Quite the stellar DB addition

[RenderGK]

Now, I'm agreed

 

[Nierre]

bro.

 

[Omegabronic]

bro.

sis.

 

[TiltedFN]

It looks good on paper, but execution kind of makes me have some doubts. For example, the planet has often been described as "Small" by various visitors; then again. So have the Super Dragon Balls simple been described as "Almost as big as a planet". But a volume that dwarfs the sun but still only the same gravity as Earth would make it a very shallow gas giant.

Likewise, it's common knowledge that Namek would actually have to be a durable planet in order to be in the middle of a three star system. GBE isn't necessarily the end all be all of durability given the existence of how fictional alloys work, but if anything. It be more realistic if Namek was the type of planet that has high density relative to lower volume; which would also be weird given Bulma can still walk around it just fine.

It looks good mathematically, but I just am not sure. I guess neutral for now.

After the recent arguments, would you agree to just using the diameter and not the GBE?

 

[Damage3245]

The way I see it, either perspective starts off from the same fundamentals;

1) If you assume that the stars around Namek are Sun-sized, then Namek becomes extremely huge by comparison.

2) If you assume that Namek is Earth-sized, then the stars around Namek become extremely small by comparison.

At face value, either perspective is equally valid as they're arbitrarily based on assuming a size value relative to something in our own world that isn't directly stated in the Dragon Ball series.

However, what tips the balance for me personally, is that we see an ordinary human like Bulma walking around on Namek's surface unprotected and doing just fine. So, this suggests to me that the planet has roughly Earth-like gravity, an Earth-like atmosphere, and she isn't being roasted by Sun-sized stars in close proximity to the planet. For a world that is supposedly many times bigger than our own Sun, it possesses properties that are incredibly Earth-like. This doesn't mean there are no problems with an Earth-like Namek, but there's less problems with that option.

So even if either option leads to results that appear nonsensical, the latter option, of taking the planet to be more Earth-like than the other extreme seems to make the most sense to me.

 

[Livinmeme]

Why does this feel like the Sun Disk all over again?

DBZ finally got his own sun disk, all boundless characters are shaking in fear..

 

[Reiner04]

Snip

https://media.**********.net/attachments/1340012082602446976/1351228108384108584/images_7.jpg?ex=67dd913d&is=67dc3fbd&hm=0987121fd73b386a369915f00717ad8455333ce0e611391d430b34ff6a9e5935&

 

[Reiner04]

The way I see it, either perspective starts off from the same fundamentals;

1) If you assume that the stars around Namek are Sun-sized, then Namek becomes extremely huge by comparison.

2) If you assume that Namek is Earth-sized, then the stars around Namek become extremely small by comparison.

At face value, either perspective is equally valid as they're arbitrarily based on assuming a size value relative to something in our own world that isn't directly stated in the Dragon Ball series.

However, what tips the balance for me personally, is that we see an ordinary human like Bulma walking around on Namek's surface unprotected and doing just fine. So, this suggests to me that the planet has roughly Earth-like gravity, an Earth-like atmosphere, and she isn't being roasted by Sun-sized stars in close proximity to the planet. For a world that is supposedly many times bigger than our own Sun, it possesses properties that are incredibly Earth-like. This doesn't mean there are no problems with an Earth-like Namek, but there's less problems with that option.

So even if either option leads to results that appear nonsensical, the latter option, of taking the planet to be more Earth-like than the other extreme seems to make the most sense to me.

I find Damage argument more convincing here.

 

[TiltedFN]

The way I see it, either perspective starts off from the same fundamentals;

1) If you assume that the stars around Namek are Sun-sized, then Namek becomes extremely huge by comparison.

2) If you assume that Namek is Earth-sized, then the stars around Namek become extremely small by comparison.

At face value, either perspective is equally valid as they're arbitrarily based on assuming a size value relative to something in our own world that isn't directly stated in the Dragon Ball series.

However, what tips the balance for me personally, is that we see an ordinary human like Bulma walking around on Namek's surface unprotected and doing just fine. So, this suggests to me that the planet has roughly Earth-like gravity, an Earth-like atmosphere, and she isn't being roasted by Sun-sized stars in close proximity to the planet. For a world that is supposedly many times bigger than our own Sun, it possesses properties that are incredibly Earth-like. This doesn't mean there are no problems with an Earth-like Namek, but there's less problems with that option.

So even if either option leads to results that appear nonsensical, the latter option, of taking the planet to be more Earth-like than the other extreme seems to make the most sense to me.

Bulma is not an issue at all, I'm not sure how that really tips the scales for you. Bulma can literally survive traveling at mftl speeds in a spaceship, and being in the middle of a warzone with the demons while vegeta was flying extremely fast carrying her, she survived in the demon realm which has very hot temperatures without any issues as outlined in the OP. Bulma being the deciding factor for this is just extremely silly. And namek being the size of earth and the suns just being extremely small is backed up by nothing, as we have already went over. Do you really think that toriyama meant for the stars to be smaller than earth? When that's clearly not how its portrayed? Who says namek is earth sized? We know a super dragon ball is ALMOST the size of a planet. Namek has three suns, its not meant to be compared to earth in any way. Both interpretations are NOT equally valid, and one has way more backing than the other based on objective information. Like damage you agreed with null, when null disproved his own arguments and actually made it stronger with the use of kakarot, and other panels he posted. None of what you said changes the diameter of namek and how it's very consistently portrayed as this large giga planet.
And btw, I found the exact temperature on the first demon world, and bulma should actually be dead in that kind of heat, but bulma tanks it easily in a childs body and acts like its no big deal, so your bulma point is moot and supports bulma being able to handle those kinds of temperatures casually.

taking the planet to be more Earth-like than the other extreme seems to make the most sense to me.

It's not even the extreme, its just how the planet is.

 

[Chariot190]

The way I see it, either perspective starts off from the same fundamentals;

1) If you assume that the stars around Namek are Sun-sized, then Namek becomes extremely huge by comparison.

They have to be. They're all G2V stars. We know this from their coloration (in like, not made up manga colored scans), to Namek's lighting (if they were different, the light cast upon Namek would be in a different spectrum, the temperature would also be different fyi as color and temperature are directly connected).

They don't have to be sun sized, but they do have to be at least 0.7 times the Sun’s radius, which is about 970000km. Any smaller isn't possible.
So unless you have precedence for stars in DBZ being all kinds of ***** much like the planets, we kind of have a standard assumption for this, as a wiki rule and standard even. We don't assume otherwise without proof.
also they're literally just suns, why are we doing all this extra stuff because Toriyama didn't know planetary science back in like the 80s.

2) If you assume that Namek is Earth-sized, then the stars around Namek become extremely small by comparison.

At face value, either perspective is equally valid as they're arbitrarily based on assuming a size value relative to something in our own world that isn't directly stated in the Dragon Ball series.

No it isn't. At all. We literally have standardized values for these things, you're aware of this.

