Vinaire's Blog

Reference: Essays on Substance

Objections to Einstein’s Relativity

In 1931, A book One Hundred Authors Against Einstein was published in Leipzig, Germany, to disprove General Relativity. Einstein’s response to the book was, “Why a Hundred? If I were wrong one would have been enough.”

I think that the objections that were raised by these authors against RTH (Einstein’s theory of Relativity) deserve to be examined closely. I want to see if at least one of these objections is truly valid on a scientific basis, and not necessarily philosophically.

I looked at the objection by the first author, Professor Dr. WALTER DEL-NEGRO / SALZBURG. He says,

“The space-time values of a system are thus generated by the relative movement. However, since the relative movement itself has to be defined in a space-time, which in turn would have to be conditioned by relative movement, etc., an infinite regression results.”

When I look at the solar system, there is a dynamic equilibrium between the relative movement of the planets (including the sun) and space-time. The relative movements and space-time influence each other but there is no infinite regression. So, this objection does not pan out. This is covered in the section on Gravity in The Theory of Substance.

I shall be looking at the objections form other authors, and writing down my observations on this thread, one author at a time. Hopefully, time will allow me to do this.

.

Reference: Essays on Substance

Space and Medium of Light

A question was asked:

“Why is space not considered to be the medium of light when its properties determine the speed of light?”

In 1873, Maxwell’s effort to determine the relationship between electromagnetic theories and the Newton’s theory of motion resulted in the amazing discovery that light was an electromagnetic phenomenon.

Maxwell wrote in the preface to the first edition of his book A TREATISE ON ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM:

“The most important aspect of any phenomenon from a mathematical point of view is that of a measurable quantity… I have therefore thought that a treatise would be useful which should have for its principal object to take up the whole subject in a methodical manner, and which should also indicate how each part of the subject is brought within the reach of methods of verification by actual measurement… before I began the study of electricity I resolved to read no mathematics on the subject till I had first read through Faraday’s Experimental Researches in Electricity.

“As I proceeded with the study of Faraday, I perceived that his method of conceiving the phenomena was also a mathematical one, though not exhibited in the conventional form of mathematical symbols. I also found that these methods were capable of being expressed in the ordinary mathematical forms, and thus compared with those of the professed mathematicians.

“For instance, Faraday, in his mind’s eye, saw lines of force traversing all space where the mathematicians saw centres of force attracting at a distance: Faraday saw a medium where they saw nothing but distance: Faraday sought the seat of the phenomena in real actions going on in the medium, they were satisfied that they had found it in a power of action at a distance impressed on the electric fluids.

“When I had translated what I considered to be Faraday’s ideas into a mathematical form, I found that in general the results of the two methods coincided, so that the same phenomena were accounted for, and the same laws of action deduced by both methods, but that Faraday’s methods resembled those in which we begin with the whole and arrive at the parts by analysis, while the ordinary mathematical methods were founded on the principle of beginning with the parts and building up the whole by synthesis.”

It is interesting to note that Maxwell finds Faraday’s “lines of force traversing all space” to be mathematically equivalent to other mathematician’s “centers of force attracting at a distance”. Maxwell notes, “Faraday saw a medium where they [other mathematicians] saw nothing but distance”.

Space is not “nothing” because it has the electromagnetic properties of permittivity and permeability. These properties of space determine the speed of light per Maxwell’s equations. This fact alone should be enough to convince that space is the medium through which light travels.

Why is space not considered to be the medium of light? Why can’t the mysterious ether be space itself?

This thinking led to the theory of Substance.

.

Reference: Essays on Substance

Falsifiability

There has been a long standing criterion of verifiability. It states that only statements verifiable through direct observation are meaningful. We now add to it the logical criterion falsifiability.

A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable if it can be logically contradicted by a possible direct sensation or experience. For example, a theory “all crows are black” is falsifiable because it is possible that there is a white crow, even though none has been spotted yet.

Therefore, just like verifiability, falsifiability also acts as a deductive standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses. its purpose is to make the theory predictive and testable, and thus useful in practice.

The predictions about unobserved things based on previous observations is never totally certain. This is emphasized by the falsifiability criterion.

A theory that promises something to be absolute is non-scientific. Therefore, the falsifiability criterion can also be used to distinguish between science and non-science.

.