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

[Padaruyos]

Once he realizes that, it will be too late. Let him rant . Guess some people never learn, after all.

Let this man cook. At this point I'll just enjoy the warmth even if the kitchen burns down.

 

[Fixxed]

However, such evidence was already accepted. And an overarching timeline does exist

Continously time progress from timeline is low 1C. It not just like 1 line of time encompasses other line but moving same as that two is parallel timeline

Just correct if i'm wrong, but what you propose in here is the higher-timeline is make overeaching future from the 12 timelines. The 12 timelines will be snapshots of the higher-timeline, that encompasses 12 timelines also continue it overeaching future beyond even the 12 timelines. Yeah it will make the 3D snapshots that build the timeline change to 4D snapshots

 

[Georredannea15]

wow, so you want to verse to say directly that, this hypertimeline have uncountable infinite amount of 4D snapshots, lol, that not gonna work

That's not actually what "specific" means. I guess it's an extra-temporal dimension or something like that that further encompasses a universe where past, future, and present occur simultaneously. I have already illustrated the quote, if you try to read it you will understand.

He has already stated here that a universe in which past, future and present all happen at the same time is debatable ...

And please, don't try to teach me about the damn thing I did. Thanks!

 

[Vietthai96]

That's not actually what "specific" means. I guess it's an extra-temporal dimension or something like that that further encompasses a universe where past, future, and present occur simultaneously. I have already illustrated the quote, if you try to read it you will understand.

He has already stated here that a universe in which past, future and present all happen at the same time is debatable ...

And please, don't try to teach me about the damn thing I did. Thanks!

your quote isn't illustrated anything, it mixed with your weird personal standard along with some quote from DT who not even here to verify your comment that it is the same as what he thinking or not

 

[Georredannea15]

your quote isn't illustrated anything, it mixed with your weird personal standard along with some quote from DT who not even here to verify your comment that it is the same as what he thinking or not

You can ignore whatever you want, i don't care, you just never get tired of being wrong. Wow

 

[Vietthai96]

You can ignore whatever you want, i don't care, you just never get tired of being wrong. Wow

wrong or right in this power scaling thing is completely subjective, and i'm not even say you are wrong at all, i just say that, you have a weird personal standard and like to quote @DontTalkDT or sometime @Ultima_Reality and act like, they thinking the same way as you, despite they never once come to verify that

 

[Reiner04]

Anyway, we're waiting for the draft now

And that if it passes or not.

 

[Georredannea15]

wrong or right in this power scaling thing is completely subjective, and i'm not even say you are wrong at all, i just say that, you have a weird personal standard and like to quote @DontTalkDT or sometime @Ultima_Reality and act like, they thinking the same way as you, despite they never once come to verify that

Because when I said my own opinions, they usually say, "Huh? Where's the proof?" “Is there anything official that says that?”So, i support what i say because you said things like this. U understand?

Also, about the "you're always wrong" thing... For some reason, at the end of the day, I'm the one who's right... And they just come and say the "right" thing. That's all

 

[Killerdrone123]

Because when I said my own opinions, they usually say, "Huh? Where's the proof?" “Is there anything official that says that?”So, i support what i say because you said things like this. U understand?

Also, about the "you're always wrong" thing... For some reason, at the end of the day, I'm the one who's right... And they just come and say the "right" thing. That's all

Yeah buddy you might be subjectively right but what you are doing here is making standards way to strict like no verse is going to have statement for infinite 4d snapshots also this is unnecessary just like how you don't need a verse to specify infinite 3d snapshots to qualify it for low 2c you just need a structure which is universal in size and called a space time that's it similarly by just proving that space times have there own temporal dimension and an overarching timeline would be enough for low 1c

By going of your standards the only verses which would qualify are the ones which are made by powerscaler and who are aware of the standards

 

[Qawsedf234]

is georr's thread going to affect this upgrade??

Probably not, barring DT heavily rewriting what they said previously.

Still might be worth it to wait to they're done with it I guess.

 

[Georredannea15]

Probably not, barring DT heavily rewriting what they said previously.

Still might be worth it to wait to they're done with it I guess.

So, he said he would make the old standards more clear. But yeah i'm waiting too.

 

[Fixxed]

So, he said he would make the old standards more clear. But yeah i'm waiting too.

Your thread basically just for timeline that encompasses other timeline, right... DT say that timeline can just same as the timeline it encompassing

This about continously timeline or overeaching timeline

 

[Georredannea15]

Your thread basically just for timeline that encompasses other timeline, right... DT say that timeline can just same as the timeline it encompassing

This about continously timeline or overeaching timeline

This is about temporal dimensions that are inclusive and, if necessary, distinct from each other. So it's something that covers all of these. But, we'll see.

 

[ZetaMarishi]

Why are people still saying anything when we're waiting for what is going to happen? And literally no one seems to know what's going to happen?

This is on both sides tbh. There is literally no reason to feel the need to get the last word in. I say just wait to see what will happen and then go from there.

Edit: This also counts for you, Georredannea15.

 

[Reiner04]

This thread has been accepted and scaling thread will be made later on? Asking for closure then.

