Question about dragon ball universe size

[AKM sama]

and inside them there are the infinite regular galaxies mentioned in the Daizenshuu.

No... that's not.... what?

A "denomination" is literally just a name.

And it's used for categorization here. Each galaxy has been categorized for each Kaio to rule.



Anyway, considering there is nothing new brought up, I will restate my old proposition: https://vsbattles.com/threads/question-about-dragon-ball-universe-size.133453/page-7#post-4617156

It's clear that the thread is not going anywhere and no side is going to budge. The exact same thing is being repeated again and again. It seems impossible that either side will happily concede with what information we have at this point. Can we simply agree to disagree, make a discussion rule, and be done with this thread? It's already nearing 9 pages. DB has not ended, we might get new info with the new material. Why are people hellbent on dwelling over decades old info that has already been rejected?

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

No... that's not.... what?

I'll explain again. Herms clearly said that the NSEW "galaxies" are actually more like "areas" that the kais govern. In them, the Daizenshuu also says there are infinite galaxies, this time regular galaxies. We know this is the case because the guide and Herms made it very clear when they refer to actual galaxies, and when they refer to the 4 NSEW "galaxies/areas".

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

The "categorization" is done via using the 4 cardinal directions. It has nothing to do with literal galaxies whatsoever.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

The "categorization" is done via using the 4 cardinal directions. It has nothing to do with literal galaxies whatsoever.

Yes, in fact Herms literally confirmed they're nothing more than "areas" of the universe. These have nothing to do with actual galaxies

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Again. Zero contradictions among all media that uses these statements.

 

[BOEGVELD]

And 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.

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.

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

I'm actually shocked there is still doubt regarding these statements. Can we get other staff members here?

 

[VegetaFan756]

Cherry picking and bulma, but honestly I think she meant the edge/center of the known universe

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

And one of the scans of the Daizenshuu says the following:

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.

Exactly. It's really not that hard to understand. A child can grasp it.



They're verbatim called "galaxies that exist infinitely in all the universe". It's literally telling you that NESW are infinite. If it was a self contradiction, there would be two separate descriptions in this one paragraph. If it's saying that these 4 galaxies are infinite then that's what it is at face value. Nothing in the series EVER points to the NESW galaxies being 3-C in size. Nothing in the daizenshuu and nothing in the manga.

You're arguments are like a summer ant!

I'm actually shocked there is still doubt regarding these statements. Can we get other staff members here?

Plank is currently reading the thread.

 

[AKM sama]

Oh I see we are just going to keep repeating ourselves.

I'll explain again. Herms clearly said that the NSEW "galaxies" are actually more like "areas" that the kais govern.

And Herms also says that according to the Daizenshuu, there are 4 galaxies that are also called 4 areas.

In them, the Daizenshuu also says there are infinite galaxies, this time regular galaxies.

Which is a contradiction, and makes the daizenshuu self-contradictory. We are back to where we started.

The "categorization" is done via using the 4 cardinal directions. It has nothing to do with literal galaxies whatsoever.

The 4 galaxies that are named after cardinal directions: North Galaxy, South Galaxy, and so on.

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.

According to the Daizenshuu, there are 4 galaxies, that are also called 4 areas. A galaxy is defined as a collection of planets and nebulae. Which means, the North Galaxy = collection of planets and nebulae = North Area, and so on. The statement about the universe having infinite galaxies makes the Daizenshuu self-contradictory.

If it's saying that these 4 galaxies are infinite then that's what it is at face value. Nothing in the series EVER points to the NESW galaxies being 3-C in size.

No, it's contradictory. We know galaxy is defined as being a collection of planets and nebulae, not a collection of galaxies instead. You're literally making a headcanon definition. So you need to prove it. Give me a statement from the Daizenshuu or any source that says the North Galaxy contains more galaxies inside it and I will concede.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

No, it's contradictory. We know galaxy is defined as being a collection of planets and nebulae, not a collection of galaxies instead. You're literally making a headcanon definition. So you need to prove it. Give me a statement from the Daizenshuu or any source that says the North Galaxy contains more galaxies inside it and I will concede.

