• 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.

DBS Low 1-C upgrade pt2

Status
Not open for further replies.
KLOL506 said:
I think you're confusing spatiotemporal separation with time axis.

THEY ARE EXPLICITLY NOT THE SAME THING. Ultima said as much in our last conversation. If you have any queries beyond this, I can tag them both for you, but they're incredibly busy.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality
Click to expand...
Well shit, whatever, gonna continue with my blog since i have more envidences to discuss
 
Vietthai96 said:
Well shit, whatever, gonna continue with my blog since i have more envidences to discuss
Click to expand...
That exact comment he linked from DDT was actually brought up early in the thread by Reiner. I already argued this in my second summary (it’s the model I labeled “model 1” in both my diagrams), but this particular model of a timeline containing lesser timelines that doesn’t qualify for low 1-C shouldn’t apply to Dragon Ball.
 
ProfectusInfinity said:
That exact comment he linked from DDT was actually brought up early in the thread by Reiner. I already argued this in my second summary (it’s the model I labeled “model 1” in both my diagrams), but this particular model of a timeline containing lesser timelines that doesn’t qualify for low 1-C shouldn’t apply to Dragon Ball.
Click to expand...
I think I also addressed this, i'm not sure if KLOL was responding to our arguments or just viettai's specific comment, but yeah, time is going to flow forward, in terms of it's direction, because it is applicable to all dimensions and is assumed to always flow forward. But specially for dragon ball, there are higher additonal temporal dimensions like the neutral space and the main timeline, so they would take snapshots of everything below. Resulting in a low 1-C upgrade.
 
I mean, yeah, even @DontTalkDT acknowledged that one dimension of time can service multiple space-time continuums, a timeline contain uncountable infinite snapshot, so naturally, an axis/timeline can well service up to uncountable infinite amount of space-time continuum on it, universal space-time continuum is accepted as 4D construct, so uncountable infinite amount of 4D is 5D, or Aleph-1 amount of 4D object
 
Vietthai96 said:
I mean, yeah, even @DontTalkDT acknowledged that one dimension of time can service multiple space-time continuums, a timeline contain uncountable infinite snapshot, so naturally, an axis/timeline can well service up to uncountable infinite amount of space-time continuum on it, universal space-time continuum is accepted as 4D construct, so uncountable infinite amount of 4D is 5D, or Aleph-1 amount of 4D object
Click to expand...
Exactly, and there is two of them, neutral space, and the main timeline
 
This thread should have stayed closed.
If what the OP thinks is that spatio-temporally separate = different time axis.
 
PrinceofPein said:
This thread should have stayed closed.
If what the OP thinks is that spatio-temporally separate = different time axis.
Click to expand...
Its an additional temporal dimension that overarches everything below. Time obviously is still going to flow in the same direction, but there are more time dimensions. that is the point. You still haven't addressed any of the arguments or linked me to where time can't be flowing forward to be a higher temporal dimension. The axis doesn't need to be different, it can still be forward, there just has to be another temporal that sits higher than the previous one.
Note that sharing the same temporal axis does not mean that they would be connected in any way, as it only means that their time flows in the same direction. It's like how two people can both move in the same direction without their paths ever meeting, as long as they started in different places.
Click to expand...
This is taken from our universe page, the spacetime continuum section. All an axis is, is a direction, in this case, the time axis would be forward, time flowing forward from the past, to the present, and into the future. So there can be multiple spacetime continuums, but their would only be one axis/direction, which is forward. Now as for the higher temporal dimension, there only needs to be an additional temporal dimension, one that instead views 3d objects as apart of its time flow, views 4d objects, or in this case, the macrocosms. That is what the timeline is in dragon ball, it overarches everything, while it still flows forward, it will always be assumed to do so, that is why the temporal dimension section states that,
This structure can then be generalized to any amounts of dimensions
Click to expand...
So, time will flow forward and contains snapshots of the multiverse, which includes the 4-D macrocosms, the insignificant 5-D neutral space, along with the neutral space's temporal dimension.
The more I think about it, the less sense it makes. What does "time flowing backwards" even mean??? Since when is a postulate for higher time axes or even parallel ones the backwards/sideways/upside-down flow of time? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a signature feature of time dimensions how, unlike spatial dimensions, they're expected to allow changes to propagate in a single direction as opposed to free movement in all directions? Where are we going with this?
Click to expand...
This was from @ProfectusInfinity which he already addressed in his comment and you didn't talk about it. So yeah, the timelines aren't different axis, but they are additional time directions, or temporal dimensions in which captures the multiverse, instead of just the physical universe.
 
