Quote:
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Here's what Wiki says on Physics Theory, as it applies to theory modeling: Isn't that what I said earlier, that theory is only modeling? |
That's one thing you said. But you also said this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
Proving a theory with pre-existing conditions is all fine and good, but if the pre-existing is found faulty, what happens to the proof? At what point is the old 'proof' found null and void, like those old epicycles? Are we so sure of our proofs that finding new evidence, and testing for new evidence of perhaps non-constant 'constants', that we should not do the tests if they threaten the existing theoretical proofs?
|
I simply pointed out that science does not ever declare a theory proven. You responded by giving me links to pop-science articles presumably intended to show how science does seek to "prove" theories ("but it seems science likes to PROVE its theories right too"). This all happened pretty recently so I'm not sure why I have to recap this. I'll just assume you now understand that science doesn't seek to prove its theories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
If these springs were a dedicated test for inertial mass in the outer solar system
|
You keep using the phrase "dedicated test". Can you please explain to the group exactly what you mean by this?