• 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.

(DB Tier 1) We must imagine a DB scaler happy.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Due to the recently added note about multiple temporal axis granting a higher dimension, I definitely agree with that.

I'd also recommend anyone to read DB's cosmology before derailing asking things like DB Multiverse having different time axis, which is already is accepted here.
The thing is that no one is arguing that. At least, talking for myself, my point is that alternate space-times don't mean multiple time dimensions by default (and if this has indeed become a new standard of these forums, where having alternate space-times or multiverses implies Low 1-C cosmology must be happening, then I have a number of question marks in my mind which, if brought here, then would be actual derailing hence those will be left for another opportunity).

Connected or not to each other, every last one of them could be partaking of the same time dimension. The very same note that you are directing people towards mentions events of a timeline encompassing another. And 2-C.

This is literally the same reason why this thread was rejected in the past. Spatio-Temporal separation does not need to introduce new time dimensions, smaller than universal space-times having different rules and dimensions of time does not mean nearly as much for a cosmology at large than a full on macrocosm adopting those different rules.

It is fine if you disagree, but I suggest instead that you try and understand what people are bringing about and where their doubts lie before making comments like this one. If I were actually arguing what you keep calling derailing, I wouldn't need to ask for pieces of evidence to prove a different dimension of time, rather than multiversal separation.

You can say that it's derailing, but I think rather than someone bringing up questions that explain the very thread at hand, what is very tiresome and derailing is to have someone, in this case myself, asking about one thing and have to explain multiple times over why I was arguing, and how it had nothing to do with what the opposition says I was arguing about.
 
I really just don't understand, "why didn't you just call the staff that disagreed"? Maybe because we can't ping staff and qawsed was the only staff actively participating at the time? We can have them called any moment, in fact, we we're cooking up counter arguments for that exact reason. Stop with these accusations, reiner changed the standards because they didn't make sense and multiple staff who participate in tier 1 threads agreed with it. Also agree.
 
my point is that alternate space-times don't mean multiple time dimensions by default (and if this has indeed become a new standard of these forums,
It doesn't. Even if you have an infinite amount of different space times you would need to provide evidence that they have independent temporal axis to get Low 1-C. Most universes aren't going to meet that standard. Especially any universe that uses the "Variation of choice" ruleset.
 
I wasn't actually aware of this thread's existence.
So what did you mean by this comment:
We can have them called any moment, in fact, we we're cooking up counter arguments for that exact reason.
EDIT: Actually its a whatever topic at this point. It was just a weird move to list staff members and not include people who showed up last time.
 
It doesn't. Even if you have an infinite amount of different space times you would need to provide evidence that they have independent temporal axis to get Low 1-C. Most universes aren't going to meet that standard. Especially any universe that uses the "Variation of choice" ruleset.
Reading this is a relief. If by any chance a misconception is later proven to be happening, I'd much rather it be coming from a franchise needing a revision than tackling a site-wide standard.
 
The only scans posted are scans confirming the existence of parallel timelines. Is there a scan that specifically talks about the hyper timeline?
The timeline contains places with their own temporal dimension, and can branch off with the same exact cosmological structure. There are statements for different time dimensions, but no specific statement calling the overarching timeline a “hypertimeline.” I don’t know why that’s relevant though.
 
The timeline contains places with their own temporal dimension, and can branch off with the same exact cosmological structure. There are statements for different time dimensions, but no specific statement calling the overarching timeline a “hypertimeline.” I don’t know why that’s relevant though.
No need for it to be specifically called a hypertimeline. But a scan showcasing or mentioning the overarching timeline would suffice.
 
I have already seen that. And again, it mentions the existence of parallel timelines and universes, but there is no mention of an overarching timeline or this time dimensions you've just mentioned involving zamasu.
universe 7 has its own time dimension, so the fact that zamasu traveled to universe sevens past even though he's from universe 10 implies another time dimension.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top