• 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.
RedReaper said:
I literally linked the first page to your responses, literally dissecting mid-post how your replies are not constructive.

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?
Click to expand...
I cannot stress this enough, read the first page again.
This thread should have the been closed a long time ago.
CloverDragon03 said:
Then don't expect your disagreement to be taken seriously
Click to expand...
Please read the thread.
 
Okay. Can you or somebody else here quote or explain them please?
 
PrinceofPein said:
Read the blog, it's the same argument and flawed logics, just longer. And like I already said, this would be a waste of time and I was proven right.
Click to expand...
Okay, if you won't bother to actually contribute to this conversation, you can literally just unfollow the thread. Very simple, instead you just completely disregard everything, keep calling our arguments flawed, and you proceed to do so, it's not helpful at all.
 
Lawyerr said:
Derailing the thread with "I didn't read it, but I disagree regardless" is crazy.
Click to expand...
PrinceofPein said:
Read the blog
Click to expand...
TiltedFN said:
Okay, if you won't bother to actually contribute to this conversation, you can literally just unfollow the thread. Very simple, instead you just completely disregard everything, keep calling our arguments flawed, and you proceed to do so, it's not helpful at all.
Click to expand...
If it was literally the same arguments and flawed logic everyone disagreed with previously, that they still have in the blog like I said how is it now an okay logic cause they made the arguments longer and more bulky?

It's literally the same thing.
Also disagreeing with you does not make me unhelpful.
 
Lord_Farquaad69420 said:
Not a staff member but it was on a blog that was posted up
Click to expand...
Can somebody link to it please?

Also, did the staff members that Pein listed above all read and disagree with it already?
 
IdiosyncraticLawyer said:
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
Click to expand...
Won't even get into the OP then.
Reading the new blog:

For a start, isn't that mixing a bunch of canons and non-canons?

World of Void: The argument is basically "the descriptions make no sense, so it must be 5D". That's in itself not a good line of reasoning. Like, either it has time or not. Taking that to mean that it actually has a different kind of time and not the regular one is a complete stretch. The "no time" statement makes no distinction between one time and another time. So if you really want to take it so seriously then it's equally contradictory to the two time dimensions assumption.
It's also clearly not timeless relative to the macrocosm as we see that regular time in the universes passes while time passes in the ToP. World of Void time passing is not just its own time.
Furthermore, the world of void is said to have no space in the same breath as its said to have no time, yet it clearly has space. It's really just the typical incorrectly depicted void. If the statement that's the basis of an argument is known to be partially false, I put no trust in it.

The Pendulum Room: Any reasoning of "it wasn't established yet so it should be..." really holds no water. Neither do we know when what was planned nor do we have any guarantee that something planned later wouldn't get incorporated into existing concepts retroactively.
That aside, the premise doesn't follow from the evidence. Even if we are talking about just the living world's spacetime, there is no reason that place can't create time in the same direction as the other time of the cosmology.

Sugoroku Space and Interdimensional Realms: Same problem as world of void.
Let me also point out that the existence of certain space timeless voids holds no relation to extra time dimensions. If they can exist, these holes in space may as well exist wherever. It being inside or outside some macrocosm doesn't change things.
And that a character can access one special place, but not another special place, is really not evidence of anything. It means there is a difference, but not that it is this difference.



All in all, I'm convinced that all the scans given would not lead anyone to the suggested conclusion that isn't trying to prove that extra time dimensions are a thing.
The blog basically compiles a lot of ways in which spacetime in DB behaves weird and tries to chalk all of that up to extra-time dimensions. All we really know is that DB spacetime doesn't in all aspects follow regular models of spacetime (provided we take any of the no spacetime statements seriously), but that the alternate theory that it follows is that of an additional time axis is not indicated. It is not like the story at any point mentions extra time dimensions in any way or form.
(Honestly, for a tiering-relevant application anything would have to affect the spanned space anyway, instead of just the lines, and that's like super not the case.)

