IS there no theory that has not been modified and remodified by someone or the other,i mean to say every time a scientist comes up with his theory it is modified by other, there is no consistency in any of their theories ,right from DALTON to\nMAX BORN to NEWTON each of their theories had been modified, I want to know why should we read all their theories which are not completely correct when they are first presented.
205903
look at Newton for example.  He may not have had a complete theory, but a lot of it is still valid.  \n\nNewton has been modified by einstein. but this is only in the case of very very massive objects (the size of the sun) and very fast moving objects (.7 c and up or 10^8 m/s, very very very fast).  \n\nBut we do not encouter those things in day to day life... infact you will only encounter that limit in stellar physics and particle physics.  \n\nWhen you build a rocket and launch it you are using purely newtonian mechanics.  \n\nThere have been methodes discoverd that make the calculations easier in many situaitions, but for most situations you will use newtons force laws instead of, say, the lagragian equations of motion.  \n\nThis is the same is all well developed feilds.  \n\n\nAlso a bunch of these non symplified theorys that are technecly correct are just too difficlut for just any one to understand.  If you wish to use lagrages or hamoltons equations of motions you need to know differntial calculus.  and you need to be rather good at it.  on the other hand you can do newton with elementry calculus, or even just algebra.  \n\nAlso just the concepts are difficlult to understand.  We can all imagine electrons traveling around the neucleus like planents around the sun, but it is much more difficlt to explain that electrons are not particals but they are waves and they tend to exist in a reigion of space moving around, but because they exist every where they have no change in momentum, and for this reason they exist with out giving off radiation.  \nBut once you understand the first theory, then you can start to modify the picture and try to understand the way things really are.  Which is actualy impossible because the particals exist in a dimention that we can not see, and act in a way that we can not understand.
184601
Probably one of the main reasons is that, as our knowledge expands, we realize that the early versions of the theories were just special cases of more general theories.\n\nThe best example of this is Newtonian physics versus Einstein's Relativistic Physics.  Newtonian physics was all well and good when all we could measure were speeds that we could achieve under muscle power on earth, but once we began to be able to measure things like the speed of light, Newtonian physics was no longer able to adequately explain some features.  Along came other scientists who further modified and expanded on Newtonian physics to incorporate the new knowledge.  Einstein derived the best set of equations to explain what we knew -- his equations could both explain and predict Newtonian physics AND the relativistic physics that was being revealed.\n\nAs time passes, we will eventually find that Einstein's Relativity Theories are special cases of some even grander description of the universe.
278716
Wow!  There are lots of theories.  \n\nYou should find these links quite helpful.  Sorry this answer may be a bit late for you but I hope it is helpful.\n\nHere are some good links.
97
Don't know yet, but lots of wild theories and mathematical approaches being tried (some, via\nhttp://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/search?p=4%208%2015%2016%2023%2042):\n\nhttp://www.d.kth.se/~dicander/lost.html\n\nhttp://www.4815162342.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=3
71763
I find it interesting that the individual producing the time cube theory claims that mathematics (and by implication, all science other than what he/she approves) is nonsense has declared that set of opinions on a medium that required the mathematical and scientific work that the individual curses...  The internet, and its support technology, has been built and supported by the stuff this fellow decries.\n\nFrom my standpoint, that's like someone cursing farmers and cooks while eating...\n\nJust my opinion, of course.  I'm the embodiment of all that he or she anathematizes: so is modern medicine.  I wonder what the person would do if he/she got pneumonia or a nasty case of malaria?\n\nTo move into new territory, of course, you have to find new thoughts to think--I think it's one of Fudd's Laws: to find what no one else has found, you have to look where no one else has looked.\n\nWith that said, I have to disagree with the content of the site, and wonder about what there is in the author's background that causes such an attitude.  Certainly, there is a strong element of lack of knowledge: math and science, as they exist at this point in time, certainly embrace both singularity and plurality, and a great deal of other things.  They're not nearly so limited as the individual in that site seems to feel they are.\n\nOh, well...  Time to move on, or I shall ramble.
