• 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 Revision: I've played too much of the Science Adventure series.

Status
Not open for further replies.
3,346
1,900
received permission from @IdiosyncraticLawyer
Currently, we treat space and time as seperate entities, as shown by the space and time manipulation pages being separated, and how tier 2 works. Here's why this is massively incorrect.

The Theory of Relativity, proposed by Albert Einstein in the early 20th century, drastically altered our understanding of the universe. One of its revolutionary ideas is that space and time are not separate entities but are interconnected and form a four-dimensional structure known as spacetime. Before Einstein, it was widely believed, based on Newtonian physics, that time and space were absolute and separate. However, Einstein suggested that space and time are relative to the observer. This means that two observers moving relative to each other will measure different distances and time intervals for the same event. This effect, known as time dilation and length contraction, demonstrates that space and time are interconnected, forming a unified framework - spacetime. General Relativity, published by Einstein in 1915, extended this concept by showing that spacetime is curved by mass and energy. This means that the presence of a massive object can warp the spacetime around it, causing nearby objects to move along curved paths. This is what we perceive as gravity. An everyday example of this is GPS systems. The time on the satellites in space runs slightly faster than on Earth due to the weaker gravitational field. The systems have to take into account this time difference – a direct result of the interconnectedness of space and time – to provide accurate positioning. This concept is also excellently demonstrated by a black hole, ergo, because of the infinitely potent gravity, an object falling into a black hole appears to slow as it approaches the event horizon, taking an infinite time to reach it.

To see why I say seperating space and time is incorrect, look at this scientific model of a space-time continuum.
thumb_720_450_1859_Space-Time_Continuumdreamstime_xxl_65409828_1.jpg

Each object present in reality creates a small distortion in space time. You, me, the random piece of dog poop on the lawn, the sun, etc, all distort space-time. Shaking these objects would also shake the distortion they cause. Shaking all physical things in a universe would be affecting the totality of its space, and you get the idea here.
So, why is it incorrect to separate space and time? Because according to the Theory of Relativity, they're aspects of the same thing. Separating them would be like trying to separate the width and height of a rectangle – they're different dimensions of the same object. And just like you need both width and height to fully describe a rectangle, you need both space and time to fully describe the universe.
In conclusion, the Theory of Relativity suggests that space and time are interconnected and form a four-dimensional spacetime continuum. Any event in the universe is described not just by three spatial coordinates (length, width, height) but also by one temporal coordinate (time). Thus, it's incorrect to separate them as they are intertwined aspects of the same reality. If you create a mass displacement in space, you also affect time, and vice versa.
 
We only treat them as separate entities in case by case basis due to the way some fiction works, or the way fiction works generally (depend on what you have inverse) but generally we do not. So I do not understand the purpose of this revision, what are you trying to change?
 
Last edited:
I don't get what's suggested. We have always been aware of general relativity and our standards don't contradict it.
Like, this isn't supposed to suggest that 3-A and Low 2-C is the same, is it?
I was told that affecting all of a universes space would not mean affecting the space-time, which would be false.
And assuming that the 3-A and High 3-A universes all follow relativity, they would be pretty much the same as low 2-c, yea
 
@Arc7Kuroi informed me that was not the case. And the definitions of tier 2 seem to not do so.
I was told that affecting all of a universes space would not mean affecting the space-time, which would be false.
And assuming that the 3-A and High 3-A universes all follow relativity, they would be pretty much the same as low 2-c, yea
There is a difference between destroying a universe at the moment and destroying it across time. Not that low 2-C and 3-A says that space and time are separate entities.
The difference is
Destroying all matter that exist in a universe currently =/= destroying all matter that has ever existed or will ever exist in a universe
 
There is a difference between destroying a universe at the moment and destroying it across time. Not that low 2-C and 3-A says that space and time are separate entities.
The difference is
Destroying all matter that exist in a universe currently =/= destroying all matter that has ever existed or will ever exist in a universe
except a lot of low 2-c characters do not follow these standards that would be quoted. And if they did there would be massive contradictions, because of the grandfather paradox, unless they have some form of acasuality.

