I'm not actually sure if the DBS Anime is separate from the manga now or not. I'm just justifying why I would think it is based on the previous thread's results.
If it isnt, then SS scene totally ***** the model being used, at that point we have the answer. If not, then yeah it's debatable.
Whis might be knowledgeable but is that equivalent to the artist himself depicting it with the macrocosm model and not a cosmic globe?
It's actually more important given it's the actual source material, and we have no reason to assume it's an abstraction in Whis' case, while we KNOW it is in the model case.
"But the source uses the model too", yeah, once, in a non-literal instance.
It's not like we can recognise Universe 10 by how the macrocosm looks. It even comes with text to specify what universe it is. If the usage of the model were so arbitrary he would have just lazily slapped a cosmic sphere in and called it a day.
Tbh the fact they just used the model and lazily slapped text saying "u10 btw" makes me think the exact opposite.
Not sure what you mean by the World of Kais example. It's depicted as a bubble floating around the macrocosm with a bunch of stars and a tiny sphere in the centre (which is the actual planet). The DBS Manga scan I posted earlier shows it. Can't see the contradiction.
Because, at least in the anime,
it isn't.
twice actually
I'd also argue the cosmic spheres depicted in the manga are even more of an abstraction because, again, the spheres shown by Whis were imaginary or illusionary and the ones with Zeno were used as decoration for chess pieces.
Whis wasn't the literal uni, but they're meant to depict them, why would Whis explanation feature abstractions? Is that what he thinks the uni's look like? If he does, then they probably DO look like that, he'd know. If not, why would he depict them like that?
And Zeno, yeah sure, but the fact it's more in line with Whis', implicates Whis' explanation shows what they actually look like. They must be based on something for both in-universe cases to be shown visually similar?
And while they might be small, they obviously meant to depict them still. And if they don't look like that, why depict them as such in-context? Why wouldn't Zeno have uni spheres that look like the model instead if that's what they are?
The only time we see the universe be represented as an actual construct that we (the viewer) are going into is the macrocosm model. My reasoning for favouring that depiction should be pretty understandable. Hence why I don't consider it cherrypicking.
It is all the same, I get why you think so, but it is what it is.
And that isn't actually true both Whis' and Zeno's show it as an actual construct, it just happens to be widely different.
This is a public forum so my post is something multiple people will read. So it's not just for you but for other people.
"
You want a statement but we have an entire visual representation of how the cosmology looks as a primary source." - you replying to me
That's directed directly at me
No I'm saying this is my argument and if it doesn't convince you then there's nothing more for me to say.
Idk, post a bit more evidence to supercede Whis and Zeno's stuff?
Idk atm it's a simplified abstract model vs two in universe examples involving presumably knowledgable dudes.
Do we have extra evidence showing the model being used in canon? Like not the model itself, but stuff that'd only be possble with the model cosmology?
Can we send scan? sure bubble in the manga. Heres whis statement
The first one is the point of contention, and the second is why it's contentious, but thank you.