646074
An interesting question.  \n\n#1 would seem at first glance to be automatically false, as everyone will agree that there is evidence that there was a time when the things we see today in nature, did not exist.  But to get a little deeper, what if these things are the natural products of natural laws that have always existed?  E.g. what if our universe is just one of an endless series of universes that appear, unfold under natural laws that have been in existence for eternity, and then disappear, only to get reborn again as a new universe?\n\n#2 is the *goal* of a scientific explanation.  I.e. to see how much we can explain by the discovery of natural laws.  Science has no way of knowing if such an explanation will always be possible, but it has to try.  And so far we have done remarkably well ... almost everything we see in nature can be explained in terms of the operation of natural laws.  And natural laws can often be shown to derivable from simpler natural laws.  (E.g., that's why physicists are on a quest to unify the four forces of physics ... so that all laws of atomic physics can be derived from a single law.)  However, scientists will always be faced with the question of where these simplest of natural laws came from.  And they may have to settle for the answer "they seem to have always been there", which brings us back to #1.\n\n#3, and #4 need more definitions to distinguish them.  What do you mean by phrases like "beyond nature", and "intelligence."  \n\nHOWEVER, despite being a died-in-the-wool evolutionist, I lean towards #4, (an intelligent, supernatural origin for all things in nature) but not with in the same sense as Intelligent Design.  I *don't* believe some intelligence designed every cell membrane, every flagellum, every eyeball, every bird, bat, or insect wing, every endochrine cycle, etc.  Evolution provides a far more satisfactory explanation for all those things based on such simple natural laws as the law of natural selection.  \n\nBut I do wonder where that force of natural selection, as a natural law, came from.   I believe it will be shown to be derivable from simpler laws of chemistry and thermodynamics, which can be derived from even simpler laws of physics.  But ultimately, we will still be faced with wondering where those primary laws of physics came from.
287365
I hope you don't mind a copy and paste answer, but I don't see the need to rewrite this article in my own words and it does pertain to your question.\n\n_______________________________\n\n\nCreation Evidence - The Great Debate of Origins\nCreation Evidence is sought by Creationists to discredit Evolution, not to validate Special Creation… \n\nIt is agreed on all sides that there are only two possible solutions to the riddle of origins. Either Someone made the world, or the world made itself. A third option, the world is eternal and without origin, contradicts Natural Laws such as Thermodynamics and has been disproved with mathematical certainty in the 20th century. As the universe is obviously complex and seemingly well-designed, a Designer should be the scientific default. In everything we observe today, concept and design are the result of a Mind. Furthermore, Natural Laws such as Gravity, Inverse Squares, Cause and Effect, and Thermodynamics imply a Law-giver. \n\nFamous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist, Sir Arthur Keith, is quoted as saying, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the alternative is Special Creation, and that is unthinkable." However, this is not acceptable under general principles of science. Unless a natural mechanism constrained by Natural Law, by which the entire universe could come into existence and further develop through random process, is found, a Creator must be the theoretical default. It doesn't matter whether an individual scientist has difficulty accepting it or not. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle so eloquently stated in his Sherlock Holmes series, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." \n\n\nCreation Evidence - A Few Brief Examples:\n\n\nLack of Transitional Fossils. Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record. \n\nLack of a Natural Mechanism. Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species, proposed Natural Selection to be the mechanism by which an original simple-celled organism could have evolved gradually into all species observed today, both plant and animal. Darwin defines evolution as "descent with modification." However, Natural Selection is known to be a conservative process, not a means of developing complexity from simplicity. Later, with our increased understanding of genetics, it was thought perhaps Natural Selection in conjunction with genetic mutation allowed for the development of all species from a common ancestor. However, this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far. \n\nTime Constraints. Both Creationists and Evolutionists agree that if evolution is at all possible, there needs to be an excessive (if not infinite) amount of time. For much of the 20th century, it was thought evolutionists had all the time they needed. If the earth ever looked too young for certain evolutionary developments to have occurred, the age was pushed back in the textbooks. In 1905, the earth was declared to be two billion years old. By 1970, the earth was determined to be 3.5 billion years old, and by the 1990's, the earth had become 4.6 billion years old. However, Young Earth advocates have identified quite a few Young Earth chronometers in re
426023
Its beautiful, its elegant and it  holds promise. Its true that its some what stagnant in last few years but that doesn't mean we should start disbelieving it. If you cannot test something  experimentally that does not mean that it is incorrect.  You can refute something straight away only when you have proved it to be wrong.  While  thinking about a theory of everything, we must always keep a open mind. We should also for similar reasons give heed to other attempts towards a theory of everything.
