This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation

or join one »

## Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything?

There is a great deal of interest of us in examining claims of ‘truths’ and ‘facts’. In such examination there is a noticeable stress on scientifically proven facts which can be taken as fundamentally true. This is possibly because mathematics is the language of Science and we make mistake thinking mathematical proofs to be reflecting the essence of scientifically proven facts.

Does science necessarily prove anything? The way mathematics proves a proposition?

It is surprising that such a basic debate cannot be laid to rest and a conclusion arrived at even after 1934 book by Karl Popper: The Logic of Scientific Discovery.

Alan Moghissi, Matthew Amin and Connor McNulty of Institute for Regulatory Science, Alexandria, Va wrote to the editor of Science (the magazine) disagreeing with Peter Gleick and 250 members of the (US) National Academy of Sciences writing to the editor of Science : All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything.

http://www.nars.org/Voice_of_Science_Articles/Does%20Sciences%20Ever%20Absolutely%20Prove%20Anything.pdf

Is there an absolutely proven scientific fact?

**Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.**

**Showing single comment thread.
View the full conversation.**

## G. Srinivasan

The fact that lensing occurs CONFIRMS a medium. Gravity is thetransmigration of the interactive stresses towards the lower count state and when acting simultaneously or in parallel it displays different levels of force. Like a tornado starts from atmos-pressure and by merging with itself in spin creates the pressure difference. Same happens in space. Above all rigorous logic compels us to derive a single source of power FIRST. That has been don on the website http://www.kapillavastu.com/index.html

## Nilesh Modhwadia

One has spent some time to look in to abstract and few value been derived sems very accurate with what science has discovered through experiment but need more time to comprehend. Can you pls provide some proof through axioms specially in light spectrum for all of us to see its logic?

## G. Srinivasan

Therefore the axiomatic rate of cyclic interactive change MUST BE ONY 296575966 counts / cycle. It is almost equal to the frequency of a light wave of a metre wavength /sec . Is this MAGIC accidental? No. Michelson Morley detected it as a "velocity" of light as c =299792458 metres/ sec or 1.010845 times more as frequencty at 1 meter / sec. Frequency always transmigrates from high to low like temperature. The ratio SUN radius / EARTH orbital radius as 1: 213.45 and 1/213.45 = .00468 is the log of c/C =1.0100845. Hubble blundred intio cocncluding UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING. Where to??

Even light mus to"FLOW" from high to low frequency. ALL LIGHT FROM ALL STELLAR BODIES ARE BLUE SHIFTED. Science ?????

## Nilesh Modhwadia

Thank you for sharing. Isn't all values derived seems to be Dimensionless ratios? Derivation of instant and its numerical value has a precise value while currant understanding that value approaches to zero. isn't it? Looks very interesting that all values derived internally and any fluctuations in C value leads to sequence of values . Is there any understanding exist perhaps can have some similarity to compare to grasp more clarity that you may know?

## Jim Ryan

"Understanding Universal phenomena, as a process of manifestation, requires absolute objectivity.in deriving the algorithm that will predict such events correctly, accurately and eternally. Experimental methods detect events after it has occurred and therefore do not have the logic to predict. Therefore theoretical derivations based on experimental findings require guesstimated inputs to create a correct theory that follows natural processes accurately. Any event in reality is preceded by a hidden cause and effect cycle which results in an action and reaction cycle that is detectable. Since the process of detection is possible only in later action reaction cycle the investigator can never detect the preceding cycle. Therefore in a state of balance both these cycles must be equal. Can that be inferred, analysed and and theorized to match the detected results. There is no need to do that because all events in a medium of any type, follow rules or laws that are self similar and can be derived perfectly from axiomatic values."