
English__--->	Espanol____/	Deutsch____/	Francais____/	Italiano____/	Portuguese

.......................................................................................... If the bottom of a page remains English, copy and translate HERE. new science theory graphic

New Science Theory - exemplified by physics theory

Albert Einstein . Isaac Newton . Rene Descartes . William Gilbert ........ Science History . General Image Theory .......... Sitemap . About us

- Site Search at bottom v -

Science is basically the combination of good logical reasoning with good practical knowledge of actual natural phenomena. All humans do some logical reasoning and have some practical knowledge of some actual natural phenomena, but most have to busy themselves with feeding themselves and their families as best they can. Few people have been able to devote much of their time to reasoning and/or gaining better knowledge of nature, and only some of these have made small or big contributions to the development of science. In considering science theory, this site concentrates especially on the theory ideas of four major physicists - Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes and William Gilbert.
(We also have good related sections on Johannes Kepler, on Galileo Galilei, on Gravity phenomena, on String Theory and physics now and on Science Philosophy.)

The 2007 Nobel Prize for physics has gone to Albert Fert and Peter Gruenberg for their excellent experimental work on magnetic signals that advanced Information Technology - and they like all modern physicists have never considered a signal theory of physics. This surely made William Gilbert turn over in his grave, believing that experimental magnetism proved his signal theory physics. This 2007 Nobel Prize supports Gilbert's main argument on the value of experiment, but perhaps again confirms the naivety of Gilbert's subsidary view that experiment would also lead to correct theory.

The basis of science theory.

Those who have specialised only in logical reasoning have often been called philosophers, and some of the best of these first emerged in Ancient Greece. The most rigorous logical reasoning, as with Euclid, has often been in the field of mathematics. Those who have specialised only in gaining better knowledge of nature have often been artisans or nature lovers, and their studies often have been concerned with their work or their leisure. Here metallurgy and astronomy were two fairly significant fields of study, with many others. The chief scientific advance in gaining better knowledge of nature came with the realisation that it chiefly needed the precise measurement of natural phenomena so that the rigours of number could replace vagueness and be better amenable to logical reasoning so that the two chief elements of science better combined.

Early ideas on the natural world generally took some vague magical or religious form, as that natural bodies had life forces or that god caused everything. In line with this, the widely accepted though entirely unproven explanation of gravity by the philosopher Aristotle was that all bodies had 'a natural tendency' to move to their 'natural place'. Such unproven opinion was to be challenged by the emerging scientific method, chiefly in getting more rigorous descriptions of natural phenomena and then in some cases in deriving theories to explain them. Science theories came in two basic types - Black Box theories of laws of universe behaviour like gravity to explain what happens, but not trying to explain why things happen, and full-explanation theories that did seek to explain why things happen.

It was not until the 1500's that real science emerged first in Europe, with the chief requirement that both good logical reasoning and good practical knowledge of actual natural phenomena must be combined to produce valid descriptions of natural phenomena and valid science theories. Though there were earlier neo-science developments in different parts of the world, the real emergence of science was driven first by Europe wanting to explore and exploit the wider world, and then by Europe's developing industrial revolution. World exploring required use of the astronomer's stars and of the magnetic compass. A basic compass was in some use from the 1200's, and after his death in 1543 Nicolaus Copernicus published an improved description of heavenly bodies where the Earth correctly orbited the Sun. William Gilbert in 1600 (shortly before his death) having studied the Earth's magnetic field and improved compass use, published his physics substantially confined to magnetism but deriving a rarely understood full-explanation effluvia signal theory of physics relating to the Earth and bodies generally.

Like many other early scientists then, Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) working in mechanics and astronomy had a lot of trouble from religion and government for backing Copernicus, but William Gilbert (1544-1603) working mainly on magnetism openly dismissed Aristotle and all philosophising or theorising that was not directly substantiated by scientific experiment, and practised what he preached with his one early publication concentrating on his many experiments - and Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) working in mathematics, optics and astronomy also backed Copernicus and developed a 'forcefield push' version of Gilbert's physics.

But then the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) produced a different type of full-explanation mechanical push physics theory that impressed many as fitting with much of the emerging science - especially with that of the mathematician and physicist Isaac Newton (1643-1727) though he himself settled for a black-box physics theory like a few other physicists then. While advances continued in other sciences, physics theory had to wait about 200 years before Albert Einstein produced his new partial-explanation forcefield spacetime theory. One basic advance in physics then had been the discovery that the originally supposed elementary particles 'atoms' seemed basically mini-solar-systems with smaller particles and mini-action-at-a-distance. Strong evidence that solids are far from solid supported the conclusion that at least some 'pushes' may not be pushes and so maybe at least partly supports either a field type physics or a signal type physics ?

