24 Replies to “5 Scientific Theories”

  1. 5 Scientific Theories
    That will make your head explode.
    ===================================
    So THAT’s what happened to Cracked Magazine (former competition of MAD).
    It’s all moot anyway, as the world is going to go POP! in October when they fire up the LHC.
    What, me worry?

  2. A corrollary:
    Life is a struggle.
    You are born to fight all the way to YOUR end…
    Enjoy..indulge whatever it takes to get you,and hopefully, your offspring, there!
    I actually met a 42 year old woman (Trent university grad)who did NOT want to recieve oral sex,..didn’t interest her. Thought it gross, and men were twisted.
    She loved her vodka at 8:00 am, and her relationships, she said lasted on average three years.
    And oh yeah, while in japan she was celibate for ten years.
    I really don’t know the point of this post. I figured one of Kates twisted readers would find it amusing…
    luv ya’all

  3. Consider this, related to the “Theory #3, the Copenhagen interpretation”.
    In grade 1 or so, after we started reading, a curiosity arose as to what the letters do when you turn the page.
    The theory prevalent among the young minds at the time was that the letters just go wild, doing all kinds of formations and gymnastics and things like that.
    How ever as soon as you checked back if the letters on the previous pages are running hither and yon, all the letters suddenly scrambled and found their right place as though they have never moved at all.
    Is it not interesting that the thinking of first graders may not have been as outlandish as it seems, since the bright minds of academe go around doing the same kind of thinking?
    Great minds think alike, isn’t that what they say.
    What’s with that?

  4. Remember Backhoe’s Theorem?
    “On the internet
    everyone can hear you scream
    but 5 minutes later
    no one remembers…”

  5. I can’t believe String Theory was an also ran. The first half dozen times I heard it explained, I thought for sure my head would explode. Now I only get a headache while understanding not one thing they are saying.

  6. Quantum Entanglement: proven
    Evolution: proven
    The Copenhagen Interpretation: philosophical interpretation of science, not a theory per se.
    The Many Worlds Theory: speculation.
    The Universe Is Big: obviously.

  7. How I keep my head from exploding:
    The Universe is Big: yes, but it’s so big I will never see any significant portion of it. Don’t worry about it.
    Parallel Worlds: Maybe, but I can’t get to any of them from here; I’m stuck with what I’ve got in this one.
    Copenhagen Theory: Since everything is behaving properly when I look at it, take it as given that it’s behaving when I don’t – because I’m never going to know for certain. It’s the light in the cosmic refrigerator.
    Evolution: Personally important only if I am currently evolving.
    Quantum Entanglement: As soon as they get something useful out of this – that is, something scaled up to where humans can exploit the effect – it will become utterly important. Until then, go back to sleep; it’s still the weekend.

  10. I always liked entanglement. Its living (sort of) proof that nobody knows how everything works.
    I like to wheel it out and fire it across the bows of goofs rattling on about “the end of history” and other assorted socialist crap.
    Peope like AQS for example. Yes, there is entanglement. No, nobody knows how it works, nor even how to make it happen every time when they want it to.
    Compare to the Hall Effect sensor, which nobody knows how it works for sure (what is tunneling, really?). But you’ve got one timing the ignition in your car.

  11. How many of these will lead to HRC complaints? None of them are credited to their proper inventors, the great Islamic scientists.

  12. Science labours up the mountain Theology rests upon.
    There is nothing in any of these theories that surprises or amazes me simply because I have come to know the One in whom the universe exists.

  13. Thanks a lot Kate. Do you know how hard it is to pick bits of brain out of a keyboard?
    Wife of Woodporter.

  15. golly gee. i sure would like to see solid proof of the theory of evolution.
    Posted by: old white guy at August 24, 2008 10:25 AM
    Well I can’t show you proof of evolution,but I can show you positive proof of DE-evolution: socialists.

  16. Hey atheist quebecois separatiste,
    when did they prove evolution?
    Its still just a theory from a guy who hated the church, FOOL.

  17. Well said Joe!Why try to ‘figure it all out’?
    Humbling to know how limited we are.
    He gave us all the info we need, the world is huge and He cares for us.
    It’s that beautiful!

  18. Hey atheist quebecois separatiste,
    when did they prove evolution?
    Its still just a theory from a guy who hated the church, FOOL.

  19. Justthinking …another good point. Here’s a thought: Socialism is founded in the false believe that we are evolving to become better, while Man takes control and assumes he can solve all the problems.
    Reality proves that the human heart only makes things worse, contradicting the theory of evolution.
    Makes your head explode alriight.

  20. The alternate worlds theory contradicts the law of conservation of energy, which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. If an alternate universe is created, where did the matter come from?

  21. aqs has it mostly correct, with one quibble, which I really hesitate to get into, but…
    …evolution (as described) is not, strictly speaking, a scientific theory on the same level as quantum theory. It is a bio-historical inference deriving from certain lines of scientific and philosophical presumptions. It lacks the predictive quality of quantum theory, being more a fluid narrative than a prescriptive, experimental, subject. In no other field of science (and I speak of the hard sciences, not the imposters that leach off their imprimatur) would we tolerate the mushiness that pretends to coherence and rigor. Its uncritical acceptance lies largely in the lack of any other alternative. It should NOT be accorded the same scientific stature as, say, quantum mechanics, until we “recapitulate” the process experimentally, at a macro level, by developing and realizing an increasingly descriptive genetic blueprint.
    But, it’s the only game in town…
    Oh, and Phantom? We do understand entanglement. It is the basis of quantum cryptography, which has been formally predicted and demonstrated. I believe there is a working free-space link between the Perimeter Institute and the University of Waterloo. Creating entangled pairs is not difficult. Detecting them, in a usable fashion, and at a high bit rate – there’s the challenge!

  22. I was expecting the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change to be there.
    I guess it wasn’t funny enough to include.
    Reminds me: We’re told to believe in the Theory of Evolution… just ’cause it’s said to be true… just like AGW/CC. They tell us, “Believe in it or we’ll call you crazy and stupid and all sorts of nasty stuff!”
    Oh, oh, oh, and then there’s the theory that one’s sexual fetishes (y’know, like which way one swings and all that stuff) is genetically predetermined… yeah, right. Imagine that- all those people genetically pre-programmed to be attracted to feet, leather, being spanked, the same sex, dressing like the opposite sex, doing it at the grocery store, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality… yeah, right, sure. It’s all in the genes, oh, yeah, I betcha. Uh-huh. Like hell we’ll condone it all just ’cause it’s all genetic, as the Mad Scientists of the Ultra-Far Left say so!
    Whatever the Mad Scientists of the Ultra-Far Left tell us is automatically true. Never mind that they’re associated with, say, the United Nations, with the Democratic Party, with the ACLU, with the Rainbow Coalition, with the Communist Party or whatever.

  23. I agree. AQS has it about right.
    I wouldn’t use the word “proven”, though. Proofs are for mathematics. All scientific ideas must be considered, at some level, provisional.
    “Well supported by an abundance of evidence” is closer to the mark.

  24. Tenebris, that’s pretty cool. I didn’t know that. Have they decided if it obeys the speed of light or not?
    To clarify my statement that nobody understands it, I mean that (as far as I know, and feel free to correct me) nobody has a model that explains -why- the entangled particles affect each other over distances, or what medium the effect “travels” through.
    Physics is something I look at and drool over from the outside, same as I do at the Ferrari dealership. ~:)

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation