"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Michael Varney" wrote in message
...

"V.K.Tamhane" wrote in message
om...
Following paradox was included in my last message, but a poster
advised me to post it separately. He also told me that Dirk Van de
moortel is expert in pin-pointing errors in such things, therefore he
is specially invited.

Let me save him the trouble of pointing out that there are no paradoxes
in
SR.

There is one paradoxal phenomenon though.
For laymen the mathematics is easy but the concepts are hard.
That's why we have so many confused laymen (end even some
engineers) around here :-)

Dirk Vdm

Absolutely. Actually when I read Tamhane's paradox I could not really even
understand what he was talking about.

You will never understand what I talk about, because as said by
Dirk, you are the person who finds it hard to grasp the concepts. We
are on the opposite poles of the earth. You are purely a mathematician
and I am purely a conceptual person. Now what Dirk says is not
correct. There are two types of people. A person with a mathematical
bent will find concepts hard. There are people like Faraday who are
very weak in mathematics but are strong in the field of concepts. And
of course there are people who are endowed with both the mental
faculties.

I am glad you could Dirk. But
getting back to what you said - true, true, a thousand times over. I first
learnt relativity in my teens when I was 15. The math was nothing.
Understanding what the hell is happing was the problem. Which is why I
laugh when this turkey says things like 'If you think I will start taking
liking for the abstract mathematical ideas in modern physics, which has
become nothing but stinking stagnated gutter, for the lack of fresh
conceptual inputs, you are sadly mistaken.' In the case of SR the
mathematics is nothing - you only need first year calculus, for EM some
parts of second year calculus. It is understanding what it is going on, ie
the physics, that is hard. Even after all these years I still get a kick
out of seeing something I did not see before.

Thanks
Bill

SR is an exception, which is not based on complex mathematics.
Any way basic logic behind SR is wrong, and don't take my word for
that. Take those of reputed accomplished scietists. But right or
wrong, I agree that it is purely based on concepts. Can you say the
same is the case with other branches in advanced physics? If there is
any subject I like most, it is physics, not a mathematical physics but
conceptual physics. Can you explain me purely on the basis of
concepts, what a virtual photon is? If you can't, then you too don't
have any idea what this thing is. But once this idea is accepted, any
attempt to show it wrong, are steadfastly stonewalled. True physics is
conceptual. Once these are clear, then all the mathematics that follow
also becomes clear. Anything that cannot be explained on the basis of
concepts is pure fantansy, in which some mathematicians indulge and
build castles in the air.

V.K.Tamhane wrote:


SR is an exception, which is not based on complex mathematics.
Any way basic logic behind SR is wrong, and don't take my word for
that. Take those of reputed accomplished scietists. But right or
wrong, I agree that it is purely based on concepts. Can you say the
same is the case with other branches in advanced physics? If there is
any subject I like most, it is physics, not a mathematical physics but
conceptual physics. Can you explain me purely on the basis of
concepts, what a virtual photon is? If you can't, then you too don't
have any idea what this thing is. But once this idea is accepted, any
attempt to show it wrong, are steadfastly stonewalled. True physics is
conceptual. Once these are clear, then all the mathematics that follow
also becomes clear. Anything that cannot be explained on the basis of
concepts is pure fantansy, in which some mathematicians indulge and
build castles in the air.

There are exactly two ways of demolishing a theory in physics:

1. Show there is an -internal- mathematical contradiction.

2. Show, by vetted and reproduced experiment that a prediction of the
theory is wrong.

You have done neither.

Bob Kolker

"Robert J. Kolker" escribió en el mensaje
news:ZE2oc.25614$z06.4226123@attbi_s01...


