Videos like this one is the reason why people say "It's just a theory"... Interesting video and all, but can you get your definitions of scientific theory and hypothesis correct? Remember that it is an extreme difference between the way people did "science" 500-2000 years ago and how the scientific method works today. And that means that the scientific theories we have today probably won't be proven wrong, only slightly adjusted at most. Sorry for blabbering on about stuff that the video is not about, but it needed to be said. I'll fly away now.
Such a generic answer. That's exactly what your great great great.... Grampa said during his time 1000 years ago about science "Science 500 to 2000 years ago is different compare to today. Today science (1022 AD) are only slightly adjusted" Very unintelligent that logic is.
This is not a proper name for this video. These are not theories. these are hypothesis. The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is preponderance of evidence.
This misunderstanding causes people to dismiss real theories out of hand as if they are halfbrained guesses instead of what they truly are, the most evidence substantiated things in science. The closest thing to fact in science has the unfortunate name of 'theory'.
Wrong is the wrong word. Science is never wrong. It is either in a hypothetical state, waiting to be proven or disproved. Or science is incomplete and approximated to the most complete picture that we currently have.
Binyamin Tsadik Ben Malka Semantics, Newtonian gravity was elevated from a hypothetical to a theory and was known as the truth for over 200 years. It was taught in schools as the truth untill it was disproved. Your definition of wrong means there is no such thing as truth. That every thing is subject to be disproved. With not ever reaching a final conclusion.
RU-vid Lotto That is not my definition, that is Science pure and simple. It is also every branch of modern study that is humble enough to admit that we are constantly changing and gaining new insights and understandings. Without the ability to take risks on new hypothesis we would never advance. Yes Newtonian physics is not perfect or complete, but it served and still serves a great purpose. It is still used today despite being "wrong". This is because it is not wrong, it is a great metaphor for reality and useful to predict the future. And seeing where Newtonian physics does not accurately demonstrate reality is useful because it shows us exactly where the current understanding was lacking and where our attention should be focused in developing a better understanding. The most science can ever be is a metaphor for reality, not right or wrong but a parallel way of seeing reality allowing us to better predict the future. This is not semantics but a fundamental element of understanding science and its role in humanity.
Justin Beck That is true, but scientifically excepted things are still much more reliable than claims based on personal convictions. Most people's intuition is useless on these matters, rational thinking is much more extensible so it can be applied much more broadly. Think about how kids (and people in the past) intuitively assume that the moon and sun are both the size of a melon :P
Congratulations, this was a high quality video. I'd jut like to say that it's a good thing that one can propose ideas that can be shown wrong. As someone said "He who does not lose his mind has no mind to lose".
***** Wait,what? I said that i DO NOT have anything to do with this freaking theory,in case you thought I said I did. Why do everyone get so mad that I mentioned the Corona Borealis-Hercules Great Wall?
Appelsylt The Badass I´d say it wouldn´t nessesarily disprove the "big bang"...which was more like an everywhere stretch anyway, more like the cosmological principal. Which is from 1933... I am inclined to agree that a principal from 1933 can be inaccurate. And shouldn´t be able to look in any direction for 10 billion light years disprove the age of the universe? The estimated age is 13.8 billion years. If we look 10 billion light years in two directions, that are towards and away from the "center of the universe", wouldn´t that mean it is at least 20 billion years old, since these two things would be 20 billion light years apart? I think some scales are off. Let´s see what they come up with.
For all of the commenters here (and TopTenz, so they don't make this mistake again), I know that this has been covered multiple times in lesser detail, but I would like to clear up the definitions of certain words, to avoid confusion. 1) Hypothesis: A hypothesis is something that may or may not be true. For example, if I stated that my hair was black, that would be a hypothesis. 2) Law A law is just below a Theory in terms of clarity. It occurs when a hypothesis is observed extensively, and no exceptions are found. However, what differentiates a law from a theory is that a law fails to explain why. More below: "A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'." For example, Newton's Law of Gravity is called a law of gravity because it only states the formula F = Gm1m2/(r^2). It fails to explain the interactions with the Higgs field and certain other aspects that cause the relation to occur. 3) Theory: A theory is a law with an explanation. For example (because it seems to be so popular here), evolution is a theory, because there are hundreds of millions of years of fossil records supporting it (with not one piece of evidence standing against it), and it has been thoroughly verified to exist. However, evolution is the understanding behind the methods of genetic variation and phenotype selection that have been proven to occur extensively in nature, so it is considered a theory instead of a law.
