Question about dragon ball universe size

[Orange]

And there are other statements that literally says the universe is infinitely expensive, I don't see any "expanding".
and there is "an infinite space" and "Darkness that stretches to infinity" which come from the daizenshu, thus they are valid.

 

[Myguy]

As GodlyCharmander said, IT is a joke and is not nearly as impressive as some people make it out to be.

ye, its just he said that whi is slower than it so

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out, AKM.

 

[Orange]

Also, quick question , is herms officially labelled by toie? And why can't we chose another translation over him if he isn't official? Plus, the other statements are clear cut infinite size feats.
"Darkness that stretches to infinite", darkness can only stretch into infinity if the size of the space is infinite , thus this statement indicates that the space is well.. infinite!
And the best one is this "infinite space filled with light and darkness. " the most forward infinite size universe statement I have ever seen.
and other statements such as "Infinitely expansive, galaxies that exists infinitely" are a great supporting ones. So Akm's arguments fall....flat, tbh.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, AKM more or less said what I was expecting and, and especially the "Infinitely expanding" statements. Not to mention, even if the body of space was infinite, it doesn't mean there are an infinite number of planets; as it could just mean beyond the edge of the physical universe is just nothing but empty space. Which SSG Goku is never implied to really destroy all the space, just all celestial bodies.

So I'm fully skeptical for High 3-A, and infinite space could still make something a range feat. But pretty sure AKM and other staff are iffy on that too.

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

Yeah, AKM more or less said what I was expecting and, and especially the "Infinitely expanding" statements. Not to mention, even if the body of space was infinite, it doesn't mean there are an infinite number of planets; as it could just mean beyond the edge of the physical universe is just nothing but empty space. Which SSG Goku is never implied to really destroy all the space, just all celestial bodies.

So I'm fully skeptical for High 3-A, and infinite space could still make something a range feat. But pretty sure AKM and other staff are iffy on that too.

Zamasu argued for infinite space. I think he said there was a finite amount of matter within an infinite space. I could be remembering wrong tho.

Also I wanna point out that some statement say "infinitely expansive" which is different from "infinitely expanding"

 

[Orange]

There are infinite galaxies/galaxies that exists infinitely. Plus the entire mac was going to be destroyed, ranging from the mortal realm to the kai realm, so yes it would be High 3-A feat anyway.

 

[AKM sama]

Herms is recognized as the most trustworthy translator for DB and has been translating almost all of DB media for years now. He has corrected several translation errors in the manga and created translations for almost all of the relevant manga and guide scans. As far as reliability is concerned, he is above all fan translations. Even above "official" ones, I daresay.

You didn't get the point. The Daizenshuu is a mess of contradictory statements. "Infinite space filled with light and darkness" is flowery language. Space is not filled with light or darkness, it is mostly vacuum and other forms of matter like stars and planets. Yes there are statements that suggest it is infinite, there are also statements that contradict it and say otherwise. My entire post is about how we cannot cherry-pick statements from Daizenhuu and roll with a single highest interpretation now especially when we had "4 galaxy DB" a reality for years and ultimately got rid of Daizenshuu's usage as a reliable source of info on cosmology matters because of vagueness and contradictions.

Anyway, just a reminder that no new groundbreaking piece of evidence has been brought up which we haven't already discussed over the years. There is already a discussion rule on the topic exactly because it is endlessly brought up time and again by new members while the (old) staff members either do not have the time to keep arguing the same thing for several years or lose interest. Saying that because while I see the thread is Q&A, it has become more of a CRT.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Just to get this out, we are not about to follow some fan translation over Herms. I believe Herms had already clarified on the whole 4 galaxies thing and it was rather vague. According to him the raws in the manga can be translated as either "4 galaxies" or "4 areas/sections".

I brought that up in the same post you quoted just now. Galaxy and galaxies have the same kanji.

Them being "directions" was never once confirmed by Herms.

Have you ever seen Herms specifically translate that portion of Daizenshuu 4, pages 54? Because as far as I'm concerned, Herms only translated individual quotes people send him on twitter. Even then, he doesn’t always reiterate the same quote in his answers. Some times he says what the text means instead.

He has himself said that the statement above can be safely ignored because various other parts of Daizenshuu and other guidebooks and whatnot all outright say there are only 4 galaxies.

This doesn’t make sense given the context. Like I said "galaxy" and "galaxies" share the same exact kanji. So why are you assuming, for this portion of your claim, that are are sections that call quadrants 4 singular galaxies? I'd like to see scans of this please.

