and one of those "rules" is to establish "credibility" in the eyes of other users? Lol yeah right
I mean, no that's common sense, like take agrees or disagrees, nobody is gonna take you seriously if "yeah lol didnt read".
and you said I strawmanned. the disingenuousness on your part is honestly frightening
Yes, because you did. And yes, because if 5D this, why not 5D those? Like the Rosat, what's the difference? We know the Rosat ain't a part of the universe, but time passes, so what time is it?
We do not know, if we do not know, stop trying to conclude based on headcanon.
doesn't change the fact that the higher temporal dimension is the only way (that is currently accepted) for time to flow in a place like that
Just like the Rosat yes? Why is it the only way? You're drawing your conclusion first before actually looking at the proof.
you're the one making guesses here lmao. My "guess" is based off of a literal simple logical inference of what is already accepted on the site. you saying that it has its own temporal dimension, or lies outside the timeline is a wild guess that's not based on anything accepted or not.
Hmm? I'm saying prove it, it's open to interpretation, multiple in fact, your high-end one, isn't any more likely, or unlikely, than any other, whether or not you agree.
Your simple logical inference applies to any other interpretation as well.
What is accepted, is that cosmology has a 5D time, and the universe is embedded within them, nothing more, nothing less.
right, remind me who was it that said that the neutral zone has its own temporal dimension or lies outside the timeline? I'm ngl your takes are goofy asf sometimes
You did actually, I simply said "Could be". Keep track of the conversation please.
if there was evidence for any of that or if any of that was accepted then sure.
The multiple worlds and dimensions and gaps that exist outside of a standard universe yet have their own unique time-space sets precedence if you really want to go that route.
Same as above. my conclusion is just making a simple inference via what's already accepted. and the funny thing is my inference would actually be completely true even IF there was no 5D time in the verse but instead the entire timeline was just low 2-C because it literally is the ONLY correct way to interpret this lmao. your conclusions would still not be true because
Your conclusion is conjecture, but how about this? Post a statement confirming it, 5D time.
1.) there'd still be no evidence of it having its own temporal dimension
The fact time flows at all. The default assumption isn't "oh it very clearly has time but isn't part of the universe, it must be 5D time", it's "damn it has time just like the countless other shit". You're extrapolating, we don't do that. We do not know what it's apart of.
and 2.) it can't "share" a temporal dimension from any adjacent universes because if it did then the universes themselves would no longer be low 2-C but 3-A structures, the timeline would be the low 2-C structure which is where the neutral zone gets its temporal dimension from which is literally the same as my argument the only difference being a low 1-C timeline as opposed to low 2-C
You're making a self fulfilling argument lad. It doesn't need to be any of that shit, and presuming your take, which, mind you, isn't even implied or stated, must be the only logical conclusion, is asinine.
also ya shouldnt give people ideas, ya know damn well people think that's the case and will jump at that