2-A / Low 1-C Dinosaur King

[Epsilon_R]

I mean if they really were referring to it's look, they would have used galaxy instead of universe cuz we only see a galaxy in it

 

[Reiner04]

I mean if they really were referring to it's look, they would have used galaxy instead of universe cuz we only see a galaxy in it

Does it looks like galaxy? Idts. Regardless it doesn't change the fact it has no relevancy to the size of cosmology when even single human is bigger than cosmos stones.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

By that logic Kirby doesn’t have a dimension itself himself for being small despite the fact it’s proven he has an endless dimensional plane inside his stomach

Same goes for characters like Gluttony from FMA as well

 

[Reiner04]

despite the fact it’s proven he has an endless dimensional plane inside his stomach

Then this whataboutism doesn't fit as "it's proven". Man.

 

[Robo432343]

Then this whataboutism doesn't fit as "it's proven". Man.

the whataboutism makes sense

 

[Fixxed]

Well well, even if the universe in the cosmos stone are literal universe and are 2A structure. We cannot directly give low 1C to main timeline, it must have proof that main timeline make the 2A structure are small portion

Because we can also say the cosmo stone is equal or even bigger than the main timeline if the stone in it actual size, i mean not in the size of stone that not even bigger than human

 

[Reiner04]

Well well, even if the universe in the cosmos stone are literal universe and are 2A structure. We cannot directly give low 1C to main timeline, it must have proof that main timeline make the 2A structure are small portion

Because we can also say the cosmo stone is equal or even bigger than the main timeline if the stone in it actual size, i mean not in the size of stone that not even bigger than human

Dinosaur current accepted cosmology is just 2B and that not inside single Universe but that Timeline is divided into a different spacetime continuums as per different "era's", so single Universe is just L2C at best.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Then this whataboutism doesn't fit as "it's proven". Man.

You missed the entire point of why I named those examples, it’s not about whataboutism, it’s the knock away this entire “small” argument.

Gluttony and Kirby are both physically human sized and smaller despite the fact that they house dimensions inside themselves. They are nowhere near physically as big, yet they do

Of all the arguments to use against the cosmos stones, size is not an argument, otherwise nothing in the first place could house dimensions like those 2 and other examples that could be named do

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Well well, even if the universe in the cosmos stone are literal universe and are 2A structure. We cannot directly give low 1C to main timeline, it must have proof that main timeline make the 2A structure are small portion

Because we can also say the cosmo stone is equal or even bigger than the main timeline if the stone in it actual size, i mean not in the size of stone that not even bigger than human

This sounds like a fair argument.

This is seeds argument but from what I got, wasn’t his point that because the main timeline is infinite, it’s infinitely bigger than that of the stones universe?

 

[Reiner04]

You missed the entire point of why I named those examples, it’s not about whataboutism, it’s the knock away this entire “small” argument.

Gluttony and Kirby are both physically human sized and smaller despite the fact that they house dimensions inside themselves. They are nowhere near physically as big, yet they do

Of all the arguments to use against the cosmos stones, size is not an argument, otherwise nothing in the first place could house dimensions like those 2 and other examples that could be named do

The small arguement is valid as long as it's not proven that there is pocket Dimension inside the cosmos stones, something smaller than humans cannot contain Universe is the first approach unless proven otherwise in fiction which has been done in the verses you're using to argue whataboutism, is there any pocket Dimension in Dinosaur king ever shown? Is there any pocket Dimension mentioned? No, so it needs explicit proof. You cannot use other verse logics unsupported in yours.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

The small arguement is valid as long as it's not proven that there is pocket Dimension inside the cosmos stones, something smaller than humans cannot contain Universe is the first approach unless proven otherwise in fiction which has been done in the verses you're using to argue whataboutism,

This is a circular point and nowhere in the standards does it say a dimension needs to be proven real in order to negate the point about size, unless you can kindly point this out please.

