- 12,116
- 6,084
I also agree, we should expect more people I understood from DBH and DBXV composite verseI mean it does count it just doesn't have much weight to it.
I have my own reasons for disagreeing but I'll bring that up later
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 also agree, we should expect more people I understood from DBH and DBXV composite verseI mean it does count it just doesn't have much weight to it.
I have my own reasons for disagreeing but I'll bring that up later
Thanks for clarifying. People disagreeing with thread without clarification has no weight and won't be counted.@CurrySenpai if you don't give a reason why you disagree it won't count.
No, it doesn’t. You always have to clarify a reason for disagreeing. Even if it’s just FRAing someone else’s reasoning, a reason is neededI mean it does count it just doesn't have much weight to it.
I have my own reasons for disagreeing but I'll bring that up later
Until today I wait for a CRT to upload DBS to 2-BCanon DB being 2-B is another debate.
This blog explains the cosmology and rate it as 2-C if i am not mistaken.
Was rejected back then.I thought there was a cosmology split in past
Ok.It just says every timeline is 2-C sized, not that the DBS cosmology is 2-C at best.
6 rings based on only the changes of DBS timeline, not all of them though.Ok.
Still according to trunks the cosmology is based on MWI making it endless in 2-B. He states different worlds are created over the smallest of things. This is kinda retconned in DBS with introduction of time rings where it was stated there are only 6 time rings in universe 10. Each time ring being created when there is a significant change in history. Moreover , whis also stated that Grand Zeno and Grand Priest are very particular regarding time rings and time travel. So i don't believe that it is 2-B that too endless.
Then it's fine i guess.And regardless DBH has many 2-B statements.
this argument doesn't contradict the opI disagree for the simple reason that the verse is not with DBS, DBH has feats 2-A, and feat of immeasurable speed, I don't want it to downgrade my favorite verse, even though I don't like DBH very much.
And those drawers that have no end where Kaioshin takes the rings of time?Ok.
Still according to trunks the cosmology is based on MWI making it endless in 2-B. He states different worlds are created over the smallest of things. This is kinda retconned in DBS with introduction of time rings where it was stated there are only 6 time rings in universe 10. Each time ring being created when there is a significant change in history. Moreover , whis also stated that Grand Zeno and Grand Priest are very particular regarding time rings and time travel. So i don't believe that it is 2-B that too endless.
I don't know if this can help, and if I'm interpreting it correctly, but wouldn't that be a 2-A statement on the part of dbh's manga?
I don't know if this can help, and if I'm interpreting it correctly, but wouldn't that be a 2-A statement on the part of dbh's manga?
In the case it cites endless possibilities, but it's okay if that statement doesn't prove anything anyway, because I was having doubts about that too.Nothing here says about infinite timelines here.
I was in doubt about it, so I sent it here so that more experienced members could evaluate and show their opinions about it. but let's proceed then.Endless possibilities seem more figurative speech rather to be fair.
Yeah but we do not use that anymore, Heroes encompassing every Bandai Namco game of DB is baseless.Also, I forgot what complaints people had with saying Budokai Tenkaichi series being part of the Heroes cosmology, but that did have a blatant infinite translation.
Just a heads up, we more recently accepted Endless as being a possible synonym for Infinite and multiple staff members; especially most of the English speaking ones and ones who live in the United States agreed that Endless if taken 100% literally is synonymous with the word infinite. So at worst, if the 2-B/2-A justifications come from the numerous "Endless" statements, then that would at worst downgrade the cosmology to "At least 2-B, possibly 2-A".
Also, I forgot what complaints people had with saying Budokai Tenkaichi series being part of the Heroes cosmology, but that did have a blatant infinite translation.
So I overall disagree with getting 2-A outright but personally don't mind just making it possibly 2-A next to at least 2-B. As for Immeasurable speed, I am also personally fine with that downgrade.
Endless is fine as a synonym for infinite, yes. Countless is not acceptable though.
It is acceptable for 2-B, however.Endless is fine as a synonym for infinite, yes. Countless is not acceptable though.
Using portals ia a contradiction if they have never showcased/directly stated to use speed. They have always used on-screen hax such as portals.For starters, Discord's profile is likely outdated so please don't bring it here. Secondly, physical movement beyond time via physical movement is Immeasurable speed. Traveling to other space-times/universes is not considered Immeasurable speed which is why the feats in question were not considered Immeasurable speed and why DBS Whis doesn't have Immeasurable speed. Traveling/transcending through time to another point in time/era via physical speed on the other hand is Immeasurable, and the DDB's traveled to different eras/points in time, not simply just another space-time/universe. Traveling to another timeline in DB specifically requires Time Travel while traveling to another universe does not.
Immeasurable speed characters using portals is not a contradiction to Immeasurable speed. Where did this kind of reasoning even come from? This same reasoning could be used to outright downplay the other DB verses to an absurd degree since they use Instant Transmission, an instant teleportation technique similar to portals in nature, to cross even absolutely pathetic distances consistently, for example: Goku using IT to cross cities and a few meters, Kid Buu using Instantaneous Movement to travel to another planet right next to his first blown up planet in the same system, Whis tagging along with Goku's IT to go to Earth, SSB Goku using IT to run away from Broly to Piccolo's place, Base Gogeta using IT to cross the planet at best and again using it to travel in front of Broly who was in the same area etc, etc....despite already having the raw speed to cross those same distances easily.
Tldr: Utilizing teleportation/portal techniques is not a contradiction to speed, it's literally just a matter of convenience and efficiency, similarly to Instant Transmission, which they keep flat-out spamming for distances which they could easily cross with their already MFTL+ speed alone. The problem that I find with this doc is that it automatically assumes that these characters actually need portals to cross time when it's never remotely implied. Especially in the DG Buu feat. Why is this doc implying that he outright needed a portal to leave the timeline when nothing implies it? He just opened a portal, Chamel stated that he's leaving and he did. The claim that "He could have just run away physically if he needed to just fly to go to a different timeline, but he did not, implying that the Dark Dragon Balls have also used a portal to access another timeline" is instantly countered by IT since "they could have just flown away physically if they needed to just fly to go to that different location, but they didn't, implying that they couldn't".
Meh, would wait input from @Ottavio_Merluzzo and @Dominodalek about this.The size of the Time Vault is irrelevant. Even if we go by the finite size Time Vault stuff, it would only apply to the Time Vault itself, not the amount of timelines outside of it, plus the fact that Time Vaults already exist in parallel timelines too. The wider multiverse itself would infinite while the Time Vault wouldn't, simple as that.
Endless literally means the exact same thing as infinite as far as I am aware, whereas countless just means that it is not possible for somebody to count that high.Eh, endless can mean never-ending. As in constantly increase, ad infinitum, as in not infinite but increasing infinitely.
Countless actually makes as much sense as a synonym for infinite. As any one of the finite amounts can be counted up to (but if it's constantly increase then chances are by the time you've counted up to it it's already increase higher), but only infinity which isn't any number that be counted upto is countless.
But both words can be used as a synonym of ad infinitum, infinitely increasing but never reaching infinity. All about context.
Countless is acceptable for 2-B, and endless for 2-A, yes.It is acceptable for 2-B, however.