• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pretty sure even AKM and Zamasu both said that the map was okay to use as a Calc besides the stuff inside Heaven as those are the only inconsistent things in the thread where this originally got accepted plus the macrocosm depictions in the dbs anime are just oversimplified depictions
AKM said it was OK. However, as he left some biased people are taking advantage of this, it seems.

I can list a link from the last year, where he had no problem in scaling the map lol.
 
Sure, sure...... The main problem is now we are going to scale off the map based on speculations, becouse we will have no clue how the structure of the macrocosm is portrayed, and will make things even more inaccurate, and everything will be messed up.
Worst comes to worst, just use the size of the observable uni
 
Im getting bored so ill let yall handle this. But I will retaliate the main argument. Regardless if the map is accepted to be a real representation of the universe vs a metaphorical representation, the map literally cannot be used due to it not being to scale, that’s literally one of the main points.
 
Sure, sure...... The main problem is now we are going to scale off the map based on speculations, becouse we will have no clue how the structure of the macrocosm is portrayed, and Will make things even more inaccurate.
This is why I asked Maverick on his views on using guidebooks.
Because if we no longer use that map as a literary depiction, then we must naturally use the guidebooks to gauge the size of the macrocosm and the realms within it.
Which leads to an infinite universe. Aka the blog that we're currently working on

This is why I'm making it a point trying to make the sure the two accepting moderators won't switch up their view point when that is to be applied.
 
What contradict the macrocosm map? Aside for the visuals used in DBS, which i already stated why its a bad idea.
see point 2 in the op or look below for easier finding thank you Mav
2: the map is clearly not in scale, and you can clearly see the map makes the snake way, which is only 1.000.000 km long, is seemingly 2x the universe in height if put in a horizontal position, also king kai's planet, which is extremely small, is via this map only 14.25x smaller than the entire living universe, so even in the manga, it shouldn't be used to calc since it is clearly out of scale in size.


The same structure was show in DBS Manga for crying out loud, the canon series with its loosely based on Toriyama's vision and nobody else (aside for Toyotaro).
again, see point 2 in the op

The way the universes are show make them seen to have just single large galaxy with a few large nebulas/dwarf galaxies orbiting around the main body.
it looks like a massive cosmos with glowy points orbiting it, the very fact that we see other galaxies in there and that dwarfed by it shows that it is not a galaxy, hell we could very well argue that the said glowy points are the galaxies, but that is not nescesary, so i will not suggest that

I don't see how that can be interpreted in any different way.
if that was a galaxy, then why does it dwarf other galaxies and cosmic structures in size? besides we still have point 2 in the op

Sure, sure...... The main problem is now we are going to scale off the map based on speculations, becouse we will have no clue how the structure of the macrocosm is portrayed, and will make things even more inaccurate, and everything will be messed up.
using a map that makes a 1.000.000 thing dwarf the universe in height is not inacurate? besides it is not speculation for the anime since there is a showing suggested, besides using safe assumptions is not wrong, it is done all the time in this site, if we end up with no other options, then we do what we must i guess

Pretty sure even AKM and Zamasu both said that the map was okay to use as a Calc besides the stuff inside Heaven as those are the only inconsistent things in the thread where this originally got accepted
which is why this thread exists to point the problems in that usage

plus the macrocosm depictions in the dbs anime are just oversimplified depictions
says who?
 
AKM said it was OK. However, as he left some biased people are taking advantage of this, it seems.
oh sure, me wanting things to be accurate means that i am biased, dude can we please not start with the petty accusations?

I can list a link from the last year, where he had no problem in scaling the map lol.
Besides, AKM accepted scaling off the cosmology here:


what he said may be valid then, by new arguments are being used in the now in the op
also could you link the post he made?
Even worst.

Baseless assumption that just leads to a mess of cosmology
observable universe size is our standard universe size without other statements or showing, what mess does it create?

This is why I asked Maverick on his views on using guidebooks.
Because if we no longer use that map as a literary depiction, then we must naturally use the guidebooks to gauge the size of the macrocosm and the realms within it.
Which leads to an infinite universe. Aka the blog that we're currently working on
stop derailing with other topics, this is not about the infinite universes and we will not discuss that here, this thread is about the model used in the calculations, anything else is derailing

This is why I'm making it a point trying to make the sure the two accepting moderators won't switch up their view point when that is to be applied.
there is nothing to say that it will even be applied in the first place, but then again, this is derailing, i ask kindly for you and everyone else doing it to stop


No. Assuming the structure of the DB universe, comparing it with out own.

