On 07/08/2015 21:26, Col wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 5:56:34 PM UTC+1, Alastair wrote:

I find your posts so insulting I have difficulty reading them.

I know. It's because they tell you that you are clearly and
unambiguously wrong.

Didn't you say that there was no 'proof' in science?

But there is "disproof" - a subtle difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...tific_evidence

There is no proof of correctness of a theory. Every independent
experiment consistent with a theory merely improves confidence in it
until you find a novel *experiment* that breaks the status quo. We can
never be sure we have a complete description but we get a successively
better approximation to describing our universe as time passes.

However, a scientific theory must be capable of being *refuted* and one
clear refutation is more than enough to show that a widely held theory
is invalid or at the very least incomplete. You can prove that some
theory is wrong because it does not describe the universe we live in.

"Cold radiation" doesn't even get over the first hurdle it is complete
and utter ********(TM) in the same vein as N-rays and polywater.

Dodgy double glazing salesmen might use the term but no physicist would
give this "concept" the time of day. I sincerely hope that the physics
book that Alastair quoted earlier does not support his views otherwise
it is not fit to be a university textbook.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown