On Mar 6, 1:58*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Albertito:

On Mar 6, 11:21*am, Albertito wrote:





On 6 mar, 17:58, dlzc wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:47 am, Albertito wrote:

snip a poke in imagined ribs

Science is not about faith, or belief, or even really
acceptance. *It is about testing the limits of theory,
to see what Nature does based on how she has behaved
in other circumstances. *The only "faith" we have is
that She will behave the same way during a well-
controlled experiment, no matter where perfomed, with
less specific equipment, or by whom.

No theory is "correct", they only serve to make
predictions as to how Nature will behave.

Hope you did better with your study of Micky Mouse.

Who was speaking of science?

"Special anbd General Relativity theories." *You were. *In Religion,
you do not get to test the limits of Sin... in Science you seek to
find where your theories break down.

But, if you like, we can.
Can you provide a pretty extensive list
of all predictions SR and GR can do?

Available on the web. *Pick you you feel the most strongly about.

Through that list, we could analyse which
predictions have been experimentally tested,
and which ones are under suspicion of
being fictitious, unphysical.

Problem is, it is the only theory (since GR is a superset of both
Special Relativity and Newton) that provides a single base to describe
*all* observations in its realm. *You can stretch Newton in some sense
to cover the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, but not the
bending of starlight as much as is measured.

I bet black holes and gravitational waves are
unphysical phenomena.

You'd lose the former. *I think you'd win on the latter.

Or you would argue gambling is not allowed
in science? :-)

Well, probability is a part of Science...

David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: Agreed on your analysis of that bet.