Hypertimelines In Dragon Ball Explained

This blog will explain why a certain aspect of the Dragon Ball cosmology qualifies for Low 1-C. Specifically, the higher time dimension that encompasses the 12 Macrocosms.

How do temporal dimensions impact dimensional tiering?

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.

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 time is not 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 natural numbers, and therefore corresponds to a set of real numbers. It's why destroying the whole 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: eradicating it over every moment of its existence.

A typical space-time continuum projects a temporal dimension over a 3-dimensional space and dislocates it over the span of uncountably infinite moments. Given the continuous nature of time, this would result in the formation of uncountably infinite snapshots of 3-dimensional space. A continuum comprising of 2 temporal dimensions would have snapshots corresponding to an entire 4-dimensional space-time, and propagate a standard timeline through continuous change in an additional time direction.

When does an overarching timeline fail to qualify for Low 1-C?

In the absence of contradictory evidence, timelines are assumed to share the same time axis i.e. the same dimension of time. Note that sharing the same temporal axis does not mean that they would be connected in any way, as it only means that their time flows in the same direction. It's like how two people can both move in the same direction without their paths ever meeting, as long as they started in different places.

You can model a cosmology with an overarching timeline in a way that makes it a larger hypervolume rather than a greater infinity. What determines spatiotemporal separation is the capacity for space-times to exist in parallel and therefore never intersect in space and [infinite] time. Since it has nothing to do with different time dimensions inherently, this means multiple space-time continuums can be serviced by a single time axis. The model in question takes advantage of this fact. The idea is, since spatiotemporal separation doesn't inherently introduce new time dimensions, you can assume that a single time axis (that of the overarching timeline) is a singular time dimension that services all of space-time. Therefore, a cosmology with an overarching timeline doesn't need to be modeled as a construction of two temporal dimensions. This means in order to prove that an overarching timeline makes a cosmology Low 1-C, you need evidence that the lesser space-times harbor their own time dimensions.

Regarding the significance of higher time dimensions

It should be noted that timelines are assumed to be infinite in length, unless evidence to the contrary is provided. Hence, unless otherwise indicated, the destruction of timelines that branch off from one another and never merge would still be ranked between 2-C and 2-A (depending on the number).

The question of whether destroying a 5-dimensional object would be a Low 1-C feat depends on the relationship between higher-dimensional and lower-dimensional spaces in cosmology. If an uncountably infinite number of 4-dimensional spacetimes are stacked up to form a small subset of a 5-dimensional universe, destroying the latter would be a Low 1-C feat. However, destroying a random 5-dimensional object with finite mass would not be.

Temporal dimensions are different because they always form a structure that embeds uncountably infinite states of a universe's spatial volume within itself. We already consider time dimensions to be significant in size, hence why the 4th dimension of a Low 2-C construct is considered to hold qualitative superiority even if we know nothing about the time dimension besides that it forms a continuum. This is because time is infinite by default and bijects with a dimensional space to form an uncountably infinite number of elements.

Regarding the orthogonality of higher time dimensions.

What is Orthogonality?

In mathematics, two vectors are considered orthogonal if their dot product is zero. For example, in a two-dimensional coordinate plane, two vectors are orthogonal if they are perpendicular to each other, meaning the angle between them is 90 degrees. The space-time interval (Δs² = Δt² - Δx² - Δy² - Δz²) is the mathematical framework that demonstrates the orthogonality of time.

What makes time orthogonal to space (in simple terms)?

When physicists describe time as "orthogonal" to spatial dimensions, they are using the concept of orthogonality in a more abstract, mathematical sense, rather than in the conventional spatial sense of being physically perpendicular. When two dimensions are orthogonal, they are not related in a way that one depends on the other. In simple terms, it means they're like two things that have nothing to do with each other.

• Example of Orthogonality: In a simple graph, the x-axis and y-axis are orthogonal. If you move left or right (x-axis), it doesn't change your up or down position (y-axis), and vice versa.

Time isn't orthogonal to space in the sense that it's physically perpendicular and the forward flow of time is a perpendicular direction to left/right, up/down, etc. In a total vacuum where time doesn't flow, changing your position in space won't change your position in time. Likewise, Moving backwards or forward in time within a single area won't change your position in space. That's what it means to say time is "perpendicular."

How do higher time dimensions demonstrate orthogonality?

As I said before, time flowing in a different direction like sideways or upside down isn't what makes time dimensions orthogonal. Take this simple visual of a single space-time continuum serviced by two temporal dimensions.

As you can see, the higher time dimension is perpendicular. To be specific, in a total vacuum where you don't consider things like timelines splitting due to time travel, changing your position across the past/present/future of the lower time axis doesn't affect your position under the higher time dimension. In this way, the higher time dimension serves as an additional degree of freedom that measures the change of a whole space-time. That's why they're considered different directions, yet time is flowing forward in both axes.

Is orthogonality a requirement?

