• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fluffy's not wrong.

Another example is "History" in DBH or Xenoverse.

Sometimes they use it for a single timeline, sometimes they use it for the entire multiverse.

They literally use one term for multiple things. What matters is the context.
 
GodlyCharmander said:
If I were to give you a REALLY abridged version of AKM, and Zamasu's points.

Zamasu:
  • Daizenshuu has 4 statements saying space is infinite, some which refers to the darkness beyond the observable universe, meaning there are finite planets and stars, but infinite space.
  • Yakon's planet proves there is Darkness beyond the observable universe.
AKM:
  • Daizenshuu is self-contradictory, therefore it should not be relied on.
    • Examples of self-contradiction would be how the Daizenshuu states there are 4 galaxies in the universe (North, East, South and West, or NESW), while also stating there are countless in other pages, or calling the same NESW Galaxies "areas", official material shows countless galaxies. This was confirmed to be the case by herms, yada yada. Daizenshuu is too unreliable to change the cosmology to infinite due to that.
Zamasu's rebuttal:
  • That's out of context, and likely a mistranslation.
    • Some of the "4 galaxy" statements are actually inaccurate, and say "4 areas"
    • Even the ones that keep the 4 galaxy statement, it isn't self contradictory. Because the Daizenshuu itself contextualized the Cardinal 4 Galaxies as being just a name for the areas and sections the Kais rule, they are not literally Galaxies, and have been stated to be expanding and be millions of light-years long, which is bigger than actual galaxies. Basically, the "NESW" Galaxies are just nomenclatures for cardinal directions commanded by the Kais, not literal galaxies. The DB universe has these 4 Cardinal Galaxies, and countless galaxies at the same time, as they represent different things. Cardinal Galaxies being sections, and the "countless galaxies" beinh literally just galaxies.
AKM's rebuttal:
  • Then, it is self contradictory, the Daizenshuu states galaxy is both a "gathering of local planets" and exists infinitely, and also states a galaxy is one the four sections of the universe, expanding, and millions of light-years wide? It literally uses two definitions for one thing, that's self-contradictory.


And done. Everyone provided their bit of evidence for what was said above, and the back and forth was about how the two definitions of galaxies are not contradictions, because one represent A, and other represents B.

This is a VERY abridged version of the debate, and if @AKM sama or @Zamasu_Chan feel like I misrepresented their point, please forgive me, and correct me.
Click to expand...
Is this a good summary, @AKM sama ?
 
GodlyCharmander said:
Why is that a point? In what universe does the order which an information is delivered has any weight on how valid said information is? It doesn't.

Yakon proves there is darkness beyond the observable universe.

Daizenshuu adds to that, stating the said darkness, which was already presented in the show, does in fact exist, and is infinite in size.

Chouzenshuu doubles down on that information in 2013.

Dragon Ball Super says there are other universe beyond U7 macrocosm.

NOTHING contradicts Yakon, or retcons it. The fact the darkness was proven to exists before it was actually stated to be infinite is NOT AN ARGUMENT to say it's invalid. The order of factors does not change the product.

Arceus, I've been catching up with this thread for the past hour, and this particular point drove me nuts.
Click to expand...

Actually it does. If you're going to claim a planet from 1994 is proof that a concept from a guidebook in 2010s is real, then you need to back that up. It was literally my questioning that brought Yakon's planet into discussion.

I asked a simple question yes or no question. Is the Dragon Ball Z universe the same as the Dragon Ball Super U7 universe?

Are there any other evidence from the Dragon Ball Z run that the universe is infinite?

These basic questions can literally strengthen your claim.

GodlyCharmander said:
NOTHING contradicts Yakon, or retcons it.
Click to expand...

There literally are:

1. Earth is said to be at the edge of the universe, yet the light of stars still reach it.
2. Super Shenron formed at the edges of both U6 and U7 yet we still can see galaxies from both places.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
Actually it does. If you're going to claim a planet from 1994 is proof that a concept from a guidebook in 2010s is real, then you need to back that up. It was literally my questioning that brought Yakon's planet into discussion.

