If you think about SpaceX. Scientists had to theorise everything and put all that into place. It worked. Our physics is good, plenty of facts. Just I used to play the "facts don't exist card", but the word might as well not be in the dictionary if you can't apply it correctly in this context. Any facts in science?
Not sure what you're asking. Science has never actually proven anything since it is all about induction, not deduction. As for facts existing, take: "A rocket with insufficient fuel for its payload will not get that payload into orbit.". You might assert that that fact isn't something that exists, but that would make the statement no more or less true, so the existence (or lack thereof) of that fact seems irrelevant.
Scientific theories are being tested everyday, and as they continue matching observational and experimental data over time, they grow more and more certain....The BB, SR/GR are well supported theories that still stand the test of time. The BB matches the four pillars of cosmology far better then any other hypothetical. I mean why would scientists support it if it wasn't the most comprehensive theory. Yes it still has some minor problems, and over time, the theory will be added to, modified, according to new scientific data. SR and GR are not in dispute and still match all observational and experimental data. The theory of the evolution of life is now taken as fact.
No, I mean if you depressurise a space station landing, that our theories on how to deal with the environment in space. We know how space vacuums behave, we can manipulate it if you like. We know. The science you talk about is fact too, don't get me wrong. Science is about facts as I have just explained one(new technology SpaceX).
I think I get where Dave is coming from. I will change the setting to ''explain'' . Say, when the Lunar Module landed on the moon, they depressurised the cabin before they EVA. Dave is saying we understand enough about a vacuum to know you depressurise the cabin before you exit the LM. Dave is saying that is a fact. (Am I right Dave?)
I'm not. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If that's what the OP meant then I'm trying to answer the OP's question.
Strictly speaking the only facts in science are suitably confirmed observations of nature. The theories we construct from these observations are not really facts, since they remain open to being revised, in the light of any future observations that do not fit the theory. Having said that, there are some theories that are sure enough to be relied upon as if they are facts, at least within a certain domain of application. These are the ones used in engineering. For examples the rules of Newtonian mechanics are used by engineers with 100% confidence, so long as they do not go outside certain boundaries. (GPS systems are a good example of an application that goes outside the boundaries of Newtonian physics and needs some input from General Relativity to make the system work).
Just about, first example I thought of, I can think of much easier examples it's just I had SpaceX on my mind Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What is the point of the word fact if a fact doesn't exist? At some point your rational mind is going to have to take many scientific theories as fact, it gives you more understanding of the world around you. Your know a bird needs to work hard to fly, I know they can fly for 100,1000s of miles, but why? Gravity right? Why does a baloon float and we are stuck to the ground, unless you're Jordan! Gravity is a fact.
What are you talking about? I said the observations are facts. You observe you are stuck to the ground. Fact. Why you are stuck to the ground can be explained in two different ways, both of them theories.
So your attitude is: "Why am I stuck on the groud?" "Well science thinks it is a thing called gravity".... isn't easier to just say gravity? If you wanted to teach a child, would you not just say gravity? Have you a trust problem with scientists?
Gravity is both a fact and a theory. https://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law Is Gravity a Theory or a Law? I frequently get emails wanting to know whether gravity is a law or a theory. That question brings up so many more questions that I thought it would be fun to explore. To try this, you will need: - an object to drop. OK, pick an object that will not break, dent the floor, cause a mess, or get either of us in trouble. Hold it out in front of you and release it. What happens? It falls, unless you picked a helium balloon. In that case, gravity causes it to float upwards, by pulling downwards with more force on the air around the balloon). The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the object pulls it towards the ground. But, when we do this experiment, should we be talking about the Law of Gravity or the Theory of Gravity? Actually, we should be talking about both. To understand why, we need to understand the scientific meaning of the words "law" and "theory." In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us: "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." So if we know the mass of two objects, and the distance between the center of mass of the two objects, we can calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream. We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc. While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about WHY it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, a theory is an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall. A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world. While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded because of new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe. So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law of gravity that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory of gravity that describes why the objects attract each other.
When you teach children, you cut a lot of corners and give them a simple version. I had assumed you were an adult, though.
Of course! We need to dumb things down for kids, and as well as the average Joe Blow in the street, not educated in the more technical aspects and deeper insights. This video is only seven minutes long, and I urge you to watch it, rather then listen to the angst and sarcasm of exchemist.....
