DBS Low 1-C upgrade pt2

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I also disagree FRA.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

do yall plan on continuing this thread?

I got permission to post here from Firestorm, and I was originally planning on waiting for the other Dragon Ball supporters to be available, but I'll see if I can finish my response by the end of the day or within a couple days instead.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

All right. I'm probably not as savvy on tier 1 stuff as everyone else here, but let's see how much I can add to this conversation.

Part 1 of my response.

"if affecting time such as turning back time in one universe affects the other, then they are not spatio-temporally separate to begin with and would not qualify for higher levels of tier 2."
"Also the fact that time shenanigans in one universes affects the whole timeline means it is a single flow of time and not multiple like the OP claims."
"There is no higher time flow, the universes just have anti-feats that they are not spatio-temporally separate."
"makes more sense if it is lower since this universes are not spatio-temporally separate."

Didn't we have a whole conversation over this in the last thread?

"What's the evidence that the macrocosms are spatio-temporally separate?" Maybe the fact that this very site has accepted them as tiering at low 2-C to 2-C for a while now???

Universes exist in parallel if they exist independently and "acausal" relative to one another. Each universe is essentially a bubble in a vast cosmic bubble bath with each bubble representaing a self-contained reality with its own unique set of physical laws, constants, and initial conditions. Despite coexisting in the larger "bath" of the multiverse, they remain wholly isolated, fated to never interact. Objects in space-time can be defined by their position in 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time. Parallel/non-intersecting timelines share no positions in space-time. This note is also made on the universe guidelines page.

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:

If there is shown to be a collection of multiple alternate worlds/dimensions that are either stated to be parallel and/or there are visual depictions resembling each of those worlds/dimensions to be metaphorically similar to each other (Such as bubbles or other structures that appear similar in size), and most importantly, at least one of those individual worlds/dimensions has shown enough evidence to consider them a Universe level+ sized spacetime continuum, then the conclusion is to consider all of those individual worlds/dimensions universes and that the entire collection is a multiverse.

The depiction of the 12 universes in Dragon Ball Super has more than met these standards. Essentially, such a collection of universes are assumed to exist in parallel by site standards unless contradicted.

The main contradiction brought up by the opposition is how the multiverse seems to share a sense of temporal causality. In other words, all 12 universal space-times are explicitly impacted by time travel. But this particular line of reasoning has been addressed for a few to several years now by a note on the Dragon Ball profiles.

Note: We consider the universes in Dragon Ball alternate timespaces relative each other, hence why Zen'ō is rated as 2-C, despite the events in the Goku Black Saga showing parallel timelines encompassing the whole of the multiverse. The reason for this is that Universe 7 by itself has already been shown to contain parallel space-time continuums within its globe, such as the Room of Spirit and Time, which is still affected by time travel; which proves that the new timelines can encompass other space-times as well, and thus the events in the Future Trunks Saga don't prove anything in the way of the universes being physically connected.

In short, you can argue all you want about theory and what would prevent the universes from existing in parallel, but by the end of the day, what matters most is the franchise's depiction of cosmology. The 12 universes sharing a timeline and sense of temporal causality could prove they share a time axis if and only if the series has never demonstrated a capacity for space-times to encompass parallel space-times in and of itself. Wasn't there a months-long revision over this shit, the project that resulted in 2-C macrocosms?

So in this thread, the Room of Spirit and Time has been accepted as being a seperate structure outside of the universe. Now, this is a problem because we currently default the universes (which are affected by time travel) to separate space-times because the ROSAT is considered part of them in the first place.

Without proof that the individual universes can contain seperate Space-Times, the universes/macrocosms are reduced to 3-A, and the entire timeline potentially becomes Low 2-C.

This thread is to discuss if there is any further evidence that can be provided to prove that each universe is can be treated as Low 2-C and if not, whether a change in tiering is required following the last thread. As it stands, the cosmology is possibly in limbo because the current note uses the ROSAT as evidence for universes encompassing other space-times. So even if the universes/timeline remains the same tier, new justifications could still be needed.

Now that you mention it, the first time the hypertimeline argument was introduced to this site, ProfessorKukui made a good point in the initial 2-part series of threads.

The basis of this upgrade for DB is because of our tier 1 standards acknowledging a timeline that contains lesser timelines, or a "hyper timeline" as the term for it, to be Low 1-C. That means, as long as the universes within the higher timeline are considered separate space-time continuums, the higher timeline is going to result in a Low 1-C upgrade in relation to our standards. So a choice would need to be made here in relation to that. Either the universes in the cosmology are not separate space-time continuums and it results in no upgrade (a downgrade if anything), or they are separate space-time continuum's, and the given timeline containing lesser Low 2-C timelines results in Low 1-C. No in-betweens. It's either one or the other.

When you have a situation like in Dragon Ball where multiple universal space-times have their temporality ultimately dwarfed by a single [higher] time axis, this should result in the drastic consequences of 3-A universes or low 1-C timelines. It's obviously not the former, seeing how well the "3-A macrocosm debunks" have gone in the past.

Exhibit 1: https://vsbattles.com/threads/dragon-ball-3-a-macrocosm.153930/
Exhibit 2: https://vsbattles.com/threads/dragon-ball-super-tier-2-debunk.61448/
Exhibit 3: https://vsbattles.com/threads/why-no-one-in-dragon-ball-is-2-c.126556/

In fact, how long has the opposition's line of reasoning persisted? Seeing how old this particular post is, it can't be anything less than a good several years! How would the English language describe this?
Beating a dead horse?
Walking in circles?
Milking a cow endlessly?
So much figurative language to describe several years worth of ad nauseam! I swear, give it decades, centuries, or even millenia, and you'll still hear the faint human cries of "low 2-C macrocosm is contradicted by them sharing a time axis" being parroted!

In summary, this is derailing. The Dragon Ball supporters here have no obligation whatsoever to prove that the 12 universes have their own time axes since this notion has been accepted as site standard for a while now. Wasn't the point in moving this to a staff discussion to remove redundancy? Since when is it logically sincere to debate site standards in a completely different revision? There's nothing wrong with personally thinking the macrocosm is 3-A, but the purpose of this revision is to discuss whether or not Dragon Ball Super qualifies for low 1-C based on the current standards for the franchise. If you disagree with the current standards entirely, create a 3-A macrocosm downgrade instead. I hear there are contradictions against low 2-C universes? I wonder what service another downgrade proposal like that would do? Will we be served a glass of "angels and super dragon balls can physically travel between universes," with a side of "universes communicate in real-time," perhaps? Either way, this isn't the time or place for such digression.

"First, different temporal dimensions happens when time flows in different directions. For example time flowing backward. So unless time flows backward in the neutral zone, then it is the same time axis,"
"Time has to flow in a different direction for it to be a different time axis, which is what you claim is that I quoted."
"and if that is your scan to prove different time axis"
"single time axis which is time moving forward,"
"I should add since you keep saying "how can two overarching timelines be 2-C" which has no real meaning but I will assume you mean a place with 3 different time axis, the one that governs the universe, the one that governs the neutral zone which in turns also covers the universe (everything essentially) and the one that you claim again governs everything. Well although two different time axis that governs everything is not possible but let us say it is. Yes that would be low 1-C, no one is disputing that, what we are disputing is the jump in logic to say everything has different time axis from a single scan that says the neutral zone is another dimension."

I can't tell what argument is being made here. It's either 1: "A higher time dimension entails a different time direction" or 2: "Prove the neutral zone has its own time axis." I will address point 2 later, but for now I'll focus on point 1.
It's pretty neat that the opposition has created their own idea of how higher time directions should work, but something bugs me. I just can't put my finger on it...

Oh yeah, that's what it is. The tiering system defines a higher time dimension as an "additional time direction," rather than a "different time direction." Not different, but additional. Once again, derailing and blatantly ignoring the tiering standards in favor of personal takes. A higher time dimension simply introduces an additional direction through which time can propagate.

The more I think about it, the less sense it makes. What does "time flowing backwards" even mean??? Since when is a postulate for higher time axes or even parallel ones the backwards/sideways/upside-down flow of time? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a signature feature of time dimensions how, unlike spatial dimensions, they're expected to allow changes to propagate in a single direction as opposed to free movement in all directions? Where are we going with this?

"As I stated in previous thread, there is no additional temporal axis that contains uncountable infinite amount 2-C structures but rather just one temporal axis that orders/services the events/continuum of uncountable infinite snapshots of all Universes, they all are 2-C structures (contains uncountable infinite snapshots as each) and do not intersect due to being displaced in insignificant 5-D/multiversal structure. It was long explained by DT and Ben 10 follows the same structure with exactly same explanation. It's not Low 1-C, that's just any basic multiversal structure we have."

Reiner seems to have brought two things forward.

1. A thread where it was concluded that something being called a different space shouldn't be assumed to have its own time axis and be considered a space-time.
2. A thread explaining how a timeline containing lesser timelines isn't inherently low 1-C.

