• 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.

Usage of the size of the observable universe for whole universe feats?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Verivici

Verivici

841
40
The observable universe is much, much smaller than the whole universe, and isn't a notable approximation of it in any way.

Despite this, I have seen multiple accepted calcs which utilze the size of the observable universe for whole universe feats. What is the reasoning behind this?
 
Thing is, it's not a low end, any more than England is a low end for the size of Europe. Calcs involving the observable universe should at least have a "Much higher than" tagged on.
 
We can measure the size of both Europe and England individually. We cannot do so for the entirety of the universe.

Busting the observable universe would technically be the absolute lowest level of 3-A, since we know the universe is larger than the observable universe, but it is currently impossible to even roughly estimate by how much. Anything higher than that via scaling is still Universe level, with the reason being it's very much possible that the actual universe is infinite in size. If this is the case, it would require an infinite amount of power to destroy it, which is why legitimately infinite power that can be produced by a character for that level of destructive potential is known as "High Universe level". Since the universe is one thing and cannot have a size "greater than infinite", that is the highest bounds of Universe level.

We don't consider all universal feats to be High 3-A because, if character A busts the universe, and character B can defeat them simply by being stronger, character A did not have infinite power, hence the universe they busted would not be infinite, and they would not qualify for High 3-A.
 
Thing is, it is objectively known that the observable universe is far smaller than the real universe. I can kinda see why it would be useful as an absolute low end, but there should be at least some acknowledgement that it's a lower cap and the real cap for such feats is higher to an indeterminate degree.

AFAIK, our 3-A is based upon the assumption that the universe is finite in size, for the reasons you stated (as well as the fact that generally, in most fictional occurences, it is finite)

And yes, the real universe is probably infinite in size
 
Actually, we do not use an official energy gauge for universe level. We simply tend to go by whether there exists sufficient proof of a certain character being able to destroy universes, which are usually treated as finite in size within fiction.

However, if a certain universe is explicitly stated to be infinite in size, it is a High 3-A feat instead.
 
I agree with Hit. I don't see why such a gross approximation should be accepted, especially given how many people seem to underestimate the size of the universe when all they're thinking of is the observable universe.
 
Well, most fictions seem to use the size of the part of the universe populated by physical matter from the Big Bang as a gauge, not anything outside of and beyond that.

However, if it is explicitly explained that an infinitely large 3-D volume is destroyed, we can rate it as High 3-A instead.
 
The observable universe isn't the only portion of the universe that is populated by phsyical matter. It has no particular scientific signifcance whatsoever.
 
I have asked DontTalk to evaluate this, but as far as I am aware our energy scale does not use the observable universe as a gauge. You may have a point in that some calculations have used inaccurately low estimations however.
 
And according to Wikipedia it could be 10^10^10^122 times larger than the observable universe, lol
 
For all we know, the universe may be infinite in size. There is no scientific standpoint to correctly evaluate the size of our universe as of now.
 
^

Maybe it would be better to just scrap Universe level altogether (although such a revision would be unfeasable, obviously)
 
250 is one number, but I have already seen many different numbers float around as well.

And I can also say the more accurate measurements about that get the larger the numbers will likely get.

One of NASA's measurement projects has showed, that the universe is flat with 0.4% margin of error. That does relatively strongly suggest that our universe is actually infinite.

So the question what we should use for calculations that involve edge of the universe things we first have to ask ourself if such a finite universe would even in size be similar to our own. That our own is not unlikely to be infinite already puts doubts on this.

Another thing that make something like that doubtable, would be that we even talk about an edge of the universe, given that such a thing doesn't exist in any way, making the shape (and nature) of such universes different from ours.


So far to scientific standard.

Given that, instead of a number that likely will just tend to get bigger and bigger over the years, as it tends to infinity (I have already seen at least 10^10^30 times larger being suggested) some solid low end for finite verses should be used. The observable universe just seems like the appropiate low end for such things.
 
As far as things go 250x already uses extrapolating by the curvature of space-time I believe, which is also where the other values would come from (including infinite), so it makes more sense to keep it at observable universe which is independent of that (especially for the seemingly finite euclidean type, that doesn't have such curvature).
 
@DontTalk

So, is it acceptable to keep our current standards, or do we need to adjust the Attack Potency or Tiering System pages in some manner? Perhaps with a footnote of some sort?

