The content of this web page is excerpts of the published printed book in Bulgaria
“The Special Theory of Relativity – a Classical Review”,
that almost corresponds to the e-book “The Special Theory of Relativity – the Biggest
Blunder in Physics of the 20th Century”©, published at Smashwords and at Amazon.
This section starts with the existing definition of the “scientific method” as a logical and rational order of steps through which scientists reach conclusions about the world around us. The answer to the question “What is truth and proof in science?” requires the attention to be paid to several important key markings. All the evidence presented confirms the Special Theory of Relativity as the Biggest Blunder in Physics of the 20th Century.
17. On the “scientific method”
Definition of scientific method:
A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses – “the criticism is the backbone of the scientific method”. (Oxford
The scientific method is a logical and rational order of steps by which scientists come to conclusions about the world around us. We can distinguish the following main steps of the scientific method.
Step one: Starting the research with observation and description of a phenomenon.
Step two: Formulation of a hypothesis (a possible solution to a problem, based on knowledge and research.). In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation, which explains certain phenomena.
Step three: Developing testable predictions based on the formulated hypothesis. The predictions have to demonstrate that the hypothesis is true.
Stеp four: Designing experiments that have to test the predicted results. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the predicted results derived from a hypothesis.
Step five: The final step in the scientific method is the conclusion. This is a summary of the experiment’s results, and how those results match up to the hypothesis. There are two options for the conclusions: 1) REJECTION of the hypothesis, or 2) if the hypothesis is true, a theory is developed, which has to be consistent with most or with all available data and with other existing theories.
Key terms when applying the scientific method turns out to be “fact”, “experiment” and “conclusion”.
“Facts” are related to the observations. These are “observed events”. The used technical instruments are, therefore, very important for the proper observation and identification of the facts. As a matter of fact, however, the essential problems arise in the interpretation of the instrumentation readings as well as the experiment as a whole, on which the conclusions depend.
“Experiment” is an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to collect facts, to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law.
“Conclusion” is the ultimate goal. In the series of steps of the scientific method, however, the importance of step four stands out at most. This is because the wrongly constructed experiment, the misinterpretation of apparatus readings, would lead to incorrect conclusions and, as a consequence –
to erroneous theory…
At this place, a question should be asked:
“What is truth and proof in science?”
Actually, the proof is the accepted logical conclusion, based on the available evidence. In science, empirical data are collected through the process of experimentation.
There are several aspects in relation to the question asked:
Mark 1: Our observations are not perfect, as they are limited by experimental errors, both systematic and random.
Mark 2: Some experiments (because of their bad design) hide the reality, which is actually very important to prove a hypothesis (I mean the Michelson-Morley experiment discussed in chapter 7).
Mark 3: Different persons have different interpretations – they see different “evidence” in the same observed event (depending on the point of view, knowledge, and level of understanding). We all know the anecdote concerning Dr. Ludwik Silberstein and Sir Arthur Eddington about: “Who are the three men who have actually understood the theory of relativity…”
Mark 4: We have limitations beyond our control, which we can hardly be aware. In this sense, the “Theorems of Incompleteness”, published by Kurt Gödel in 1931, actually define the “border of the mathematical and the human logic”. The “Theorems of Incompleteness” also refers to physics because they can reveal the shortcomings of some explanations of the physical reality through the mathematical logic.
Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem states that for any consistent system F, the consistency of F cannot be proved in F itself. The reader saw that the chapter 11, which concerned the “measurement reasons” for the delusion about the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum, and the paramount importance of our primary physical constants (the units of measurement) – is actually a demonstration of the second incompleteness theorem in the field of physics.
Mаrk 5: Kurt Gödel demonstrated the “Theorems of Incompleteness” by using the trick called “liar paradox”. The essence of the “liar paradox” is that the truth-value of a statement cannot be evaluated by reference to the truth-value of the statement itself. So far, the famous experiments related to the behavior and measurement of the speed of light in our time-spatial domain “near the surface of the Earth” have been explained by the modern physics (above all), using this “trick”. In the book, this trick is named “logical circular reference”. Using the “logical circular reference”, false explanations are named “scientific explanations”. Moreover, fabricated experiments using the “logical circular reference” were designed. Typically, the purpose of such experiments is to check the validity of erroneous hypotheses (such as the special theory of relativity), using the results of this theory. Of course, the results of using the “liar paradox” are always with a “true” value. In this way, we can say that an exact mathematical proof cannot always correspond to the physical reality (to the truth about nature).
Actually, the most essential part of the scientific method is that the theory must meet the results of the experiments. However, the results of the experiments must be considered through the prism of the aforementioned marks.
The section of the site “Problem 1: The constancy of the speed of light” presents genuine scientific analyses of the “unexpected” and “inexplicable” results of the famous experiments related to the behavior and measurement of the speed of light carried out in the time-spatial area “near the surface of the Earth”. The analyses are based on
However, there is a range of various experiments, which contemporary physics defines as “tests of the special theory of relativity”. The aim is to interpret their results as “consistent” with the results of the special theory of relativity and to prove its validity.
What is the true essence of the most famous “tests of the special theory of relativity”?
All experiments accepted as tests of the special theory of relativity can be divided into three main types considered in the following subsections:
- First type tests (which uses the trick “liar paradox”).
- Second type tests (which use references to unsubstantiated statements that are believed to be correct).
- Third type tests (fully fabricated tests).