-
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
- 8,438
- 3,294
Yeah, that's probably the best course of action.
Once we have agreed on all the variables I can make the calc if need be. I borderline know the forumla by heart.
Once we have agreed on all the variables I can make the calc if need be. I borderline know the forumla by heart.
- 6,902
- 1,321
I was fine with the possibility of a Low 3-A tier for the baseline universal, it at least would separate the definite 3-D from the infinite 3-D tiers, take Son Goku from GT and Super for example
- 167,862
- 76,484
So since we seem to have reached a consensus here, should Sera start a new thread that tries to organise the practical merging of tiers 3-A and High 3-A, or is it best if we decide an appropriate lower border for 3-A here first?
- 10,786
- 1,635
3-A lower border first.
- 11,135
- 14,120
I brought it up once long before that according to recent studies, cosmologists say that the universe is at least 250x bigger than the observable universe.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...igger-than-visible-universe-say-cosmologists/
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...igger-than-visible-universe-say-cosmologists/
- 10,758
- 6,491
- 6,452
- 1,667
@Akm sama...
That article is from feb. 2011.. there is new scientific studies that suggest it might be way larger, especially if we use "cosmic inflation theory..." I posted some more recent articles in comments above..
That article is from feb. 2011.. there is new scientific studies that suggest it might be way larger, especially if we use "cosmic inflation theory..." I posted some more recent articles in comments above..
- 15,418
- 5,748
See, this is my issue changing baseline 3-A. There is no universally (lol) accepted number for the "true" size of the universe. If we do end up changing our standards, it would only match this one theory that we thought was the most correct at the time, which might become invalid later on. (And pretty sure the most universally accepted theories says the universe is infinite but y'know)
Also if those numbers are still just minimums, there is practically no point in using them over the observable universe, since we're going with lowballed numbers anyway.
Also if those numbers are still just minimums, there is practically no point in using them over the observable universe, since we're going with lowballed numbers anyway.
- 839
- 471
Anyone watched the PBS Space Time channel on YouTube? According to them two out of three possible types of universe are infinite.
- 167,862
- 76,484
Well, I still think that we should use one of the currently most reliable estimations as a minimum, as it is far more reliable than the observable universe size. If it turns outdated, we simply update our list later on. It is not a major problem.
- 31,463
- 34,327
Going to point this out for changing the baseline for 3-A, I agree with the any potential upgrades since as Sera said, the universe is a globe and not flat. And the Observable universe is just a tiny spec of how big the universe actually; and it could be infinite for all we know. But I disagree with AssaltWaffle's proposal of just using the regular sun instead of the most durable Neutron star in the universe. Reason being is that there could be planets and or stars with even higher GBE's than the known highest GBE in the universe.
The universe is literally an endless realm of possibilities and the only impossibilities is just the though of it being any smaller than what's discovered, with the opposite having much more weight. Who knows, maybe something similar to if not greater than this exists somewhere outside the Observable Universe. So with that being said, if we're going to change the baseline border for 3-A, it should only be for upgrading with potential sizes. I still think the most durable object in the universe should be used for the Inverse Square Law calculation.
The universe is literally an endless realm of possibilities and the only impossibilities is just the though of it being any smaller than what's discovered, with the opposite having much more weight. Who knows, maybe something similar to if not greater than this exists somewhere outside the Observable Universe. So with that being said, if we're going to change the baseline border for 3-A, it should only be for upgrading with potential sizes. I still think the most durable object in the universe should be used for the Inverse Square Law calculation.
- 15,418
- 5,748
Except that changing our standards for 3-A means changing any calcs that uses the observable universe as a basis. And updating it later again means changing all those calcs agai. It's not worth it to try and keep up with an unsure estimate that remains just a lowball.
In my opinion, the "true" size of the universe is something too unsure and debated on to use as a basis for our calcs for now.
In my opinion, the "true" size of the universe is something too unsure and debated on to use as a basis for our calcs for now.
- 31,463
- 34,327
Sera also did say that "Too much work" isn't a good enough reason to go against it though. I understand that updating countless calcs and especially the "To or from the edge of the universe" speed feats would be massively upgraded. Though, it makes sense with everyone trying to give a lot of characters such as Superman or Ultra Instinct users Planck time reaction time even if it's iffy.
I agree that it can be too vague though since we don't know how big the actual universe is. But even the Observable Universe might multiply with time. Didn't Sera say something about it being 10^1030 to 10^(10*27) times bigger than the Observable universe?
I agree that it can be too vague though since we don't know how big the actual universe is. But even the Observable Universe might multiply with time. Didn't Sera say something about it being 10^1030 to 10^(10*27) times bigger than the Observable universe?
- 15,418
- 5,748
Problem is that even if we do update our Wiki to these standards, we're still left with a lowballed and unsure estimate, which isn't that much better than the ones we currently use. So it's not comparable to us fixing an actual, objective mistake that absolutely should be updated (like the angle sizing thing). If we don't update, we wouldn't implode on ourselves, as I argued.
I think it's fair to say that this wiki won't exist anymore by the time the observable universe has increased in size in any relevant amount, so this point isn't relevant to us.
I think it's fair to say that this wiki won't exist anymore by the time the observable universe has increased in size in any relevant amount, so this point isn't relevant to us.
- 6,104
- 5,106
- Thread starter
- #260
Any reliable estimate we use obviously will be a lowball. It's a low end and the high end is infinite, which is the most accurate way to gauge Universe level since the Universe is at least an x amount larger than the observable and at most is infinite.
We can even calc it, we literally calc everything else and that's what makes us stand out from other places. Most people still think surface feats are legit planet level while we know better.
I'm not seeing why all of a sudden it's an issue.
Besides I'd rather just keep Universal ambiguous like the tiers above it due to it being ambiguous. No one said 3-A needed an energy value. But since that's more preferable then it's fine.
Universe feats are literally either "I destroyed it" or "I created it" with few feats being everything in between. Other feats like shaking the universe aren't even Universal feats so I really think we are being immensely cherry picky and iamverysmart when it comes to this tier, more so than any other tier. There's no need to even use the observable universe, which is only a region of the universe we can see...from Earth or Earth based satellites.
Hell, if it's really that much of an issue, let's say we keep observable universe baseline 3-A, would we assume or bump up 95% of the 3-A feats on the wiki to above baseline? It's bullshit that we literally downplay universal feats to the observable universe and many of us have explained why multiple times already. It is literally textbook downplaying. It's no different than treating all planet level statements as only High 6-A because there's "no evidence" that the feat affected the entire planet, but just the surface or the global population. It's ridiculous.
We can even calc it, we literally calc everything else and that's what makes us stand out from other places. Most people still think surface feats are legit planet level while we know better.
I'm not seeing why all of a sudden it's an issue.
Besides I'd rather just keep Universal ambiguous like the tiers above it due to it being ambiguous. No one said 3-A needed an energy value. But since that's more preferable then it's fine.
Universe feats are literally either "I destroyed it" or "I created it" with few feats being everything in between. Other feats like shaking the universe aren't even Universal feats so I really think we are being immensely cherry picky and iamverysmart when it comes to this tier, more so than any other tier. There's no need to even use the observable universe, which is only a region of the universe we can see...from Earth or Earth based satellites.
Hell, if it's really that much of an issue, let's say we keep observable universe baseline 3-A, would we assume or bump up 95% of the 3-A feats on the wiki to above baseline? It's bullshit that we literally downplay universal feats to the observable universe and many of us have explained why multiple times already. It is literally textbook downplaying. It's no different than treating all planet level statements as only High 6-A because there's "no evidence" that the feat affected the entire planet, but just the surface or the global population. It's ridiculous.
- 6,452
- 1,667
Question: how will this affect multi-galaxy tier? Especially when characters have calcs of "shaking the universe" could this cause them to jump tiers? Say "multi - solar system for shaking a universe" with a current standard??? (That was a terrible example lol.)
- 8,438
- 3,294
Indirectly it does. If a character shakes the universe, that power output would be colossally higher than what we currently list it as.
- 6,452
- 1,667
I see... I am sorry for the confusion. I misworded my question.... But thank you for the answers
- 3,407
- 825
This is confusing just scrolling through it, what's going on?
- 32,359
- 20,298
For the record, I fully support Wokistan in keeping the Low 2-C terminology as it is.
Secondly, I am with Sera EX in that this revision isn't meant to reach absolute, unnatainable accuracy.
Secondly, I am with Sera EX in that this revision isn't meant to reach absolute, unnatainable accuracy.
- 31,463
- 34,327
As mentioned above, I also agree with Sera about 3-A feats.
