I disagree,
the colored manga scans you sent clearly depicts PLANETS, not suns.
They're not canon, hinging the majority of your argument off those ain't doing you any favor.
Now that isn't to say they don't look nice, or can't be useful, but things like "they shaded or drew these completely black/white or blank things odd colors", isn't an argument, as they have no say for canonicity. That goes for every Shueisha colored manga btw, even ones like JoJo (it's way worse over there, people to this day still get confused or mad when media has character colors differ, like pink Giorno in the anime, even though blue Giorno was never canon, and in an old ******* interview dude even says he imagined him with soft pink pastel colors).
Likewise happened in
Chapter 244.
Jupiter literally looks like the orange PLANET in the colored scans.
Your argument is "it looks like jupiter"? Yeah, well, I think it looks like a sun half the time.
Not a very good argument now is it? Subjectivity isn't objectivity.
The anime depiction is irrelevant, it literally differs from the manga, so it's not usable.
Nobody brought up the anime (I think?). But ok, nobody will use the anime in regards to Namek and it's orbital system, in particular. Happy?
But manga?
The black and white manga very clearly shows the suns,
as suns, at multiple points. Above is a few examples.
Kakarot also depicts the suns differently than what you're suggesting, as Null already pointed out.
Null scans actively shoot down his argument, every time a sun is shown, it's always at ridiculously close distances. Basic angsizing can confirm that, and yes, even the non-shaded examples.
Plus, how convenient that you're not using the colored panel for the actual pixelscaling,
they're clearly planets there as well.
Because they're non-canon? Why would we EVER use them for pixel scaling? And no, I did. I angsized legit like 8 different ones just to check if it was consistent, they all hover within the millions of km, usually 3m on average.
Double posting....
"They're sometimes given extra detail and color gradients", doesn't mean "ignore the fact we know they're suns, they're secretly planets, and also ignore the times they
don't get drawn like that when they're undeniably stars, just so we can say they're planets even though we know they're the same thing".
And before this gets hit with the "no u", the difference is we know Namek has 3 suns that grant it it's eternal daytime. 3 orbiting planets around it has never been mentioned ever. Occam's Razor and whatnot.
We can't see the three suns in any shots, because if the temperature is anything like Earth's the sun would be several billion kilometers away.
Except we already went through this.
Climate is impossible either way you go about it. The fact it has
three suns is already a issue if you want to go that route, if earth had 3 suns at the same distance as our sun from 3 different angles, well earth would be destroyed, from being torn apart by gravity, to being cooked alive due to the extra heat sources.
The very fact its orbit is to the point it's always day, would absolutely ravage the planet's climate, there'd be no night, which, is pretty damn important all things considered.
So, again, what's the argument? That Namek is scientifically impossible? You're right, it is. But that's the case whether Namek is a normal sized planet and each sun is perfectly placed at sun-earth distances too, in fact I'd wager that's worse actually.
If Namek is huge and the suns orbit
it that would save it from being torn apart by the 3 different sun's gravitational pull, as it would have the larger pull. It'd be no different from how some planets can have multiple moons orbiting it. But if Namek orbited the suns? Which one? It'd be ripped apart. Unless it is stationary? But for it to be stationary it'd have to be so far away from the suns in question as to not get moved around that Namek should be an ice planet instead. Or what about the suns being a different class? Not possible, Namek's lighting all but confirms the class of star, so we know the minimum and maximum sizes for them, gravitational pull, and so forth, which we can then calculate the distances Namek is from them by angsizing, and the suns still get tens of millions of km closer to the planet compared to earth, which would still lead to asinine temperatures. And that's just the tip. Namek is ****** no matter how you go about it. Thus arguing "climate would be mess" isn't an argument, it should
already be one, it isn't. But alas, even if it should be, doesn't change the information and facts we know to be the case regardless.
THIS is how Toriyama depicts stars, there is no shading like the ones in the panel you used. I disagree completely.
Triple posting.... I'm not making a new album.
At multiple points in the manga the stars, because that's what they are, I'm not humoring this "actually planets lmao" argument much further, are drawn exactly like that?
Don't you find it odd at numerous points in the manga, Namek just so happens to have 3 very blatantly stars, by your own admission at this point if the argument is legit "they're drawn this way, not THAT way", hovering around it, at a much larger scale compared to the surrounding stars in the background?
Why is there 3 stars around planet Namek in a triangular formation at numerous points drawn much larger than the background stars, in shots focusing on Namek and the surrounding space at multiple points?
Also Toriyama has depicted stars numerous ways, **** if I'm gonna skim the manga for all of them, but you've read it, you should know there's been times a star has been drawn in ways beyond "white circle".
The planets have SHADING, what kind of a light source is shaded?
