What science fact/theory do you think is most unbelievable?

[Madcop122 (Sky)]

idk

 

[VizierKane]

all the theories are myths

 

[Sexy Beast]

all the theories are myths

..but are all myths considered theories? Or is it just the Myths that would qualify as theories, that would be considered theories?

If the second statement is true than there is a subset of Myths that can only be called theories. Here is were it gets interesting: because this subset has a completely different set parameter than the rest of the group, meaning theories have some scientific evidence to back them up, then technically we can remove this subset from the group. We then would have to create a separate group all together.

So in actuality:

Theories =/= Myths

Now if a theory has been completely and utterly disproved, they can then be considered myths...because they no longer have scientific evidence backing them.

It seems to me to be a more hierarchical than anything else.

Fact < Theories < Myths

 

[JunK]

theories are things that cannot be absolutely proven, however they can be supported by evidences.
with things that cannot be absolutely proven, you can only examine the evidences and draw a conclusion. in fact no theory is scientific...its actually the opposite meaning.

and its too bad you haven't gotten your step-mom off of the secret yet...i remember when somebody introduced me to that. now THATS comedy

 

[Sexy Beast]

theories are things that cannot be absolutely proven, however they can be supported by evidences.
with things that cannot be absolutely proven, you can only examine the evidences and draw a conclusion. in fact no theory is scientific...its actually the opposite meaning.

Here is the issue with this statement:

A scientific theory can be a collection of concepts and ideas that are composed under a blanket term.

For example:

The Theory of Relativity actually encompasses two separate theories. Those separate theories then break down even further.

Some theories that fall under the umbrella of Special Relativity:

Mass-energy equivalency (Basically a law)
&
Time Dilation (Proven)

Neither of these have much to do with each other, but they are under the Theory of Relativity.

*Edit*

Even a theory that is not an umbrella concept is still an important part of the scientific process. The point of these types of theories are that they must be challenged. Without dissent, science would be useless.

 

[JunK]

ok how has time dilation be proven?
our measurement of time is not perfect, and the "proofs" of time dilation assume it is...in fact it only works if it is.
I apologize but i think its pretty stupid to say if you travel in a jet at whatever speed for 2 minutes, and somebody else is motionless somewhere for 2 minutes, that you have somehow spent less time in flight blah blah wicka waah.
Think about it, even our measurements of time...like your watch and clock are all set inside the boundaries of time...you cannot escape it nor alter it.

Also about the theory of relativity, the speed of light is not a constant, and that has been scientifically proven by repeatable and demonstrable scientific tests.

 

[Sexy Beast]

ok how has time dilation be proven?
our measurement of time is not perfect, and the "proofs" of time dilation assume it is...in fact it only works if it is.
I apologize but i think its pretty stupid to say if you travel in a jet at whatever speed for 2 minutes, and somebody else is motionless somewhere for 2 minutes, that you have somehow spent less time in flight blah blah wicka waah.
Think about it, even our measurements of time...like your watch and clock are all set inside the boundaries of time...you cannot escape it nor alter it.

Also about the theory of relativity, the speed of light is not a constant, and that has been scientifically proven by repeatable and demonstrable scientific tests.

Two things:

You bash a scientific experiment that proves times dilation and the only thing you say to back it up is to call it stupid. Yep sure did shoot that one down.

Also the Theory of Relativity is not just E=MC[2]. It is a branch of Special Relativity

Yes, the speed of light changes as it passes through different materials. Though when we refer to the speed of light, we are referring to light in a vacuum...which is of course a constant.

 

[XXzz-Trauma-zzXX]

2012 isn't really a scientific theory. I think it falls under the category of conspiracy theory or just stupid.

Here are a few thing for you to put your mind at easy:

The Mayan calendar doesn't end, it's a circular calendar and just restarts. Basically 2012 is their millennium.

We have yet to find any Mayan text associating 2012 with any doomsday prophecy.

The modern ancestry of the Mayans call BS on the whole thing. Also, yes, there are a couple thousand people in Mexico who still speak and live the Mayan language and culture.

People who have dedicated their entire live to studying the Mayan culture also call BS on the 2012 doomsday thing. They're actually annoyed that people are just focusing on the calendar and missing the rest of a really cool culture.

Here are a few other things:

We are over due of a polar switch, but that can take 1000s of years to complete.

The earth was hit with the worst solar flare on record in the year 2000...yes, we obviously survived.

The last true galactic alignment happened in 1998...don't ask why this is relevant.

Some one who knows what they are talking about. You sir have my respect.

 

[JunK]

Two things:

You bash a scientific experiment that proves times dilation and the only thing you say to back it up is to call it stupid. Yep sure did shoot that one down.

Also the Theory of Relativity is not just E=MC[2]. It is a branch of Special Relativity

Yes, the speed of light changes as it passes through different materials. Though when we refer to the speed of light, we are referring to light in a vacuum...which is of course a constant.

im sorry but i don't see how that scientific experiment proves any sort of time dilation. its basically stating you can time travel by going very fast. I agree you could probably alter the measurement of time by going very fast, as was demonstrated...but again we are locked in time. The amount of time was equal throughout that experiment completely, altering nothing but the numbers on the clock. Probably shouldn't turn this entire thread into a debate about this topic, however if you cannot understand that time is a constant...regardless of anything...i just can't explain or elaborate any further.
if every clock/watch/means of measuring time breaks and ceases to exist, time still goes by.

And ok so even if light in a perfect vacuum was a constant, there is no such existence. Space has plenty of gasses and particles everywhere as well as gravity that effects light. Also the experiments to alter the speed of light were done in a vacuum.

 

[Toasteddude]

Well, this isn't a scientific fact but pretty interesting nonetheless:

If we take all the rational numbers (there are infinitely many of them), there are less rational numbers than real numbers (also infinitely many).

 

[Facey]

*chuckle* I feel like I'm back in Physics *sigh.. Physics <3

 

[Sexy Beast]

im sorry but i don't see how that scientific experiment proves any sort of time dilation. its basically stating you can time travel by going very fast. I agree you could probably alter the measurement of time by going very fast, as was demonstrated...but again we are locked in time. The amount of time was equal throughout that experiment completely, altering nothing but the numbers on the clock. Probably shouldn't turn this entire thread into a debate about this topic, however if you cannot understand that time is a constant...regardless of anything...i just can't explain or elaborate any further.
if every clock/watch/means of measuring time breaks and ceases to exist, time still goes by.

Here some interesting questions for you:

How do we measure a second?

Well since 1967 a second has been measured as: the duration of 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the caesium-133 atom.

Do you know how an atomic clock works?

I've always loved the aspects of the atomic clock. You see, this type of clock is simply not the type that you just set the time and let it tick away till the next power outage. No, the atomic clock measures electrons jumping between energy levels through microwaves released through the jump.

Since atomic clocks were used during the Hafele?Keating experiment, what was actually being measured was the microwave radiation released through electrons jumping energy levels. So the speed of the airplane and the gravitational pull of the earth altered, on a minute degree, the rate of which electrons jumped levels.

Also on the speed of light being a constant, I agree you were right. My bad.

 

[JunK]

the caesium-133 atomic clock is based on the speed of light being a constant.
but im not saying our measurement is wrong...for us...but our measurement is our measurement. If the whole world agreed we could turn each specifically calculated second into a minute. So each minute we experience now we could make a second instead, if we wanted to, but that doesn't change how much time has actually passed.

Also the earth is slowly slowing down in rotation which means we need to have a leap year every 4 years as well as leap seconds here and there blah blah. just saying

 

[Lehsyrus]

The most unbelievable scientific laws that i believe is any of Newton's laws except the law of inducing F = ma (which is Force = Mass * Acceleration. They are still taught in schools yet have been proven not to actually be feasible. Newton's three laws on motion are impossible to be laws, because there is not a single place in our dimension in which we can have an object moving without an external force upon it.

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

There is gravity everywhere, no matter where in space you go there will always be gravity, even black holes have gravity (the most gravity recorded is from a black hole, because all black holes have immense gravitational fields.)

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

This is not possible to be proven as well. If there is ALWAYS an equal and opposite reaction, then how is it a murderer can kill someone and get away?(not most of the time of course)

His laws are all theory yet scientists count them as laws.



