• 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.

All of Dragon Ball Cosmology revision (STAFF ONLY)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Theglassman12 said:
Anyways as for the whole cosmology blog, regarding the anime scans, if you’re using this to back up DBH/Xenoverse then I can see them being used, if it’s for Dragon Ball Super then I don’t think you can really use them to upgrade DBS, unless there’s a CRT I wasn’t aware of, the manga for Dragon Ball is the main canon we use for DBS on this site over the anime.
Click to expand...
I know that. That’s why I included the quote from Toriyama: This complete map was originally background information that I drew at the request of the anime people, but I took this opportunity to add the Kaiōshin World, which wasn't included in the complete map before
The map was made for the anime so there’s no difference in the cosmology
Theglassman12 said:
As for the scans themselves, it would help a lot if we get other translators here to verify the stuff said in both anime and manga to be legit just in case they are mistranslations, if the world of void stuff is confirmed to be a mistranslation, who’s to say that the other text isn’t a mistranslation unless we’re absolutely sure?
Click to expand...
That’s fine. The scan about the afterlife transcending the universe was translated by Herms. If you want the rest translated, my sources link to the Raws of the Daizenshuu.
Theglassman12 said:
And regarding the whole “higher film” analogy for the timelines I’m not the best to really tell if that’s tier 1 or not, so I’m neutral on the tier 1 buffs until some of the dimensional guys on the wiki can confirm it.
Click to expand...
That’s fine.
 
Milly_Rocking_Bandit said:
How long will you guys stay stuck in the past?
Click to expand...
As long as people don't bring new stuff.

But since this was demanded, I will roughly go over why the infinite and 2-C stuff was rejected.

The universe is even stated to be infinite. This specific portion has been rejected for years because of Bulma stating the universe has a center and an edge, therefore contradicting its infinite size. However, this isn’t a contradiction. Firstly, all universes have a center. The center is always the starting point of the big bang, then the rest expands to infinity.
Click to expand...
This is rejected for multiple reasons. We don't consider the Daizenshuu statements to be factually 100% accurate because the daizenshuu has been self-contradictory with the whole statement about how the DB universe has only 4 galaxies. Of course, that was bs, but that's what was stated in it. You could argue it meant 4 quadrants but that is an assumption adopted to "make sense" of the blatantly false statement. Then the statement about it being endless and expansive only means it expands endlessly/continuously, which is true for every universe. It doesn't necessarily make it infinite.

Bulma's statement is also true. The DB universe has a center and the Earth is located close to the edge of the universe. Sure, the center is where the big bang starts from, but that's not proof of it being infinite. The Earth being at the edge and the nameless planet being at the literal end of the universe debunks the notion of it being infinite. The nameless planet floats at the neutral space of U6 and U7 right where both universes meet and share a neutral space.

You can even see the ends of both universes very clearly in this shot where Super Shenron emerges in the neutral space.

The 2-C comes from the notion that there is separate flow of time in the afterlife. Something that is blatantly false. We know from the Saiyan saga and the Buu saga that time flows exactly at the same speed as that of Earth. Goku had to rush through, complete his training and rush back to Earth all during the same time as Gohan was training on Earth to fight the Saiyans. If there was no time, Goku wouldn't have to rush, or if there was a different flow of time, Goku would get more or less time and it would have been made clear like in the case of RoSaT, which quite literally has a different flow of time. That statement only means that Goku doesn't age and the strain of SSJ3 is less there. Apart from the Saiyan saga and Buu saga clearly showcasing that time flows in the afterlife at the same speed as that of the mortal universe, there exists no definitive proof of time not flowing, or flowing at a different pace, aprat from that one questionable statement from Goku that is considered to have a different meaning with respect to his SSJ3's performance due to him being dead and not aging.

Due to lack of proof of separate spacetime, it is only accepted that the DB universe is separated using spatial boundaries only.

These decisions were reached after numerous threads of exhaustive debates where almost all the staff members came together to reach a conclusion and it won't be reversed because a single person is hellbent on not dropping it. And neither is it going to change because people keep demanding others to reiterate the points instead of reading the old threads for their old arguments.
 
Sorry but I'm not gonna be any help in evaluating this, while I do have knowledge on Dragon Ball, I don't properly understand tier 1 stuff so my input wouldn't really amount to much anything. So I won't simply agree or disagree but If it comes to the more logical conclusion then I'll be fine with it regardless of what it is.

