Re: Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.

On May 29, 4:52 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2007 23:35:39 +1000, "Jeckyl" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1180442590.937694.150170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

That is showing it to be right .. if it was not consistent, it would be
wrong

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.

Instead they show the SR is right in that it correctly predicts the
observations.

Rubbish.
Every one of those so-called supporting experiments has an alternative
explanation.

This is precisely why I don't care for your characterization of
science (or Jeckyl's). If you have two theories that explain the same
hand-selected set of data or experiments, then you have no basis for
choosing one over the other. You likewise have not shown *either* to
be correct in so doing.

The decision point between two competing theories is made *outside*
that range of data or experiments where they have common predictions.
Specifically, the decision point is the class of phenomena where one
theory predicts that A will happen and the other theory says that B
will happen, or that both theories says that A will happen but at a
measurably different rate or amount. Then experiment tells you in a
very straightforward way which theory is clearly WRONG; it does not
tell you that the other one is right, only that it is better than the
wrong one.

Hank is hand-choosing his experiments where he believes BaTh makes the
same predictions as conventional science. He is not looking at the
places where BaTh makes a noticeably *different* prediction than
conventional science. But the latter is where the action is, because
that's where BaTh goes to hell in a handbasket.


The result of that collection of tests is that relativity is
*supported*, not proven.

I've not said it is proven

There is no hope of proving it correct. That
is not how science works.

I know that. But one still has to show that a theory is right (ie that it
correctly predicts the observations). That is what Henris demands of SR
(and that has been done plenty of time) but seems unable to do for his own
theory.

The BaTh has the support of every known experiment, from the MMX, variable star
curves and the constancy of the value of 'c' in TWLS experiments.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.
    ... proposed measurements by which his proposal could be checked -- ... chiefly to *falsify* it. ... that range of data or experiments where they have common predictions. ... Hank is hand-choosing his experiments where he believes BaTh makes the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.
    ... proposed measurements by which his proposal could be checked -- ... chiefly to *falsify* it. ... that range of data or experiments where they have common predictions. ... same predictions as conventional science. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.
    ... proposed measurements by which his proposal could be checked -- ... chiefly to *falsify* it. ... that range of data or experiments where they have common predictions. ... same predictions as conventional science. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast