Q1. What is scientific truth or reality? Is seeing, believing?
A1. Scientific truth like all truth is only relative. Einstein's relativity dealt only with relativity of position ( i.e. a frame of observation), or relativity of speed. My idea of relativity goes much deeper and claims that Truth or Reality is dependent on the powers of observation of an observer at any given time". Thus an earthworm's perception of the universe is different to the perception of a human. The world of flat-earthers is different from those who see the earth as a globe. The geocentric world of Ptolemy and the medieval Church is supplanted by the heliocentric solar system etc. The well known tale of some philosophers who had never seen an elephant before, trying to figure it out in the darkness, by touching and feeling its parts and arguing with each other as to their findings, is another good example. The description of each e.g. "its like a column" or, "its like a thick manila rope" etc. are all absolutely true examples of what I mean by relativity dependent on "powers or faculties of observation at any given time". For instance this beautiful and true three dimensional world of ours will no longer remain so real and true if we are suddenly given the faculty to peer into the greater truth of the fourth dimension (by say developing a 'third' eye)!
But this dependency on the faculties of observation at any given time is not all. Perception of truth has changed not only with better and finer powers of observation, but along with a greater understanding of theory. Although we see the sun and the moon going round the earth everyday it is the greater understanding provided by theoretical exposition which proves that seeing with our own eyes are not believing in these instances. So human observers must develop better powers of observation ( i.e. instruments or organs of observation) as well as greater understanding to go with it. There is no Absolute Truth ( or absolute scientific truth). The process of evolution (i.e. change with time and environment) is also applicable to our mental capacity to understand what is observed, and thus reveal what may be the scientific truth aspects of human knowledge and the methods of acquisition of this knowledge.
Q2. So What is Space?
A2.We all have some consciousness of it. We can distinguish between near and far. Our consciousness is based on our observing organ, the Eye, which in turn is dependent on existence and movement of light. If the human race was say completely blind, or was say in a completely dark universe, then the judgement of space (i.e. near or far) would fall back on our faculty of hearing, which as we are aware is much more limited than our faculty of sight (however superior to our other organs of touch, smell etc as regards spatial perception).
Scientifically however mere consciousness is not enough. We need to be able to measure and quantify our consciousness of Space. For this we need to lay down a strict standard of linear measurement, against which other distances may be compared and judged. If you have doubts about your foot- rule or measuring tape, how would you remove that doubt? Obviously you would need to find a more accurately calibrated measuring tape, and this process of doubt and its resolutions would continue until the standard unit of measurement, the metre, as carefully preserved in a French museum (or the Yard as preserved in a British museum) is reached, to compare with and resolve this issue in the final resort. (The claims such as: "the metre length is the wave length of a certain light" or that "it is a percentage of the earth's circumference" etc are purely theoretical mutterings serving a definition but it cannot be used to resolve the doubt about a measuring tape, or to accurately measure the length of a path or an object). The ultimate practical datum therefore for measuring scientific lengths are the ones formulated (arbitrarily) a couple of centuries ago and carefully preserved in the museums to ensure their accuracy, with only duplicates used for actual calibration of length measuring equipment, and subsequently such equipment used to measure other phenomena like velocity of sound, light etc, and such velocities in turn used in conjunction with a time-piece for greater and greater lengths. But how did we actually choose this arbitrary piece of rod calling it "the standard one metre length"?
Obviously we relied on our faculty of sight to locate the ends of this particular length of rod. We did it so naturally and subliminally that we took no notice of the process or gave it any significance.
Q3. So How did we decide on the length of the standard metre?
A3 Obviously we used a lighted room and the faculty of our eyesight. This means that we have used the fact that light moves for us to lay down this standard. And every time we compare this length with another for calibration we use light and our eyes. Mathematically what it means is that: "The Standard metre is a function of the velocity of light". The following diagram (Ahmed's Triangle) will make this clear.
Ahmed's Triangle
Suppose in the triangle the length AB is the standard metre which is being observed by the eye E at the mid position of AB but making an angle
(Phi) to AB. Then AE = BE and AB = 2 AE Cos .If now c is the velocity of light and time taken by the light to travel from A to E ( or B to E) is t, then AE = BE = ct and therefore AB = 2 ct Cos
. But AB is our
standard metre, so that we have: 1 metre = 2 ct Cos ................ equation (A)
Q4. What is the importance of this equation (A)?
A4. It demonstrates that velocity of light c cannot be measured or calculated, until we have a perception superior to sight which can be subliminally used (i.e without conscious knowledge) to lay down such a standard of distance based on our faculty of sight.
This can be illustrated most clearly by examining the following problem in elementary physics:
Problem: A stone is dropped down a well. After three seconds the splash is heard. Given that the velocity of sound is 330 meters per second, determine the depth to the water surface of the well.
Solution: Refer to the diagram above. If the depth to the water surface of the well is h metres, then time taken by the sound to rise up the well is h/330 seconds. And therefore the time taken by the stone to actually fall is (3 - h/330) seconds. Now assuming the acceleration of the stone while falling to be g (i.e. 9.81 metre per second squared (m/s2) and the initial velocity of the stone to be zero, h is given by the equation:
(3 - h/330)2 = 2h /9.81
and the practical solution to this quadratic equation is h = 41 metres. It is to be carefully noted that if the effect of sound travel is ignored, i.e the term h/330 in the above equation is neglected as zero, then the value of h becomes about 44 meters which is not really very far from 41 metres, the correct solution obtained before in the totality of the perspective. The shorter h is in the problem the more accurate would be any answer as the effect of sound travel is ignored. But it should be further noted that this neglect or unawareness of the effect of the velocity of sound mathematically means that sound is assumed to be instantaneous, i.e its velocity infinitely large to reduce the term "h divided by the velocity of sound" to be zero.
This example shows that if we neglect the effect of velocity of sound when the splash is heard we will be making an error. And similarly if we neglect the effect of velocity of light to travel from the ends of the metre rod to strike our eye for us to have cognition of this distance, we would be accepting this standard length as an independent entity (as is the case for all science today) unaware that it is interrelated with the velocity of light c and some perception of time t. It is as if light travelling (c) in time (t) creates space ( the distance of 1 metre for instance) for us to see as depicted by Ahmed's triangle and equation (A) before, where it can be clearly seen mathematically that distance and time are all related via the velocity of light. This is the mystery of the Theory of Relativity which relates time with space, and from Ahmed's Triangle we can clearly see the reason as being totally non-mysterious.
So as our measuring perception of distance is dependent on c, we obviously cannot measure c in terms of the metre that we have laid down.
A physicist would immediately challenge this. He would claim that, there is nothing to prevent us measuring a distance of N metres accurately, and then measure the time for light to travel this distance, say T seconds with an atomic clock, and hey presto! We have the velocity of light:
c = N metres/ T seconds .............equation (B)
In this calculation of c which in text books is given as (nearly) 3x 108 m/s, our physicist has conveniently ignored the revelations of equation (A). After all, N metres is nothing but one metre multiplied N times, i.e N metre = N x 1 metre and from equation (A) if we substitute for 1 metre we get:
N metres = N x ( 1 metre) =N x (2 ct Cos
) metres, so that equation (B) becomes:c = N x (2 ct Cos
) metres/ T seconds............... equation (C)In equation (C) , the term c for velocity of light occurs on both sides of the equation, thus cancelling it out, signifying that notwithstanding any claim by a physicist, c cannot be determined from equation (B), (as revealed by equations (A) and (C)).
Thus the magnitude of the velocity of light c as calculated and accepted by modern physicists is shown to be a fallacy based on unawareness of the use of light and its velocity by our perceptive organ to lay down the standard unit of distance. The scientist has really in effect assumed the velocity of light to be infinite( i.e light is instantaneous) for the short distances AE and BE as in Ahmed's triangle and assumed t to be zero. That's how the triangle could be ignored. Thus in one instance (that of one metre) the scientist is assuming light to be instantaneous in the subconscious by ignoring Ahmed's Triangle, while in another instance(i.e.over a large multiple of 1 metre e.g. N metres) he is measuring and quantifying the velocity of light which he previously subliminally assumed to be infinite! So Infinity is 'measured' by refusing to see it as such and hence many scientific steps with epithets called "normalisation" abounds in science to explain the unexplainable.
