speed of light

Originally posted by Retrovirus
Actually, Theory = "What we expect the perceived reality to be until proven otherwise" in this case.

I do not have issue one with someone telling me that they have a
theory about this, that, or the other thing. I have an issue when they
tell me this is real, because it fits their theory, it isn't real, it only fits
the theory, big difference.
Kelly

Originally posted by Retrovirus
Actually, Theory = "What we expect the perceived reality to be until proven otherwise" in this case.

Actually, I'd say Theory is more like "What we expect to happen based upon the tested and validated rules that we know exist".

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not have issue one with someone telling me that they have a
theory about this, that, or the other thing. I have an issue when they
tell me this is real, because it fits their theory, it isn't real, it only fits
the theory, big difference.
Kelly

I do not have issue one with someone telling me that they have a
theory about this, that, or the other thing.

I do. It shows they do not understand the technical meaning of the word. They should say they have an idea, or perhaps a hypothesis, if they can test it.


I have an issue when they tell me this is real, because it fits their theory, it isn't real, it only fits the theory, big difference.

Actually, I agree. However, since theories are comprised of lots and lots of information and observations, the chances that any given theory is wrong is very low (although not zero).

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not have issue one with someone telling me that they have a
theory about this, that, or the other thing. I have an issue when they
tell me this is real, because it fits their theory, it isn't real, it only fits
the theory, big difference.
Kelly

The day to day use of the word "theory" is unrelated to the scientific one.

A scientific theory is consistent scientific "world view" of some phenomenon that is based on a proven hypothesis and can make observable predictions - of which the results has never turn out to contradict it.

When someone says "I have this theory john is late because his car is broken" - well, that's not a theory, at best it can count as an hypothesis.

As you can see, theory can be easily discarded once a better theory comes along or when they are found to be incorrect.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I started off only saying, "in theory" and from there if you do not see
the disagreement I don't think I can add anything to this discussion to
enlighten you.
Kelly

OK; but would you respond the same way to the statement "The pen I am holding will fall to the ground when I drop it."? Can anything be accepted as fact? What criteria must it meet to do so?

You objected to the comparison of time dilation to posting on this forum because "we have a very firm handle on the internet,
we use it daily; however, can you count and tell me how many times
you have travelled the speed of life and seen time affected by
your travailing at that speed?" People then pointed out that time dilation is observed every time a particle accelerator or GPS satellite is used; in short, we have a very firm handle on it and use it daily. Why then do you not put it on the same footing as other observable phenomena?

Originally posted by Retrovirus
The day to day use of the word "theory" is unrelated to the scientific one.

A scientific theory is consistent scientific "world view" of some phenomenon that is based on a proven hypothesis and can make observable predictions - of which the results has never turn out to contradict it.

When someone says "I have this theory john is late because his c ...[text shortened]... easily discarded once a better theory comes along or when they are found to be incorrect.

Yes, when the theory and reality are shown to be two different
things it can just get altered too, not always thrown away even if it
should be thrown away. Even a wrong or bad theory can still advance
knowledge as a broken clock can be right too, which is why theories
are not always 'reality' as well.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, when the theory and reality are shown to be two different
things it can just get altered too, not always thrown away even if it
should be thrown away. Even a wrong or bad theory can still advance
knowledge as a broken clock can be right too, which is why theories
are not always 'reality' as well.
Kelly

Such as? An example please.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, when the theory and reality are shown to be two different
things it can just get altered too, not always thrown away even if it
should be thrown away. Even a wrong or bad theory can still advance
knowledge as a broken clock can be right too, which is why theories
are not always 'reality' as well.
Kelly

I do not see the conceptual difference between discarding an existing theory for a closely related one, to updating an existing theory.

Unless the replacing theory is profoundly different than the existing one, of course.

And while the Newtonian mechanic theory is still used, it is only because the implications of the theory of relativity are negligible for most uses.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Such as? An example please.

Which part do you want an example of?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Which part do you want an example of?
Kelly

Theory - reality disconnects would do nicely.

Although, I should be clear, I do not mean subjecting the theory to conditions where we know it doesn't work (for example, relativity doesn't work on the quantum scale), rather using the correct theory for the correct scenario. For example, when, at the planetary scale (or apple scale, you choose), does relativity not work? When is evolution not a good theory for the development of life on earth? Specific, concrete examples only please.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Theory - reality disconnects would do nicely.

Although, I should be clear, I do not mean subjecting the theory to conditions where we know it doesn't work (for example, relativity doesn't work on the quantum scale), rather using the correct theory for the correct scenario. For example, when, at the planetary scale (or apple scale, you choose), does ...[text shortened]... a good theory for the development of life on earth? Specific, concrete examples only please.

You want to discuss where theory and reality part, but you don't want
to discuss where they part at various levels, and now I'm wonder if
you really need to discuss it, or just acknowledge it. My view of the
subject evolution depends on how you define it! It can be defined
in such a way I'm in complete agreement with it, but it can also be
defined in such a way I am not. If it is defined as a process that
has been changing life from the simple until now, I have major issues
with that, if it is defined as just change, none what so ever. If you
want to define if for me so we can begin so be it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You want to discuss where theory and reality part, but you don't want
to discuss where they part at various levels, and now I'm wonder if
you really need to discuss it, or just acknowledge it. My view of the
subject evolution depends on how you define it! It can be defined
in such a way I'm in complete agreement with it, but it can also be
defined in s ...[text shortened]... change, none what so ever. If you
want to define if for me so we can begin so be it.
Kelly

I'm asking you to provide a valid example, that all.

For example, U235 dating a 25 year old rock would not be a valid example. C-dating something a million years old would not be a valid example. Trying to say that Quantum effects cannot be explained by relativity would not be a fair example - we KNOW it doesn't.

However, showing relativity to be wrong on relatively large objects, or Quantum theory to be wrong at the quantum level, or thermodynamics to be wrong at the system level would all be fine.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm asking you to provide a valid example, that all.

For example, U235 dating a 25 year old rock would not be a valid example. C-dating something a million years old would not be a valid example. Trying to say that Quantum effects cannot be explained by relativity would not be a fair example - we KNOW it doesn't.

However, showing relativity to ...[text shortened]... ong at the quantum level, or thermodynamics to be wrong at the system level would all be fine.

Rots o ruck on that one.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm asking you to provide a valid example, that all.

For example, U235 dating a 25 year old rock would not be a valid example. C-dating something a million years old would not be a valid example. Trying to say that Quantum effects cannot be explained by relativity would not be a fair example - we KNOW it doesn't.

However, showing relativity to ...[text shortened]... ong at the quantum level, or thermodynamics to be wrong at the system level would all be fine.

You really need me to look through the past and find theories that
were found wrong in the past? That is the point, they can be wrong,
and if you need me to find a few I will.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Actually, I'd say Theory is more like "What we expect to happen based upon the tested and validated rules that we know exist".

I like your definition better