He claimed that as well as progressing steadily and incrementally " normal science " , science undergoes periodic revolutions or " paradigm shifts ", leaving scientists working in different paradigms with difficulty in even communicating. Thus the truth of a claim, or the existence of a posited entity is relative to the paradigm employed. However, it isn't necessary for him to embrace relativism because every paradigm presupposes the prior, building upon itself through history and so on. This leads to there being a fundamental, incremental, and referential structure of development which is not relative but again, fundamental.
Some have argued that one can also read Kuhn's work as essentially positivist in its ontology: the revolutions he posits are epistemological, lurching toward a presumably 'better' understanding of an objective reality through the lens presented by the new paradigm. However, a number of passages in Structures do indeed appear to be distinctly relativist, and to directly challenge the notion of an objective reality and the ability of science to progress towards an ever-greater grasp of it, particularly through the process of paradigm change. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson define relativism in their book Metaphors We Live By as the rejection of both subjectivism and metaphysical objectivism in order to focus on the relationship between them, i.
In particular, Lakoff and Johnson characterize "objectivism" as a " straw man ", and, to a lesser degree, criticize the views of Karl Popper , Kant and Aristotle. In his book Invariances , Robert Nozick expresses a complex set of theories about the absolute and the relative. He thinks it is coherent for truth to be relative, and speculates that it might vary with time. He thinks necessity is an unobtainable notion, but can be approximated by robust invariance across a variety of conditions—although we can never identify a proposition that is invariant with regard to everything.
Finally, he is not particularly warm to one of the most famous forms of relativism, moral relativism , preferring an evolutionary account. Joseph Margolis advocates a view he calls "robust relativism" and defends it in his books: Historied Thought, Constructed World , Chapter 4 California, and The Truth about Relativism Blackwells, He opens his account by stating that our logics should depend on what we take to be the nature of the sphere to which we wish to apply our logics. Holding that there can be no distinctions which are not "privileged" between the alethic , the ontic , and the epistemic , he maintains that a many valued logic just might be the most apt for aesthetics or history since, because in these practices, we are loath to hold to simple binary logic ; and he also holds that many-valued logic is relativistic.
This is perhaps an unusual definition of "relativistic". Compare with his comments on "relationism". A many valued logic—"apt", "reasonable", "likely", and so on—seems intuitively more applicable to Hamlet interpretation. Where apparent contradictions arise between such interpretations, we might call the interpretations "incongruent", rather than dubbing either "false", because using many-valued logic implies that a measured value is a mixture of two extreme possibilities. Using the subset of many-valued logic, fuzzy logic , it can be said that various interpretations can be represented by membership in more than one possible truth sets simultaneously.
Fuzzy logic is therefore probably the best mathematical structure for understanding "robust relativism" and has been interpreted by Bart Kosko as philosophically being related to Zen Buddhism. It was Aristotle who held that relativism implied we should, sticking with appearances only, end up contradicting ourselves somewhere if we could apply all attributes to all ousiai beings.
Aristotle, however, made non-contradiction dependent upon his essentialism. If his essentialism is false, then so too is his ground for disallowing relativism. Subsequent philosophers have found other reasons for supporting the principle of non-contradiction. Beginning with Protagoras and invoking Charles Sanders Peirce , Margolis shows that the historic struggle to discredit relativism is an attempt to impose an unexamined belief in the world's essentially rigid rule-like nature.
Plato and Aristotle merely attacked "relationalism"—the doctrine of true-for l or true for k, and the like, where l and k are different speakers or different worlds, or the something similar Most philosophers would call this position "relativism". For Margolis, "true" means true; that is, the alethic use of "true" remains untouched.
However, in real world contexts, and context is ubiquitous in the real world, we must apply truth values. Here, in epistemic terms, we [ who? The rest of our value-judgements could be graded from "extremely plausible" down to "false". Judgements which on a bivalent logic would be incompatible or contradictory are further seen as "incongruent", though one may well have more weight than the other.
