Multiverse Theory

yearofthe · Apr 29, 2012 10:03 PM

Does anybody believe in this so called "Multiverse" theory? I do, but I searched to see if anybody does, but they call B$ on it.. I just find that time is too young and 13.7 billion years just doesn't fit it..

Latias fan · Apr 29, 2012 10:25 PM

Delete your other topic before I throw a ****fit.

yearofthe · Apr 29, 2012 10:45 PM

Latias fan wrote:

Delete your other topic before I throw a ****fit.

In the other universe.. you would know that was a mistake and I didn't know I double post..

Neotyguy40 · Apr 30, 2012 1:30 AM

The multiverse theory is a completely agnostic theory that's neither provable or unprovable. If there was some way to find out if it is true or not, then it wouldn't be the 'multiverse' theory, but rather an intraverse theory. Otherwise there is nothing to gain by discussing it.

Clock-la · Apr 30, 2012 4:15 PM

Its an intresting theory...but like all creation theorys...there just theorys.

Hwd45 · Apr 30, 2012 9:09 PM

Wow, you clearly don't know what a theory is.

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · Apr 30, 2012 10:27 PM

.

Last edited by 36IStillLikeSpyro36 (Feb 07, 2016 5:56 AM)

yearofthe · May 01, 2012 5:04 AM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

The multiverse theory is a completely agnostic theory that's neither provable or unprovable. If there was some way to find out if it is true or not, then it wouldn't be the 'multiverse' theory, but rather an intraverse theory. Otherwise there is nothing to gain by discussing it.

I just thought I wanted to hear everyones opinions on this. For me, I do think it is possible to prove it. There are actually other theories lurking around the science community that our universe was actually created from another universe!

JazzJackrabbit · May 01, 2012 3:37 PM

I don't believe in the multiverse theory, but all I can say for a fact is that in this universe there are no other universes.
Even though I don't believe in the multiverse theory, I think pondering alternate timelines is a good thought exercise.

Common universe: Bucky O'Hare and Jaxxon are green rabbit characters from space.
Split: For the sake of originality, Cliff Bleszinski decides to keep Jazz Jackrabbit's fur color purple, rather than changing it to green.
Affected decisions: for the sake of originality (and because purple is associated with Jazz), Insomniac decides to keep Spyro green, and they figure out another solution to his visibility.
Affected decisions: TLOS is never made, as it depends on Spyro being purple.

That alternate timeline begins in 1993, and Cliff Bleszinski prevented The Legend of Spyro.

Neotyguy40 · May 01, 2012 10:48 PM

Clock-la wrote:

Its an intresting theory...but like all creation theorys...there just theorys.

Clock-la wrote:

but like all creation theorys...there just theorys.

Clock-la wrote:

there just theorys.

ಠ_ಠ

Hypotheses, Theories, and Laws of Science

I've seen these terms thrown around like seed to some birds, and I just want to make it clear for everyone what these words actually mean. One of the most harmful habits for science is that people use these words interchangeably, deeming the worthiness of evidence based solely on whether it is considered a law, theory, or hypothesis. However, to actually discuss any sort of scientific explanation (gravity, evolution, the big bang, etc.), you need to know exactly what you are discussing, otherwise you will be laughed at by others who do know. Another issue is that people commonly label things wrong, which then impresses the wrong meaning.

Theory (most important):

A theory is an explanation that has been observed, tested, and backed by empirical data. The key word here is bolded, which refers to the fact that it must be acquired and reproducible by observations and experiments pertaining to laws. A theory can be proven wrong, but only if there is other empirical data that does not fit into the theory's model, but even if proven wrong, it is still considered a theory.

Law (second important):

A law is a set of rules that explains what something does in science, also based on empirical data. A law is constant throughout all experiments under the same conditions, which means that it can be accurately used over and over again. However, this does not mean a law can not be disproven, and in most cases they are. For example, four of Newton's laws were proven wrong by Einstein, but only because we had more data than before.

Hypothesis (least important):

A hypothesis is a perceived outcome of an experiment, and is not based off of any empirical data at all. A hypothesis can become a law if tested and then backed by empirical data, but before that it is just a hypothesis. However, despite being a hypothesis it must be able to be tested through empirical data, otherwise it is only a myth.

Myth (not put into consideration):

For a bonus, a myth is an explanation of why something occurs, similar to a theory, but can not be tested by empirical observations, which means that it can not be used in scientific study.

