Tier 2 requirements and examples - Part 2

[DarkDragonMedeus]

There was a bit of a strawman against my statement, I didn't say timelines are 2-C by default; they are Low 2-C at minimum yes. But they're only that if there is 0 extra complications and stuff and it's not a standard assumption to assume the existence of a quilted multiverse or bubble multiverse unless specifically stated. I specifically said "Branching timelines" and/or "Timelines containing both sub-timelines and more than one universe sized body of space" are 2-C at minimum.

 

[Omegabronic]

There was a bit of a strawman against my statement, I didn't say timelines are 2-C by default; they are Low 2-C at minimum yes. But they're only that if there is 0 extra complications and stuff and it's not a standard assumption to assume the existence of a quilted multiverse or bubble multiverse unless specifically stated. I specifically said "Branching timelines" and/or "Timelines containing both sub-timelines and more than one universe sized body of space" are 2-C at minimum.

but if it is an universe body of space, why assume that it is an space time instead of just a space?

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

but if it is an universe body of space, why assume that it is an space time instead of just a space?

You can't assume it to be timeless space, that's abnormal and requires evidence.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Afterlifes are typically just bodies of space, not separate space-times. As are "Timeless Voids". But "Alternate Universes" are timelines by default, especially if they contain sub-dimensions with their own flow of time. Also, another common misconception is Same flow of time =/= same temporal axis.

 

[Omegabronic]

You can't assume it to be timeless space, that's abnormal and requires evidence.

i don't mean timeless, but sharing one time

 

[PrinceofPein]

Same flow of time =/= same temporal axis.

This is not a misconception, having the same flow of time does not mean you operate under the same space-time. what I am saying is temporal axis is just direction of time.
There can be infinite space times and all of them will have the same direction of time.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

How many of the criteria needs to be met for something to be qualified as "Separate spacetime continuum?"

For example, in "The Universe" section it simply says "These are notes that the worlds are indeed universes; while they don't need all of these, at least one of them should indicate this." However, the section below it for Timelines/spacetimes doesn't have that same wording. So, how many bullet points need to be met to prove it?

or is my thinking backwards, and its more like "We assume by default that universes are Low 2-C until someone makes a CRT with anti-feats to the Tier 2 Structure?"

 

[PrinceofPein]

How many of the criteria needs to be met for something to be qualified as "Separate spacetime continuum?"

For example, in "The Universe" section it simply says "These are notes that the worlds are indeed universes; while they don't need all of these, at least one of them should indicate this." However, the section below it for Timelines/spacetimes doesn't have that same wording. So, how many bullet points need to be met to prove it?

or is my thinking backwards, and its more like "We assume by default that universes are Low 2-C until someone makes a CRT with anti-feats to the Tier 2 Structure?"

Unlike destruction where we assume the default destruction of a universe is tier 3, if time or something similar was mentioned it is low 2-C.
Universes/multiple timelines will be assumed to be tier 2 structures unless there are anti-feats in the series

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Unlike destruction where we assume the default destruction of a universe is tier 3, if time or something similar was mentioned it is low 2-C.
Universes/multiple timelines will be assumed to be tier 2 structures unless there are anti-feats in the series

in a what scenario that i see a lot in fiction.

What if a location is simply called "A world" and its described as "as large,(just as big as ours) if not even bigger, than our universe" and the only known way to get there is through "Ascensions," "divine permission from a god," or "Teleportation/portals" and is considered/shown to be/implied/stated to be "separate" or "different"

is that enough to be considered a tier 2 structure?

 

[PrinceofPein]

in a what scenario that i see a lot in fiction.

What if a location is simply called "A world" and its described as "as large,(just as big as ours) if not even bigger, than our universe" and the only known way to get there is through "Ascensions," "divine permission from a god," or "Teleportation/portals" and is considered/shown to be/implied/stated to be "separate" or "different"

is that enough to be considered a tier 2 structure?

