Pocket dimensions with stars in them

[Dargoo_Faust]

No, we, as far as I am aware, aren't applying it wrong, because we are not using explosion formulas for creation feats. And we shouldn't

Inverse-Square has equally nothing to do with the formation of space and matter than an explosion does. Simply because we aren't using one incorrect formula doesn't mean that any given alternative is correct.

Furthermore, Space actually does have energy, it's just it has an unknown amount of energy. So creating realms that are nothing but empty space are unquantifiable perhaps.
I agree entirely with this. This would be exactly why we shouldn't try to quantify them.

But if it has empty space combined with having many stars and the distance between each and every star needs to be considered without any doubt.
I'm confused how this leads you to still support our current methods of calculations. You openly admit that the feats are unquantifiable, and you say that the size of these dimensions should be considered. Both of these are addressed if we decline to attach specific values to the feats, so I don't see the necessity for us to force values that aren't related to them at all just for the sake of having values to compare for our system.

To speak slightly off-topic; this is a general problem I see in the site; that we can't accept that certain things aren't quantifiable and there is no reconciliation with real-world physics. Not every feat needs to be calculated to be compared.

P.S.: I'm not entirely sure why people think this thread is discussion creation vs. destruction as a whole, and are commenting on that. This is just regarding our calculation methods on creation feats; no one here's trying to remove them as a whole from the site.

 

[TriforcePower1]

The way I see it is very simple:

1. We need a way to calculate creation of space.

2. Space creation, according to physics can be very little or a lot of energy.

3. Most authors consider creation=Destruction (universe creation, for example)

Hence, we use Creation = Destruction. Doesn't necessarily contradict physics (or at least, not more that every other single thing in this wiki), is pretty intuitive with our tiering system, supported by authors and doesn't need big wiki revisions.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not entirely sure why people think this thread is discussion creation vs. destruction as a whole, and are commenting on that. This is just regarding our calculation methods on creation feats; no one here's trying to remove them as a whole from the site.

Because if we apply these sorts of standards to creation feats, then creation will not equal destruction. Creating a galaxy won't be equal to destroying it. Creating a building won't be equal to destroying it, etc.

Making creation not equal destruction does not mean removing creation as a whole from the site.

 

[DMUA]

There's a problem with saying it's creation=destruction though. The issue is that you can't really destroy empty space, so there's no real energy measurement to scale to. You'd be destroying all the stuff in it, which wouldn't be 4-A if it's not off one big explosion. For that matter, why is ISQ the default method for generic destruction anyways? Like if it's an actual explosion sure, but given how high the results get i really don't think we should default to that in every circumstance.

Like, there aren't many ways to destroy such a massive amount of space

Sure you could telekinetically cause them to supernova or something, but we indeed treat that differently as opposed to using inverse square law and accounting for all the space the energy is bound to spread across

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The problem is, creating bodies of space are typically seen as like miniature versions of Big Bangs.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Because if we apply these sorts of standards to creation feats, then creation will not equal destruction. Creating a galaxy won't be equal to destroying it. Creating a building won't be equal to destroying it, etc.

I mean, what form of destruction are you using as a reference point? Objects can be destroyed to a mind-numbingly different degrees, what objects are considered for the destruction can alter the values by OOMs, etc.

Which is another reason why we can't attach exact values to these feats. We're saying 'creation equals destruction' without really definining 'destruction', kind of since any definition we'd make wouldn't really make any sense in regards to plopping a piece of matter into existence.

The problem is, creating bodies of space are typically seen as like miniature versions of Big Bangs.

I'm not sure where you're finding this trend. Typically when something is being compared to the Big Bang, it's because it's actually similar to the Big Bang in scope.

 

[Agnaa]

@Dargoo I'm just explaining why people are interpreting this thread as a discussion on creation vs destruction as a whole. Even there you're saying that we can't use creation = destruction because there's no definition of destruction we can equalize creation to.

 

[Rocker1189]

I sort of free with OP, I believe that Dargoo suggested just going off of what we see in the pocket dimension and giving it a baseline rating from that? And I agree with it tbh. If the dimension has empty space I don't think it matters what it's size is. Unless said size is stated to be universal or something because then it becomes Low 2-C regardless of what is in it.

 

[Sigurd_Snake_in_The_Eye]

Creating a universe is apparently 4-A though based off that comment.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

We don't assume mass energy conversion as the standard unless stated, and creating all those stars all at once also requires distance. Let's say I formed to rocks equal size by punching the ground. If those rocks are 1000 meters away from me each, that's far more impressive then those rocks just being a few meters each.