Apologies again for being unable to help here.
 
AKM sama said:
And as for the latter, I don't think that's enough for the cosmology to be anywhere in tier 1, tier 1 requires a lot more than just "12 universes in a timeline" as I already pointed out.
Click to expand...
This will be my last post on the matter, since staff thread.

low_1-c_stuff.png

low_1-c_stuff2.png

low_1-c_stuff3.png


You are free to take it up with the Tier-Man himself ig.
 
Last edited:
Okay... I’ll try to keep this short ‘cause lolreallife and basically say I agree with 2-C U7 macrocosm.

The Daizenshuu’s information should be evaluated case-by-case I feel. Just like... most cases we examine in VSBW. As in, if a specific statement from the material is supported by the source material, it should be used. After all, guidebooks and such are supplemental material.

I honestly believe that the other interpretation to the whole center and edge of the universe with that video you linked to be pretty clever, seeing as Bulma is someone who is smarter than scientists/researchers IRL who made these theories and has experience dealing with space-time shenanigans (she built a goddamn time travelling machine lmao), I think it’s reasonably possible for her to be referring to what you linked in that video. I unironically watched the entire video because I thought it was genuinely interesting LOL

Not to mention that the usage of the word “endless” means that it is never ending (going by Dictionary definitions at least). There’s no limit. Infinite has no limit. I guess you could say that it is the act of seeming as such, but I disagree with interpreting as such given that that implies that there IS a limit when the only evidence that I’ve seen for that is that Bulma sentence with multiple meanings.

So I feel like the evidence in favor of U7 being a macrocosm (2-C) is stronger than the evidence against it.

With that said, I’ll remain neutral on the Tier 1 stuff for the moment. I wish I were more experienced with that stuff.

Not to mention, that the only reason the door to Tier 1 DBS is open is because of a loophole in the tiering system which Kukui mentioned above), which may open the door to other verses to do the same (i.e. Kirby). So I have a feeling the tiering system will be revised anyway. Unless further discussion proves this belief of mine wrong lol

Anywho, that’s all from me for the moment. And with this, I dip.
 
Last edited:
AKM sama said:
The Earth being at the edge and the nameless planet being at the literal end of the universe debunks the notion of it being infinite
Click to expand...
Sorry for commenting on a staff only, this however is not right. You can easily look at something and say it’s infinite and then place yourself in a higher dimensional perspective to say it has an edge, there are levels of infinity after all, something the very tiering system is based on. It’s kinda like saying 1 centimeter has infinite space inside of it or how time is made of an uncountably infinite amount of points/moments, yet we only use finite metrics to measure them.

Edit: @Migue79 Pepto’s tier 1 Kirby is based on other stuff and this isn’t a loophole. This is why low 2-C is superior to 3-A in the first place.
 
Sorry interrupting again but dear AKM the points you provided above were already debunked (especially the centre & the edge point) & galaxy quardrants thing also on db wiki as far as I remember that can be Transliteration as like that so I dont think thats "assumption" Only
Though I am not entirely sure on that
As for infinite part it was stated twice to be infinite & the endless Statement supports it more since endless could mean infinity also couldn't but here it is meaning infinity since other Statement say infinity what you say it supports more
 
Greenshifter said:
Sorry for commenting on a staff only, this however is not right. You can easily look at something and say it’s infinite and then place yourself in a higher dimensional perspective
Click to expand...
And the stuff you are missing here is that you require extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim, not the other way around. You cannot assume the highest and then rollercoaster your way into explaining how it can all make sense. You need undeniable evidence to do that.

Sorry interrupting again but dear AKM the points you provided above were already debunked
Click to expand...
Yeah, and I know we can go back and forth on this topic, because that's what every previous thread on the topic has resulted into. Not saying you can't make the same arguments, but again, they are the same arguments and this is why I said to drop this topic. The discussion has been done, the conclusion was reached when most of the current and retired staff were present there, and a rule against discussing it was made. And since there is no new evidence, I don't see why I need to continue this discussion. It will be a repeat of all the previous threads.

So I suggest you drop the infinite and 2-C stuff. And stick to the new topic of debating tier 1.
 
