SM Universe Revision

[Vietthai96]

Yeah, ngl here, the side against the Infinite Universe Sailor Moon makes more sense here to me. The translator's note literally said it is Lambda - Einstein’s cosmological constant. You can't somehow both use it and then discard it at the same time, pick the spatial infinity part but disregard the Einstein’s cosmological constant part. This is literally the practice of using what benefit you while discard what do not benefit you.

Also please pick 1 translation; you are using two translations at the same time and there is a huge discrepancy between those two scans

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

You’re misunderstanding the argument. The text never says “restore back to a static cosmos.” It only says that everything will be restored to a static cosmos. That wording does not imply the cosmos was static before. If anything, it suggests the opposite the cosmos, as it currently exists, is not static.

It says “restore everything to the static cosmos”

If i say restore everything to the cabinet, it means im putting whatever was in the cabinet back into the cabinet. And it certainly means that the cabinet exits.

Finally, the objective of this discussion is not to decide whether the universe is static, but whether it is infinite. Both points that it was not static before, and that “static” here does not mean spatially infinite support the conclusion that the universe is not infinite. This is why these arguments work in our favor.

Again, no. The translation note clearly define static as being infinite in both space and time. You are arguing that we ignore what we read on the paper.

This is wrong. In the context of a static universe, Lambda is literally called Einstein’s cosmological constant. That is what the term means.

The wikipedia scan literally says Einstein used the constant in his relativity theory which is different from the static universe one. Which is what i said. How am I wrong?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

The translator's note literally said it is Lambda - Einstein’s cosmological constant.

??? The lambda power is literally not the cosmological constant? It gets its name from it. You’re using a name fallacy. The lambda power has nothing to do with gravity.

The point is, the manga uses the world static universe and the translation defines its use as being spatially infinite.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Again, no. The translation note clearly define static as being infinite in both space and time. You are arguing that we ignore what we read on the paper.

The wikipedia scan literally says Einstein used the constant in his relativity theory which is different from the static universe one. Which is what i said. How am I wrong?

To be fair, the way the translator's note is written, it's making it seem like it's indeed referring to Einstein's specifically, which it then incorrectly notes it as being infinite spatially and temporally, which would be wrong in regards to what Einstein said.

I think both sides are basically dancing around this particular thing and it's honestly, at least to me, a giant waste of time. The translation wanted to note the static universe as infinite. Is this contradicted in any form by the manga? I don't see how it is.

At the same time, I can understand why the opposition doesn't want to use that, as the translator's note doesn't necessarily have the authority to establish canon info, specially if it's not elaborated in the story proper. You guys will clearly disagree, just leave it to staff decision at that point.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

All right. So this thread compelled me to do some research into the history of static universes, and I noticed several enormous logical distortions in how the original argument approaches the history of such models.

The Universe in Sailor Moon is stated to be spatially and temporally infinite in the official translation notes that come with the Eternal Edition of the Manga. The exact definition of "Static Universe" that the notes cite can also be found here, here and here. Essentially, the idea that there are an Infinite amount of Stars in an Infinite Space is derived from Thomas Digges' conception of a Static Universe.

Let me break this argument down, because there are things I find awkward. I'll skip the Wikipedia link and focus on the latter two, but let me make something clear. The original premise went as follows:

The verse mentions a static universe in the context of the Lambda character, specifically Einstein's model which introduced that character as a constant, and was supposedly spatially and temporally infinite.

Cosmological Theories Through History - The Physics of the Universe

The Physics of the Universe - Cosmological Theories Through History

www.lukemastin.com

This link features a series of models of the universe by famous scientists throughout history. I am somewhat convinced that the thought process in citing this was googling "static universe" and "infinite" then looking for a credible source without much care for context. The specific part cited was Nicolaus Copernicus creating a model of the universe in 1543, which Thomas Digges expanded upon with a model of an infinite universe. The third link also elaborated on Thomas Digges' model of an infinite universe. There are several issues I have with this.

