🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 3, 10:30 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

 I perfectly agree with you about the PRINCIPLE OF LOGICISM and add
the following example:
Are known the speeds obtained with Galilei transformation and with
Lorentz transformation are:

      v1=v+v2 …..(1) With GT.

       v1=(v+v2)/(1+v.v2/c^2)….(2) With LT
  By using the derivation method for LT, the method function of
function should be obtained:
    v1=dx1/dt1=d/dt1(x2+v*t2)/R=d/dt1*dt1/dt2(x2+v*t2)/R=d/dt2
(x2+v*t2)/R=(v2+v)/R
    v1=(v2+v)/R …….(3). Where R=[1-(v/c)2]^0.5.
  By comparison of these relations we can have this result:

   (v2+v)/R>v2+v>(v2+v)/(1+v*v2/c^2)  …..(4).

The relation (4) shows in absolute manner that the Lorentz
transformation is an approximation of the Galilei transformation. This
means that the absolute truth about the motion of the material bodies
is given by the Galilei transformation. The paradoxes are phantasms
resulted by the use of the LT and by playing with mind experiments.
Stamenin.