Time dimension standard elaboration and a bit of change (whatever guess yourself)

[Reiner04]

FAQ:

A: The relationship between the spatial dimensions of a universe and the additional temporal dimension(s) may be visualized as something akin to the frames of a movie placed side-by-side. Basically, the time-like direction may be thought of as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the whole universe at any given moment, with the set of all such events comprising the totality of spacetime.

This structure can then be generalized to any amounts of dimensions, and is also the reason destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). So, for example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (Instead of just one) would have an additional time direction whose "snapshots" correspond to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime, and so on and so forth.

Problematic part:
This structure can then be generalized to any amounts of dimensions, and is also the reason destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). So, for example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (Instead of just one) would have an additional time direction whose "snapshots"

Corrected and more explained version:
This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions and is why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). For example, a higher spacetime continuum with two temporal dimensions (instead of just one) comprises a higher temporal axis that spans regular temporal dimensions that the entirety of 4-dimensional spacetimes or equivalents to it are serviced by (similar to how the time dimension in a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum spans uncountably infinite 3-dimensional snapshots of the universe), qualifies for Low 1-C. Unless fiction shows otherwise, a different multiversal temporal dimension spanning Universes who themselves have their own time dimensions as well (not a same multiversal time dimension that services many Universes and shared by them) or even a single universe with two temporal dimensions active on it, qualifies; the same applies to three or more temporal dimensions.

Check anyone for grammatical mistakes if there thank you. Only meant to have elaboration so that these time dimension arguments don't get misrepresented everytime I see.

Agree: @Planck69, @UchihaSlayer96, @LordGriffin1000, @Dereck03 , @Ovy7 (bro got all the rights to be listed here, cope), @Elizhaa, @Executor_N0 , @Lonkitt, @DontTalkDT, @Firestorm808

Disagree:

Edit: thanks to @ImmortalDread and @IdiosyncraticLawyer for correcting grammatical mistakes.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I fixed all grammatical mistakes. Here is the revised version:

This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions. It is also the reason why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). For example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (instead of just one), one of which must have evidence of spanning 'snapshots' corresponding to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime or equivalent to it, in another direction of time than the already existing temporal dimension the 4-dimensional spacetime comprises (similar to how the time dimension in Low 2-C spacetime continuum spans 3D snapshots of the Universe in a different direction than the whole of 3D), not parallel or anti-parallel to it. The same applies to 3 temporal dimensions and so on and so forth.

 

[Reiner04]

I fixed all grammatical mistakes. Here is the revised version:

Thanx waifu dread.

 

[Dereck03]

I should clarify, this is a staff discussion, unless you have asked permission to comment then there will be no problem, any comments without permission or derailing will be deleted.

 

[TiltedFN]

I was given permission by @Qawsedf234 to comment up to 3 times, so I'll just to try to address the OP as best as I can, while also asking some questions of my own.

Problematic part:
This structure can then be generalized to any amounts of dimensions, and is also the reason destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). So, for example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (Instead of just one) would have an additional time direction whose "snapshots" correspond to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime, and so on and so forth.

It suggest two time dimension in a spacetime continuum by default means one of them would be in different direction, which is wrong, additional their can be higher temporal dimension that encompasses lower temporal dimensions parallel to itself and those lower temporal dimensions can themselves be parallel to each other, hence not a another direction and hence, not Low 1-C but some time of complex Multiversal structure like Ben 10 where multiverse contains multiple Universes spanning forward in greater time dimension.

First off, doesn't "additional direction" literally just mean another direction that can also be forward? The tiering system never states that this additional direction can't be forward. It literally suggest that this additional time direction can also be forward, but has to span 4D spacetimes (or low 2-C structures) instead of 3D universes. I mean, every hypertimeline upgrade that has been accepted has gone through this line of reasoning, so I do not see where this "different direction that is not forward" even comes from. It just means its higher and spans low 2-C structures. So I would like staff to to clarify on that. Now I don't want to turn this into a DB thread, but afaik, DB is the only verse which has had to prove this. And this thread was caused because of DB.