51547
There seems to be some confusion here. Let's try to define our terms a bit first, before we get nasty, shall we? \n\nEvolution is a scientific theory. It will never be more than a scientific theory. Just like gravity. Gravity is not "proven" or more than a theory. It is just the theory of gravity. \n\nAll a scientific theory is, is an attempted explanation for the evidence we have. A scientific theory is expected to be superceded by a better theory that explains more of the data as more evidence accumulates. \n\nOur current theory of gravity is probably wrong. We will discard it eventually, and replace it. I am sure of it. \n\nOur current theory of evolution is probably wrong too. We will discard it eventually as well, and replace it. \n\nTo the main body of your question:\n\nSince this has been answered repeatedly on talkorigins and other sites, and in fact is even listed as an argument to be avoided by procreationists such as Answers in Genesis, it hardly seems worth addressing here. I have enclosed a link if you want to pursue it further. \n\nActually, I do not believe you are actually sincerely interested in learning anything about the subject at all, but just jeering at people on the other side. However I might make some comments and some misconceptions about Darwin's theory:\n\n1. evolution has very little to do with radioactive dating\n2. evolution in biology has very little to do with the Big Bang\n3. evolution in biology has very little to do with stellar evolution\n4. evolution in biology has very little to do with children growing up and getting taller\n5. evolution in biology is not the same as abiogenesis (self-organizing molecules etc to form life from nonlife)\n6. evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics\n7. Darwin did not renounce evolution on his deathbed in favor of creationism\n8. evolution and creationism are not the only two alternatives to the species we observe\n9. we have observed evolution in action\n10. we make use of evolutionary principles in our work on vaccines etc.\n11. evolution is not a random process\n12. if you look in genesis, there are two separate incompatible contradictory creation accounts\n13. evolution is a scientific theory, just as gravity is a scientific theory. Both are expected to be superceded by something that fits the data better eventually. \n14. evolution makes predictions we can verify\n15. the definition that the intelligent design community wants to use for science is so vague it would include astrology as science, according to admission by intelligent design supporters in court under cross-examination.
561570
The theory evolved based on the facts that have been observed in the universe. The theory may not be correct or accurate but it does fit the facts and it is the only explanation anyone has been able to give to fit the facts.  \n\nIf you have a better one let's hear it.
99372
Relative motion between objects was not new to Newton and his contemporary scientists.\n\nEvery experimental result proved and confirmed again and again Newton’s laws of motion even in the frames of reference moving relative to each other.\n\nLatter with the improvement in measuring technology and particles moving nearly equal to the velocity of light, their behavior contradicted Newton’s laws.\n\nEinstein with a firm belief that any physical law (including Newton's law) must be the same in any reference frame moving relative to each other postulated that speed of light is independent of the source of light.\n\nThis explained every experimental result well and obeyed Newton’s laws.\n\nThe only difference is that  the basic quantities mass , length and time which during Newton’s time was thought of absolute in the sense that  they will not change with the velocity of the frame in which they are , is now considered to vary with the speed of the reference frame, and the velocity of light is independent of the motion of the source.
563147
This sort of thinking should be based on observation. You can come up with any theory you like, but if it does not explain what is seen it is useless.\n\nOn this basis:\n\n1. the universe (and implcitly nature) had a beginning, about 13.7 billion years ago\n2. that beginning did not require a creator (though you may choose to believe in one - you just won't find him experimentally)
423962
Who says it cannot?  \n\nSure it cannot be tested completely, in a lab, using the technology we currently have.  Be we sure can test aspects of the theory, and they absolutely confirm.  One day we may devise a method to test the theory completely, without the need for an entire world and a billion years to duplicate the real conditions.  But it can't be done today.\n\nBut simply because we cannot test the theory today does not invalidate the theory, exactly in the same way Einstein's theory of general relativity held in Newton's day the same as it holds today, even though Newton had absolutely no chance of confirming the theory scientifically using 17th ca technology.  \n\nThe important point is that certain aspects of the theory can and HAVE been proven, and can be retested and reproven.  Plus the theory fits within the existing scientific evidence that has been confirmed through experiment and test.  It's the only theory to meet those two criteria.
261343
If a theory can be proven, then it becomes a proven fact.  I suspect you'll find a lot of denial, even if someone could prove theories like this.
90639
Stop acting crazy, that's #1.  Second, before G-d created the universe, there obviously wasn't time.  And there weren't any beings to know what time was.  so, as hard as it may seem to be, G-d existed forever...reeeeeally weird to think about it, but like i said, there was no time, so it's quite possible.
33
First, I would never say that a theory has been proven. There may be a lot of evidence that supports a theory, and as a result it may no longer be on the list of theories that are being challenged, but theories are always theories and should always be open to adjustment by new evidence. A good theory is just a collection of hypothesis, experiments and deductions that survives repeated challenge and can therefore be used to predict untested outcomes.\nNow to your question (sorry for the tangent)... I think that most physicists consider Arthur Eddington's observations of the bending of light during the 1919 solar eclipse as the first solid evidence to support Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Einstein's theory predicted that gravitational fields would bend light, and Eddington's measurements supported that prediction, thus making it the first empirical data to support the theory.
642776
So, what's your problem?\n\nThe text you pasted supports evolutionary science.  Every year more discoveries by archaeologists and paleontologists add more content to support the principles of evolution.\n\nA "theory" is a proposition put to test by empirical study.  In science, very little is considered hard and fact TRUTH - today's truth is usually tomorrow's error.  Evolution is in this sense theoretical, but the evidence all supports it.  And the quote you delivered says that the writer strongly endorses evoltionary science.\n\nThere is NO evidence for alternative concepts, especially that mythology out of some "holy book."\n\nWork on your reading and critical understanding.  You're trying, but you aren't there yet.