I asked a simple question yes or no question. Is the Dragon Ball Z universe the same as the Dragon Ball Super U7 universe?

Are there any other evidence from the Dragon Ball Z run that the universe is infinite?

These basic questions can literally strengthen your claim.



There literally are:

1. Earth is said to be at the edge of the universe, yet the light of stars still reach it.
2. Super Shenron formed at the edges of both U6 and U7 yet we still can see galaxies from both places.
Click to expand...
Mate the guide book from 2010 is supposed to explain the things in 1994 hence it being a guide book. Why does anything need to be proven?
Yes it is.
Yes the guides.
There are not.
1. Mate the earth can be at the edge of the Universe and light from stars can still reach it. Bruh this argument is so dumb, the earth is in the milky way which is at the edge of the universe. Now did you know that all the stars that are visible to the eye that you see at night are in the milky way?
2. Dimensional walls.
 
FluffyCreatureZ said:
1. Mate the earth can be at the edge of the Universe and light from stars can still reach it. Bruh this argument is so dumb, the earth is in the milky way which is at the edge of the universe. Now did you know that all the stars that are visible to the eye that you see at night are in the milky way?
Click to expand...

The entire basis of Yakon's planet is that because it is at the edge of the universe no light reaches it. The milky way being at the edge of the universe contradicts that.

People in this thread are saying that Yakon's planet being in darkness is proof the infinite darkness exist. Are you claiming that the milky way is in the infinite darkness?

FluffyCreatureZ said:
2. Dimensional walls.
Click to expand...
????

How does this explain away the fact that when Super Shenron appeared at the edges of U6 and U7, we don't see any infinite darkness but can see the galaxies of the universes?
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
The entire basis of Yakon's planet is that because it is at the edge of the universe no light reaches it. The milky way being at the edge of the universe contradicts that.

People in this thread are saying that Yakon's planet being in darkness is proof the infinite darkness exist. Are you claiming that the milky way is in the infinite darkness?


????

How does this explain away the fact that when Super Shenron appeared at the edges of U6 and U7, we don't see any infinite darkness but can see the galaxies of the universes?
Click to expand...
No it doesn't contradict it. The milky way can be at the edge of the universe and you'd still be able to see stars with earth being at the edge of the universe. I don't understand where the confusion comes from.
The milky way is not in the infinite darkness, it's at the edge of the universe right before it. However yakons planet is.
Infinite spaces can be represented in a finite way with dimensional walls which are 4D. Not a contradiction again.
 
0006-014.png


Bulma didn’t get a single reading because of their location. If space wasn’t infinite she’d have no problem getting readings from the other universes due to how close they are.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
How does this explain away the fact that when Super Shenron appeared at the edges of U6 and U7, we don't see any infinite darkness but can see the galaxies of the universes?
Click to expand...
You should know that Super Shenron have the size of multiple galaxies, we saw everything from "his" perspective and visual, galaxies on the other hand look small, it doesn't contradict anything, it is just that Shenron is too big, and he dwarf both the darkness part and reach to the galaxies part. Also you could take a look at Super Shenron profile, he have Light Manipulation as he constantly generating light from his body, so with that big size of his, it is reasonable for him to also light up the darkness part of the universe
 
Zamasu_Chan said:
0006-014.png


Bulma didn’t get a single reading because of their location. If space wasn’t infinite she’d have no problem getting readings from the other universes due to how close they are.
Click to expand...
Brilliant.
Anyway I know this is derailing but look, we might be able to get dragon ball to 2-C with multipliers because of this. The DB universes are right next to each other visually so the unquantifiable distance is now quantifiable.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
Actually it does. If you're going to claim a planet from 1994 is proof that a concept from a guidebook in 2010s is real, then you need to back that up.
Click to expand...
You're putting the carriage in front of horses.
The guidebook is just adding information of a concept. Yakon is the appearance of said concept in the canon media.

"You need to back up this supplementary guide with evidence after it was made!"
Btw, Daizenshuu is from the 90s, a year after Yakon debuted.