However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either:

A) Equivalent to a large extra dimensional space. That is, a higher-dimensional "bulk" space which embeds lower-dimensional ones (Such as our universe) as subsets of itself, whose dimensions are not microscopic
 
What I told Neco was that shaking/destroying all the physical matter within a universe is not inherently tier 2 (shaking a universe has a 4-A reference calc and 3-A comes from making a universe sized explosion). Nothing more nothing less. Don't let this goober drag my name through the mud 🗿
I will let the comment up cuz you were mentioned, by reminder this is a staff thread
 
What I told Neco was that shaking/destroying all the physical matter within a universe is not inherently tier 2 (shaking a universe has a 4-A reference calc and 3-A comes from making a universe sized explosion). Nothing more nothing less. Don't let this goober drag my name through the mud 🗿
i did not say you did anything more 😭 You told me that was the standard. But affecting the physical matter = affecting the space-time, FRA
 
except a lot of low 2-c characters do not follow these standards that would be quoted.
That is one of the ways to qualify for low 2-C there are like 4 other ways, if they do not follow the quoted standard, they should follow another way. If they do not follow any, then they should be downgraded.
What you quoted says, if the space is naturally a 4-D space, then destroying it will be low 2-C.
And if they did there would be massive contradictions, because of the grandfather paradox, unless they have some form of acasuality.
You mean destroying space across all time means they destroy themselves too? well welcome to fiction, you will be surprised what some of these authors cook up. Either way we will not dash out acausality to all low 2-C just because they survived the destruction of the universe without an actual feat of acausality.
 
That is one of the ways to qualify for low 2-C there are like 4 other ways, if they do not follow the quoted standard, they should follow another way. If they do not follow any, then they should be downgraded.
What you quoted says, if the space is naturally a 4-D space, then destroying it will be low 2-C.
The universe is given as an example.
You mean destroying space across all time means they destroy themselves too? well welcome to fiction, you will be surprised what some of these authors cook up. Either way we will not dash out acausality to all low 2-C just because they survived the destruction of the universe without an actual feat of acausality.
The standards don't say you have to affect the entire past present and future, they just define what a space-time continuum is. You can destroy a space-time continuum in the present without affecting the past, though the future would logically be destroyed as well. And that is acausality, inorder to be free from the grandfather paradox, you would need acausality, though i fail to see what that has to do with this topic
 
The universe is given as an example.
Please try and see what you quoted
it is not our universe rather a space that embeds lower dimensional ones like our universe. The space referred to here as lower is our universe and not that our universe is the higher dimensional one
The standards don't say you have to affect the entire past present and future, they just define what a space-time continuum is. You can destroy a space-time continuum in the present without affecting the past, though the future would logically be destroyed as well. And that is acausality, inorder to be free from the grandfather paradox, you would need acausality, though i fail to see what that has to do with this topic
Spaces through destroyed due to acausality do not count, literally in our standards, as that is via chain reactions.
Also space time continuum literally means "all the past, present and future" of a universe. So the standard indeed means affecting the entire past, present and future.

This seems like you misunderstood the way we treat low 2-C. Hopefully, I have answered your questions
 
Please try and see what you quoted
it is not our universe rather a space that embeds lower dimensional ones like our universe. The space referred to here as lower is our universe and not that our universe is the higher dimensional one
But the universe is 4-dimensional. That would be Low-1C.
Spaces through destroyed due to acausality do not count, literally in our standards, as that is via chain reactions.
If thats the case then there's a separate paradox, but thats not the topic of this thread.
Also space time continuum literally means "all the past, present and future" of a universe. So the standard indeed means affecting the entire past, present and future.
Not exactly. That would be a timeline. A space-time continuum, no matter when it exists, is still a 4th-dimensional construct. Even a snapshot of the universe is still 4 dimensional. All objects in the universe have this 4th dimension, which is why pretty much anything with mass distorts it. just like i said:
Separating them would be like trying to separate the width and height of a rectangle – they're different dimensions of the same object. And just like you need both width and height to fully describe a rectangle, you need both space and time to fully describe the universe.
This seems like you misunderstood the way we treat low 2-C. Hopefully, I have answered your questions
 
But the universe is 4-dimensional. That would be Low-1C.
Please refer to what you quote. It is referring to the spatial features of the universe hence 3-D.
Embedding a "lower dimensional space"
If thats the case then there's a separate paradox, but thats not the topic of this thread.
Not exactly. That would be a timeline. A space-time continuum, no matter when it exists, is still a 4th-dimensional construct. Even a snapshot of the universe is still 4 dimensional. All objects in the universe have this 4th dimension, which is why pretty much anything with mass distorts it. just like i said:
A space-time continuum is the timeline of a universe.
I have no 4th dimension and I am in this universe, my table has no 4th dimension and it is in this universe. Please stop confusing yourself, time is the unit in which change is measured and it is not a physical dimension in itself that is woven into our skin, but rather the flow of the changes in matter.
Also we distort space time not due any 4th dimension that we posses but due to possessing gravity.
 
I don't get what's suggested. We have always been aware of general relativity and our standards don't contradict it.
Like, this isn't supposed to suggest that 3-A and Low 2-C is the same, is it?
I share the same thoughts.
 
Please refer to what you quote. It is referring to the spatial features of the universe hence 3-D.
Embedding a "lower dimensional space"
The spatial features cannot be separated from time.
A space-time continuum is timeline.
main-qimg-4f514cc3322ebd1f2be790cdad569004.webp


not exactly.
I have no 4th dimension and I am in this universe, my table has no 4th dimension and it is in this universe. Please stop confusing yourself, time is the unit in which change is measured and it is not a physical dimension in itself that is woven into our skin, but rather the flow of the changes in matter.
I'm not saying it's physical. If nothing in the universe has the 4th dimension of time, it would be eternally frozen in the present. the concept of spacetime already implies this, as there is no way to discern what is purely space and what is purely time, objectively speaking.
Also we distort space time not due any 4th dimension that we posses but due to possessing gravity.
Gravity is basically the curvature of spacetime, ergo the distortion I showed in the op's model.
 
This is completely silly since it doesn't change anything beyond maybe moving down the baseline for Universe level. What, I destroy a 92 billion light-year wide space and I'm 3-B, increase the radius by 2% then I'm Low 2-C?

It seems like this is just getting overly pedantic about relativity.
 
We already had a thread with this same premise, and DontTalk/Ultima participated in it for a while, but the CRT was inconclusive.


You’d be better off bumping that old thread.
 
This is completely silly since it doesn't change anything beyond maybe moving down the baseline for Universe level. What, I destroy a 92 billion light-year wide space and I'm 3-B, increase the radius by 2% then I'm Low 2-C?

It seems like this is just getting overly pedantic about relativity.
well for starters, certain pages already treat the space and time aspect of a universe like different things, when that is blatantly wrong.
We already had a thread with this same premise, and DontTalk/Ultima participated in it for a while, but the CRT was inconclusive.


You’d be better off bumping that old thread.
didnt know that thread existed + probably would've got packed up in the rvr for necroing.
 

Q: How do temporal dimensions impact on tiering?​

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.
It is important to note that, for tiering purposes, destruction or creation of a universe is not assumed to automatically equal destruction or creation a space-time continuum.
. By default, it is assumed that universes have separate three-dimensional spaces,
Here is a few examples of what i'm trying to change.
 
Last edited:
Since OP isn’t receiving very many counter arguments, I’ll just copy-paste part of this conversation.
So a while ago I made this CRT and was ultimately told to save something this eventful for the summer. As time passed I had a changed premise... a lot.

