Dragon Ball plotholes and your theories!

[matt0044]

I currently don't have the manga chapter on me, but does anyone know if Trunks or Gohan ever refer to the Artificial Humans as their respective numbers?

In the Anime, they seem to remove these mentions.

[Herms]

Woops, I meant in the flashback chapter where Trunks and Gohan are in the future, fighting the Artificial Humans. So, yeah, in that specific chapter, does Mirai Gohan or Trunks call them #17 or #18?

Rats, some cross-posting going on. I just finished editing my initial post to include a note that I couldn't remember if Trunks: the Story had them call the androids by number. So yeah, I'm no help. Still, since Trunks in the main story is shown automatically knowing which is 17 and which is 18 without being told, I guess it's a plot hole either way.

[TheMightyOzaru]

Ok I'm really confused. How is this a plot hole? I dont recall Trunks referring to 19 and 20 when he informed Goku about the androids =/.

[Gaffer Tape]

Have you ever read the original manga, or have you only seen this scene in the anime?

[Fizzer]

In Back to the Future time-travelling to the past leads you to the past of your own universe, so interact with your past, endanger your own existence, rewrite events and so on. DBZ uses the multiverse theory of reality, and says that time travel drops you in a parallel universe, but you can still go back to your original universe. This is a much more sensible and realistic (as far as time travel goes) way to view time travel, as it makes paradoxes impossible.

[Cold Skin]

In Back to the Future time-travelling to the past leads you to the past of your own universe, so interact with your past, endanger your own existence, rewrite events and so on. DBZ uses the multiverse theory of reality, and says that time travel drops you in a parallel universe, but you can still go back to your original universe. This is a much more sensible and realistic (as far as time travel goes) way to view time travel, as it makes paradoxes impossible.

As far as I know, it's even one of the only two possibilities currently accepted by scientists (because they avoid any grandfather paradox).

1. You end up in the same universe, but your actions change nothing, like a rock in a river. After all, you being sent backwards was already part of the history you lived. The original history remains the same.
2. You create a new parallel universe, leaving the original intact. The original history remains unchanged. Theory used in Dragon Ball.

But of course, theories deemed wrong like the legendary Back to the Future series still make very intense and interesting plots, so they're worth it!

[Fizzer]

In Back to the Future time-travelling to the past leads you to the past of your own universe, so interact with your past, endanger your own existence, rewrite events and so on. DBZ uses the multiverse theory of reality, and says that time travel drops you in a parallel universe, but you can still go back to your original universe. This is a much more sensible and realistic (as far as time travel goes) way to view time travel, as it makes paradoxes impossible.

As far as I know, it's even one of the only two possibilities currently accepted by scientists (because they avoid any grandfather paradox).

1. You end up in the same universe, but your actions change nothing, like a rock in a river. After all, you being sent backwards was already part of the history you lived. The original history remains the same.
2. You create a new parallel universe, leaving the original intact. The original history remains unchanged. Theory used in Dragon Ball.

But of course, theories deemed wrong like the legendary Back to the Future series still make very intense and interesting plots, so they're worth it!

I think physicists now generally say that, if travelling to the past is possible, you can only travel to the past of a different universe. The main problems with travelling to the same universe are that you can create a paradox (meeting yourself and acting differently to how you remember it) and that it violates the laws of epistemology. For example, if you went back in time and become Shakespeare, that would be a violation because information (the works of Shakespeare) would have come from nowhere, when it has to develop through a process that's sort of analogous to evolution. The multiverse model gets around this as well, as it's just a case of "In universe A, Shakespeare was Shakespeare, and the information came about because he thought of it. In universe B, you brought the information from universe A, and you were Shakespeare" so the information still has an origin. I must admit, I haven't heard much about that first theory you mentioned, though.

[Gaffer Tape]

That's basically the idea of a stable time loop, which refutes your idea that things have to have a solid origin point. Like, for example, in Star Trek IV, where Scotty and Dr. McCoy give the inventor of transparent aluminum the formula for said alloy. Or in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban where Harry gives himself the confidence to conjure a Patronus and save his past self because he witnessed himself doing that very thing before he time traveled. There's only one universe, but, rather than a mutable timeline like Back to the Future, everything that is going to happen has already happened, even the effects of time travel, so you basically already know ahead of time if your plan to travel back to the past and save the President is going to work because you'd know about it already because it had already happened in the past, and he's still alive.

[Cold Skin]

In Back to the Future time-travelling to the past leads you to the past of your own universe, so interact with your past, endanger your own existence, rewrite events and so on. DBZ uses the multiverse theory of reality, and says that time travel drops you in a parallel universe, but you can still go back to your original universe. This is a much more sensible and realistic (as far as time travel goes) way to view time travel, as it makes paradoxes impossible.

As far as I know, it's even one of the only two possibilities currently accepted by scientists (because they avoid any grandfather paradox).

1. You end up in the same universe, but your actions change nothing, like a rock in a river. After all, you being sent backwards was already part of the history you lived. The original history remains the same.
2. You create a new parallel universe, leaving the original intact. The original history remains unchanged. Theory used in Dragon Ball.

But of course, theories deemed wrong like the legendary Back to the Future series still make very intense and interesting plots, so they're worth it!

I must admit, I haven't heard much about that first theory you mentioned, though.

I saw it in a documentary, but you can find information about it pretty easily on many web pages if you search on Google, just type "time travel" and "two theories" on a same search.
Here's a page that shows them pretty simply with graphical representations and that "first theory" summed up in just one sentence (pretty much what Gaffer Tape explained though):
http://www.philforhumanity.com/Time_Tra ... ories.html

The author does mention the problem of possible paradoxes, but that first theory, as Gaffer Tape explained, actually implies that paradoxes are impossible because what your future self did in the past can only be what you will do yourself, kinda like an infinite loop: you are exactly the person he was, with the exact same thoughts he had, with the exact same way of doing things, and whatever you do, you won't change a thing because despite your illusion of trying to do something different, you'll just end up doing exactly what your future self did, there's no possible change.
As weird as this formula may be, "Everything will happen exactly like it happened before", cause when time travelling, you don't have any more information or intention than what your future self had back then when trying to do things differently than his future self. The idea of a "predetermined loop" on the predetermined straight line covers it pretty well.

[CaBrPi]

Ok I'm really confused. How is this a plot hole? I dont recall Trunks referring to 19 and 20 when he informed Goku about the androids =/.

Page 3, panel 2 of The Terrifying Message (DBZ 141)
"Then he created his ultimate killing machines- 'Mechanical Men Nos. 19 and 20.' And they killed him."

From the Viz translation. This is when Trunks is telling Goku about the androids.

[Storm101]

There's that thing where everyone believes Gohan is dead (don't remember the exact details) even though they JUST used the Dragon Balls. I guess it's not technically a plot hole, but it's very questionable.

[omegalucas]

Well, can't the Trunks that came from the future, killed Freeza and mentioned #29 and #20 be from a future/universe where the twins are known with these numbers and the Trunks that comes back 3 years later is from a diferent future/universe with Androids named #17 and #18?

[CaBrPi]

Well, can't the Trunks that came from the future, killed Freeza and mentioned #29 and #20 be from a future/universe where the twins are known with these numbers and the Trunks that comes back 3 years later is from a diferent future/universe with Androids named #17 and #18?

It's possible, but Trunks later goes on to specifically describe #17 and #18's physical features to the Z-fighters.

[TheMightyOzaru]

Ok I'm really confused. How is this a plot hole? I dont recall Trunks referring to 19 and 20 when he informed Goku about the androids =/.

Page 3, panel 2 of The Terrifying Message (DBZ 141)
"Then he created his ultimate killing machines- 'Mechanical Men Nos. 19 and 20.' And they killed him."

From the Viz translation. This is when Trunks is telling Goku about the androids.

Hmm missed that part. However there is an easy explanation. The mere mention of the numbers 19 and 20 caused Gero to convert himself into 20 and create 19. Trunks statement somehow altered history to make his statement somehow true.

[Sin]

Hmm missed that part. However there is an easy explanation. The mere mention of the numbers 19 and 20 caused Gero to convert himself into 20 and create 19. Trunks statement somehow altered history to make his statement somehow true.

But the fact is that it is an error to say that #19 and #20 killed Gero.

There's a good chance that in Future Trunks' timeline, the fact that Goku died meant that Gero would have to alter a lot of his plans, #16 for one would have no purpose and maybe he gave up work on #19 and #20, instead focusing on #17 & #18, who killed Gero upon activation.

[omegalucas]

Well, can't the Trunks that came from the future, killed Freeza and mentioned #29 and #20 be from a future/universe where the twins are known with these numbers and the Trunks that comes back 3 years later is from a diferent future/universe with Androids named #17 and #18?

It's possible, but Trunks later goes on to specifically describe #17 and #18's physical features to the Z-fighters.

Yeah, and in that moment he mentions them being #17 and #18 right (or at least reacts to their numbers)?
Another point for my theory: note that I say that in the first Trunks' timeline #17 and #18 are NAMED (numbered? ) #19 and #20, but they are still the twins.

[CaBrPi]

Well, can't the Trunks that came from the future, killed Freeza and mentioned #29 and #20 be from a future/universe where the twins are known with these numbers and the Trunks that comes back 3 years later is from a diferent future/universe with Androids named #17 and #18?

It's possible, but Trunks later goes on to specifically describe #17 and #18's physical features to the Z-fighters.

Yeah, and in that moment he mentions them being #17 and #18 right (or at least reacts to their numbers)?
Another point for my theory: note that I say that in the first Trunks' timeline #17 and #18 are NAMED (numbered? ) #19 and #20, but they are still the twins.

He names #17 as a teenage boy with black hair, and #18 as a pretty girl.

[omegalucas]

He names #17 and a teenage boy with black hair, and #18 as a pretty girl.

There. I win! Two Trunkses!
By the way, shouldn't this be in In-Universe Discussion? We're making up in-universe theories for the plotholes.

[Chibi Mystic Gohan]

What about this one? When Cell is explaining his history to Piccolo, why does he imply that Trunks was the killer of Freeza and his father? If Cell is from the original, "ruined future" timeline, it would've been Goku instead.

[Saiga]

What about this one? When Cell is explaining his history to Piccolo, why does he imply that Trunks was the killer of Freeza and his father? If Cell is from the original, "ruined future" timeline, it would've been Goku instead.

Could you give me the actual dialogue on this one?