Kthonix (August 27, 2008 at 10:34 pm)

A "law" is not higher than a theory. A law is a generalisation, a theory is an explanatory blueprint, a predictive, written mechanism. Theories are what are turned into useful technology, not laws.

bubbadosi (August 26, 2008 at 1:55 am)

i love all of his other videos, but this is horse shit

FHB71 (August 24, 2008 at 9:05 am)

Actually it is called "Theory of Gravity"! Why? We know of course that gravity exists, but we do not know completely how it works. Ok, mass bends space, but how is that done? Or ist that just a representation of something else, i.e. exchange of gravitons. A theory in scientific terms is a model. It can predict the future of what it describes and is capable of being tested through experiment or verified through observation. But you are right, in a common sense a theory can be considered as fact.

imma1moron (August 24, 2008 at 8:54 am)

Actually a theory is not the highest. If it were the highest then we would have the "Theory of Gravity", and Newton's theories of motion. In fact, a LAW is the highest possible status. A theory is a best guess based on the evidence from other best guesses (hypotheses). That is not to say any given theory is wrong, but I do have this theory that anyone who doesn't even know what one is could be horribly wrong when discussing them.

razputen91 (August 24, 2008 at 1:31 am)

at 4:27 i would walk away for about an hour so i can haz cheezburger and just let her stand there. hahaha how can this even be real??

FHB71 (August 23, 2008 at 10:16 am)

And strictly prohibitting other theories than B, while science welcomes alternatives, but thoroughly tests them and when they match better than A they adapt or replace A.

neverfearchrisishere (August 23, 2008 at 10:12 am)

Classic false logic argument then. A isn't True so B must be true excluding the possibility of other explanations

publicitymaker (August 22, 2008 at 1:13 pm)

;D youre right man......

SANNAFABICH (August 22, 2008 at 10:58 am)

lol he made her feel him

FHB71 (August 22, 2008 at 10:01 am)

To summarize: What you are saying is the following: - we have theory A and theory B. - theory A is supported by loads of evidence - theory B is supported by no evidence at all - you cannot understand how theory A explains X - therefore theory B must be right. - even ignoring the question, whether theory B can explain X - and ignoring that B has no positive evidence in its favour anyway.