 

[Dragopentling]

Tbf, fiction isn't always good as depicting the distance between the objects in pocket space dimensions, hence why we have to go based off the visible contents if they're planetary to stellar sized. A pocket space full of rocks and nothing else sure ain't planet level unless there's notable distances between the objects on a very large scale.

As for space being additional part of the mass, wouldn't that be an upgrade?

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Wrong thread

Damnit, this flew past me entirely. Kinda doing multiple things at once, so my bad about that. Very embarassing on my part.

 

[Rocker1189]

Creating a universe is apparently 4-A though based off that comment.

Yeah when calced, my point is it should not be calced because as pointed out fiction does not work with these stuff. And regardless when it becomes a universe with a full space-time matter in it is negligible as Low 2-C is infinitely bigger than high 3-A which is infinitely bigger than 3-A.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Let's say I formed to rocks equal size by punching the ground. If those rocks are 1000 meters away from me each, that's far more impressive then those rocks just being a few meters each.

Not really? Both in concept, and with how we do it?

Even in regards to Celestial Bodies with our current rules, distance is not a factor in creation feats. Creating two stars lightyears apart is no different than creating two stars in orbit of each other outside of range.

It's when space is also being created where we (currently) say the feat is more impressive. So creating two rocks right next to each other really isn't any more impressive than 1000 meters away from one another, unless we've had a major rules change that I've missed.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

If they're all created via a single blast of energy, it does matter.

 

[Rocker1189]

If they're all created via a single blast of energy, it does matter.

Wouldn't that just mean that you have good range? Destruction I can agree with, but creation is a bit more esoteric.

 

[DarkGrath]

This is the very reason why 2x baseline 4-B doesn't = 4-A.

4-A isn't just about affecting 2 or more solar systems. It's about affecting all of the space in between as well.

If we do not consider the space in between to be consequential when it comes to creation feats, then this not only overhauls this, but quite a lot of things. That doesn't make it invalid on it's own, of course, but there are a metric ton of consequences that haven't been touched on that would come from utilising this line of logic.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

It would have been helpful to note that it only applies for that extremely specific case, then.

When does that even come up, out of curiosity?

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Okay, I have a headache and its getting late on my end so im not able to contribute much to this rn. But I strongly reccomend someone to message Kep, Cal, Matt and more staff members who had promiment parts in this discussion before to see what they say.

 

[Hizack123]

So those who only created Stuffs and never show or have statements that they can destroy it will get downgrade and those who show to both create and destroy the stuffs they created will stay the same?

 

[Duedate8898]

I've heard that we treat creation=destruction because that's how fiction often portrays it that way, but when has fiction ever portrayed creating a pocket reality as comparable to the amount of damage a character can dish out?

Edit: I'm more looking for examples then anything else.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@Duedate Sephiroth says hi.

 

[Foxthefox1000]

Creating a pocket dimension is contextually treated as very powerful, and normally means their magical attacks are the most powerful in the verse in almost every instance I've seen. Whether that scales to durability and their physicality beyond their special attacks is more of a case-by-case basis.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

This is the very reason why 2x baseline 4-B doesn't = 4-A. 4-A isn't just about affecting 2 or more solar systems. It's about affecting all of the space in between as well.

This seems to be ignoring the prominent reason why 4-B and 4-A are so far apart; namely that the bounds are calculated by explosions/forces that destroy objects at a given range.

For an explosion to carry far enough and still deliver that much damage, of course exponentially larger levels of energy are required, due to how massive explosions propagate and spread over large areas.

But when two objects are plopped into existence far away from one another, there isn't really any kind of effect like that. Creation doesn't propagate, loose effectiveness over large ranges due to that, which is why, as our standards currently hold, creating two objects over a large distance doesn't have that distance considered, as it just signifies the range of that ability.

That doesn't make it invalid on it's own, of course, but there are a metric ton of consequences that haven't been touched on that would come from utilising this line of logic.

From what I'm aware, we already don't consider the distance between created objects to be consequential (when space isn't being created), so I'm unsure how this would have massive repercussions unless we were already ignoring our own decisions and discussions. See our standards on constellation creation.

 

[Duedate8898]

@DarkDragonMedeus

His justification quite literally is that he can destroy a solar system with his attack though.

 

[DMUA]

@Duedate Sephiroth says hi.

