Ninjago Attack Potency update

[Grand_Astartes]

Still don't see 2-C, neutral on Star

 

[Alus83]

thats not what relativity says. even mathematically your are wrong. We know the universe is comprised of an additional spatial dimension due to the idea of the extrinsic curvature of space via the result of gravity. Relativity via Einstein Rosen bridges makes the Universal model 4D. Do you know much about curvature? well i should say hypersurfaces. I am saying extrinsic curvatures auto makes it 4D and there is evidence of this throughout ninjago. even if we just ignore that ninjago has its own space-time container to cloud kingdom and never realm also just straight up has its own time flow thats different. relativity also just never calls time 4D thats a myth even the people who bandwagon on that crap didn't believe in that.

It does not curve into time. it curves into the 4th dimension. i probably misunderstood you.

"That's not what relativity says."Instead, it is. I recommend you read the scans I've posted regarding the theory of relativity.

"Even mathematically you are wrong."Saying that I'm wrong at a mathematical level doesn't make sense; the theory of relativity is not just a theory. There are empirical proofs for each postulate, and it has been mathematically defined. Moreover, you simply said I'm wrong without actually explaining why, failing in your attempt consequently.

"We know the universe is comprised of an additional spatial dimension due to the idea of the extrinsic curvature of space via the result of gravity."No, maybe you know, certainly not me or anyone else. Our current model of the universe assumes the existence of only three spatial dimensions and one temporal, without any need for extra dimensions. Furthermore, every speculative theory uses the concept of compactification to explain extra dimensions because assuming they are other infinite spatial axes would create mathematical and conceptual problems.

"Relativity via Einstein Rosen bridges makes the Universal model 4D."Again, what do you mean by four-dimensional? From what I read, it seems like you haven't fully understood what the theory of relativity is trying to explain. If you're talking about spatial dimensions, you're wrong. There are theoretical solutions for the existence of wormholes within a Minkowski spacetime. "If a Minkowski spacetime contains a compact region Ω, and if the topology of Ω is of the form Ω ~ R x Σ, where Σ is a non-trivial three-dimensional topology, whose boundary has a topology of the form dΣ ~ S2, and furthermore, if the Σ hypersurfaces are all of space type, then the Ω region contains a quasi-permanent intra-universe tunnel."

"Do you know much about curvature? well, I should say hypersurfaces. I am saying extrinsic curvatures auto makes it 4D."You stated something again without explaining why. I don't think I fully understand what you mean here.

"And there is evidence of this throughout Ninjago."What are these evidences?

"Has its own time flow that's different."I have already explained in a previous message how this is not entirely relevant.

"Relativity also just never calls time 4D."But no one said that. Time is the fourth dimension, not 4D. The spacetime structure of the universe as a whole can be considered four-dimensional.

"It does not curve into time. it curves into the 4th dimension."I swear I'm not understanding your point. Are you assuming the existence of other spatial dimensions by saying that time is not the fourth dimension, or are you trying to say that time cannot be considered a dimension in the conventional sense?

In any case, please explain your points better to create less confusion. Let's not throw in every argument that comes to mind without any reason; let's try to have a logical discussion.

 

[Alus83]

What you talking about? "What are you talking about? That's what I explained in my message; the realms are spatially 3D." thats just not how cosmology models work at all. either a you have no clue how realms work or have no clue how time-spaces work. ninjago has its own time-space which makes it 4D what you are talking about is the insides the physical components are 3D not the container of ninjago itself you have no clue how universal models work.

"You introduced this point; honestly, I don't know anything about it. I don't even recall a single instance in Ninjago where it's mentioned." You introduced this point; honestly, I don't know anything about it. I don't even recall a single instance in Ninjago where it's mentioned.

extra-dimensional statement i said it was weird. i find it weird at least

"That's just not how cosmology models work at all. Either you have no clue how realms work or have no clue how time-spaces work". So how about you explain it yourself? If you keep saying I'm wrong without explaining why, don't expect me to magically start understanding what you think I got wrong without an explanation of why I was wrong in the first place.

However, I agree with the last point, I find the extradimensional statement a lil strange too.

 

[Alus83]

We don't know is ED spatial or aspatial. We just don't know. All that we know about it right now:
1) It's an interdimensional ethereal separator;
2) It was referred as Nothing Space by Administration in Dragons Rising.

How the heck we can use this shit to any calculations and even discussions?

I think that due to predefined settings and how it is shown it is more possible that it is spatial. I agree with your point though, I don't think there is enough relevant information about its nature to open a free discussion on this topic.

 

[SeijiSetto]

assuming the star creation feat is valid:

why would Lloyd be able to output 4-C levels of energy on the regular if the weapons were destroyed in the process of creating a star?

say Character A performed a 4-C feat via collecting all their energy and blowing themself up, it wouldn't scale to their usual stats because, y'know, they died in the process.

 

[Overlord_Darkness]

why would Lloyd be able to output 4-C levels of energy on the regular if the weapons were destroyed in the process of creating a star?

In fact, they were not destroyed. The Overlord used them after that to melt them down and create the Golden Armor.

 

[Jirachi_the_real_93]

I think that due to predefined settings and how it is shown it is more possible that it is spatial. I agree with your point though, I don't think there is enough relevant information about its nature to open a free discussion on this topic.

i agree with you

 

[Jirachi_the_real_93]

"That's just not how cosmology models work at all. Either you have no clue how realms work or have no clue how time-spaces work". So how about you explain it yourself? If you keep saying I'm wrong without explaining why, don't expect me to magically start understanding what you think I got wrong without an explanation of why I was wrong in the first place.

However, I agree with the last point, I find the extradimensional statement a lil strange too.

i agree with you

 

[Jirachi_the_real_93]

"That's not what relativity says."Instead, it is. I recommend you read the scans I've posted regarding the theory of relativity.

"Even mathematically you are wrong."Saying that I'm wrong at a mathematical level doesn't make sense; the theory of relativity is not just a theory. There are empirical proofs for each postulate, and it has been mathematically defined. Moreover, you simply said I'm wrong without actually explaining why, failing in your attempt consequently.

"We know the universe is comprised of an additional spatial dimension due to the idea of the extrinsic curvature of space via the result of gravity."No, maybe you know, certainly not me or anyone else. Our current model of the universe assumes the existence of only three spatial dimensions and one temporal, without any need for extra dimensions. Furthermore, every speculative theory uses the concept of compactification to explain extra dimensions because assuming they are other infinite spatial axes would create mathematical and conceptual problems.