In short, relativistic logic is not, or need not be, the bugbear it is often presented to be. It may simply be the best type of logic to apply to certain very uncertain spheres of real experiences in the world although some sort of logic needs to be applied to make that judgement. Those who swear by bivalent logic might simply be the ultimate keepers of the great fear of the flux. Philosopher Richard Rorty has a somewhat paradoxical role in the debate over relativism: he is criticized for his relativistic views by many commentators, but has always denied that relativism applies to much anybody, being nothing more than a Platonic scarecrow.
Rorty claims, rather, that he is a pragmatist , and that to construe pragmatism as relativism is to beg the question. Rorty takes a deflationary attitude to truth , believing there is nothing of interest to be said about truth in general, including the contention that it is generally subjective. He also argues that the notion of warrant or justification can do most of the work traditionally assigned to the concept of truth, and that justification is relative; justification is justification to an audience, for Rorty.
In Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity he argues that the debate between so-called relativists and so-called objectivists is beside the point because they don't have enough premises in common for either side to prove anything to the other. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For the physics theory, see Theory of relativity. This article has an unclear citation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation and footnoting.
September Learn how and when to remove this template message. Retrieved May 10, Zalta ed. Physics World. Retrieved Human Universals. Is Cultural Relativism Self-Refuting? British Journal of Sociology, vol 28, No. Cedar Fort. Ideas of the great philosophers. What is true for you is true for you. Sahakian Realms of philosophy. Doesn't the Sagnac Effect indicate that there is a preferred frame of reference? I thought this principle was used in today's gyroscopes and factored into finding positions by the GPS system.
Worst article ever. Who cares. It contains words like Einstein, relativity, aether - traffic of posters guaranteed. You probably shouldn't confuse aether model with superstring theory. String theorists consider space-time empty and particles as a strings. The idea of stringy environment belongs rather into loop quantum gravity theory. With respect to rotation only, such motion is non-inertial and it doesn't belong into realm of special relativity which describes systems without inertial forces only.
General relativity allows many things, which special relativity doesn't, for example the non-inertial reference frame, defined with gravity or centripetal force field. But the light waves are transverse they're polarizable and the speed of transverse waves doesn't depend on the speed of environment at all after all, in the same way, like the speed of transverse waves in every particle environment. The silly physicists just confused these two models together.
After all, if aether model would be wrong, then Mr. Maxwell couldn't use it for derivation of his equations. But from Maxwell's equations which are based on the transverse wave model the constant speed of light follows clearly. In better words: how is it possible, the luminiferous aether model, which leads into constant speed of light via Maxwell's equations has been allegedly disproved with Michelson-Morley experiment, which had lead into the same result? This is just the question for contemporary physicists.
IMO this paradox could have two reasons. At first, Maxwell wasn't aware of the concept of the invariance of speed of light too well. This result was derived a way later with Einstein from Maxwell's equations. At second, at the time of Maxwell only low energy radiowaves and visible light were considered as an electromagnetic waves.
In sparse aether a threshold of wavelength must exist, above which the transverse waves are changing into longitudinal ones and the longitudinal waves suffer with aether drag apparently. Because Maxwell didn't know about energetic X-rays and gamma rays, he could believe quite well, the visible light could violate the transverse wave model already, because in his time the visible light represented the upper frequency limit for EM waves.
You do not need the aether model to explain the apparent different light speeds in the Sagnac effect. All that is needed is to consider light waves as waves of the smallest particle emitted in the shortest time period possible. That explains why you cannot add or substract from the velocity of light. But the Sagnac Effect difference should show up in measurements of the measured velocity of light at the equator in the east and west directions. The measurements cannot be the same because of the rotation of the earth. If they were the same than the light would have to travel faster or slow in one direction than the other.