Also, what specifically is meant with that the full universe is 10^10^10^122 times larger than the observable universe? Is that how large the 3-D volume of our entire continuum is, whereas the 250x value is how much of it that is occupied by physical matter?
 
At least 10^10^10^122 is the higher end for the size of the whole universe if it is finite, 250 is the lower end for the size of the whole universe if it is finite
 
I don't know where the 10^10^10^122 number comes from, but I doubt one can define an upper limit for finite size just like that, if it can also be infinite. That value probably has some other assumptions in it, from a specific model predicting a finite universe.

As far as I know by the cosmological principal however large the universe is in the end, there would be matter and energy everywhere. There just isn't much of a reason to assume that it just stops being there out of some reason. What is meant is in any case the 3-D volume.

At least 250 times is one estimation based on space-curvature we can observe, other at least estimations are as mentioned for example at least 10^10^30. It depends on which models and axiomes one chooses, I would think.

In any case I don't think we need to change any official pages, as we don't use calculations for universe level either way.
 
But I thought that all matter in the universe came from the Big Bang? How could it have possibly spread out over a volume 10^10^10^122x the size of the observable universe?
 
@Antvasima: I can suggest this video on the topic of the big bang, it indirectly explains that bit quite well.

But for short, it is not that the universe in the state before the big bang was in one point and everything expanded from there. Even at the time of the big bang the universe had finite or infinite size and matter and energy was more or less already "everywhere".

So when the spacetime extended through the big bang and physics as we knew it started making sense, the matter and energy, that was already everwhere in space, expanded together with the space so that it basically kept being everywhere.

A good way to imagine that would be that if you draw something all over a balloon and then blow that balloon up, the area of the balloons surface increases, but it will still be drawn all over the balloon.


So matter didn't spread over the universe. Matter was everywhere in the universe to begin with and the universe spread with the matter in it.

Here is another explanation regarding that.
 
Okay. Thank you. So did the gasses that formed stars exist elsewhere in the universe prior to the Big Bang as well, with the explosion just being a massive expansion of matter in the part of the universe that we occupy? Or was it just smaller particles?
 
The "explosion" was a rapid expansion of spacetime that happened everywhere. The matter that was everywhere (in that time as small particles, gases formed from those later on) expanded together with the spacetime it exists in.

So there was really nothing lokal about the big bang. Everything that it caused, it caused everywhere equally.
 
Okay. Thank you for the information.
 
Btw: Would you be okay with inserting the above information into our Big Bang page, if you think that it is relevant to avoid future misunderstandings?
 
This is getting off topic

There are several pages with speed feats based upon crossing the observable universe as being=crossing the entire universe, without even an "At least" or "Far higher than" tacked on behind
 
Adding an "At least" to these calculations, should probably be acceptable, yes, but I do not have the time to look for them.
 
Considering that implies that it is an actual lower cap rather than a bottom limit we know it can NOT be, would "well over" be better?
 
Well, to be above MFTL+ speed, a character would have to be in the Infinite range, so on second thought, an "At least" in the character profiles themselves may be a bad idea.
 
A "likely considerably higher" afterwards would be fine then, yes.
 
I would make that possibly, given that we don't know and for anything universe crossing we defacto know that the universes shape is nothing like our own (since it has a border so that corssing it doesn't result in reaching the place you started from, like it would be in our universe if it isn't infinite), so that extrapolating the size based on the space curvature arguments used to calculate size greater than the universe doesn't hold those.
 
Okay. "Possibly considerably higher" then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

FundamentalForce
  • Locked
Jojo's Bizarre Cosmology [Part 1/???]
Replies
39
Views
2K
Animus-sama
Animus-sama
Nami_Kami
The Wyper's Bazooka calculations need to be removed
2 3 4
Replies
134
Views
6K
Nami_Kami
Nami_Kami
LordGriffin1000
Danny Phantom - A Varies Rating Addition for Characters (Return of Old Tiers)
Replies
10
Views
678
LordGriffin1000
LordGriffin1000
Wankbreaker
(Gurren Lagann 1-A/ H1-A+ upgrade) Don’t believe in yourself. Believe in the upgrade that believes in you!
4 5 6
Replies
223
Views
19K
Definitelynotbatman0110
Kulf_Boba
Change Angsizing Usage (THIS AFFECTS MORE THAN 1000 CALCULATIONS!!!!!)
2 3
Replies
80
Views
5K
Kulf_Boba
Kulf_Boba
Back
Top