IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,228
- 3,935
I also disagree FRA.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I got permission to post here from Firestorm, and I was originally planning on waiting for the other Dragon Ball supporters to be available, but I'll see if I can finish my response by the end of the day or within a couple days instead.do yall plan on continuing this thread?
Didn't we have a whole conversation over this in the last thread?"if affecting time such as turning back time in one universe affects the other, then they are not spatio-temporally separate to begin with and would not qualify for higher levels of tier 2."
"Also the fact that time shenanigans in one universes affects the whole timeline means it is a single flow of time and not multiple like the OP claims."
"There is no higher time flow, the universes just have anti-feats that they are not spatio-temporally separate."
"makes more sense if it is lower since this universes are not spatio-temporally separate."
The depiction of the 12 universes in Dragon Ball Super has more than met these standards. Essentially, such a collection of universes are assumed to exist in parallel by site standards unless contradicted.These are notes that the worlds are indeed universes; while they don't need all of these, at least one of them should indicate this:If there is shown to be a collection of multiple alternate worlds/dimensions that are either stated to be parallel and/or there are visual depictions resembling each of those worlds/dimensions to be metaphorically similar to each other (Such as bubbles or other structures that appear similar in size), and most importantly, at least one of those individual worlds/dimensions has shown enough evidence to consider them a Universe level+ sized spacetime continuum, then the conclusion is to consider all of those individual worlds/dimensions universes and that the entire collection is a multiverse.
In short, you can argue all you want about theory and what would prevent the universes from existing in parallel, but by the end of the day, what matters most is the franchise's depiction of cosmology. The 12 universes sharing a timeline and sense of temporal causality could prove they share a time axis if and only if the series has never demonstrated a capacity for space-times to encompass parallel space-times in and of itself. Wasn't there a months-long revision over this shit, the project that resulted in 2-C macrocosms?Note: We consider the universes in Dragon Ball alternate timespaces relative each other, hence why Zen'ō is rated as 2-C, despite the events in the Goku Black Saga showing parallel timelines encompassing the whole of the multiverse. The reason for this is that Universe 7 by itself has already been shown to contain parallel space-time continuums within its globe, such as the Room of Spirit and Time, which is still affected by time travel; which proves that the new timelines can encompass other space-times as well, and thus the events in the Future Trunks Saga don't prove anything in the way of the universes being physically connected.
Now that you mention it, the first time the hypertimeline argument was introduced to this site, ProfessorKukui made a good point in the initial 2-part series of threads.So in this thread, the Room of Spirit and Time has been accepted as being a seperate structure outside of the universe. Now, this is a problem because we currently default the universes (which are affected by time travel) to separate space-times because the ROSAT is considered part of them in the first place.Without proof that the individual universes can contain seperate Space-Times, the universes/macrocosms are reduced to 3-A, and the entire timeline potentially becomes Low 2-C.This thread is to discuss if there is any further evidence that can be provided to prove that each universe is can be treated as Low 2-C and if not, whether a change in tiering is required following the last thread. As it stands, the cosmology is possibly in limbo because the current note uses the ROSAT as evidence for universes encompassing other space-times. So even if the universes/timeline remains the same tier, new justifications could still be needed.
When you have a situation like in Dragon Ball where multiple universal space-times have their temporality ultimately dwarfed by a single [higher] time axis, this should result in the drastic consequences of 3-A universes or low 1-C timelines. It's obviously not the former, seeing how well the "3-A macrocosm debunks" have gone in the past.The basis of this upgrade for DB is because of our tier 1 standards acknowledging a timeline that contains lesser timelines, or a "hyper timeline" as the term for it, to be Low 1-C. That means, as long as the universes within the higher timeline are considered separate space-time continuums, the higher timeline is going to result in a Low 1-C upgrade in relation to our standards. So a choice would need to be made here in relation to that. Either the universes in the cosmology are not separate space-time continuums and it results in no upgrade (a downgrade if anything), or they are separate space-time continuum's, and the given timeline containing lesser Low 2-C timelines results in Low 1-C. No in-betweens. It's either one or the other.
I can't tell what argument is being made here. It's either 1: "A higher time dimension entails a different time direction" or 2: "Prove the neutral zone has its own time axis." I will address point 2 later, but for now I'll focus on point 1."First, different temporal dimensions happens when time flows in different directions. For example time flowing backward. So unless time flows backward in the neutral zone, then it is the same time axis,"
"Time has to flow in a different direction for it to be a different time axis, which is what you claim is that I quoted."
