• 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.

Saint Seiya High 1-B Upgrade (Manga)

Status
Not open for further replies.
yes, and that's the entire premise of DB's low 1-C and what this CRT attempts to prove but on an infinite scale.
makes sense. Then the focus should really be on proving that these are higher temporal axes since that would inherently make them perpendicular and thus result in a high 1-B structure
 
makes sense. Then the focus should really be on proving that these are higher temporal axes since that would inherently make them perpendicular and thus result in a high 1-B structure
we don't even need higher temporal axis

We just need to prove that each axis

Is a different axis 🤣
 
makes sense. Then the focus should really be on proving that these are higher temporal axes since that would inherently make them perpendicular and thus result in a high 1-B structure
No, they don't need to be higher. The notion of "higher temporal axis" is more conducive to the idea they are parallel. The focus is on proving they are perpendicular.
 
No, they don't need to be higher. The notion of "higher temporal axis" is more conducive to the idea they are parallel. The focus is on proving they are perpendicular.
but didnt we establish that these are essentially the same?
 
but didnt we establish that these are essentially the same?
let me explain why they are NOT the same

[Key]
A=Spacetime.
B=Infinite ammount of space times.

Imagine a Chess board that has a infinite amount of places.

Let's say that A is a queen and it takes a rook

In chess(IRL) you move the piece above the piece you wanna take; It would be like A transcending another A which would make A 5D

Now let's say the chess board is a universe.

There exists a infinite amount of chess pieces which(are all B) they each occupy a different temporal axis
 
Now that the thread has slowed down, I'm going to add the votes.

Let's hope the thread doesn't vanish into the void 🤣
 
let me explain why they are NOT the same

[Key]
A=Spacetime.
B=Infinite ammount of space times.

Imagine a Chess board that has a infinite amount of places.

Let's say that A is a queen and it takes a rook

In chess(IRL) you move the piece above the piece you wanna take; It would be like A transcending another A which would make A 5D

Now let's say the chess board is a universe.

There exists a infinite amount of chess pieces which(are all B) they each occupy a different temporal axis
That just added to the confusion
 
uuhhhhH


coordinate=separate dimension=higher scaling

infinite ammount of coordinates

Now infinite dimension!

Me high 1-B!
okay no please stop, this isnt helpful. Im just asking hasty what he thinks the difference (if any) is between perpendicular time vs higher temporal axis and why they're not the same as we presumably established previously
 
ohhhhhhhhhhh
okay no please stop, this isnt helpful. Im just asking hasty what he thinks the difference (if any) is between perpendicular time vs higher temporal axis and why they're not the same as we presumably established previously
my bad gang, I thought you like didn't understand at all
 
okay no please stop, this isnt helpful. Im just asking hasty what he thinks the difference (if any) is between perpendicular time vs higher temporal axis and why they're not the same as we presumably established previously
They are the same on the wiki.
 
pretty sure what hatsy is going to say is that
higher temporal axis is if something beings transcended and perpendicular time axis is that there's multiple temporal Vectors
 
They are the same on the wiki.
see? thats all I wanted to confirm. so really as I said before we just need to prove that they are either perpendicular or higher since they're the same on the wiki and it makes sense (since parallel ones are explicitly not higher temporal dimensions)
 
pretty sure what hatsy is going to say is that
higher temporal axis is if something beings transcended and perpendicular time axis is that there's multiple temporal Vectors
I think you're misunderstanding a bit. multiple spatial vectors (say a R^7 space) is inherently a tier 1 space. However according to the wiki if you have multiple temporal vectors then it doesnt achieve the same result unless you prove they're a higher axes (or perpendicular as hasty and i said are the same)
 
I think you're misunderstanding a bit. multiple spatial vectors (say a R^7 space) is inherently a tier 1 space. However according to the wiki if you have multiple temporal vectors then it doesnt achieve the same result unless you prove they're a higher axes (or perpendicular as hasty and i said are the same)
The bolded parts are the same.
 
I think you're misunderstanding a bit. multiple spatial vectors (say a R^7 space) is inherently a tier 1 space. However according to the wiki if you have multiple temporal vectors then it doesnt achieve the same result unless you prove they're a higher axes (or perpendicular as hasty and i said are the same)
you need to prove that even for spatial vector. Just saying "this universe has 6 spatial dimension" isn't enought
 
same way 2D and 3D differ.
nah hasty, that logic only works for spatial dimensions which we know are inherently perpendicular to one another (you can NEVER have a 3-space where 1 spatial dimension is parallel to length for example)
 
nah hasty, that logic only works for spatial dimensions which we know are inherently perpendicular to one another (you can NEVER have a 3-space where 1 spatial dimension is parallel to length for example)
The logic is the same for all perpendicular vectors.
 
if this was the case then most tier 2 would have been tier 1. You need context. In your exaple you assumed that those spatial dimensions were already higher spatial axis.
no thats just the wiki having standards on what it thinks qualifies as evidence for higher spatial dimensions. Thats not the same as claiming that spatial dimensions are parallel unless proven otherwise or most verses with a 3D universe would be down to 1D. A fourth spatial axis is inherently perpendicular to the 3 we already know
 
This whole thread has been DB fans crying and debunking low 1-C DBS.
maybe but here's my final thoughts on that:
1.) I do think the dbs blog does a better job at demonstrating a higher temporal flow with the time travel example from the verse
2.) we really oughta stop bringing in another verse. One reason dbs crts were constantly stonewalled was because many people kept bringing up GOW so lets stop that
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top