(If this turns into a big debate I will probably have to get to other threads on my waiting list before I do that.)
 
Last edited:
DontTalkDT said:
Won't even get into the OP then.
Reading the new blog:

For a start, isn't that mixing a bunch of canons and non-canons?

World of Void: The argument is basically "the descriptions make no sense, so it must be 5D". That's in itself not a good line of reasoning. Like, either it has time or not. Taking that to mean that it actually has a different kind of time and not the regular one is a complete stretch. The "no time" statement makes no distinction between one time and another time. So if you really want to take it so seriously then it's equally contradictory to the two time dimensions assumption.
It's also clearly not timeless relative to the macrocosm as we see that regular time in the universes passes while time passes in the ToP. World of Void time passing is not just its own time.
Furthermore, the world of void is said to have no space in the same breath as its said to have no time, yet it clearly has space. It's really just the typical incorrectly depicted void. If the statement that's the basis of an argument is known to be partially false, I put no trust in it.

The Pendulum Room: Any reasoning of "it wasn't established yet so it should be..." really holds no water. Neither do we know when what was planned nor do we have any guarantee that something planned later wouldn't get incorporated into existing concepts retroactively.
That aside, the premise doesn't follow from the evidence. Even if we are talking about just the living world's spacetime, there is no reason that place can't create time in the same direction as the other time of the cosmology.

Sugoroku Space and Interdimensional Realms: Same problem as world of void.
Let me also point out that the existence of certain space timeless voids holds no relation to extra time dimensions. If they can exist, these holes in space may as well exist wherever. It being inside or outside some macrocosm doesn't change things.
And that a character can access one special place, but not another special place, is really not evidence of anything. It means there is a difference, but not that it is this difference.



All in all, I'm convinced that all the scans given would not lead anyone to the suggested conclusion that isn't trying to prove that extra time dimensions are a thing.
The blog basically compiles a lot of ways in which spacetime in DB behaves weird and tries to chalk all of that up to extra-time dimensions. All we really know is that DB spacetime doesn't in all aspects follow regular models of spacetime (provided we take any of the no spacetime statements seriously), but that the alternate theory that it follows is that of an additional time axis is not indicated. It is not like the story at any point mentions extra time dimensions in any way or form.

(If this turns into a big debate I will probably have to get to other threads on my waiting list before I do that.)
Click to expand...
This is technically not adding to the thread, but THANK YOU.

This was literally all the supporters of this thread specifically (which I am not) were asking for. An actual. Detailed. Response.
 
Yeah, I disagree for reasons DontTalkDT elaborated; I still think treating Macrocosms as 2-C sized timelines containing other 2-C sized timelines is the best way to interpret it and not a big fan of the anti-middle ground mentality of "It's either Tier 1 or just plane Low 2-C and can't be anywhere in the middle."

And some of us have given more detailed responses in previous threads, and normally I would but I just got tired of repeated topics as a lot of staff members and regular users both do.
 
Given that DontTalk, Medeus, and Maverick disagree here, it seems like this revision has been rejected.

Thank you to all staff members who have helped out here. 🙏
 
DontTalkDT said:
Won't even get into the OP then.
Reading the new blog:

For a start, isn't that mixing a bunch of canons and non-canons?

World of Void: The argument is basically "the descriptions make no sense, so it must be 5D". That's in itself not a good line of reasoning. Like, either it has time or not. Taking that to mean that it actually has a different kind of time and not the regular one is a complete stretch. The "no time" statement makes no distinction between one time and another time. So if you really want to take it so seriously then it's equally contradictory to the two time dimensions assumption.
It's also clearly not timeless relative to the macrocosm as we see that regular time in the universes passes while time passes in the ToP. World of Void time passing is not just its own time.
Furthermore, the world of void is said to have no space in the same breath as its said to have no time, yet it clearly has space. It's really just the typical incorrectly depicted void. If the statement that's the basis of an argument is known to be partially false, I put no trust in it.

