Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ye, its just he said that whi is slower than it soAs GodlyCharmander said, IT is a joke and is not nearly as impressive as some people make it out to be.
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.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.
I brought that up in the same post you quoted just now. Galaxy and galaxies have the same kanji.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".
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.Them being "directions" was never once confirmed by Herms.
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.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.
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.There is also a line in the daizenshuu that says "there is a ruling Kami for each galaxy", which suggests only 4 galaxies.
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.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.
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.
What's so vague and contradictory about the statements I provided? All 4 statements are consistent with each other.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.
"An infinite space of light and darkness where the unknown lives" - Blatant as it is. Space is infinite.
"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.
"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.
Jaco's statement doesn’t contradict a thing.The only concrete set of statements come from DBS where Jaco says that the universe contains a crazy/countless number of galaxies,
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.and Bulma says that the universe has an edge and center, which also suggests it is like ours.
Not sufficient enough. Your post lacks the evidence and sounds more like a rant than actual arguments.I think that should sufficiently answer the question.
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??Yeah, AKM more or less said what I was expecting and, and especially the "Infinitely expanding" statements.
No commentNot 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.
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.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.
Like I said, contact him yourself if you think the scans are wrong.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.
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.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.
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.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.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.
Space is not filled with light or darkness
Fine, I'll find someone else to do it. If it comes to it, I'll probably have to contact him myself.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.
Ok, I'll wait.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.
No why?
would this be relevant at all btw? as a contradiction to infinite universe
Please, this thing got debunk long ago.
would this be relevant at all btw? as a contradiction to infinite universe
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.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.
28 known planets with life within the observable universe. Simple.
would this be relevant at all btw? as a contradiction to infinite universe
No not really. Coordinate system for the observable universe.Is the universe having a coordinate system an anti-feat?
So should we potentially get a discussion rule for this subject after you finish this discussion then?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.
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.So should we potentially get a discussion rule for this subject after you finish this discussion then?
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.I brought that up in the same post you quoted just now. Galaxy and galaxies have the same kanji.
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.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.
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 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.
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.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 translationsSo should we potentially get a discussion rule for this subject after you finish this discussion then?
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.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.
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.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