Question about temporal dimensions

[Compsito]

As I understand it, multiple timelines can flow in the same direction, so they can be served by the same temporal dimension. However, if we have a cosmology where each timeline has its own time axis/time dimension, and in turn, they flow in different directions, as you can see in this image:

Logically, each arrow extends infinitely. So, since each timeline has its own time axis/time dimension, where each timeline flows in a different direction, these time axes cannot be served by the same time dimension that flows in only one direction. That said, would this type of cosmology imply a higher temporal dimension, so that these axes can flow in their respective directions? If so, is this a low 1C level cosmology?
.

 

[Compsito]

Bump

 

[Compsito]

Bump

 

[Executor_N0]

Last time I remember temporal dimensions were considered to not be universally applied and considered to be unique for each space they are related to. This approach was mentioned, but IIRC was denied (I myself was one who spoke about it).

 

[Vietthai96]

Last time I remember temporal dimensions were considered to not be universally applied and considered to be unique for each space they are related to. This approach was mentioned, but IIRC was denied (I myself was one who spoke about it).

Wait, since temporal dimension is treated as physical dimension, multiple temporal dimensions that not parallel to each other can still get higher tier??

 

[CodeCCLL]

If so, is this a low 1C level cosmology?

As far as I know, definitely no, for the two temporal axes to work completely independently, they must be orthogonal to each other.

 

[Vietthai96]

As far as I know, definitely no, for the two temporal axes to work completely independently, they must be orthogonal to each other.

From what he draw, they are orthogonal

 

[CodeCCLL]

From what he draw, they are orthogonal

He makes this drawing according to this statement "they flow in different directions" and this statement does not mean that they are orthogonal.

 

[CodeCCLL]

He makes this drawing according to this statement "they flow in different directions" and this statement does not mean that they are orthogonal.

Don't get me wrong, what I mean here is basically the possibility of a case where time flows in different directions, forward-backward. Basically, this is very common statement when it comes to time travel.

He makes this drawing according to this statement "they flow in different directions" and this statement does not mean that they are orthogonal.

That's why I gave this answer.

 

[Executor_N0]

He makes this drawing according to this statement "they flow in different directions" and this statement does not mean that they are orthogonal.

Literally, being orthogonal isn't really necessary. Suppose something is displaced diagonally from something even at a 0.1-degree angle from it. In that case, it implies the existence of an orthogonal direction in which the non-orthogonal one is displaced to allow for such a position. Even parallel lines imply such existence, it's how you can have two lines that go on forever and never touch each other, they are displaced across an extra-dimensional axis. So the product area of those lines would be non-0, you can do the same with three dimensions and above. Depending on the universe's structure, the existence of even parallel earth implies that some orthogonal direction exists, even a pocket dimension that doesn't touch the main space, would also need that to exist as its own "space".

What people call now "hypertimelines" is just what has always been the case with parallel universes, just putting the basic conclusion that already existed with terms that seem like it's something new, but it never was.

Since the previous system the only necessity for dimensions other than non-contradictions was the need for the product-space to be not infinitely-close to 0, and that was why simple multiverse-busting wasn't accepted for 5D or above. Somehow, claiming "hypertimeline" seems to have made people forget that, or maybe that isn't needed anymore.

 

[CodeCCLL]

Literally, being orthogonal isn't really necessary. Suppose something is displaced diagonally from something even at a 0.1-degree angle from it. In that case, it implies the existence of an orthogonal direction in which the non-orthogonal one is displaced to allow for such a position.

That's what I meant by "they are orthogonal".

Even parallel lines imply such existence, it's how you can have two lines that go on forever and never touch each other, they are displaced across an extra-dimensional axis. So the product area of those lines would be non-0, you can do the same with three dimensions and above. Depending on the universe's structure, the existence of even parallel earth implies that some orthogonal direction, even a pocket dimension that doesn't touch the main space, would also need that to exist as its own "space".

Fiction usually never mentions the existence of the plane (spatial/temporal) on which the two lines lie, and assumes that these two lines extend in void forever. This is exactly why some multiverses (macro-cosmos) are only 2-C while others are Low-1C.

 

[Compsito]

Literally, being orthogonal isn't really necessary. Suppose something is displaced diagonally from something even at a 0.1-degree angle from it. In that case, it implies the existence of an orthogonal direction in which the non-orthogonal one is displaced to allow for such a position. Even parallel lines imply such existence, it's how you can have two lines that go on forever and never touch each other, they are displaced across an extra-dimensional axis. So the product area of those lines would be non-0, you can do the same with three dimensions and above. Depending on the universe's structure, the existence of even parallel earth implies that some orthogonal direction exists, even a pocket dimension that doesn't touch the main space, would also need that to exist as its own "space".