In no verse ever would we go "Well these suns MIGHT not be actual suns, they could be like 100km wide instead" (This still leads to the same issues under a different guise).
If that was the case it wouldn't even function. The smallest possible star is 80000km wide, any smaller and it would simply fail. A star cannot be smaller than about 80000 km in diameter (for a main-sequence star anyway) because it needs enough mass to sustain hydrogen fusion in its core, as well as shit like gravity and mass, anything below 0.08 solar masses wouldn't have the mass to compress its core to sustain fusion. It'd become a brown dwarf instead, which well... Those ain't lighting up Namek properly.

However, what tips the balance for me personally, is that we see an ordinary human like Bulma walking around on Namek's surface unprotected and doing just fine. So, this suggests to me that the planet has roughly Earth-like gravity, an Earth-like atmosphere, and she isn't being roasted by Sun-sized stars in close proximity to the planet.

Lad Namek has 3 suns. If they're normal suns and are at normal sun distances away and Namek is standard (It actually isn't, it's pretty implicitly larger than Earth by some unknown degree, so gravity would be messed up anyway, if it retained earth-like density it'd even have LESS gravity for example), it means the planet gets torn apart by gravity and Bulma should be dead because Namek's atmosphere has been pulled off the planet and everything on it died and it's slowly being cooked due to no ozone and other such protection, let alone keeping it binded as it slowly becomes an asteroid belt due to the opposing forces due to the roche limit.

The only way this would change is if it was super omega dense, increasing its durability, but that would in turn increase its gravity many times over as the denser the planet becomes while retaining the same size, the larger the gravity would be, so Bulma would be crushed.

Alternatively, let's assume 3 small suns despite zero precedence or implication and that being even more scientifically wrong. At the distance we see them at, blotches of Namek would be scorced too, given Bulma's base camp is directly underneath one such sun, that isn't a good thing. Which angsizing it gets it at distances exponentially closer to the planet Namek compared to our sun regardless of what you do, means she should be getting cooked anyway and no matter the case, Namek should have a higher temperature compared to Earth. This is ALSO the case for if the sun is just a tiny sun because if it's tiny, instead of normal, that would mean it's even closer to the planet as it's perceived size doesn't change, the smaller you shrink it in this hypothetical, the closer it gets as the perceived distance of it obviously remains the same. I don't think I need to explain radians and field of view and all that fun stuff to you, so she would STILL be getting cooked alive. Unless the sun is a "cold sun", but we know that isn't the case due to the light and blacklight radiation they give off, which would, indisputably, make it a certain temperature. Like it can't be anything else, being a certain color locks it within a certain threshold in much the same way a red flame can't exceed a certain temp without shifting to yellow, white, blue, etc.

Unless they're tiny suns at a distance? But in that case Namek would be frigid? But as above we know they're not at a meaningful distance due to angsizing.

No matter what you do, Namek is ****** up as a planet, it doesn't work, there will always be an issue, and it's usually the same issues but under different mechanics as to why it happens. You can't just pick one, run with it, and act like that's ok when it isn't any better, and often times even worse as an option.

For a world that is supposedly many times bigger than our own Sun, it possesses properties that are incredibly Earth-like. This doesn't mean there are no problems with an Earth-like Namek, but there's less problems with that option.

This isn't even true. An earth-like Namek would have every issue a big one would have (density issues, gravity issues, temperature issues, etc), with the extra benefit of not even existing because it got torn apart by 3 different suns' gravitational field.
Which is to say, your proposal, realistically, would lead to Namek just not existing, and if it did exist, it would have to be durable enough which would lead to super gravity and a sheared atmosphere and boiling planet anyway. (That or an ice planet to avoid being torn apart, but again, we know it isn't that far).

So even if either option leads to results that appear nonsensical, the latter option, of taking the planet to be more Earth-like than the other extreme seems to make the most sense to me.

And the least of all... This isn't an argument.

You're just saying "it doesn't make sense". We know it doesn't make sense, yet it isn't the first messed up planet in DBZ, it isn't the last either (Heaven for example or Kai's planet makes a star sized Namek look like a joke).
It doesn't matter how messed up Namek is scientifically, it could legitimately be even worse, nobody is saying Namek's GBE should be calced, that is impossible no matter what we do, nobody is trying to calc gravity for it, whatever, it's portrayed and shown behaving a certain way, so what we actually see takes precedence, yet in that same vain, it doesn't change nor affect the fact Object A is next to Object B and Object B eclipses Object A as that is what is shown.

From the looks of things you concede they are, in fact, suns being drawn, so no point going over that. Which then goes back to square one, one of those suns must be parallel, or infront, of Planet Namek. This isn't subject to debate, we know one is in front of it, and we even know what that causes (that being the eternal day as the sun's orbits always have one cascade light at all angles towards the planet).
If the stars get drawn, and all 3 are visible, one is at such a depth that Namek can be directly compared to it.

The very fact DBZ has precedence for super planets, ones even bigger than Namek mind you (in which normal people can function just fine.... Mr. Satan for example on Kai's), yet none for stars, isn't a good sign.

Like my dude, what needs to be proven to contest this, isn't what's being argued here. Feeling something makes more sense, doesn't supercede the actual factual information we have on this topic.

 

[Chariot190]

meme

Or Bulma is just ******* built diff idk could be that ig too
https://media.**********.net/attachments/1070940734380847195/1214685621587550218/ezgif-2-fbb69ad4dc.gif?ex=67ddd9a3&is=67dc8823&hm=91fddf6a9c336b183c9670ac1e29ee91c861cf6bdf01a575d8b4745a27cb16aa&=&width=505&height=505
but actually, wanna talk about bullshit planets, multiple giga planets in dbz should have collapsed into black holes yet here we are.

 

[Damage3245]

@Chariot190 I don't have time to respond to all that tonight, but I respect the effort you're putting into your responses. All I can say for now before I head off is that it seems you're acknowledging that some things don't make sense about Namek no matter which option we go with, but you're sticking with the insistence that the stars have to be a certain size otherwise the spectrum of light would be different. I don't want to sound facetious when I say this, but couldn't this also just be one of those things that don't make sense because the author didn't put that much thought into it? Maybe it doesn't make any scientific sense for the stars to be that tiny yet give off that type of light anyway, but that doesn't mean it can't be the case, right?

 

[AwkguyDB]

The way I see it, either perspective starts off from the same fundamentals;

1) If you assume that the stars around Namek are Sun-sized, then Namek becomes extremely huge by comparison.

2) If you assume that Namek is Earth-sized, then the stars around Namek become extremely small by comparison.

Damage’s Option 1 makes the most sense to me

 

[Chariot190]

@Chariot190 I don't have time to respond to all that tonight, but I respect the effort you're putting into your responses. All I can say for now before I head off is that it seems you're acknowledging that some things don't make sense about Namek no matter which option we go with, but you're sticking with the insistence that the stars have to be a certain size otherwise the spectrum of light would be different.

Not just light. Color, radiation, temperature, even gravity, orbit, etc. What we see, is stars mostly like ours. This, well I can't speak for the man, but I'm going to presume that, the things called suns that are "meant" to give Namek a hospitable, earth-like conditions (even though it absolutely shouldn't....), are meant to be suns as we know them.

