Why is the creation of a universe a 3-A feat?

[Hurricane9393]

I have seen many comments on multiple threads where it is mentioned that creating the matter of the observable universe is a 3-A feat while creating the space-time with all the matter is a low 2-C feat.

I understand that we use the inverse square law and creation=destruction to calculate some of these feats, but tier 3-A starts at 2.825x10^92 joules while the mass-energy content of the observable universe is around 10^70 joules (about 10^53 kgs) so the different is 22 orders of magnitude!

So is it because we just equate the energy required to destroy the universe to the energy required to create it that makes this huge difference, or are there other logical reasons as to why the feat is 3-A?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

If a Universe is formed via a Big Bang, it pretty much is a pseudo explosion. So we do use Inverse Square law for methods such as this. Also, there have been discussions brought up by Agnaa iirc. Space-time is energy, just an unknown amount of energy. So finite bodies of space that are nothing but space are unquantifiable, but creating planets or stars out of nothing would also mean we're creating the GBE out of nothing. Also, we tend to avoid using Mass Energy Conversion based on a lot of things that would lead to; such as duplicating yourself being treated as a High 7-A feat by that logic. Or forming a sword out of nothing being a 7-B feat. We only use MEC if there's a specific statement.

Also, I don't think there's a way to properly calculate it, but creating all energy period in the universe would be much higher than just the Mass energy. Like, imagine if someone created all, GBE, mass-energy, thermal energy, total amount of kinetic energy of all objects in the universe in motion, Conductive energy, electromagnetic energy, Luminous energy, Radiant energy, ect. Don't think we have tools to calculate all of that yet however.

 

[Hurricane9393]

If a Universe is formed via a Big Bang, it pretty much is a pseudo explosion. So we do use Inverse Square law for methods such as this. Also, there have been discussions brought up by Agnaa iirc. Space-time is energy, just an unknown amount of energy. So finite bodies of space that are nothing but space are unquantifiable, but creating planets or stars out of nothing would also mean we're creating the GBE out of nothing. Also, we tend to avoid using Mass Energy Conversion based on a lot of things that would lead to; such as duplicating yourself being treated as a High 7-A feat by that logic. Or forming a sword out of nothing being a 7-B feat. We only use MEC if there's a specific statement.

Also, I don't think there's a way to properly calculate it, but creating all energy period in the universe would be much higher than just the Mass energy. Like, imagine if someone created all, GBE, mass-energy, thermal energy, total amount of kinetic energy of all objects in the universe in motion, Conductive energy, electromagnetic energy, Luminous energy, Radiant energy, ect. Don't think we have tools to calculate all of that yet however.

I have two comments on what you said and I am not sure if you will agree or not:

1- If we deal with the Big Bang as a pseudo explosion (which would be correct), then it is more logical NOT to use the Inverse Square law than to use it.

2- I disagree with your statement about creating all the energy being higher. Why? Because take any celestial body as an example and calculate its GBE, internal thermal energy and KE, and you will still find that this body's mass-energy is vastly larger than those 3 combined.
The pulsar/neutron star is the most extreme example due to the huge GBE. The GBE of a neutron star is in the 10^46 joules range while the mass-energy of a neutron star is in the 10^47 joules.

Again, the problem is not one or two orders of magnitude difference to ignore, it is 22 orders of magnitude higher and so I must ask, is the 3-A accepted as the tier for creating the matter in the observable universe?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Inverse Square Law isn't concept exclusive to explosions; it's also something that applies to Luminosity calculations as well. Creating two or more stars are once would inherently by far more impressive the further away they are from each other as it requires generating a bigger wave and the epic center of the wave would still be much more impressive.

Also, creating earth sized planets would also be Low 4-C if we use Mass-Energy. Also, I was talking about adding Mass-Energy alongside all three of those. I have no idea if all kinetic flow of energy; meaning the KE of every quantum particle in the universe put together.

Creating all matter in the universe via a Big Bang is accepted as 3-A. If it was done piece by piece, it be a different story. This has literally been discussed multiple times, and it's DontTalkDT who might know the best.