- 9,917
- 10,704
FAQ:
Problematic part:
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"
Corrected and more explained version:
This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions and is why 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). For example, a higher spacetime continuum with two temporal dimensions (instead of just one) comprises a higher temporal axis that spans regular temporal dimensions that the entirety of 4-dimensional spacetimes or equivalents to it are serviced by (similar to how the time dimension in a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum spans uncountably infinite 3-dimensional snapshots of the universe), qualifies for Low 1-C. Unless fiction shows otherwise, a different multiversal temporal dimension spanning Universes who themselves have their own time dimensions as well (not a same multiversal time dimension that services many Universes and shared by them) or even a single universe with two temporal dimensions active on it, qualifies; the same applies to three or more temporal dimensions.
Check anyone for grammatical mistakes if there thank you. Only meant to have elaboration so that these time dimension arguments don't get misrepresented everytime I see.
Agree: @Planck69, @UchihaSlayer96, @LordGriffin1000, @Dereck03 , @Ovy7 (bro got all the rights to be listed here, cope), @Elizhaa, @Executor_N0 , @Lonkitt, @DontTalkDT, @Firestorm808
Disagree:
Edit: thanks to @ImmortalDread and @IdiosyncraticLawyer for correcting grammatical mistakes.
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.
Problematic part:
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"
Corrected and more explained version:
This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions and is why 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). For example, a higher spacetime continuum with two temporal dimensions (instead of just one) comprises a higher temporal axis that spans regular temporal dimensions that the entirety of 4-dimensional spacetimes or equivalents to it are serviced by (similar to how the time dimension in a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum spans uncountably infinite 3-dimensional snapshots of the universe), qualifies for Low 1-C. Unless fiction shows otherwise, a different multiversal temporal dimension spanning Universes who themselves have their own time dimensions as well (not a same multiversal time dimension that services many Universes and shared by them) or even a single universe with two temporal dimensions active on it, qualifies; the same applies to three or more temporal dimensions.
Check anyone for grammatical mistakes if there thank you. Only meant to have elaboration so that these time dimension arguments don't get misrepresented everytime I see.
Agree: @Planck69, @UchihaSlayer96, @LordGriffin1000, @Dereck03 , @Ovy7 (bro got all the rights to be listed here, cope), @Elizhaa, @Executor_N0 , @Lonkitt, @DontTalkDT, @Firestorm808
Disagree:
Edit: thanks to @ImmortalDread and @IdiosyncraticLawyer for correcting grammatical mistakes.
Last edited: