Anything is possible...in theory. That's why they are called "theories" in the first place.
Similar to Hunt For Red October - Magneto Hydrodynamic Propulsion drives do exist,,,they've been tested in Japan. The only downside is, they don't give better speeds than current engine types.
Right NOW, yes. This is in its relative infancy when compared to current drive systems. Thats like saying the Model-T car was never a good vehicle because it doesn't have the speed of a Porsche. This technology will get better as it is developed over time. And besides, even in its current form, don't you think an engine with no moving parts has advantages over current engines, EVEN if it goes the same speed?
Actually, no, not everything is possible in theory. Theory has a very specific scientific meaning; for something to get the label of theory it must go through the entirety of the scientific process, withstand peer review, and be recognized by experts in that particular field. In short, for something to be considered a theory it must have a breadth of evidence supporting its plausibility and likelihood and is one of the most rigorously demanding labels to achieve in the scientific world.
The layman understanding of what theory means is horribly flawed and a testament to the absolute inadequacy of public school scientific curriculum and the pathetic level of basic understanding the american population has concerning science. Engadget misused the term here, and now so are you.
The only things possible in theory are those that are supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Sorry for the rant, but not understanding what theory means is actively hurting our society and letting crackhead notions try and stand at the same level as ideas that have withstood scrutiny for decades by the smartest minds in the world. Worse, society does not seem to care that they are using the wrong word, despite the fact that it is equivalent to Ted Stevens saying the internet is a series of tubes.
Engadget, you are professionals, please use the appropriate word (in this case something along the lines of "Researchers say results suggest three-dimensional sound cloak is possible") when reporting on science because it reflects as poorly on you as calling a DVD player a bluray player. It is the wrong term, and it is a major distinction. Everyone else, please try to learn what theory means. Our society lives by scientific and technological progress and being ignorant of the most basic simple concepts of science makes our society less capable in that regard.
There's a more general use of the word theory you know, that's why you should perhaps specify "scientific theory" when you want to adhere to such standards as described.
SOED: theory /"TIri/ n.. [Late L theoria f. Gk theoria contemplation, speculation, sight, f. theoros spectator (cf. THEOR), f. base of theasthai look on, contemplate: see -Y3.] 1 A mental scheme of something to be done, or of a way of doing something; a systematic statement of rules or principles to be followed. 2 Mental view, contemplation. (depreciated) 3 a The knowledge or exposition of the general principles or methods of an art or science, esp. as distinguished from the practice of it; Math. a set of theorems forming a connected system.
Well yes, but there is such a thing as contextual definition where one can determine the appropriate definition to use based of the context. In an article discussing the SCIENTIFIC findings of a SCIENTIFIC study, one might correctly assume that the SCIENTIFIC definition is most appropriate. Using one of the more lax terms would be incorrect in the context of this article.
Further, the modern dictionary definitions arise based off of popular usage, which is not the same thing as correct usage. I mean for crying out loud, MW accepted w00t as a viable dictionary word. If that doesn't reflect popular usage as a greater priority over correctness I don't know what does. The fact that dictionaries recognize the incorrect usage only reflects how poorly society understands what theory means, not that society is justified in holding to incorrect usage, ESPECIALLY DISCUSSING SCIENCE.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Anything is possible...in theory.
That's why they are called "theories" in the first place.
Similar to Hunt For Red October - Magneto Hydrodynamic Propulsion drives do exist,,,they've been tested in Japan. The only downside is, they don't give better speeds than current engine types.
Yeah, because you're comparing an engine which is in its gazillion'th generation to one in its first.
Right NOW, yes. This is in its relative infancy when compared to current drive systems. Thats like saying the Model-T car was never a good vehicle because it doesn't have the speed of a Porsche. This technology will get better as it is developed over time. And besides, even in its current form, don't you think an engine with no moving parts has advantages over current engines, EVEN if it goes the same speed?
Actually, no, not everything is possible in theory. Theory has a very specific scientific meaning; for something to get the label of theory it must go through the entirety of the scientific process, withstand peer review, and be recognized by experts in that particular field. In short, for something to be considered a theory it must have a breadth of evidence supporting its plausibility and likelihood and is one of the most rigorously demanding labels to achieve in the scientific world.
The layman understanding of what theory means is horribly flawed and a testament to the absolute inadequacy of public school scientific curriculum and the pathetic level of basic understanding the american population has concerning science. Engadget misused the term here, and now so are you.
The only things possible in theory are those that are supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Sorry for the rant, but not understanding what theory means is actively hurting our society and letting crackhead notions try and stand at the same level as ideas that have withstood scrutiny for decades by the smartest minds in the world. Worse, society does not seem to care that they are using the wrong word, despite the fact that it is equivalent to Ted Stevens saying the internet is a series of tubes.
Engadget, you are professionals, please use the appropriate word (in this case something along the lines of "Researchers say results suggest three-dimensional sound cloak is possible") when reporting on science because it reflects as poorly on you as calling a DVD player a bluray player. It is the wrong term, and it is a major distinction. Everyone else, please try to learn what theory means. Our society lives by scientific and technological progress and being ignorant of the most basic simple concepts of science makes our society less capable in that regard.
There's a more general use of the word theory you know, that's why you should perhaps specify "scientific theory" when you want to adhere to such standards as described.
SOED:
theory /"TIri/ n.. [Late L theoria f. Gk theoria contemplation, speculation, sight, f. theoros spectator (cf. THEOR), f. base of theasthai look on, contemplate: see -Y3.]
1 A mental scheme of something to be done, or of a way of doing something; a systematic statement of rules or principles to be followed.
2 Mental view, contemplation. (depreciated)
3 a The knowledge or exposition of the general principles or methods of an art or science, esp. as distinguished from the practice of it; Math. a set of theorems forming a connected system.
Well yes, but there is such a thing as contextual definition where one can determine the appropriate definition to use based of the context. In an article discussing the SCIENTIFIC findings of a SCIENTIFIC study, one might correctly assume that the SCIENTIFIC definition is most appropriate. Using one of the more lax terms would be incorrect in the context of this article.
Further, the modern dictionary definitions arise based off of popular usage, which is not the same thing as correct usage. I mean for crying out loud, MW accepted w00t as a viable dictionary word. If that doesn't reflect popular usage as a greater priority over correctness I don't know what does. The fact that dictionaries recognize the incorrect usage only reflects how poorly society understands what theory means, not that society is justified in holding to incorrect usage, ESPECIALLY DISCUSSING SCIENCE.