- 10,758
- 6,491
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Universe level Standards (Continued)
- Thread starter Sera_EX
- Start date
- Status
- 235
- 335
Translation: You are claiming something to be more accurate than it actually is, even by the tier system itself because baseline does not mean "every verse is this until proven otherwise".
Example:
Earth is baseline planet level. However that doesn't mean that every Earth-like planet is Earth sized. Case-in-point the One Piece planet. We know it's much different than Earth just by understanding it's worldbuilding and the fact that it has more than one sattelite. If we can calc the size of that planet and get above baseline 5-B, why can't we do the same for a fictional universe?
If the observable universe remains baseline, that does not mean your practice doesn't need to change. Far from it. I suggest actually calcing universe sizes like we do for Dragonball rather than just force a verse to be baseline.
Example:
Earth is baseline planet level. However that doesn't mean that every Earth-like planet is Earth sized. Case-in-point the One Piece planet. We know it's much different than Earth just by understanding it's worldbuilding and the fact that it has more than one sattelite. If we can calc the size of that planet and get above baseline 5-B, why can't we do the same for a fictional universe?
If the observable universe remains baseline, that does not mean your practice doesn't need to change. Far from it. I suggest actually calcing universe sizes like we do for Dragonball rather than just force a verse to be baseline.
- 2,463
- 928
@Sera EX
Sigh... I'll be honest, you gave a bad comparison. Since that you're talking about the material universe, Jimmy's tier will be 3-A, not any higher.
The second example is interesting, though! We might need to search for the Big Bang inflation's speed.
If Jimmy passed his universe in 3 seconds, by default we should use our universe's true size unless anything in the verse contradicts it. The Blah Blah Galaxy shouldn't contradict it unless it's somehow abnormally big, like biggee than universe
Sigh... I'll be honest, you gave a bad comparison. Since that you're talking about the material universe, Jimmy's tier will be 3-A, not any higher.
The second example is interesting, though! We might need to search for the Big Bang inflation's speed.
If Jimmy passed his universe in 3 seconds, by default we should use our universe's true size unless anything in the verse contradicts it. The Blah Blah Galaxy shouldn't contradict it unless it's somehow abnormally big, like biggee than universe
- 10,786
- 1,635
Does using a calculation for the size of the entire universe mean that calculating things based on that is Calc Stacking?
- 6,452
- 1,667
The inflation after the big bang being "grape fruit sized" was "retconned" within the cosmic inflation theory. They now believe it to be many magnitudes bigger. So, most scientifist call it "unknown." Some try to out an estimation on it. But... Idk of you meant that verse in particular, or our Irl inflation...
- 6,104
- 5,106
- Thread starter
- #410
@GOP
No. Calc stacking is more like using the Sub Rela+ value from one speed feat to calc another.
@Skalt
I didn't mean "at least 3-A" as the literal "At least 3-A" ranking. Sincerest apologies about that.
His tier would still be 3-A, but he shouldn't be treated as baseline because if baseline = observable universe and there is nothing suggesting in that verse completely different from our own that his universe is that size, either we calc its size like we do for planets and so forth, but we at bare minumum acknowledge he is above baseline because the universe's size from his galaxy is objectively not outright 93 billion light years, it could be larger or even smaller. It's not a reliable baseline.
No. Calc stacking is more like using the Sub Rela+ value from one speed feat to calc another.
@Skalt
I didn't mean "at least 3-A" as the literal "At least 3-A" ranking. Sincerest apologies about that.
His tier would still be 3-A, but he shouldn't be treated as baseline because if baseline = observable universe and there is nothing suggesting in that verse completely different from our own that his universe is that size, either we calc its size like we do for planets and so forth, but we at bare minumum acknowledge he is above baseline because the universe's size from his galaxy is objectively not outright 93 billion light years, it could be larger or even smaller. It's not a reliable baseline.
- 10,786
- 1,635
At any given point in time, the observable universe is the same size everywhere.
