Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Still Waters

Earth's core far hotter than thought

33 posts in this topic

I think it is interesting that this has PROVED standard science wrong. I think people don't realize how dogmatic mainstream science is.

Everyday someone learns something new or finds something new, that's science

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is interesting that this has PROVED standard science wrong. I think people don't realize how dogmatic mainstream science is.

Agreed. When a new theory is presented the mainstream is quick to debunk it but if the theory

has been proven, then mainstream jumps on the bandwagon.

And in a couple of sentences, all that has been shown is just how much neither of you actually understand how science works.

Perhaps do a bit of reading before spouting off utter nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the inner-earth theory isn't true????

There only needs to be a large enough cavern. Potentially using this very energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in a couple of sentences, all that has been shown is just how much neither of you actually understand how science works.

Perhaps do a bit of reading before spouting off utter nonsense?

When a new theory is presented science can at least give it consideration and be more open rather then quick to debunk.

Robert H, Goddard was ridiculed for his rocket experiments by his collegues of his day but a german named

Wernher von Braun admired Goddard's work and perfected his technology and created the V2 rocket which

was used durring WWII. It eventually led up to the Saturn 5 rockets that sent man to the moon. If von Braun didn't

pick up where Goddard left off, we would probably be decades behind then what we are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a new theory is presented science can at least give it consideration and be more open rather then quick to debunk.

Firstly, a theory is an established scientific model. What you're referring to is a hypothesis.

Science doesn't "debunk" new ideas. It rejects them until there is enough evidence to form a solid theory. This has to be the way - if any zany new idea was given the same consideration as an established theory, then all progress would grind to a halt.

A hypothesis has to do its time. It has to be tested, pulled apart, and trialed to within an inch of its life. It has to be supported by multiple bodies of evidence; it has to be falsifiable (ie there has to be a way of proving it wrong); and it has to be subject to repeatable experiments.

Another mistake people make is thinking that science is all about final, established, proven and correct facts. It isn't. Science is built on the process of proving established theories wrong. That's how science works.

Robert H, Goddard was ridiculed for his rocket experiments by his collegues of his day but a german named

Wernher von Braun admired Goddard's work and perfected his technology and created the V2 rocket which

was used durring WWII.

Actually it was the press that ridiculed Goddard, not the scientific establishment.

The press has never done science any favors. It mis-reports stories, blows findings out of proportion, and is the first to lay the blame when these findings don't come to anything (as is usually the case) - leaving the general public with, at best, a dim view of scientists and absolutely no awareness of the scientific process.

At the end of the day - if the scientific establishment doesn't take something seriously, whether its alternative medicine or UFOs, there is one reason and one reason only - there is not enough evidence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, a theory is an established scientific model. What you're referring to is a hypothesis.

Science doesn't "debunk" new ideas. It rejects them until there is enough evidence to form a solid theory. This has to be the way - if any zany new idea was given the same consideration as an established theory, then all progress would grind to a halt.

A hypothesis has to do its time. It has to be tested, pulled apart, and trialed to within an inch of its life. It has to be supported by multiple bodies of evidence; it has to be falsifiable (ie there has to be a way of proving it wrong); and it has to be subject to repeatable experiments.

Another mistake people make is thinking that science is all about final, established, proven and correct facts. It isn't. Science is built on the process of proving established theories wrong. That's how science works.

Actually it was the press that ridiculed Goddard, not the scientific establishment.

The press has never done science any favors. It mis-reports stories, blows findings out of proportion, and is the first to lay the blame when these findings don't come to anything (as is usually the case) - leaving the general public with, at best, a dim view of scientists and absolutely no awareness of the scientific process.

At the end of the day - if the scientific establishment doesn't take something seriously, whether its alternative medicine or UFOs, there is one reason and one reason only - there is not enough evidence.

I still think science needs to change their mindset and give a new theory the benefit of the doubt rather then totally reject it until

one or a few open minded scientist prove it's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think science needs to change their mindset and give a new theory the benefit of the doubt rather then totally reject it until

one or a few open minded scientist prove it's worth.

Did you even read what I just said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science places the burden of proof on proposers of original ideas - it doesn't reject ideas out of hand.

People get used to the lazy mindset common in everyday society that expressing an idea offers it some validity. It isn't true in everyday society and its doubly untrue in the field of science.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.