• 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: Universes/Timeline Tiering Revision

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can anyone make a short sentence summary of what is going to be addrd if whatever gets accepted
 
godofice said:
Goku wouldn’t be downgraded they scale to Fused Zamasu who fused with time and the entire universe they would keep their rating
Click to expand...
no they wouldn't, now they scale to the weird half 2-C of beerus and champa's feat, not they all will become baseline at least until someone makes a thread about infinite zamasu also it is infinite zamasu, not fused zamasu
 
omegabronic said:
a separated space time would by default
Click to expand...
No offend, but this is bullshit reasoning, a space-time inside another bigger space-time is a normal thing
Reiner said:
Yeah, at best it'll be treated as another contradiction of guidebooks as manga contradicts the reasoning of RoSaT being inside universe directly.
Click to expand...
It is a contradiction because of your personal interpretation of Frieza statement, not a direct contradiction,
 
Vietthai96 said:
No offend, but this is bullshit reasoning, a space-time inside another bigger space-time is a normal thing
Click to expand...
no it isn't, we wouldn't assume that a space time is inside another without reasoning, the default assumption is that it is outside

Vietthai96 said:
It is a contradiction because of your personal interpretation of Frieza statement, not a direct contradiction,
Click to expand...
not a personal interpretation, this is just how the term is used all the time it is used in dbs, and also the scan not saying much + the one who was using it concede a while ago
 
omegabronic said:
no it isn't, we wouldn't assume that a space time is inside another without reasoning, the default assumption is that it is outside
Click to expand...
There is no default assumption when it come to small, pocket level of space-time dimension until you deal with universal-sized space-time
omegabronic said:
not a personal interpretation, this is just how the term is used all the time it is used in dbs, and also the scan not saying much + the one who was using it concede a while ago
Click to expand...
It is personal:
1. because you have no proof that the word: universe always refering to the entire U7 because multiple time when they refering to U7 they directly say Universe number 7 or in Japanese is Dai-Nana Uchū
2. Just because Frieza said about a random dimension/place doesn't mean he refering to ROSAT, you interpreted as he also say about ROSAT and you included it in, so the contradiction come from personal interpretation of the text
 
Vietthai96 said:
There is no default assumption when it come to small, pocket level of space-time dimension until you deal with universal-sized space-time
Click to expand...
yes there is, it is said the be a separated dimension, it is not considered to be part of the universe, it has its own space time, and we have no proof nor reason to believe that it is part of the timeline, for anyone to say that it is part of the timeline it would need evidence

Vietthai96 said:
It is personal:
1. because you have no proof that the word: universe always refering to the entire U7 because multiple time when they refering to U7 they directly say Universe number 7 or in Japanese is Dai-Nana Uchū
Click to expand...
refer to everytime anyone used the term universe in dbs, but also the main point was, with it not being considered to be inside the universe we now have no reason to believe that it is, same goes for the timeline

Vietthai96 said:
2. Just because Frieza said about a random dimension/place doesn't mean he refering to ROSAT
Click to expand...
it is said to be a rosat by vegeta and goku, so it is unless proven otherwise

Vietthai96 said:
, you interpreted as he also say about ROSAT
Click to expand...
correction, it is said to be, no interpretation

Vietthai96 said:
and you included it in, so the contradiction come from personal interpretation of the text
Click to expand...
it doesn't, read above
 
A spacetime inside a spacetime time can still have Low 2-C/2-C/2-B/2-A feats without being a hypertimeline with the following reasons below

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?
Someone: 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.

Sooo... yeah, the two constructs are in fact exactly the same thing. So the object in question is just a regular 2-C Multiverse.
 
TheUnshakableOne said:
A spacetime inside a spacetime time can still have Low 2-C/2-C/2-B/2-A feats without being a hypertimeline with the following reasons below

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?
Someone: 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.

Sooo... yeah, the two constructs are in fact exactly the same thing. So the object in question is just a regular 2-C Multiverse.
Click to expand...
I'm not very smart about it, but what does it all mean?
 
LuffyRuffy46307 said:
I'm not very smart about it, but what does it all mean?
Click to expand...
that this time those positions wouldn't be across the 5th dimensional axis, but the 4th one.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.

Sooo... yeah, the two constructs are in fact exactly the same thing. So the object in question is just a regular 2-C Multiverse.
 
TheUnshakableOne said:
A spacetime inside a spacetime time can still have Low 2-C/2-C/2-B/2-A feats without being a hypertimeline with the following reasons below

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?
Someone: 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.

Sooo... yeah, the two constructs are in fact exactly the same thing. So the object in question is just a regular 2-C Multiverse.
Click to expand...
i don't understand what you were trying to say with all that, care to simplify? also they would need to proof of being space times in the first for this wouldn't they? the fact that they are affect by time travel sugests that they are not, and it requires less assumptions than the multiverse being this very specific kind of timeline instead, that is if i understood your point correctly, i would like a simplification
 
omegabronic said:
i don't understand what you were trying to say with all that, care to simplify? also they would need to proof of being space times in the first for this wouldn't they? the fact that they are affect by time travel sugests that they are not, and it requires less assumptions than the multiverse being this very specific kind of timeline instead, that is if i understood your point correctly, i would like a simplification
Click to expand...
Typing on phone sucks lol

But yeah they'd need proof if being separate timelines too.

The whole paragraph is to say its possible for a Timeline to hold a 2-C Multiverse without reaching into higher tiers, or be a low 2-c timeline and each "universe" in it could still ne a low 2-C universe.
 
TheUnshakableOne said:
Put of curiosity what information supports U7 (amd all others) being a spacetime universe? (Low 2-C universe?)
Click to expand...

TheUnshakableOne said:
that this time those positions wouldn't be across the 5th dimensional axis, but the 4th one.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.

Sooo... yeah, the two constructs are in fact exactly the same thing. So the object in question is just a regular 2-C Multiverse.
Click to expand...
well, I still don't understand, but it's okay.
 
TheUnshakableOne said:
that this time those positions wouldn't be across the 5th dimensional axis, but the 4th one.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.
Click to expand...
what does R stands for? how does this math works and why would it matter for this discussion? i am confused

TheUnshakableOne said:
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.
Click to expand...
we added? this seems like a very specific kind of timeline, them not being space times but just spatially separated dimensions requires less assumptions

TheUnshakableOne said:
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)
Click to expand...
wouldn't they need to be confirmed space times for this to be used?

TheUnshakableOne said:
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.
Click to expand...
rotation?

TheUnshakableOne said:
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.

Sooo... yeah, the two constructs are in fact exactly the same thing. So the object in question is just a regular 2-C Multiverse.
Click to expand...
i really don't understand your point
 
TheUnshakableOne said:
Typing on phone sucks lol

But yeah they'd need proof if being separate timelines too.

The whole paragraph is to say its possible for a Timeline to hold a 2-C Multiverse without reaching into higher tiers, or be a low 2-c timeline and each "universe" in it could still ne a low 2-C universe.
Click to expand...
oh, so it wasn't you saying that they are space times, just saying that even if they were it wouldn't be higher than 2-C?
 
omegabronic said:
oh, so it wasn't you saying that they are space times, just saying that even if they were it wouldn't be higher than 2-C?
Click to expand...
Yeah exactly what you said! It wouldn't be any higher than 2-C at the absolute best! it was explaining how a low 2-C timeline can hold more than 1 low 2-C structures and the whole timeline can still ne Low 2-C, and the same logic can be used with a Timeline with a 2-C structure.

They'd still need to prove their separate spacetimes, and idk what evidence is used for that.

The time travelling is an antifeat that would need some elaboration, and once tier 2 revisions are done... the greater multiverse could be at risk of downgrade lol...

Edit: so even if it has statements of a "past, present, and future" it would then additionally need a statement of "it has it's own..." because that PPF could be a subset flow of time from the overarching timeline. Adding a bit more information for that chunk I sent.
 
omegabronic said:
no they wouldn't, now they scale to the weird half 2-C of beerus and champa's feat, not they all will become baseline at least until someone makes a thread about infinite zamasu also it is infinite zamasu, not fused zamasu
Click to expand...
Wouldn't they scale to Jiren who scales above Infinite Zamasu?
 
Vietthai96 said:
There is no default assumption when it come to small, pocket level of space-time dimension until you deal with universal-sized space-time
Click to expand...
It is very much default assumption and the reason for entire paragraph in the zeno_h profile just to justify this thing.
 
Planck69 said:
Can someone give a summary of the discussion?
Click to expand...
  • From the previous thread it has been accepted that RoSaT is outside the universe 7.
  • RoSaT was considered to be a part of Timeline because it had reasoning and few evidences to be inside universe 7 created because of the fact that RoSaT was introduced before the multiverse was introduced, but now that it is outside the universe and all reasonings that it had so far to be considered to be a part of Timeline doesn't exist anymore, RoSaT is not inside a Timeline anymore as it is seprate spacetime continuum, a dimensional space outside.
  • All Timelines has RoSaT being created eventually not because it is being affected by timetravel but rather as all timelines are copies of main timeline, kami story will be copied eventually who has destiny to make RoSaT in all timelines.
  • Thus there is no reasoning for Timeline to be considered 2-C anymore as all of the universes are within the same spacetime continuum and RoSaT reasoning on Zenoh profile has been contradicted.
 
I see then. So, clear things up for me. The 12 universes are spatially separate, considered universes by the characters and cannot be travelled to physically, right? But time travel affects all of them, so they act like a quilted multiverse of sorts.

In that case then, I suppose Low 2-C for the entirety of the timeline makes sense to me. I may change my mind based on any further information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LuffyRuffy46307
Buu Saga Definitive Review
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
Ryzen7900X
Ryzen7900X
Omegabronic
  • Locked
Dragon Ball MWI undoing continuation thread
17 18 19
Replies
750
Views
40K
Omegabronic
Omegabronic
Killerdrone123
  • Locked
To be canon or not to be that is the question.A Dragon ball Super revision
2 3 4
Replies
152
Views
10K
AwkguyDB
AwkguyDB
Omegabronic
  • Locked
Dragon Ball's Main Cannon Timeline number downgrade
4 5 6
Replies
230
Views
17K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Omegabronic
  • Locked
Spaces in Times Dragon Ball revision
7 8 9
Replies
326
Views
30K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
Back
Top