• 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)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sera EX said:
Ah! I just remembered. According to the theory of cosmic inflation and its founder, Alan Guth, assuming that inflation began about 1037 seconds after the Big Bang, with the plausible assumption that the size of the Universe at this time was approximately equal to the speed of light times its age, that would suggest that at present the entire universe's size is at least 3x10^23 times larger than the size of the observable universe.
Click to expand...
This estimate is currently contested in the scientific community. Most current estimates for how big the "true" universe is only have it at 150 times (14 trillion ly) bigger based off of curvature. Other estimates have it at 250 times bigger.

Which is exactly why I support Assalt's stance.
 
Then that's a personal problem you need to deal with.

Excuse me, but it's not. It's one example of why using the observable universe as a "baseline unless proven otherwise" standard isn't a good option.

How do we know, for example, a DC 3-A didn't affect the entire universe (not referring to time space here) and only affected the observable universe? There's really no way to tell because there is never a distinction between the two.
 
> Excuse me, but it's not. It's one example of why using the observable universe as a "baseline unless proven otherwise" standard isn't a good option.

If one of your examples is based off of a series ending up stronger than another series (from what I can see), then it's definitely a personal issue you need to deal with that doesn't belong anywhere on a thread about objective facts about the universe.

> How do we know, for example, a DC 3-A didn't affect the entire universe (not referring to time space here) and only affected the observable universe? There's really no way to tell because there is never a distinction between the two.

Thank you. This is exactly my point. That there is no distinction between the universe and the observable universe, because they are the same thing according to our current understanding. We have no way to prove the universe is any bigger, therefore we default to the observable universe.

Besides, DC outright states their universe has a radius of 100 trillion light years, so this is a misleading example at best.
 
They are not the same thing by our current understanding.

The observable universe is the region of the universe we can observe from Earth.

The definition clearly infers that the universe in its entirety is, at current, unobservable. There is a distinction between the two.

Fictional series however don't really make that distinction.
 
That's a quite irrelevant semantics game, since we don't know how much bigger the unobservable universe is, thus we default to the size of the observable universe.

Observable universe = 93 billion light years.

Universe = 93 billion light years.

"Destroying the universe" = destroying 93 billion light years.

It is just that simple. There is no distinction.
 
Also, let me clear here, it's literally not a personal problem. Far from it. I'm not complaining that Verse A is stronger than Verse B because of these standards out of any personal bias against or for any verse. Were it the other way around, my stance would remain the same.
 
Definition of universe is strictly "everything that exists". Most specifically used to refer to all physical, spatial matter.

Look at it this way. The universe could be whatever size outside of the factual one. But its quantifiable size is 93 billion light years. That's the one that will be used and the only one that can be used, unless the series in question reveals the "true" size.
 
But there are reliable sources for an estimate on the size of the unobservable universe. Sources vary, yes, but there's consistency in those The Upgrade posted earlier.
 
Those reliable estimates are old and disputed, as are almost all estimates on the topic. And there is absolutely no consistency, that's as close to impossible as it is to affirm. Recent estimates only go to the low hundreds of times instead of the 10^100 times you mentioned (which are a subject of hot debating).

This is as inconsistent as it gets.
 
I don't have the desire to argue any further, I'm fatigued enough from repeatedly discussing this for twelve days. Do whatever you need to.
 
uuuhh those "recent Estimates of 250x our observable Universe" is the oldest source, and its also not consistent. The articles i posted are newer, and the link from other articles are from Cosmic inflaiton theory which is about the Birth of the universe from the big bang. Which isn't anything about the current size, but the size of our universe during its intial inflation.

Edit: And most sources saying the universe is 23 trillion ly also say at the same time. "It is even bigger than that."
 
Universe means everything, with irrelevance to its perceivability. Tbf the global universe has been proven to be much larger than seen so far and isn't exactly pseudoscience. Then again, is there even a need to quantify universal speeds and quakes for verses with ambiguous universal size? As we dont even try to quantify anything multiversal or hyperversal beyond counting the number of universes or dimensions.
 
Crzer07 said:
Then again, is there even a need to quantify universal speeds and quakes for verses with ambiguous universal size? As we dont even try to quantify anything multiversal or hyperversal beyond counting the number of universes or dimensions.
Click to expand...
Yes, because universal feats are still within the realm of three dimensions and things being finite.

We don't quantify multiversal/hyperversal because they're fundamentally impossible to quantify beyond counting the number of universes/dimensions.
 
No they aren't. Even higher dimensions are quantifiable.
 
In what way?

As the Wiki currently stands we only treat energy as something that effects 3-D space (even though that isn't accurate).

Quantifying dimensional layers the way the Chtulu Mythos depicts is absolutely unquantifiable, since that isn't how higher dimensions work irl.
 
Sera EX said:
No they aren't. Even higher dimensions are quantifiable.
Click to expand...
Fundamentally impossible to quantify in the same units as third-dimension calculations.

