Theories Doesn't Become Law???? Not On This Planet

[8v10un30sun]

For the chump who has never studied science and worked in the scientific field, here is a perfect example of how a THEORY BECOMES A LAW.

Before there was Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation Law, there was Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitiation"

Here's a history of how Newton came up with his theory and proved it.

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgravity.htm

Here is what we call it today.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

Just say it again...I'm right and you are wrong.

Fg=m1*m2/r^2 (Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation)

Quit The Fronting...

Tell me about it. When you make such claims as:

This and can't even cite a source to back you up!

 

Here is my proof 8v10un30sun is wrong:

A Theory NEVER becomes a Scientific Law...

A Theorem does NOT belong in the Scientific Method and NEVER comes from/becomes a theory or Scientific Law...

Sam Nelson: I completed my Ph.D. at Louisiana State University in August 2002 and then spent seven years as a visiting assistant professor -- two years at Whittier College, three years at the University of California at Riverside, one year at Pomona College, and one year as a visitor at Claremont McKenna College before switching to tenure-track status at CMC.

So where is your proof?

 

 

You are too funny and a FRAUD. Let me know when you can post a source. Even post a definition, and watch me use that Dictionary to turn it around on you.

 

Even your Buddy disagrees with you: (notice the Theory NEVER goes to Law? Notice the lack of a Theorem)

 

Btw you are so stupid.  Math is the language of science.  All theorems are applicable to science and used by scientist.

[b_rod]

 


Still no DIRECT QUOTE to prove a point, let me help you:

Law

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
[/i]

CITED: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist

A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law.

CITED: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

Why doesn't a theory become a law? Well in the first instance, it's the wrong direction. Laws come from theories, and theories are the senior rank in science. The best thing that a hypothesis can do is grow up to become a full fledged theory (something folk seem not to get, and treat "theory" as if it were shakier than a guess or law).

CITED: http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2009/02/laws_theories_and_models.php

The origin of this confusion has it's roots in the history of the development of science. When we speak of early, classical physics, we talk about laws, Newton's laws of motion for instance, the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word "law" has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.

So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge.

Read more at Suite101: Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law: Unraveling the Confusion of Important Terminology http://www.suite101.com/content/theory-vs--hypothesis-vs--law-a5522#ixzz0zH9hmiVc

CITED: http://www.suite101.com/content/theory-vs--hypothesis-vs--law-a5522

 


Let me know when you can cite a direct source rather than your own misunderstand. You are not a scientist.

 

[b_rod]

In an early kick-off to the 200th anniversary celebration of English naturalist Charles Darwin's birth, members of the MIT community gathered Wednesday to hear an expert offer a historical perspective on the movement against the teaching of evolution.

Louise Mead of the National Center for Science Education, founded to defend and promote the teaching of evolution in public schools, traced the morphing of creationism to creation science to intelligent design, and finally to the current "teach the controversy" campaign.

"There is no scientific controversy about evolution," Mead told a packed audience at the Whitehead Institute's McGovern Auditorium, adding that scientists "need to do a better job educating people about evolution."

Darwin was born Feb. 12, 1809. His detailed observations of animals and plants species provided him with the evidence to support his theory of the existence of common ancestors with natural selection as a mechanism.

CITED: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/darwin-lecture-0912.html

 

Care to take it up with MIT?

This is the central argument of evolution deniers: Evolution is an unproven "theory." For science-savvy people, this is an incredibly annoying ploy. While it's true that scientists refer to evolution as a theory, in science the word theory means an explanation of how the world works that has stood up to repeated, rigorous testing. It's hardly a term of disparagement.


Cited: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_thompson#ixzz0rY1JhK5t"

TESTABILITY – THE BEDROCK OF THEORY
Whenever you create a hypothesis to prove a part of a theory, it must be testable and analyzable with current technology.

You may develop a great hypothesis to try to verify part of a theory but, if it involves a lot of resources and money that you do not have, it is effectively invalid. This is speculation and cannot be regarded as a genuine hypothesis.

Whenever you design an experiment, from the start, it must always revolve around this central tenet of testability. If you follow the ‘Steps of the Scientific Method’ and use all of the scientific elements, including initial conception, hypothesis generation and obtaining analyzable results, then you will have fulfilled the fundamental basics of testability.

Whilst a hypothesis is never completely confirmed, if repeated experiments show that a hypothesis is true, it becomes accepted as fact. This process has fulfilled all of the conditions of testability and falsifiability and it is therefore scientific. A theory will always remain falsifiable at some point in the future, however compelling the present evidence.

Evolution and natural selection fall within this field and have been tested rigorously over the intervening years. To be truly testable, a hypothesis should be falsifiable, with counter-testing and proof of the null hypothesis possible.

