Lets take Newton's law of Gravity, F = G x M1 x M2/R^2. According to you, every time I drop a ball that is 'proving' Newton's law. Therefore Newton's law is proved, it is an inviolable law of the universe, is that correct?
If that isn't correct, then explain why not? Proof is a very high bar to pass, isn't it.
Here I have a theory. Weakened infectious organisms can be injected into a person and it will make them immune to the disease the organism causes. Of course it can never be proved, right?
Are you claiming that in all cases, injections with a weakened infectious organism will make them immune to that organism? Please do a little research and you will find that your theory is not correct in all cases. Falsified.
I have another theory. It is possible for humans to fly in machines that are heavier than air. Can’t be proved though, right?
As a pilot I happen to know that an airplane must constantly displace its weight in air, in straight and level flight. If the plane doesn't displace its weight in air (becoming heavier than the air it displaces) it is no longer capable of sustained flight. Hence I have falsified your theory.
I have another. One day men will be able to fly to the moon and back. Of course science cannot prove that?
Do you know the difference between and observation and a theory? Obviously not. Do you even understand the definition of a theory?
Said Hank:
I have another theory. It is possible for humans to fly in machines that are heavier than air. Can’t be proved though, right?
Replied LeGrande:
As a pilot I happen to know that an airplane must constantly displace its weight in air, in straight and level flight. If the plane doesn't displace its weight in air (becoming heavier than the air it displaces) it is no longer capable of sustained flight. Hence I have falsified your theory.
LeGrande, whether intentionally or not, your answer to Hank was not honest/true.
You see, when someone says "
It is possible for humans to fly in machines that are heavier than air" they are really implicitly saying (that is, they are saying by implication) "If the machine is constructed at a certain shape, and is propelled through the air at a rate great enough that the craft's own weight is being displaced with downward accelerated air, then the craft will fly...." and so on - and of course there are lots of details I left out.
But the fact is that the theory (being that under certain clearly defined conditions planes do fly) that Hank is talking about IS proven: It is a proven fact that if you or I build a plane that meets certain (pretty lax) defined requirements, it WILL ALWAYS FLY. At least it has never been demonstrated that there are cases that it will not fly even when it's built to correctly and is displacing it's own weight in downward accelerated air. This is an experiment that I
proven myself.
Now, it has been unquestionably proven that under the right conditions, an airplane can fly. There's no way that anyone can falsify that the theory that under the right conditions, airplanes can fly.
But what about the theory that says "When an airplane is displacing downward its own weight in air, it will fly"? Is that theory falsifiable? Well, you might be able to falsify that one if you could show me that an airplane that was accelerating downward air greater at a thrust greater then its own weight and still not flying.
But the theory that under the right conditions airplanes do always fly is simply not falsifiable - and yet it has been proven many many times.
Coming from someone who works in real science (electronics, computer science, physics on the side) there is much more to science then just being falsifiable. Being provable is extremely important, and things need not always be falsifiable.
-Jesse