• 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 - infinite 5D Timestream proposal

Status
Not open for further replies.
9,982
10,819
Universes are embedded in a higher dimensional space or additional dimensional axis.

It's quite clear that universes are assumed to be embedded in a higher dimensional axis if they are seprate spacetime continuums aka Tier 2 and It has even been mentioned in our tiering system.

-Due to the fact that the distance between any given number of universes embedded in higher-dimensional / higher-order spaces is currently unknowable, it is impossible to quantify the numerical gap between each one of the subtiers in Tier 2. As such, it is not allowed to upgrade such a character based solely on multipliers. For example, someone twice as strong as a Low 2-C character would still be Low 2-C, and someone infinitely more powerful than a 2-C would not be 2-A.

But even after already being considered as 5d it is not qualified for Low 1c and the reason for that can be seen above in the tiering system note, that is the distance between timelines are unknowable currently and that said it is assumed to be insignificant 5d distance that is considered to be not qualified for Low 1c and it has been even explained by donttalkdt here.

Distances between timelines in Ben10 has been shown to be significant and infinite in the future.



One can compare the above image to the image of cylinder shown below.



In this comparison Circumference of the tube like timeline is a compactified version of our 3 dimensional space whose one dimension has been reduced to zero to simplify it's diagram when seen from the point of view of 5D space, 3D reduced to 2d, In physics it's called compaction.



The height of tube is a time dimension that is extended infinitely along 5d space and all the timelines that has been branced off from this timeline has been extended randomly to all directions in that 5d space and as we know that any dimension that is perpendicular to the timeline is considered 5d by default and so other timelines that is extended perpendicular to this timeline in all directions as well extended to infinite and so the distances between timelines is known and that equals to infinite in all directions. And there are infinite timelines, 2a timelines extended randomly in all directions of 5d space. 2a Cosmology has been accepted here[/B].

Simplified image of timelines extended randomly in all of 5d space has been shown in below daigram, it's specific for only Ben 10, 4D timeline has been compactified to 1d thread and infinite 5d space has been compactified to infinite 2d space in below image.

NOTE: As 3 dimensional space has been reduced to 2d by compactification, it is by default case that the 3d dimensional space we are seeing is actually 5D space that dwarfs the timeline to insignificant tubelike structure.

Agree: @Dragonite007 @Greenshifter @Lovemovies14


Disagree: @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X
@Sus

Neutral:
 
Last edited:
I'll wait patiently this time.

884117583102607431.png
 
Because it isn't, this isn't acceptable for Low 1-C within the Wiki's system. The line of logic you are using is just not treated as acceptable evidence, as it is not strong enough to be considered valid to prove that something is 5D within the Wiki's tiering system.
 
Because it isn't, this isn't acceptable for Low 1-C within the Wiki's system. The line of logic you are using is just not treated as acceptable evidence, as it is not strong enough to be considered valid to prove that something is 5D within the Wiki's tiering system.
Can you proceed with words containing substance? I have linked the wiki tiering system above and it qualifies and distances are known so nah.
 
Compatification as this thread is tyring to argue, is not considered strong enough evidence to prove the qualitative difference needed for Low 1-C, it is simply not a line of logic the Wiki considers valid. You need stronger proof then simply timelines being portrayed as tubes to reach Low 1-C.
 
So, other than appearance, is anything that's being asserted here mentioned in the actual canon of the show or just an extrapolation? If it is described then I'd request you to post the scans in questions, if not then I'll have to disagree with this. The fact that this is a rather abstruse and roundabout reasoning for Tier 1 aside, I'm not really sold on anything that requires Wikipedia links before references to the source material to justify.
 
So, other than appearance, is anything that's being asserted here mentioned in the actual canon of the show or just an extrapolation? If it is described then I'd request you to post the scans in questions, if not then I'll have to disagree with this. The fact that this is a rather abstruse and roundabout reasoning for Tier 1 aside, I'm not really sold on anything that requires Wikipedia links before references to the source material to justify.
Planck just cucked the thread lel
 
I am really confused here, the cosmology is currently at 2-A if I am not mistaken, what makes it low 1-C?
That the timelines are depicted as ordinary threads i think?

Edit: its trying to use size depicted to upgrade it. 2-A timelines are basically just tubes in the space.
Tje problem now is whether they're treated that way in canon and not just a visual depiction
 
I am really confused here, the cosmology is currently at 2-A if I am not mistaken, what makes it low 1-C?
Because 2a is considered to be insignificant 5d in here just because there is no proof that distances between timelines are of significant size but in the visual it has been confirmed to be of infinite in size.
 
Compatification as this thread is tyring to argue, is not considered strong enough evidence to prove the qualitative difference needed for Low 1-C, it is simply not a line of logic the Wiki considers valid. You need stronger proof then simply timelines being portrayed as tubes to reach Low 1-C.
I am not arguing anything with compactification? Compactification is an usual way to depict any 4d timeline either it's fiction or any irl based daigram. The argument relies on entirely common sense.
images_95.jpeg


So, other than appearance, is anything that's being asserted here mentioned in the actual canon of the show or just an extrapolation? If it is described then I'd request you to post the scans in questions, if not then I'll have to disagree with this. The fact that this is a rather abstruse and roundabout reasoning for Tier 1 aside, I'm not really sold on anything that requires Wikipedia links before references to the source material to justify.
One line question, are distances between timelines are considered insignificant higher dimensional or not?
 
Got it, I now think I understand it. Those graphs are really not needed.

Argument is, distance between timelines is unquantifiable. So by depicting the timelines as finite 3D objects with finite distance between them this proves that the area they are contained is infinitely larger?

Nope, this type of argument is not accepted by the Wiki. Itt's too weak evidence, visuals like this alone isn't enough, you need statements in conjunction with this to be deemed suitable evidence.

Depicting infinite objects as finite objects without any statements to back it up is not acceptable evidence and is just treated as a consequence of the fact that though we like to use infinite structures in fiction we can't actually depict them as anything but finite.
 
Got it, I now think I understand it. Those graph are really not needed.

Argument is, distance between timelines is unquantifiable. So by depicting the timelines as finite 3D objects with finite distance between them this proves that the area they are contained is infinitely larger?

Nope, this type of argument is not accepted by the Wiki. Itt's too weak evidence, visuals like this alone isn't enough, you need statements in conjunction with this to be deemed suitable evidence.
So visuals aren't accepted here to prove anything? Even if they are shown to work that way for fiction?
 
So visuals aren't accepted here to prove anything? Even if they are shown to work that way for fiction?

Using the limitations of being unable to visually depict the infinite as anything but finite as proof of infinite superiority over them is not accepted.
 
Using the limitations of being unable to visually depict the infinite as anything but finite as proof of infinite superiority over them is not accepted.
Uh, if I am getting it right then does it mean they have to show 5d on the screen? I mean how is that even possible w/o compaction?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top