- 18,393
- 14,311
Yes it is valid but the main issue this all is interpreted visually.
-
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 - Low 1-C Time Stream Proposal
- Thread starter Reiner04
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ben 10 ben 10 cosmology
- Status
- 6,968
- 6,751
So if the visuals meet the requirements/definition of the word but the actual word isn't used, it doesn't apply?
- 18,393
- 14,311
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.”
- 6,968
- 6,751
Okay. So we're asking for clarification if the avenue is acceptable. I have no issues with that.
- 9,857
- 10,600
- Thread starter
- #166
In my previous thread, it was stated that if visuals are supported by statements represent such behaviour then it's valid.
- 18,393
- 14,311
Been saying this whole time
- 6,968
- 6,751
Apologies for the confusion. Hopefully, we can progress further now.
- 18,393
- 14,311
No need to post unnecessary comments
- 18,393
- 14,311
Where he said this?
- 9,857
- 10,600
- Thread starter
- #173
Check his wall
- 6,968
- 6,751
It would be appreciated if you linked it with your post.
- 9,857
- 10,600
- Thread starter
- #175
Last edited by a moderator:
- 9,857
- 10,600
- Thread starter
- #177
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.
Last edited:
- 6,968
- 6,751
At the moment, we are using these sections of the FAQ.
Tiering System FAQ
A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...
vsbattles.fandom.com
Q: When are higher dimensions valid, then?
"A cosmology where the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is just the infinitesimal surface of a 5-dimensional object, and etc."
Q: How do I determine if something is "transcendent"?
They can qualify, however, if said "higher plane" is defined as having a relationship of qualitative superiority over lower realms in one way or another, such as by perceiving them as literal fiction/unreality (or being comparatively more "real" in nature), encompassing them in an infinitesimal portion of itself, residing in a higher state of being altogether, and etc.
On the Black Space's level of existence, the 4-D spaces it contains have been reduced to dots.
On the Time Stream's level of existence, the Black Space's level of existence is infinitesimal in comparison.
Would it be agreeable that the Time Stream's level of existence is qualitatively superior to that of the 4-D Spaces?
- 9,857
- 10,600
- Thread starter
- #179
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.
- 4,503
- 2,221
Yeah, in retrospect, this makes sense. I'll agree for now
- 30,080
- 31,347
I think the proposal upgrades seem reasonable.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,910
- 5,812
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?
- 9,857
- 10,600
- Thread starter
- #183
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,910
- 5,812
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
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
- 2,126
- 1,725
a 2-A construct cannot contain a smaller 2-A construct (
- 9,857
- 10,600
- Thread starter
- #186
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.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,910
- 5,812
The universe is 2-A?
I did not know that
I did not know that
- 9,857
- 10,600
- Thread starter
- #188
It has been accepted long time ago lol
- 9,857
- 10,600
- Thread starter
- #189
So 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.
- 6,968
- 6,751
@Pain_to12
Here's a brief summary:
The Black Space contains infinite sets of infinite 4-D spaces AKA Infinite sets of 2-A.
On the Black Space's level of existence, the 4-D spaces it contains have been reduced to dots.
On the Time Stream's level of existence, the Black Space's level of existence is infinitesimal in comparison.
Here's a brief summary:
The Black Space contains infinite sets of infinite 4-D spaces AKA Infinite sets of 2-A.
On the Black Space's level of existence, the 4-D spaces it contains have been reduced to dots.
On the Time Stream's level of existence, the Black Space's level of existence is infinitesimal in comparison.
- 1,525
- 2,006
So, 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.
I will admit that I am not that knowlogeable about Ben 10, but the proposal makes sense from a standard prospective so I agree.
- 9,857
- 10,600
- Thread starter
- #192
Yes this explanation is accurate
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,910
- 5,812
my opinion has changed
- 9,857
- 10,600
- Thread starter
- #194
Thanks
- 10,082
- 3,723
Ok bro I agree fra
- 946
- 829
- 18,393
- 14,311
Not when the latter is 2-A structure, then you are going against the standards that we follow
Edit: Saw the later messages, my bad.
Then @Everything12 still need to explain his concerns
- 10,383
- 5,204
Alien X pumped coming to 5D
2023 is a year of surprises
2023 is a year of surprises
- 9,857
- 10,600
- Thread starter
- #200
I'll take it as you changed your vote to agree, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
- Status
Similar threads
