POSTSCIENTISM AND DEDUCTIVISM
Pentcho Valev
argument can bring about a breathtaking conclusion. For instance, the
assumption:
2+2 = 5
gives:
1 = 5-4 = 5-(2+2) = 5-5 = 0
In physics false axioms and invalid arguments are usually easy to
detect but in 1824 Sadi Carnot set a pattern that the scientific
community was unable to deal with. His overwhelmingly complex but
still valid argument converted the false axiom:
Heat is an indestructible subtance (calorique) that cannot be
converted into work in the heat engine...
into a conclusion that was to develop and occupy in the end "the
supreme position among the laws of Nature":
http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/overview/background/index.html
Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases, holds, I
think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone
points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in
disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for
Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation
- well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your
theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can
give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
Later the falsehood of Carnot's axiom was detected but then Rudolf
Clausius used another overwhelmingly complex argument, invalid this
time, and deduced the precious conclusion (Carnot's theorem) from a
true axiom:
http://www.mdpi.org/lin/clausius/clausius.htm
"Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Wärme", 1850, Rudolf Clausius: "Carnot
assumed, as has already been mentioned, that the equivalent of the
work done by heat is found in the mere transfer of heat from a hotter
to a colder body, while the quantity of heat remains undiminished. The
latter part of this assumption--namely, that the quantity of heat
remains undiminished--contradicts our former principle, and must
therefore be rejected... (...) It is this maximum of work which must
be compared with the heat transferred. When this is done it appears
that there is in fact ground for asserting, with Carnot, that it
depends only on the quantity of the heat transferred and on the
temperatures t and tau of the two bodies A and B, but not on the
nature of the substance by means of which the work is done. (...) If
we now suppose that there are two substances of which the one can
produce more work than the other by the transfer of a given amount of
heat, or, what comes to the same thing, needs to transfer less heat
from A to B to produce a given quantity of work, we may use these two
substances alternately by producing work with one of them in the above
process. At the end of the operations both bodies are in their
original condition; further, the work produced will have exactly
counterbalanced the work done, and therefore, by our former principle,
the quantity of heat can have neither increased nor diminished. The
only change will occur in the distribution of the heat, since more
heat will be transferred from B to A than from A to B, and so on the
whole heat will be transferred from B to A. By repeating these two
processes alternately it would be possible, without any expenditure of
force or any other change, to transfer as much heat as we please from
a cold to a hot body, and this is not in accord with the other
relations of heat, since it always shows a tendency to equalize
temperature differences and therefore to pass from hotter to colder
bodies."
So the conviction that DEDUCTION CAN PRODUCE MIRACLES started to
corrode the scientific rationality. In the 20th century this
rationality disappeared completely and the following conclusions from
Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate became
glorious manifestations of the power of the deductive approach:
http://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. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....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. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."
http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
"Cependant, si une fusée de 100 m passait devant nous à une vitesse
proche de celle de la lumière, elle pourrait sembler ne mesurer que 50
m, ou même moins. Bien sûr, la question qui vient tout de suite à
l'esprit est: «Cette contraction n'est-elle qu'une illusion?» Il
semble tout à fait incroyable que le simple mouvement puisse comprimer
un objet aussi rigide qu'une fusée. Et pourtant, la contraction est
réelle... mais SANS COMPRESSION physique de l'objet! Ainsi, une fusée
de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être
entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde,
durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux
bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a
PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin. Comment est-ce
possible?"
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~scol/seminars/conference/abstracts/Durand.html
"La contraction une longueur est un phénomène à la fois réel mais sans
déformation structurelle. C'est un phénomène réel (et non pas une
illusion) car, par exemple, une perche dont la longueur au repos est
plus grande que la longueur au repos d'une grange peut réellement être
contenue dans cette dernière si elle se déplace assez rapidement. Par
contre, il ne peut y avoir de contraction structurelle de la perche,
i.e de déformation matérielle de l'objet, car la contraction de sa
longueur aurait aussi lieu si c'était plutôt l'observateur qui se
mettait en mouvement sans changer l'état de mouvement de la perche.