A hypothesis such as ‘An Intelligent Designer created the Earth and all life according to biblical laws’ has no testability, so remains within the realms of theology and pseudo-science.

Read more: http://www.experiment-resources.com/testability.html#ixzz0yEFgeTbF

So why isn't Evolution a Scientific Law when we have the evidence? Oh because a Scientific Law is DIFFERENT than a Theory.

 

[b_rod]

 

scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works.



 LAW

1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

 2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).

 3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).

 

 THEORY

 1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

 2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

 3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

 4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].

 5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

 6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).

CITED: http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

[b_rod]

For the chump who has never studied science and worked in the scientific field, here is a perfect example of how a THEORY BECOMES A LAW.

Before there was Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation Law, there was Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitiation"

Here's a history of how Newton came up with his theory and proved it.

Newton's laws of motion for instance, the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word "law" has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.

CITED: http://www.suite101.com/content/theory-vs--hypothesis-vs--law-a5522

Problems with Newton's theory

Newton's description of gravity is sufficiently accurate for many practical purposes and is therefore widely used. Deviations from it are small when the dimensionless quantities φ/c2 and (v/c)2 are both much less than one, where φ is the gravitational potential, v is the velocity of the objects being studied, and c is the speed of light.[30] For example, Newtonian gravity provides an accurate description of the Earth/Sun system, since where rorbit is the radius of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

In situations where either dimensionless parameter is large, then general relativity must be used to describe the system. General relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity in the limit of small potential and low velocities, so Newton's law of gravitation is often said to be the low-gravity limit of general relativity.
[edit] Theoretical concerns with Newton's theory

    * There is no immediate prospect of identifying the mediator of gravity. Attempts by physicists to identify the relationship between the gravitational force and other known fundamental forces are not yet resolved, although considerable headway has been made over the last 50 years (See: Theory of everything and Standard Model). Newton himself felt that the concept of an inexplicable action at a distance was unsatisfactory (see "Newton's reservations" below), but that there was nothing more that he could do at the time.

    * Newton's Theory of Gravitation requires that the gravitational force be transmitted instantaneousl y. Given the classical assumptions of the nature of space and time before the development of General Relativity, a significant propagation delay in gravity leads to unstable planetary and stellar orbits.

[edit] Observations conflicting with Newton's theory

    * Newton's Theory does not fully explain the precession of the perihelion of the orbits of the planets, especially of planet Mercury, which was detected long after the life of Newton.[31] There is a 43 arcsecond per century discrepancy between the Newtonian calculation, which arises only from the gravitational attractions from the other planets, and the observed precession, made with advanced telescopes during the 19th Century.

    * The predicted angular deflection of light rays by gravity that is calculated by using Newton's Theory is only one-half of the deflection that is actually observed by astronomers. Calculations using General Relativity are in much closer agreement with the astronomical observations.

The observed fact that the gravitational mass and the inertial mass is the same for all objects is unexplained within Newton's Theories. General Relativity takes this as a basic principle. See the Equivalence Principle. In point of fact, the experiments of Galileo Galilei, decades before Newton, established that objects that have the same air or fluid resistance are accelerated by the force of the Earth's gravity equally, regardless of their different inertial masses. Yet, the forces and energies that are required to accelerate various masses is completely dependent upon their different inertial masses, as can be see from Newton's Second Law of Motion, F = ma.

The problem is that Newton's Theories and his mathematical formulas explain and permit the (inaccurate) calculation of the effects of the precession of the perhelions of the orbits and the deflection of light rays. However, they did not and do not explain the equivalence of the behavior of various masses under the influence of gravity, independent of the quantities of matter involved.

CITED: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

 

[b_rod]

Now give us a source, just TWO sources that say this:

Idea -> Hypothesis -> Repeatable Test -> Theory -> Rigorous Proof -> Theorem -> Universally Accepted -> Law.  This is the chain of events.

YOU CALLED ME OUT, I POSTED MY SOURCES. Now prove you point about your claim.

USE DIRECT QUOTES that SAY IT CLEARLY!


Otherwise be silent. If you don't have any, just say so.


Lets keep this mature and scientific.

Tell your buddies to post sources too and lets settle this like men. If they get rowdy, you should tell them to clam down. If you post and article HIGHLIGHT it in RED and BOLD it. Post the WHOLE article so nothing will be taken out of context. If you reply back without any sources, be a man and admit to it.

I just showed you that Newtonian Laws of Gravity are FLAWED and NOT UNIVERSAL. I know you didn't know this. So make your point.

[trepidpoda]

r-bob, you lost kiddo.  Give it up like a man.  Switching subjects and getting into your own potholes.

Nobody is talking about the different definitions of Theory and Law.  You qoute  an example from the "theory of evolution" which will never become law, which is specific to evolution itself.  No matter the validation, "evolution" can't become LAW, because it can't and won't be PROVEN.   Too bad for you atheist, right?

