Misunderstanding.. "Scientific theory becomes law when it is proven"

Not really. Theory is always an indisputable fact in science. People who read and understand science seriously know that scientific theory actually has a different meaning than the theory used in English. Any theory needs three things to become a scientific theory.

1. That theory describes a phenomenon of how it appears. For this, a complete mathematical framework is developed which describes the phenomenon in detail.

2. Make predictions for the theory to be proven, which can be proved by experiments and observations.

3. That theory should be proved by these experiments and observations.

Now let's move on. Many people think that scientific law is actually a proven and solid law that has been proven, and that when the theory is proven, it becomes law.

In science, however, this does not happen. A scientific law is derived from a scientific theory. That is, it is a finite form or part of that theory.

Thermodynamic theory, for example, describes how heat is transferred or released from a system. Parts of this theory are called the Law of Thermodynamics.

Similarly, Newton's theory of gravity, that there is an unseen force called "gravity" that holds mass objects together. Create a law of gravitation based on this theory, which explains how and with what force two masses pull each other.

Similarly, information theory that explains how information can be stored and transmitted. Under this theory, "Shannon" states the rate at which information can be transmitted to a channel.

Similarly, the theory of evolution, which states that any living thing on earth undergoes a process of evolution and evolves into different species. Part of this theory is the Law of Natural Selection, which states that nature allows organisms to make changes that are compatible with the environment and that benefit the organism's survival.

So the next time someone tells you that any scientific theory is just a theory, you will have to give it a scientific explanation.

The Science World Group Forum

The Science World Group Forum has been providing you with authoritative scientific information on the theory of evolution for a long time and has been trying to dispel misconceptions about this theory and explain the correct concepts. How successful have we been in this endeavor? Yes, after a year of study, now is the time for the annual exam!

Answer yes or no to the questions below. Write the question number and then say yes or no and see how much you score.

۔1۔ According to the theory of evolution, humans have evolved from the present-day apes.

۔2۔ The goal of evolution was to create a human-like species, and it has now come to rest on humans.

۔3۔ In appearance, similar animals such as horses, donkeys, zebras, dogs, wolves, wolves, and humans are closely related ancestors of chimpanzee guerrillas.

۔4۔ The strongest evidence for the theory of evolution comes from fossils.

۔5۔ The theory of evolution is the name given to the explanation of the history of life on Earth.

۔6۔ Random mutations and natural selection are the basic mechanisms of biological evolution.

۔7۔ It is not possible to find an old fossil of a mammal (for example, a whale) dating back to the time of the reptiles (such as dinosaurs). If this were to happen, it would falsify the theory of evolution.

۔8۔ The theory of evolution cannot be validated until the mystery of the first cell's existence has been solved.

۔9۔ According to the theory of evolution, all existing birds are an evolved form of a species of dinosaur.

۔10۔ All the living insects found in the world, fish, reptiles, birds, mammals, primates, animals all came together at the same time.

Theory of Evolution Darwinism or neo-Darwinism

 Calling the theory of evolution Darwinism or neo-Darwinism on Urdu social media is a kind of "deliberate ignorance" which is a failed attempt to limit this theory to Darwin's ideas.

All members are requested to read Zafar Khan's comment carefully and especially to consider the sentence that I have chosen from his comment - we have unfortunately linked the scientific theory of evolution with atheism and social Many people in the media distort this scientific theory in order to disprove evolution and label it Darwinism - since we generally think of the theory of evolution as meaning "man made of apes". And Darwin's name has been linked to evolution, so it is very easy to call evolution Downism and then call it a conspiracy of atheism.

Whatever the field of science, it takes years of study to understand it - science is not compatible with human instinctual thinking so scientific and logical thinking has to be learned - as much scientific honesty is required to examine the facts. It is also found in very few people - the natural tendency of man is to correctly accept what is learned in childhood - what we commonly call common sense, it grows from our childhood training - this is common sense. (Although it is not very common) It is not enough to understand the facts - man has learned from centuries of experience how to study the facts by separating his prejudices (because this is the requirement of scientific honesty). 

We call this process, this method, the scientific method - adopting a scientific method is tantamount to changing our natural thinking, so we have to learn it - we don't pay any attention to science education first, It is taught like any other subject in which there is no need to understand or explain only the emphasis on 'remembering' scientific facts. No effort is made to explain the scientific method and to create scientific thinking, nor are students with scientific thinking encouraged - so it is not surprising that people Why is it so easy to provoke the allies of the theory of evolution? However, it is a pity that our nation has failed miserably in producing scientific thinking in seventy years, which inevitably has left us behind in the world. Are

I urge all the members that although this forum is a social media forum and we offer only authentic science related information with utmost honesty, but in general it is not right to learn science only from social media - to learn science It is important to read and understand the books written by scientists - any claim related to science whether I make it, Zafar Sahib, someone else is the administrator of this forum, or someone else, it is the individual responsibility of all of us that we Don't accept it without research - study science yourself and try to understand science.

