Why constellations are High 4-C?

[QuasiYuri]

So basically you can be 4-A by destroying/creating/moving several stars.

So why doing the same with constellations (which are just a bunch of stars) is merely High 4-C?

 

[Zencha9]

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

So basically you can be 4-A by destroying/creating/moving several stars.

So why doing the same with constellations (which are just a bunch of stars) is merely High 4-C?

Because in order to destroy several stars at once, you also need to destroy the space between the stars, which is what gets you to 4-A, but creating constellations is just creating several stars and placing them, meaning you don't need to also create the space between the stars

 

[Planck69]

Pretty much what Gilad said. I'm honestly surprised this has to be asked.

 

[Slacjow]

Because in order to destroy several stars at once, you also need to destroy the space between the stars, which is what gets you to 4-A, but creating constellations is just creating several stars and placing them, meaning you don't need to also create the space between the stars

So basically you can be 4-A by destroying/creating/moving several stars.

So why doing the same with constellations (which are just a bunch of stars) is merely High 4-C?

You cherry picked "creation".

 

[Thelastmlg]

Yeah, creating costellations is just star level x the number of stars.

But the thing is, destroying them normally is done with a blast or something, which would be 4-A, costellations are basically smaller nebulas.

Moving them, idk, professor paradox is 4-A via moving a nebula, so would moving a costellation be a lower 4-A or just above baseline 4-C/4-B

 

[QuasiYuri]

We consider creating a lot of stars as 4-A tho, so there's a problem with this too.

But yeah I'm not talking about just creation.

 

[StrymULTRA]

It should at very least be 4-A tho, we have to consider the energy put in moving said starts as well, like this, which is counted as just High 4-C while is clearly way above that.

 

[Thelastmlg]

I'm pretty sure creating is only 4-A if you create a structure that contains multiple stars, like a nebula or part of a galaxy or a dimensions, not just the stars themselves, that's just wrong.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Star constellations typically consist of multiple stars that are within the exact same star systems and are thus closer together than the radius of our solar system. Using inverse square law to create an explosion to destroy each and every star in said constellation still gets a High 4-C result. It's not like typical starry skies that consists of many stars even giant ones lightyears away from our solar system. And even the Andromeda galaxy is visible in some parts of the world.

 

[Ionliosite]

Eh, actual constellations, such as Orion, are literally lightyears big due to the stars not actually being close to each other, so that's a very analogy.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Orion is a special case then, but most constellations are simply not that large.

 

[Ionliosite]

Orion is NOT a special. The same is the case in most well known costellations. If anything, I'll say the stars being close is the special case due to being far rarer.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Really? This is the first time I heard that; but anyway; it also depends on the method. Destroying the stars one by one is obviously only High 4-C at best.

Though, various fictional constellations often appear much smaller than the various famous constellations like that of Orion or Scorpio.

 

[Ionliosite]

Now that's actually a much better argument. Since the stars in constelations being near each other is a very common misconception, it would make sense for artificially created ones to follow it.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Although, how many lightyears away are they? I forgot to ask, but I've also heard others say some constellations are 4-B; it's 4-A if at least two stars are at least 4.367 lightyears apart and formed via an omnidirectional explosion.

 

[Andytrenom]

Pocket dimensions containing a starry sky is rated as 4-A, but I don't think creating a large number of stars is.

Although I will say that one of the arguments for 4-A pocket dimensions was that creation also follows the inverse square law, so if it doesn't apply for constellation feats, it implies it wouldn't work for pocket dimensions and more seriously creating all the matter in the universe

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It would apply to constellations is the constellation was created via a miniature Big bang, but creating them one by one would not.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Creating one by one obviously wouldn't yeah.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Creating dimensions with stars is 4-A (assuming the dimension feat is actually legitimate yara yara) because you are creating a whole space.

Creating a constellation in an existing space is just High 4-C cause all u do is make the stars. I think this is where the confusion comes from.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It also depends on the method; most constellations are created one star at a time. Or some constellations in fiction even only consist of one or two stars. Miniature big bangs that are lightyears in diameter can be higher than that; but evidence is required for those examples.