I'll reply to some comments that I felt the necessity to.
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
Actually, if you read carefully, Koyama says "infinite size
of the macrocosm". He's not talking about destroying the totality of the Macrocosm directly (set of finite space-time continuums/
2-C), but the infinite size of its structure (
High 3-A). Of course, I myself disagree with 2-C Macrocosm, but I wanted to clarify that.
Also, I'm not using Koyama do discredit High 3-A Broly; I'm using that one quote to show that people should stop using him as a source to w--- Dragon Ball as he belives that Broly can't destroy a High 3-A structure. Overall Koyama is still not reliable for power scaling purposes.
To clarify, is the purpose of this thread to determine whether or not the Guide / Toei cosmology stuff should apply to the Main Manga/DBS/Chou continuity?
No. The purpose of this thread is to explain how almost all the quotes of the universe being infinite are wrong. You can see that I've put Guides, GT, Super Anime and Super Manga on the thread despite incongruences of each continuity.
Were there ever any infinitely expanding statements on the actual translations? I have only seen straight up infinite statements and infinitely expansive, gonna wait for valid translations, cause this OP relies heavily on the "flowery language" type arguments
I put them on the OP. About the second part in bold, I can only assume that you didn't understand most of the arguments in general.
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.
Herms is the very translator of the Daizenshuu 4 and a reliable source about translations regarding Dragon Ball. It's not merely his opinion, is an objective answer were he says it is poetic, as is what the text give him to interpret.
Also, it indeed say infinitely expanding; not on the right middle of the Cover Art were it freatures Frieza, but in the left middle freaturing Grand Elder Guru:
Overall that section is simply a poetic description of space as it being infinitely expanding (stretching to galaxies and millions of light years). I agree that if we take the "infinite space" part separately, it would be valid to argue for an infinite universe, but that would require to:
1. Ignore the full context on Guru's part.
2. Ignore the page being not canon.
3. Ignore the
Inconsistencies section on post #1.
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.
It can't be used literally, really. The fact that the definition means "endless" is not important when you see the context of the word, and even in Linguee there is a full wall-text of examples and none of them are literal. However, I'll reply that in detail now:
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.
Hateshinai being a synonyms for other words that mean infinite is not a valid reasoning, considering that it simply refers to the etimology of them as they use the same word (infinite/endless/etc) but in
different situations.
For Weblio, the 1st and 2nd section also refer to something seemingly endless:
"a tediously long conversation", "continuing forever or indefinitely"... All of them are figurative terms.
For Collins, it is the exact opposite of what you're saying.
The application of that word is in figurative sentences like:
If you describe something as eternal, you mean that it seems to last forever, often because you think it is boring or annoying.
If you describe something as interminable, you are emphasizing that it continues for a very long time and indicating that you wish it was shorter or would stop.
...an interminable meeting.
For Linguee is even more explicit, it's just a matter of reading
all the examples given to realize that none of them are literal.
I also decide to use Weblio to see what it say for 無限/mugen and it does show in the last section of of semantic that the term can describe something that its also seemingly (meaning its not necessarely true) endless, so it not correct to say that 無限 its strictly meant for literal descriptions, just like how 果てしない its not just limited to exaggerated descriptions.
While is true that Mugen can be used to both something seemingly endless and literally endless, Hateshinai can only be used to the seemingly one. All of the three dictionaries explain that. If the word is not used anywhere in literal wording, you can't just say that "
its not just limited to exaggerated descriptions" without proof.
I think you misunderstood the quote, someone heading off to something doesn't mean that someone had already travel across it.
You can't head off to "infinite galaxies" in the first place, unless we assume Bulma's spaceship has Infinite Speed.
I also do not seems to agree with poetic arguement, Universe is either finite or Infinite, we cannot know what it is w/o direct Statements. And it has direct Statements. There is no mistranslations either
If there's no (valid) statement(s) about it being infinite, then it's finite. That's how it works. And no, there are no "direct statements" barring Herms' translation of Chozenshu 4. I will again say that the thread
does not suggest that the quotes are mistranslated, only misinterpreted.
I also asked few knowledgeable members off site and came to know that fiction can show edge of Infinite to be a thing but the edge itself would be at Infinite distance away from the any point within the structure (It's a fiction after all).
That logic does not fit here at all. I even explained that in
post #4. If people will rely on the argument of "infinity can have edge in fiction" while the context of the scene/chapter (Bulma's radar scanning the Universe 7) have nothing to support that notion, then this will be simply turn in a lack of
burden of proof and pretty much people throwing excuses around, instead of directly refuting the central point.
In the beginning, you presented two primary statements that were used to justify a “high 3-A” rating for the universe. However, the use of the word “eternal” in these statements is ambiguous and dependent on context. Replacing the original adjectives with “eternal” would result in a sentence that lacks coherence.
While Hateshinai is linked to
eternal, it is more accurate to assume that, in those two scans, it is
endless. After all, they were translated in this wiki with that word:
"This World" shows an
endless expanse, you will find that the DB world holds a worldview with a tremendous scale beyond human understanding.
An endless space that envelops all celestial bodies that exist in this world.
That means that the context is
seemingly endless, that is, coherent with the sentences. At best, this can be used to prove that the universe is "big" (vaguely, though), but not infinite.
Regarding the secondary statements used to support the rating, you make a valid point that they are not sufficient on their own to justify a high 3-A rating, but rather serve as supporting evidence. It is unclear which of the four statements came first, and factual sources would be appreciated.
Sorry, but I don't see how a "infinitely expand
ing universe" acts as a supporting evidence for a High 3-A ranting.
Simply providing a page link is not enough to convince me
Here, you are talking about the part that I mention the Cover Art of D4 not being in Chozenshu, right? In that case, I don't need to show scans for that. I can't show a scan of something that does not exist.
If someone thinks that the Cover Art is canon because it is considered relevant enough to appear again in Chozenshu, then that someone simply has to show a scan of it being in Chozenshu. That's it.
Conclusions
Overall, there's no actual argument in the thread so far that rebuts the entire OP. I'm not gonna reply every user who disagree (without them backing up), as it would be unnecessary.