V.K.Tamhane wrote:


SR is an exception, which is not based on complex mathematics.
Any way basic logic behind SR is wrong, and don't take my word for
that. Take those of reputed accomplished scietists. But right or
wrong, I agree that it is purely based on concepts. Can you say the
same is the case with other branches in advanced physics? If there is
any subject I like most, it is physics, not a mathematical physics but
conceptual physics. Can you explain me purely on the basis of
concepts, what a virtual photon is? If you can't, then you too don't
have any idea what this thing is. But once this idea is accepted, any
attempt to show it wrong, are steadfastly stonewalled. True physics is
conceptual. Once these are clear, then all the mathematics that follow
also becomes clear. Anything that cannot be explained on the basis of
concepts is pure fantansy, in which some mathematicians indulge and
build castles in the air.

There are exactly two ways of demolishing a theory in physics:

1. Show there is an -internal- mathematical contradiction.

Try to explain this one to Varney or Uncle Al and get ready to be flammed.
:-)

2. Show, by vetted and reproduced experiment that a prediction of the
theory is wrong.

You have done neither.

Bob Kolker

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:ZE2oc.25614$z06.4226123@attbi_s01...
V.K.Tamhane wrote:


SR is an exception, which is not based on complex mathematics.
Any way basic logic behind SR is wrong, and don't take my word for
that. Take those of reputed accomplished scietists. But right or
wrong, I agree that it is purely based on concepts. Can you say the
same is the case with other branches in advanced physics? If there is
any subject I like most, it is physics, not a mathematical physics but
conceptual physics. Can you explain me purely on the basis of
concepts, what a virtual photon is? If you can't, then you too don't
have any idea what this thing is. But once this idea is accepted, any
attempt to show it wrong, are steadfastly stonewalled. True physics is
conceptual. Once these are clear, then all the mathematics that follow
also becomes clear. Anything that cannot be explained on the basis of
concepts is pure fantansy, in which some mathematicians indulge and
build castles in the air.

There are exactly two ways of demolishing a theory in physics:

1. Show there is an -internal- mathematical contradiction.

2. Show, by vetted and reproduced experiment that a prediction of the
theory is wrong.


There's a third: 3. Show, by vetted and reproduced experiment that a
postulate of the theory is wrong.

Paul Cardinale

In article , (Paul Cardinale) writes:
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:ZE2oc.25614$z06.4226123@attbi_s01...
V.K.Tamhane wrote:


SR is an exception, which is not based on complex mathematics.
Any way basic logic behind SR is wrong, and don't take my word for
that. Take those of reputed accomplished scietists. But right or
wrong, I agree that it is purely based on concepts. Can you say the
same is the case with other branches in advanced physics? If there is
any subject I like most, it is physics, not a mathematical physics but
conceptual physics. Can you explain me purely on the basis of
concepts, what a virtual photon is? If you can't, then you too don't
have any idea what this thing is. But once this idea is accepted, any
attempt to show it wrong, are steadfastly stonewalled. True physics is
conceptual. Once these are clear, then all the mathematics that follow
also becomes clear. Anything that cannot be explained on the basis of
concepts is pure fantansy, in which some mathematicians indulge and
build castles in the air.

There are exactly two ways of demolishing a theory in physics:

1. Show there is an -internal- mathematical contradiction.

2. Show, by vetted and reproduced experiment that a prediction of the
theory is wrong.


There's a third: 3. Show, by vetted and reproduced experiment that a
postulate of the theory is wrong.

Well, this is really a special case of 2. A prediction of the theory
is any logical statement that can be generated using its postulates.
This includes the postulates themselves.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

"César Sirvent" wrote in message
. ..

"Robert J. Kolker" escribió en el mensaje
news:ZE2oc.25614$z06.4226123@attbi_s01...


V.K.Tamhane wrote:


SR is an exception, which is not based on complex mathematics.
Any way basic logic behind SR is wrong, and don't take my word for
that. Take those of reputed accomplished scietists. But right or
wrong, I agree that it is purely based on concepts. Can you say the
same is the case with other branches in advanced physics? If there is
any subject I like most, it is physics, not a mathematical physics but
conceptual physics. Can you explain me purely on the basis of
concepts, what a virtual photon is? If you can't, then you too don't
have any idea what this thing is. But once this idea is accepted, any
attempt to show it wrong, are steadfastly stonewalled. True physics is
conceptual. Once these are clear, then all the mathematics that follow
also becomes clear. Anything that cannot be explained on the basis of
concepts is pure fantansy, in which some mathematicians indulge and
build castles in the air.