Forgetting things like the Earth is located in another position.
irrelevant to size

Ignoring Hell, Heaven exists, etc....
they weren't ignored:
"Proposal for the anime: simply use the images we have of the universe showed in the anime alongside the basic assumption of the observable universe, and make estimates for the sizes of the other dimensions based on what we know of them, which is that we at least know that they have a star in them

Proposal for the db manga: i guess we can only use the basic observable universe assumption and go on from there, but i believe the logic for the other dimensions proposed above could be used as well"
the op covers the said dimensions
 
This Universe presented in the anime is just observed living Universe, it does not have all realms, which is the real macrocosm, this should not be used to refute the map
you still have to say what you believe that, the point about the other realms was covered in the op in the points 1.1 and 1.2

.....Besides, here is a thread where AKM didn't have problems on scaling the map.
This was like a year ago, so it's recent.

okay so?
 
Okay? I don't think anyone ever claimed AKM was against the map anyway.
No, but it seems in this thread people want to disregard the map in regards scaling, when is the only thing we have to scale the macrocosm.

In the Anime we only see the living Universe, not all realms obviously. The OP wants to scale the macrocosm using the model of our observable Universe, however, U7 is different, Earth is located in another position, we got like 2 realms (ie Heaven, hell) surrounding it.

Obviously, the DBS Anime only shows us the living Universe, which is not enough to scale the full macrocosm.

U7 is not the same as our Universe at all, so scaling it off real life Universe is pointless
 
No, but it seems in this thread people want to disregard the map in regards scaling, when is the only thing we have to scale the macrocosm.

In the Anime we only see the living Universe, not all realms obviously. The OP wants to scale the macrocosm using the model of our observable Universe, however, U7 is different, Earth is located in another position, we got like 2 realms (ie Heaven, hell) surrounding it.

Obviously, the DBS Anime only shows us the living Universe, which is not enough to scale the full macrocosm.

U7 is not the same as our Universe at all, so scaling it off real life Universe is pointless
U7 Earth isn't the same as our Earth at all either, but for all intents and purposes we assume it to be the same size / have the same properties by default.

Either way, whether scaling it off the real-life Universe is wrong or not, it doesn't change the fact that the map shouldn't be used as it is in those calcs.
 
No, but it seems in this thread people want to disregard the map in regards scaling, when is the only thing we have to scale the macrocosm.

In the Anime we only see the living Universe, not all realms obviously.
what is the evidence for this? if you are going to keep tackling that button, you should show evidence for such

The OP wants to scale the macrocosm using the model of our observable Universe, however, U7 is different, Earth is located in another position, we got like 2 realms (ie Heaven, hell) surrounding it.
Earth being in a different location matters not for our standard assumption of a universe's size, besides that both dimensions were covered in the op

Obviously, the DBS Anime only shows us the living Universe, which is not enough to scale the full macrocosm.
you say that because?

U7 is not the same as our Universe at all, so scaling it off real life Universe is pointless
standard assumptions of a universe as said in our "universe page"
 
you still have to say what you believe that, the point about the other realms was covered in the op in the points 1.1 and 1.2


okay so?
Hahahahah, your points? What points exactly? It didn't show anything there, everything has already been refuted, my goodness, this scan you presented is just the observed living Universe, it doesn't show all cosmology, it's incomplete, his word is not above Akira, macrocosm is quite different, as shown in the pineapple scan.
 
The things within the afterlife aren’t considered within the scale as they’re only that big to show where the locations are and only the size of the realms are considered which was stated by AKM and Zamasu

And no reason is given for why anything else on that map should be assumed to be to scale.
 
Becouse we don't accept Heaven, Hell as entirely separated space-times.

Both are connected to the living Universe, and thus, when scaling, those should be side by side with the living Universe.
any reason as to why the afterlife should be side by side that isn't in secondary materia? when we see the universe we don't see then in there by the side

Which the results give us a much bigger macrocosm than our Universe will ever have.
not really? do they have any size said in the main cannon?

