Historic Moment For Humankind..

[walshie 2,804]

To all the theories above...prove it.

[paulus 26]

To all the theories above...prove it.

the faster you go the quicker you get there point proven

[walshie 2,804]

 

To all the theories above...prove it.

the faster you go the quicker you get there point proven

 

 

See? That's all I needed. Layman's terms.

[Tiercel 6,986]

 

 

To all the theories above...prove it.

the faster you go the quicker you get there point proven

 

 

See? That's all I needed. Layman's terms.

 

What about Einstein's special theory of relativity?

 

TC

Edited September 13, 2013 by tiercel

[johnny boy68 11,726]

What about dark matter?????

[Tiercel 6,986]

What about dark matter?????

Is that Darth Vadors brother?

 

TC

[walshie 2,804]

The trouble with theories is that's all they are...theories. I have theories about lots of things but most of them are probably wrong.

[paulus 26]

What about dark matter?????

i pass that every sunday morning after a few ciders and a madras

[tinytiger 841]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY

[johnny boy68 11,726]

Here's some porn for the geeks !!

[Born Hunter 17,817]

The trouble with theories is that's all they are...theories. I have theories about lots of things but most of them are probably wrong.

 

Walshie, I beg to differ. You have hypotheses about many things, probably supported by varying degrees of evidence.

 

Scientific theories are supported by all the empiracal evidence we have, a lot of theoretical mathematics and years of academic discussion. They become theories the time honoured way by being tested by the scientific community.

 

What we are talking about here is the cosmological model, the exact model depends on a few things yet to be known and there are a few different hypotheses. I'm just telling you the general one. It's a fair bit different to "John, I have this theory that if we plug that wire into that gizmo, we'll get all those german porn channels for nowt!".

 

The cosmological scale makes gathering empirical evidence difficult. I can say the universe is like a baloon but I can't stick it under a microscope and show you. We're pretty shit hot these days with scientific theory though, how the hell can some boffin finish a shit load of algebra and say, "somewhere out there is a star that has collapsed in on itself so densely that gravity near the surface can suck in light"? Yet that chap has been proven right......

[johnny boy68 11,726]

 

The trouble with theories is that's all they are...theories. I have theories about lots of things but most of them are probably wrong.

 

Walshie, I beg to differ. You have hypotheses about many things, probably supported by varying degrees of evidence.

 

Scientific theories are supported by all the empiracal evidence we have, a lot of theoretical mathematics and years of academic discussion. They become theories the time honoured way by being tested by the scientific community.

 

What we are talking about here is the cosmological model, the exact model depends on a few things yet to be known and there are a few different hypotheses. I'm just telling you the general one. It's a fair bit different to "John, I have this theory that if we plug that wire into that gizmo, we'll get all those german porn channels for nowt!".

 

The cosmological scale makes gathering empirical evidence difficult. I can say the universe is like a baloon but I can't stick it under a microscope and show you. We're pretty shit hot these days with scientific theory though, how the hell can some boffin finish a shit load of algebra and say, "somewhere out there is a star that has collapsed in on itself so densely that gravity near the surface can suck in light"? Yet that chap has been proven right......

 

 

I'm glad you cleared that up.

[walshie 2,804]

 

The trouble with theories is that's all they are...theories. I have theories about lots of things but most of them are probably wrong.

 

Walshie, I beg to differ. You have hypotheses about many things, probably supported by varying degrees of evidence.

 

Scientific theories are supported by all the empiracal evidence we have, a lot of theoretical mathematics and years of academic discussion. They become theories the time honoured way by being tested by the scientific community.

 

What we are talking about here is the cosmological model, the exact model depends on a few things yet to be known and there are a few different hypotheses. I'm just telling you the general one. It's a fair bit different to "John, I have this theory that if we plug that wire into that gizmo, we'll get all those german porn channels for nowt!".

 

The cosmological scale makes gathering empirical evidence difficult. I can say the universe is like a baloon but I can't stick it under a microscope and show you. We're pretty shit hot these days with scientific theory though, how the hell can some boffin finish a shit load of algebra and say, "somewhere out there is a star that has collapsed in on itself so densely that gravity near the surface can suck in light"? Yet that chap has been proven right......

 

 

Hmm. I understand where you're coming from BH, but because these theories are supported by other theories, "empirical evidence we have" and theoretical mathematics, the result must be an educuated guess at best rather than firm evidence of what is happening. I'm not saying the theories are wrong, I'm just saying they are only theories rather than proven facts.