"and if that is your scan to prove different time axis"
"single time axis which is time moving forward,"
"I should add since you keep saying "how can two overarching timelines be 2-C" which has no real meaning but I will assume you mean a place with 3 different time axis, the one that governs the universe, the one that governs the neutral zone which in turns also covers the universe (everything essentially) and the one that you claim again governs everything. Well although two different time axis that governs everything is not possible but let us say it is. Yes that would be low 1-C, no one is disputing that, what we are disputing is the jump in logic to say everything has different time axis from a single scan that says the neutral zone is another dimension."
Reiner seems to have brought two things forward."As I stated in previous thread, there is no additional temporal axis that contains uncountable infinite amount 2-C structures but rather just one temporal axis that orders/services the events/continuum of uncountable infinite snapshots of all Universes, they all are 2-C structures (contains uncountable infinite snapshots as each) and do not intersect due to being displaced in insignificant 5-D/multiversal structure. It was long explained by DT and Ben 10 follows the same structure with exactly same explanation. It's not Low 1-C, that's just any basic multiversal structure we have."
Because the distance between any given number of universes embedded in higher-dimensional / higher-order spaces is currently unknowable, it is impossible to quantify the numerical gap between each one of the subtiers in Tier 2. As such, it is not allowed to upgrade such a character based solely on multipliers. For example, someone twice as strong as a Low 2-C character would still be Low 2-C, and someone infinitely more powerful than a 2-C would not be 2-A.
Looking over the first revision page, most people agreed that the neutral zone was 5-D (though many reiterated that it was insignificantly 5-D). Ultima shared the sentiment himself the last thread, also questioning if the neutral zone had anything to confirm its significance. This premise should be uncontroversial.Speed isn't defined by any number of spatial dimensions but simply distance over time. Meaning that it is possible for 1-dimensional characters to be faster than those who cover many dimensions. And the distance between two timelines is defined as the 5th dimension (Or a 4th spatial dimension) that separates two or more universes. Said distance is often unknown as it could be anywhere between much smaller than the Universal radius and infinite. But such details are only known to those who can travel through additional spatial dimensions. For that reason, crossing Universes is unquantifiable for speed unless details are specifically stated.
I can't find anything on the current standards regarding the world of void, but based on this, it seems like site standards have always recognized the world of void as an alternate space with its own time. This is proven by how the tournament of power has demonstrated an explicit passage of time (as seen by the time limit) as well the displays of time stop and time dilation. This should prove that the separate realms on the 5th dimensional plane described as "different spaces" were intended to be noted as space-times.One of the highest possible ways to receive a speed rating is to outright ignore the restraints imposed by time, often by moving in a place where time has ceased to exist. Due to the controversial nature of such a feat, it must be analyzed carefully before being accepted. Most series do not acknowledge such a feat as something that would take an infinite amount of speed to accomplish, and it's constantly portrayed as an one-off action occurring for the sake of plot.
In order for any given series to be upgraded based on these feats, their universe should meet, at minimum, a few of these criteria:
-The realm should be consistently and reliably described as timeless by knowledgeable characters who can be confirmed not to be lying or bluffing.
-The realm should display characteristics a realm without time would be expected to have, such as the lack of a visible passage of time, unless this is Cinematic Time.
-Although not necessary per se, and not entirely accurate either, the characters who traverse it being described as "beyond the space-time" or "beyond time" would be supporting evidence.
A simple way to look at it is to divide each one of the timeless realms in fiction in "Types":
Type 1: "Timeless" Voids: Voids that supposedly lack time but are completely contradicted to be such. Examples: The Void in League of Legends and the World of Void in Dragon Ball Super.
Type 2: Insubstantial Voids: Voids that have some properties of being timeless, but not enough to warrant Infinite speed, at least not most of the time. Examples: The Demon Realm in Dragon Ball Heroes and the Distortion World from Pokémon.
Type 3: "True" Voids: Voids that are stated to be timeless and are expressively shown to be such. They have many properties that would come with timelessness that this undeniable they would qualify for Infinite speed. Examples: The Void Beyond in Final Fantasy XIII-2 and the Dark Area in Digimon.
It's evident that temporal branching affects the rest of the macrocosms since Future Trunks' timeline had its own version of the 12 gods of destruction and 12 supreme kais, as well as Zeno. It's stated verbatim that the parallel timelines encompass all the universes.Note: We consider the universes in Dragon Ball alternate timespaces relative each other, hence why Zen'ō is rated as 2-C, despite the events in the Goku Black Saga showing parallel timelines encompassing the whole of the multiverse. The reason for this is that Universe 7 by itself has already been shown to contain parallel space-time continuums within its globe, such as the Room of Spirit and Time, which is still affected by time travel; which proves that the new timelines can encompass other space-times as well, and thus the events in the Future Trunks Saga don't prove anything in the way of the universes being physically connected.
