Proving Negatives

. . . if they happen in distinct locations, yes. But this proof applies to a mathematical model, albeit one that turns out to describe reality near light speed very well.

By contrast, the sentence "you can't prove a negative" applies to empirical evidence. For example, while you can prove the positive empirical statement "white swans exit" (just find one an present it in court), you can usually not prove that "naturally-green swans do not exist". Indeed, how would you prove that? No matter how hard you tried to find one and failed, it doesn't mean they don't exist.


What I just said. You can prove negative statement in the context of a mathematical or logical theory, but usually not in the context of empirical evidence.

PS: The statement "you can't prove a negative" is a negative. If you could prove it, that in itself would refute it.

Wow, with debating skills of that level, we'd better give up now!

You've either never seen Einstein's "proofs" or you're just making stuff up.

The simpler of the two to explain is his "proof" parallel lines cannot exist. I note that you snipped out the part where I mentioned it, so I suspect you have one or two clues at your disposal.


Really? I can prove there are no zebras grazing in my back yard. I can prove there is no me on Mars. I can prove there is no Jupiter-sized planet presently located between the Earth and the Sun. Lots of negatives can be proven observationally.

There are some negatives which are problematic, perhaps impossible to prove, but "You can't prove a negative" is simply a lie. I doubt there's a single soul presently participating who doesn't cherish it.

Ironically, Einstein's "proof" against parallel lines is a total fraud. It runs like this:

Supposing you and I start side by side and walk north. At first our paths will be parallel, but eventually we'll meet at the North Pole.

I kid you not - this garbage, this total farce is repeated as a matter of standard procedure in every high school and introductory college course on physics. It's a standardized part of the curriculum at the beginning of the portion of teaching devoted to Einstein. It is deemed desirable to disorient the students first, and make them doubt things they know to be true.

Review it and see if you can debunk it. It's not all that tricky if you try.

This lie is taught in physics class, and right down the hall students could as a geometry teacher who'd PROVE PARALLEL LINES MUST EXIST.

Now for those who decline to take the challenge, here's the remedy:
Instead of walking north, turn 90 degrees and walk east or west. Meridians and Parallels are NOT the same thing, and this has long, long, long been known.

Of course it's quite important to the indoctrination procedure that students be disoriented. Anyone thinking straight, and evaluating what follows is, if they understand more than a couple of sentences, almost certain to spot flaw after flaw after flaw.

*Students. NEVER EVER question Einstein. Most of those assigned to teach it have no clue, and they will gladly assume you're "just too stupid". This isn't like creation & evolution where you might get some slack if your school isn't dominated by the hateful.

Oh no! My secret has been revealed!

First Science proves nothing--Science is based upon an 'Idea' that explains observations and makes predictions--an 'idea' that through extensive review and test that becomes a theory. It is not a theorem. that's mathematics and mathematics is not a science.

As for the two parallel lines bushwah. Einstein's theory is based upon a non-Euclidean Geometry--a geometry of space, that is not based upon Euclid's fifth postulate. In this space geodesics meet. That part is proven, it is mathematics and it is a theorem. The theory part is the connection between Einstein and the mathematics.

BTW Einstein wasn't a mathematician. but he had friends that were.

Rap

Then they aren't 'proofs.' For a 'proof' to be valid it has to be presented and understood by peers. Galois' proofs were only accepted when they were discovered and validated--unfortunately when that occurred Galois' body had long since rotted away.

Rap

You're mixing geometries--latitudes are Euclidean--longitudes aren't, longitudes are based on sperical geometry and even though the Earth isn't perfectly spherical it's good enough to navigate.

Rap

That which you falsely call "science" is good for nothing but instilling confusion. That ain't news.


Nobody much has to take your word. Anyone who's ever had a physics class encountered the very story I told - drug out a little with more words. Those who haven't had such a class can ask a student. It's not hard. I presented the very same bunk they present as a matter of ROUTINE. Einstein himself told the same story several times (using more words, and throwing in little jokes in his little cartoonish persona.)

Indeed, you raised the bar impossibly high with your version. It would be required to PROVE space is "non-Euclidian" - and this can't be done. (In plain English it means something other than 3 dimensions.)

You're just trash talking and making up rubbish. I pity anyone silly enough to take someone's word on the sole basis of the fact that the words don't make any sense. Such are Einstein bait anyhow, of course!

You obviously were sleeping in class.

Try looking at a Mercatur projection of the world and you'll see what I said is obvious, that is unless you believe in a cylindrical spheres. In that case longitude and latitude are both based on Euclidean Geometry.

Rap

Not true--geometries can be based in any number of dimensions upon the first four postulates. In the early 19th Century threw out the fifth postulate as a being necessary.

Rap

Negatives can be proven. Anyone who missed it, go back. No need to be distracted. ...Unless for some reason you want to.

Sorry, but this exchange calls for a .....

Usually they require "proof" in order to get rid of doubt. Also I'm curious, what is it that makes or has made you "happy".

You simply aren't allowing for the possibility that the "peers" might not be bright enough to comprehend the proof. That's fine, but you need to admit to the situation.

Ganja--did you even read my comment about Galois? His proofs weren't recognized for 50 years. Until they were recognized they weren't proofs of anything. They were scraps of papers in Caucey's and Fourier's librarys.

Rap

Huh? They may not have been recognized as proofs for 50 years, but they were no less valid the instant Galois conceived them. If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one around to hear it...

well to begin with, i don't concern myself with proof or doubt