St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 19
th, 2014 at 6:34pm:
BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 19
th, 2014 at 5:15pm:
Edited: St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 19
th, 2014 at 4:17pm:
ahahahahaha
“Greggy” is right re Law v Theory.
He is wrong re AGW tho.
Are you saying a law is not a theory?!!!!!!!!
Yes.
A Law—Boyle’s Law, Newton’s Law of Gravitation etc simply summarises observations and makes no attempt at explanation. A theory, a hypothesis
not yet falsified by experimental results does attempt to explain observations.
Creation Science, so called, is not science, it just asssumes creationism is spelled out by the Bible and attempts to find confirmation. Phht, science looks to falsify theories to get at a truth closer to reality.
Newton proposed a non-metric, non-relativistic gravitational theory.
Newtonian laws, like thermodynamic laws arise from theory, assumptions, derivation, experimental validation, logic, abstract mathematical conclusions and even common sense.
For Mr Greggy to suggest that there is no Newtonian gravitational theory, but there exists an Einsteinian theory of gravitation, merely highlights why he is so confused by a simple concept such as AGW and climate change.
If you examine the table i posted you will see not only Newton's and Einstein's THEORIES on gravitation listed, but several others as well.
The first known law us arguably Archimedes Law on Levers. But lo and behold, Archimedes arrived at this law via mathematical theory and logic as well as experiment to validate it. Theory is coupled with experiment/observation in the scientific method.
A good example of this is String Theory which is not a scientific theory yet, because it has no observational or experimental data to support it. String theory is often referred to as a mathematical philosophical theory.
One can go on, but I am in urgent need of a Glenfiddich 12 year sample on ice at the moment