There are exactly two ways of demolishing a theory in physics:

1. Show there is an -internal- mathematical contradiction.

Try to explain this one to Varney or Uncle Al and get ready to be flammed.
:-)

Actually Ceaser although I agree with Bob the issue is far from clear cut.
Wittgenstein and Turing had a famous debate about it (it goes without saying
I side with Turing). I have given an overview elsewhere but here simply
note that the Dirac delta function when first introduced and used was
internally inconsistent. Did that invalidate the theories that used it?
No - you just had to wait for the mathematicians to fix it up. Basically
if a theory is fundamentally ok and you discover a contradiction you can
always fix it up. Another example is linearised gravity. It has internal
contradictions that are easy to fix up and once you do that you get GR.

Thanks
Bill


2. Show, by vetted and reproduced experiment that a prediction of the
theory is wrong.

You have done neither.

Bob Kolker

"V.K.Tamhane" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote
in message ...

"Michael Varney" wrote in message
...

"V.K.Tamhane" wrote in message
om...
Following paradox was included in my last message, but a poster
advised me to post it separately. He also told me that Dirk Van de
moortel is expert in pin-pointing errors in such things, therefore
he
is specially invited.

Let me save him the trouble of pointing out that there are no
paradoxes
in
SR.

There is one paradoxal phenomenon though.
For laymen the mathematics is easy but the concepts are hard.
That's why we have so many confused laymen (end even some
engineers) around here :-)

Dirk Vdm

Absolutely. Actually when I read Tamhane's paradox I could not really
even
understand what he was talking about.

You will never understand what I talk about,

Correct, because I will never accept that a charge at rest that experiences
an EM force is not in an electric field.

because as said by
Dirk, you are the person who finds it hard to grasp the concepts.

I would be very interested in where Dirk ever said that. Besides why would
that be of any relevance to you? - you think Dirk is wrong anyway. It is a
fact though that Dirk grasps physics concepts better than I do; which is one
reason I post; to learn from my betters. All I can see from your posts is
an attempt to prove others wrong with statements they have no idea what they
are talking about and little actual physical reasoning.

We are on the opposite poles of the earth. You are purely a mathematician
and I am purely a conceptual person.

Yes, you have the concept that a charge at rest experiencing an
electromagnetic force is not in an electric field when the definition of
electric field says it is.

Now what Dirk says is not
correct. There are two types of people. A person with a mathematical
bent will find concepts hard. There are people like Faraday who are
very weak in mathematics but are strong in the field of concepts. And
of course there are people who are endowed with both the mental
faculties.

And I suppose your one of those? Why is it crackpots always seem to think
they are better than everyone else; yet all the evidence points to them
being not only wrong (I am often wrong - so that others are does not worry
me too much) but being mentally deficient by not recognizing their errors
when it is pointed out to them? I suppose it is part of them being a
crackpot.


I am glad you could Dirk. But
getting back to what you said - true, true, a thousand times over. I
first
learnt relativity in my teens when I was 15. The math was nothing.
Understanding what the hell is happing was the problem. Which is why I
laugh when this turkey says things like 'If you think I will start
taking
liking for the abstract mathematical ideas in modern physics, which has
become nothing but stinking stagnated gutter, for the lack of fresh
conceptual inputs, you are sadly mistaken.' In the case of SR the
mathematics is nothing - you only need first year calculus, for EM some
parts of second year calculus. It is understanding what it is going on,
ie
the physics, that is hard. Even after all these years I still get a
kick
out of seeing something I did not see before.

Thanks
Bill

SR is an exception, which is not based on complex mathematics.
Any way basic logic behind SR is wrong, and don't take my word for
that. Take those of reputed accomplished scietists.

Exactly who would they be?