I knew this thread would come. Let's give a round out around the reasonings using ONLY the Super anime to see what we have here:
  • Each timeline has a copy of all 12 universes within it, as proven by Future Trunks' timeline having copies of all 12 universes inside it
  • Due to nature of how space-times work, a larger timeline containing multiple Low 2-C structures within itself counts as Low 1-C, since it would make it a higher temporal axis on which smaller ones are contained
  • Since each of the 12 universes is Low 2-C, then Future Trunks' timeline, and by extension all timelines in Dragon Ball, are Low 1-C structures due to being a larger temporal axis containing smaller ones
Literally the only way this doesn't qualify for Low 1-C is if the universes aren't Low 2-C structures, but 3-A ones, since that would make it so the timeline doesn't have other space-times within itself, and in turn, would downgrade all current Low 2-Cs to 3-A since their universes wouldn't be Low 2-C.
BUT, since we currently accept each universe as being Low 2-C, that means that the timelines do, in fact, qualify for Low 1-C, and the only way they don't is downgrading the universes and all characters from Low 2-C to 3-A. So, until someone brings the argument for 3-A universes, I agree with Low 1-C Dragon Ball.
 
Last edited:
@Theglassman12 had allowed me to comment here, I have asked him on discord.


First and foremost I want to say that pls keep these "has been discussed to death, debunked before" etc kind of comments out of here....

Act like the anime/manga/gsmes just ended yesterday and we are discussing the cosmology of a new series for the first time.

Think of this like a clean slate to start over.

AKM sama said:
In short, yes I disagree with 2-C and infinite speed because nothing new is brought here. And as for the latter, I don't think that's enough for the cosmology to be anywhere in tier 1, tier 1 requires a lot more than just "12 universes in a timeline" as I already pointed out.
Click to expand...
The thing is that these 12-18 space-times as they are accepted now....and as they are still provable .... together their collective is 2C no doubt......but they are treated by the overarching timeline as if they were 3D objects in a normal 4D timeline.

Let me explain.....think of a scenario in which a timeline has 18 galaxies in it. The timeline is 4D and the galaxies are each 3D.
The galaxies have a life span inside the timeline....they have past, present and future selves in it. Say for example in the past there were 18 galaxies and someone destroyed 6 of them and now there are 12 left in the present and in the future these galaxies will have a ToP to decide one sole survivor in Deathmatch Battle Royale.

Sounds awfully similar to DBS storyline doesn't it??
Well just replace the 3D galaxies with 4D space-times.....and voila you end up having a timeline that has Inaccessibly infinite superiority over it's contents....and contents happen to be 4D constructs.
Thats solid low1C.
When a object has a lifespan(past, present and a future) in a timeline its because there are uncountably infinite snapshots of it for each infistismal point of time.
Which in case of DBS are space-times themselves.

I know I may have gone on a bit of a rant instead of concise points but I am not a very good debater.
I'll draw some pictures and diagrams to prove that DBS follows this logic and qualifies for Low1C.

Also I would like to talk about @manu_zarri braught up in last thread but got scolded for it. Kek. But I'll keep it in the back pocket now....and may use it later.

Thats all for now.

Jeez I was Ninja'd by many users.
 
AKM sama said:
And the stuff you are missing here is that you require extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim, not the other way around. You cannot assume the highest and then rollercoaster your way into explaining how it can all make sense. You need undeniable evidence to do that.
Click to expand...
I just went with the explanation that doesn’t lead to a contradiction... not to mention that infinite-sized universes having an edge is also accepted on site since they’d need an edge for them to be separate from other universes. Pokémon comes to mind.
 
Ionliosite said:
I knew this thread would come. Let's give a round out around the reasonings using ONLY the Super anime to see what we have here:
  • Each timeline has a copy of all 12 universes within it, as proven by Future Trunks' timeline having copies of all 12 universes inside it
  • Due to nature of how space-times work, a larger timeline containing multiple Low 2-C structures within itself counts as Low 1-C, since it would make it a higher temporal axis on which smaller ones are contained
  • Since each of the 12 universes is Low 2-C, then Future Trunks' timeline, and by extension all timelines in Dragon Ball, are Low 1-C structures due to being a larger temporal axis containing smaller ones
Literally the only way this doesn't qualify for Low 1-C is if the universes aren't Low 2-C structures, but 3-A ones, since that would make it so the timeline doesn't have other space-times within itself, and in turn, would downgrade all current Low 2-Cs to 3-A since their universes would be Low 2-C.
BUT, since we currently accept each universe as being Low 2-C, that means that the timelines do, in fact, qualify for Low 1-C, and the only way they don't is downgrading the universes and all characters from Low 2-C to 3-A. So, until someone brings the argument for 3-A universes, I agree with Low 1-C Dragon Ball.
Click to expand...
This sums up exactly what I tried pointing out earlier by the way, to reiterate once again of what would happen if you disagree with the upgrade.

If you disagree with Low 1-C, then you have to agree with (and prove) the universes in the cosmology being only 3-A structures, as that's the only means to disagree with the upgrade. If you agree with the universes being Low 2-C structures, then its Low 1-C no matter what.

So basically, pick your poison. Disagree with Low 1-C? Downgrade to 3-A. Agree with Low 2-C structures? Upgrade to Low 1-C. No other way around this, no in-betweens, its strictly choosing one or the other and sticking with it.
 
AKM sama said:
As long as people don't bring new stuff.
Click to expand...
New stuff=/=New arguments, and new standards. This is the place that nearly got Infinite and Immeasurable nuked the moment DBH got it, after the standards were already revised.

AKM sama said:
Idk why this isn't in Fun and Games, honestly.
Click to expand...
I also want to point out this. Why? Why should his interpretation be made a joke? It certainly isn't the first time that this has happened, especially by a mod. All because you disagree, or are you scared of another's interpretation? Only one of these is okay, and from the comments you've made, with no intention to actually refute him, it doesn't seem like the first one. It's pretty distasteful, and disrespectful, as an admin and bureaucrat of the wiki. This'll be the last comment I make on this, since I'm nuetral regardless.
 
Zamasu_Chan said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
From my knowledge, we take the manga as primary canon over every other source. That means if the databook, animes, canon movies, or author statements say something, the manga is the priority.

Goku couldn't sense energy in different space times in the manga but he could sense energy in the afterlife from earth (which is why he could teleport to the afterlife during Cell's explosion).

I fail to see how the walls of the ROSAT stretch out to the afterlife and such.
 
Ionliosite and Kukui seem to make good points.

However, again, it is very inconsiderate to keep mentally straining AKM when he is sick. It isn't a big deal if we close this thread for a week or so, and Zamasu PMs me to reopen it afterwards.
 
Antvasima said:
Ionliosite and Kukui seem to make good points. However, again, it is very inconsiderate to keep mentally straining AKM when he is sick. It isn't a big deal if we close this thread for a week or so, and Zamasu PMs me to reopen it afterwards.
Click to expand...
Please allow me to comment this, but the advice of a single member is not worth the closing a thread. She may be sick, and I wish her well, but that does not mean her opinion is precedent over the thread. AKM chooses to comment here, and they know the mental risks involved. Let the thread continue on its own, and see how it turns out.
 
There's no reason to postpone the discussion. There are other knowledgeable members that can give solid judgement just fine. Worst comes to worse, AKM sama can just make a CRT to refute this later if it goes through, if they don't feel up to answering right now. Really, we should be able to come to decisions without the absence of a single staff supporter crippling our sense of judgement and critical thinking.
 
I'm fine with the thread being closed and re-opened in a week. There's no rush to any of this. I don't mind either way.
 
Okay then. I hope that you will not overstrain yourself though AKM.
 
AKM sama said:
As long as people don't bring new stuff.

But since this was demanded, I will roughly go over why the infinite and 2-C stuff was rejected.


