• 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.
  • Do not attempt to change the current Dragon Ball cosmology and power ratings without new evidence from an ongoing manga or anime series. We have heard all of the arguments many times before, and are so exhausted of constantly dealing with those topics that bringing them up recurrently leads to nowhere, with the discussion threads being oftentimes closed immediately.
It doesn't get any more clear than this. This literally reads "don't create CRTs on Dragon Ball cosmology without new evidence from the ongoing manga or anime series".

As for linking the previous threads, there are several. Not all of them can be linked. If we link some and leave out others, people are just going to think that only a few issues have been discussed.
 
Antvasima said:
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.
Click to expand...
i never say you or we are dictator, however, the excessive use of rule will sure lead to that conclusion in many people's minds
 
I definitely do not agree to make every single DB thread with discussion rules. Make it kinda seem like you're not allowed to even talk to try to change stuff in this verse.

I'm not saying that this what the staff do, but it certainly gives that impression that discussion on this verse is not allowed here
 
AKM sama said:
  • Do not attempt to change the current Dragon Ball cosmology and power ratings without new evidence from an ongoing manga or anime series. We have heard all of the arguments many times before, and are so exhausted of constantly dealing with those topics that bringing them up recurrently leads to nowhere, with the discussion threads being oftentimes closed immediately.
It doesn't get any more clear than this. This literally reads "don't create CRTs on Dragon Ball cosmology without new evidence from the ongoing manga or anime series".

As for linking the previous threads, there are several. Not all of them can be linked. If we link some and leave out others, people are just going to think that only a few issues have been discussed.
Click to expand...
Okay. Perhaps we should add a few more specific "This includes, but is not limited to..." examples though? I think that would likely help, as it is hard for many to know what does or does not qualify as new evidence.
 
Gilad_Hyperstar said:
I definitely do not agree to make every single DB thread with discussion rules. Make it kinda seem like you're not allowed to even talk to try to change stuff in this verse
Click to expand...
Not remotely every single thread, just the topics that have been argued to the point that our staff are sick and tired of constantly repeating themselves.
 
Ultra_instinct_issei said:
Compiling all arguments:
Universe is endless
universe is infinitely expansive. (Expansive means covering an area)
Translations:

"The Darkness that stretches out into infinity and illuminates galaxies"

The Universe: "An infinite space filled with light and darkness"

yk6bqfmquuo81.png

There are boundless Galaxies
knOxJ4sl.jpg


Infinite galaxies.
Click to expand...
Zamasu_Chan said:
I found them.






As you can see there are 4 total statements. 2 saying that the stars are infinitely expanding (3-A) and 2 calling space infinite (High 3-A)
Click to expand...
 
Okay. Perhaps we should add a few more specific "This includes, but is not limited to..." examples though? I think that would likely help, as it is hard for many to know what does or does not qualify as new evidence.
Click to expand...
without new evidence from an ongoing manga or anime series.

Daizenshuu is not new, it is very old. It is neither from an ongoing manga, nor from an ongoing anime.

Nothing here is new evidence from an ongoing manga/anime.

We have to see the fault in our own system and know our own shortcomings. The rule is very clear. The thing that is lacking is enforcing it. You can create 10 new rules but nothing will change if they are not enforced properly.

I don't have any issue with OP bringing up 10 old scans and creating a Q&A thread. That is the right of any member since many members, especially new ones, might not be aware of everything. I have an issue with how this thread turned from a Q&A thread to a CRT and still ongoing even after the original question has been answered with "we don't use the Daizenshuu anymore for this stuff", with people debating that we should that ultimately drags back to the same old discussion that has been had already.
 