- 11,135
- 14,120
If we can't reach a conclusion as to which low end to use for 3-A, because there are different studies claiming different numbers, we might have to stick with the observable universe.
I think our calc-group members can help in deciding which would be the most accurate assumption out of all that is available.
I think our calc-group members can help in deciding which would be the most accurate assumption out of all that is available.
- 8,438
- 3,294
Imo we should stick with observable universe. The estimates for the true universe are so wildly different it isn't even funny.
- 9,528
- 1,823
- 15,332
- 7,563
I hope you crossing it out means you're joking, since the highest estimate for the size of the universe is so astronomically higher than the lowest one that any "average' would still be incomprehensible.Paul Frank said:
- 15,332
- 7,563
And Assalt is 100% correct.
We don't know, nor will we ever know how big the entire universe is. Therefore observable universe it is.
We don't know, nor will we ever know how big the entire universe is. Therefore observable universe it is.
- 6,104
- 5,106
- Thread starter
- #279
The only reason to use the observable universe is if we absolutely without a doubt need to have an energy equivocal value, and I've already expressed many times that we do not. We just want to.
Universe feats are not like planetary, stellar or galactic feats, they are very basic and broad across the board. Mostly it's just "I destroyed" or "I created". Yeah there's some "shaking the universe" feats but honestly, those aren't relevant. If we were to use the observable universe as a basic reference for speed and shaking feats, that's fine. I just refuse to accept universal feats as being automatically treated as being observable universe level.
I'm tired of seeing "Dragonball universe is bigger than our universe" and using that to imply even the weakest Dragonball 3-As are vastly above baseline and stomp 3-As from say...DC or Marvel.
Universe feats are not like planetary, stellar or galactic feats, they are very basic and broad across the board. Mostly it's just "I destroyed" or "I created". Yeah there's some "shaking the universe" feats but honestly, those aren't relevant. If we were to use the observable universe as a basic reference for speed and shaking feats, that's fine. I just refuse to accept universal feats as being automatically treated as being observable universe level.
I'm tired of seeing "Dragonball universe is bigger than our universe" and using that to imply even the weakest Dragonball 3-As are vastly above baseline and stomp 3-As from say...DC or Marvel.
- 15,332
- 7,563
> The only reason to use the observable universe is if we absolutely without a doubt need to have an energy equivocal value, and I've already expressed many times that we do not. We just want to.
Using anything else other than what we can actually prove and quantify is pseudoscience by default. As I have said many times before, our personal feelings are irrelevant on a discussion. Only what we can quantify in terms of facts matter.
> Universe feats are not like planetary, stellar or galactic feats, they are very basic and broad across the board. Mostly it's just "I destroyed" or "I created".
Aside from the fact that this is extremely arbitrary and absolutely applies to planetary, stellar and galactic feats, yes - universe feats can be summarized as "I created" or "I destroyed". What did you create? A space that is, until proven otherwise, 93 billion light years wide, ie. - the observable universe. There is no actual reason to treat 3-A as any different.
> I just refuse to accept universal feats as being automatically treated as being observable universe level.
There is absolutely no reason to treat them any other way unless the verse in question specifies their universe is size.
> I'm tired of seeing "Dragonball universe is bigger than our universe" and using that to imply even the weakest Dragonball 3-As are vastly above baseline and stomp 3-As from say...DC or Marvel.
Then that's a personal problem you need to deal with.
Using anything else other than what we can actually prove and quantify is pseudoscience by default. As I have said many times before, our personal feelings are irrelevant on a discussion. Only what we can quantify in terms of facts matter.
> Universe feats are not like planetary, stellar or galactic feats, they are very basic and broad across the board. Mostly it's just "I destroyed" or "I created".
Aside from the fact that this is extremely arbitrary and absolutely applies to planetary, stellar and galactic feats, yes - universe feats can be summarized as "I created" or "I destroyed". What did you create? A space that is, until proven otherwise, 93 billion light years wide, ie. - the observable universe. There is no actual reason to treat 3-A as any different.
> I just refuse to accept universal feats as being automatically treated as being observable universe level.
There is absolutely no reason to treat them any other way unless the verse in question specifies their universe is size.
> I'm tired of seeing "Dragonball universe is bigger than our universe" and using that to imply even the weakest Dragonball 3-As are vastly above baseline and stomp 3-As from say...DC or Marvel.
Then that's a personal problem you need to deal with.
- Status
Similar threads