The Pendulum Room: Any reasoning of "it wasn't established yet so it should be..." really holds no water. Neither do we know when what was planned nor do we have any guarantee that something planned later wouldn't get incorporated into existing concepts retroactively.
That aside, the premise doesn't follow from the evidence. Even if we are talking about just the living world's spacetime, there is no reason that place can't create time in the same direction as the other time of the cosmology.

Sugoroku Space and Interdimensional Realms: Same problem as world of void.
Let me also point out that the existence of certain space timeless voids holds no relation to extra time dimensions. If they can exist, these holes in space may as well exist wherever. It being inside or outside some macrocosm doesn't change things.
And that a character can access one special place, but not another special place, is really not evidence of anything. It means there is a difference, but not that it is this difference.



All in all, I'm convinced that all the scans given would not lead anyone to the suggested conclusion that isn't trying to prove that extra time dimensions are a thing.
The blog basically compiles a lot of ways in which spacetime in DB behaves weird and tries to chalk all of that up to extra-time dimensions. All we really know is that DB spacetime doesn't in all aspects follow regular models of spacetime (provided we take any of the no spacetime statements seriously), but that the alternate theory that it follows is that of an additional time axis is not indicated. It is not like the story at any point mentions extra time dimensions in any way or form.
(Honestly, for a tiering-relevant application anything would have to affect the spanned space anyway, instead of just the lines, and that's like super not the case.)

(If this turns into a big debate I will probably have to get to other threads on my waiting list before I do that.)
Click to expand...
Before this gets closed, I just wanted to clarify something and yes I've been given permission

World of Void doesn't actually have anything to do with the low 1c in this thread

It's the Neutral zone,

Neutral zone was agreed a 5D as it's the space that contains and separates the 2c macrocasms, but it was ruled as 5d insignificant because it's size was unquantifiable, here is the thread that preceded this one.


The proposal here is that the complete timeline that contains the neutral zone, as well as the WoV and Zeno's realm can't be 2c, since
1- timelines are significantly sized unless stated otherwise (wiki rule)
2- it contains a 5d neutral zone

That's why the middle ground doesn't work, this is about the entire timeline, not just the macrocasms.

WoV has no bearing on this, (I haven't seen the blog, but I did read the OP and just a continuation from the first thread)

The argument is

Entire Timeline>5D insignificant Neutral zone> 2C Macrocasms

Only way a timeline can be 2c, is if the macrocasms are 3A

Now if you still disagree, that's fine,


But world of void has nothing to do with it at all, absolutely nothing
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Yeah, I disagree for reasons DontTalkDT elaborated; I still think treating Macrocosms as 2-C sized timelines containing other 2-C sized timelines is the best way to interpret it and not a big fan of the anti-middle ground mentality of "It's either Tier 1 or just plane Low 2-C and can't be anywhere in the middle."

And some of us have given more detailed responses in previous threads, and normally I would but I just got tired of repeated topics as a lot of staff members and regular users both do.
Click to expand...
But this thread has nothing to do with the macrocasms, macrocasms being 2c wasn't being disputed, its the complete timeline
 
Oh well. This will presumably be closed soon, so there's nothing I can do but throw in a response while I have time.
DontTalkDT said:
Won't even get into the OP then.
Reading the new blog:

For a start, isn't that mixing a bunch of canons and non-canons?
Click to expand...
As of now, we composite the information for Dragon Ball's cosmology. If that were to change, and certain arguments couldn't be used, I guess this would have to apply to Heroes and Xenoverse only.
DontTalkDT said:
All we really know is that DB spacetime doesn't in all aspects follow regular models of spacetime (provided we take any of the no spacetime statements seriously), but that the alternate theory that it follows is that of an additional time axis is not indicated. It is not like the story at any point mentions extra time dimensions in any way or form.
(Honestly, for a tiering-relevant application anything would have to affect the spanned space anyway, instead of just the lines, and that's like super not the case.)