Also like, we have wiki rules, the default assumption is the sun is a sun, not that the sun is a mario galaxy sun that can fit in my living room or in a city or something. Kind of going about it backwards, burden of proof is on those saying they aren't standard suns.

I don't want to sound facetious when I say this, but couldn't this also just be one of those things that don't make sense because the author didn't put that much thought into it?

Not knowing the logistics of what a triple star system orbiting a planet would do, isn't quite as complex as drawing beeg boy planet next to suns to give the planet an eternal day (which is probably about as far as his thought process went, he wanted it to always be day, so he gave it three suns that face each side of the planet, he even seems to have it at an arched triangle to account for top and bottom lighting too).

Maybe it doesn't make any scientific sense for the stars to be that tiny yet give off that type of light anyway, but that doesn't mean it can't be the case, right?

No it can't, they'd become brown dwarfs, or become black holes even.
To sustain the fusion that causes suns to do what suns do, that being everything that matters and is relevant for this topic, they need a certain mass. If they're tiny enough relative to Namek (if Namek was as big as our planet), it would collapse into a black hole or get pretty close to it as its mass would still need to be sufficient, let alone sufficient to light up and warm up a planet even at that scope. Temperature, lighting, even their color would be different too best case if we assume it stays functional. Would at the very least be red and give namek a funny dose of the superman.

Now, I wouldn't mind thinking maybe the suns are the non-standard, not the planet. But I legit can't think of a single instance in all of DBZ where a sun is potrayed at impossible values, meanwhile off the top of my head I can think of 3, maybe 4, totally blasphemous planets, including planets that have multiple suns encircling it (Supreme Kai's planet in the manga eclipses stars. The anime, respectfully changed that to be moons, but we know damn well they're suns in the manga because Toriyama has drawn them in color in guides, and drew them as suns and even with light coming off them). And heaven is just lmao.

If I have to pick something with precedence in a manga that blatantly shows disregard for planetary density, and logistics, or assume the suns are what's wrong when there's no cases for that. I'd have to pick the former because the whole sun next to Namek isn't subject for debate, at the very least that part of it is hard fact.

Edit: And just for the **** of it, in case some people are frightened by the implications and potential wank, not saying that's the case but in case that's why a few might be cautious, I just went and calced like the best feat this would lead to, and got barely 5-A. It legitimately doesn't change much beyond throwing a few extra supporting feats in there so the whole verse isn't downscaling off Frieza's exponentially better feat.

 

[Anime_Facts]

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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".

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,.

"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.

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.

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.

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....

The part about stars being shaded. This is not shading. In the OFFICIAL KAZENBAN COLORS, which are not Shueisha's, but Toriyama's, this is how a star is how a star is depicted. In colors, from Toriyama himself. What you showed is variation in color due to how a star looks, not a solid shape being shaded with actual shadows from behind like it's receiving less light in it's other side, like a PLANET would.

Fun fact, the one where it looks like Jupiter and it's shaded? It's not Shueisha's colors, this is a rare FULL COLOR PANEL from the Kazenban releases, which are obviously canon.

You are acting like white dots = star is a known fact that's unchangable no matter what we do. This of course, in the black and white manga. Not the case at all.

Planets can also been depicted as white balls if they're far enough. Meaning if they're far enough they lose their details. The contradictory details of the "suns" isn't an inconsistent art decision, it's just they're too far away in certain shots, so they're drawn as a white ball, it's not proof they're star.

You said "We should trust the 3 suns statement instead of believing there's 3 close planets"
The fact there are planets near is confirmed by Goku. And I recommend you actually look at the scans, he never says Solar System, he says "planets that are near", in some translation, he even mentions the word "neighbour planets".
There is indication that there are planets that are near. There is NO INDICATION that the suns are near.

Also, here is the shading from the official kanzenban colors:

I reiterate, we cannot clearly state that the white dots in Pixel Scaling are actually suns, we know that Toriyama tends to portray stars in different ways than seen in the images, and judging by the way the panel was colored, it does not appear that the celestial bodies in the image are actually a light source

 

[TiltedFN]

The part about stars being shaded. This is not shading. In the OFFICIAL KAZENBAN COLORS, which are not Shueisha's, but Toriyama's, this is how a star is how a star is depicted. In colors, from Toriyama himself. What you showed is variation in color due to how a star looks, not a solid shape being shaded with actual shadows from behind like it's receiving less light in it's other side, like a PLANET would.

Fun fact, the one where it looks like Jupiter and it's shaded? It's not Shueisha's colors, this is a rare FULL COLOR PANEL from the Kazenban releases, which are obviously canon.

You are acting like white dots = star is a known fact that's unchangable no matter what we do. This of course, in the black and white manga. Not the case at all.

Planets can also been depicted as white balls if they're far enough. Meaning if they're far enough they lose their details. The contradictory details of the "suns" isn't an inconsistent art decision, it's just they're too far away in certain shots, so they're drawn as a white ball, it's not proof they're star.

You said "We should trust the 3 suns statement instead of believing there's 3 close planets"
The fact there are planets near is confirmed by Goku. And I recommend you actually look at the scans, he never says Solar System, he says "planets that are near", in some translation, he even mentions the word "neighbour planets".
There is indication that there are planets that are near. There is NO INDICATION that the suns are near.

Also, here is the shading from the official kanzenban colors:

I reiterate, we cannot clearly state that the white dots in Pixel Scaling are actually suns, we know that Toriyama tends to portray stars in different ways than seen in the images, and judging by the way the panel was colored, it does not appear that the celestial bodies in the image are actually a light source

None of what you typed actually proves they are planets, yet again. If anything, you proved how they are indeed stars even more when you linked that OGDB panel of a sun, and then it shows the exact same thing on namek lmao. Toriyama giving the sun detail doesn't prove its a planet, and it's not even there on other closeups. Nor does goku asking for energy of the planets, it is explicitly not referring to the SUNS that we've seen. We just don't know how far the planets he's gathering energy are, and we don't need to, because it's irrelevant. Also see kakarot, it clearly shows its a sun if you need extra proof for whatever reason despite everything.

 

[Da3ggman]

Man this thread is funny as Hell. Opposition got one argument that can be summed up as "If it's a sun, why doesn't it look like a sun in this one colored panel?" and you KNOW it's gonna drag this shit out to 3 more pages for no reason lmao.

 

[Chariot190]

The part about stars being shaded. This is not shading. In the OFFICIAL KAZENBAN COLORS, which are not Shueisha's, but Toriyama's,

Toriyama, has, in fact, colored some pages. But between you and Null, the vast majority of the colored scans presented are not that. You lads keep posting Shueisha colored scans.

Shueisha did the coloring for those. Best you could say is that Toriyama did some supervision. You could also say the same for GT and numerous other things too.

this is how a star is how a star is depicted.

Except when it isn't? And funny how the Namek ones are, in fact, depicted like that at times anyway. But we're just repeating shit now.

In colors, from Toriyama himself. What you showed is variation in color due to how a star looks, not a solid shape being shaded with actual shadows from behind like it's receiving less light in it's other side, like a PLANET would.

What I showed (btw there's like, 12+ times it's drawn like this) was the exact opposite of what you're now, somehow, claiming I showed. There is no shading here. There is no coloring here. And worst part is, even if it was it wouldn't alter the info we know to not be subjective.

Edit: Wait did you mean the anime and movie shots? Nice try. You said a sun would never be drawn with shading, you're backpedaling now. It is what it is, suns can be drawn in many different ways.

Fun fact, the one where it looks like Jupiter and it's shaded? It's not Shueisha's colors, this is a rare FULL COLOR PANEL from the Kazenban releases, which are obviously canon.

That is not the scan that has been posted ten dozen times. But fair. And? Did we not already go through with this?

Pretty sure Kakarot literally treats it as a light source. Why is "jupiter" exuding light?

You are acting like white dots = star is a known fact that's unchangable no matter what we do. This of course, in the black and white manga. Not the case at all.

Oh, so we are literally whipping out double standards then?
"This is drawn a certain way, a star can NEVER be depicted anyway but like this so it must be a planet...."
"Oh but a planet CAN be drawn this way trust, so even though they're drawn like stars now here, they're actually planets".

Stop wasting my time.

Planets can also been depicted as white balls if they're far enough. Meaning if they're far enough they lose their details. The contradictory details of the "suns" isn't an inconsistent art decision, it's just they're too far away in certain shots, so they're drawn as a white ball, it's not proof they're star.

That, that isn't a white ball? You just rebuked your own point?

"They're to far away".
Based on what? Surely it can't be the scan you just showed proving that given the planet you shown is drawn with even more detail than Namek's alleged planets.

You mean those other dots? Those ain't planets either dude, thankfully, Jupiter is an actual planet that exists. If you're trying to say those white dots are other planets in our solar system, and just not drawn with detail, that isn't going to fly, The other planets wouldn't even be perceptible at that distance. Let alone the actual distance between them as would be the case in that panel if they were really planets (they'd be literally tens of thousands of km apart? That's obviously not true). The positioning is all ****** up too, you would NEVER see a planet like that. And the worst part is, the planets closest to Jupiter are Mars, and Saturn. If that was supposed to be the other planets, you'd think Saturn's rings would be drawn right? If the central mass of the planet can be seen, so could the rings at the very least, you wouldn't draw it like a big white ball right?

You said "We should trust the 3 suns statement instead of believing there's 3 close planets"
The fact there are planets near is confirmed by Goku.

Yes. I'm sure Namek has numerous planets near it well within Spirit Bomb range which encompasses the solar system.

And I recommend you actually look at the scans,

I did. instead of assuming people didn't read your scans, mayhaps it just isn't good enough of an argument and people disagree?

he never says Solar System, he says "planets that are near", in some translation, he even mentions the word "neighbour planets".

"In some translation", unfortunate, how it is then, that we use strictly the japanese. What's that one say?
And, neighbouring planets... Man that is an actual term, and a completely relative one.
A neighboring planet refers to a planet that is closest in orbital position to another planet within the same solar system. Venus and Mars for example, are Earth's neighboring planets.

This term is relative. The term doesn't say what you need it to say. Goku says one thing, and you're extrapolating it to mean something else.

There is indication that there are planets that are near. There is NO INDICATION that the suns are near.

Beyond like 14 manga panals and what little actual info we have about Namek's orbital systems...

Also, here is the shading from the official kanzenban colors:

There is no way.

Look, I can do that too. The direction of multiple shadows implicate there's a lightsource in the background directly behind it. Yet all we see is those two.

So surely one of them must be a sun? Which one really doesn't matter. Otherwise why is the art drawn this very specific way? If we're taking trivial details like this and assuming Toriyama accounted for all of this. Then by this logic, he did the same here.

I reiterate, we cannot clearly state that the white dots in Pixel Scaling are actually suns, we know that Toriyama tends to portray stars in different ways than seen in the images, and judging by the way the panel was colored, it does not appear that the celestial bodies in the image are actually a light source

Your entire argument is, again, Namek just so happens to have 3 planets orbiting it that were never mentioned. Or are anything but proof and instead is presumptuous, interpretive, conjecture that absolutely shouldn't ever be used as some sort of solid argument and only in a opinionated discussions. Why do you get to decide what the intent was? You don't. It's an opinion, nothing more, nothing less, but we're not here to argue opinions, we have a list of explicit concrete info, and your arguments hinge on the opinion

The worst part is some media has literally given the "jupiter"-like one a photosphere and had it act as a lightsource, as in, in some shit yes, it is undeniably a detailed sun. And hell some haven't done that and it does look like a planet. It's all over the place, you could cherry pick cases either or, the fact in some stuff it's 100% explicitly a star and the shading is just blotches of orange and yellow to give the sun detailed, like plasma and what not, while others it do be planet looking, doesn't help in the manga's case. But what do know, as fact, is that Namek has 3 suns, and in multiple panels Namek is just so happened to be drawn with 3 suns orbiting it in a triangular configuration. And again, we know one must be in the forefront.

Again, proof. If the basis of your argument is "I feel/think" and not "This is", you're wasting time here because that's not the type of stuff that needs to be presented.

Edit 2: As an aside, Namek could have literally hundreds of planets within its orbit like some Kirby-ass planet, we could even ignore stuff like Kakarot and say it is in fact a planet. This ultimately doesn't detract from the multiple panels we explicitly see 3 drawn stars orbiting Namek. Even for argument's sake, one doesn't rebuke the other. Especially if the point is Namek is a super planet.
it could also be as simple as Toriyama backpedaling and changing the objects to be stars given the 3 sun lore came after the initial Namek chapters, and thinking on it, pretty sure every time after that fact the 3 objects were drawn like the alleged "only way stars can be drawn" method. But alas, this is guesswork, conjecture, and not solid evidence, much like the contrary.

 

[Chariot190]

I don't know if this is of any use, but on the Dragon Ball website they talk about the planet Namek and in a diagram you can see that it is smaller than its suns.

A diagram not made by Akira Toriyama, not supervised by him, for simplicity sake, and yet also somehow, coincidentally in the general formation we see them in the manga? This isn't much different from the things like that one japanese teacher yapping about JoJo slop and what he says and shows not aligning with the actual source material.
I don't think the dude actively skimmed every panel before drawing an MS paint diagram to go "oh wait, some of these panels kinda sus?".

In other news, I have now angsized every panel and Kakarot shot with these ******* suns, the furthest we get, from a ground PoV, for a shot that is undeniably a sun (literally exuding light, no texture, etc) is 6541092.03527km, for reference that is 22.87x less than the distance between our sun and earth. To compare, Mercury is 57,000,000km away from the sun, which is still 8.85x further away than Namek is to one of its own suns based on the ground perspective. Mercury, fyi, has had its atmosphere burned away and can reach temps of 430c in the day time. Just to hammer in how the whole "climate lol" argument absolutely doesn't apply even in the best case.

 

[Damage3245]

Not just light. Color, radiation, temperature, even gravity, orbit, etc. What we see, is stars mostly like ours. This, well I can't speak for the man, but I'm going to presume that, the things called suns that are "meant" to give Namek a hospitable, earth-like conditions (even though it absolutely shouldn't....), are meant to be suns as we know them.