What's the debunk of the infinite space statements besides muh flowery language [Akm proceeded to not give a single scab to support this] or muh translation is incorrect [which again , he displayed no scan or proof of it]. Heck why are basing this entire upgrade or Q&A or whatever on his word alone when multiple people [including staff, and people that are knowledgeable about DB and cosmology, who actually brought up scans and translation and even cited where they came from]. This seems like appeal to authority tbh. It's literally AKM unsupported claims against people that actually brought evidence for thier claims.
It's like we are arguing against the wall, no matter what scans, evidence, translations we give, AKM can shut all down with "Muh flowery language , discussion ban and mistranslation". No, let me rephrase it. It's not like AKM word decides the fate of the entire verse [no matter how little proof he actually gives]. It is. And I'm not going to pretend it's not.
 
AKM sama said:
without new evidence from an ongoing manga or anime series.

Daizenshuu is not new, it is very old. It is neither from an ongoing manga, nor from an ongoing anime.

Nothing here is new evidence from an ongoing manga/anime.

We have to see the fault in our own system and know our own shortcomings. The rule is very clear. The thing that is lacking is enforcing it. You can create 10 new rules but nothing will change if they are not enforced properly.

I don't have any issue with OP bringing up 10 old scans and creating a Q&A thread. That is the right of any member since many members, especially new ones, might not be aware of everything. I have an issue with how this thread turned from a Q&A thread to a CRT and still ongoing even after the original question has been answered with "we don't use the Daizenshuu anymore for this stuff", with people debating that we should that ultimately drags back to the same old discussion that has been had already.
Click to expand...
Okay, so none of the evidence here hasn't been handled previously then? I am not good at keeping track of specifics in this manner.
 
Orange said:
What's the debunk of the infinite space statements besides muh flowery language [Akm proceeded to not give a single scab to support this] or muh translation is incorrect [which again , he displayed no scan or proof of it]. Heck why are basing this entire upgrade or Q&A or whatever on his word alone when multiple people [including staff, and people that are knowledgeable about DB and cosmology, who actually brought up scans and translation and even cited where they came from]. This seems like appeal to authority tbh. It's literally AKM unsupported claims against people that actually brought evidence for thier claims.
It's like we are arguing against the wall, no matter what scans, evidence, translations we give, AKM can shut all down with "Muh flowery language , discussion ban and mistranslation". No, let me rephrase it. It's not like AKM word decides the fate of the entire verse [no matter how little proof he actually gives]. It is. And I'm not going to pretend it's not.
Click to expand...
Wtf dube, please don't make the thread more complicated, and let not talking with each others in this manner, try to discuss thing in civil
Antvasima said:
Okay, so none of the evidence here hasn't been handled previously then? I am not good at keeping track of specifics in this manner.
Click to expand...
I think we should let Zamasu Chan present his arguments
 
@AKM sama

Perhaps you could write a blog post that is not open for comments in which you write rebuttals for common already debunked arguments, after which we can ambed a link to that in our already existing rule text for Dragon Ball? That would probably help a lot.
 
Ultra_instinct_issei said:
Oh man, daizenshuu as a whole is invalid here?
Click to expand...
Not Daizenshuu as a whole. Daizenshuu contains a lot of other information about some attacks, transformations, and details about whatnot. Obviously it is not treated as gospel but some of it can surely be used for supporting details. I was specifically referring to things closely relating to the universe structure as they are often found to be questionable. Besides that we do not use the "infinite universe" or "4 galaxies" interpretation from it, we also do not use the "infinite afterlife" thing either.
 
Daizenshuu is secondary canon to be specific. And key word being "Secondary". What that means is it's usable for situational things such as adding context to vague statements. But it's not word of God and statements that strictly contradict the primary canon such as Cell being stronger than Gohan when the original manga says otherwise shouldn't be used. Basic lore statements such as a general concept of how Ki works or kaioken works are fairly uncontradicted in the main work or better yet supported can clearly be used, but the Universe's astronomy being infinite or "4 Galaxies" is both contradicted in the main work here and thus wouldn't be used. That, and 4 galaxies is just a bad translation altogether and it's clearly just 4 quadrants.
 