I'll address the first one later as there's far more context to it than "it was called a different space."
As for the second one... I'll have to make an entirely new comment responding to it.
You know what? This discussion has gone in all sorts of directions, so I might as well organize the subject at hand better.

Premise 1: The 12 universes are self-contained space-times with their own time axes.
This is proven by the fact that the macrocosms have been rated anywhere from low 2-C to 2-C. Site standards say this is a given. Saying the time axes aren't separate or it's contradicted is derailing and bad faith.

Premise 2: The neutral zone is an insignificant 5-dimensional space.
The neutral zone spatially displaces the universes from one another. 1-dimensional lines can't be modeled as parallel without 2-dimensional space, 2-dimensional planes can't be modeled as parallel without 3-dimensional space, thus 4-dimensional space-times can't exist in parallel without 5 dimensional space. It's stated twice on the tiering system pages that the distance between space-times is embedded in a higher dimensional axis.

Tiering System

Because the distance between any given number of universes embedded in higher-dimensional / higher-order spaces is currently unknowable, it is impossible to quantify the numerical gap between each one of the subtiers in Tier 2. As such, it is not allowed to upgrade such a character based solely on multipliers. For example, someone twice as strong as a Low 2-C character would still be Low 2-C, and someone infinitely more powerful than a 2-C would not be 2-A.

Speed

Speed isn't defined by any number of spatial dimensions but simply distance over time. Meaning that it is possible for 1-dimensional characters to be faster than those who cover many dimensions. And the distance between two timelines is defined as the 5th dimension (Or a 4th spatial dimension) that separates two or more universes. Said distance is often unknown as it could be anywhere between much smaller than the Universal radius and infinite. But such details are only known to those who can travel through additional spatial dimensions. For that reason, crossing Universes is unquantifiable for speed unless details are specifically stated.

Looking over the first revision page, most people agreed that the neutral zone was 5-D (though many reiterated that it was insignificantly 5-D). Ultima shared the sentiment himself the last thread, also questioning if the neutral zone had anything to confirm its significance. This premise should be uncontroversial.

Premise 3: On top of being an insignificant 5-dimensional space, the neutral zone is a space-time continuum.

I wanted to begin by clarifying our takeaways from Executor's translation as shown in the OP. First off, the 3 realms in the scan are described as "different spaces/extraspatial." This likely isn't enough to have it considered a space-time, since as Reiner pointed out, there was a thread which proposed that anything described as a "different space" should be assumed to be a space-time, but DontTalkDT rejected accepting that onto site standards. However, TiltedFN made a good point in bringing up the scan regarding Hit's pocket dimensions to show how "different space" has been proven to refer to parallel temporal spaces in Dragon Ball.

Regardless, our takeaway from Executor's translation was that it's acceptable to say that "extraspatial" as mentioned in the scan can be considered synonymous with "extradimensional" (not in the higher dimensional sense, just in the most basic sense of the term denoting another dimension outside physical reality). It's also directly called a neutral "dimension," so we know it's an alternate dimension even without Executor's explanation (if I hadn't made myself clear, dimension=universe as I'm using the term in this section).

Since we know the neutral zone and the rest of the extraspatial realms are described as alternate dimensions, though I know being called a dimension might not prove a space-time, I want you to consider this. Of the 3 dimensions in the scan, the few we know about (the neutral dimension and Zeno's palatial realm) are spaces surrounding the 12 universes and allowing them to be parallel, which means they exist on the 5th dimensional plane. Since we know that the extraspatial realms occupy the 5th dimensional plane, by inductive reasoning, we can generalize that to conclude that the world of void also exists on this 5th dimensional plane.

Going back to the old days before several major speed tiering revisions, this note was included on the pages:

One of the highest possible ways to receive a speed rating is to outright ignore the restraints imposed by time, often by moving in a place where time has ceased to exist. Due to the controversial nature of such a feat, it must be analyzed carefully before being accepted. Most series do not acknowledge such a feat as something that would take an infinite amount of speed to accomplish, and it's constantly portrayed as an one-off action occurring for the sake of plot.
In order for any given series to be upgraded based on these feats, their universe should meet, at minimum, a few of these criteria:
-The realm should be consistently and reliably described as timeless by knowledgeable characters who can be confirmed not to be lying or bluffing.
-The realm should display characteristics a realm without time would be expected to have, such as the lack of a visible passage of time, unless this is Cinematic Time.
-Although not necessary per se, and not entirely accurate either, the characters who traverse it being described as "beyond the space-time" or "beyond time" would be supporting evidence.
A simple way to look at it is to divide each one of the timeless realms in fiction in "Types":
Type 1: "Timeless" Voids: Voids that supposedly lack time but are completely contradicted to be such. Examples: The Void in League of Legends and the World of Void in Dragon Ball Super.
Type 2: Insubstantial Voids: Voids that have some properties of being timeless, but not enough to warrant Infinite speed, at least not most of the time. Examples: The Demon Realm in Dragon Ball Heroes and the Distortion World from Pokémon.
Type 3: "True" Voids: Voids that are stated to be timeless and are expressively shown to be such. They have many properties that would come with timelessness that this undeniable they would qualify for Infinite speed. Examples: The Void Beyond in Final Fantasy XIII-2 and the Dark Area in Digimon.

I can't find anything on the current standards regarding the world of void, but based on this, it seems like site standards have always recognized the world of void as an alternate space with its own time. This is proven by how the tournament of power has demonstrated an explicit passage of time (as seen by the time limit) as well the displays of time stop and time dilation. This should prove that the separate realms on the 5th dimensional plane described as "different spaces" were intended to be noted as space-times.

Premise 4: The overarching timeline is a higher time dimension.

First off, I should elaborate on the overarching timeline. It's already accepted by site standards that parallel timelines encompass the whole 12 macrocosms.

Note: We consider the universes in Dragon Ball alternate timespaces relative each other, hence why Zen'ō is rated as 2-C, despite the events in the Goku Black Saga showing parallel timelines encompassing the whole of the multiverse. The reason for this is that Universe 7 by itself has already been shown to contain parallel space-time continuums within its globe, such as the Room of Spirit and Time, which is still affected by time travel; which proves that the new timelines can encompass other space-times as well, and thus the events in the Future Trunks Saga don't prove anything in the way of the universes being physically connected.

It's evident that temporal branching affects the rest of the macrocosms since Future Trunks' timeline had its own version of the 12 gods of destruction and 12 supreme kais, as well as Zeno. It's stated verbatim that the parallel timelines encompass all the universes.

As for the extraspatial realms, the parallel timelines obviously have their own neutral zones given how it's the space between the 12 universes, of which every timeline has a set. Zeno's palatial world is under the timeline too since each timeline has its own version of Zeno. The world of void is also under the timeline, as you can visit the tournament of power which took place there on parallel timeline missions in Heroes/Xenoverse.
All that considered, this is how the tiering system defines a higher time dimension:

Question: How do temporal dimensions impact on tiering?

Answer: 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.

Let's visualize a timeline this way.

Imagine space-time as a series of movie frames aligned under an extensive line. We could think of these frames as "snapshots:" static representations of the cosmos at a given time. Meanwhile, this line we call time extends infinitely to encompass the past, present, and future. Time is expected to be a continuum: a continuous parameter. This means it isn't measured in discrete values. So not only does a timeline encompass infinite seconds, days, and years, but it contains every infinitesimal value in between. This is why the FAQ noted that a standard timeline is the equivalent of uncountably infinite snapshots of 3-dimensional volume. Time can be infinitely subdivided into infinitesimally small moments, each corresponding to a unique snapshot of the universe, culminating in a scope that can't be represented by an infinite set of real numbers. It's why destroying the fabric of space-time is a feat infinitely greater than destroying matter on a universal scale. A timeline contains snapshots for the past, present, and future, and destroying one is like destroying a universe uncountably infinitely many times over.

The snapshots for a standard temporal dimension represent 3-dimensional volume. However, the snapshots for the overarching timelines in Dragon Ball Super represent 4-dimensional hypervolume. These parallel timelines should be the equivalent of uncountably infinite snapshots of 4-D space, rendering them higher infinities under the temporal dimension standards.

Conclusion: This is our proposal.

To be more accurate, this was only our initial proposal. Someone else pointed this out in the Dragon Ball Super general discussion thread, but it's pretty brash to propose 6-D DBS out of absolutely nowhere. I can see why some people would be skeptical of certain postulates. For instance, I found myself questioning if the supposed time axis of the 5th dimensional plane (as described in premise 3) could be attributed simply to the overarching timeline rather than a time dimension transcending the universes but superceded by the higher timeline. Therefore, I figured we're better off organizing the thread into 3 options to vote for.

