It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Name 1 valid scientific theory with no supporting evidence

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:12 PM
Well, I don't know if it would quyalify, since the only evidence for
it is super complex math, but String Theory.

I do believe in basic string theory though.

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 10:15 PM

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong

lets try Creationism

or even ID...
but really those don't count, because they aren't theories due to lacking evidence...
Opps, forgot the bible...

What does religion have to do with scientific theory????????????
I don't think it is on topic per say.

The speed of light is quantifiable. Strike number two.

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 07:04 AM

Originally posted by Valhall
I'd like to add to the list another theory that is now treated as a "science commodity", being used in a myriad of earth sciences as a means to validate other theories, has not been proven itself, and is based on a theory that also has not been proven (i.e. the Big Bang theory) and that's Carbon-14 dating. It's baseline is a double-edged sword with no proven blade:

1. That there was a Big Bang
2. That we know how much carbon was present at the moment of the Big Bang.

This is because you don't know how carbon dating works. It has nothing to do with the amount of carbon present after the Big Bang

Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years and would have long ago vanished from Earth were it not for the unremitting cosmic ray impacts on nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere, which forms more of the isotope. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons participate in the following reaction on one of the N atoms being knocked out of a Nitrogen (N2) molecule in the atmosphere:
1n + 14N → 14C + 1p

Originally posted by bothered
Sub-atomic particles (well, most of them). Particle or wave nature?

Do you have doubts about the dual nature of light? Because the same laws that apply to light apply also to the rest of the quatum why would light behave different?
You still doubt that? But do you also doubt the electron microscope?

Ruska had deduced that an electron microscope would be much more powerful than an ordinary optical microscope, because he knew that resolution increased with shorter wavelengths. Since electron waves were shorter than ordinary light waves, it followed that they would allow for greater magnification.

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 04:18 PM

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
what i'm trying to demonstrate is that scientific theories must be proven instead of propents of said theory simply disproving the other alternative(s) that we know of and using inductive reasoning to claim that it is true

And you're just choosing to ignore all the other responses to your OP? Could it perhaps because the thread didn't go as you planned, and people actually mentioned accepted scientific theories that they believe are not backed by evidence.

It's a shame really. You can't get much help in debunking something that should be pretty easily debunked.

Have you been to the Panda's Thumb?

no, i just wanted to start a thread, and monitor it for blatently not topical discussion, such as the mention of math.

when i start a thread, i don't like to respond to the rest of the posts, it makes me feel a little egocentric

posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 03:47 AM

Originally posted by Apass

Originally posted by bothered
Sub-atomic particles (well, most of them). Particle or wave nature?

Do you have doubts about the dual nature of light? Because the same laws that apply to light apply also to the rest of the quatum why would light behave different?
You still doubt that? But do you also doubt the electron microscope?

I'm not talking about the theory of photons, but the nature of sub-atomic particles.
If you do not feel that they are mostly theoretical, I need your data, please.

posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 01:55 PM

Originally posted by bothered
...but the nature of sub-atomic particles.

By sub-atomic particles you mean quarks? Or waht?

posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Valhall

oops - there's not enough matter in the universe for the Big Bang Theory!

That's because there's hidden matter, yeah, that's it, just enough hidden matter to make it all work.

oops - there's not enough hidden matter in the universe for the Big Bang Theory!

Well, we probably just calculated how much we needed wrong...we'll get back with you.

oops - the expansion rate of the universe seems to be slowing down!

That's because we're a repeating Big Bang - we expand and contract - like a big squishy ball.

Actually, i believe current evidence seems to support that our universe is both expanding, and accelerating (not slowing down). This is an observable phenomenon and is measurable by utilizing the "Dopplar Effect" (sp?).

Anyway, here are some sources and links that talk about it:


Back in the Feb. 27, 98 issue of the journal of ‘SCIENCE’ reported, a team of astronomers were suprised to discover that - billions of light years out in the universe - the galaxies are actually accelerating. This was completely unexpected since they thought they would find them coasting or slowing. Dr. Riess of Berkeley said to the effect, there is nothing to account for this acceleration except possibly, Einstein’s "cosmological constant" (which Einstein himself, ultimately rejected).

Another Source/Link:

All distant galaxies are moving away from us and moving faster all the time. Few researchers debate this point. Few have predicted its ultimate consequence quantitatively as Loeb did.
Eventually, Loeb says, galaxies will recede at the speed of light, making it impossible for their light -- or any other radiation or information -- to traverse the cosmos to our home in the Milky Way Galaxy.
"Any given source accelerates away from us and eventually reaches a speed larger than the speed of light so that photons emitted from it cannot catch up with the cosmic expansion, relative to us," he said.
Already, galaxies more than 6 or 7 billion light-years away are beyond contact, Loeb figures. Such galaxies, measured by astronomers to have a redshift of 2 or more, will not be able to transmit any signal to us in the future due to the accelerated expansion of the universe.

