• 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.

Dragon Ball: Infinite Universe

Status
Not open for further replies.

According to Herms, Chouzenshu 4 says that Dragon ball has infinite Galaxies.


Apparently, Akira Toriyama opted for the option of Dragon ball Super having countless galaxies based on the premise of what Jaco said.



Just remembering that the Chouzenshuus were directly supervised by Akira Toriyama, they were made in 2014 to introduce dragon ball Super.



So they are valid.

A Dragon ball fan reviewed Chouzenshuu and it already shows the universe of Dragon ball Super:


Scan translation: Galaxy

A cluster of stars at one location in the Universe. United stars form nebulae and several nebulae together form a Galaxy. The 4 Kaiohs who are responsible for the North, South, East and West govern these Galaxies. The division between North, South, East and West was created by the Gods and Kings of Heaven to control/supervise the infinite number of Galaxies in Outer Space.

@Reiner you can add this to your CRT.
 
Still wondering how a banned user could still be allowed to make an argument
Has been discussed before on the RVR. As long as the member they contact wants to relay their arguments and they don't harass them for it, it's not disallowed. Specially if their arguments can help with a thread.
 
Idk if this was discussed already but someone on cord is begging me to send this but apparently you guys have the wrong translation for the elder guru and herms translated it to this
IMG_20230405_000931.jpg
Infinite space filled with infinite darkness, infinitely expansive universe, galaxies that exists infinitely ...sounds as concrete as you can get, like what more do you even need, most verses don't even have this much statements, and they are all literal, straightforward and are stated in trustworthy sources. I'd suggest that we add all the Zamasu's translations to The OP and stop derailing the thread
 
Infinite space filled with infinite darkness, infinitely expansive universe, galaxies that exists infinitely ...sounds as concrete as you can get, like what more do you even need, most verses don't even have this much statements, and they are all literal, straightforward and are stated in trustworthy sources. I'd suggest that we add all the Zamasu's translations to The OP and stop derailing the thread
This is the corrected translation yes. However, whatever scans that say "infinitely expanding" might me a mistranslation from infinitely "expansive".
 
Infinite space filled with infinite darkness, infinitely expansive universe, galaxies that exists infinitely ...sounds as concrete as you can get, like what more do you even need, most verses don't even have this much statements, and they are all literal, straightforward and are stated in trustworthy sources. I'd suggest that we add all the Zamasu's translations to The OP and stop derailing the thread
Well, if the argument is that the darkness is what it is infinite, then we still have this problem
just want to say that there is no greater darkness around the universe when we see it from outside
 
Uh yes, sorry for late reply. As per our default standards, we assume that multiverse exist in a insignificant higher Dimensional (5D) space that can makes Universe looks smaller from outside, that's why Universe in ben 10 was long accepted to be Infinite even though we had seen it from outside, as how we see existence from outside can be different than how we see it from inside. That's why multiverse with each Universe being Infinite is possible.
Reiner already mentioned that here Omega seeing something from the outside not looking infinite isnt an anti feat
 
Reiner already mentioned that here Omega seeing something from the outside not looking infinite isnt an anti feat
when did i said that? if what is being argued is that the darkness surrounding the universe is infinite, then there should be a darkness surrounding the light of the universe, which there isn't
 
Last edited:
well i am confused now, what even is the proposal? is that the universe is infinite in general? or is that there is a greater darkness that is infinite surrounding the celestial bodies of the universe?
 
The universe is infinite in size. That's the proposal.
yeah, but people keep talking about that the argument is that darkness is infinite and that the light side is only the observable universe, that is even the counter to the "edge" and "center" arguments in the op
 
Since translations has been confirmed by @Executor_N0 to be same and it's not a issue with translation but arguments (which sans had that flowery), do you think you can give any opinion on thread? Also among Staff (plancks and DDM are okay with GT being used as primary source and Damage hasn't responded to plancks argument about why they should be different yet).
 
Okay man... What's so confusing about it? It's a infinite space of light and darkness together, there are places beyond observable universe that constantly expands to reach infinite, there are planets, creatures beyond this observable Universe where light cannot reach.
well, the edge statement for one, the statement never specifies only talking about any "observable" universe, and plus, it is on the edge and yet there is no darkness, better yet we see no darkness when we see what the universe looks like from the outside, this said darkness is contradicted to even exist
 
isn't this just a visual scene? Like, they want to show the audience something but can't accuretly depict that, so they show in that way? I don't think you need to take as face value.
While that is true, it should still be taken into account.

Regardless, I believe there's more support to it than against.
 
isn't this just a visual scene? Like, they want to show the audience something but can't accuretly depict that, so they show in that way? I don't think you need to take as face value.
they could show it no problem, just make a darkness surround the normal cosmos
 
well, the edge statement for one, the statement never specifies only talking about any "observable" universe, and plus, it is on the edge and yet there is no darkness, better yet we see no darkness when we see what the universe looks like from the outside, this said darkness is contradicted to even exist
We see most of the light on the center and as we move on we see just clouds and all, not really that much light, about why they even shown light, meh, fiction ain't strict with presenting darkness at all (except rares) example blackhole and all. We gotta find it ourselves.
 
We see most of the light on the center and as we move on we see just clouds and all, not really that much light, about why they even shown light, meh, fiction ain't strict with presenting darkness at all (except rares) example blackhole and all. We gotta find it ourselves.
we see numerous stars all arround it, even more so in other showings
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top