Tier 1 Dragon Ball Is Finally Here, And Hypertimelines Are Back On The Menu! *Visible Groaning Ensues*

[Magicomethkuon]

You guys were being malicious by getting the other stuff accepted under CRT's titled "minor revision" to divert staff attention.​

Do you guys think the staff are stupid or something? We called them minor CRT's because that's what they were: minor revisions. Those CRT's made no impact whatsoever on the cosmology, and didn't change the number of space-times or anything of the sort. It's already accepted that the realms are spatiotemporally separate, we simply increased those justifications by affirming that they hardbored their own time dimensions.

Thanks for being understanding. I already had dropped my part of the talk and was waiting for staff. But since parts of your answer also reply to things that I have said, I have the obligation to clarify on a few. Particularly so because you are now accusing me of lying, but we'll cross that bridge. About this one, I don't recall say that you guys were malicious. My argument was following a number of premises as follows:

1. The thread title was misleading, or if not that very easy to miss. It was not a minor revision. If at all it has an impact on the cosmology of Dragon Ball, even as corroborating information to quality and structure of the whole space-times, it's an important revision. The RoSaTs having a separate space-time argument is being used as part of the reason to support a revision here that is tier 1. That makes it very important.
2. I'm not the first one saying that the RoSaT part should have been its own thread. Staff asked for it in the original one as well.
3. I am not calling staff stupid. I am saying that a thread putting this kind of revision as minor will draw a lot less attention and won't be nearly as discussed as it would have been if the title brought attention to cosmology matters.

"The first CRT wasn't accepted."​

This notion in particular is a blatant lie. Here's the CRT for everyone to see.

Lonkitt: "Looks fine to me."

Elizhaa: "The proposed changes seem fine."

LordGriffin: "Hmmm... I guess tech manipulation is fine via his wishes. Everything else looks good, though I'm not interested in discussing cosmology stuff for Dragon Ball, I guess the Room of Spirit and Time stuff is alright so far."

Lephyr: "Only thing I'm neutral on is the RoSaT"

Saman: "The ability additions are fine, though I disagree with the RoSaT, because while it has a different time, it is still quite small. Or maybe that requires it's own thread and tiershit experts, idk."

Oh my? What do we have here? 3 agrees, 1 neutral, and 1 disagree. But let's see why this "wasn't accepted."

I'm not sure why you feel the need to bring this up since I already talked extensively about where my doubts with that thread are coming from. You can actually scroll over my talk with Garrixian for example. But anyways. I think the agreement is unstable for the impact of the thread. I'd appreciate it if you stopped falsely accusing me of lying since I already brought up each of those staff opinions personally long before you did.

I straight up counted the tally personally and explained why I have second thoughts about how stable this agreement was in prior replies. But let's say it again. Lonkitt and Elizhaa agreed generally, they never addressed the direct point or disagreed with other staffs' concerns about the RoSaT revision. Yes, this does not disqualify votes but it does signal that their defense of this specific point isn't deep enough that in light of further questioning or it impacting greater things, they wouldn't change it.

Lephyr was Neutral and advised that its own thread were made for the cosmology proposal, making it clear that that one was not something minor. This advice was not heard and the revision stayed in the middle of many other lesser ones. This means that for any other staff who might want to evaluate a COSMOLOGY proposal, they might have passed over this thread straight up because the title told them nothing about this proposal even existing.

SamanPatou disagreed, and LordGriffin seems almost split between neutral since he explained that he had no interest in discussing cosmology for DB in the thread.

Seriously? So "makes sense" or "seems fine/simple enough" aren't true agrees? Hey, any staff willing to weigh in on how their hundreds upon hundreds of "simple agrees" aren't true agrees anymore? Please stop lying about how Griffin was neutral, he clearly accepted the thread. Enough of that. Lephyr only disagreed because they knew it would be somewhat controversial, and Saman only disagreed under a misunderstanding. He outright agreed with our conclusion about the HTC, he only thought we were trying to upgrade it to Low 2-C, which was not the case. I also love how everyone's flat-out ignoring the second CRT.

