- 8,857
- 5,697
Why do you need evidence for the infinite darkness in dbs, when it's in dbz and the guides? You said because the cosmology was retconned, but it was only expanded upon, the previous stayed as is so that is moot.
-
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.
Question about dragon ball universe size
- Thread starter Grand_Saver_Ritsuka
- Start date
- Status
- 16,264
- 10,713
I agree with the Infinite Universe arguments, Speed can be dealt in another thread
- 16,264
- 10,713
Wait, I thought this was a CRT, I forgot this was in the Question board....
- 8,857
- 5,697
Don't worry it's a CRT on crack.
The_Legendary_Vin
They/Them- 1,239
- 612
if its an infinite universe, then they won't know how much there is to calculate for the 70%
Doing that would require having explored everything. Boiling down to Im pretty sure the Frieza force's ships don't have infinite speed, and I strongly doubt they have infinite range, perfect in the moment 360 telescopes
- 3,493
- 1,360
Is the Universe diagram the same in DBZ as it is in DBS? Yes or No?
It does when you're trying to use Yukon's planet, which was introduced in the series in 1994, to prove the existence of something that was introduced out almost two decades later. You are retroactively applying a new cosmology.
You are essentially claiming that the DB universe has always been infinite, and the infinite darkness has always existed. And that Yukon's planet was always an infinite amount of distance away. And the space ships all have infinite speed.
I hope you understand how big the burden of proof is.
The light from other stars reach earth.
I'm confused here. What are you saying?
Are you saying the earth is at the edge of the macrocosm? if so, that just disproves the infinite darkness exists. Light from other stars reach the earth at the end of the macrocosm.
Or are you saying Yakun's planet is at the edge of the marcrocosm? If so you would have to prove that because the manga and anime say Yakun's planet is at the end of the universe?
Sorry, I am talking about nameless planet that sits in the neutral space between U7 and U6. We see light and stars in them. It doesn't sit between two infinite darknesses.
- 167,857
- 76,474
Vietthai96
He/Him- 10,248
- 14,614
Lmao, this 70% thing again, you should know that Frieza aim to conquering planet that can be traded, you sound like he intent to conquer every cm space that available in universe. And no one arguing that there is infinite amount of planet in the universe, also back in DBZ frieza even claim that he don't know the existent of Earth and Solar System, you think he know the entire universe???
The major evidences is here
- 32,835
- 38,108
I have already asked the two parties to make a thorough-and-concise summary which can then be added to the OP so that other staff members and supporters of the verse can determine which option to go with.
- 934
- 578
I think the evidence from that CRT is enough for a rating of Possibly 2-C.
- 11,135
- 14,120
You got it wrong. You don't throw away the source due to mistranslation. But you do throw it away for contradictions. Both are different matters altogether.
Yeah so basically, contradictory information all around. Which is my point, right?
Cool. We can continue once you do that. If you're going to ask him on twitter make sure you make it very clear what you're asking so we get a reply that isn't ambiguous or we'll have more problems than solutions.
The thread is kinda getting off the rails here. Zamasu has already agreed on asking Herms for clarification on whether Daizenshuu really states twice about there being only 4 galaxies, which Herms has noted down in the past on several accounts. If Herms says he was wrong in the past, I won't have a point anymore. If not, well.
Until then, it would be better to hit the pause button and close the thread imo.
- 167,857
- 76,474
@Zamasu_Chan
Would it be fine with you to temporarily close the thread, and wait until you have received a reply from Herms, after which you can ask a few staff members to reopen it?
Would it be fine with you to temporarily close the thread, and wait until you have received a reply from Herms, after which you can ask a few staff members to reopen it?
- 31,399
- 27,689
This is a Q&A thread anyway, right? Why not just close the thread and make a fresh CRT if one needs to be made?
- 8,846
- 9,507
I am currently writing a response.
- 8,846
- 9,507
Hold on. I just realized something.
It's undeniable that your premise is: The daizenshuu says the universe has 4 galaxies, but also says they exist infinitely/infinitely expand, which is contradictory. Therefore we can't use the daizenshuu statements. That much we should all understand. Like you quoted from herms, the daizenshuu says there are 4 galaxies and says 4 areas. However, this is in the anime and manga as well.
On that same post you quoted, Herms says as the kai of the north galaxy [Viz scan]. Although herms says it could be "galaxy" or "galaxies" Cipher, on twitter, says: "With 北 (kita; north) being smashed up against 銀河 (ginga; galaxy), it's fairly unambiguously the Northern/North Galaxy--specific place--as opposed to simply a collection of "northern galaxies," as that's the convention for that particular kind of directional compound."