Question: How do temporal dimensions impact on tiering?
Let's visualize a timeline this way.Answer: The relationship between the spatial dimensions of a universe and the additional temporal dimension(s) may be visualized as something akin to the frames of a movie placed side-by-side. Basically, the time-like direction may be thought of as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the whole universe at any given moment, with the set of all such events comprising the totality of spacetime. This structure can then be generalized to any amounts of dimensions, and is also the reason destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). So, for example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (Instead of just one) would have an additional time direction whose "snapshots" correspond to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime, and so on and so forth.
DontTalkDT
AKM sama: Would you say a multiverse that is a timeline consisting of 12 Low 2-C universes is sufficient evidence for it to be Low 1-C? Me: No. Allow me to explain. We have three dimensions of space, which we could (in a simplified version) model as RxRxR, that is the cartesian product of three infinite real number lines. Time we could model as a single infinite real numbers line R. A timeline is then (RxRxR)xR i.e. space x time. Now, for multiple timelines, we need to operate in a 5-dimensional space. In the 5th dimension, they would all lay beside each other. Let's say we have 12 timelines, with their positions in the 5th dimensions being 1,2,3,4,..., 12. {1,2,3,4,...,12} is the set of those positions. The multiverse consisting of 12 timelines would then be described by {1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR)xR. In other words the cartesian product of the locations of each timeline, with one timeline.
Let's compare this to a timeline consisting of 12 universes. One universe is again RxRxR. Those universes are in a multiverse. We again model their positions as {1,2,3,4,...,12}, just that this time those positions wouldn't be across the 5th dimensional axis, but the 4th one. (Which is really just arbitrary numbering) So the multiverse is {1,2,3,4,..,12}x(RxRxR), in other words, a universe for each of the 12 positions. Now let's make a timeline out of that. How do we do that? We again multiply (take the cartesian product) with the time axis. The same way we previously went from universe to timeline. The time axis is again modelled as R. What we get is Rx{1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR). That is in mathematical terms a timeline consisting of 12 universes. Let's make sure we got that right: We wanted Low 2-C universes, i.e. entire spacetimes. Are those entire spacetimes? Yes! Because the time dimension we added is equally applied to all universes. We, for example, have a point that is 5 seconds in the future of universe 3 at the coordinates (0,1,15). That point is in the construction above {5}x{3}x(0,1,15). So those construction meets all demands. A timeline consisting of multiple universal spacetimes.
Let's compare those two constructs now. Multiverse from 12 timelines was: {1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR)xR Timeline of 12 Universes was: Rx{1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR)
Notice how those look almost the same? That's because they are! They are in fact only a rotation away from each other. The way the are rotated has no particular meaning, though. It's only result of how we happened to construct it. It's a difference equivalent to having north up on the map or having east up on the map. If we rotate the constructs so that their time and space dimensions each fit to each other and do the same with their position in the multiverse we get that they are exactly the same. I.e. just write the universes number first, then write space and lastly write which time it is and you get exactly the same constructs.
From what I understand...Sooo... yeah, the two constructs are in fact exactly the same thing. So the object in question is just a regular 2-C Multiverse.
Ultima_Reality
For the record, I agree with DontTalk's explanation from up above. Even in the past thread addressing this, and in multiple conversations about this subject, I made a very explicit distinction between an overarching flow of time which holds 4-dimensional spacetimes as infinitesimal cross-sections of itself and a spacetime which just has a larger hypervolume.
For contrast, DontTalk's construction ultimately involved the positions of each universe in 5-dimensional space being represented by a discrete set with a countable number of elements, namely {1, 2, 3, 4, 5... 12}, which, when taken as an element of the cartesian product representing an n-dimensional object, would have a size of size of 0 in the fifth dimension, since, as explained in here, constructing higher-dimensional objects requires cartesian products between continuous sets, which have uncountably-many elements instead. Hence why it could also be rotated into an identical construction where those universes were laid out on the fourth axis instead.
Ultima expands on DDT's explanation a bit. The cartesian product is an operation that combines elements from different sets to create a new set representing a higher dimensional object. For example, if we have two sets A = {a, b} and B = {1, 2}, the cartesian product of A and B would be all possible pairs we can make from the elements in each set: {(a, 1), (a, 2), (b, 1), (b, 2)}. Of course, we don't have to write out every last product when we have the variable R, which represents uncountably intinitely many elements.What I explained to qualify for Low 1-C beforehand would be something more along the lines of, for example, [0,1]x(RxRxRxR), which is a 4-dimensional spacetime being multiplied by a set with uncountably infinitely-many elements (Think of that as associating a copy of the timeline to each number that exists between 0 and 1), which, in practical terms, would just be said spacetime being dislocated 1 unit of time (Which is arbitrary: It can be an hour, or a second, or whatever) through another temporal axis.
