Why does DC explain the multiverse wrong?Its like there are only infinite earths, can there be infinite mars?Kryptons?The link is what it is?


This link is what i think the multiverse looks like, not infinite earths.:/

Update 2:

This is A DC comics question

Attachment image

6 Answers

  • Diana
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    First of all, you should go to the Comics & Animation category.  Second, each of the infinite Earths comes with its own universe and history.

  • 1 month ago

    What part of science fiction did you miss maybe if I used the term FANTASY it would make it clearer for you...

    AND there is a difference in a theory and a hypothesis since the term theory have become misused when referring to something that is in FACT still a hypothesis and NOT actually a theory since there is NOT enough scientific evidence to support the term being used like the multiverse which has a basis in mathematics but goes no further to substantiate which would be required to be classified as a theory   ...  


  • 1 month ago

    hey guys take it easy!This is fictonal, dang bro dang ian take it easy and The lightning strikes, i'm a comic nerd, this just says politics for a reason, i really am not interested and that crap.Im a comic Nerd just asking a question, take it easy guys This is a DC comics Multiverse😭😅

  • Ian
    Lv 6
    1 month ago

    There really are more important things to think about.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    Is there at all? Look....Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.

    For those unfamiliar with the idea of a multiverse, the multiple universe theory has postulated the simultaneous existence of many (possibly infinitely many) parallel universes in which almost anything which is theoretically possible will ultimately be actualized. The multiverse has been used by atheists and materialists as a way of dodging both the cosmological and fine-tuning arguments for the existence of God.

    It is rather ironical that in the sixteenth century some people resisted advances in science because they seemed to threaten belief in God; whereas in the twentieth century scientific ideas of a beginning have been resisted because they threatened to increase the plausibility of belief in God.

    Sheesh..Look, With the passing of the atheist’s recent god,( Stephen Hawking) the multiverse, it’s hard not to think about what in philosophy is called “drowning the fish.” When atheists or materialists propose spontaneous or self-creating universes, multiverses, quantum mechanics hypotheses, and other such things to try and explain reality, they use all the water in the oceans in an attempt to drown the animal (God), but in the end, the fish is still there affirming its existence and presence.Scientifically speaking, no evidence has ever been provided for a multiverse. In fact, there has been no model that has supplied any evidence showing any reality that extends into the infinite past. But, surprisingly, many atheists and philosophical naturalists have hailed the multiverse almost as something like a god--describing its beauty, power, etc., with absolutely no proof that such a thing has ever existed. It is a strange stance to be sure for those who constantly criticize believers in God for having ‘faith’ in something that (supposedly) has no proof for its existence.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    They all  vibrate  on a different Frequency    . 

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.