Yes, but not in the sense that it's required evidence. If a substantial space-time continuum under an overarching timeline is recognized as being serviced by its own time dimension, then the overarching timeline is automatically considered orthogonal: hence why the wording for the temporal dimension standards was revised compared to the citation above. A statement for the overarching timeline being orthogonal is all in all: supporting or alternative evidence, but not required evidence if a lesser space-time is already recognized as harboring a self-contained temporal dimension.

Another way to visualize it.

Imagine the relationship between perpendicular lines.

These 2 independent directions introduce 2 different axes of definition. What's higher dimensional is the 2-Dimensional plane containing them. Both lines individually are 1-Dimensional objects, so destroying either line individually would be a 1-Dimensional feat. However, destroying the plane defining them both in all their extent would be a 2-Dimensional feat. Same would apply to Dragon Ball's cosmology, as demonstrated below:

If someone were to stand in the in-between space (above which the different time axis is located) and manipulate time, they would be affecting a different time axis, but not both axes at the same time. However, the timeline above both would define both axes and be rendered a higher-dimensional object.

The in-between space in the context of Dragon Ball is the Neutral Space where the Tournament of Destroyers took place in. The Neutral Space contains all of the 12 macrocosms of the Dragon Ball multiverse, separating them so that they do not touch nor interact with each other. It is also called a space different from the 12 universes so from above information it seems that the Neutral Space follows parallelism, making it an insignificant 5-D space. The Neutral Space seems to contain stars and galaxies making it somewhat an universe of its own.

Now the Neutral space has an element of time as Hit was able to use his Time-Skip there. This acts as an in-between axis of time for the hypertimeline which also acts as a sideways level of time perpendicular to the macrocosms which is why you can destroy the individual macrocosms and their temporal origin without wrecking the others.

Dragon Ball's higher time dimension

• The RoSaT is stated to have a different dimension of time comparative to realms like the Kaioshin Realm and Living World, which means that zones with their own time dimensions are an established concept.
• There is a room inside the Living World that creates all of space-time for the universe: confirming that it’s serviced by its own time dimension.

To elaborate on that second point, Universe 7 depicts a chamber that is the origin of all space-time, which is nebulously located within the Macrocosm and the reason time exists. As evidenced by Zeno's willingness to erase Universe 7, the main Macrocosm's destruction is irrelevant to the greater timeline, which means the time room clearly isn't the linchpin for all of space-time throughout the multiverse. Seeing as the other Universes are portrayed as cosmologically identical, the overall implication is that there are 12 different dimensions of time.

From there, the 12 Macrocosms are encompassed by an overarching timeline (which is responsible for other Universes being copied over time travel events). This would mean that the Dragon Ball cosmology consists of two time dimensions, and therefore already warrants a Low 1-C rating based on the temporal dimension standards.

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 number of dimensions, which 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). A spacetime continuum with two time axis, instead of just one, could likewise be visualized as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the entire regular timeline with 3 space and 1 time dimension. It would hence be one level of qualitative superiority above a timeline and as such baseline Low 1-C. Similarily, adding even more time dimensions would add one level of qualitative superiority each time.

Alternative/Supporting evidence

Introduction (Wall of Text Incoming)

Outside of explanations which state that multiple time dimensions exist it is difficult to show that a fiction has more than one. The key point that has to be established is that there is a kind of time that flows in a different direction than the past or the future or any of the spatial directions. Of particular consideration are instances in which timelines as a whole being changed, such that there is a timeline (or multiple timelines) before they were changed and after they were changed or created / destroyed. As the timelines as a whole are changed, the before and after in this context can't be the past and future the timelines usually use, but should be a separate direction.

However, caution is necessary. As explained above, we require that the additional time dimension is "a line comprised of uncountably infinite points". If new versions of timelines are only created if they are changed, due to time travel for example, then the number of "snapshots" of the timeline would be far more limited. The amount of snapshots would be one more than the times the timeline was changed. So, for example, if the timeline is rewritten 2 times, there would be 3 snapshots of the timeline: the original, the timeline after the first rewrite and the timeline after the second rewrite. That are far less than the required uncountably infinite many.

Aside from direct statements, the easiest way to confirm that the line is comprised of uncountably infinite points/"snapshots" is to show that the development of the timelines is time-like. I.e. typically one would want a statement like the alteration of the timelines being subject to its own flow of time or by saying that special time travel can go to prior versions of the timelines instead of the past. The keyword in the latter case is time travel, as that specifies that the action happens through movement through something like time. Note that such statements can be considered contradicted if the fiction specifies that new versions of the timeline, i.e. additional snapshots, are only created when the timeline is altered or similar.

One other pitfall to consider is the case of branching timelines, where one can return to a past with less timelines by just going back to a point in the regular past that was before the split happened. In such cases one has to decide based on context if that is meant or if a prior version where the splits also didn't exist in the regular future is meant. The former case doesn't qualify for an additional time dimension, while the latter might if it meets the other outlined criteria.