My grandfather is a physicist and once received an offer for cold fusion. The only problem was that according to the theory being presented, everything in the universe would be water.
Needs a picture of 17th century philosopher John Locke for the video, goes to google images and take one of the character by the same name from the TV show Lost. Genious!
Jim David True! All of Earths continents fit as a sphere. That and the ocean floor map debunks the Pangaea theory. And continents can't slide around randomly if each rift between them all that creates land has never moved. Continents expand on top of ever growing ocean floor...
What no one talked about with cold fusion is that when the scientists were looking for positive results in their outlook the results were positive, when there were doubters the results did not turn out. Which means we are the creators, we create our own reality. If you are looking for something you will find it. That is why there is no end to the universe because as long as you look and seek you shall find.
12:50 To get two atoms of anything to fuse you have to overcome the repulsion of their respective electrons. This repulsion is very very strong and is all by itself responsible for the illusion that "solid" mater IS solid at all. In reality most matter in the universe and ALL matter you would see outside a neutron star is mostly empty space. To give the atoms enough energy they need to move very fast which, by definition is high temperature. If our understanding of physics is even close to correct (and it really does seem to be correct or at least close enough to correct) then cold fusion is completely impossible.
Correction ! Although proven utterly false, science has NOT abandoned the Theory of Spontaneous Generation. They merely renamed it Abiogenesis (Life from non-Life) and continue to teach it (as a cornerstone of Evolutionary Doctrine) as supposed 'scientific fact' in every school/college and University across the West even today.
If I remember correctly, the Italian word for "channel" is "canali". If I recall correctly, the Italian astronomer described what he saw on Mars' surface as "channels" untranslated as "canali". English speakers jumped to the wrong conclusions. The concept of intelligent life on Mars directly influenced H. G. Wells' "War of the Worlds" novel.
***** That is entirely irrelevant to what I said. Aristotle had nothing to do with science _at any level_. He was, at best, a philosopher with a lot of curiosity. Using his name anywhere near the context of science shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.
Are you actually suggesting that alchemy is a science? Do you even have any idea what science is? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this video is titled "Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Turned Out to be Wrong".
I was disappointed that you didn't include Bode's Law of planetary distances. The idea was that if you divide the distance from the earth to the sun by ten, planets occur at distances given by the series 4, 7, 10, 16, 28, 52, 100, etc (that's 4 plus the series 0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96, etc, where every element except the first is doubled to get the next). It fits really well for the planets known at the time the "law" was announced (in 1764), except for a gap between Mars and Jupiter. The largest asteroid Ceres was later found to match this gap (leading to an image of the asteroids as a planet that exploded long ago), and when Uranus was discovered it matched the formula too. Neptune kind of messed things up when it was found. Bode's Law predicted it being much further out than it is, and in fact Pluto is closer to the distance that the formula predicts for Neptune.
Q: If there is a redshift of light in the universe because of distance, then galaxies that move away with constant velocity seem to move away with acceleration. If so, the bigbang-theory is possibly wrong?
There is nothing so sacred in science that it could not be overturned if it is wrong . That is how you get to the truth. Nobody has to "just believe" anything.
It was my understanding that Percival Lowell, or whoever first proposed the Martian canals, had hypertension, and was actually seeing reflections of the veins in his eyes, made larger by his condition
You forget Theory of Relativity,and it is logical conclusion from static universe which Einstein calculated in theory of general relativity,Simplified if 1+1=2 always is based that 1 is constant,if someone discover that 1 is not constant ,that is sometimes more or less than 1,there is not 1+1=2 truthfull anymore...
Number 11: Dark Matter. Supposedly exists throughout the universe to impart gravity so all the astrophysical math works. See number 5, luminiferous aether, because it's never been found.