After Newton, physics theory seems to have somewhat sidelined experimental study in favour of mathematical study, so that increasingly universities located theoretical physics in their mathematics departments rather than in physics departments. And certainly physics theory since Einstein, such as 'string' and 'loop' theory, seems to largely have been on the mathematics and structure of fields and/or of 'elementary' particles as possibly explaining everything somehow though it perhaps is muddy water - and 'fields' may yet be shown to not exist and/or the 'elementary particles' may yet be shown to be mini-mini-solar-systems themselves. In physics the big may be as reasonable a model of the small as vice versa, or not, and a signal physics may yet prove of some use also.

Many have been involved in the development of science, and many more in supporting or opposing it, covering all countries. But the key science theory ideas around physics can perhaps best be seen by going backwards from Einstein. Einstein considered that the theory that he chiefly had to face up to was Newton's, and Newton considered that the theories that he chiefly had to face up to were Descartes' and Gilbert's. Few understood Newton's evaluation of Gilbert, but I think the key physics theories were indeed those of Gilbert, Descartes, Newton and Einstein which this site examines further on other pages in an interrelated way rather than entirely separately. (I do actually think that science is really best understood backwards, studying the newer clear waters first to then go to explaining the older muddy waters ! )

While Newton considered various possible explanations of gravity and other 'forces', he ended up supporting none and insisting that physics should support none. He concluded that black-box mathematical behaviour laws were enough for science, and that any explanation must involve untestable unseens and be 'outside science'. This basic conclusion of Newton can certainly be challenged, but Einstein and others ignoring it and claiming Newton's theory was a simple billiard ball push theory was one of the worst mistakes in physics theory history. It meant that no physicist has worked from or built on Newton's actual physics position - only on a simplified false 'Newton position' ?

It is interesting that Einstein was the only one of these four to marry, suggesting that having a family to feed can hinder the development of substantial new science - which has certainly hindered me !? I have myself studied and read all William Gilbert and much of Descartes, Newton and Einstein and others relating to their theories. Currently the internet offers little of these four to read online, and much of their work has not been translated, so this site will be trying to help with that over time. Science histories often have serious weaknesses , and for basic physics history this website's interpretations are the best and should be studied first, but you may also like a look at this mostly not too unreasonable summary science history.

Some might say that the last 50 years has maybe seen no significant new science theory published. I am old enough to remember when lots of scientists and government people were saying that very cheap nuclear energy was about to greatly improve the world. And around the same time when lots of scientists and government people were saying that the emerging computer science was about to greatly improve the world also. But by now everybody should be aware that business and government hijack any new science to their own ends, maybe leaving little real value to any new science ? But I have been sitting on a new science theory for the last 40 years developed after the first BSc degree I took. Then for a second BSc degree where I took year 1 Philosophy, I part ran it past a Professor of Philosophy who had been a Physicist in a 1985 essay for him on the history of physics. He gave that top marks and promptly made several attempts to get me to switch to majoring in philosophy under him (which I would have done but at that time I could not see it as a practical career option for feeding my new wife and baby). But being satisfied that the basics of my new science theory may possibly be worth publishing rather than all dying with me, I have now to put the basics of it on this website - in the hope that you may find it interesting (and this website is all interrelated so studying all of it should help you understand it). Additionally, this site simply tries to clarify some of the basics of science theory history to date as I see it - though many do interpret science history differently. Some of the problems involved in the history of science are discussed in our Science History, or you can check our Site Map.

You can do a search of this website, or of the web, below ;

Or two websites to help inform you on what physicists and astronomers are up to lately are Physics Web and Universe Today - and for one about some of the weaknesses of Einstein's theory you could try Relativity Collapse.

Or if you might want to buy science books in our USA science books or UK science books sections.

You may want to learn a bit about Kissing, dating, love, marriage, weddings and first baby.
Or see an interesting website on USA and UK poverty and bad housing.

otherwise, if you have any view or suggestion on the content of this site, please contact :- New Science Theory
Vincent Wilmot 166 Freeman Street Grimsby Lincolnshire DN32 7AT.

You are welcome to link to any page on this site, eg http://www.new-science-theory.com/index.html

....This Homepage in some other languages :-

Espanol

Francais

Deutsch

Italiano

Portuguese

For the full website in these languages, at the top of this page click language name for other language, then use normal 'around the site'.

Hosted by :-