Universe level Standards (Continued)

[Sera_EX]

I'm okay with that as the baseline but if we ultimately keep the observable as the baseline we'll end up having true universe level feats be 15 million times baseline, which tbh might cause problems in vs debates.

 

[The_Causality]

Well, if i understood correctly:

• 3-A, High 3-A and Low 2-C do a potala fusion.
• The New fused Tier is splited in three, Low 3-A or Low Universe level which take the Observable Universe size, 3-A or High Universe level which is the transfinite to infinite size of the Universe and High 3-A or Universe level+.
• Low 2-C Gone
• The Current Characters which are High 3-A via a 4D feat became Unknow / Inconclusive

Tell me if i'am wrong

 

[VenomElite]

The biggest problem of all, though, is that we don't have enough information to definitively answer the question. That's why I'm glad you mentioned using all physical matter/space as the baseline instead. It's much better than trying to space time as the baseline and it stops us from low balling universal statements to just the region we can observe because while it's the region we can see, it's it like we ignore or don't know about the rest of the universe. We do. We just don't know it's depth. We do know it contains all physical matter, space, and energy though.

 

[Sera_EX]

Well, if i understood correctly:

Yes but removing Low 2-C isn't mandatory. High 3-A or Low 2-C can work as High Universe level+/spacetime feats.

 

[Antvasima]

If there exists an actual estimation for the full size of the universe, I think that the observable universe size seems redundant and unlikely to ever be used. As such Low 3-A should probably be removed, whereas the suggestions for 3-A and High 3-A can stay as they are.

 

[Sera_EX]

It can actually be calc'd too, but like all calcs it would remain an educated guess.

I think Ven may be right in that we should really just use all physical space for baseline 3-A. We don't need an exact energy value here.

 

[VenomElite]

It's the best compromise, and remember you came up with it! xD

 

[Sera_EX]

True, but keep in mind I'm still very much okay with:

Observable universe to transfinite universe as 3-A, and infinite universe as 3-A+. High 3-A and Low 2-C merge into the renamed High Universe level for space time feats, but which will remain the designation can be decided by the rest.

 

[VenomElite]

Okay, same here. I'm fine with whatever if decided to be the better option.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that we should use 23 trillion light years as the lower border for 3-A, infinite 3-D space as the upper border, and not use Low 3-A.

 

[Sera_EX]

Ah! I just remembered. According to the theory of cosmic inflation and its founder, Alan Guth, assuming that inflation began about 1037 seconds after the Big Bang, with the plausible assumption that the size of the Universe at this time was approximately equal to the speed of light times its age, that would suggest that at present the entire universe's size is at least 3x10^23 times larger than the size of the observable universe.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Cosmic inflation theory makes the universe out to bemany times magnitudes of times larger than trillions lol.

"After all, inflation takes some initial region of space, and regardless of its initial shape, size, or conditions, stretches it, and causes it to expand at an exponential rate! This takes any initial Universe and makes it huge! Not just billions of times larger than it was initially, but googols upon googols of times larger! It stretches it flat, it makes it uniform, and even sows the seeds of what will someday grow into the stars and galaxies that fill our Universe today!"

The same article as linked above = "Based on what we currently think about inflation, this means that the Universe is at least 10^(1030) times the size of our observable Universe! And good luck living long enough to even write that number down. Thanks to Rob Knop for making me think about this, and isn't that a mind-blowing thing to think about? All that we know, see, and observe is just one tiny region that slid down that hill fast enough to end inflation, but most of it just keeps on inflating forever and ever. Aren't we the lucky ones?!"

 

[VenomElite]

3 x 10^23 = 300 sextillion times the size of the observable universe ƒæÇ

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we should obviously use the current most accepted scientific estimation of the universe size as a lower border.

 

[Sera_EX]

For those curious, I did the math real quick:

13.7x10^6 X 3x10^23=~4x10^30LY Or 4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 light years. That dwarfs 93 billion LY by a lot,

 

[VenomElite]

Why haven't we calc'd this before instead of using th observable universe as a low ball? We calc everything else lol.

 

[Crzer07]

It's even faster than light, to which Darkanine already calced the speed of the initial Big Bang expansion.

 

[Sera_EX]

Well, we should obviously use the current most accepted scientific estimation of the universe size as a lower border.

