/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1890299
>>1890299
>hilariously easy for an actual physicis
I'm not a physicist, and I can't answer your question

>>1890271
>Does that make the existence of the phenomenon of gravity "just a theory and open to debate?"

I never said that it did. Some other poster that you're arguing with stated that. My post was simply stating that consensus does not mean a topic is not open to debate, it had nothing to do with the word theory.
>>1890268
No, you are just playing semantics, you know precisely what I was saying and you're merely playing a "gotcha" game that 'proves' nothing.

>sci

>>1890230
>>1890236
>prove Verb /pro͞ov/ listen
>-subject to a testing process
>-test the accuracy of

Really, you're just playing semantics at this point, so I'm almost certain you're a troll.

>>1890230
>you can't prove a theory you idiot.
You must be trolling, I can't imagine anyone with an actual science background would be unaware of the various definitions of the word "prove".

>>1890216
The definition of "prove", in this instance, means to "test the veracity of". It does not necessarily mean to demonstrate, beyond doubt, that something is true.

L2English, boyo

>>1890210
>>1890210
>You have no understanding about how science works whatsoever
Actually I know exactly how science works, considering my work in nuclear physics.
Something that begins as a theory is forever a theory, regardless of evidence.

>>1890193
Well, no, again you're wrong. A theory begins unproved and can become proved. It never STOPS being a theory, but simply because it is a theory doesn't mean anything.

It could be proved.
It could be unproved.
It could be true, based on data and proper interpretation, or it could be so much bullshit.

Saying it is a theory doesn't mean anything, one way or the other.

>>1890176
>>1890160
He's right, though, consensus proves nothing.
The consensus is merely a majority of scientists (not even close to all, in most cases) agreeing on a theory that has yet to be definitively proved.
Keep in mind, the scientific consensus used to be that the universe was static, even Einstein insisted on this.

Then all of a sudden: Red-shift up in this bitch and scientific consensus is nowhere to be found.

>>1890119
>>1890119
/sp/artan here
I was a nuclear reactor operator for the Navy and currently am a history + math major
Your point is invalid

>>1890130
>You my favorite board behind /sp/


>mfw I see this

>mfw I have no face

WE SCIENCE NOW!!!

(I still love you /sci/ :3 You my favorite board behind /sp/)