Autrement dit, sans changer l'état de la perche, en se mettant soi-
même en mouvement, on change sa longueur: ce n'est donc clairement pas
une contraction matérielle (l'état de la perche est le même dans les
deux cas)."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
deductive chain (there is one exception: Jos Uffink), they jump around
the theory and worship its outcome because they love the author. I
call this the MAGICIAN'S HAT philosophy:
The MAGICIAN'S HAT philosophy: Science is taken to constitute the
interior of a magician's hat where you put ties which are then turned
to rabbits. The magician is free to secretly rearrange the interior of
the hat so that always rabbits and never wolves jump out of it. The
public declares itself ready to boycott the seances if wolves and not
rabbits jump out of the hat but in fact loves the magician so much
(there are hymns "Divine Magician" and "Yes we all believe in the hat,
hat, hat") that seances would take place even if Tyrannosaurus rex
jumped out of the hat.
If the MAGICIAN'S HAT philosophy were to be given a more serious name,
the suitable one is MAGICAL INSTRUMENTALISM. Officially logic is a
crucial tool for instrumentalists but, somewhat paradoxically, they
place no emphasis on validity, that is, on the truth-preserving
procedure constituting any single link of the deductive chain. It
seems inherent in the subconsciousness of philosophers of science
that, since many of the arguments are invalid, no verification inside
the deductive chain should be undertaken: only the final predictions
of the theory deserve attention.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
preached by Karl Popper:
Karl Popper: "ONLY observation and experiment may decide upon the
acceptance or rejection of scientific statements, including laws and
theories."
In 1905 Einstein advanced his false constant-speed-of-light postulate.
Then in 1911 he implicitly introduced the true antithesis given by
Newton's emission theory of light. So, from 1911 on, Einstein's
inconsistent theory "correctly" predicts the gravitational redshift
factor:
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."
Finally, in 1960, Pound and Rebka experimentally confirmed the
prediction. Popper's pernicious principle does not enjoin rejection of
any part of the theory although two incompatible statements
(Einstein's 1905 false light postulate and the true antithesis given
by Newton's emission theory of light) coexist in it.
If it were not for Popper's pernicious principle, Einstein's 1905
false light postulate would easily be rejected through REDUCTIO AD
ABSURDUM:
Pentcho Valev
http://www.d1heidorn.homepage.t-online.de/Physik/VSL/VSL.html
"...light, that is emitted from the Sun with a frequency fo, is
received on Earth with a frequency f=fo(1+phi/c^2) (...) ...Einstein
concludes: "This has a consequence which is of fundamental importance
for our theory. [...] If we call the velocity of light at the origin
of co-ordinates co, then the velocity of light c at a place with the
gravitation potential phi will be given by the relation c=co(1+phi/
c^2)."
PREMISE 2:
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
CONCLUSION:
It is the speed of light that varies with the frequency; the
wavelength remains constant.
In the era of Postscientism the above conclusion is impossible due to
crimestop:
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
The speed of photons varies with the gravitational potential, phi,
just as the speed of cannonballs does. The variation obeys the
equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light,
an equation explicitly used by Einstein in the period 1907-1915.
CONCLUSION 1 :
The speed of photons varies with the speed of the light source, v,
just as the speed of cannonballs does. The variation obeys the
equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, an
equation that contradicts Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate.
CONCLUSION 2 :
Light leaving a substantial gravitational field continues its journey
REDHIFTED. Additional redshift could come from photons bumping into
unknown constituents of the "empty" space and gradually losing their
speed, just as cannonballs lose their speed as they bump into air
molecules.
Pentcho Valev
frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an
observer on the ground with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the
observer).
Equivalently, a light source at the front end of an accelerating
rocket of length h and accelaration g emits light with frequency f and
speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer at the
back end with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer).
Consider equation (13.2) on p. 3 in:
http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF
f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) (13.2)
where v is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment of
emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception) in the rocket
scenario. By combining this equation with:
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
we obtain THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF
LIGHT:
c' = c+v = c(1+gh/c^2)
which CONTRADICT EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT
POSTULATE.
Einstein explicitly used the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) in the period
1907-1915, then replaced it with c'=c(1+2gh/c^2).
David Morin's text referred to above reappears as Chapter 14 in:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics
With Problems and Solutions
David Morin
Cambridge University Press
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Einsteinians sincerely believe that, in a gravitational field, the
speed of light is both variable and constant. George Orwell calls this
"doublethink":
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."
http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf
). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by
about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in
the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you
will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the
variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The
result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be
constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the
light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole?
Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General
Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two
effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects
such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light.
But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light
(gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends
light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight"
is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still
constant." Dr. Eric Christian
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newtons theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. THIS INTERPRETATION
IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT A MORE MODERN
INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT in general
relativity."
