Main Logo

Showing posts with label gravitation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gravitation. Show all posts

Monday, 1 June 2020

අපට නැති අපේ අධ්‍යාපනය

                                                   සිංහල ලිත් ඉලක්කම්

0  1   2    3    4   5  6  7  8  9





අපට නැති අපේ අධ්‍යාපනය

තපස්සු භල්ලුක ගැන දන්නවා ද
(http://www1.kalaya.org/2020/05/blog-post_31.html) ලිපියට ප්‍රතිචාර කිහිපයක් තිබුණා. මා නුදුටු ප්‍රතිචාරත් තියෙන්න ඇති. මා ගරු කරන හාමුදුරුනමක් මට පහත සඳහන් මූලාශ්‍ර එවා තිබුණා. කාගෙ කාගෙත් දැන ගැනීම සඳහා මා එය පළ කරනවා. බලාගෙන යනකොට තපස්සු භල්ලුක කතාව පඬි නැට්ටන්ට සුරංගනා කතාවක් කියල අහක දාන්න බැහැ. පඬි නැට්ටන් මා මෙන් නොව මහා මූලාශ්‍රකාරයන්.  

Tuesday, 11 February 2020

තොරතුරු, රටා, කතන්දර හා නිවුටන්

         සිංහල ලිත් ඉලක්කම්


තොරතුරු, රටා, කතන්දර හා නිවුටන්



මිනිසුන් කරන ප්‍රධාන කාර්යය දෙකක් නම් තොරතුරු එකතු කිරීම හා කතන්දර හැදීමයි. මේ දෙක අතර සම්බන්ධයක් ද තියෙනවා. තොරතුරු එකතු කරන්න බැහැ කතන්දරයක් නැතිව. එ වගේ ම කතන්දරයක් හදන්න බැහැ තොරතුරු නැතිව. ඒ අතර මිනිසුන් රටා හඳුනා ගැනීම ද කරනවා. රටා හඳුනා ගැනීම කතන්දරයක් හැදීමේ දී ඉවහල් වෙනවා. එය සාධාරණීකරණය සමග බැඳී තියෙනවා. 

Friday, 15 November 2019

මම දැන ගතිමි මම සැක කෙළෙමි

    සිංහල ලිත් ඉලක්කම් 


මම දැන ගතිමි මම සැක කෙළෙමි




බටහිර විද්‍යාවේ නිතර කියැවෙන දෙයක් තමයි යම්කිසි සංසිද්ධියක් නැවත නැවතත් පරීක්‍ෂණයට ලක් කිරීමට හැකි විය යුතු බව.  යම් කිසි පරීක්‍ෂණයක් අද කළත් හෙට කළත් ලන්ඩනයේ කළත් මොස්කව්හි කළත් එක ම ප්‍රතිඵලයක් ලබා දිය යුතු ය යන්නත් ඒ සමග කියැවෙනවා. මේ තමයි ඊනියා සාධාරණීත්වය නැත්නම් පොදු බව. ඒ සිද්ධිවල පොදු බව තේරුම් ගෙන ඒ සඳහා තමයි කතන්දර ගොතන්නෙ. එහෙමත් නැත්නම් ඊනියා ප්‍රවාද ගොඩ නගන්නෙ. ප්‍රවාදයක් කියන්නෙ කතන්දරයක්. 

Saturday, 13 July 2019

දෙවියන් ගුරුත්වාකර්ෂණය හා දේශපාලනය

දෙවියන් ගුරුත්වාකර්ෂණය හා දේශපාලනය



පංචෙන්ද්‍රිය ගෝචර නොවන දෙවියන් ගුරුත්වාකර්ෂණය හා තවත් දේ පිළිබඳ ව විශ්වකර්ම සමග කළ සාකච්ඡාව මේ සබැඳියෙන්

https://youtu.be/ennNO8gU7sQ

Wednesday, 4 October 2017

ගුරුත්වාකර්ෂණ බලය


ගුරුත්වාකර්ෂණ බලය





සමහරු හිතන්නෙ ගුරුත්වාකර්ෂණය කියල දෙයක් තියෙනවා කියලා. එය ඇත්තක් කියලත් කියනවා. ඇත්ත සත්‍යය ආදිය සත්බව නැත්නම් ඇති බව සමග බැඳිලා. අප ඇත්ත කියලා කියන දෙය තියෙන්න ඕන. ඒත් මේ තියෙනවා කියලා කියන්නෙ මොකක් ද? තියෙන දේ තියෙන බව අප දැනගන්න ඕන. එහෙම දැනගන්නෙ කොහොම ද? මේ ප්‍රශ්නයට දෙන පිළිතුර මොකක් ද? ගුරුත්වාකර්ෂණය තියෙනව ද?

