Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: trevorjohnson32 on 10/03/2021 21:15:20
-
Are there any theories in science or physics that you don't agree with? which one's and why?
-
You just asked people what they want to brag about being wrong about.
You seem to support a false theory about the use of the apostrophe.
Are there any theories in science or physics that you don't agree with? which one's and why?
-
You just asked people what they want to brag about being wrong about.
You seem to support a false theory about the use of the apostrophe.
Are there any theories in science or physics that you don't agree with? which one's and why?
sounds like you are saying that all theories are true and people who disagree with them just don't understand them. Whatever you just said It was mistaken to my intentions in asking the OP.
-
I'm saying you don't know what "theory" means.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
So, what you are asking for in your OP is people who don't believe " an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and verified ".
That's pretty much asking people to say "I'm wrong about such-and-such".
-
I once read something to the effect that "all models are wrong", it's just that some are much less wrong and far more useful than others (I know "theory" and "model" aren't quite synonyms, but I suppose it's close enough for discussion purposes).
-
@trevorjohnson32
Hi.
Perhaps you should have created this OP in the " New Theories " section.
Maybe you would have got more & better responses.
👍
P.S. - ✌️
-
Great!
Now the OP is in the Right place where one can speak up freely about personal point of views that do not match up with the views of the masses in general.
👍
I DisAgree that the Universe is Infinite.
👎
Surely it is expanding beyond our comprehension...but Our InAbility to find the Edge can Not be ascertained to defining this is an edgeless universe.
P.S. - Just bcoz every Fruit on the Table seems Spherical in nature does Not mean that the Fruit Plate cannot be Rectangular.
💠
-
Great!
Now the OP is in the Right place where one can speak up freely about personal point of views that do not match up with the views of the masses in general.
👍
I DisAgree that the Universe is Infinite.
👎
Surely it is expanding beyond our comprehension...but Our InAbility to find the Edge can Not be ascertained to defining this is an edgeless universe.
P.S. - Just bcoz every Fruit on the Table seems Spherical in nature does Not mean that the Fruit Plate cannot be Rectangular.
💠
If the universe has walls, then what are the walls made of? I agree that its probably finite. Who says its infinite?
This goes back to my atomic pit theory. The universe is a block of matter to an outside universe and most likely makes up an atomic nucleus. If the atomic nucleus is just another universe, what's to prevent space from mixing in with the nucleus as it is just space pressure that makes the nucleus? It seems probable that space can't be broken down into smaller parts and the universe is unbreakable.
-
If the universe has walls, then what are the walls made of? I agree that its probably finite.
It doesn't have to have walls to be finite. It could be a hypersphere of finite diameter, where travelling in one direction long enough puts you back where you began (similar to how a plane can fly in a "straight" line around the Earth and arrive back at its starting point).
-
This goes back to my atomic pit theory.
So your idea (it's no a theory) is based on you not understanding the difference between "finite" and "bounded".
I guess that's progress of a sort.
-
If the universe has walls, then what are the walls made of? I agree that its probably finite.
It doesn't have to have walls to be finite. It could be a hypersphere of finite diameter, where travelling in one direction long enough puts you back where you began (similar to how a plane can fly in a "straight" line around the Earth and arrive back at its starting point).
A plane travels around the earth, if your plane was travelling around the perimeter of the universe tiwould arrive back where it was, but not if its travelling through the universe.
-
You're speaking of the Universe as if it was a sphere. I, on the other hand, was speaking of the Universe as a hypersphere.
-
The Actual density of the universe VS the Critical density...
&
Considering the Universe is flat with Only a 0.4% margin of error...
🤔
Perhaps i should introspect on my own Conclusions.
👍
P.S. - " If Reality does Not Agree with You...it isn't Reality that's making a Mistake. "
B.C.!
-
Are there any theories in science or physics that you don't agree with? which one's and why?
There are many scientific theories in the past that have been refuted, such as phlogiston, many atomic theories, and many electromagnetic theories. There are also geocentric and heliocentric theories of cosmos.
If you are talking about scientific theories which are still widely thought in school as something unrefuted, I think I can point out the usage of Huygen's principle to explain optical diffraction.
There are some reasons:
It can't explain the diffraction results of vertically tilted as well as horizontally tilted appertures.
It can't explain why single slit apperture produces similar diffraction-interference pattern as thin wire.
-
There are some reasons:
It can't explain the diffraction results of vertically tilted as well as horizontally tilted appertures.
It can't explain why single slit apperture produces similar diffraction-interference pattern as thin wire.
It is precisely because we know of those sorts of exceptions that Huygens's construction is not a "theory" in physics.
-
A principle is a fundamental part of a theory. If it is refuted, then any theories based upon that principle are refuted as well. Some theories may use more than one principles at once. Some examples are conservation of momentum, constancy of light speed. Some other known principles are Fermat's, Huygens', and Babinet's principles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle
A first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. In philosophy, first principles are from First Cause[1] attitudes and taught by Aristotelians, and nuanced versions of first principles are referred to as postulates by Kantians.[2] In mathematics, first principles are referred to as axioms or postulates. In physics and other sciences, theoretical work is said to be from first principles, or ab initio, if it starts directly at the level of established science and does not make assumptions such as empirical model and parameter fitting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity
In physics, Albert Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity is derived from first principles now called the postulates of special relativity. Einstein's formulation only uses two postulates, though his derivation implies a few more assumptions.
https://sciencing.com/kinetics-vs-kinematics-whats-the-difference-why-it-matters-13720229.html
-
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
-
There are some reasons:
It can't explain the diffraction results of vertically tilted as well as horizontally tilted appertures.
It can't explain why single slit apperture produces similar diffraction-interference pattern as thin wire.
It is precisely because we know of those sorts of exceptions that Huygens's construction is not a "theory" in physics.
Huygens's construction is called principle because it cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. Not because it's demonstrably false.
A theory can still be shown to be false when adequate evidences contradict it.
-
A theory can still be shown to be false
At that point, it stops being a scientific theory.
-
A theory can still be shown to be false
At that point, it stops being a scientific theory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science
In science, a theory is superseded when a scientific consensus once widely accepted it, but current science considers it inadequate, incomplete, or debunked (i.e., wrong). Such labels do not cover protoscientific or fringe science theories that have never had broad support within the scientific community. Furthermore, superseded or obsolete theories exclude theories that were never widely accepted by the scientific community. Some theories that were only supported under specific political authorities, such as Lysenkoism, may also be described as obsolete or superseded.
Some theories have been discovered to be incomplete or not hold precisely, but remain in use as practical approximations. For example, all of Newtonian physics is satisfactory for most purposes, and so is widely used except at velocities that are a significant fraction of the speed of light. It is also simpler than relativistic mechanics and so is usually taught in schools. Another case is the belief that the Earth is approximately flat. For centuries, people have known that a flat Earth model produces errors in long-distance calculations, but considering local-scale areas as flat for the purposes of mapping and surveying does not introduce significant errors.
In some cases, a theory or idea is found baseless and is simply discarded. For example, the phlogiston theory was entirely replaced by the quite different concept of energy and related laws. In other cases an existing theory is replaced by a new theory that retains significant elements of the earlier theory; in these cases, the older theory is often still useful for many purposes, and may be more easily understood than the complete theory and lead to simpler calculations. An example of this is the use of Newtonian physics, which differs from the currently accepted relativistic physics by a factor that is negligibly small at velocities much lower than that of light.
It seems that the difference is semantic.
Some scientists think that string theories are not scientific.
-
We need to learn from someone else's mistake, cause we won't have enough time to do all of those mistakes ourselves.