Yes

 

[ImmortalDread]

This is not a misconception, having the same flow of time does not mean you operate under the same space-time. what I am saying is temporal axis is just direction of time.
There can be infinite space times and all of them will have the same direction of time.

I disagree with this, the notion of an infinite space-time continuum necessarily implies the existence of infinite timelines.

 

[Reiner04]

I'd rather the verses be handled on a case-by-case basis instead.

Yes

.

Actually I've a bit of problem. As per our standards we treat the flow of time being universally same through out as that's what fiction mostly do and we default it to that, that's precisely why different flow of time in different realms were used as proof of them being separate spacetime's but why I feel like this thread is speaking against this notion?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Actually I've a bit of problem. As per our standards we treat the flow of time being universally same through out as that's what fiction mostly do and we default it to that, that's precisely why different flow of time in different realms were used as proof of them being separate spacetime's but why I feel like this thread is speaking against this notion?

You should go over the note again.

• It should be noted that variations in the flow of time, such as faster or slower rates, do not necessarily indicate the existence of separate universes or space-time continuums. This phenomenon can occur within a single universe or pocket dimension, and therefore does not serve as sufficient evidence for the existence of multiple universes or space-time continuums.

If a verse is treated accordingly and satisfies the necessary criteria for the validity of the space-time continuum, it may suggest the existence of a distinct universe within that continuum.

 

[Reiner04]

If a verse is treated accordingly and satisfies the necessary criteria for the validity of the space-time continuum, it may suggest the existence of a distinct universe within that continuum.

I see, then it's good.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I disagree with this, the notion of an infinite space-time continuum necessarily implies the existence of infinite timelines.

direction of time in the sense that time flows forward in all, that does not mean they are the same timelines.
Like infinite timelines, but time moves forward.

@Reiner rate of flow of time just means faster or slower, and in any normal universe, around blackholes and some giant stars time will certainly flow slower

 

[Reiner04]

@Reiner rate of flow of time just means faster or slower, and in any normal universe, around blackholes and some giant stars time will certainly flow slower

But that's only when fiction takes these kinds of things altering the rate of time or timeflow seriously. In any other case, we still consider flow of time universally same. My thread was concluded on it and time stop page says samething.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I disagree with this, the notion of an infinite space-time continuum necessarily implies the existence of infinite timelines.

May not as do keep in mind this is all in hypothetical/theoretical scenarios. Also having a singular space time continuum that is treated as infinite in 3D and infinite time for a singular one does seem possible although one can argue it is rather contradictory in some ways, but in this case, when it comes to time being stated infinite, it is because we generally treated the passage of time being infinite rather than finite.

 

[PrinceofPein]

But that's only when fiction takes these kinds of things altering the rate of time or timeflow seriously. In any other case, we still consider flow of time universally same. My thread was concluded on it and time stop page says samething.

your thread is about "time is universal" not that the flow is universally the same
your thread is that when you stop time in one part of the universe then all part of the universe time stops, it has nothing to do wiht how fast or slow time is going

 

[Antvasima]

What currently needs to be evaluated here?

 

[PrinceofPein]

What currently needs to be evaluated here?

Waiting for DT to evaluate dread's blog

 

[ImmortalDread]

Waiting for DT to evaluate dream's blog

I am not dream.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I am not dream.

Auto corrections be doing the most

 

[KLOL506]

Actually I've a bit of problem. As per our standards we treat the flow of time being universally same through out as that's what fiction mostly do and we default it to that, that's precisely why different flow of time in different realms were used as proof of them being separate spacetime's but why I feel like this thread is speaking against this notion?

It's... not?

The whole "different time flow" part only works as supporting evidence if you can prove the realms are separated physically as well.

 

[Omegabronic]

I have a question, what are anti feats for universes/dimensions/timelines being space times?

 

[KLOL506]

I have a question, what are anti feats for universes/dimensions/timelines being space times?

Physical travel from one realm to the other for starters where dimensional travel and/or portal creation are not involved.

Affecting the past of one realm affecting the others.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Physical travel from one realm to the other for starters where dimensional travel and/or portal creation are not involved.

Affecting the past of one realm affecting the others.

What would be some other anti-feats besides those 2?

Maybe some wording or statements like "Connected spaces" or if a verse describes its "Multiverse cosmology" to be "connected like a tree?"

 

[KLOL506]

Maybe some wording or statements like "Connected spaces" or if a verse describes its "Multiverse cosmology" to be "connected like a tree?"

Too vague to make any conclusions. Connections alone mean nothing, at best it could just refer to a higher construct encompassing the realms.

 

[PrinceofPein]

What would be some other anti-feats besides those 2?

All in all it is case by case and context (bolding it so people can understand)
Time travel between the verses
Attacks that travels/spread e.g. explosions able to reach the other universes.
And the others is a case by case basis and depends on the context e.g. branching timelines

 

[Planck69]

Attacks that travels e.g. explosions able to reach the other universes.

This part is extremely stupid. How do you think you get to Tier 2 in the first place?

Really, the more this thread progresses the more it feels like it's making the standards obtuse for the sake of it.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Most destruction feats are explosions, how else is the destruction supposed spread and to reach other universes?

 

[Planck69]

Honestly, this thread is devolving into peak levels of armchair buffoonery. Speaking generally, can we have concise and reasonable standards that make sense and don't end up with us doing things like, "Hmm, you destroyed countless realities with an explosion that spanned a higher dimensional space but you didn't mention the past so you're 3-A".

 

[PrinceofPein]

This part is extremely stupid. How do you think you get to Tier 2 in the first place?

Really, the more this thread progresses the more it feels like it's making the standards obtuse for the sake of it.

Honestly, this thread is devolving into peak levels of armchair buffoonery. Speaking generally, can we have concise and reasonable standards that make sense and don't end up with us doing things like, "Hmm, you destroyed countless realities with an explosion that spanned a higher dimensional space but you didn't mention the past so you're 3-A".

you know you could have asked for context instead of acting like a dick.
Explosions shown to spread, that is the context in case you do not understand.
If an attack is shown to spread out from a part in space and can reach another space provided that the space has not been proven to be of different space-time prior, it only serves as logic to say that those two spaces are connected, since the explosion was shown traveling from one to another and one of the criterias is that 3-D travel should not be possible.
Explosion traveling is a 3-Dimension movement if there are no additional context.
Now if you have any real argument you can actually say it

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

If an attack is shown to spread out from a part in space and can reach another space provided that the space has not been proven to be of different space-time prior, it only serves as logic to say that those two spaces are connected, since the explosion was shown traveling from one to another

You do realise that explosions have to cross dimensions to even reach a different space right? How can you reverse the burden of proof and declare it as anti-feat?
That makes zero ******* sense.
Why are you expecting explosions to follow strict IRL laws? Epxlosions aren't even possible in the first place in vaccum of space, and now somehow explosions crossing over to other realms is a disqualifier?

Explosions shown to spread, that is the context in case you do not understand

Explosions always spread 99% of the time, they originate and expand from an epicentre.

Unless you are drowing out the entire blast radius in an multiple small explosion or something which has an epicentre as big as target itself, which would be the realms in this case.

 

[Planck69]

you know you could have asked for context instead of acting like a dick.
Explosions shown to spread, that is the context in case you do not understand.
If an attack is shown to spread out from a part in space and can reach another space provided that the space has not been proven to be of different space-time prior, it only serves as logic to say that those two spaces are connected, since the explosion was shown traveling from one to another

Ooor maybe, the explosion is of a higher range than what's being assumed. Using attacks or explosions as measuring sticks for qualification or disqualification of a cosmological structure's tier when they're what determine qualifying for higher tiering regardless is needlessly silly. There's no set logic for it past these higher tiers in terms of reach so this is a backwards way of determining the nature of a space-time.

