• 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.
ImmortalDread said:
A multiverse has 12 universes, and we are giving low 1-C for this multiverse? This is how I exactly understand from your message.
Click to expand...
Essentially speaking its multiple layers:
  • Universe 7 (The Main Universe for the Series) shows there's a chamber that is the origin for all time. This chamber is nebulously located somewhere in the Macrocosm and is the reason time exists
  • Universe 7's destruction to the greater timeline is not relevant. Even if it were to be completely and utterly erased by Zeno the remaining Macrocosms would remain unaffected
  • Considering the baseline of Universe 7's clone, Universe 6, is basically Universe 7 with some tweaks the implication is that each Macrocosm has its own time room
  • Since the above points are all accepted, that must mean there are 12 different temporal axis. For these axis to be separated they have to exist within a higher dimensional timeline.
There's no scan saying "Hypertime" or "Supertime". It's just a term based on the above evidence. Like how you don't need to mention Hilbert Space to get an infinite dimensional multiverse.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
Fine. I will say this simply:

The overarching timeline as described in the OP would qualify for Low 1-C. However, no one has actually provided any evidence that this over arching timeline actually exists and at best the arguments have been that this overarching timeline is implied to exist based on the scans that say parallels timelines exists.
Click to expand...
1. Future zeno's existence proves that these space-times are under one grander timeline since he lives outside of universe 7

2. Time rings allow for time travel, this is important as it's destruction was the result of the timelines destruction coming from universe 7, despite it originating from universe 10, implying these universes are in the same timeline

3. There is still a timeline for universe 7 by you're logic, just not the same one for all the universes. Universe 7 has 3 temporal dimensions meaning the timeline still fits the criteria for low 1C.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
  • Since the above points are all accepted, that must mean there are 12 different temporal axis. For these axis to be separated they have to exist within a higher dimensional timeline.
Click to expand...
By this logic, every multiverse is Low 1-C since each universe would have separate time axis and will need a higher dimensional timeline to be separated.

Qawsedf234 said:
There's no scan saying "Hypertime" or "Supertime". It's just a term based on the above evidence. Like how you don't need to mention Hilbert Space to get an infinite dimensional multiverse.
Click to expand...

Again, I did not ask for a scan that says hypertime or supertime exists. I asked for a scan that show cases the Low 1-C structure where all the timelines exist in?

But upon clarification of this:
Phsccarvalho said:
Whenever a new timeline is created there are 12 macrocosms.

Like the trunks timeline of the future, where there is his universe (universe 7) and universe 10 of future zamasu.

Or Goku Black's timeline, where it's a timeline in which Zamasu saw the universe 7 and 6 tournament, and switched bodies with Goku. Again, another timeline and again the 12 macrocosms.

Each timeline has its 12 macrocosms.
Click to expand...
Is the Low 1-C structure the timeline that holds the 12 universes or the a supposed structure that holds all the parallel timelines?
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
By this logic, every multiverse is Low 1-C since each universe would have separate time axis and will need a higher dimensional timeline to be separated.
Click to expand...
Not really. A singular time axis can support a High 1-A multiverse. It has no set limitation.

If you mean "Every multiverse has a 5th dimension going by that logic" then yes, we already accept that a multiverse would require a fifth dimension to properly separate timelines. Its just that a higher dimension is an uncountable infinity bigger than a lower dimension on this site, meaning that even an infinite amount of 4-D structures would not make the 5-D qualify for Low 1-C.
Iamunanimousinthat said:
Is the Low 1-C structure the timeline that holds the 12 universes or the a supposed structure that holds all the parallel timelines?
Click to expand...
The Low 1-C structure is overarching Timeline that holds 12 universes.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
Is the Low 1-C structure the timeline that holds the 12 universes or the a supposed structure that holds all the parallel timelines?
Click to expand...
Ah, I see. Do you think we're saying the timeline has infinite timelines within it? The standards and OP is saying that temporal dimensions (not specifically timelines) under a larger timeline are considered low 1C. Pretty sure you used this with sailor moon before the standards changed hence why it got rejected
 
Actually, I will not respond to anyone else, since Qawsedf234 is the only person who summarized the entirety, instead of saying "agree to disagree" mentality.

Qawsedf234 said:
Essentially speaking its multiple layers:
  • Universe 7 (The Main Universe for the Series) shows there's a chamber that is the origin for all time. This chamber is nebulously located somewhere in the Macrocosm and is the reason time exists
  • Universe 7's destruction to the greater timeline is not relevant. Even if it were to be completely and utterly erased by Zeno the remaining Macrocosms would remain unaffected
  • Considering the baseline of Universe 7's clone, Universe 6, is basically Universe 7 with some tweaks the implication is that each Macrocosm has its own time room
  • Since the above points are all accepted, that must mean there are 12 different temporal axis. For these axis to be separated they have to exist within a higher dimensional timeline.
There's no scan saying "Hypertime" or "Supertime". It's just a term based on the above evidence. Like how you don't need to mention Hilbert Space to get an infinite dimensional multiverse.
Click to expand...
This bolded part:

What is the reason for DB adhering to this specific reasoning? I acknowledge that one can arrive at this conclusion, but what I fail to grasp is the motivation behind their adherence to this reasoning.

Furthermore, I want to ask about the unmentioned higher dimensional "structure." What prompts anyone to scale up to it in the absence of any evidence or implication? It is solely based on our assumption of how we understand the mechanics. Why do we additionally assume that someone would scale to it?

Alright, I drew the cosmology (illustration)
UOajuA5.jpg



Then I agree with this. But I don't think this is a significant 5D dimensional. The fact is, the way I understand this is similar to void - insignificant higher dimensional space.
 
Last edited:
Qawsedf234 said:
If you mean "Every multiverse has a 5th dimension going by that logic" then yes, we already accept that a multiverse would require a fifth dimension to properly separate timelines. Its just that a higher dimension is an uncountable infinity bigger than a lower dimension on this site, meaning that even an infinite amount of 4-D structures would not make the 5-D qualify for Low 1-C
Click to expand...
No, I mean specifically the idea that a higher timeline is needed for separate time axes, then every multiverse will be low 1-C. But that's not an argument for here.

Qawsedf234 said:
The Low 1-C structure is overarching Timeline that holds 12 universes.
Click to expand...
BasedNecoScaler69 said:
the timeline that holds the 12.
Click to expand...
I concede then. My mistake. I thought the OP was speaking on a structure that held all the alternate timelines. If it is just the multiverse and that apparently fits the new standards then so be it.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
The Low 1-C structure is overarching Timeline that holds 12 universes.
Click to expand...
What does it make any difference when I interpret it as "A multiverse (a timeline let's say) consists of 12 space-time continuums, thus a multiverse is low 1-C by necessity" is it how it is intended to convey?
 
ImmortalDread said:
Then I agree with this. But I don't think this is a significant 5D dimensional. The fact is, the way I understand this is similar to void - insignificant higher dimensional space.
Click to expand...
fundamentally wrong because of how time works.

But what happens when we introduce an overarching timeline that spans across all these different timelines? How does this affect the nature of space-time and our understanding of the universe as we know it?

One possibility is that this overarching timeline dislocates space-time over an uncountably infinite number of moments. Essentially, this means that we end up with an infinite number of snapshots of 4-dimensional space, each corresponding to a different moment in time.
Click to expand...
 
It mentions one possibility, the fact that it is based on 'options,' and we are giving a solid rating to this verse as if it were the only single-handed possibility, is odd to me. Besides, I prefer to have only one person reply, essentially the one I am talking to. No offense.

Because y'all dodged the questions with agree to disagree that I give up taking any of you seriously. Only Qawsedf234 managed to speak properly.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Actually, I will not respond to anyone else, since Qawsedf234 is the only person who summarized the entirety, instead of saying "agree to disagree" mentality.


This bolded part:

What is the reason for DB adhering to this specific reasoning? I acknowledge that one can arrive at this conclusion, but what I fail to grasp is the motivation behind their adherence to this reasoning.

