• 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.

Why is creating a galaxy, galaxy level?

Lou_change

He/Him
10,116
5,378
Alright so currently the Celestial Body Feats page says “creating whole Solar Systems is ranked as Solar system level, multiple Solar Systems as Multi-Solar System level, Galaxies as Galaxy level and multiple Galaxies as Multi-Galaxy level.”
There is a problem solar systems and larger structures are mostly empty space where nothing is created (technically there's the cosmic mediums which I guess explains why they are usually instantly visible it hardly matters at the scale we're looking at). Meaning compared to the baseline for those tiers, an explosion capable engulfing these structures in their entirety, the results are smaller.

For example according to our rules creating a solar system like ours which has a mass which is only slightly more than one solar mass is considered a more impressive feat than creating a star like Rigel weighing 21 solar masses. That seems counterintuitive. The first creation feat created less stuff than the other but is rated higher. Using e=mc^2 would get solar system level but that's explicitly not the standard due to getting inflated results and the sun would get a similar rating by itself.

However from here on out using e=mc^2 on the baseline doesn't reach the tier. Using it on the Milky Way is only 4-A at 3.6821999672847E+58 joules. For creating 1.5 trillion solar masses or 2.983 × 10^42 kilograms. The creation of the observable universe using e=mc^2 is only 3-B at 1.34813276810522646e+70 joules for 1.5 × 10^53 kilograms.

Given e=mc^2 isn't used since it "produces unrealistic values in virtually all cases. The energy required to do so is so ridiculously high that it is almost never realistic by any means" I think that would mean we shouldn't use a higher assumption.
 
We do not use the E=mc^2 method. We use the GBE combined with inverse square law method to get the baseline calculation.
 
Well we don't actually use either for anything I am talking about.

The page also seems to refer to collections of celestial bodies as using a system different than what we use for individual bodies.

"Since fiction in general tends to be very inconsistent when it comes to creating matter out of nothing, Einsteins formula (E = mc2) shouldn't be used. (More info can be found on this page) Instead, the Gravitational Binding Energy of each planet or star should be used. If the size of the stars is unknown, then the GBE of the Sun can be used, if the size of a planet is unknown the GBE of the Earth can be used.

Furthermore, creating whole Solar Systems is ranked as Solar system level, multiple Solar Systems as Multi-Solar System level, Galaxies as Galaxy level and multiple Galaxies as Multi-Galaxy level."
 
Back
Top