Even without explicit confirmation of two temporal dimensions existing under a cosmology, there are [limited] ways to go about proving the existence of higher time dimensions. It's best not to get caught up in the specifics, but rather grasp the general concept of such alternative evidence. The big picture is proving that space-time continuums under an overarching timeline are subject to a time-like development. For instance, in time travel fictions, you'll often have prior versions of timelines and latter versions that emerged from a time travel event. If you can prove those aren't discrete alternate versions, but a continuous time-like progression of the timeline, that should suffice as hard evidence of a higher time dimension.

Why don't I illustrate with an example? Say there's an entity in an empty realm, and it creates 3 timelines. It later creates 5 more. This being is capable of time traveling back to when there were 3 universes, and even none. Would this prove the overarching timeline is an additional direction measuring multiversal change? Most likely... see, it all hinges on that word time travel, which we will discard for now. In a vacuum, you could interpret this situation as a basic rewrite of the overarching timeline that spans the empty realm.

• You rewrote the timeline once so 3 universes always existed since the past (which is no different from creating 3 universes).
• You do the same thing and add 5 universes.

Technically, you could say you only spawned several overarching timelines: one that spans no universes, one that spans 3, and one that spans 8. With dimensional travel, you could switch between overarching timelines representing different multiversal states. However, there are only 3 effective snapshots and 11 universes total, which is far less than uncountably infinitely many versions of a timeline. Every overarching timeline is the equivalent of discrete, finite states of a multiverse which only emerge under time travel instances or other forced alterations.

Why don't we add a bit more context now? Let's say these alternate timelines resulted from using time travel to switch between multiversal states. This scenario would most likely prove the existence of a higher temporal dimension, as it indicates that the progression of the creation/destruction of timelines is done under a continuous flow of time, and we'd be working under a concept of "before and after" that goes beyond the past/present/future the lesser timelines utilize (such a time wouldn't be that of a regular past where those universes always existed). Another example would if a character explicitly destroys past/present/future, but another character could somehow time travel to a point before that happened (though that tends to invite plot holes, and the implicit higher cosmology should still be recognized as its own time flow or outright called a timeline).

You should also take caution when it comes to branching timelines, and scenarios where you can return to a multiversal state with less timelines by simply going back to a point before a split occurred. Depending on the wider context, such a showcase could undermine any alternative evidence. This image depicts the general idea:

Supporting evidence for Dragon Ball

Regarding the interaction between Trunks' timeline and the main timeline, Bulma mentioned in the manga that 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 the path of the space between dimensions, 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. If they reached any other point in time, they would arrive in a completely new [hyper]timeline.

This narrative element of temporal cohesion serves as a tangible demonstration of the continuous progression of time across the multiverse. It contradicts the notion of a discrete framework where the timeline would be akin to a set of finite states. The implication is that the timeline doesn't comprise a few independent versions of the multiverse that only emerge through time travel events; rather, there exists a distinct configuration of space-times for every passing moment, and the overall development of the multiverse is time-like and continuous. To put it simply, a given timeline is the equivalent of uncountably infinitely many versions of the multiverse.

Another thing worth mentioning is that the erasure of one timeline doesn't affect another. First off, it's necessary to establish that Zeno indeed erased the overarching timeline.

Zeno quotes that everything's gone.

Old Kai mentions that Zeno erased all the future in that parallel world forever.

Goku, Bulma, and Trunks mention that the whole future was erased entirely.

Goku tells Trunks that although he can't recover his timeline as it was fully erased, it's possible for him to create a future one.

Trunks' new world doesn't belong to him so much so that Whis reminds them of another pair of Future Trunks and Mai already situated there.

The official Dragon Ball Website states that Zeno erased the timeline along with Zamasu himself:

"When hope was all but lost, Goku had the idea to call upon the lord of all universes, Zeno, who then erased not only Zamasu but the entirety of Trunks' future timeline from reality."

Each time ring is meant to represent a timeline composed of 12 universes, and one of them shattered immediately after Zeno's display.

Zeno's erasure of Trunks' timeline had no impact on the main timeline. This, combined with how the alternate timelines are stated to be entirely separate entities with their own histories, means that rather than the timelines being connected under a common past through a system of conventional branching, they are self-contained space-times. This is further supported by the temporal connection I mentioned above and how save for certain exceptions, characters are expected to be capable of navigating the past/present/future of their specific timelines only. The alternate timelines exist fully in parallel. They have independent existences as portrayed in the image below, and don't belong to a cohesive system of branches.

Conclusion

The Dragon Ball cosmology comprises two temporal dimensions. In the same way a standard space-time continuum is formed by associating a universal space with uncountably infinitely many points in time, the hypertimeline that encompasses the multiverse is the equivalent of uncountably infinite "snapshots" of the multiverse for every infinitesimal moment in time across past/present/future. Keep in mind that the Macrocosm can't be Low 1-C under this reasoning, as it isn't composed of two temporal dimensions and at best harbors a basic overarching timeline. On a final note, if we were to disregard the precedents established in section 6.2 where we determined that the overarching timelines do not belong to a wider system of branches, an infinite Dragon Ball multiverse would be Low 1-C in its entirety.