Also like, we have wiki rules, the default assumption is the sun is a sun, not that the sun is a mario galaxy sun that can fit in my living room or in a city or something. Kind of going about it backwards, burden of proof is on those saying they aren't standard suns.

Not knowing the logistics of what a triple star system orbiting a planet would do, isn't quite as complex as drawing beeg boy planet next to suns to give the planet an eternal day (which is probably about as far as his thought process went, he wanted it to always be day, so he gave it three suns that face each side of the planet, he even seems to have it at an arched triangle to account for top and bottom lighting too).

No it can't, they'd become brown dwarfs, or become black holes even.
To sustain the fusion that causes suns to do what suns do, that being everything that matters and is relevant for this topic, they need a certain mass. If they're tiny enough relative to Namek (if Namek was as big as our planet), it would collapse into a black hole or get pretty close to it as its mass would still need to be sufficient, let alone sufficient to light up and warm up a planet even at that scope. Temperature, lighting, even their color would be different too best case if we assume it stays functional. Would at the very least be red and give namek a funny dose of the superman.

Now, I wouldn't mind thinking maybe the suns are the non-standard, not the planet. But I legit can't think of a single instance in all of DBZ where a sun is potrayed at impossible values, meanwhile off the top of my head I can think of 3, maybe 4, totally blasphemous planets, including planets that have multiple suns encircling it (Supreme Kai's planet in the manga eclipses stars. The anime, respectfully changed that to be moons, but we know damn well they're suns in the manga because Toriyama has drawn them in color in guides, and drew them as suns and even with light coming off them). And heaven is just lmao.

If I have to pick something with precedence in a manga that blatantly shows disregard for planetary density, and logistics, or assume the suns are what's wrong when there's no cases for that. I'd have to pick the former because the whole sun next to Namek isn't subject for debate, at the very least that part of it is hard fact.

Edit: And just for the **** of it, in case some people are frightened by the implications and potential wank, not saying that's the case but in case that's why a few might be cautious, I just went and calced like the best feat this would lead to, and got barely 5-A. It legitimately doesn't change much beyond throwing a few extra supporting feats in there so the whole verse isn't downscaling off Frieza's exponentially better feat.

I see where you're coming from, with the alternative size of the stars being too contradictory and therefore it isn't reasonable for them to be that size.

But if we accept the size of Namek that is being proposed in the OP, then the ground of Namek would be several times less dense than air itself based on it visibly having roughly Earth-like gravity. If instead we acknowledge that Namek is made of solid ground and likely has a density comparable to Earth's, then it would have a gravitational acceleration 2,300 times Earth's gravity at that size, which we know can't be the case because literally every fighter on the planet would be crushed flat based on how we see Goku & Vegeta reacting to high gravity.

If, as it looks like in the OP, that this just be about accepting the large size of the planet alone and ignoring all of the physics-related problems... then that just seems purely like cherry-picking to me personally. I know that the situation is likely acceptable to you because Dragon Ball has non-standard planets already as you've mentioned like the Supreme Kai's world and King Kai's world, but that alone isn't enough for me which is why I have to vote against the CRT. I think that anymore back-and-forth will just be us repeating ourselves so I'll leave it here and see what other staff say.

 

[RigelBR7]

Disagree FRA

 

[Chariot190]

I see where you're coming from, with the alternative size of the stars being too contradictory and therefore it isn't reasonable for them to be that size.

You're right. There needs to be precedence, lack of any makes it baseless conjecture, which we do not go with ever. Unless, of course you can think of small naturally occuring suns in DBZ.

But if we accept the size of Namek that is being proposed in the OP, then the ground of Namek would be several times less dense than air itself based on it visibly having roughly Earth-like gravity.

As said last night, the density and gravity is ****** no matter what you do, in fact it being smaller would need to make it even more dense, as to avoid being literally torn apart by the gravity of 3 suns, and obviously the more dense an object is while retaining the same size leads to an increase in gravity.

Worst of all though, is that we literally have planets exponentially larger than the proposed Namek in DBZ, and they function just fine, one of which we see eclipses stars in the manga and official artwork, with it even being stated to, has 1g gravity and a rocky ground, despite being even bigger than what Namek is being proposed as.

We know for a fact that Akira Toriyama did not know the implications of this facet, because he repeats the exact same mistake at least twice in the original manga. Unless you want to argue Heaven and Kai's world aren't as big as we know them to be, this is double standards.

If instead we acknowledge that Namek is made of solid ground and likely has a density comparable to Earth's, then it would have a gravitational acceleration 2,300 times Earth's gravity at that size, which we know can't be the case because literally every fighter on the planet would be crushed flat based on how we see Goku & Vegeta reacting to high gravity.

As above.
Heaven should have a gravitational acceleration of over 678287433759870800000ms2. Kai would be something around 6780000000000000000. Which as Baken would say, they lack the tensile LS to withstand that, Goku and Vegeta would eat shit.

We know that can't be the case, human-like entities can walk around on both like Mr. Satan and a literal dog, Goku and Vegeta are fine on both despite using 100gs to train, so.... We don't pretend otherwise.
They're 1g because that's what they're shown to be. Does this scientifically contradict the alleged sizes?
Yep, like to the point it isn't even funny. Do we say then that nope, they're actually as big as earth and can't be as big as they're shown to be? No we don't do that either. Fiction is fiction, and authors don't always understand the science behind things, as is evidently the case here. Not much we can do about it, it just is how it is, they're big af and make no sense and have impossible densities and gravity because that's what we're told and shown.

Unless you want to go downgrade Heaven, Kai's, and honestly the several other planets with impossible densities/gravity for how big they are, this shouldn't be treated as an legitimate argument, it's double standards and handwaving a precedence all for an unprecedented alternative.

Plus like, as said, Namek's ****** no matter the size if the goal is to make it function as an actual planet.

If, as it looks like in the OP, that this just be about accepting the large size of the planet alone and ignoring all of the physics-related problems... then that just seems purely like cherry-picking to me personally.

You're doing the exact same thing Damage. Arguably worse given we know for a fact there's planets in DBZ with impossible densities and gravity contrary to what they should be, which sets an established precedence both before and after.

The physic related problems get ignored (I wouldn't even call it being ignored, it's for this exact reason I'd be against calculating a GBE), simply because there's problems no matter what. Namek being a normal sized planet also has problems as you are well aware of by now. Contrary to that though, we know for a fact DBZ very explicitly ignores physic related problems for planets, especially when it comes to size, because as above, not explaining it again. I'd argue it goes both ways, saying it's small/normal is cherry picking too, but potentially even worse given the extra problems that poses, doubly so given how close Namek's suns even are to begin with, which we can confirm via angsizing them, 100-50x less distance between ours is gonna be a problem .

This leaves us with a few options. The option that requires less assumptions and handwaving of stuff, imo, is the it's just big one tbh. The alternative is

Pick it being big based on the lore and what is shown at times, regardless of scientific complications.
Assume Namek is small or earth-sized, regardless of scientific complications that still exist, lore and what is shown at times.
Or the suns are what's messed up but that's even more scientifically asinine both for the suns and the planet with even less evidence and backing in context.

