- 1,407
- 3,533
It's described in the daizenshuu, and we composite the cosmologies regardless.Would this be toei only? Or fo we assume this room is on the DBS anime and manga structure too?
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.
It's described in the daizenshuu, and we composite the cosmologies regardless.Would this be toei only? Or fo we assume this room is on the DBS anime and manga structure too?
Oh, I see. thanksIt's described in the daizenshuu, and we composite the cosmologies regardless.
It’s accepted as part of the cosmology via comp cosmologyWould this be toei only? Or fo we assume this room is on the DBS anime and manga structure too?
This. Please for the love of god don't bring up other subjects. Anything else can be discussed in the general thread.Please, dont comment about scaling in this thread.
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).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.
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.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,
I mean, why not just PM me then?Maybe because we can't ping staff and qawsed was the only staff actively participating at the time?
I wasn't actually aware of this thread's existence.I mean, why not just PM me then?
It probably doesn't mean anything but it was still weird to list a bunch of staff and not include some of the people who actually showed up last time like me or Deagon.
So what did you mean by this comment:I wasn't actually aware of this thread's existence.
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.We can have them called any moment, in fact, we we're cooking up counter arguments for that exact reason.
He’s saying he wasn’t aware of this thread being open but I agree with you if anyone was aware bringing to you specifically should have been doneI mean, why not just PM me then?
It probably doesn't mean anything but it was still weird to list a bunch of staff and not include some of the people who actually showed up last time like me or Deagon.
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.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.
Well at the very least if this passes, and even if the standards change again. Our rule count discussion ban counter will reset at the very least.I also agree with the proposal.
Also let's not celebrate too early guys, things can quickly change.
Could you elaborate?Simple question: where is the scan confirming the existence of this hyper timeline?
The only scans posted are scans confirming the existence of parallel timelines. Is there a scan that specifically talks about the hyper timeline?Could you elaborate?
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 only scans posted are scans confirming the existence of parallel timelines. Is there a scan that specifically talks about the hyper timeline?
No need for it to be specifically called a hypertimeline. But a scan showcasing or mentioning the overarching timeline would suffice.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.
It’s literally in the op.No need for it to be specifically called a hypertimeline. But a scan showcasing or mentioning the overarching timeline would suffice.
Each timeline contains 12-18 macrocosms of theseNo need for it to be specifically called a hypertimeline. But a scan showcasing or mentioning the overarching timeline would suffice.
It's in the OP.No need for it to be specifically called a hypertimeline. But a scan showcasing or mentioning the overarching timeline would suffice.
It’s literally in the op.
I went through the scans posted in the OP, none of them mention an overarching timeline. All of them mention the existence of multiple timelines and parallel worlds.It's in the OP.
Perhaps I missed it, but which scan mentions the overarching timeline?Each timeline contains 12-18 macrocosms of these
HereI went through the scans posted in the OP, none of them mention an over archign timeline. All of them mention the existence of multiple timelines and parallel worlds.
Perhaps I missed it, but which scan mentions the over arching timeline?
Nowhere in that scan is it mentioned that all these parallel timelines/universe exist inside another timeline.
you almost sound proudIt seems you have met the requirements for the new standard.
there's an invidiual time dimension for each universe, HOWEVER there is also an additional time dimension that services the entire multiverse, hence, hyper timelineNowhere in that scan is it mentioned that all these parallel timelines/universe exist inside another timeline.
Yes, but where is the scan that confirms the existence of this additional time dimension? The ones posted so far don't mention it at all.there's an invidiual time dimension for each universe, HOWEVER there is also an additional time dimension that services the entire multiverse, hence, hyper timeline
The scan with zamasu references the time dimension that services all the universes.Yes, but where is the scan that confirms the existence of this additional time dimension? The ones posted so far don't mention it at all.
Can you post the link? it doesn't seem to be in the OP unless its in one of those pages with the other links and I missed it.The scan with zamasu references the time dimension that services all the universes.
Can you post the link? it doesn't seem to be in the OP unless its in one of those pages with the other links and I missed it.
well there isn't much more to say then.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.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.