The theory that actually turned out to be wrong was the theory that Fleischmann and Pons were wrong! See www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/articles/Nature_re_Fleischmann.html published in the journal Nature for details.
Brian Josephson Hey that's a link to an obituary, not a research paper. And an obituary that I believe you wrote. Yes so there was a research paper linked in the obituary and this paper clearly states that they failed to find supporting evidence. The authors refuse to provide complete data: "In the space available it is not possible to present the data for the complete duration of any one of the experiments reported" - pg 9 Cherry picking data is not responsible. On page 13, Fig 7 there is even a massive section of data missing, and a trend line drawn in its place. That's some incredible interpolation. Another questionable aspect of the data that is presented is that it only displays positive values. For example on page 15, Fig 9: The data clearly goes into negative values, but because the data has been cherry picked it is impossible to tell how far. If the graph displayed as t=0 onwards what would it look like at the time preceding the currently displayed data? This research appears to be very incomplete and does not support a case for cold fusion, due to the questionable methodology and missing data sets and admissions from the authors.
Ben Fubbs Nature Correspondence does not allow for giving lots of references, but here's what the abstract of the paper quoted says, whose significance you seem to have misinterpreted: 'Under these conditions, the generation of “excess power” was observed in a series of deuterium-based experiments, but not in a hydrogen-based experiment'. The latter experiments acted as a control, and under different conditions excess power is observed with hydrogen as well. You can read more about the evidence supporting LENR in the journal Current Science, at www.currentscience.ac.in/php/feat.php?featid=10094. By the way, the description provided for that journal is "Current Science, published every fortnight by the Association, in collaboration with the Indian Academy of Sciences, is the leading interdisciplinary science journal from India".
Phrenology states that certain behaviors are located at certain locations in the brain. The premise is proven correct, for example, our inhibitions are located in the frontal lobe, our breathing is located in the back of the brain.
They are not "wrong". They have simply been replaced by models that render greater prediction and control powers. The models we use today are not "right" in any final, exclusive, complete sense. They are just the best we have today. All we have is models. And all models are provisional. As soon as a model that renders greater prediction and control powers comes along, today's models will also be replaced. It's an ongoing process without any foreseeable end. What will we come up with next?
PLEASE CHANGE THE VIDEO'S TITLE! None of the topics is a scientific theory. You call call them hypotheses, ideas, guesses, misunderstandings, but never, NEVER, scientific theories.
The cause of Red Shift is due to distance and interference or, if you prefer, photons losing charge because of time and gravitational influences. It is not caused by things speeding up. Everything after the red shift meaning assumption are further assumptions. Carl Sagan was once asked what it would mean if red shift was not due to the universe expanding and he said "it would change everything we know." But, people take the path of least resistance and just agree to people who are in a consensus. When you agree with the Doppler effect as the only force causing red shift for stellar objects then the math is constantly causing issues and you have to "make new discoveries." Still doesn't add up? Add black holes. Still not? Add dark matter. Still not? We have to study quarks. What happens if you go by the Compton effect or photons losing charge (which seems to make more sense at these distances)? The math adds up. The reason we come up with the idea of the big bang has less to do with what makes sense but rather our conception of time having limited life spans. We equate the universe to a living thing with a creation and ending event. Maybe, Einstein was correct in his static universe concept and it was Hubble himself who said, there is something else at work rather than the Doppler effect on the light we are receiving. Interference or something else. But, people use his telescope and ignore his comments. Good job critical thinkers. Let me ask this: Do you really think that you can look thru this device thousands or millions of light years distant and not one thing will effect the light at such distances? Even a vacuum is not completely empty you know. It could at the very least contains clouds of electrons.
When talking about red shift, this video neglected one very important qualifier. It is not 'the Universe', it is 'the observable Universe'. It may seem insignificant to many, but it really isn't. Oh, and in the future you may find many cosmological theories on this list because ideas like The Big Bang have inherently broken models (which has prompted many theorists to start moving away from the established viewpoint and search for alternatives).
