neoanime.forumsdot.com

Oh, yes, this is indeed a very interesting subject. That is no theory, however. It does not even pass as a hypothesis.

-------------

"The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the theory of general relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

According to the National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena." -Wikipedia, 'Theory'

-------------

"A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory.

In early usage, scholars often referred to a clever idea or to a convenient mathematical approach that simplified cumbersome calculations as a hypothesis; when used this way, the word did not necessarily have any specific meaning. Cardinal Bellarmine gave a famous example of the older sense of the word in the warning issued to Galileo in the early 17th century: that he must not treat the motion of the Earth as a reality, but merely as a hypothesis.

In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself. Normally, scientific hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model. Sometimes, but not always, one can also formulate them as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon under examination has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic.

Any useful hypothesis will enable predictions by reasoning (including deductive reasoning). It might predict the outcome of an experiment in a laboratory setting or the observation of a phenomenon in nature. The prediction may also invoke statistics and only talk about probabilities. Karl Popper, following others, has argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and that one cannot regard a proposition or theory as scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false. To meet this additional criterion, it must at least in principle be possible to make an observation that would disprove the proposition as false, even if one has not actually (yet) made that observation. A falsifiable hypothesis can greatly simplify the process of testing to determine whether the hypothesis has instances in which it is false. The scientific method involves experimentation on the basis of falsifiable hypotheses in order to answer questions and explore observations.

In framing a hypothesis, the investigator must not currently know the outcome of a potentially falsifying test or that it remains reasonably under continuing investigation. Only in such cases does the experiment, test or study potentially increase the probability of showing the truth of a hypothesis. If the researcher already knows the outcome, it counts as a "consequence" — and the researcher should have already considered this while formulating the hypothesis. If one cannot assess the predictions by observation or by experience, the hypothesis classes as not yet useful, and must wait for others who might come afterward to make possible the needed observations. For example, a new technology or theory might make the necessary experiments feasible.

In the United States of America, teachers of science in primary schools have often simplified the meaning of the term "hypothesis" by describing a hypothesis as "an educated guess". Overemphasizing this aspect fails to convey the explanatory or predictive quality of scientific hypotheses. To define a hypothesis as "an educated guess" resembles describing a tricycle as a "vehicle with three". The definition omits the concept's most important and characteristic feature: the purpose of hypotheses. People generate hypotheses as early attempts to explain patterns observed in nature or to predict the outcomes of experiments. For example, in science, one could correctly call the following statement a hypothesis: identical twins can have different personalities because the environment influences personality. In contrast, although one might have informed one's self about the qualifications of various political candidates, making an educated guess about the outcome of an election would not qualify as a scientific hypothesis: the guess lacks an underpinning generic explanation." -Wikipedia, 'Hypothesis'

-------------
Let me clarify: I do not trust Wikipedia all of the time, but these summaries are correct on the issues they address and are convenient for me to post.
-------------

It is, in fact, an uneducated guess, but a specific one, to be sure.

Now, truly, the only way to test such a theory would be to wait until the world ended, but by then it would not matter. The prophecies in the oldest and most historically accurate book ever written may be the most reliable ideas simply because they were written in the oldest and most accurate book ever. There are several books of the bible that reference this, but the biggest piece of it is in revelations. However, as I'm sure many of you know, there are many, many 'theories' about this out there, and anyone who is not a Christian will most likely avoid this theory altogether because they consider it religious and invalid because it is so. I myself have heard many 'theories', all of them sounding good but with nothing behind them at all. Now, when you're giving me dates for when the world is going to be destroyed, show me some hard evidence, maybe a testable hypothesis. But when there is some freak spilling out 'prophetic' junk about 2012, I think it is pitiful that they will take this stuff and stand by it. I, for one, fail to see how knowing how the world is going to end will help anyone, but whatever. That’s just my humble opinion.

Lol. I take my debates pretty seriously. Sorry. Lighten up though, I wasn't insulting you. I was insulting those who believe such 'prophecies'. It only causes problems knowing what is going to happen, or believing that you do. You just might cause what you are trying to stop from happening in your hurry to avoid it.

Sorry again. I'm just not very tolerant of those who will believe anything and stick with it. A lot of people believed that all technology would crash in 2000 and that there would be chaos. Chaos happened in prelude, because everyone scrambled to protect themselves from the 'imminent' disaster. I have even less respect for those who spread such dangerous ideas.