Friday, 26 May 2017

වැටීම යනු ගුරුත්වාකර්ෂණය නො වේ




වැටීම යනු ගුරුත්වාකර්ෂණය නො වේ


මෙරට තරම් පඬියන් සිටින රටක් ලෝකයේ වෙන කොහේවත් නැතිවෙන්න පුළුවන්. ඔවුන් බොහෝ විට හේතුවාදීන්. එහෙත් හේතුව කියන්නෙ මොකක් ද කියලා දන්නෙ නැහැ. හේතුඵලවාදය ගැන නමට අහල තියෙනව විතරයි. ඔවුන්ට පටිච්චසමුප්පදාය යමක් ඇත්නම් තවත් යමක් ඇත, යමක් නැත්නම් තවත් යමක් නැත යන අර්ථයෙන් තේරෙන්නෙ නැහැ. පටිච්චසමුප්පදාය හේතුඵලවාදයක් මිස හේතුවාදයක් නො වෙයි.  එහි හේතුව හා ඵලය එකට හටගන්නේ. හේතුව නිසා ඵලය හටගන්නවා නො වෙයි. චතුරාර්ය සත්‍යය වුණත් ඇතැමුන් විග්‍රහ කරන්නේ හේතුවාදයක් ලෙස. එහෙත් එහි ඇත්තේ දුඃඛ සත්‍යය, සමුදය සත්‍යය මිසක් දුක හා දුකට හේතුව නො වෙයි. සමුදය සත්‍යය දුඃඛ සත්‍යය සමග ම ඇතිවන්නක්. බුදුන් වහන්සේ හේතුවාදි නො වෙයි. චතුරාර්ය සත්‍යය හේතුවාදයක් වී ඇත්තේ පැරණි බමුණන් හා නවීන සුදු බමුණන් අතින්.

Saturday, 22 September 2012

Incompleteness of Knowledge

Prof. Carlo Fonseka in his letter published on 1st September 2012 makes three statements which have to be replied before we discuss Gödel’s theorem and its implications as far as the theory of everything (ToE) is concerned. Let me begin with the statement regarding Dr. Leo Fernando. Prof. Fonseka states: “I dare to think that when Dr. Leo was flying safely from Colombo to London at a height of some 33,000 feet, he must have given thanks to the Almighty God of the Judaic Christian culture for the reliability of its so-called science. (You may care to know that in my view, the core truths of science e.g. the Earth orbits the Sun; organic evolution of living things; the structure of the DNA molecule, are totally independent of the culture of different human tribes.)” Whether Dr. Fernando thanks the Almighty or not, it does not disprove that human knowledge is created by human beings relative to a culture. In any event western science is not a product of the Christian Church (definitely not of the Catholic Church) but a product of Judaic Christian culture based on the Greek Judaic Christian Chinthanaya. Prof. Fonseka claims that in his view the so called truth of Earth orbiting the Sun is independent of the culture. There is a history of Earth orbiting the Sun and it is now well known that this was known in India before Copernicus is supposed to have “discovered” it. How the Indians knew it is not understood, but knowing that Budunvahanse had mentioned of thousands of Sakwalas long before the westerners came to “know” of galaxies in the twentieth century I am of the opinion that this knowledge was prathyaksha to Sammasambuddha without any theories or observations through telescopes. Copernicus and Galileo who were products of incipient Judaic Christian culture, though Catholics by religion, which was created by western modernity, only popularized this view without prathyaksha and faced the consequences resulting from the responses of the Catholic culture. The Catholic culture refused to believe that the Earth is not the centre of the Universe but the Judaic Christian Culture and its political hegemony could not be countered by Pope and the Cardinals. The Buddhist culture does not believe in organic evolution of living being and big bang which have been created in a Judaic Christian culture. I as a person living in the Sinhala Buddhist culture believe in Agganna Sutta and I have published a paper last year in a so called peer reviewed Chinese journal, which proposes a universe with Sanvatta and Vivatta Kalpa. However, I do not expect the westerners to believe my “theory”.

