Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Princess Ivy sorry babe, but to my understanding, a theory is just that, a theory. a model is then built or constructed in order to test out this theory and prove or disprove it's effectiveness. eg: a social theory such as that envorionment is key to understaznding of a persons motivations and actions. a model will then be used to prove this theory and its place within our knowledge of the entire social system.
something came up in re-watching a doctor who last night. i'd love some clarification on it. the doctor was the last survivor of the time war, and makes refference to having commited some act which wiped out both sides. should he not therefore have known about the ark? if in fact the ark was from our universe. it did after all come through the void in the void ship which the doctor himself says is beyond known technology. so, those daleks, were they from our universe? or from some parallel universe in which the time war didn't go as well? |
Princess Ivy, in science the word theory is different to the standard world's definition of theory. In science, a theory is a prediction of how a certain aspect of physics, chemistry etc works, and that
has withstood all potential challenges. Unfortunately, even scientists tend to mis-use the word theory in its scientific meaning.
Lets take the Theory of Relativity. Before it was tested, it was a hypothesis, with little or no evidence to support it. Then various tests (most notably the test in West Africa when a team took readings of how much the light from distant stars was diverted by the sun's gravity) supported this theory, and no other tests, as of yet, has disproved the theory.
And as to linear and lateral time, its true that the writers have indeed messed it up. Im offering up a hypothesis that tries to explain away the inconsistencies while keeping the egg off the writers' collective face. In a way, Im trying to be charitable, while you and Dave are nitpickers.
Well, I'm not arguing about the Time War, but since you brought it up...
This confuses me too. Christopher Ecclestone's Doctor seems to imply in Dalek that he didn't help in the war, or that he was too young to fight. Yet in the double-parter at the end of the second series, Tennant's Doctor says he fought, and mentions that he was there "...at the Fall of Arcadia. Soon I may be able to come to terms with that" when rescuing Rose and Mickey from the Cult of Skaro.
As for the Ark, it is possible that, if he is indeed too young by Time Lord standards, he might not have been a very important member to know about it.
The Void Ship...well, its probably an offshoot of time-travel tech? The Time Lords might know how to do it--the Doctor seems to know a bit about it--but with their time travel tech they don't need to.
Got to go now, got some printing to do.