From: Robert Comer 

>If a statement is "just a theory", does that mean that the statement is
>inadequate? Or wrong?

It could be inadequate, or wrong, or even right.  It's a valid theory as
long as there isn't a counter-proof of some kind. (say, black holes for
instance, or the ever accelerating expansion of the universe, but these
don't invalidate the whole theory, only saying that it is incomplete.)

>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.

>The above queries are my way of exploring what it means to say that
>Special Relativity is just a theory and not a fact. Are you reverting to
>"life is just an illusion", so no facts are known?

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.)

>Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

And they'd be right.

>By definition, everything in
>science is falsifiable.

Yep.

>Sure, scientists can mess about in particle accelerators, and produce a
>graph with conclusion "therefore we see that a tiny amount of mass has
>been converted to a tiny amount of energy". However, only specialists can
>follow the argument. The first widely-accessible proof that mass could be
>converted to energy was in the first nuclear explosion. Of course nuclear
>power stations do the same, but they came later.

I still disagree. This is a quote from Wiki that a nuclear bomb was not the
first thing that verified the calculation:

"Max Planck first pointed out that the mass-energy equivalence formula
implied that bound systems would have a mass less than the sum of their
constituents, once the binding energy had been allowed to escape. However,
Planck was thinking in terms of chemical reactions, which have binding
energies too small for the measurement to be practical. Early experimenters
also realized that the very high binding energies of the atomic nuclei
should allow calculation of their binding energies from mass differences,
however it was not until the discovery of the neutron in 1932, and the
measurement of the free neutron rest mass, that this calculation could
actually be performed (see nuclear binding energy for example calculation).
Very shortly thereafter, the first transmutation reactions (such as ) were
able to verify the correctness of Einstein's mass-energy equivalence
formula to an accuracy of 1%."

I would argue that even this wasn't the first, but it was probably the
first calculable and verifiable example.

--
Bob Comer






On Mon, 14 May 2007 18:43:11 +1000, John Beckett
 wrote:

>Robert Comer  wrote in message
>news::
>> You implied Relativity and Special Relativity is fact, not theory and
>> that's just wrong, simple as that, nothing more..
>
>Perhaps we should define some terms. If Special Relativity is "just a
>theory", what is an example of something better? How about the Law of
>Conservation of Mass?
>
>If a statement is "just a theory", does that mean that the statement is
>inadequate? Or wrong?
>
>Please give an example of a substantive statement which is better than
>"just a theory".
>
>The above queries are my way of exploring what it means to say that
>Special Relativity is just a theory and not a fact. Are you reverting to
>"life is just an illusion", so no facts are known?
>
>> The evidence enough is that the scientific community still call it a
>> theory.
>
>Well they would say that, wouldn't they? By definition, everything in
>science is falsifiable. Moreover, the scientific community use the word
>"theory' with a totally different meaning from the general public.
>
>> I have no problem with that statement, but that isn't the only way to
>> convert mass to energy, that's what I've been saying all along,
>> E=MC**2 is not just expressed in a nuclear explosion, it works for all
>> mass conversions to energy.
>
>Sure, scientists can mess about in particle accelerators, and produce a
>graph with conclusion "therefore we see that a tiny amount of mass has
>been converted to a tiny amount of energy". However, only specialists can
>follow the argument. The first widely-accessible proof that mass could be
>converted to energy was in the first nuclear explosion. Of course nuclear
>power stations do the same, but they came later.
>
>John
>

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