Re: Some troubling assumptions of SR

In article <1170788381.145019.308180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 6, 10:56 am, Phineas T Puddleduck
<phineaspuddled...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1170787959.935294.43...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So you're resorting to arguing semantics? We're talking "proof" in a
different
framework here.

Your definition of "proof" and "prove" is fictional. Where did you
get it? Prove is the same as show after a test. It holds nothing of
universality.

prove <- probe


You were the one who mentioned within a 1-sigma framework!

--
<-Coffee Boy-> = Preferably white, with two sugars
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Some troubling assumptions of SR
    ... On Feb 6, 10:56 am, Phineas T Puddleduck ... So you're resorting to arguing semantics? ... framework here. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Some troubling assumptions of SR
    ... On Feb 6, 11:41 am, Phineas T Puddleduck ... So you're resorting to arguing semantics? ... You were the one who mentioned within a 1-sigma framework! ...
    (sci.physics)