"Relativity via Einstein Rosen bridges makes the Universal model 4D."Again, what do you mean by four-dimensional? From what I read, it seems like you haven't fully understood what the theory of relativity is trying to explain. If you're talking about spatial dimensions, you're wrong. There are theoretical solutions for the existence of wormholes within a Minkowski spacetime. "If a Minkowski spacetime contains a compact region Ω, and if the topology of Ω is of the form Ω ~ R x Σ, where Σ is a non-trivial three-dimensional topology, whose boundary has a topology of the form dΣ ~ S2, and furthermore, if the Σ hypersurfaces are all of space type, then the Ω region contains a quasi-permanent intra-universe tunnel."

"Do you know much about curvature? well, I should say hypersurfaces. I am saying extrinsic curvatures auto makes it 4D."You stated something again without explaining why. I don't think I fully understand what you mean here.

"And there is evidence of this throughout Ninjago."What are these evidences?

"Has its own time flow that's different."I have already explained in a previous message how this is not entirely relevant.

"Relativity also just never calls time 4D."But no one said that. Time is the fourth dimension, not 4D. The spacetime structure of the universe as a whole can be considered four-dimensional.

"It does not curve into time. it curves into the 4th dimension."I swear I'm not understanding your point. Are you assuming the existence of other spatial dimensions by saying that time is not the fourth dimension, or are you trying to say that time cannot be considered a dimension in the conventional sense?

In any case, please explain your points better to create less confusion. Let's not throw in every argument that comes to mind without any reason; let's try to have a logical discussion.

i agree with you

 

[Jirachi_the_real_93]

Either you misunderstood what I said, or I misunderstood what you said. I agree that the Ether Divide is an interdimensional space. However, I've seen other people think that the ED is aspatial in nature. Honestly, I'm not convinced by this idea, but I don't believe it's relevant for scaling purposes (or at least not for this), or it can be useful as a justification for smth.

i agree with you

 

[Minaaaa]

I feel alot of context is missing from the main feats presented.

1. The Mergequakes "destroying reality" would only happen if multiple of them happened at once, as they were becoming more frequent and violent.(Timestamp 7:14) It doesn't make sense for the ninja to scale to Tier 2 off of closing a singular one.
2. For the Star Feat, There are three different statements that the four golden weapons combined with the mega weapon. While yes, they did create a star, this wouldnt scale to anyone as it took 8 GW and not the original 4. Also those weapons were technically "destroyed" as when they were found, they were just a golden blob.
3. Not disagreeing with this one, just adding explanation. When Garmadon defeated Mogra, he was making him drink the Moon Tea, which led to Mogra not being able to handle the power of it. Which led to Garmadon beating him but being tired after it.
4. Wu "creating" a dimension in the Virtues of Spinjitzu shorts is very vague and unconfirmed. This would require him to to have knowledge about places he's never been in like the Never Realm and Prime Empire.

 

[Overlord_Darkness]

4. Wu "creating" a dimension in the Virtues of Spinjitzu shorts is very vague and unconfirmed. This would require him to to have knowledge about places he's never been in like the Never Realm and Prime Empire.

Well, about Never Realm I can say that FSM told Wu about it's nature so possible he could create this. But about Prime Empire.. Well, seems really strange. In other hand, Ninjas could just tell Wu about all this things. Undiscovery.

 

[Minaaaa]

Sure but it still relies on being vague and unconfirmed

 

[Overlord_Darkness]

Sure but it still relies on being vague and unconfirmed

At least it can be just Reality Warping feat via Creation

 

[LifeRiderthe1]

"That's not what relativity says."Instead, it is. I recommend you read the scans I've posted regarding the theory of relativity.

"Even mathematically you are wrong."Saying that I'm wrong at a mathematical level doesn't make sense; the theory of relativity is not just a theory. There are empirical proofs for each postulate, and it has been mathematically defined. Moreover, you simply said I'm wrong without actually explaining why, failing in your attempt consequently.

"We know the universe is comprised of an additional spatial dimension due to the idea of the extrinsic curvature of space via the result of gravity."No, maybe you know, certainly not me or anyone else. Our current model of the universe assumes the existence of only three spatial dimensions and one temporal, without any need for extra dimensions. Furthermore, every speculative theory uses the concept of compactification to explain extra dimensions because assuming they are other infinite spatial axes would create mathematical and conceptual problems.

Relativity via Einstein Rosen bridges makes the Universal model 4D."Again, what do you mean by four-dimensional? From what I read, it seems like you haven't fully understood what the theory of relativity is trying to explain. If you're talking about spatial dimensions, you're wrong. There are theoretical solutions for the existence of wormholes within a Minkowski spacetime. "If a Minkowski spacetime contains a compact region Ω, and if the topology of Ω is of the form Ω ~ R x Σ, where Σ is a non-trivial three-dimensional topology, whose boundary has a topology of the form dΣ ~ S2, and furthermore, if the Σ hypersurfaces are all of space type, then the Ω region contains a quasi-permanent intra-universe tunnel."

"Do you know much about curvature? well, I should say hypersurfaces. I am saying extrinsic curvatures auto makes it 4D."You stated something again without explaining why. I don't think I fully understand what you mean here.

"And there is evidence of this throughout Ninjago."What are these evidences?

"Has its own time flow that's different."I have already explained in a previous message how this is not entirely relevant.

"Relativity also just never calls time 4D."But no one said that. Time is the fourth dimension, not 4D. The spacetime structure of the universe as a whole can be considered four-dimensional.

"It does not curve into time. it curves into the 4th dimension."I swear I'm not understanding your point. Are you assuming the existence of other spatial dimensions by saying that time is not the fourth dimension, or are you trying to say that time cannot be considered a dimension in the conventional sense?

In any case, please explain your points better to create less confusion. Let's not throw in every argument that comes to mind without any reason; let's try to have a logical discussion.

man the scans you showed are weird. its gonna take me a second to read through this. I hate these science convos there super cringe
BRO you have no clue about curvature at all lmao

 

[LifeRiderthe1]

"That's just not how cosmology models work at all. Either you have no clue how realms work or have no clue how time-spaces work". So how about you explain it yourself? If you keep saying I'm wrong without explaining why, don't expect me to magically start understanding what you think I got wrong without an explanation of why I was wrong in the first place.

However, I agree with the last point, I find the extradimensional statement a lil strange too.

man you still have no freaking clue about curvature at all.

 

[LifeRiderthe1]

"That's not what relativity says."Instead, it is. I recommend you read the scans I've posted regarding the theory of relativity.

