only thing it would gain is potency/layers, I do not know how well the thread is going but the last time I checked there are mostly agreements and some contentions.

It seems we consider the material contents of a realm to be ultimately secondary in relation to its spacetime fabric. By that token, destroying the very fabric of a space or spacetime, whether it's filled with things or not, would still net a tier. After all, if you remove all the contents of spacetime, it is still there, just without any curvature (Since there's no mass-energy to bend it anymore).

This contradicts our definition of tier 3, which has to do with the amount of energy necessary to destroy all celestial bodies in a universe.
Aside that, the process of "destroying" something involves transformations of energy from one form to another. Since empty space, or vacuum, is absent of matter and fields, it doesn't have an energy content that can be quantified or used for destruction. In which case it will not be tierable.

Conventional durability does not matter, because the matter is secondary in relation to space and time.

This part here is not talking about energy but space-time manipulation where it does not matter what your durbality it if I can simply fold the space you currently occupy which will cause you to fold also, which is also not tierable.

I do agree that the method of destruction should actually matter, as an explosion, waves, e.t.c. that can cover an infinite empty or less would scale to the size of such space, on the other hand for those who are said to create a vacuum or empty space should simply get creation and Space(-Time) manipulation

I believe the topic of merging realities could use its own page here. I don't think people realize how easy it is to screw over what they might think is a 2-C feat. Here's an altered bit from a comment I made in the other thread:

We could just add anything we want to the FAQ or the "space-time continuum" section in the universe page, but yes I agree it is easy to mess up what constitute

 

[KLOL506]

This contradicts our definition of tier 3, which has to do with the amount of energy necessary to destroy all celestial bodies in a universe.

Incorrect. Our definition of Tier 3 stems from being able to destroy the most durable known object in the universe (A certain pulsar), at the edge of the observable universe.

 

[Deagonx]

Incorrect. Our definition of Tier 3 stems from being able to destroy the most durable known object in the universe (A certain pulsar), at the edge of the observable universe.

I believe he's referring to Tier 3-A, universal, not galaxy level.

 

[KLOL506]

I believe he's referring to Tier 3-A, universal, not galaxy level.

That is exactly what I am talking about. That is how Assaltwaffle revised Tier 3, as you can see here.

• 3-C: Energy equal to or above what is needed to overcome the GBE of the Sun with an omnidirectional blast with the point of origin of the blast beginning at the core of the Milky Way Galaxy and the Sun being located at the edge of the Galaxy.
  
  
• 3-B: Energy equal to or above what is needed to overcome the GBE of the Sun with an omnidirectional blast with the point of original of the blast beginning half way between the outer edge of the Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxies and the Sun being located at the outer edge of either Galaxy.
  
  
• 3-A: Energy equal to or above what is needed to overcome the GBE of the Neutron Pulsar PSR J0348+0432 with an omnidirectional blast with the point of origin of the blast beginning at the Earth and PSR J0348+0432 being located at the edge of the observable universe.

 

[Theglassman12]

Agree with proposal 1, disagree with proposal 2.

 

[Deagonx]

That is exactly what I am talking about. That is how Assaltwaffle revised Tier 3, as you can see here.

• 3-C: Energy equal to or above what is needed to overcome the GBE of the Sun with an omnidirectional blast with the point of origin of the blast beginning at the core of the Milky Way Galaxy and the Sun being located at the edge of the Galaxy.
  
  
• 3-B: Energy equal to or above what is needed to overcome the GBE of the Sun with an omnidirectional blast with the point of original of the blast beginning half way between the outer edge of the Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxies and the Sun being located at the outer edge of either Galaxy.
  
  
• 3-A: Energy equal to or above what is needed to overcome the GBE of the Neutron Pulsar PSR J0348+0432 with an omnidirectional blast with the point of origin of the blast beginning at the Earth and PSR J0348+0432 being located at the edge of the observable universe.

Oh, then an empty universe definitionally would not satisfy that.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Incorrect. Our definition of Tier 3 stems from being able to destroy the most durable known object in the universe (A certain pulsar), at the edge of the observable universe.

Characters or objects that can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a finite 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe

3-A: Energy equal to or above what is needed to overcome the GBE of the Neutron Pulsar PSR J0348+0432 with an omnidirectional blast with the point of origin of the blast beginning at the Earth and PSR J0348+0432 being located at the edge of the observable universe.

Maybe this has changed or not, I will read more about it. either way my point still stands and the quote he took goes against how we tier things especially with this new information