• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Question about dragon ball universe size

Status
Not open for further replies.
KLOL506 said:
Yep, it uses the source Null used.

Nothing stops them from travelling at the same speed as their casual attacks. Unless someone wants to tell me that Saiyan Saga Piccolo can't move at Relativistic speeds or that Goku can't travel at MFTL+ speeds despite fighting against Beerus who can do just that and both having their Energy Ball feat scale to them because they already downscale from a serious Whis.
Technically the fighting speed should be higher since the energy used for speed won't be waisted on distance, but will be used on speed [or short burst] thus technically making it faster.
But it doesn't matter, being it at least equal to travel speed would put them at infinite speed/mtfl+ [if the infinite size thread even passes, which...I severely doubt it]

Heck, even when the whole 3/4 speed of Whis (Whis doing 487 quadrillion c) thing was going on, assuming Beerus was going half as fast as that, Goku would undeniably be above 182 quadrillion C, after which all other transformations would effectively surpass it by massive leaps and bounds).
Click to expand...
 
Zamasu_Chan said:
The raw translations from the daizenshuu are the correct ones. The traditional translations we usually see are rather dated (it’s the same translation that said the solar system is a galactic nebula).

The raws say that stars/galaxies are endlessly expanding but the entire space of the living universe as a whole is infinite.
Also, as a side note, Beerus’s planet is farther distance than the Kaioshin realm and afterlife, which are outside the universe.
Click to expand...
Ultra_instinct_issei said:
Compiling all arguments:
Universe is endless
universe is infinitely expansive. (Expansive means covering an area)
Translations:

"The Darkness that stretches out into infinity and illuminates galaxies"

The Universe: "An infinite space filled with light and darkness"

yk6bqfmquuo81.png

There are boundless Galaxies
knOxJ4sl.jpg


Infinite galaxies.
Click to expand...
@Elizhaa @Theglassman12 @DarkDragonMedeus @SamanPatou

What do you think about this?
 
The blog or the thread should likely also handle some counter arguments such as "The universe stated to have an edge/center".
Which tbh isn't a counter since infinity can have an edge, a beginning and even a center. But it's preferably if the blog/thread handle these "counter arguments."
 
Orange said:
The blog or the thread should likely also handle some counter arguments such as "The universe stated to have an edge/center".
Which tbh isn't a counter since infinity can have an edge, a beginning and even a center. But it's preferably if the blog/thread handle these "counter arguments."
Click to expand...
Also I forgot to mention, are koyama's statements usable for non cano dbz or no? If yes, they should be added to the blog/thread.
 
Orange said:
The blog or the thread should likely also handle some counter arguments such as "The universe stated to have an edge/center".
Which tbh isn't a counter since infinity can have an edge, a beginning and even a center. But it's preferably if the blog/thread handle these "counter arguments."
Click to expand...
Source for infinity being able to have an end?
 
I am with Ottavio. Bulma is smart and all, but her word shouldn't be taken at face value over many other statements.
 
I'll put aside my bias for this

Bulma's statement isn't really enough, as even in the prior sources, it said infinite while also mentioning being enclosed in a sphere of sorts... it's weird and it's strange but...
 
Zamasu_Chan said:
If this gets accepted, I need to remind you all to keep in mind that the galaxies and stars and such are finite but the 3D space is infinite.

I have the raw translations, I just need to find them.
Click to expand...
I found them.






As you can see there are 4 total statements. 2 saying that the stars are infinitely expanding (3-A) and 2 calling space infinite (High 3-A)
 
Maverick_Zero_X said:
Source for infinity being able to have an end?
Click to expand...
The numbers between 0 and 1 are infinite [0,1- 0,2 - 0,3 etc...] plus higher infinities do exist [infinity, countable infinity, uncountable infinity]
Zamasu_Chan said:
I found them.






As you can see there are 4 total statements. 2 saying that the stars are infinitely expanding (3-A) and 2 calling space infinite (High 3-A)
Click to expand...

Technically wouldn't both be high 3-A? You need infinite space to contain infinite/countless galaxies or galaxies that exists infinitely. And luckily , we have statements that there is an infinite space, filled with infinite matter/celestial objects.
 
Maverick_Zero_X said:
Source for infinity being able to have an end?
Click to expand...
The existence of rays.

Also the other realms in the macrocosm are spatially separated from the living world. Thus if we accept infinite size living world, Bulma’s statement would still make sense as she would be referencing the dimensional wall between the living world and the other realms.
 
Last edited:
Nullflowerblush said:
That is an unsubstantiated non-sequitur. For all we know, Bulma could be under the belief that all the universes are spatially connected.
Click to expand...
And thus pretty much completely discredit her when it comes to cosmology based on your headcanon? You go ahead and do that while I just try to make it consistent.
 
The_Legendary_Vin said:
really, in light of that, her statement doesn't fully contradict anything via Toriyama being weird
Click to expand...
Nah, the Bulma statement is not belong to Toriyama, it is Toei's thing. Idk about manga due to skipping U6 vs U7 arc. It is a common knowledge already, Toriyama just threw out the outline of the story, Toei and Toyotaro do their own thing. Unlike the day of DBZ where he actually draw the manga and Toei made the anime based on it with some fillers.
 
The visuals doesn't help much yes, but exactly how is the animation team supposed to portray two close infinite sized universes without drawing them in a finite manner?
 
Vietthai96 said:
Nah, the Bulma statement is not belong to Toriyama, it is Toei's thing. Idk about manga due to skipping U6 vs U7 arc. It is a common knowledge already, Toriyama just threw out the outline of the story, Toei and Toyotaro do their own thing. Unlike the day of DBZ where he actually draw the manga and Toei made the anime based on it with some fillers.
Click to expand...
Son. You definitely didn’t read the manga.
Maverick_Zero_X said:
Aren’t the end points of Universes 6 and 7 visibly shown :V


AABF1879-DFE7-403C-B7E7-4AF1425D4E69.jpg
Click to expand...
I double dog dare you to test me on semantics you faker. 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ProfectusInfinity
Low 1-C question.
Replies
3
Views
2K
TiltedFN
TiltedFN
57Dev
  • Article
Dragon ball Cosmology revision
Replies
5
Views
2K
57Dev
57Dev
omegabronic
  • Locked
Db note aplication based on already accepted crt
Replies
1
Views
747
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
Nostredam
  • Locked
Dragon Ball: Finite Universe
12 13 14
Replies
549
Views
29K
Deagonx
Deagonx
Reiner04
  • Locked
Dragon Ball: Infinite Universe
17 18 19
Replies
751
Views
40K
Da3ggman
Da3ggman
Back
Top