(If this turns into a big debate I will probably have to get to other threads on my waiting list before I do that.)
Click to expand...
I understand this particular point of skepticism. After all, it's not like the overarching timelines in Dragon Ball work like hypertime in DC comics, which has statements for irregular functions of time over the multiverse. However, higher dimensions just need to be expressed rather than necessarily stated numerically.
For instance, let's look at the Kingdom Hearts Thread and what allowed them to qualify for a higher time dimension.

—First off, quick interjection. A few people have questioned why the Dragon Ball supporters keep citing the Kingdom Hearts cosmology. Even in the original revision, many of our arguments were just admittedly copy-pasting Ultima's statements for that particular verse. The reason is, excluding verses which have been directly stated to harbor higher dimensions of time, Kingdom Hearts is [from my knowledge] the first and only verse that has gained tier 1 upgrades for an overarching timeline over the multiverse and the space in between timelines. Throughout this site, there are countless precedents for everything imaginable regarding hierarchies, qualitative superiority, higher infinities, and what not. However, despite how big of an area time dimension scaling is, most threads on the topic lead to debates over semantics and technicalities, so there isn't a crystal clear ongoing notion for when all-encompassing timelines actually qualify for tier 1. Of course, that's only a problem for us supporters, but we have no choice but to reference this particular revision.

From my knowledge, the current Kingdom Hearts cosmology is rated as Low 1-C (6-D).

In this thread, they received Low 1-C (5-D) for proving that the space in between timelines was infinite in size. Now, let's take a look at the thread where they gained Low 1-C (6-D) for a higher time dimension. Their basis was that the Ocean in Between timelines was a 5-D space bound to a time axis, which means the cosmology qualified for 6-D by site standards via having an added temporal dimension. Their evidence for the Ocean in Between having an added time dimension was explained in this blog, and it came down to this:
  1. Characters have engaged in time travel there: not from the individual universes, but from within the Ocean itself.
  2. The Realm of Darkness: another world that occupies the same 5th dimensional plane, was stated to be "timeless" contrasted with the rest of the Ocean, implying the Ocean holds a form of time.
No mentions of higher time dimensions here: they just had to prove the existence of an overarching timeline. Meanwhile for Dragon Ball, the presence of an all-encompassing timeline over the multiverse has been more explicitly well-known for years. Now obviously, there was a certain factor that gave Kingdom Hearts more explicit evidence for a higher time dimension that Dragon Ball doesn't have, but what I'm trying to say is that the existence of an overarching timeline should be a good starting point in and of itself even without explicit mentions of higher dimensional time throughout a series.
DontTalkDT said:
All in all, I'm convinced that all the scans given would not lead anyone to the suggested conclusion that isn't trying to prove that extra time dimensions are a thing.
The blog basically compiles a lot of ways in which spacetime in DB behaves weird and tries to chalk all of that up to extra-time dimensions.
Click to expand...
All right, so outside the people who read my blog, along with the tier 1 savvy staff/members here, there's a lot of confusion regarding how DDT's model of an instance where a timeline encompassing lesser timelines doesn't qualify for Low 1-C works. Hell, I'm not even 200% sure of my interpretation of it by this point. However, since I spent thousands of words and 4 different models explaining how it works in the original blog, it's best if I make a shorter summary now to explain my line of thinking.

So let's model a multiverse of 12 universes first. We start out with RxRxR, which represents standard 3-dimensional space (X*Y*Z, Length*Width*Depth). Throw in the uncountable set R, and you have (RxRxR)xR, representing Space*Time. We need a higher order space to describe these space-times as parallel to one another, so our cartesian product comes down to (1x2x3x4,...,12)x(RxRxR)xR, with the countable set (1x2x3x4,...,12) representing 12 multiversal positions across a 5th axis.

