"Len Gaasenbeek" wrote in message
...

To Robert,

I am glad to hear that someone enjoys my postings.

Some of it I also enjoyed.

It is interesting to note that Relativistic Physics is the only scientific
discipline I know of that uses "thought experiments" to make its point.

It's important in philosophy. It's also a used a lot in Mechanics teaching,
and then they are called "exercices" or "examples"...

Einstein was the one who started this trend.
As far as I am concerned, a thought experiment doesn't prove anything, it
is
just a flight of a man's fancy.

A thought experiment shows the logical consequences of a line of thought.

For example, if we look at the Twin Paradox, instead of concluding that
time
dilation is ridiculous in that no twin can age slower than the other no
matter what, it is used to illustrate how time dilation works!

It's the direct consequence of the theory, and the paradox was first
presented as calculation examples. To date it has not been found to be wrong
(one of the original examples had a flaw though).

Once one accepts this kind of 'scienterific' reasoning as proof, all is
lost.

Not all. Technology still progresses despite it.

Enjoy, Len.

Harald

.................................................. ...
"Robert" H@.. wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 15:34:22 -0400, "Len Gaasenbeek"

wrote:


"The greater the lie, the greater the chance that it will be believed."
Adolf Hitler (1886-1945)
Mein Kampf.

It continues to amaze me how the Theories of Special and General
Relativity
have survived as long as they have. I think that Hitler may have hit
on
something in the above quotation.
Of course Hitler isn't the first to advocate this notion.

"It is certain because it is impossible."
Tertullian (c. 160-225 AD), Carthaginian father of the church.
De Carne Christi, V.

This is why confidence tricksters are so successful, because deep down
many
of us want to believe the improbable. Since most of us live humdrum
lives,
we secretly wish that something magical would happen to us, which would
allow us to believe in the impossible.

And so we allow ourselves to be converted or born again into a way of
life
which gives us hope, where we had given up hope. Once converted, we
will
fight to hang on to our myth because without it, life becomes
unbearable.

"Nothing in life is more wonderful than faith - the one great moving
force
which we can neither weigh in the balance nor test in the crucible."
Sir William Osler (1849-1919), Canadian physician.
British Medical Journal, 1:1470, 1910.

And again:
"Religion...is the opium of the people."
Karl Marx (1818-1883)
Criticism of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right, Introduction.

Now all of the above has its uses and merits but has nothing to do with
science. Relativistic Physics is the only "scientific" discipline I
know
of, which has abandoned the scientific method in favour of the belief
in
magic to explain certain physical phenomena.

As a result no true scientist can ever hope to convince a relativist
that
he
is wrong, because logical scientific arguments will never shake his
belief
in magic.

To paraphrase Niels Bohr and his followers: 'The very nature of quantum
mechanics is illogical, consequently one should not try to find a
rational
explanation. To try and do so just shows people, that you don't know
what
you are talking about.'

Interestingly Einstein, who started it all, did not agree with Bohr
that
Relativistic Particle Physics (Quantum Theory) can only be known in
terms
of
probabilities.
As he put it: "God doesn't play dice with the Universe."
His disagreement with Bohr remains unresolved until this day.

Yet there is no need to resort to magic in order to explain the various
relativistic phenomena.
For a perfectly logical explanation, see my "Selected Papers" at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek

But then again:
"Men will fight for a superstition quite as quickly as for a living
truth -
often more so, since a superstition is so intangible you cannot get at
it
to
refute it, but truth is a point of view, and so is changeable."
Hypatia (c. 370-415) Egyptian Neoplatonist Philosopher.
Little Journeys to the Homes of Great Teachers (Elbert Hubbard).

Enjoy, Len.
................................................. ........

Thankyou Len. I always enjoy your comtributions.

Henri Wilson.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

See proof that light speed is source dependent.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Androcles" wrote in message
...
I agree with most of what you said, Len, with one exception.
Einstein do not start the lies: Ptolemy did.

The most recent accusations of forgery made against Ptolemy came from
Newton
in [12]. He begins this book by stating clearly his views:-

This is the story of a scientific crime. ... I mean a crime committed by a
scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, a betrayal of the ethics
and integrity of his profession that has forever deprived mankind of
fundamental information about an important area of astronomy and history.