"Even mathematically you are wrong. "Saying that I'm wrong at a mathematical level doesn't make sense; the theory of relativity is not just a theory. There are empirical proofs for each postulate, and it has been mathematically defined. Moreover, you simply said I'm wrong without actually explaining why, failing in your attempt consequently.

"We know the universe is comprised of an additional spatial dimension due to the idea of the extrinsic curvature of space via the result of gravity." No, maybe you know, certainly not me or anyone else. Our current model of the universe assumes the existence of only three spatial dimensions and one temporal, without any need for extra dimensions. Furthermore, every speculative theory uses the concept of compactification to explain extra dimensions because assuming they are other infinite spatial axes would create mathematical and conceptual problems.

"Relativity via Einstein Rosen bridges makes the Universal model 4D."Again, what do you mean by four-dimensional? From what I read, it seems like you haven't fully understood what the theory of relativity is trying to explain. If you're talking about spatial dimensions, you're wrong. There are theoretical solutions for the existence of wormholes within a Minkowski spacetime. "If a Minkowski spacetime contains a compact region Ω, and if the topology of Ω is of the form Ω ~ R x Σ, where Σ is a non-trivial three-dimensional topology, whose boundary has a topology of the form dΣ ~ S2, and furthermore, if the Σ hypersurfaces are all of space type, then the Ω region contains a quasi-permanent intra-universe tunnel."

"Do you know much about curvature? well, I should say hypersurfaces. I am saying extrinsic curvatures auto makes it 4D."You stated something again without explaining why. I don't think I fully understand what you mean here.

"And there is evidence of this throughout Ninjago."What are these evidences?

"Has its own time flow that's different."I have already explained in a previous message how this is not entirely relevant.

"Relativity also just never calls time 4D."But no one said that. Time is the fourth dimension, not 4D. The spacetime structure of the universe as a whole can be considered four-dimensional.

"It does not curve into time. it curves into the 4th dimension."I swear I'm not understanding your point. Are you assuming the existence of other spatial dimensions by saying that time is not the fourth dimension, or are you trying to say that time cannot be considered a dimension in the conventional sense?

In any case, please explain your points better to create less confusion. Let's not throw in every argument that comes to mind without any reason; let's try to have a logical discussion.

"Has its own time flow that's different. "I have already explained in a previous message how this is not entirely relevant." man you have no clue how cosmology models work at all. It have a freaking separate time flow means the space-time is different in the realms.

"
"Even mathematically you are wrong. "Saying that I'm wrong at a mathematical level doesn't make sense; the theory of relativity is not just a theory. There are empirical proofs for each postulate, and it has been mathematically defined. Moreover, you simply said I'm wrong without actually explaining why, failing in your attempt consequently." man you clearly didn't read a thing i said at all or you just have no clue at all. Also no one like no one has contested the Rosen bridges lmao. And yes mathematically speaking you just are wrong. Also its not a theory Thats not how it works. General relavitity is are baseline for the 3D+1D model unless you wanna go to the other stuff. and i do mean the other stuff if you wanna jump the gun?

""Relativity via Einstein Rosen bridges makes the Universal model 4D."Again, what do you mean by four-dimensional? From what I read, it seems like you haven't fully understood what the theory of relativity is trying to explain. If you're talking about spatial dimensions, you're wrong. There are theoretical solutions for the existence of wormholes within a Minkowski spacetime. "If a Minkowski spacetime contains a compact region Ω, and if the topology of Ω is of the form Ω ~ R x Σ, where Σ is a non-trivial three-dimensional topology, whose boundary has a topology of the form dΣ ~ S2, and furthermore, if the Σ hypersurfaces are all of space type, then the Ω region contains a quasi-permanent intra-universe tunnel." You did just not read Einstein Rosen Bridges at all. You clearly are going to into Topology, The hypersurface via Curvature is Curving into the 4th dimension. and Minkowski spacetime is its own theory to general relativity just like how MWI uses hilbert spaces as its version of space. What you are talking about has legit nothing to do with wormholes at all.
kinda actually seems more like intrinsic curvature and not the one i am talking about.

this is what i am citing.
anyways here is literally the math solving proving that it would have A extrensic curvature and B a 3D hypersurface which would mean it would exist in a 4D space. so i mean yea.



"Do you know much about curvature? well, I should say hypersurfaces. I am saying extrinsic curvatures auto makes it 4D."You stated something again without explaining why. I don't think I fully understand what you mean here. i have explained plenty of times my guy you just can't freaking read at all my guy. Einstein Rosen bridges are curving into the 4th dimension or the 4th spatial continuum thats what makes the model natively 4D lmao. All universal models are based on this 4D model and just change some stuff but at the end of the day entrensic curvature is legit curving into a 4D space. What you are on is the other curvature. Where you get some weird Universal models were space-time is 3D. (or the ratty land saying are Universe is infinite D and yes there is mathematical models of that)

""It does not curve into time. it curves into the 4th dimension."I swear I'm not understanding your point. Are you assuming the existence of other spatial dimensions by saying that time is not the fourth dimension, or are you trying to say that time cannot be considered a dimension in the conventional sense?" that depends on who you are citing. Like Some say time just is not real at all like straight up made up and not a real object, Some say time is a temporal dimension, when it comes to time rules here on VSB we have Physical time dimesion or i should rephrase a Uncountable infinite amount of snapshots on a time axis makes it QS i gotta reread the extra temporal dimensionality stuff cause instead of are native 3D+1D it goes 3D+2D and so forth depending what you cite and who you are citing.

I have explained my points. Each realm is its own container right each container has its own space-time including the neverrealm which is explicatedly pointed out to have its own time flow implying its own time axis. What you are talking about is the timeline itself post merge Which was a QS above all of ninjago i wouldn't say like dragonball or God of War because we need scans saying it extends or well "expands" to a significant 5th spatial axis. the book you cited for your scans

and here if we go into what you showed W axis the forth spatial axis the issue with this is that as mentioned before i am simply saying curvature auto makes all the realms 4D anyways. So yea

 

[LifeRiderthe1]

"That's just not how cosmology models work at all. Either you have no clue how realms work or have no clue how time-spaces work". So how about you explain it yourself? If you keep saying I'm wrong without explaining why, don't expect me to magically start understanding what you think I got wrong without an explanation of why I was wrong in the first place.

