Your scientism is showing.

You can't prove anything with an experiment.

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date

Your scientism is showing.

You can't prove anything with an experiment.

Your scientism is showing.

You can't prove anything with an experiment.

Since you know that proofs are only for formal logic asks mathematics, not for science, I have to assume to mean by proof, "strong evidence for". And here it is.

As you have been shown, relativity is established as the best description of the universe's behaviour suit top the fact that it provides the best fit for tie actual data.

And of the alternative to scientism (whichever of the various meanings of it you intend) it rather more reliable than 'personal revelation' or 'faith' or whatever it is you are relying on. The trouble with faith based positions such as yours is that you can't objectively pick from the millions of difference assertions of Truth. You will claim logic, of course, but you never did answer my question as to how well that worked out for the Greeks' attempts to describe the world without physical evidence and testable hypotheses.

Last edited:

I provided you with information regarding universal constants. Did you read it? Do you understand what universal constants are? What kind of proof are you looking for? And lastly, why does c being a constant bother you so very much?:darwinsm:

:mock: Cabinethead

But you won't provide the proof.

Yes you can. That is why we do them, to prove, or disprove, a hypothesis.Your scientism is showing.

You can't prove anything with an experiment.

Nope.Since you know that proofs are only for formal logic asks mathematics, not for science, I have to assume to mean by proof, "strong evidence for".

Einstein sought to prove his postulate. Math.

Do try to keep up.

It doesn't.As you have been shown, relativity is established as the best description of the universe's behaviour suit top the fact that it provides the best fit for tie actual data.

But we can't even start to look at the math, because you think it is irrelevant.

Maths, remember?The trouble with faith based positions such as yours is that you can't objectively pick from the millions of difference assertions of Truth.

You're the one insisting that we should regard an idea as sacrosanct because of experiments.

That's nice.I provided you with information regarding universal constants.

Get back to us when you figure out what the conversation is about.

What kind of proof are you looking for?

This whole reading thing is a bit beyond you, isn't it?

Yes you can. That is why we do them, to prove, or disprove, a hypothesis.

:darwinsm:

Somebody put this moron out of his misery, please?

Last edited:

So why do we even bother with experiments if they don't prove anything? No, they do not prove anything in terms of a mathematical or logical, proof, but the do give us data that supports (proves in the colloquial) or refutes (disprove in the colloquial) the hypothesis the experiment was designed to test.Nope.

Einstein sought to prove his postulate. Math.

Do try to keep up.

It doesn't.

But we can't even start to look at the math, because you think it is irrelevant.

Maths, remember?

You're the one insisting that we should regard an idea as sacrosanct because of experiments.

That's nice.

Get back to us when you figure out what the conversation is about.

This whole reading thing is a bit beyond you, isn't it?

:darwinsm:

Somebody put this moron out of his misery, please?

Now that you've gotten that right, perhaps you can figure out what the conversation is about. :up:So why do we even bother with experiments if they don't prove anything? No, they do not prove anything in terms of a mathematical or logical, proof, but the do give us data that supports (proves in the colloquial) or refutes (disprove in the colloquial) the hypothesis the experiment was designed to test.

Now that you've gotten that right, perhaps you can figure out what the conversation is about. :up:

Christmas, the time for true believers to get online and insult random strangers. Go for it Stipe!

:yawn:Christmas, the time for true believers to get online and insult random strangers. Go for it Stipe!

Hare you incapable of answering a direct question?Now that you've gotten that right, perhaps you can figure out what the conversation is about. :up:

Hare you incapable of answering a direct question?

Yes, he is entirely incapable of answering anything remotely technical. That is exactly right.

He is a right pillock.

Last edited:

No.Hare you incapable of answering a direct question?

Really? Let's test that.

why does it matter to you whether c is a constant or not?

Really? Let's test that.

We just did, you eternal dummy.

Why won't you answer a direct question dealing with your motives?We just did, you eternal dummy.

Why won't you answer a direct question dealing with your motives?

Because he is a dishonest troll.

I suppose you think that an ad hominem fallacy is a rational response.You're too stupid to talk to any more.