Changes to 3-A in the tiering system (Staff only)

[Bobsican]

By the way, is there a type of foe for measuring the new value (2.825x10^115 joules)?

It´ll probably have to be calculated based in a shockwave like in past tiers.

For that particular value, however, just divide it by 10^44 to convert it in Foe.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Assaltwaffle just recently found valid scientific studies that shows how we really don't know the size of the universe yet.

I am still adamantly against using 10^23 and wished that UpgradeMan would stop bringing it up.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, given that several administrators are against the change, I suppose that it seems unlikely that it will go through.

Should we at least merge together the current tiers 3-A and High 3-A then?

 

[AKM sama]

Yes. That's what I've been saying.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Should we at least merge together the current tiers 3-A and High 3-A then?

YES YES YES YES YES

 

[Assaltwaffle]

This is the post Matt is referring to.

When it comes down to it we really don't know the size of it, and with constant conundrums emerging I'd really prefer to use our hard and fast observable universe. I think observable universe is much more in line with fiction as well. Most authors and cosmological approaches will not have the universe at such ludicrously incomprehensible scales.

Also we can't even use the current formula for the max size, as most of it is just empty space with no matter. Even the parts with matter won't have objects like neutron stars. Those take a long time to form. So the actual calcable radius is nigh-impossible to identify.

 

[The_Causality]

Talking about that

Have we resolved the neutron stars problem?

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

This is the post Matt is referring to.

When it comes down to it we really don't know the size of it, and with constant conundrums emerging I'd really prefer to use our hard and fast observable universe. I think observable universe is much more in line with fiction as well. Most authors and cosmological approaches will not have the universe at such ludicrously incomprehensible scales.

Also we can't even use the current formula for the max size, as most of it is just empty space with no matter. Even the parts with matter won't have objects like neutron stars. Those take a long time to form. So the actual calcable radius is nigh-impossible to identify.

It's not like they use the observable universe, either.

 

[Ogbunabali]

I know this is a staff only thread, but I'm curious.

While I agree with sticking with observable universe, if we don't accept real world universe size estimate with a 99,6% chance of accuracy why should we accept, or use, universe calcs from fictional verses?

 

[Wokistan]

We should definitely get the High 3-A/3-A merge out of the way, and get rid of High 3-A via 4D. Even if we don't have the 3-A low end established yet, I don't see why we shouldnt at least enact what we have.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. We probably need a separate staff thread to organise the wiki revision project though.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I don't really see where AssaltWaffle is getting information about there not being Neutron stars outside the observable universe; that's not something that can be proven. Maybe there is nothing but empty space, but that's also something that's too vague. And Agnaa did mention on another thread about empty space do having energy, but an unknown amount of it. And while I can also understand Matt's point about there not being enough proof, I don't think it's fair to just force Upgrade to drop it when he's did so much in depth research and the fact that it's the most likely solution.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

The human race is likely to go exctinct before we are able to see past 200 billion light years out. Our telescopes can only pick up photons as well, or light, so even our techonology will be bounded by the speed of light, unless we can devlop some sort of MFTL warp drives to go colonize other planets. Which is more likely than us developing telescopes that can see 200 billion light years out.

Edit 3: my overall point here is that scientific theory might be needed at some point due to our cosmiclogical limitiations.The speed of light has a top speed it caps out at, then factor in the time it takes for light to get here from 125 billion light years away, and our technology will only allows us to see so far. Then you have to factor in economics and other stuff with technology, but anyways.... We will be unlikely to see any more of the universe due to our limitations some of which are not within our control such as the universes expansion rate, and the speed of light.

I made a very big detailed post above with this short part of it, about how we will never know the size of the Universe. Where as our current observable universe is shrinking as lights from distant galaxies are disappearing, and how light from anything beyond a certain point of billion(s) of light years out will never reach us. However, Our current Observable Universe is also a guesstimated measurement based on mathmatics according to this BBC article [ http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160610-it-took-centuries-but-we-now-know-the-size-of-the-universe ]

"One possibility is that, somewhere, a few of our calculations are not quite right

That is our best measurement for the radius of the observable Universe. Doubling it, of course, gives the diameter: 93 billion light years.

This figure rests on many other measurements and bits of science, and it is the culmination of centuries of work. But, as Casey notes, it is still a little rough.

For one thing, given the complexity of some of the oldest galaxies we can detect, it is not clear how they were able to form so quickly after the Big Bang. One possibility is that, somewhere, a few of our calculations are not quite right.

