tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1219943390209086498.post7950718975331915449..comments2020-11-12T15:19:30.653+08:00Comments on A Shed Down Under: Can You Prove a Negative?John S. Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07136673809517474111noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1219943390209086498.post-90877664931760555732019-01-09T16:16:37.309+08:002019-01-09T16:16:37.309+08:00A formal explanation of how Wood's experiment ...A formal explanation of how Wood's experiment proves that N-Rays do not exist is the following. Proposition: the N-ray experiment works but produces no other known kind of rays. Conclusion: Blondlot observes blips on the screen that reflect the settings of the experiment. If P -> C then the causal process is that the experiment causes the blips by means of controlled production of N-Rays, which totally exist. Empirically, however, wood made sure that the experiment did not actually work (P is false). But C remained 'true,' at least to Blondlot, meaning that the causal link is disproved. The blips were in no way caused by produced N-Rays because the blips that Blondlot was "controlling" with a non-functioning dial could not have been caused by the (disabled) experiment. John S. Jacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07136673809517474111noreply@blogger.com