Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also.

On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:02:16 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 31.05.2025 22:44, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

On Sat, 31 May 2025 19:01:59 +0000, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>

On 5/31/2025 8:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 31.05.2025 16:33, skrev rhertz:

On Sat, 31 May 2025 4:44:04 +0000, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
>

On 5/30/2025 7:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>

>
Didn't you know that it is experimental evidence
that determines the validity of a theory?\

>
Paul, only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.

>
>
In science, deductive reasoning is used to test hypotheses, where a
general rule or theory is applied to a specific situation to see if the
prediction holds true.

>
I note with interest that Richard Hertz and Maciej Woźniak
agree that it is plain wrong that experimental evidence determines
the validity of a theory of physics.

>
As said: only idiots as incompetent as you
are can believe such a nonsensical lie.
>

>

Paul is really mistaken here because the validity of a theory depends on
its derivation. An invalid derivation doesn't predict anymore than
astrology does. The prediction of a doubling of the Newtonian is not
valid. It does not predict.

>
I note with interest that Richard Hertz, Maciej Woźniak and
Laurence Clark Crossen are ignorant of the scientific method.
>
Here's the scientific method:
>
1. Ask a Question: Begin with a specific question about
    a phenomenon you're interested in.
>
2. Do Research: Gather information and background knowledge
    related to your question.
>
3. Formulate a Hypothesis: Create a testable explanation or
    prediction about the question.
>
4. Experiment and Collect Data: Design and conduct experiments
    or observations to test your hypothesis and gather data.
>
5. Analyze Data: Analyze the collected data to see if it supports
    or contradicts your hypothesis.
>
6. Draw Conclusions: Based on the data analysis, draw conclusions
    about your hypothesis and its validity.
>
7. Communicate Results: Share your findings with the scientific
    community through publications or presentations.
>
------------------------------------------
>
Note that it doesn't matter how you arrive at your hypothesis (theory).
Its validity depend on the experimental data collected in 4.
If they are in accordance with the predictions of your theory,
your theory is confirmed, if not, your theory is falsified.
>
All of you know that the SR and GR are thoroughly tested
and never falsified.
>
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
>
So unless all the physicists that have performed the axpøeriments
are frauds an member of a MAFFIA, you will have to axxept
that SR and GR are valid theories.

It does matter if you don't actually arrive at any real theory.
Paul is ignorant that an invalid derivation is not testable and does not
predict.  GR does not predict a doubling.
It does matter if your theory is invalid.
Astrology is not a valid theory, and neither is GR.
Because they don't predict anything.
GR and SR do not make valid predictions, so they cannot be tested.
Paul has not explained how GR validly predicts a doubling of the
Newtonian.
Is it by Huygens' principle, which concerns refraction and not
gravitation?
Is it by curved space that is a reification fallacy?
So, because physicists mistakenly accept the prediction is valid, they
are mistaken about their tests.
The question is, does Huygens principle of refraction have anything to
do with gravitation?
No it does not.
Does space curve? No.