Whether or not the dimension is proven real has nothing to do with the size point, the size of the person or object is what you are using to argue against a universe being contained in the first place. And as I pointed out with those examples, fiction has shown often that someone or something’s size is irrelevant, a dimension can still be housed by them.

 

[Reiner04]

Anyway, this seems to be a arguementum infinitum, so leaving it here with;

1. There is no proof that universe like design on cosmos stones are literal Universe inside it in the form of pocket Dimension, it has never been shown nor stated.
2. Even humans are bigger than cosmos stones, so cosmos stones size doesn't affect the size of cosmology when even humans can hold it in their 4*4 bags.
3. It's all ends the cosmology where it was, 2-B. It doesn't change anything.
4. The very existence of pocket Dimension hasn't been established in the said fiction, so whataboutism is just meh, assumption^assumption^assumption.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

And my vote still stands, if not for Low 1-C then 2-A at least seems fine

The characters themselves notice and state a universe appears to be contained within the cosmos stones, it’s not just a design choice, otherwise they wouldn’t have gone through the trouble of pointing this detail out.

We know something is contained within the cosmos stones as it’s stated verbatim that they contain the very energy of the universe and balance all of time and space in the cosmology. A Multiversal energy source that keeps all of the cosmology in existence and can destroy it on a whim containing universes inside themselves as depicted isn’t a big leap in logic to take as we know this kind of power and capability is possessed by them

And this argument on their size where they suddenly can’t contain something as large as a universe because they’re physically small is irrelevant as fiction has shown several times that characters and objects can be physically small and still contain dimensions they are nowhere near as big as, such as Kirby and Gluttony and other existing examples.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

By the way, there is another episode that shows us the inside the of a Cosmos Stone and when we see inside the green one, we literally see entire galaxies, nebulae and stars roaming.

 

[AnonymousBlank]

Yeah … we can see a universe inside it and get told as such. I dunno about site standards for tier 1 so y’all can argue about that but there is definitely some tier 3/2 shit inside the Cosmos Stone.

 

[Fixxed]

This sounds like a fair argument.

This is seeds argument but from what I got, wasn’t his point that because the main timeline is infinite, it’s infinitely bigger than that of the stones universe?

I mean it must have a proof if the main timeline is bigger than the cosmos stone, we cannot agree with a assumption

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

• The Cosmology itself is 2-B, in a Universe that contains 2-B Timelines per every moment in time.
• We find out that Space as a concept is Infinite in the last episode
• We know there is a Space that encompasses them considering they travel along that space for the entirety of S2. So the concept of Space being infinite includes that Space.
• Checking innumerable notes on how Low 1-C currently works is that Low 2-C to 2-A are all Infinitely 4-D as of current standards [with 2-A no longer being infinitely greater than Low 2-C to 2-B] , and infinitely being beyond them would be Low 1-C, meaning the Space that encompasses the Universes would be 5-D by infinitely encompassing a 2-B structure.
• The entire story hinges on the fact absolutely everything in the setting would be destroyed by the Cosmos Stones

Like I'm not exactly 100% agreeing with how the standards works friends, but these are the standards now. Ignoring them like this would actively require a CRT of said standards being removed.

 

[Reiner04]

Space as a concept is Infinite in the last episode

When was there mentioned of concept ever in the series?

The Cosmology itself is 2-B, in a Universe that contains 2-B Timelines per every moment in time.

When was Universe 2B ever? Even going with visual representation, it's just clusters of galaxies and stars with prolly having it's own spacetime. And regardless of all this, cosmos stones are smaller than Humans from outside so it wouldn't affect the size of the cosmology at all unless we go ahead and start arguing L2C regular humans. Containing a Tier 2 structure was never a L1C thing here. Our standards differentiate btw the size of L2C, 2B and 2A for all that they have different tiers, being bigger than 2A is L1C not being bigger than L2C or 2B, also that there is no such case of being bigger than inside cosmos stones anyway.

 

[Reiner04]

Take whatever approach, Unless you prove that size of "inside cosmos" stones affects the size of cosmology, it's all same.

 

[Robo432343]

dino monke