Aside from the fact that these are not scientific theories, but hypotheses, I noticed a glaring issue with number nine: Spontaneous Generation. You said, ". . . showed that maggots would not appear on meat kept in a sealed container, and the invention of the microscope showed that these same insects were formed, not by Spontaneous Generation, but by airborne microorganisms." No insects were formed by airborne microorganisms. They come from eggs laid by insects. Flies were observed laying eggs in rotten meat, those hatched into maggots, which grew into files. . . the life cycle was then understood and spontaneous generation kept getting weaker until it died.
Ouch. Almost none of these are "scientific theories". Many aren't even scientific hypotheses. Most are just "something strange that some scientists and pre-scientists used to think was true".
I like it. but its honestly a bit out of date. Red Shift, referring to how light shifts in the red spectrum and used as a basis for the big bang theory was argued quite well when the theory first came out and starting with more data in the 80's disproven. that is to say it does not have enough data (at all) to support the idea of the big bang. Although red shift is used extensively and allows us to map the visible universe. Using it as 'Proof' of a theory is akin to 14th century doctors saying blood ebbs and flows like the tide because of its observed phenomena. Other ideas of the big bang are background radiation and the observed large amounts of hydrogen, helium and other light elements. none of witch actually prove the idea but simply fit into one of there possibilitys.
The man who discovered "Canals" did not record that he found "canals" but "channels". "Canali" was the word he used. It was a mistranslation by an Englishman who said it meant canals.
So "spontaneous generation" (life coming from nonlife) is bunk but we're supposed to believe that "abiogenesis" (life coming from nonlife) is TRUE??? Um... Ok.... (eye roll)
I don't think you've understood the Aether hypothesis. It was thought to be real as light was known to act like a wave. Waves though could not travel through a vacuum though because there was no medium for it to travel - similar to the idea that sound doesn't travel through vacuums. So it was then assumed that there must be some sort of field for it to travel through. Holes started appearing in the hypothesis when they tried to measure the speed of light in different directions (as in the model light should be travelling slower in the direction that Earth was moving away from if the aether existed) but it was the same in every direction. This gave more backing to the idea that light acts both like a particle and a wave and would later give more backing to General Relativity. It wasn't a bad assumption with their understanding of physics.
+Even Andy The ether idea worked so well because all the experiments of it did verify was confirm the ether is not physical which is how the laws of physics work. But the Michelson / Morley experiment never confirmed it does not exist.
Expanding/Growing Earth is a fact. The fact that all our continents fit as a sphere and the ocean floor map showing North and South America fitting with Asia and Australia is one of the few facts that prove our Earth is Growing. Other facts that back up that are the ocean floor age from rifts (where land is made) all the way to the land. The ocean floor age is from 1 year to 280 million years old, that compared with our continents that are 4.6 billion years old. Oh, did I forget to mention that all of Earths continents fit as a sphere? Now what are the odds of that? Oh one more thing. For Pangaea to had existed would mean that continents move. But how can they breath apart, move and recombine if the ocean rifts between each continent has never moved? Even the ocean floor map that is excepted and created by the scientific community shows The continents expanding across new land from the ocean rifts.
#4 the blank slate: don't forget the Chomsky revolution in linguistics, demonstrating that young humans are innately predisposed to detect and imitate the grammar(s) of the language(s) to which they are exposed.
Theories based upon observations can be wrong. One always needs proof, it is truly a mistake to go on a theory, without having proof to back it up. If one dose, one is a fool.
Einstein's formula revealed the universe cannot be static, it had to be moving in one direction or the other. He proposed that there was an energy that kept the universe from moving. When Hubble said the universe was expanding is when Einstein said it was a blunder. But Einstein was correct there is an energy.
Please look up the pronunciation of the abundant Italian given name "Giovanni". The i is silent, only there to "soften" (turn into a fricative) the pronunciation of the G .
