The Review of Symbolid Logic

Deer Dr. Jo Rennie, David de Hilster, Victor Cochetkov and respected others

       At first, I should present my deep thanks to all of you for the letters you sent to me recently.

       I ever said that the so-called relativity theory (either special or general) Einstein made has nothing worth for people to pay any solemn and strict attention in principle. The theory itself as well as the complete mathematical tools the theory uses (either Minkowski’s pseudo-space or whole Riemann’s differential geometry) are all wrong. If a theory cannot but be based upon some intuition or built only by “conventionalism” or “axiom system”, the essential of which would conflict to both the reality and logic foundations necessary to any science statement, any attempt to examine the concept or ideas of the theory by using physical realities or formal logic would be doomed to fail. And, it is the reason for people to have opinions quite divided from each other and, consequently, it is also the unique reason for me to impossibly take a simple way to join your discussions. Any significant and useful arguments must begin from a reliable or rational premise and, inversely, any discussion originated from a virtual assumption some person supported would be meaningless or as a waste of energy.

       I prefer to believe every honest researcher to should honestly accept such a fact: there is full of knotty problems, paradoxes and contradictories presented in philosophic epistemology, modern mathematics and theoretical physics. The human’s knowledge system is an inseparable whole in essential. Then, in order to really solve all of our interesting inquiries, the work we should try and finish would be to make a time of serious and logical arrangement from every elementary concept and to rationally answer series of the unsolved problems well-known to everybody, as such as what the inertial system really is in Newtonian mechanics, what the definition of turbulence is in fluid dynamics, how can we supply some certain physical connotation for the displacement current Maxwell suggest as a pure artificial assumption, how can we give the Michelson-Morley’s experiments a reasonable explanation? If the time adjustment commonly presented in GPS is necessary, does it really originate from space-time curve and should we regard the curved space-time as a kind of stiff metaphysics? What the object quantum mechanics studies is really? Is the thought current of axiomatization overflowed in the 20^th century really reliable or sensibly accepted?

       All of theses mean that it is insignificant or futile to make a simple and rapid discussion aimed at some singular proposition. In spite of the fact, I am still glad to briefly state my opinion about the time proposition.

       (1) Time may be regarded as an abstract, elementary, united, unique and self-evident concept and can be classified into the domain of science language and expression tool. (Since time is same as a tool or language, time must satisfy with the requirement of unambiguous meaning and, consequently, any modifier is totally dispensable in principle and, besides, easier causes some cognition confusion.) Time and space correspond respectively to two distinct concepts and show two kinds of different physical realities. Both of them are with different quantity dimensions and lack compatibility. And people cannot use them to construct a dimensionless and purely abstract space.

       (2) While time being as a unique, definite and abstract science concept, clock time or universal coordinate time (UTC) can only be regarded as a technique item, which connects with some measured result and measurement standard.

       (3) If it may be said that there present lots of cognition confusion about time, the reason would not originate from the time itself but from the confusion about the object we want to measure by through time coordinate.

       (4) For example, in SPR, the time is nothing but the time interval observed by some particular observer. Of course, along with the state of an observer varying, the observed time interval will differ from each other. And, it is irrational to make some qualified and particular observational result as an unvarying and universal metaphysics. Though a proper observational result is important and necessary within any engineering application research area, we should know the most essential aim of science statement would lie in ridding of the interfering from different researchers and trying to reveal a really objective character belong to the material object itself. So once Einstein took a particular and qualified experimental statement as a universal and unqualified truth, all things will be wrong.

       (5) In science research, event is as an improper or unreasonable call or predicate. Its intrinsic or fatal insufficiency would be lack of a definite restriction in logic supplied by some particular material object. Namely, event lacks of a definite logic subject and easier causes forms of confusion. Even though a particular event may reasonably be regarded as objective or real, an indispensable prerequisite would lie in that we should still know what a material reality is the logic subject of the given event or what finishes the given event. Clearly, forms of physical appearances can only logically originate from or depend upon the material subjects that make the appearances. So, even is a title full of logic ambiguity and must be replaced by some particular material object. Just for it, any proper physical law can logically belong to some material object that possesses and shows the law.

       (6) In fact, Michelson-Morley’s experiment would present a trivial result and correspond with every wave phenomena of any material field in logic. Inversely, if electromagnetic field can rationally be regarded as a real material existence, the electromagnetic wave is only as a kind of forms of material wave and, consequently, the electromagnetic wave velocity should be regarded as a material character parameter and rely upon the physical state of the studied electromagnetic field, though the variation of the state of electromagnetic field is usually too small for us to find it in most of cases when the dimension of a geometry space we studied is rather smaller than the electromagnetic wave velocity.

       (7) Accordingly, the so- called invariance principles of light speed would not only belong to electromagnetic field but generally present in all forms of material field. We can easier find sound wave to also coincide with the law. And, such characters would be trivial, understandable and easy to be accepted in logic.

       (8) Besides, a so-called frame would be unnecessary while any statement dealing with frame might imply some logic confusion. In this case, frame should connect with a specified velocity. But, according to the relativity principle initially supported by Poincare, there would be neither absolute movement nor real static state within the modern theoretical physics. In logic, it means the frame as well as all other concepts based upon the frame to be without any certain significance. Of course, well-known by everybody, a more essential and severe problem is how to supply a certain definition for the inertial system created originally by