- 15,970
- 8,189
I honestly don't mind the 10^23 size of the observable universe since it looks suppported by a lot of astronomers, this point could be the main solution for universe size. The other size of the universe looks to be based on probabality and doesn't look to have much wide support as the 10^23 size of the observable universe proposal.
I think we should have more staffs participations (possibly a staff thread) to vote on what should be our standard size for the universe, to conclude the topic regarding obserbale universe size, 10^23 size of the observable universe, or the probabilty based calculation.
I think we should have more staffs participations (possibly a staff thread) to vote on what should be our standard size for the universe, to conclude the topic regarding obserbale universe size, 10^23 size of the observable universe, or the probabilty based calculation.
- 10,786
- 1,635
At any point in the universe, light has had the same amount of time to reach that point.
- 2,463
- 928
@Sera EX
I think that TGoP meant the calculation of the verse's universe, not the real life one.
Now I agree with you (No need to apology, we all do mistakes, right?)
If there are any indications that his universe is different from ours, baseline gets unreliable, but how are we going to calculate the size of the universe if our scientists can't get a verdict on our own universe's size? Probably with some obvious implications... Well, if they exist.
I think that TGoP meant the calculation of the verse's universe, not the real life one.
Now I agree with you
(No need to apology, we all do mistakes, right?) If there are any indications that his universe is different from ours, baseline gets unreliable
, but how are we going to calculate the size of the universe if our scientists can't get a verdict on our own universe's size? Probably with some obvious implications... Well, if they exist.
- 6,104
- 5,106
- Thread starter
- #416
You are forgetting about distance and light does not have a single source. S = D/T. Even if I took 4 minutes the get the mall from any location of Earth, not every location has the same distance brtween it and the mall.The God Of Procrastination said:
@Skalt
We calc'd the size of Universe 7. We can't be 100% accurate all the time. If we just accept that, this conversation would've ended a long time ago ;_;
- 15,970
- 8,189
I think the upgrape point is made because the size of DB calculation use the size of the observable universe as a basis to a get the universe seven size: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:The_2nd_Existential_Seed/Dragon_Ball_Universe_size#Sera EX said:
- 6,104
- 5,106
- Thread starter
- #419
@Eli
The issue is what's saying that universe is bigger than our entire universe? Literally nothing. The math on that is fine, but the application doesn't make sense if it's supposed to say U7 is bigger than the observable universe. Nothing suggests that it would also be double the size of the actual universe.
The issue is what's saying that universe is bigger than our entire universe? Literally nothing. The math on that is fine, but the application doesn't make sense if it's supposed to say U7 is bigger than the observable universe. Nothing suggests that it would also be double the size of the actual universe.
- 167,862
- 76,484
We could have the staff vote on whether we should use 251x or 10^23x observable universe size as a baseline for 3-A, yes.
However, I still do not think that this should cause us to stop calculating estimations for universal speed feats by using this baseline, if there is nothing else to gauge the universe size by. Using a low-end estimation (rather than slam infinite distance/speed on it or >1000x FTL on it) is considerably better than nothing.
However, I still do not think that this should cause us to stop calculating estimations for universal speed feats by using this baseline, if there is nothing else to gauge the universe size by. Using a low-end estimation (rather than slam infinite distance/speed on it or >1000x FTL on it) is considerably better than nothing.
- 10,786
- 1,635
You would be able to see things that are the same distance away.Sera EX said:
- 6,104
- 5,106
- Thread starter
- #423
I didn't say I'd have it another way. Calcing has always been fine in my book, especially speed. I just don't do it myself to hide my nerdiness.
I'd use a low end estimation, but that may or may not correlate to the size of the universe used for the AP and that's fine. We can't be perfectly accurate.
I'd use a low end estimation, but that may or may not correlate to the size of the universe used for the AP and that's fine. We can't be perfectly accurate.
- 8,438
- 3,294
If we do end up accepting a larger overall universe over our observable universe, then I'm for lowballing it to 251x.
