Sentences with phrase «prove your theory correct»

Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.

If you can't express what you intend in numbers, and show how a certain result would prove your theory correct or a certain result that would prove your theory wrong, then it's not science..

If further analysis proves the theory correct, the remains belonged to the first known such hybrid, providing direct evidence that humans and Neanderthals interbred.

My take on it: Jake Gyllenhaal continues proving the theory correct that if you watch a movie with him in it, you'll at the very least be...

I bet you feel so good, as the numbers just prove your theory correct, again and again.

But Carl Jung believed that creativity came from the spark of opposites, and their case seems to prove his theory correct.

There is no hard scientific data to prove the theory correct, it is simply based on assumption.

Not exact matches

Once I realized that, I gradually shifted into an entrepreneurial mindset, and I proved James's theory correct.

But the the Big Bang theory was proved correct when the found the background radiation.

Again this does not deny that it is probably correct but to date it is still a theory and still being study to prove fact.

You have correct definitions, except you left out the definition of a SCIENTIFIC theory, which is different than a regular theory in that these theories are true but still might be able to be proven false.

To be sure, Stapp may be proven correct in the end, but that would entail the overthrow of the special theory of relativity.

The theory may be correct, but it has not thus far been proven by history.

A theory is a mathematical model which describes a phenomenon, and if you would look at the data for yourself, it has been proven correct time and time again.

A scientist who studies the galaxy will fight hard to prove his theory is correct, but the moment there is evidence to show otherwise, they adjust their original theory.

Science eventually proved those theories to be correct, but that doesn't mean that every crackpot theory is just as valid as any other because some of them were proved correct — that's stupid reasoning!!!

This has been important for economic theory and practice, and economists can point to many instances in which they have been proven correct.

It is about PROVING and EVIDENCE, testing theories and having another people prove them correct or mock you for coming up with a bad theory that doesn't stand up to testing.

In 2006, the nobel prize for physics was awarded to two american scientists who PROVED that one aspect of the Big Bang «Theory» is absolutely correct.

Same for evolution, evolutionary theory is not fully proven (although there is NO evidence found that goes against it which makes it very very likely to be correct), but its a FACT that we evolved along with all other life on earth.

(There may be tracking data that can prove James» theory correct or not; but we don't have access to it.)

Hawking was studying the work of Roger Penrose, which proved that if Einstein's general theory of relativity is correct, at the heart of every black hole must be a point where space and time themselves break down — a singularity.

The first confirmation that the theory of general relativity was correct came when Einstein proved it could be used it to accurately predict Mercury's orbit.

Audoly's theory proved successful up to a point, being able to predict the correct force for overhand knots with either one or two twists.

If string theory proves a dead end, for instance, will the process be self - correcting?

If we can't exactly prove string theory is correct, we asked, can we at least see a light down the tunnel of experimentation?

«Regardless of which theory proves correct, the goal is the same — to reduce carbon emissions, we need innovation in the private sector; not excessive government regulation to stifle some industries while rewarding others.

But even if their theory proves correct, there is still the problem of explaining the magnetic fields of stars.

This was the discovery that proved the big bang theory was correct.

Only breaking the record will prove that my theory is correct.

Science should be experienced by students as aiming for understanding, not as a collection of facts and theories that have been proved to be correct.

Now when they compare the predictions of this compliant herd with actual reality and note that not once (so far) have any of them been proven correct with any theories that warming is other than benign or beneficial, then that's real science, ie the comparison of hypothesis with real data.

In economics, this «Great Recession» has proven that Krugman and the theories of like - minded economists were correct versus those of the GOP - leaning «freshwater» school.

If proved correct, this theory would suggest that relatively small, naturally occurring fluctuations in greenhouse gases are the master variable that has driven global climate change on time scales of ten thousand to one million years.

I say bring it on and my theory is a 1000 x better then what mainstream has come up with as far as why / how the climate has and will change, and time will prove this to be correct going forward no matter how much spin and manipulation mainstream keeps applying to the climate going forward.

Scientists, see little need to correct observed errors, since there is always a possibility that future data might exonerate them on the long path to prove a theory.

What you can't do is actually proving that a theory (in physics) is correct.

«If Dr Evans is correct, then he has proven the theory on carbon dioxide wrong and blown a hole in climate alarmism,» she writes.

Theories can only be mostly correct any way, can't be proven... only disproven.

It would be daunting to prove all crows are black by looking at all crows, but in theory it could be done (assuming the proposition is correct).

Here's another way to look at it: If AGW theory is proven correct, the likely political response might cut Shell's revenues by 20 - 30 %, at most.

Yet if Gorshkov and Makarieva's theory proves correct, it would have massive implications for global policy towards the world's forests, both tropical and temperate.

The test of any new scientific theory is the ability to make numerical predictions which prove to be correct on independent assessment.

The Defendant does not have to prove that its theory about the boxes is correct.

This theory was proved right correct.