There is also a line in the daizenshuu that says "there is a ruling Kami for each galaxy", which suggests only 4 galaxies.

Again, same Kanji. You also need to show scans for translations instead of making claims, otherwise i'd have no idea what you’re talking about. Technically speaking, I have no reason to believe what you’re saying because you’re just posting random quotes without sourcing anything.

But if we go with the "area" interpretation, it could make sense. But then even the old Broly movie says that Broly destroyed the South Galaxy and shows only 1 galaxy getting destroyed.

Whether it's "area" or "galaxies" it doesn’t matter. You’re trying to claim that the daizenshuu is claiming there are only 4 galaxies, which is not only you ignoring context, but basic Japanese language.

All these sources have been quite vague and contradictory in the past. Instead of cherry-picking one interpretation and trying to "explain" the vagueness in ways that seem far-fetched, it was decided to rule out these daizenshuu statements.

Moreover, there have been several statements in the daizenshuu where the space is called "endlessly expansive" or "infinitely expansive", which suggests it is like our own universe that keeps growing and not absolutely infinite in size. So there is discrepancy in those statements too.

What's so vague and contradictory about the statements I provided? All 4 statements are consistent with each other.

Scan 1

"An infinite space of light and darkness where the unknown lives" - Blatant as it is. Space is infinite.

"Infinitely expanding and galaxy illuminations ten of thousands of light years... hundreds of millions of lightyears... countless unknown aliens monsters live beyond the stars where light cannot reach." - It's clear that the observable universe is implied to be finite here.

It's an endlessly expanding observable universe surrounded by space where the stars or light can't reach. Plain and simple.

Scan 2

"The infinitely expanding universe is determined mainly by the direction that each king manages, and the place managed by the kings is supervised by the king of the world, and the gods of the north, south, east and west manage the universe. Ultimately, the Great King God is supposed to oversee the whole world." - In context it's talking about the 4 quadrants, which is the observable universe. It also says infinitely expanding again, showing the observable universe is finite but still growing, much like our own.

Scan 3

"An endless space that envelopes all the celestial bodies that exist in this world." - Endless space enveloping celestial bodies, I shouldn’t have to explain this.

4 statements all together, 2 say space is infinite, 2 say the observable universe is infinitely growing. So yes, both statements exists in the daizenshuu but you simply never read the correct translations and never read into the context of said statements.

The only concrete set of statements come from DBS where Jaco says that the universe contains a crazy/countless number of galaxies,

Jaco's statement doesn’t contradict a thing.

and Bulma says that the universe has an edge and center, which also suggests it is like ours.

Yes, the observable universe has a center and edge. It's visually depicted as the edge of the celestial bodies. The infinite space beyond can't even be reached by light and there are unknown creatures that live there. So there's no reason why Bulma would even be able to detect anything beyond the observable universe. Nothing would show up on her instruments so of course she'd think it's the edge of the whole universe.

I think that should sufficiently answer the question.

Not sufficient enough. Your post lacks the evidence and sounds more like a rant than actual arguments.

By the way, why do you think my scans are fan translations? What makes them more/less liable than Herms? You act as if he's a Toei executive or something. He's just another fan of the show who likes to translate things.

However, since your so confident in his wrod, why don’t you take all three of my scan, tag/Dm him on twitter, and ask him if they're wrong.

Yeah, AKM more or less said what I was expecting and, and especially the "Infinitely expanding" statements.

DDM, if you were expecting it, why did you start to agree in the first place? As a matter of fact, why didn’t you bring these opposing arguments? Lastly why are you suddenly ignoring the context behind the 4 statements i provided? Not even AKM knew yet you side with him because??

Not to mention, even if the body of space was infinite, it doesn't mean there are an infinite number of planets; as it could just mean beyond the edge of the physical universe is just nothing but empty space. Which SSG Goku is never implied to really destroy all the space, just all celestial bodies.

No comment

So I'm fully skeptical for High 3-A, and infinite space could still make something a range feat. But pretty sure AKM and other staff are iffy on that too.

Again you weren’t fully skeptical before, yet you knew what AKM was going to say. Don't tell me your sudden skepticism appeared was because AKM said it. Because it appears to me that's what it seems to be.

Herms is recognized as the most trustworthy translator for DB and has been translating almost all of DB media for years now. He has corrected several translation errors in the manga and created translations for almost all of the relevant manga and guide scans. As far as reliability is concerned, he is above all fan translations. Even above "official" ones, I daresay.