However, I agree with the last point, I find the extradimensional statement a lil strange too.

yes which again goes to my point it being extradimensional implies it should natively even be 4D outside of curvature. So you saying realms are 3D is super weird. then by this logic you are saying all universes no matter what are 3D no matter what the model says. We legit see stars and other planets outside of ninjago it has its own space-time to the other realms as they are separate, never realm and such are weird cause they aren't connected to the same linear time as all the main realms we see. Like chima, cloud kingdom, So forth. And size doesn't matter it being a time-space auto makes it 4D.

 

[Lloydblitzed]

"That's not what relativity says."Instead, it is. I recommend you read the scans I've posted regarding the theory of relativity.

"Even mathematically you are wrong."Saying that I'm wrong at a mathematical level doesn't make sense; the theory of relativity is not just a theory. There are empirical proofs for each postulate, and it has been mathematically defined. Moreover, you simply said I'm wrong without actually explaining why, failing in your attempt consequently.

"We know the universe is comprised of an additional spatial dimension due to the idea of the extrinsic curvature of space via the result of gravity."No, maybe you know, certainly not me or anyone else. Our current model of the universe assumes the existence of only three spatial dimensions and one temporal, without any need for extra dimensions. Furthermore, every speculative theory uses the concept of compactification to explain extra dimensions because assuming they are other infinite spatial axes would create mathematical and conceptual problems.

"Relativity via Einstein Rosen bridges makes the Universal model 4D."Again, what do you mean by four-dimensional? From what I read, it seems like you haven't fully understood what the theory of relativity is trying to explain. If you're talking about spatial dimensions, you're wrong. There are theoretical solutions for the existence of wormholes within a Minkowski spacetime. "If a Minkowski spacetime contains a compact region Ω, and if the topology of Ω is of the form Ω ~ R x Σ, where Σ is a non-trivial three-dimensional topology, whose boundary has a topology of the form dΣ ~ S2, and furthermore, if the Σ hypersurfaces are all of space type, then the Ω region contains a quasi-permanent intra-universe tunnel."

"Do you know much about curvature? well, I should say hypersurfaces. I am saying extrinsic curvatures auto makes it 4D."You stated something again without explaining why. I don't think I fully understand what you mean here.

"And there is evidence of this throughout Ninjago."What are these evidences?

"Has its own time flow that's different."I have already explained in a previous message how this is not entirely relevant.

"Relativity also just never calls time 4D."But no one said that. Time is the fourth dimension, not 4D. The spacetime structure of the universe as a whole can be considered four-dimensional.

"It does not curve into time. it curves into the 4th dimension."I swear I'm not understanding your point. Are you assuming the existence of other spatial dimensions by saying that time is not the fourth dimension, or are you trying to say that time cannot be considered a dimension in the conventional sense?

In any case, please explain your points better to create less confusion. Let's not throw in every argument that comes to mind without any reason; let's try to have a logical discussion.

I ngl don't why ur still trying to debunk something u can't debunk. The gateways simply act like portals and all the Realms are seperated by the Ethereal Divide and are all 4D in size (legit proven in the CRT's first message) They are not connected physically connected either. Simple

 

[LifeRiderthe1]

Well, about Never Realm I can say that FSM told Wu about it's nature so possible he could create this. But about Prime Empire.. Well, seems really strange. In other hand, Ninjas could just tell Wu about all this things. Undiscovery.

Prime empire is weird i say its unquantifiable ngl

 

[LifeRiderthe1]

I ngl don't why ur still trying to debunk something u can't debunk. The gateways simply act like portals and all the Realms are seperated by the Ethereal Divide and are all 4D in size (legit proven in the CRT's first message) They are not connected physically connected either. Simple

trying to debunk basic cosmology models that the realms are Universal bodies i guess. cause he hasn't all the scans actually back me more ngl except for 1 cause i found the book he is citing its kinda outdated

 

[Alus83]

"Has its own time flow that's different. "I have already explained in a previous message how this is not entirely relevant." man you have no clue how cosmology models work at all. It have a freaking separate time flow means the space-time is different in the realms.

"
"Even mathematically you are wrong. "Saying that I'm wrong at a mathematical level doesn't make sense; the theory of relativity is not just a theory. There are empirical proofs for each postulate, and it has been mathematically defined. Moreover, you simply said I'm wrong without actually explaining why, failing in your attempt consequently." man you clearly didn't read a thing i said at all or you just have no clue at all. Also no one like no one has contested the Rosen bridges lmao. And yes mathematically speaking you just are wrong. Also its not a theory Thats not how it works. General relavitity is are baseline for the 3D+1D model unless you wanna go to the other stuff. and i do mean the other stuff if you wanna jump the gun?

""Relativity via Einstein Rosen bridges makes the Universal model 4D."Again, what do you mean by four-dimensional? From what I read, it seems like you haven't fully understood what the theory of relativity is trying to explain. If you're talking about spatial dimensions, you're wrong. There are theoretical solutions for the existence of wormholes within a Minkowski spacetime. "If a Minkowski spacetime contains a compact region Ω, and if the topology of Ω is of the form Ω ~ R x Σ, where Σ is a non-trivial three-dimensional topology, whose boundary has a topology of the form dΣ ~ S2, and furthermore, if the Σ hypersurfaces are all of space type, then the Ω region contains a quasi-permanent intra-universe tunnel." You did just not read Einstein Rosen Bridges at all. You clearly are going to into Topology, The hypersurface via Curvature is Curving into the 4th dimension. and Minkowski spacetime is its own theory to general relativity just like how MWI uses hilbert spaces as its version of space. What you are talking about has legit nothing to do with wormholes at all.
kinda actually seems more like intrinsic curvature and not the one i am talking about.

this is what i am citing.
anyways here is literally the math solving proving that it would have A extrensic curvature and B a 3D hypersurface which would mean it would exist in a 4D space. so i mean yea.



"Do you know much about curvature? well, I should say hypersurfaces. I am saying extrinsic curvatures auto makes it 4D."You stated something again without explaining why. I don't think I fully understand what you mean here. i have explained plenty of times my guy you just can't freaking read at all my guy. Einstein Rosen bridges are curving into the 4th dimension or the 4th spatial continuum thats what makes the model natively 4D lmao. All universal models are based on this 4D model and just change some stuff but at the end of the day entrensic curvature is legit curving into a 4D space. What you are on is the other curvature. Where you get some weird Universal models were space-time is 3D. (or the ratty land saying are Universe is infinite D and yes there is mathematical models of that)

""It does not curve into time. it curves into the 4th dimension."I swear I'm not understanding your point. Are you assuming the existence of other spatial dimensions by saying that time is not the fourth dimension, or are you trying to say that time cannot be considered a dimension in the conventional sense?" that depends on who you are citing. Like Some say time just is not real at all like straight up made up and not a real object, Some say time is a temporal dimension, when it comes to time rules here on VSB we have Physical time dimesion or i should rephrase a Uncountable infinite amount of snapshots on a time axis makes it QS i gotta reread the extra temporal dimensionality stuff cause instead of are native 3D+1D it goes 3D+2D and so forth depending what you cite and who you are citing.