Later in the series, Herms, as well as Cipher, both mention the use of "areas" in the Z manga. "Areas" and "galaxy" are used interchangeably in both DBZ and the daizenshuu making them more consistent with each other. It also appears in the anime filler.
Herms also says that the Chouzenshuu (2013 guide), keeps the 4 galaxies statement. If they're still using "4 galaxies" in 2013, then it shows that it was intended.
The milky way galaxy exists within the north galaxy.
These 4 galaxies are stated to infinitely exists/infinitely expand, are interchangeable with galaxy and area in canon media and both of the guides, and are stated to illuminate for 100s of millions of light years.
With these facts, I think that we can easily deduce that there are 4 galaxies. However these are the North, East, South, and West galaxies that are split up into 4, infinitely grow, and house real galaxies like the milky way.
All of these statements are shared within the anime, manga, daizenshuu, and chouzenshuu. Those aren’t contradictory at all, if anything it's super consistent. So unless you can prove that the NESW galaxies are merely regular galaxies, despite all what we were shown and told, there should be zero, and I mean absolutely ZERO problems with the use of the daizanshuu/chouzenshuu at all!
- 1,528
- 855
I'm not a dragon ball fan and I only read the discussion, but I want to say a word or two about these discussion rules and getting bored with arguing over and over again. "There is a discussion rule about not opening this topic", while this statement is valid for the members, I think it's a bit hypocritical to say that there is a rule from people, don't open a topic while you are breaking the discussion bans that people are tired of being refuted and discussed over and over again. because I saw that you or other mods suddenly remove the discussion rules whenever you want. I'm just telling you for an example." It is a translation error that reio provides the balance of the souls and thus the planets remain in balance. Reio holds the planets with its raw energy, please do not use the argument that it provides the cycle of the souls by coming in this regard "There was such a discussion rule, but you came and wrote in the discussion rule don't use this argument you haven't heard it's been discussed many times and the cycle of souls r You've reintroduced your argument. And you asked people again to prove it. Now you come and say to the people here, "I can close this issue as I want because there is a discussion rule and it is undisputable". To me, this is hypocrisy. correct me if i am wrong or misunderstanding.I've known that since before you or I entered VSBW. That doesn't change the point I am making, which I will clarify below.
Not specifically that portion, and if I have I don't remember. But he has translated the Daizenshuu versions. It still wouldn't change anything, we've known it can also mean 4 areas, and directions is not much different.
I know that. And Herms knows that. Whether it is plural or singular depends on the context of the sentence. You, I and Herms, we all know Dragon Ball lore well. But we don't know the context of Japanese sentences as much as Herms does because we aren't translators. To give you an example:
This is from the Daizenshuu only.
"There is a ruling Kami for each galaxy."
Each galaxy. Singular. The Daizenshuu blatantly says there are 4 galaxies. You cannot translate it like "there is a ruling Kami for each galaxies". Doesn't make any sense. If it were 4 areas or directions, the sentence would have been "there is a ruling Kami for each set of galaxies".
Here is Herms' clarification on how the guidebooks describe the 4 galaxies:
"Essentially there are two possibilities: that there are 4 galaxies (NSEW) that are also called “Areas”, or there are 4 Areas (NSEW), that contain many galaxies. The guidebooks all go with the first option (when they don’t just leave the whole thing as vague as the manga, that is): Daizenshuu 7 twice says that there are 4 galaxies. DBZ Son Goku Densetsu and the Super Exciting Guide: Character Volume both say so too."
He names three guides including the Daizenshuu that say there are only 4 galaxies. Why did you think "4 galaxy DB" was such a big issue until we decided to drop the Daizenshuu explanations altogether? This is why. It is either blatant at some places, left vague at some places, or feeds contradictory information at some places such as having infinite galaxies. Keep in mind the Daizenshuu is not written by Toriyama, but Shueisha. And it has many versions, 7 being the most recent one. So the collection is prone to errors.
He also says this here:
"various other parts of Daizenshuu 7 and other guidebooks and whatnot all say there are only 4 galaxies, so we can probably safely ignore this"
Here's another where it blatantly says the universe is divided into 4 galaxies.
Not 4 sets/groups of galaxies. Straight up 4 galaxies.
Hell, according to the Daizenshuu scan which is linked in the OP, the "galaxy" is not what we recognize as a real galaxy. "Planets gather and form a nebula, and beyond that, a collection of gathered nebulae is called a galaxy."