On Einstein’s theory of Gravitation Prof. Fonseka states: What settled the issue about the truth of relativity was not the soundness of human reasoning, but the evidence of our senses. On 29 May 1919 during an eclipse of the sun, the world’s leading astronomers including Sir Arthur Eddington tested Einstein’s prediction regarding the bending of light. The predicted displacement was 1.72 (seconds of arc); the observed displacement was 1.75 + or - .06. Thus the prediction was amply confirmed. In fact every single testable consequence of the theory of relativity hitherto examined has been confirmed. Therefore there is reason to accept the truth of the theory of relativity, until some observation contradicts it.” It has to be emphasised that when people talk of Einstein’s Gravitation, they do not mean a gravitational force and what is meant is his theory on space- time in the presence of matter and radiation. What Prof. Fonseka tries to say is that evidence of senses of human beings is the deciding factor and not the soundness of human reasoning. However, he himself ends that particular paragraph with “therefore there is reason to accept the truth of the theory of relativity”. In any event the Theory of General Relativity has failed to explain what is called dark energy and some other phenomena I have mentioned in my previous articles. Further Prof. Fonseka could not resist the temptation to quote Russell: "Before tackling Einstein’s law, it is as well to convince ourselves, on logical grounds, that Newton’s law of gravitation cannot be quite right." Russell mentions two things here. Firstly that Newton’s Law of Gravitation cannot be quite right. Thus if somebody says that Einstein incorporated Newton’s gravitation theory then the latter has incorporated a theory that is not quite right. Secondly Russell talks of convincing of oneself that Newton’s theory cannot be quite right on logical grounds.Thus Prof. Fonseka is not consistent in his statements and supporting statements.

This brings me to Gödel who found an inconsistency in the American Constitution which according to him could pave the way for a dictator. This became a problem when he was persuaded by Einstein and few others to apply for the American Citizenship. In any event whether Hawkins believes in a ToE or not Gödel’s incompleteness theorems say that a formal system that has some Arithmetic in it is neither complete nor consistent. It is not complete in the sense that there are true statements in the system within the meaning of its language that cannot be derived from the axioms of the system. Now a ToE has to be formulated within Theoretical Physics which is a formal system that incorporates some Arithmetic. Theoretical physics contains quantifiers such as for all, many etc., and I am of the view that Gödel’s theorem is applicable there. (I admit that I am no authority but I have reason to believe so.) This implies that even if a ToE is formulated there will be true statements within Theoretical Physics that cannot be derived from the ToE which is supposed to incorporate the four known interactions in Physics at present. These true statements within the meaning of Theoretical Physics either would have to be considered as new axioms arising out of new interactions hitherto unknown and a new ToE would be needed to incorporate these new interactions. It would lead to infinite regression It should be remembered that in the nineteenth century there were only two interactions known, namely Newton’s gravitation and electro magnetism, and that Einstein wasted his life after formulation of his General Relativity by trying to incorporate his General Relativity and Maxwell’s Electromagnetism.


Copyright Prof. Nalin De Silva

Saturday, 1 September 2012

Gravitation, ToE and Prathyaksha

Prof. Carlo Fonseka in his article titled “what are things made of” has chosen three topics other than how he wanted to give up Medicine for Physics after listening to a lecture by Dr. Muthukumarana. I wish he did so by any means available at that time as we could have discussed these problems in Physics at a technical level. Instead we have to deal with popular literature such as “50 physics ideas you really need to know”. Joanne Baker the authour of the book has studied Physics at Cambridge as an undergraduate and has done her Ph. D. in Astrophysics at Sydney. Apparently her specialty is space and earth sciences, at Nature Magazine (not sure whether it is the Nature journal) according to Google but no mention has been made of Cosmology, High Energy Physics or General Relativity. Astrophysics is a very vast subject and it is not stated the area in which she has specialized. Nevertheless, I have no hesitation to accept Baker as an authority on Gravitation and General Relativity not because Prof. Fonseka has quoted her as an authority on this important question related to incorporation of gravitation into special relativity, but since I know that even so called authorities make mistakes. However, what I cannot understand is the following statement by Prof. Fonseka. “Prof. Nalin knows a great deal more mathematics and physics than I do and I will discuss such esoteric matters with him privately. The trouble is that I cannot make myself treat him as an unbiased authority on western scientific thought because he routinely dismisses it as "pattapal boru". My problem is that I am not in a position to decide how he would treat me when he discusses these matters with me privately. In any event these are not private matters, and I am biased to my views and not an authority in any subject. I wonder whether there are any unbiased authorities in any field.