But right or
wrong, I agree that it is purely based on concepts. Can you say the
same is the case with other branches in advanced physics? If there is
any subject I like most, it is physics, not a mathematical physics but
conceptual physics. Can you explain me purely on the basis of
concepts, what a virtual photon is?

Yep - see Feynman - QED - The Strange Story of Light and Matter.

If you can't, then you too don't
have any idea what this thing is. But once this idea is accepted, any
attempt to show it wrong, are steadfastly stonewalled.

Because your premise that such ideas are not based on concepts is
incorrect - it is based on the logical consequences of concepts that have
strong experimental support.

True physics is
conceptual. Once these are clear, then all the mathematics that follow
also becomes clear. Anything that cannot be explained on the basis of
concepts is pure fantansy, in which some mathematicians indulge and
build castles in the air.

Mathematics is simply the expression of those concepts in its most natural
language; a language you seem unable to grasp Probably because your logical
faculty is so impaired as to not understand the meaning of the Lorentz force
law in physical terms. What it means is that a stationary charge
experiencing an electromagnetic force is in an electric field.

Replying to this guy always gives me a laugh
Bill

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
"V.K.Tamhane" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote
in message ...

"Michael Varney" wrote in message
...

"V.K.Tamhane" wrote in message
om...
Following paradox was included in my last message, but a poster
advised me to post it separately. He also told me that Dirk Van de
moortel is expert in pin-pointing errors in such things, therefore
he
is specially invited.

Let me save him the trouble of pointing out that there are no
paradoxes
in
SR.

There is one paradoxal phenomenon though.
For laymen the mathematics is easy but the concepts are hard.
That's why we have so many confused laymen (end even some
engineers) around here :-)

Dirk Vdm

Absolutely. Actually when I read Tamhane's paradox I could not really
even
understand what he was talking about.

You will never understand what I talk about,

Correct, because I will never accept that a charge at rest that experiences
an EM force is not in an electric field.

because as said by
Dirk, you are the person who finds it hard to grasp the concepts.

I would be very interested in where Dirk ever said that. Besides why would
that be of any relevance to you? - you think Dirk is wrong anyway. It is a
fact though that Dirk grasps physics concepts better than I do; which is one
reason I post; to learn from my betters. All I can see from your posts is
an attempt to prove others wrong with statements they have no idea what they
are talking about and little actual physical reasoning.

We are on the opposite poles of the earth. You are purely a mathematician
and I am purely a conceptual person.

Yes, you have the concept that a charge at rest experiencing an
electromagnetic force is not in an electric field when the definition of
electric field says it is.

Now what Dirk says is not
correct. There are two types of people. A person with a mathematical
bent will find concepts hard. There are people like Faraday who are
very weak in mathematics but are strong in the field of concepts. And
of course there are people who are endowed with both the mental
faculties.

And I suppose your one of those? Why is it crackpots always seem to think
they are better than everyone else; yet all the evidence points to them
being not only wrong (I am often wrong - so that others are does not worry
me too much) but being mentally deficient by not recognizing their errors
when it is pointed out to them? I suppose it is part of them being a
crackpot.


I am glad you could Dirk. But
getting back to what you said - true, true, a thousand times over. I
first
learnt relativity in my teens when I was 15. The math was nothing.
Understanding what the hell is happing was the problem. Which is why I
laugh when this turkey says things like 'If you think I will start
taking
liking for the abstract mathematical ideas in modern physics, which has
become nothing but stinking stagnated gutter, for the lack of fresh
conceptual inputs, you are sadly mistaken.' In the case of SR the
mathematics is nothing - you only need first year calculus, for EM some
parts of second year calculus. It is understanding what it is going on,
ie
the physics, that is hard. Even after all these years I still get a
kick
out of seeing something I did not see before.

Thanks
Bill

SR is an exception, which is not based on complex mathematics.
Any way basic logic behind SR is wrong, and don't take my word for
that. Take those of reputed accomplished scietists.

Exactly who would they be?