1. The 5th dimensional plane is insignificant 5-D, made low 1-C (5-D) by its time axis, and the overarching timeline is (low 1-C) 6-D.
2. The overarching timeline is low 1-C (5-D), the neutral zone remains insignificant 5-D.
3. Disagreeing with the thread.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

Part 2 of my response.
As Reiner brought up, there seems to be a latent argument against the whole "timelines within timelines" thing in Dragon Ball necessarily denoting a higher, low 1-C time dimension. Since my knowledge of coordinates/alephs/cardinality is barebones, I had to learn this stuff on the spot to interpret the conversation, so ladies and gentlemen: this is where the real hot takes begin. Let's all just hope I don't mess up any of the science. Now let me retrieve the old discussion:

DontTalkDT

AKM sama: Would you say a multiverse that is a timeline consisting of 12 Low 2-C universes is sufficient evidence for it to be Low 1-C? Me: No. Allow me to explain. We have three dimensions of space, which we could (in a simplified version) model as RxRxR, that is the cartesian product of three infinite real number lines. Time we could model as a single infinite real numbers line R. A timeline is then (RxRxR)xR i.e. space x time. Now, for multiple timelines, we need to operate in a 5-dimensional space. In the 5th dimension, they would all lay beside each other. Let's say we have 12 timelines, with their positions in the 5th dimensions being 1,2,3,4,..., 12. {1,2,3,4,...,12} is the set of those positions. The multiverse consisting of 12 timelines would then be described by {1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR)xR. In other words the cartesian product of the locations of each timeline, with one timeline.

Let's compare this to a timeline consisting of 12 universes. One universe is again RxRxR. Those universes are in a multiverse. We again model their positions as {1,2,3,4,...,12}, just that this time those positions wouldn't be across the 5th dimensional axis, but the 4th one. (Which is really just arbitrary numbering) So the multiverse is {1,2,3,4,..,12}x(RxRxR), in other words, a universe for each of the 12 positions. Now let's make a timeline out of that. How do we do that? We again multiply (take the cartesian product) with the time axis. The same way we previously went from universe to timeline. The time axis is again modelled as R. What we get is Rx{1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR). That is in mathematical terms a timeline consisting of 12 universes. Let's make sure we got that right: We wanted Low 2-C universes, i.e. entire spacetimes. Are those entire spacetimes? Yes! Because the time dimension we added is equally applied to all universes. We, for example, have a point that is 5 seconds in the future of universe 3 at the coordinates (0,1,15). That point is in the construction above {5}x{3}x(0,1,15). So those construction meets all demands. A timeline consisting of multiple universal spacetimes.

Let's compare those two constructs now. Multiverse from 12 timelines was: {1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR)xR Timeline of 12 Universes was: Rx{1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR)

Notice how those look almost the same? That's because they are! They are in fact only a rotation away from each other. The way the are rotated has no particular meaning, though. It's only result of how we happened to construct it. It's a difference equivalent to having north up on the map or having east up on the map. If we rotate the constructs so that their time and space dimensions each fit to each other and do the same with their position in the multiverse we get that they are exactly the same. I.e. just write the universes number first, then write space and lastly write which time it is and you get exactly the same constructs.

Sooo... yeah, the two constructs are in fact exactly the same thing. So the object in question is just a regular 2-C Multiverse.

From what I understand...
{R}=[Uncountably] Infinite or otherwise tierable number set occupying a single axis/coordinate.
{1,2,..., finite value}=Finite (countable) or otherwise untierable number set occupying a higher axis/coordinate.

Let me interpret DDT's argument and model a multiverse with 12 space-times. The 3 dimensions of space are RxRxR, and a timeline would be (RxRxR)xR, or space*time. A multiverse consisting of 12 space-times would then be modeled as {1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR)xR where the finite set is meant to denote 12 positions of space-times across a 5th axis. For the space-times to remain parallel to one another, their position is presumed to be fixed across a 5-D space. Of course, not everyone who is multiversal in AP is rated low 1-C since their AP/DC fails to affect this space to a significant degree.

Now, let's model a timeline consisting of 12 universes. As usual, we'd start out with three dimensions of space (RxRxR), but it gets more complicated from there. As you'd probably assume, in order to maintain low 2-C or 2-C universes, you'd have to model the timeline like this: Rx{1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR)xR where {1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR)xR represents the 12 universes displaced across a 5th axis, and the new R value represents the new time axis. This should naturally be low 1-C, right? As DDT explained, not exactly. Instead, DDT creates a model where a single time dimension can service multiple lesser timelines like this: Rx{1,2,3,4,...12}x(RxRxR). What does this mean exactly? Let me explain.


The reason why the 12 space-times wouldn't need to be displaced across a 5th dimension in this model is because they wouldn't be treated as parallel: they'd be separate timelines occupying different positions along the time axis. Instead, time would be treated as an independent parameter that applies equally to all the lesser timelines. So in DDT's model: Rx{1,2,3,4,...12}x(RxRxR), the finite set would represent 12 positions across a single timeline, while the independent R value (let's call it T instead) would give us products of T1,T2,T3,T4,...,T12. In this way, the 12 universes would occupy 12 positions in time, yet time would still apply equally to all the universes, which means the universes would still be low 2-C or 2-C. Therefore, a multiverse of 12 timelines could be considered the same as a timeline of 12 universes, both of which would be tiered as 2-C.

Ultima_Reality

For the record, I agree with DontTalk's explanation from up above. Even in the past thread addressing this, and in multiple conversations about this subject, I made a very explicit distinction between an overarching flow of time which holds 4-dimensional spacetimes as infinitesimal cross-sections of itself and a spacetime which just has a larger hypervolume.

For contrast, DontTalk's construction ultimately involved the positions of each universe in 5-dimensional space being represented by a discrete set with a countable number of elements, namely {1, 2, 3, 4, 5... 12}, which, when taken as an element of the cartesian product representing an n-dimensional object, would have a size of size of 0 in the fifth dimension, since, as explained in here, constructing higher-dimensional objects requires cartesian products between continuous sets, which have uncountably-many elements instead. Hence why it could also be rotated into an identical construction where those universes were laid out on the fourth axis instead.

What I explained to qualify for Low 1-C beforehand would be something more along the lines of, for example, [0,1]x(RxRxRxR), which is a 4-dimensional spacetime being multiplied by a set with uncountably infinitely-many elements (Think of that as associating a copy of the timeline to each number that exists between 0 and 1), which, in practical terms, would just be said spacetime being dislocated 1 unit of time (Which is arbitrary: It can be an hour, or a second, or whatever) through another temporal axis.

Ultima expands on DDT's explanation a bit. The cartesian product is an operation that combines elements from different sets to create a new set representing a higher dimensional object. For example, if we have two sets A = {a, b} and B = {1, 2}, the cartesian product of A and B would be all possible pairs we can make from the elements in each set: {(a, 1), (a, 2), (b, 1), (b, 2)}. Of course, we don't have to write out every last product when we have the variable R, which represents uncountably intinitely many elements.

To validate the significane of our 5th dimension, we'd need to use continuous sets with uncountably infinitely many elements. Such sets would fill the whole 5th dimension with no gaps or missing points. The set {1,2,3,4,...,12} has only a countable number of elements, and fails to fill the continuous 5th dimension entirely. Using this countable number of elements would result in a discrete placement of universes (meaning they're located only at specific points). For the construction Rx{1,2,3,4,...12}x(RxRxR), the value in the 5th dimension wouldn't fit the requirements for low 1-C since this cartesian product with a countable set has zero value in the 5th dimension.

Let's visualize it for a second. In DDT's model where the timeline fails to meet the standards for low 1-C, the [12] lesser timelines would not flow continously along the 5th axis. Instead, they would be equivalent to a set of discrete positions. Each number in the countable set would correspond to a universal space-time, but without temporal progression, this set would amount to nothing more than a static arrangement of 12 universes across the 5th dimension. The lesser timelines aren't being dragged along an additional time direction, so this construct fails to meet the criteria for low 1-C.

Now let's visualize Ultima's model of a timeline that fits the requirements for low 1-C. What we're looking for is a construction where the timeline is actively dislocated along another temporal axis. The model [0,1]x(RxRxRxR) illustrates space-time (RxRxRxR) being multiplied by uncountably infinitely many elements [0,1]. The set [0,1] includes all real numbers between 0 and 1, which is a continuous set with an uncountably infinite number of elements. Essentially, this construction associates a copy of the 4-dimensional spacetime to each real number between 0 and 1. The "dislocation" here is like moving the entire multiverse 1 unit of time along the higher time direction. This construct meets the criteria for low 1-C as the hypertimeline is the equivalent of uncountably infinite snapshots of 4-dimensional space-time. Let me see if I can make a rough sketch of this.

Giygas3 (Response to DDT)

I'm going to assume you're meaning timeline = Space-Time continuum in this comment. In this example, your cartesian product for {1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR)xR. is only talking about the content within this 5-D plane where the Universes are setting across. Which would be essentially null if you destroyed just this part for talking about a 5-D dimension. What's being talked about is the (RxRxRxR)xR of the entire 'timeline' in its entirety, not its contents. This is because it's working with 3 spatial dimensions, with 2 temporal dimensions. (The second temporal dimension is the reason why it houses multiple discrete Space-Times, and why they all seem to duplicate whenever you time-travel) This in its entirety would be destroyed in the example, so it should be Low 1-C.

