PD wrote:
> kk wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> > > kk wrote:
> > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > That's right. One never *proves* a theory. And it only takes one
> > > > > *actual* bit of evidence to the contrary to disprove a theory. As long
> > > > > as the evidence is consistent with the theory, however, then the theory 
> > > > > stands.
> > > >
> > > > You still don't get it.
> > > >
> > > > There can be no "evidence that is consistent with the
> > > > theory" because all of the "theory" is based on a mere
> > > > definition of synchronization.
> > > >
> > > > I challenge you to list one bit of "evidence that is
> > > > consistent" with the "theory" (which means a bit
> > > > that follows from the 2nd postulate).
> > > >
> > > >  --kk--
> > >
> > > How about proton that is accelerated until it has twice the momentum it
> > > had before (as *measured* in a collision) but has only 1% more velocity
> > > than it had before (as *measured* by timing it going around a closed
> > > circuit).
> > >
> > > PD
> >
> >
> > Unless all frames find this same result, it says absolutely nothing
> > uniquely about the proton, and is therefore useless to physics.
>
> OK, then notice that this result has been verified at a dozen proton
> accelerators, all at different momenta.

Yep, but all labs were in the _same_ (Earth) frame.

Will _other_ frames obtain the same result for the same proton?

If not, then the results would be invalid because a single given
proton cannot possess more than _one_ set of physical properties,
including momentum.

--kk--