He used the map model, this is his Blog:

okay so? then answer stays the same
that was him using the calculated size of the dbs universe that uses the macrocosm map, which this thread's proposal is to dismiss it


Hahahahah, your points? What points exactly? It didn't show anything there, everything has already been refuted, my goodness, this scan you presented is just the observed living Universe, it doesn't show all cosmology, it's incomplete, his word is not above Akira, macrocosm is quite different, as shown in the pineapple scan.
mockery tone aside, these 2 in the op:
"some may bring up the fact that the other dimensions of the universe like the afterlife and the kaioshin realm are not visible in the map used in the anime, for that i say:

1.1: there is nothing to say that they would be visible in the first place, the only thing that would suggest that they would is the macrocosm map and the guides, which isn't a good counter since what it is shown in the main cannon always takes priority over secondary cannon like the guides, so they not appearing is not a counter argument since they have no stated size whatsoever in the main canon of dbs, and things like guides are only secondary cannon with anything of the main cannon taking priority over it
1.2: even if you want to hard take the dimensions as needing to be visible however, we can clearly see multiple massive cosmic like objects in the map, so to say that some of them are the other dimensions is not too far fetched of an assumption, specially when we know that we are seeing the universe"
 
“The only thing that isn’t valid is the size of the things in the afterlife which are that big to show the locations of the Universe AKM and Zamasu addressed this in the same thread you were in a year ago
I'm not convinced by that.
 
“The only thing that isn’t valid is the size of the things in the afterlife which are that big to show the locations of the Universe AKM and Zamasu addressed this in the same thread you were in a year ago
if the things in the afterlife are not in scale, why would anything else be?
 
any reason as to why the afterlife should be side by side that isn't in secondary materia? when we see the universe we don't see then in there by the side


not really? do they have any size said in the main cannon?


okay so? then answer stays the same




mockery tone aside, these 2 in the op:
"some may bring up the fact that the other dimensions of the universe like the afterlife and the kaioshin realm are not visible in the map used in the anime, for that i say:

1.1: there is nothing to say that they would be visible in the first place, the only thing that would suggest that they would is the macrocosm map and the guides, which isn't a good counter since what it is shown in the main cannon always takes priority over secondary cannon like the guides, so they not appearing is not a counter argument since they have no stated size whatsoever in the main canon of dbs, and things like guides are only secondary cannon with anything of the main cannon taking priority over it
1.2: even if you want to hard take the dimensions as needing to be visible however, we can clearly see multiple massive cosmic like objects in the map, so to say that some of them are the other dimensions is not too far fetched of an assumption, specially when we know that we are seeing the universe"
As I repeated again, this is just the observed living Universe, it does not show the whole macrocosm that has hell, Heaven, and the world of Kaioshins, I recommend using a decent argument, sorry, but your argument does not go down the throat, no, and no point that you quoted refutes us! Akira toriyama was asked why he decided that the macrocosm was like that and he even said that the realms of the Kaioshins are left out, and here comes another DBS guide showing the same map to follow in the old guides, which shows that it has not undergone any reset in cosmology, and his speech disregarding the guide is refuted by the author himself who claims that the universe is like that, so there's nothing else to do, if you don't accept the harsh reality in your little life, so the manga itself represents that same map presented the which makes the map fully canonical and everything in the cited guide, there is no contradiction about the guide unless it refutes the guide, so what if the guide is considered secondary to the work? The work itself proved to be like that, both in the Kai anime and in the classic Dragon Ball manga, in addition to having Akira's own words, who are you in the bread line?
 
As I repeated again, this is just the observed living Universe, it does not show the whole macrocosm that has hell, Heaven, and the world of Kaioshins, I recommend using a decent argument, sorry, but your argument does not go down the throat, no, and no point that you quoted refutes us! Akira toriyama was asked why he decided that the macrocosm was like that and he even said that the realms of the Kaioshins are left out, and here comes another DBS guide showing the same map to follow in the old guides, which shows that it has not undergone any reset in cosmology, and his speech disregarding the guide is refuted by the author himself who claims that the universe is like that, so there's nothing else to do, if you don't accept the harsh reality in your little life, so the manga itself represents that same map presented the which makes the map fully canonical and everything in the cited guide, there is no contradiction about the guide unless it refutes the guide, so what if the guide is considered secondary to the work? The work itself proved to be like that, both in the Kai anime and in the classic Dragon Ball manga, in addition to having Akira's own words, who are you in the bread line?
dbz kai is not cannon to neither dbs anime or manga so irrelevant, even if you disagree with using the showed universe showed in the dbs anime, point 2 still stands and a recalc would need to be done anyway, also you showed no evidence for the claim that we are only seein the living universe in those scenes linked in the op

but i reiterate this one is very clearly both universes in they totality, as we are seeing super shenton being summoned from within the space between both universes
 
