How do you disprove physics?

Have you noticed that ultraconservatives never use the word "theory" when talking about any of their beliefs or positions? Everything is presented as a fact. I find that interesting.

 

There's a theory that if you cut taxes for the rich, the benefits will trickle down to the middle-class. It's just a theory that isn't borne out by the observable facts.

 

But you know who presents it as proven fact.

 

If it were by facts we would be justifying those facts per being irrefutable beyond observation? These are ethical facts for the way every human ought to accept the Facts being in the world. But if you have a conscience you can get around that way of essence. The facts are proven in the realm of science He set up for His reading. But these are politicians. God would freeze hell over before He'd also explain (or try to explain) the factual nature from the realm to account for the domain of Being (the science).

 

i think people are too focused on the word "theory" when they read things like String Thoeory.

the tittle of the paper, or article is really not that important. whats important are the ideas and information.

what if i wrote it like this: String idea or String Concept

now we can discuss weather or not its a good idea, or weather or not you agree or disagree with this idea by looking at the logic behind their concepts, i think thats a much more interesting discussion.

 

That has already been done a lot with the big bang concept And it certainly has logic behind it. But the big bang itself is not a fact.

 

the mechanics of gravity is also a theory. gravity is also a fact, the theory is the attempt to explain a phenomena we can observe with mathematics.

 

so?

 

Yep black holes were even mentioned in the book and I thought about you as I read that section. :biker:

 

Gravity is one of the primary problems with unifying Einstein's Theory of Relativity with The Standard Model of Particle Physics. Gravity is not accounted for in the latter, although there is speculation of a particle called a graviton, which has yet to be observed. This is one of the basis for why alternative unified ideas like String Theory came about.

 

Come on, gravitons any more than phonons don't really exist as particles for new discovery by the designed lab. experiment. These are fabricated measures of classical standing waves for the geometrical material of the confined quantum states of real atoms and nucleons.

 

A theory - in the scientific sense - is based on facts and empirical observations that have been confirmed.

 

The Higgs Boson theory is empirical enough for me. There is the observations of the basic quantum particle in spatial-temporal terms of configured matter at any scale of the macro-cosmos determining a micro-cosmos. Sometimes i get it; sometimes I don't get the astrophysics. All these new planets found in the sky.

 

but when all is said and done, there is a very simple test to disprove physics and anyone can try it.

simply jump from the top of a 12 story building and NOT go Splat!! when you hit the ground.

 

HOW TO DISPROVE PHYSICS,

Fake urine sample

 

The theory is based on facts and observations like that the universe seems to be expanding. The fact that it expands has led to the assumption that it all bursted out from nothing (or something like that) with a big bang. That it actually started like that or with that is not a factual certainty at all.

 

So the universe expanding would be a theory that can be based on empirical evidence. Whereas the big bang would be a hypothesis.

 

Wrong! It's done with an Acme Physics-Disprover.

You know better than to encourage me . . .

 

I think religion and science are both true. Science is a tool for solving issues. Religion is nothing more than any given system of something that someone believes in. People automatically equate the term religion to mean believing in some sort of deity, but from what I have found, the term does not mean that at all. I use this definition in regards to religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" Belief I define as: "an opinion". So people who hold a belief in some sort of deity are merely voicing an opinion in that regard. In the absence of facts or other evidence for that opinion, it is nothing more than hearsay. The scientific method is a tool that can be used to change those opinions to fact, if someone wanted to take the time to do so.
Physics is: "the science that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force". So, physics is just a name applied to a facet of science that deals with those things. You can call it whatever, but it deals with things we interact with everyday. We know matter exists because we can touch and feel things. We know that energy exists because what we can energy can be measured. We know motion exists because we practice it everyday. The same with force.
Both are then true things, but different things is all. Physics is that name used to identify the things it does. Religion is a grouping of various opinions on various subjects. Some physics subjects start out as opinions in the form of theories, but then the tool of science is used to verify whether or not that opinion is true and valid.

 

In scientific terms maybe. Anyway...Fine with me Semantics... In my language (dutch) theory and hypothesis are often interchangeable terms. (edit: unlike perception and reality )