Giygas3 (Response to DDT)
I'm going to assume you're meaning timeline = Space-Time continuum in this comment. In this example, your cartesian product for {1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR)xR. is only talking about the content within this 5-D plane where the Universes are setting across. Which would be essentially null if you destroyed just this part for talking about a 5-D dimension. What's being talked about is the (RxRxRxR)xR of the entire 'timeline' in its entirety, not its contents. This is because it's working with 3 spatial dimensions, with 2 temporal dimensions. (The second temporal dimension is the reason why it houses multiple discrete Space-Times, and why they all seem to duplicate whenever you time-travel) This in its entirety would be destroyed in the example, so it should be Low 1-C.
From this guy's interpretation, given DDT's model where a timeline holds 12 space-times without being low 1-C, he argues that with the timeline being the 5th axis rather than an interdimensional space, although its contents (the 12 universes) would be a countable set, the timeline as a whole would represent all extensions of the 5th axis. With an interdimensional space, you'd need statements of qualitative superiority or proof of infinite size along with evidence of characters scaling to such a space. But since the standards entail that not only is time infinite by default, but characters who destroy space-time are presumed to destroy past/present/future until proven otherwise, any character who scales to the higher timeline would be low 1-C as they're destroying the substance of the 5th dimension rather than just its contents.Yes, this would just be rotating the original axis around. But this is entirely separate of a question. In this example, reality in its entirety is just described by Rx{1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR) because it's not working under a secondary spatial dimension; R, where the first one was. So, you're describing two entirely different things when we say it completely destroyed these two 'worlds' in its entirety.
GilverTheProtoAngelo (Response to Ultima_Reality)
Well I am no expert in math....but I have few doubts. Well the thing is , imo this is still observation of the set of 12 space-times while the observer is sitting in 5th dimension. What the upgrade side is proposing is we observe the 5th dimension itself...that is the higher temporal dimension to be observed from outside. That would lead to product of another R onto the current product .... basically R×{1....12}×(R×R×R)×R. Now I am not so brave as to apply entire set of points of this higher temporal dimension onto this product.
But as Ultima mentioned that any length of time in another axis of time suffices for "dislocation" as he put it
What I wanted show here is that these space-times flow forward in the flow of this higher time.
Lets take this and apply directly onto DB chronology. In the past there were 18 space-times. So the product will look like this at a single instant...."Zeroth" moment. {1,2....18}×(R×R×R)×R
After some time " t" the 6 space-times are destroyed. And only 12 remain. Lets call this point of time in present as "t1". So product will look like ... {1....12}×(R×R×R)×R
So if were to sit outside the timeline and map all the progress of the universes from start uptill this point....
0+t=t1....or t=t1....basically the time interval. [0,t1) is a uncountably large set , albiet not as large as R....but still uncountable, I believe this also called Cantor Set?? [0,t1)×{1...18}×(R×R×R)×R...... so this basically satisfies the condition for bijections of 5 sets containing uncountable elements I guess....
Low1C??
So basically I tried to map the journey of Present Timeline of DB and all universes inside it.
This guy expands on Giygas3's argument that if you observed the 5th axis from the outside rather than observe the 5th dimension's contents from within it, you'd probably have to add a full R value to represent the entirety of the 5th dimension's flow of time. Though he acknowledges how brash it may be to apply the whole set of points of the higher time dimension R onto such a product, his main takeaway from Ultima's explanation is that any length of time or demonstration of time's passage in another temporal axis (even if not the whole set) suffices for dislocation.And I am a nervous wreck now....
GilverTheProtoAngelo (Second Response to Ultima_Reality)
Well in the context of DB.... Well both Don'T Talk DT and you explained the structure of 12 space-times in a timeline using Relations. But my gripe is that the observer resides in 5th dimension observing a set of 12 space-times. This isn't anything special compared to what we do when we normally examine a singualr timeline. I felt we observer should have stood outside the encompassing timeline and then make the Relation mapping....potentially giving us 5 bijections.
You even mentioned how the dislocation of space-time in second temporal dimension by a certain timeframe is enough for low1C.
Well I tried to do just that for DB using it's own timeline's "story" or "history"....
At some point in time in past (t1) there were 18 space-times but now in the present time point (t2) there are 12, and in the future there will only be potentially one left (t3).