Why is the rate of heart attack in women lower than in men ?

We first look at what is a heart attack? In fact, every living cell, including our heart, needs oxygen and nutrients, and blood is given to parts of the body to supply these things. Heart tissues and cells also need a blood supply, and there are coronary arteries to supply blood to the heart. When these coronary arteries become obstructed, the blood supply to the heart tissues is reduced, which does not meet their need for oxygen and nutrients, and the heart tissues begin to weaken, resulting in heart failure. Decreases and a heart attack (myocardial infarction) occurs.

The question is, why are the coronary arteries blocked? There are various reasons for this, but there are basically two reasons. One reason may be that something gets stuck in the coronary artery, such as cholesterol. The second reason may be that nothing is stuck, but the coronary artery has shrunk (shrunk) by itself. Unnecessary vasoconstriction occurs due to which the veins constrict, these chemicals contain chemicals that come into the body from smoking and excessive consumption of alcohol. So far we've seen why heart attacks happen.

Now let's talk about why women have a lower chance of having a heart attack.

In fact, the female sex hormone estrogen plays a role in this. Estrogen is formed in a woman's ovaries, when a woman's menstrual cycle begins (called menarche, which begins between the ages of 12 and 15). The question is how does estrogen reduce heart attack? Above we talked about how high cholesterol causes blockage in the coronary arteries. Cholesterol is a form of lipid (fat), our liver makes cholesterol from other parts of our diet such as carbohydrates, fats, proteins and the rest of the cholesterol we get directly from our diet. Cholesterol is essential for the body, but too much of it is harmful. Cholesterol is fat and fat cannot travel in the blood alone, it has to bind to proteins in the blood to travel in the blood, and proteins and lipids combine to make lipoprotein.

There are two types of cholesterol

One is Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL) and the other is High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (HDL).

LDL cholesterol is absorbed directly from the blood into the blood vessels and other tissues of the body, and this cholesterol blocks the coronary arteries of the heart.

The second type of cholesterol, HDL, first enters the liver, where an excess of it is separated from the blood and expelled from the body or converted into something else.

So we can call HDL good cholesterol because its amount is under control while LDL is called bad cholesterol because its amount is out of control and causes blockage of veins.

The estrogen hormone produced in women plays a role in increasing good cholesterol and lowering bad cholesterol. In addition, estrogen opens and relaxes the blood vessels. In addition, this hormone increases the free radicals in the blood. It also eliminates free radicals that cause damage to blood vessels.

This estrogen hormone is not always produced in women, after menopause, that is, at the age at which menstruation stops, the production of estrogen also stops and at this stage women and men are equal for heart disease.

In addition, men generally smoke and drink more than women and do more strenuous work.

It should be noted that in all this we have assumed that the woman is healthy, it is possible that another disease may affect the heart.

The Universe - Cosmos and Solar System

The universe is about 14 billion years old and our solar system is about 4.7 billion years old. That is, our solar system came into being about 9.3 billion years after the creation of the universe. Our Earth was formed during the same period of 4.7 billion years, ie within a few million years of the formation of the solar system, the Earth and other planets came into existence.

But our own solar system did not form as the only system of stars / planets in the entire universe, but all the stars that are seeing us with their own eyes at the moment, some planets must be revolving around them. There are. There is hardly a star that is orbiting a planet. In our own galaxy alone, there are more than one trillion stars, meaning something or other. One trillion stars must have one or more planets around it. And the process of star formation continues in different galaxies and newer stars / planets are coming into existence. But there is a universal principle of the universe that whatever is created must perish. These stars will also disappear one day or another.

Astronomers have described the extinction of our planet as a result of the Earth being consumed by a giant black hole, falling prey to a star's supernova, colliding with a very large asteroid, or its own planets. To fall prey to a consuming galaxy, a burst of gamma rays, a big rip or the death of heat in our universe. But one of the biggest reasons for the future destruction of our planet, scientists say, is the death of our sun. When it becomes a red giant, it will kill the orbiting planets near it. In this way the earth will be completely destroyed.

But there are still about seven and a half billion years left until this catastrophe. But millions of years before this catastrophe, life will end in our world. According to a scientific estimate, four billion years from now, due to the abundance of greenhouse gases on Earth, this planet will become a living hell like Venus, where it will be impossible for all life on Earth to survive. Our planet could support another 1.5 billion years of life, but gradually there will be an increase in anti-life factors. And then there will come a time when our planet will be completely dead. As the sun rises, it will disappear completely from the face of the earth. But will the universe end with the end of the earth or the sun?

