Why do people disregard theories and disagree with proven maths...?
412706
People tend to leap to an easy conclusion or rationale when they think they are unable to understand the theory or the topic.  This occurs when they don't want to be embarrassed or when they are being "cute" to cover up their self-doubts.
864347
You already answered it with your question, it's a theory. There are a lot of theories but that don't make any of them right, science is constantly changing as they figure out whats wrong and right.\n\nThis is a wait and see thing but don't put any belief into it til science has figured out what is truth and what isn't or your going to be all screwed up with weird idea's.
548994
Where most religious people think to see "proof" of God, an objective person will only see something that usually can be explained by smthg else. The point is that the average human is not much aware of modern science (like cutting edge cosmology, quantum physics, abiogenesis, and the like) and just ignore the many possibilities for other explanations alternative to "God". \n\nThere is no such thing as "scientific proof" of the existence of God. No matter what religious people say.\nWe don´t really need the "God theory" to explain things in this universe. They can be explained by more conventional means. \n\nThe problem is that science is just too young compared to culture and tradition. \nMankind, my friend, is still at its childhood, and it still loves fairytales when going to bed.
269407
With the way people argue -- just flip a coin.\n\nI for one am a big fan of science.  If I wanted to fall asleep or read a lot of little fairytales, I'd read the bible.\n\nAnd just because Einstein believed that there was design by intelligence, doesn't mean it's correct.  Like all men, he was fallible too.
1153023
It is really surprising that there are still people who think they have a PROOF for statements like 1=2, 1=0, etc.\nFirst they should UNDERSTAND what is a PROOF.\n\nPROOF is a sequence of logically correct steps. If ONE of your step is wrong then it is NOT called a proof.\n\nI think these people should go back to Primary schools and LEARN the fundamentals.
137123
Facts are proven. They would not be facts had they not been. So if facts have been disproven, then they are no longer facts. They could have been theories. Or perhaps opinions. Facts are proven. So facts are facts until something better comes along which disproves them. ;) lol
254756
IMHO, people resort to supernatural explanations for phenomena they don't understand because they don't have the patience for science to catch up with what is observed.\nSince the supernatural does not exist, I think it's intellectually dishonest to attribute the unexplained to it.  Coincidence does exist; the paranormal does not.
908441
Minor theories are challenged and disproved every day. Major theories tend to last longer (that's what makes them major theories).
212255
The scientific method creates objectivity. It is very difficult for a person with an idea in his head to discard it when facts indicate they are wrong.
735829
Because it's incredibly difficult to "understand" things that are completely untrue. Go ahead, give it a try. Try to "understand" that 1+1=3. Not so easy, is it?
390756
A theory, as opposed to a hypothesis, has a great deal of evidence supporting it.  To rise to the level of theory, and explanation must be internally and externally consistent, have no strong evidence disputing it, and have a preponderence of testable and relicatable evidence supporting it.  It is also useful if the theory is flexible and able to be fine-tuned based upon new evidence.  A hypothesis, on the other hand, must merely be a testable, comprehensible, and logical explanation of the known facts.  No real experimental data is needed for a hypothesis, but any fundable hypothesis, in order to be taken seriously, usually must have been experimentally tested to a point.  There is a large gulf between theory and hypothesis- A theory is very well accepted, has endured years or decades of attempts to disprove it (even, and ethically especially, by those who believe it), and totally explains the observable universe as it is.  A hypothesis can have nearly no experimental support, or a great deal, but is not supported strongly enough or believed with a strong enough consensus of the cogniscenti to be elevated to theory.  Theory is usually as far as anything can be elevated, because in order to be a law of nature, it must be mathematically proven beyond any shadow of a doubt.  Scientists of all stripes are so sceptical and cautious that almost nothing ever achieves this outside of mathematical proof.  Since mathematical proof cannot at this time be applied most of scientific theory, Theory is as good as it can get.