I have explained my points. Each realm is its own container right each container has its own space-time including the neverrealm which is explicatedly pointed out to have its own time flow implying its own time axis. What you are talking about is the timeline itself post merge Which was a QS above all of ninjago i wouldn't say like dragonball or God of War because we need scans saying it extends or well "expands" to a significant 5th spatial axis. the book you cited for your scans

and here if we go into what you showed W axis the forth spatial axis the issue with this is that as mentioned before i am simply saying curvature auto makes all the realms 4D anyways. So yea

First of all, formally define for me what you mean by "curvature," preferably in a sensible manner, and do not respond to my request again with "you know nothing about curvature."

"It has a freaking separate time flow, which means the space-time is different in the realms." If you go back to one of my early messages, I explained how the scans used in the CRT do not imply isolated universes, and that the passage of time can be different even in two places within the same continuum.

"Man, you clearly didn't read a thing I said at all, or you just have no clue at all. Also, no one, like no one, has contested the Rosen bridges lmao." I started that part of my message with "if you mean that..." and made it clear that I didn't think I understood your point, but if you meant what I understood, then..., and I continued to explain the point.

"And yes, mathematically speaking, you just are wrong." Again, you haven't explained why.

"General relativity is our baseline for the 3D+1D model unless you wanna go to the other stuff." That's what I said in the message.

"You did just not read Einstein Rosen Bridges at all. You clearly are going into Topology. The hypersurface via Curvature is Curving into the 4th dimension."

You didn't read my point at all. You clearly are going into the art of yapping. You keep saying "X is wrong because of Y," without defining Y. Don't expect me to accept your points if you fail to explain what you mean.

"Minkowski spacetime is its own theory to general relativity just like how MWI uses Hilbert spaces as its version of space." I would say that stating this is quite incorrect. The four-dimensional model of the universe within the theory of relativity is given by Minkowski spacetime and is used as a solution to the equations of general relativity because its metric satisfies certain field equations. MWI and Hilbert spaces, on the other hand, are two completely separate concepts; one is a philosophical viewpoint on QM, and the others are vector spaces used in quantum mechanics to describe quantum states of a system. The only thing they have in common is the science they are in. If you think MWI is directly related to a Hilbert space, I believe you might be confusing it with Tegmark's Type III Multiverse. Anyway, I don't think this point is really relevant.

"What you are talking about has legit nothing to do with wormholes at all." The definition I provided is a theoretical explanation of how a wormhole could be described within our spacetime; I'm talking about that.

"Anyways, here is literally the math solving proving that it would have A extrinsic curvature and B a 3D hypersurface which would mean it would exist in a 4D space. so I mean yea."

The subject is missing here. What are you referring to? What is 4D here?

"I have explained plenty of times, my guy; you just can't freaking read at all, my guy." So please, can you quote every message where you explain it?

"Einstein Rosen bridges are curving into the 4th dimension or the 4th spatial continuum." Again, it seems like you're continuing to say random words without any sense.

"That depends on who you are citing. Like some say time just is not real at all, like straight up made up and not a real object, some say time is a temporal dimension." I asked you what you meant in that context. I know that by vsbw standards, the standard model of the universe is equal to our universe.

 

[Alus83]

I ngl don't why ur still trying to debunk something u can't debunk. The gateways simply act like portals and all the Realms are seperated by the Ethereal Divide and are all 4D in size (legit proven in the CRT's first message) They are not connected physically connected either. Simple

And I have already explained to you why there are issues with this. If you say, "this is X because..." and I explain why it might be the case that "that is not X but Y because...", and you respond, "No, it is X because... (same argument as before)." You haven't added anything to the conversation; you have merely reiterated the initial statement.

 

[LifeRiderthe1]

First of all, formally define for me what you mean by "curvature," preferably in a sensible manner, and do not respond to my request again with "you know nothing about curvature."

"It has a freaking separate time flow, which means the space-time is different in the realms." If you go back to one of my early messages, I explained how the scans used in the CRT do not imply isolated universes, and that the passage of time can be different even in two places within the same continuum.

"Man, you clearly didn't read a thing I said at all, or you just have no clue at all. Also, no one, like no one, has contested the Rosen bridges lmao." I started that part of my message with "if you mean that..." and made it clear that I didn't think I understood your point, but if you meant what I understood, then..., and I continued to explain the point.

"And yes, mathematically speaking, you just are wrong." Again, you haven't explained why.

"General relativity is our baseline for the 3D+1D model unless you wanna go to the other stuff." That's what I said in the message.

"You did just not read Einstein Rosen Bridges at all. You clearly are going into Topology. The hypersurface via Curvature is Curving into the 4th dimension."

You didn't read my point at all. You clearly are going into the art of yapping. You keep saying "X is wrong because of Y," without defining Y. Don't expect me to accept your points if you fail to explain what you mean.

"Minkowski spacetime is its own theory to general relativity just like how MWI uses Hilbert spaces as its version of space." I would say that stating this is quite incorrect. The four-dimensional model of the universe within the theory of relativity is given by Minkowski spacetime and is used as a solution to the equations of general relativity because its metric satisfies certain field equations. MWI and Hilbert spaces, on the other hand, are two completely separate concepts; one is a philosophical viewpoint on QM, and the others are vector spaces used in quantum mechanics to describe quantum states of a system. The only thing they have in common is the science they are in. If you think MWI is directly related to a Hilbert space, I believe you might be confusing it with Tegmark's Type III Multiverse. Anyway, I don't think this point is really relevant.

"What you are talking about has legit nothing to do with wormholes at all." The definition I provided is a theoretical explanation of how a wormhole could be described within our spacetime; I'm talking about that.

"Anyways, here is literally the math solving proving that it would have A extrinsic curvature and B a 3D hypersurface which would mean it would exist in a 4D space. so I mean yea."

The subject is missing here. What are you referring to? What is 4D here?

"I have explained plenty of times, my guy; you just can't freaking read at all, my guy." So please, can you quote every message where you explain it?

"Einstein Rosen bridges are curving into the 4th dimension or the 4th spatial continuum." Again, it seems like you're continuing to say random words without any sense.

