- 18,393
- 14,323
Yes it is valid but the main issue this all is interpreted visually.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's the question of the thread and vsbattle standards, and that's why I am begging for DT to come and clarify it as in rules, it nothing suggests it otherwise, but yet people who disagree based “on this nonexistent standard.”So if the visuals meet the requirements/definition of the word, but if the actual word isn't used, it doesn't apply?
In my previous thread, it was stated that if visuals are supported by statements represent such behaviour then it's valid.So if the visuals meet the requirements/definition of the word, but if the actual word isn't used, it doesn't apply?
Been saying this whole timeOkay. So we're asking for clarification if the avenue is acceptable. I have no issues with that.
Where he said this?DT said it depends on the context. If the universe is 3D and outside is also in the same dimension then we can say that entire space+universe is a universe as per our standards.
Check his wallWhere he said this?
It would be appreciated if you linked it with your post.Check his wall
If DT didn't answered any further will it be fine by you what he has already answered? Because literally no one is asking or questioning if Universe is small and just going over other stuff aside from size. It has been left pretty obv smh.Where he said this?
Opinion unchanged.
At the moment, we are using these sections of the FAQ.Exiting a universe into the space beyond being visualised as light in a large black space is not definitive evidence that the Universe is a microcosm or the the black space is infinite in comparison to the structures it contains (holding an infinite number of those structures is not the same as being infinitely larger than the structures; not every structure thatt contains a 2-A or 2-A × 2 number of universes is Low 1-C)
Being far away has nothing to do with it being smaller than space beyond. Stars in our universe are far away from us and thus looks small and they're in compared to universe we live in. Universe is not literally dot or ant here, it's all about if it is smaller to Dot or ant compared to space beyond which it is, regardless if it's far away or near won't change it's as big as universe but still smaller than space beyond. So I don't see how it changes anything.While I could certainly see the argument for Low 1C from this, there's also the flip side where you could just argue that they're so far away from the multiverse, that it appears to be nothing more than a faint glow, especially from a place outside the multiverse. As well as that, I'm not entirely sure you can reach tier 1 without viewing stuff from tier 2 as infinitesimal, to which this would probably just remain at 2A.
Yeah, in retrospect, this makes sense. I'll agree for nowBeing far away has nothing to do with it being smaller than space beyond. Stars in our universe are far away from us and thus looks small and they're in compared to universe we live in. Universe is not literally dot or ant here, it's all about if it is smaller to Dot or ant compared to space beyond which it is, regardless if it's far away or near won't change it's as big as universe but still smaller than space beyond. So I don't see how it changes anything.
idg, it is like saying a star is ant-size, because it is faraway to me, same as saying the universe is ant-sized cause it is far away to them. or which part is the infinitesmal from again?
Being far away has nothing to do with it being smaller than space beyond. Stars in our universe are far away from us and thus looks small and they're in compared to universe we live in. Universe is not literally dot or ant here, it's all about if it is smaller to Dot or ant compared to space beyond which it is, regardless if it's far away or near won't change it's as big as universe but still smaller than space beyond. So I don't see how it changes anything.
a 2-A construct cannot contain a smaller 2-A construct (yes a 4-D construct can contain a smaller 4-D construct.
Eh? Universe is 2A here actually and idg what you mean by all this, universe can never become ant because it is not, only thing matters if it is ant compared to space beyond. Stars are ant no microscopic no, insignificant compared to entire universe not that stars are literally ant. Space beyond dwarfs the entire 2A structure to ant size in comparison and thus qualifies if visuals are correct. And i asked ultima regarding this already he also said if visuals are correct then it qualifies.Except you are using the way it looks to justify the infinitesimal part, and that's because it is far away.
Yes the universe is smaller than the space beyond, as it contains the universe but you have no proof it is small in a infinitesimal way.
Also you have not even shown the way these spaces behaves when compared to each other.
The universe space will not become higher D just because it contains the stars or 3-D ants also.
I see nothing here that proofs ontological other than Kevin pointing to a faraway universe and referring to it as a star, yes a 4-D construct can contain a smaller 4-D construct.
Mark me as disagree here
It has been accepted long time ago lolThe universe is 2-A?
I did not know that
The universe is 2-A?
I did not know that
Yes this explanation is accurateSo, from what I understand, a single Universe is a 2-A structure which are nothing more than stars in the Time Stream. Considering that there are an infinite amount of Universe, I suppose all of them are contained in the Time Stream, correct? Because if that's the case, this would already prove that a single Universe (2-A structure) is infinitesimally smaller than the Time Stream regardless of them being even star-size, considering that otherwise it wouldn't be able to contains an infinite amount of Universes. A star compared to an infinite dimension will still be infinitesimal compared to the totality of the infinite space.
I will admit that I am not that knowlogeable about Ben 10, but the proposal makes sense from a standard prospective so I agree.
my opinion has changedSo I am removing your disagreement for now considering you were unaware of universe being 2A but if your opinion still unchanged then I'll add it up back, for now I'll wait for you to form an opinion.
Thanksmy opinion has changed
ThanksI'll send you the money I promised
Not when the latter is 2-A structure, then you are going against the standards that we followyes a 4-D construct can contain a smaller 4-D construct.
Alien X pumped coming to 5D
2023 is a year of surprises