It's a field of nested density fluctuations and these fluctuations appear the smaller and atemporal, the higher energy density they represent. If you reduce the aether model to some particular aspects of its behavior, then you can indeed say, you don't require it in your further extrapolation anymore - but this is exactly the mistake, which prohibited Einstein to derive more general field theory. The reduction of reality is always connected with approximation and divergence from reality.
Pair of aluminum atomic clocks reveal Einstein's relativity at a personal scale
You shouldn't really assume anything, if you want to formulate most general model of reality. Sorry Steve. This one was a bad one. Maybe not "worst ever", but a low for Mr. From article: Since few people in the 21st century need convincing that the luminiferous aether does not exist Few people need convincing, but some are unconvincible. Right Zephir! More like, if you make the assumption that there is an absolute speed - from there you can deduce special relativity as a logical consequence. The initial "exercise of logic" is anything but. I guess it got us thinking though. Few people need convincing, but some are unconvincible.
Repetition is the mother of wisdom.
 Reason and Method in Einstein's Relativity
Before five years the very same posts were downvoted from here by twenty points immediately and subsequently deleted from here by forum admins. At least some progress is visible by now. But the people, who hear whole their life, the aether model is BS are difficult to convince about the opposite, because this stance has become immanent part of their religion.
Such people cannot be convinced with any arguments, because it just hardens their dismissive stance. It's sorta surface tension effect: the smaller the droplets are, the more obstinately they refuse to merge with the rest of fluid. Gradually the opponents of aether model will became the very same crackpots, like the proponents of it before years and the whole cycle will repeat again.
If distance shrinks to zero at the speed of light, then there's no where to go. What a waste of horsepower. You people don't even think about the questions, you just spit out precontrived answers. So this medium accounts for gravitational lensing? The vacuum therefore becomes less dense to energy around massive objects, which results to the concentration of both photons, both massive objects here. Pretty clever. Probably the best you could do as a particle physicist.
Actually at that time I think he would be what we would consider a corpuscular physicist. The curvature of light is interpreted like the curvature of space-time in general relativity, but gravity lens exhibit another hyperdimensional phenomena too, like the surface tension. The curvature of light seems to be perfectly capable of explaining gravitational lensing unless I missed something. I thought time passage shrinks to zero at the speed of light. Curvature of space tends to behave like massive body or piece of jelly and it bounces from another curvatures of space-time.
It's not just about passive lensing phenomena, but about dynamical force effects too. We didn't realize the admins would let you respawn yourself under a new name repeatedly. Most people have given up. Lest you think this is slowly gaining acceptance of your "theory," consider that it has also been impossible to remove the pedophile with the persecution complex and trash theory about neutrons.
It's merely a symptom of too many posters and too few admins. Point 1 is tautological. It assumes the existence of an absolute speed in order to prove the existence of the same. It is perfectly logical to assume a universe in which space is absolute even if it proves difficult to establish one's position or speed and speed is unbounded and not at all linked to time dilation. From such a starting point, it is not possible to prove by logical deduction alone the existence of an absolute speed. The author is either pulling our leg or really truly stupid.
Uncle Albert said "It's all relative. Why, relative to your Point of View i. Once you understand this, the concept of faster than light speed travel becomes obvious. Pure energy, the one and only substance that exists, travels at the speed of light. What we perceive as 'matter' is merely energy travelling at light speed in orbit around the nucleus of atoms, thus giving the illusion of 'solid matter'; much the way a fan, if you have it running, is near impossible to put your finger through the blades. As you push nearer to the field in which the blades are moving, one blade after the other blocks your finger from penetrating the field.
Thus electrons, moving at light speed, appear to form a force field through which it is difficult to penetrate, thus appear solid. Dec 20, Very bad mannered indeed. Einstein was the incorrigible zionist plagiarist of the century and that is my lasting and final opinion. Einstein covered up the overwhelming experimental evidence of a variable speed of light in vacuum, please study the work and life of Dayton Miller, one of the finest American scientists in recorded history.
On top of that, dr. Santilli described the many theoretical inconsistencies of Hilbert's GR, etc Albert Einstein covered up the overwhelming experimental evidence of a variable speed of light in vacuum, please study the work and life of Dayton Miller, one of the finest American scientists in recorded history.
Data analyst Robbert Shankland found that Millers data of variable vacuum light speed is statistically significant. Exposed to Einstein's political pressure, Shankland surrendered to the Lorentz Poincare Minkovski theory of "special relativity". When the object is moving through vacuum foam, it makes it more dense and undulating, in similar way like the soap foam, when it's being shaken. You can play with this behaviour on the Java applet here.
The moving object creates wake wave, which undulates and expands water surface a bit around object. It prolongs the path for another surface ripples, so that they're spreading more slowly around it. The dilatation of water surface is therefore the manifestation of another dimension perpendicular to spatial dimension surface plane , i. This model is consistent with deBroglie wave of quantum mechanics.
Every effect has its deeper physical origin. Therefore when the clocks suddenly slow down, then something must happen on the background. The dense aether model usually explains this reason in trivial way, but this reason must be always present here. Thus, mass is recognized as a special form of energy. As will be shown in this article, there are similarities between mass and charge which might lead us to conclude that charge should also be considered as a special form of energy. Thus, this article does claim that Charge might also be recognized as another form of Energy, as mass turned to be.
This claim, if found viable, and supported by additional findings, will make Energy as the only distinct entity in addition to time and space , a simpler and cleaner view of nature. Also, this article suggests the following: 1. This equation might describe the relation between the energy and charge magnitude. Since charge comes in two types, a positive charge and a negative charge, then the energy embedded in charge also comes in two energy types.
This might be one of the crucial reasons why it was difficult to recognize charge as another form of energy. However, the article provides a logical explanation to this issue. The article also assigns these energy types to one set of Energy Pairs. This Energy Pairs Theory is also used to explain why in the electron and positron collisions the charges completely disappear.
Authors: Tom Fuchs Comments: 3 Pages. I show that gravitational time dilation is a twin paradox scenario that can be calculated using length contraction. Authors: Bernard Riley Comments: 11 pages. The length and mass scales of cosmology and astrophysics are shown to derive from quantum scales. The astrophysical scales of the model refer to the geometric mean values of distributions of scales.
The nearly-ideal sun is the counterpart of the stable nuclide chromium Authors: Nick Markov Comments: 3 Pages. This research note hypothesizes new physics without dark energy, dark matter, extra dimensions, and deviation from proven mathematical models. The main idea is that matter expands proportionally with space, and that the proposed discrete step-expansion of elementary particles may provide a platform for unification of the four fundamental interactions.
This note also proposes several ways to validate the hypothesis at the macro- and micro-scale. Authors: Nick Markov Comments: 10 Pages. Correlation between relativistic time dilation and space-time curvature is presented aiming to explain the observed galactic rotational curves without introducing hidden parameters, such as dark matter. The relation is supported with measured data from five spiral galaxies of various sizes and rotational velocities.
Correlations are also provided for a galaxy cluster and for the Solar System. Authors: Sangwha Yi Comments: 4 Pages. Thank you for reading. Solutions of unified theory equations of gravity and electromagnetism satisfy Einstein-Maxwell equation. Hence, solutions of the unified theory is Reissner-Nodstrom solution in vacuum. We found revised Einstein gravity tensor equation is satisfied the condition by 2-order contra-invariant metric tensor two times product.
The interference pattern from a Fizeau interferometer is conserved in all inertial reference frames. Its constructive pattern requires the wavelength to be proportional to the width of the interferometer at the point of interference. The length contraction from Lorentz transformation assumes the interferometer to be contracted in the direction of the relative motion. The wavelength is contracted as well. For two observers moving at the same speed, the contracted wavelength appears to be identical for both of them. If one of them moves in the opposite direction, they will observe an identical wavelength but two different frequencies due to the Doppler effect.
