3 ms·
>And there are theories that don't violate the conservation of momentum. Which theories are those?
by corporatesss 11y ago
>And there are theories that don't violate the conservation of momentum.
Which theories are those?
- _0ffh 11y agoTake momentum from virtual particles was one, IIRC.
- threeseed 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
- corporatesss 11y agoThat is a hypothesis.
- threeseed 11y agoIANA scientist so I meant theory in layman's term i.e. an explanation. The point is that there are explanations for what this could be that don't involve violating the CoM concept. Nobody knows what it is going on here. Hence why it is premature to say whether it works or not.
- corporatesss 11y agoIf you were using the non-scientific definition, then your previous two arguments aren't valid.
- anonbanker 11y agoIsn't it nice that we're now discussing newtonian physics using layman's terms in order to keep you from being wrong?
- scott_s 11y agoThe point is that's not an explanation. A hypothesis says "We propose this happens". A theory says "We propose this is why that happens". If you don't have the why, you don't have a theory, and you don't have an explanation.
- anonbanker 11y agowhen you confuse theory and hypothesis, you prove you have zero understanding of the Scientific Method.
- unprepare 11y agoAre you really making a meaningful counter argument to the post you're responding to? or are you just inflating a poor word choice to derail the argument?