All this accounts for Daizenshuu being a very ambiguous source of information regarding this. Hence we do not use it anymore.
With that in mind, there is a statement in Daizenshuu 7 that says universe is endless. While we do not use Daizenshuu as a credible source in this matter, this particular statement still does not have to contradict anything. Endless is often used synonymously with very vast and not always used literally to mean "infinite". The line comes from the same Daizenshuu and the same paragraph that says there are only 4 galaxies in the universe.
Two more statements about infinitely expanding, which is fine. It contradicts nothing.
And one statement saying "an infinite space of light and darkness where the unknown lives". While it may contain "infinite" (and you can get it translated by Herms), it comes from a poster showing Freeza. Characters like Freeza represent "darkness". They represents "the unknown". It's clear that the statement is referring to evil characters like Freeza when it talks about darkness and unknown, and is contrasting it with "light". No factual statement ever describes the universe as being composed of "light" and "darkness". It's clear that the statement is not meant to be taken literally/scientifically, when compared to any other statement that describes the universe in any normal capacity (being composed of vacuum, matter, stars, galaxies, planets, etc.). Even if it is meant to be taken literally, the credibility of Daizenshuu itself is in question due to several instances of contradictions and ambiguity.
And on the other hand we have the primary source itself without any vagueness and contradictions, which describes the universe verbally and visually as clear as a crystal.
1. Jaco states the universe has a crazy/countless number of galaxies.
2. Bulma states the universe has a center and Earth is on the very edge.
3. There is literally a nameless planet among other celestial bodies at the edge of both U7 and U6.
4. Both universes have been visually shown to have edges that coincide with each other.
This leaves no doubt that the universe is not infinite in any capacity.
We already have a discussion rule against changing DB cosmology without evidences from the ongoing manga and anime because all of this has been discussed to death. But what good is a discussion rule when we are clearly not enforcing it? I am having to take out time from my schedule for this on a semi-regular basis every few months. And when I will probably eventually get tired like the rest of the members, threads like these will eventually go through. The wiki has been reduced to a battle of attrition at this point.
1. A topic gets discussed to death.
2. People still spam the topic.
3. A discussion rule gets created to avoid discussing the same topic again and again.
4. The frequency drops but the topic still comes up every now and then.
5. Staff members close the thread.
6. They get backlash "oh my thread got closed without proper discussion, so rude".
7. People are forced to discuss the topic again and again even with the rule in place.
8. People get tired of it and either avoid it or leave it to others or just don't have the energy to care.
9. The topic eventually goes through.
Sad truth.
- 167,857
- 76,474
We sometimes remove discussion rules due to new reliable evidence being provided. We just don't want to have to argue about the same topics over and over in many threads year in and year out, when there are many other topics and verses that we have not had enough time to focus on at all, and that also deserve attention. That is all.
- 1,528
- 855
but this is unfair in my opinion. because the discussion rule exists for us, but not for the mods. Maybe the correct discussion rules you mentioned can be removed, but I don't think it should be that easy. A mod should ignore and remove a rule just because it wants to. If it doesn't offer serious good reasons, it shouldn't do it, I'm just saying this, my purpose is not to fight right now.
- 31,399
- 27,689
Do you mean "A mod shouldn't ignore and remove a rule just because it wants to." ?
Vietthai96
He/Him- 10,248
- 14,614
Anyway, rule can be discussing in a different thread. Back to the topic at hand, while Zamasu already response, however i'm displeased with AKM when he purposely ignore Otta's post with his presented arguments and scans: https://vsbattles.com/threads/question-about-dragon-ball-universe-size.133453/page-5#post-4608238
And want to close the thread before giving out an actual answer. It is a bad practice
And want to close the thread before giving out an actual answer. It is a bad practice
Good on paper, however is anything "protect" us from breaking the rule???. We don't want to close this thread and then making a new CRT only to get a discussion rule striking right at our face and then close the revision thread without any discussion. Sorry if i'm too blunt
- 1,528
- 855
Yup . that is, when a mod removes a rule, it must prove that it is correct and necessary to remove the rule because the members cannot open discussion because of the same rule for years, and if the mod that removed the rule suddenly does not exist without giving any reason, if the topic in that rule opens crt or removes them directly, it is crushing these members. According to me.
