Something which can never be disproven is by definition pseudoscience and not science. The normal definition of a pseudoscience is that it be non-falsifiable, but it appears to me that demonstrating that something could never be proven should do just as well. The basic quality you're looking for is guaranteed perpetual inability to get any sort of a handle on something. Witchcraft is still as good an example as anything else; how could you prove or disprove the existence of witches? Does that not make witchcraft a science by your definition?
Although I am still reviewing the article about Lasers and the speed of light for the numerous experimental flaws, it is most appreciated. This is what keeps us science students honest, and by studying these flawed experiments, we can hopefully avoid those errors.
Without getting into too much detail, so far, the obvious flaws were the author's inability to account for the index of refraction and the difference in speeds between light and electrons flowing in a wire.
These are minor speed differences, but enough to cause the results which were reported.
For 7 years, I worked with a LIDAR system (Laser Radar) which measured the brightness of a 30 ns pulse of light as it traveled down range every 7.5 meters. I know first hand all about these minor differences and have made similar errors over the years. However, I was able to identify where I had gone wrong and corrected my experiments to account for these problems.
I know that this is not the subject of the thread, but you posted the information as a reply. For people not experienced enough in the subject, they may be foolish enough to believe that it was a valid experiment.
I beg to differ.