A lot actually if it's meant to represent color gradients, which isn't exactly an uncommon technique when drawing the literal sun, to denote the "orange" and "red/yellow" "blotches" along it. Now given this argument is less about Namek and
art as a whole, I'm going to be using some various examples of DBZ media as a whole.
Notice how every sun here is drawn with shading? This is all from various DBZ media, yet in EACH one, it's drawn/portrayed differently, and all have shading/gradients.
To show what I mean, I even made them black and white. Would you say those aren't the sun because it has some black & white shading? Or that they're all different because they're drawn differently at times?
No, of course not. A sun can be drawn in many different ways. The cooler one for example wouldn't even look like a sun in black or white if we didn't have that knowledge ahead of time tbh, someone could easily mistake those "bubbles" as something else like land formations, or even impact zones or who knows This is just a few examples, but throughout not only anime, movies, but even the manga, there is dozens of cases where it's drawn oddly, or not even oddly but just different from other times. There's examples in the manga too where our literal sun has been drawn differently,
I was gonna grab them but I'm not skimming the whole ass manga for that as said, so make do, it get the point across all the same anyway and not like you goons haven't read the manga (I pray), you know they exist, don't waste my time for something you already know to be true. Regardless, no, this isn't an argument, ever, not just for DBZ but quite literally any medium of art.
So to answer the question, what kind of light source has shading? Any depending on the artist's mood.
It can be odd and misleading,
but, we know they're suns, and they're even drawn without that at multiple points anyway. So what's there to argue? This isn't up for debate, we know what they are in the context of the manga. And "suns can't have shading" is an objectively wrong argument that doesn't even tackle the proposal or whether or not the CRT is true or not,.
That's NON-SENSE, they're clearly depicted as solid objects being illuminated by a light source, not light sources themselves. Plus, one of the suns could simply be behind the shot to explain how illuminating the front of Namek.
"Planet Namek very explicitly has 3 suns around it, illuminating it from all sides. We are shown many times, 3 celestial objects around Namek, in which they're even drawn at times like any normal star, including the very stars on panel at the same time".
Vs.
"Planet Namek secretly has 3 planets orbiting it that are
never mentioned at any point, in literally any media ever, while the 3 suns are actually
never seen at any point, including the times we can blatantly tell they're intended to be stars, they're just suspiciously drawn and coincidentally accurate stars just so happened to be placed in the exact same configurations, at no less than 10 different points".
Remember when I said no headcanon, assumptions, and whatnot? Yeah I meant this.
"They're clearly depicted as-", says who, you? I want statements, not "arguing impossible to actually verify vague notions.", otherwise this will become the usual bog-standard cesspool of a DBZ thread because we circle back into "nuh uh" presumptuous interpretations and conjecture that go back and forth because nobody wants to concede because the arguments in question aren't based in objective factual info. To be blunt, I don't want your opinion, I want hard stated factual information.
Also the sun is always drawn in front of the pov so we just can't see it argument.... Including the shots with the 3 suspiciously placed suns. Does that mean Namek's solar system has a secret 4th sun, and the other 2 are to be expected and then there's a 3rd, or ig 4th in this case, that's also in the solar system but just doesn't count toward Namek's "3 suns"? This doesn't work as an argument. And yes, 4, they're drawn to disproportionately large to not be within the solar system, angsize go brrr.
To answer Chariot, no,
the panel you used, ARE NOT STARS EITHER, THEY'RE BLUE AND YELLOW PLANETS WITH SHADING, EVEN THE ONE FAR AWAY HAS IT.
The non-canon colored manga... Shaded by a literal nobody at Shueisha....
Whereas Akira Toriyama left them as completely blank circles in that specific instance...
Where's the shading? If you're going to answer me, actually answer me, not the thing we evidently aren't going to accept as some sort of irrebuttable counter.
Also, we have Goku literally
confirming that Namek has neighbouring planets, but we're gonna assume the celestial bodies in the shots are stars? For what?
Yeah I'm sure the solar system has other planets.
But are we going to
assume the consistently
three celestial objects orbiting the planet are the
three celestial objects, that being suns, we
know the planet has, instead of assuming and creating entirely new logistics that Namek just so happens to ALSO have 3, specifically 3 planets orbiting it just because, especially when we know damn well half the time said 3 objects are drawn identical to stars anyway?
The other half be damned, bro wanted to give them detail, or maybe he didn't, we don't know why it's like that exactly, so guessing and arguing over literal presumptions, because that's what this is,
presumptions, not the actual info we have as fact, is just a waste of everyone's time.
Basically, you really need a good argument to consider that the colored spheres full of shading are stars when we have confirmation that there are many planets near Namek
Here's an argument.
"Shuiesha colored scans are non-canon, a chunk of the scans in the manga also don't have any shading at all as well. The existence of shading doesn't detract from the information we know to be true even if that was the case".
The fact some do, doesn't detract from the actual knowledge we have, that being we know they're stars, and half the time they're drawn in the exact way that you
want them to be anyway. You don't like when they're shaded, drawn with detail, or look funny? That's cool, we have big empty white dots too drawn the same way other stars on those very panel are drawn, so you're in luck.
Imperative word,
want, not
need. They don't need to be drawn a specific way. They can be drawn however he wanted them to be drawn. From blank circles, to even having wispy flames coming off it, or any amount of shading possible, how they're portrayed, doesn't change what they are, doubly so when they
have been portrayed the way you want too.
Also no, Goku saying "hey, planets of the solar system, give me some energy" is not saying "Namek has multiple planets orbiting it within extremely close proximity, as such the 3 celestial objects we constantly see around Namek, are these specific planets", which is what it would need to say for this to work. Goku, even before that point, had solar system level range with the Spirit Bomb.
"The Genki-Dama is a technique that gathers the energy held by grass and trees, humans and animals, objects and the atmosphere, and then fires it. A Genki-Dama gathered from only Kaio Planet had the destructive power to smash a super-speed brick. From this, in the case of a Genki-Dama made on Earth, if you consider the Earth’s size plus the ability to make energy from the sun your ally, it would certainly have the force to destroy a planet. However, it has the weakness that it makes you defenseless until fired."
You're conflating Namek's solar system having multiple planets, as most solar systems often do, with those 3 specific objects that orbit Namek as being planets.
That is not what that line entails in the manga (idk it might in other stuff, but we're talking manga canon here), nor can it be extrapolated to mean such without delving into complete conjecture.
But for argument's sake. Let's just assume, for some reason, Namek secretly has 3 suspiciously placed planets around it that aren't mentioned in manga, daizenshuu, etc (which would still make it an impossible planet if the goal is for this to somehow make it scientifically fine?). This would, unironically, mean nothing, because if the shading denotes it's a planet, that
still means there's 3 suns around Namek because we see said 3 suns,
without shading, gradients, or whatever you want to call it, multiple times.
Or would one say that doesn't count and they're actually the planets too? Why? If the mere drawing method is what effects what they are in face of all confirmed knowledge within that canon, why is it suddenly ok to pretend the blatantly drawn stars, are planets? Yet the inverse surely can't be the case?
Now I'm not saying that's what you think, but if someone made such an argument, that would in fact be hypocritical, contradictory, and disingenuous, it simply doesn't work, it's double standards without the factual backing of the opposed side.
Your rebuttal has no concrete proof or evidence. It is just arguing drawing depictions, interpreting it in a very specific way to be planets as opposed to it being confirmed as such in the manga or manga guides to have 3 orbiting planets, ignoring the contradictory examples that corroborate the actual stated and confirmed info (3 blatantly drawn stars, in a generally consistent configuration, for a planet that explicitly has 3 suns as stated with its ecology and behaviour having an eternal day due to that being a notable fact), and creating essentially new lore to go along with it....
We still haven't got past square one. Prove they're not normal stars without assumptions. Post a statement saying Namek has specifically 3 orbiting planets because I'm not particularly a fan of guesswork. Explain why Toriyama randomly decided to draw said "planets" as "stars" at points if we're taking art as gospel and assuming authorial intent, because surely them being drawn like stars must also have implications if shading confirms them as planets apparently? Like you can't have your cake and eat it too.
And if you want to argue climate or "Namek can't be like this because this impossible thing", explain away all the impossibilities that come packaged with your proposal because it goes both ways (You're not gonna use that as an argument, yet be fine with it when the alternatives you're arguing for are just as scientifically impossible), Namek absolutely shouldn't exist the way it does.
To top it off, angsizing still condemns the former argument, like it's actually just not up for debate, every time a sun is drawn, and I'm not talking about the shaded examples given your issues with that, I mean the "this has to be a sun" examples, the stars are well within "cooking the planet" range, tens of times above ours, both on planet shots, and even the space shots (really though, those stars extremely close, they're drawn disproportionately large).
As a extra to the above earlier in the thread, Daizenshuu 7 confirms the Freeza split is the horizon curvature, not planet curvature.
"
This technique’s destructive force is tremendous, creating a deep fissure that extends far off into Planet Namek’s horizon.", so that's fun.
Knowing my luck I've condemned myself to arguing this shit but I've been busy so idk see you goons whenever I'm done writing the inevitable reply to the inevitable reply where we go back and forth for 1-2 weeks.
We love DBZ CRT....
.
