PESSIMISTIC INDUCTION INCOMPATIBLE WITH DEDUCTIVISM
Pentcho Valev
past, current and future - are false ("pessimistic induction"). This
inductive argument separately introduced by Putnam and Laudan is
popular among philosophers of science but it is incompatible with
deductivism. 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 pessimistic induction is
unjustified. 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
Arindam Banerjee
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bfb0b6be-d5ce-49a0...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> If past scientific theories are found to be false, all theories -
> past, current and future - are false ("pessimistic induction").
Good, good. So we have to see the theories pre to the past. So when we
find that Einstein is wrong, totally wrong, we study Newton and Maxwell in
far more detail. And try to be creative, along those lines.
This
> inductive argument separately introduced by Putnam and Laudan is
> popular among philosophers of science but it is incompatible with
> deductivism. 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."
Perfectly wrong, this postulate. It is the most glaring mistake in all
physics. A complete, utter bungle and the source of a great deal of evil.
Had this stupid postulate not been made, the chances are good that the
fundamental equation linking energy and mass, that I found, could have been
found by someone else. And the whole universe explained a great deal
better. We would have had lunar colonies by now, and solved all the major
problems on Earth.
Great. Look at the MMI experiment like this. You are travelling in a
closed round box which is going at *ANY* speed. You are in the centre, and
you throw a ball in all directions, and retrieve it. No matter where you
throw, in which direction, it will appear the same experience-wise - no
difference in time, with respect to the direction of throw. So, there will
be no question of nulls, as in MMI. And why? Because the ball is
travelling faster and slower with respect to a fixed inertial reference
outside the box - and also moving proportionately greater and lesser
distances with respect to that frame of reference. So when light travels
faster and slower, with change of distances of travel involved, there is no
nulls as there should be no nulls. The question of nulls implicitly happens
when you neglect the fact that the MMI apparatus is moving with speed v, as
the Earth moves with speed v. So it is thus not stuck to the ether. It is
on this vital point, and this alone, that the entire construction of
Einsteins's relativity falls to the ground.
And Newton rules, with all the valid additions of later scientists...
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
www.adda-enterprises.com/htnwebsite/home.htm - check out the Hydrogen
Transmission Network concept
Jesse F. Hughes
> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bfb0b6be-d5ce-49a0...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>> 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."
>
> Perfectly wrong, this postulate. It is the most glaring mistake in all
> physics. A complete, utter bungle and the source of a great deal of evil.
> Had this stupid postulate not been made, the chances are good that the
> fundamental equation linking energy and mass, that I found, could have been
> found by someone else. And the whole universe explained a great deal
> better. We would have had lunar colonies by now, and solved all the major
> problems on Earth.
Damn. This is a mighty fine paragraph, chock-full of .sig goodness,
but I just can't condense it to a sensible and humorous four lines.
Guess it's just one that got away.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have
weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."
-- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer
