Then why did you suggest that it was as justification why it isn't necessary to disprove?
I didn't. There was only one thing I called unfalsifiable in this thread, and it was not RET.
It's exactly how science works. As long as there is the possibility that x is true, you cannot logically assume that it is not.
That argument is completely distinct from your previous one. I do not propose that RET is to be assumed false - I propose that there is no requirement of proving it false before entertaining alternatives.
Trying to shift the goal posts like this makes you look worse, not better. Please approach this discussion with some intellectual honesty.
I reached out to you with a simple question. Can FE disprove RE gravity? I asked you the question, which, by definition puts the burden of proof on you. It really should be a simple yes or no answer.
Your understanding of burden of proof, and of context in human communication, is absolutely abysmal. In asking your question, you attempted to reverse the BoP of the entire debate, one which has been going for much longer than your attempted contribution. It is, first and foremost, your job to prove your position. Demanding that someone else proves the opposite of your position and declaring that no alternatives can be considered until then is asinine.
What I got instead, not surprisingly, is the knee jerk response "Has RE proven gravity"?
I said nothing to that effect. If you have a problem with something someone else has said, might I recommend taking it up with them?
I thought RE was unfalsifiable?
I'm still not sure where you got that from, but once again for those in the back: no one here said anything like that.
And I did look at the Wiki and all I saw were alternative theories justified simply because they were not inconsistent with RE gravity. That is not the same thing as disproving it. Perhaps you could point me in the right directions, but I'm guessing if anything in the Wiki disproves RE gravity...you would have directed me there in the first place instead of trying to deflect. Like I said, simple yes or no answer and if there is something in the Wiki, or even some confirmed, peer reviewed experiments, observations, discoveries...anything that disproved RE gravity, you would have simply answered "yes...and here it is". But that is not the answer I got. Did they teach you in your high school that gravity has been disproven? I think that would have been pretty big news.
Holy shit, you can't even read a Wikipedia page without hand-holding? I'll give you a hint: examples of some anomalies and discrepancies within your favourite gravitational model are listed under the Anomalies and Discrepancies subheading of the Gravity page.
And yes, the uncertainties of science are something that was taught in high school back in my day. Perhaps they dropped it around the same time as reading comprehension?