Second, that don't make no sense. You don't get the concept of a guide. It takes information from past and present media, and either adds, or elaborates on it.
The concept appeared in 1994, it was explained in a guide in 1996.
That's it. There's nothing that needs to be backed up. You're asking for something that was already provided.

It's like we see an attack cross an unknown, but large, distance in a manga, then the guides explain that said attack can reach "light years away". You can't just go "Well, it doesn't matter if it was shown before the guide, and it's just elaborating on it, it needs to happen again to be valid.",

It literally doesn't, this logic is doodoo water.
 
Bulma didn’t get a single reading because of their location. If space wasn’t infinite she’d have no problem getting readings from the other universes due to how close they are.
Click to expand...

Eh? Why? What makes you think that the Dragon radar works across interuniversal distances?
 
LordGriffin1000 said:
I see, I looked again, there does seem to be dimensional walls around them. So I assume the logic your using is once you step through the barrier you enter the infinite space?

If I'm understanding the argument for infinite sized universe, it goes...

Dragon Ball has an observable universe filled with galaxies, in the guides it states that the universe has infinite darkness beyond the observable universe and to support this in verse, Yakon comes from a place in the universe that light has not reached meaning there is darkness beyond the normal universe in canon. Add in the other stuff from the guides talking about infinite stuff would support this.
Click to expand...
There are a few details you need to take into account here. From what I am getting from your interpretation, it implies that Yakon comes from a place beyond the dimensional wall? Which would mean Yakon comes from outside U7. That's not true. Yakon still comes from U7, the sphere you see in that scene where Super Shenron's light is shown shining in both universes.

Antvasima said:
Is this a good summary, @AKM sama ?
Click to expand...
There are a bit more details. I'll try to summarize it in short. The Daizenshuu on two separate occasions claims that there are only 4 galaxies. Without any ambiguity to whether it is plural or singular. This is of course not true, which goes on to show it is not a reliable source.
The Daizenshuu also says there are 4 areas, which goes back to how Herms explains it. According to the Daizenshuu, there are 4 galaxies in DB universe which are also called 4 areas.
According to the Daizenshuu, a galaxy is a collection of planets and nebulae. Not more galaxies, like some are claiming, which would be redundant and makes 0 sense. The claim comes from another line from Daizenshuu that says galaxies exist infinitely, which also goes to show it's a self-contradictory.

The Daizenshuu also claims that the universe has infinite darkness, suggesting that the universe is infinite in some sense. While the primary source depicts the universe as being finite on several occasions. The universe having a center, Earth being near the edge of the universe, and the representation with Super Shenron, they all by default suggest that the universe is finite. Maybe we could have had a discussion on whether all of this is possible for an infinite universe or not, but this claim is made by a source that is self-contradictory and unreliable, and hence, isn't used.

Considering that this thread has been going on for so long, I suggest it's time to close it. Elizhaa's agreement was conditional on whether we use the Daizenshuu or not, and he has not responded since I brought up the points about the Daizenshuu being unreliable. Uchiha and KLOL have since then changed to a neutral stance. Damage, Medeus and I are already in disagreement, and this is not including many more staff members who also previously agreed to not use the Daizenshuu for this.

I'd also suggest adding a discussion rule that clarifies:

"We do not use the Daizenshuu as a reliable source to determine Universe 7's size because many claims regarding universe's size and structure like the existence of four galaxies, or them existing infinitely, the universe being infinite, the afterlife being infinite, etc. have been found contradictory."
 
AKM sama said:
The Daizenshuu also says there are 4 areas, which goes back to how Herms explains it. According to the Daizenshuu, there are 4 galaxies in DB universe which are also called 4 areas.
According to the Daizenshuu, a galaxy is a collection of planets and nebulae. Not more galaxies, like some are claiming, which would be redundant and makes 0 sense
Click to expand...
Again, you taken this entirely out of context, solely focus on this just to justify your reason why ignore other context


The part:
a galaxy is a collection of planets and nebulae
Click to expand...