Other Sources/Links:

To answer the original author's post in this thread:
"Name 1 valid scientific theory with no supporting evidence"

All theories have no supporting evidence, at first. How can one know what they are observing without anything to relate it to?

I am convinced that when it comes to the perspective of humans, and of humanity, that Science Fiction has always predated Science Fact.

No Science has been proven as fact, without first having been Science Fiction.

[edit on 3-9-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]

posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Apass

Originally posted by bothered
...but the nature of sub-atomic particles.

By sub-atomic particles you mean quarks? Or waht?

Take your pick among the leptons, baryons, mesons. I studied a little at one time. Of course I'm sure a lot of those theories no longer hold.
Things like the "Uncertainty Principle" spring to my mind.

I can't get long winded right now, because I admit that I did not finish the course due to unpreventable circumstances. I do recall, however, that we were told that almost the entire of several theories was unsubstantiated by direct observation.

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 05:35 AM
link mentioned leptons....and it happens that electrons are leptons...which brings us back at the electron microscope that takes advantage of the dual nature of particles/waves.
As for the Heisenberg's incertitude principle that's not that hard (for me) the apprehend. You can't determine the exact position of a particle at a certain moment just because of the dual nature of that particle. Even in the macrospopic world it's impossible to determine the precise position of a moving object at a certain moment of time (one limit could be the resolution of your measuring equipment wich is limited/discrete, but the position in space/time is continous, though the Heisenberg principle doesn't apply at the macroscopic level)

Edited to add
The problem here is that we are used to see the world at a macroscopic level and therefore it's hard for us to understant the quantum level. At quantum level it is more appropriate to say you have a quantum object that in certain conditions behaves as a particle and in others behaves as a wave.
Another exemple of particle/wave behavior would be the Casimir effect

The effect was predicted by the Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir in 1948. According to the quantum theory, the vacuum contains virtual particles which are in a continuous state of fluctuation (see physics FAQ article on virtual particles). Casimir realised that between two plates, only those virtual photons whose wavelengths fit a whole number of times into the gap should be counted when calculating the vacuum energy.

[edit on 4-9-2006 by Apass]

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 08:06 AM
The initiation of this thread was for Theory with no supporting evidence. I studied Modern Physics until something came up, and the whole while I never got anything concrete and had to be exposed to countless differing theories on the same subject.

Knowing that Science is based on re-creatable evidence, I'll have to state that in particle Physics, the only data that is substantial is from Super Colliders. And that is not well understood (at least that's what I hear). These theories are being established, and it is a best guess scenario. Not to much in the way of concrete evidence.

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:02 AM
Well, I don't know what to say...the prediction of hydrogen emission spectra even by Bohr's early atomic model isn't enough? The electron microscope isn't enough? The LASER, the MASER, the LED, the LASER diode, the A bomb, the nuclear power plant/chain reaction, the H bomb, the Cherenkov radiation, the Compton effect, the Stark effect, the Zeeman effect, the Casimir effect, the photelectric cells, cosmic radiation, aren't enough? OK, these do not deal with the top quark, charm quark or the strange quark, or with the Higgs boson, but they are all explained by the same theory as these last ones.

edited for spell check

[edit on 5-9-2006 by Apass]

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:55 PM
Having had Bohr mentioned, I just read a little of his biography in the book I studied from. It seems he did make a large contribution to THEORETICAL Nuclear Physics, with an emphasis on theoretical.

As I understood it, a main theory was developed, then a hypothesis as to why, then a postulate to try and develop something "real world" (hence your LASERS and such).

I'm not arguing things don't get developed, they certainly do, but it's like the 'light switch' principle. People know how to turn on the lights, but do they really know what all takes place. In real world application, usually a desired effect is achieved, and then latter data is compiled to help explain it.

You keep mentioning quarks: Could you explain QCD (quantum chromodynamics) to me? I admit I have a little trouble grasping the THEORY.

[edit on 9/5/2006 by bothered]

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 07:49 AM
Theoretical nuclear know, there's also Newton's gravitational theory! The word theory does not mean that there are no proofs! The word theory defines a set of laws and rules that describes certain phenomena. There is also applied nuclear physics (the A bomb, for instance). Theoretical and applied nuclear physics are just branches of nuclear physics. Applied nuclear physics uses results of the theoretical branch (ie for the construction of lasers) and the theoretical branch uses some applied physics results for confirmation/infirmation of a model (ie Bohr's atomic model).
As for the Bohr's postulates, try this:

An axiom is a sentence or proposition that is accepted as the first and last line of a one-line proof and is considered as obvious or as an initial necessary consensus for the theory building or acceptation. Therefore, it is taken for granted as true, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferencing other truths.