Towards the end Newton, having claimed to prove every observation claimed
by
Ptolemy in the Almagest was fabricated, writes [12]:-

[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they
were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories,
he
deliberately fabricated observations from the theories so that he could
claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories. In every
scientific or scholarly setting known, this practice is called fraud, and
it
is a crime against science and scholarship.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...s/Ptolemy.html

Interesting!

Be prepared for 1400 years of Relativity. Only 1300 to go.

You are far too pessimistic. Quite a number of scientists are looking for
flaws, don't worry!

Harald

Bilge wrote:
Len Gaasenbeek:

"The greater the lie, the greater the chance that it will be believed."
Adolf Hitler (1886-1945)
Mein Kampf.

It continues to amaze me how the Theories of Special and General Relativity
have survived as long as they have.

Perhaps you should study them so you can get over your amazement.

It is surprising to see ignorance in an extent quoting Hitler.
I think that these guys are confused by the existence of two so
incompatible theories as SR/GR and the quantum theories.
But scientists are a bad example for laymen as long they refuse
to take notice of simple facts like particles as discrete solutions
of the Einstein-Maxwell equations (because it may not be that an
engineer has found it). Even if this fact solves above contradiction.

Ulrich

PS: What do you think of my little derivation (you remember) ?

"Len Gaasenbeek" wrote in message ...
To Robert,

I am glad to hear that someone enjoys my postings.

It is interesting to note that Relativistic Physics is the only scientific
discipline I know of that uses "thought experiments" to make its point.
Einstein was the one who started this trend.

False!

As far as I am concerned, a thought experiment doesn't prove anything, it is
just a flight of a man's fancy.

The thought experiment is as crucial to physics as any "real"
experiment. The Greeks had their atoms as concepts. Where would
kinetic theory be without them. There would be no Principle of Inertia
without a thought experiment to imagine the behavior of real particles
far from all other matter. Galileo gave his thought experiment of the
ship at rest and in motion to argue for the PoR in his book Dialogue
Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.

Newton argued for an absolute acceleration space on the basis of his
thought experiment about the water pail in rotation. What about
Faraday's fields and Planck's quantums. Einstein had his thought
experimemnt about the behavior of light as seen from a frame "moving
close to the speed of light." Not to mention Rutherford's nucleated
atom, Bohr's model of the atom, Schrodinger's pilot waves, and
Heisenberg's iso-spin thought experiment.

The reason that thought experiments are only labled as such in
so-called "relativity" is because science education in the West is
terrible.

Whether or not thought experiements are in any way a "flight of a
man's fancy" is irrelevant. All that counts is whether or not they are
instumental ideas for the invention of theories that work.

Patrick

"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
"Len Gaasenbeek" wrote in message
...
To Robert,

I am glad to hear that someone enjoys my postings.

It is interesting to note that Relativistic Physics is the only
scientific
discipline I know of that uses "thought experiments" to make its point.
Einstein was the one who started this trend.

False!

As far as I am concerned, a thought experiment doesn't prove anything,
it is
just a flight of a man's fancy.

The thought experiment is as crucial to physics as any "real"
experiment. The Greeks had their atoms as concepts. Where would
kinetic theory be without them. There would be no Principle of Inertia
without a thought experiment to imagine the behavior of real particles
far from all other matter. Galileo gave his thought experiment of the
ship at rest and in motion to argue for the PoR in his book Dialogue
Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.

Yes, I think that was also a true thought experiment.

Newton argued for an absolute acceleration space on the basis of his
thought experiment about the water pail in rotation.

I have sometimes seen it described as a real experiment, and sometimes as a
thought experiment.
Does anyone know? In any case, even if he did not do exactly that experiment
at that time, it's not a true thought experiment for it was certainly known
from observation what happens in such cases.

What about
Faraday's fields and Planck's quantums.

Again different: those are not descriptions of what will be measured but
models to explain the phenomena..

Einstein had his thought
experimemnt about the behavior of light as seen from a frame "moving
close to the speed of light." Not to mention Rutherford's nucleated
atom, Bohr's model of the atom, Schrodinger's pilot waves, and
Heisenberg's iso-spin thought experiment.

Again, those are models, different from what is meant with thought
experiments.

The reason that thought experiments are only labled as such in
so-called "relativity" is because science education in the West is
terrible.