Without being technical I will try to explain why Gravitation has not been incorporated to Special Relativity in the formulation of General Relativity, without attempting to quote authorities as in the Biblical tradition. Newton’s theory of gravitation talks of a force of attraction between any two particles in the universe. Apples and coconuts fall to the earth because of this force according to Newton. Now what is characteristic of this force is that near the earth all bodies such as apples, coconuts fall with the same acceleration irrespective of the masses of the particle. This is essentially what Galileo had observed in Pisa. If one were to drop objects in an accelerating rocket far away from massive bodies one would observe that those bodies move towards one’s feet with the same acceleration provided of course one’s feet and not the head, are on the floor of the rocket. The experimenter not knowing that he is on an accelerating rocket would come to the conclusion that something on the floor of the rocket is attracting all bodies towards it. This was a thought experiment that Einstein used to describe and the conclusion he came to was that the gravitational force experienced say on earth is the same as what is known as an inertial force experienced locally in a rocket moving with the relevant acceleration. To him gravitational force was a fictitious force imagined by observers who did not know that they were in accelerating frames of reference such as rockets and thought that they were in what are known as inertial frames of reference in which Newton’s Laws are said to be valid. Gravitational force is a fictitious force somewhat like the centrifugal force, and centrifugal forces are inertial forces, as any second year student studying Classical Mechanics would know. Prof. Fonseka may consult the Professor of Physics mentioned by him on centrifugal force.

In Newton’s inertial frames of reference an object accelerates when a force acts on it. In particular the objects accelerate under gravitational forces. In Einstein’s scheme there is no gravitational force, and so called freely falling bodies do not accelerate as there is no gravitational force. The space - time is “warped” by the presence of matter and radiation, and objects (test particles) move along what are known as geodesics in curved space- time “equivalent” of straight lines in Euclidean space. The theory of General Relativity, which I have studied though not at Cambridge or Sydney but at Peradeniya reading technical books on the subject on my own and at Sussex, describes space - time in the presence of matter and radiation, while the theory of special relativity describe space - time in the absence of matter and radiation. When the space – time is curved the geodesics become the equivalent of straight lines in Special Relativity. Gravitational force has been abolished in General Relativity and not incorporated and test particles move along geodesics without being accelerated.

On the big bang theory Prof. Fonseka I am afraid is wrong when he says matter came into existence at the big bang. Big bang is what is known as a singularity without an explanation within General theory of Relativity. Big bang is associated with “infinite” temperature and density of energy and on cooling this energy is converted in stages to elementary particles. In any event big bang has no explanation and it is conceptually not much different from the creation of the “world” by God. In either case there is creation without an explanation the only difference being the existence of a creator in one case. Big bang as I have said does not explain the interactions between particles, it describes the evolution of the universe in general. The so called theory of everything (ToE) is on interactions between particles and so far standard theory has incorporated what are known as the electromagnetic force, the weak force and the strong force. It has failed to incorporate general relativity. The string theory, which is not testable at present has also failed to combine Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity. In any event big bang is not a ToE though all the particles are found in the universe whose study comes under Cosmology. It is the interactions among particles that any ToE is supposed to describe. Electrostatics and Magneto statics existed separately before Faraday and Maxwell, and they were combined into one electromagnetic theory by Maxwell. Western Physicists have been trying to combine all the interactions into one grand theory and I would say this need to combine all into one stems from God theory, if I may call it a theory, of Judaic Christian culture. No knowledge is culture independent, and I will await the answer by Prof. Fonseka on ToE and Gödel’s Theorem.