If we end up agreeing that cosmic inflation holds that it may be 10^23 times larger, I'll be fine with that, but I think that's obscenely high and cannot be attained by any on-screen bust or by any verse that has a given size for their universes. It sets an unreachable precedent (just like neutron stars, but more on that after this thread).
If we end up agreeing that cosmic inflation holds that it may be 10^23 times larger, I'll be fine with that, but I think that's obscenely high and cannot be attained by any on-screen bust or by any verse that has a given size for their universes. It sets an unreachable precedent (just like neutron stars, but more on that after this thread).
- 31,462
- 34,326
Plenty of characters would be upgraded; not just Dragon Ball. Obviously, it would effect the 3-A's of Dragon Ball Super and Whis's speed feat; but it would also would effect Marvel and DC's Massively FTL+ depending on the end used; such as Thor throwing his hammer to the edge of the universe and catching it, or Wonder Woman blocking Shattered God's attacks. Saint Seiya and Amon from StarCraft would also be upgraded.
Also, keep in mind that 251x refers to the diameter/radius; meaning the universe would be at least 2.3343 * 10^13 light years in diameter or 1.16715 * 10^13 light years in radius. Meaning 251 times faster for edge of the universe feats. And for Attack Potency calculations, it would be 15,813,251 times greater.
I personally like the 10^23 times radius/diameter better over all though. Which would be 9.3 * 10^33 light years in diameter or 4.65 * 10^33 light years in radius. Making speed feats to the edge of the universe 10^23 times and Attack Potency calculations for universe busting 10^69 times.
Also, keep in mind that 251x refers to the diameter/radius; meaning the universe would be at least 2.3343 * 10^13 light years in diameter or 1.16715 * 10^13 light years in radius. Meaning 251 times faster for edge of the universe feats. And for Attack Potency calculations, it would be 15,813,251 times greater.
I personally like the 10^23 times radius/diameter better over all though. Which would be 9.3 * 10^33 light years in diameter or 4.65 * 10^33 light years in radius. Making speed feats to the edge of the universe 10^23 times and Attack Potency calculations for universe busting 10^69 times.
- 10,786
- 1,635
Yay!
- 6,452
- 1,667
I think a separate thread for speed feats calculation revisions would be needed once a baseline is accepted imo..... A verse like saint seiya would be massively affected, iirc.... That's one example of possiblely many....
Edit: I just realized regardless if 251x or 10^23 times the O.U size. The Shura out running the big bang speed feat will become massively inferior. There is a solution to fix that. The feat of shura is him outrunning the "Intial inflation." Which shows that the series might be using Cosmic inflation theory. There is actually another instance of an Inflation after the big bang shown in SS-verse. That as in saint seiya omega. I will leave a source here . to fix that we would need a whole new calc... to find out what the size was during its inflation.. i think..
Edit: I just realized regardless if 251x or 10^23 times the O.U size. The Shura out running the big bang speed feat will become massively inferior. There is a solution to fix that. The feat of shura is him outrunning the "Intial inflation." Which shows that the series might be using Cosmic inflation theory. There is actually another instance of an Inflation after the big bang shown in SS-verse. That as in saint seiya omega. I will leave a source here . to fix that we would need a whole new calc... to find out what the size was during its inflation.. i think..
- 6,104
- 5,106
- Thread starter
- #431
Again, that is not what that calc is saying. The calc used the observable universe and said U7 is twice as big. If you plop the actual universe right there it obviously wouldnt work. The universe is not spherical like the observable portion.
It would still affect speed I believe but not AP.
It would still affect speed I believe but not AP.
- 31,462
- 34,326
Our calculation for Attack potency borders is still based on omnidirectional destruction borders though. So we could still do the recalc for AP's baseline. And obviously, we might not be assuming U7's size is bigger than our Universe anymore; just because of the "Earth being at the edge rather than center" anymore. Though Afterlife might still be bigger and the initial attack starting from the edge would still hold weight. It would technically still effect AP in the general consensus, just not whole "Everyone's going to be so far above baseline for 3-A now" anymore.
