• 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.

Neutral Space Downgrade: Addressing Claims without Evidence

Status
Not open for further replies.
LuffyRuffy46307 said:
Look how incredible this is the colored manga displays the same colors as the neutral dimension where the 12 universes are located. I disagree with this statement based on the refutations above.

Click to expand...


This is a complete non-argument.



Here is the color of space inside the universe 6. It matches the background of the hologram Whis created. This is how space is colored in a majority of panels in the series. But since we are bringing up the manga



The being who is completely knowledgeable states that the seven dragonballs are scattered between the Universe 6 and Universe 7. This aligns with the fact that neutral space is just a dimension between the two universes or an overlap of space between the two universes.



Here it stated exactly that the neutral space is a dimension. For the knowledgable being to be correct, that means this dimension must exist somewhere between Universe 6 and 7. This aligns with what the databooks states.

What is not stated:

The neutral space, holds universes. Your entire argument requires the idea that whis's hologram is depicting the neutral space, but this is just a headcannon with no evidence to back it.

DarkDragonMedeus said:
I think Tilted and KillerDrone are making more sense here.
Click to expand...

Can you explain further because the main argument that I have brought up has not been addressed at all.

There is no statement or scan that states the macrocosms exist inside the neutral space? The only evidence there is states the neutral space is a dimension that exists between universes. Are you saying that this enough evidence to make the claim that the neutral zone holds all the macrocosms?
 
Again, no. It's called Neutral Space, but it is a dimension. Your entire argument hinges on the universes touching lmao. When there's a scan proving they don't. They are explicitly separate and the U6 arc takes place between them. You yourself already have shown that the universes are contained in the same space. The argument you're making is that the Neutral Space isn't actually a space, doesn't exist, and has some OTHER unknown dimension that is somehow BETWEEN the universes yet it's NOT the Neutral Space? Your argument doesn't make a lick of sense. It's completely made up based on nothing. Whis puts out a visual for them and US to understand the placement of the multiverse, and what this structure looks like. Zero reason to assume he's wrong just because it's being mapped out. And we KNOW he isn't wrong since we're also shown it.

Nameless planet is in the Neutral Space->Scene zooms out to show that the Neutral Space holds the universes->Given statement that the arc takes place between the 6th and 7th universe and a map that lays out the foundation->said space is said to be entirely separate from ALL 12 universes while also being the place that is BETWEEN them. All of this is more than enough proof and is the correct interpretation rather than whatever you are trying to argue.

And as I mentioned before, you'd be arguing that there is six Low 1-C structures basically if you go through with this..which doesn't make sense nor have you proven this.
 
Last edited:
TiltedFN said:
Your entire argument hinges on the universes touching lmao.
Click to expand...

Again. Untrue. My argument is that nowhere, in any material, the manga, the anime, the databooks, does it say the neutral space is the container for the universes. I repeat, there is zero evidence that the neutral space holds universes.
 
TiltedFN said:
said space is said to be entirely separate from ALL 12 universes while also being the place that is BETWEEN them
Click to expand...
This does not mean that the space must contains them. The Subsapce is another dimensions between dimensions and is separate from them.

TiltedFN said:
Whis puts out a visual for them and US to understand the placement of the multiverse, and what this structure looks like.
Click to expand...

Your entire argument is claiming that the visuals of Whis's hologram to be an 1:1 accurate depiction of the cosmology, when it's not. (doesn't show the after life and divine realms) and claiming the colorful background is the neutral space. There is no evidence to support this notion.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
There is no statement or scan that states the macrocosms exist inside the neutral space? The only evidence there is states the neutral space is a dimension that exists between universes. Are you saying that this enough evidence to make the claim that the neutral zone holds all the macrocosms?
Click to expand...
Isn't that amazing, if the neutral dimension isn't exactly that, why are Universes 6 and 7 inside the neutral dimension when Super Sheron appears???

What i found most amusing about your argument was asking for a quote stating that the macrocosms are within this dimension, when we literally see the universes within the neutral dimension when Super Sharon appears; images are worth more than mere quotes here.

