GREAT DEDUCTIVISTS RAGING IN NATURAL SCIENCES

Deductive systems establish a procedure whereby one passes from a
premise or premises to a conclusion. The derivations are usually
presented as a sequence of numbered lines. For instance:

(1) Premise A
(2) Premise B
(3) Conclusion C 1,2
(4) Conclusion D 2,3
(5) ....................

The entry to the right of line (4) shows that that line was obtained
from the second and third lines, that is, that Conclusion D was
deduced from Premise B and Conclusion C.

This particular presentation of the derivations as a sequence of
numbered lines seems practical and yet it has never been and will
never be used by great deductivists raging in natural sciences. The
reason is easy to see if one first considers the bug-rivet story:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../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."

and then tries to imagine the following sequence of numbered lines
published in both the journal Nature and the journal Science:

(1) Premise: The principle of relativity
(2) Premise: Einstein's 1905 light postulate
(3) Conclusion: Time dilation 1,2
(4) Conclusion: Length contraction 2,3
(5) Conclusion: The bug is dead 4
(6) Conclusion: The bug is alive 4

In the era of Postscientism REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM is called "paradox"
and yet great deductivists raging in natural sciences wholeheartedly
avoid the presentation of the derivations as a sequence of numbered
lines.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Deductive systems establish a procedure whereby one passes from a
premise or premises to a conclusion. The derivations are usually
presented as a sequence of numbered lines. For instance:

(1) Premise A
(2) Premise B
(3) Conclusion C 1,2
(4) Conclusion D 2,3
(5) ....................

The entry to the right of line (4) shows that that line was obtained
from the second and third lines, that is, that Conclusion D was
deduced from Premise B and Conclusion C.

This particular presentation of the derivations as a sequence of
numbered lines seems practical and yet it has never been and will
never be used by great deductivists raging in natural sciences. The
reason is easy to see if one first considers the bug-rivet story:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../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."

and then tries to imagine the following sequence of numbered lines
published in both the journal Nature and the journal Science:

(1) Premise: The principle of relativity
(2) Premise: Einstein's 1905 light postulate
(3) Conclusion: Time dilation 1,2
(4) Conclusion: Length contraction 2,3
(5) Conclusion: The bug is dead 4
(6) Conclusion: The bug is alive 4

In the era of Postscientism REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM is called "paradox"
and yet great deductivists raging in natural sciences wholeheartedly
avoid the presentation of the derivations as a sequence of numbered
lines.

Pentcho Valev

More REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM. The problem: Initially the observer is at
rest relative to the light source but then starts moving towards the
source. The frequency (measured by the observer) increases. Does the
speed of light (relative to the observer) increase as well or does it
remain constant?

(1) Premise: The principle of relativity
(2) Premise: Einstein's 1905 light postulate
(3) Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
(4) Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and is
independent of the movements of the observer
(5) Conclusion: The speed of light remains constant 1,2
(6) Conclusion: The speed of light increases 3,4

Clearly Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false and should be
abandoned. Unfortunately much more should be abandoned:

Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "What Einstein realized was that if c did not change,
then something else had to give. That something was the idea of
universal and unchanging space and time. This is deeply, maddeningly
counterintuitive. In our everyday lives, space and time are perceived
as rigid and universal. Instead, Einstein conceived of space and time-
space-time-as a thing that could flex and change, expanding and
shrinking according to the relative motions of the observer and the
thing observed. The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was
the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of
light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way
physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays,
to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply
not present in the vocabulary of physics. Hundreds of experiments have
verified this basic tenet, and the theory of relativity has become
central to our understanding of how the universe works."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!....The speed of light is c+v."

Pentcho Valev


On Aug 27 Pentcho Valev wrote:
Deductive systems establish a procedure whereby one passes from a
premise or premises to a conclusion. The derivations are usually
presented as a sequence of numbered lines. For instance:

(1) Premise A
(2) Premise B
(3) Conclusion C 1,2
(4) Conclusion D 2,3
(5) ....................

The entry to the right of line (4) shows that that line was obtained
from the second and third lines, that is, that Conclusion D was
deduced from Premise B and Conclusion C.

This particular presentation of the derivations as a sequence of
numbered lines seems practical and yet it has never been and will
never be used by great deductivists raging in natural sciences. The
reason is easy to see if one first considers the bug-rivet story:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../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."

and then tries to imagine the following sequence of numbered lines
published in both the journal Nature and the journal Science:

(1) Premise: The principle of relativity
(2) Premise: Einstein's 1905 light postulate
(3) Conclusion: Time dilation 1,2
(4) Conclusion: Length contraction 2,3
(5) Conclusion: The bug is dead 4
(6) Conclusion: The bug is alive 4

In the era of Postscientism REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM is called "paradox"
and yet great deductivists raging in natural sciences wholeheartedly
avoid the presentation of the derivations as a sequence of numbered
lines.