Last edited:
TiltedFN said:
Its an additional temporal dimension that overarches everything below. Time obviously is still going to flow in the same direction, but there are more time dimensions. that is the point. You still haven't addressed any of the arguments or linked me to where time can't be flowing forward to be a higher temporal dimension. The axis doesn't need to be different, it can still be forward, there just has to be another temporal that sits higher than the previous one.

This is taken from our universe page, the spacetime continuum section. All an axis is, is a direction, in this case, the time axis would be forward, time flowing forward from the past, to the present, and into the future. So there can be multiple spacetime continuums, but their would only be one axis/direction, which is forward. Now as for the higher temporal dimension, there only needs to be an additional temporal dimension, one that instead views 3d objects as apart of its time flow, views 4d objects, or in this case, the macrocosms. That is what the timeline is in dragon ball, it overarches everything, while it still flows forward, it will always be assumed to do so, that is why the temporal dimension section states that,

So, time will flow forward and contains snapshots of the multiverse, which includes the 4-D macrocosms, the insignificant 5-D neutral space, along with the neutral space's temporal dimension.

This was from @ProfectusInfinity which he already addressed in his comment and you didn't talk about it. So yeah, the timelines aren't different axis, but they are additional time directions, or temporal dimensions in which captures the multiverse, instead of just the physical universe.
Click to expand...
And you have failed to send a single scan of your additional time direction claims
I am tired of this already, either substantiate your claim or let someone else do that.
I will not even bother try correcting on how you are wrong since I get the feeling that you think you cannot be wrong. So please just provide scans of your so called additional time axis, it's been a month already.
 
PrinceofPein said:
And you have failed to send a single scan of your additional time direction claims
Click to expand...
We did send scans, we proved how the neutral space is a spacetime continuum. therefore it also has it's own time that encompasses the insignificant 5-D neutral space, so that is low 1-C. We also have the scans of how the timelines hold all the macrocosms under it, and take static snapshots of the multiverse, and as per our standards, this qualifies as low 1-C.
PrinceofPein said:
I am tired of this already, either substantiate your claim or let someone else do that.
Click to expand...
We have lol, I still find it funny how you still won't link me to the thread where it says additional temporal dimensions can't flow forward :ROFLMAO: .
PrinceofPein said:
I will not even bother try correcting on how you are wrong since I get the feeling that you think you cannot be wrong. So please just provide scans of your so called additional time axis, it's been a month already.
Click to expand...
You keep saying that you are not gonna bother addressing the arguments, you failed to provide proof for your claims, and i keep asking you, and you keep refusing.
 
PrinceofPein said:
And you have failed to send a single scan of your additional time direction claims
I am tired of this already, either substantiate your claim or let someone else do that.
I will not even bother try correcting on how you are wrong since I get the feeling that you think you cannot be wrong. So please just provide scans of your so called additional time axis, it's been a month already.
Click to expand...
I have no stake in this race, but uh…I don’t think you’re having the same conversation.

He’s not claiming each Macrocosm is a Low 1-C Construct based on space-time separation, nor is he for the collection of U1-12. Literally no one is. He’s claiming that each Macrocosm is 2-C (spatiotemporally separate realms with multiple space times, as accepted on Wiki). Which he substantiated by showing 3 downgrade attempts of the Macrocosm Cosmology down to Low 2-C (and to even lower than Tier 2 altogether), and is claiming that the overarching timeline (not an additional “time direction,” which is not within the actual text of the standards), but the Hypertimeline is Low 1-C. (Or to put it in better words, Space-Times that exist within a larger, more critical Space-Time).

What they’re trying to convey to you is nothing you are currently saying applies. Since the Macrocosms are already accepted as 2-C, you have to argue based on the fact they are 2-C, and not what you personally believe them to be as. If you want to do that, you have to make a CRT and downgrade the Macrocosm Cosmology.

They don’t need to substantiate a different time direction, because this standard does not exist in the actual text (only additional, which is something he directly showed with a screenshot), and even if it did, that’s not what they’re saying to begin with—They’re talking about a larger space time also moving forward. (Of which was already accepted but not given Low 1-C based on DontTalkDT’s summation of a Hypertimeline able to exist without granting Low 1-C, which is what they are actually combatting/contesting since Neutral Space was accepted as insignificant 5-D. This post is directly QUOTED above in the 2nd part of the giant post made by Profectus.)

They don’t have to prove that a Hypertimeline can be Low 1-C. Vs Wiki already accepts this can be the case for some verses. What they have to prove is Dragon Ball applies for this standard.

The best way I can explain what I’m watching here is they’re speaking Latin and you’re speaking Spanish. You can divine some of the things they’re saying based on the languages being inherently related to each other, but outside of that you’re not seeing eye to eye because you literally are fundamentally misunderstanding the basis of their entire argument and hand waving/dismissing it all away.

That’s just my two cents, though.
 
RedReaper said:
I have no stake in this race, but uh…I don’t think you’re having the same conversation.

He’s not claiming each Macrocosm is a Low 1-C Construct based on space-time separation, nor is he for the collection of U1-12. Literally no one is. He’s claiming that each Macrocosm is 2-C (spatiotemporally separate realms with multiple space times, as accepted on Wiki). Which he substantiated by showing 3 downgrade attempts of the Macrocosm Cosmology down to Low 2-C (and to even lower than Tier 2 altogether), and is claiming that the overarching timeline (not an additional “time direction,” which is not within the actual text of the standards), but the Hypertimeline is Low 1-C. (Or to put it in better words, Space-Times that exist within a larger, more critical Space-Time).

What they’re trying to convey to you is nothing you are currently saying applies. Since the Macrocosms are already accepted as 2-C, you have to argue based on the fact they are 2-C, and not what you personally believe them to be as. If you want to do that, you have to make a CRT and downgrade the Macrocosm Cosmology.

They don’t need to substantiate a different time direction, because this standard does not exist in the actual text (only additional, which is something he directly showed with a screenshot), and even if it did, that’s not what they’re saying to begin with—They’re talking about a larger space time also moving forward. (Of which was already accepted but not given Low 1-C based on DontTalkDT’s summation of a Hypertimeline able to exist without granting Low 1-C, which is what they are actually combatting/contesting since Neutral Space was accepted as insignificant 5-D. This post is directly QUOTED above in the 2nd part of the giant post made by Profectus.)

They don’t have to prove that a Hypertimeline can be Low 1-C. Vs Wiki already accepts this can be the case for some verses. What they have to prove is Dragon Ball applies for this standard.

The best way I can explain what I’m watching here is they’re speaking Latin and you’re speaking Spanish. You can divine some of the things they’re saying based on the languages being inherently related to each other, but outside of that you’re not seeing eye to eye because you literally are fundamentally misunderstanding the basis of their entire argument and hand waving/dismissing it all away.

That’s just my two cents, though.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand me, I am saying their arguments are mental gymnastics.
Their arguments is that the neutral space has an additional time axis. Simple prove that and then they spiral. I dont need long ass posts, I need scans. Reiner explained and I did too. And quoting a standard that i was the one who made the thread, argued for it and applied it and telling me i dont understand it is also very funny. They think they cannot be wrong, and I cant help them in that situation.
Tldr: I understand them, they dont understand me or the standards. And I am done explaining.
 
Ummm I know it's not my place to speak but does everyone here have permission? Please only people with permission speak here so that the mods don't have to delete a lot of messages.
 
PrinceofPein said:
I don't think you understand me, I am saying their arguments are mental gymnastics.
Their arguments is that the neutral space has an additional time axis. Simple prove that and then they spiral. I dont need long ass posts, I need scans. Reiner explained and I did too. And quoting a standard that i was the one who made the thread, argued for it and applied it and telling me i dont understand it is also very funny. They think they cannot be wrong, and I cant help them in that situation.
Tldr: I understand them, they dont understand me or the standards. And I am done explaining.
Click to expand...
While i can't said for others, I don't think i ever said anything that i can't be wrong, i just using different approach to the standard to debate.

