Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.
I would ask you exactly the same thing...
What part are you not understanding?
SidL have a MAIN OPINION about a Law that was conceived 219 years ago (Circa 1797) then it has been "refreshed" based on Steam Engines...still 192 years ago (Carnot 1824).
The fact that SidL had examples which do not fully justify his Opinion written in a Book, that does not mean -at all- that his main idea is wrong.
The MAIN ESSENCE from SidL's Book is perfectly fine...I will supply the Evidence...
...How's that?
You could have a Theory, just like Einstein put together a S.R Theory...without Physical Proof, or Evidence that could be real. Now, does that means it is wrong?
Absolutely not!
Ufopolitics
Originally posted by dR-Green
View Post
What part are you not understanding?
SidL have a MAIN OPINION about a Law that was conceived 219 years ago (Circa 1797) then it has been "refreshed" based on Steam Engines...still 192 years ago (Carnot 1824).
The fact that SidL had examples which do not fully justify his Opinion written in a Book, that does not mean -at all- that his main idea is wrong.
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE
The MAIN ESSENCE from SidL's Book is perfectly fine...I will supply the Evidence...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7aad7/7aad7a0519a3d02a118e08b84115be3522ec79fc" alt="Big Grin"
You could have a Theory, just like Einstein put together a S.R Theory...without Physical Proof, or Evidence that could be real. Now, does that means it is wrong?
Absolutely not!
Ufopolitics
Comment