On the other hand, let’s model a timeline that holds 12 lesser space-times. We still have individual universes modeled as RxRxR, and these universes still require a higher dimensional axis to be depicted as parallel. However, why don't introduce the set (1,2,3,4,...,12) right now to represent this extra spatial axis as the fourth dimension instead (which is arbitrary numbering, quite frankly)? Now to make a timeline out of this, we once again multiply the set R. With that, our new cartesian expression is Rx(1,2,3,4,...,12)x(RxRxR): a timeline consisting of 12 space-times. Are the universes still low 2-C or 2-C? Absolutely! This is because the dimension of time is appled equally to all the universes across the 4th spatial dimension. Just so we're clear:

Multiverse of 12 timelines: (1,2,3,4,...,12)x(RxRxR)xR

Timeline of 12 universes: Rx(1,2,3,4,...,12)x(RxRxR)

As you can see, the two constructions are the same thing: 2-C multiverses a rotation away from one another. Notice how the distance between timelines is most frequently recognized as the "5th dimension," yet we seem to have it modeled as the 4th dimension in the depictions for Rx(1,2,3,4,...,12)x(RxRxR) (which we recognized as "arbitrary numbering")?

Time is an independent parameter that applies to all space. It's not confined to any specific point or location, but rather it's a continuous flow that affects all of space. The reason we readily described the 5-D plane as 4-D and proceeded to call this action "arbitrary numbering" was because the numbering or labeling of dimensions is not inherently significant to the structure itself; it's more about how these dimensions are conceptually utilized and aligned within the model, rather than the specific label assigned to them. The core idea is to create a coherent and internally consistent representation of the relationships between space and time in the context of multiple parallel universes. The fabric of space-time would exist within the extra-spatial dimensional plane, and be consequently applied to the pockets of 3-D space made parallel. Time is applied to the 4th spatial dimension, and even as the universes are propagated forward through the consequential application of time, the higher dimensional brane is a lane that keeps them parallel. Our main takeaway is that such situations would not inherently introduce a new time axis as spatiotemporal separation doesn't equal distinct time axes!

Let's say we know 3 things about a given fictional cosmology.
  1. There is a multiverse of Low 2-C/2-C space-times.
  2. These space-times are displaced across an extra-dimensional space that allows them to exist in parallel.
  3. There is a larger timeline/space-time that encompasses the multiverse and the extra-dimensional space.
This cosmology does not qualify for Low 1-C in and of itself. The extra-dimensional space does not have to be the 5th dimension after time, and time doesn't have to be the 4th dimension in order to apply to the lesser timelines: that's just arbitray numbering. Time is an independent parameter that can apply to any dimensioned construct. If the extra-dimensional space is depicted as having a temporal dimension which all the lesser timelines would consequently exist within, we should not conclude that there is a higher time dimension at play. We should instead assume that everything, from the lesser timelines to the extra-dimensional space, is dislocated under a single time axis. The setup of the cosmology would shift to worlds being 3-dimensional spaces, displaced over a large 4-dimensional space, which has one added temporal dimension. The lesser timelines would still be Low 2-C/2-C since time is applied to them, the extra-dimensional space would maintain their parallelism as they're propagated forward in time, but we would use a single time axis.

Remember when I said there was a certain factor in Kingdom Hearts cosmology that allowed it to gain a higher time dimension with little hassle? Ultima actually rejected the Kingdom Hearts upgrade personally. He said that if the Ocean in Between is depicted as having a time dimension under which all the worlds consequently exist, everything could be serviced by a single time axis. He also stated the fact that the worlds have different flows of time was not enough evidence that they exist uder a time dimension separate from that of the Ocean in Between. However, the factor that gave Kingdom Hearts Low 1-C was that there were statements for individual worlds harboring their own time axes. Ultima contested this, saying "time axis" was used as flowery text in context. Nevertheless, the KH supporters proved that the statements were literal. Although Ultima never gave final word, the upgrade was accepted for this reason.