[t1,t2)x{1....18}x(RxRxR)xR Then after t2.. [t2,t3)x{1.....12}x(RxRxR)xR And at point t3 {t3}x{1}x(RxRxR)xR
Just reiteration.Please quell my question on whether this is emough for low1C.
Ultima_Reality
Ultima admits that Gilver's explanation has merit to the point where it could validate the entire hypertimeline argument.Hm. This question actually relates to a certain doubt I had regarding DontTalk's explanation up there, which may or may not affect the validity of this. Bringing it up in here would just be derailing the thread, especially in its current state, so, I'll go ahead and ask him about it while I'm at it.
DontTalkDT (Response to Giygas3)
The 5th dimension in your explanation isn't time-like. It's not like the 1st universe happens before the 12th universe. The 5th dimension in your explanation is space-like. In any case, what you are describing is just a standard multiverse. The empty space of the 5th dimension which isn't part of the spacetime continuums is not included and destroying a construct like you describe is not considered Low 1-C, as the 5th dimension in which are actually things is of insignificant size. That's literally the reason we don't automatically consider every single universe in fiction to be Low 1-C.
As DDT explains, the 5th axis described in Giygas3's whole [timeline's contents vs timeline's substance] argument was a space-like dimension rather than a time-like one as demonstrated in DDT's model. This is a diversion from DDT's actual argument as he failed to model the 5th dimension as a sequential progression where one universe would essentially "happen" before the other. Instead, his 5th axis is a set of positions assigned to each universes as if they exist simultaneously, displaced across a spatial dimensional plane. Either way, DDT's model describes something that doesn't qualify for low 1-C since:I don't understand what you're trying to say. We have three spatial dimensions in that construct, so what do you mean by not working under a secondary spatial dimension? For protocol, I hope we can agree that both constructs have the same amount of spatial and temporal dimensions, that both are the same except for a rotation and that rotating an object doesn't influence its size.
DontTalkDT (Response to GilverTheProtoAngelo)
This isn't a subjective issue. Where you observe it form makes no difference. So I don't get what you are trying to say.
The initial construct is {1,2....18}×(R×R×R)×R. After the destruction the construct is {1,2...., 12}×(R×R×R)×R. The part destroyed is {12,...,18}×(R×R×R)×R. That is 4D and equivalent to destroying 8 spacetimes. A 2-C feat.
In response to Gilver reiterating Giygas's argument, DDT repeats that the larger timeline would not qualify for low 1-C in size regardless as its entirety is just a larger hypervolume.While you could theoretically describe the process of the multiverse changing by adding a second time-axis, that is only a model on your part and not something actually provided in the verse. Given that, you don't really know whether it actually is time-dimension-like or just a set of finite states. Furthermore, it is entirely irrelevant for the verse, since the time dimension you invented to describe the change of multiversal spacetime is not interacted with, or especially destroyed, by anything in Dragon Ball.
And now, for a question that's haunted Dragon Ball power scaling for years: "how did Zeno erase space-time when the main cast could travel to the erased timeline, and time travel is a process that travels the path of existing time?" As we know, while time travel is a process occurring along a 4th dimensional path, dimensional travel is a process occurring along a 5th dimensional path (the space under which timelines are parallel). As Bulma said in the manga, time travel and dimensional travel are different things. Although they used a time machine, what they were reaching when traveling to Trunks' world was a separate space-time altogether. The only reason their time machine could access another space-time was due to a faint temporal connection between the main timeline and Trunks' timeline. However, Bulma asked Pilaf to install a dimensional plug that allowed the time machine to engage in free dimensional travel, engendering travel along a 5th dimensional path, giving the main cast access to an erased timeline.For a timeline containing lesser timelines to be low 1-C, the timelines must exist as simultaneously as a multiverse with explicit spatial displacement. In addition, the higher timeline must describe the continuous non-discrete dislocation of the multiverse along an additional time direction. Under such a model, we could introduce the higher timeline as a set of uncountably infinitely elements and apply it in bijection with the cartesian sets representing the multiverse to form a product with significant value in a higher dimension.
You did.Let's all just hope I don't mess up any of the science
I said we should wait for the said scans that they claim before but so far none has been provided, and I and four/five staffs have disagreed with this, so it is safe to say this should be closedI think that we can close this thread then.
I am not rushing for the thread to be closed, the thread is still.opened cause we were promised that DB fans have scans to prove the additional time axis. And now that they have proven they do not, the thread can be closed. And like I said, any staff is welcome to take a look at his post but this thread is done and over already, he brought nothing new just longer and incoherent arguments without scans to back it up but his own word of mouth.Shouldn't you at least wait for staff to see Profectus's post instead of rushing for it to be closed?
