- 5,758
- 1,670
I mean, the point at which everything that is the universe originated from, rather than the exact geographical center.whatever do you mean?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I mean, the point at which everything that is the universe originated from, rather than the exact geographical center.whatever do you mean?
the big bang has no such thing, it is an expansion, there no place in the universe it occured, since all was inside until it grew and expanded, and it is still expandingThat is correct.
The observable universe in Real Life doesn't have a center in the sense of "Geographical location in space". The center is the starting point in time.
AKA the Big Bang.
the big bang has no such thing, it is an expansion, there no place in the universe it occured, since all was inside until it grew and expanded, and it is still expanding
then i don't see sense in your pointI wasn't talking about having a location in the spatial sense in the first place, so you didn't even tackle anything.
Does a statement that uses phrases like light years and assigns it specific numerical values in the same sentence really sound like it's supposed to be somethng non literal?Infinitely expanding and galaxy illuminations ten of thousands of light years... Hundreds of millions of light years
That's your problem, not mine. I linked a video on Discord, if you have doubts, watch it.then i don't see sense in your point
Let's take it literally. I'm cool with it.Does a statement that uses phrases like light years and assigns it specific numerical values in the same sentence really sound like it's supposed to be somethng non literal?
i mean, the argument in the op is about the meaning and way that the word itself is used in japanes languageI don't get how calling something poetic automatically invalidates what it says. Poetic=/=not literal and poetry often talks pretty literally with the difference to regular speech being a more provoking and aesthetic way of wording something, it doesn't mean what it's saying is meant to be an outright non literal hyperbole.
Does a statement that uses phrases like light years and assigns it specific numerical values in the same sentence really sound like it's supposed to be somethng non literal?
Pretty sure that part's connected to the "beyond the stars where etc. etc." part in the full excerpt.Let's take it literally. I'm cool with it.
Hundreds of millions of light-years.
Disagree FRAI'm honestly sick of attempted U-turns at this point, but I don't really care too much. Executor N0 has made it perfectly clear that the translations are valid, but whether or not they're "Hyperbolic" is up for debate. Even if it was Finite, I still think the universe should be much larger than our observable universe based on the old parameters we accepted. But once again, I still don't really care one way or the other beyond that. But leaning towards keeping them the way they are.
Disagree FRA
This wouldn't be the best thing to use to discredit High 3-A Broly as he explicitly say "The Macrocosm" which is 2-CI disagree with LuffyRuffy46307 disagreement. Takao Koyama is no reliable source in power scaling topics, as he contradicts himself several times due to be a "victim" of what I call a "desperate fan", which is when someone goes on social platforms to ask creators if their character is X or Y strong (like when Koyama was asked if Dragon Ball has an "infinite hierarchy of transcendent layers").
Not only that, but Koyama himself said that Broly cannot destroy the supposedly infinite-sized universe, which means that people who uses him as a source to high-balling Dragon Ball are shooting on their own feet, since he belives that Broly is below High 3-A:
No it doesn't. The amount of life in a universe has no barring on it's size.There is also a statement from DB Super : Episode 83
There are only 28 habitable planets left in entirety of universe 7 which itself rejects the notion of infinite universe.
No it doesn't, thats just the planets with life, that point doesn't debunk infinite universe at allI agree with this ofcourse.
There is also a statement from DB Super : Episode 83
There are only 28 habitable planets left in entirety of universe 7 which itself rejects the notion of infinite universe.
Hey since most of the arguments rely on the interpretation/meaning of the scans can you get Executor to translate the scans in the op@Nostredam
To clarify, is the purpose of this thread to determine whether or not the Guide / Toei cosmology stuff should apply to the DBS/Chou continuity?
No. the totality of the galaxies would be Infinite quadrants are merely cardinal directions and the distance between celestial objects can be finite in an infinite space also the sea analogy was used just because you’re heading off to space which has infinite galaxies doesn’t mean you’re exploring all infinite galaxies just because you’re heading off to the sea doesn’t mean you’re exploring the entire seaOh Boy!
