• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Ben 10: Hypertimeline and Uncountable Branching Timelines

Status
Not open for further replies.
Firestorm808 said:
@DarkDragonMedeus @Planck69 Thoughts on the revised description below:

The Space Beyond depicts a higher temporal dimension than those of the branching timelines. The banching timelines exist inside the Space Beyond. In Ben 10 Omniverse Season 6 Episode 1, Vilgax uses the Chronosapien Time Bomb to destroy all branching timelines except No Watch Ben's Timeline. The Space Beyond was unaffected by the CTB and the destruction of the timeline branches. It is not bound by the temporality of the branching timelines. Since a Chronosapien's time powers only work with a higher temporal dimension existing, Clockwork was able to use his abilities with the Space Beyond's Temporal Dimension to bring back the other lower temporal dimensions.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's actually the case. Not more.

I will revise this later, already inclusively, but this is not in any way evidence of hypertimeline or extra-dimensional temporal dimension, no.

Basically a timeline that is independent of other timelines or temporal dimension is not affected by this and basically both can cover the same linear axis, we have already mentioned this in the "temporal dimensions revision" I made... In short, this is not appropriate.


But anyway, just go ahead. I'm not going to discuss this further here, I'm just thinking of opening a comprehensive thread with quotes and pages, because both the uncountable infinite timelines argument and the hypertimeline arguments are wrong.(Btw, uncountable infinite timeline actually means hypertimeline because only higher dimensional temporal dimensions can hold uncountable infinite number of timelines, so I'm not sure why you make a structure that already has this with 5-D, What you use for 6-D is basically already in 5-D, but anyway...)

And yes, basically what I'm going to do is to call the tier 1 experts directly in the thread i will made, don't get me wrong, I don't want to have a constant discussion and loop, I just want it to be concluded as quickly as possible
 
Last edited:
Georredannea15 said:
Yes, that's actually the case. Not more.

I will revise this later, already inclusively, but this is not in any way evidence of hypertimeline or extra-dimensional temporal dimension, no.

Basically a timeline that is independent of other timelines or temporal dimension is not affected by this and basically both can cover the same linear axis, we have already mentioned this in the "temporal dimensions revision" I made... In short, this is not appropriate.


But anyway, just go ahead. I'm not going to discuss this further here, I'm just thinking of opening a comprehensive thread with quotes and pages, because both the uncountable infinite timelines argument and the hypertimeline arguments are wrong.(Btw, uncountable infinite timeline actually means hypertimeline because only higher dimensional temporal dimensions can hold uncountable infinite number of timelines, so I'm not sure why you make a structure that already has this with 5-D, What you use for 6-D is basically already in 5-D, but anyway...)

And yes, basically what I'm going to do is to call the tier 1 experts directly in the thread i will made, don't get me wrong, I don't want to have a constant discussion and loop, I just want it to be concluded as quickly as possible
Click to expand...
If you have concerns with this thread, voice them now so it can be settled. Why wait and make a separate thread when this one is still open? The only thing that got published so far was the Space Beyond revision.
 
Firestorm808 said:
If you have concerns with this thread, voice them now so it can be settled. Why wait and make a separate thread when this one is still open? The only thing that got published so far was the Space Beyond revision.
Click to expand...
My arguments will be very long and detailed, and I plan to deal with them separately because the same mistakes are being made about hypertimeline again.(even though we revised)

As I said, I need to explain them in detail and with quotes, the best way to do this is to open a different thread later. So, just cook right now.
 
Firestorm808 said:
If you have concerns with this thread, voice them now so it can be settled. Why wait and make a separate thread when this one is still open? The only thing that got published so far was the Space Beyond revision.
Click to expand...
Have you reached any conclusion regarding the uncountably infinite universes? If yes then please give your opinion
 
Discussion will continue here.

vsbattles.com

A downgrade for space beyond??[Ben10]

still reading the rest but 2-A x 2-A x 2-A.... going infinitely is literally aleph 1 I will keep the answer short. No. the product of infinite number of 2-A's is still 2-A, if you multiply a countable quantity by a countable quantity, it is still not uncountably infinite, I thought we had put...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

Replied to the post above.

Waiting on more staff input here.
 
Last edited:
Firestorm808 said:
Discussion will continue here.

Waiting on more staff input.
Click to expand...
Why is the discussing going on here? Different threads, different things. I'm not in favor of it continuing here and the downgrade revision already had 1 staff agree, so basically, no. What you are doing is basically illogical here


Other than that, all we really need is for DT or Ultima to respond to the argument you have tagged. So... This is pointless to discussion here. I don't agree and ask not to discuss it here pls
 
Although I am not interested the verse's cosmology; why has this Crt been re-opened? This Crt has been completed, accepted, and even the Cosmology page has been updated. About two weeks after the this Crt was opened, a different cosmology-related downgrade Crt was opened, and for no reason, how logical to ignore the things there and what the Crt owner said, and re-open an already closed Crt? This is clearly nothing more than treating people like they're an idiot and making fun of them.
Quintessence_PE said:
If a ben10 downgrade opens, the downgrade should be closed because we haven't wank enough
Click to expand...
So true, so true... Remember it Omnitrix's immeasurable reaction speed downgrade crt...
 
