Prev: Real Estate Agents Are Taking The Power
Next: WIBBLE WIBBLE WIBBLE
From: Pentcho Valev on 26 Mar 2010 02:21
W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, Routledge, London,
1981, p. 14:
"...all physical theories in the past have had their heyday and have
eventually been rejected as false. Indeed, there is inductive support
for a pessimistic induction: any theory will be discovered to be false
within, say 200 years of being propounded. (...) Indeed the evidence
might even be held to support the conclusion that no theory that will
ever be discovered by the human race is strictly speaking true. (...)
The rationalist (who is a realist) is likely to respond by positing an
interim goal for the scientific enterprise. This is the goal of
getting nearer the truth. In this case the inductive argument outlined
above is accepted but its sting is removed. For accepting that
argument is compatible with maintaining that CURRENT THEORIES, while
strictly speaking false, ARE GETTING NEARER THE TRUTH."

The pessimistic induction 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
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Robakks on 26 Mar 2010 14:06
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com>
news:88eed977-dd0c-4fa2-9439-b3aa5be7c64b(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

> W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, Routledge, London,
> 1981, p. 14:
> "...all physical theories in the past have had their heyday and have
> eventually been rejected as false. Indeed, there is inductive support
> for a pessimistic induction: any theory will be discovered to be false
> within, say 200 years of being propounded. (...) Indeed the evidence
> might even be held to support the conclusion that no theory that will
> ever be discovered by the human race is strictly speaking true. (...)
> The rationalist (who is a realist) is likely to respond by positing an
> interim goal for the scientific enterprise. This is the goal of
> getting nearer the truth. In this case the inductive argument outlined
> above is accepted but its sting is removed. For accepting that
> argument is compatible with maintaining that CURRENT THEORIES, while
> strictly speaking false, ARE GETTING NEARER THE TRUTH."
>
> The pessimistic induction 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
> pvalev(a)yahoo.com

A________B________________C

If
BC / t = c
it
(AB + BC) / t > c for AB > 0
It is the only possibility:
one observer and one measurement.

Edward Robak* from Nowa Huta
~>�<~
lover of wisdom and not only :)

From: Zinnic on 26 Mar 2010 16:04
On Mar 26, 1:21 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, Routledge, London,
> 1981, p. 14:
> "...all physical theories in the past have had their heyday and have
> eventually been rejected as false. Indeed, there is inductive support
> for a pessimistic induction: any theory will be discovered to be false
> within, say 200 years of being propounded. (...) Indeed the evidence
> might even be held to support the conclusion that no theory that will
> ever be discovered by the human race is strictly speaking true. (...)
> The rationalist (who is a realist) is likely to respond by positing an
> interim goal for the scientific enterprise. This is the goal of
> getting nearer the truth. In this case the inductive argument outlined
> above is accepted but its sting is removed. For accepting that
> argument is compatible with maintaining that CURRENT THEORIES, while
> strictly speaking false, ARE GETTING NEARER THE TRUTH."
>
> The pessimistic induction 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

Where is it written that the Michelson-Morley null can be reduced
to:
Either A or B.
Not A
Therefore B.

Seems to me that exclusion of an unknown C is arbitrary.
From: Pentcho Valev on 20 Apr 2010 01:22
Philosophers of science know that, for a deductive theory, a single
false or absurd consequence shows that a postulate is false. If
Einstein's 1905 light postulate predicts, through its consequences,
that an 80m long pole can be trapped inside a 40m long barn
(generally, that an infinitely long object can be trapped inside an
infinitely short container) and that a bug can be both dead and alive,
then EINSTEIN'S 1905 LIGHT POSTULATE IS FALSE:

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://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."

In order to preclude any REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM falsification of
deductive theories, philosophers of science have devised numerous
irrelevant concepts used as camouflage. Here is an example:

W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, Routledge, London,
1981, p. 55: "A theory is a set of assertions and if the number of
assertions in a theory were finite we might initially seek to
explicate the notion of relative verisimilitude in terms of the number
of truths and the number of falsehoods contained within the theories.
To illustrate this, suppose that theories T1 and T2 for some subject
matter each contain ten assertions and that T1 makes five false and
five true claims and that T2 makes nine true and one false claim. In
this case we would say that T2 is nearer the truth than T1.
Unfortunately, we cannot proceed in this fashion with scientific
theories, for such theories contain an infinite number of assertions.
A theory contains all the consequences of the postulates and this set,
called the deductive closure of the postulates, is INFINITE IN SIZE."

Of course, the number of the consequences deduced from the postulates
is FINITE but this trivial truth, if officially adopted, would make
most philosophical accounts of deductive science irrelevant. So
philosophers of science's protective strategy is to perpetuate the
lie: The set of the consequences is "infinite in size" and that's it.
And philosophers of science will always stop short, as though by
instinct, at the threshold of the dangerous thought:

"For a deductive theory, a single false or absurd consequence
falsifies the theory"

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
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Real Estate Agents Are Taking The Power
Next: WIBBLE WIBBLE WIBBLE