The term "static universe" was coined into formal use in the early 1900's, so associations of the term with previous theories are retroactive. In this more generic sense, the term "static universe" broadly refers to a cosmos unchanging in space-time in the sense that it neither expands nor contracts. The issue is that this was the predominant view of the universe throughout history to that point, and as your own second link mentions, Aristotle himself created a model of a finite "static universe" as far back as the 4th Century B.C. In other words, this term "static universe" encompasses so many models that depict universes both spatially infinite and finite, the term should honestly be untierable by default based on the standards this wiki uses for name-dropped theories. What you're doing by cherrypicking this static universe model by Thomas Digges that features a spatially infinite universe is the equivalent of taking a statement about "higher-dimensional theory" and linking an article that mentions that modern higher-dimensional theories are 26-D or Infinite-Dimenisonal to argue for a 1-B or High 1-B rating. There are many models of a static universe, the Thomas Digges one which you've chosen to elaborate on due to its spatial infinitude bears no relevance here.

Actually, I'm gonna walk back on my previous argument of the reference being too vague. According to the translation note, we know the specific model to use, and it's the Einsteinian one. We also know the original context, which is that this static universe is a manifestation of the Lambda power, referring to the Greek character. The Lambda character is absolutely crucial here since the most popular/relevant model that used and introduced this symbol was Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter's 1917 model, after which the Lambda lost all mainstream relevance in the context of static universe models to the point where Einstein called the inclusion of the Lambda his "greatest blunder" and fully distanced himself from it. Now, the translation note says that this model was both spatially and temporally infinite, which is blatantly incorrect. The entire reason why Einstein introduced the Lambda is because he thought Newton's model of an infinite static universe would lead to instability, hence the Lambda (cosmological constant) would resolve that and allow for a finite cosmic space-time that could be both static and stable. In a nutshell, you're taking an extremely broad cosmological concept, one that has various models throughout history and cherrypicking a model that's completely irrelevant and fits your preconceived views, while ignoring that the specific model of that concept mentioned has characteristics in stark contrast with your ideal for the cosmology.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

All right. So this thread compelled me to do some research into the history of static universes, and I noticed several enormous logical distortions in how the original argument approaches the history of such models.

Let me break this argument down, because there are things I find awkward. I'll skip the Wikipedia link and focus on the latter two, but let me make something clear. The original premise went as follows:

The verse mentions a static universe in the context of the Lambda character, specifically Einstein's model which introduced that character as a constant, and was supposedly spatially and temporally infinite.

Cosmological Theories Through History - The Physics of the Universe

The Physics of the Universe - Cosmological Theories Through History

www.lukemastin.com

This link features a series of models of the universe by famous scientists throughout history. I am somewhat convinced that the thought process in citing this was googling "static universe" and "infinite" then looking for a credible source without much care for context. The specific part cited was Nicolaus Copernicus creating a model of the universe in 1543, which Thomas Digges expanded upon with a model of an infinite universe. The third link also elaborated on Thomas Digges' model of an infinite universe. There are several issues I have with this.

The term "static universe" was coined into formal use in the early 1900's, so associations of the term with previous theories are retroactive. In this more generic sense, the term "static universe" broadly refers to a cosmos unchanging in space-time in the sense that it neither expands nor contracts. The issue is that this was the predominant view of the universe throughout history to that point, and as your own second link mentions, Aristotle himself created a model of a finite "static universe" as far back as the 4th Century B.C. In other words, this term "static universe" encompasses so many models that depict universes both spatially infinite and finite, the term should honestly be untierable by default based on the standards this wiki uses for name-dropped theories. What you're doing by cherrypicking this static universe model by Thomas Digges that features a spatially infinite universe is the equivalent of taking a statement about "higher-dimensional theory" and linking an article that mentions that modern higher-dimensional theories are 26-D or Infinite-Dimenisonal to argue for a 1-B or High 1-B rating. There are many models of a static universe, the Thomas Digges one which you've chosen to elaborate on due to its spatial infinitude bears no relevance here.

Actually, I'm gonna walk back on my previous argument of the reference being too vague. According to the translation note, we know the specific model to use, and it's the Einsteinian one. We also know the original context, which is that this static universe is a manifestation of the Lambda power, referring to the Greek character. The Lambda character is absolutely crucial here since the most popular/relevant model that used and introduced this symbol was Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter's 1917 model, after which the Lambda lost all mainstream relevance in the context of static universe models to the point where Einstein called the inclusion of the Lambda his "greatest blunder" and fully distanced himself from it. Now, the translation note says that this model was both spatially and temporally infinite, which is blatantly incorrect. The entire reason why Einstein introduced the Lambda is because he thought Newton's model of an infinite static universe would lead to instability, hence the Lambda (cosmological constant) would resolve that and allow for a finite cosmic space-time that could be both static and stable. In a nutshell, you're taking an extremely broad cosmological concept, one that has various models throughout history and cherrypicking a model that's completely irrelevant and fits your preconceived views, while ignoring that the specific model of that concept mentioned has characteristics in stark contrast with your ideal for the cosmology.

So basically

None of this matters. What matters ultimately is what the translation is saying, that the static universe alluded to is infinite spatially and temporally, and that's what applies to Sailor Moon. The true issue is whether the translation have the authority to introduce such and if its contradicted. And, at least to me, it's completely subjective.

 

[Vietthai96]

So basically

None of this matters. What matters ultimately is what the translation is saying, that the static universe alluded to is infinite spatially and temporally, and that's what applies to Sailor Moon. The true issue is whether the translation have the authority to introduce such and if its contradicted. And, at least to me, it's completely subjective.

I have issue with this argument: the translation note (by who we don't care) directly used a very specific Einstein’s cosmological constant and then contradicted itself by saying the static universe is spatially and temporally infinite. Thus we shouldn't use it at all, any of it. You, however, are picking the spatially and temporally infinite and discarding the Einstein’s cosmological constant part, arbitrarily choosing the former and handwaving away the latter to remove contradiction to somehow make the former applies to Sailor Moon; i don't think this practice should exist

I'm not even go over the part that why a translation note should hold authority about lore, it isn't even WoG

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

So basically

None of this matters. What matters ultimately is what the translation is saying, that the static universe alluded to is infinite spatially and temporally, and that's what applies to Sailor Moon. The true issue is whether the translation have the authority to introduce such and if its contradicted. And, at least to me, it's completely subjective.

Why would some random person that translates a story, and puts a side note that they think this is potentially talking about a theory where the Universe is infinite spatially and temporally have ANY basis as evidence? I think that logic is a bit preposterous because this isn’t an official guide, nor is it something that the story tells us. You’re essentially telling us that we should hold to what some random dude said when translating as authoritative. Also, just mentioning something that sounds like a theory that exists in real life does not suffice either. We have plenty of stories that use words like hyperspace, super-dimensional, but we wouldn’t take those words themselves being mentioned as the evidence to believe that the concept of a hyperspace described on wikipedia fits that story.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I have issue with this argument: the translation note (by who we don't care) directly used a very specific Einstein’s cosmological constant and then contradicted itself by saying the static universe is spatially and temporally infinite. Thus we shouldn't use it at all, any of it. You, however, are picking the spatially and temporally infinite and discarding the Einstein’s cosmological constant part, arbitrarily choosing the former and handwaving away the latter to remove contradiction to somehow make the former applies to Sailor Moon; i don't think this practice should exist

I'm not even go over the part that why a translation note should hold authority about lore, it isn't even WoG

What I'm actually saying: They wanted to say this, but incorrectly used this other thing alongside it.