I was lying about Griffin? Interesting accusation, let us see what I have said, verbatim.

Some staff brought up how it's a small space-time, SamanPatou disagreed, LordGriffin said that he wasn't interested in discussing DB cosmology but that it looked alright so far.

Next, let us take a look at LordGriffin's response.

Everything else looks good, though I'm not interested in discussing cosmology stuff for Dragon Ball, I guess the Room of Spirit and Time stuff is alright so far.

So once more, would you kindly stop accusing me of lying? I don't have enough stakes in a DB (or any) thread to ruin my own credibility as a person with fabrications. But it is the height of irony that you'd say I am lying about a vote, all the while choosing to claim that Saman's disagreement was over a misunderstanding and so it doesn't count. Something that I explained before, actually feels like a misinterpretation of his point. You are arguing that he disagreed with RoSaT being Low 2-C which was never proposed, but in reality it's because the RoSat is not Low 2-C that he disagreed with the thread's proposal.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

I do not sense any passive aggression or plain aggression towards anyone in particular from his post. He is merely expressing his views.

Accused me of lying more than once, all the while my words were thoroughly twisted in some points. Especially in regards to the vote of LordGriffin. That is a take in very bad faith and the way of writing some points definitely held some passive aggressive undertones. But he already apologized, it's fine. I'd just appreciate disagreement when someone doesn't see eye to eye with my interpretation of things, rather than saying I am lying.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Going offline for a bit but I'll try and comment on my exact stance either later tonight or tomorrow.

This CRT has gone all sorts of odd places, so I'll have to clear a few things up right now.

You need to stop quoting Ultima and DontTalk.​

Yeah, that's not happening. I don't want to play the whataboutism game again, but plenty of threads overly quote Ultima and DontTalk. Literally since when, in the history of this website as it's known, has this ever been a problem (unless someone's going out of their way to mischaracterize them)? I have the feeling all our Ultima/DontTalk quotes are only being opposed because it looks silly to argue for things like perpendicular time flow when they're literally quoted saying that's irrelevant. Any take like "Ultima/DontTalk quotes aren't evidence" holds no water, especially not when they're the guys who created the very standards we're arguing about.

You guys were being malicious by getting the other stuff accepted under CRT's titled "minor revision" to divert staff attention.​

Do you guys think the staff are stupid or something? We called them minor CRT's because that's what they were: minor revisions. Those CRT's made no impact whatsoever on the cosmology, and didn't change the number of space-times or anything of the sort. It's already accepted that the realms are spatiotemporally separate, we simply increased those justifications by affirming that they hardbored their own time dimensions.

"The first CRT wasn't accepted."​

This notion in particular is a blatant lie. Here's the CRT for everyone to see.

Lonkitt: "Looks fine to me."

Elizhaa: "The proposed changes seem fine."

LordGriffin: "Hmmm... I guess tech manipulation is fine via his wishes. Everything else looks good, though I'm not interested in discussing cosmology stuff for Dragon Ball, I guess the Room of Spirit and Time stuff is alright so far."

Lephyr: "Only thing I'm neutral on is the RoSaT"

Saman: "The ability additions are fine, though I disagree with the RoSaT, because while it has a different time, it is still quite small. Or maybe that requires it's own thread and tiershit experts, idk."

Oh my? What do we have here? 3 agrees, 1 neutral, and 1 disagree. But let's see why this "wasn't accepted."


Seriously? So "makes sense" or "seems fine/simple enough" aren't true agrees? Hey, any staff willing to weigh in on how their hundreds upon hundreds of "simple agrees" aren't true agrees anymore? Please stop lying about how Griffin was neutral, he clearly accepted the thread. Enough of that. Lephyr only remained neutral because they knew it would be somewhat controversial, and Saman only disagreed under a misunderstanding. He outright agreed with our conclusion about the HTC, he only thought we were trying to upgrade it to Low 2-C, which was not the case. I also love how everyone's flat-out ignoring the second CRT.

