>> Your studity is getting tiresome... What is an assistant janitor
>> doing here anyway. Here is the summary. If you cannot follow it,
>> then God help you.
> 
>> The null hypothesis is: GR has no error. Since 3.8 falls within
>> 5.0+/-1.2, the null hypothesis CANNOT BE rejected. This is not the
>> same as ACCEPTING the null hypothesis.
> 
>> If the 3.8 fell outside a range of say 5.0 +/-1.1, then the null
>> hypothesis CAN BE REJECTED, proving it false.
> 
>> In SUMMARY, the 5.0+/-1.2 observation, only allows GR NOT TO BE
>> REJECTED with that particular data. When better data is obtained, the
>> possibility that it CAN BE REJECTED remains. ERGO, GR predictions of
>> planetary orbital precesssions is NOT VALID PROOF of GR, as you have
>> been dubiously claiming since you joined the USENET. That is a long
>> history of either error or plain stupidity. But knowing you, I don't
>> think anybody will be surprised.
> 
> Two comments:
> 
> 1. One would be foolish to reject a hypothesis outright by comparing
> 3.8 and 5.0+/--1.1, for reasons that I've already described. A signal
> (something counter to a null hypothesis) is usually required to be a
> three-sigma effect at least. Thus 3.8 and 5.0+/-0.4 would customarily
> be grounds for flagging a significant disagreement, but not 3.8 and
> 5.0+/-1.1. So much for your grasp of statistics.
> 
> 2. Experimental evidence NEVER serves as a proof of a theory. Never.
> Experimental evidence supports a theory. Theories are never proven.
> They are provisionally accepted until there is significant
> experimental evidence that they are wrong. Competing theories are
> judged by which one is supported by more experimental evidence. This
> is central to the scientific method. If you did not understand this
> about the scientific method, and you are critiquing GR because you see
> nothing that proves GR, then perhaps it best to return to the
> introductory chapters in your 9th grade science book.

You are a statistical ignoramus.  The value of the PPO for earth does
not prove GR.  It only allows it not to be rejected until better data
is obtained.  For example, if incompetent PD obtains a PPO for earth
of 5.0+/-5.0, you cannot say that this is proof of GR, even though the
3.8 falls within the large range.  Obviously better data is needed, in
this case, and in the actual case.

Keep on arguing your stupid premises that the others can see.  Maybe
you will get demoted from your assistant janitor position.

 See also

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MoreBananas.html
https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImbecileScience.html