Ok, how about a basic electrical engineering class known as "The Theory of Electromagnetism". All of the knowledge of electromagnetism is encompassed in this theory. The formulas, the theorems, the math, EVERY BIT OF KNOWLEDGE about electricity and magnetism. It isn't a simple statement, it's an entire subject. You can't develop ANY new electronic devices without the knowledge, therefore, it is being used all the time.

 

...and you have empirical data to show regarding this? i'm not arguing the fact that people use these things evevryday. i am arguing that your presentation was between poor and tragic. Unless you can prove that it's used thousands of times a minute i don't agree with you. it may be used millions or hundreds of times a minute. you don't know.

you use words frivolously and that makes anything else you say suspect. you don't have to try to embellish to impress people. share the extent of your knowledge, but don't overstep it's range. right now you sound like a kid brother trying to impress me with what he learned in school that day. don't be that guy.

 

^^ Exactly my impression.

All those Theories you listed a couple of posts ago are all "Theories" because they either contain flaws or leave something unexplained. Just because they are being utilized by today's scholars and scientists does constitute them to being perfect or accurate. Those Theories or Laws (which they are also at times referred to) are the best set of characteristics we have at this point in time, or else they would be "facts". Scientist were under the impression that the Earth was flat years ago, that theory was discredited and now we know the Earth is round, thats a fact, its quantifiable.

 

No, and you're right it could be loads more. The point was that they are being used, in practice, every minute, of every single day by researchers, technicians, engineers, and designers. Does the exact number matter? Or is what matters is that they are being used to create incredibly exact intrumentations and devices? Hardly the realm of "best guesses".

This statement implies that at some point we could possibly have every bit of information on everything there is to know. They are titled this because they are subjects. Plain and simple, subjects. They are not statements. They are organic subjects that get updated as we get more knowledge. Sometimes we learn we are too specific, and theories, by definition, have to be extremely general. They don't have flaws, they have holes where we know something goes, but we don't know what that something is. For instance, in The Theory of Gravity, we don't know exactly what mechanism creates gravity. Does that make the shuttle orbits we calculate based off of what we know any less accurate or flawed? Only when we forget what units we are using ;)

This is where you are flat out wrong. Within theories you have laws and facts. If we have a law, then we are too specific and need to be more general. For instance, Isaac Newtons Laws of Motion are 100% accruate for the scale we are at now. However, those laws do not explain atomic partical movement. Therefore, the laws of motion, are one section under the The Theory of Relativity. You can use Eintstein's equations to describe the parabolic movement of a projectile and get the exact same results as Newton's equations. However, Newton's equations break down on a planetary scale, and atomic scale where Einstein's do not. General is better.

You mean the "scientists" controled by the Catholic Church? It was never a "theory" that the Earth was flat, it was a decree from the Catholic Church. Just like it was a decree that the sun revolved around the Earth, which was, according to the Catholic Church, the center of the universe. Galleleo was excommunicated when he informed them otherwise.

Meanwhile, back on this side of the planet, without the Church's involvement Aztecs already had the concept of zero, and knew that the Earth revolved around the sun.

 

Millions can be expressed in terms of thousands. See, general is better ;-)

 

basically we're learning more and more about what "laws" and theories exist in our world everyday!

it's silly to believe that something is the same today will be the same tomorrow. our minds and research will always continue to explore and learn how to use everything around us in different ways! back in the 1700's, phones, cars, and airplanes were OUT of the question. but even way before that divinci had an idea about it.

i'm glad science is constantly researching....cause maybe something far fetched like light speed or time travel seems stupid now. but 100 years from now (if we make it) maybe it'll be a whole different ball game cause a flux capacitor DOES work or something.

i understand the view that our science is "perfected" the way it is now, so stop being so defensive of the HERE and the NOW and just free your mind a lil.

 

I wouldn't say our science is perfected, and don't know anyone that would, but our scientific method is fairly decent.

The only thing I'm defensive about is the nonchalant usage of the word "theory". 99% of people do not have a clue as to the high ranking level theories have in science. In reality, it's the end all be all. Theories do not get reveresed. They do not get dismissed. They get expanded on and more generalized, but they never get reversed. Hypothesis get dismissed, reveresed, or proven wrong, but not theories.

If we ever find out how to travel faster than light, it isn't that we were wrong today, it's that our view of the situation was insufficient. It won't be an invention or some techinical discovery that we learn it either, it'll be some physicist, or most likely a mathmetician that solves something that has yet to be solved which gives us a different view on a given siutation. Then it might take a dozen or a 1000 years or more to understand the ramifications of that solution which leads to light speed travel.

Of course, there's always going to be the fundamental issue the acceleration will have on your body.....

 

I think there is a new term you should familiarize your self with, its called opinion. First, its irrelevant that Theories are being utilized today in different practices. I never rendered them useless. Second, if you want to get specific, different theories belonging to different subjects ex:Evolution-Biology, Relativity-Physics, are called Theories due to different faults they may contain. Here is a good article you should read:
http://www.allaboutscience.org/theory-of-relativity.htm

I am done arguing with you however. You are one of those people that has their own definition of a topic that has been widely established, which is fine, but imposing it on people as a "fact" when it is a "theory" makes arguing pointless.