Can you name another modern true thought experiment (not the description of
a metaphysical model)?

Whether or not thought experiements are in any way a "flight of a
man's fancy" is irrelevant. All that counts is whether or not they are
instumental ideas for the invention of theories that work.

Patrick

Harald

"Harry" wrote in message ...
"Patrick Reany" wrote in message
om...
"Len Gaasenbeek" wrote in message
...
To Robert,

I am glad to hear that someone enjoys my postings.

It is interesting to note that Relativistic Physics is the only
scientific
discipline I know of that uses "thought experiments" to make its point.
Einstein was the one who started this trend.

False!

As far as I am concerned, a thought experiment doesn't prove anything,
it is
just a flight of a man's fancy.

The thought experiment is as crucial to physics as any "real"
experiment. The Greeks had their atoms as concepts. Where would
kinetic theory be without them. There would be no Principle of Inertia
without a thought experiment to imagine the behavior of real particles
far from all other matter. Galileo gave his thought experiment of the
ship at rest and in motion to argue for the PoR in his book Dialogue
Concerning the Two Chief World Systems.

Yes, I think that was also a true thought experiment.

Why? It can be performed (approximately). The point is that one can
understand it from one's own experience, and if that's not enough,
perform the experiment(approximately).


Newton argued for an absolute acceleration space on the basis of his
thought experiment about the water pail in rotation.

I have sometimes seen it described as a real experiment, and sometimes as a
thought experiment.
Does anyone know? In any case, even if he did not do exactly that experiment
at that time, it's not a true thought experiment for it was certainly known
from observation what happens in such cases.

What about
Faraday's fields and Planck's quantums.

Again different: those are not descriptions of what will be measured but
models to explain the phenomena..

Your "definition" of thought experiment is too limited. But since you
insist on making thought experiments as replacements for impossible to
perform experiments, I will assist you. A thought experiment is a
replacement for a real experiment that cannot be perfomed because the
strict conditions of the experiment do not allow the performance of
the experiment. One of the characteristics of some though experiments
is their insistence on ideal circumstances, such as no wind at all
coming into the ship that is "moving." Or no interference from the
experimentalist to the experiment. Or, no imperfections in the pail
that holds the water and no interference from local matter. Or, no way
to see the classical oscilators in the Planck blackbody. Or, no way to
set up a reference frame to an electron in an atom (Thomas
pressesion). Or, no way to turn off the electric charges in the
universe (Iso spin original thought experiment by Heisenberg). Or, no
way to get a particle infinitely far away from other matter (Galilean
inertia). Or, no way to "see" the sum of all lines of force going thru
a closed Gaussian surface. No way to see orbits in an atom and no way
to see electrons jumping between orbits. I'm sure there are lots more!
Obviously there's always some modeling aspect to the experiment.
That's unavoidable because at least the measuring instruments need to
be modeled for operational definitions of measurements to be
performed. The models don't in themselves disqualify the thought
experiment.


Einstein had his thought
experimemnt about the behavior of light as seen from a frame "moving
close to the speed of light." Not to mention Rutherford's nucleated
atom, Bohr's model of the atom, Schrodinger's pilot waves, and
Heisenberg's iso-spin thought experiment.

Again, those are models, different from what is meant with thought
experiments.

The reason that thought experiments are only labled as such in
so-called "relativity" is because science education in the West is
terrible.

Can you name another modern true thought experiment (not the description of
a metaphysical model)?

Whether or not thought experiements are in any way a "flight of a
man's fancy" is irrelevant. All that counts is whether or not they are
instumental ideas for the invention of theories that work.

Patrick

Harald

Patrick Reany:
"Harry" wrote:

Again different: those are not descriptions of what will be measured but
models to explain the phenomena..

Your "definition" of thought experiment is too limited. But since you
insist on making thought experiments as replacements for impossible to
perform experiments, I will assist you. A thought experiment is a
replacement for a real experiment that cannot be perfomed because the
strict conditions of the experiment do not allow the performance of
the experiment.

That is not really what constitutes a thought experiment. A thought
experiment is just an attempt to visualize the physical realization
of an abstract concept by narrowing the ``equipment'' down such that
that the experiment isn't limited by experimental considerations
(although that gets murky with quantum mechanics). That way one can
elucidate the physical consequences of a particular theoretical
concept without becoming confused with practicalities. Real experiments
are usually just the practical realization of thought experiments.


