Re: Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.

On May 27, 7:56 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message

news:f57k53dhjhtd21jjoioq3map4k5jqld1dj@xxxxxxxxxx





On Fri, 25 May 2007 08:21:07 +1000, "Jeckyl" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1180009762.335439.274550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 23, 5:27 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
If someone wants to put up a stupid theory it is their responsibility
to
show
that it is right.
It has never been proven correct.

That is fundamentally wrong, and not how science works.

Yes it is .. one must use a theory to predict observation and conduct an
experiment that will either show the prediction was right or was wrong.
If
the prediction was right, the theory survives to fight another day .. if
it
was wrong, the theory is rejected or modified.

Of course, you are correct that a theory has cannot been proven correct.
But until you can show it being correct, and show it not being incorrect,
it
is nothing but an hypothesis .. it's not a theory.

Is Draper 'correct' or is that just your 'theory'..because as you say, a
theory
cannot be proved correct therefore your statement that 'Draper is correct'
is
itself nothing more than a hypothesis...and an unproven one, just like the
one
that started the original argument.

In other words, you are a lying hypocrite.

You will note, of course, that I was agreeing with YOUR statement: "If
someone wants to put up a stupid theory it is their responsibility to show
that it is right. It has never been proven correct."

And I STILL disagree with Henri's statement. Einstein, for example,
did NOT have the responsibility to show that relativity was right, by
proving it or otherwise. He *proposed* relativity and showed that it
was consistent with the known laws of physics to that point. He also
proposed measurements by which his proposal could be checked --
chiefly to *falsify* it. In the years since, a number of experiments
have been performed, none of which have successfully falsified
relativity, despite being designed specficially to be able to do so.
The result of that collection of tests is that relativity is
*supported*, not proven. There is no hope of proving it correct. That
is not how science works.


I was disagreeing with PD who said that is not how science works.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Electron-positron annihilation
    ... "It is important to emphasise that special relativity purports to ... Through Science to Philosophy.1937 ... a clock at the equator would run slower than one at the pole and not the ... That this prediction and the prediction of the twin paradox is ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Electron-positron annihilation
    ... "It is important to emphasise that special relativity purports to ... Through Science to Philosophy.1937 ... a clock at the equator would run slower than one at the pole and not the ... That this prediction and the prediction of the twin paradox is ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY you are not alone,
    ... It is 0% science. ... special relativity has not ... made a single useful scientific prediction. ... by using synchronous clocks to measure light's one-way ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"
    ... "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?" ... then insured the survival of that "Faith" by controlling what material that ... Unlike many, if not most, physicists, the writer is not foolish ... General Relativity has allegedly replaced Newtonian Gravitational ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"
    ... "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?" ... then insured the survival of that "Faith" by controlling what material that ... Unlike many, if not most, physicists, the writer is not foolish ... General Relativity has allegedly replaced Newtonian Gravitational ...
    (sci.physics.particle)