My theory of Multiple Universe

[loucellmar]

---

i like your theory,.murag nana man movie ani pero indie film lng,..
mayta ato self sa other dimension mu reach out pd nato then mu hatag nato ug number sa lotto,..jackpot,.hahahah

But in this theory of mine guys.. The other universe are just the other possibility.. There is no other thoughts in the other universe..

Unsaon man nako ni pag explain ha.. Okay example..


You are planning to go to SM tomorrow. SM will open 10 am. If you decided to go in SM at 10 am there are a lot of possibility that will happen in that decision. If you decided to go in SM at 5 pm there another possibilities that will happen in that decision too. This small decision or actions leads different results.

Like kung 10 am ka ni adto daghan pwd ma hitabo nga maka usab sa future. Basin naa ka ma ilaila nga significant sa imong life in the future.. compare sa 5 pm ka ni adto then basin gabie naka na uli then gi kasab.an ka sa imo parents that leads nga na puno naka and ni layas ka so lahi pud ang dagan sa among life ato nga decision..

You get what I mean guys?

So since in my theory there is only 1 thought that can travel to other universe. What happens is your thought only fills that other dimension with your thoughts, with your consciousness. You only took over the body in that universe in that other dimension.. You only took the other possibilities.


So walay other you or thoughts that can communicate with you or mo reach out nimo.

[carmicael]

@loucellmar

Welcome to the science forum.

What you have described above is not a theory in a scientific sense. A theory in science is a [1]well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world [2]that is acquired through the scientific method and [3]repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. (Reading: Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition | The National Academies Press)

[1]What you said is not well substantiated.
[2]You did not acquire this knowledge through the scientific method.
[3]You have not repeatedly tested and confirmed this.

Not to be rude, but this discussion does not belong in the science section. I move to close (or transfer to the appropriate sub-forum) this thread.

[loucellmar]

^ Understood. Thank you.

[yhokz101]

@loucellmar

Welcome to the science forum.

What you have described above is not a theory in a scientific sense. A theory in science is a [1]well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world [2]that is acquired through the scientific method and [3]repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. (Reading: Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition | The National Academies Press)

[1]What you said is not well substantiated.
[2]You did not acquire this knowledge through the scientific method.
[3]You have not repeatedly tested and confirmed this.

Not to be rude, but this discussion does not belong in the science section. I move to close (or transfer to the appropriate sub-forum) this thread.

Perhaps what the TS has for now is a hypothesis, not a theory per se. We can still discuss and move to have an approach with this topic within the scientific bounds. I suggest to leave it on and let the TS explore and expound his idea, don't kill the momentum. Anyway that's just a suggestion.

[loucellmar]

Perhaps what the TS has for now is a hypothesis, not a theory per se. We can still discuss and move to have an approach with this topic within the scientific bounds. I suggest to leave it on and let the TS explore and expound his idea, don't kill the momentum. Anyway that's just a suggestion.

Yes we can call it hypothesis.. Hehehe.. By the way..

Is multiverse a theory or a hypothesis? And was there any evidence to support it?

[yhokz101]

Yes we can call it hypothesis.. Hehehe.. By the way..

Is multiverse a theory or a hypothesis? And was there any evidence to support it?

that's why we can call it a hypothesis as of now..

there would be no substantial evidence to support it, yet.

[carmicael]

@yhokz101

If TS can support his hypothesis with at least some evidence then by all means continue this discussion. TS should also explain how he plans to further investigate his wild ideas. And he also has to explain how the results of his investigation will be evaluated.

At minimum, his ideas should be testable. Reading his [hypothesis] makes me think that it is not.

If TS can show sufficient cause then I will withdraw my motion.

Spoiler! 

Remember that sub-forum rules prohibit pseudoscience and protoscience. https://www.istorya.net/forums/scienc...uidelines.html

@loucellmar

I suggest that you move your thread to the General Discussions sub-forum. You will not find me meddling with any of your ideas. I might give my own thoughts about it too.

---

As of now, my motion to close this thread remains unchanged.

[loucellmar]

Okay, actually we can just close the thread. Sorry wrong post.

[carmicael]

No need to be sorry. No harm done.

And just to be clear my motion has no power over this thread whatsoever.

[Yankee Rose]

THIS IS NOT A THEORY., but an inspired to what you have read to an existing theories.