But right or
wrong, I agree that it is purely based on concepts. Can you say the
same is the case with other branches in advanced physics? If there is
any subject I like most, it is physics, not a mathematical physics but
conceptual physics. Can you explain me purely on the basis of
concepts, what a virtual photon is?

Yep - see Feynman - QED - The Strange Story of Light and Matter.

If you can't, then you too don't
have any idea what this thing is. But once this idea is accepted, any
attempt to show it wrong, are steadfastly stonewalled.

Because your premise that such ideas are not based on concepts is
incorrect - it is based on the logical consequences of concepts that have
strong experimental support.

True physics is
conceptual. Once these are clear, then all the mathematics that follow
also becomes clear. Anything that cannot be explained on the basis of
concepts is pure fantansy, in which some mathematicians indulge and
build castles in the air.

Mathematics is simply the expression of those concepts in its most natural
language; a language you seem unable to grasp Probably because your logical
faculty is so impaired as to not understand the meaning of the Lorentz force
law in physical terms. What it means is that a stationary charge
experiencing an electromagnetic force is in an electric field.

Replying to this guy always gives me a laugh
Bill

Baby Bill, you are childish. If not solve the paradox. You did not
understand the paradox nor the reply by Dirk.

"V.K.Tamhane" wrote in message
m...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"V.K.Tamhane" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote
in message ...

"Michael Varney" wrote in message
...

"V.K.Tamhane" wrote in message
om...
Following paradox was included in my last message, but a
poster
advised me to post it separately. He also told me that Dirk
Van de
moortel is expert in pin-pointing errors in such things,
therefore
he
is specially invited.

Let me save him the trouble of pointing out that there are no
paradoxes
in
SR.

There is one paradoxal phenomenon though.
For laymen the mathematics is easy but the concepts are hard.
That's why we have so many confused laymen (end even some
engineers) around here :-)

Dirk Vdm

Absolutely. Actually when I read Tamhane's paradox I could not
really
even
understand what he was talking about.

You will never understand what I talk about,

Correct, because I will never accept that a charge at rest that
experiences
an EM force is not in an electric field.

because as said by
Dirk, you are the person who finds it hard to grasp the concepts.

I would be very interested in where Dirk ever said that. Besides why
would
that be of any relevance to you? - you think Dirk is wrong anyway. It
is a
fact though that Dirk grasps physics concepts better than I do; which is
one
reason I post; to learn from my betters. All I can see from your posts
is
an attempt to prove others wrong with statements they have no idea what
they
are talking about and little actual physical reasoning.

We are on the opposite poles of the earth. You are purely a
mathematician
and I am purely a conceptual person.

Yes, you have the concept that a charge at rest experiencing an
electromagnetic force is not in an electric field when the definition of
electric field says it is.

Now what Dirk says is not
correct. There are two types of people. A person with a mathematical
bent will find concepts hard. There are people like Faraday who are
very weak in mathematics but are strong in the field of concepts. And
of course there are people who are endowed with both the mental
faculties.

And I suppose your one of those? Why is it crackpots always seem to
think
they are better than everyone else; yet all the evidence points to them
being not only wrong (I am often wrong - so that others are does not
worry
me too much) but being mentally deficient by not recognizing their
errors
when it is pointed out to them? I suppose it is part of them being a
crackpot.


I am glad you could Dirk. But
getting back to what you said - true, true, a thousand times over.
I
first
learnt relativity in my teens when I was 15. The math was nothing.
Understanding what the hell is happing was the problem. Which is
why I
laugh when this turkey says things like 'If you think I will start
taking
liking for the abstract mathematical ideas in modern physics, which
has
become nothing but stinking stagnated gutter, for the lack of fresh
conceptual inputs, you are sadly mistaken.' In the case of SR the
mathematics is nothing - you only need first year calculus, for EM
some
parts of second year calculus. It is understanding what it is going
on,
ie
the physics, that is hard. Even after all these years I still get a
kick
out of seeing something I did not see before.

Thanks
Bill

SR is an exception, which is not based on complex mathematics.
Any way basic logic behind SR is wrong, and don't take my word for
that. Take those of reputed accomplished scietists.

