🚀 go-pugleaf

Jang Jin Hong wrote:

> On Mar 4, 3:30 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>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
>>pva...@yahoo.com
> 
> 
> It is superstitious to use word "divine" to scientific theory.
> In my personal opinion, the most sucessful application of relativity
> is electromagnetism.
> There is no experiment result which can reject relativity.
> but in viewpoint of philosophy, It is possible to accept other theory.

This is because philosophy has nothing to do with science.
> 
> your posting has some relation with my document look
> http://monad.kr/relativity/relativity.htm