Corrected version:
This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions. It is also the reason why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). For example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (instead of just one), one of which must have evidence of spanning 'snapshots' corresponding to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime or equivalent to it, in another direction of time than the already existing temporal dimension that 4-dimensional spacetime comprises of (similar to how the time dimension in Low 2-C spacetime continuum spans 3D snapshots of the Universe in a different direction than the whole of 3D space), not parallel or anti-parallel to it. The same applies to 3 temporal dimensions and so on and so forth.

What does, "another/different direction of time" even mean? How can one prove this, and how does it make any logical sense at all? The way we treat time on the tiering system is uncountably infinite static representations of the universe at any given moment, so destroying a low 2-C structure is like destroying a 3-A structure a uncountable infinite amount of times. How in the world does a higher time dimension have to be in an additional direction? Like what does that mean? Why does an additional time direction that spans 4D structures instead of 3-D structures have to be in a perpendicular direction? From all the hypertimeine threads I have seen, that has never been a talking point at all, nor is it anywhere on our tiering system afaik. This looks like we treat spatial dimensions the same as temporal dimensions, which doesn't seem right at all. So I would like clarification, so we can actually enforce these standards in our tiering system, or just get rid of this stance altogether. But yeah, I don't know if I can agree on the corrected version until it's actually confirmed if it's true or not.

 

[Planck69]

To be clear, this is just clarification that higher temporal dimensions need not be perpendicular to one another? Or something else?

 

[Reiner04]

To be clear, this is just clarification that higher temporal dimensions need not be perpendicular to one another? Or something else?

Exactly, just clarification, previous one making it seem like 2 temporal dimensions directly means other one is flowing in different direction/perpendicular, which doesn't have to be the case as default.

 

[Planck69]

Yeah, then that makes sense. It's not something that really needs to be brought up, especially since the logic here is more or less the same as why Low 2-C and 3-A are distinct, applied one level higher.

 

[TiltedFN]

Yeah, then that makes sense. It's not something that really needs to be brought up, especially since the logic here is more or less the same as why Low 2-C and 3-A are distinct, applied one level higher.

So, I'm a bit confused here, so are you saying that a higher temporal dimension does NOT need to be perpendicular to a lesser time dimension? And if that isn't the case either, can you explain how one would prove it, or what it even means? Because if you say its the same as low 2-C and 3-A, just higher, what would be the difference with a higher time dimension?

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

The proposal makes sense to me at a glance.

 

[Planck69]

So, I'm a bit confused here, so are you saying that a higher temporal dimension does NOT need to be perpendicular to a lesser time dimension? And if that isn't the case either, can you explain how one would prove it, or what it even means? Because if you say its the same as low 2-C and 3-A, just higher, what would be the difference with a higher time dimension?

I'm saying that whether or not it's stated to be perpendicular shouldn't be relevant as far as tiering goes, in the case of "hyper-timelines" of any higher number of temporal dimensions.

The main logic used here is that a timeline is continuous and thus consists of uncountably infinite snapshots of the 3-dimensional universe, making it Low 2-C. A "hyper-timeline" would be a timeline whose temporal dimension would be one in which the uncountably infinite snapshots are of already 4-D space-time continuums with their own established temporal dimensions.

In simple terms, it's the same as how a 4-dimensional space gaining an extra spatial axis of significant length is Low 1-C, only with time dimensions instead.

 

[TiltedFN]

In simple terms, it's the same as how a 4-dimensional space gaining an extra spatial axis of significant length is Low 1-C, only with time dimensions instead.

This is the last comment I'm allowed to make, but I just want to make sure I completely understand. You say it's like gaining an extra spatial axis, but when you say, "only with time dimensions instead" you mean it just makes it uncountably infinitely larger correct? Just doesn't have to be perpendicular? Or in the meaning that it would basically add +1 tier, or dimensionality?

 

[Planck69]

This is the last comment I'm allowed to make, but I just want to make sure I completely understand. You say it's like gaining an extra spatial axis, but when you say, "only with time dimensions instead" you mean it just makes it uncountably infinitely larger correct? Just doesn't have to be perpendicular?