So...if you don't agree with them, then you won't agree also the euclidean geometry since is based on few axioms.
As for the quantum chromodynamics, I haven't studied it so I can't make an argument around it. But ones failure to understand a theory doesn't invalidate that theory, nor means that the theory has no supporting evidence. Like you said, if you don't know how the light switch works, it doesn't mean that there is no theory to explain it and that can make predictions about the light bulb and the switch.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Apass]

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 08:57 AM
I'm quite capable of understanding theory, and it's considerations.
However, consider the gravity you mentioned. It's accepted as fact, but explain the true nature of it. Why can't it be manipulated? Gravity is a force that acts on all bodies, but the underlying nature of it is not well understood. We won't discuss field gravity, because this is accepted as a "valid scientific theory with no supporting evidence".

The point I'm making is Science is largely theoretical. My main studies are Astro-Physical Phenomenon (applied < joke!). If you could pull from your books a theory on Astrophysics, and give me a sample of your evidence, I'd much appreciate it.

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:36 AM
The apple falls from the tree. Why? Because gravity works.
The apple touches the ground with this speed. The apple stays in the air this amount of time.
OK, you need the universal gravity constant for the calculations and you can't explain the force (field).
But like I said... nobody doubts the euclid's geometry. What if you could draw two different parallel lines to another line through the same point? The simple fact that you can't do such a thing is proof enough for eucildean geometry. But explain me why you can't draw those 2 different parallels trough the same point! When you do that in a way that I can't argue, I will accept that gravity is only a theory (and that apples do not fall from the apple-tree)

Edited to add:
A theory with no supporting evidence is that the moon landings are fake.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Apass]

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 03:39 AM
I didn't say gravity was only a theory, but that it is not understood.
Yes, it's recognized as a force, but no one nows the mechanism.
*To stir up the conversation, I believe Gravity is a combination of forces (as most distance related phenomenon are), and that there is an association with an unknown state of matter.*

I know the gravitational constant is:

G=6.672X10(-11) Nm^2/kg^2
but, this is determined experimentally. There's no sound principle which yields this number exactly.

Maybe we're getting caught up on symantics. I never stated there is no scientific fact. I merely provided examples that are accepted as being true, but theoretical in nature.

You know of course the Scientific Method. The following is an excerpt from

The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following:

1 Characterizations (Quantifications, observations, and measurements)
2 Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)
3 Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from hypotheses and theories)
4 Experiments (tests of all of the above)

Whereas to state, I've always held Scientific Explanation as the state of re-creating an observed characteristic, that is defineable, and has expected outcomes.

Nothing is concrete, else man was not meant to fly, the world is flat, and the Earth is the center of the Universe. All of which, believe it or not, were once scientific fact, where derivation from (with ties to the Church at the time) was punishable by death, due to Heresy.

Obviously, I have little influence on the notion "you can't know anything, absolutely", but I have come to learn little is understood these days and it is more an act of attitude for hire.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:43 PM
Here is an example of a theory that is not based on any evidence. "Brane Theory"
There has been a lot of talk about it recently.

This is a relatively new theory about how the universe began. Michael Turner, University of Chicago cosmologist made the statement, " "It's almost crazy enough to be correct."

First of all there is no evidence that our four-dimensional membrane is embedded in a five-dimensional 'bulk' space, with another membrane poised to collide with ours resulting in a "Big Bang" so to speak.

Scientists do not now have nor do they anticipate any method or test to prove this theory to be true.

Second, Robert Roy Britt, the Senior Science Writer for states that the new theory is full of complex math and obscure concepts. Yet scientists do not yet have the math to completely explain our own universe let alone a different universe located on another Membrane embedded in a "theoretical 5th dimension.
How could they know whether the laws of physics were the same or even close to ours?
Pure conjecture. I will be the first to admit that is is indeed a brilliant idea, however, as of yet there is no evidence to support it.

Here is a link.

[edit on 8-9-2006 by Sparky63]

[edit on 8-9-2006 by Sparky63]

[edit on 8-9-2006 by Sparky63]

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:46 PM

While it seems you have enough to work on.. how about Hawking,s radiation..

As Black holes have never actually been proved to exist..How can a theory about a non-existent anomally exist also?

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:11 PM
The fantasy of evolution is falling apart, and scientists are not quite sure what to stick in its place. Evolutionists also are not understanding that Atomism has been refuted and that evolution, as it is generally taught that we move from a state of less complexion to more complexion, violates the second law of thermodynamics which states something of the opposite effect.

Another good example of Ghostwriting is the use of Fluoride in the water. Take a look at the molecule of it and tell me that scientifically speaking, it is needed for our health and thus added to the drinking water. Last time I checked H2O worked just fine by itself but somehow scientists are like many other human beings and decided to either be lazy or not do their homework, or they sold out.

2 basic forms of stupidity shown manifesting, but there are so many more examples

posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
The fantasy of evolution is falling apart, and scientists are not quite sure what to stick in its place.

Yeah, I never really fell for that whole evolution thing. Considering the first few finds were proven fakes. It all began with the search for the "missing link", and people were sticking chicken bones together to try and drum up publicity for there town.
Next thing you know, we're discovering creatures that obviously should be more resilient than we, but yet died out.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in