Now here are some correct uses of the term, despite each of them being wrong:

Law - A day on Earth goes through a 25 hour cycle a day.
Theory - Earth goes through cycles because the sun revolves around the Earth.
Hypothesis - If we measured the of the Earth and Sun each day, we would see no change in Earth's position, and a revolving change of the Sun's.
Myth - Helios, the Greek god of the sun, pulls a chariot of fire around the Earth, bringing light.

Now here's a question, is the multiverse theory really a theory? If not, what is it?

Clock-la · May 01, 2012 10:58 PM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

Clock-la wrote:
Its an intresting theory...but like all creation theorys...there just theorys.
Clock-la wrote:
but like all creation theorys...there just theorys.
Clock-la wrote:
there just theorys.
ಠ_ಠ
Hypotheses, Theories, and Laws of Science
I've seen these terms thrown around like seed to some birds, and I just want to make it clear for everyone what these words actually mean. One of the most harmful habits for science is that people use these words interchangeably, deeming the worthiness of evidence based solely on whether it is considered a law, theory, or hypothesis. However, to actually discuss any sort of scientific explanation (gravity, evolution, the big bang, etc.), you need to know exactly what you are discussing, otherwise you will be laughed at by others who do know. Another issue is that people commonly label things wrong, which then impresses the wrong meaning.
Theory (most important):
A theory is an explanation that has been observed, tested, and backed by empirical data. The key word here is bolded, which refers to the fact that it must be acquired and reproducible by observations and experiments pertaining to laws. A theory can be proven wrong, but only if there is other empirical data that does not fit into the theory's model, but even if proven wrong, it is still considered a theory.
Law (second important):
A law is a set of rules that explains what something does in science, also based on empirical data. A law is constant throughout all experiments under the same conditions, which means that it can be accurately used over and over again. However, this does not mean a law can not be disproven, and in most cases they are. For example, four of Newton's laws were proven wrong by Einstein, but only because we had more data than before.
Hypothesis (least important):
A hypothesis is a perceived outcome of an experiment, and is not based off of any empirical data at all. A hypothesis can become a law if tested and then backed by empirical data, but before that it is just a hypothesis. However, despite being a hypothesis it must be able to be tested through empirical data, otherwise it is only a myth.
Myth (not put into consideration):
For a bonus, a myth is an explanation of why something occurs, similar to a theory, but can not be tested by empirical observations, which means that it can not be used in scientific study.
Now here are some correct uses of the term, despite each of them being wrong:
Law - A day on Earth goes through a 25 hour cycle a day.
Theory - Earth goes through cycles because the sun revolves around the Earth.
Hypothesis - If we measured the of the Earth and Sun each day, we would see no change in Earth's position, and a revolving change of the Sun's.
Myth - Helios, the Greek god of the sun, pulls a chariot of fire around the Earth, bringing light.
Now here's a question, is the multiverse theory really a theory? If not, what is it?

Do you realy think im going to read all that when you could just simply say

"no you are wrong -insert smell explanation here-"

That and must you really take everything i say so literal, I mean surly just saying it’s an interesting theory doesn’t warrant...all that.

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · May 01, 2012 11:13 PM

people tend to go into epilepsy attacks when you use the wrong term in situations like that. i have no *bleep*ing idea why.

also, science makes no sense at all and is completely illogical. XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Neotyguy40 · May 01, 2012 11:14 PM

Clock-la wrote:

Do you realy think im going to read all that when you could just simply say
"no you are wrong -insert smell explanation here-"
That and must you really take everything i say so literal, I mean surly just saying it’s an interesting theory doesn’t warrant...all that.

As much as I like smelly explanations, I didn't take what you said literally (at least not this time). I took it the exact way that it was implied. If you don't like want to read what I have to say, then simply don't. Don't get upset.