Sorry if I offended. I would hope that you do not take what I say too personally, if I am targeting you (anyone reading) with an argument, I will most likely mention you. Lol, I didn’t write a thesis paper. I used two large quotations and made a few comments afterward.

I laughed at it. Complete BS. Id liked to meet the person that thought this one up.

I was once told that it would end in 2 ways:

1) Ragnarok. A giant meteor smashing Earth and destroying us.
OR
2) A plague hits Earth.

BOTH stupid I know lol

Well these ways actually have a chance of happening. This Teotwawki on other hand sounds scientifically impossible. How is a black hole going to suddenly appear close enough to us to suck us in? If this has any chance of actually happening then we would already know were screwed. Black holes holes take awhile to form and if I remember correctly, slow moving...if they move at all (I really dont remember). So that means if this actually happens that weve already noticed a black hole in a close proximity to Earth and that the governments just trying to hush it up....though I doubt its true since the government always does a lousy job with situations like that.

True. It takes thousands of years for one to begin forming. Plus the sun is young. We have a VERY young sun. as it gets older it'll become hotter, so if anything we would burn to death before getting hit with a black hole

like spawn said, we still have a long while before this planent goes anywhere, although i have seen man kind causeing the end of society, atleast with how much people are worried about nuclear threats, although it has been getting slightly better. But again if we dont kill each other off, the most likly way like spawn said would be for the sun to burn or planet

If the world ends at all, I'm guessing it would be because of something completely natural that nobody saw coming, like maybe a black hole or a giant meteor or something like that. Human beings are a lot more irrelevant than most people realize, I think.

That little theory thing there is pretty unsound, though, even from the beginning:


In that case the earth wouldn't be a planet so much as a gigantic piece of spaghetti. We'd all just be dead, with our corpses and everything else on earth turned into long thin strands, and that would be the end of it.

This topic is more like "poke holes in this ridiculously unsound idea", isn't it?

Edit: Those of you interested in end of the world scenarios might find this website entertaining, if occasionally inaccurate:
http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm

soundlife???

ANYhoo

yeh...I saw this thread when it first came up and decided I was just gonna ignore it, was gonna try out this new thing where I DONT destroy people dreams and feelings. Implus I figured there was going to be enough people ganging up on the person, didn't think I needed to add to it.

the theory is pretty much bullcrap, sounds like something you stole off of someones my space or something. there are so many "end of the world" conspiracies out there, remember how hectic was when "6/6/06" came? people screamin "its the end of the friggin world man!!" and panicking, pretty unprofessional dude. not only was it ridiculous, but also inaccurate. if the devil did have a number it would be "999" seeing how the guys read it upside down, but thats irrelevant.

I'm not gonna sit here like I'm "all knowing" and say things like end of the world theories are completely fictional and only a idiot would believe in them. wth do I know right? but I WILL say that any of the end of the world theories that we'll encounter in our lifetime are highly unlikely to be true and you'll probably just look like a jack@$$ for going around quoting them. see, i can be nice. your not a jack@$$ for believing in them, you just have all the symptoms of a jack@$$.

we cant even comprehend simple things like how the world was created, it humors me to think that somehow we're gonna figure out how its going to end. I'm not saying that an Official end of the world theory is too far off, just not in our lifetime. I don't think we're gonna get it right till years from now. Though, there is this one theory by the Mayan that interest me, but their due date for us isn't till years from now....well..not till after I die, so I can care less.

Yes, it's soundlife

What makes the Mayan theory any more plausible than any other theory?

Oh no, its complete bullsh!t just like the others. I said it "interest" me, not that I believe in it. there's is just....>.>....weird. theirs no long drawn out theory, or explination for it or anything. it just says world will end at this date. its like two thousand three hundred somethin...forgot, its been awhile since I read on it.

I thought that was you sound-dude, the "lucky star" avatar gave you away. not to mention your witty banter, I almost missed that annoying sense of you being right. ya got that "Athena" feel to you.

Oh, haha, okay, I just misunderstood.

I was hoping people would recognize me by the avatar, since my handle is different and all...
But I guess I'm, erm, memorable enough even without Konata.