Science Fallacy Predictions

[Martin Hash]

Some of what we're certain of now as "proven science" will be discovered to be substantially wrong in the next 100 years. Can we predict what those things are? So far, my list contains:
1) So-called "time dilation" that supposedly results in time slowing down is a misconception.
2) That the universe really is made up of "ether." We call it "dark matter" now but I think we'll settle on the fundamental definition of ether from the 19th Century.
3) Evolution will get a dramatic new piece that replaces the random chance aspect of it.
4) Machu Picchu is much older than 500 years, and the "stone" walls actually started out as some kind of cement.
5) Moses was Akhenaten of Egypt.

[Speaker to Animals]

Life did not originate on Earth.

[K@th]

We won't be living in water world. That's in 5 years,right?

[Martin Hash]

We won't be living in water world. That's in 5 years,right?

You mean the oceans aren't going to rise? That's a good prediction.

[heydaralon]

I think spontaneous generation will make a comeback, as will alchemy. Bold? Sure. Forseeable. Absolutely. This time, they will have science to back them up.

[Speaker to Animals]

I think spontaneous generation will make a comeback, as will alchemy. Bold? Sure. Forseeable. Absolutely. This time, they will have science to back them up.

Actually, the end goal of alchemy could well be within our reach (in many centuries time, anyway). That's not really controversial. The energy required would be pretty crazy, and the kind of finesse to literally disassemble atoms and reassemble the particles into new atoms belonging to a different element.. wow. Still.. there doesn't seem to be anything that makes such a feat impossible.

[heydaralon]

I think spontaneous generation will make a comeback, as will alchemy. Bold? Sure. Forseeable. Absolutely. This time, they will have science to back them up.

Actually, the end goal of alchemy could well be within our reach (in many centuries time, anyway). That's not really controversial. The energy required would be pretty crazy, and the kind of finesse to literally disassemble atoms and reassemble the particles into new atoms belonging to a different element.. wow. Still.. there doesn't seem to be anything that makes such a feat impossible.

The way it was explained to me (in a very dumbed down way because science is one of my weakest areas) is that the costs of doing it, assuming we could isolate and separate the atoms would outweigh the benefit. There is a trace amount of gold is seawater right? We could theoretically mine it, but there is no financial benefit atm.

[Speaker to Animals]

I think spontaneous generation will make a comeback, as will alchemy. Bold? Sure. Forseeable. Absolutely. This time, they will have science to back them up.

Actually, the end goal of alchemy could well be within our reach (in many centuries time, anyway). That's not really controversial. The energy required would be pretty crazy, and the kind of finesse to literally disassemble atoms and reassemble the particles into new atoms belonging to a different element.. wow. Still.. there doesn't seem to be anything that makes such a feat impossible.

The way it was explained to me (in a very dumbed down way because science is one of my weakest areas) is that the costs of doing it, assuming we could isolate and separate the atoms would outweigh the benefit. There is a trace amount of gold is seawater right? We could theoretically mine it, but there is no financial benefit atm.

Depends upon the "cost" of energy. If you surround a star with a Dyson sphere.. it's not so expensive to do things like that. I think the best way to look for other civilizations is to look for stellar anomalies like that. I suspect the universe has more than a few stars mostly covered by Dyson spheres which are used to transmute the material that gets shipped into the system into rarer stuff.

[Martin Hash]

4) Machu Picchu is much older than 500 years, and the "stone" walls actually started out as some kind of cement.