Anyway, i'm still in the process of collecting scans and write a proper argument for.......well......at least game verse for now
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
All this back and forth can be subsided if someone just literally explains that if all the timelines, including the hyper timeline, flow in the same direction, (past to future) then they are all considered part of the same time axis.
Click to expand...
I have done that, time and time again.
But well they won't accept that
 
It's funny how the plot of the series literally cannot work without there being a higher timeline. There would be no past, present, and future outside of the multiverse without the existence of an additional timeline. Which would be rather weird how there can be another zeno, when he lives outside of the multiverse, that said multiverse includes the macrocosms which are 2-C. There has to be an overarching timeline at play. This would make it low 1-C for containing snapshots of 4D constructs (insignificant 5-D for the neutral space). Would be 4d+1D time for the lowball. 5D+1D time if we were to include the neutral space and its timeline, since it has it's own temporal dimension. Destroying a regular universal sized spacetime=Destroying the universe an uncountable infinite amount of times. Takes you from 3d to 4D. Destroying a multiversal spacetime that encompasses other 4D spacetimes=Destroying a 4D spacetime an uncountable infinite amount of times. Takes you from 4D to 5D. We know this is true, because when a timeline duplicates, so does everything under, just how a regular spacetime would duplicate the universe.
 
Last edited:
RedReaper said:
I have no stake in this race, but uh…I don’t think you’re having the same conversation.

He’s not claiming each Macrocosm is a Low 1-C Construct based on space-time separation, nor is he for the collection of U1-12. Literally no one is. He’s claiming that each Macrocosm is 2-C (spatiotemporally separate realms with multiple space times, as accepted on Wiki). Which he substantiated by showing 3 downgrade attempts of the Macrocosm Cosmology down to Low 2-C (and to even lower than Tier 2 altogether), and is claiming that the overarching timeline (not an additional “time direction,” which is not within the actual text of the standards), but the Hypertimeline is Low 1-C. (Or to put it in better words, Space-Times that exist within a larger, more critical Space-Time).

What they’re trying to convey to you is nothing you are currently saying applies. Since the Macrocosms are already accepted as 2-C, you have to argue based on the fact they are 2-C, and not what you personally believe them to be as. If you want to do that, you have to make a CRT and downgrade the Macrocosm Cosmology.

They don’t need to substantiate a different time direction, because this standard does not exist in the actual text (only additional, which is something he directly showed with a screenshot), and even if it did, that’s not what they’re saying to begin with—They’re talking about a larger space time also moving forward. (Of which was already accepted but not given Low 1-C based on DontTalkDT’s summation of a Hypertimeline able to exist without granting Low 1-C, which is what they are actually combatting/contesting since Neutral Space was accepted as insignificant 5-D. This post is directly QUOTED above in the 2nd part of the giant post made by Profectus.)

They don’t have to prove that a Hypertimeline can be Low 1-C. Vs Wiki already accepts this can be the case for some verses. What they have to prove is Dragon Ball applies for this standard.

The best way I can explain what I’m watching here is they’re speaking Latin and you’re speaking Spanish. You can divine some of the things they’re saying based on the languages being inherently related to each other, but outside of that you’re not seeing eye to eye because you literally are fundamentally misunderstanding the basis of their entire argument and hand waving/dismissing it all away.

That’s just my two cents, though.
Click to expand...
This is basically it tbh,


All this time direction talk doesn't apply at all, I suppose there may he a slight misunderstanding about a time axis(or time "direction"). One time axis can service multiple spatiotemporal structures. Each choice makes a timeline and each dragon ball timeline has a different time direction, which is why going back in time to change something won't affect the specific timeline you came from but will rather create a new timeline branching off in direction from the point of change


But even with that, it's neither her nor there to the point

All macrocasms are 2C structures...wiki approved

Neutral zone is a 5D structure/space separated from the WoV and Zeno's realm(but isn't proved to be significant as it hasn't been showed to be infinite nor has a second time axis as opposed to the tone axis of the timeline that contains it) confirmed in the former thread

The timeline that services all this is 5D and significant, at the very least

It's that simple really
 

Important Update​

In the past few weeks, I've reviewed this thread along with other temporal dimension threads extensively, and noticed some major flaws that undermined my whole initial explanation. For that reason, I created a blog with a more accurate interpretation of DontTalkDT and Ultima's model and the new arguments Tilted and I agreed to use for this revision.

vsbattles.fandom.com

Low 1-C Dragon Ball Timelines Explanation

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

Please disregard everything that's been said up to this point, any new staff coming in should please review the blog instead.
RedReaper said:
I have no stake in this race, but uh…I don’t think you’re having the same conversation.