I know that the situation is likely acceptable to you because Dragon Ball has non-standard planets already as you've mentioned like the Supreme Kai's world and King Kai's world, but that alone isn't enough for me which is why I have to vote against the CRT.

Your very argument applies to them too. Their mere existence is a solid rebuttal.

You argue Namek can't be that big because density/gravity, while ignoring the fact we literally have planets bigger than Namek with earth-like gravity/density. You need to account for those too. You can't just ignore them so the argument isn't contradicted, they exist, they contradict the notion that big planets can't have 1g or be rocky in the confines of DBZ.

I think that anymore back-and-forth will just be us repeating ourselves so I'll leave it here and see what other staff say.

Your argument is that Namek doesn't make sense. Again, as we went through just last night, it doesn't make sense no matter what.
Why is it ok for Namek to be ripped apart by the gravity of multiple suns, have its atmosphere be burned away, be super ultra omega dense (which is one of your current arguments even so the reason you're giving for why you don't agree, doubles as reasons why you don't agree with yourself....), and so much more, yet when it being big causes complications, suddenly it isn't ok?
Why is one better than the other? What makes the complications and impossible values and scientific anomalies that it being earth-sized entails ok, but not it being big?
It being as big as earth actively causes the same problems (Namek would need to be hyper-dense, which would give it a gravity well beyond what Bulma could survive and that the Saiyans would struggle with too). If your argument is density and gravity being earth-like doesn't add up, it being earth-sized causes the same issues?

And least of all.... This isn't an argument? You can think it doesn't make sense, you can think it's absolutely ******* stupid even, because it is. Namek shouldn't exist no matter how you go about it.
But that doesn't change the fact Namek is drawn bigger than stars at points, and is corroborated by the actual lore we have on it. Your argument is no different than going "Mr. Satan can stand on Kai's world, and Kai's world is like earth, so it can't be that big", like yeah all that is true, but it's still big, blame Toriyama for not knowing how that works ig. Yeah it don't make sense but

Hell it goes the other way too, North Kai's planet is made of some shit due to how small it is yet with 10g, we're talking like 17000000000kg/m3, many times that of a white dwarf core, yet I don't think we're about to pretend when Goku lifts up a rock there he's benching millions of tons or the rocky ground is like a billion times harder than normal rock.

Plus, we pretty well know for a fact that Namek is quite a bit bigger than Earth. If earth is deemed tiny, and Namek is above average if not "big", yet, apparently because the opposition brought this up, an almost "average" planet in DBZ is like 3x larger than Earth to begin with due to the SDB.... We're dealing with the same problems anyway for a completely different reason too...

Like at the very least, if you want to disagree be my guest, but pick something that doesn't apply both ways.

Edit: Also Namek is obviously not orbiting around the 3 suns, otherwise it would need to orbit around a specific one predominantly (it can't exactly orbit around 3 at once without being ripped apart), which would lead to it, at some point, being no longer parallel with the other two simultaneously, which contradicts it not having a night as a section of it would experience one at some point in its orbital cycle. Then the alternative is even worse, in that Namek would simply just not have an orbital cycle at all while being standard sized, but if it is small, the only way it wouldn't orbit is if it was so far away from the suns that it'd be an ice planet and get barely any light making it quite dark anyway (We know this isn't the case due to angsizing anyway). That or Namek is small, yet so ultra hyper dense that it has such insane gravity that 3 full-blown suns orbit it even while being earth-sized, which still leads into funny gravity stuff. And then the secret 4th option. I'll let the implications of that settle, in what that implies for the suns around Namek.

 

[Johner2133451]

CRT looks good

 

[Damage3245]

You're doing the exact same thing Damage.

Like at the very least, if you want to disagree be my guest, but pick something that doesn't apply both ways.

I already acknowledged there were problems with either option, but I'm going with the option that makes the most sense to me. I know you disagree and you've laid out your reasons for it very well; I'm not saying you shouldn't have the interpretation that you do; it's just not convincing to me.

 

[Chariot190]

I already acknowledged there were problems with either option, but I'm going with the option that makes the most sense to me. I know you disagree and you've laid out your reasons for it very well; I'm not saying you shouldn't have the interpretation that you do; it's just not convincing to me.

You can't just concede it's wrong either way but pick one anyway.... If it's wrong it's wrong?
If it made more sense, like legitimately the lesser between two evils on a subject that's inherently vague and open to interpretation, ok, maybe, but why does it make more sense?

We already know gravity, temperature, and everything else is ****** no matter what we do, using Bulma for example is wrong because the same issues exist both ways, scientifically it still doesn't add up, and there's even extra complications. Personally, I'd think the conclusion with less problems would be what makes more sense. Notwithstanding the lore, straight up visual evidence that exists regardless and established precedence for planets like that, I'm not quite seeing how this is a fair verdict when it goes both ways. But regardless, it's obvious you've reached your own conclusion, so whatever.

 

[TiltedFN]

I already acknowledged there were problems with either option, but I'm going with the option that makes the most sense to me. I know you disagree and you've laid out your reasons for it very well; I'm not saying you shouldn't have the interpretation that you do; it's just not convincing to me.

So you're just gonna ignore the fact that there are already planets like that in dragon ball, yet namek being earth sized still sounds like the best option to you despite it having the same problems regardless? That doesn't make a lick of sense. Instead you choose the option that doesn't even actually exist, instead of the clear cut size of namek thats shown in every panel??

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

I completely agree with everything

This time the opponents lost the argument

 

[Reiner04]

I am changing my stance back to neutral due to arguements and problems brought up with either options.

 

[Chariot190]

why tf isn't there a vote counter in the OP

 

[Robo432343]

chariot fra

 

[Mephistus]

Agree with OP

 

[RigelBR7]

You can't just concede it's wrong either way but pick one anyway.... If it's wrong it's wrong?
If it made more sense, like legitimately the lesser between two evils on a subject that's inherently vague and open to interpretation, ok, maybe, but why does it make more sense?

We already know gravity, temperature, and everything else is ****** no matter what we do, using Bulma for example is wrong because the same issues exist both ways, scientifically it still doesn't add up, and there's even extra complications. Personally, I'd think the conclusion with less problems would be what makes more sense. Notwithstanding the lore, straight up visual evidence that exists regardless and established precedence for planets like that, I'm not quite seeing how this is a fair verdict when it goes both ways. But regardless, it's obvious you've reached your own conclusion, so whatever.

It is literally an vague interpretation. It is a Fallacy of Hasty Generalization.

 

[Kulf_Boba]

I've seen that the appearance of the objects near Namek in Dragon Ball Z: Kakarot has been used as an argument, but I don't think this proves that they are suns. In the game, most planets emit a similar glow, including Namek and Earth, and some even have details similar to the object near Namek. Moreover, suns in the game are depicted as much brighter (as evidenced by the shadow on the ground, which confirms the presence of a sun).


