|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:28 pm
Get the ******** out of here.
That's funny, I like that. XD
The only difference, though, is that you are thinking in distance instead of just time. The moment that stick was moved, it moved.
But if that stick was moved ten million years before humans existed, could we have said we saw that stick move?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:17 pm
Captain_Shinzo Get the ******** out of here.
That's funny, I like that. XD
The only difference, though, is that you are thinking in distance instead of just time. The moment that stick was moved, it moved.
But if that stick was moved ten million years before humans existed, could we have said we saw that stick move?
None of that matters Stare-dad as I have invented a vehicle that can travel at the speed of light 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:23 pm
Lol...when did this thread turn into a cartoon show xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:39 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:51 pm
Captain_Shinzo Obscurus If theories were concrete fact then they wouldn't change over time. That's why they're called theories instead of laws (even though they are based on "laws"). String Theory is hardly fact. In actuality, there's almost no way to determine if it's true or false (which flies in the face of the scientific method), yet it's still considered a contender for the "Theory of Everything." Theories help us explain observations; they are not immutable laws.
It doesn't use a set of facts to tie an idea together. It was more of an idea that sprung up.
But even if that IS the case, we aren't arguing what theories are, we are arguing of evidence for theories.
That's why I was saying that believing dragons were brought by aliens and taken away could make sense. However, there are no facts, evidences, or anything leading to believing that idea. My point is to show why even believe in it.
Gravity has evidence to back it up. If I kick a rock, it will mathematically fall into place by the forces that act upon it and the medium it is in. That is not only sensible, it is provable.
Forgive me for mistaking with the RELIGIOUS string theory. That was my first thought hearing that. However, the other one I read up still has little backing it up to be called a theory.
My understanding is that String Theory is based on complex mathematics, like most of theoretical physics. That mathematics has been developed from previous discoveries and experiments. It has sufficient backing to be taken seriously by mainstream science despite having no experimental evidence and seemingly no way to test it. The theory of gravity has been devised to explain the phenomenon that we call gravity. They are not one in the same. Even so, our theory of gravity has some holes in it, the Pioneer anomalies being a huge example. Also, please tell me that we're not trying to have a serious discussion about troll physics. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 10:15 am
Obscurus Captain_Shinzo Obscurus If theories were concrete fact then they wouldn't change over time. That's why they're called theories instead of laws (even though they are based on "laws"). String Theory is hardly fact. In actuality, there's almost no way to determine if it's true or false (which flies in the face of the scientific method), yet it's still considered a contender for the "Theory of Everything." Theories help us explain observations; they are not immutable laws.
It doesn't use a set of facts to tie an idea together. It was more of an idea that sprung up.
But even if that IS the case, we aren't arguing what theories are, we are arguing of evidence for theories.
That's why I was saying that believing dragons were brought by aliens and taken away could make sense. However, there are no facts, evidences, or anything leading to believing that idea. My point is to show why even believe in it.
Gravity has evidence to back it up. If I kick a rock, it will mathematically fall into place by the forces that act upon it and the medium it is in. That is not only sensible, it is provable.
Forgive me for mistaking with the RELIGIOUS string theory. That was my first thought hearing that. However, the other one I read up still has little backing it up to be called a theory.
My understanding is that String Theory is based on complex mathematics, like most of theoretical physics. That mathematics has been developed from previous discoveries and experiments. It has sufficient backing to be taken seriously by mainstream science despite having no experimental evidence and seemingly no way to test it. The theory of gravity has been devised to explain the phenomenon that we call gravity. They are not one in the same. Even so, our theory of gravity has some holes in it, the Pioneer anomalies being a huge example. Also, please tell me that we're not trying to have a serious discussion about troll physics. xd
The definition of theory is really general when it comes to the world of science. It can be so vague in some cases, and sometimes it is controversy to even call something a theory.
When we look at String Theory, we have to look at also the mathematics and formulas behind it. Problem is, this very detail makes String Theory hard. Complex math is just like rules of the English Language: For every rule, there is a rule defying that rule and something that exceeds the rule for little to no reason.
Math in science is best used to measure or describe specific observations or possibilities. However, it fails when it's made as a base.
Reason? In math, there are rules to math.
In science, math IS the rule.
But, again, we are off topic. We aren't talking about theories or what deserves to be a theory.
We are talking about WHY an idea that was suddenly taken off the top of the head should be taken seriously if there is nothing to back it up. Why is that one part in here being avoided? :S
I ask this question, and I get answers telling me everything doesn't have proof. BUT, that's nothing near answering my question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 10:04 pm
Captain_Shinzo Obscurus Captain_Shinzo Obscurus If theories were concrete fact then they wouldn't change over time. That's why they're called theories instead of laws (even though they are based on "laws"). String Theory is hardly fact. In actuality, there's almost no way to determine if it's true or false (which flies in the face of the scientific method), yet it's still considered a contender for the "Theory of Everything." Theories help us explain observations; they are not immutable laws.
It doesn't use a set of facts to tie an idea together. It was more of an idea that sprung up.
But even if that IS the case, we aren't arguing what theories are, we are arguing of evidence for theories.
That's why I was saying that believing dragons were brought by aliens and taken away could make sense. However, there are no facts, evidences, or anything leading to believing that idea. My point is to show why even believe in it.
Gravity has evidence to back it up. If I kick a rock, it will mathematically fall into place by the forces that act upon it and the medium it is in. That is not only sensible, it is provable.
Forgive me for mistaking with the RELIGIOUS string theory. That was my first thought hearing that. However, the other one I read up still has little backing it up to be called a theory.
My understanding is that String Theory is based on complex mathematics, like most of theoretical physics. That mathematics has been developed from previous discoveries and experiments. It has sufficient backing to be taken seriously by mainstream science despite having no experimental evidence and seemingly no way to test it. The theory of gravity has been devised to explain the phenomenon that we call gravity. They are not one in the same. Even so, our theory of gravity has some holes in it, the Pioneer anomalies being a huge example. Also, please tell me that we're not trying to have a serious discussion about troll physics. xd
The definition of theory is really general when it comes to the world of science. It can be so vague in some cases, and sometimes it is controversy to even call something a theory.
When we look at String Theory, we have to look at also the mathematics and formulas behind it. Problem is, this very detail makes String Theory hard. Complex math is just like rules of the English Language: For every rule, there is a rule defying that rule and something that exceeds the rule for little to no reason.
Math in science is best used to measure or describe specific observations or possibilities. However, it fails when it's made as a base.
Reason? In math, there are rules to math.
In science, math IS the rule.
But, again, we are off topic. We aren't talking about theories or what deserves to be a theory.
We are talking about WHY an idea that was suddenly taken off the top of the head should be taken seriously if there is nothing to back it up. Why is that one part in here being avoided? :S
I ask this question, and I get answers telling me everything doesn't have proof. BUT, that's nothing near answering my question.Eh, I don't really have an opinion on whether dragons exist or not, or ever have. I've just been playing devil's advocate in this thread for a long time. rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:07 pm
Obscurus So you just make an appeal to authority then? I doubt that you have a Ph.D. in paleontology either. An appeal to the most credited website on the web is better than appealing to a creationist. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA118.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:16 pm
God Emperor Akhenaton Obscurus So you just make an appeal to authority then? I doubt that you have a Ph.D. in paleontology either. An appeal to the most credited website on the web is better than appealing to a creationist. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA118.html What are we talking about again? My quote is out of context so I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