Furthermore, I want to ask about the unmentioned higher dimensional "structure." What prompts anyone to scale up to it in the absence of any evidence or implication? It is solely based on our assumption of how we understand the mechanics. Why do we additionally assume that someone would scale to it?

Alright, I drew the cosmology (illustration)
UOajuA5.jpg



Then I agree with this. But I don't think this is a significant 5D dimensional. The fact is, the way I understand this is similar to void - insignificant higher dimensional space.
Click to expand...
You made a mistake in the drawing, could I make a version for you to understand?
 
ImmortalDread said:
. Why do we additionally assume that someone would scale to it?
Click to expand...
Because there are a handful of characters who can total erase an entire timeline, like Zeno. Someone like Beerus or (canon) Goku aren't scaling to the rating.
ImmortalDread said:
But I don't think this is a significant 5D dimensional.
Click to expand...
Its not 5th Dimensional in the way you're thinking, it's a higher power set of an infinite array of universes. The reason the OP include the picture with the square with a line through it was to show that a time axis has an infinite amount of snapshots of a universal space.

If you have separate temporal axis, you would require a higher powerset of numbers to contain them all, which would result in a power set of a Tier 2 space or something akin to a fifth dimensional axis.

Basically a Dragon Ball Macrocosm is three different Aleph-1 sets of 3-A spaces, which is why each of those spaces are Low 2-C and why a single Macrocosm would be 2-C.

This is an Aleph-1 set of Low 2-C spaces, which would be Low 1-C. Or at least that's how I understand the idea of the time axis in concept.
ImmortalDread said:
What does it make any difference when I interpret it as "A multiverse (a timeline let's say) consists of 12 space-time continuums, thus a multiverse is low 1-C by necessity" is it how it is intended to convey?
Click to expand...
It would only be Low 1-C if you can provably demonstrate a parallel time axis in those different universes. Which is harder to do than it sounds.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Furthermore, I want to ask about the unmentioned higher dimensional "structure." What prompts anyone to scale up to it in the absence of any evidence or implication? It is solely based on our assumption of how we understand the mechanics. Why do we additionally assume that someone would scale to it?

Alright, I drew the cosmology (illustration)
UOajuA5.jpg



Then I agree with this. But I don't think this is a significant 5D dimensional. The fact is, the way I understand this is similar to void - insignificant higher dimensional space.
Click to expand...
What you've drawn there in Pink is not the higher dimensional timeline, is the higher dimensional –insignificant– space between macrocosms. The higher dimensional timeline will include uncountable infinite sets of that 4D macrocosms you've shown, such as how a normal timeline contains infinite sets of 3D universes. For more explanation, the FAQ:

Q: How do temporal dimensions impact on tiering?​

A: The relationship between the spatial dimensions of a universe and the additional temporal dimension(s) may be visualized as something akin to the frames of a movie placed side-by-side. Basically, the time-like direction may be thought of as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the whole universe at any given moment, with the set of all such events comprising the totality of spacetime.

This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions, which is why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). For example, a higher spacetime continuum with two temporal dimensions (instead of just one) comprises a higher temporal axis that spans regular temporal dimensions that the entirety of 4-dimensional spacetimes, or equivalents to it are serviced by (This is similar to how the time dimension in a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum spans uncountably infinite 3-dimensional snapshots of the universe), qualifying it for Low 1-C. Unless fiction shows otherwise, a different multiversal temporal dimension spanning universes that themselves have their own time dimensions as well (not the same multiversal time dimension that services many Universes and is shared by them), or even a single universe with two active temporal dimensions, qualifies. The same applies to three or more temporal dimensions.
Click to expand...
 
Phsccarvalho said:
You made a mistake in the drawing, could I make a version for you to understand?
Click to expand...
Sure, although this is how I understand based on the summary given by the admin. But I don't mind visual explanations, it is way better than the one in OP.
 
After reading your explanation @Qawsedf234, I concede that it makes sense.

However, my concern lies in the absence of any scans or implications to support the rating.

