There are so many theories out there, and I've seen more hypotheses in this section than in most magazines and frankly ever other place I've ever looked. Exactly how many theories are we to believe?


Allowing so many theories to be discussed does not seem right. All we can do is say, "OK...next!"

At what point do we have too many theories on board? The more theories people dish out, the harder it is to find the needle in the haystack.

A good defense is to read until you decide that the theory is too far out for your preferences and then ignore it thereafter. It could be counterproductive to banish theories out of hand since there may be synergy derivable from the "brainstorming". Although you may not accept the theory as presented it may inspire you to offer a better one.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

We need as many theories as it takes to properly explain the conditions of the universe we live in. Given the sheer complexity of the universe, that's a lot of theories.

Of course, the goal is that we eventually find one theory that adequately explains a given phenomena. The trouble comes that there's a lot of differing phenomena in the universe, and they all interact in some way... and those interactions themselves may require new theories.

It's messy, but that's how it is.

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

Yeah, but when you have a bunch of people tossing their ideas out onto the table, eventually that table is going to overflow with a bunch of leftovers, most of which were ill-prepared. So you see the danger, is letting too many people think on their own without previous communications. People cannot just be creative or intuitive or imaginative...they have to know what they are doing.

Seventeen thousand four hundred ninety six.

__________________
~ cogito cogito ergo cogito sum ~

Nothing in life is good nor bad; thinking makes it so.

I agree 100%. Less theories, More girls.

What's wrong with people thinking? Questing the accepted, that's what science is.

Physics has many complex equations, but the best, the most powerful are the simplest. And thats what physicists want to do. Explain the universe in less and less mathematics. How do we simplify these equations? By people thinking outside the box, or in some instances inside the box (E=mcc can be derived using a theoretical "box"). To suppress thought is to supress creativity. Its like saying why do we have so many pieces of art?

__________________
MacTalk - The Australian Apple Community - iPod, iPhone and Mac.

The verb "to theorize" is now conjugated as follows:
I built a model,
you formulated a hypothesis,
he made a conjecture.

-- John Ziman -(from ScienceWeek.com)
B)

__________________

Well, yes, they have to know what they're doing. Just like I wouldn't want someone with no architectural background building a house for me, I don't want someone with no physics background telling me how the solar system works. They're both a waste of time.

That said, theories aren't just "ideas (thrown) out onto the table." Those would be hypotheses. A theory is when that idea has observational and mathematical data backing it up, and it's capable of making predictions based on its model.

Thus, we need as many theories as it takes to adequately model how the universe works. We just need fewer random hypotheses from folks who have no knowledge of the subject they're speaking on. B)

Keep in mind that I consider myself an amateur when it comes to science. I have what is probably a more substantial background than the average American, but I didn't devote my college education to science (unfortunately). I can come up with lots of hypotheses, and understand most of the major theories, but I'm not suited to devising a full-fledged theory of my own. That's why I refrain from doing so.

I just wish more folks throwing out these hypotheses would admit the same thing, instead of loudly proclaiming how they're geniuses that mainstream science is frightened of while they point to pages of doodles.

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

Very true. I have met some persons in physics chat rooms, who go on to proclaim their own theory of Gravity, without having a good knowledge of GR even! Once a guy gave me a link to this site of his, where he explained a "unified" theory of Gravitation and EM, and he clearly stated on that page that he did NOT know GR well! Now, if you don't have knowledge of an existing theory, how can you make a theory that 'supersedes' it?

And since I have little knowledge of advanced physics (I'm a 1st year phys student, 'on the path of knowledge' ) I don't look at the Alternative Theories section very often.

__________________
Limericks, written by me: http://limericker.blogspot.com

rahuldandekar, do not be overawed by 'theory experts' who can quote 'chapter and verse' and dazzle with complex formulae...

The foundations of the greatest theories have come from simply observing what is, and then conceiving in the mind how it must be...

Einstein himself (in your signature) admitted of poor background in mathematics and physics - and yet now his elegant ideas are argued back and forth by experts of theory... Albert had a mind that would not let go of the question, and pursued it until he found an answer. Gravity is 'not some mysterious force between objects' - that seems to have been forgotten, since, while experts search for the elusive 'graviton'.

Darwin had a passing background in natural history, and a well-rounded education typical of his social class... despite this, he retained the sense to ignore 'the experts', and pursue his questions, until he found an answer, and he was ridiculed for it. But today, it is 'Darwin's theory of evolution of species' that underpins all biology.

Newton was a genius with mathematics, but not so well grounded in physics - and yet, from observation and experiment, he derived a simple formula that helped NASA put men on the moon, and send probes to the planets... from experiments with sunlight and prisms, he discovered some of the secrets of light...

Lemaitre was a clergyman, and a stargazer who knew very little about spectroscopy or redshift - yet he went to Hubble with an idea about the universe beginning at a single point in space and time; his 'cosmic egg' became the keystone of the Big Bang theory.

Da Vinci was artist who dreamed of and designed things that waited for centuries to built and tested; the parachute, the submarine, the military tank, the helicopter, the hang-glider...

Do not be frightened of experts, do not be afraid of ideas beyond your experience; find your questions and pursue them with a vigorous mind... you will know, in time, if it was time well spent - either way, you will learn more than by simply accepting what others may tell you.

__________________