🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 14, 2:54 pm, OsherD <mdocto...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 4:18 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If theoretical science resurrects some day, the concept of "theory"
> > will have to be revised and perhaps even abandoned. So istead of
> > comparing "Einstein's theory" and "Newton's theory" one will just
> > analyse and juxtapose TWO DEDUCTIVE CHAINS: one generated by
> > Einstein's 1905 light postulate, c'=c, and another generated by the
> > equation c'=c+v implied in Newton's particle model of light. If all
> > deductions are correct (this will be the main concern of
> > theoreticians), any subjectivism will be avoided and the names of
> > Einstein and Newton may not even be mentioned. One will just have:
> > 1. Corollaries of the premise c'=c
> > 2. Corollaries of the premise c'=c+v
> > Of course, any particular deduction may involve additional premises or
> > definitions but in the end at least one deductive chain will have to
> > be abandoned. No red herring, e.g. Newton's absolute space or
> > Einstein's idiotic explanations why the speed of light is both
> > constant and variable, will be efficient.
>
> [Reply from me, Osher Doctorow:]
>
> I argued issues or problems without bringing in particular names or
> people for many years, but there is sometimes a certain benefit to the
> human attention mechanism if nothing else when names are mentioned.
> Arguably, attention and perception need to be closely examined and
> kept track of in science.
>
> Definitions, axioms, postulates (which latter two can also be regarded
> as definitions in a sense)

Let me disagree here. 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."

is NOT a definition in any sense because it is Nature that has said,
once and for all, if it is true that the speed of light is independent
of the state of motion of the emitting body or not. If Einstein's
light postulate is false (that is, nature has said the speed of light
is DEPENDENT on the state of motion of the emitting body), then,
before experiments can refute the false postulate and restore the
truth, irreversible destruction of human rationality might take place
and then experiments are useless. Nobody in Einstein zombie world sees
anything unusual in the fact that Einsteinians can trap a long train
inside a short tunnel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search=

and also a 80m long pole inside a 40m long barn:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

Miracles of this kind can only happen in a world where human
rationality is irreversibly destroyed; in such a world experiments
that in fact refute the theory are referred to as experiments
confirming the theory:

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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com