Main > Everything Else

Faster than light? Someone with a big brain can help?

<< < (9/12) > >>

SuprSprint:

--- Quote from: scofthe7seas on September 26, 2011, 03:54:14 pm ---What with one being consistently proven and established, and the other being constantly modified, redefined, refined, and reexamined? No difference there?
--- End quote ---

What the average person knows as gravity (Newton's Law) is but a small piece case of a much broader theory of gravitation that depends on general relativity. i.e. the theory of gravity is also constantly in flux, you just don't hear about it. To bring it full circle to this thread, proof of ambiguity in the constancy of "c" would force us to re-examine everything we know about the theory of gravity.

That said, my point was that you used "theory" in the colloquial sense w/r/t someone presenting a scientific topic. They may be spelled the same but "theory" in general usage has a very different meaning than "theory" in the scientific vernacular. In general use a "theory" is little more than a hunch or best guess.  However, in scientific parlance a theory has been evaluated, critiqued, peer reviewed, found to be accurate, and while subject to improvement is widely accepted by the scientific community as fact.

Gravity is, and forever will be, just a theory. And as you pointed out about gravity, it makes no sense to rebuff a well established concept simply on the basis that it is a "theory".

RayB:
+1 to the DooLittle man (your name is an understatement)

Donkbaca:
I don't believe in gravity, my pastor said that everything is held together by His love.

Vigo:

--- Quote from: pldoolittle on September 26, 2011, 04:52:20 pm ---
--- Quote from: scofthe7seas on September 26, 2011, 03:54:14 pm ---What with one being consistently proven and established, and the other being constantly modified, redefined, refined, and reexamined? No difference there?
--- End quote ---

What the average person knows as gravity (Newton's Law) is but a small piece case of a much broader theory of gravitation that depends on general relativity. i.e. the theory of gravity is also constantly in flux, you just don't hear about it. To bring it full circle to this thread, proof of ambiguity in the constancy of "c" would force us to re-examine everything we know about the theory of gravity.

That said, my point was that you used "theory" in the colloquial sense w/r/t someone presenting a scientific topic. They may be spelled the same but "theory" in general usage has a very different meaning than "theory" in the scientific vernacular. In general use a "theory" is little more than a hunch or best guess.  However, in scientific parlance a theory has been evaluated, critiqued, peer reviewed, found to be accurate, and while subject to improvement is widely accepted by the scientific community as fact.

Gravity is, and forever will be, just a theory. And as you pointed out about gravity, it makes no sense to rebuff a well established concept simply on the basis that it is a "theory".

--- End quote ---

Scofthe7seas was referring to it correctly, the theory of gravity has not really changed much since Einstein, and yes it is a specific scientific theory standing as a cornerstone of physics. Quantum mechanics is an entire branch of physics embodying a physics on the quantum level. While Quantum mechanics began with Heisenberg's "quantum field theory", the entire field of physics built upon it is opten referred to as "quantum theory", much of which is so hypothetical that it has not been backed by any majority of the scientific community nor accepted as remotely provable to begin with. Show me empirical poof of string theory, and we will talk.  :lol

Howard_Casto:
The problem about physics is 90% of it is impossible to prove, thus why we are always stuck in "theory land".  Mathmatical proof is usually the closest we can get. 

In the example of string theory, from what I understand the math is super high level.  Usually when something that's complex like that comes out it just takes a long time for the dumber scientists to "get it"  thus why it isn't widely accepted yet.  ;)

I'm not saying that string theory is correct, I'm just saying... it's pretty new... lots of dumb scientists out there. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version