If a 1m radius explosion in 3D space is X joules, I don't think you can tell me how many more joules (4*X, 8*X, 2*X, X^2, etc.) such an explosion would require in 4D space.

They can be quantified through different units, but not the same ones we use for finite 3D calculations. The same can be said about multiverses (although that has its own problems of different cosmologies potentially giving different results for the same number of universes)
 
Assaltwaffle said:
In what way?

As the Wiki currently stands we only treat energy as something that effects 3-D space (even though that isn't accurate).

Quantifying dimensional layers the way the Chtulu Mythos depicts is absolutely unquantifiable, since that isn't how higher dimensions work irl.
Click to expand...
As in we treat dimensions as they work in reality. The physics way. Not saying we do that, just stating it's possible.
 
Comparing Dragon Ball 3-A's to DC's is a bad example anyway since DC has an establishment of their universe being over 100 trillion lightyear radius, making it over 2000x on each of the 3 dimensions and over 8 trillion times bigger in general than the observable universe. And even that's lowballed for the same reason as Dragon Balls; plus our calc only puts Universe 7 alone as being 40x; but all of those are lowballs. No matter how you calc the universe's size, it's always going to be a spec compared to how big it actually is.

I still agree with Sera that the universe's size should be treated as much greater than the observable universe.
 
So...we can calc the size of a fictional universe and treat it as reliable because calcs are an educated guess, but we can't do the same for the actual size of our universe? Don't even answer that...I swear on my grave, don't.

Never mind...screw this... I can't argue anymore. Believe me I have a lot to say, but it's not a good idea for me to be relentlessly argumentative. This whole thing's been ridiculously compromised at this point. The only thing agreed upon was the Alternate High 3-A removal.

Can we just do this thing already? Jeez.
 
I still agree with Sera and Medeus that using a comparatively small region of space as a lower border for universal size is most likely a bad idea.

We should let the calc group select the most reliable estimate for the actual size instead. If that only ends up as a few hundred times as large as the observable universe, so be it, but it is still more accurate than what we use currently.
 
Also, I am sorry that you feel stressed out Sera.
 
@Kep Btw what is your opinion on creating/destroying infinite space (as in the space itself not things within the space) being low 2-C instead of high 3-A?
 
@Ant

Why can we not just use observable universe? Any estimate is just an educated guess and they all vary wildly.
 
@Ant

I doubt that anyone in the calc group/in the wiki knows how to determine the most reliable estimate of the size of the universe. If one estimate was blatantly better than the others, the scientific community would use only that
 
@Assaltwaffle

Because what we currently use isn't the universe. It is just a small portion of it, and as such misleading.

@Kaltias

Well, maybe some of them are able to investigate which is the currently most accepted and/or reliable estimation.
 
Honestly, there's a whole bunch of people saying that if you really want to be as accurate or reasonable as possible, we should just not even have a calc for 3-A's baseline and instead treat all the 3-A feats or flying to the edge of the universe as just some Unknown number. In which that Unknown number is treated as like the highest possible finite number that can't be counted; or often nicknamed "Almost Infinity".

Also, wikipedia considers the Unknown universe as being 10^23 times the diameter of the Observable universe as the generally accepted estimate by most astronomers; and with a note that it's probably still much larger than that. Meaning the overall volume would be at least 10^69 times greater, and it's also the size Death Battle among other communities use.
 
The point is that at the end of the day, we don't truly know the size of the non-observable portion of the universe.

For all we know the observable universe is 1% of the universe, or maybe it's the 0,0000000000000000000001%, or it could be literally nothing compared to it because the actual universe could be infinite.
 
Saikou The Lewd King said:
If the scientific community can't settle on a single number yet, I don't know why we, of all people, should "decide" out of the blue which one is the truest one.
Click to expand...
This bad boy, right here.

We don't know. Period. It is arrogant and assumptive to even try to assign a value for it. Go with what we know with the acknowledgment that the observable universe isn't all there is.
 
Well, Medeus says that Wikipedia lists the most commonly accepted size for the unknown universe.
 
Wikipedia says that the size is unknown, and only lists the size of the observable universe
 
This is now a black hole thread.

But yeah, like Karutiasu said, Wikipedia dead ass tells us that we don't know. No idea where that number came from in there.
 
@Medeus

Can you link to the relevant Wikipedia page?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MightyFrogBeyond
Creating an infinite sized universe?
Replies
3
Views
553
ArcaneAbyss
Type III-IV Multiverse Wank Rant
Replies
1
Views
464
DanTheEyeMan01
DanTheEyeMan01
AnosVoldigoadDemonKing
Von Neumann Universe & Grothendieck Universe scaling
Replies
3
Views
432
Laxxius
Laxxius
MightyFrogBeyond
(Writing My Cosmology ) Aleph 1 and Aleph 0 gap.
Replies
2
Views
1K
Success0906
Success0906
Laxxius
Post your personal Tiering System here
Replies
0
Views
155
Laxxius
Laxxius
Back
Top