He’s not claiming each Macrocosm is a Low 1-C Construct based on space-time separation, nor is he for the collection of U1-12. Literally no one is. He’s claiming that each Macrocosm is 2-C (spatiotemporally separate realms with multiple space times, as accepted on Wiki). Which he substantiated by showing 3 downgrade attempts of the Macrocosm Cosmology down to Low 2-C (and to even lower than Tier 2 altogether), and is claiming that the overarching timeline (not an additional “time direction,” which is not within the actual text of the standards), but the Hypertimeline is Low 1-C. (Or to put it in better words, Space-Times that exist within a larger, more critical Space-Time).

What they’re trying to convey to you is nothing you are currently saying applies. Since the Macrocosms are already accepted as 2-C, you have to argue based on the fact they are 2-C, and not what you personally believe them to be as. If you want to do that, you have to make a CRT and downgrade the Macrocosm Cosmology.

They don’t need to substantiate a different time direction, because this standard does not exist in the actual text (only additional, which is something he directly showed with a screenshot), and even if it did, that’s not what they’re saying to begin with—They’re talking about a larger space time also moving forward. (Of which was already accepted but not given Low 1-C based on DontTalkDT’s summation of a Hypertimeline able to exist without granting Low 1-C, which is what they are actually combatting/contesting since Neutral Space was accepted as insignificant 5-D. This post is directly QUOTED above in the 2nd part of the giant post made by Profectus.)

They don’t have to prove that a Hypertimeline can be Low 1-C. Vs Wiki already accepts this can be the case for some verses. What they have to prove is Dragon Ball applies for this standard.

The best way I can explain what I’m watching here is they’re speaking Latin and you’re speaking Spanish. You can divine some of the things they’re saying based on the languages being inherently related to each other, but outside of that you’re not seeing eye to eye because you literally are fundamentally misunderstanding the basis of their entire argument and hand waving/dismissing it all away.

That’s just my two cents, though.
Click to expand...
Took the words right out of my mouth. In retrospect, now that I have a better understanding of the temporal dimension standards, the discourse on this thread has been pretty awkward, to say the least. We've went out of our way to cite site standards, yet there have been almost no meaningful rebuttals to our primary claims. The cosmology is constructed from two temporal dimensions: it's as simple as you can get. The main arguments we've seen are that the macrocosms are 3-A, and time needs to flow perpendicularly in a higher axis. The first argument is rejected harshly by site standards on Dragon Ball to the point where I've seen some users express interest in a discussion rule. The basis for the second argument is expressed nowhere on site standards, not a single verse that has gained upgrades for additional time dimensions has been forced to meet these standards, and we've explained time and time again why it doesn't hold up, only to be met with "I'm tired of explaining this." As Tilted mentioned, the same users making these arguments can be found on other temporal dimension threads in the recent past noticably not making those arguments, which means this whole "time needs to flow backwards" schtick is just deliberate bad faith derailment. The worst part is that up to this point, even without both the 3-A macrocosm and perpendicular time flow arguments, you could easily have debunked the premise of this thread. The "single time axis" argument has legitimate merit, but every time someone has brought it up, they diverged as far as humanly possible from the actual basis for it. The only people I've seen provide the legitimate refutation in question are Reiner and KLOL, but both lost interest in the thread as soon as they joined, and I can't say I blame them.

Anyhow, it is what it is. I have the new blog prepared and finalized, so hopefully Agnaa, Ultima, DontTalkDT, or any more invited staff can provide input. Please remember to secure staff permission to post here first, of course.
 
