Theory As Science

Discussion in 'Science & Nature' started by Martin Alonzo, May 10, 2016.

  1. Martin Alonzo

    Martin Alonzo Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,735
    Likes Received:
    2,479
    Has science been misleading us by making guesses and calling it science?

    First was the idea of all life is due to the sun. They have found life at the bottom of the ocean at the cracks in the continental plates and there is a whole community of life that are feeding on the hydrocarbons coming up. This mired of life has nothing to do with the sun.
    Oil was made from decaying matter over millions of years. Now they have found oil in abundance far beyond this point in the earth and now thing the earth itself makes oil.
    The sun the science came up with a theory that it was an atomic furnace and was accepted but all the proof that this is true did not happen and that brought into question if it is true. There is a new theory that it might be something like a large capacitor and the light is caused by arcing of the electricity.
    One very interesting video that showed up on the internet showing something about the size of the earth coming close to the sun and it looks like it is feeding on the energy of the sun. Electric sun?

     
    #1
    Harry Kemp likes this.
  2. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    7,454
    Likes Received:
    9,813
    When a scientific theory becomes political, they call it settled science. Well, if it's settled, then it's not science.
     
    #2
    Martin Alonzo likes this.
  3. Harry Kemp

    Harry Kemp Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    May 5, 2016
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    63
    As I understand it, a basic tenet of science is that a theory has to be disprovable. Any theory is a ' best fit' guess, based on the facts available and can be modified or rejected by future research. A good example, perhaps, is the atomic theory. The idea that atoms were indivisible and fundamental was discarded after splitting the atom and a better understanding of radioactivity. However the basic idea has remained the same.
     
    #3
    Frank Sanoica likes this.
  4. Frank Sanoica

    Frank Sanoica Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,835
    Likes Received:
    3,427
    @Harry Kemp I really meld with what you are saying regarding theory and proven fact. Have you a background in the scientific area encompassing such thought?

    I am especially interested in nuclear particle physics and resolution of the question of why neutron capture by various elements seems extremely unpredictable.

    Frank
     
    #4
    Harry Kemp likes this.
  5. Harry Kemp

    Harry Kemp Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    May 5, 2016
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    63
    @Frank Sanoica , thank you cordially for your post. I thought about and wondered if what I had written might sound like the pompous wittering of some would-be know-it-all, when it was intended as a neutral comment. You're right I do have a small scientific background, I have a BSc honours in Chemistry, sadly unused!
    Nuclear physics is fascinating - it seems to me though the theory is way behind the practical research, as they seem unable to explain why this isotope is more stable than that, although I may be totally wrong as I remember they said in the '70s they expected an "island of stability" for elements with an atomic number 125, I.e. at least one isotope wouldn't be radioactive.
     
    #5

Share This Page