Like I said, contact him yourself if you think the scans are wrong.

You didn't get the point. The Daizenshuu is a mess of contradictory statements. "Infinite space filled with light and darkness" is flowery language. Space is not filled with light or darkness, it is mostly vacuum and other forms of matter like stars and planets. Yes there are statements that suggest it is infinite, there are also statements that contradict it and say otherwise. My entire post is about how we cannot cherry-pick statements from Daizenhuu and roll with a single highest interpretation now especially when we had "4 galaxy DB" a reality for years and ultimately got rid of Daizenshuu's usage as a reliable source of info on cosmology matters because of vagueness and contradictions.

Nothing is cherry picked. All statements are consistent with one another. Calling it flowery language is baseless on your part. Prove it's flowery language.

Anyway, just a reminder that no new groundbreaking piece of evidence has been brought up which we haven't already discussed over the years. There is already a discussion rule on the topic exactly because it is endlessly brought up time and again by new members while the (old) staff members either do not have the time to keep arguing the same thing for several years or lose interest. Saying that because while I see the thread is Q&A, it has become more of a CRT.

No this time I actually have the scans from the written pages. Not some random text online. The fact that you think this is nothing new actually further proves to me that you didn’t read the context. Even a few staff members are convinced.

 

[Orange]

Herms is recognized as the most trustworthy translator for DB and has been translating almost all of DB media for years now. He has corrected several translation errors in the manga and created translations for almost all of the relevant manga and guide scans. As far as reliability is concerned, he is above all fan translations. Even above "official" ones, I daresay.

You didn't get the point. The Daizenshuu is a mess of contradictory statements. "Infinite space filled with light and darkness" is flowery language. Space is not filled with light or darkness, it is mostly vacuum and other forms of matter like stars and planets. Yes there are statements that suggest it is infinite, there are also statements that contradict it and say otherwise. My entire post is about how we cannot cherry-pick statements from Daizenhuu and roll with a single highest interpretation now especially when we had "4 galaxy DB" a reality for years and ultimately got rid of Daizenshuu's usage as a reliable source of info on cosmology matters because of vagueness and contradictions.

Anyway, just a reminder that no new groundbreaking piece of evidence has been brought up which we haven't already discussed over the years. There is already a discussion rule on the topic exactly because it is endlessly brought up time and again by new members while the (old) staff members either do not have the time to keep arguing the same thing for several years or lose interest. Saying that because while I see the thread is Q&A, it has become more of a CRT.

Then if it's a "Mess" shouldn't we get those statements checked and translated here? That would make stuff much easier.
"Infinite space filled with light and darkness. " prove it's flowery. Point where is any of these words are flowery or hyperbole, especially when there are other statements that supports this.
And I am pretty sure the "4 galaxy tjing" was 1: mistranslation , since Japanese language doesn't have anything to differentiate between singular and non singular. 2- those "galaxies" revealed to be a quadrant.
Now, other statements being mis translated or not doesn't matter, the statements that are presented here matter, now prove, without shadow of doubt, that these statements of "infinite space" "Galaxies exisiting infinitey" "darkness that stretches to infinity" "infinitely expansive universe" are flowery or mistranslation.
Your entire arguments is literally "mistranslation this, flowery that" without even giving a single coherent proof for either claims.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Space is not filled with light or darkness

 

[AKM sama]

I can reply to all of that and attach the required excerpts. I simply didn't have time to do it in my previous post. And don't have the energy to do it right now.

Seeing as this topic has already been discussed to death for several years and there is a discussion rule against it to prevent people from spamming it and endlessly try to tire out the opposition by bringing up the same things ad nauseum, I'm afraid I can't do the aforementioned on a priority basis. It will take some time.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

I can reply to all of that and attach the required excerpts. I simply didn't have time to do it in my previous post. And don't have the energy to do it right now.

Seeing as this topic has already been discussed to death for several years and there is a discussion rule against it to prevent people from spamming it and endlessly try to tire out the opposition by bringing up the same things ad nauseum, I'm afraid I can't do the aforementioned on a priority basis. It will take some time.

Fine, I'll find someone else to do it. If it comes to it, I'll probably have to contact him myself.

 

[AKM sama]

Oh, I wasn't talking about contacting Herms. You can go ahead and do that if you want.

I was speaking about the fact that I have some excerpts from Herms where he goes into detail regarding this topic which I can attach later.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

I was speaking about the fact that I have some excerpts from Herms where he goes into detail regarding this topic which I can attach later.

