Quote from: DaftAjax on November 14, 2019, 06:50:46 PM

Quote from: styca on November 13, 2019, 06:32:42 PM

<...>

Quote from: BADecker on November 13, 2019, 07:03:05 PM

<...>

I have to say. I enjoy reading them.

To spice things up. If scientists, or should I say, theoreticians didn't come up with theories, do you think engineers would even engineer something(?) or rather, would engineering even exist in the 1st place? You would probably argue and say that those are just regular theories and not scientific theories--for instance, gravity is a scientific theory tho we can say its just a regular theory just because we experience/see it every day, but no one really figures it out, until Newton had scientifically proven it. The same goes for everything in engineering. True, every theory that is associated with what they're engineering doesn't have to be exactly as what the theories said, but they use it anyway. Why? They tweak their works most of the time because they can, or should I say, these theories let them do so, not because the theories are proven to be wrong, BUT those theories provide these so-called "formulae"--that depending on the given situation will provide different results OR the answers that they needed. In fact, what we use right now are just temporary laws/facts, it is subject to change and depending on the circumstances, other theories might actually finally be proven and other laws might be completely abolished.

Engineer theories aren't necessarily scientific theories. Engineers aren't necessarily engineers in the way science describes engineers. A person inventing a better wheel 5,000 years ago might be an engineer.

Gravity isn't a scientific theory. Gravity Theory is a scientific theory. Gravity is a word given to the gravity experience that happens to all people all around the world all the time.

An engineer can make a scientific theory. But that doesn't stop him from engineering without using a scientific theory. He might use a non-scientific theory. Or, if it's simple enough, he might barely use a theory at all.

An engineer can tweak his engineering to be different than the theory says, not because the theory is proven wrong, but because he can't make the object of his engineering to work according to the theory. This doesn't prove that the theory is wrong. It simply shows that there is a glitch somewhere in this particular scientific theory application to this particular feat of engineering. Might be the theory, but could be something in the engineering.

If you search for it, you can find that scientists have generally agreed that something is a law when there are less than 10 to the 40th power odds in favor of the thing, with only one or less against. Of course, the scientists could be wrong about this.

Cool