More or less. We don't have the same default assumptions with time dimensions though, since unless it's very specific, you can infer them to be infinite. This is based on my understanding so don't take it as gospel.

 

[Reiner04]

More or less. We don't have the same default assumptions with time dimensions though, since unless it's very specific, you can infer them to be infinite. This is based on my understanding so don't take it as gospel.

So, here I got 2 proposals, can you tell me which one you favour?

A) This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions. It is also the reason why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). For example, a higher spacetime continuum comprising of two temporal dimensions (instead of just one), one of which acts as higher temporal dimension that encompasses lower same kind of temporal dimension(s) and spans 'snapshots' corresponding to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum(s) or equivalent to it, in another direction of time than the already existing temporal dimension(s) that 4-dimensional spacetime(s) comprises of (similar to how the time dimension in Low 2-C spacetime continuum spans 3D snapshots of the Universe in a different direction than the whole of 3D space), not parallel or anti-parallel to it. Beware that these 2 distincts temporal dimensions must be active on a single higher spacetime continuum, such as multiversal timeline spanning Universes comprises of separate time dimensions, not many space time continuums that has their own time dimensions but aren't under some higher and distinct temporal dimension that spans all of them forward. The same applies to 3 temporal dimensions and so on and so forth.

B)This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions. It is also the reason why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). For example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (instead of just one), one of which must have evidence of spanning 'snapshots' corresponding to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime or equivalent to it, in another direction of time than the already existing temporal dimension that 4-dimensional spacetime comprises of (similar to how the time dimension in Low 2-C spacetime continuum spans 3D snapshots of the Universe in a different direction than the whole of 3D space), not parallel or anti-parallel to it. The same applies to 3 temporal dimensions and so on and so forth.

The difference btw them is B demands evidence for additional temporal dimensions to be in different direction than already existing temporal dimension while "A" explains how a verse with multiple Universes is not Low 1-C even if each have their own separate time dimensions, unless any one (Universe) or all of them (multiverse) are under some kind of higher temporal dimension that encompasses all lower and spans them forward. In "A" one doesn't have to provide evidence for "different direction" but just that there is some kind of higher temporal dimension servicing lower one's.

If someone may, can check the "A" for grammatical mistakes or poor wording? Thank you I just wrote it off to fit what plancks said.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

If someone may, can check the "A" for grammatical mistakes or poor wording? Thank you I just wrote it off to fit what plancks said.

Your proposals with corrected grammar:

A) This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions. It is also the reason why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). For example, a higher spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (instead of just one), one of which acts as a higher temporal dimension that encompasses the lower, same kind of temporal dimension(s) and spans 'snapshots' corresponding to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum(s) or equivalent to it, in another direction of time than the already existing temporal dimension(s) that 4-dimensional spacetime(s) comprises of (similar to how the time dimension in a Low 2-C spacetime continuum spans 3D snapshots of the Universe in a different direction than the whole of 3D space), not parallel or anti-parallel to it. Beware that these two distinct temporal dimensions must be active on a single higher spacetime continuum, such as a multiversal timeline spanning Universes comprising separate time dimensions, not many spacetime continuums that have their own time dimensions but aren't under some higher and distinct temporal dimension that spans all of them forward. The same applies to three temporal dimensions and so on and so forth.

B) This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions. It is also the reason why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). For example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (instead of just one), one of which must have evidence of spanning 'snapshots' corresponding to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime or equivalent to it, in another direction of time than the already existing temporal dimension that 4-dimensional spacetime comprises of (similar to how the time dimension in a Low 2-C spacetime continuum spans 3D snapshots of the Universe in a different direction than the whole of 3D space), not parallel or anti-parallel to it. The same applies to three temporal dimensions and so on and so forth.

 

[KLOL506]

@Ultima_Reality @Executor_N0 @Theglassman12 @Emirp sumitpo @LephyrTheRevanchist @Lonkitt @DarkGrath @Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus @Celestial_Pegasus @Firestorm808 @Qawsedf234 @Agnaa Your input here would be appreciated.