Ok, I'll wait.

 

[The_Legendary_Vin]

would this be relevant at all btw? as a contradiction to infinite universe

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

would this be relevant at all btw? as a contradiction to infinite universe

No why?

 

[Vietthai96]

would this be relevant at all btw? as a contradiction to infinite universe

Please, this thing got debunk long ago.
Also no one arguing there is infinite amount of planet, star,......

 

[Grand_Saver_Ritsuka]

Moreover, there have been several statements in the daizenshuu where the space is called "endlessly expansive" or "infinitely expansive", which suggests it is like our own universe that keeps growing and not absolutely infinite in size. So there is discrepancy in those statements too.

Expansive actually has a different meaning from expanding i think. Expansive means to cover a given area, so i don't think that is a contradiction.

 

[The_Legendary_Vin]

Righty, I was thinking it over anyway while out elsewhere, and yeah, it didn't make sense with frieza having an empire and all

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

would this be relevant at all btw? as a contradiction to infinite universe

28 known planets with life within the observable universe. Simple.

 

[The_Legendary_Vin]

Meanwhile far more individual races than that exist....

 

[Nullflowerblush]

Is the universe having a coordinate system an anti-feat?

 

[The_Legendary_Vin]

I tbh, with fiction, have no ****** idea

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

Is the universe having a coordinate system an anti-feat?

No not really. Coordinate system for the observable universe.

 

[Nullflowerblush]

No, no, a coordinate system the Kais use.

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

No not really. Coordinate system for the observable universe.

 

[Vietthai96]

You know that you can place, name all kind of number on an infinite line. The same with coordinate on an infinite space

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

You can definitely coordiante an infinite space, it's just that there's no limit to how far the distances go in all directions, much like how the numbers on the x and y axes can go higher and higher with no limit (and the same applies if you add a third coordinate on the z axis)

 

[Orange]

Bump?-

 

[Antvasima]

Seeing as this topic has already been discussed to death for several years and there is a discussion rule against it to prevent people from spamming it and endlessly try to tire out the opposition by bringing up the same things ad nauseum, I'm afraid I can't do the aforementioned on a priority basis. It will take some time.

So should we potentially get a discussion rule for this subject after you finish this discussion then?

 

[KLOL506]

So should we potentially get a discussion rule for this subject after you finish this discussion then?

Let's not jump to conclusions so quickly, a few comments afterwards Zamasu made his response to AKM's comment and was talking about getting the specific scans translated by Herms.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

 

[The_Legendary_Vin]

right, I keep hearing this "Observable universe" crap thrown around, and that doesn't really work in a universe with space travel, as it means what can be seen relative to your location, so unless the definition is somehow magically different here...

 

[The_Legendary_Vin]

Fluffy, Im looking at you in particular

 

[AKM sama]

I brought that up in the same post you quoted just now. Galaxy and galaxies have the same kanji.

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.

Have you ever seen Herms specifically translate that portion of Daizenshuu 4, pages 54? Because as far as I'm concerned, Herms only translated individual quotes people send him on twitter. Even then, he doesn’t always reiterate the same quote in his answers. Some times he says what the text means instead.

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.

This doesn’t make sense given the context. Like I said "galaxy" and "galaxies" share the same exact kanji. So why are you assuming, for this portion of your claim, that are are sections that call quadrants 4 singular galaxies? I'd like to see scans of this please.

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.

So should we potentially get a discussion rule for this subject after you finish this discussion then?

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.

 

[Vietthai96]

So should we potentially get a discussion rule for this subject after you finish this discussion then?

Can we stop solving everything with a discussion rule, to be blunt, i am really dislike the excessive use of rule, it is like we actively shut other mouth down like a dictator. Also this time we actually have new informations regarding some translations

 

[Antvasima]

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.

Well, if you add a more specific DB discussion rule about this topic in particular, with some explanations and links to concluded discussion threads, that should probably be far more useful for you.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Ok. I’ll make my response when I can.

 

[Antvasima]

Can we stop solving everything with a discussion rule, to be blunt, i am really dislike the excessive use of rule, it is like we actively shut other mouth down like a dictator. Also this time we actually have new informations regarding some translations

You should know me well enough to realise that I am actively trying to run this community in a very tolerant, lenient, helpful, and respectful manner, not at all like a dictator/tyrant. However, AKM does have a very valid point in that we cannot constantly repeat the same arguments until our staff don't have the energy to see to that only valid revisions are accepted any more. They also have many other important tasks to take care of as well.