Experiments always test that which explain - the causes.

[kmarinas86]

When we support things such as time dilation and length contraction, what we are really proving is not the existence of these things, but instead we are proving the existence of their consequences, for example:<br /><br />"If time dilation exists, then event X must happen under the circumstances of experiment E."<br /><br />When event X happens under the circumstances of experiment E, time dilation is <i>confirmed</i>.<br /><br />Another example is this:<br /><br />"If the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is true, then events X, Y, Z must happen under the circumstances of experimental procedure E with the use of instrument I."<br /><br />Explanations are not the things we are observing, but they are "why's" as to why a certain event happened, is happening, or will happen. They are our under-lying understanding of these events, but they are not the events themselves.

 

[why06]

This is true, but the only way events like these can be measured correctly is to either to go back in time to the beggining of the universe or see if one can exceed the speed of light <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />When event X happens under the circumstances of experiment E, time dilation is confirmed.</font><br /><br />no it is not. many tests, particularly in cosmology, are conducted with the end result's confirmation held in fast <i>belief.</i><br /><br />another example that is most likely false: throw up a ball, it falls to earth ------ /> gravity is then <i>confirmed.</i><br /><br />this is not necessarily true at all. if you believe in gravity and all that it implies, then of course the experiment is a slam dunk. "look! see! gravity exists! the ball just fell back to the ground." <br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">no it is not. many tests, particularly in cosmology, are conducted with the end result's confirmation held in fast belief.<br /><br />another example that is most likely false: throw up a ball, it falls to earth ------ /> gravity is then confirmed.<br /><br />this is not necessarily true at all. if you believe in gravity and all that it implies, then of course the experiment is a slam dunk. "look! see! gravity exists! the ball just fell back to the ground."</font><br /><br />Just because something is confirmed does not mean it's right or true. All confirmation means is that <i>it is believed to be true or right</i> for the reason that experiment E does not falsify the idea. You could also "confirm" the existence of God, but the essence of "confirmation" is relative to the individual's paradigm. Confirmation does not determine absolute truth. What is confirmed one day may be disproven tommorow, even if it is a claim that something in particular doesn't change with time.

 

[bonzelite]

^^^exactly. yes.