What people call now "hypertimelines" is just what has always been the case with parallel universes, just putting the basic conclusion that already existed with terms that seem like it's something new, but it never was.

Since the previous system the only necessity for dimensions other than non-contradictions was the need for the product-space to be not infinitely-close to 0, and that was why simple multiverse-busting wasn't accepted for 5D or above. Somehow, claiming "hypertimeline" seems to have made people forget that, or maybe that isn't needed anymore.

Yes, this is just what I think

 

[Executor_N0]

Fiction usually never mentions the existence of the plane (spatial/temporal) on which the two lines lie, and assumes that these two lines extend into nothingness forever. This is exactly why some multiverses (macro-cosms) are only 2-C while others are Low-1C.

From what the Tiering page states as of now, it's already assumed such a spatial dimension exists across parallel universes, it's given as the explanation for why the difference between Low 2-C, 2-C, 2-B, and 2-A is unknowable since the distance between universes across the higher-dimensional axis isn't something set in stone, so the actual distance between universes in the higher-dimensional space might fluctuate from something infinitely close to 0 to something infinitely large.

The FAQ notes about cases in which the nature isn't explored which someone needs to take caution, but also notes about the preference of showing that the extra dimensions are fully sized.

I couldn't find anywhere on the official pages that the official understanding is that "parallel universes are thought to exist in an unqualified no-space and not thought to be in a N+1 dimensional space". If such a thing exists, I think it should be more clear, and if it doesn't, but it's the actual understanding by those who set up the system, it would be good to be properly added to the pages. Not sure if it was already discussed, but if it was and all the questions were solved, I think it could be fine.

 

[CodeCCLL]

I couldn't find anywhere on the official pages that the official understanding is that "parallel universes are thought to exist in an unqualified no-space and not thought to be in a N+1 dimensional space"

This is really weird.

If such a thing exists, I think it should be more clear, and if it doesn't, but it's the actual understanding by those who set up the system, it would be good to be properly added to the pages.

In many verses, this things is given names such as "the realm between realms", "sea/ocean of nothingness", "sub-space". However, these expressions sometimes talk about a void, and sometimes about a space that indicates the existence of a higher dimensional space. At this point we are really acting according to how the verse explain this part.

Not sure if it was already discussed, but if it was and all the questions were solved, I think it could be fine.

I have no idea if it's discussed or not. I never had time to keep track of these things.

From what the Tiering page states as of now, it's already assumed such a spatial dimension exists across parallel universes, it's given as the explanation for why the difference between Low 2-C, 2-C, 2-B, and 2-A is unknowable since the distance between universes across the higher-dimensional axis isn't something set in stone, so the actual distance between universes in the higher-dimensional space might fluctuate from something infinitely close to 0 to something infinitely large.

At this point, the existence of a gap between universes prevents the use of measurable values as in higher dimensional spaces, so I think this part can be corrected with a small addition without changing the logic.

 

[Executor_N0]

At this point, the existence of a gap between universes prevents the use of measurable values as in higher dimensional spaces, so I think this part can be corrected with a small addition without changing the logic.

Going over this point, I think that depending on the method in which the universes are displaced, the result would be much different.

If, for example, the current standard on the official page is like "Universes are 4-dimensional and supposed to be parallel displaced across a 5th-dimensional axis", then the explosion encompassing both would be 5-dimensional in size, be the value infinitely close to 0 in 5-dimensional space or not. If the universes are displaced in such a way that they are in more than N+1 dimensional space (With N being the dimensional value for each universe), then the explosion would also have a size that is more than N+1 dimensions (The fact some might like to stack hyper timelines with each being orthogonal to each other would quickly skyrocket the N+X dimensional size of the total space-time for example).

And if the current difference in values for Low 2-C to 2-C to 2-B is dependent on the 5th-dimensional distance between universes, if the universes in question are not distanced by such a metric, then putting them all under the same value seems to be strange, as if it's being done just because two things are called by the same name, and the system prefers to study the logical structure of the space rather than what it's called (Which is how a 10-dimensional universe can be Tier 1 under the right circumstances for example).

Universes being "non-displaced" across a "non-space" "wouldn't be the same" as universes displaced across an N+1th dimensional axis. Depending on the method and the system, the feat could go to 1-A if it's performed as a "beyond-dimensional power that surpasses the level of existence of the universes to affect all of them at once". But if it's just a "hax feat to affect both" or "done through a means that physically connects the two", the result of course would be much lower.

The same goes on for various other variables. It's interesting to think about.