And we did, you typed one paragraph to reply to that entire argument and basically called everything else he typed out nonsense, "The long post is just trying to bury the major point of this thread."I am not rushing for the thread to be closed, the thread is still.opened cause we were promised that DB fans have scans to prove the additional time axis.
You say this yet you yourself haven't responded to a single one of profectus' arguments at all and basically just said "you're wrong".And now that they have proven they do not, the thread can be closed.
Clearly the thread isn't over and done with if it's still going, we are waiting for staff to review his comment. Saying he didn't have any scans to back up his claim is comical, you say "word of mouth" like you haven't been shifting standards and being dishonest about them.And like I said, any staff is welcome to take a look at his post but this thread is done and over already, he brought nothing new just longer and incoherent arguments without scans to back it up but his own word of mouth.
Again, "nowhere" does it state that an additional time axis has to be flowing in any direction besides forward to be considered different. Like profectus said, you are just making up standards that don't exist and forcing us to prove something we shouldn't have to. Saying "prove time flows diagonally" "prove time flows backwards or you're wrong" sounds so unbelievably stupid, please utter those words and see how dumb it sounds i beg you. It's not on our spacetime requirements page, it's not on the FAQ, speed tiers, nowhere. I literally just went through other verses that have gained low 1-C for an "additional temporal dimension". Time is assumed to flow in one direction, FORWARD, we have past, present, and future, extending infinitely. Asking us to prove something as absurd as that is disingenuous. You blatantly ignored every single one of his arguments, didn't respond to any of his counterarguments against your original opposition.Thirdly, lets talk about the "additional time direction". We should break this down, we have direction, we can have a certain number of directions in 3D, 6 to be precise (forward, backward, upward, downward, rightwardor leftward). An additional direction different the forward direction would have to be one of the remaining 5, so yes when it is said it needs to have an additional time direction apart from the current one it means a different one that is not forward, it can be diagonal for all that matters as long as it is not forward.
You're saying all this without proving it is the problem, so when we point out that these standards don't exist, your entire argument falls apart. Going to sleep now.so yes when it is said it needs to have an additional time direction apart from the current one it means a different one that is not forward, it can be diagonal for all that matters as long as it is not forward.
I will not go back and forth with you, so I will make this my last post unless something new comes up.And we did, you typed one paragraph to reply to that entire argument and basically called everything else he typed out nonsense, "The long post is just trying to bury the major point of this thread."
You say this yet you yourself haven't responded to a single one of profectus' arguments at all and basically just said "you're wrong".
Clearly the thread isn't over and done with if it's still going, we are waiting for staff to review his comment. Saying he didn't have any scans to back up his claim is comical, you say "word of mouth" like you haven't been shifting standards and being dishonest about them.
Again, "nowhere" does it state that an additional time axis has to be flowing in any direction besides forward to be considered different. Like profectus said, you are just making up standards that don't exist and forcing us to prove something we shouldn't have to. Saying "prove time flows diagonally" "prove time flows backwards or you're wrong" sounds so unbelievably stupid, please utter those words and see how dumb it sounds i beg you. It's not on our spacetime requirements page, it's not on the FAQ, speed tiers, nowhere. I literally just went through other verses that have gained low 1-C for an "additional temporal dimension". Time is assumed to flow in one direction, FORWARD, we have past, present, and future, extending infinitely. Asking us to prove something as absurd as that is disingenuous. You blatantly ignored every single one of his arguments, didn't respond to any of his counterarguments against your original opposition.
You're saying all this without proving it is the problem, so when we point out that these standards don't exist, your entire argument falls apart. Going to sleep now.
Note: We consider the universes in Dragon Ball alternate timespaces relative each other, hence why Zen'ō is rated as 2-C, despite the events in the Goku Black Saga showing parallel timelines encompassing the whole of the multiverse. The reason for this is that Universe 7 by itself has already been shown to contain parallel space-time continuums within its globe, such as the Room of Spirit and Time, which is still affected by time travel; which proves that the new timelines can encompass other space-times as well, and thus the events in the Future Trunks Saga don't prove anything in the way of the universes being physically connected
It should be noted that timelines are assumed to be infinite in length, unless evidence to the contrary is provided
I already voiced that I disagree with Low 1-C for reasons stated numerous times.
Sorry I am tagging you guys here again, I am just tired of the long posts without proofs and mental gymnastics.I'm also more inclined to Pein's arguments here, I disagree with the upgrade.
@Vietthai96 @Ottavio_MerluzzoI unlocked this thread, as some knowledgeable Dragon Ball supporters asked me to be allowed to comment here.
