🚀 go-pugleaf

Karl Popper: "To this we have to add THE PRINCIPLE OF EMPIRICISM which
asserts that in science, only observation and experiment may decide
upon the acceptance or rejection of scientific statements, including
laws and theories."

If I were in Popper's shoes, I would have written:

"To this we have to add THE PRINCIPLE OF LOGICISM which asserts that
in science, only logical analysis of the deductive chain may decide
upon the acceptance or rejection of scientific statements, including
laws and theories."

Example: Einsteiniana gives three incompatible equations showing how
the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V:
Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), Einstein's 1915 equation c'=c
(1+2V/c^2) and the constant-speed equation c'=c. The gravitational
redshift factor (1+V/c^2) measured in 1960 by Pound and Rebka was
consistent with one of them, c'=c(1+V/c^2), and that was one of the
reasons why Divine Albert's Divine Theory was gloriously confirmed
(the other reason was that Divine Albert's Divine Theory had to be
gloriously confirmed anyway).

Logical analysis shows that c'=c (the speed of light does not vary
with the gravitational potential) is equivalent to Einstein's 1905
light postulate (the speed of light does not vary with the speed of
the light source) whereas c'=c(1+V/c^2) is equivalent to the
antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light (v is the speed of the light source
relative to the observer). Therefore in 1960 Divine Albert's Divine
Theory should have been rejected rather than gloriously confirmed.

Another example: Logical analysis shows that the conclusion "The bug
is both dead and alive" http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/bugrivet.html
can validly be deduced from Einstein's 1905 light postulate. This is
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM par excellence: again, Divine Albert's Divine
Theory should have been rejected.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com