"That depends on who you are citing. Like some say time just is not real at all, like straight up made up and not a real object, some say time is a temporal dimension." I asked you what you meant in that context. I know that by vsbw standards, the standard model of the universe is equal to our universe.

It has a freaking separate time flow, which means the space-time is different in the realms." If you go back to one of my early messages, I explained how the scans used in the CRT do not imply isolated universes, and that the passage of time can be different even in two places within the same continuum. thats not at all how time-spaces work

 

[LifeRiderthe1]

First of all, formally define for me what you mean by "curvature," preferably in a sensible manner, and do not respond to my request again with "you know nothing about curvature."

"It has a freaking separate time flow, which means the space-time is different in the realms." If you go back to one of my early messages, I explained how the scans used in the CRT do not imply isolated universes, and that the passage of time can be different even in two places within the same continuum.

"Man, you clearly didn't read a thing I said at all, or you just have no clue at all. Also, no one, like no one, has contested the Rosen bridges lmao." I started that part of my message with "if you mean that..." and made it clear that I didn't think I understood your point, but if you meant what I understood, then..., and I continued to explain the point.

"And yes, mathematically speaking, you just are wrong." Again, you haven't explained why.

"General relativity is our baseline for the 3D+1D model unless you wanna go to the other stuff." That's what I said in the message.

"You did just not read Einstein Rosen Bridges at all. You clearly are going into Topology. The hypersurface via Curvature is Curving into the 4th dimension."

You didn't read my point at all. You clearly are going into the art of yapping. You keep saying "X is wrong because of Y," without defining Y. Don't expect me to accept your points if you fail to explain what you mean.

"Minkowski spacetime is its own theory to general relativity just like how MWI uses Hilbert spaces as its version of space." I would say that stating this is quite incorrect. The four-dimensional model of the universe within the theory of relativity is given by Minkowski spacetime and is used as a solution to the equations of general relativity because its metric satisfies certain field equations. MWI and Hilbert spaces, on the other hand, are two completely separate concepts; one is a philosophical viewpoint on QM, and the others are vector spaces used in quantum mechanics to describe quantum states of a system. The only thing they have in common is the science they are in. If you think MWI is directly related to a Hilbert space, I believe you might be confusing it with Tegmark's Type III Multiverse. Anyway, I don't think this point is really relevant.

"What you are talking about has legit nothing to do with wormholes at all." The definition I provided is a theoretical explanation of how a wormhole could be described within our spacetime; I'm talking about that.

"Anyways, here is literally the math solving proving that it would have A extrinsic curvature and B a 3D hypersurface which would mean it would exist in a 4D space. so I mean yea."

The subject is missing here. What are you referring to? What is 4D here?

"I have explained plenty of times, my guy; you just can't freaking read at all, my guy." So please, can you quote every message where you explain it?

"Einstein Rosen bridges are curving into the 4th dimension or the 4th spatial continuum." Again, it seems like you're continuing to say random words without any sense.

"That depends on who you are citing. Like some say time just is not real at all, like straight up made up and not a real object, some say time is a temporal dimension." I asked you what you meant in that context. I know that by vsbw standards, the standard model of the universe is equal to our universe.

"You didn't read my point at all. You clearly are going into the art of yapping. You keep saying "X is wrong because of Y," without defining Y. Don't expect me to accept your points if you fail to explain what you mean." i shouldn't have to. you've yet to prove me wrong. that curvature makes the realms natively 4D.

 

[Alus83]

It has a freaking separate time flow, which means the space-time is different in the realms." If you go back to one of my early messages, I explained how the scans used in the CRT do not imply isolated universes, and that the passage of time can be different even in two places within the same continuum. thats not at all how time-spaces work

If you say something is wrong please explain why. “That's not how it works,” without actually explaining the correct thing isn't helping. However, I believe it's time to abandon these points; they're not contributing anything meaningful to the CRT, and we're digressing. It has turned into more of a general discussion on physics/theoretical physics

 

[LifeRiderthe1]

First of all, formally define for me what you mean by "curvature," preferably in a sensible manner, and do not respond to my request again with "you know nothing about curvature."

"It has a freaking separate time flow, which means the space-time is different in the realms." If you go back to one of my early messages, I explained how the scans used in the CRT do not imply isolated universes, and that the passage of time can be different even in two places within the same continuum.

"Man, you clearly didn't read a thing I said at all, or you just have no clue at all. Also, no one, like no one, has contested the Rosen bridges lmao." I started that part of my message with "if you mean that..." and made it clear that I didn't think I understood your point, but if you meant what I understood, then..., and I continued to explain the point.

"And yes, mathematically speaking, you just are wrong." Again, you haven't explained why.

"General relativity is our baseline for the 3D+1D model unless you wanna go to the other stuff." That's what I said in the message.

"You did just not read Einstein Rosen Bridges at all. You clearly are going into Topology. The hypersurface via Curvature is Curving into the 4th dimension."

You didn't read my point at all. You clearly are going into the art of yapping. You keep saying "X is wrong because of Y," without defining Y. Don't expect me to accept your points if you fail to explain what you mean.

"Minkowski spacetime is its own theory to general relativity just like how MWI uses Hilbert spaces as its version of space." I would say that stating this is quite incorrect. The four-dimensional model of the universe within the theory of relativity is given by Minkowski spacetime and is used as a solution to the equations of general relativity because its metric satisfies certain field equations. MWI and Hilbert spaces, on the other hand, are two completely separate concepts; one is a philosophical viewpoint on QM, and the others are vector spaces used in quantum mechanics to describe quantum states of a system. The only thing they have in common is the science they are in. If you think MWI is directly related to a Hilbert space, I believe you might be confusing it with Tegmark's Type III Multiverse. Anyway, I don't think this point is really relevant.

"What you are talking about has legit nothing to do with wormholes at all." The definition I provided is a theoretical explanation of how a wormhole could be described within our spacetime; I'm talking about that.

"Anyways, here is literally the math solving proving that it would have A extrinsic curvature and B a 3D hypersurface which would mean it would exist in a 4D space. so I mean yea."

The subject is missing here. What are you referring to? What is 4D here?

"I have explained plenty of times, my guy; you just can't freaking read at all, my guy." So please, can you quote every message where you explain it?

"Einstein Rosen bridges are curving into the 4th dimension or the 4th spatial continuum." Again, it seems like you're continuing to say random words without any sense.

