- 5,879
- 1,072
Anyways, I found pretty explicit evidence of high 1-B DC
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.
Well damn, this is amazing, but wiki probably won't accept
Yesdoes DC have anything higher than high 1-B?
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 1AThe 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
I'll make a DC cosmology CRT soon, you can help if you want
Sure!I'll make a DC cosmology CRT soon, you can help if you want
Very nice, I’m especially looking forward to that Harley revision.Just gonna dump another rework here: https://vsbattles.com/threads/clayface-dc-post-crisis-rework.143611/
Prolly going to focus on Onomatopoeia, Harley and PF Clayface next (mayyyyybeee in the order?)
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 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.
@XXKINGXX69Also, 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.
I need to make ablog first
Neither his tweet nor the one he responded to include the word spatial, so this does not change anything.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
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 need to make ablog first
I actually kinda like that idea.I HAVE AN IDEA. how about we make a cosmology blog without the cosmology split and a cosmology blog with the cosmology split??
Nobody. PotM went on an indefinite hiatus from the site not long after posting that.who is updating this blog?
"higher dimension" by definition refers to spatial dimensionsNeither his tweet nor the one he responded to include the word spatial, so this does not change anything.
No, it doesn't."higher dimension" by definition refers to spatial dimensions
Why? What do you think a higher dimension is?No, it doesn't.
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.Why? What do you think a higher dimension is?
Prove Nil is stated to be a higher dimensionNil 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.
Prove Nil is stated to be a higher dimension
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.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
Prove its talking about Nil
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.