The_Legendary_Vin said:
Should probably mark off Daizenshuu 4 then
Click to expand...
One more thing I'd like to add. Daizenshuu 4 is not even the complete deal. Daizenshuu 4 was released when Dragon Ball was probably still not finished iirc. And the smallest guidebook out of all iirc. And as we know, Akira Toriyama conjured up the story as he went along drawing the manga. So info in Daizenshuu 4 is subject to change. Daizenshuu 7 is the better and technically a complete version since it was released much after the end of DB canon. It is also advertised as The Dragon Ball Encyclopedia that contains all things Dragon Ball and we can say that since it is the latest, it technically retcons all previous versions in case there are discrepancies. This is also a reason why 7 is much more popular than any other previous version.
 
Last edited:
AKM sama said:
One more thing I'd like to add. Daizenshuu 4 is not even the complete deal. Daizenshuu 4 was released when Dragon Ball was still a work in progress. And as we know, Akira Toriyama conjured up the story as he went along drawing the manga. So info in Daizenshuu 4 is subject to change. Daizenshuu 7 is the better and technically a complete version since it was released after the end of DB canon. It is also advertised as The Dragon Ball Encyclopedia that contains all things Dragon Ball and we can say that it technically retcons all previous versions in case there are discrepancies. This is also a reason why 7 is much more popular than any other previous version.
Click to expand...
This makes sense to me.
 
AKM sama said:
I've known that since before you or I entered VSBW. That doesn't change the point I am making, which I will clarify below.
Not specifically that portion, and if I have I don't remember. But he has translated the Daizenshuu versions. It still wouldn't change anything, we've known it can also mean 4 areas, and directions is not much different.
I know that. And Herms knows that. Whether it is plural or singular depends on the context of the sentence. You, I and Herms, we all know Dragon Ball lore well. But we don't know the context of Japanese sentences as much as Herms does because we aren't translators. To give you an example:
4_Galaxies_3.JPG

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".
Click to expand...
This isn’t a page from the daizenshuu but a translated text. Look at the last sentence of your scan. It says that the solar system is a galactic nebula. I think Herms himself debunked this on twitter. If you were more careful with your refute, then you would've noticed I brought this up already.
AKM sama said:
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.
Click to expand...
In the first paragraph of that same image he says "galaxy/galaxies" and even lays down two options. One of these options being that one of the 4 "galaxies" contain galaxies within themselves. Even in the following image...
AKM sama said:
He also says this here:
4_galaxies_5.PNG

"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"
Click to expand...
...he says, at the beginning of the sentence, that it's somewhat up to interpretation.
  • He uses galaxy/galaxies interchangeably.
  • He says there are two possibilities.
  • He say's it's somewhat up to interpretation.
  • He says it can probably, not objectively, be ignored.
He's clearly not claiming anything is objective. Why would he? galaxy and galaxies are the same so it's ultimately up to interpretation. Yet, you insist it only means a total of 4 galaxies.
AKM sama said:
Here's another where it blatantly says the universe is divided into 4 galaxies.
4_galaxies_8.PNG

Not 4 sets/groups of galaxies. Straight up 4 galaxies.
Click to expand...
Again, this translation was by the dude who made people think Cell was 4-A.
AKM sama said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not my scans in the OP. They also use the 4-A solar system scan.
AKM sama said:


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.
Click to expand...
I can't tell what translations your using here in particular. At least my cans are contextualized.
AKM sama said:
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.
Click to expand...
Prove it. This is merely headcanon. Guru's side of the page say there are countless monsters where light can't reach. Guru certainly isn’t some kind of monster. Even using your logic "beyond the stars where light cannot reach." would mean he's evil because this metaphorical light can’t reach him.
AKM sama said:


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.
Click to expand...
You use the term vague a lot. Vague means: of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning. | thinking or communicating in an unfocused or imprecise way.

