- 1,679
- 1,312
Yes, that's exactly what he saysIt feels like DT just added the both of them as means to achieve Low 1-C, you don't need both; but rather you can get either one of them to get 5D
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.
Yes, that's exactly what he saysIt feels like DT just added the both of them as means to achieve Low 1-C, you don't need both; but rather you can get either one of them to get 5D
No, guys, look at what I quoted and wrote on the previous page. DT also explained that there should be have different flows and directionIt feels like DT just added the both of them as means to achieve Low 1-C, you don't need both; but rather you can get either one of them to get 5D
Get DT to change his draft then, as it doesn't states so.No, guys, look at what I quoted and wrote on the previous page. DT also explained that there should be have different flows and direction
Get DT to change his draft then, as it doesn't states so.
In general, the standard should still be that we ensure that the second time dimension actually flows in a different direction than the first.
So a time dimension just encompassing multiple timelines should in itself indeed not suffice, as that could still go into the same direction (i.e. flow into the same future, just on a spatially greater scale).
Outside of explanations which state that multiple time dimensions exist it is difficult to show that a fiction has more than one. The key point that has to be established is that there is a kind of time that flows in a different direction than the past or the future or any of the spatial directions.
Things like timelines having time that passes at different rates would not qualify, as even the theory of general relativity already establishes that with just one regular time dimension time can flow at different rates in different places. Time flowing backwards in another universe would also not qualify it to have an additional time dimension, as it would still use the same directions of past and future as regular time, just with events playing out in reverse.
It talks about one time dimension encompassing multiple timelines aren't 2 time dimensions by default.Hm... Is that so?
We need staff to review the blog, so we have to endure the pein...Why is this still open?
Nice..We need staff to review the blog, so we have to endure the pein...
He says that the added/extra time dimension should extend in a clearly different direction than the other time dimension. I don't know why this is being ignoredIt talks about one time dimension encompassing multiple timelines aren't 2 time dimensions by default.
It doesn't apply when you have evidence of 2 different time dimensional structure as already stated before. Read carefully, it's not common in fiction to show 2 different time dimension (which are in different direction by default), and so mental gymnastics has to be used.
Feel free to change the standards btw, if DB passes, that is.
Nuh uh.He says that the added/extra time dimension should extend in a clearly different direction than the other time dimension. I don't know why this is being ignored
As for this quote from his draft:He says that the added/extra time dimension should extend in a clearly different direction than the other time dimension. I don't know why this is being ignored
I responded to it above already.Outside of explanations which state that multiple time dimensions exist it is difficult to show that a fiction has more than one. The key point that has to be established is that there is a kind of time that flows in a different direction than the past or the future or any of the spatial directions.
All right, it looks like I'll have to repeat myself again since DDT said something that everyone's ignoring conveniently.Let me say that the last thread was not supposed to be a change of the standard, in my understanding. If it changed the standard, then the text was interpreted differently than I thought it would be.
In general, the standard should still be that we ensure that the second time dimension actually flows in a different direction than the first.
So a time dimension just encompassing multiple timelines should in itself indeed not suffice, as that could still go into the same direction (i.e. flow into the same future, just on a spatially greater scale).
I personally thought that's what the current explanation would convey. If not, I'm not against it being clarified further.
Here's an honest question for those of you in Geo/Pein's camp. Do you... think DontTalk doesn't know what the current temporal dimension standards say? He can open up the FAQ at any time, and Reiner's [accepted] draft is literally cited in Geo's OP. In spite of all that, he's acknowledged that Reiner's thread wasn't meant to change the standards, which should tell you that he automatically aligns with the information from it.Let me say that the last thread was not supposed to be a change of the standard, in my understanding. If it changed the standard, then the text was interpreted differently than I thought it would be.
Read it againHe says that the added/extra time dimension should extend in a clearly different direction than the other time dimension. I don't know why this is being ignored
Btw there is a lot of difference between mine and Reiner's draft. While Reiner claimed that the extra temporal dimension would be enough, in the thread I opened, the OP was saying that this would not happen and that it would revert to old self.(ofc also DT said this too) But, I think let's wait before we say any more, shall we?As for this quote from his draft:
I responded to it above already.
For the second one, you're missing the full quote:
All right, it looks like I'll have to repeat myself again since DDT said something that everyone's ignoring conveniently.
Here's an honest question for those of you in Geo/Pein's camp. Do you... think DontTalk doesn't know what the current temporal dimension standards say? He can open up the FAQ at any time, and Reiner's [accepted] draft is literally cited in Geo's OP. In spite of all that, he's acknowledged that Reiner's thread wasn't meant to change the standards, which should tell you that he automatically aligns with the information from it.
I know you never voted on this CRT, but would you mind reviewing the blog?Snip
relying on what dt said is why the last thread had to be closed. is it that hard to form your own educated opinion?Bruh "everyone" is taking intepretation with what DT wrote. And think that what "they" say is right. When that thread it self is not ended yet
Is that hard for just ask to DT what he himself wrote about
Don't make comments like this at other people.is it that hard to form your own educated opinion?
this isnt aimed at anyone specfically, im agreeing with them. people say "DT said this" and twist his words in order to meet their agenda.Don't make comments like this at other people.
yeah, agree with that. just include the staff agrees and disagrees (for the ones that actually came to look at the blog only, not the OP votes)Since we have enough agrees can we just close this and then make a crt separate for the blog? It seems like people want to avoid this since it’s 15 pages so why not fix that?
which staff agreed on the blog?yeah, agree with that. just include the staff agrees and disagrees (for the ones that actually came to look at the blog only, not the OP votes)
Qawsedwhich staff agreed on the blog?
It would be better to create a seperate staff discussion for the blog, imoI disagree. We have plenty of staff gathered as it is. We already have 1 agree as far as our blog goes. Let’s just work on getting staff over. It’s not like they’re virulently refusing to come, we tagged them last night when most staff would be asleep.
Sure. This thread is closed and a new one can be made for thr blog.Since we have enough agrees can we just close this and then make a crt separate for the blog? It seems like people want to avoid this since it’s 15 pages so why not fix that?