Is it any wonder that paradoxes abound with the velocity of light as so carefully and experimentally measured? For instance c being the absolute velocity which nothing in the universe can surpass! Similar untold paradoxes would arise if a blind race who depended on the movement of sound for hearing, laid down a standard of length by this very movement, and later (perhaps thousands of years later having overlooked this co-relation ) tried to measure the 'velocity of sound' by their standard of length after having 'discovered' the notion of accurate time keeping by some other means.
All such measurements can be compared for futility to the attempts of a snake trying to swallow its head by its tail which however has no mouth!
Thus theoretically c is seen to be indeterminate by the application of the very methods so useful for determination of the velocities of moving objects in Newtonian Mechanics where the relevancy of Ahmed's Triangle is insignificant. Sanity and logic therefore dictates that outside the Newtonian domain of physics the interrelationship of space, time and the velocity of light as revealed by Ahmed's Triangle for laying down the standard of one metre, be recognised and the concept of c be accepted at the present time at best as possibly finite but indeterminate, as otherwise at worst it will remain infinite (instantaneous) and indeterminate for all time.
Ignoring of Ahmed's Triangle is quite an attractive proposition and is empirically sound as long as the goal of the empiricist is to deal in velocities not expressible in terms of c. For instance it was quite in order for the physicists of Newton's day to be blissfully ignorant of such a triangle as they were concerned with only objects of moderate velocities. Also such ignoring would be valid and useful even today if applied within the sphere of most engineering or technological activities where consolidation of knowledge within a known theoretical boundary is the aim.
But the plea to ignore the facts of Ahmed's Triangle in the context of "measuring the velocity of light and then using this "measured velocity" to probe and stretch the physical boundaries of the universe ( whether macroscopically, microscopically or otherwise) and thus increase the frontiers of scientific knowledge is totally fallacious and paradoxical ( as is clearly evident from cosmological and quantum findings of today).
We also use our faculty of sight to lay down the standard of time. When the sun in the heavens is observed to have travelled exactly 360 degrees we call it 24 hours. As the sun's apparent movement is averaged out and assumed constant, 24 hours is really a measurement of distance as travelled by the sun in the heavens by covering 360 degrees. As we are powerless to interfere with this universal clock, as the earth's rotational speed slows down we have to add beeps to our most sophisticated atomic clocks to remain in step with it. Even an atomic clock vibrates at a known frequency and has a fixed amplitude so that time measured can be translated into distance vibrated through etc etc.
Similarly a weight pulling down on a spring of constant stiffness will stretch the string a certain length and so measurement of weight therefore by this method is really a measurement of distance and hence dependent on c. Similarly length movement of mercury or other fluid in the stem of a thermometer can be shown to be dependent on c and how c can be calculated from such movements after finding suitable constants by experiments. ( These experiments are discussed in the Appendices and are similar to Faraday's experiments which showed c could be calculated from the current flow in an electrical circuit, i.e it is again the length of the circuit which is proportional to resistance of the circuit and hence to current flow).
The laying down of a unit of mass i.e. water occupying a volumetric capacity would show that mass is proportional to c3. Thus movement of light has been subliminally used by us to formulate the unit of mass and so instead of Gravity bending light the truth is that it is light which creates in our scientific consciousness the concepts of mass and gravity! And this is true of all other scientific concepts of today.
In the theory of relativity Lorenz's transformation equations ( on which later Einstein's equations are based), uses the constancy of a measured distance for such transformations. In quantum mechanics Planck's constant, Schroedinger equations etc are all dependent on the measured value of c denoting that all such areas of science are completely arbitrary methods for explaining the mysteries of the universe and are nothing but purely assumed models which have been made more and more convenient and polished by repeated work of many brilliant minds on them.