"B-B-But perpendicular time flow!"​

First off, I love how I addressed this already in the OP.

Secondly, I need you to prove where this exists in the standards? I cited every standard I could, but you can't refer me to anything regarding Ultima/DDT's stance or the tiering system pages. You keep asking questions, and we've answered all of them. I would like it if you'd give one of our questions an answer: where is this stated among the standards?

For those who don't think this is passive aggressive, that's your opinion. I can see where the seemingly aggressive tone is even though I don't think it's intentional. However I will not dwell on this and simply asked people to let the OP answer the questions. We don't need everyone speaking for them.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I know, the RoSaT is a different time dimension from the Kaioshin Realm. This means that space-time have their own distinct time dimensions; meaning they’re different space-times specifically due to different time dimensions.

The OP already responded to this tidbit, but you’ll have to go back to the op to see the messages that DT and Ultima said since the replies don’t show things in the spoiler box. Basically, there’s no site standard that says we need a statement of time being perpendicular to the existing one. As Ultima said it would just make an uncountably amount of snapshots similar to why a Universe is 4D.

Also, we’re arguing that there’s many realms with different time dimensions, that are encompassed by the timeline which branches off and still make these realms.

The standards explicitly state that the approach must align with the methodology used for low 2-C. I do not intend to dispute these standards; I mentioned in my initial post that I am not in any obligation to address DT/Ultima's comment or counter it, as I am certain their words have been taken out of context. They are invited to clarify their position here to ensure it is not misrepresented.

Until then, my argument remains valid according to the site's standards.

Regarding your bolded statement: It appears you are reiterating the same point I previously addressed, indicating your agreement with the first point in my post.

 

[GarrixianXD]

@ProfectusInfinity (responding to the relevant part) I now love this type of conversation, you are now asking me to prove which standard is this, but when I ask you which concrete scan does low 1-C have, you don't give any, but arguments from DT and Ultima which by the way, are not any evidence in shape and form.

Anyway, @Qawsedf234 also shared his perspective that supports my current last post very much, that multiple temporal dimensions don't give higher rating at all.


Pretty much what I said is very common practice known for years.

Each “snapshot” corresponds to that of the space-time continuum, the extra time-dimension consist of infinite of those snapshots which is infinite^infinite therefore approaches 5-D.

 

[Qawsedf234]

The ROSAT is a pocket dimension. It having a seperate standard of time doesn't mean much because it's to small. In addition it doesn't physically exist as a space you can travel to within the Macro-Cosmology, so it's not an example of a perpendicular timestream.

The core reasoning between them having 12 seperate time dimensions seem flawed.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Hmm...

From my meh understanding of dimensionality..

it seems you guys are trying to propose 3D space+2D time. Right?

If so then I don't think we can treat temporal dimensions like spatial dimensions, where spatial dimensions have to be stacked perpendicularly.

Although the second time dimension must be distinct from the first and contain infinite amounts of spacetime continuums, right?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Each “snapshot” corresponds to that of the space-time continuum, the extra time-dimension consist of infinite of those snapshots which is infinite^infinite therefore approaches 5-D.

There is a misunderstanding

Let me explain why this interpretation is incorrect based on the given standard.

In the original text I quoted, it is stated that the time-like direction can be thought of as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each representing a static "snapshot" of the entire universe at a specific moment. The set of all these events forms the totality of spacetime. This concept does not imply that there are infinite^infinite snapshots corresponding to an additional time dimension.

When the text mentions an additional temporal dimension, it means adding another line of uncountably infinite points, not an infinite^infinite scenario. In this case, each point on the additional time direction represents a 3-dimensional snapshot of the entire 4-dimensional spacetime universe. The extension to higher dimensions follows the same logic - adding more dimensions increases the complexity of the spacetime continuum, but it does not involve infinite^infinite scenarios.

