Please click on the item in the list below to go to the article in question:
1. General
3. Comments
———————————————————————————-
General
The laws of nature as we understand them are the bases for all empirical sciences. They are the result of postulates (specific laws) that have passed experimental verification resulting in principles that are widely accepted and can be re-verified (by observation or experimentation).
Scientific theories are born out of the application of man’s (old) knowledge, using the above postulates, to the sensory input from the external universe. As new knowledge in the form of experimental data is obtained, there is a continual process of theoretical revision or expansion.
The apple falls = gravity.
Speed of light constant = special relativity.
Mathematics + gravity + relativity = general relativity.
Older theories may survive in limited form or be rejected.
As a simple example, consider a scientist landing on a distant planet where, although there are recognisable things: things that fit within the framework of his knowledge base, others might fall outside it. Considering the latter, he’s immediately stumped; the knowledge base fails to provide a match or correspondence.
So he narrows his search to smaller details of this unknown entity he is investigating, hoping that eventually knowledge will supply a correspondence. If it does, then this data will be added to the knowledge base, enhancing or undermining present relevant theory and perhaps raising the necessity for a new theory. If there is no correspondence then the object of investigation remains an unknown entity.
To reiterate, according to the scientific principle, all theories should be open to correction or rejection in the light of new experimental evidence. If they do not, then they fall into the category of a belief or dogma.
The Big Bang theory, for example, falls into this category because it is developed and expanded using only experimental evidence that supports it. Where the theory fails new theoretical constructs are developed to uphold it e.g. dark matter.
Global warming also falls into this category by rejecting certain empirical data.
Unfortunately, scientific research is becoming more and more dependent on socio-economic considerations, which do not often favor an objective approach.
As Sir Fred Hoyle, the eminent astronomer noted They defend the old theories by complicating things to the point of incomprehensibility.
The case of Arp as described by Burbidge in his article:
“A Realistic Cosmological Model Based on Observations and Some
Theory Developed over the Last 90 Years“
is a good example of scientific discrimination. I quote:
“The most difficult problem involving the QSOs was brought to light by Arp in 1987 (see Arp 1987) and others (Burbidge, Burbidge, Solomon and Strittmatter, 1971; Arp, H.C., et al, 2002) who found statistical evidence suggesting that many high redshift QSOs lie so close
to low redshift galaxies that they must be physically associated, so the QSO redshifts are not due to the expanding universe.
Arp’s results are spectacular and are well known. His evidence and his persistence in putting it forward led his professional colleagues at Mount Wilson and Palomar in the early 1980’s to having him removed from the telescopes, and he has lived and worked at the Max Planck Institute in Munich for the last 25 years.
This is one of the worst cases of discrimination involving scientific goals that I have ever seen. But it worked. The younger generation saw what happens if you don’t follow the party line – no observing time, no staff or faculty positions, no financial support, no conference invitations. “
Special Relativity
Postulates of special relativity
1. First postulate
The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
After having studied the theory of Special Relativity (SR) over many years, I have come to the conclusion that there is much misunderstanding.
After the discovery of the constancy of the speed of light, Einstein gave the mathematical form of the SR theory using the Lorentz Transformation Equations for observers in uniform relative motion i.e. where there are no forces acting which would produce accelerations.
The Lorentz Transformation for frames in standard configuration can be shown to be:
where
is called the Lorentz factor
These are the equations which relate the motion of a stationary observer(O1) on the x axis of a coordinate reference frame (x, y, z, t) with an observer (O2) who is moving with uniform speed (ν) along the x axis in a similar reference frame (x’, y’, z’, t’) whose coordinates are aligned in the same directions as those of O1.
Here below I discuss some consequences.
1. There is a proof that Relativity is illogical.
John T. Nordberg’s proof can be found here:
2. As the motion is relative and uniform, there is no way either observer could experimentally prove which of the two was moving: O1 measures O2 moving away at speed (ν) but O2 also measures O1 moving away at speed (ν). Complicating this picture by using non aligned coordinates does nothing to change the situation, as long as both observers remain in uniform motion.
3. Time Dilation*and Length Contraction**, which can be mathematically derived from SR, are purely theoretical constructs and again relative. The variation of mass with motion is another similar misinterpretation of the relativity theory.
If results using this theory are interpreted as real differential physical effects, then this is in violation of the first postulate.
4. Then we have the matter of the limiting value of the speed of light c
The second postulate gives rise to equations of SR that can only be applied to velocities lower than c. It does not set a limit to the speed with which physical objects can move.
5. Once external forces are involved e.g. gravitation, which involves acceleration, then SR no longer applies. Although the contrary is often claimed, no experiments have ever been carried out using non accelerating reference frames which could prove or disprove this theory when applied to physical quantities such as time dilation and the Twins Paradox*.
Experiments carried out on Earth or in space are always affected by external forces, especially gravitation, producing acceleration.
It is important to realize these facts, because SR is often used in educational texts to prove real physical effects.
A eloquent proof of the falsity of SR when applied to Physics can be found in Dingle’s criticism here, which incidentally has never been disproved.
* http://www.heretical.com/science/dingle1.html
** http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/Lorentz%20Contraction.asp
