6

# Proving Negatives

Thomas

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 07:38 am
@CTD,
CTD wrote:
If people believed it impossible to prove a negative, they'd have to throw out Einstein. We're told he proved no two events could be simultaneous.

. . . 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.

CTD wrote:
So what's the deal, huh?

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.
Thomas

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 07:40 am
PS: The statement "you can't prove a negative" is a negative. If you could prove it, that in itself would refute it.
0 Replies

contrex

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 07:40 am
@CTD,
CTD wrote:
I asked first. You tell me.

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

CTD

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 08:03 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
. . . if they happen in distinct location, yes. But this proof applies to a mathematical model, albeit one that describes reality near light speed very well.

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.

Quote:
The sentence "you can't prove a negative" applies to empirical evidence. For example, while you can prove the positive empirical statement such as "white swans" (just find one an present it in court), you can usually not prove that there are no naturally-green swans. Indeed, how would you prove that? Just because you tried hard to find one and failed, that still doesn't mean they don't exist.

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.
Thomas

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 09:01 am
@CTD,
CTD wrote:
You've either never seen Einstein's "proofs" or you're just making stuff up.

Oh no! My secret has been revealed!
0 Replies

raprap

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 09:19 am
@CTD,
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
raprap

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 09:26 am
@gungasnake,
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
raprap

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 09:34 am
@CTD,
CTD wrote:
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.

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

CTD

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 09:54 am
@raprap,
Quote:
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.
That which you falsely call "science" is good for nothing but instilling confusion. That ain't news.

Quote:
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.

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.)
CTD

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 09:57 am
@raprap,
Quote:

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.
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!
raprap

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 10:07 am
@CTD,
You obviously were sleeping in class.
0 Replies

raprap

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 10:13 am
@CTD,
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
0 Replies

raprap

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 10:18 am
@CTD,
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
CTD

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 12:23 pm
Negatives can be proven. Anyone who missed it, go back. No need to be distracted. ...Unless for some reason you want to.
0 Replies

fresco

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 12:26 pm
@raprap,
Sorry, but this exchange calls for a .....
0 Replies

whatisimportant

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 04:12 pm
@djjd62,
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".
gungasnake

0
Sun 20 May, 2012 04:20 pm
@raprap,
Quote:
Then they aren't 'proofs.' For a 'proof' to be valid it has to be presented and understood by peers....

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.
raprap

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 05:34 pm
@gungasnake,
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
markr

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 06:40 pm
@raprap,
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...
0 Replies

djjd62

1
Sun 20 May, 2012 06:41 pm
@whatisimportant,
whatisimportant wrote:
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".

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

### Related Topics

Alternative Einstein's riddle answer - Discussion by cedor
Need market for article - Question by dalehileman
Two kinds of time - Question by dalehileman
Theory of Gravity - Discussion by edgarblythe
einstein's clock tower - Question by llanwydd
Wait! What about Einstein? - Question by InkRune
I solved Einstein's riddle - Question by Shyann C