Therefore, the interpretation suggesting infinite^infinite snapshots and approaching 5-D is not in alignment with the original text's description of the relationship between spatial dimensions, temporal dimensions, and the concept of snapshots in the spacetime continuum.

To simplify: Why is having a temporal dimension in 3-A considered Low 2-C? It is because the time dimension extends perpendicular to the existing 3D spaces, causing all of 3D space to have a length of 0 in it until there are uncountable infinite numbers of them. Therefore, you get your Low 2-C classification.

Similarly, with an extra time dimension, when aligned the same way the time dimension aligns with 3D spaces to create Low 2-C structures (orthogonal), they become low 1-C. But again, do we have evidence that it's orthogonal?

The ROSAT is a pocket dimension. It having a seperate standard of time doesn't mean much because it's to small. In addition it doesn't physically exist as a space you can travel to within the Macro-Cosmology, so it's not an example of a perpendicular timestream.

The core reasoning between them having 12 seperate time dimensions seem flawed.

I am attempting to convey that my initial statement, made in my very first post, remains unchanged. The existence of a separate dimension of time outside our world holds little significance to QS process.

 

[TiltedFN]

The ROSAT is a pocket dimension. It having a seperate standard of time doesn't mean much because it's to small. In addition it doesn't physically exist as a space you can travel to within the Macro-Cosmology, so it's not an example of a perpendicular timestream.

The core reasoning between them having 12 seperate time dimensions seem flawed.

The living realm is also accepted as having a separate time dimension, which is a low 2-C structure, so the timeline overarching that is low 1-C. I also don't think the ROSAT being a pocket dimension doesn't matter.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I can't believe I have to address this notion. So the basis for this is that an object in 1-dimensional space could only be displaced left/right along an R^1 coordinate axis. In R^2 space, a 2-dimensional object could displace itself in another direction and gain width. Following this same pattern, an object in 3-dimensional space could displace itself in a direction perpendicular to the last two. From there, a higher time dimension should demonstrate a perpendicular time flow, right? Most definitely not. Time is an independent parameter [unlike spatial dimensions] that can be applied to any dimensional space and is expected to propagate objects forward only and prohibit free movement in other directions. An "additional time direction" as described in the tiering system FAQ simply needs to overarch a space-time continuum with its own time axis as a part of its greater time flow.

A timeline is not synonymous with a temporal dimension. Having multiple timelines is not having multiple temporal dimensions. Having a "higher timeline" aka, timelines in a timeline is the not the same as having multiple temporal dimension. If this was the case, every multiverse would be 6D.

Just like spatial dimensions, temporal dimensions are about movement. If time is moving from past to future in the higher timeline, it is the same dimension as the lower timelines.

Do you have any evidence that flow of causality is different for the higher timeline than the embedded timelines?

 

[Qawsedf234]

The living realm is also accepted as having a separate time dimension, which is a low 2-C structure, so the timeline overarching that is low 1-C.

So I can understand better, what is the reasoning for the seperate time axis between the living world and Heaven/Kaioshen Realm?

 

[Georredannea15]

Each “snapshot” corresponds to that of the space-time continuum, the extra time-dimension consist of infinite of those snapshots which is infinite^infinite therefore approaches 5-D.

So, every snapshot in this timeline is 4-D, and since timelines contain an uncountable infinite number of snapshots by default, this timeline be 5-D, right?

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

The standards explicitly state that the approach must align with the methodology used for low 2-C. I do not intend to dispute these standards; I mentioned in my initial post that I am not in any obligation to address DT/Ultima's comment or counter it, as I am certain their words have been taken out of context. They are invited to clarify their position here to ensure it is not misrepresented.

Until then, my argument remains valid according to the site's standards.

Regarding your bolded statement: It appears you are reiterating the same point I previously addressed, indicating your agreement with the first point in my post.

Okay, can you show me where it states we need a perpendicular time direction for a hypertimeline. I’m pretty sure the site standards say that you need an overarching timeline, but if I’m wrong then I’d like to see the proof.

I’m not 100% sure if that part was true, but I was answering regardless it wouldn’t matter since there is other realms of that size with their distinct time dimensions.

So I can understand better, what is the reasoning for the seperate time axis between the living world and Heaven/Kaioshen Realm?

The RoSaT is stated to have a different dimension of time to the Kaioshin Realm, which just proves that the space-times are different space-times due to distinct time dimensions.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

A timeline is not synonymous with a temporal dimension. Having multiple timelines is not having multiple temporal dimensions. Having a "higher timeline" aka, timelines in a timeline is the not the same as having multiple temporal dimension. If this was the case, every multiverse would be 6D.

Just like spatial dimensions, temporal dimensions are about movement. If time is moving from past to future in the higher timeline, it is the same dimension as the lower timelines.

Do you have any evidence that flow of causality is different for the higher timeline than the embedded timelines?

I am seeing stuff about a timeline overarching timelines

but i am not quite sure what exactly.

maybe the 12 macrocosms which run on their own distinct space times, all experience another version of time simultaneously? If thats the case then I can see a 2nd temporal dimension. Otherwise idk.

 

[Benimōru]

I'm not quite sure why the scans used would qualify as "hypertimeline".

But I'm gonna be neutral for now

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

So I can understand better, what is the reasoning for the seperate time axis between the living world and Heaven/Kaioshen Realm?

Basically, there's a room called the time room that's stated to create all of space-time across past/present/future. We used this to argue that the Living World is serviced by its own time dimension, but DonTalk disagreed since as he argued, there's nothing theoretically preventing this room's temporality from extending outwards to shape the rest of space-time. For that reason, I compiled more scans and reasoning into a blog and posted it to this CRT in order to have this premise accepted by current site standards:

• There is a room inside the Living World that creates all of space-time for it: confirming that it’s serviced by its own time dimension.

 

[JJSliderman]

I'm not quite sure why the scans used would qualify as "hypertimeline".

But I'm gonna be neutral for now, leaning towards to disagree.

It’s a timeline that encompasses multiple other, smaller timelines within itself, the definition of the hyper prefix is to be over or above something, which this would qualify as

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

maybe the 12 macrocosms which run on their own distinct space times, all experience another version of time simultaneously? If thats the case then I can see a 2nd temporal dimension. Otherwise idk.

All the macrocoms experience time at the same time. We know this because everyone watched in real time as Zeno erased one.

every snapshot in this timeline is 4-D

Where is the evidence for this? For a snapshot to be 4D it must show all of time: past, present, and future, at once in each snap shot?

 

[JJSliderman]

For a snapshot to be 4D doesn’t it just have to contain 4 dimensions, which a 1 second spanning snapshot could also do?

 

[TiltedFN]

All the macrocoms experience time at the same time. We know this because everyone watched in real time as Zeno erased one.

This has nothing to do with anything

Where is the evidence for this? For a snapshot to be 4D it must show all of time: past, present, and future, at once in each snap shot?

The evidence is that a timeline overarches lesser time dimensions. As we have been saying over and over again.

 

[GarrixianXD]

So, every snapshot in this timeline is 4-D, and since timelines contain an uncountable infinite number of snapshots by default, this timeline be 5-D. Do I have that right?

Yeah. Tho, this CRT goes beyond just that.

 

[Benimōru]

Where is the evidence for this?

He is not claiming anything, he is just asking questions to check whether he has understood it right...

It’s a timeline that encompasses multiple other, smaller timelines within itself, the definition of the hyper prefix is to be over or above something, which this would qualify as

Thanks for the explanation. But I'm still not sure, so I'd rather wait for staff input rather than directly indicate a vote.

 

[Georredannea15]

Where is the evidence for this? For a snapshot to be 4D it must show all of time: past, present, and future, at once in each snap shot?

I clarified Garrixian's comment, just to make sure i got it right.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Okay, can you show me where it states we need a perpendicular time direction for a hypertimeline. I’m pretty sure the site standards say that you need an overarching timeline, but if I’m wrong then I’d like to see the proof.

I’m not 100% sure if that part was true, but I was answering regardless it wouldn’t matter since there is other realms of that size with their distinct time dimensions.

The RoSaT is stated to have a different dimension of time to the Kaioshin Realm, which just proves that the space-times are different space-times due to distinct time dimensions.

Ya I am going to bold it for you

A: The relationship between the spatial dimensions of a universe and the additional temporal dimension(s) may be visualized as something akin to the frames of a movie placed side-by-side. Basically, the time-like direction may be thought of as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the whole universe at any given moment, with the set of all such events comprising the totality of spacetime.

This structure can then be generalized to any amounts of dimensions, and is also the reason destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). So, for example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (Instead of just one) would have an additional time direction whose "snapshots" correspond to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime, and so on and so forth.

It literally stated “new direction”. Seriously, I am not going to repeat my stance again, it is common sense that 4D time dimensions won't get you Low 1-C.

 

[Ednaxel2]

Waiting for staff input but so far this looks really solid. Watching hyper-timeline discussions for dragon ball go down will be the closest thing to feeling like an Arkham Asylum patient

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

The evidence is that a timeline overarches lesser time dimensions. As we have been saying over and over again.

That means nothing. If all the timelines go in the same direction, past to future, then they are all the same dimension.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Ya I am going to bold it for you




It literally stated “new direction”. Seriously, I am not going to repeat my stance again, it is common sense that 4D time dimensions won't get you Low 1-C.

New direction would mean an additional axis in that context.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

That means nothing. If all the timelines go in the same direction, past to future, then they are all the same dimension.

In a higher time dimension, time needs to flow in a different direction like backwards or diagonally.​

I can't believe I have to address this notion. So the basis for this is that an object in 1-dimensional space could only be displaced left/right along an R^1 coordinate axis. In R^2 space, a 2-dimensional object could displace itself in another direction and gain width. Following this same pattern, an object in 3-dimensional space could displace itself in a direction perpendicular to the last two. From there, a higher time dimension should demonstrate a perpendicular time flow, right? Most definitely not. Time is an independent parameter [unlike spatial dimensions] that can be applied to any dimensional space and is expected to propagate objects forward only and prohibit free movement in other directions. An "additional time direction" as described in the tiering system FAQ simply needs to overarch a space-time continuum with its own time axis as a part of its greater time flow.

I have no idea how this argument resonated with staff or other people in the past. The tiering pages make no mention of a requirement for a perpendicular time flow (they actually suggest the opposite, since non-linear flow of time is a natural phenomenon that can occur under a single space-time), none of the verses that have been approved for Low 1-C hypertimelines have had to prove this, and the person who proliferated this argument could be found on other time dimension threads refraining to use it: which means it was a bad faith argument from the get-go. To top it off, let me direct you back to this comment where DontTalk blatantly says that overarching timelines which propagate a multiverse in a new forward direction can qualify for Low 1-C, it's just not inherently tier 1 since the overarching timeline doesn't need to be a second time dimension:

While you could theoretically describe the process of the multiverse changing by adding a second time-axis, that is only a model on your part and not something actually provided in the verse.

I don't think I need to say more, I will never comprehend for the life of me how this clownery of an argument was ever taken seriously.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I have already given my argument why what you said was wrong.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

I have already given my argument why what you said was wrong.

Does it have a basis in site standards? Because again: DontTalk is literally quoted saying hypertimelines that propagate a multiverse in another forward direction can be tier 1, it's just not inherent. It's an additional time direction. Not different, but additional.

Time out: I can't help but be concerned that most of the opposition has refused to cite tier 1 experts or the tiering system pages. What is the basis for all these random ideas regarding higher time dimensions?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

New direction would mean an additional axis in that context.

