Yes, it does. In a model such as that I can reasonably and accurately claim the Sun is a specific color, the number of planets within the Solar System, the appearance of those planets (without size), the positioning, etc. Saying “it isn’t because it isn’t” doesn’t actually bring any value or counter anything.
the positioning you can't since the distance between them would be wrong no matter what, you can't see the number of asteroids, the dwarf planets, etc, even the color most of the time isn't 100% accurate, so again, this example doesn't work
as well
I also stated outright that saying it’s different for the Anime specifically is fine,
composited cosmology remember? if it is for one, it is for the other
(though as provided by Luffy that is apparently accurate for them regardless via guide)
and yet the Anime has that zoom out scene...........a guide is secondary to the source
so this is irrelevant as well. Furthermore, your exact point you’re using is “what we saw in this specific instance that was used to literally show the universe.” Pointing out that Kai, the DBS Manga, and Toei all have this same thing
is Kai even cannon for us to use here? we consider the og Toei anime as a cannon alternate universe.......pretty sure we don't consider Kai, also which episode from Kai does the scene come from? do we even know if it is from Kai? also you didn't showed a scene from Toei
and it’s actually Toriyama’s model shouldn’t be a “what is it supposed to prove?” Moment. Because that same question can be applied to you. What is taking the Super Shenron moment, a visual indicator, as literal supposed to prove about the cosmology?
that you assuming i agree with the latter depiction any more than the Map.......which i don't
Can both be applied to your moment and again, not including size, what is the issue?
excluding the points that go against an idea just because i believe in said idea is not accurate to me
I literally said it’s not to scale but still visually accurate.
this phrase, as i said, is self contradicting itself, size is integral part of a visual no matter how you try to deny it as such
You trying to claim I’m saying otherwise and ignoring what I’m saying doesn’t mean anything whatsoever. Or counter anything.
likewise you ignoring that size is intrinsically part of a visual
Outside of size, what is inaccurate?
the distances between the dimensions, which are space times, thus wouldn't be physically "away" or "close" to one another
…The point irrelevant to conversation? Size? I will, because I already specified it was irrelevant.
you trying to disqualify it as irrelevant to not deal with it doesn't make it true
Then why are you trying to make it about calculation use and scale when we’re talking specifically about what the universe looks like, visually?
you not supporting infinite universe has nothing to do with anything, infinite universe itself has nothing to do with it, i have no idea why you bring calculation into this when i didn't cited it anywhere in the part you are answering
don't see why since it doesn't answer the point made
Lack of galaxies, lack of Afterlife, lack of Kai World, etc. etc.
.........the universe is so big compared to mere galaxies that not seeing them is quite irrelevant, also for the dimensions not showing? yeah, this is why it isn't also any accurate
Not if you read. “Outside of size, it is literal.” Thus, EVERYTHING BUT SIZE is what I refer to.
which as i said, it is cherry picking, you can't be literal while ignoring aspects of it, that isn't how "literal" works