- 6,901
- 1,321
Everyone is taking into account that Universe 7 is made up several realms, right?
- 6,452
- 1,667
I know im guility of it.. But this is 445 comments almost.. instead of focusing on specific verses, unlesss its an example, (i guess) i think we should come to some sort of conseus about the baseline.. I think we narrowed down our choices... So maybe we should let the calc group decide which to pick, or do a staff only vote which i agree with.. Those are my opinions though..
- 32,359
- 20,298
Is there a tl;dr from what is currently being discussed.
- 6,104
- 5,106
- Thread starter
- #439
@Matto
Ant said
We could have the staff vote on whether we should use 251x or 10^23x observable universe size as a baseline for 3-A, yes.
However, I still do not think that this should cause us to stop calculating estimations for universal speed feats by using this baseline, if there is nothing else to gauge the universe size by. Using a low-end estimation (rather than slam infinite distance/speed on it or >1000x FTL on it) is considerably better than nothing.
To which I, Sewa, replied:
I didn't say I'd have it another way. Calcing has always been fine in my book, especially speed. I just don't do it myself to hide my nerdiness.
I'd use a low end estimation, but that may or may not correlate to the size of the universe used for the AP and that's fine. We can't be perfectly accurate.
And Mr. Waffle replied:
If we do end up accepting a larger overall universe over our observable universe, then I'm for lowballing it to 251x.
If we end up agreeing that cosmic inflation holds that it may be 10^23 times larger, I'll be fine with that, but I think that's obscenely high and cannot be attained by any on-screen bust or by any verse that has a given size for their universes. It sets an unreachable precedent (just like neutron stars, but more on that after this thread).
Ant said
We could have the staff vote on whether we should use 251x or 10^23x observable universe size as a baseline for 3-A, yes.
However, I still do not think that this should cause us to stop calculating estimations for universal speed feats by using this baseline, if there is nothing else to gauge the universe size by. Using a low-end estimation (rather than slam infinite distance/speed on it or >1000x FTL on it) is considerably better than nothing.
To which I, Sewa, replied:
I didn't say I'd have it another way. Calcing has always been fine in my book, especially speed. I just don't do it myself to hide my nerdiness.
I'd use a low end estimation, but that may or may not correlate to the size of the universe used for the AP and that's fine. We can't be perfectly accurate.
And Mr. Waffle replied:
If we do end up accepting a larger overall universe over our observable universe, then I'm for lowballing it to 251x.
If we end up agreeing that cosmic inflation holds that it may be 10^23 times larger, I'll be fine with that, but I think that's obscenely high and cannot be attained by any on-screen bust or by any verse that has a given size for their universes. It sets an unreachable precedent (just like neutron stars, but more on that after this thread).
- 6,452
- 1,667
We narrowed down the choices to picking between 251x the observable universe, or 10^23 times the O.U... if that helps.. So those 2 optins are being discussed on which would be the best pick...Matthew Schroeder said:
Edit:
The 251x multiplier is assuming that the Universe is a closed sphere isn't it?
while Nasa, and Comosic inflation theory take on the assumption it is flat. nasa is confident they have a 0.4 margin % of error in that. (it does consider the other 2 possibilities, but the flat universe is most commonly accepted.)
There is also more evidence in science suggesting that the universe is flat.
Cosmic inflation theory is also the most widely supported theory of the universe currently to date. Even though it cannot connect be claimed to be a scientific law, some scientist believe so firmly in it they say "its pretty close to be a law." Which rubs others the wrong way in the community lol. I provided sources, and quotes above.
Lastly, How Alan Gurth got the 10^23 x O.U... Is that he multiplied the speed of light, by the universes age. (supposedly) A source with the quote is in an above comment.
That was everything I researched thus far.
- Status
Similar threads
