From: Robert Comer 

>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.

What's this got to do with anything we're talking about, I'll just not
respond to this path you've chosen and skip down to the science.

>So it is impossible to completely prove anything.

Nope, there's been plenty of the hard sciences that has been proven and is
no longer theory, chemistry, biology, even some physics.

>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.

Close, but not 1%, the accelerating universe isn't accounted for, not to
mention massive objects which cannot be ignored as you seem to imply.

>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!

It's not likely to fail, but to operate on the assumption that it is true
is not correct.  If you think you know it all, you never search for a
better answer.

>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!

Did you read it all?  I don't think so as it says very plainly that the
transmutation reactions proved the validity of E=MC2 *shortly* after the
neutron was discovered in 1932, well before the first nuke. Simply
selective quoting to support your position is extremely disingenuous.

What say we just agree to disagree and quite this thread -- I'm not going
to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.

--
Bob Comer


On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:43:17 +1000, John Beckett
 wrote:

>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