Yes, this would just be rotating the original axis around. But this is entirely separate of a question. In this example, reality in its entirety is just described by Rx{1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR) because it's not working under a secondary spatial dimension; R, where the first one was. So, you're describing two entirely different things when we say it completely destroyed these two 'worlds' in its entirety.

From this guy's interpretation, given DDT's model where a timeline holds 12 space-times without being low 1-C, he argues that with the timeline being the 5th axis rather than an interdimensional space, although its contents (the 12 universes) would be a countable set, the timeline as a whole would represent all extensions of the 5th axis. With an interdimensional space, you'd need statements of qualitative superiority or proof of infinite size along with evidence of characters scaling to such a space. But since the standards entail that not only is time infinite by default, but characters who destroy space-time are presumed to destroy past/present/future until proven otherwise, any character who scales to the higher timeline would be low 1-C as they're destroying the substance of the 5th dimension rather than just its contents.

Yes, DDT proposed a model of a timeline containing 12 universes that is only a rotation away from another construct that also fails to qualify for low 1-C. However this guy argues that such displacement across the time dimension R introduces an entirely new concept and scenario.

GilverTheProtoAngelo (Response to Ultima_Reality)

Well I am no expert in math....but I have few doubts. Well the thing is , imo this is still observation of the set of 12 space-times while the observer is sitting in 5th dimension. What the upgrade side is proposing is we observe the 5th dimension itself...that is the higher temporal dimension to be observed from outside. That would lead to product of another R onto the current product .... basically R×{1....12}×(R×R×R)×R. Now I am not so brave as to apply entire set of points of this higher temporal dimension onto this product.

But as Ultima mentioned that any length of time in another axis of time suffices for "dislocation" as he put it

What I wanted show here is that these space-times flow forward in the flow of this higher time.

Lets take this and apply directly onto DB chronology. In the past there were 18 space-times. So the product will look like this at a single instant...."Zeroth" moment. {1,2....18}×(R×R×R)×R

After some time " t" the 6 space-times are destroyed. And only 12 remain. Lets call this point of time in present as "t1". So product will look like ... {1....12}×(R×R×R)×R

So if were to sit outside the timeline and map all the progress of the universes from start uptill this point....

0+t=t1....or t=t1....basically the time interval. [0,t1) is a uncountably large set , albiet not as large as R....but still uncountable, I believe this also called Cantor Set?? [0,t1)×{1...18}×(R×R×R)×R...... so this basically satisfies the condition for bijections of 5 sets containing uncountable elements I guess....

Low1C??

So basically I tried to map the journey of Present Timeline of DB and all universes inside it.

And I am a nervous wreck now....

This guy expands on Giygas3's argument that if you observed the 5th axis from the outside rather than observe the 5th dimension's contents from within it, you'd probably have to add a full R value to represent the entirety of the 5th dimension's flow of time. Though he acknowledges how brash it may be to apply the whole set of points of the higher time dimension R onto such a product, his main takeaway from Ultima's explanation is that any length of time or demonstration of time's passage in another temporal axis (even if not the whole set) suffices for dislocation.

As he further explains, the lore surrounding Zeno suggests a progression of time for a dozen coexisting universes. The old multiverse of 18 universe could be modeled like this: {1,2....18}×(R×R×R)×R. After the destruction of 6 universes, the multiverse would be modeled this way: {1....12}×(R×R×R)×R. If we were to sit outside the timeline and observe the progress between the "zeroth" moment and "Time 1," our cartesian product would be [0,t1)×{1...18}×(R×R×R)×R, with [0, t1) being an uncountably large set (not as large as R, but uncountable nevertheless). A bijection is a function pairing each element from one set with exactly one element from another set to list out all possible coordinates. Since this cartesian product is a bijection of 5 sets containing uncountably infinite elements, the hypertimeline should satisfy Ultima's conditions for low 1-C.

GilverTheProtoAngelo (Second Response to Ultima_Reality)

Well in the context of DB.... Well both Don'T Talk DT and you explained the structure of 12 space-times in a timeline using Relations. But my gripe is that the observer resides in 5th dimension observing a set of 12 space-times. This isn't anything special compared to what we do when we normally examine a singualr timeline. I felt we observer should have stood outside the encompassing timeline and then make the Relation mapping....potentially giving us 5 bijections.

You even mentioned how the dislocation of space-time in second temporal dimension by a certain timeframe is enough for low1C.

Well I tried to do just that for DB using it's own timeline's "story" or "history"....

At some point in time in past (t1) there were 18 space-times but now in the present time point (t2) there are 12, and in the future there will only be potentially one left (t3).

[t1,t2)x{1....18}x(RxRxR)xR Then after t2.. [t2,t3)x{1.....12}x(RxRxR)xR And at point t3 {t3}x{1}x(RxRxR)xR

Please quell my question on whether this is emough for low1C.

Just reiteration.

Ultima_Reality

Hm. This question actually relates to a certain doubt I had regarding DontTalk's explanation up there, which may or may not affect the validity of this. Bringing it up in here would just be derailing the thread, especially in its current state, so, I'll go ahead and ask him about it while I'm at it.

Ultima admits that Gilver's explanation has merit to the point where it could validate the entire hypertimeline argument.

DontTalkDT (Response to Giygas3)

The 5th dimension in your explanation isn't time-like. It's not like the 1st universe happens before the 12th universe. The 5th dimension in your explanation is space-like. In any case, what you are describing is just a standard multiverse. The empty space of the 5th dimension which isn't part of the spacetime continuums is not included and destroying a construct like you describe is not considered Low 1-C, as the 5th dimension in which are actually things is of insignificant size. That's literally the reason we don't automatically consider every single universe in fiction to be Low 1-C.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. We have three spatial dimensions in that construct, so what do you mean by not working under a secondary spatial dimension? For protocol, I hope we can agree that both constructs have the same amount of spatial and temporal dimensions, that both are the same except for a rotation and that rotating an object doesn't influence its size.

As DDT explains, the 5th axis described in Giygas3's whole [timeline's contents vs timeline's substance] argument was a space-like dimension rather than a time-like one as demonstrated in DDT's model. This is a diversion from DDT's actual argument as he failed to model the 5th dimension as a sequential progression where one universe would essentially "happen" before the other. Instead, his 5th axis is a set of positions assigned to each universes as if they exist simultaneously, displaced across a spatial dimensional plane. Either way, DDT's model describes something that doesn't qualify for low 1-C since:

1. The timeline would simply be a larger hypervolume with a cartesian product of no significant size in the 5th dimension.
2. Giygas3's model where the 5th dimension is a plane of spatial displacement (like any other multiverse model) demonstrates no cartesian product of significant 5th dimensional size either.

DontTalkDT (Response to GilverTheProtoAngelo)

This isn't a subjective issue. Where you observe it form makes no difference. So I don't get what you are trying to say.

The initial construct is {1,2....18}×(R×R×R)×R. After the destruction the construct is {1,2...., 12}×(R×R×R)×R. The part destroyed is {12,...,18}×(R×R×R)×R. That is 4D and equivalent to destroying 8 spacetimes. A 2-C feat.

While you could theoretically describe the process of the multiverse changing by adding a second time-axis, that is only a model on your part and not something actually provided in the verse. Given that, you don't really know whether it actually is time-dimension-like or just a set of finite states. Furthermore, it is entirely irrelevant for the verse, since the time dimension you invented to describe the change of multiversal spacetime is not interacted with, or especially destroyed, by anything in Dragon Ball.

In response to Gilver reiterating Giygas's argument, DDT repeats that the larger timeline would not qualify for low 1-C in size regardless as its entirety is just a larger hypervolume.

DDT then discredits the explanation of multiversal change, saying that the reduction of multiverses can be portrayed through his own non-qualifying timeline model, which means it doesn't prove the timeline meets Ultima's low 1-C standards. DDT, just like Ultima, acknowledges that a model where you could describe the process of the multiverse changing would validate the low 1-C hypertimeline argument, but you'd need more evidence for the existence/nature of the overarching timeline in Dragon Ball acting as a continuous flow of time rather than let's say... a set of finite states where the multiverse exists at 3 discrete points in time (T1, T2, T3) where each point represents a specific state of the multiverse. The multiverse at T1 could have different universes of configurations compared with T2 or T3, and the totality of these discrete time points form a set of finite states.

Not to mention, since from what DDT was getting from the conversation in context (as many people were discussing whether or not Zeno destroying the timeline [past/present/future] is contradicted by Whis going to the timeline's past), it doesn't seem like such a cosmology upgrade would add anything to the tiering of Dragon Ball since there wasn't a clear consensus on whether or not Zeno's AP scaled to the timeline (although this thread isn't for scaling, but cosmology, so we don't need to address this).

And with that convulated explanation, it should be clear to the supporters, opponents, and staff what kind of "timeline encompassing timelines" qualifies for low 1-C. Let's think about it in a vacuum. We know space is represented as having 12 universes, but so what? That's just visuals. We can't say that the 12 universes couldn't be displaced across a timeline as discrete points, and dimensional travel between them wouldn't be the equivalent of traveling along the time axis to the "moment" where another universe "happens." Likewise, you couldn't necessarily form a conclusion from "time travel creating a multiverse" in itself since even in a model for a non low 1-C timeline, no shit the timeline branching would create another timeline encompassing lesser timelines. All that taken care of, why don't we proceed?

My Main Argument

Now here's where the neutral zone comes in handy. The neutral zone allows the macrocosms to be parallel from one another. We know this displacement is space-like, as it's directly called a "different space" and demonstrates the basic properties of a space-like 5th dimension. Why does this matter? Because the whole basis for DDT's model of a non-qualifying timeline that Reiner brought up was that a higher time dimension doesn't inherently introduce a higher spatial dimension. The positioning of the 12 universes is an arbitrary choice made to construct a more succinct model, and the 12 universes could easily be displaced from one another as non-simultaneous occurences along a time-like axis rather than a space-like one. However, since we know the 12 universes are displaced spatially, the non-qualifying model bears no relevance to Dragon Ball Super as the 12 universes exist in one space at a given time. Let me redraw my model from above.

We know that model 1 doesn't apply to Dragon Ball since the 12 universes explicitly exist in space simultaneously, so let's address model 2 now. As DDT explained, you'd also need to prove that time progresses continuously for the multiverse, rather than allow it to propagate as a set of finite states with limited configurations like in model 2. To prove time flows continuously, I suppose I'd have to demonstrate that at any given time, we should expect a unique configuration of space, or give other indicators of basic continuous time.

First off, let's address the world of void. The world of void was infamously translated as "infinite," but most of us know now that the actual word used in describing it was "eternal." Many had tried to salvage the argument by claiming "eternity still means infinite time," but this reasoning has long been rejected. However, eternity meaning infinite time may actually help our argument. This is because the description at hand suggests that time [as experienced] is not limited to discrete points, but extends infinitely without interruption. This notion aligns with the depiction of an unbroken and smooth continuum with no gaps as described under the framework of continuous non-discrete time.

There's also the fact that the 48-minute timer in the world of void demonstrates the standard progression of continuous time for the 5th dimensional plane. Not only can the effects of time be stopped for characters in the world of void, but the effects of time can be dilated. Time dilation as a phenomena must occur under a continuous framework of space-time. Under general relativity, objects move along smooth and continuous paths that allow seamless transition between moments. Time dilation occurs naturally as a result of the curvature of space-time when objects in different conditions (usually moving at different speeds) experience time differently. Such contraction relies on a continous and unbroken propagation of time.

In short, basically everything we know of the nature of the world of void illustrates a continuous flow of time. Thankfully, when it comes to spaces defined by time as opposed to timelines defined by a time dimension, we don't have to do much legwork regarding where the lesser spaces fit into the higher timeline's snapshots. Time propagates in a continuous manner for the 5th dimensional plane. Therefore, the continuums of the neutral zone, world of void, and Zeno's palace are the equivalent of uncountably infinite snapshots of 5-dimensional space. As Tilted said, the time axis would account for the insignificance in the 5th dimension. If we represented the insignificant 5-D space as (1,2,3,4,...,12)x(RxRxR)x(R) and the time axis as (R), then the bijection between these sets would give rise to significant value in the 5th dimension and insignificant value in the 6th dimension. We'd have a cartesian product like this: (R)x(1,2,3,4,...,12)x(RxRxR)x(R).
At this point, before analyzing the overarching timeline, I should first summarize Ultima and DDT's standards for a low 1-C timeline as depicted in my 3rd model.

For a timeline containing lesser timelines to be low 1-C, the timelines must exist as simultaneously as a multiverse with explicit spatial displacement. In addition, the higher timeline must describe the continuous non-discrete dislocation of the multiverse along an additional time direction. Under such a model, we could introduce the higher timeline as a set of uncountably infinitely elements and apply it in bijection with the cartesian sets representing the multiverse to form a product with significant value in a higher dimension.

And now, for a question that's haunted Dragon Ball power scaling for years: "how did Zeno erase space-time when the main cast could travel to the erased timeline, and time travel is a process that travels the path of existing time?" As we know, while time travel is a process occurring along a 4th dimensional path, dimensional travel is a process occurring along a 5th dimensional path (the space under which timelines are parallel). As Bulma said in the manga, time travel and dimensional travel are different things. Although they used a time machine, what they were reaching when traveling to Trunks' world was a separate space-time altogether. The only reason their time machine could access another space-time was due to a faint temporal connection between the main timeline and Trunks' timeline. However, Bulma asked Pilaf to install a dimensional plug that allowed the time machine to engage in free dimensional travel, engendering travel along a 5th dimensional path, giving the main cast access to an erased timeline.

Why is this relevant? I have to put more focus on this so-called "temporal connection" (all you need to know is in this scan). Essentially, when the time machine was first used to access the main timeline, the latent configuration formed a temporal connection between that timeline and Trunks' timeline. This is why amid the ongoing war with Goku Black and Zamasu, the crew couldn't just take all the time they needed and arrive back at the time they left. If one day passed in their timeline, they had to let one day pass in Trunks' timeline.

This is a pretty clear demonstration of continuous progression of time. This story element of temporal cohesion could not work under a discrete framework where progression in discrete intervals would not give rise to a sort of continuous synchrony. Essentially, the multiverse is dislocated in another time direction in a continuous manner. This means we can apply another set of uncountably infinitely many elements to our cartesian product thus far, forming the bijections of 6 uncountably infinite sets, giving rise to significant value in the 6th dimension. Here's where it all comes together.

Original Proposal:

Recognize the 5th dimensional plane as holding space-times with 5 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of continuous time. The time axes would account for the insignificance of the 5th dimension, making the spatio-temporal construction of the extraspatial realms 5-D. The overarching timeline that defines these constructs as well as the 12 universes in a continuous manner is a higher time dimension in and of itself that would scale to 6-D.

Alternative Proposal:

Ditch the argument of the extraspatial realms being space-times entirely, and attribute all the arguments made in their favor to the overarching timeline alone. For one thing, this timeline would account for the 5th dimensional plane's insignificance by defining it in a continous manner to form uncountably infinite snapshots of 5-dimensional spaces. Reiner brought up how a timeline containing lesser timelines could be modeled in a manner disqualified for low 1-C...

However, as I've explained above, none of those non-qualifying models apply to Dragon Ball Super. The universes exist simultaneously, displaced spatially across the insignificant 5th dimensional plane. The timeline captures this plane and all the universes, allowing the continuous propagation of the multiverse in a manner where the aforementioned constructs are dislocated along an additional time direction. The cartesian product of this construction would be Rx(1,2,3,4,...,12)x(RxRxR)xR which is the bijection of 5 sets with uncountably infinitely many elements, thus explicitly qualifying for low 1-C based on the temporal dimension standards as explained by Ultima and DontTalkDT.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Yup, I'm not reading all that.

 

[TiltedFN]

Profectus this was an amazing response, so much time and effort put into this, well done! As for me, I'm going by my original premise and I'm going to agree with option 1.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Let's all just hope I don't mess up any of the science

You did.
Anyway, I cannot believe I actually read all that maybe from benefit of doubt. Anyway while it is a long post filled with misunderstanding of other people's arguments and the system in order to appy it to Dragon Ball's none existent higher dimensional timeline. it was a well written one. A summary of my thought:

First, don't come at me about being ignorant of how tier 2 and universes are tiered, I was the OP and the one who made the argument for the current tier 2 and how we treat different space-time continuums.
Secondly, nothing you have in your post has any scans about a higher timeline or implies so
Thirdly, lets talk about the "additional time direction". We should break this down, we have direction, we can have a certain number of directions in 3D, 6 to be precise (forward, backward, upward, downward, rightward or leftward). An additional direction different the forward direction would have to be one of the remaining 5, so yes when it is said it needs to have an additional time direction apart from the current one it means a different one that is not forward, it can be diagonal for all that matters as long as it is not forward.
Again more importantly, nothing in your post remotely has any scan for the said higher timeline, which is what I waited for and the entire point of this thread. It is a single time direction, time flows in a single direction, simple as that. The long post is just trying to bury the major point of this thread.

Lastly,

I think that we can close this thread then.

I said we should wait for the said scans that they claim before but so far none has been provided, and I and four/five staffs have disagreed with this, so it is safe to say this should be closed
If anyone of the staffs wants to take another look at the wall texts they are welcome to do so. For me the arguments are a "No"

 

[CloverDragon03]

Shouldn't you at least wait for staff to see Profectus's post instead of rushing for it to be closed?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Shouldn't you at least wait for staff to see Profectus's post instead of rushing for it to be closed?