dbz kai is not cannon to neither dbs anime or manga so irrelevant, even if you disagree with using the showed universe showed in the dbs anime, point 2 still stands and a recalc would need to be done anyway
My dear little friend, you are new here and you don't know how things work, it's not like that, you were refuted, and yes Dragon Ball Kai is canon, the only one that is not canon is Dragon Ball Z for weakling, but DBK is used for DBS work, see on the DB wall where it says about DBK, are you going to do calculations? Hahahahah, we're not done here and you're breaking one of the rules created by AKM and DD, that same argument was debated, and refuted, it's not acceptable here on the wiki to use that same argument, so don't try to update the cosmology that way.
 
My dear little friend, you are new here and you don't know how things work, it's not like that, you were refuted, and yes Dragon Ball Kai is canon, the only one that is not canon is Dragon Ball Z for weakling, but DBK is used for DBS work, see on the DB wall where it says about DBK, are you going to do calculations? Hahahahah, we're not done here and you're breaking one of the rules created by AKM and DD, that same argument was debated, and refuted, it's not acceptable here on the wiki to use that same argument, so don't try to update the cosmology that way.
Broo.., that's too harsh, chill 💀
 
My dear little friend, you are new here and you don't know how things work, it's not like that, you were refuted
two admins agreed tho

, and yes Dragon Ball Kai is canon, the only one that is not canon is Dragon Ball Z for weakling, but DBK is used for DBS work, see on the DB wall where it says about DBK
i looked, did you? we don't consider kai in the timeline of the series, it is not even mentioned

, are you going to do calculations?
no, i have no such skill, this thread is to approve the macrocosm's map problem and then have a calculation group member recalc it

Hahahahah, we're not done here and you're breaking one of the rules created by AKM and DD, that same argument was debated, and refuted, it's not acceptable here on the wiki to use that same argument, so don't try to update the cosmology that way.
i am not breaking any rule whatsoever, i said why not earlier

if you are continuously going to say the same things over and over and in this mockery tone, then i guess i should stop answering you and just wait the staff input
 
My dear little friend, you are new here and you don't know how things work, it's not like that, you were refuted, and yes Dragon Ball Kai is canon, the only one that is not canon is Dragon Ball Z for weakling, but DBK is used for DBS work, see on the DB wall where it says about DBK, are you going to do calculations? Hahahahah, we're not done here and you're breaking one of the rules created by AKM and DD, that same argument was debated, and refuted, it's not acceptable here on the wiki to use that same argument, so don't try to update the cosmology that way.
Dude, chill out and stop being passive aggressive with other people on the thread.

Take this as an official warning. Not tolerating people messing around on CRT's and filling it with passive aggressive posts or jokes.
 
Dude, chill out and stop being passive aggressive with other people on the thread.

Take this as an official warning. Not tolerating people messing around on CRT's and filling it with passive aggressive posts or jokes.
So, I'm not being aggressive at all, I'm reporting the truth here, just take it easy, I didn't show any aggressiveness on the contrary, I don't know it's a joke, I'm being sincere all the time, where am I not tolerating? Are you really confused?
 
So, I'm not being aggressive at all, I'm reporting the truth here, just take it easy, I didn't show any aggressiveness on the contrary, I don't know it's a joke, I'm being sincere all the time, where am I not tolerating? Are you really confused?
Your last post was filled with passive aggressive language; laughing at omegabronic and calling him your "dear little friend" as you told him he was new and didn't know how things worked.

Don't try to dance around it and pretend that you weren't. We're not blind.
 
Your last post was filled with passive aggressive language; laughing at omegabronic and calling him your "dear little friend" as you told him he was new and didn't know how things worked.

Don't try to dance around it and pretend that you weren't. We're not blind.
How can that be aggressive? For me, aggression is sending curses, I don't understand how this is actually aggression, but I'm not blind to shut up either, I'm from a different place than you and at no time did I know that this was aggression, but if it was I apologize and we continue with rebuttals.
 
How can that be aggressive? For me, aggression is sending curses, I don't understand how this is actually aggression, but I'm not blind to shut up either, I'm from a different place than you and at no time did I know that this was aggression, but if it was I apologize and we continue with rebuttals.
Look up "passive aggressive". You don't have to be swearing your head off to be talking inappropriately with other people on the thread. Just take the warning, stop mocking your opponents and debate the points instead of laughing and insulting. Accusing someone of being new and ignorant is not helping.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top