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.

 

theory??

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I am afriad some of you might not like this question, but I am wondering, why such things like the "theory of relativity" is still a theory? what is stopping it from becoming a Law? what parts of the puzzle are missing? because a theory, is not a truth, its an idea or how things work..gathered from fragments of truth. what have we encountered that that theory does not explain?




posted on May, 23 2006 @ 02:53 AM
link   
What you must understand is...

Everything in science and math other than 1+1=2 and 2X2=4 and 2 divide 4=2 is a theorem.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Looking at some of the things we call scientific 'laws', like Newton's Laws, the Laws of Thermodynamics, Ohm's Law, Kirchoff's Laws, and so forth, I think that the main criteria for something to be called a "Law" is for it to withstand the test of time. Newtonian mechanics, for example, has proven, with only a few relativistic corrections, to have worked for centuries. Relativity, on the other hand, was developed in the 20th century, and is still relatively (no pun intended) new.

Theories tend to be things that we reasonably can believe are true, but have not yet withstood the test of time. Things like quantum theory, the theory of relativity, the BCS theory of superconductivity, and so forth, are too new to have the same level of certainty that they are correct.

Also, in some cases, for a particular concept, we may have multiple theories, but there is only ever one Law for a concept. For example, there are several interpretations of quantum mechanics but only one Ohm's Law.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
As said, it needs to stand up to the facts 100% of the time.

Relativity actually doesn't do this.

Where doesn't it do this? At the realm of the very small...

Quantum Theory, on the other hand, explains things VERY well at the levels of the very small, but it's same theories fall apart at the macroscopic level.

Pat-ae-toe, Pat-aw-toe.

The two aren't the same
.

What we're trying to look for is a "Grand Unifying Theory" - which would become a law describing relative motion everywhere, at any scale, in the cosmos.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Theory, shmeory...


What does it matter? Similar to what Yarium correctly stated, this is but a set of equations that have predictive power under a certain subset of conditions. And you know what? It's still all good. The rockets fly, the cars run and the computer you are typing at, is reasonably stable.

Calling it a law or a theory is like so immaterial...



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
What you must understand is...

Everything in science and math other than 1+1=2 and 2X2=4 and 2 divide 4=2 is a theorem.


I think those are actually based off of AXIOMS, not Theorems.

Axiom definition:
(logic) a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident

This link should work:
www.google.com...:axiom



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   
so everyones saying that the theory, is sound, but it needs to stand the test of time then? or is there certain issues that it dosent cover? does anyone have any input on what those areas are? because when i read up on issues like this they never say well, the theory is wrong for this particular instance.. they just say what they know.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join