So what am I getting at here?​

After going over my blog, DontTalkDT disagreed with some of my logic/takeaways and came out with the conclusion that I was stretching to find reasons as to why space-time behaving weirdly in Dragon Ball could be chalked up to a higher time dimension. For that reason, let me clarify my line of reasoning. From what I understand of the model, as well as Ultima's review of the Kingdom Hearts thread, in order to prove that an overarching timeline qualifies, you'd have to prove that there are 2 dimensions of time, which is only possible if the lesser timelines exist in time dimensions distinct from that of the extra-dimensional space between timelines. For my arguments regarding the World of Void, Pendulum Room, and Subspaces, my goal was not just to explain why space-time works differently in Dragon Ball and chalk it up to a higher time dimension. I had aimed to explain why space-time wroking differently in these instances required certain lesser timelines to harbor time parameters distinct from that of the multiverse.
DontTalkDT said:
World of Void: The argument is basically "the descriptions make no sense, so it must be 5D". That's in itself not a good line of reasoning. Like, either it has time or not. Taking that to mean that it actually has a different kind of time and not the regular one is a complete stretch. The "no time" statement makes no distinction between one time and another time. So if you really want to take it so seriously then it's equally contradictory to the two time dimensions assumption.
It's also clearly not timeless relative to the macrocosm as we see that regular time in the universes passes while time passes in the ToP. World of Void time passing is not just its own time.
Furthermore, the world of void is said to have no space in the same breath as its said to have no time, yet it clearly has space. It's really just the typical incorrectly depicted void. If the statement that's the basis of an argument is known to be partially false, I put no trust in it.
Click to expand...
I had questioned whether or not I should attempt to salvage this particular argument, but I figure it's best to abandon it here.
DontTalkDT said:
The Pendulum Room: Any reasoning of "it wasn't established yet so it should be..." really holds no water. Neither do we know when what was planned nor do we have any guarantee that something planned later wouldn't get incorporated into existing concepts retroactively.
That aside, the premise doesn't follow from the evidence. Even if we are talking about just the living world's spacetime, there is no reason that place can't create time in the same direction as the other time of the cosmology.
Click to expand...
Since you never expressed disagreement with my argument for why the Pendulum Room should be situated inside the continuum of the Living World or at least the Macrocosm, I'll assume that you agree with that premise at least.

Aside from that, for my argument to work, the only other premise is that the Pendulum Room proves that the source of temporality for the Living World (or at least Macrocosms) comes from inside their respective continuums. For starters, one of the few things consistent about Dragon Ball cosmology is that every Macrocosm has been depicted as having the exact same realms and spatio-temporal makeup. It wouldn't make narrative sense for that area of Universe 7 to be the source of space-time across past/present/future for the rest of the multiverse. Universe 7 was not only included in the Tournament of Power, but designated one of the first universes for annihilation due to its low Mortal Level. Zeno and the Grand Priest watch over all occurrences for the universes. They noticed the relatively low-key Tournament of Destroyers, and have an entire system in place to monitor every aspect of every Macrocosm to determine how the Kais and Destroyers run their worlds (hence Mortal Levels). It's acknowledged by the Angels that even the smallest alterations to the flow of dimensional time would have devastating consequences for the rest of existence. Considering all they know about the multiversal cosmology, why would they readily endanger Universe 7 if the area inside it was the source of dimensional time for everything else?

Premise 1: the time room and source of temporal dimensionality for the Living World (or at least the Macrocosm) is inside the continuum.

Premise 2: this time parameter shapes temporal dimensionality for only the Living World or at least the Macrocosm.