Have nothing to do with the later sentence where Daizenshuu definitely said that galaxy is just a term for area, zone which used by Kaios for their administrative role.


You literally using Name Fallacy to defend your point. Name have nothing to do with this, like Vegeta's Big Bang attack have nothing to do with his AP. The Daizenshuu never claim that these areas, with each made up of 1 literal/scientific galaxy, again repeated, Galaxy (NSEW) is just a nickname for the zone. You made this up by yourself with you own interpretation that faulty down to the core
Bonus the scan for you:



AKM sama said:
Considering that this thread has been going on for so long, I suggest it's time to close it. Elizhaa's agreement was conditional on whether we use the Daizenshuu or not, and he has not responded since I brought up the points about the Daizenshuu being unreliable. Uchiha and KLOL have since then changed to a neutral stance. Damage, Medeus and I are already in disagreement, and this is not including many more staff members who also previously agreed to not use the Daizenshuu for this.
Click to expand...
So now we do staffs "popularity vote"???
AKM sama said:
I'd also suggest adding a discussion rule that clarifies:

"We do not use the Daizenshuu as a reliable source to determine Universe 7's size because many claims regarding universe's size and structure like the existence of four galaxies, or them existing infinitely, the universe being infinite, the afterlife being infinite, etc. have been found contradictory."
Click to expand...
With all due respect. A new discussion rule, did you just take all day just to thinking up a new discussion rule???
 
Guess I was right when I said that people make discussion rules so frequently. You can't go in a DB CRT without it being shut down with adding more discussion rules. Considering how many has been done for the series, it almost seems like it's being made so no one could try to change the ratings
 
None of these are contradictions, though. Because an infinite universe can have both a center and edge, which has previously been explained in this thread as well. Though the ''universe has an edge'' statement comes from Bulma, who, although smart, has never been established as a reliable source on DB's cosmology. The Super Shenron argument has also been addressed already. What's shown are simply dimensional walls. However, that's already going with the premise that those are U6 and U7, which has never been established within the series.

Also, one of the scans of the Daizenshuu says the following:
Because the Kami in the Heavenly Realm and the Kaiou supervise the galaxies that exist infinitely in all the universe, the sections known as the East, West, South, and North Galaxies are denominations that came into use through their duty.
Click to expand...
It calls the NESW sections galaxies and says there're infinite galaxies within the universe in the same sentence. That should make it pretty obvious that ''galaxy'' is used as an interchangeable term with ''sections/areas'', and doesn't actually mean a singular galaxy in this context.
 
AKM sama said:
There are a bit more details. I'll try to summarize it in short. The Daizenshuu on two separate occasions claims that there are only 4 galaxies. Without any ambiguity to whether it is plural or singular. This is of course not true, which goes on to show it is not a reliable source.

The Daizenshuu also says there are 4 areas, which goes back to how Herms explains it. According to the Daizenshuu, there are 4 galaxies in DB universe which are also called 4 areas.
According to the Daizenshuu, a galaxy is a collection of planets and nebulae. Not more galaxies, like some are claiming, which would be redundant and makes 0 sense. The claim comes from another line from Daizenshuu that says galaxies exist infinitely, which also goes to show it's a self-contradictory.

The Daizenshuu also claims that the universe has infinite darkness, suggesting that the universe is infinite in some sense. While the primary source depicts the universe as being finite on several occasions. The universe having a center, Earth being near the edge of the universe, and the representation with Super Shenron, they all by default suggest that the universe is finite. Maybe we could have had a discussion on whether all of this is possible for an infinite universe or not, but this claim is made by a source that is self-contradictory and unreliable, and hence, isn't used.

Considering that this thread has been going on for so long, I suggest it's time to close it. Elizhaa's agreement was conditional on whether we use the Daizenshuu or not, and he has not responded since I brought up the points about the Daizenshuu being unreliable. Uchiha and KLOL have since then changed to a neutral stance. Damage, Medeus and I are already in disagreement, and this is not including many more staff members who also previously agreed to not use the Daizenshuu for this.

