<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152636469.735679.220670@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > <surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1152540364.268874.30770@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Pentcho Valev wrote:
| > | > The experiment of Michelson-Morley should have led to two competing
| > | > interpretations:
| > | >
| > | > 1. As far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle
model
| > | > of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c
is
| > | > the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the
relative
| > | > speed of the light source and the observer. This interpretation is
| > | > simple, even trivial: no miracles (time dilation, length contraction
| > | > etc.) can be introduced.
| > | >
| > | > 2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the
relative
| > | > speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles
(time
| > | > dilation, length contraction etc.) are obligatory - without them the
| > | > falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light would
be
| > | > obvious.
| > | >
| > | > The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the
second
| > | > was adopted.
| > |
| > | How can any theoretical interpretation be proved true of false?
| >
| > Standard methods of proof, of course.
|
| Provide a real example of how to falsify a theoretical interpretation
| relative to some other theoretical interpretation, which is what Valev
| claimed is possible.
|
| In other words, assume that there are two theories, A and B, that have
| the same physical content (make the same experimental predictions), but
| are different interpretations of the underlying physical causality and
| ontology. Assuming that both A and B work, show that A is the "true"
| interpretation, and B is the "false" interpretation.

What you ask for is embedded here.
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html
The classic example is the Ptolemaic geocentric theory versus the Copernican
heliocentric theory. Both make accurate predictions of eclipses and
juxtaposition
of planets. You'll not "prove" Ptolemy wrong, but you'll spend a lifetime on
the mathematics to be accurate. After all, a "theory" is a mathematical
model
of a system and one can use either. The simpler is the better. "Proof" in
this
case is "preference", as opposed to rigorous mathematical proof.
Thus OJ Simpson was not convicted of murder (proof beyond reasonable doubt
in criminal court) but was made to pay (proof by a preponderance of the
evidence
in civil court). One jury was not convinced he killed, the other was.
Mathematicians are rigorous and chastise themselves if they cannot prove
their theorems, and the judges are other mathematicians. It is a game to
them
with rigid rules that must be adhered to. In theoretical physics the rules
are
more relaxed. Thus Einstein "convinced" many but did not prove to the
satisfaction of a mathematician, he wasn't one. He lacked the rigour and
was satisfied with himself, having used mathematical jargon.
Pentcho raises MMX as a case in point. Here it is:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/MMXwind.gif
That's what you have. Work it out. The supposed aether is blowing by.
Why doesn't it affect the light which is "waving" in the aether?
The simple answer is that light is not waving in the aether.
Einstein's theory fails by Ockham's razor. Now you could show
that if a real air wind blew by, it would show up a shift. Trouble
is a wind worth 500 tornadoes would be needed, so a different method
has to be found. That was done in 1913 by Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Sagnac is used today as a gyroscope. It is useful. After 100 years
nobody has found a use for Einstein, except to ***** and say
"I'm so clever, I understand Einstein. Hire me and pay me a lot of money."
Now the world is getting tired of it, so only governments hire these people,
and even they have cancelled the Supercollider, the research is getting
nowhere.

| BTW, should both A and B not work, I don't know what could be said
| about their interpretations.

If neither work they are both quickly rejected. That's simple.

Look carefully at this. A clock has to have two second hands and
the time between them has to be averaged to make Einstein's "theory"
work, and then the train and the camel must never reunite to compare
clocks.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/Rocket.htm

|
| > It is often easy to prove a conjecture
| > false, the commonest is the counterexample. In many cases it is
unnecessary,
| > the burden of proof is upon the claimant. If you say the sky is blue, I
| > would
| > have the burden of disproving it if I disagreed. If you say the sky is
| > green,
| > you have the burden.
|
| In science, arguments like this are not settled by individuals making
| eyeball inspections. They are settled by technicians using instruments
| that measure frequencies of light (not quite objective, but
| intersubjective).


Ok, then, prove the sky is green. <shrug> I'm still calling it blue, no
matter
what you say (and take that filter off the spectrometer). What you've just
said
is exactly what Pentcho is complaining about.

You want to be highly paid,
use expensive equipment and all to prove the sky wasn't green after all.
I'm not kidding either. Gravity probes are out there, looking for gravity
waves
because some idiot thinks there might be some.
That's not science. Science is observation, investigation and explanation.
IN THAT ORDER. What you call "science" has it backwards.

|
| Scientific fact is whatever the majority of experts in a given field of
| study says it is. There is no other way.

Nonsense. Discoveries are made by individuals, whether the world
agrees or not.

By your reckoning, Galileo should have been hung,
drawn and quartered for heresy because all the experts disagreed
with his findings. The "experts" refuse to look at the work of genius,
they are invariably jealous, a very human emotion.

| > What do we do, trust our logic or trust our eyes?
|
| Given a certain set of observations, it the relevant theory we give out
| personal credence to that we use to interpret the physical data.
| Theories "explain" what's going on. It is both their strength and
| weakness. In physics, we can never know if an explanation is true.

That was true before Einstein and Maxwell. Not any more. People go
looking for what is not there, athough it is good thing Michelson looked
and found the aether wasn't there or we'd still have that crap today
and no ring laser gyroscopes.