I HAVE TWO THINGS TO SAY FOR TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIZED PROJECTS: My first thing I have to say is that if being able to travel to alternate-realities ever becomes possible to do; I would wonder if it would have safety messers made for it in order for people to travel to them in a safe way, and to add would it ever be aloud for citizens to go with the adventurous professionals? The second thing I have to say is that if Time-Travel ever became possible then I wonder if a citation like me would be aloud to travel with the adventurous scientist who might be heading forward in time to all the many levels of the future? So that I might be able to see & experience all that is around me in my sight, and to add feel too.
What a weird thing the tooted Theory of Relativity is! A patch work of imperfections. The false symmetry he gave to the time variable, and then the loss of that variable altogether, further cloaked the theory and algebra of Relativity. Very early in its history Relativity had already become the most esoteric of esoterica, and, despite its inherent mathematical simplicity, it was sold to the world as if this were its strong point. Bohr said that by the ‘20’s only six people understood it. I now know that he overstated the case by six.
the blank state theory is a fact. Beside curiosity and empathy, you (the self) don't have anything when you're born. Only the info to operate your body (but you ain't conscious of it and it can be flawed and will influence the self) and the two basic tools to bild everything else : curiosity (that include imagination, can't be curious without imagination) and empathy Just don't forget that you can have "bugs" in the system. Brain lesion that create specific behavior and such. this ain't part of the self. it's part of the mechanic.
DoesNotExist305 don't mix clockwork and electronics. The genetic aspect mainly operate the body. the few genetic imperative we can have can be overriden (suicide, ermite, masochism, the warrior gene..)
LordSignur This. Tabula Rasa is indeed a fact, I'd wish TopTenz would provide sources for their nonsense. It's still in my country's psychology books, and trust me when I say, we update those things biannually.
Illumanatee more likely every fifty years. like most text books. they still teach us that a farmer in the year 1500 worked more than us when it's the other way around...
LordSignur I'm sad to hear that, here in Nordics it's mandatory to get a new print whenever something new is found, even if the changes to information were miniscule. Also, sorry for any grammatical or linguistical errors that might occur, I'm currently struggling to stay awake.
Plate tectonics does not explain why the Pacific ocean bottom has been expanding. This is a wrong theory as subduction has been proven to not be possible and mantle convection cannot happen either to form the mid-ocean ridges..
3:01 On a basic level spontaneous generation is right. There was a time when the conditions on earth made it possible to spontaneously generate mechanical structures that would self-repicate. Those conditions ceased as the earth cooled down and as a result, it is no longer possible for matter to assemble in mechanical self-replicating machines. Only the ultra-complex ensembles called life can do it. There have been some tests made to replicate life's initial condition by imitating a peculiar time on earth when it was a volcanic mess. Within the test, soup formed shells, the kind of shells many bacterias have, except that said shells are empty. Some experiments mad it possible for matter to self-assemble into moving structures, just by mixing the right compounds. Nothing akin to life, but most likely pre-life. just atoms interacting together...
The work of American Astronomer Halton Arp and others has demonstrated that the 'redshift equals distance' fundamental principle upon which the expanding universe is a false assumption.
Spontaneous Generation is similar to evolution. One of the beliefs of evolution is life was not created first by an egg or any life that resembles the life, that life came from nowhere.
So you say expanding earth theory hasn't been proven wrong yet you include it on a list about theories that have been proven wrong? And I don't much care for 'common thought', state a fact that proves it wrong if you're putting it on a list like this, not another theory to support a theory of a theory.
Not all of them are actualy scientific to start with, neither are all of the scientific examples either only scientific theories or only scientific hypotheses.
I would say that (a real theory) classical mechanics is number 1. Though, this theory is still of value even though it has been replace by general relativity. They considered to be correct until a better theory comes along and then they still have their value. That said, there was a consequence of classical mechanics that turned to be wrong that you did mention. Though I would replace that by the whole theory itself then. Strangly enough the ideas of the earth being flat or the earth to be the centre of the solar-system (galaxy/universe) isn't even mentioned.
In only the last decade or so it has been observed that "objects moving away" are not the ONLY condition that causes "Red Shift" and there may in fact be several. This is not to suggest Edwin's Constant is altogether incorrect but at least in a smaller or larger part (as the case may be)--flawed.
