Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!pesnta!amd!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Re: Light
Message-ID: <11564@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 14-Jul-85 07:28:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.11564
Posted: Sun Jul 14 07:28:07 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Jul-85 02:41:39 EDT
References: <344@sri-arpa.ARPA> <1157@mnetor.UUCP> <151@prometheus.UUCP> <1260@mnetor.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 17

> 	True, even relativity is still called a "theory" despite
> all the evidence to support it. Scientists are rather conservative
> about things like this.

Actually, "theory" in this context does not imply "possibly wrong".
It is just a coherent explanation subject to several technical
constraints that I won't bore you with.  A "theory" in this sense
may even be provable yet still be called a "theory".  This usage
is NOT the same as when someone says "it's only a theory".

> 	You're not one of these people who believes gravity is
> electromagnetic are you? If that were so there would be no gravity
> around a black hole.

That's no counterargument.  "Black holes" have not been conclusively
demonstrated to exist, let alone gravitate.  All we "know" about them
so far is a bunch of theoretical speculation..