On Aug 28, 12:29*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
More REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM. The problem: Initially the observer is at
rest relative to the light source but then starts moving towards the
source. The frequency (measured by the observer) increases. Does the
speed of light (relative to the observer) increase as well or does it
remain constant?


SNIP

(3) Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)
(4) Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and is
independent of the movements of the observer


(1) Premise: (frequency)=(speed of sound in air)/(wavelength)
(2) Premise: The wavelength is determined by the sound source.

If you accept these premises then here are three questions from an
admittedly physics 'ignoramus':

(a) Air is the vehicle for sound, but is space a vehicle for light?
(b) Is the speed of sound in air (V) actually effected by the speed
in air (v) of its source? That is, does the speed of sound in air
become (V + v)?
(c) If so, how is it possible to break the sound barrier. Would not
the sound always stay ahead of its source?

I need to know the answers before starting to doubt the dogma (?) that
"the speed of light in space is constant".
Zinnic

On Aug 28, 7:23*am, Zinnic wrote:
On Aug 28, 12:29*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

More REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM. The problem: Initially the observer is at
rest relative to the light source but then starts moving towards the
source. The frequency (measured by the observer) increases. Does the
speed of light (relative to the observer) increase as well or does it
remain constant?

SNIP

*(3) Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)

(4) Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and is
independent of the movements of the observer

(1) Premise: (frequency)=(speed of sound in air)/(wavelength)
(2) Premise: The wavelength is determined by the sound source.

If you accept these premises then here are three questions from an
admittedly *physics 'ignoramus':

(a) Air is the vehicle for sound, but is space a vehicle for light?
(b) Is the speed of sound in air (V) *actually effected by the *speed
in air (v) of its source? * That is, does *the speed of sound in air
become (V + v)?
(c) If so, how is it possible to break the sound barrier. Would not
the sound always stay ahead of its source?

I need to know the answers before starting to doubt the dogma (?) that
"the speed of light in space is constant".

The speed of light in a vacuum is not dogma, it is a measured fact.
And, so far, no evidence has been found that contradicts Special
Relativity.

On Aug 28, 12:06*pm, Mike wrote:
On Aug 28, 7:23*am, Zinnic wrote:





On Aug 28, 12:29*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

More REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM. The problem: Initially the observer is at
rest relative to the light source but then starts moving towards the
source. The frequency (measured by the observer) increases. Does the
speed of light (relative to the observer) increase as well or does it
remain constant?

SNIP

*(3) Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)

(4) Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and is
independent of the movements of the observer

(1) Premise: (frequency)=(speed of sound in air)/(wavelength)
(2) Premise: The wavelength is determined by the sound source.

If you accept these premises then here are three questions from an
admittedly *physics 'ignoramus':

(a) Air is the vehicle for sound, but is space a vehicle for light?
(b) Is the speed of sound in air (V) *actually effected by the *speed
in air (v) of its source? * That is, does *the speed of sound in air
become (V + v)?
(c) If so, how is it possible to break the sound barrier. Would not
the sound always stay ahead of its source?

I need to know the answers before starting to doubt the dogma (?) that
"the speed of light in space is constant".

The speed of light in a vacuum is not dogma, it is a measured fact.
And, so far, no evidence has been found that contradicts Special
Relativity.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree! That is the reason for my questions to Pentcho Valev. He
probably will not answer so will anyone else (you?) care to?

On Aug 28, 10:10*am, Zinnic wrote:
On Aug 28, 12:06*pm, Mike wrote:





On Aug 28, 7:23*am, Zinnic wrote:

On Aug 28, 12:29*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

More REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM. The problem: Initially the observer is at
rest relative to the light source but then starts moving towards the
source. The frequency (measured by the observer) increases. Does the
speed of light (relative to the observer) increase as well or does it
remain constant?

SNIP

*(3) Premise: (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength)

(4) Premise: The wavelength is determined by the light source and is
independent of the movements of the observer

(1) Premise: (frequency)=(speed of sound in air)/(wavelength)
(2) Premise: The wavelength is determined by the sound source.

If you accept these premises then here are three questions from an
admittedly *physics 'ignoramus':

(a) Air is the vehicle for sound, but is space a vehicle for light?
(b) Is the speed of sound in air (V) *actually effected by the *speed
in air (v) of its source? * That is, does *the speed of sound in air
become (V + v)?
(c) If so, how is it possible to break the sound barrier. Would not
the sound always stay ahead of its source?

I need to know the answers before starting to doubt the dogma (?) that
"the speed of light in space is constant".

The speed of light in a vacuum is not dogma, it is a measured fact.
And, so far, no evidence has been found that contradicts Special
Relativity.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree! That is the reason for my questions to Pentcho Valev. He
probably will not answer so will anyone else (you?) care to?

Not really, he's kind of like Michael Gordge with a little more
knowledge; he doesn't seem capable of calculus and is sure he is
smarter than everybody else.