If we want to discard it entirely, sure. But at the end of the day, they did say it's in regards to a infinitely spatial and temporal universe. There's no dancing around that in my book.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Why would some random person that translates a story, and puts a side note that they think this is potentially talking about a theory where the Universe is infinite spatially and temporally have ANY basis as evidence? I think that logic is a bit preposterous because this isn’t an official guide, nor is it something that the story tells us. You’re essentially telling us that we should hold to what some random dude said when translating as authoritative. Also, just mentioning something that sounds like a theory that exists in real life does not suffice either. We have plenty of stories that use words like hyperspace, super-dimensional, but we wouldn’t take those words themselves being mentioned as the evidence to believe that the concept of a hyperspace described on wikipedia fits that story.

I mean, it's an official translation. If it were a fan translation instead, I wouldn't give it any mind.

Again, I can genuinely see why we shouldn't use it. I personally would on the merits of it being official and not contradicted by the work.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Why would some random person that translates a story, and puts a side note that they think this is potentially talking about a theory where the Universe is infinite spatially and temporally have ANY basis as evidence?

Why not? This site allows other verses to use things like promotional material to scale cosmologies.

This is an official translation note that was included in the manga. We are getting way into the weeds here.

I have issue with this argument: the translation note (by who we don't care) directly used a very specific Einstein’s cosmological constant and then contradicted itself by saying the static universe is spatially and temporally infinite. Thus we shouldn't use it at all, any of it. You, however, are picking the spatially and temporally infinite and discarding the Einstein’s cosmological constant part, arbitrarily choosing the former and handwaving away the latter to remove contradiction to somehow make the former applies to Sailor Moon; i don't think this practice should exist

I'm not even go over the part that why a translation note should hold authority about lore, it isn't even WoG

I will only say that it’s erroneous to act like Sailor Moon is explicitly using the cosmological constant when its not. Lambda power is named after it. And the translation note happens to give a definition for static universe, which the manga also uses.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Why not? This site allows other verses to use things like promotional material to scale cosmologies.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Keep that well in mind.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

I mean, it's an official translation. If it were a fan translation instead, I wouldn't give it any mind.

Again, I can genuinely see why we shouldn't use it. I personally would on the merits of it being official and not contradicted by the work.

I think this is weird to use official translation as secondary canon because they are not in any capacity a source to add elements to the story. Their job is to translate and not decide contents of a story. Notes are just extra non-canon elements.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I think this is weird to use official translation as secondary canon because they are not in any capacity a source to add elements to the story. Their job is to translate and not decide contents of a story. Notes are just extra non-canon elements.

And that's a fair position to have.

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

What I'm actually saying: They wanted to say this, but incorrectly used this other thing alongside it.

If we want to discard it entirely, sure. But at the end of the day, they did say it's in regards to an infinitely spatial and temporal universe. There's no dancing around that in my book.

The translation note is mentioning where the meaning of these words came about. link

It talks about how a move that has super string in it is a reference to string theory (does SM have 11 dimensions now?)

And then how the move Lambda has a name of a constant that’s in reference to Einstein’s theory of a static universe, but it never says the verse itself operates under this theory, but is giving us the origin of where these things come from. It even gives us a breakdown on where the word Cosmos comes from, and how it’s from the Greek language, and is antithesis to chaos. Even if one would take this translation note as evidence it’s not saying the concept itself exists in the verse, but talking about its origin of the word used. Also, even if I grant the argument SM turned the universe into a static one, so it wasn’t static prior.

Why not? This site allows other verses to use things like promotional material to scale cosmologies.

This is an official translation note that was included in the manga. We are getting way into the weeds here.



I will only say that it’s erroneous to act like Sailor Moon is explicitly using the cosmological constant when its not. Lambda power is named after it. And the translation note happens to give a definition for static universe, which the manga also uses.

Promotional material, guides, those are things that are giving actual information about the story. You’re telling me that we should use the fact that a translation note is giving us origin of words as evidence that the story itself is using those concepts.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I think this is weird to use official translation as secondary canon because they are not in any capacity a source to add elements to the story. Their job is to translate and not decide contents of a story. Notes are just extra non-canon elements.

Except it’s not adding anything, just defining a term used in the story. It’s under the jurisdiction of a translator to make sure the meaning comes across.

 

[Vietthai96]

Why not? This site allows other verses to use things like promotional material to scale cosmologies.