Exactly who would they be?

But right or
wrong, I agree that it is purely based on concepts. Can you say the
same is the case with other branches in advanced physics? If there is
any subject I like most, it is physics, not a mathematical physics but
conceptual physics. Can you explain me purely on the basis of
concepts, what a virtual photon is?

Yep - see Feynman - QED - The Strange Story of Light and Matter.

If you can't, then you too don't
have any idea what this thing is. But once this idea is accepted, any
attempt to show it wrong, are steadfastly stonewalled.

Because your premise that such ideas are not based on concepts is
incorrect - it is based on the logical consequences of concepts that
have
strong experimental support.

True physics is
conceptual. Once these are clear, then all the mathematics that follow
also becomes clear. Anything that cannot be explained on the basis of
concepts is pure fantansy, in which some mathematicians indulge and
build castles in the air.

Mathematics is simply the expression of those concepts in its most
natural
language; a language you seem unable to grasp Probably because your
logical
faculty is so impaired as to not understand the meaning of the Lorentz
force
law in physical terms. What it means is that a stationary charge
experiencing an electromagnetic force is in an electric field.

Replying to this guy always gives me a laugh
Bill

Baby Bill, you are childish. If not solve the paradox. You did not
understand the paradox nor the reply by Dirk.

It is true I did not understand what you wrote. Like most of what you write
it was gibberish. The difference between you and me is you never admit to
not knowing anything; I will always admit such. And I was not the only one
that has difficulty in understanding it, Dirk wrote 'Next time try to be a
bit more clear and unambiguous when you describe something'. One can not
fail to get the feeling you deliberately try to be obscure to cloud the
issues. That being the case it is not hard to see who is being childish.
Speaking of childish it is not exactly adult to make claims like 'because as
said by Dirk, you are the person who finds it hard to grasp the concepts.'
and not be able to back it up. Now please point to where Dirk ever said
that. You also said 'Any way basic logic behind SR is wrong, and don't take
my word for that.' Again I ask you to point me to the reputable scientist
that ever said that. As I said - it is not hard to see who is being
childish..

Now if your into issuing challenges I will give you a much simpler one. You
claim:

'Experiments have nothing to do with theories and concepts. In this article
I am talking about the experiments. The first one proves that changing
magnetic field does not produce electric field. Second experiment is
suggested, which will prove the same results.'

You say a changing magnetic field does not produce an electric field.
Consider a wire moving through a magnetic field at constant velocity. By
the lorentz force law the charges in the wire must experience a force. Now
go to a frame where the wire is at rest. Going to that frame does not
change the fact the charges still experience a force except now the charges
are at rest and the wire is experiencing a changing magnetic field. Thus we
have stationary charges experiencing a force. Now for a stationary change
the Lorentz force law says F = qE or E = F/q thus they are in an electric
field. But you claim that is not possible. How can that be or are you
saying the Lorentz force law is wrong?

The above is quite a good deal simpler than the experiment you proposed to
demonstrate problems with SR - and a good deal less ambiguous. After all I
am only a mere mathematician, I am not really up to inventing the rubbish
you do. But that still does not change the fact that a moving charge in a
magnetic field experiences a force that is magnetic but when you go to a
frame where it is stationary then by defection of an electric field (E =
F/q) an electric field in now present. It does not matter how you argue,
what obscure ill defined badly expressed supposed problems with SR you come
up with, you have yet to refute the simple demonstration that shows a
'changing magnetic field does not produce electric field' is absurd.

Mere Mathematician
Bill

Bill Hobba wrote:

[snip]
Why is it crackpots always seem to think
they are better than everyone else; yet all the evidence points to them
being not only wrong (I am often wrong - so that others are does not worry
me too much) but being mentally deficient by not recognizing their errors
when it is pointed out to them? I suppose it is part of them being a
crackpot.

http://www.geocities.com/jrstrader2000/Incompetent.htm


[snip rest]

Bye,
Bjoern