Ironic because the whole reason this thread exists was because Zephyr brought up that both Bahamut zero and Sephiroth have pocket dimensions with stars in them and I didn't remember if we actually had that be 4-A

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

There was a 3-B feat that was considered and outlier due to it being done by a more fodder summon. I only recall their pocket realities being 4-B sized via lore statements, not having starry skies. And Sephiroth's Supernova was like 3 Megafoe until it got recalculated with even higher results.

 

[Agnaa]

From what I'm aware, we already don't consider the distance between created objects to be consequential (when space isn't being created), so I'm unsure how this would have massive repercussions unless we were already ignoring our own decisions and discussions. See our standards on constellation creation.

We only do that for constellations, not for any other types of creation feats. It's not that it's being ignored, it's that it only currently applies to constellations. Creating a galaxy was still 3-C even after the constellation standards revisions.

Beyond that, it seems like the types of changes you're pursuing would also invalidate all creation feats below tier 5, as GBE doesn't apply to them.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Numerous smaller-scale creation feats are treated more as a special ability/hax than an actual feat, yes.

Creating a galaxy was still 3-C even after the constellation standards revisions.

I suppose that's a for another discussion then, as that would just be us having double standards.

 

[Agnaa]

Well no shit it's hax, but it's also a feat. I don't remember any thread changing the standards on this.

And you can easily find many profiles in the tiers 8-6 ranges having tiers for creating things.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

There wasn't. I was expressing an opinion in response to you pointing out the direction of where I was taking this. (I was saying they're treated like that in-verse, not by us.)

 

[Agnaa]

Oh, I thought you were talking about the standards that were already in place, by saying that multiple profiles don't treat those as feats already. mb

 

[ChemistKyle89]

It takes 8 minutes and 20 seconds for sunlight to travel from the sun to earth. If you created a pocket dimension with two stars, and you can immediately see those stars, you would've had to have also created the energy trail from your location to those stars as well...otherwise, it would be a while before you could even see them. I don't know if this has any bearing on said discussion above, but the thought did cross my mind when reading through this thread.

 

[Rocker1189]

@Chemist

^while true logically, writers would simply not have thought of that.

 

[Andytrenom]

I agree that creation feats should not be calced by inverse square law, and non space-time universal creation being downgraded from 3-A should not stop that. People think it's ridiculous for a feat of creating a universe creation to not be 3-A, but here's what they have to realize, 3-A is a numerical threshold before it is anything else, it is the energy yield of a feat that lands it in this category, not whether they feel like they should be a certain tier. This applies to every tier, they are a combination of a specific object of predetermined size and a specific method of destruction, it's obvious that the object alone won't guarantee a tier placement, and the actual nature of the feat may very well put the feat below what it initially appears to be

Now, the above argument is only directed at those who want to say universe creation being 3-A is common sense, while ignoring the basics of how our tiering system works in the first place, not those who argue it because they think creation should be equal to destruction. For the latter group, this is what I have to say; Creation is equal to destruction, but only when the process of creation is the inverse of the process of destruction. If we were comparing blinking planets into existence to popping planets out of existence simultaneously, then sure, we can say they require equal power. But causing an explosion and creating space are completely unrelated things. It makes no sense to equate the two under the notion that "creation=destruction"

Last thing I want to address is the potential argument that since creating a universal spacetime is considered equal to destroying a universal time space, same should apply for 3-D universe creation and destruction. In the former case, we compare space time being created to space time being erased, so they are in fact in verse processes and hence possible to equate, which like I stated above, is not the case for latter. Additionally, tiers below low 2-C are defined by a standard calculation resulting in a rigidly defined figure, while low 2-C is simply defined as "creating/destroying/controlling a time space continuum". The base requirement for the tiers are very different, so the comparasion was a broken one to start out with

 

[AKM sama]

I guess the OP brings up a good point. Destroying a solar system with one omnidirectional blast will yield 4-B results due to inverse square law, but the same can also be done with 4-C level of power if not done through an omnidirectional blast. Destroying/creating space on a lower scale is completely unquantifiable.

So why do we assume that creation always yields the highest result, instead of being conservative about it? Creation is not always equal to destruction, since the result of destruction depends on the method. Just like creating a solar system could be 4-C, and destroying it could be 4-C to 4-B.

 

[Antvasima]

I am uncertain in either direction about this, but should we still count creating an entire universal space-time continuum as Low 2-C if this revision goes through?

 

[Andytrenom]

Of course, it's literally a part of low 2-C's definition

 

[KLOL506]

OP brings up a good point but so does the opposing side.

I'mma be neutral ATM

 

[Crabwhale]

Same here, neutral at the moment.