Re: Diffraction Gratings Prove SR Wrong.

"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:2b4q53pqall85pfgap5ita3d7cekqrn3ee@xxxxxxxxxx
On 29 May 2007 15:19:13 -0700, PD <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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 plain fact is, Einstein's relativity has neither logical foundation
nor
physical significance.
It is nothing but a cleverly contrived fantasy, describing how the
universe
WOULD behave if the second postulate were true.

It describes how the universe DOES behave.

If you think it is insignificant, then you're an obvious fool.


.

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. ... 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. ... Hank is hand-choosing his experiments where he believes BaTh makes the ... 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)
  • Re: Arthur, King of Time and Space and ToE vs ID
    ... "There are no known sequential prime digits (as defined by encoding ... predictions the failure of which would serve to falsify it. ... How would a failure of any of those predictions falsify your ... left some unknown pattern encoded in some unknown fashion using some ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A better word for "falsifiable"?
    ... I've had success with explaining "falsifiable" as "makes testable ... one of its predictions and test if it holds. ... How else would you falsify a theory? ... just as falsifiable as the standard model. ...
    (talk.origins)