I am not rushing for the thread to be closed, the thread is still.opened cause we were promised that DB fans have scans to prove the additional time axis. And now that they have proven they do not, the thread can be closed. And like I said, any staff is welcome to take a look at his post but this thread is done and over already, he brought nothing new just longer and incoherent arguments without scans to back it up but his own word of mouth.

 

[TiltedFN]

I am not rushing for the thread to be closed, the thread is still.opened cause we were promised that DB fans have scans to prove the additional time axis.

And we did, you typed one paragraph to reply to that entire argument and basically called everything else he typed out nonsense, "The long post is just trying to bury the major point of this thread."

And now that they have proven they do not, the thread can be closed.

You say this yet you yourself haven't responded to a single one of profectus' arguments at all and basically just said "you're wrong".

And like I said, any staff is welcome to take a look at his post but this thread is done and over already, he brought nothing new just longer and incoherent arguments without scans to back it up but his own word of mouth.

Clearly the thread isn't over and done with if it's still going, we are waiting for staff to review his comment. Saying he didn't have any scans to back up his claim is comical, you say "word of mouth" like you haven't been shifting standards and being dishonest about them.

Thirdly, lets talk about the "additional time direction". We should break this down, we have direction, we can have a certain number of directions in 3D, 6 to be precise (forward, backward, upward, downward, rightward or leftward). An additional direction different the forward direction would have to be one of the remaining 5, so yes when it is said it needs to have an additional time direction apart from the current one it means a different one that is not forward, it can be diagonal for all that matters as long as it is not forward.

Again, "nowhere" does it state that an additional time axis has to be flowing in any direction besides forward to be considered different. Like profectus said, you are just making up standards that don't exist and forcing us to prove something we shouldn't have to. Saying "prove time flows diagonally" "prove time flows backwards or you're wrong" sounds so unbelievably stupid, please utter those words and see how dumb it sounds i beg you. It's not on our spacetime requirements page, it's not on the FAQ, speed tiers, nowhere. I literally just went through other verses that have gained low 1-C for an "additional temporal dimension". Time is assumed to flow in one direction, FORWARD, we have past, present, and future, extending infinitely. Asking us to prove something as absurd as that is disingenuous. You blatantly ignored every single one of his arguments, didn't respond to any of his counterarguments against your original opposition.

so yes when it is said it needs to have an additional time direction apart from the current one it means a different one that is not forward, it can be diagonal for all that matters as long as it is not forward.

You're saying all this without proving it is the problem, so when we point out that these standards don't exist, your entire argument falls apart. Going to sleep now.

 

[PrinceofPein]

And we did, you typed one paragraph to reply to that entire argument and basically called everything else he typed out nonsense, "The long post is just trying to bury the major point of this thread."

You say this yet you yourself haven't responded to a single one of profectus' arguments at all and basically just said "you're wrong".

Clearly the thread isn't over and done with if it's still going, we are waiting for staff to review his comment. Saying he didn't have any scans to back up his claim is comical, you say "word of mouth" like you haven't been shifting standards and being dishonest about them.

Again, "nowhere" does it state that an additional time axis has to be flowing in any direction besides forward to be considered different. Like profectus said, you are just making up standards that don't exist and forcing us to prove something we shouldn't have to. Saying "prove time flows diagonally" "prove time flows backwards or you're wrong" sounds so unbelievably stupid, please utter those words and see how dumb it sounds i beg you. It's not on our spacetime requirements page, it's not on the FAQ, speed tiers, nowhere. I literally just went through other verses that have gained low 1-C for an "additional temporal dimension". Time is assumed to flow in one direction, FORWARD, we have past, present, and future, extending infinitely. Asking us to prove something as absurd as that is disingenuous. You blatantly ignored every single one of his arguments, didn't respond to any of his counterarguments against your original opposition.

You're saying all this without proving it is the problem, so when we point out that these standards don't exist, your entire argument falls apart. Going to sleep now.

I will not go back and forth with you, so I will make this my last post unless something new comes up.

This is really a very simple scenario, provide scans for your claims aside spiralling all over the place with explanations that do not add up to your claims. all these long posts are not necessary and irrelevant if you cannot back it up with source material, so yes his post is indeed wrong if all he has is; his own explanation, taking arguments he does not understand out of context to support his claims instead of using scans and his own personal interpretation of what a physics phenomenon should be.

Also before you botch physics, let me explain what an additional direction of time means, it means an additional axis of time.
Take spatial axis and direction as an example. What makes 3D superior to 2D is because of the additional direction it has, adding length or width to 2D and expecting it to give 3D or thinking adding more line to 1D will give 2D, is well your current argument here. Do you see where I am going with this? Adding more height to 3D does not give 4D e.t.c.
Same thing with time, what gives an addition time axis is an extra direction of time, so if your claim is that a space has two dimensions of time, then it should have two time directions. If both direction is forward then it is a single direction to begin with. Also where is the scan that says there is two time directions or dimensions in the neutral zone to begin with? Like why is this even an argument if you cannot provide proof for your claims that makes it baseless. You keep declining the call to support your claims with source materials.
Also profectus has no argument that needs to be replied to if he can not substantiate those claims and just because I do not entertain you guys flawed interpretation of physics is not equal to making up standards.

Simple
1. Your claims are baseless and you have failed to provide a base so far.
2. Additional time directions means additional time axis, different timelines =/= additional time directions, they are very different since that is literally your post, "it is has different timelines so it must be a different time direction"

 

[Jaakor48]

I was given permission to freely post by @ByAsura

1) Okay I have noticed a very worrying trend when it comes to trying to debunk this. The realms are already accepted as to see structures

Note: We consider the universes in Dragon Ball alternate timespaces relative each other, hence why Zen'ō is rated as 2-C, despite the events in the Goku Black Saga showing parallel timelines encompassing the whole of the multiverse. The reason for this is that Universe 7 by itself has already been shown to contain parallel space-time continuums within its globe, such as the Room of Spirit and Time, which is still affected by time travel; which proves that the new timelines can encompass other space-times as well, and thus the events in the Future Trunks Saga don't prove anything in the way of the universes being physically connected

If anyone has a problem with it they can make A CRT thread and prove it wrong. You cannot come into a debate about an already wiki-accepted size of a structure and then try to claim they have shared time axes. It is ridiculous and wrong. The correct thing to do is to make a CRT to prove that claim, like what happened when we had a thread with immeasurable strength Zamasu. A mod had the problem with it but couldn't stop it because it FOLLOWED THE WIKI STANDARDS, he then went and made A CRT to change the standards that is what should be done here if someone has a problem with the fact that the macrocasms are separate space times, because downgrading the entire macrocasm to 3A is the only way this "shared space-time" argument means anything

This thread is based on the accepted premise that each macrocasm is a 2C structure, and thus, not only has its own space time but contains realms of their own space times, any low 1C debunk must accept that fact.

2) Reiner's point about it being insignificant and being a basic multiversal structure is true of the spatial volume for the neutral zone, as that it was what agreed on in this other thread. But it has no bearing on the timeline, so in essence ,it doesn't really add anything here, neutral realm being spatially insignificant isn't an issue. Reiner himself agreed with 5D Neutral space, just that it was insignificant.


3) The neutral realm is the space that contains them, and as such was classified as insignificant 5D here because it's size was unknown. This will not be disputed by me because infinite size is the required size to be significant. However in terms of temporal superiority, the neutral zone indeed has a time zone, both proven by Hit's abilities being able to store time from there with his time skip and the multiple galaxies and celestial bodies that form there naturally (away from the universes which is separates) being evidence of a space time.
There are however 2 takes here

• It's time axis is being serviced directly by the enveloping timeline, leaving it as insignificant 5D but the timeline as significant 5D at the least
• It has its own time axis, making it significant 5D and the timeline 6D as a result.

The former is a lower end take, but I'll argue for the latter. In order to argue that the neutral zone is serviced directly by the timeline and doesn't have its own isolated Axis, it also implies that all other higher realms (world of void and Zeno's realm) are the same as they are all contained within a superior timeline. But here's the issue, the World of Void is naturally timeless until the grand priest altered it, meaning that (unless I am mistaken) the timeline does NOT service all the realms together and there is no shared time axis among the 3 of them, otherwise there would be no such thing as a timeless void inside a space time that services everything inside with its own time axis


4) in summary

FACT #1 : The macrocasms are 2C structures and have their own separate space times as a result

FACT #2: neutral zone encompasses the universes and is the same structure as a basic multiverse, thus spatially insignificant. However it has a time axis as evidenced with hit and the presence of celestial bodies. The temporal axis is either a shared one with its timeline or its own separated axis, I believe my argument about the WoV shows that the Superior realms don't share one time axis across

FACT #3: the first 2 facts leads to only 2 possible conclusions

A) Neutral zone is insignificant 5D and it's time axis is shared with the superior Timeline: thus timeline is 5D low 1c

B) Neutral zone is significant 5D via being separated space from the WoV and not sharing a time axis despite being under the same timeline with it is proof that it has its own time axis: thus timeline is 6D low 1c


Timeline > Multiverse Structure (Neutral zone) + WoV + Zeno's realm> Verse-Accepted 2C macrocasms

Other facts:
Even if one were to somehow dispute the obvious temporal axis of the timeline, they are assumed to be infinite in size via the wiki universal standards which also means it's significant either way

It should be noted that timelines are assumed to be infinite in length, unless evidence to the contrary is provided

Plea to Mods and Staff

I understand the issues with Dragonball threads in the verse both from the staff and the supporters.

