• 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.

Tier 2 requirements and examples - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 time travel: imagine a verse that has numerous structures that are called "universes" in verse, some of them have a planet of the same name, but we are never told that they are branches of each other or something like that, and in this hypothetical verse, someone time travel to the past and only interferes in one of the said "universes" and yet a whole timeline branches off and all of the said "universes" are equally branched even when the said time travel doesn't happen in them, so my doubt would be, what is the standard for this type of stuff? i heard from DDM and Executor_N0 in other threads that there is a specific kind of multiverse that would allow them all to be affected and still all still being separated space times per out standard assumption of universe=space time even with the time travel affecting all of them, so what is the standard for this type of stuff? do we go with the assumption of the different type of multiverse or do we go with the notion that none of these said universes are separated space times but rather different dimensions inside the same space time continuum?
Not entirely separated as they will end up as Low 2C in that case.

Honestly, we usually go by case by case basis for that reason anyway since it is not like they are entirely separate anyway.
 
Iirc that 250x the size of observable universe is assuming a "closed" universe. Which iirc is considered the most unlikely of possibilities in the scientific astronomy community

I think using the "future visibility limit" is much better since it's a universally accepted mathematical thingy. It only increases sized by a modest ~~33%

Though I still believe DT disagreed to it due to a misunderstanding

Thread 'Baseline 3-A tiering system question.' https://vsbattles.com/threads/baseline-3-a-tiering-system-question.145658/

Edit: but what Klol said is correct.
 
Last edited:
Iirc that 250x the size of observable universe is assuming a "closed" universe. Which iirc is considered the most unlikely of possibilities in the scientific astronomy community

I think using the "future visibility limit" is much better since it's a universally accepted mathematical thingy. It only increases sized by a modest ~~33%

Though I still believe DT disagreed to it due to a misunderstanding

Thread 'Baseline 3-A tiering system question.' https://vsbattles.com/threads/baseline-3-a-tiering-system-question.145658/

Edit: but what Klol said is correct.
I agree with my friend
 
basically, the standard notion for a structure that is called "universe" is that it is a space time continuum, correct? on this notion there are some topics about it that confuse me a little:

1 time travel: imagine a verse that has numerous structures that are called "universes" in verse, some of them have a planet of the same name, but we are never told that they are branches of each other or something like that, and in this hypothetical verse, someone time travel to the past and only interferes in one of the said "universes" and yet a whole timeline branches off and all of the said "universes" are equally branched even when the said time travel doesn't happen in them, so my doubt would be, what is the standard for this type of stuff? i heard from DDM and Executor_N0 in other threads that there is a specific kind of multiverse that would allow them all to be affected and still all still being separated space times per out standard assumption of universe=space time even with the time travel affecting all of them, so what is the standard for this type of stuff? do we go with the assumption of the different type of multiverse or do we go with the notion that none of these said universes are separated space times but rather different dimensions inside the same space time continuum?

2 the part about the higher dimension separating space times: imagine that in the verse i proposed above there is a dimension separating the "universes", this said dimension has its own cosmos and 3D beings can move inside of it, i heard earlier in this thread that there needs to be a statement of, if there is a dimension separating the space times, that there would need a statement or proof of it being a higher dimension for it to not be an anti feat for a "universe" to be a space time, so my question in specific is, what serves as a proof for a higher dimension between space times? and what would be anti feats for it?

to note to anyone reading this, this is not an analogy to any verse in particular, this is me being confused about the standards and wanting to sure about them
i would like someone else to cover this, i think that adding a "usual standards" part for it would help people understand it better
 
Though I still believe DT disagreed to it due to a misunderstanding
Not really due to a misunderstanding, but because it's a prediction based on a theory that isn't universally accepted. Ultimately we just don't know how the universe at large works currently, so any theory of that nature should be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe once we know what Dark Matter and Dark Energy are...
And for a baseline the observable universe is better anyway, with how old fictions don't know those theories anyway.

I am done with the blog
Which one is the current version now?
 
Not really due to a misunderstanding, but because it's a prediction based on a theory that isn't universally accepted. Ultimately we just don't know how the universe at large works currently, so any theory of that nature should be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe once we know what Dark Matter and Dark Energy are...
And for a baseline the observable universe is better anyway, with how old fictions don't know those theories anyway.