 

why isn't this thread locked? we are WAY off from the original post. if we want to discuss what the word theory means, then lets start a thread for that. i wanted to discuss more about the video, but that has fallen to the wayside.

btw, the video has holes in the information used that you could drive a truck through. when you boil it down, there's no real way to know what happened back then. that's why it's called faith. that, and many other reasons i don't care to go into. ...see, the thing is, until either god or his representative on earth(don't ask me how to confirm that guy's ID) tells us exactly what happened, we'll never know the real truth. that has been lost to time, greed, and power over the years. and if there is no god, then we still fall into the same problem, but the world has no chance of finding out because there is no sentient creator to even consider revealing itself. either way, what does it matter? just know that most organized religion is based on lies told by man. when you read any holy book, remember that it lost it's truth when the first person wrote it. intentionally or not, the first writer put a perspective on those texts. that person saw things from his own point of view. not to mention that not everyone could write and who knows what embellishments a scribe made or what words he/she altered to make their job simpler. after all of that, then imagine how many times it has been re-copied and re-translated over the years. and people believe they are reading divine text?

if that isn't a strong enough argument, try this. the supposed divine texts of the world.... they are all squirrelled away in safe places so that they aren't destroyed by the ravages of time. if you believe in these texts then you believe in some form of antithesis, or at the very least a antagonist to god. isn't it possible, over the years, that this mischevious anti-god altered the story in one of it's drafts. or, maybe over several different versions, slowly worked in it's own version of truth. that way nobody would notice. too drastic a change might draw attention....

i digress. i just wanted to throw that out there for people to chew on.

 

You sure about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

 

you're killing me. i didn't mean for you to actually post wikipedia definitions on here. they look the same on the next guy's computer, ya know.

 

As long as we get past the sophomoric notion that a theory is simply an idea or guess, and that theory and fact are not necessarily seperate or mutually exclusive, I'm fine with that. And btw, that was for the other guy that seems to think I have some sort of made up definition of the term.

 

if someone can't figure out how to use a dictionary, or wikipedia, is your time well spent writing a retort?

 

You undoubtedly have no clue as to the reserves of free time available to me ;)

 

apparently not.

 

As reluctant as I am to come back to this thread, I am tempted to see what biased response you may reply with next. As scientific as you make your self out to be, you should be very well aware that Wikipidea's integrity is highly suspect. If I so desire, I can edit that statement in 5 seconds.

Here is a definition from Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

To sum it up, they are educated guesses/predictions/assumptions that are accepted by the scientific community(which I never debated) but my point is that you seem incapable of differentiating between the two. Theories are based on facts to make and educated guess no matter how you attempt to spin your "Doctoral" opinion on the majority's "sophomoric" notion.

Also, why have you not commented on the link I posted? Here it is again:http://www.allaboutscience.org/theory-of-relativity.htm
here is piece:
...Theory of Relativity - Inherent Limitations
For the past century, scientists have conducted a variety of experiments to verify the implications of the Theory of Relativity as well as advance fields such as cosmology and particle physics. However, there is some question as to the ability of Einstein's Theory of Relativity to describe as many physical phenomena as has been claimed - with some scientists arguing against it entirely. Regardless, as with any other scientific theory, it is not the absolute, entire and final description of the universe. Because it is a scientific theory, it contains certain assumptions and approximations of nature and ultimately, fails to describe several phenomena altogether (i.e. electromagnetism). Unfortunately, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, much like Darwin's Theory of Evolution, has become popularized as a "scientific truth" because it offers a simplified explanation to the complexity observed in the natural universe. In fact, Einstein himself spent the rest of his life attempting to develop a Unified Theory of Physics which would combine electromagnetism with relativity. He was unsuccessful and to date, this task has not been accomplished...

 

You could edit it in 5 min, but it would be corrected shortly after.

Here's why "all about science" is a ridiculous source: http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm

they actually validate intellegent design:
That site has an obvious agenda.

 

you could have just scanned the page into a jpg or something and cropped it. it's more believable that way. jk.

why are we still on about word definitions again?

 

I thought you would challenge the source. Here is a link pointing out flaws in the "Theory" of Relativity, from a more reputable source.
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/speed/fgr.html

My point is that it's a theory for a reason. I am not an intelligent design promoter, as a matter of fact I think it's brainwashing children with a religious spin on science. But I will remain firm in my stand that Theories are not absolute nor can they be considered facts. Like I stated many times before, they either have flaws or leave something unexplained. There are also countless theories that have been discredited over the years, I can pull those up for you as well. Your response would probably be that they were hypothesis and not theories, but we can debate that as well.

 

Are we talking valid scientific theories, or are we talking about more decrees from the Catholic Church or ideas from the 17th century? or anything else 300 years before the modern scientific method was concieved?

True statement, but not for the reason you think.

I will agree with this statment. They are living, working models that are updated as we get new information.

They aren't, but you seem to think that this makes them less important. When in fact, the opposite is true. There is nothing interesting about facts. Facts are used to support theories, but facts can't model and predict. They simply are.