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.
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.