 

[TiltedFN]

This thread has been accepted and scaling thread will be made later on? Asking for closure then.

not yet i dont think, still have more hours

 

[Khanhba01]

No offense but I think we need to wait about 9 more hours to meet the target of 48 hours from the time this thread was created.

 

[Reiner04]

No offense but I think we need to wait about 9 more hours to meet the target of 48 hours from the time this thread was created.

Uh my bad. I thought it's would have been over by now.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I figured no one has replied to the OP so here is the reply.
Majority of all what is in the OP is based off a faulty standard that got passed that is getting overturned and a single scan.

N.B. I will only reply to the OP and no one else, i.e. @BasedNecoScaler69 is the only one I will argue with, I am not interested in arguing with 3 to 5 people.

Secondly, I see some take about the standard that this is based on getting overturned not affecting this, and all I can say is that is being funny. If you based your entire revision off a standard that gets overturned then your revision falls apart.

Lastly, if you want to use time travel as the basis of your argument per DT statement, create another thread, the current OP and agreement with the OP, has nothing to do with that.

How do temporal dimensions impact dimensional tiering?

This is answered on the tiering system faq:

Now that is getting fixed. And it has been determined that is wrong.

Picture space and time as a series of frames in a movie, all lined up in a row. Each frame captures a snapshot of the cosmos at a particular moment, frozen in time. And that line that extends infinitely? That's time, encompassing everything from the past to the present to the future.

Time is a continuum, a never-ending flow that can't be measured in distinct chunks. It's not just that time contains infinite seconds, days, and years; it also holds every possible infinitesimal value in between. That's why a timeline is like an uncountable number of snapshots of the 3D universe, each one corresponding to a unique moment in time.

But here's where things get really mind-bending: time can be infinitely subdivided into the tiniest of moments, each one capturing a distinct snapshot of the universe. And when you add up all those moments, you get a scope that's beyond human comprehension. That's why destroying the fabric of space-time is a feat that's infinitely greater than destroying matter on a universal scale. It's like erasing an entire universe, over and over and over again, for every single moment of its existence.

This explained low 2-C.

Imagine a universe where time is not just a linear progression, but a multi-dimensional concept. This means that instead of just moving forward along a singular timeline, there are multiple timelines that exist alongside each other. In such a universe, the concept of space-time becomes even more complex, as each timeline has its own unique set of coordinates in a three-dimensional space.

If the timelines move alongside each other o.r. parallel, that is a single time dimension as per the standards.

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.

In this scenario, we end up with a continuum that encompasses two temporal dimensions, resulting in snapshots that correspond to an entire 4-dimensional space-time. This continuum would then propagate a standard timeline through continuous change in an additional time direction.

However, it's worth noting that an overarching timeline doesn't always qualify for Low 1-C status. It's possible to model a cosmology where an overarching timeline is simply a larger hypervolume rather than a greater infinity. This is because what determines spatiotemporal separation is the capacity for space-times to exist in parallel and never intersect in space and time. Therefore, multiple space-time continuums can be serviced by a single time axis, without introducing new time dimensions. The model we've described takes advantage of this fact, assuming that a single time axis services all of space-time.

To establish a cosmology as Low 1-C, it's crucial to demonstrate the presence of two temporal dimensions. This requires evidence indicating that each of the smaller space-times has its own unique time dimension. Without such evidence, it's impossible to prove the existence of an overarching timeline that would qualify a cosmology as Low 1-C.
However, such evidence was already accepted. And an overarching timeline does exist.
The 12 Universes also already have their own time dimension.

This is a faulty assumption, they all share a single time axis. Per the standard, as far as the time flow in the same direction, then it is the same time dimension and not different.

Technically speaking, our cosmology has been approved for Low 1-C.

I will like to see where?

This means that we now have the same justifications as the hypertimelines that have already been accepted. In other words, the DB cosmology has been given the green light for Low 1-C. The purpose of this thread is to make Tier 1 official.
However, there still are issues.

In a higher time dimension, time needs to flow in a different direction like backwards or diagonally.​

Lmao,no. As of the thread linked, that is no longer the case. Just the existence of a higher time dimension/hypertimeline is enough. Any argument made about time moving in the same direction here would be dishonest, and should immediately be disregarded.

Sorry but that standard that you just linked is a lie and has been overturned. So yes they need to be of different direction.

The important thing is that it's clear that different directions are a necessity. If "separate" means something in that sense it's fine. If separate just means separate in space or separate due to one being a subset of the other, then not.

Higher dimensions still need to be of significant size.​

The question of whether destroying a 5-dimensional object would be a Low 1-C feat depends on the relationship between higher-dimensional and lower-dimensional spaces in cosmology. If an uncountable number of 4-dimensional spacetimes are stacked up to form a small subset of a 5-dimensional universe, destroying the latter would be a Low 1-C feat. However, destroying a random 5-dimensional object with finite mass would not be.

Temporal dimensions are different because they always form a structure that embeds an uncountable number of states of a universe's spatial volume within itself. We already consider time dimensions to be significant in size, which is why the 4th dimension of a Low 2-C construct is considered to hold qualitative superiority even if we know nothing about the time dimension besides that it forms a continuum. This is because time is infinite by default and bijects with a dimensional space to form an uncountable number of elements.