Many other scientific instances can be cited where the constancy of a fixed distance is used for a reference measurement in experiments and hence c is accepted subliminally as infinite.
We, having laid down our accurate and observed scientific units of various measurements have become enslaved by our own limitations. Can we ever progress from this bondage of inadequate concepts and comprehend the infinite?
Q5. So What now?
A5. Ahmed's triangle and equation (A) shows that our concepts of space and time are not independent concepts at all but are interlinked via c as through our faculty of sight. The fallacious measured value of c used by scientists as revealed in A4 are creating many paradoxes in modern science. Bizarre concepts are used to resolve these paradoxes eg clocks slowing down or speeding up, lengths shortening with speed etc in the realm of relativity, and of course the problems of Schroedinger's cat, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and matter being created out of empty space etc in the quantum domain. Many principles and hypotheses are required to sort out the paradoxes until such sciences can stand on such crutches. Every time a new ailment is found a new fix is formulated. Is it any wonder that what science there is, is consistent when all the principles which were formulated to remove inconsistencies are taken into account!
In any branch of science and measurement where c is used in a formula or concept ( as in almost all frontier areas of modern science including astronomy and cosmology, quantum mechanics etc, eg black holes, expanding universe, explanation of Olber's paradox etc.), that branch is not based on reality but is a mere existing model based on elimination of paradoxes by the formulation of laws, principles etc without any semblance of absolute truth whatever. (Note all such paradoxes emanate from the basic fallacy as exposed in Ahmed's Triangle ).
Although many experiments can be devised to verify the scientific truths of today, these are no more true than instruments of observations devised say a thousand years ago to measure the observed movement of sun, moon and the heavens to corroborate a geocentric universe! Today by tinkering with machine control loops and parameters a predicted series of outputs can be obtained from a series of inputs, but that do not imply we have got hold of an absolute scientific truth. It is only evidence of consistency in the modelling program.
As the absolute worlds of priests and priestesses in a God's temple, who held all the wisdom and knowledge of reality for centuries in their heyday have passed, so would the present world of knowledge and wisdom held by the present day scientists. Paranormal faculties are around the corner for man, and soon a faculty superior to sight is bound to emerge as can be deduced by the history of evolution of life on earth (e.g. as man is different to a worm or the worm is different to an amoeba, but from which each has evolved as the scientists would tell us). This world is not three dimensional but only appears to us to be so, because so far we have been given only our two eyes by the Creator. Perhaps it is time to reappreciate His gifts and pray for newer, wider perceptions than what we now have. All our present knowledge and civilisation is based on language. Perhaps telepathy (which is also faster than light) is the new faculty to found a superior civilisation of the future. A prerequisite for this appears to be however to acknowledge the inadequacy of our present day explanations of the universe and therefore not to accept them as absolute and final scientific conceptual truths beyond which there is no progression. Otherwise we trap ourselves in a conceptual scientific loop until a catastrophe annihilates us to allow some other life form to surge forward (as happened with dinosaurs in the past).
( The example of the dinosaur's extinction and the mammal's emergence on earth shows that just because there may be many stars, solar systems and planets in the universe it does not guarantee intelligent life for our SETI programmes, ( search for extra-terrestrial intelligence). Many systems with planets and atmosphere comparable to earth may be a prerequisite for life but not intelligent life, for which suitable catastrophes at appropriate time intervals also seem to be necessary.)
In subsequent chapters of the book "We Are Alone" we put forward a simple mathematical hypothesis for the universe which explains all cosmological paradoxes. And the beauty of this hypothesis is that it cannot be refuted by mere observations of the cosmos. By Occam's razor it is the simplest and can only be refuted by someone bodily going to the nearest star systems and perhaps landing on one of its planets and then bringing back the word! And in the Appendix we discuss a few experiments to substantiate our findings.
Book Purchasing Procedure
top
Go to Back