No it doesn't work like that in science.
It is the person making the claim that needs to show evidence for it. What is your evidence?
Regarding light affecting magnets, how do you think a radio antenna works? And how do you think absorption of visible light by atoms and molecules occurs?
Einstein had no evidence for his theory of Relativity when he originally invented it. When the experts asked him for evidence, he replied "Then I would have felt sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct."
Einstein, like me, was a top-down thinker and a rebel. Did you know he did not believe in Quantum Physics or Big Bang?
Einstein actually proves my aether. Spaceship pancaking is a phenomenon related to the propogation rate of matter and aether.
I am currently thinking of multiple thought experiments which will disprove Einstein's relativity.
One is called the Grandma Problem.
Einstein is finally defeated by the Grandma Problem. The Grandma Problem is a thought experiment that says this; "If a grandma is watching an astronaut take off at 99% c, and then she goes and walks to her suburban house with her binoculars...The astronaut will see himself at Mars but the grandma still on the beach."
This can be further demonstrated by the fact that light is not instantaneous to observers, but has a speed, c. If a particle of light was conscious, it would create a paradox for the universe, because when it observed, time would be standing still, and it would still be at the early stage of the universe, passing planets which do not yet exist for it...but to other observers, it would be moving through space, and passing planets freely. Thus any conscious observer who moves at c creates a paradox. (But also any conscious observer who moves subluminal would also create a paradox of divergent realities.) Thus we know that Einstein's relativity is false, because it claims Time stops if it travels at c...which is demonstrably false because light collides with objects located in the present location, and not the location they had when the light was first emitted.
Armand Fizeau experiment proves light is not a constant. But Relativists tried to explain it away using complex mental gymnastics.
I have been reading a book called "Phenomenal Physics" by Isaac McPhee. The author states that the speed of light is proven to be a constant because of the Michelson Morley experiment and the Armand Fizeau experiment. This is a mind-numbing fallacy because the Michelson Morley experiment did not prove light is not relative. Thus I am left with faith to assume the Armand Fizeau proves it (Very little faith, since the author committed a fallacy and so why should I believe his mention of Armand is not also a fallacy.) Morley does not prove light is not relative. First of all the experiment was too crude to even report the effects of gravity on light. We can all agree that light is effected by gravity. If Morley's interferometer lacked the precision to notice a change via gravity then it lacks the needed precision to make light calculations. Fundamentally it is mind-numbing to say that Morley's interferomenter proves light is a constant. Imagine if I am in a zero-gravity chamber, and I shoot pingpongs in a ping-pong type interferometer. Both ping pongs will ping at the same time. This does not imply ping-pongs are a constant that disobeys relative velocity properites. The Morley simply proved that lumineferous ether wind does not exist. And I agree that luminiferous wind does not exist. My version of aether, is affected by mass particles. It is ridiculous to suggest that Morley's crude apparatus proves anything else.
Thus, I challenge that light is even a constant. I accuse that 100 years ago, people misinterpreted the results of the Armand Fizeau experiment. Light should have never been declared a constant. I am saying Einstein wasted his time by chasing a false herring. I am saying go back to the beginning...if light was never declared a constant then Einstein would have never made his theory. If you can prove light is a constant, I will delete this paragraph. If not, this paragraph remains.