"If one of the rungs of the cosmic distance ladder is off by 10%, then everything's off by 10%, because they rely on each other," says Casey."


"Yet another factor that expands the limit of the observable universe is its acceleration. Not only is the universe expanding; its growth has been speeding up. Data from the Hubble Space Telescope, the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) satellite and other instruments have been used to pin down the rate of acceleration, along with the current expansion rate, the age of the universe, and other important cosmological parameters . Taking advantage of this wealth of informatio, in 2005 a team of astrophysicists led by J. Richard Gott of Princeton performed a detailed calculation of the radius of the observable universe. Their answer was 45.7 billion light-years—more than three times bigger than our first, na├»ve estimate! Within this sphere lie hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars. 1" [ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/how-large-is-the-observable-universe/ ]

The 93 billion light years of the observable universe acording to that PBS article is dependent on the expansion rate of the universe back in 2005, but as i posted the articles above recently. The universe is expanding even faster than that, so this also throws off the size of the obersvable universe since the rate of expansion is changing by only increasing.

"'''''Interestingly, as the universe expands, the size of the observable portion will grow—but only up to a point. Gott and his colleagues showed that eventually there will be a limit to the observable universe's radius: 62 billion light-years. Because of the accelerating expansion of the universe, galaxies are fleeing from us (and each other) at an ever-hastening pace. Consequently, over time, more and more galaxies will move beyond the observable horizon. Turning once again to our relay race analogy, we imagine that if the players get faster and faster as the race goes on, there will be more and more who were so far away when they first threw the ball that the light would never have had time to reach us." [ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/how-large-is-the-observable-universe/ ]

This goes along with my previous point that we will likely never see anywhere past a finite set amount of billions of light years. There is some estimations saying we are already at that limit now to at most of 150 billion light years.


"The light from the CMB reaching our eyes right now has been traveling for 13.7 billion years, but the universe has also been expanding in the meantime, pushing the "edge" of the known universe much further out, even though we can't technically see that far. By using the Hubble Constant, we can calculate where the origin of those photons are now, and the answer is staggering ― 46 billion light-years away! That means the "known universe" is 92 billion light-years in diameter!" [[http:// https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/u...tists-determine-the-size-of-the-universe.html https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/u...tists-determine-the-size-of-the-universe.html] ]

Another article saying the 92 billion light year diameter is dependent on the expansion rate from that point in time. Which is now proven to be expanding faster than previously thought. So, the obversvable universe is much larger than intially thought.

If you truly want to use a safe low end, then scientist know for a fact light had travel 13.8 billion (the universes age) light years in distance to reach us. This would be the safest, and greatest low end to use for the universe.

Note: Scientist know not whe the universe starting expanding faster, we just know it is. Which does affect the size of our observable universe from what I have read. The observable universe as we call it is only an estimate based on math which can changes based on some variables. Which the Hubble Constant (The expansion rate) is one such variable that will change it.

Note2: I am only being informative. I don't mean to grind anyone's gears. I am not an admin afterall so my vote shouldn't count. All i can do is provide sources, links, evidence, and try to persuade one side. My intentions is not to be rude, but be informative. If that makes sense... I am sorry if i am frustrating anyone...

Edit:

These are other articles that say the Observable Universe's size is dependent on the expansion rate "(90 ~ 94 billion light years diamater) was formed/calc'ed.

https://phys.org/news/2015-10-big-universe.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/04/28/ask-ethan-how-big-will-the-universe-get/#62db4f431f52

https://futurism.com/how-can-the-diameter-of-the-universe-the-age http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/all.php.cat=cosmology

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/...erse-over-triple-the-age-of-the-universe.html

http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/dkiley/ObsUniverse.pdf

https://www.sciencealert.com/don-t-panic-but-the-observable-universe-just-got-a-bit-smaller (The observable universe is shrinking.)

may update this later

 

[Mr. Bambu]

@UpgradeMan

"I am not an admin after all so my vote shouldn't count".

Any person who is capable of becoming so informed on a topic should have their votes counted, admin or not. Being staff doesn't suddenly make us clairvoyant, we're working with the same info as you boyo.

Plus "Staff Only" thread is a bit of a meme at this point

 

[Bobsican]

@UpgradeMan
Plus "Staff Only" thread is a bit of a meme at this point

It´s more like used to avoid derailing as much as possible as this point.