Clock-la · May 01, 2012 11:29 PM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

Clock-la wrote:
Do you realy think im going to read all that when you could just simply say
"no you are wrong -insert smell explanation here-"
That and must you really take everything i say so literal, I mean surly just saying it’s an interesting theory doesn’t warrant...all that.
As much as I like smelly explanations, I didn't take what you said literally (at least not this time). I took it the exact way that it was implied. If you don't like want to read what I have to say, then simply don't. Don't get upset.

im not I was just conserned that prehaps you did look into it to deeply xD

JazzJackrabbit · May 01, 2012 11:41 PM

▼Hidden text

Stormy · May 01, 2012 11:51 PM

And if you absolutely must correct them, most people would probably prefer if you tell them in a sentence or two instead of an angry-looking face, half a wikipedia article with a condescending teacher-like question at the end, and an accusation that the other person is getting upset. roll

Neotyguy40 · May 02, 2012 12:12 AM

Okay, I think everyone is missing the point of what I'm saying. Clock-la said it didn't matter because it was just a theory. I saw the confusion and tried to explain what the common misconception of a theory was compared to a law or a hypothesis. I assumed she was calling my post 'smelly', not small (if any of you had noticed, she commonly likes to insult me in weird ways like that). I took that as a sign that she was upset and misinterpreted my post. On top of that, the only reason I put down what a myth was, is because I realize that this multiverse theory could, in fact, be considered a myth, which brings me back to my actual, on topic, completely serious, non-condescending question at the end:

Is this actually a theory? Or a hypothesis? Or a myth?

Not a rhetorical question. I'm not trying to insult or talk down to anyone, and if anyone thinks my post should have been shorter, then by all means that is a perfectly valid.

Stormy · May 02, 2012 12:17 AM

If you say so, but people do use the word "theory" in ways other than the formal scientific definition, and it's generally understood by most people what they're trying to say.

Latias fan · May 02, 2012 12:20 AM

Neotyguy40 · May 02, 2012 12:22 AM

When applied to normal conversation, that's perfectly fine.

EDIT: And I mean what Stormeh said, not the pony people.

Clock-la · May 02, 2012 9:34 AM

Hold on, I while ago my teacher told me that quite a lot of scientist are abandoning the big bang theory due to there been no explanation on how it could oh happened, any truth to that? because if im honest my teacher did pritty much make up half of the physics course...i think xD

Hwd45 · May 02, 2012 3:36 PM

36IStillLikeSpyro36 wrote:

people tend to go into epilepsy attacks when you use the wrong term in situations like that. i have no *bleep*ing idea why.
also, science makes no sense at all and is completely illogical. XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Please tell me you did not just say that...

Clock-la wrote:

Hold on, I while ago my teacher told me that quite a lot of scientist are abandoning the big bang theory due to there been no explanation on how it could oh happened, any truth to that? because if im honest my teacher did pritty much make up half of the physics course...i think xD

Well, I've never heard that. What other explanation is there?

Clock-la · May 02, 2012 6:04 PM

Donno, just saying even sciance can have its flaws, and somthing are just never ment to be known yikes

Hwd45 · May 02, 2012 7:16 PM

Clock-la wrote:

Donno, just saying even sciance can have its flaws, and somthing are just never ment to be known

Science can have it's flaws occasionally, I agree, but the Big Bamg Theory? I'm sure it's still mostly accepted, despite the fact we don't know much about it.
Also, what do you mean 'some things are just not meant to be known'? That's either a scary quantum physics area or a way of saying that there is a higher power trying to prevent us from finding out. I don't think its the matter that we shouldn't know, I think we just can't know for certain, and we probably never will, that's the one problem with science- there could be a flaw in something we really rely on.

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · May 02, 2012 7:33 PM

Hwd45 wrote:

Please tell me you did not just say that...

yes i did say that! science is the stupidest thing ever invented!

#1 Apr 29, 2012 10:03 PM

Multiverse Theory

#2 Apr 29, 2012 10:25 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#3 Apr 29, 2012 10:45 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#4 Apr 30, 2012 1:30 AM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#5 Apr 30, 2012 4:15 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#6 Apr 30, 2012 9:09 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#7 Apr 30, 2012 10:27 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#8 May 01, 2012 5:04 AM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#9 May 01, 2012 3:37 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#10 May 01, 2012 10:48 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#11 May 01, 2012 10:58 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#12 May 01, 2012 11:13 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#13 May 01, 2012 11:14 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#14 May 01, 2012 11:29 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#15 May 01, 2012 11:41 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#16 May 01, 2012 11:51 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#17 May 02, 2012 12:12 AM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#18 May 02, 2012 12:17 AM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#19 May 02, 2012 12:20 AM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#20 May 02, 2012 12:22 AM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#21 May 02, 2012 9:34 AM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#22 May 02, 2012 3:36 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#23 May 02, 2012 6:04 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#24 May 02, 2012 7:16 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

#25 May 02, 2012 7:33 PM

Re: Multiverse Theory

Board footer