Aolphl said:
Although I am not interested the verse's cosmology; why has this Crt been re-opened? This Crt has been completed, accepted, and even the Cosmology page has been updated. About two weeks after the this Crt was opened, a different cosmology-related downgrade Crt was opened, and for no reason, how logical to ignore the things there and what the Crt owner said, and re-open an already closed Crt? This is clearly nothing more than treating people like they're an idiot and making fun of them.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, this is the case. IDK why all of a sudden everything was moved to the old revision when there was already a downgrade revision open with a staff vote and the OP was addressing all the points, even possible different arguments. The same was done with the immeasurable speed revision, if there are no more comments I will ask for the downgrade revision to be reopened and I will ask DT or Ultima (or both) to take a look at it to come to a decision, because this has gone on too long.
 
Aolphl said:
Although I am not interested the verse's cosmology; why has this Crt been re-opened? This Crt has been completed, accepted, and even the Cosmology page has been updated. About two weeks after the this Crt was opened, a different cosmology-related downgrade Crt was opened, and for no reason, how logical to ignore the things there and what the Crt owner said, and re-open an already closed Crt? This is clearly nothing more than treating people like they're an idiot and making fun of them.
Click to expand...
This page was never locked. And only a part of this was accepted.
 
Georredannea15 said:
IDK why all of a sudden everything was moved to the old revision
Click to expand...
In short, the answer is:
Quintessence_PE said:
If a ben10 downgrade opens, the downgrade should be closed because we haven't wank enough
Click to expand...

Boşver abi, boşver...
Hellformer said:
This page was never locked. And only a part of this was accepted.
Click to expand...
The case is not whether this page locked or not, this Crt has already been accepted (because 3 staff agreed with the Crt), and the cosmology page has been updated. The main problem is that after a Downgrade Crt related to the cosmology of verse is opened, the Downgrade Crt is closed without any justification and the Crt owner is called here and told "discussion will continue here". The Downgrade Crt has already been accepted by a staff member, a staff member has already been tagged for the evaluation of the thread. Moreover, the Crt owner does not want his own Crt to be closed for no justification reason and to continue the discussion here.
 
Aolphl said:
The case is not whether this page locked or not, this Crt has already been accepted (because 3 staff agreed with the Crt), and the cosmology page has been updated. The main problem is that after a Downgrade Crt related to the cosmology of verse is opened, the Downgrade Crt is closed without any justification and the Crt owner is called here and told "discussion will continue here". The Downgrade Crt has already been accepted by a staff member, a staff member has already been tagged for the evaluation of the thread. Moreover, the Crt owner does not want his own Crt to be closed for no justification reason and to continue the discussion here.
Click to expand...
Only the higher temporality was accepted, not the uncountably infinite universes. Kindly read the entire discussion.
 
Aolphl said:
The case is not whether this page locked or not, this Crt has already been accepted (because 3 staff agreed with the Crt), and the cosmology page has been updated. The main problem is that after a Downgrade Crt related to the cosmology of verse is opened, the Downgrade Crt is closed without any justification and the Crt owner is called here and told "discussion will continue here". The Downgrade Crt has already been accepted by a staff member, a staff member has already been tagged for the evaluation of the thread. Moreover, the Crt owner does not want his own Crt to be closed for no justification reason and to continue the discussion here.
Click to expand...
Yeah, definitely this.
 
Aolphl said:
The case is not whether this page locked or not, this Crt has already been accepted (because 3 staff agreed with the Crt), and the cosmology page has been updated. The main problem is that after a Downgrade Crt related to the cosmology of verse is opened, the Downgrade Crt is closed without any justification and the Crt owner is called here and told "discussion will continue here". The Downgrade Crt has already been accepted by a staff member, a staff member has already been tagged for the evaluation of the thread. Moreover, the Crt owner does not want his own Crt to be closed for no justification reason and to continue the discussion here.
Click to expand...
Before creating his thread, I had already informed him that this thread was still active. Just because a topic got accepted by staff doesn't mean the discussion hits a hard stop. I was open to hearing his interpretation. I had asked him to present his proposal to the staff participating here, but he refused.

Per our site rules: When creating content revisions, it is essential to ensure that the topic has not been addressed previously. Rejected content revisions cannot be resubmitted within a short period of time (typically defined as within 3 to 4 months), except in cases where a staff member has a good reason to do so (e.g. important unconsidered information, violation of site standards, or flaws in a calculation).

Our site doesn't just allow a topic to pass one day and, within a few days, open a new thread on the same topic, especially when the original thread is still open for discussion.

He goes ahead and creates his own thread, even though the current one is still active and open for discussion. I had tagged DT there, but more than a week passed without more staff input. With that in mind, I moved the discussion back to the still-open thread where the prior staff participated.
 
Firestorm808 said:
Per our site rules: When creating content revisions, it is essential to ensure that the topic has not been addressed previously. Rejected content revisions cannot be resubmitted within a short period of time (typically defined as within 3 to 4 months), except in cases where a staff member has a good reason to do so (e.g. important unconsidered information, violation of site standards, or flaws in a calculation).
Click to expand...
It's irrevelant here, this only applies to thread that were previously rejected with the same argument
But I only opened a "downgrade" with different arguments. It's an upgrade thread

I did the same thing in my thread for "temporal dimension revision" and there was no problem. I don't think there will be a problem here either
: When creating content revisions, it is essential to ensure that the topic has not been addressed previously. Rejected content revisions cannot be resubmitted within a short period of time
Click to expand...
He goes ahead and creates his own thread, even though the current one is still active and open for discussion. I had tagged DT there, but more than a week passed without more staff input. With that in mind, I moved the discussion back to the still-open thread where the prior staff participated.
Click to expand...
As i said, different contexts, different arguments and different threads... There are reasons why the discussion there shouldn't be moved here, but there is no reason why the discussion there should be moved here
 
Last edited:
Georredannea15 said:
It's irrevelant here, this only applies to thread that were previously rejected with the same argument
But I only opened a "downgrade" with different arguments. It's an upgrade thread

I did the same thing in my thread for "temporal dimension revision" and there was no problem. I don't think there will be a problem here either


As i said, different contexts, different arguments and different threads... There are reasons why the discussion there shouldn't be moved here, but there is no reason why the discussion there should be moved here
Click to expand...
You are misinterpreting the rule.

@Hellformer started the first thread, asking, "Is the Space Beyond Low 1-C?" Hellformer proposed "yes."
We waited for any opposing voices.
At the time, the Staff sided in favor of the hyper timeline proposal.
You arrived, disagreeing.
We asked you to present the counter-proposal for the staff to evaluate, but you declined.
Instead, you created a new thread asking the same question: "Is the Space Beyond Low 1-C?" but proposing "no."
The same topic was, and still is, addressed in the first thread, as it never closed.

The staff couldn't reject an argument in the first place because you outright refused to present it.
 
Last edited:
Firestorm808 said:
Before creating his thread, I had already informed him that this thread was still active. Just because a topic got accepted by staff doesn't mean the discussion hits a hard stop. I was open to hearing his interpretation. I had asked him to present his proposal to the staff participating here, but he refused.

Per our site rules: When creating content revisions, it is essential to ensure that the topic has not been addressed previously. Rejected content revisions cannot be resubmitted within a short period of time (typically defined as within 3 to 4 months), except in cases where a staff member has a good reason to do so (e.g. important unconsidered information, violation of site standards, or flaws in a calculation).

Our site doesn't just allow a topic to pass one day and, within a few days, open a new thread on the same topic, especially when the original thread is still open for discussion.

He goes ahead and creates his own thread, even though the current one is still active and open for discussion. I had tagged DT there, but more than a week passed without more staff input. With that in mind, I moved the discussion back to the still-open thread where the prior staff participated.
Click to expand...
I think that Firestorm808's evaluation here seems accurate. 🙏
 
Firestorm808 said:
You are misinterpreting the rule.

@Hellformer started the first thread, asking, "Is the Space Beyond Low 1-C?" Hellformer proposed "yes."
We waited for any opposing voices.
At the time, the Staff sided in favor of the hyper timeline proposal.
You arrived, disagreeing.
We asked you to present the counter-proposal for the staff to evaluate, but you declined.
Instead, you created a new thread asking the same question: "Is the Space Beyond Low 1-C?" but proposing "no."
The same topic was, and still is, addressed in the first thread, as it never closed.

The staff couldn't reject an argument in the first place because you outright refused to present it.
Click to expand...
Hellformer opened a direct upgrade thread, and after a while I opened a different downgrade.

I mentioned the contexts, even possible different arguments, but what you did was to move an active revision to a dead revision, just like the immeasurable speed revision.

I did the same with the temporal dimensions revision. I opened a revision to fix this after Reiner changed the standards, and when I mentioned the same rule as you did, Qawsedf pointed out that this rule would not apply to new threads like this.