This thread finally happened
I knew High 3-A Broly wasn't gonna last long
Currently I am leaning towards agreeing
I never understood why the GT statement was even used as evidence as it was obvious hyperbole
However I would like to hear some (Intelligent) opposition first before I make my decision
I also think we should double check the translations
This wouldn't be the best thing to use to discredit High 3-A Broly as he explicitly say "The Macrocosm" which is 2-C
Which we already don't scale Broly to
Also for everyone complaining about Nostredam saying that them traveling to another quadrant makes them infinite and saying he's wrong
He's actually VERY right
We currently accept each Quadrant as 1/4th of infinity which is also infinite in size
Therefore travelling to another quadrant means traversing a distance equal to (If your at the very edge of the quadrant) 1/4th of infinity which once again is Infinite
So they would be travelling and infinite distance to get to another quadrant no matter where they resided at in the quadrant
Therefore infinite speed would have to be applied to spaceships as well as everyone relative to them which I believe makes a shit ton of characters infinite speed when they are very VERY clearly not
"it uses the kanji infinite, therefore that makes it literal" is not how it works. What matters is the context.It’s a poetic description of space as “infinitely extending darkness and the illumination of the galaxies”, “tens of thousand of light years...hundreds of millions of light years...” - Todd Blankenship/Herms. Todd himself says this is a poetic description, it seems like hes stating his opinion because the guy above him asked if it HAD to be taken literal. That doesn't mean it has to be poetic, especially when it uses the actual kanji "無限" which literally means infinite. Just because he says it is poetic shouldn't decide cosmology, when it doesn't even say infinitely expanding.
i agree with you on that, but i never said just because it uses the kanji says infinite, it is, you quoted me on something i never even said. And read the whole argument, i was using the kanji infinite as supporting evidence. Like how it aligns with infinite galaxies, and it doesn't have to be poetic just because todd said so, and how i haven't actually seen any infinitely expanding statements, only straight up infinite."it uses the kanji infinite, therefore that makes it literal" is not how it works. What matters is the context.
A lot of it. As far as I remember I never saw the OP saying that the translations were wrong, and only that they were misinterpreted. I don't know why people are talking about it so much.Idk why there are people thinking that the thread suggests that the translations are not valid. They are. Only the context of some words are misinterpreted.
Also, it's worth noting that the canocity of said cover art is heavily dubious, as this page section of Daizenshuu 4 was considered so irrelevant that it wasn't even included in Chozenshu, which is the remake of Daizenshuu and, as people may know, it's reviewed by Akira Toriyama himself.
That its true, for what i see neither Weblio, Collins or Linguee do directly conferm or stated that the term Hateshinai its strictly used for figuratively speeches and nothing else, when in most cases it is described as just as another synonyms for 無限/infinite.Not to mention the OP is only using examples of it being used figuratively and acting like it just cant be used literally, when you click on the definitions it shows the same thing if you were to search up "endless" "seemingly having no limit". But also gives synonyms for similar words that can also be used in that context like infinite.
I think you misunderstood the quote, someone heading off to something doesn't mean that someone had already travel across it.If we take literally that there are infinite/boundless galaxies, then we should also take literally that Bulma's spaceship can get through an infinite number of galaxies, which is simply wrong basing off the entire premisse of the next episode (Episode 3):
this is exactly why this argument implodes on its own head there’s nothing solid to support poetic language or exaggeration.That its true, for what i see neither Weblio, Collins or Linguee do directly conferm or stated that the term Hateshinai its strictly used for figuratively speeches and nothing else, when in most cases it is described as just as another synonyms for 無限/infinite.
Weblio: Only the 3rd section in the semantic section that term its used as example to describe things that are seemingly endless, but the others previous sections does show that the terms its usable in other situations.
Collins: None in the descriptions directly conferm/stated the term Hateshinai its strictly meant to metaphores and not literal descriptions, only that it can be used to describe something as infinite.
Linguee: Same with Collins.
All of this seen give me the impression that the OP its just playing with semantics.
What should matter here its the context which the statements/quotes come from if we want to determinate their validity, instead of focus to just a single word.
Is it not compelling evidence that the language is a poetic depiction, given that the author of the verse, who crafted the sentences and possessed intimate knowledge of the narrative, referred to it as such?this is exactly why this argument implodes on its own head there’s nothing solid to support poetic language or exaggeration.