Tell me how all three texts are uncertain or unclear. I had no problem reading and comprehending them. You shouldn’t have trouble with it either.
AKM sama said:
1. Jaco states the universe has a crazy/countless number of galaxies.
Click to expand...
No contradictions.
AKM sama said:
2. Bulma states the universe has a center and Earth is on the very edge.
Click to expand...
Space is infinite beyond the stars and earth is shown at the edge of a galactic region. Still consistent.
AKM sama said:
3. There is literally a nameless planet among other celestial bodies at the edge of both U7 and U6.
Click to expand...
The nameless planet is in it's own neutral space. This claim means nothing unless you’re implying the universes are strictly 3-A.
AKM sama said:
4. Both universes have been visually shown to have edges that coincide with each other.
Click to expand...
This means nothing. Our own wiki represents space time contunuums as uncountable infinity composed into a single universe, which is usually represented as a sphere. Take Xenoverse for example. We see the timelines have their own shape but they are beyond infinite due to having an infinitely long past present and future, even if it's down to the nanosecond or even plank time.
In simple terms, those are dimensional walls.
AKM sama said:
This leaves no doubt that the universe is not infinite in any capacity.
Click to expand...
Your main argument hinges a negative interpretation that views the daizenshuu as inconsistent (or less valid) and should only be for cherry picked things. Therefore your logic requires more assumptions on which statements to use.

I, on the other hand, take statements from the daizenshuu and manga at face value and still managed to make sense. Therefore, I make far less assumptions that you, if any at all.

Because you're making more assumptions, you're making the extra ordinary claim. And as we all know, extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.
 
AKM, I hate to take small parts of a large response, but that Frieza/darkness head canon is so weak. How exactly is it clear? Also, you manage to mention, yet still conveniently ignore the "infinite space filled..." part to focus on nitpicking a relatively common description of the Universe. If anything is "flowery language", it's that, and that just helps Zamasu's case even further.

And yeah I think Zamasu makes more sense
 
Last edited:
AKM sama said:
And one statement saying "an infinite space of light and darkness where the unknown lives". [cont.]
Click to expand...
You can't dismiss it as flowery language and/or "Freeza dark, Guru light that's it" when two statements in the same page both pretty explicitly say something about an infinite-sized space. What about it is flowery? Freeza being in the darker half and Guru being in the lighter half not only doesn't mean that the statements are flowery, it literally has nothing to do with the statements whatsoever.

Nitpicks aren't good arguments, especially nitpicks that just go "muh flowery language".
 
Hmm. Zamasu also seems to make some good points above. I am not sure what we should do here.
 
Also the part about the visual:
1. We can't seriously take it as too literal or we want a galaxy level universe, the suppose sphere that represent universe also lack the visual of Kaioshin realm, Afterlife and some other stuffs
2. We again, can't seriously take it too literal, how are we suppose to draw an infinite universe
 
It's either an accurate representation or it's not. You can't have it both ways. If you want to reject infinite sized Universes based on that on screen visual depiction, then start making a CRT to downgrade the Universes to Galaxy sized
 
Quantu said:
It's either an accurate representation or it's not. You can't have it both ways. If you want to reject infinite sized Universes based on that on screen visual depiction, then start making a CRT to downgrade the Universes to Galaxy sized
Click to expand...
Keep in mind it’s not only visuals but discrediting other forms of media. AKM insists on that we ignore daizenshuu 4 for the sake of his argument. Yet I don’t, and my points still stand strong. Hence his need for extra ordinary evidence.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, I very strongly trust the judgements of AKM and our other bureaucrats. Let's see what he thinks after he wakes up.
Click to expand...
I think Elizhaa judgement should be value and even Uchiha. I don't think we should use the staff position, rank to determine while ignore lower rank staff and normal user argument/opinion. It could potentially lead to a situation in the future where people are discourage to make a CRT or making argument. In this case i think we can invite neutral party to the thread to see their opinions, so what do you think Ant
 
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