Sigh, just found out that you unlocked this thread, it too late. I planning to make a different thread for DB game verse only since. Anyway since you go through the trouble to unlock the thread, i will trying to summarise my argument for game verse in my blog, with how busy i'm nowaday, probably it will take sometime if you not mind. Still it isn't guaranteed
Heres another scan also that the parallel timelines encompass the multiverse. Like it is so obviously clear at this point, and now that i prove that such standards, such as pein's do not need to be included. This means it qualifies verbatim.Note: We consider the universes in Dragon Ball alternate time-spaces relative to each other, hence why Zen'ō is rated as 2-C, despite the events in the Goku Black Saga showing parallel timelines encompassing the whole of the multiverse.
The reason for this is that Universe 7 by itself has already been shown to contain parallel space-time continuums within its globe, such as the Room of Spirit and Time, which is still affected by time travel; which proves that the new timelines can encompass other space-times as well, and thus the events in the Future Trunks Saga don't prove anything in the way of the universes being physically connected.
It's not really helpful to repeat another person's arguments. It's often the case that I will arrive in a thread and see that another user said exactly what I would have said. When I am in the opposite position, I would rather people "FRA" than to make me repeat myself or clog the thread with the same arguments.But the main takeaway is, that I expect staff members to actually say something note worthy in a thread as controversial as this one, I need feedback, arguments if you agree, and not just a "Disagree FRA" train.
Well, as it was explained earlier, we do not have a good reason to consider these as being separate time axes. The fact that a single timeline encompasses the entire cosmology doesn't really tell us it's an additional temporal axis, it actually leans more towards implying they all share a time axis. I also didn't consider anything written about the neutral space as helping us identify whether or not it has a temporal axis separate from the main cosmology.We have the 2-C macrocosms, 12 of them, all held within the neutral space which was deemed to be 'insignificant 5-D' as per this thread. The macrocosms have their own space and time, their own time axis. Now on a lowball, the multiverses timeline would be an additional, higher flow of time that servers as the entire multiverses time axis
It's not helpful to cast accusations.Where do I even start with this? Well how about the blatant lying on pein's side of things. First, how he didn't respond to the arguments presented above, and how he made up standards to fit his narrative
Anyway, before i finish my argument (which probably tomorrow at least), you want scan that timeline being an axis right???Sigh I am not going to sound like a broken record. Just because you thought something did not address you, or you think you have debunked something does not make it true.
Also no it is not made up standard, and I am actually tired of explaining. Let me just wait for viethai at this point.
Unless you can send scans of all your claims, they are simply non-existent.
Of it being a separate axis from the other universes timeline.Anyway, before i finish my argument (which probably tomorrow at least), you want scan that timeline being an axis right???
I don't think that matter, because universe itself being it own space-time which mean it is a 4D structure on it own - a 4d spherical space-time manifold, and timeline being an axis contain a 4D structure will make it 5D, since it contain 4D object on its axisOf it being a separate axis from the other universes timeline.
What do you think a time axis is?I don't think that matter, because universe itself being it own space-time which mean it is a 4D structure on it own - a 4d spherical space-time manifold, and timeline being an axis contain a 4D structure will make it 5D, since it contain 4D object on its axis
I'm repeating the arguments because that is all i can do at this point, nobody is properly addressing them like wtf?It's not really helpful to repeat another person's arguments. It's often the case that I will arrive in a thread and see that another user said exactly what I would have said. When I am in the opposite position, I would rather people "FRA" than to make me repeat myself or clog the thread with the same arguments.
But we literally do accept that the timeline the time ring represents, and the macrocosms are separate time axis entirely, that is why we literally say it encompasses the entire multiverse, which means it spans 4d objects, and/or the neutral space. And obviously the neutral space is meant to be another spacetime via profectus's arguments. It is completely outside the multiverse, of course they don't share a same time axis, that makes no sense that they would share one.Well, as it was explained earlier, we do not have a good reason to consider these as being separate time axes. The fact that a single timeline encompasses the entire cosmology doesn't really tell us it's an additional temporal axis, it actually leans more towards implying they all share a time axis. I also didn't consider anything written about the neutral space as helping us identify whether or not it has a temporal axis separate from the main cosmology.
Its true though, none of you guys are addressing anything. And pein, im still waiting for the page where that standard is mentioned otherwise, a total of zero counter arguments have been made. And are you gonna address how in other hypertimeline threads you don't bring up these arguments? It's already been accepted that the timelines can hold other timelines, there is objectively a higher timeline that encompasses the macrocosms and the neutral space, nothing says it has to be a different direction, it says an additional dimension, one that acts as a higher temporal flow, not acting like some perpendicular direction that allows movement, it doesn't work that way, its TIME!! Stop spreading misinformation.It's not helpful to cast accusations.