If you put an item under a microscope and tell me it's made up of so-and-so, that's not a theory, it's a fact. Telling me what something may or may not be made of when it's millions of miles away is a "best guess" scenario.

[Malt 379]

 

 

The trouble with theories is that's all they are...theories. I have theories about lots of things but most of them are probably wrong.

 

Walshie, I beg to differ. You have hypotheses about many things, probably supported by varying degrees of evidence.

 

Scientific theories are supported by all the empiracal evidence we have, a lot of theoretical mathematics and years of academic discussion. They become theories the time honoured way by being tested by the scientific community.

 

What we are talking about here is the cosmological model, the exact model depends on a few things yet to be known and there are a few different hypotheses. I'm just telling you the general one. It's a fair bit different to "John, I have this theory that if we plug that wire into that gizmo, we'll get all those german porn channels for nowt!".

 

The cosmological scale makes gathering empirical evidence difficult. I can say the universe is like a baloon but I can't stick it under a microscope and show you. We're pretty shit hot these days with scientific theory though, how the hell can some boffin finish a shit load of algebra and say, "somewhere out there is a star that has collapsed in on itself so densely that gravity near the surface can suck in light"? Yet that chap has been proven right......

Hmm. I understand where you're coming from BH, but because these theories are supported by other theories, "empirical evidence we have" and theoretical mathematics, the result must be an educuated guess at best rather than firm evidence of what is happening. I'm not saying the theories are wrong, I'm just saying they are only theories rather than proven facts.

If you put an item under a microscope and tell me it's made up of so-and-so, that's not a theory, it's a fact. Telling me what something may or may not be made of when it's millions of miles away is a "best guess" scenario.

Not really.. They can be pretty damn sure of what the object is made of due to the characteristics of the light it gives off. Certain materials have signatures that can only come from those certain materials and nothing else..

[walshie 2,804]

 

 

 

The trouble with theories is that's all they are...theories. I have theories about lots of things but most of them are probably wrong.

Walshie, I beg to differ. You have hypotheses about many things, probably supported by varying degrees of evidence.

 

Scientific theories are supported by all the empiracal evidence we have, a lot of theoretical mathematics and years of academic discussion. They become theories the time honoured way by being tested by the scientific community.

 

What we are talking about here is the cosmological model, the exact model depends on a few things yet to be known and there are a few different hypotheses. I'm just telling you the general one. It's a fair bit different to "John, I have this theory that if we plug that wire into that gizmo, we'll get all those german porn channels for nowt!".

 

The cosmological scale makes gathering empirical evidence difficult. I can say the universe is like a baloon but I can't stick it under a microscope and show you. We're pretty shit hot these days with scientific theory though, how the hell can some boffin finish a shit load of algebra and say, "somewhere out there is a star that has collapsed in on itself so densely that gravity near the surface can suck in light"? Yet that chap has been proven right......

Hmm. I understand where you're coming from BH, but because these theories are supported by other theories, "empirical evidence we have" and theoretical mathematics, the result must be an educuated guess at best rather than firm evidence of what is happening. I'm not saying the theories are wrong, I'm just saying they are only theories rather than proven facts.

If you put an item under a microscope and tell me it's made up of so-and-so, that's not a theory, it's a fact. Telling me what something may or may not be made of when it's millions of miles away is a "best guess" scenario.

Not really.. They can be pretty damn sure of what the object is made of due to the characteristics of the light it gives off. Certain materials have signatures that can only come from those certain materials and nothing else..

 

 

Beg to disagree yet again. Certain materials WE KNOW of have certain signatures. There may well be stuff out there that has nothing to do with what we know, so x planet is probably made of whatever material, but no way is that a fact.

 

I think we are being tremendously arrogant to assume everything in the universe consists of stuff we understand. I have seen programs saying there might have been life on whatever planet once because there are signs of water. What's that got to do with anything? Just because WE need water, air and moderate temperatures doesn't mean that life on another planet needs it. There might well be life on many planets that thrive on living in minus 200 degree temperatures, and eat acid, but water and light would kill them stone dead.

 

I'm sorry, but these theories are based on what we know and understand from a couple of hundred years of scientific studies, and if everything in space conformed to our knowledge as it is right now, then the are most probably correct. But still theories.