Vietthai96
He/Him- 10,248
- 14,614
We waiting, sure. However like what i said in my post above, AKM somehow ignore this post
We are polite with him, of course. Except Orange situation where he goes too far i admit, even though i'm his friend i'm also not agree with his action, however he already got a ban. Problem is we want him to properly addressing all major arguments, not somehow ignoring them
- 11,135
- 14,120
According to this, Cipher says that the first instance implies only being 4 galaxies. And a later instance did not use the term galaxy/galaxies, but used areas. That's for the manga, yes. Going by the manga alone, one would reach a conclusion that there are 4 galaxies which are also called 4 areas.
However, going by the guides, specifically Daizenshuu, there are 2 statements saying there are 4 galaxies, which could also be called 4 sections/areas. And a galaxy is not defined as a collection of more galaxies. In Herms' post that I used previously, he says there can be two interpretations but the guidebooks all go with the 4 galaxies one. If area and galaxy have been used interchangeably, then more consistently it would mean each galaxy is being referred to as an area. 4 galaxies = 4 areas.
Chozenshuu is a trimmed down version of Daizenshuu. It's basically using the same info. They use the same diagrams. They probably didn't have new info on the universe structure by that time so they never updated any of it.
"The first Chōzenshū volume is a combination of “Daizenshuu 2: Story Guide” and “Daizenshuu 4: World Guide”, both of which are manga-oriented guides. The second and third Chōzenshū volumes are a combination of the various anime-based books, including “Daizenshuu 3: TV Animation Part 1”, “Daizenshuu 5: TV Animation Part 2”, “Daizenshuu 6: Movies & TV Specials”, and the final supplemental daizenshuu, “TV Animation Part 3”. The fourth and final Chōzenshū volume is based on “Daizenshuu 7: Dragon Ball Large Encyclopedia”, with updated data and information."
The only problem with that interpretation is, it contradicts everything.
The galaxies are never stated to contain more galaxies within them. Not in the Daizenshuu and not in any other media.
In the Daizenshuu, the galaxy is described to be a collection of nebulae and planets.
In the primary canon, the galaxy is shown and implied to be like our regular galaxies.
It's contradicting both the Daizenshuu and the primary canon.
Think about what you are claiming.
"The four galaxies house more galaxies".
Don't you think something this absurd needs to be explicitly stated or shown either in the guide or the primary canon?
But no, what's stated and shown is in direct contradiction of this interpretation.
Vietthai96
He/Him- 10,248
- 14,614
After doing some research, here I am.
The main point of contention is about the fact that the Daizenshuu seems to mention that the universe is made up "4 Galaxies", which would be contradictory.
However, this is being heavily taken out of context. Let's look at it.
(The scans are from Chonzenshuu 4/ Daizenshuu 7, their text is the same)
Those scans do say that the universe is divided into 4 Galaxies.
However, as I said, this is being taken out of context.
Look here :
In these two scans, the infamous "4 galaxies" are mentioned, but then it is also mentioned that there are infinite actual galaxies in the universe.
This would seem like a contradiction, but it's not.
In fact, both the English and Japanese scan mention the fact that the terms "West/South/North/East" are just denominations/units that the gods use through their duty to supervise outer space, which is filled with galaxies.
This is consistent with the fact that, as Zamasu said, the Daizenshuu seems to switch from "4 Galaxies" to "4 areas/sections/sectors", which is something the blue scan I posted above also does.
This is already pointing out that such contradictions are nonexistent. However, it's not over.
The opposition here brought up three messages that came from Herms, the most famous Dragon Ball translator, and specifically from the Kanzenshuu :
Here, it seems that Herms was talking about the fact that the guidebooks and the Daizenshuu both stated that the Dragon Ball universe had "only 4 galaxies", which would've solidified the opposition's points.
Well, no. Aside from the fact that Herms clearly states that it's open up to interpretation, some of those pics cut off important parts of Herms's posts. Look here :
Herms himself admits that the "4 galaxies" are just denominations used by the gods, in reference to the Daizenshuu.
In the 3rd image he even proceeds to say that "Galaxy" in the "4 galaxies" sentence has nothing to do with the astronomical term, and that using the term "Area" would be more correct.
And this solidifies the fact that the "galaxies that exist infinitely" statement, and generally speaking the statements from the Guidebooks about the infinite universe are reliable, otherwise Herms would've corrected them (as in he would've corrected the translations).
As we can clearly see, he didn't. Which means these statements are actually fine/consistent.
Herms mentions that infinite galaxies in a universe sound weird to him, but tbh it's likely that he was using RL logic which does not work here.
So, in conclusion, the Daizenshuu statements are not self contradictory, and those arguments came from the fact that a scan was being taken out of context.
