Timeline standards

[The_golden_and_silver_house94]

So i was reading the timeline standards and I came across this

A: The relationship between the spatial dimensions of a universe and the additional temporal dimension(s) may be visualized as something akin to the frames of a movie placed side-by-side. Basically, the time-like direction may be thought of as a line comprised of uncountably infinitely many points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the whole universe at any given moment, with the set of all such events comprising the totality of spacetime.

This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions, which is why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A).

And this

• When is the destruction or creation of a universe or timeline ranked as low 2-C?

In accordance with the established Tiering System, an event that results in the destruction or creation of a universe or timeline is ranked as Low 2-C (Universe level+). This designation requires that the affected area encompasses a substantial four-dimensional space, exhibits more than countably infinite superiority over three-dimensional spaces, or comprises the entire space-time continuum. To meet these criteria, the entire timeline must be destroyed or created, taking into account all moments in time.

So in my understanding ,if there's a pocket space with a planet inside and it has a its own time dimension ,destroying this pocket space as a whole would be low 2c since unaccountable infinite number of planets have been destroyed (a planet is destroyed in all moments in time) but then there's this

These statements are not enough to call them universes; they may support the ideas when backed up by examples above, but none of them individually or altogether may be enough.

• Having a starry sky may qualify as being a Multi-Solar System sized pocket reality, but not enough to be a universe without more evidence.
• Having multiple galaxies within it should qualify as a Multi-Galaxy sized pocket reality, but not enough to be a universe without more context or evidence.
• A realm having time that works somewhat differently is not enough to be considered a Universe as nonlinear time within a single universe exists. And the realm should still have a confirmed appropriate size to back it up.
• The Worlds being different bodies of space is not enough to consider them universes, as that does not quite prove they have different timelines. Especially if they are afterlives. Afterlives often are different bodies of space, but are generally condensed in the same timeline unless there's more proof otherwise.
• Being "Different Worlds, Realms, or Dimensions" requires more elaborate context and even "Dreams, Imaginations and Ideas becoming reality" is not enough to say the "Worlds" are entire universes. "Becoming Reality" often simply refers more to "Becoming a piece of reality" as opposed to each and every Dream becoming an "Entire Reality".
• Saying that it "Mirrors your world" does not automatically equate to mirroring the entire universe you came from as World can also mean planet. And it can even refer to locations in between planet and Universe. And even if the realms are larger than planet sized, the "Your World" aspect often refers to specific sceneries rather than the entire Space-Time Continuum. And just because world frequently refers to universe doesn't mean everything larger than a planet that is called a world is a universe

And this

In order for something to qualify as a proper space-time continuum in regard to some feat usually one of two following two criteria should be met:

1. It is explicitly stated to be a "Space-time continuum" or something equivalent.
2. It fulfills the standards for being a universe-sized realm (see the first section of this page) and all of its time is also involved in its feat. I.e. the structure involved in the feat is the timeline of an entire universe.

From the above destroying a pocket spacetime the size/has a planet inside will only be planetary level destruction

So the question is why ?
Aren't you destroying unaccountable infinite number of planets ?

 

[KLOL506]

Yes, but we aren't ready for this for the foreseeable future. Maybe some day when Ultima has enough patience he'll get off his ass and make Tier 2 great again (He gave up trying to fix it halfway but who knows, someone more powerful than him will pull it off inshallah).

The funny thing is that destroying an infinitesimal portion of 4D space still equates to infinite 3-D power AKA High 3-A and that's perfectly tierable and usable for profiles.

But when it comes to multiverses and the insignificant 5D space in between, nothing. Nada.

Anyway, we are years away from revising Tier 2 like that, some people don't want verses to enter Tier 2 or Tier 1 willy-nilly and that there it'd be a monumental effort to revise thousands of profiles that'd be affected by this.

 

[FinePoint]

(He gave up trying to fix it halfway but who knows, someone more powerful than him will pull it off inshallah).

Change tends to happen slowly, then all at once. Stay tuned.

 

[KLOL506]

Change tends to happen slowly, then all at once. Stay tuned.

Hopefully we finally make Tier 2 great again and end all this "insignificant size" nonsense for both Tier 2 and 1 like god intended

 

[Frey_Starlight]

haha another space time question

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Is a black hole a 2D or a 3D object?

A black hole is actually a four-dimensional object. A black hole extends across all four physical dimensions of the universe. The four dimensions t...

www.wtamu.edu

We might as well address this while we are at this.