I have never claimed that by what I “call the cognitive process of "prathyaksha" it is possible for one to comprehend intellectually all one really needs to know in life on Earth”. I depend on my prathyaksha as far as possible according to Kalama Sutta, and when I am not competent I depend on the prathyaksha of my Vinnus again according to Kalama Sutta. I practice this method as the so called empirical hypothetico-deductive methodology of so called science is nothing but model building or telling stories in the Judaic Christian culture. Gravitation cannot be felt by sense organs, and none of the examples cited by Prof. Fonseka such as making airplanes could claim that the stories in the background are correct or approaching “reality”. In certain cases they work up to a point but fails miserably after. These stories are “pattapal boru” conceptually, which work some times. The theory of gravitation is one of the biggest “pattapal boru” though it is taught to students. The Newtonian story does not explain the motion of the planets around the sun and though it has been falsified in whatever sense one can think of it is not discarded. It is the same with all civil engineering work which use flat Euclidean geometry, as according to General Relativity space – time is not flat. The theories, interpretations, concepts, observations etc., in so called science combine to give a consistent picture approximately within limits and that is all. Higgs Boson is not different from this scheme in the Judaic Christian culture, and one may say the belief in this scheme is religious if one does not distinguish between culture and religion.

Copyright Prof. Nalin De Silva

Friday, 30 September 2011

On so called scientific knowledge IV

The apples and coconuts fall to the earth because of gravitation according to Newton. During Newton’s time the concept of force was associated with pulling and pushing. One could pull or push an object by using a force, which is applied through a rope or a pole or some such object, if not hands or other parts of the body are used directly. In other words a force, not a refined concept then, could be applied on an object only with another object that touched the first. However, unfortunately for Newton he could not show to the others the rope or the object that pulled the coconut or the apple to the earth. When some of his contemporaries wanted to see the rope Newton could only say it was action at a distance. Einstein had not formulated his special theory of relativity then and there was no upper limit on the speed with which “communication” between objects took place. Thus Newton was of the view that it was action at a distance instantly. The earth instantly exerted a force, the gravitational force, on the coconut that made the latter to come down once it was released.

The so called gravitational field was a later introduction following Maxwell who introduced the concept of field in connection with what is now known as electromagnetism. With the introduction of the gravitational field it was possible to describe how an object exerted the gravitational force on a distant second object without directly touching it. However it did not answer the questions that were later asked by Earnest Mach the Austrian Physicist cum Philosopher. Neither the gravitational force nor the gravitational field were not sensory perceptible and the question was whether gravitation existed as a “phenomenon”. In other words it became a problem in Ontology or theory of existence. Though Ontology and Epistemology are considered to belong to different branches in western Philosophy for Buddhists it is not so. It is knowledge of existence that we deal with and it is not possible to draw a line between epistemology and ontology.

How does one prove that “things” exist? One could say that sensory perceptible objects do exist while “objects” that are not sensory perceptible do not exist. Existence is used here in the conventional sense whatever it means. If one defines existence that way then not only Natha Deviyo but also the almighty God of Abrahamic religions does not exist. However, one could say an “object” that is sensory perceptible to at least a few human beings does exist, and if we believe the statements of some people that they have seen various gods then we could say that gods exist. However, others may say that the people who claim to have “seen” gods (gods experienced not necessarily with eyes) are affected by hallucination and they perceive “things” that do not exist. However this begs the question as we have already assumed that what these people perceive do not exist. The question is how we do know that those “objects” “phenomena” experienced by them do not exist? Let us leave the gods and come down to earth with or without gravitation to decide whether gravitation exists. Obviously not even Newton had felt gravitation at that time, and people such as the experimental Chemist whom was referred to in the previous instalment began to feel gravitation only after generations of students had been taught that coconuts are attracted to earth by the gravitational force.

Why did educated people before Einstein formulated his General Theory of Relativity and many such people even after, assume that gravitation existed? In other words how did they know that gravitation existed? It was not because they felt gravitation but simply because gravitation was able to explain why coconuts and apples fell to the ground. Now falling of coconuts was sensory perceptible unlike devivaru to almost all people and gravitation though sensory not perceptible explained a sensory perceptible phenomenon. It may be assumed that until a better definition is formulated, as far as non sensory perceptible “objects”, “phenomena” are concerned one way to show that they exist in the conventional sense is to show that some sensory perceptible phenomena are explained in terms of the relevant non sensory perceptible “objects” and “phenomena” in a consistent manner. Then of course the existence of non sensory perceptible “phenomena” “objects” is assumed if the animals are sensitive to those objects. However one could object to the latter by saying that even there the human beings explain the behaviour of animals on the assumption that such and such non sensory perceptible “objects” “phenomena” exist for the animals to behave in that particular manner. In other words there exist sensory perceptible objects and non sensory perceptible objects in the conventional sense, the sensory perceptible objects being those that could be “felt” with the five sense organs (in this section mind is deliberately omitted from been considered as the sixth sense organ though the Buddhists may object to it, as the western scientists and others of their ilk would not entertain a world grasped only with the mind) and of course with the mind (without mind nothing can be grasped), while the non sensory perceptible objects are those the humans assume to exist in order to explain sensory perceptible “objects” and “phenomena”.