Son, I like how you’re talking about a previous message but completely ignore the context behind this one. Crazy .

 

[AKM sama]

I like how you're isolating one contradictory statement from a bunch of different statements that provide the full context of Daizenshuu and making the context revolve around it.

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

No, it's contradictory. We know galaxy is defined as being a collection of planets and nebulae, not a collection of galaxies instead. You're literally making a headcanon definition. So you need to prove it. Give me a statement from the Daizenshuu or any source that says the North Galaxy contains more galaxies inside it and I will concede.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

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."

I agree with this addition.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

Oh I see we are just going to keep repeating ourselves.

I wouldn't need to do this if you'd just read and understand what I already explained to you several times

And Herms also says that according to the Daizenshuu, there are 4 galaxies that are also called 4 areas.

Yes. That clearly means that these so-called "galaxies" are actually "areas". Not only Herms said that with the Daizenshuu, but he also outright said it when we asked him. It is very blatant

Which is a contradiction, and makes the daizenshuu self-contradictory. We are back to where we started.

This is not a contradiction. Galaxy still have the description he wrote, but when he talked about the 4 "galaxies", he clearly mentioned that these SPECIFIC "galaxies" are NOT actual galaxies and are nothing more than areas. You seem to completely ignore it and pretend as if these "galaxies" are actual galaxies and then say it contradicts despite clearly mentioing that these aren't galaxies at all and are just called that

The 4 galaxies that are named after cardinal directions: North Galaxy, South Galaxy, and so on.

Again, just because they were called "galaxies" doesn't mean they're actually galaxies, especially when ALL sources says that they aren't (including the Daizenshuu itself, and Herms), and that they're instead areas of the universe. It's on you to prove that they are actually real galaxies when everything points that they are not and instead just areas of the universe. Until you prove it, you have no case

According to the Daizenshuu, there are 4 galaxies, that are also called 4 areas. A galaxy is defined as a collection of planets and nebulae. Which means, the North Galaxy = collection of planets and nebulae = North Area, and so on. The statement about the universe having infinite galaxies makes the Daizenshuu self-contradictory.

No, read again. And stop ignoring messages since I explained it to you several times already. The Daizenshuu defines galaxies as "collection of planets and nebulae". In the same page, it also mention that the NSEW "galaxies", and SPCIFICALLY them, are not actually galaxies, but rather areas of the universe

They outright say that despite being called "galaxies" they aren't real galaxies and instead are areas. You're the one trying to claim that they are despite everything telling you otherwise. This is nothing more than name fallacy on your side. Much like how if a verse says that character A comes from the "fifth dimension" that doesn't necessarily means he came from a place with literal 5 dimension, as it could very easily be the 5th universe, especially if the setting explains that despite him saying he's from the fifth dimension, that doesn't make him 5D. Your argument basically relies on name fallacy and not reading the context

 

[Jinsama]

unreal

 

[NHTkenshin2]

So umm, if this gets completely debunked (doesn't seem like it) can we make an entire page just explaining why the universe is seen as finite on here? Kinda like the cell 4-B explanation blog, it answers all the questions, gives multiple proofs, explains the evidence, debunks points against the evidence. Like that blog is EXTREMELY well made ngl.
I think someone should go over all the arguments and scans and just debunk them bit by bit to clear up confusion.

 

[Hasty12345]

I refuse to believe some of these arguments are made unironically….

 

[Grand_Saver_Ritsuka]

Honestly, let's just sum up the arguments for and against infinite universe dragon ball already guys.

So umm, if this gets completely debunked (doesn't seem like it) can we make an entire page just explaining why the universe is seen as finite on here? Kinda like the cell 4-B explanation blog, it answers all the questions, gives multiple proofs, explains the evidence, debunks points against the evidence. Like that blog is EXTREMELY well made ngl.
I think someone should go over all the arguments and scans and just debunk them bit by bit to clear up confusion.

i think most staff agree with infinite sized universe, so don't think it is going to be debunked. At least for now.

 

[Ruphas_Mafahl123]

Honestly, let's just sum up the arguments for and against infinite universe dragon ball already guys.

i think most staff agree with infinite sized universe, so don't think it is going to be debunked. At least for now.