- Power Tools for Garage Band: Creating Music with Audio Recording, MIDI Sequencing, and Loops.
- Copyright information?
- The Berenstain Bear Scouts and the Evil Eye!
Consequently, they observe two different speeds from the same light. I show that the traveling twin ages less because that twin's path is shorter. The reason typically given, that only the traveling twin accelerates, is superfluous. Error of Einstein's thought experiment Category: Relativity and Cosmology. Authors: Richard J Benish Comments: 20 pages. Based on the work of Jacobson  and Gibbons,  Christoph Schiller  has shown not only that a maximum force follows from general relativity, but that general relativity can be derived from the principle of maximum force. In the present paper an alternative derivation of maximum force is given.
Inspired by the equivalence principle, the approach is based on a modification of the well known special relativity equation for the velocity acquired from uniform proper acceleration. Though in Schiller's derivation the existence of gravitational horizons plays a key role, in the present derivation this is not the case.
- 30 Startups to Know.
- In the Inmost Hour of the Soul!
- Cecil B. DeMilles Hollywood.
- Serviços Personalizados!
- 2. Machian Positivism?
- Algorithmic problem solving.
In fact, though the kinematic equation that we start with does exhibit a horizon, it is not carried over to its gravitational counterpart. A few of the geometrical consequences and physical implications of this result are discussed. The first page is an Annotation, which provides context with regard to motivation, and highlights correspondence with the IJTP reviewers, and with Christoph Schiller. The Michelson-Morley experiment is devoted to the experimental measurement of the anisotropy of the speed of light propagation on the Earth's surface. Since at that time it was believed that space is filled with ether and light propagates in it, it was assumed possible to determine the speed of the Earth relative to the "ether" and the direction of motion of the Solar system in the space ASO.
Authors: Miroslav Pardy Comments: 12 Pages. The power spectral formula of the Cherenkov radiation of the system of two equal charges is derived in the framework of the source theory. The distance between charges is supposed to be relativistically contracted which manifests in the spectral formula. The knowledge of the spectral formula then can be used to verify of the Lorentz contraction of the relativistic length.
A feasible experiment for the verification of the Lorentz contraction is suggested. Authors: A. Antipin Comments: 4 Pages. The paper presents general considerations, that show that the WARP devices will not be able to provide the expected superluminal velocity of moving objects. HALF the speed of light. The article is based on the materials of the report made on December 03, Authors: Per Hokstad Comments: 6 Pages. We present a graphical approach which illustrates a chain of events within the theory of special relativity TSR. The object we follow has a velocity being piecewise constant; a condition that can be relaxed.
The travelling twin provides an example. Authors: Royan Rosche Comments: 1 Page. Authors: Tsuneaki Takahashi Comments: 5 Pages. Science theory is composed of definitions, logic and facts. Facts are real and not deniable. Logic could have multiple expressions. So we need to choose most appropriate expression. A composition from definitions, facts and logic to Special Relativity Theory is tried here. Authors: Henok Tadesse Comments: 11 Pages. In the past century, abstract mathematical reference frames have become the universal way to formulate and understand the fundamental laws of physics.
Galileo's principle of relativity and Einstein's special relativity theory states that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. The subtly hidden assumption in this statement is that the laws of physics can be formulated correctly at least in one inertial reference frame, which is shown to be wrong.
In the general theory of relativity accelerating reference frames can even affect the laws of physics. The true laws of physics became hidden by the very idea of using reference frames as the observers. In the reference frame concept, the laws of physics are formulated as seen by the third observer, i. The mystery that has eluded physicists so far is that a third observer reference frame is irrelevant or cannot see the true nature of electromagnetic interaction between two charges, for example.
Electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena are elusive in that they do not act in the classical way expected by the third observer reference frame. The traditional concept of reference frames was based on classical, conventional thinking and experience, such as the motion of a ball or the propagation of classical waves as seen in two relatively moving inertial frames. Einstein's special relativity theory was built upon the fallacious Galileo's reference frames. Galileo's relativity is only approximately correct and applies only to ordinary, everyday experiences and is fundamentally wrong. According to the new theory proposed in this paper, the observer is fundamentally the body or particle directly experiencing electromagnetic or gravitational fields and waves.
The observer is the atom, molecule, electron or proton directly detecting or experiencing electromagnetic and gravitational fields and waves, such as atoms in light detecting devices, the human eye or massive bodies experiencing gravitation of another body. Einstein correctly discovered his chasing a beam of light thought experiment. However, since physicists universally thought in terms of reference frames, this wrongly led him to the special theory of relativity.
The principle of relativity should be discarded ; reference frames, whether inertial, accelerating or rotating , are irrelevant in the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics. The concept of reference frames must be abandoned altogether. The fundamental laws of physics cannot be correctly formulated in any reference frame, i. A new way of formulating the laws of physics relative to as seen by the direct observer is introduced. Newton's and Mach's views on inertia will be reconciled. It concerns the unification of Maxwell-Field and Gravitational-Field without compromise consisting of: 1.
A derivation of the general equations of continuously differentiable fluctuating 3-dimensional vector fields turning out to be generalized Maxwell-Equations 2. Identifying the Einstein-Space as the result of deforming an Euclidean Space, 3. Identifying the fluctuating hypersurface of the Einstein-Space as gravitational wave propagating with the velocity of light seen from an observer space or rather coordinate space, This leads to 1.
With the described unification electromagnetism is directly led back to the most fundamental terms of physics, space and time. Last but not least the importance of the Einstein-Equations for microphysics is proved Category: Relativity and Cosmology. This paper has not been submitted to a journal. Comments are welcome. We also discuss some related phenomena. This paper can be viewed as a dialogue effort to find connection between the notion of aether by Western scientists in the past and No-Shape Substance by Qi Ji et al.
Wang, Zheng, and Yao carried out an experiment in to determine if the Sagnac effect can be applied to the inertial motion. Their experiment showed that there was indeed phase difference between the two light beams passing through the same optical fiber in inertial motion.
However, the focus of their experiment was on the rest frame of the light source. They did not realize that the time difference from the phase difference should exist in all reference frames. The difference in the elapsed time taken by two light beams to pass through the linear fiber segment in the rest frame of the segment effectively corresponds to the speed difference between two light beams. The Sagnac effect in inertial motion provides a precise experimental evidence that the speed of light is different in a different reference frame.
Authors: Henok Tadesse Comments: 4 Pages. One immediate objection to this idea is that superluminal velocities do not exist in nature. However, we know that superluminal galaxies have already been observed. Moreover, in my recent paper entitled " Absolute Motion, Light Speed Limit, Superluminal Galaxies and Star Light Bending " , I have shown how absolute motion, light speed limit and superluminal galaxies can co-exist in the universe. Hubble's law also predicts superluminal galaxies at sufficiently large distances.
Compton scattering cannot yet be said to have been verified beyond any doubt. The only verification experiment performed is still the original experiment of A. Compton from To date, there is not another experiment done to corroborate the findings. Such experiments are shown to be invalid as the result that shows clear agreement with the theory is all due to the calibration of the detectors and nothing besides. A proper verification requires verifying the wavelength formula where the wavelength is measured directly.
In this paper we assert that absolute motion is not motion relative to the hypothetical ether. Absolute motion is fundamentally motion of a body relative to all matter in the universe. Hence absolute motion does exist but the ether doesn't exist. The ether has been disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Arago and the Airy star light refraction and aberration experiments.
We show how this view of absolute motion can also be compatible with the observed phenomena of light speed limit, superluminal galaxies. We show that star light deflection near the Sun doesn't exist. Authors: Daniel Stedman Comments: 2 Pages.