 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
Your entire argument is claiming that the visuals of Whis's hologram to be an 1:1 accurate depiction of the cosmology, when it's not. (doesn't show the after life and divine realms) and claiming the colorful background is the neutral space. There is no evidence to support this notion.
Click to expand...
Hasn't this argument been repeatedly rejected as a basis for downgrades and such
 
BestMGQScalerEver said:
Hasn't this argument been repeatedly rejected as a basis for downgrades and such
Click to expand...
Yes it has. It's the same old stuff over and over again. There is literally nothing new here. Besides, the map of the multiverse stays the same in terms of general layout.
 
Yeah I agree with tilted here.
Iamunanimousinthat said:
This does not mean that the space must contains them. The Subsapce is another dimensions between dimensions and is separate from them.
Click to expand...
Uhh, Subspace is a void realm that separates the realms within the macrocosms, not the macrocosms themselves which hinges on more so the Neutral space spatio temporally separating the macrocosms so that they can't overlap. Even if we hypothetically say it separates just two macrocosms, it wouldn't really change its function much of being dimensionally orthogonal (still universal in size due to containing them) and having extra temporal axis pertaining to it. And yeah, killerdrone and tilted addressed much of the rest, I have no comment after much.
 
Last edited:
Shar122 said:
Yeah I agree with tilted here.

Uhh, Subspace is a void realm that separates the realms within the macrocosms, not the macrocosms themselves which hinges on more so the Neutral space spatio temporally separating the macrocosms so that they can't overlap. Even if we hypothetically say it separates just two macrocosms, it wouldn't really change its function much of being dimensionally orthogonal (still universal in size due to containing them) and having extra temporal axis pertaining to it.
Click to expand...

I am unsure as to your point here. I did not claim the subspace separates the macrocosms. I said the subspace is an example of a dimension that is stated to exist between dimensions and is stated to be separate from the other worlds. This is the same language used in the guidebook to describe the neutral space.

And no. The neutral space existing between two dimensions, doesn't not automatically mean, it contains those those universes. That's a leap in logic.
 
Iam you're objectively wrong here. Stop trying to equate two different structures in that manner. Your interpretation is incoherent than just the Neutral Space surrounding the universes (which is literally shown lmfao). You legit have nothing to back up your claim. It's totally nonsensical because this means you think the universes are surrounded by nothing even though we know they are contained by the NZ, and that this REAL Neutral Space sits on whatever is the universes do and is a separate dimension. The amount of headcanon and leaps in logic this takes is utterly ridiculous as opposed to..the Neutral Space just holding the universes and us having a literal model on how this works. It simply doesn't work, and it will continue not to no matter how much you try and force it to.
 
Anyway, just woke up but seriously

I agree with Titled and Killerdrone

Your entire OP isn't a debunk, it is just a dismissive argument. If you want to say Neutral Space isn't a container, then you need to prove something else being a container instead, either a void or another space. A void is obviously not, which we knows what the World of Void "look like", which left space, which in turn, doesn't matter in the grand scheme of thing, because said space is the container and even if we follows your argument , then we just remove the name Neutral Space/Zone and replace it with unknown named Space, which still don't affect the tier rating at all
 
Vietthai96 said:
If you want to say Neutral Space isn't a container, then you need to prove something else being a container instead, either a void or another space.
Click to expand...
That’s not how this works.

I do not need to prove a negative. I also do not need to come up with an alternative for something that has no evidence to begin with. You need to prove there is a container.

Also the timeline can just be the container.

Vietthai96 said:
because said space is the container and even if we follows your argument , then we just remove the name Neutral Space/Zone and replace it with unknown named Space, which still don't affect the tier rating at all
Click to expand...
Well no, because the rating is hinged upon Hit being able to perform his time manipulation move in the neutral space. Without that its just 4D space.

Also, you’re working backwards. “There has to be container, so the neutral space is one” is a faulty argument. Provide arguments for a container existing in the first place.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
That’s not how this works.

I do not need to prove a negative. I also do not need to come up with an alternative for something that has no evidence to begin with. You need to prove there is a container.
Click to expand...
There is evidence. Just because you say there isn't doesn't mean it's true. You don't even have proof for this extremely convoluted nonsensical proposal you've made. Literally zero. Do make sure you update the vote tally as well please.
 
Vietthai96 said:
character A destroy a planet onscreen but didn't have statement saying A is capable of destroying the planet so A isn't planetary level. This is the summarise of your argument, anyway, just dismissive argument
Click to expand...
This is beyond silly.

You are really pulling out all stops to hide the fact that you know there is zero evidence to support the claim that the neutral space is the container for all the macrocosms.

Whis making an illusion to explain the multiverse is not evidence that the neutral space is the container for the multiverse. It’s not even evidence that a container of any sorts exists.

If this was any other verse you would be demanding more evidence. Show some rigor.
 
Disagree FRA. As tilted mentioned, please tally the votes accordingly. It needs to be organised and in an orderly manner.
Iamunanimousinthat said:
This is beyond silly.

You are really pulling out all stops to hide the fact that you know there is zero evidence to support the claim that the neutral space is the container for all the macrocosms.

If this was any other verse you would be demanding more evidence. Show some rigor.
Click to expand...

There’s also no need for any of this. I can get your frustration, but tend to it please. Don’t take it out on another due to contrasting beliefs. Drop the accusatory behaviour too, it’s not needed.
 
I think Tilted and Killerdrone make the most sense here.

Fiction frequently uses visual depictions of universes that make them seem very close to each other or even pressed together, but remember the scale we're looking at here; universes are so large the entire night sky we see could disappear in those seemingly tiny gaps between them.

Tally: Thread currently has three disagreements at the time of this post.

Update: Godernet makes four.

Disagree: DDM, Vietthai, me, Godernet.
 
Last edited:
Iamunanimousinthat said:
This is beyond silly.

You are really pulling out all stops to hide the fact that you know there is zero evidence to support the claim that the neutral space is the container for all the macrocosms.

Whis making an illusion to explain the multiverse is not evidence that the neutral space is the container for the multiverse. It’s not even evidence that a container of any sorts exists.
Click to expand...
It isn't silly, it literally what your argument is, of course you are free to believe in anyway you want, but that doesn't change the nature of the argument. Your entire argument hinged on one basis: i don't see A is stated as X, so i don't believe A is X, if you want to convince me, show me the statement of A is X

Is it fine to think that way?. Yeah

Is the argument work?. No it isn't

Iamunanimousinthat said:
If this was any other verse you would be demanding more evidence. Show some rigor.
Click to expand...
This isn't even an argument, things change depending on the variety of situation, though in my experience, i don't remember i was demanding more evidence in similar thread
 
So far, I'm leaning towards disagreement.

A lack of verbal confirmation that the Neutral Space is a container doesn't mean it's automatically an invalid stance or that context can't favor that conclusion over a more assumptive one.

That being said, Tilted's points make the most sense here.
 
Random-Helper323 said:
Fiction frequently uses visual depictions of universes that make them seem very close to each other or even pressed together, but remember the scale we're looking at here; universes are so large the entire night sky we see could disappear in those seemingly tiny gaps between them.
Click to expand...
Its not really about how the universes are presented, its that the neutral space:

1. Isnt stated to be a container for the universes
2. The argument comes from an infographic hologram, that people are claiming it depicts the neutral space but there is zero confirmation from any source that it does
3. The neutral space is only called a dimension between universes

But if the mods think that is fine. So be it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Emirp sumitpo
Age of the Sentry downgrade
Replies
13
Views
1K
MrKerf
MrKerf
Farfetchedx
  • Locked
OPM: Ninja bros profile updates
Replies
7
Views
689
Random-Helper323
Random-Helper323
Fallen_Angelicx
  • Locked
Summer Time Rendering; Existence Precognition Shenanigans
Replies
31
Views
1K
Fallen_Angelicx
Fallen_Angelicx
Farfetchedx
One-Punch Man: Evil Eye and Bakuzan Upgrade + Suiryu Profile Revamp
2
Replies
56
Views
4K
Raiden38
Raiden38
Zabazab
  • Locked
[Make the Exorcist Fall in Love] The Boy's Pride Arc Update
Replies
16
Views
2K
Zabazab
Zabazab
Back
Top