ProfectusInfinity said:

Important Update​

In the past few weeks, I've reviewed this thread along with other temporal dimension threads extensively, and noticed some major flaws that undermined my whole initial explanation. For that reason, I created a blog with a more accurate interpretation of DontTalkDT and Ultima's model and the new arguments Tilted and I agreed to use for this revision.

vsbattles.fandom.com

Low 1-C Dragon Ball Timelines Explanation

vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

Please disregard everything that's been said up to this point, any new staff coming in should please review the blog instead.

Took the words right out of my mouth. In retrospect, now that I have a better understanding of the temporal dimension standards, the discourse on this thread has been pretty awkward, to say the least. We've went out of our way to cite site standards, yet there have been almost no meaningful rebuttals to our primary claims. The cosmology is constructed from two temporal dimensions: it's as simple as you can get. The main arguments we've seen are that the macrocosms are 3-A, and time needs to flow perpendicularly in a higher axis. The first argument is rejected harshly by site standards on Dragon Ball to the point where I've seen some users express interest in a discussion rule. The basis for the second argument is expressed nowhere on site standards, not a single verse that has gained upgrades for additional time dimensions has been forced to meet these standards, and we've explained time and time again why it doesn't hold up, only to be met with "I'm tired of explaining this." As Tilted mentioned, the same users making these arguments can be found on other temporal dimension threads in the recent past noticably not making those arguments, which means this whole "time needs to flow backwards" schtick is just deliberate bad faith derailment. The worst part is that up to this point, even without both the 3-A macrocosm and perpendicular time flow arguments, you could easily have debunked the premise of this thread. The "single time axis" argument has legitimate merit, but every time someone has brought it up, they diverged as far as humanly possible from the actual basis for it. The only people I've seen provide the legitimate refutation in question are Reiner and KLOL, but both lost interest in the thread as soon as they joined, and I can't say I blame them.

Anyhow, it is what it is. I have the new blog prepared and finalized, so hopefully Agnaa, Ultima, DontTalkDT, or any more invited staff can provide input. Please remember to secure staff permission to post here first, of course.
Click to expand...
I'm not reading that, but let's see what the other staff have to say.
@Antvasima @AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Shadowbokunohero @Ogurtsow @QrowBarr @Crazylatin77 @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Dereck03 @Marvel_Champion_07 @Therefir @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Eficiente @DarkGrath @Moritzva @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @KingTempest @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @UchihaSlayer96 @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @Lonkitt @LephyrTheRevanchist @Deagonx @FinePoint @Elizio33
 
PrinceofPein said:
This is the fourth time you are making long posts and saying it's new arguments or better arguments while it's the same thing and it was rejected each time.
I am not reading it, also put the vote count in the OP, all staff who have disagreed with this.
@DarkDragonMedeus , @Maverick_Zero_X , @Elizhaa , @Deagonx
Click to expand...
So you refuse to actually read the new blog and form a conclusion, instead choosing to stick to your stance regardless of the blog’s potential validity?

I haven’t read the blog myself so idk if it’s valid or not, but this seems like a dishonest approach
 
CloverDragon03 said:
So you refuse to actually read the new blog and form a conclusion, instead choosing to stick to your stance regardless of the blog’s potential validity?

I haven’t read the blog myself so idk if it’s valid or not, but this seems like a dishonest approach
Click to expand...
This is the 5th time they will claim it is a different argument while it is literally the same thing and based on what he said the blog explains, it is still the same thing just longer than the rest. Why will I keep reading the same argument that he just keeps vomiting out in different colors?
So yes I disagree and he should add the votes, this thread should have been closed a long time ago.
 
PrinceofPein said:
This is the 5th time they will claim it is a different argument while it is literally the same thing and based on what he said the blog explains, it is still the same thing just longer than the rest. Why will I keep reading the same argument that he just keeps vomiting out in different colors?
So yes I disagree and he should add the votes, this thread should have been closed a long time ago.
Click to expand...
But you also claim to not have read it, and thus cannot accurately make such a claim since you literally do not have the necessary information to make such a comparison.

And then when you responded to the initial post, you just said "You're wrong," and didn't explain why. For example, you didn't substantiate why a larger time axis moving in the same direction wouldn't qualify, nor did you substantiate it not actually being allowed. Mind you, DT is literally quoted explaining in part of the initial post Profectus made that Hypertimelines in that way can grant L1-C, it's just not inherent to being a Hypertimeline and a Hypertimeline can function without being a L1-C structure. Your response is just "okay but I helped make the new standard, so I know what it means." (States things that are not in the actual standard page and directly contradicts DT's testimony, who is one of the top people who are used to sus out how Tier 1 functions.)

"None of your scans indicate Higher Dimensions."

Okay, do you want to explain why-?

Oh no, you just moved on. Didn't explain, elaborate, or grant explanation to why this is the case.

Whilst you're not saying anything incrimininating, you are saying things that don't adequately or accurately represent your opponent's position and doesn't counter their position, either. Like, legitimately, the Dragon Ball supporters of this thread (of which I am NOT) are floundering trying to find an answer to your claims because your claims are just: "Nuh uh, and you're just writing these giant posts to cloud the fact you're wrong."

They literally can't respond to you because there is nothing worth/nothing TO respond to.

TL;DR could you please do more than just say no and...uh...you know, ACTUALLY ENGAGE in discussion?
 
PrinceofPein said:
This is the 5th time they will claim it is a different argument while it is literally the same thing and based on what he said the blog explains, it is still the same thing just longer than the rest. Why will I keep reading the same argument that he just keeps vomiting out in different colors?
So yes I disagree and he should add the votes, this thread should have been closed a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. If you intend to disagree, you should preferably read through what's being argued, especially in this case since he's asking to ignore everything else that was argued prior to the posting of the blog.

If you insist on not even reading through it, your stance won't hold much weight at all.
 
RedReaper said:
But you also claim to not have read it, and thus cannot accurately make such a claim since you literally do not have the necessary information to make such a comparison.

And then when you responded to the initial post, you just said "You're wrong," and didn't explain why. For example, you didn't substantiate why a larger time axis moving in the same direction wouldn't qualify, nor did you substantiate it not actually being allowed. Mind you, DT is literally quoted explaining in part of the initial post Profectus made that Hypertimelines in that way can grant L1-C, it's just not inherent to being a Hypertimeline and a Hypertimeline can function without being a L1-C structure. Your response is just "okay but I helped make the new standard, so I know what it means." (States things that are not in the actual standard page and directly contradicts DT's testimony, who is one of the top people who are used to sus out how Tier 1 functions.)

"None of your scans indicate Higher Dimensions."

Okay, do you want to explain why-?

Oh no, you just moved on. Didn't explain, elaborate, or grant explanation to why this is the case.

Whilst you're not saying anything incrimininating, you are saying things that don't adequately or accurately represent your opponent's position and doesn't counter their position, either. Like, legitimately, the Dragon Ball supporters of this thread (of which I am NOT) are floundering trying to find an answer to your claims because your claims are just: "Nuh uh, and you're just writing these giant posts to cloud the fact you're wrong."

They literally can't respond to you because there is nothing worth/nothing TO respond to.

TL;DR could you please do more than just say no and...uh...you know, ACTUALLY ENGAGE in discussion?
Click to expand...
Read the first page, I explained there.
I will not be bothered to do so again.
CloverDragon03 said:
Doesn't matter. If you intend to disagree, you should preferably read through what's being argued, especially in this case since he's asking to ignore everything else that was argued prior to the posting of the blog.
Click to expand...
No I will not.
 
PrinceofPein said:
Read the first page, I explained there.
I will not be bothered to do so again.
Click to expand...
I literally linked the first page to your responses, literally dissecting mid-post how your replies are not constructive.
PrinceofPein said:
No I will not.
Click to expand...
Wait, so if you refuse to say or do anything constructive or actually engage in active conversation or have any form of good faith argumentation, how are your responses relevant to the thread? How can any votes placed on them be counted? If you're intentionally short changing the opposition in such a way, does that not make your posts inherently invalid?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Compsito
Question about temporal dimensions
Replies
14
Views
1K
Executor_N0
Executor_N0
Question about power system and higher dimensions
Replies
2
Views
810
ActuallySpaceMan42
ActuallySpaceMan42
Killerdrone123
  • Locked
"Smurfing through time" A Dragon Ball Super upgrade
6 7 8
Replies
284
Views
30K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Franstel
A few questions about the 4th dimension
Replies
6
Views
640
Franstel
Franstel
Higher dimension
Replies
4
Views
738
Orioreeem
Back
Top