How do you disprove physics?

Isn't any dogma not based on facts on shaky grounds, regardless if they are scientific, religious, economical etc.?

 

The inexpressible, eh?... is not on shaky grounds.

 

How are dogmas inexpressible?

 

So when they're not based on facts it does not really matter in what department it happen to fall in.

 

I would say dogma in general the culprit of dogmatic lack of facility to measure things on a standard scale. They create their own private exchanges which may be at odds with other private exchanges. What makes science useful is that it regards all phenomena in terms of standard measures or universally calibrated measuring devices. Political authority or constitutional law making does not use standardized measuring devices any more than religious dogmas do.

 

They exist somewhere else you are not at. For another, they exist at the moment now for knowledge; I don't know how to explain. This is worrying me. I want a lot from the middle east; it was and continues to be only achievable by atheist trust.

 

A 'no-brainer Nobel Prize': Hungarian scientists may have found a fifth force of nature - CNN

didn't really know where else to post this. It looks like Hungary is leading the way for us in this.

 

you don't "disprove physics" and you don't benefit from doing so. but knowledge is not cast in stone.
understanding continues to evolve, along with tools to explore it with, and their continued generating of new data.
there will always be more to learn, in every aspect of existence.

 

Levitating...

 

I have a pithy way to summarize my thoughts on this subject:

Valuing belief over knowledge leads to confusion.
Valuing knowledge over belief leads to understanding.

 

The problem with science is the scientists.