[coloradan]

Unlike the case in math, in which conclusive proofs can be had, there are no hard proofs of science. The best you can do is show a theory isn't inconsistent with anything yet known. You can never say that a theory is proved, incontrovertibly, to be true, because there might always be some regime in which it breaks down.

For example, Newtonian physics is very nearly true, except near very strong sources of gravity, or at very, very high speeds, or in the microscopic world of atoms. The needed modifications to Newtonian physics, repectively general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics, hardly influence daily experience, and it took a long time to discern that Newtonian physics demonstrably failed in these regimes. (And, all of these theories reduce to classical Newtonian experience in the limits of low gravity, slow speeds, and large quantum number.)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Did you see the Scientific American article about Modified Newtonian Dynamics? F = MA breaks down when acceleration is small enough to F = MA squared. Good read. Maybe it's even true.

[Leisler]

Would this explain why the second beer is less cold then the first, even though it came from the same cooler? I keep repeating the experiment and the results are constant. Doesn’t matter weather the cooler is stationary or in motion.

I don't know how much longer I can continue to work in obscurity and sacrifice my heath for scientific progress. I could really use some grant money, if you know of anyone. I'd be more then happy to have you co-write and share in the research.