The issue is, promotional materials are from authors, devs, and anyone who has actual authority over the series. A translation note that expresses the translator's personal viewpoint is hardly considered promotional material. If it was the writer's notes, then of course that is a different thing altogether

I mean, it's an official translation. If it were a fan translation instead, I wouldn't give it any mind.

Again, I can genuinely see why we shouldn't use it. I personally would on the merits of it being official and not contradicted by the work.

Hmm, oke i understand you now. Bro really threw me into a loop with that comment. Confused as heck

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Except it’s not adding anything, just defining a term used in the story. It’s under the jurisdiction of a translator to make sure the meaning comes across.

Ehhhh, is it tho? It is 100% adding something, that if it were alluded to entirely within the story, we wouldn't be having this argument in the first place.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

And that's a fair position to have.

I'm pretty sure it's the only position to have. A questionable translation note is in no way authoritative about contents of the story even if it is officially done.

Except it’s not adding anything, just defining a term used in the story. It’s under the jurisdiction of a translator to make sure the meaning comes across.

It's up to the story to define what it is. We use nominal fallacies for a reason. A non-canon note is not the story defining it lmfao.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I'm pretty sure it's the only position to have. A questionable translation note is in no way authoritative about contents of the story even if it is officially done.

I don't hold that stance. It is what it is.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

promotional materials are from authors, devs, and anyone who has actual authority over the series.

That’s not true in anyway. Authors and writers do not make promotional material. Ad agencies do.

Ehhhh, is it tho? It is 100% adding something, that if it were alluded to entirely within the story, we wouldn't be having this argument in the first place.

i have to disagree. The definition of a static universe is 100% a universe with infinite space and time. Only the Einstein version has finite space.

Adding the definition in notes isn’t adding anything, just clarifying. When the translation note tells us what a certain traditional dish is, its not adding the dish to the story, its clarifying what the dish is.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

i have to disagree. The definition of a static universe is 100% a universe with infinite space and time. Only the Einstein version has finite space.

Alright. Show me where in the manga is the universe called infinite. If such evidence exist, remove the translation stuff and use that.

 

[Armorchompy]

Translations that are official but known to be erroneous/misleading or otherwise inaccurate to the original text are not an acceptable form of canon barring special context. They cannot be used as evidence.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Translations that are official but known to be erroneous/misleading or otherwise inaccurate to the original text are not an acceptable form of canon barring special context. They cannot be used as evidence.

Doesn't seem to be inaccurate for the purposes of the text/work, but that it's adding extra context not directly shown within the verse.

 

[Saqphire]

Alright. Show me where in the manga is the universe called infinite. If such evidence exist, remove the translation stuff and use that.

Would an infinite quantity of objects/energy suffice? Cuz iirc there's an infinite amount of graves in Sag A

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Would an infinite quantity of objects/energy suffice? Cuz iirc there's an infinite amount of graves in Sag A

If it's shown to be literal, I suppose.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Alright. Show me where in the manga is the universe called infinite. If such evidence exist, remove the translation stuff and use that.

It doesn’t say it out right. It uses the term static universe. Which could mean either

A. Infinite time and space
B. Infinite time and finite space

The translation note gives context that the story means A. If the verse outright said it, we wouldn’t be here at all.

 

[Armorchompy]

Doesn't seem to be inaccurate for the purposes of the text/work, but that it's adding extra context not directly shown within the verse.

And that extra context is non-canonical.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

And that extra context is non-canonical.

Wouldn't it be tertiary canon under our rules? And thus follow this:

Any changes based on tertiary canon will only be accepted if they are not contradicted by any instances of another canon, with regards to either the character power-scale, or logical inconsistencies (and plot holes).

If not, then fair enough. I have to agree with the downgrade fully then.

 

[TiltedFN]

It doesn’t say it out right. It uses the term static universe. Which could mean either

A. Infinite time and space
B. Infinite time and finite space

The translation note gives context that the story means A. If the verse outright said it, we wouldn’t be here at all.