Spacetime vs space and time​

The basic structure of a universe is matter, space, and time. It's not just matter + time like some think. That would imply that time is > space, but that's not the truth at all. Time may be referred to as its own dimension, but it’s not the 4th dimension. Space time is the 4th dimension, and space is just as important as time is when it comes to the dimensional fabric of the universe. With that out of the way let's move on.

My issues​

Past, present, and future​

It should not be necessary to destroy all of the past present and future (PPF) of a single timeline to be low 2-C. Doing so should make you low 2-C, but it shouldn't be the standard requirements for it. Any duration of time, no matter how small, has a PPF. This means destroying universal spacetime, regardless it’s it’s the whole timeline or not, would still be equivalent to destroying uncountable infinite snapshots of spatial universes.

3-A and Low 2-C​

As stated above, space and time are connected. Reasons being, one can’t exist without the other. Time is the measurement of spatial movement. Without space or movement, time can’t exist because there’s nothing to measure. And space without time would make a universe completely motionless. This is why destruction of space also destroys time.

This is why I dislike how 3-A is handled. It forces us to prove destroying an entire universe would include spacetime. We shouldn’t have to prove anything if the destruction involves the entire universe. What 3-A should be is matter destruction, AKA planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It’s really simple.

To put this in perspective, it’s like saying planetary destruction is high 6-A because you need proof of destroying the whole thing, or solar system destruction is 5-A because you need proof of destroying the sun. Sounds ridiculous right? Well that’s how we currently treat universal.

EDIT: To cause less confusion I want to add this in. If a verse establishes that their universe is low 2-C then statements like “I’m going to destroy the entire universe!” would be low 2-C. However, if a verse treats their universe as the matter then a statement like that would warrant 3-A.

Different dimensions​

Anything that’s a separate space should automatically have its own time, as long as there’s movement at least. However if different bodies of observable universes described as dimensions share space and time, then those are 3-A. If anything there only needs to be evidence of them being in a singular space because sharing time flow doesn’t mean anything when it comes the overall size.

Premise/TLDR​

  • Space and time are connected.
  • Universal matter destruction 3-A.
  • If a verse treats a universe as low 2-C then universal destruction would automatically be low 2-C unless proven otherwise.
  • If a verse treats a universe as 3-A then universal destruction would automatically be 3-A unless proven otherwise.
  • Separate universal spaces are 2-C unless proven otherwise.

And please, let’s not act like wild animals and be professional shall we.
DontTalk’s response:
As you know I disagree.

Time not being measurable by experiment without space, doesn't imply time ceases to exist. That's like saying "North" stops to exist if the earth loses its magnetic field. It is still there you just can't measure it.
Time is a separate dimension. It's part of the nature of dimensions to be able to exist without each other (mathematically that's called being linearly independent). For example, if North and East are dimensions then Northeast isn't a separate dimension from them, as it can't exist without both of the prior concepts. It isn't independent and hence also not a separate dimension. Time is a separate dimension from space, though.
In principle, you can have a 0-dimensional particle that changes its properties with time for instance. There is nothing forbidding that. That would mean measurable time without space.
Time is widely agreed to be a dimension and unquestionably accurately described as such.

The second section just sounds like you are trying to heat up the dragonball argument again. I feel like I have sufficiently explained in that thread why that assumption is nonsense.
No matter where your space is, it can all use the same dimension to describe time and still not intersect in any way. That's because time is its own "direction". Just like left/right doesn't become a new direction just because you went somewhere, future/past don't become new directions either.
Yeah, I think it’s better if you ask for permission to revive the thread I linked above.
 