Anyways, I´m fine so long we use something higher than the "observable" universe, and my thoughts on the merging 3-A with High 3-A depend on how that part goes.

 

[Agnaa]

And Agnaa did mention on another thread about empty space do having energy, but an unknown amount of it.

I'd like to clarify this. Empty space does have a known, finite amount of energy. However, that energy cannot be lowered by any physical means; any calculation for destroying it is impossible to quantify. On top of this, creating space doesn't take energy away from the surroundings, so empty space doesn't add to creation feats.

tl;dr it has a known amount but it can't be used for feats.

 

[Kepekley23]

Regarding that empty space topic, .unless I'm majorly mistaken, an infinite universe kinda violates the law of conservation of energy. Considering that true nothingness (zero energy) is impossible, an infinite universe would imply the existence of infinite energy in the universe, since even empty space has energy...and that causes more problems than it solves.

 

[Agnaa]

Regarding that empty space topic, .unless I'm majorly mistaken, an infinite universe kinda violates the law of conservation of energy. Considering that true nothingness (zero energy) is impossible, an infinite universe would imply the existence of infinite energy in the universe, since even empty space has energy...and that causes more problems than it solves.

The problem you're talking about with violating that law would still be a problem with a finite universe. As far as I understand (not being a physicist and all), empty space having energy doesn't violate the law of conservation of energy because it can't be used for anything. (This isn't the only idea for why it doesn't but it's the simplest).

 

[Kepekley23]

In a finite universe, the universe would keep expanding but never reach infinity, so the more it expands, the less energy it leaves behind. It would be continually nearing zero, but never actually reach it. That much wouldn't violate conservation of energy.

In an infinite universe, there would be infinite empty space. That would mean the energy contained within said space would have to reach zero at some distant point from the center, but it reaching zero to begin with is impossible, so this would imply infinite energy, which in and out of itself is problematic.

 

[Agnaa]

With "the more it expands, the less energy it leaves behind" are you trying to say that as space expands energy gets lost from the environment? Or are you trying to say that the natural energy of space decreases?

As far as I'm aware neither of these should happen.

 

[Kepekley23]

Energy is purely dependent on an energy source. In the case of vacuums/empty space there would still be a lot of quantum phenomena, such as neutrinos, to supply energy. Logically, pulling energy out of thin air violates physics on all levels, so as the universe expands, the vacuum can only be filled with energy that already exists to begin with. That's what I'm trying to say with "less energy". A finite universe means finite energy, thus no known, proven laws are violated. But an infinite universe would mean infinite energy, and that's a problem.

 

[Agnaa]

Yes but where are you saying that energy comes from? Are you saying that when the universe expands it takes energy from its environment to expand?

 

[Kepekley23]

Not quite. The universe will keep expanding forever even after a Big Freeze, so that'd be illogical.

 

[Agnaa]

So where does the energy come from, if not from the environment?

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

I am not for sure if this helps answer the questions @Agnaa and @Kep..

"But for a Universe filled with dark energy, the story is very different. Dark energy is caused by energy inherent to the fabric of space itself, and as the Universe expands, it's the energy density — the energy-per-unit-volume — that remains constant. As a result, a Universe filled with dark energy will see its expansion rate remain constant, rather than drop at all.

If your Universe is filled with matter or radiation, the expansion rate drops faster than your galaxy's distance increases, so the net recession speed will drop over time: your Universe will be decelerating. If your Universe is dominated by dark energy, however, the net recession speed will increase over time: your Universe is accelerating.

Our Universe, today, is made of approximately 68% dark energy. Starting at around 6 billion years ago, our Universe made the switch to accelerating from decelerating, based on the balance of all the different things within it.

But how is this okay? It seems like a Universe filled with dark energy doesn't conserve energy. If the energy density — energy-per-unit-volume — remains constant, but the volume of the Universe is increasing, doesn't that mean the total amount of energy in the Universe is increasing? And doesn't that violate the conservation of energy?

This should bother you! After all, we think that energy should be conserved in any and all physical processes that take place in the Universe. Does General Relativity offer a possible violation of energy conservation?

The scary answer is maybe, actually. There are a lot of quantities that General Relativity does an excellent and precise job of defining, and energy is not one of them. In other words, there is no mandate that energy must be conserved from Einstein's equations; global "energy" is not defined by General Relativity at all! In fact, we can make a very general statement about when energy is and isn't conserved. When you have particles interacting in a static background of spacetime, energy is truly conserved. But when the space through which particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not conserved. This is true for photons redshifting in an expanding Universe, and it's true for a Universe dominated by dark energy.