Like, more and more it feels like this thread pushes standards while needlessly complicating or mangling basic tiering system tenets.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Most destruction feats are explosions, how else is the destruction supposed spread and to reach other universes?

some, not most, most of the tier 2 surprisingly comes from scaling to a cosmology, yes I went through the entire category, that aside. take this for an example, even though it was shown to be an explosion and shown to be spreading, but it has more context behind it (i.e. the universes having proof of being separate space-times) it will still remain as 2-A and not anti-feat.
Another example will be DB, they have been proven to be separate space-times, so the explosions destroying the universes is just added to them to give them an upgrade on range

You do realise that explosions have to cross dimensions to even reach a different space right? How can you reverse the burden of proof and declare it as anti-feat?
That makes zero ******* sense.
Why are you expecting explosions to follow strict IRL laws? Epxlosions aren't even possible in the first place in vaccum of space, and now somehow explosions crossing over to other realms is a disqualifier?

Explosions always spread 99% of the time, they originate and expand from an epicentre.

Unless you are drowing out the entire blast radius in an multiple small explosion or something which has an epicentre as big as target itself, which would be the realms in this case.

I was already typing to you up above when I saw this, but I think it also replies to this message, explosions are not anti-feats.
They cannot be used as one if the verse has proven for the space to be separate space times.
Let me try and explain better, by default all universes will still be considered separate, but for a verse that has something like explosions traveling without further contexts or without proving prior or later that the universes are separate space-times, then it can be an anti-feat.

Ooor maybe, the explosion is of a higher range than what's being assumed. Using attacks or explosions as measuring sticks for qualification or disqualification of a cosmological structure's tier when they're what determine qualifying for higher tiering regardless is needlessly silly. There's no set logic for it past these higher tiers in terms of reach so this is a backwards way of determining the nature of a space-time.

Like, more and more it feels like this thread pushes standards while needlessly complicating or mangling basic tiering system tenets.

I think same thing I said to Gilver applies here.
It is only an anti-feat if there is no set precedence in the verse explaining this spaces.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

This is thread can summed up in a single analogy.

Using a line to measure ruling tape. And if some line is bigger than ruling tape then the ruling tape must be smaller than it's specifications, instead of you know the line being bigger.

 

[Planck69]

An explosion in a vacuum (in the figurative sense) is in no way relevant to this thread or Tier 2 standards. It reaching other "universes" if they're being debated to be such is not a point for or against it since an explosion's range has no actual cap in fictious works whatsoever. Like, you can disprove those separate spaces being separate through more context but "explosion reaches X realm therefore X realm is Tier 3" is dumb.

 

[Reiner04]

you know you could have asked for context instead of acting like a dick.
Explosions shown to spread, that is the context in case you do not understand.
If an attack is shown to spread out from a part in space and can reach another space provided that the space has not been proven to be of different space-time prior, it only serves as logic to say that those two spaces are connected, since the explosion was shown traveling from one to another and one of the criterias is that 3-D travel should not be possible.
Explosion traveling is a 3-Dimension movement if there are no additional context.
Now if you have any real argument you can actually say it

... Energy is dimensionless and it can span to all Dimensions, it doesn't need context at all, it something that doesn't deny them being Spatiotemporally separate.

 

[Planck69]

... Energy is dimensionless and it can span to all Dimensions, it doesn't need context at all, it something that doesn't deny them being Spatiotemporally separate.

Thank you.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Let me try and explain better, by default all universes will still be considered separate, but for a verse that has something like explosions traveling without further contexts or without proving prior or later that the universes are separate space-times, then it can be an anti-feat.

You do realise explosions realistically by default cannot even cross into other spaces, let alone different space-times?

Your criteria will, if used as an anti feat will make even different spaces into same spatial dimension. Literally quilted universes will become a singular universe. Because explosions only happen in continuous space.