With all the other scans Zamasu Chan and others posted about the universe, I can safely conclude that the Dragon Ball universe is High 3-A or Infinite in size.
I just wanted to make clarifications on the whole 4 Galaxies mess.
- 8,846
- 9,507
^^^
You’re unironically saying “well they’re called galaxies so they’re regular galaxies” despite the evidence against that.
- 3,229
- 3,560
Thanks, Viet.
Vietthai96
He/Him- 10,248
- 14,614
More scan:
The compass points, directions, areas, sections the scan above mentioned
The compass points, directions, areas, sections the scan above mentioned
Last edited:
- 11,135
- 14,120
You didn't say anything new. All of this has been brought up by Zamasu already. With all due respect to your point, if you carefully read the previous exchanges in this thread, you will find most of it has been addressed already.
Burden of proof is on the positive claim. I don't know if you read my reply but the evidence in the show and in the Daizenshuu is against there being 4 galaxies that contain more galaxies.
Is there anything new that has not been talked about, or are we just going to continue like this? As I recall, a few staff members who replied later have since then changed their stance to neutral. Another few already agree with me. And after Cipher basically confirming what Herms had already said about the translations, it's not looking like Herms will magically make a statement invalidating all of what he has said previously. And until that happens, the Daizenshuu will continue to remain a contradictory and questionable source regarding this.
Vietthai96
He/Him- 10,248
- 14,614
You actually didn't address anything, aside from holding to the 4 galaxies thing, what contradicted anyway???, because they named the region as "galaxy" some how made it contradict???. And many already pointed out you taking the entire thing out of context, with cropped scan
- 8,846
- 9,507
No, burden of proof is on you AKM. I already presented the evidence. Now you need to prove to me that the NESW "galaxies" are 3-C.
AKM this doesn’t matter in the long run. Your initial premise just fell to pieces because you said the manga and daizenshuu made different claims, yet it's the exact opposite. The daizenshuu is valid. Even if they were technically contradictory that wouldn’t matter because that would mean the daizenshuu is copying statements from the manga and elaborating on it. Making the daizenshuu even more valid.
- 5,796
- 3,264
̶A̶K̶M̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶r̶o̶u̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶
- 15,881
- 12,239
I might have an issue regarding the universe being infinite in size but I need to check it first if y'all don't mind waiting for a bit (internet to slow so I can't find the clip I'm looking for to see)
- 8,846
- 9,507
I'll be waiting then.
- 11,135
- 14,120
I see. We're gonna keep repeating ourselves. So here goes.
I already pointed out how the primary canon and Daizenshuu are in direct contradiction of the interpretation that a galaxy is composed of more galaxies.
There.
I never said that. I said that the Daizenshuu is a self-contradictory source. You're using the Daizenshuu, so I never spoke about the manga making different claims..........
Once again, on two occasions, the Daizenshuu claims that there are only 4 galaxies. These galaxies are a collection of planets and nebulae, which do not magically house more galaxies. So if you're claiming that these galaxies house more galaxies in it, that is in contradiction of Daizenshuu. This is also in contradiction of how galaxies are portrayed as normal ones in DBS.
And this is not even subjective anymore. It isn't interpretational. You're literally making an absurd claim which is stated absolutely nowhere. And contradicts the primary and secondary sources.
Like, come on. Keep bias aside, forget that DB is one of your favorite verse, and think about it. If someone is going to make a claim for a verse as absurd and controversial as "galaxies in this verse actually house more galaxies within them", then you'd obviously ask for a direct statement regarding this.
Because this changes the basic structure of the universe and not just in an inconspicuous way. This is a big ******* change. And you'd think if the verse uses a structure as unique as this, they'd mention it at least once among dozens of guidebooks where they spend pages explaining the structure of the verse. At some point they'd say "galaxies are composed of more galaxies within them".
Honestly, this is an even weaker argument than what you were using before.
- 8,846
- 9,507
Two canon statements. NESW galaxies aren’t actual galaxies.
The same statements are in the manga what’s the difference??
You said a whole lotta nothing. Both the manga and Daizenshuu say the same thing. Nothing suggests the NESW are galaxies other than the name galaxy. We’re shown countless galaxies, we’re told about the Milky Way, the NESW are called areas at points, they’re stated to be 100s of millions of light years, they’re said to exist infinitely expanding, daizenshuu defines the NESW as all local planets in the universe.
AKM, if the NESW galaxies exist in canon and the countless galaxies we see in DBS are canon, then please give evidence why they’re regular galaxies and why they’re called areas in the first place.
- Status
Similar threads
