Quote:
Starhawk said:
we've never EVER made a black hole or anything remotely like what we "think" one would be,
|
(Bold added by me.)
Are you sure?
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg18524915.400
Quote:
we can't even make a large enough ammount of gravity or speed to test the theory properly.
|
"The" theory? You mean time changing in accordance with relativity theory? It's been tested to the satisfaction of most scientists.
Quote:
Considering the fact that they were using clocks some people may just argue that the clock's mechanisms suffered from the gravity/speed not actual time it's self.
|
That's exactly the point - the clock's mechanism is affected, no matter what mechanism you use. Thus, time changed. To quote Einstein, "Time is that which you measure with a clock." Do you have some better definition of time that renders it independant of the rate at which things occur? If so, you're not talking about time anymore.
Quote:
something that ages or spoils rapidly
|
What if it was a clock based on the rate something ages, like... say... some Cesium atoms? Ooops, that's already what they use in such tests.
Quote:
Unless you stick something that ages or spoils rapidly and place it in a high grav/ high speed environment and see if it spoils at a slower rate you'll always have arguments that you can't "prove" time slows down at all.
|
No, you'll still have those arguments. As increasingly conclusive evidence is gathered for something, the group of people who argue against it become increasingly stupid and / or psychotic, but they never give up. Talk to people who don't believe in plate tectonics, moon landings, or the "viral theory of AIDS." They love to argue, but they're often stupid, psychotic, illogical, or simply attention-seekers.
Quote:
My point is, theories are just that theories as in "totally unproven" if it was proven in any way or shape it would no longer be a theory but instead be a scientific fact.
|
I guess you don't understand science. Science is a set of theories and models based on observations. The facts are the observations; the other 99% of science cannot magically leap from "Theory" to "Scientific Fact" no matter how accurate it seems. Science is a method of predicting and explaining. Facts do not predict or explain, but theories and models do.
Quote:
And yes temperature wise absolute zero can be reached in deep space from what I've heard but again I don't think we know for sure so aw well heh....
|
No, it is fundamental to thermodynamics that absolute zero cannot be reached anywhere through any method. Remember that thermodynamics is spoken of as a set of "Laws," but it is really just a model that fits observations. Nobody has violated it so far.
Quote:
No I don't think it's "crap" unless it's totally proven I just think we shouldn't take it as "a fact" until it is "a fact" considering how rapidly scientific theories are proven wrong, then right, then wrong again a few months afterward.
|
Can you name a so-called "fact" that has been proven so totally that it cannot be disproven? Like, say, "Paper is made of trees." Do you really know this, or do you just think it's true because you learned it in school and everyone says so? How about, "You are looking at a monitor." Is "I've seen it with my own eyes" undeniable proof? Remember, people claim to have seen aliens and flying saucers, and psychologists have (to the best of their ability) determined that at least some of them believe they are telling the truth.
The only source of "Truth" is in moldy tomes (I love that phrase) like the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, "Battlefield Earth" series, and so forth. But none of those have any useful ability to predict or explain, so I tend to go with science.