Do you even know categorization s and changes in the meaning of a definition?  When a Hypothesis.... becomes theory....it is no longer a hypothesis, but a theory because now it meets the criterias of becoming a theory as defined by a theory.  I guess you don't understand this?  Similar to a hypothesis becoming a LAW, it is now a Law because it meets the criterias of being a law. 

[b_rod]

Do you even know categorization s and changes in the meaning of a definition?  When a Hypothesis.... becomes theory....it is no longer a hypothesis, but a theory because now it meets the criterias of becoming a theory as defined by a theory.  I guess you don't understand this?  Similar to a hypothesis becoming a LAW, it is now a Law because it meets the criterias of being a law.  

A theory NEVER becomes a law as the two are different. A scientific law is simple and theory describes something and uses scientific laws.

HERE: (i know you didn't read the quote)

scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works.



 LAW

1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)
 

 THEORY

 1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)


CITED: http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

HERE IS A SOURCE THAT YOU USED:

Law

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

Now, can you post a source that says a Theory -> Theorem -> Scientific Law?

Again, lets leave it to the experts and actually quote them rather than make things up. Lets also be adults and understand why we need to source our claims.

So lets see your sources. (don't post creationist sites, they are not considered science and reputable sources)


Now, you tell me why Newtonian LAWS are full of problems. It is a LAW is it not?

[trepidpoda]

A theory NEVER becomes a law as the two are different. A scientific law is simple and theory describes something and uses scientific laws.

HERE: (i know you didn't read the quote)

HERE IS A SOURCE THAT YOU USED:


Now, can you post a source that says a Theory -> Theorem -> Scientific Law?

Again, lets leave it to the experts and actually quote them rather than make things up. Lets also be adults and understand why we need to source our claims.

So lets see your sources. (don't post creationist sites, they are not considered science and reputable sources)


Now, you tell me why Newtonian LAWS are full of problems. It is a LAW is it not?

You lost the argument.  You are talking definitons, I am not.  What I gave you are A LOT of sources from Science sources, you shouldn't lie like that.  Anyway, they are referenced.   Yours are from ATHEIST sites and can't be used at all.

8....... already proved....theo ry---> Law.   With qoutes and references.

He won!!!

What you qoute you don't even understand.

[b_rod]

8....... already proved....theo ry---> Law.   With qoutes and references.

 

Please don't post here again.

[8v10un30sun]

Brod,

Wow...I can't believe we made progress.  Now let me help you connect all the dots...So we've established with a jump that a THEORY can become LAW such that the Theory of Gravitation became Law of Gravitation.  Now, the definition of a THEOREM is a rigorously PROVEN theory.    This means when Newton proved that Fg=m1*m2/r^2 w and with experiments to verify all scenarios it became a THEOREM by definition like I've always said.  Then the time test awaits for Newton and eventually when all big name schools agreed (universally agree) with Newton it became Law.

Finally we are done.

QED

[8v10un30sun]

Btw, please don't be afraid to CLICK the LINK.  There are no monsters (virus) behind the links.  This one is for B-ROD.  He said he was a truth-seeker but he's afraid of my links.

[b_rod]

Btw, please don't be afraid to CLICK the LINK.  There are no monsters (virus) behind the links.  This one is for B-ROD.  He said he was a truth-seeker but he's afraid of my links.

Let me know if you want to place a bet. You have still failed to even prove your point. Read again on PROBLEMS with Newton's "LAW"

 

[8v10un30sun]

Let me know if you want to place a bet. You have still failed to even prove your point. Read again on PROBLEMS with Newton's "LAW"

 

Sure what's the bet?  Make a new post so I can clearly follow what you want to bet about.  Since you are losing and will resort to a bet that I cannot collect.  I'll be a rich man if I can collect my bets on PH.   

[8v10un30sun]

If you would CLICK my link in the faith forum, you would be educated on the definitions... It's so simple to connect them...That's just how science works.  I didn't make the flow chart up...  It's taught in college if you take a proof class.  I guess it's damn hard for people to understand that simple fact since they have never taken a proof course.

Now give us a source, just TWO sources that say this:

YOU CALLED ME OUT, I POSTED MY SOURCES. Now prove you point about your claim.

USE DIRECT QUOTES that SAY IT CLEARLY!


Otherwise be silent. If you don't have any, just say so.


Lets keep this mature and scientific.

Tell your buddies to post sources too and lets settle this like men. If they get rowdy, you should tell them to clam down. If you post and article HIGHLIGHT it in RED and BOLD it. Post the WHOLE article so nothing will be taken out of context. If you reply back without any sources, be a man and admit to it.

I just showed you that Newtonian Laws of Gravity are FLAWED and NOT UNIVERSAL. I know you didn't know this. So make your point.