If we analyze other Dragon Ball games to see how the objects near Namek are represented, most seem to suggest that they are moons or planets rather than suns. In fact, in an older game, Namek's sky directly features the design of the real-life Moon (though I can't find it at the moment).

Budokai Tenkaichi, FighterZ, Jump Force:

 

[TiltedFN]

I've seen that the appearance of the objects near Namek in Dragon Ball Z: Kakarot has been used as an argument, but I don't think this proves that they are suns. In the game, most planets emit a similar glow, including Namek and Earth, and some even have details similar to the object near Namek. Moreover, suns in the game are depicted as much brighter (as evidenced by the shadow on the ground, which confirms the presence of a sun).


If we analyze other Dragon Ball games to see how the objects near Namek are represented, most seem to suggest that they are moons or planets rather than suns. In fact, in an older game, Namek's sky directly features the design of the real-life Moon (though I can't find it at the moment).

Budokai Tenkaichi, FighterZ, Jump Force:

Other games besides kakarot are irrelevant, we actually accept using things from kakarot, so that doesn't matter. And what we're looking at is clearly a sun, especially with other context, like lore, statements in the manga saying namek has three suns, and it being backed up in every other panel, along with all the countless other arguments that have already been said. There is simply no proof that they are planets. Judging from the type of sun we know it is, plus it being adapted from the manga, having that same detail on the sun that toriyama drew, it clearly is a sun. Also, it literally does not work for them to be planets at all, nor does it make sense.

 

[Kulf_Boba]

Other games besides kakarot are irrelevant, we actually accept using things from kakarot, so that doesn't matter. And what we're looking at is clearly a sun, especially with other context, like lore, statements in the manga saying namek has three suns, and it being backed up in every other panel, along with all the countless other arguments that have already been said. There is simply no proof that they are planets. Judging from the type of sun we know it is, plus it being adapted from the manga, having that same detail on the sun that toriyama drew, it clearly is a sun. Also, it literally does not work for them to be planets at all, nor does it make sense.

Why do you say it's a Sun if I already showed that the details it has don't prove it's a Sun but rather a Moon or a planet? Even real Suns are depicted differently, being brighter, and when focused on, they have the "lens flare" effect.
https://i.redd.it/new-namek-is-gorg...bp&s=e9fe22148fda0c6dcaf279913e706d3663dd726f

 

[Chariot190]

Literally every planet you showed there has an exponentially more subdued glow compared to the Namekian one, which has a emissive, large, orange glow even from a distance and does in fact have dynamic lighting in game, I will redownload that shit if need be just to get clips

As an aside, angsizing the sun in the second album gets it about 7m km away so....

Nah dog nobody is saying in other shit Namek doesn't have random planets and stuff hell sometimes it's a lot more than 3 too, so if we're taking those at face value, they def aren't the 3 sun-like objects we see orbiting it in the manga given lik 7=/=3.
But don't you find it odd how in EVERY example you just gave, none are even consistent with each other? Some of those even have the planets so close they'd be like touching the planet's atmosphere. Some games just look at stuff and go hmm yep and presume. Not much different from how some games show the suns around Supreme Kai's world to be giant moons, even though they're explicitly stars in the manga canon.
Also none of those canon so....

And as mentioned before, for argument's sake, Namek could have literally hundreds of planets in its atmosphere, this doesn't actually change the fact we know it has 3 suns, we see those 3 suns around it at multiple points, and it eclipses them. If Namek was as big as being suggested, the existence of planets orbiting it too is probably to be expected. But I don't feel like repeating everything from the orbital problems, to even just Toriyama's backpedaling (I went and checked and every instance of an object around Namek in the manga is evidently a star the moment the "3 sun lore" gets dropped by Vegeta) and so much again and again when I've already done so dozens of times.

 

[Kulf_Boba]

Literally every planet you showed there has an exponentially more subdued glow compared to the Namekian one, which has a emissive, large, orange glow even from a distance and does in fact have dynamic lighting in game, I will redownload that shit if need be just to get clips

Because those planets are not observed up close or from the surface of a planet during the day. Planet Namek has an almost identical glow to the object in the sky, similar to Earth on its daytime side. The true sun is the one that appears smaller, as confirmed by the details of the shadows and the light flare effect. Therefore, relying solely on the appearance of the nearby object here is not a solid argument to claim that they are suns.


I'm not directly questioning your arguments about why they are suns in the manga, but you should admit that their representation in the game does not constitute irrefutable proof based solely on appearance.

As an aside, angsizing the sun in the second album gets it about 7m km away so....

Using this panel, where it is more clearly visible, I got the following results:

• Using the vertical FOV: 1392684 * 714/(50 * 2 * tan(70deg/2)) = 14,201,166 km
• Using the horizontal FOV: 1392684 * 1284/(50 * 2 * tan(70deg/2)) = 25,538,232 km

(Here, I explain why the horizontal FOV can be used).


Also, keep in mind that when we see the Sun in the sky, it is not its actual size.

 

[Chariot190]

Because those planets are not observed up close or from the surface of a planet during the day.

So an excuse? That isn't how it works on earth in game, or Kai's, no other object seen from the game behaves like that particular one. If need be I will redownload the game to prove my point, but I'm praying you goons don't force me to waste my time with the self-evident.

Planet Namek has an almost identical glow to the object in the sky, similar to Earth on its daytime side.

No it doesn't? What planets glows orange, cascades light, has dynamic lighting, and at no point is anything even remotely as strong a glow as that. You're conflating an atmosphere with shit glowing my dude.

The true sun is the one that appears smaller, as confirmed by the details of the shadows and the light flare effect.

Yep I'm sure that is a sun.

Therefore, relying solely on the appearance of the nearby object here is not a solid argument to claim that they are suns.

That isn't even remotely the argument, the fact you're wasting my time with this like 100 posts in is asinine.

I'm not directly questioning your arguments about why they are suns in the manga,

Then what is the goal here? This essentially boils down to arguing "well in games, the very explicit suns around Kai's world look like moons, so....". I do not care if they're moons or even non-existent in the other mediums. In fact, for the anime, I'd even be against it.

but you should admit that their representation in the game does not constitute irrefutable proof based solely on appearance.

I mean it most certainly does. Dynamic lighting, impossibly close stars.

Using this panel, where it is more clearly visible, I got the following results:

• Using the vertical FOV: 1392684 * 714/(50 * 2 * tan(70deg/2)) = 14,201,166 km
• Using the horizontal FOV: 1392684 * 1284/(50 * 2 * tan(70deg/2)) = 25,538,232 km

So, 10x closer to Namek than our sun is to us, and 2x as close as Mercury, for a game shot?
That is literally proving my point.

Also, keep in mind that when we see the Sun in the sky, it is not its actual size.

We're talking about a manga/game dude. And you can do so from panels outside of Namek's atmosphere too. Which, again, I said so idk why I'm having to repeat this again. Angsizing it on the ground, angsize that shit in space, either way you go about it gets impossibly close.

And despite all this, again, you haven't rebuked any of the actual points. You're legitimately going over games that aren't even consistent within themselves and at times do show suns, or even extra planets. And at no point contesting the blatant suns we see orbiting Namek in the manga.

I've said this before, dozens of posts ago even, Namek could legitimately have multiple planets in its atmosphere, that wouldn't change the other scans we see with 3 suns. They can both co-exist, neither contradicts the other.

Repeating myself, as an aside, Namek could have literally hundreds of planets within its orbit like some Kirby-ass planet, we could even ignore stuff like Kakarot and say it is in fact a planet. This ultimately doesn't detract from the multiple panels we explicitly see 3 drawn stars orbiting Namek. Even for argument's sake, one doesn't rebuke the other. Especially if the point is Namek is a super planet.
it could also be as simple as Toriyama backpedaling and changing the objects to be stars given the 3 sun lore came after the initial Namek chapters, and thinking on it, pretty sure every time after that fact the 3 objects were drawn like the alleged "only way stars can be drawn" method. But alas, this is guesswork, conjecture, and not solid evidence, much like the contrary.
It is what it is, Namek has 3 suspiciously drawn suns consistently after the freeza stuff starts, not 1, not 2, 3, which is also the same value we're explicitly given after the Ginyu fight, in the same configuration. Honestly, I'd say the fact every shot with the 3 blatant suns being cut from the anime is actually proof of the latter as the anime at the time already locked in on the other interpretation and them being stars was them going "oh shit uh, ignore that", much like the world of kai's where they locked in with moons and when it was revealed that wasn't what they are they just went "uh ignore that".

 

[Kulf_Boba]

I want to highlight some details in the manga's artwork that I have previously noticed, which seem to indicate the true sun in Namek’s sky.

• Page 4 | The shadows on the ground suggest that the closest sun is positioned to the right, in front of the spaceship. This aligns with the assumption that it is the small orange sun.
• Page 5 | Once again, the way Toriyama depicts shadows indicates that the light source is coming from the right, in front of the spaceship.
• Pages 6, 7, and 8 | The position of the light source remains consistent throughout.
• Pages 9 and 10 | Vegeta’s capsule falls on the same side as the light source.
• Page 12 | The light source is to Vegeta’s left, as evidenced by the shadows on the ground and his body.
• Page 13 | Vegeta appears to be flying forward, and based on the ground shadows, the light source should be in front of him, on the left. There is a white circle in that direction, which suggests it could be one of Namek’s suns.
• Page 15 | The object in the upper-left sky appears to be a sun of Namek, as its position is consistent with the shadows cast on the ground, reinforcing the previous observations.

Therefore, assuming that this celestial body is one of Namek’s suns makes sense and aligns with what is shown in the Dragon Ball Z: Kakarot game.

 

[Chariot190]

I want to highlight some details in the manga's artwork that I have previously noticed, which seem to indicate the true sun in Namek’s sky.

You people are going to make me systematically go over literally hundreds of pages and dissect them all for battleboarding brainrot aren't you? If I vanish for a week, you'll know why

• Page 4 | The shadows on the ground suggest that the closest sun is positioned to the right, in front of the spaceship. This aligns with the assumption that it is the small orange sun.

We literally already went through this a page ago. Unironically the exact same panel and argument.

The ****** up part is the lighting in that panel isn't even consistent within itself.

• Page 5 | Once again, the way Toriyama depicts shadows indicates that the light source is coming from the right, in front of the spaceship.

Which contradicts the exact previous panel with a light source is casting shadows from behind the spaceship.

• Pages 6, 7, and 8 | The position of the light source remains consistent throughout.

Which actually contradicts page 4 as they're being cast in the opposite direction now, and that isn't even true for page 8 because given the position of the space ship, their shadows are now angled like 70 degrees to the right now from 6 and 7, when it should be directly behind them.

• Pages 9 and 10 | Vegeta’s capsule falls on the same side as the light source.

It actually doesn't. Krillin and Gohan turn around as the pod flies by. The sun drawn there is in a different position, given Namek has three of those bad boys... Plus, given he came in at like a 70 degree angle, the shadows in following panels should be angled more regardless.

• Page 12 | The light source is to Vegeta’s left, as evidenced by the shadows on the ground and his body.

Which is an issue given the angle he came down on.

• Page 13 | Vegeta appears to be flying forward, and based on the ground shadows, the light source should be in front of him, on the left. There is a white circle in that direction, which suggests it could be one of Namek’s suns.

This one is consistent with page 4, but not the other pages.

• Page 15 | The object in the upper-left sky appears to be a sun of Namek, as its position is consistent with the shadows cast on the ground, reinforcing the previous observations.

Sure. And? There's 3 of the things. It literally can't be the sun in page 4-5 because they're facing away from the ship in that page, yet the other thing you concede to be a sun, was behind the ship.

So... All you've shown is that the casting of shadows can be inconsistent at times, Namek has at least 2 suns, and this doesn't tackle the argument, once again.

We have quite literally already gone through this.

The worst part is you're cherry picking. Why ignore all the other details that suggest otherwise? The very first scan shows a huge ass sun right up Namek's ass ffs.


Are we going to pretend this thing, this blank, solid, pure white celestial object isn't a sun? What, are you going to argue it's secretly hundreds of millions of km even though it's drawn massively? Are you going to say it's actually a planet in spite of the fact 90% of your own arguments hinges on the fact a planet is drawn a certain way unlike that so surely it can't have suns around it? It isn't even drawn like the thing you're arguing is 100% just a planet, so it can't be that either?

Ignoring the fact you should be using english scans on a english wiki, none of those scans disprove the 3 blatant suns consistently drawn orbiting Namek come start of the Frieza fight, aren't a thing. They still exist, they're still drawn, and it's consistent with the lore.

You're not arguing or proving that stance wrong, you're just arguing that Namek probably has moons, which sure, probably does. It having moons, even planets, even gas giants, in its orbit, doesn't detract from it having suns orbiting it either, given we literally see them, and not just once either.

Therefore, assuming that this celestial body is one of Namek’s suns makes sense and aligns with what is shown in the Dragon Ball Z: Kakarot game.

This doesn't even makse, you're agreeing here?

I sincerely ask you to stop arguing details that don't change the end result. You yourself have already conceded that "I'm not directly questioning your arguments about why they are suns in the manga-" so how does any of this tackle the crux of the argument?

Namek has 3 suns, and consistently within the manga Namek is drawn with 3 suns around it? Especially once the actual 3 sun lore is dropped, I'm pretty sure every time after that they're drawn like stars. So, regardless of any argument thus far, we know Namek still has 3 suns orbiting it, not any different from Kai's world even (Which various games and media have altered to be moons and planets, yet doesn't detract from the manga itself being different).
We know due to how Namek's day functions, one must be drawn parallel or in front of it, ergo... The countless shots of suns being drawn and shown right up Namek's ass, even in the shots being argued as counterevidence, is only even more damning.
Everything you've argued could also be true, yet none of them would rebuke the main topic as they can co-exist, which I've said long before you even posted in this thread, so the fact I'm even needing to argue this is baffling to me.

Arguing just to argue, is a waste of everyone's time. I'm sick of having to repeat points and arguments that are getting consistently failed to be tackled for the same thing again and again, so I'm not going to. What can be read, can be read.