I am fascinated, how ever, of the theory of Gravitons. Look it up on wikipedia and google it. The graviton theory is the theory that every object has a gravitational field (proven) and this gravitational field is a result from particles smaller than atoms called Gravitons. These gravitons when the object rotates becomes more tightly packed, and produces a magnetic field specific only to other gravitons, which is the reason the moon is attracted to the earth. These Gravitons are able to be pushed apart from outside forces having an effect on an object (like earths magnetic field repelling certain asteroids away resulting from the magnetic qualities of the asteroid)

 

[Lance]

This is not possible to be proven as well. If there is ALWAYS an equal and opposite reaction, then how is it a murderer can kill someone and get away

Uh, they're laws of MOTION.

 

[Sexy Beast]

the caesium-133 atomic clock is based on the speed of light being a constant.
but im not saying our measurement is wrong...for us...but our measurement is our measurement. If the whole world agreed we could turn each specifically calculated second into a minute. So each minute we experience now we could make a second instead, if we wanted to, but that doesn't change how much time has actually passed.

Also the earth is slowly slowing down in rotation which means we need to have a leap year every 4 years as well as leap seconds here and there blah blah. just saying

The Caesium-133 atomic clock has nothing to do the speed of light being a constant. As I've said previously, it measures the microwave signals that electrons give off when they jump energy levels.

Listen we aren't going to get any farther in this debate. I think time is relative, you do not. Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[SingularPoint]

I am fascinated, how ever, of the theory of Gravitons. Look it up on wikipedia

Um...I'm not even gonna criticize that.

 

[JunK]

Listen we aren't going to get any farther in this debate. I think time is relative, you do not. Let's just agree to disagree.

thats usually how it ends - its pretty pointless to start debates actually

 

[Sexy Beast]

thats usually how it ends - its pretty pointless to start debates actually

^.^

Well I find debates to be a stimulating intellectual exercise which, hopefully, forces the debaters to seek new information to reinforce their stance. Thus increasing their understanding of the subject further.

 

[IngeniusDodo]

Just scanned the back page, so I'll respond to the subjects there.

Time: To me, the way we measure time is analogous to... Hmm. Not sure how to word it to get a smooth transition into my concept. Drop a game of Pac-Man. Not the arcade machine, but the plane that the game is played on. The status of the game at any given instant corresponds to a unique altitude, and vice versa. Similarly, Time can be considered to be a spatial dimension that the universe is traveling across. This analogy brings two pretty serious problems to light, which correspond to real problems very well. First off, assuming that terminal velocity is never reached, the units for time would be logarithmic, not linear. If it isn't constant, then it gets even more complicated, and it's just one big mess. Okay, not a very serous problem, but it bothers me. At least how we measure it works. Or does it? The other problem is what happens when the game is paused (when something that contains information reaches an absolute 0K). At that point, the accuracy of definition of "time" falls apart. I have a little trouble believing that a concept can be considered to be sound if it doesn't work under every circumstance. I'm not sure how to introduce relativity's concept of time into the analogy. Perhaps once I get to the Modern unit in AP Physics, I'll be able to do it. Right now, I'm just basing my conjectures off of a childhood of self-education.

Oh, and atomic clocks should suffer from problems arising from Doppler shifts, as it relies on something operating at a certain frequency to remain accurate. Very fancy, but not perfect.

Newton's Laws:
I: The wording of the law, as I recall it, appeared to use Earth's surface as an inertial frame of reference. Ideally, it's just stating that an object will remain at a constant velocity (rest is a constant velocity of zero) unless the net force operating on the object is a non-zero value. Maybe there's something I don't know, but as far as my formal education has gone to serve me, this is accurate. From what I read of your post, I am not convinced otherwise.

III: This law is talking about conservation of momentum, not the abstract concept of justice. Your example is irrelevant. These are laws of motion.

Every object has a gravitational field: False. Photons have no gravitational field. If they did, then they would not be able to travel at the speed of light. They're massless particles. Then again, if photons did not travel at the speed of light, our definition of the speed of light would probably change to match it. And before anybody brings up Black Holes, that's light responding to the resulting curvature in space-time, not to the gravitational field of the massive object.