A higher-dimensional character is NOT infinitely superior to a lower-dimensional one due to Planck scaling

The title says most of it, but please allow me to explain.

The Planck minimal values (distance, length, etc) are the minimal values of "X" (measure) the universe itself is able to recognize. I think this is probably known by many here.

Therefore, what should be the mass of a 10^40 kg tridimensional object on a 4-D continuum using a measure like, say, "Hypergram"?

Zero, because the 4-D continuum sees no hyperlength value on the 3-D object?

My point is that this assumption is invalid: the tridimensional object would have a value of 4-D length... and that would be the planck length, because it could have no lower.

Now, what are the implications of this?

First of all, the mass of the 10^40 kg tridimensional object would be something like 161 623 kg4 on the four-dimensional space continuum. This is heavy, probably times more massive than most 4-D life forms we meet on verses with 4-D beings.

Also, the implications of this are that a 5-B tier tridimensional being would be something like 9-B or 9-A in a 4-D continuum. Tiny? Yet, it means that many characters we have as "Low 2-C" could sometimes be no stronger than Saitama, a weakling for the tier system, and several of them would be destroyed by Goku if we used a dimensional scaling that takes Planck lengths into account.

Now, I personally am still not very used to calculating geometrical values on 4-D, especially when what I'm trying to do is convert a 3-D volume or mass into a 4-D hypervolume or hypermass. Therefore, the values I gave are likely imprecise to stupid levels, but I thinkthey are not enough magnitude orders far from reality to be depreciated.

So, I would like to have your opinions on this: A possibility to scale higher-dimensional and lower-dimensional characters to tridimensional scales so that a 2-B characters whose time-space continuums are tridimensional could be scaled to our four-dimensional continuums and put somewhere like 4-B or 3-B.

This is of course very prototypic, but I wish your feedback.

That's not how higher dimensions work.

You assume that 3D objects have a higher count of spacal dimensions and that they are super thin.But 3D objects just don't have a forth spacal dimension it's simple as that, their hypermass,hypervolume etc is always 0.

EDIT: When i refer to a 2D object it means that said object has no thickness (for example) so it has no volume or mass, if i assume that it is a plank length thick then it stops being a 2D object and becomes a 3D one.

Why always zero?

Of course, if we take into account only projective geometry, there is no reason to believe a plain 2-D object would have thickness. However, for such an object to be inserted on our universe, it would necessarily gain at least one Planck Length of thickness.

I think it's much more complicated than that.IIRC in string theory there are stuff called membranes or branes (someone correct me if i'm wrong) that explain how a 3D object can exist inside a 11D+ universe.So a 2D probably exist in its own brane which is independent that ours.

Gwynbleiddd said:

I think it's much more complicated than that.IIRC in string theory there are stuff called membranes or branes (someone correct me if i'm wrong) that explain how a 3D object can exist inside a 11D+ universe.So a 2D probably exist in its own brane which is independent that ours.

Click to expand...

Branes.

So M-theory explicitly puts projective geometry as its basis and does not take Planck length into account for measuring the existence of 3-D objects on higher-dimensional planes?

Attempts to dismantle our tiering system are strongly prohibited according to our rules. As such, I will close this thread.