I'll be referring to this as the blue translation for simplicity. It claims that the the solar system is a galactic nebula, which, again,
is something herms spoke against when provided with the original kanji, where he also says uses "galaxy/galaxies" when taking about the northern region alone.
A slight error in translation on that part. Earth resides in the solar system in a galactic nebula, the blue translation is missing a word "in" between both sentences.
This doesn't invalidate both of the following statements:
"There is a ruling Kami for each galaxy"
"Universe is divided into 4 galaxies"
As far as we are concerned, Herms has not spoken about these being errors. In fact, he has used them in his own guide. But he never used the statement about the solar system as it is in any of his explanations. If you are claiming the above two statements are also translation errors just because there was one error in another sentence of another paragraph, why not get it confirmed by Herms again on twitter?
in 2009, on kanzenshuu, he recites the blue translations word for word to support his point. But in 2019, on twitter, when given the original raws, he says something entirely different than the blue translations. This very likely means that his word in that kanzenshuu post are outdated.
Once again, one translation error in one paragraph doesn't invalidate everything else. It's like me saying every word in Dragon Ball manga is wrong because Herms corrected some wrong translation in some random sentence of one chapter. Get it checked by Herms and we can see if he his old word about the relevant statements in particular are outdated or not.
Even if this is incorrect, Daizenshuu 4 describes galaxy illuminations as
hundreds of millions of light years, which is far bigger than the
biggest galaxy in our universe. Not to mention
the blue translations call a galaxy "a gathering of local planets in the universe", which has odd implications to begin with. + the celestial bodies are said to be infinitely expanding.
So even steal-maning your argument, these regions may be called galaxies, but they're definitely not regular ones with the details given to us with all diazenshuu statements.
This is proving my point. Daizenshuu is self contradictory.
Galaxies don’t do that and are not that big. This solidifies that my interpretation above is correct. This doesn’t even contradict the anime/manga because we're shown many stars and "real" galaxies.
This solidifies that the info coming from Daizenshuu is self-contradictory. At one place they describe galaxies as a local group of nebulae and planets. At other parts they describe them as something else. Again, proving my point of why we do not use the Daizenshuu anymore.
Bulma's statement changes nothing as being on the very edge, as you're implying, would mean they'd have to be outside the living world.
????????????????????????
Bulma's statement about Earth being near the edge is pretty clear and consistent with the images. No idea what you're talking about here.
This isn’t in context to the daizenshuu but universes period. Just because a universe looks like a ball outside does not mean it finite.
It does. Until you have a direct statement saying it isn't, the former remains our default position. And the statement comes from Daizenshuu, so yes, it is about the Daizenshuu.
Being a space between universes means nothing either. Universes (infinite or finite) are separated by dimensional walls all the time. You’re implying that the universes are connected through celestial bodies. If that were the case then that would mean they're not separated universes.
This point of yours assumes that they are infinite and only separated by dimensional walls. My point is that they are portrayed as finite and we have no solid reason to believe otherwise, except the questionable and self-contradictory secondary source called Daizenshuu.
If it's the same exact dance why were so many staff on board before you arrived?
If it's the same exact dance why is this thread still open?
If it's the same exact dance why did you feel the need to provide new arguments you never used before?
If it's the same exact dance
why would and be unsure what to do here?
Because they might not be present when it was discussed before, or they might not remember it very well. A lot of these people weren't staff or active at that time, and before I arrived and gave reasons for why we do not use the Daizenshuu, your point would have made sense to anybody who did not have full context. And, they also said "if" the Daizenshuu statements are deemed to be valid, it can be used. Not that the daizenshuu statements "are" definitely valid. The agreement was conditional.
The thread is still open because I haven't closed it yet because many people will get enraged. You see, I am in a difficult position here, which is why I am frustrated.
These aren't new arguments. Even in the last thread I have stated the exact same thing. That we don't use Daizenshuu because it is contradictory. And I gave the same reasons for why it is so. You can go back and check if you can find it. I know when I am repeating myself. That's also why I get frustrated.
Ant doesn't keep track of things and doesn't have a memory of a robot. He handles many threads. I have seen him almost accepting the same threads that have been rejected right before him earlier.
@Zamasu_Chan if what you are claiming is true, we have a very easy solution out of this. Get Herms to admit that
all these statements about how Daizenshuu claims there are only 4 galaxies a total of 2 times never happened and they were all mistranslations, and I won't have a point anymore. Is that cool?
.......this threads are a pain the ass