Most Staff NO: Damage, Darkdragomedeus, AKM disagree, and Ant seems to be neutral.

So no

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Honestly, let's just sum up the arguments for and against infinite universe dragon ball already guys.

Didn’t Zamasu already do this?

 

[GodlyCharmander]

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.

I don't even agree with AKM, but this is an L take.
Staff aren't even obligated to be here.

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that the reason for the disagreements here seem to be that AKM points out that our standards require a rather high degree of self-evident consistency for this kind of drastic change, which just isn't present here.

It appears to be a "might be or might not be infinite, dependent on which parts of the information that you listen to" kind of situation, and that Herms mentioned that the guidebook mixes together different continuities (the main manga canon and original Toei anime), with no way to really know which parts that apply to what, doesn't make it better.

Perhaps it would be best if we simply wait until a modern and updated official Dragon Ball guidebook is released, as Dragon Ball Super likely caused rather considerable updates to the cosmology? As it is, we seem to have to rely on subjective interpretation in one direction or the other.

In addition, AKM will be busy IRL during the coming days, so this discussion will also have to wait for a while.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't even agree with AKM, but this is an L take.
Staff aren't even obligated to be here.

That is correct, yes. Our staff are kind enough to help out as volunteers, because they want to keep this community going.

 

[Jinsama]

infinte dragonball soon

infinte speed goku just a matter of time

tier 0 super shenron just a matter of decades

 

[Antvasima]

No trolling please, even light trolling.

 

[Vietthai96]

I think that the reason for the disagreements here seem to be that AKM points out that our standards require a degree of self-evident consistency for this kind of drastic change, which just isn't present here.

There was a never standard here, what AKM trying to do is, Daizenshuu is self-contradictory so it can't be used. However we already repeatedly point it out that he using name fallacy to defend his point, there is no self-contradictory in Daizenshuu, the Galaxy part AKM keep nitpicking is only a nickname the Kaio use to watchover, the sentence itself never describe the area only made up of 1 literal galaxy

It appears to be a "might be or might not be infinite, dependent on which parts of the information that you listen to" kind of situation, and that Herms mentioned that the guidebook mixes together different continuities (the main canon and original Toei anime), with no way to really know which parts that apply to what, doesn't make it better.

1. There is no may or may not be infinite, where did you get this from??. Daizenshuu and Chouzenshuu literally stated multiple time with infinite, there is no vague interpretation here
2. Keep in mind that our wiki also composite the entire DB verse cosmology and all continuity share the same cosmology

Perhaps it would be best if we simply wait until a modern and updated official Dragon Ball guidebook is released, as Dragon Ball Super likely caused rather considerable updates to the cosmology? As it is, we seem to have to rely on subjective interpretation in one direction or the other.

1. Chouzenshuu is the most modern one, from 2013, Akira also take part in its creation. If it have something wrong, Akira was already fixed it, however everything is the same.
2. Rely on subjective interpretation???. We posted multiple scans with evidences, why it is still interpretation????. Can you explain why what we doing until now is interpretation???

infinte dragonball soon

infinte speed goku just a matter of time

tier 0 super shenron just a matter of decades

We are dealing with serious matter, please refrain from this kind of comment. No offend to you but we want to focus as much as possible to resolve this problem, any derailing is just bad

 

[AKM sama]

I think that the reason for the disagreements here seem to be that AKM points out that our standards require a rather high degree of self-evident consistency for this kind of drastic change, which just isn't present here.

It appears to be a "might be or might not be infinite, dependent on which parts of the information that you listen to" kind of situation

Exactly. This.

Anyway, considering how 5 staff members (if I count a promotion that hasn't happened yet) have already disagreed, and almost all the staff members that responded earlier with a "conditional" support have since then changed their views, we will just have to reject this (again). DB has not ended, it's an ongoing series, so the people who want infinite sized universe is Dragon Ball have nothing to worry about. A huge detail like that is bound to be mentioned in the series at some point if it is true.

I can make a blog about why Daizenshuu is contradictory in this regard. But that will take time due to me being busy. And it will mostly contain what I have said here. So a simpler solution for the time being is to make the suggested rule that Maverick Zero X quoted above and link this thread to it.

