No. The problem with Wegner's continental drift model was that he could not
propose a mechanism that could move the continental plates. Most geologists
did not believe such a mechanism was possible, but no one claimed that such
a mechanism would violate known laws.
>
>And in physics when they thought that they had the
>laws described, and there was little to do but confirm them? They had no
>idea that there could be any other way to look at things, and basically
>denied the possibility.
>
This is too vague to comment on. Can you give any specific examples?
>
>New data, unexpected experimental results, changed the picture. What that
>teaches me is that we probably don't know everything right now, either, and
>perspectives may change still.
>
But there has never, to my knowledge, been a case when a physical law was
found to be false by new evidence. All theories that violate known physical
laws are proven wrong in time.
>
>>What I find
>>interesting is that your final statement could have been said by someone
>>claiming to have a perpetual motion machine that operates by principles
not
>>yet known to science. All one would have to do is replace "explains the
>>earth's heat balance in terms we haven't thought of yet" with something
like
>>"explains how to to get usable energy from empty space".
>>
>I often have to explain to people (when they watch the water wheel and/or
>the Foucault Pendulum in the Nature Center here) that there is no such
>thing as a perpetual motion machine. They always seem to be hoping that
>there is! If that is the way you see my viewpoint on the fossil record, I
>appreciate your patient tolerance!
>
Only when you say that results which prove your model wrong in fact can be
explained away by invoking unknown considerations, which are invariably ad
hoc and often contradictory.
Kevin L. O'Brien