Please, any argument centering around shared axes between the 2C macrocasms and the neutral zone should he ignored as once again, the wiki accepts the 2C macrocasms as separate space times and the Neutral zone is accepted as a 5D space. Unless a CRT changing that is made, there is no shared time axis between them.

I would also ask that the staff who agreed with opponent's reasoning based on this flawed argument to be asked to come and restate their stance with a reason


Thank you

 

[PrinceofPein]

Sigh, another "there is an extra axis and low 1-C timeline because I said so and I will not provide proof". Also the fact that you think that hit being able to use his ability to store time means there is a higher timeline is weird and I seriously cannot wrap my head around how storing time means having another temporal axis.

Also where are the actual knowledgeable members on DB like @Nullflowerblush cause I am genuinely fed up of this weird arguments, I will prefer their inputs

I already voiced that I disagree with Low 1-C for reasons stated numerous times.

I'm also more inclined to Pein's arguments here, I disagree with the upgrade.

Sorry I am tagging you guys here again, I am just tired of the long posts without proofs and mental gymnastics.
If you will please take a look at the posts above and see if any of them bring something that makes sense to qualify for low 1-C.

 

[Deagonx]

The current staff vote is:

Agree:
Disagree: Deagonx, DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaaa, and Maverick_Zero_X

I don't see the need to prolong this thread unnecessarily. The thread has been open for two weeks and no staff have been convinced of the OP's arguments, so I will close this now.

 

[Antvasima]

I unlocked this thread, as some knowledgeable Dragon Ball supporters asked me to be allowed to comment here.

 

[Antvasima]

I unlocked this thread, as some knowledgeable Dragon Ball supporters asked me to be allowed to comment here.

@Vietthai96 @Ottavio_Merluzzo

 

[Vietthai96]

@Vietthai96 @Ottavio_Merluzzo

Sigh, just found out that you unlocked this thread, it too late. I planning to make a different thread for DB game verse only since. Anyway since you go through the trouble to unlock the thread, i will trying to summarise my argument for game verse in my blog, with how busy i'm nowaday, probably it will take sometime if you not mind. Still it isn't guaranteed

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

 

[TiltedFN]

I never got the chance to address peins arguments, and some other things, since this thread is opened again, I want to make this very clear.

Staff
Now, I don't intend to come off as rude or insulting, so sorry if it appears that way, but I have to say, I'm am very annoyed on how this thread was handled in terms of our arguments being addressed. First of all, I posted this in a staff thread for just that, to get staff approval and feedback, and if I recall, we were required to post tier 1 threads in a staff discussion. Now I assume the whole point of this, was because they are controversial and should require knowledgeable staff members to comment and give their opinion on the matter. This thread was the complete opposite of that. Not only did not one staff member even begin to address the counter arguments, the person who was actually arguing against us ignored literally everything and lied about standards that didn't even exist, I'll touch up on that first part in a bit. But the main takeaway is, that I expect staff members to actually say something note worthy in a thread as controversial as this one, I need feedback, arguments if you agree, and not just a "Disagree FRA" train. It really is upsetting when we have someone like @ProfectusInfinity write a in depth summary of our arguments, just to get basically handwaved, so if the staff are not knowledgeable on tier 1, I suggest we wait for someone who is to comment, like ultima which I have asked him to do so eventually. Now that I got that out of the way, not I can address peins arguments.

Time
Now, I am going to explain what time is so that we are all on the same page here. "Time is the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future. It is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them". As explained from our definition here, time is the sequence of events, it measures change in the first 3 dimensions under normal circumstances. It does not behave like spatial dimensions do at all. For example, lets take a 1 dimensional real coordinate space, which is modeled as R^1. A being would only be able to displace themselves left and right across this coordinate axis. And no matter how far this being were to go, even infinitely so, the being in question would never be able to go any other direction. Now lets take an R^2 real coordinate space, basically just adding another real number line in a perpendicular direction from the first axis to create a 2D plane. Now, this 2d being would be able to displace itself across another direction, and would gain width, as a result of gaining an extra axis. Now obviously it would be the same for a R^3 space and a 3D being, another direction perpendicular to the last 2 axis. Now does this also apply to time? No it does not, because as I explained earlier, time does not function like spatial dimensions do, spatial dimensions allow for freedom and the option to move across different directions in space, time allows for those events to happen and continuously flow from the past, all the way into the distant future. Which is why time is not the 4th dimension, in terms of it being another direction that is perpendicular to allow for more freedom in an n-dimensional space. Point is, time is not a direction, it can be applied to any dimension, the reason why we can move is because of time, everything happens because time exist. Spatial dimensions=freedom, and direction. Temporal dimensions=movement and events. It's pretty simple. So no, we do not have to prove time flows backwards, or sideways, or upwards, or downwards. That is absolutely ridiculous and makes no sense, we might as well delete the entire higher temporal section if the standards were like that, because it's impossible to prove. An additional time axis just has to overarch the dimensions in question and view it as apart of its time flow, as "snapshots" if you will, of the entire multiverse. On to my next point.

Dishonesty
Where do I even start with this? Well how about the blatant lying on pein's side of things. First, how he didn't respond to the arguments presented above, and how he made up standards to fit his narrative. Lets start with the "backwards time" shenanigan's. We have asked multiple times to prove that this standard exist and we have gotten nothing. It is genuinely insane to think staff let this slide, I mean seriously come on. I looked through literally everything and have not found a single statement that matches what pein is saying, want to know why that is? Because it doesn't exist. It's made up, and funny enough how in this thread. I find it very peculiar that this thread that also dealt with a higher time axis was not scrutinized nearly as much as you did this one. In fact, this "prove time flows somewhere other than forward" argument was never even brought up at all in this thread, and by anybody else in this wiki when discussing time. Care to tell me why that is pein? Why you have switched up and constantly derailed this crt over and over again? It's being dishonest, I don't want to sound mean, but it is true. All I ask is that you be truthful and not change standards and make false claims, I bet you yourself don't even believe the standards you were trying to push on us. Now onto my next point.

Additional time axis.
I'm honestly baffled on how I even have to reiterate this again after the post above, but here we go. We have the 2-C macrocosms, 12 of them, all held within the neutral space which was deemed to be 'insignificant 5-D' as per this thread. The macrocosms have their own space and time, their own time axis. Now on a lowball, the multiverses timeline would be an additional, higher flow of time that servers as the entire multiverses time axis, which means it is constructed from uncountably infinite neutral spaces, which are insig 5-D. So this would satisfy qualitative superiority, and be low 1-C, but as for our arguments above, the neutral space has it's own time axis separate from the timeline itself and is still under it. Which would make the neutral zone actually low 1-C, obviously making the timeline 6-D. And for proof which we already posted, that the timeline is a higher time axis, this very site accepts it as so.

Note: We consider the universes in Dragon Ball alternate time-spaces relative to each other, hence why Zen'ō is rated as 2-C, despite the events in the Goku Black Saga showing parallel timelines encompassing the whole of the multiverse.

The reason for this is that Universe 7 by itself has already been shown to contain parallel space-time continuums within its globe, such as the Room of Spirit and Time, which is still affected by time travel; which proves that the new timelines can encompass other space-times as well, and thus the events in the Future Trunks Saga don't prove anything in the way of the universes being physically connected.

Heres another scan also that the parallel timelines encompass the multiverse. Like it is so obviously clear at this point, and now that i prove that such standards, such as pein's do not need to be included. This means it qualifies verbatim.

Conclusion
Again, I apologize if I came off as rude, but these things needed to be addressed. So yeah if you want the full detailed explanation of our upgrades proposed, go to profectus thread as he broke it down the best, but that's all.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Sigh I am not going to sound like a broken record. Just because you thought something did not address you, or you think you have debunked something does not make it true.
Also no it is not made up standard, and I am actually tired of explaining. Let me just wait for viethai at this point.
Unless you can send scans of all your claims, they are simply non-existent.

 

[Deagonx]

But the main takeaway is, that I expect staff members to actually say something note worthy in a thread as controversial as this one, I need feedback, arguments if you agree, and not just a "Disagree FRA" train.

It's not really helpful to repeat another person's arguments. It's often the case that I will arrive in a thread and see that another user said exactly what I would have said. When I am in the opposite position, I would rather people "FRA" than to make me repeat myself or clog the thread with the same arguments.

