Tier 4 Revisions Round 2

[Kepekley23]

A better explanation is that, since gravitational potential energy is negative energy, and the kinetic energy of the universe is positive energy, they end up cancelling each other out and making the universe's energy = 0 as we currently understand it.

Similarly, applying the gravitational binding energy formula for a galaxy is....well.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Kep

Thanks for the info. Didn't know that.

@Matt

While it looks like my universe one is wrong, the galaxy stuff is correct. Fact of the matter is making a Galaxy=/=destroying everything in it with an omnidirectional blast. Inverse square law is a pain but that's just how it goes. Even Executor agrees with me.

 

[Kepekley23]

One violates the law of conservation of energy.

The other one doesn't.

 

[Executor_N0]

Okay, to understand the reason for all this contradiction we need to understand how our hierarchical system for 3D beings works.

Also, kindly remember that Attack Potency is the measure of Destructive Capacity of an attack, and as such, is measured via its energy damage equivalent'. Hence, characters that destroy mountains or islands are not automatically mountain or island level, especially if they are small. The attack potency depends upon the energy output of the attack, not the area of effect of the attack.
	~ Attack Potency​

This is the basis for this discussion, so we should compare all kinds of feats by looking at the amount of energy in each feat.

For the destruction of Tier 4-B up we face a major problem. In fiction or we have a character destroying celestial body by celestial body, destroying one at a time until it causes the destruction of everything that exists in a solar system, galaxy or even in the universe or it can destroy everything at once. In this case we can have a character that releases several bursts of energy destroying several celestial bodies at the same time, or releases a single burst of energy that moves and goes to several celestial bodies or cause an omnidirectional explosion destroying everything with a single attack .

And this is the basis we choose. In doing so we choose a pattern where a character must destroy a celestial body located at a distance X from the point of origin of explosion. And the formula used for this is: Total Energy = 4 * GBE * (Er / Tr) ┬▓. And in doing so we find in that which generates the abyss between the levels of energy. Up to 4-B the chasm is not very large, and this is notable because a Supernova would have the power to destroy almost all the planets in our Solar System and the Mass-Energy of our Sun is higher than the energy to destroy our Solar System, which shows that the energy to destroy a Solar System can exist in the Solar System itself in the form of matter.

But in 4-A and higher levels we find distances measured in light years and even in parssecs. We all know that the speed of light is very high, and if it is a distance is so long that light takes years to cross ... Then this distance is VERY long. Thus, the icgon Er increases more and more when it reaches the point where the icgnite Tr simply does not influence the final value very much, but this becomes even worse because the ratio (Er/Tr) is still raised squared and after that it is still multiplied by 4. This all multiplies with the GBE of the celestial body and so the results for 4-A upwards have the greatest abyss than any other lower level. To get an idea for 3-C the GBE of the Sun is multiplied by 1.84929505*10^24. Yes, that number is too big.

Now we are going to create celestial bodies, we have a page that explains the regulations for this.

Since fiction in general tends to be very inconsistent when it comes to creating matter out of nothing, Einsteins formula (E = mc2) shouldn't be used. Instead, the Gravitational Binding Energy of each planet or star should be used.

We all know that in feats of creation we have two types of solutions. The first is that the character uses his power/energy to create mass, in which case Mass-Energy would be usable, but we have a page about it and it states: Matter-energy conversion should be only that this is the progress used. So we do not use this as a basis. Otherwise we use the second solution, we consider that this type of feat is a specific type of Hax and the choice of the energy for this is chosen in a way without a scientific base only choosing values that would make more sense in the Vs community. So in creation we use the GBE of the star, the same goes for planets.

And as our page on celestial bodies explains, in the case of the creation of multiple planets or stars we must add the energy necessary to create each one and add up. You know the problem with that? Simply the number of stars in these feats does not follow the growth of the hierarchy based on destruction.

In the case of a galaxy for example, let's use ours as a base. According to NASA a high-end for the number of stars in it is 400 billion, so 400*10^9 = 4*10^11. Thus using the method of creating celestial bodies the GBE of the Sun is multiplied by something in the order of magnitude 10^11, while to destroy the galaxy this same GBE is multiplied by something in the order of magnitude of 10^24. The two types of feats will be separated by the order of magnitude of 10^13.

And that can not be improved, even if we use Mass-Energy for feats of creating stars or galaxies, that value is still not enough to keep up with the growing hierarchy of destruction.

The cause of this confusion is that our method of destruction has an exponential growth while our method of creation has a linear growth.

To be honest, there are not many ways to make this kind of feat of creation succeed in tracking the energy for destruction the way we set it.

One solution would be to apply kinetic energy for this large amount of mass to spread through space at high speeds, but as we know FTL kinetic energy in relativistic model is unfeasible. For this type of feat we also consider reality manipulation and we use the same thing for feats of creation, so at the moment the result remains the same.

Or we can simply ignore physics and consider feats of creation as simply what we think they should be. After all, if we have created a formula for creating black holes that have no scientific basis whatsoever and we only do this to be more coherent with what we find correct in fiction, then I do not see why we should not ignore what physics says once again about that we conclude about feats of creation, even if it does not make sense.

Based on the regulations we have currently this is the only viable way I find to create galaxies continue to be 3-C.

But of course, we could simply follow what the calculations indicate and treat creation of galaxies as only 4-B or 4-A, after all if we accept that creating multiple stars is not 4-A, so what is the problem of accepting that creating galaxies is not 3-C?

 

[Executor_N0]

Simply put, our destructive table for feats 4-B upwards are based on an exponential multiplication while our analysis of feats of creation undergo a linear growth.

So to consider galaxy creation feats like 3-C we should only use common sense about it without relying on physics, which is exactly what we did before (though that did not make sense).

But of course, we could just follow what the calculations say and point to creation of galaxies as not being 3-C (We have already considered creation of multiple stars as not being 4-A).

In the end I think this discussion should be made at another time after the revisions of the Attack Potency table be revised.

 

[Kepekley23]

In the end I think this discussion should be made at another time after the revisions of the Attack Potency table be revised.

Bingo.

But, as I said above, mass-energy of the universe = absolutely unusable. Just keep this in mind and we're good to go.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Executor

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the analysis Executor.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Regarding the whole creation (and I suppose technically also destruction via reality warping) debate, I have the impression that all of that was brought up and debated in the last Celestial Body Feats revision thread (and in the revision thread before that revision thread).

Either way it certainly isn't something new to the tiering revision, so I agree that it is not necessary for the debate, beyond the decision to keep using omnidirectional blasts as method for determining the tiers, to be led here.


Aside from that I now went thoroughly through the calculations now and everything is correct as far as I can tell. So from my side the organization for applying the revision could start now.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the evaluation DontTalk.

I would appreciate if one of you could start a thread that asks our staff members when it would be workable to inititate this project. School has just started after all, so most people are busy.