• 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.

Dragon Ball Super Discussion Thread 100

Skarfz said:
Also dont make any matchups or the goku on my pfp is about to slap y'all with his hair.
Click to expand...
May your wish be granted, may your wish be granted.

Because after this blog, there are still things missing.

References the 2-C timeline in some blogs.

Some changes in DBH blogs that reference a timeline being 2-C.

And so on, there is still relatively much left to be fixed. In addition to the possible topics of downgrades, etc.

Making Matches during a period like this is the worst time.
 
Phsccarvalho said:
May your wish be granted, may your wish be granted.

Because after this blog, there are still things missing.

References the 2-C timeline in some blogs.

Some changes in DBH blogs that reference a timeline being 2-C.

And so on, there is still relatively much left to be fixed. In addition to the possible topics of downgrades, etc.

Making Matches during a period like this is the worst time.
Click to expand...
Yes, this shouldn't even take that long, at least a few weeks and at most a month
 
Now we just need the Low-1-C blog accepted right? We should also update the cosmology scaling for the macrocosm cause half of it is crossed out
 
Ednaxel2 said:
Now we just need the Low-1-C blog accepted right? We should also update the cosmology scaling for the macrocosm cause half of it is crossed out
Click to expand...
The only stuff crossed out is the Infinite Universe stuff because it was removed, but I plan to make a CRT in the future which’ll turn into a verse explanation page that details the entire cosmology. For now though we’re okay with just the macrocosm and hypertimeline stuff.
 
From what DT said, DB clearly fits the bill.
A: The relationship between the spatial dimensions of a universe and the additional temporal dimension(s) may be visualized as something akin to the frames of a movie placed side-by-side. Basically, the time-like direction may be thought of as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the whole universe at any given moment, with the set of all such events comprising the totality of spacetime. This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions, which is why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). A spacetime continuum with two time axis, instead of just one, could likewise be visualized as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the entire regular timeline with 3 space and 1 time dimension. It would hence be one level of qualitative superiority above a timeline and as such baseline Low 1-C. Similarily, adding even more time dimensions would add one level of qualitative superiority each time. Outside of explanations which state that multiple time dimensions exist it is difficult to show that a fiction has more than one. The key point that has to be established is that there is a kind of time that flows in a different direction than the past or the future or any of the spatial directions. Things like timelines having time that passes at different rates would not qualify, as even the theory of general relativity already establishes that with just one regular time dimension time can flow at different rates in different places. Time flowing backwards in another universe would also not qualify it to have an independent time dimension, as it would still use the same directions of past and future as regular time, just with events playing out in reverse. Of particular consideration are instances in which timelines as a whole being changed, such that there is a timeline (or multiple timelines) before they were changed and after they were changed or created / destroyed. As the timelines as a whole are changed, the before and after in this context can't be the past and future the timelines usually use, but should be a separate direction. However, caution is necessary. As explained above, we require that the additional time dimension is "a line comprised of uncountably infinite points". If new versions of timelines are only created if they are changed, due to time travel for example, then the number of "snapshots" of the timeline would be far more limited. The amount of snapshots would be one more than the times the timeline was changed. So, for example, if the timeline is rewritten 2 times, there would be 3 snapshots of the timeline: the original, the timeline after the first rewrite and the timeline after the second rewrite. That are far less than the required uncountably infinite many. Aside from direct statements, the easiest way to confirm that the line is comprised of uncountably infinite points/"snapshots" is to show that the development of the timelines is time-like. I.e. typically one would want a statement like the alteration of the timelines being subject to its own flow of time or by saying that special time travel can go to prior versions of the timelines instead of the past. The keyword in the latter case is time travel, as that specifies that the action happens through movement through something like time. Note that such statements can be considered contradicted if the fiction specifies that new versions of the timeline, i.e. additional snapshots, are only created when the timeline is altered or similar. One other pitfall to consider is the case of branching timelines, where one can return to a past with less timelines by just going back to a point in the regular past that was before the split happened. In such cases one has to decide based on context if that is meant or if a prior version where the splits also didn't exist in the regular future is meant. The former case doesn't qualify for an additional time dimension, while the latter might if it meets the other outlined criteria.
Click to expand...
 
Going to be the messenger of what DT said like Luffy but with the less relevant parts trimmed out and the sentences separated into paragraphs so it's easier to read
A spacetime continuum with two time axis, instead of just one, could likewise be visualized as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the entire regular timeline with 3 space and 1 time dimension. It would hence be one level of qualitative superiority above a timeline and as such baseline Low 1-C. Similarily, adding even more time dimensions would add one level of qualitative superiority each time.

Outside of explanations which state that multiple time dimensions exist it is difficult to show that a fiction has more than one. The key point that has to be established is that there is a kind of time that flows in a different direction than the past or the future or any of the spatial directions.
Things like timelines having time that passes at different rates would not qualify, as even the theory of general relativity already establishes that with just one regular time dimension time can flow at different rates in different places. Time flowing backwards in another universe would also not qualify it to have an additional time dimension, as it would still use the same directions of past and future as regular time, just with events playing out in reverse.

Of particular consideration are instances in which timelines as a whole being changed, such that there is a timeline (or multiple timelines) before they were changed and after they were changed or created / destroyed. As the timelines as a whole are changed, the before and after in this context can't be the past and future the timelines usually use, but should be a separate direction.
However, caution is necessary. As explained above, we require that the additional time dimension is "a line comprised of uncountably infinite points". If new versions of timelines are only created if they are changed, due to time travel for example, then the number of "snapshots" of the timeline would be far more limited. The amount of snapshots would be one more than the times the timeline was changed. So, for example, if the timeline is rewritten 2 times, there would be 3 snapshots of the timeline: the original, the timeline after the first rewrite and the timeline after the second rewrite. That are far less than the required uncountably infinite many.
Aside from direct statements, the easiest way to confirm that the line is comprised of uncountably infinite points/"snapshots" is to show that the development of the timelines is time-like. I.e. typically one would want a statement like the alteration of the timelines being subject to its own flow of time or by saying that special time travel can go to prior versions of the timelines instead of the past. The keyword in the latter case is time travel, as that specifies that the action happens through movement through something like time. Note that such statements can be considered contradicted if the fiction specifies that new versions of the timeline, i.e. additional snapshots, are only created when the timeline is altered or similar.
One other pitfall to consider is the case of branching timelines, where one can return to a past with less timelines by just going back to a point in the regular past that was before the split happened. In such cases one has to decide based on context if that is meant or if a prior version where the splits also didn't exist in the regular future is meant. The former case doesn't qualify for an additional time dimension, while the latter might if it meets the other outlined criteria.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ednaxel2
Dragon Ball Daima Spoiler Discussion Thread
11 12 13
Replies
503
Views
29K
TartaChocholate
TartaChocholate
RedReaper616
  • Locked
God Ki Stuff, Buu Stamina, and Android Thing
Replies
30
Views
3K
SwordLegendz01
SwordLegendz01
Ednaxel2
Dragon Ball: Updates (Planet Vegeta Re-Calc, DBS Manga Downgrade)
3 4 5
Replies
174
Views
12K
Ednaxel2
Ednaxel2
BOEGVELD
Uncontroversial Goku CRT (hopefully)
Replies
34
Views
4K
AwkguyDB
AwkguyDB
Killerdrone123
  • Locked
To be canon or not to be that is the question.A Dragon ball Super revision
2 3 4
Replies
152
Views
11K
AwkguyDB
AwkguyDB
Back
Top