So where does the energy for dark energy come from? It comes from the negative work done on the expansion of the Universe itself. There was a paper written in 1992 by Carroll, Press, and Turner, which dealt with this exact issue. In it, they state: …the patch does negative work on its surroundings, because it has negative pressure. Assuming the patch expands adiabatically, one may equate this negative work to the increase of mass/energy of the patch. One thereby recovers the correct equation of state for dark energy: P = ― ¤üc2. So the mathematics is consistent. " [ https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...nergy-for-dark-energy-come-from/#52b61d5d1268 ]

That link goes on further explaining.

but the ratio of dark energy in the universe will need a revision due to the new expansion rate.

 

[The_Causality]

『What is the conclusion here?』

 

[Antvasima]

Apparently to just merge the current 3-A and High 3-A tiers, without changing the lower border.

 

[Wokistan]

So do you want a thread made to find all the High 3-As and discuss them or something? If that's all we gotta do I can just whip that up pretty quick, though idk how much actual contribution I'll do.

 

[The_Causality]

^Pretty good idea, can you make that thread?

 

[Ercosore]

Tbh think merging 3-A with High 3-A its a bit unecesary, its like merging 2-B with 2-A. Imo we should just get rid of High 3-A via 4D and keep the rest how it is.

 

[Agnaa]

4D less than timeline in scale needs to be accounted for somewhere in the tiering system. As far as I can tell, merging 3-A with High 3-A would also involve adding limited 4D to Low 2-C.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Question coming from someone not so knowledgable on higher dimensional theory.... but how can someone be 4D less than a timeline in scale, but still destroy 4th dimensional space when that is supposed to be uncountablly infinitely > 3D????? I hope that is worded in a way to make sense.... This is excluding hax like time destruction, or concept manipulation.. just with someones AP only....

 

[Agnaa]

A timeline in itself is 4D, but they could destroy a 4D construct smaller than a timeline. Such as half a timeline. If that makes any sense.

It doesn't become 4D as soon as it's an entire timeline, 99.99999% of a timeline is still 4D.

 

[Wokistan]

Idk if we're putting limited 4D at Low 2-C, or just considering it hax. I think it's more leaning to the latter though.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

A timeline in itself is 4D, but they could destroy a 4D construct smaller than a timeline. Such as half a timeline. If that makes any sense.
It doesn't become 4D as soon as it's an entire timeline, 99.99999% of a timeline is still 4D.

Wouldn't that be significantly > 3D Ap and durabiltiy still?? it would just be a character with smaller range instead of potency????

 

[Wokistan]

Not necessarily. Saint-14 could destroy time with his raw power, but that doesn't mean he can destroy the physical universe, at least not in verse. It's right now often considered hax. Other examples of below universal 4D are almost every daemon (at least) and all the Destiny Hive Gods.

 

[Agnaa]

Wouldn't that be significantly > 3D Ap and durabiltiy still?? it would just be a character with smaller range instead of potency????

It would be significantly > 3D AP. In fact, it would be uncountably infinitely above 3D AP.

It's not smaller range, the same way that destroying a building instead of destroying the sun isn't just smaller range. And the same way that destroying 1 timeline instead of 1000 isn't just smaller range.

@Wokistan Destroying time is 1D power, not 4D power.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Im not entirely sure on this, and this is where my confusion is steming from... but 4D AP is supposed to be uncountabely infinitely > 3D ap right...??? as higher dimensions are uncountablely infinitely >????? even if its a destruction of a 4D construct of a small scale.. Wouldn't it still be infinitely > 3D ap..?? That is what is causing me to be confused.. i am sorry... i am also especially sorry for repeating myself a lot... my vocabulary i will admit is small..

Edit: i didn't see agnaa's comment above this becuase i had to refresh...

 

[Wokistan]

Most of the 4D high 3-As are there off of time stuff, and the ever important separate timeline for a separate universe. We also consider timeline destruction as low 2-C anyways so I'm pretty sure that time destruction stuff is (currently) treated as 4D or hax.

 

[Agnaa]

@Wokistans Time stuff, sure, but time without any space is just 1D. They'd need to affect time and space, or space across time, to actually have 4D power.