 

[KingTempest]

I guess this makes sense?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks good to me. And yeah, it is possible for 2-C sized dimensions to contain other 2-C sized dimensions.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

This makes sense I suppose.

 

[Reiner04]

A) This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions. It is also the reason why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). For example, a higher spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (instead of just one), one of which acts as a higher temporal dimension that encompasses the lower, same kind of temporal dimension(s) and spans 'snapshots' corresponding to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum(s) or equivalent to it, in another direction of time than the already existing temporal dimension(s) that 4-dimensional spacetime(s) comprises of (similar to how the time dimension in a Low 2-C spacetime continuum spans 3D snapshots of the Universe in a different direction than the whole of 3D space), not parallel or anti-parallel to it. Beware that these two distinct temporal dimensions must be active as a single higher spacetime continuum, such as a multiversal timeline spanning Universes comprising separate time dimensions, not many spacetime continuums that have their own time dimensions but aren't under some higher and distinct temporal dimension that spans all of them forward. Same with a single Universe, if it's under the influence of 2 temporal dimension then it's Low 1-C as they works as higher spacetime continuum, The same applies to three temporal dimensions and so on and so forth.

B) This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions. It is also the reason why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). For example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (instead of just one), one of which must have evidence of spanning 'snapshots' corresponding to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime or equivalent to it, in another direction of time than the already existing temporal dimension that 4-dimensional spacetime comprises of (similar to how the time dimension in a Low 2-C spacetime continuum spans 3D snapshots of the Universe in a different direction than the whole of 3D space), not parallel or anti-parallel to it. The same applies to three temporal dimensions and so on and so forth.

Soo... I believe Plancks is in favour of A? (One may correct if I'm wrong).

Which one should be fine?

The difference btw them is B demands evidence for additional temporal dimensions to be in different direction than already existing temporal dimension while "A" explains how a verse with multiple Universes is not Low 1-C even if each have their own separate time dimensions, unless any one (Universe) or all of them (multiverse) are under some kind of higher temporal dimension that encompasses all lower and spans them forward. In "A" one doesn't have to provide evidence for "different direction" but just that there is some kind of higher temporal dimension servicing lower one's.

 

[KLOL506]

Soo... I believe Plancks is in favour of A? (One may correct if I'm wrong).

Which one should be fine?

@Planck69

 

[Planck69]

Soo... I believe Plancks is in favour of A? (One may correct if I'm wrong).

Which one should be fine?

A with some slight grammar correction.

Edit: Looking at it, B would make the case clearer as it's less wordy.

 

[Reiner04]

A with some slight grammar correction.

Edit: Looking at it, B would make the case clearer as it's less wordy.

Okaish. I'll try to get it around same as B.

 

[Planck69]

This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions. It is also the reason why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). For example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (instead of just one) must have evidence of the higher temporal axis spanning the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime or equivalent to it (similar to how the time dimension in a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum spans uncountably infinite 3-dimensional snapshots of the universe). The same applies to three temporal dimensions and so on and so forth.

To be clear, what I mean is that I agree with A in concept but editing B to fit it is easier. The above is the refined proposal but I welcome any correction.

 

[Reiner04]

To be clear, what I mean is that I agree with A in concept but editing B to fit it is easier. The above is the refined proposal but I welcome any correction.

Yup I got that, I'm saying I'll try to draft section A same as section B (less wording and more understandable) by someone who is good at it (I'm not insulting my English it's just too good for vsbw peeps to understand :/).

 

[Reiner04]

Done.

This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions. It is also the reason why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). For example, a higher spacetime continuum with two temporal dimensions (instead of just one), comprises of higher temporal axis that spans regular temporal dimension(s) that whole of 4-dimensional spacetime(s) or equivalent to it are serviced by (similar to how the time dimension in a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum spans uncountably infinite 3-dimensional snapshots of the universe). For sake of clearance, a multiversal temporal dimension that spans several Universes with their own time axis or even a single Universe with it's own two time dimensions qualifies unless fiction shows otherwise. The same applies to three temporal dimensions and so on and so forth.