From there, here is my takeaway as to why that would prove an additional time dimension. From my knowledge, you need to prove that lesser timelines can exist under time dimensions distinct from that of the extra-dimensional space between timelines. Under a single time axis model, the single time dimension would fuse with the extra-dimensional space to form a fabric of space-time that is consequently applied to the lesser universes. If the source of temporal dimensionality for several lesser space-times in Dragon Ball is confirmed to originate from within the continuum, how can they be serviced by the overarching timeline and the fabric of space-time outside the multiverse? Would this not confirm that they hold their own unique time parameters?
DontTalkDT said:
Sugoroku Space and Interdimensional Realms: Same problem as world of void.
Let me also point out that the existence of certain space timeless voids holds no relation to extra time dimensions. If they can exist, these holes in space may as well exist wherever. It being inside or outside some macrocosm doesn't change things.
And that a character can access one special place, but not another special place, is really not evidence of anything. It means there is a difference, but not that it is this difference.
Click to expand...
Let me explain my line of reasoning for the World of Void and Subspaces. The idea I was trying to depict when analyzing them is that the statements regarding them would prove that the space between lesser timelines is timeless relative to the space-times, and therefore prevents the single time axis model from working. Under that model, time is applied over the extra-dimensional plane and consequently over the universes. In other words, the extra-dimensional plane is the source of temporal dimensionality for the universes. If the space between timelines was stated to hold the property of being timeless relative to the space-times, would that not mean they have their own distinct time dimensions? After all, with a single time axis, the space in between timelines should be very temporal relative to the lesser space-times as it's the literal source of their temporal dimensionality. Otherwise, the time parameters for the universes would be isolated and self-contained.

For KaiKai, I was trying to make a similar argument for how certain space-times being inaccessible through that teleportation technique would prove a distinct time dimension. My idea was that all space-times should be accessible under a single time axis since there's a single framework of space-time. You contest that by saying that if anything, the fact that certain areas were stated to be "timeless" would prove that there are simply holes in space that could explain these inaccessible space-times. And honestly... I see where you're coming from with that.

My Conclusion (for the Dragon Ball supporters).​

Tier 1 experts like Executor have tried to explain this in the past (particularly, in the context of Dragon Ball), but spatiotemporal separation is a different thing from having a distinct time axis. When a multiverse has a higher dimensional space between timelines which in turn has its own time dimension, to prevent tiers from being inflated, it will be assumed that the higher timeline's axis is servicing the lesser space-times of the multiverse. They would still be low 2-C universes since time is being applied to them whilst the extra-dimensional space keeps them parallel, but we could only use a single time axis. The reason why Kingdom Hearts gained an upgrade for a similar cosmology was because there was an explicit statement for the lesser worlds harboring their own time dimensions. In my blog, I tried to create arguments as to why I believe certain space-times in Dragon Ball had to have their own time parameters separate from the time dimension of the insignificant 5-D space, but we would need something more concrete. Xenoverse/Heroes actually makes mention of time dimensions/axes, but that's under the context of the overarching timelines.

So here's the important part: in order to gain Low 1-C timelines, we'd need statements for the Macrocosms or the space-times within them having their own time dimensions/axes. Only then, could we guarantee that the cosmology consists of 2 time dimensions. At this point, we'd have to wait for a statement like that from DBH or any guidebook that comes out eventually. Aside from that, I heard that Whis's temporal do-over technique was stated to "mess with the time axis" or something like that. And I guess that as long as you could prove that:

1. "Time axis" existed in the original text and was not just a localization thing
2. There is a solid basis to assume that temporal do-over affects the Macrocosm only

We could prove that the time axis statement was reffering to the time axis for a single Macrocosm. Therefore, we would get the upgrade. Of course, if we were to gain some miraculous information that would confirm we were good to go for an upgrade, we'd have to wait at least 2 months (I think) for a re-attempt revision. And as I said, that's only worth pursuing if something new comes out, and we should refrain from pursuing this particular kind of revision unless we know what we're doing beforehand.

Anyway, it seems that this revision has been rejected. With how hard this thread was getting derailed with "3-A macrocosm" and "Perpendicular Time Flow," I have to give tremendous thanks to the staff who gave detailed reasons for disagreeing in the end.
 
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