"That depends on who you are citing. Like some say time just is not real at all, like straight up made up and not a real object, some say time is a temporal dimension." I asked you what you meant in that context. I know that by vsbw standards, the standard model of the universe is equal to our universe.

"
I would say that stating this is quite incorrect. The four-dimensional model of the universe within the theory of relativity is given by Minkowski spacetime and is used as a solution to the equations of general relativity because its metric satisfies certain field equations. MWI and Hilbert spaces, on the other hand, are two completely separate concepts; one is a philosophical viewpoint on QM, and the others are vector spaces used in quantum mechanics to describe quantum states of a system. The only thing they have in common is the science they are in. If you think MWI is directly related to a Hilbert space, I believe you might be confusing it with Tegmark's Type III Multiverse. Anyway, I don't think this point is really relevant.' no its not. MWI does in fact uses hilbert spaces in all models of literarcy its described in. it uses 3D-4D models of hilbert spaces. Tegmarks also uses hilbert spaces because the backing of MWI is hilbert spaces. and not the other space. and MWI is type 2 on tegmarks. type 3 is something else that is the quantum version. type 2 is actually MWI in a lot of multiverse theories. and its actually pretty interesting how it uses hilbert spaces with 4D stuff. cause some MWI documents say its 3D pretty neat stuff.

"

Again, it seems like you're continuing to say random words without any sense."

bruh you legit don't understand curvature at all do you? let me explain one more freaking time in the most simplest way i can explain it. the Universal model is 4D cause of exsteinc curvature in the first place. like VSB also uses this notion actuall all wikis use curvature in some underline method for Uni level + to make sense. the Model shows a Wormhole in this instant Einstein Rosen Bridges what they do is they curve into the fabric of the 4th dimensional continuum there legit curving into a higher spatial axis. even instrinic curvature actually does this. but ex curve actually explicately states its curving into a higher dimension. if anything general relavity backs the realms being 4D but super weird for us to relate these science documents to ninjago when time-spaces are natively 4D anyways

 

[LifeRiderthe1]

First of all, formally define for me what you mean by "curvature," preferably in a sensible manner, and do not respond to my request again with "you know nothing about curvature."

"It has a freaking separate time flow, which means the space-time is different in the realms." If you go back to one of my early messages, I explained how the scans used in the CRT do not imply isolated universes, and that the passage of time can be different even in two places within the same continuum.

"Man, you clearly didn't read a thing I said at all, or you just have no clue at all. Also, no one, like no one, has contested the Rosen bridges lmao." I started that part of my message with "if you mean that..." and made it clear that I didn't think I understood your point, but if you meant what I understood, then..., and I continued to explain the point.

"And yes, mathematically speaking, you just are wrong." Again, you haven't explained why.

"General relativity is our baseline for the 3D+1D model unless you wanna go to the other stuff." That's what I said in the message.

"You did just not read Einstein Rosen Bridges at all. You clearly are going into Topology. The hypersurface via Curvature is Curving into the 4th dimension."

You didn't read my point at all. You clearly are going into the art of yapping. You keep saying "X is wrong because of Y," without defining Y. Don't expect me to accept your points if you fail to explain what you mean.

"Minkowski spacetime is its own theory to general relativity just like how MWI uses Hilbert spaces as its version of space." I would say that stating this is quite incorrect. The four-dimensional model of the universe within the theory of relativity is given by Minkowski spacetime and is used as a solution to the equations of general relativity because its metric satisfies certain field equations. MWI and Hilbert spaces, on the other hand, are two completely separate concepts; one is a philosophical viewpoint on QM, and the others are vector spaces used in quantum mechanics to describe quantum states of a system. The only thing they have in common is the science they are in. If you think MWI is directly related to a Hilbert space, I believe you might be confusing it with Tegmark's Type III Multiverse. Anyway, I don't think this point is really relevant.

"What you are talking about has legit nothing to do with wormholes at all." The definition I provided is a theoretical explanation of how a wormhole could be described within our spacetime; I'm talking about that.

"Anyways, here is literally the math solving proving that it would have A extrinsic curvature and B a 3D hypersurface which would mean it would exist in a 4D space. so I mean yea."

The subject is missing here. What are you referring to? What is 4D here?

"I have explained plenty of times, my guy; you just can't freaking read at all, my guy." So please, can you quote every message where you explain it?

"Einstein Rosen bridges are curving into the 4th dimension or the 4th spatial continuum." Again, it seems like you're continuing to say random words without any sense.

"That depends on who you are citing. Like some say time just is not real at all, like straight up made up and not a real object, some say time is a temporal dimension." I asked you what you meant in that context. I know that by vsbw standards, the standard model of the universe is equal to our universe.

The subject is missing here. What are you referring to? What is 4D here? man have you just never seen any hypersurface model at all? its legit curving into the 4D space. thats why Uni level + is 4D.what you are saying kinda dunks on all Universal models lmao. time-spaces are natively just straight up 4D so i don't see where this is going?

 

[LifeRiderthe1]

If you say something is wrong please explain why. “That's not how it works,” without actually explaining the correct thing isn't helping. However, I believe it's time to abandon these points; they're not contributing anything meaningful to the CRT, and we're digressing. It has turned into more of a general discussion on physics/theoretical physics

so you have no counter to it being its own time-space? that thust makes it its own space-time. yea we should stop theoretical physics convo and get back to the main argument of low multi ninjago.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Tier 2 is fine.

 

[Lloydblitzed]

assuming the star creation feat is valid:

why would Lloyd be able to output 4-C levels of energy on the regular if the weapons were destroyed in the process of creating a star?

say Character A performed a 4-C feat via collecting all their energy and blowing themself up, it wouldn't scale to their usual stats because, y'know, they died in the process.

No, the weapons destroyed the other weapons, which is why its scale to their AP. Lloyd has an equivalent amount of energy, so it scale to him. There is absolutly no reason why stopping a mergequake wouldn't scale to a Ninja, and I already made that clear

 

[Lloydblitzed]

In case u still don't accept my proofs from earlier (or think its not enough), here's why the weapons would qualify for UES:

Limited Energy System
The Golden Weapons would fit this critera, as they channel the main 4 elemental powers (proof the book is canon btw). Elemental Powers are used by multiple elemental master, including those of the main 4 elements (Kai, Cole, Jay and Zane, the elemental masters of Fire, Earth, Lightning and Ice). There are obviously multiple varients of elemental powers, and Elemental Powers can use a similar amount of power with any given technique (like with the Sword of Fire being able to harm Jay in a similar way with both fireballs and with a wall of flame)

Non-Physical Energy System
Elemental powers in general have shown that all their non physical powers scale to each other in Attack Potency (which would apply to the Golden Weapons too, as they use the same system). It was also shown that when they display an increase in energy/power, the potency of their powers and abilities increase as well, like when Lloyd got supercharged by the Matriach Dragon, increasing his power level and allowing him to deal more damage or when Garmadon drinked Moon Tea, restoring his powers and even making him stronger.