We find dogs reacting in very strange ways when we do not feel anything extra ordinary. The dogs are used to “sense” the trail of a criminal and this “phenomenon” is explained by claiming that they (dogs not the criminals) are sensitive to smells that the humans usually cannot sense. There is no direct experience for the human beings of the smells or the sounds that the dogs are sensitive to, and we believe that those sounds and smells exist because that explains the behaviour of the dogs under certain circumstances. With the help of existing western Physics one could say that the dogs are sensitive to certain sound frequencies to which the humans are not sensitive. It is said that the some birds and fish are sensitive to magnetism or magnetic fields though the humans have no sense organ that would enable them to “feel” magnetism. Even though the human cannot feel magnetism through their sense organs they assume that magnetism and objects with magnetic properties exist that attract metals. People would have probably observed that certain objects had the ability to attract objects such as metals and if we go by the western thinking one person long long ago would have explained this phenomenon of attraction using the concept of magnetism. In Sinhala magnets are called “kantham” derived from kantha most probably of Sanskrit origin, meaning to attract as in the case of suriyakantha, the flower attracted to sun, and of course “kantha pakshaya” or women to whom men are attracted. No “scientist” in the ancient or modern world has explained this attraction using a non perceptible concept representing something that exists in women but the poets, not sparing Bhikkus such as Ven. Thotagamuwe Rahula Thera, have been busy from time immemorial describing the attractive features of the ladies. In a sense it is good that no “scientist” has been able to come out with a dry non sensory perceptible concept to describe this attractive feature for we would have lost all those beautiful poems on women by Rahula Hamuduruwan Vahansela and Sarachchandras not to mention the Bharath and other poets. How many poets other than a few postmodernist pundits who want to show off that they are third rate imitators, have written poems on magnets? Incidentally I use Bharath not to mean present India or an ancient India that did not exist before the British came to our part of the world. In my vocabulary Dambadiva means that land mass north of Sri Lanka or Helaya or Lanka, that existed before the Aryans migrated and Bharath means an area not necessarily coinciding with Dambadiva, after the Vedic culture was established by the Aryans mixing different cultures until the British conquered and founded India. (To be continued)

Copyright Prof. Nalin De Silva

On so called scientific knowledge – III

What is gravitation? The Cambridge educated Chemist who has obtained a Ph. D. in experimental Chemistry from that University, there being not many Theoretical Chemists in the country, has managed to feel gravitation without any extraordinary sense organ. How did and how does he feel gravitation? It is not only him who feels gravitation, as I have found many students at least in the Faculty of Science of the University of Kelaniya accept gravitation as they believe in say experiencing a flower. In fact one of the students told me that he is able to stand up because of gravitation without realizing that many people would claim that they fall because of gravitation. The student concerned is not a moron but probably he thought that he could feel gravitation while he stood up and walked, and if not for the floor he would have been dragged towards the centre of the earth by gravitation.

I must say a few words on western Experimental Chemistry and Theoretical Chemistry and in general western Experimental Science and Theoretical Science before we analyze gravitation in detail. According to a Professor who happens to be an Experimental Chemist in Sri Lanka trained in USA, who did not know of the existence of Theoretical Chemistry until recently, at present Experimental Chemistry is more advanced than Theoretical Chemistry. It may be so but it implies that western Chemistry consists of some experimental facts that cannot be explained satisfactorily. Western Theoretical Science tries to explain by means of theorizing, the knowledge acquired by Experimental Science which of course is based on some basic theory. In the branch of western science I am a little familiar with, namely western Physics, it happens both ways. For example in String Theory there is so much knowledge created in the past few decades without being validated by experiments. Then in Cosmology, western scientists talk of multiverse (many universes) theoretically without any observational knowledge, while they have gathered information of what they call dark energy (the energy due to which the universe has been expanding with an acceleration for the last seven billion years or so as against with deceleration in the previous seven billion years according to western Cosmologists) without being able to explain theoretically for almost fifteen years. In other words western Cosmologists and Astrophysicists do not know what dark energy is. They know that the universe has been expanding with acceleration without knowing what made it to accelerate about seven billion years ago. It appears that a similar situation exists in western Chemistry if we are to believe the learned Professor in Experimental Chemistry.

