- 17,069
- 11,432
h
-
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.
Why Space-Time statements arent accepted as Low 2-C?
- Thread starter Bernkastelll
- Start date
- 34,888
- 42,487
A generic space-time isn't enough; there needs to be evidence of the entire space-time continuum. Not just limited space time effecting levels that are less than universal.
- 17,069
- 11,432
- Thread starter
- #3
y? according to google, a space-time already should be enough to low 2-c
Spacetime - Wikipedia
- 9,057
- 1,815
Context is important. There are some statements that say stuff like "manipulating spacetime itself", but the feat shown is more of a localized warping of the structure of spacetime rather than warping it in its entirety.
- 17,069
- 11,432
- Thread starter
- #5
I dont mean it, I mean the place being a Space-Time and a character destroying it
- 9,057
- 1,815
Again, context is important. I feel like you're holding back some example of space-time destruction from this.
- 17,069
- 11,432
- Thread starter
- #7
Why exactly a place being called a Space-Time that should be Low 2-C by default according to google needs a lot of things to backup?
I am not, no
- 9,057
- 1,815
Well, if the fiction refers to the place as "spacetime" then it could qualify. But this is very vague, so again context is needed. It would be less vague if you used the term "spacetime continuum". Not all authors really know what spacetime is and sometimes don't use it correctly.
- 17,069
- 11,432
- Thread starter
- #9
But it doesnt qualify here
Why? According to google, spacetime and spacetime continuum is the same thing
- 9,057
- 1,815
Cite that to me please. Also...But it doesnt qualify here
Why? According to google, spacetime and spacetime continuum is the same thing
- 17,069
- 11,432
- Thread starter
- #12
I sent the link in the answer to medeus comment
