Like I said to Gore3000, I think we use the terms of science differently and understand the methodology differently. Experiments create evidence. All experiments are successful in the sense that they either work the way you thought and your confidence in your theory rises, or they don't work the way you thought and you learn something new (or more often confusion sets in). Proof is something that is done from defined elements and defined processes, as in "prove that an electron at rest can't emit a photon". Electrons and photons are objects that are defined based on observations. The process of electrons emitting photons is defined based on observations. Sure there are wonderful theories that go along, but they have not been "proven". There's just a whopping lot of evidence.
By the way, I was assigned this proof on a smart day and received extra credit for generalizing the proof to "prove that an electron at a constant velocity can't emit a photon".
Is there such a critter?(electron at rest)