But you haven't actually proven infinite anything iam. Most of your argument hinges on that translation note. And again, I can not stress enough that you are using two different translations of the SAME panel to try and prove your point. We already gave you the translated text and nowhere does it mention "restore". As it currently stands, even with either one, the universe still won't be static currently, and you have no way to prove that. Therefore, it is in no way infinite.

"Restore" or "Turn into" both imply that the current universe is not static even if that did mean it's automatically infinite (its doesn't).

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Wouldn't it be tertiary canon under our rules? And thus follow this:


If not, then fair enough. I have to agree with the downgrade fully then.

And nothing contradicts the translation note. It aligns with the manga.

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

Would an infinite quantity of objects/energy suffice? Cuz iirc there's an infinite amount of graves in Sag A

Please don’t tell me it’s this.

 

[Armorchompy]

Wouldn't it be tertiary canon under our rules? And thus follow this:

In my opinion it isn't because it's not meant to be establishing canon in the way that extra material does. The purpose of a translation is to deliver the original meaning of the work to a wider audience, not to create extra content or present new aspects of it. So any inaccuracy is either a mistake or made for the sake of a smoother read (artistic license, if you will). You wouldn't take, I dunno, the portuguese dub of John Wick 3 and say that whatever liberties it takes are indicative to the original text.

If not, then fair enough. I have to agree with the downgrade fully then.

To be clear I haven't read the thread and am not voting, I was just made aware of this specific discussion which is something I've taken part in before.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

The purpose of a translation is to deliver the original meaning of the work to a wider audience, not to create extra content or present new aspects of it.

How is defining a word considered creating extra content?

 

[AsterReal]

An explanation of something is not literally what is being done. The context here is not that the lambda power turns the universe into a static cosmos. It is the fact that it is restoring it to its original state before it was corrupted by Chaos. That is why Sailor Cosmos states that Sailor Moon's power "restored the galaxy and the cauldron to their ORIGINAL form."

In the Sailor Moon Cosmos movie, we have additional visual context that shows us what happens. Chaos corrupts the Cauldron and the Galaxy, and the lambda power reverses that, restoring everything to its original form.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

To be clear I haven't read the thread and am not voting, I was just made aware of this specific discussion which is something I've taken part in before.

The main argument to keep supporting the rating was that, to me. The blog had some supportive stuff for the rating based on what the translations added, but I found said support lacking and advocated its removal. Genuinely, without that translator note, there doesn't seem to be anything to support infinite universe.

 

[Armorchompy]

How is defining a word considered creating extra content?

Well it wasn't there before, and it is now. No two ways about the fact that it's new information, if it wasn't you wouldn't be needing to argue about the translation.

 

[Vietthai96]

An explanation of something is not literally what is being done. The context here is not that the lambda power turns the universe into a static cosmos. It is the fact that it is restoring it to its original state before it was corrupted by Chaos. That is why Sailor Cosmos states that Sailor Moon's power "restored the galaxy and the cauldron to their ORIGINAL form."

In the Sailor Moon Cosmos movie, we have additional visual context that shows us what happens. Chaos corrupts the Cauldron and the Galaxy, and the lambda power reverses that, restoring everything to its original form.

the visual clearly shows Chaos corrupted a single galaxy, and Sailor Moon restored said galaxy.................so, your point being?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Well it wasn't there before, and it is now. No two ways about the fact that it's new information, if it wasn't you wouldn't be needing to argue about the translation.

???

If the work used the word, wombat , and the translation note defined what a wombat, how is that adding something that wasn’t there before? I am genuinely confused.

 

[AsterReal]

the visual clearly shows Chaos corrupted a single galaxy, and Sailor Moon restored said galaxy.................so, your point being?

That the Universe was not turned into a static cosmos, it was only restored to its original state. Whether it is infinite or not. Whether we assume it was or was not. If someone wants to argue that Sailor Moon can turn the Universe into a Low 2-C structure. Then this degradation seems strange to me.