I've been researching this whole "theory" thing lately for a number of reasons. Anyway, I thought these were pretty good:
definition of theory -- a logical explanation or model based on observation, facts hypotheses, experimentation, and reasoning that attempts to explain a range of natural phenomena. Theories are constantly subject to testing, modification, and refutation as new evidence and ideas emerge. Theories also have predictive capabilities that guide further investigation.
Also:
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories
Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."
In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.
Maybe that will be helpful to someone. 🙂
The Force> I am STILL waiting for the annonced proof in the "volution" thread? So what's it gonna be? You got any proof or was that jst a lot of hot air?
Linkalicious> No, Big Bang is established. You have everything from the microwave background (echo from the big bang), to Einsteins theory of general relativity (one of the most tested theories ever) predicting a Big Bang, as shown by professor Stephen Hawking. If you claim there is no proof of the Big Bang, you better show me what the WMA-probe has taken pictures off, and where Hawking is wrong.
Steely balls> If science didn't know what it was talking about, how do we get probes to Mars, Jupiter and beyond the Solar system? How do we get men to the Moon? You don't really know anything about the Scientific Method, do you?
Elenveninches> So lasers, computers, nuclear powerplants, digital cameras and CAT-scans are just theories????
Of course we should explore space! Imagine the benefits of a manned mission to Mars for example. To accmplish such a task we'd need to find a way of better recycling water, which people in drought-areas could benefit from. We'd have to come up with a better kind of fuel, a more efficient kind of fuel, again to the benefit of us all.
Exploration and science should never be "because we get this out fit." It should be because we CAN.
Originally posted by The Omega
Elenveninches> So lasers, computers, nuclear powerplants, digital cameras and CAT-scans are just theories????
I'm not talking about physics that has been around for decades. I mean really modern physics, like loop quantum gravity and string theory and stuff like that (that has just been invented within the last few years).
The things that you mentioned are based mostly on scientific principles that are 50 or so years old, and are more to do with engineering and classical physics than really modern physics.
The Omega> Where did that comment come from? I didn't claim there was NO PROOF of the big bang. All i said is that it was a theory...which it is. Unless you can show me an eye witness of the creation of the Universe, then it will probably remain just a Theory. Though I am very inclined to believe such a theory...from all my reading.
Originally posted by The Omega
Steely balls> If science didn't know what it was talking about, how do we get probes to Mars, Jupiter and beyond the Solar system? How do we get men to the Moon? You don't really know anything about the Scientific Method, do you?
i wasn't talking about that, i said everything we know about space can be changed quickly, their are factual things out their but some of it we only have theories for and can always change by another discovery, because space is big place their will always be doubts and new ideas about space, thats all i meant to say.
Eleveninches> But modern physics has evolved from “physics that’s been around for decades”. And string theory, supersymmetry and super-string theory hasn’t just been INVENTED, fer petes sake. These theories were put forward to solve problems in physics, worked on for decades by some of the best minds in science.
When something new in physics arises (a discovery or a problem), physicists don’t just invent a theory. They study the problem, and pose several schemes for solving the problem (such as the theories for the reasons behind the accelerating Universe). But these theories have to be in accordance with what we already know.
And the “things” I mentioned evolved after quantisation of electromagnetism. Which is modern physics.
Originally posted by Linkalicious
The Big Bang is just a theory....it'd be nice to know for a fact, what really created the universe.
JUST a theory?? But if you mean that all theories are proven, then by all means.
Rusky> They are. We've only explored 1 % of the deep oceans.
Steelyballs> You said “pretty much everything we know about space is a theory, their is never any truth.” Now, if we didn’t know for a fact stuff about space, how do we get probes to land on other planets? Shows we DO know stuff about space. ✅
Problem is, there is so little in it for SUCH a long time. The comparison with exploring the oceans does not quite bear up to close examination. Space will remain a barren seam for decades at least and with so many other problems around it is hard to get into the ludicrous amounts that have to be spent on it.
I think manned missions have little justification right now.
Originally posted by The Omega
Steelyballs> You said “pretty much everything we know about space is a theory, their is never any truth.” Now, if we didn’t know for a fact stuff about space, how do we get probes to land on other planets? Shows we DO know stuff about space. ✅
Steely_Balls> Oh, now you meant the OBVIOUS Ones. You don’t really know much about cosmology, astrophysics and astronomy, do you? A lot of the things we know about space are FAR from being obvious, such as the acceleration of the Universe, the creation of neutron stars and black holes, and the rate-formation of heavier elements.
Maybe I do not understand what you’re trying to say. But there are some things that WILL not change. They may be expanded to encompass more, but stuff like Newtons laws of Gravity and Einsteins theories of Relativity are so tested and used, that they’ll not change. But they may be expanded.
Originally posted by The Omega
Steely_Balls> Oh, now you meant the OBVIOUS Ones. You don’t really know much about cosmology, astrophysics and astronomy, do you? A lot of the things we know about space are FAR from being obvious, such as the acceleration of the Universe, the creation of neutron stars and black holes, and the rate-formation of heavier elements.
Maybe I do not understand what you’re trying to say. But there are some things that WILL not change. They may be expanded to encompass more, but stuff like Newtons laws of Gravity and Einsteins theories of Relativity are so tested and used, that they’ll not change. But they may be expanded.
yep i always meant the obvious ones i thought people would know that with out me telling. Since they are obvious. any way i see what your saying. no i don't know about cosmology, astrophysics and astronomy. but i've had discusions with my Earth Space teacher about some of it.