- 48
- 1
I understand the "possibly Universe level" in their profile, since there is a hint of them being the reason of the universes' colors... but why "Galaxy" level? They were stated to be around a "galaxy" with 10 light-years of diameter.
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.
Pretty much this, here is the page. Heck, he even puts "galaxy" like if it was a quote. which probably means it was a "galaxy-like thing"Celestial Pegasus said:Seems weird to me that the author of toriko would draw them being as large as an entire galaxy and then state they are only 10 lightyears when even the smallest galaxy ever discovered is a couple hundred lightyears, especially when the galaxy they are as large as is the milky way.
We all know how in toriko the author is very precise in telling how strong his characters are and giving numbers, seems weird he would mess this up.
It's clearly a mistake. You're grapsing thin air in an attempt to downplay. He used the Kanji Úèǵ▓│ which means Milky Way Galaxy. The Milky Way is not 10 light years.FrancoGYFV said:Yeah, just made the calc on a few sites around here and with a 220.000km circunference, it would be about 200 times larger (in volume) than our Earth (198 to more precise).
This "galaxy" thing is a much bigger mistake tough, since in Don's attack he states that a real supernova would destroy life in a few light-years of diamter. Really difficult to imagine Shima thinking that a real supernova destroys life on half of our galaxy
Yes do that on twitter please.Not Jim Sterling said:Can we just asked it to Shima twitter or facebook? I mean no galaxy is 10 light years, so there are possibility he just mess up with his numbers.
I've already checked the Jap RAWs earlier on in this thread. It does say 10 light year galaxy.Starkiller215 said:I think we being a bit too quick on adjusting stats when we should compare the raw version to the translated version to check if there is indeed a error here.