>it does proof him right. It was a falsification observation, and it verified the theory. It provides evidence that his theory is correct, it does not prove it

>it does proof him right. It was a falsification observation, and it verified the theory. It provides evidence that his theory is correct, it does not prove it because they still could find evidence that does not fit general relativity. The posters example made it sound crazy, but "proof" is the wrong word to use. I much prefer the paper's opener of >The theory of General Relativity (GR) continues to pass all experimental tests with flying colours