 

[Setsuna_tenma]

so can this thread be closed already it isn`t going anywhere

 

[Vietthai96]

Anyway, considering how 5 staff members (if I count a promotion that hasn't happened yet) have already disagreed, and almost all the staff members that responded earlier with a "conditional" support have since then changed their views, we will just have to reject this (again). DB has not ended, it's an ongoing series, so the people who want infinite sized universe is Dragon Ball have nothing to worry about. A huge detail like that is bound to be mentioned in the series at some point if it is true.

You can't still even debunk all of our point aside from nitpicking the Galaxy part. And Staffs FRA train is no better than normal user FRA traing, until those staffs give a valid reason on why they support your point, their reason until now have no bearing.

 

[Antvasima]

Exactly. This.

Anyway, considering how 5 staff members (if I count a promotion that hasn't happened yet) have already disagreed, and almost all the staff members that responded earlier with a "conditional" support have since then changed their views, we will just have to reject this (again). DB has not ended, it's an ongoing series, so the people who want infinite sized universe is Dragon Ball have nothing to worry about. A huge detail like that is bound to be mentioned in the series at some point if it is true.

I can make a blog about why Daizenshuu is contradictory in this regard. But that will take time due to me being busy. And it will mostly contain what I have said here. So a simpler solution for the time being is to make the suggested rule that Maverick Zero X quoted above and link this thread to it.

If this is done, can you add some version of the following part to the rule and blog please? So we make clear that we are open to reliable information from new guidebooks, anime episodes or manga chapters, et cetera?

Perhaps it would be best if we simply wait until a modern and updated official Dragon Ball guidebook is released, as Dragon Ball Super likely caused rather considerable updates to the cosmology? As it is, we seem to have to rely on subjective interpretation in one direction or the other.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Perhaps it would be best if we simply wait until a modern and updated official Dragon Ball guidebook is released, as Dragon Ball Super likely caused rather considerable updates to the cosmology? As it is, we seem to have to rely on subjective interpretation in one direction or the other.

Wait for another chouzenshuu only for it to be deemed “unreliable” again?

 

[Antvasima]

Keep in mind that our wiki also composite the entire DB verse cosmology and all continuity share the same cosmology

Please elaborate. I don't think that we scale the Toei, DBS, and Chou continuities in exactly the same manner.

 

[AKM sama]

If this is done, can you add some version of the following part to the rule and blog please? So we make clear that we are open to reliable information from new guidebooks, anime episodes or manga chapters, et cetera?

That goes without saying. The rule is mostly talking about Daizenshuu which is an outdated source. New info from new material can always change things.

 

[Antvasima]

Wait for another chouzenshuu only for it to be deemed “unreliable” again?

If we know that it applies to the current continuity as a whole, it seems very unlikely that it would be deemed unreliable, as long as it does not heavily contradict itself.

 

[AKM sama]

Wait for another chouzenshuu only for it to be deemed “unreliable” again?

Only if it will be based upon the Daizenshuu like other Chozenshuu versions.

 

[Antvasima]

That goes without saying. The rule is mostly talking about Daizenshuu which is an outdated source. New info from new material can always change things.

Yes, but we need to make this clear to our members, so they know that we have not actually thrown a lid on the entire matter, but rather just said "wait and see".

 

[Hasty12345]

I care very little for DB scaling and tiers, but I think the arguments from the against side are very ratty, and I cannot accept they’re being made in good faith.

 

[Vietthai96]

Please elaborate. I don't think that we scale the Toei, DBS, and Chou continuities in exactly the same manner.

Why don't you ask your best friend AKM, he composited the cosmology of Toei, and main canon manga. DBS anime is canon to Z manga and Chou is just DBS but manga. Remember the 2-C Toei thread from Zamasu??? he use manga scan to debunk anime scan, so why are you still asking??

If we know that it applies to the current continuity as a whole, it seems very unlikely that it would be deemed unreliable, as long as it does not heavily contradict itself.

Again, Heavily contradicted???, so can you by yourself explain why it contradicted?????