Nice explanation but destruction of a multiple spacetimes in their entirety is 4D unless you destroy uncountable infinite number of them. Since you need uncountable infinite of these space time to form a significant 5D structure.
So if there is proof of such let me see it.

Conclusion​

The Dragon Ball multiverse is made up of 12 Macrocosms, each of which is 2-C. These Macrocosms are encompassed by a greater timeline, which was previously rejected for Low 1-C status because cosmologies don't necessarily require multiple temporal dimensions. However, the Dragon Ball space-times are now accepted as having their own time dimensions, which makes the overarching timeline Low 1-C qualified.

Your whole post was based on a revision that has now been overturned and deemed inaccurate. Hence, this by itself is a wrong revision.
My argument is simple, this thread was made due to standard change and accepted due to that. Since the standard that this revision is based on is getting overturned, this revision is now wrong. So if you guys can come in and say your mind, that will be great.

This

This

Fixed them.

that

the

 

[Hasty12345]

How long until this can be applied?

 

[Reiner04]

How long until this can be applied?

6 hrs approx.

 

[Hasty12345]

6 hrs approx.

Home stretch.

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

Home stretch.

Remember to do it sideways.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

Remember to do it sideways.

 

[SYPHe5D]

Remember to do it sideways.

Or up and down.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

sounds sus ngl

 

[SYPHe5D]

sounds sus ngl

All of the 3D vectors with no exception.

 

[Vietthai96]

Remember to do it sideways.

And then loop it

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

And then loop it

It shall be perpendicular, remember.

 

[Vietthai96]

It shall be perpendicular, remember.

True, the Low Complex Multiverse level Attack Potency section must be perpendicular with the Striking Strength section and the Durability section must run off into entirely different direction compare to the rest

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

Just more 4hrs ig and world will change for ever

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I figured no one has replied to the OP so here is the reply.
Majority of all what is in the OP is based off a faulty standard that got passed that is getting overturned and a single scan.

N.B. I will only reply to the OP and no one else, i.e. @BasedNecoScaler69 is the only one I will argue with, I am not interested in arguing with 3 to 5 people.

Secondly, I see some take about the standard that this is based on getting overturned not affecting this, and all I can say is that is being funny. If you based your entire revision off a standard that gets overturned then your revision falls apart.

Lastly, if you want to use time travel as the basis of your argument per DT statement, create another thread, the current OP and agreement with the OP, has nothing to do with that.

Now that is getting fixed. And it has been determined that is wrong.

This explained low 2-C.

If the timelines move alongside each other o.r. parallel, that is a single time dimension as per the standards.

This is a faulty assumption, they all share a single time axis. Per the standard, as far as the time flow in the same direction, then it is the same time dimension and not different.

thread is not done, lmao

I will like to see where?


Sorry but that standard that you just linked is a lie and has been overturned. So yes they need to be of different direction.


Nice explanation but destruction of a multiple spacetimes in their entirety is 4D unless you destroy uncountable infinite number of them. Since you need uncountable infinite of these space time to form a significant 5D structure.
So if there is proof of such let me see it.

a hyper-timeline by definition embeds 4d space time, so ake that as you will

Your whole post was based on a revision that has now been overturned and deemed inaccurate. Hence, this by itself is a wrong revision.
My argument is simple, this thread was made due to standard change and accepted due to that. Since the standard that this revision is based on is getting overturned, this revision is now wrong. So if you guys can come in and say your mind, that will be great.

thread not done lmao, you dont know the end result.

i do not have the energy for this

 

[PrinceofPein]

thread is not done, lmao

a hyper-timeline by definition embeds 4d space time, so ake that as you will

thread not done lmao, you dont know the end result.

i do not have the energy for this

It is though at least everyone agrees with DT which is the previous standard.
And the outcome of this thread hinges on that thread.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

It is though at least everyone agrees with DT which is the previous standard.
And the outcome of this thread hinges on that thread.

having a standard that nothing qualifies for except suggsverse like verses is counterproductive..... unless if thats the point.

 

[XXBenShapiroXx]

having a standard that nothing qualifies for except suggsverse like verses is counterproductive..... unless if thats the point.

That's not what this is all about. It's not about how practical the standards are, it's about making it so certain verses don't meet them.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Let's not derail please.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Let's not derail please.

tbf there is nothing left to derail, the thread is done, and grace is almost over

now only if the high 1-b nasu thread could finish

 

[PrinceofPein]

having a standard that nothing qualifies for except suggsverse like verses is counterproductive..... unless if thats the point.

There are verses that does qualify and having a standard which uses kindergarten physics which is also wrong is worse.

the thread is done, and grace is almost over

I'm sure if this thread life hangs on the outcome of the other thread which is a standard that this thread is based on, this thread can wait. There is no rush.

 

[AwkguyDB]

How much time do we have left for grace?

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

the other thread which is a standard that this thread is based on, this thread can wait. There is no rush.

Funny how you didn’t hold this attitude during Tilted’s old staff thread.