Your proposals with corrected grammar:

This one is new and final (supposedly), can you check for grammatical mistakes again sowy...

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Done.


This one is new and final (supposedly), can you check for grammatical mistakes again sowy...

Here:

This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions and is why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). For example, a higher spacetime continuum with two temporal dimensions (instead of just one) comprises a higher temporal axis that spans in a different direction than regular temporal dimensions that the entirety of 4-dimensional spacetimes or equivalents to it are serviced by (similar to how the time dimension in a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum spans uncountably infinite 3-dimensional snapshots of the universe). Unless fiction shows otherwise, a multiversal temporal dimension that spans several Universes with their time axes or even a single universe with its two temporal dimensions qualifies; the same applies to three or more temporal dimensions.

 

[Reiner04]

Thanks.

 

[Reiner04]

I updated the OP with the final draft as per Plancks suggestion.

Here:

Snip

Snip

Snip

Can you all check again?

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

Yeah, the improved proposal looks good and is better worded. Good job.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I guess the improved perposal in the OP looks alright.

 

[Dereck03]

I updated the OP with the final draft as per Plancks suggestion.




Can you all check again?

New suggestion seems fine to me.

 

[Elizhaa]

The text looks okay.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I updated the OP with the final draft as per Plancks suggestion.




Can you all check again?

@Antvasima Is this acceptable?

This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions and is why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). For example, a higher spacetime continuum with two temporal dimensions (instead of just one) comprises a higher temporal axis that spans in a different direction than regular temporal dimensions that the entirety of 4-dimensional spacetimes or equivalents to it are serviced by (similar to how the time dimension in a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum spans uncountably infinite 3-dimensional snapshots of the universe). Unless fiction shows otherwise, a multiversal temporal dimension that spans several Universes with their time axes or even a single universe with its two temporal dimensions qualifies; the same applies to three or more temporal dimensions.

 

[Reiner04]

To be clear, what I mean is that I agree with A in concept but editing B to fit it is easier. The above is the refined proposal but I welcome any correction.

Yeah, the improved proposal looks good and is better worded. Good job.

I guess the improved perposal in the OP looks alright.

New suggestion seems fine to me.

The text looks okay.

Thank you everybody for the inputs

 

[Reiner04]

@Antvasima Is this acceptable?

There was slight error I just saw after re-reading plancks draft, not much that needs re-evaluation tho, here:

This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions and is why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). For example, a higher spacetime continuum with two temporal dimensions (instead of just one) comprises a higher temporal axis that spans regular temporal dimensions that the entirety of 4-dimensional spacetimes or equivalents to it are serviced by (similar to how the time dimension in a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum spans uncountably infinite 3-dimensional snapshots of the universe), qualifies for Low 1-C. Unless fiction shows otherwise, a multiversal temporal dimension that spans several Universes with their time axes or even a single universe with its two temporal dimensions qualifies; the same applies to three or more temporal dimensions.

This is fine.

 

[Planck69]

For example, a higher spacetime continuum with two temporal dimensions (instead of just one) comprises a higher temporal axis that spans in a different direction than regular temporal dimensions

@IdiosyncraticLawyer

Why did you randomly add the matter of "different direction" and try to get that passed to Ant without the other staff evaluating that? Since this thread is specifically about how that's potentially misleading wording?

 

[Reiner04]

@IdiosyncraticLawyer

Why did you randomly add the matter of "different direction" and try to get that passed to Ant without the other staff evaluating that? Since this thread is specifically about how that's potentially misleading wording?

It was my mistake. I after re-reading just corrected it in the OP. I apologise.

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Agnaa @Qawsedf234 @PrinceofPein @Ovy7 @DarkGrath

What do you think about this?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Let me get this straight, you are trying to propose that as far it is a multiverse or space with multiple universes inside of it, it should by default have another hyper timeline?

If this is the claim, then this is not a misleading wording change but rather a site wide revision, as that is different from how we currently treat it.