• 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.

General DC Comics Discussion Thread

There is also the fact that it would not make sense for her to be talking about universes because she would be saying "infinite universes and universes", and there are pre-crisis statements of there being infinite dimensions that occupy the same space, which means its not talking about universes because different universes are different spacetimes in DC
 
XXKINGXX69 said:
The tweet he was replying to was asking for confirmation of it being spatial dimensions when talking about the infinite dimensions statement. The question tweet got deleted but I got a screenshot
Click to expand...
That was my old twitter acc which got suspended for no reason . However , The creator is said to exist beyond the definitions of space /time . There is also a scan from justice league annual where Rama kusha refers to higher dimensions which was shown by old content moderator named Matthew . So at lowball DC would be 1b to 1A
 
We have rules against scaling from unofficial social media replies, especially from people who do not own the characters and verses that they have been asked about.

Also, considering the sheer massive amount of evidence that we have assembled that proves the extreme incoherence of DC Comics cosmology, I asked XXKINGXX69 to explain how it can easily be debunked.
 
Antvasima said:
We have rules against scaling from unofficial social media replies, especially from people who do not own the characters and verses that they have been asked about.
Click to expand...
The actual evidence is from the comics themselves, in the twitter scan, the author just confirmed what he meant in the comics. Clarifications are allowed by our rules.
 
We can still only use what has been officially established within the canon, but I think that we already intend to rate the DeMatteis cosmology as 1-A, if I remember correctly.
 
Antvasima said:
Also, considering the sheer massive amount of evidence that we have assembled that proves the extreme incoherence of DC Comics cosmology, I asked XXKINGXX69 to explain how it can easily be debunked.
Click to expand...
@XXKINGXX69
 
XXKINGXX69 said:
I need to make ablog first
Click to expand...
You can send me a PM about it if you wish, but I would appreciate if you mention your main points since you brought up the topic.
 
I HAVE AN IDEA. how about we make a cosmology blog without the cosmology split and a cosmology blog with the cosmology split??
 
We investigated the issue and couldn't create a composite cosmology without being extremely dishonest and irrational in our logic. It genuinely doesn't make sense to stack all of the cosmologies on top of each other when they work so very differently in both conceptualisation and scale.
 
PotM's blog is already based on a composite DC, but it was never instituted as an official wiki resource. The upcoming revisions do not aim to copy a composite model for the reasons described above. It's a mess, scaling wise.
 
Honestly, I just want to see a composite one out of curiosity for what it’d be like. For the most part, I couldn’t care less about cosmology scaling.
 
Yes, and from what I recall, he told me outright that he only wrote the blog because I asked him to, but that he did not actually believe in a composite cosmology himself.

I have since strongly reconsidered my view in this regard.
 
XXKINGXX69 said:
Why? What do you think a higher dimension is?
Click to expand...
Nil was directly referred to as a higher dimension, but it isn't an additional spatial dimension. The Fifth and Sixth Dimensions, neither of which are spatial, are also called higher dimensions.

At certain points in DC, even Heaven has been called a higher dimension.

The phrase higher dimension is completely vague, it can simply refer to a realm which has an obscure "higher" form of existence. People only assume it means spatial when they want to use it for tiering.
 
Deagonx said:
Nil was directly referred to as a higher dimension, but it isn't an additional spatial dimension. The Fifth and Sixth Dimensions, neither of which are spatial, are also called higher dimensions.

At certain points in DC, even Heaven has been called a higher dimension.

The phrase higher dimension is completely vague, it can simply refer to a realm which has an obscure "higher" form of existence. People only assume it means spatial when they want to use it for tiering.
Click to expand...
Prove Nil is stated to be a higher dimension

Those would also mean the people saying the sixth and fifth dimension are higher dimensions are wrong. Not that it changes the definition of higher dimension
 
XXKINGXX69 said:
Prove Nil is stated to be a higher dimension
Click to expand...
uAxaseZ.jpeg


XXKINGXX69 said:
Those would also mean the people saying the sixth and fifth dimension are higher dimensions are wrong. Not that it changes the definition of higher dimension
Click to expand...
The idea that "higher" means "spatial" is completely bunk, regardless. But even if we accepted the idea that everyone who used it differently was simply wrong, that would simply lead to the question of whether the author used it "wrong" in his statement as well, given the fact that your definition doesn't appear to be universal.
 
Deagonx said:
uAxaseZ.jpeg



The idea that "higher" means "spatial" is completely bunk, regardless. But even if we accepted the idea that everyone who used it differently was simply wrong, that would simply lead to the question of whether the author used it "wrong" in his statement as well, given the fact that your definition doesn't appear to be universal.
Click to expand...
Prove its talking about Nil

Its not bunk, that's literally the definition of higher dimension. Nowhere did I say everyone who used it was wrong, its just those people who stated the fifth and sixth are higher dimensions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LordTracer
DCU General Discussion Thread
8 9 10
Replies
374
Views
24K
LordTracer
LordTracer
VersusJunkie54
Halo General Discussion Thread
2 3 4
Replies
146
Views
5K
XSOULOFCINDERX
XSOULOFCINDERX
Sans2345
Squirrel Stapler General Discussion Thread
Replies
2
Views
786
Success0906
Success0906
Imaginym
Order of the Stick General Discussion Thread
Replies
0
Views
671
Imaginym
Imaginym
Sans2345
Postal General Discussion Thread
Replies
3
Views
927
Uradial50
Uradial50
Back
Top