As I have mentioned previously Galileo and Newton formed a good pair in western Physics combining experiments (observations) and theory. What Galileo had observed/preached in Pisa as well as in Padua in Italy were mainly that what are known as freely falling bodies come down to earth with the same acceleration near the surface of the earth, and that the earth went round the sun without an iota of experimental or observational evidence. The latter information had been obtained from Copernicus who in turn had heard it from Arabs who had been to Bharath. The Astronomers and Mathematicians such as Aryabhatta in Bharath had knowledge of earth going round the sun many centuries before Galileo. It was Newton’s greatness that he was able to combine both these phenomena, if one may call them so, with his theory of gravitation (it is said that the Bharath Mathematicians had speculated on gravitation) and what are known as laws of motion. Now that they have been elevated to theories and laws and no wonder that our Chemist and students feel gravitation through normal sense organs though many people in the world would not have any knowledge of gravitation. The former have been conditioned to think that there is gravitation and they are now being able to “feel” gravitation as their minds have got used to the idea of gravitation. As far as many of the latter are concerned there is no gravitation and they do not make a fuss about feeling gravitation through their senses. I think that those who do not have a sense of gravitation are more sensible than the educated who claim that they can feel gravitation.

Unfortunately for Newton and his followers throughout the world there are many problems that the so called theory of gravitation and the laws of motion face. According to the theory of gravitation and the laws of motion, what a name the laws of motion, it only reflects the arrogance of the westerners, the planets should go round the sun in fixed ellipses but none of the planets obey Newton. They go round the sun dragging the perihelion or the point closest to the sun, and this phenomenon is called the advance of the perihelion. This was known especially in the case of Mercury but Newton or his followers could not explain this discrepancy. Of course the laws of motion had other problems, the most acute being the impossibility of observing the absolute space devoid of any matter or radiation or the first non inertial frame of reference. The moment one finds oneself in this absolute space it ceases to be an absolute space as now there is matter even if one does not consider the presence of mind. Laws of motion are said to be valid in a special type of frames of reference known as inertial frames of reference which are not observable! This speaks volumes for the so called empirical science and later on in the latter part of the nineteenth century the Austrian Physicist cum Philosopher Earnest Mach, one of the founders of positivism, was very critical about these non observables in western Physics.

Now according to the old scientific method, meaning the pre Popperian scientific method - it is interesting to note that the so called scientific method has also changed over the years - a theory, deductions from which do not tally with observations, should be discarded. Though the deduction from Newtonian Gravitation Theory that tells the world that the planets move around the sun along fixed ellipses is in contradiction with observations, the theory was not discarded. In fact after more than three hundred years it is still taught in schools and universities around the world while it goes around the sun in a “moving” ellipse, and many educated people including the Cambridge educated western Chemist who can feel gravitation is under the impression that the Newtonian Theory of Gravitation is valid and that a gravitational force (field) exists independent of the observer as an objective reality. Contrary to the opinion of the Cambridge educated lecturer in western Chemistry, nobody can feel gravitation for the simple reason that there does not exist any gravitational force or field!

Mach who was against using concepts of objects that cannot be observed was critical of the gravitational force as well as of the inertial frames of reference. In fact he objected to the concept of an atom being used in western Physics (or Chemistry) as atoms are not sensory perceptible. Thus he wanted to banish atoms as well as inertial frames of reference together with gravitation that could not be “grasped” through the five senses. His ideas influenced Einstein who formulated the Theory of General Relativity not only without inertial frames of reference but also without gravitation. Einstein said that coconuts or apples fall to the earth, not because of gravitation, but due to variations in what is known as the Riemann Curvature Tensor. Thus according to Einstein there is no universal gravitation and had banished inertial frames of reference.

In spite of Einstein, inertial frames and gravitation are taught to the students and the question may be asked as to why the students have to go through the task of learning of objects that do not even exist in the sense that the flowers exit. We can also ask the question as to whether Newton’s theory of gravitation is a myth. Was it an illusion, delusion or hallucination? We continue to hear that gravitation exists when there is nothing called gravitation. Can those who talk of gravitation be called scientific hallucinates? Then what can be said of the western Chemist and others who can feel “gravitation”? (To be continued)

Copyright Prof. Nalin De Silva