We have the 2-C macrocosms, 12 of them, all held within the neutral space which was deemed to be 'insignificant 5-D' as per this thread. The macrocosms have their own space and time, their own time axis. Now on a lowball, the multiverses timeline would be an additional, higher flow of time that servers as the entire multiverses time axis

Well, as it was explained earlier, we do not have a good reason to consider these as being separate time axes. The fact that a single timeline encompasses the entire cosmology doesn't really tell us it's an additional temporal axis, it actually leans more towards implying they all share a time axis. I also didn't consider anything written about the neutral space as helping us identify whether or not it has a temporal axis separate from the main cosmology.

Where do I even start with this? Well how about the blatant lying on pein's side of things. First, how he didn't respond to the arguments presented above, and how he made up standards to fit his narrative

It's not helpful to cast accusations.

I maintain my vote in this matter.

 

[Vietthai96]

Sigh I am not going to sound like a broken record. Just because you thought something did not address you, or you think you have debunked something does not make it true.
Also no it is not made up standard, and I am actually tired of explaining. Let me just wait for viethai at this point.
Unless you can send scans of all your claims, they are simply non-existent.

Anyway, before i finish my argument (which probably tomorrow at least), you want scan that timeline being an axis right???

 

[PrinceofPein]

Anyway, before i finish my argument (which probably tomorrow at least), you want scan that timeline being an axis right???

Of it being a separate axis from the other universes timeline.

 

[Vietthai96]

Of it being a separate axis from the other universes timeline.

I don't think that matter, because universe itself being it own space-time which mean it is a 4D structure on it own - a 4d spherical space-time manifold, and timeline being an axis contain a 4D structure will make it 5D, since it contain 4D object on its axis

 

[PrinceofPein]

I don't think that matter, because universe itself being it own space-time which mean it is a 4D structure on it own - a 4d spherical space-time manifold, and timeline being an axis contain a 4D structure will make it 5D, since it contain 4D object on its axis

What do you think a time axis is?

 

[TiltedFN]

It's not really helpful to repeat another person's arguments. It's often the case that I will arrive in a thread and see that another user said exactly what I would have said. When I am in the opposite position, I would rather people "FRA" than to make me repeat myself or clog the thread with the same arguments.

I'm repeating the arguments because that is all i can do at this point, nobody is properly addressing them like wtf?

Well, as it was explained earlier, we do not have a good reason to consider these as being separate time axes. The fact that a single timeline encompasses the entire cosmology doesn't really tell us it's an additional temporal axis, it actually leans more towards implying they all share a time axis. I also didn't consider anything written about the neutral space as helping us identify whether or not it has a temporal axis separate from the main cosmology.

But we literally do accept that the timeline the time ring represents, and the macrocosms are separate time axis entirely, that is why we literally say it encompasses the entire multiverse, which means it spans 4d objects, and/or the neutral space. And obviously the neutral space is meant to be another spacetime via profectus's arguments. It is completely outside the multiverse, of course they don't share a same time axis, that makes no sense that they would share one.

It's not helpful to cast accusations.

I maintain my vote in this matter.

Its true though, none of you guys are addressing anything. And pein, im still waiting for the page where that standard is mentioned otherwise, a total of zero counter arguments have been made. And are you gonna address how in other hypertimeline threads you don't bring up these arguments? It's already been accepted that the timelines can hold other timelines, there is objectively a higher timeline that encompasses the macrocosms and the neutral space, nothing says it has to be a different direction, it says an additional dimension, one that acts as a higher temporal flow, not acting like some perpendicular direction that allows movement, it doesn't work that way, its TIME!! Stop spreading misinformation.

 

[Deagonx]

I'm repeating the arguments because that is all i can do at this point, nobody is properly addressing them like wtf?

What I meant by that was explaining the reason why staff members did not respond with their own arguments rather than expressing their agreement with Pein.

But we literally do accept that the timeline the time ring represents, and the macrocosms are separate time axis entirely, that is why we literally say it encompasses the entire multiverse, which means it spans 4d objects, and/or the neutral space.

Who accepts that? Personally I do not.

Its true though, none of you guys are addressing anything.

I am not saying your accusations are false, their accuracy isn't important to me. I am explaining that it is not helpful or appropriate to make them.

 

[TiltedFN]

What I meant by that was explaining the reason why staff members did not respond with their own arguments rather than expressing their agreement with Pein.

It's a staff thread, you should be required to at least expand upon why you don't agree, but none of you're arguments have held up at all, I called you guys out on spreading misinformation, yet you don't try to address it, and you still agree with false info.

Who accepts that? Personally I do not.

"personally, I do not" do you hear yourself? So are you admitting that you are letting your personal bias overshadow the facts that have been presented? That we have a note in our page that says otherwise? Scans in the actual crt which disproves you?

I am not saying your accusations are false, their accuracy isn't important to me. I am explaining that it is not helpful or appropriate to make them.

I mean it kind of is, if i don't address it, it will keep happening, which is exactly what you are still doing right now.

 

[Deagonx]

So are you admitting that you are letting your personal bias overshadow the facts that have been presented?

No, I am stating that I do not agree with the claim that they have separate temporal axes.

I mean it kind of is, if i don't address it, it will keep happening, which is exactly what you are still doing right now.

You are welcome to hold that stance, but I am informing you as a moderator that it isn't appropriate to accuse someone of lying like you did with Pein just now.

 

[PrinceofPein]

represents, and the macrocosms are separate time axis

No we don't, let me see the thread it was accepted

 

[TiltedFN]

No we don't, let me see the thread it was accepted

You have got to be joking, like there is just no actual way you're doing this right now, how about you read the arguments we provided.

 

[Deagonx]

You said it was accepted in an earlier thread. Which thread?

 

[TiltedFN]

You said it was accepted in an earlier thread. Which thread?

The fact that the macrocoms are 2-C right now should tell you they have separate time axis, like what is with the derailing? We linked three 3-A downgrade threads that ultimately failed and the macrocosms remained 2-C. Why are we even arguing this? Again you guys are shifting the argument to something we don't need to prove.

 

[PrinceofPein]

The fact that the macrocoms are 2-C right now should tell you they have separate time axis, like what is with the derailing? We linked three 3-A downgrade threads that ultimately failed and the macrocosms remained 2-C. Why are we even arguing this? Again you guys are shifting the argument to something we don't need to prove.

Oh so the whole thing comes from your misconceptions of what different space-time is supposed to mean.
From.what I am getting you think different space-time means different time axis also?

 

[TiltedFN]

Oh so the whole thing comes from your misconceptions of what different space-time is supposed to mean.
From.what I am getting you think different space-time means different time axis also?

For dragon ball's macrocosms, yeah it really is, just how the ROSAT also sits on a different time axis, the realms in the macrocosm are completely separated by space AND time, so yes, they do have different time axis, hence why the macrocosms are 2-C. So by proxy, with the neutral space being proven by us to be a spacetime continuum, this means it would also have an separate time axis that governs the neutral space, which is insignificant 5-D, and holds the macrocosms. Meaning it's outside of the macrocosms space and time completely, and the time axis for the neutral zone would obviously make it low 1-C. Same for the all encompassing multiversal timeline.

 

[Vietthai96]

I mean, we already have that one Macrocosm possesses multiple separated space-time continuum, let along talking about other Macrocosm, no way they are separated, yet still under the same time axis, unless said time axis is higher and encompassing those separated space-time, which said time axis should be higher tier

 

[KLOL506]

Being spatiotemporally separate is not the same as different time axes. You don't need alternate time axes to be Tier 2, you only need spatiotemporal separation.

 

[Vietthai96]

Being spatiotemporally separate is not the same as different time axes. You don't need alternate time axes to be Tier 2, you only need spatiotemporal separation.

That logic isn't sound, because it you spatiotemporally separated yet still the same time axis, then you not spatiotemporally separated in the first place

 

[KLOL506]

That logic isn't sound, because it you spatiothemorally separated yet still the same time axis, then you not spatiotemporally separated in the first place

Eh no, time dimensions/axes and spatiotemporal separation explicitly aren't the same thing. You can have a single time axis and still be Tier 2-C, 2-B and 2-A. You can ask Ultima and DontTalkDT if you don't believe me.

Universe level CRT Part 2 (Alternate Dimension Edition)

Continued from here This thread will focus on alternate universes/dimensions (as the title suggests). The purpose here, is to explain why spatially separated universes have their own spacetime. A more detailed explanation In my last OP I briefly went over this by saying the following: Anything...

vsbattles.com

 

[TiltedFN]

Eh no, time dimensions/axes and spatiotemporal separation explicitly aren't the same thing. You can have a single time axis and still be Tier 2-C, 2-B and 2-A. You can ask Ultima and DontTalkDT if you don't believe me.

Universe level CRT Part 2 (Alternate Dimension Edition)

Continued from here This thread will focus on alternate universes/dimensions (as the title suggests). The purpose here, is to explain why spatially separated universes have their own spacetime. A more detailed explanation In my last OP I briefly went over this by saying the following: Anything...

vsbattles.com

Well in general, but for DB, ROSAT, the universes, and the main timeline have shown to have different time axis, a higher one for the timelines case.