 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| English__---> | Espanol____/ | Deutsch____/ | Francais____/ | Italiano____/ | Portuguese |
A General Image Theory of science theories.
3. What constitute sets of valid image theories in science ?
Homepage .
Albert Einstein .
Isaac Newton .
Rene Descartes .
William Gilbert ..........
GIT 1 .
GIT 2 .
GIT 4
  |
This 'General Image Theory of science theories' seeks to dispose of the most fundamental principle of science to date - the false claim that in science there can be only one valid theory. This G.I.T theory seeks to replace that science principle with something much more useful. In the spirit of William Gilbert this is not addressed to that crass multitude of career-scientists content to kick around the narrow range of ideas that today's science journals consider fashionable, but to that free spirit happy to labour hard and dig deep to find real truth. | |||
Since any science theory is basically a description of a universe or of some part or aspect of a universe, it must use language. Science developed when the language of scholars was Latin, and then most science was published in Latin until after Newton's time.
That helped theory comparability though not everyone was good with Latin and translations were often problematic as with William Gilbert not being translated into English until 300 years after publication.
Of course scientists including physicists even then tended to write up their theory in different ad hoc manners that make it hard to directly compare theories.
And over time the use of different native languages in science theory replaced the universal use of Latin.
Gilbert and Newton basically wrote up their physics theories in one book, with Newton's 'Principia' being the better organised and rather more complete.
Later physicists published their theories in ad hoc articles, encouraged by government funders and science journals wanting newsworthy briefs. But science theory write-ups need to be comparable to show where they are compatible or incompatible to identify their proof issues.
Trying to compare several physics theories now is almost impossible. All physics theories should have 'Principia' style write-ups of at least their basics for ready comparability.
Language is a significant problem for science theory and has allowed ranges of interpretations of some theories that can be far from the intention of its originator.
And on top of these language issues, science to date has had an as yet unrecognised theory description problem in being stubbornly stuck to an 'only one valid theory' principle, so that there have been no attempts to produce sets of valid image theories
allowed by the fact that one thing can clearly have more than one valid description.
With the current 'only one valid theory' principle discarded, the General Image Theory of science theories would have a number of requirements that sets of valid image theories would have to comply with.
1. Each of a set of valid image theories would have to deal with the same universe or of part or aspect of a universe.
2. Each of a set of valid image theories would have to be logically self-consistent and be consistent with current knowledge of the universe or part or aspect of a universe that they cover.
3. Each of a set of valid image theories would have to use at least some 'unique terms' that differ from those used by other theories of that set, with 'unique terms' covering both language and mathematics terms.
4. Each of a set of valid image theories would have to be translatable into others of the set, as common languages basically are translatable, unique terms word for word or phrase for phrase, by means of a suitable translation dictionary including applicable mathematics.
As an example of a possible pair of valid image theories in a science, consider the following summary Descartes and Gilbert versions of Newton's laws of motion as basically specified below ;
|
Laws of Motion a la Descartes. 1. A body will remain in its state of rest, or of constant velocity in a straight line, unless a push or pull force is applied to it. 2. A body accelerates in proportion to the amount of push or pull force applied to it, and in inverse proportion to its own mass, in a straight line in the direction in which the force is applied. 3. If one body applies a push or pull force to a second body, then an equal and directionally opposite push or pull force is applied to the first body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Descartes action-at-a-distance 'forces' like gravity and magnetism involve currently unseen particle contact, and common contact is currently really an unseen as bodies may not really contact but show close-proximity response. |
Laws of Motion a la Gilbert. 1. A body will remain in its state of rest, or of constant velocity in a straight line, unless it recieves repulsion or attraction signals. 2. A body accelerates in proportion to the strength of signal received by it, and in inverse proportion to its own mass, in a straight line in the direction or in the opposite direction from which it receives the signal. 3. If one body responds to repulsion or attraction signals from a second body, then the second body will respond equally and directionally opposite to signals from the first body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gilbertian 'repulsion or attraction signals', including electrical. gravitational and very short range proximity 'contact' signals, are currently unseen. |
Isaac Newton concluded basically that the above theories were both consistent with what was known at the time about motion, including its mathematics. And the above summaries meet all of the four requirements for image theories given above.
Of course they require that motion actually have quite different causal mechanisms, though both mechanisms involving what at the time were unseens allowed both to be compatible with what was then known of motion. These are two image theories that seem not just semantically different, so that it is possible that one or both be proved wrong by new knowledge or experiment.
But it easy to produce two versions of each of the above theories that ARE just semantically different, as eg by producing 'A causes B' and 'B is caused by A' type versions. With two image theories whose difference is entirely semantic, disproving one would disprove both of course.
It is equally possible to produce image theories of eg an Einstein relativistic theory or of a probabilistic theory. The only real issue for science is whether a new image theory might be likely to be of use to anybody. But if anybody makes an advance in one image theory, then it could easily translate into an advance in other image theories of that set and so help other scientists that are using those theories.
For
enquiries, or if you have any view or suggestion on the content of this site,
please contact :-
New Science Theory (e-mail:-vincent@new-science-theory.com)
Vincent Wilmot Wilmots
166 Freeman Street Grimsby N.E.Lincs UK DN32 7AT.
Or you may want to learn a bit about Advice on kissing, dating, love and marriage.
You are welcome to link to any page on this site, eg http://www.new-science-theory.com/albert-einstein.html
IF you like this site then
OR maybe make a small donation ; (it will help with site development, and just possibly with some experiments long planned but never afforded.)
© new-science-theory.com, 2008. - taking care with your privacy, see Privacy Policy or About Us or Sitemap.