“A black hole is actually a four-dimensional object. A black hole extends across all four physical dimensions of the universe. The four dimensions that form the background framework of the universe consist of three spatial dimensions and one time
dimension. These four dimensions are inseparably connected into one unified framework called spacetime. While it may sound exotic to say that a black hole is a four-dimensional object, the mundane truth is that all physical objects are four-dimensional objects*”


Or this part too.

“Calling the time dimension the fourth dimension is more than just a clever use of words. There are profound physical effects that force us to consider time as a dimension attached to the three spatial dimensions. An object that in one reference frame is observed to have a large extent in the length dimension and a small extent in the time dimension will, in another reference frame, be observed to have a small extent in the length dimension and a large extent in the time dimension. In other words, because of relativistic effects such as length contraction and time dilation, how an object fills out its four-dimensional volume depends on the reference frame. Therefore, the time component of spacetime cannot be ignored.”

Anyway, this will also involve a pocket dimension since it is technically a physical object too to say the least.


I will stay out of this since there is a lot of viewpoints to consider and not just the standards being used too.

 

[FinePoint]

You are correct, that from a purely logical point of view, and assuming that time isn't discrete (that it's a true line segment), then destroying any length of time with any amount of non-zero matter would require an unaccountably infinite amount of energy, which would normally describe Low 2-C.

However, we arbitrarily enforce a couple requirements.

• That the entire time axis be affected.
• That the structure be "universal" in size.

The reason is to account for the fact that fiction is far from logical, and pocket dimensions are rarely treated as true 4D structures.
We want to avoid claiming someone can destroy a more traditional universe if they only have feats of destroying a small pocket dimension, which contextually is obviously different, and it would probably a NLF from the perspective of the narrative to make that extrapolation.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

You are correct, that from a purely logical point of view, and assuming that time isn't discrete (that it's a true line segment), then destroying any length of time with any amount of non-zero matter would require an unaccountably infinite amount of energy, which would normally describe Low 2-C.

However, we arbitrarily enforce a couple requirements.

• That the entire time axis be affected.
• That the structure be "universal" in size.

The reason is to account for the fact that fiction is far from logical, and pocket dimensions are rarely treated as true 4D structures.
We want to avoid claiming someone can destroy a more traditional universe if they only have feats of destroying a small pocket dimension, which contextually is obviously different, and it would probably a NLF from the perspective of the narrative to make that extrapolation.

Oh, I am aware of the reasoning involving the standards.

I just looking at this from a scientific perspective as well as Black Hole and other physical objects are being treated as 4D objects and thus is actually filled in the volume being treated as 4D.

As explained in the article, it seems this professor even considered a Desk as a 4D object.

However, that is one professional’s opinion on the matter when responding to a question about Black Holes being 3D or 2D.


Either way, since time is technically being treated as a physical dimension (as mentioned in the article), it get a finite size assuming I understood the article correctly as it still has a size, shape, and so on as it invokes the measurements of 3 dimensional aspects and all.

 

[FinePoint]

I just looking at this from a scientific perspective as well as Black Hole and other physical objects are being treated as 4D objects and thus is actually filled in the volume being treated as 4D.

As explained in the article, it seems this professor even considered a Desk as a 4D object.

Well, semantically, you could consider anything 4D via the fact that it exists within and presumably 'has aspects of' time.

For our sake, we assume that being part of a higher dimension and being higher dimensional are separate things.

Scientifically, you could argue they're not.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Well, semantically, you could consider anything 4D via the fact that it exists within and presumably 'has aspects of' time.

For our sake, we assume that being part of a higher dimension and being higher dimensional are separate things.

Scientifically, you could argue they're not.

Yeah, as science has a lot of debates and theories on space time overall.

It wouldn’t shock me if there are ppl who have a different opinion on the matter outside of that article I posted as it is not exactly set in stone per se IIRC.

Science can evolve and change with time, but we getting off topic here.

As to the current topic at hand, I will remain firmly neutral as I actually don’t see any wrong or right answers when it comes to the standards and all.

Are they arbitrary? To others, yes. To me, I personally don’t mind it as is tbh.

Are they still valid to use? Yes, if we consider the logic, scientific, and fictional aspects on the matter.

At the end of the day, we apply logic and scientific reasoning, to a extent, on fiction to make things reasonable and understandable for that matter