An additional axis is a new direction. A higher timeline does not necessitate a new direction.

Does it have a basis in site standards? Because again: DontTalk is literally quoted saying hypertimelines that propagate a multiverse in another forward direction can be tier 1, it's just not inherent.

Time out: I can't help be be concerned that most of the opposition has refused to cite tier 1 experts or the tiering system pages.

“This structure can then be generalized to any amounts of dimensions, and is also the reason destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). So, for example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (Instead of just one) would have an additional time direction whose "snapshots" correspond to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime, and so on and so forth.”

Where is your evidence that a snapshot of the hyper-timeline includes the whole 4D spacetime?

Where is your evidence that the hyper-timeline has different direction?

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

Ya I am going to bold it for you




It literally stated “new direction”. Seriously, I am not going to repeat my stance again, it is common sense that 4D time dimensions won't get you Low 1-C.

Where does it say new time direction? It tells us that a temporal dimension makes an uncountably infinite amount of snapshots, then the additional direction is needed but where does it say different? If there’s an uncountably infinite amount of snapshots once again that’s just QS.

 

[TiltedFN]

That means nothing. If all the timelines go in the same direction, past to future, then they are all the same dimension.

Bruh, time dimensions aren't like sideways, upside down, or whatever, they still propagate forward, but instead would correspond to 4D spacetimes instead of 3D universe. This standard you are pushing doesn't exist.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Where does it say new time direction?

“Additional” = new because we for curtain don't have time dimension in 3D plane, and it inherently does not make it 4D. The time dimension cannot coexist within the existing 3D dimensions; this is why we perceive it as a separate fourth axis that is not immediately visible to us.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

Bruh, time dimensions aren't like sideways, upside down, or whatever, they still propagate forward, but instead would correspond to 4D spacetimes instead of 3D universe. This standard you are pushing doesn't exist.

To add onto this:

So we know time most likely started during the Big Bang. But there is one nagging question that remains: what exactly is time?
To unpack this question, we have to look at the basic properties of space and time. In the dimension of space, you can move forwards and backwards; commuters experience this everyday. But time is different, it has a direction, you always move forward, never in reverse. So why is the dimension of time irreversible? This is one of the major unsolved problems in physics.

 

[Qawsedf234]

The RoSaT is stated to have a different dimension of time to the Kaioshin Realm, which just proves that the space-times are different space-times due to distinct time dimensions.

No, it proves that a pocket dimension has a different flow of time. Not that every realm has a different flow of time.

. We used this to argue that the Living World is serviced by its own time dimension, but DonTalk disagreed since as he argued, there's nothing theoretically preventing this room's temporality from extending outwards to shape the rest of space-time. For that reason, I compiled more scans and reasoning into a blog and posted it to this CRT in order to have this premise accepted by current site standards

Nothing provided limits the Time Room to just the mortal world. If anything it would just be that time extends the same through all spaces since they all progress at the same rate no matter what realm you're in.

The more I've read into this the more I'm just fundamentally against this. Nothing given in my view would result in the cosmology qualifying for Low 1-C.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Bruh, time dimensions aren't like sideways, upside down, or whatever, they still propagate forward, but instead would correspond to 4D spacetimes instead of 3D universe. This standard you are pushing doesn't exist.

if two timelines propagate forward are they going in the same direction, yes or no?

 

[TiltedFN]

if two timelines propagate forward are they going in the same direction, yes or no?

The differences is that it would be like destroying an uncountably infinite amount of low 2-C structures. Instead of destroying the physical universe that many times over.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Staff Vote Tally​

Agreements​	Neutral​	Disagreements​
None​	DDM (is confused of what exactly being proposed here)​	@Qawsedf234​
		@Maverick_Zero_X​

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

The differences is that it would be like destroying an uncountably infinite amount of low 2-C structures. Instead of destroying the physical universe that many times over.

You didn’t answer the question.