Sure, sure...... The main problem is now we are going to scale off the map based on speculations, becouse we will have no clue how the structure of the macrocosm is portrayed, and will make things even more inaccurate, and everything will be messed up.
AKM said it was OK. However, as he left some biased people are taking advantage of this, it seems.
Worst comes to worst, just use the size of the observable uni
This is why I asked Maverick on his views on using guidebooks.
Um what? When is assuming a universe is the size of the universe that crazy?
see point 2 in the op or look below for easier finding
again, see point 2 in the op
it looks like a massive cosmos with glowy points orbiting it, the very fact that we see other galaxies in there and that dwarfed by it shows that it is not a galaxy, hell we could very well argue that the said glowy points are the galaxies, but that is not nescesary, so i will not suggest that
if that was a galaxy, then why does it dwarf other galaxies and cosmic structures in size? besides we still have point 2 in the op
using a map that makes a 1.000.000 thing dwarf the universe in height is not inacurate? besides it is not speculation for the anime since there is a showing suggested, besides using safe assumptions is not wrong, it is done all the time in this site, if we end up with no other options, then we do what we must i guess
which is why this thread exists to point the problems in that usage
says who?
No. Assuming the structure of the DB universe, comparing it with out own.
This Universe presented in the anime is just observed living Universe, it does not have all realms, which is the real macrocosm, this should not be used to refute the map
Quit the accusations of bias, thank you very much.
Okay? I don't think anyone ever claimed AKM was against the map anyway.
oh sure, me wanting things to be accurate means that i am biased, dude can we please not start with the petty accusations?
what he said may be valid then, by new arguments are being used in the now in the op
observable universe size is our standard universe size without other statements or showing, what mess does it create?
stop derailing with other topics, this is not about the infinite universes and we will not discuss that here, this thread is about the model used in the calculations, anything else is derailing
there is nothing to say that it will even be applied in the first place, but then again, this is derailing, i ask kindly for you and everyone else doing it to stop
irrelevant to size
they weren't ignored:
you still have to say what you believe that, the point about the other realms was covered in the op in the points 1.1 and 1.2
okay so?
No, but it seems in this thread people want to disregard the map in regards scaling, when is the only thing we have to scale the macrocosm.
U7 Earth isn't the same as our Earth at all either, but for all intents and purposes we assume it to be the same size / have the same properties by default.
what is the evidence for this? if you are going to keep tackling that button, you should show evidence for such
Earth being in a different location matters not for our standard assumption of a universe's size, besides that both dimensions were covered in the op
you say that because?
standard assumptions of a universe as said in our "universe page"
that was him using the calculated size of the dbs universe that uses the macrocosm map, which this thread's proposal is to dismiss it
Becouse we don't accept Heaven, Hell as entirely separated space-times.
Hahahahah, your points? What points exactly? It didn't show anything there, everything has already been refuted, my goodness, this scan you presented is just the observed living Universe, it doesn't show all cosmology, it's incomplete, his word is not above Akira, macrocosm is quite different, as shown in the pineapple scan.
And no reason is given for why anything else on that map should be assumed to be to scale.
any reason as to why the afterlife should be side by side that isn't in secondary materia? when we see the universe we don't see then in there by the side
not really? do they have any size said in the main cannon?
okay so? then answer stays the same
mockery tone aside, these 2 in the op:
“The only thing that isn’t valid is the size of the things in the afterlife which are that big to show the locations of the Universe AKM and Zamasu addressed this in the same thread you were in a year ago
I'm not convinced by that.
if the things in the afterlife are not in scale, why would anything else be?
As I repeated again, this is just the observed living Universe, it does not show the whole macrocosm that has hell, Heaven, and the world of Kaioshins, I recommend using a decent argument, sorry, but your argument does not go down the throat, no, and no point that you quoted refutes us! Akira toriyama was asked why he decided that the macrocosm was like that and he even said that the realms of the Kaioshins are left out, and here comes another DBS guide showing the same map to follow in the old guides, which shows that it has not undergone any reset in cosmology, and his speech disregarding the guide is refuted by the author himself who claims that the universe is like that, so there's nothing else to do, if you don't accept the harsh reality in your little life, so the manga itself represents that same map presented the which makes the map fully canonical and everything in the cited guide, there is no contradiction about the guide unless it refutes the guide, so what if the guide is considered secondary to the work? The work itself proved to be like that, both in the Kai anime and in the classic Dragon Ball manga, in addition to having Akira's own words, who are you in the bread line?
dbz kai is not cannon to neither dbs anime or manga so irrelevant, even if you disagree with using the showed universe showed in the dbs anime, point 2 still stands and a recalc would need to be done anyway, also you showed no evidence for the claim that we are only seein the living universe in those scenes linked in the op
My dear little friend, you are new here and you don't know how things work, it's not like that, you were refuted, and yes Dragon Ball Kai is canon, the only one that is not canon is Dragon Ball Z for weakling, but DBK is used for DBS work, see on the DB wall where it says about DBK, are you going to do calculations? Hahahahah, we're not done here and you're breaking one of the rules created by AKM and DD, that same argument was debated, and refuted, it's not acceptable here on the wiki to use that same argument, so don't try to update the cosmology that way.
Broo.., that's too harsh, chill
two admins agreed tho
i looked, did you? we don't consider kai in the timeline of the series, it is not even mentioned
no, i have no such skill, this thread is to approve the macrocosm's map problem and then have a calculation group member recalc it
i am not breaking any rule whatsoever, i said why not earlier
Dude, chill out and stop being passive aggressive with other people on the thread.
So, I'm not being aggressive at all, I'm reporting the truth here, just take it easy, I didn't show any aggressiveness on the contrary, I don't know it's a joke, I'm being sincere all the time, where am I not tolerating? Are you really confused?
Your last post was filled with passive aggressive language; laughing at omegabronic and calling him your "dear little friend" as you told him he was new and didn't know how things worked.
How can that be aggressive? For me, aggression is sending curses, I don't understand how this is actually aggression, but I'm not blind to shut up either, I'm from a different place than you and at no time did I know that this was aggression, but if it was I apologize and we continue with rebuttals.
Look up "passive aggressive". You don't have to be swearing your head off to be talking inappropriately with other people on the thread. Just take the warning, stop mocking your opponents and debate the points instead of laughing and insulting. Accusing someone of being new and ignorant is not helping.