We don't. The observable universe isn't the current most accepted estimation of the size of the universe. It's the current most accepted estimation for our local region of the universe. It's undeniable. The only reason we use it is because "we don't know the actual size of the universe" but if it can be estimated through a calc, I'm not seeing the issue here. We really do calc everything else.

 

[Pritti]

At minimum, it's coincidentally the size of the observable universe.

At maximum, it's infinite.

I do not believe we have any real reason to parse out a number in between.

 

[Sera_EX]

Anyway enough goofing around. Obviously we're not going to assign an arbitrary size to the unobservable universe, no matter how educated of a guess it is. Let's focus on 3-A/3-A+ and High 3-A/Low 2-C.

I think for the latter we could do a poll.

 

[Pritti]

Won't that just turn into another "I like this better because it's cooler vs. What actually makes sense and is consistent" though?

 

[Sera_EX]

Probably.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

I just went through a hundred articles at least. The 2 newest ones i found are within 2 years. The newest one says "the Universe is at least 10^(1030) times the size of our observable Universe" while the oldest one is 10^(10^23) so i guess we got a high end and a low end if it does get calc'ed.

But back on topic.... I am more inclined towards 3-A/3-A∞(+) (merging).. Those with partly 4-D power can be assigned a hax apporiate for their feat such as conecpt manipulation, higher dimensional manipulation, or time manipulation along with a "Possibely higher" rating.... that is my opinion..

 

[Sera_EX]

But back on topic.... I am more inclined towards 3-A/3-A∞(+) (merging).. Those with partly 4-D power can be assigned a hax apporiate for their feat such as conecpt manipulation, higher dimensional manipulation, or time manipulation along with a "Possibely higher" rating

Yes. I like this.

 

[Antvasima]

We don't. The observable universe isn't the current most accepted estimation of the size of the universe. It's the current most accepted estimation for our local region of the universe. It's undeniable. The only reason we use it is because "we don't know the actual size of the universe" but if it can be estimated through a calc, I'm not seeing the issue here. We really do calc everything else.

Yes. I just stated the exact same thing. It isn't like I disagree about this.

We are never going to use Low 3-A in practice, so the tier seems pointless to include.

 

[Sera_EX]

Oh, that's my mistake. I misinterpreted what you meant. I'm very tired right now.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

Anyway, my point still stands that universe-busting or creation will never be observable universe only within fiction, or at least none of our current characters qualify, and as such Low 3-A is redundant and should be avoided.

We should decide a more appropriate lower border for 3-A instead.

Naturally, we would need an updated calculation for our Attack Potency chart.

 

[Sera_EX]

You're right, though the only non-arbitrarily defined lower bound I can think of is all physical matter within the universe, but we'd need if we can determine the energy required to do so.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am personally fine with if we simply use the most recent accepted scientific estimation of the universe size as a lower border, as it is by far preferable to what we use currently, but DontTalkDT and Ultima Reality are better suited for evaluating that.

 

[Sera_EX]

I agree.

 

[Agnaa]

I'll ask you again, what would you rate a limited 5D as? That is, a 5D being or power less than Multiversal in scale.

I would rate them as High 2-A, because the tiering system explicitly states that High 2-A counts all 5-dimensional beings.

If Low 2-C was changed to include 4-dimensional beings, then there'd be no need for a limited 4-D anywhere.

 

[Sera_EX]

I didn't even say that on this thread. We been moved past the limited 4D stuff.

 

[Agnaa]

Sure, it was from last thread after I went to sleep.

What have you guys done to address the limited 4D stuff?

 

[Sera_EX]

I said from the start that Low 2-C needs to be redefined if necessary.

 

[Agnaa]

I said from the start that Low 2-C needs to be redefined if necessary.

Okay, so to take the thing you're willing to do and to actually make it practical and applicable, the definition of Low 2-C will be changed from

This is for characters who can destroy and/or create the entire 4-dimensional space-time of a single universe, not just the physical matter within one. For example, an entire timeline.

to

This is for characters who are 4-dimensional, and/or can destroy and/or create the entire 4-dimensional space-time of a single universe, not just the physical matter within one. For example, an entire timeline.

 

[Sera_EX]

Ja

 

[The_Causality]

 

[Sera_EX]

Or can destroy and/or create the entire 4-dimensional space-time of a single universe

 

[The_Causality]

It's still the same for 3-D with 4-D power, the new Definition just added the four Dimensional being mention

Ninja'd Sera 2 fast 4 me plz nerf

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Wait so low 2-C is staying?