I maintain my vote in this matter.
What I meant by that was explaining the reason why staff members did not respond with their own arguments rather than expressing their agreement with Pein.I'm repeating the arguments because that is all i can do at this point, nobody is properly addressing them like wtf?
Who accepts that? Personally I do not.But we literally do accept that the timeline the time ring represents, and the macrocosms are separate time axis entirely, that is why we literally say it encompasses the entire multiverse, which means it spans 4d objects, and/or the neutral space.
I am not saying your accusations are false, their accuracy isn't important to me. I am explaining that it is not helpful or appropriate to make them.Its true though, none of you guys are addressing anything.
It's a staff thread, you should be required to at least expand upon why you don't agree, but none of you're arguments have held up at all, I called you guys out on spreading misinformation, yet you don't try to address it, and you still agree with false info.What I meant by that was explaining the reason why staff members did not respond with their own arguments rather than expressing their agreement with Pein.
"personally, I do not" do you hear yourself? So are you admitting that you are letting your personal bias overshadow the facts that have been presented? That we have a note in our page that says otherwise? Scans in the actual crt which disproves you?Who accepts that? Personally I do not.
I mean it kind of is, if i don't address it, it will keep happening, which is exactly what you are still doing right now.I am not saying your accusations are false, their accuracy isn't important to me. I am explaining that it is not helpful or appropriate to make them.
No, I am stating that I do not agree with the claim that they have separate temporal axes.So are you admitting that you are letting your personal bias overshadow the facts that have been presented?
You are welcome to hold that stance, but I am informing you as a moderator that it isn't appropriate to accuse someone of lying like you did with Pein just now.I mean it kind of is, if i don't address it, it will keep happening, which is exactly what you are still doing right now.
No we don't, let me see the thread it was acceptedrepresents, and the macrocosms are separate time axis
You have got to be joking, like there is just no actual way you're doing this right now, how about you read the arguments we provided.No we don't, let me see the thread it was accepted
The fact that the macrocoms are 2-C right now should tell you they have separate time axis, like what is with the derailing? We linked three 3-A downgrade threads that ultimately failed and the macrocosms remained 2-C. Why are we even arguing this? Again you guys are shifting the argument to something we don't need to prove.You said it was accepted in an earlier thread. Which thread?
Oh so the whole thing comes from your misconceptions of what different space-time is supposed to mean.The fact that the macrocoms are 2-C right now should tell you they have separate time axis, like what is with the derailing? We linked three 3-A downgrade threads that ultimately failed and the macrocosms remained 2-C. Why are we even arguing this? Again you guys are shifting the argument to something we don't need to prove.
For dragon ball's macrocosms, yeah it really is, just how the ROSAT also sits on a different time axis, the realms in the macrocosm are completely separated by space AND time, so yes, they do have different time axis, hence why the macrocosms are 2-C. So by proxy, with the neutral space being proven by us to be a spacetime continuum, this means it would also have an separate time axis that governs the neutral space, which is insignificant 5-D, and holds the macrocosms. Meaning it's outside of the macrocosms space and time completely, and the time axis for the neutral zone would obviously make it low 1-C. Same for the all encompassing multiversal timeline.Oh so the whole thing comes from your misconceptions of what different space-time is supposed to mean.
From.what I am getting you think different space-time means different time axis also?
That logic isn't sound, because it you spatiotemporally separated yet still the same time axis, then you not spatiotemporally separated in the first placeBeing spatiotemporally separate is not the same as different time axes. You don't need alternate time axes to be Tier 2, you only need spatiotemporal separation.
Eh no, time dimensions/axes and spatiotemporal separation explicitly aren't the same thing. You can have a single time axis and still be Tier 2-C, 2-B and 2-A. You can ask Ultima and DontTalkDT if you don't believe me.That logic isn't sound, because it you spatiothemorally separated yet still the same time axis, then you not spatiotemporally separated in the first place
Well in general, but for DB, ROSAT, the universes, and the main timeline have shown to have different time axis, a higher one for the timelines case.Eh no, time dimensions/axes and spatiotemporal separation explicitly aren't the same thing. You can have a single time axis and still be Tier 2-C, 2-B and 2-A. You can ask Ultima and DontTalkDT if you don't believe me.
Universe level CRT Part 2 (Alternate Dimension Edition)
Continued from here This thread will focus on alternate universes/dimensions (as the title suggests). The purpose here, is to explain why spatially separated universes have their own spacetime. A more detailed explanation In my last OP I briefly went over this by saying the following: Anything...vsbattles.com