I'd also suggest adding a discussion rule that clarifies:

"We do not use the Daizenshuu as a reliable source to determine Universe 7's size because many claims regarding universe's size and structure like the existence of four galaxies, or them existing infinitely, the universe being infinite, the afterlife being infinite, etc. have been found contradictory."
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose that seems to make sense, especially given that the Dragon Ball Earth is explicitly placed at the edge of its universe, but I am not sure if we should close this thread yet, as Vietthai seemed to have some additional points above.

Also, it would probably be best to write a more expansive explanation blog for this topic (without comments activated in it), and then link to that in our Discussion Rules page.
 
Gilad_Hyperstar said:
Guess I was right when I said that people make discussion rules so frequently. You can't go in a DB CRT without it being shut down with adding more discussion rules. Considering how many has been done for the series, it almost seems like it's being made so no one could try to change the ratings
Click to expand...
Please stop being paranoid everybody. This is not remotely about a grand conspiracy of hatred against Dragon Ball, just about our staff eventually growing tired of arguing about the same topics, as I have mentioned repeatedly earlier.
 
Antvasima said:
Please stop being paranoid everybody. This is not remotely about a grand conspiracy of hatred against Dragon Ball, just about our staff eventually growing tired of arguing about the same topics, as I have mentioned repeatedly earlier.
Click to expand...
When a new discussion rule is made literally every time there is a Dragon Ball CRT, then yeah, we got a good reason to worry. While I definitely understand that the staff are doing their job and I have a lot of respect to them, not everything can be solved with a discussion rule
 
Antvasima said:
Please stop being paranoid everybody. This is not remotely about a grand conspiracy of hatred against Dragon Ball, just about our staff eventually growing tired of arguing about the same topics, as I have mentioned repeatedly earlier.
Click to expand...
Ain't that the point of this site tho, to argue topics? Somethings wrong if you are getting tired of what you were "hired" to do. It's like a basketball player not playing basketball because he's tired of facing good teams. Argument isn't you should have to sit there and debate several remade arguments but at least take them at face value. New arguments can be made of old material and if you're getting tired of that, I don't understand what this site is supposed to be. I can't even blame the mods tho, if this site continues to only accept the staffs word and many arguments are being made, this is bound to happen.
 
Gilad_Hyperstar said:
That's another thing, an Infinite universe can still have an edge, even though you can't reach it

This is similar to how there are Infinite points (and uncountably many of them) between the numbers 0 and 1, and despite that you can have both an edge (0 and 1), and a center (0.5)
Click to expand...
This is true. Additionally characters with infinite speed reach infinity's end all the time. There's point A, infinite distance, then point B. If character A manages to finish crossing an infinite distance then that means he's found an end to it. Otherwise he'd still be moving that distance and never reach his destination. According to the opposing side's logic, infinite speed as a concept can't exist because the end/destination of infinity isn't there.

Infinity not having a center is also nonsense. If a big bang creates an infinite universe then obviously its center is the starting point and it would expand an infinite distance for the radius.
 
Antvasima said:
Vietthai seemed to have some additional points above
Click to expand...
Actually it is not that new, but AKM ignore them all time
Antvasima said:
This is not remotely about a grand conspiracy of hatred against Dragon Ball, just about our staff eventually growing tired of arguing about the same topics
Click to expand...
Actually, only AKM pushing for DB discussion rule, i never saw other staffs member pushing for it. And with all due respect, i said many time before, discussion rule is really discouraging people to discuss and revise the series, and feel like our presence is not needed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LuffyRuffy46307
Back to the beginning
2 3
Replies
110
Views
6K
Ednaxel2
Ednaxel2
omegabronic
  • Locked
Spaces in Times Dragon Ball revision
7 8 9
Replies
326
Views
25K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
ProfectusInfinity
Low 1-C question.
Replies
3
Views
2K
TiltedFN
TiltedFN
57Dev
  • Article
Dragon ball Cosmology revision
Replies
5
Views
2K
57Dev
57Dev
omegabronic
  • Locked
Db note aplication based on already accepted crt
Replies
1
Views
799
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
Back
Top