forumulae
Forumulae: Formulas presented by forumites, of which only the premise and conclusion are presented, and the intermediate calculations are conveniently omitted.
Also: In Science a Law == Theory, but very unlikely to be disproven. In principle, there's no difference, and it can still be done.
Not really. A law is a mathematical or statistical relationship between physical measurements. Theories and hypotheses are explanations for why that relationship exists. A law can usually be written as a simple equation, like Einstein's E=mc^2 (The energy contained in a stationary mass = amount of mass x the speed of light squared) being an example. The function of the Hiroshima bomb was to convert an amount of mass roughly equal to that of one US penny into energy. Of course, a penny times the speed of light squared is big enough that letting that energy loose all at once is ideal for destroying everything in the area, or if you release it more slowly, generating power for a few cities. What you use this information for depends a great deal on who your clients are and how desperate the situation is. Einstein's theories of relativity were an attempt to explain, among other things, why mass contains such staggering amounts of energy. There were two theories of relativity which both did a very good job of explaining things, but new information kept coming up that they can't explain. Right now the biggest problem in physics is how to modify or replace relativity so that we have an explanation that covers everything. The Large Hadron Collider is expected to confirm or disprove some long-standing predictions pretty soon.
As for the difference between theory and hypothesis, a hypothesis is an explanation similar to an untested myth on mythbusters. It might be true, it might not be true. Any good hypothesis will make predictions, usually of the type "if x, then y". If the hypothesis is tested through an experiment, and it's predictions are confirmed in a wide range of situations, then it can be called a theory, which is an explanation that actually seems to work.
It might surprise some to learn that evolution is technically a law, or perhaps more appropriately a fact, since there's no equation for it. We
know that organisms change over time. We have seen it happen in realtime in bacteria and over longer time scales in domesticated crops and animals. George W. Bush, who said the jury was still out on evolution, later said that we need to support the efforts of biologists to produce new medicines as bacteria adapt to old ones. If he'd thought about it, he'd realize he just said that those organisms were changing, or in other words, evolving. The actual
theory in evolution is the explanation of why and how this happens, which is mostly a process of genetic mutations being filtered through natural selection. The theory has gone through several changes since it was first proposed, and natural selection wasn't really the first either. But all of these theories, in their many variations, are all just an attempt to explain why we see a change in living things over time, which is part of the reason that those who try to discredit evolution purely for religious reasons are so tiresome. If you want to dispute how it happens, great. We can use the help. But don't try to say it doesn't happen, unless you like being in the same category as people who still say the earth is flat. You were wrong about the sun going around the earth, and you are wrong about this. It's one of the hazards of basing your world view off an ancient book. You can believe whatever if you want to that badly, but please, leave the kids at school alone.
Author
Topic: Atheists (Read 391443 times)