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. G.I.T
theory seeks to replace that false assumption with a science truth that is much
In the spirit of William Gilbert this is not addressed to that crass multitude of so-called-scientists content to kick around the narrow range of ideas that science journals today consider fashionable, but to those free spirits 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 to allow better theory comparison.
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 part or aspect of such 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 the universe that they cover.
3. Each of a set of valid image theories would have to use at least some 'unique descriptions' that differ from those used by other theories of that set, with 'unique descriptions' covering both language and mathematics terms.
4. Each of a set of valid image theories would have to not be fully logically consistent with another image theory, so if one image theory says 'A moves B' then another image theory must say something contradicting that as that 'A moves itself in response to B' - they cannot both say the same as 'A moves B' for all aspects of the theory.
5. 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.
The requirement that each of a set of valid image theories must not be fully logically consistent with another image theory identifies cases of differing descriptions that are the same image theory, as Gilbert's De Magnete in Latin and in a 'perfect translation' English whose meaning and mathematics are the same. A mathematics being a logically rigourous form of a description, the requirement that each of a set of valid image theories must use at least some 'unique descriptions' requires that different image theories of the same thing must allow of somewhat different but translatable mathematics though much of the mathematics might be the same.
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
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 saw action-at-distance or remote-control 'forces' like gravity and magnetism as involving currently unseen particle contact, and common contact is really also 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 receives 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 as defined at the time. And the above
summaries meet all of the five 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 no contradictions involved these
are versions of the same image theory whose difference is entirely
semantic, as with Latin and English versions, and disproving one
would disprove both of course.
It may well also be possible to produce valid 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.
Only in such an Image Theory science are requirements regarding logical consistency set realistically. Logical consistency is a requirement within any valid image theory, but logical inconsistency is also a requirement between different valid image theories !
For enquiries, or if you have any view or suggestion on the content of this site, please contact :-
New Science Theory (e-mail:-firstname.lastname@example.org)
Vincent Wilmot 166 Freeman Street Grimsby N.E.Lincs UK DN32 7AT.
You are welcome to link to any page on this site, eg http://www.new-science-theory.com/albert-einstein.php
© new-science-theory.com, 2017 - taking
care with your privacy, see New Science Theory HOME.