I dud some searching, and turns out that the current observable universe size that we use appears to use the same math and same variabled into its equation. Including factoring in dark energy and Matter.

Edit also dark energy and Matter are both universally accepted in the scientific community and explained on Nasas website. Infact nasa has hundreds of articles on both.


But... that's all I'll say on it to not clutter yp this thread
 
Last edited:
I dud some searching, and turns out that the current observable universe size that we use appears to use the same math and same variabled into its equation. Including factoring in dark energy and Matter.

Edit also dark energy and Matter are both universally accepted in the scientific community and explained on Nasas website. Infact nasa has hundreds of articles on both.


But... that's all I'll say on it to not clutter yp this thread
Difference is that we can observe the observable universe directly, i.e. we have measurements on it. Meanwhile, for anything outside we have to extrapolate on theory. In so far, no, I don't think it uses the same assumptions.
And Dark Energy and Dark Matter is accepted, in so far as they are stand-ins in cosmological models, I'm not suggesting otherwise. However, we have no idea what they are.
Like, read wikipedia on it:
Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe.
In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy that affects the universe on the largest scales.
We have evidence they exist, but we know so little about them that we aren't even sure what they are. So one can hardly say we have a close to complete understanding of them.

Feel like some of the things we discussed earlier still need to be applied, but it's probably easier if I just present a counter-proposal based on that blog. I will do so soon.
 
Feel like some of the things we discussed earlier still need to be applied, but it's probably easier if I just present a counter-proposal based on that blog. I will do so soon.
Sorry, I thought I applied all that was accepted, I must have missed them. Let me wait for the counter-proposal
 
@DontTalkDT

You mentioned the sandbox twice but have yet to address all of the points. Instead of multiple comments, why not create a single post covering the entire sandbox discussion? This would allow us to complete the thread. I am not in a rush, but I am surprised that there hasn't been a comprehensive counter proposal after two comments on my sandbox.
 
Alrighty, so here
my conter-proposal (draft #1).

Changes:
  1. Moved the whole thing about separation via high D spaces into a section in the universe part of the article. As said, that stuff just doesn't seem specific to spacetime / timelines, but more so about the separation of space / universes. Generalized that a little, just to mention separation by other means exists as well.
  2. Moved the stuff about a common time out of qualifications, since this seems to not really be a qualification and more something about the assumed nature.
  3. Removed the stuff about time manip affecting other spacetimes being a contradiction to them being separate for reasons we already discussed.
  4. Various reformulations that became necessary due to the former stuff.
Additionally, there are two versions. One where I replaced the Guidelines section with a link to the Tiering System FAQ, due to covering the same explanations. And a second version where I didn't do that, because the formulation of the guidelines section is nice.
So that's something where we can choose which to take.

Of course, I'm expecting that some more changes are necessary after feedback. So yeah, what do you think so far?
 
Alrighty, so here
my conter-proposal (draft #1).

Changes:
  1. Moved the whole thing about separation via high D spaces into a section in the universe part of the article. As said, that stuff just doesn't seem specific to spacetime / timelines, but more so about the separation of space / universes. Generalized that a little, just to mention separation by other means exists as well.
  2. Moved the stuff about a common time out of qualifications, since this seems to not really be a qualification and more something about the assumed nature.
  3. Removed the stuff about time manip affecting other spacetimes being a contradiction to them being separate for reasons we already discussed.
  4. Various reformulations that became necessary due to the former stuff.
Additionally, there are two versions. One where I replaced the Guidelines section with a link to the Tiering System FAQ, due to covering the same explanations. And a second version where I didn't do that, because the formulation of the guidelines section is nice.
So that's something where we can choose which to take.

Of course, I'm expecting that some more changes are necessary after feedback. So yeah, what do you think so far?
So uh, what's the difference between the two?
 
Removed the stuff about time manip affecting other spacetimes being a contradiction to them being separate for reasons we already discussed
The time manipulation stuff has already been removed, what you removed was, time travel between universes that we know are not branching and that is still a disqualification.
Other than that, I do not mind, it linking to the FAQ section but it can also be on the page, instead of people going round and round about it, so my preference is the one I prefer
 
Last edited:
His blog is really confusing honestly, I am not sure what you adjusted or anything.
 
Alrighty, so here
my conter-proposal (draft #1).

Changes:
  1. Moved the whole thing about separation via high D spaces into a section in the universe part of the article. As said, that stuff just doesn't seem specific to spacetime / timelines, but more so about the separation of space / universes. Generalized that a little, just to mention separation by other means exists as well.
  2. Moved the stuff about a common time out of qualifications, since this seems to not really be a qualification and more something about the assumed nature.
  3. Removed the stuff about time manip affecting other spacetimes being a contradiction to them being separate for reasons we already discussed.
  4. Various reformulations that became necessary due to the former stuff.
Additionally, there are two versions. One where I replaced the Guidelines section with a link to the Tiering System FAQ, due to covering the same explanations. And a second version where I didn't do that, because the formulation of the guidelines section is nice.
So that's something where we can choose which to take.

Of course, I'm expecting that some more changes are necessary after feedback. So yeah, what do you think so far?
Second version (the one with guidelines) looks more good.
 
The time manipulation stuff has already been removed, what you removed was, time travel between universes that we know are not branching and that is still a disqualification.
No the time travel stuff is still there.
When considering "dimensions" or "universes", one should keep in mind that time travel should not be possible between universes which we factually know are not branching timelines off each other. If this happens it could be used to show that they are actually part of the same universe.
The line I removed was:
Interfering with the time in one timeline should not have an effect on another timeline, as this would indicate a lack of separation
and the stuff regarding meta-time.... since in my understanding that didn't relate to the time travel stuff either, but was about time manip. (and since I'm not quite sure what separates meta-time from sharing the same time axis)
His blog is really confusing honestly, I am not sure what you adjusted or anything.
I mean, I gave a summary of the changes:
Changes:
  1. Moved the whole thing about separation via high D spaces into a section in the universe part of the article. As said, that stuff just doesn't seem specific to spacetime / timelines, but more so about the separation of space / universes. Generalized that a little, just to mention separation by other means exists as well.
  2. Moved the stuff about a common time out of qualifications, since this seems to not really be a qualification and more something about the assumed nature.
  3. Removed the stuff about time manip affecting other spacetimes being a contradiction to them being separate for reasons we already discussed.
  4. Various reformulations that became necessary due to the former stuff.
Additionally, there are two versions. One where I replaced the Guidelines section with a link to the Tiering System FAQ, due to covering the same explanations. And a second version where I didn't do that, because the formulation of the guidelines section is nice.
So that's something where we can choose which to take.
Sadly I can't do a nice before/after edit thing, since I created a new blogpost and stuff.
If you're not sure what some change is referring to, I can try to point it out more clearly, though.
 
I will try to change my sandbox to your fitting and I will send it once again, but ya thanks ^^
 
and the stuff regarding meta-time.... since in my understanding that didn't relate to the time travel stuff either, but was about time manip. (and since I'm not quite sure what separates meta-time from sharing the same time axis)
i have some confusions regarding this point specifically, what even is "meta time" and can we assume that it is there or there needs to be some statement for it?
 
No the time travel stuff is still there.

The line I removed was:

and the stuff regarding meta-time.... since in my understanding that didn't relate to the time travel stuff either, but was about time manip. (and since I'm not quite sure what separates meta-time from sharing the same time axis)

I mean, I gave a summary of the changes:

Sadly I can't do a nice before/after edit thing, since I created a new blogpost and stuff.
If you're not sure what some change is referring to, I can try to point it out more clearly, though.
Then it is okay then
I will try to change my sandbox to your fitting and I will send it once again, but ya thanks ^^
You do not need to, we can use DT's Sandbox as that is currently okay

Now what is left to decide is linking the FAQ or it having what is in the FAQ
 
It lacks styling. So I will edit it. That's it. I won't discuss further since I already agree with what he purposed.
 
Which version of the page that we would accept. Agreeing or disagreeing with what DT says wasn’t my point, it’s just who’s version do we use for the wiki. If everyone in this thread picks DT’s version then it’s kind of pointless in the long run.
 
I... never said anything about my sandbox/version. I will be doing it on his own sandbox, what?
 
As usual, I nearly completely trust DontTalk's sense of judgement, but can somebody please remind me about what he would like to do here exactly before we apply them? I have been preparing extensively for my trip abroad for the last 10 days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top