🚀 go-pugleaf

On Oct 5, 10:44 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Most activity in philosophy of science consists of accounting for or
> explaining major scientific change. Greatly impressed by the universal
> shifting of allegiance from Newtonian to relativistic mechanics, and
> suspecting that there may be some truth in the former, realists
> construe change as a more or less turbulent movement from less truth
> to more truth:
>
> W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, Routledge, London,
> 1981, p. 39: "Consequently our final strengthening of realism involves
> adding what I call the thesis of verisimilitude (hereafter cited as
> TV): the historically generated sequence of theories of a mature
> science is a sequence of theories which are improving in regard to how
> approximately true they are."
>
> This construal of scientific change is inconsistent with the deductive
> nature of theories. Deductivism implies that only movements from
> absolutely false to absolutely true and from absolutely true to
> absolutely false are possible. Consider Einstein's 1905 light
> postulate:
>
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light is
> always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>
> By a theory I shall mean the deductive closure of the postulate, that
> is, the set of all its consequences deduced validly and in the absence
> of false or absurd auxiliary hypotheses. If the light postulate is
> true, then all its consequences are true, and IN THIS SENSE the theory
> is absolutely true.
>
> If Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, then its antithesis, the
> equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, is true.
> This can easily be seen on close inspection of the Michelson-Morley
> experiment:
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
> universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> POSTULATE."
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
> "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
> p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
> suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
> the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
> train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
> speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
> emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
> that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
> Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
> result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
> contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
> we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
> result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
> ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
> or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
>
> Therefore the respective theory (the set of all consequences of the
> antithesis, c'=c+v, deduced validly and in the absence of false or
> absurd auxiliary hypotheses) is absolutely true in the sense that all
> its conclusions are true.
>
> Clearly if "theory" is properly defined the concepts of truth content
> and falsity content, largely used in today's philosophy of science,
> are irrelevant. Deductive theories are either absolutely true or
> absolutely false. The transition from Newtonian to relativistic
> mechanics was either a transition from absolutely false to absolutely
> true or a transition from absolutely true to absolutely false.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

I like that Mr Valev likes to show that many people consider that the
Theory of Relativity is wrong but I do not understand why all these
people and himself do not make a difference between the motion of the
material bodies and the motion of the light. In this article I show
why appered the three theories in physic that pretend to have all of
them corectly described the phenomena about the motion related to
light and material bodies. It is evident that only the Galilei-Newton
theory is correct and the other are errant theories.

                THE GENESIS OF THE FALSE THEORIES

  In this article is explained the way in which have appeared three
theories in physics about the description of the motion of material
bodes.
-The enormous problems in physics appeared with the discovery of the
light aberration by Bradley in 17th century. He gave an exceptional
explanation of this phenomenon by using the corpuscular theory of
light. He took the relation
tg(phi)=v/c, as being valid in this case, where c, is the light speed
and v, the linear speed of the earth evolving around the sun. By
determining the angle (phi)=40,9s, he calculated from the above
relation that c=303,000km/s. Obviously these results confirm perfectly
the Galilei- Newton theory but the corpuscular theory wasn’t accepted
at that time.
-As the scientists were not satisfied with this explanation, they
tried to explain the aberration by the point of view of the wavy
theory of the light. Robert Young did this explanation in 1804. But he
needed a material medium because the wavy phenomena as it is the case
of the sound propagation, can be transmitted only through a medium. In
this way was supposed that in cosmos must exist the ether, a substance
very fine with special properties.
-Such a substance is not discovered until now but that doesn’t stop
the scientists to continue to do researches in this direction.
-The biggest mess was done with the discovery of the Lorentz
transformation as a consequence of the wavy theory about the light
propagation, which introduced the abnormal conclusions, about the
contraction of the space and the time dilatation.
-Einstein accepted the Lorentz transformation as being a valid
mathematical relation and by this was emitted the Theory of the
relativity.
-The curious thing is that in both theories is not realized that this
transformation is obtained by a poor supposition that the propagation
of the light must be a wavy phenomenon!
In Einstein theory of the relativity the wrong conclusions are
enlarged and the space the time the mass and other, become relative
notions. These conclusions are a consequence of the Lorentz
transformation and because of that evidently are errant, but many
scientists accepted Einstein theory of the relativity as being
correct.
-And all these conclusions are based on only one desire the
assumption, that the propagation of the light must be a wavy
phenomenon.
But today is accepted the corpuscular theory about the propagation of
the light as being a photonic flux and the photon representing a
minimal quantity of energy. But the energy is not equivalent with the
mass of the material bodies. So the photons can’t be attracted by
gravitational fields and create inertial forces. And all these doesn’t
matter. It is very strange but is the real situation in physics today.
We have three theories, the ether theory the theory of the relativity
and the Galilei-Newton theory. Which of them is the right theory?
Evidently, only one of these three theories can be correct.
This question is explained in my articles published in Galilei-Newton
group and could be find at: http://groups.google.com/group/galilei-newton-group
  Stamenin.