- 15,736
- 7,733
-
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.
Changes to 3-A in the tiering system (Staff only)
- Thread starter The_King_of_Prudence
- Start date
- 15,736
- 7,733
Sera EX, the NPC points tends to have more negative connectations now unlike what they used to in the past becoming almost derogatory on political matter, to be honest. We do have this Site Rules below and I believe no one went this far:Sera EX said:
- Derogatory comments on religious or political matters (both highly sensitive issues) will not be tolerated, as it almost always leads to massive hate-commenting and negativity. Doing so will result in a deletion of the post, and possibly a ban, depending on the severity.
- 7,897
- 3,856
@Elizhaa
I think you've mistaken Sera's use of NPC for it's "political version".They were trying to get across that people were telling them "that's you personal problem" as if they were talking to an NPC in a video game, like a dialogue option.
I think you've mistaken Sera's use of NPC for it's "political version".They were trying to get across that people were telling them "that's you personal problem" as if they were talking to an NPC in a video game, like a dialogue option.
- 6,300
- 1,599
I just noticed that out of all estimations on the universe I have seen... 250x is the most out of place. Every other estimate is 10 to the power of something to Infinity as the most... But that one.. it's just.. a tiny 250x lol ... It's just something I found interesting with no real meaning to it...
Edit: that jump in estimation is really high. It goes from 250x to 10^23
There is a lower estimate at 10^18 but I can't find anything else about it.
Edit2: I'll be slower to do research, and respond from here on it due to issues irl.
Edit: that jump in estimation is really high. It goes from 250x to 10^23
There is a lower estimate at 10^18 but I can't find anything else about it.
Edit2: I'll be slower to do research, and respond from here on it due to issues irl.
- 21,783
- 4,826
Having read through this thread I would support using the observable universe as a baseline with a note saying that the feat is potentially far higher.
- 21,783
- 4,826
Well it seems to me that we're just throwing darts at a board when it comes to deciding which multiplier for the size of the universe there is and just hoping that one of them seems a reasonable enough size for everyone to accept.
- 6,300
- 1,599
This may sound really crazy, and possibly dumb (lol), but why not try coming up with our own calc to estimate the size??????????
- 6,300
- 1,599
@Sera Ex
What was the the rebuttals for that idea...?
What was the the rebuttals for that idea...?
- 6,300
- 1,599
That actually makes a lot of sense....
[Edit] I can see it making news headlines lol. ( don't mean to derail. so i'll stop the thought there.)
[Edit] I can see it making news headlines lol. ( don't mean to derail. so i'll stop the thought there.)
- 10,748
- 6,478
Agree with Agnaa.
- 10,748
- 6,478
@Sera Upgrade's big post included NASA claiming 99.6% confidence in the theory (I think I haven't really gone through the links myself)
- 6,300
- 1,599
I did. A new experiment done in 2014 now gives the cosmic inflation theory a big boost in validity. They use the inflation model which uses the flat universe model. There is a 0.4% margin of error chance. My English is poor.. I'm sorry if things I say don't make much sense..Sera EX said:
- 30,214
- 31,734
Yeah, I also agree with Agnaa.
- 995
- 228
Huh, well 10^23x isn't wrong and neither is 250x, but I can see Sera's point about being bound by some vs debating ideology that makes these seem really uncomfortable. Uhh given our limited knowledge of the cosmology of the real life verse, I don't see the problem of not limiting our options in regards to this area.
- 165,387
- 72,713
If NASA is 99.6% certain of the 10^23x observable universe size theory, it definitely seems like the most reliable to use.
However, given that the universe has a flat shape, we should probably take this into account when calculating new values for a shockwave expansion sufficiently powerful to destroy all matter within one.
However, given that the universe has a flat shape, we should probably take this into account when calculating new values for a shockwave expansion sufficiently powerful to destroy all matter within one.
- 14,940
- 12,511
As I said earlier, I think "The universe is flat" probably means that the universe is flat on a 4D scale, not on a 3D scale.
As in, the universe is still a sphere, but the fabric of spacetime itself is not curved. If it were curved, we'd see parallel lines no longer being parallel at long distances, and triangles wouldn't have their angles add up to 180 degrees.
If our universe was 2d, our universe being flat doesn't mean that it can't be a circle, it means that it's on a flat piece of paper, rather than on the surface of a balloon.
As in, the universe is still a sphere, but the fabric of spacetime itself is not curved. If it were curved, we'd see parallel lines no longer being parallel at long distances, and triangles wouldn't have their angles add up to 180 degrees.
If our universe was 2d, our universe being flat doesn't mean that it can't be a circle, it means that it's on a flat piece of paper, rather than on the surface of a balloon.
- 14,940
- 12,511
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you said that, I was trying to make an analogy.
Using an analogy of a 2D universe to make it simpler, I think you're saying that the universe is like a rectangle on a piece of paper, extending wide very far but not too tall.
I'm saying that this isn't what it means for the universe to be "flat". The "flatness" being talked about isn't the height of the universe, but the curvature of space itself. So in this analogy of a 2D universe, the universe could be a circle on a piece of paper and still be considered "flat", as long as the piece of paper itself isn't curved through 3D space.
Our 3D universe is probably a sphere, but is "flat" in 4D space.
Using an analogy of a 2D universe to make it simpler, I think you're saying that the universe is like a rectangle on a piece of paper, extending wide very far but not too tall.
I'm saying that this isn't what it means for the universe to be "flat". The "flatness" being talked about isn't the height of the universe, but the curvature of space itself. So in this analogy of a 2D universe, the universe could be a circle on a piece of paper and still be considered "flat", as long as the piece of paper itself isn't curved through 3D space.
Our 3D universe is probably a sphere, but is "flat" in 4D space.
- 15,636
- 5,391
If the scientific consensus is 99.6%, I don't really see the argument for "being safe and sticking with the previous size of the observable universe".
That said I'm largely neutral on the topic.
That said I'm largely neutral on the topic.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 21,694
- 19,299
Hey sorry it took a bit to get here, I wanted to look into cosmic inflation stuff on my own and I just woke up.
In my opinion it should be safe to use cosmic inflation for 3-A. If such a large swathe of the scientific community finds the idea to be not only feasible but likely, then I find no problem with using that size. I'm neutral/iffy on the High 3-B idea suggested way above but I agree merging High 3-A with 3-A to just make a tier for infinite space. I absolutely agree Low 2-C should be the basic assumption unless specified.
Dem's the opinions asked for, dem's the opinions given.
In my opinion it should be safe to use cosmic inflation for 3-A. If such a large swathe of the scientific community finds the idea to be not only feasible but likely, then I find no problem with using that size. I'm neutral/iffy on the High 3-B idea suggested way above but I agree merging High 3-A with 3-A to just make a tier for infinite space. I absolutely agree Low 2-C should be the basic assumption unless specified.
Dem's the opinions asked for, dem's the opinions given.
- 10,665
- 1,594
- Thread starter
- #155
I support this.
- 21,783
- 4,826
I mean, if it's NASA saying the theory is 99.6% likely to be correct, that seems fine. My comment about darts was more directed on how people here were arguing between 250x and 10^23 times and seemingly just trying to determine which one sounded better.
Similar threads