In simpler terms, we are assigning a solid rating solely based on standards for evaluating cosmology, even though these mechanics are never implied or mentioned in the entire verse.

We are forced to draw this conclusion because there is no other explanation provided.

I have changed my stance to agreement, albeit with a possible/likely rating.
 
ImmortalDread said:
However, my concern lies in the absence of any scans or implications to support the rating.
We are forced to draw this conclusion because there is no other explanation provided.

I have changed my stance to agreement, albeit with a possible rating.
Click to expand...
Did you not read the op.... the verse doesnt have to spoonfeed you information in order to come to a logical conclusion
 
ImmortalDread said:
Sure, although this is how I understand based on the summary given by the admin. But I don't mind visual explanations, it is way better than the one in OP.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry for the horrible drawing.

In short, it would be common to assume that the timeline is a universe or the opposite, based on other fictional works.

But in DB Universe and timeline are referred to as different things.

The timeline in DB spans the Multiverse made by 2-C universes.
DB.png
 
ImmortalDread said:
However, my concern lies in the absence of any scans or implications to support the rating.
Click to expand...
The show refers to the multiverse as a timeline and shows that different timelines have versions of the multiverse. My argument about the lack of scans was a misunderstanding on my part assuming it was about an unseen structure holding all the parallel timelines.
 
Phsccarvalho said:
I'm sorry for the horrible drawing.
Click to expand...
Iamunanimousinthat said:
The show refers to the multiverse as a timeline and shows that different timelines have versions of the multiverse. My argument about the lack of scans was a misunderstanding on my part assuming it was about an unseen structure holding all the parallel timelines.
Click to expand...
Ya, I had a similar misunderstanding as well. Seems the “timeline” here refers indirectly to hypertimeline as our understanding or standards.
 
@Phsccarvalho in other thought (not bringing up the whataboutism argument), it essentially works like a Silver Sea (a famous complicated structure in MG) since it also acts as “timeline” consisting of 99 layers hierarchies, with each layer countable infinite/countless space-time continuums.

Actually, after looking from other perspective, I concede.
 
BasedNecoScaler69 said:
Did you not read the op.... the verse doesnt have to spoonfeed you information in order to come to a logical conclusion
Click to expand...
Her concerns are valid to express. No reason to claim that she didn't read the thread when she's one of the people who provided most input. People having different interpretations of things doesn't mean they didn't read your case.
 
Btw this hypertimeline stuff is more for DBH/Xenoverse than the main canon despite them sharing cosmology, right?
 
KLOL506 said:
WTF am I looking at

Is DB finally becoming Tier 1?
Click to expand...
vsbattles.com

Re:evulation of temporal dimension standards

Alr, here we go! I'd like to mention that I obtained permission from @Qawsedf234 🙏 This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions, which is why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

Although we have it now
 
Fixxed said:
Soo let me simply this

12 timelines that encompasses by other timeline. Since timeline basically mean the uncountable infinite snapshots of the lower D, or 4D timeline is uncountable infinite of 3D by default. Then if the 3D is change to 4D, we will have 5D structure

Also since timeline is infinity by default, it must be parallel to each other. And yeah higher timeline will have significant size by default because of it nature that is infinite in size

For now i will agree with this
Click to expand...
Just like the previous thread, i agree
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

REX9097
  • Locked
Ninjago: Tier 1
2 3 4
Replies
130
Views
7K
TheOrangeGuy09
TheOrangeGuy09
Reiner04
  • Locked
Dragonball: 1-B Timeline
2
Replies
67
Views
7K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Georredannea15
  • Locked
A downgrade for space beyond??[Ben10]
2
Replies
71
Views
6K
Firestorm808
Firestorm808
Digital_Franz
Omniscient Reader's Viewpoint Verse Creation: The Cosmology Part 2
Replies
26
Views
4K
Danny33wise
Danny33wise
Krazydog050
Stewie griffin 1-A Upgrade
Replies
27
Views
2K
Grabbing_dragon
Grabbing_dragon
Back
Top