It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Sun four days off center in the solar system?

page: 13
14
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee
Don't think the user was a scientist but it is an acceptable use of the word.


Only if you're not using it in a scientific context. A theory in science is a totally different thing than a random conjecture.

Just because the word's got more than one meaning doesn't mean you get to apply it outside of context.

You probably don't use "work" the way I would in that context, either.




posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Char-Lee
Don't think the user was a scientist but it is an acceptable use of the word.


Only if you're not using it in a scientific context. A theory in science is a totally different thing than a random conjecture.

Just because the word's got more than one meaning doesn't mean you get to apply it outside of context.

You probably don't use "work" the way I would in that context, either.

Lol but it was not used outside context when it was jumped on, sometimes I think people let the words get in the way of a great discussion...

Maybe we should all lighten-up a bit we are not on campus.



posted on Mar, 22 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee

Words matter. Using clear and consistent definitions for the appropriate context is important for having a discussion. The post you originally responded was CLEARLY using the definition within the scientific context, so you decide to post a different, contextually inappropriate definition is response? This achieves nothing but derailing the discussion and pointlessly muddying the waters.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: AgentSmith

your only presenting another theory that has not been proven by fact.

so it has about as much support as the Bibles version of creation.


Actually, you are presenting a hypothesis not a theory, and the reasoning behind planetary motions isn't based on just Scientific Theory. It's based in Scientific Laws. Have you not heard of Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion?


Well actually the word can be used many ways. List...
Full Definition of THEORY
www.merriam-webster.com...
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture


Except Scientists are VERY clear about their definition of theory. You can't just interject your own version when the people who are pushing the idea have a defined definition for it so that they can describe their ideas. This isn't religion. You don't pick and choose the words and definitions that YOU like. You accept the ones that are given and interpret the evidence from there.



new topics

top topics
 
14
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join