From: John Beckett 

Robert Comer  wrote in message
news::
>> Please give an example of a substantive statement which is better
>> than "just a theory".
>
> When it comes to science, that's a very tough thing to do.

I'd be happy with any substantive statement which is better than "just
a theory". So far, you seem to think that EVERY statement is just a
theory.

Even something like "I had toast for breakfast" is just a theory.
Perhaps I have been hypnotised and only think that I had toast. Certainly
for you, any statement about what I had for breakfast is an unsubstantiated
claim.

It may be true that all statements are "just a theory". If so,
saying that something is just a theory doesn't help any discussion. It
certainly doesn't say anything about the accuracy of the theory of special
relativity.

According to various stuff I've read, special relativity has been tested in
many different experiments and has been found to be very accurate in all of
them. That is true only if extreme gravity is not present. When extremely
massive objects are nearby, general relativity is required.

> In my view, it's just a theory until it's complete. (no counter
> example, explains everything and I mean everything about the.
> subject Physical proof.)

So it is impossible to completely prove anything. However, we can be sure
that in the space and time that we observe, and assuming the absence of
nearby extremely massive objects, the theory of special relativity is
accurate to much better than 0.1% error.

It may turn out that when the date is April 1 2008, special relativity
fails owing to a completely unknown link between the human calendar and
physics. For that, we'll have to wait and see. Meanwhile, the only
reasonable attitude is to work as if special relativity is true, which it
certainly is, to much better than 0.1% error!

Future knowledge may further explain the details, and greatly enhance the
accuracy level. However, the theory of special relativity will still be
true to within its currently-known error tolerance. If you don't believe
that, you don't believe anything.

>> The first widely-accessible proof that mass could be
>> converted to energy was in the first nuclear explosion.
>
> I still disagree. This is a quote from Wiki that a nuclear bomb was
> not the first thing that verified the calculation:
> [...stuff about free neutron rest mass...]

Your quote supports what I said, namely that only specialists can follow
much of the evidence supporting special relativity. The first widely-
accessible proof that mass could be converted to energy was in the first
nuclear explosion!

John

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5