One of the characteristics of some though experiments
is their insistence on ideal circumstances, such as no wind at all
coming into the ship that is "moving." Or no interference from the
experimentalist to the experiment. Or, no imperfections in the pail
that holds the water and no interference from local matter. Or, no way
to see the classical oscilators in the Planck blackbody. Or, no way to
set up a reference frame to an electron in an atom (Thomas
pressesion). Or, no way to turn off the electric charges in the
universe (Iso spin original thought experiment by Heisenberg). Or, no
way to get a particle infinitely far away from other matter (Galilean
inertia). Or, no way to "see" the sum of all lines of force going thru
a closed Gaussian surface. No way to see orbits in an atom and no way
to see electrons jumping between orbits. I'm sure there are lots more!

You got carried away. In quantum mechanics and in experiments in which
quantum mecchanics plays a significant role, you _must_ consider what is
being measured. You simply can't pretend it's possible to measure the x,y
and z projections of the angular momentum or the position and momentum and
construct a thought experiment to do it (unless you are explicitly trying
to prove it can be done). In quantum mechanics, you have to be especially
careful not to idealize away the physics you are interested in elucidating.

Bilge wrote
...
A thought
experiment is just an attempt to visualize the physical realization
of an abstract concept by narrowing the ``equipment'' down such that
that the experiment isn't limited by experimental considerations
(although that gets murky with quantum mechanics).

That gets murky always. ;-)
Why else do physicists stick to weird ideas about matter (though
simple math forbids that, and tells us what the matter-related
quantities are, namely integration constants), and hate to hear
the simple fact that such matter sources do simply not exist ?
Could you please explain me these strange and contradictory
things ?
(I dedicated you this little derivation re Planck's constant.
May be, it could help you argue. :-)

Ulrich

"ueb" wrote in message
...
Bilge wrote
..
A thought
experiment is just an attempt to visualize the physical realization
of an abstract concept by narrowing the ``equipment'' down such that
that the experiment isn't limited by experimental considerations
(although that gets murky with quantum mechanics).

That gets murky always. ;-)
Why else do physicists stick to weird ideas about matter

You mean QM? - because experiments forced them to.

(though
simple math forbids that,


The math of QM is completely consistent.

and tells us what the matter-related
quantities are, namely integration constants), and hate to hear
the simple fact that such matter sources do simply not exist ?
Could you please explain me these strange and contradictory
things ?


Point to me one experiment that is contradictory to QM. If not then you
must accept QM as a valid theory of nature.

Bill

(I dedicated you this little derivation re Planck's constant.
May be, it could help you argue. :-)

Ulrich

Bill Hobba wrote:

"ueb" wrote in message
...
Bilge wrote
..
A thought
experiment is just an attempt to visualize the physical realization
of an abstract concept by narrowing the ``equipment'' down such that
that the experiment isn't limited by experimental considerations
(although that gets murky with quantum mechanics).

That gets murky always. ;-)
Why else do physicists stick to weird ideas about matter

You mean QM? - because experiments forced them to.

I do *not* mean QM. (See below what I mean.)
What experiments _forced_ physicists to QM ?

(though
simple math forbids that,


The math of QM is completely consistent.

Caution. But I'll not comment it for lack of knowledge. ;-)

and tells us what the matter-related
quantities are, namely integration constants), and hate to hear
the simple fact that such matter sources do simply not exist ?
Could you please explain me these strange and contradictory
things ?


Point to me one experiment that is contradictory to QM. If not then you
must accept QM as a valid theory of nature.

That is not the point. As long I have not even a clue of QM, I must
accept it anyway. Probably, there is no experiment contradictory to QM,
because it has been developed from diverse experiments. (According
to Popper, it may be no theory at all.
But we are in a "relativity" newsgroup, and I use to tell of the
subject. Thus the "weird ideas about matter" concern the Einstein
equations. For example, the Maxwell equations

\box A = S

do not meet the Einstein equations as long S != 0 .
My message is not a criticism of QM. I have to make physicists grasp
that S is indeed zero. The results of numerical simulations according
to the Einstein-Maxwell equations give me right. Particles appear
there as discrete solutions of these tensor equations.
If these results look as though QM is not needed, it's not my fault.

Ulrich