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
The frequency varies with the gravitational potential, phi, in
accordance with the equation f'=f(1+phi/c^2), an equation confirmed by
the Pound-Rebka experiment.
PREMISE 2:
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
CONCLUSION 1:
Einstein's 1911 variable-speed-of-light equation c'=c(1+phi/c^2), an
equation given by Newton's emission theory of light, is CORRECT.
CONCLUSION 2:
Einstein's 1915 (final) equation c'=c(1+2phi/c^2) is WRONG.
CONCLUSION 3:
Stephen Hawking's belief that the speed of light is invariable in a
gravitational field (c'=c) is WRONG.
Einsteinians accept any of the three equations c'=c(1+phi/c^2),
c'=c(1+2phi/c^2) and c'=c. This means that Albert Einstein's world is
more developed than Big Brother's world - doublethink has been
replaced by triplethink:
Pentcho Valev
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://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."
PREMISE 1: Before 1892 (the Fitzgerald-Lorentz length contraction
hypothesis is not advanced yet) the Michelson-Morley experiment
UNEQUIVOCALLY confirms the variation of the speed of light with the
speed of the light source (c'=c+v) as predicted by Newton's emission
theory of light and refutes the assumption that the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the light source (c'=c).
PREMISE 2: Nowadays Einsteinians almost universally believe that the
Michelson-Morley experiment supports Einstein's 1905 light postulate
according to which the speed of light is independent of the speed of
the light source.
CONCLUSION: Albert Einstein's world is more developed than Big
Brother's world:
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7.html
George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two
made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that
they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Ogle dataminer
Usual rubbish snipped.
Peter Webb
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ee5d3a9-9e02-4acf...@fl7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/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://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
> John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
> importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
> though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
> experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
> has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
> Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
> 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
> predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
> the greatest theoretician of the day."
>
> PREMISE 1: Before 1892 (the Fitzgerald-Lorentz length contraction
> hypothesis is not advanced yet) the Michelson-Morley experiment
> UNEQUIVOCALLY confirms the variation of the speed of light with the
> speed of the light source (c'=c+v) as predicted by Newton's emission
> theory of light and refutes the assumption that the speed of light is
> independent of the speed of the light source (c'=c).
>
That is wrong.
The results of the MM theory are compatible with both SR and an emissions
theory of light; in the setup that MM used, the experiment cannot
discriminate between them. And nor was it designed to. It was testing for
the existence of an ether, which is a different theory all together.
So what?
As the article you have provided states, the MM experiment may not even have
been known to Einstein when he wrote his famous paper.
The reasons that Einstein developed SR have nothing to do with the MM
experiment, and there are many, many other experiments completely unrelated
to MM which prove Relativity.
So why are you bothering to discuss the MM experiment, which had nothing to
do with the development of SR and is a piss-poor test of the invariance of
light speed anyway?
> PREMISE 2: Nowadays Einsteinians almost universally believe that the
> Michelson-Morley experiment supports Einstein's 1905 light postulate
> according to which the speed of light is independent of the speed of
> the light source.
It does.
It is exactly what SR predicts.
>
> CONCLUSION: Albert Einstein's world is more developed than Big
> Brother's world:
>
That does not follow.
Pentcho Valev
"In two works from 1907 and 1911 Einstein introduces a variable speed
of light. Sometimes this is taken as a contradiction to the constancy
of the speed of light, which was postulated in the foundation of
Special Relativity in 1905. However there is no contradiction at all -
even if in the fully developed GR from 1916 there is a variable speed
of light."
Is it true that "there is no contradiction at all" between the
variable speed of light in Einstein's general relativity and the
constant speed of light in Einstein's special relativity? In the era
of Postscientism this is a typical unproblem:
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-4.html
George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not
exist : he had never existed."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Peter Webb
> http://www.d1heidorn.homepage.t-online.de/Physik/VSL/VSL.html
> "In two works from 1907 and 1911 Einstein introduces a variable speed
> of light. Sometimes this is taken as a contradiction to the constancy
> of the speed of light, which was postulated in the foundation of
> Special Relativity in 1905. However there is no contradiction at all -
> even if in the fully developed GR from 1916 there is a variable speed
> of light."
>
> Is it true that "there is no contradiction at all" between the
> variable speed of light in Einstein's general relativity and the
> constant speed of light in Einstein's special relativity?
No. The Special Theory is only applicable within inertial reference frames,
and within these frames it is indeed a constant.
HTH
Peter Webb