Re: Definition of A Field
From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 11/26/04
- Next message: Jack// ani: "Is flow of electrons visible?"
- Previous message: puppet_sock_at_hotmail.com: "Re: In what sense does this vector "converge" to zero?"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:59:16 GMT
I am not going to waste anymore time arguing with an idiot like you.
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:co541v$fr3$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> kenseto wrote:
> > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
> > news:co4aqs$4va$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> >
> >>kenseto wrote:
> >>
> >>>"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:30ki5mF32enkpU2@uni-berlin.de...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>kenseto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Yes you think that SR is a religion and any definition deviate from
the
> >>>>>religion teaching of the SR religion is incorrect.
> >>>>
> >>>>SR is one scientific theory among others. It is internally consistent,
> >>>>corroberated by many experiments and falsified by none.
> >>>>
> >>>>Religions cannot be emprically tested. Scientific theories can.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>SR was never emprically tested.
> >>
> >>Liar.
> >>
> >>SR makes lots of predictions. Lots of these predictions were empirically
> >>tested. Obviously such tests are then empirical tests of SR.
> >
> >
> > Confirming some of the predictions of SR is not a good way to falsify
SR.
>
> Obviously confirming predictions of a theory is not a way to
> falsify it. However, *testing* the predictions of a theory is
> a way to falsify it. Hint: what I said above was the second.
> Could you please stop attacking silly straw men and try to
> understand my actual arguments?
>
>
> > Why? Although SR is incomplete it will give correct predictions to the
> > experiments done so far.
>
> And these experiments were empirical tests of SR, contrary to your
> claim above that such tests were never done.
>
>
> > The only experiments that can truly falsify SR are
> > as follows:
> > 1. Do an OWLS experiment with two spatially separated and synchronized
> > clocks.
> > 2. Do the experiment described in the following link:
> > http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
>
> Each of the experiments which were already done could have in
> principle falsified SR (by contradicting one of its predictions).
> So they were indeed empirical tests of it. Try to understand this
> simple argument. It could be helpful to get a brain for that.
>
>
> >> > The true emprical tests for SR are as follows:
> >>
> >>>1. Do a OWLS experiment with two spatizally separated and synchronized
> >>>clocks.
> >>>2. Do the experiment described in the following link (page 3):
> >>>http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
> >>
> >>That would be two possible empirical tests, but by far not the
> >>only possible ones.
> >
> >
> > That's the only tests that could falsify SR.
>
> Wrong. See above.
>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
- Next message: Jack// ani: "Is flow of electrons visible?"
- Previous message: puppet_sock_at_hotmail.com: "Re: In what sense does this vector "converge" to zero?"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
