Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 23:47:46 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <bee82c477b86c0caf1c30da405ed870f@www.novabbs.com> <10140pm$2huu3$1@dont-email.me> <211597acf09cc21af2125ea3c9fe12d4@www.novabbs.com> <101acbb$188t$1@dont-email.me> <a18977a79cf92b54c28e3e65395ab113@www.novabbs.com> <101cpl6$isnr$1@dont-email.me> <1844830cac6ece08$164805$1966588$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <844a0d83caeacd8dae32487821889fb8@www.novabbs.com> <goH_P.892794$BFJ.19100@fx13.ams4> <1844b1dd9110820c$262985$1819595$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <fd67be5bdeeb7f9a15ebd084a809f800@www.novabbs.com> <101h830$1vsbc$1@dont-email.me> <5dfed512171a25be1a5999aef8254b63@www.novabbs.com> <101q7ns$11418$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= <mlwozniak@wp.pl>
In-Reply-To: <101q7ns$11418$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 35
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.ams11.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail
Nntp-Posting-Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 21:47:47 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 2241
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com
Message-Id: <1845f53bbba17f85$13863$2064386$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>

On 6/4/2025 9:51 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> Den 01.06.2025 23:22, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>> On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:02:16 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>
>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
> 
>> 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. 
> 
> It doesn't matter how the theory is derived.
> You could have guessed it.
> 
> But the theory has to be mathematically consistent
> (not self contradictory) and falsifiable.

The Shit of your idiot guru doesn't
match any of those conditions.

> 
>> GR does not predict a doubling.
> 
> A meaningless statement.
> 
> GR is a consistent, falsifiable theory.

No, neither. Your assertion is false.