This has not been done in any verse in my downgrade, and it is absurd for you to do it
Antvasima said:
I think that Firestorm808's evaluation here seems accurate. 🙏
Click to expand...
I have to say the same thing here

I did the same with the temporal dimensions revision. I opened a revision to fix this after Reiner changed the standards, and when I mentioned the same rule as you did, Qawsedf pointed out that this rule would not apply to new threads like this.
The situation here is the same, different issues, different arguments.

How logical is it to move a thread that is already active and even has a staff agree to a dead thread? Whatever or whoever it is, that's a disrespectful to the person who opened the OP and wrote the arguments
 
If somebody writes a sufficiently comprehensive, but easy to understand, summary explanation post here, I can ping some staff members for evaluations afterwards. 🙏
 
Hellformer said:

Branching Timelines (Low 1-C)​

"Power Set: The set of all subsets of a given set X, commonly denoted as 2^X or P(X). An example is the power set of {1, 3, 4}, which equals {∅, {1}, {3}, {4), {1, 3}, {1, 4}, {3, 4}, {1, 3, 4}}
This hierarchy is then extended unto Aleph Numbers whose subscript can be defined as being correspondent to any higher number, be it finite or infinite: ℵ2, ℵ3, ℵ4... ℵω, ℵω+1, ℵω+2, and so on and so forth, with each succeeding cardinal being equal to the power set of the previous one"
The cardinality of a power set is equal to 2^X if the the cardinality of superset is X. And each higher infinity is the powerset of the lower infinity, Implying that:
ℵ1 = 2^(ℵ0)
ℵ2 = 2^(ℵ 1)
So on and so forth.

"Paradox: As Gwen guessed, cross-time is made up of parallel versions of the history we know. There are hundreds of them... a world where Gwen found the Omnitrix, a world where albedo turned to alien x and was trapped motionless for nearly a year, a world where you didn't have to destroy the Omnitrix to defeat Vilgax.
Ben 10K: Et cetera.
Paradox: Ad infinitum.”

-Paradox and Ultimate Ben 10k

With Paradox and Ben 10K, Paradox listed the alternate timelines are parallel versions of history we know, referring prime universe being the history they know and alternative universe to be parallel versions of it, ending the conversation with ad infinitum, suggesting that existing timelines branch forever, again and again making this a continuous process of branching for each snapshot of Prime Ben's Timeline.

“Think of time and space as this tree. Down here is when you were 10 years old. Right here is now. Up here is when you'll 30 be years old. The trunk is the main timeline. These branches represent alternate timelines, where reality literally branches off and becomes a different timeline, each containing its own Ben Tennyson.”

The branches shown in the tree are alternate timelines with each branch arising from different snapshots of Prime Ben's timeline. And each such branch also branches further as seen in the tree. This continues ad infinitum i.e. forever again and again as mentioned earlier by Paradox.
Here are all known timelines which branch from different snapshots of Prime Ben's timeline.
Click to expand...
Hellformer said:
So let's consider a snapshot "t" from Prime Ben's Timeline being branched to another Timeline. Then consider another snapshot "t+0.1" branching into another timeline. And doing it further with "t+0.01"th snapshot realizing that each there can be uncountably infinite number of snapshots branching into newer and newer timelines.
Which would be a total of ℵ0^(ℵ0) number of universes numerically greater than 2^(ℵ0).
This would mean that the branching timelines as a whole would qualify for Low 1-C
Click to expand...
More so, here Paradox mentions that all other timelines diverge from Prime Ben's Universe i.e from different snapshots of it.
Hellformer said:
@Firestorm808 Do you want any changes/additions/corrections with this explanation?
Click to expand...
I guess I had summarized it over here @Antvasima
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
Thank you. 🙏

To start with, what do you think about the above post, @Firestorm808 ?
Click to expand...
Btw, 1 staff member had already accepted this downgrade.
Firestrom tagged DT and now we're just waiting for DT.


That's actually why I said it didn't need to be moved to this revision because this thread that all the discussions, OP and DT were tagged in was the thread that Firestorm closed. And that revision already had 1 staff vote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

"Ben 10! Additional abilities/some replacements for clockwork, eon and Ben Tennyson"
Replies
37
Views
2K
jgms2008
REX9097
Ben 10: Minor Upgrade/Abilities
2
Replies
56
Views
4K
Firestorm808
Firestorm808
Hellformer
  • Locked
Ben 10: 26-D Discussion rule
Replies
17
Views
2K
henryzx900ruly
henryzx900ruly
Hellformer
  • Locked
Ben 10 Cosmology: High 1-B upgrade
14 15 16
Replies
602
Views
48K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
Celestial_Scaler25
  • Locked
Ben 10! Additions and Continuity stuff
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
Firestorm808
Firestorm808
Back
Top