Replies

There IS NO *Theory a space ship can orbit the Earth* in science. There never was.

"And you know this because?? "

Because it's true. Stultis explained it well in post 142:

"The claim, "a spaceship can orbit the earth," is not a scientific theory. It's a specific assertion. Theories must be general, applicable to any and all specific instances within their bounds.

If we make the observation, "here's a spaceship, and it's orbiting the earth," then that is a fact which may well comprise a test of a theory or be explicable by a theory. (Actually this fact would variously implicate a number of theories.)"

"I'm just curious....If a theory hasn't been proved mathematically, but it has been "proved" by test (actually accomplished).... does that mean that the theory isn't proved, or does it mean that we don't understand enough about math to prove it with math?"

It can never be *proved* by test. Theories are not assertions. A scientific theory is more than just *I have a theory that space ships can orbit the Earth*; that's the common usage of the term but not the scientific one. The scientific theory that explains how ships orbit the Earth is Orbital Mechanics, which doesn't just include the specific case of ships orbiting the Earth but ALL orbital bodies. It is a general, universal theory.

We can never be 100% sure we have all the evidence we need to prove a theory in science. That's why all theories in science are tentative and subject to revision. Scientists aren't so arrogant to think they know all there is to know. It doesn't matter how precise the math is describing the phenomena; the uncertainty is in the observations themselves and in the inability to gather all data.

The scientific theory that explains how ships orbit the Earth is Orbital Mechanics, which doesn't just include the specific case of ships orbiting the Earth but ALL orbital bodies. It is a general, universal theory.

So given this level of specific... would you say that the theory / opinion / idea / speculation being advanced by this article is pretty much worthless? Does it basically say we found some foot prints that go into where we think water was 165 million years ago.... and we haven't found anything to tell us what made the prints... but we're still looking?