DontTalk’s response:
The analogy of North is somewhat misleading. North is a direction, not a dimension. It's a relational concept that depends on the existence of other directions (East, West, South) and a reference point. In the absence of Earth's magnetic field, North would become undefined because it's defined by the magnetic field. Similarly, time is often defined by the sequences of events occurring in space. Without space, the sequences of events become undefined, thus making time undefined as well. DT's argument asserts that time is a separate dimension and can exist independently. However, dimensions in mathematics don't always translate directly into physical reality. Space-time in general relativity, for instance, suggests that time and space are interwoven and cannot exist independently. A 0-dimensional particle changing its properties over time is purely theoretical and lacks empirical evidence. Even if such a particle could exist, the change in its properties would still need to be observed, which would inherently involve a spatial dimension. Time is widely agreed to be a dimension, but this consensus doesn't necessarily imply that it can exist independently of space. The concept of time as we understand it is intrinsically linked to the spatial dimensions with which we interact. However, directions require a frame of reference, which in the case of time, is provided by spatial dimensions. Without a spatial frame of reference, the concept of a "direction" in time becomes meaningless.
 
I was told that affecting all of a universes space would not mean affecting the space-time, which would be false.
And assuming that the 3-A and High 3-A universes all follow relativity, they would be pretty much the same as low 2-c, yea
Affecting all of a universe's space affects time in so far that it affects gravity which is curvature in spacetime, but not much else.

Low 2-C is not 3-A. Another thing general relativity states is that no effect can travel backwards in time, so categorically nothing following relativity will ever erase the past, already failing in timeline erasure.
The future is kinda erased by erasing the present universe, but that's just via causality i.e. a chain reaction. Like, if there is nothing but a vacuum in the present nothing else will exist in the future either, but that's not because your attack affected all of the future at once, but because time just proceeded from the present state your attack caused.

Time and space in relativity are in any case not related in a fashion where destroying one would destroy the other.
 
Affecting all of a universe's space affects time in so far that it affects gravity which is curvature in spacetime, but not much else.

Low 2-C is not 3-A. Another thing general relativity states is that no effect can travel backwards in time, so categorically nothing following relativity will ever erase the past, already failing in timeline erasure.
The future is kinda erased by erasing the present universe, but that's just via causality i.e. a chain reaction. Like, if there is nothing but a vacuum in the present nothing else will exist in the future either, but that's not because your attack affected all of the future at once, but because time just proceeded from the present state your attack caused.

Time and space in relativity are in any case not related in a fashion where destroying one would destroy the other.
Your claim that affecting all of a universe's space would impact time through its effect on gravity is accurate, but it oversimplifies the relationship between space, time, and gravity. The effect of mass-energy on spacetime is not just local - it's global. Changes in the distribution of mass-energy affect the overall geometry of spacetime, thereby influencing the paths of objects and the rate at which time progresses, ergo, affecting it pretty significantly.

Also, it's important to note that without matter or energy, measuring time would be impossible because there would be no events to mark its passage. We measure time based on changes or events, such as the rotation of the Earth or the ticking of a clock. Time would not have any meaning or even exist without matter or energy, because there would be no observers or events to experience time. Time is measuring the change from one point to another. Without an observer to experience that change, time pretty much does not exist.
 
Your claim that affecting all of a universe's space would impact time through its effect on gravity is accurate, but it oversimplifies the relationship between space, time, and gravity. The effect of mass-energy on spacetime is not just local - it's global. Changes in the distribution of mass-energy affect the overall geometry of spacetime, thereby influencing the paths of objects and the rate at which time progresses, ergo, affecting it pretty significantly.

Also, it's important to note that without matter or energy, measuring time would be impossible because there would be no events to mark its passage. We measure time based on changes or events, such as the rotation of the Earth or the ticking of a clock. Time would not have any meaning or even exist without matter or energy, because there would be no observers or events to experience time. Time is measuring the change from one point to another. Without an observer to experience that change, time pretty much does not exist.
@DontTalkDT
 
I don't understand. Marshadow posted that this morning. Why are we bumping, quoting it, and tagging DT the same day?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top