Also on Archive.org: https://archive.org/details/DeathToEinsteinThePseudoscienceFlaw
According to
Wikipedia, “scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.
Further, the overall process of the scientific method involves making
conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical
consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions…The
hypothesis might be very specific or it might be broad.”
As a sidenote,
I’ve found that if you even refer to Wikipedia or use any of their diagrams,
which are exact duplicates of diagrams that are used elsewhere in what are
taken to be more “reputable” sources -- the moment you talk or write about a
scientific topic and then refer to Wikipedia in the same breath, the attitude
is, “Nothing you say can possibly be correct, because you’re referring to
Wikipedia. You’ve gotten your education on relativity from Wikipedia. Anyone
can put anything on Wikipedia. It’s not a valid source of information, so the
very fact that you’re referring to it calls into question everything you say.
Your knowledge is suspect.”
My response to
that attitude is, “Whatever.” Wikipedia is a good source. I know enough to know
whether what I’m reading is actually valid or not. I know when I’m being BS’d
on Wikipedia. And I learned relativity long before Wikipedia was even the
barest seed of an idea in the minds of Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. So if you
disregard what I say or write because I happen to refer to Wikipedia -- not my
problem. Wikipedia is fine, in this case.
Returning to
the Wikipedia quote regarding scientific theories:
Based on the
above, relativity (both the special and the general theories) makes the broad
hypothesis that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, or
alternately, that there are no privileged reference frames. This is the basic,
core hypothesis upon which all other facets of relativity are based.
Is this a
testable, falsifiable hypothesis? Yes, it is.