863707
Clearly your current belief system conflicts with much of what modern physics believes to be true. That's okay. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.\n\nPlease understand this: it is impossible to prove any physical theory. The best anyone can do is demonstrate that a theory provides correct predictions for a given set of circumstances. Another, competing theory, may also provide correct predictions for the same set of circumstances. Is one theory correct and the other theory incorrect, or are both correct? Is it possible that both are incorrect?\n\nYou state "light shouldn't be able to travel in a vacuum if it is simply a wave, right?" And then answered your own question with "I don't believe so." Science is all about belief, but it is belief based on rational thought, reasoning, and experiment.\n\nThe Scientific Method: observe, explain, predict, then verify. These four steps are absolutely the bedrock foundation of modern science. Note that the last step, verify, leads back to the first step, observe. If you can traverse this loop without stumbling or waving your hands or invoking a higher power (like Stephen Hawkings) then you probably have a robust theory that explains something.\n\nWhy do I say it is impossible to prove any physical theory? Because it only takes one counter-example, one single fact, one observation that does not agree with the theory, to absolutely prove that theory is wrong. Even the most trusted theory must be considered to be potentially wrong, because some new observation could render the theory incorrect... like light from a distant start bending as it passes through the gravity field near our sun. Who ordered that?\n\nSo, we offer NO PROOF that light is made of photons. All we can offer is observations, explanations for those observations, and predictions of what will happen if obeservations are made in the manner our theory says is required. It is then up to the individual to study our evidence, our theory, our predictions and then decide whether or not to believe our theory.\n\nSo here is what we observe when we are looking for photons:\n\nThere is a device called a photomultiplier that emits electrons when light of an appropriate wavelength (color) shines on its photosensitive cathode. The electrons are emitted with a maximum energy that is inversely proportional to the wavelength of the light. These photoelectrons constitute an electron current that can be collected at a nearby anode, amplified, and measured.\n\nAs we reduce the amount of light shining on the photocathode, the number of electrons emitted per unit time interval, which by definition is the electron current, decreases. We can choose to decrease the amount of light in any manner we care to: by adding neutral density filters in the light path, by passing the light through smaller apertures, by moving the light source further away from the photocathode, whatever.\n\nAt some point in this light dimming process, we note that the photoelectron current is no longer a smooth and steady current that is a continuous function of the light intensity. The light has a constant intensity but it is very dim. The electron current now appears to come in short random pulses. If we count these pulses over a long period of time we discover that the number of counts per unit time interval is linearly proportional to the light intensity, exactly the same as the continuous electron current we measured at higher intensities. This occurs no matter how much we reduce the amount of light.\n\nFrom these observations what may we conclude? In other words, what theory do we propose to explain these observations?\n\nIt is reasonable to conclude that each pulse of current at low light levels must have originated from a single electron emitted from the photocathode. But what would cause a single electron to be emitted at a specific energy if not a small packet of light, what  we now call a photon, of nearly the same energy?\n\nY
819839
It's easy, no one can dispute the fact that I don't know something when I in fact don't. Admitting you do not know a thing when you don't is the highest form of truth there is. Assumption of truth with out proof is irrational.
823845
Makes exactly the same amount of sense, doesn't it?\n\nThere is a certain kind of "logic" that is so off-base that you can't argue with it other than to throw up your hands and give up. That kind of  logic, which includes "how can 2 billion people be wrong" (which obviously doesn't include the Chinese) also asks irrefutable questions of the nature of "If 'BURD' doesn't spell bird, what does it spell?", and so forth.\n\nWhen you give up in disgust, they believe they have won an argument.\n\nWhat I also don't understand is that if the Creator wants me to believe certain things, why have perverts, idiots and outright criminals been appointed to the task of teaching me?
180432
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.
357579
People who have such closed minds never read beyond what they believe to be true, therefore they just make up arrogant assumptions about others. Rather like that dumb cow who thought she should pray for me and my wife because she 'assumed' our marriage was weak! \n\nAssumptions are the mother of all f**k-ups!
148099
Many people don't get their mathematics. The basic problem is that they don't give enough time to it. Most people dislike mathematics that they  hardly know it. The solution to this problem is to change your attitude towards maths.