No, the universe will survive, and the universe will die after many trillions of years. When new stars stop forming. By that time, many more stars would have formed and formed their own new solar system. When 5 billion years have passed since the end of the earth, an intelligent creature like us may be born somewhere on a star planet that can think exactly like us and run its own life system. But this creature will never know that a planet called Earth once revolved around a planet called the Sun, where a creature called a human ruled. At that time, our status has been completely forgotten and all our cultural traces have been destroyed along with the earth. If man did not step out of the earth, then there would be hardly any intelligent being in the whole universe who would know anything about man.

Uncle Ghalib a famous Poet and Science with theory

I like Ghalib very much. There is no doubt that no other eloquent and eloquent poet like Ghalib has been born in the subcontinent. Naseer-ud-Din Shah ordered Ghalib in Gulzar's play "Ghalib". Most of Ghalib's ghazals were sung by Jagjit and what a wonderful song. Now that I like Ghalib and science too, I often look for science in Ghalib's poetry.

An example of a mighty lion is:

Ah should have an age effect

Who has lived to be the head of your hair?

When I read Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, time is actually relativity and can pass at different speeds in different frames of reference. So I said, oh wow, how great it was that the Theory of Relativity was given half a century before Einstein.

Similarly, Ghalib had another lion:

Whose grief is the cure for death?

Candles burn in every color until dawn

So I deduced that Ghalib actually knew that white light is made up of different colors.

Now, if I conclude that Ghalib incorporated many modern science concepts into his poetry, I would be mistaken.

Ghalib was a poet, not a scientist. He summed up his human condition in poetry. Ghalib never claimed that he became a scientist because of these few poems.

The reason is very simple, it makes no sense to claim that scientific ideas are presented in the air or in a vague way. Unless you formulate a complete scientific theory with the help of mathematics or with the help of experiments and observations, it has no significance in science. It doesn't matter if you shake your fist, wave your fist in the air and get angry about why the world and science are not accepting your vague ideas.

It is very easy to get his attention after an incident. After Einstein's theory, it is very easy to find this theory from Ghalib's poetry. All you have to do is pull out a few words, exaggerate and change the meaning of the words to prove that Ghalib added Einstein's theory to his poetry. The hearers will rejoice. A term can be used for this. Reverse engineering.

 

This is how you can draw science pigeons out of poetry or any non-scientific book like an expert magician.

Science is the name of proving a process not by arguments but by experiments !

If someone claims that he can do something wrong with his arguments based on scientific experiments and tries to argue with you, never waste the time in arguing with him because he is a scientist. Not aware of the basic process.

That is why we discard the pointless discussion in this group as it is a huge obstacle in the way of those who learn the facts and wastes the energy of those who are knowledgeable.

remember

In science, if one thing has been proved by experiment rather than observation, then only experiments can be considered in response to it, and also those experiments in which previous experiments have been proved wrong.

Everything else will be this person's personal opinion!

As it has been proved at this time that the earth is elliptical, now as much as one wants to claim and give arguments, science throws these arguments in the trash without hearing them.

So is evolution.

Dozens of research papers are published on this subject every month and in them, scientists are proving evolution by finding new links. Now, if someone says that you should argue with him because he can disprove you and your evolution with "arguments", then it is very important to get rid of such a person.

Because,

The scientific credibility of the person under whom he is speaking is zero. If I have to talk about the fact that evolution is wrong (the whole process), then first of all I have to prove somewhere in my research that one and a half scientific mechanisms that can prove evolution are wrong. Then I have to go and claim that yes I can now disprove evolution and I have evidence of my experience.

But,

In Pakistan or in many parts of the world, people like Flat Arthur, who are averse to evolution, try to argue arguments that have been disproved twenty to thirty years ago. Or they may have heard the arguments of a new European creationist and claim that I can disprove evolution in this way, but such people have not heard the scientific and empirical refutation of these arguments.

And

Since most people belong to non-scientific backgrounds, they play religion cards and try to argue in order to humiliate the next person. It is better to give up than to argue.

Because doing so will not prove science wrong but will save your energy which you can use in a better place.

for this,

Avoid anyone who tells you that he can refute science with his arguments, because it is a waste of time to discuss with someone who has no scientific background and no knowledge of scientific procedure. Self-satisfaction.

Just remember one thing,

One thing that has been proven experimentally in science is that the arguments against it should be strengthened as much as possible and whether it is forced to change the name of its book like Copernicus or it is forced like Galileo to die. The fact that it has been put in the mouth cannot be proved wrong.

Science puts experiments ahead of verbal arguments. If one does not have an experimental rejection, he can reject science for his own psychological satisfaction, but science remains the same because science is the name of knowing the truth and reality does not need arguments.