Universal Energy System
Elemental Powers have shown to display an increase in power / energy should correspond to a proportional increase in the potency of their physical statistics, like when Cole entered his Spinjitzu Burst Form, allowing him to easly knock over the Skull Sorcerer which he couldn't do in base form (he also clearly show he can channel his elemental power throught his own body). Elemental power was also shown to be channeled through the user's body, like when the ninjas use their True Potential, which also boost their physical stats

As we know earlier, The Golden Weapons use the Elemental Power System, meaning they do have some type of UES, and the Star feat can be scaled to them

Would tier 4 work now since I have proven the Golden Weapons use a UES @GarrixianXD ?

 

[Lloydblitzed]

I feel alot of context is missing from the main feats presented.

1. The Mergequakes "destroying reality" would only happen if multiple of them happened at once, as they were becoming more frequent and violent.(Timestamp 7:14) It doesn't make sense for the ninja to scale to Tier 2 off of closing a singular one.
2. For the Star Feat, There are three different statements that the four golden weapons combined with the mega weapon. While yes, they did create a star, this wouldnt scale to anyone as it took 8 GW and not the original 4. Also those weapons were technically "destroyed" as when they were found, they were just a golden blob.
3. Not disagreeing with this one, just adding explanation. When Garmadon defeated Mogra, he was making him drink the Moon Tea, which led to Mogra not being able to handle the power of it. Which led to Garmadon beating him but being tired after it.
4. Wu "creating" a dimension in the Virtues of Spinjitzu shorts is very vague and unconfirmed. This would require him to to have knowledge about places he's never been in like the Never Realm and Prime Empire.

The show directly contradict Tommy's statement as Zane said they needed 4 weapons to destroy the 4 others, this means there was no fusion (they didn't even create an asteroid, making the 2nd statement irrelevant as well). And for Wu creating a dimension, he might have just based himself on the stories of his father and the ninjas about the Never Realms and the fact he saw the ninjas playing the Prime Empire video game, or could have used his visions abilities

 

[SeijiSetto]

No, the weapons destroyed the other weapons, which is why its scale to their AP. Lloyd has an equivalent amount of energy, so it scale to him.

if something has to destroy itself or an equivalent of itself to create a star, why would its normal stats be at that level?
again, as an example, if a character's special move that explodes themselves in the process is 4-C, why would their regular attacks then be equal to the power of their suicide move if they literally had to blow up to do it?

 

[Lloydblitzed]

if something has to destroy itself or an equivalent of itself to create a star, why would its normal stats be at that level?
again, as an example, if a character's special move that explodes themselves in the process is 4-C, why would their regular attacks then be equal to the power of their suicide move if they literally had to blow up to do it?

They clearly used blasts to to damage the MegaWeapon. The 4 Golden Weapons didn't "blow up" and were only depowered after the events of S3, 1 season later. Heck its even said they had equal power.

 

[LifeRiderthe1]

if something has to destroy itself or an equivalent of itself to create a star, why would its normal stats be at that level?
again, as an example, if a character's special move that explodes themselves in the process is 4-C, why would their regular attacks then be equal to the power of their suicide move if they literally had to blow up to do it?

So wouldn't this just be "4-C(using the golden weapons)?" isn't that still just 4-C but with a key saying its with the weapon? like maybe i am miss understanding you

 

[Lloydblitzed]

if something has to destroy itself or an equivalent of itself to create a star, why would its normal stats be at that level?
again, as an example, if a character's special move that explodes themselves in the process is 4-C, why would their regular attacks then be equal to the power of their suicide move if they literally had to blow up to do it?

Lloyd doesn't need to hold the Golden Weapons to scale to 4-C (bc he already have their power). If the Golden Weapons have enough power to destroy another object who can create a star without loosing its power and even still have the same effects on the people who touch them (as seen with the Nindroids), then 4-C is still valid (Fun fact: The Weapons weren't destroyed, they destroyed the mega weapon and then fell into a Star, even the Nindroid could pick them back up using a net)

 

[Minaaaa]

The show directly contradict Tommy's statement as Zane said they needed 4 weapons to destroy the 4 others, this means there was no fusion (they didn't even create an asteroid, making the 2nd statement irrelevant as well)

(For reference: this is where the feat is from: Timestamp: 20:11)
What you're arguing is far more complicated then what i suggested. You're arguing that the GW

• Destroyed the Mega Weapon, formed into ANOTHER Mega Weapon, and then shot into space and got destroyed

Your explanation is way more complicated than just saying that they all fused together and got destroyed as they shot into space, which given the footage, is the most likely explanation of what happened.

And for Wu creating a dimension, he might have just based himself on the stories of his father and the ninjas about the Never Realms and the fact he saw the ninjas playing the Prime Empire video game, or could have used his visions abilities

As i said earlier, yes this could've happened, but these are unconfirmed as what actually happened. The feat still remains vague.

 

[Lloydblitzed]

(For reference: this is where the feat is from: Timestamp: 20:11)
What you're arguing is far more complicated then what i suggested. You're arguing that the GW

• Destroyed the Mega Weapon, formed into ANOTHER Mega Weapon, and then shot into space and got destroyed

Your explanation is way more complicated than just saying that they all fused together and got destroyed as they shot into space, which given the footage, is the most likely explanation of what happened.

As i said earlier, yes this could've happened, but these are unconfirmed as what actually happened. The feat still remains vague.

fusing ≠ destroying. Zane statements completly contradicts all of what Tommy stated here. The GW destroyed the MW and formed a Star, then fell into the comet. 4 weapons destroyed another pack of 4.Simple

 

[Minaaaa]

fusing ≠ destroying. Zane statements completly contradicts all of what Tommy stated here. The GW destroyed the MW and formed a Star, then fell into the comet. 4 weapons destroyed another pack of 4.Simple

Thats not what im saying. Im saying all the weapons fused together and then got destroyed when they shot into space. The definition of destroy is to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of. Those weapons were into a completely different state when they were found in S3, so they were destroyed when they shot into space. The most likely flow of events is:

• GW fuse with MW, shoot into space, get destroyed as they make a star, land on the comet