This is rejected for multiple reasons. We don't consider the Daizenshuu statements to be factually 100% accurate because the daizenshuu has been self-contradictory with the whole statement about how the DB universe has only 4 galaxies. Of course, that was bs, but that's what was stated in it. You could argue it meant 4 quadrants but that is an assumption adopted to "make sense" of the blatantly false statement.
Click to expand...
It never said it had 4 singular galaxies. Remember this 銀河 means both galaxy and galaxies, so it was a simple mistake.
AKM sama said:
Then the statement about it being endless and expansive only means it expands endlessly/continuously, which is true for every universe. It doesn't necessarily make it infinite.
Click to expand...
There are three statements I posted. The first one says the universe is endless. The second one says galaxies exist infinitely within it, and the last one says infinite twice. It wasn’t just one statement that I posted, that was pretty blatant
AKM sama said:
Bulma's statement is also true. The DB universe has a center and the Earth is located close to the edge of the universe. Sure, the center is where the big bang starts from, but that's not proof of it being infinite.
Click to expand...
That’s technically wrong. The center is always the starting point and the outer directions would be infinite
AKM sama said:
The Earth being at the edge and the nameless planet being at the literal end of the universe debunks the notion of it being infinite.
Click to expand...
You know the center and edges themselves can be infinite right. If you disregard that, there can be an infinite distance between point A and Point B. For example, there are infinite numbers between 1 and 2.
AKM sama said:
The nameless planet floats at the neutral space of U6 and U7 right where both universes meet and share a neutral space.
Click to expand...
Being a separate space between two dimensions doesn’t mean anything in terms of size.
AKM sama said:
You can even see the ends of both universes very clearly in this shot where Super Shenron emerges in the neutral space.
Click to expand...
This shot isn’t even consistent with DB. Where’s the afterlife, where’s the realm of the Kai? Also also, hypothetically speaking. How would you draw a multiverse where all the universes are infinite? You do know that everything doesn’t have to be up to scale. If we took all of that literally, this shot would make snake way a large portion of the universe.
AKM sama said:
The 2-C comes from the notion that there is separate flow of time in the afterlife. Something that is blatantly false. We know from the Saiyan saga and the Buu saga that time flows exactly at the same speed as that of Earth. Goku had to rush through, complete his training and rush back to Earth all during the same time as Gohan was training on Earth to fight the Saiyans. If there was no time, Goku wouldn't have to rush, or if there was a different flow of time, Goku would get more or less time and it would have been made clear like in the case of RoSaT, which quite literally has a different flow of time. That statement only means that Goku doesn't age and the strain of SSJ3 is less there. Apart from the Saiyan saga and Buu saga clearly showcasing that time flows in the afterlife at the same speed as that of the mortal universe, there exists no definitive proof of time not flowing, or flowing at a different pace, aprat from that one questionable statement from Goku that is considered to have a different meaning with respect to his SSJ3's performance due to him being dead and not aging.
Click to expand...
I never added this to the blog at all. Did you not read it?
AKM sama said:
Due to lack of proof of separate spacetime, it is only accepted that the DB universe is separated using spatial boundaries only.

These decisions were reached after numerous threads of exhaustive debates where almost all the staff members came together to reach a conclusion and it won't be reversed because a single person is hellbent on not dropping it. And neither is it going to change because people keep demanding others to reiterate the points instead of reading the old threads for their old arguments.
Click to expand...
Well what about all the other things I presented in the blog? What you just did was refute subpar old arguments, not my blog. What I did was take those arguments, elaborated on them, added and removed arguments, and even make refutes to the old refutes.
AKM you didn’t refute my arguments you refuted old arguments.
 
Oblivion_Of_The_Endless said:
I mean, which former thread specifically used this reasoning for Low 1-C that this OP is using? Because whether you like or not, a timeline encompassing another timeline or space-time continuum was already proved to be Low 1-C by the new standards
Click to expand...
Just to question but doesn't that mean that all multiverse (with his own space/time) that have universe with their own space/time are low 1-C ?
 
Regidian said:
Just to question but doesn't that mean that all multiverse (with his own space/time) that have universe with their own space/time are low 1-C ?
Click to expand...
An ordinary Multiverse that’s just a group of universes shouldn’t qualify.

But if the Multiverse is contained in a singular world or structure, then yes, Low 1-C becomes possible for them.
 
I was given permission by ant to comment on this thread
So about the point that a universe cannot be infinite due to it having a center and an edge, this is not right, as other infinite things could reasonably have a beginning and end, let us say we have a line, that line has a start and an end, the start (point A) and the end (point B) now if we lengthen this line so it is now infinitely long point A and B are still at their respective locations of being the start and end points of said infinitely long line, so the argument of the universes not being infinite cause they have a start and an edge should not be relevant towards the argument of universes being infinite in physical size
tldr: just cause something is infinite in size doesnt mean it cant have a start or end
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Vietthai96
  • Locked
Dragon Ball CRT: The..........................Dragon Balls?
Replies
34
Views
3K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
RedReaper616
  • Locked
GT Goku Profile
2 3
Replies
112
Views
5K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
Ednaxel2
Dragon Ball: Fixing page names & quick Vegito upgrade
Replies
14
Views
2K
AwkguyDB
AwkguyDB
LuffyRuffy46307
  • Locked
Dragon Ball Special Addition Ki
Replies
19
Views
2K
Damage3245
Damage3245
Ednaxel2
  • Locked
Dragon Ball Toei: Bits & Bobs
Replies
16
Views
2K
Ednaxel2
Ednaxel2
Back
Top