What a misleading video! NONE of the ten hypotheses mentioned was EVER considered to be a scientific theory by any significant percentage of the scientific community.
This is a pretty arbitrary list. I personally would have put Aristotelian physics at the top of the list. It stood stood unchallenged for nearly 2,000 years, becoming enshrined as Catholic dogma. Meanwhile the people who remember Pons and Fleischman are dwindling. The Pons & Fleischman screw up will be completely forgotten in another generation. It certainly shouldn't have been placed at the top.
except the fact that in 1983 the same science experiment that in the 1880s called the aether inconclusive, when the experiment was retested the results found the aether existed and was quantify able.
The use of the word theory is wrong for several of these. It should be 'ideas' or 'notions' - at the very best hypotheses. Without actual science involved in them, they represent more of a philosophical argument than one based on evidence. Some are also just incorrect observations - not theories - like the "canals" on Mars and Vulcan.
My argument against #8. The Expanding Earth is instead, why don't the oceans stay the same size and the continents expand? It's pretty arbritrary that the continents would stay the same and the oceans expand. Phrenology! Wow, I had no idea this was ever taken seriously. I put more credence in astrology which is pretty hard to do since I give it no credence.
cold fusion (albeit not at room temperature but at almost 0 degrees kelvin) has been discovered also, according to theoretical physicists, particles spring out into existence constantly, and have theorized that this could be the origin of the big bang (given that the laws of physics are there). this could be a modern day "spontaneous generation"
Correct me if im wrong, but i always thought that Einstein's biggest blunder was related to dark-matter and dark energy, which both support the acceleration of the expanding of the universe. This theory is now accepted and they are trying to find actual proof. well this is what i learnt in a documentary about dark matter and energy. i remember this as one of the physicists said, ' his greatest blunder is our greatest achievement' .
OMFG for number two, Simon said, "still, it is just a theory..." No, no, no. In science, a theory is the highest order of truth. In order to graduate from a hypothesis to a theory, they must be tested and verified quite rigorously. All theories may one day be modified or even overturned. But until and unless that happens, they are considered *true*.
If (and only if) there is ample evidence to support a hypothesis do we call it a scientific theory (Big Bang is a solid theory - multiple universes, and even "string theory", are unsupported hypotheses.). At that point, they are considered true. From then on, they must be demonstrated to be false (falsified) in order to no longer be considered true.
Wait a second. Did I hear the narrator say it was proven that maggots come from airborne micro organisms? That would be false information. Maggot isn't a scientific term to begin with. Larva would be more accurate. and the Larva that you generally see on rotting meat come from insects. And please, if I am incorrect then go ahead and correct me. Just keep your trolling to yourself. Though I know trolls will burst if they try to keep it in. ;)
spontaneous generation was disproved by Francesco Redi, with the meat experiment. Pasteur proved that microorganism didn't arise spontaneously in a culture broth (btw, Pasteur was a supporter of spontaneous generation a few years earlier)
To talk about spontaneous generation and not mention Redi and Spallanzani is a crime. Also Percival Lowell is pronounced LOHwell and NOT LAWell. And Thomas Aquinas is mispronounced as well. Are you not able to make the distinction between Theory and Hypothesis?
Phrenology does have some aspect in truth, but it has nothing to do with the brain, the head shape has more to do with hormones. The slope of the forehead for example is linked to levels of testosterone... as the video correctly points out this is a general concept and not as detailed as phrenology made it out to be.
If you are going to talk about science, then please understand that theory has a vastly different meaning than the way you use it in this video. A theory in science is not just a "theory."
There is also a problem of cold fusion, called conservation of energy. The energy required to bind the nuclei is very high, where do you get those energy? Super Saiyan auras?
DarthAlphaTheGreat You kind of don't really need that energy. You give 5 joules and you get 10, you have a net gain of 5 joules for example. Now if you were able to kickstart the reaction with 2 joules, you would get 7 joules back, and have the same net gain. It's like choosing to tunnel through the mountain instead of going around it.
DarthAlphaTheGreat It was the energies associated with the fused materials' mass once. It's those energies released. Fusion with small number of protons involved IS, in theory, exothermic.
