[NPA Chat] The true nature of Einstein and Newton physics
Roger Anderton
In the usual way that Einstein’s GR is connected to Newtonian physics, it is as Silberstein describes:
“Einstein easily obtains the Newtonian equations as first approximation, with Omega = -(1/2) c^2 g44 as the potential of the gravitational field. This treatment of the question is repeated, so far as I know, by all exponents of Einstein’s theory.”
i.e. Newtonian physics is being presented as approximation of Einstein’s GR.
By math modelling process this is—
initial math model is Newtonian physics that then requires update and gives GR.
i.e. GR is updated Newtonian physics.
But this is a mistake, actually Newtonian physics and GR are the same maths.
As Silberstein presents it:
“Now, as recently occurred to me, the true relation of Einstein’s equations to those of Newton is of a much more intimate nature, and remains valid, no matter how strong the field and how much space deviates from Euclidean behaviour.”
In the existing scheme of GR is updated Newtonian physics—the update is that Newtonian physics is deemed valid for weak gravitational fields, but for strong gravitational fields need update to GR where the extra effect(s) is deviation from Euclidean geometry.
But as Silberstein points out—he realises this is not the true connection between Einstein’s equations and Newton.
And really – Einstein’s equations and Newton remain valid for no matter how strong the field is.
Thus he is saying – Einstein’s equations are the same as Newton.
That means – the existing belief that GR equations is an update of Newton is a mistake.
The existing set up is update Newton math model and it gives GR.
But that is just math mistakes, and the true nature is the math of Newton is the same as GR.
Hence the supposed Revolution in physics due to Einstein in 1919 was just based up doing a math mistake in handling Newtonian physics, and making a mistake with the math models.
c.RJAnderton2010
Roger Anderton
_______________________________________________
MembersChat mailing list
Membe...@worldnpa.org
http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
Tom Miles
From: Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
To: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Sun, April 4, 2010 11:45:25 PM
Subject: [NPA Chat] The true nature of Einstein and Newton physics
Roger Anderton
HARRY RICKER
Roger,
My reading of Newton is that his approach is to demonstrate by application his system of natural philosophy. That system encompasses more than just math modeling. It was an attempt to demonstrate a natural philosophy based upon inductive and deductive reasoning working together. According to Newton, hypotheses did not exist in this system, because the principles adopted were not suppositions but proven empirical facts rendered general by induction. Unfortunately Newton did not devote a lot of work in his treatise to the discussion of how this part of the process worked and spent more time and effort expounding his deductive mathematical proofs. These were fundamentally based upon his inductive insights which I think were not given much discussion in his work. So it appears as purely formal mathematical modeling with little connection to physical experimentation. I think this is unfortunate as over the years math modeling has taken center stage and
in the theory of relativity the use of hypotheses once again was raised to primary status. This clearly was contrary to the system advocated by Newton.
My thesis, which I am promoting here, is that there was not sufficient empirical evidence upon which to base the principle of relativity as it was used by Einstein and Poincare. I think that the empirical evidence does not really have a very strong support in the MMX experiments and furthermore the additional experiments do not provide the strong empirical support required to justify the postulates that underly relativity.
The ambiguity of the empirical facts leads me to be skeptical of the hypotheses that would seem to be justified by the supposed empirical evidence. It is pretty well known that Einstein formulated his theory from hypotheses and did not base it upon the induction of hypotheses from empirical facts. It was only afterwards that he pointed to the MMX as empirical support for his theory.
My view is that it is unfortunate that modern physics has for its foundations a theory which is so poorly based upon the empirical evidence. That is a rather discomforting conclusion in my opinion. Others may find the evidence fully supporting the theory when I see it as ambigous. I don't think science should be founded on ambigous, unclear, and uncertain experimental facts.
According to Newton, Math modeling is supposed to justify the conclusions drawn from induction and then rendered general through the formulation of hypotheses. If the facts which underly the hypotheses are not fully estblished, then all the math modeling in the world isn't going to establish the correctness of the theory. It ultimately lies in the empirical judgements that must follow and these just are not as clear and soundly established as they should be for relativity to be thoroughly established as a foundational theory of physics.
|
| -----Inline Attachment Follows----- |
Roger Anderton
harald
On Apr 6, 7:50 pm, "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
[...]
> Harry-- It is pretty well known that Einstein formulated his theory from hypotheses and did not base it upon the induction of hypotheses from empirical facts. It was only afterwards that he pointed to the MMX as empirical support for his theory.
>
> Ir is pretty unclear if Einstein knew about MMX before he formed SRT. There is evidence to indicate that he did know about MMX in which
> case SRT was formed from empirical basis contrary to your claim. But there are those who argue Einstein did not know about MMX, in which case SRT is supposed to predict the result of an experiment.
Einstein was familiar with the physics literature of his days (which
often discussed MMX), he even learned electrodynamics from Lorentz's
papers, due to lack of good, up-to-date textbooks on that topic. And
he admitted in a talk in Japan that SRT is based on MMX. Anyway, the
following should already suffice:
"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,''
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. "
1. What kind of "unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the
earth relatively to the `light medium' " do you think he knew of?
2. Do you call such attempts an "empirical basis" or mere
"hypotheses" (which just happened to spring up in his mind, only based
on his fantasy?).
Moreover:
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and
consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on
Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. "
3. What do you think, was Maxwell's electrodynamics based on mere
"hypotheses" or did it have an empirical basis (such as the phenomena
studied by Faraday)?
4. How would you call a theory that is partly based on experimental
examples (first postulate), and partly on Maxwell's electrodynamics
(second postulate)?
Apart of that, obviously the success of a theory is largely determined
not by its descriptive power, but by its predictive power. What
matters most is the power to give a common explanation to different
phenomena (even new ones) based on a small number of hypotheses.
Regards,
Harald
Roger Anderton
----- Original Message -----
From: "harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch>
To: <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] The true nature of Einstein and Newton physics
Einstein was familiar with the physics literature of his days (which
often discussed MMX), he even learned electrodynamics from Lorentz's
papers, due to lack of good, up-to-date textbooks on that topic. And
he admitted in a talk in Japan that SRT is based on MMX.
-- yes but still disputed; not everyone believes it! And what are you going
to put your faith in that there was no mistake made in the transcribe of the
Japanese lecture; and that you are going to ignore other sources?
Anyway, the
following should already suffice:
"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,''
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. "
1. What kind of "unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the
earth relatively to the `light medium' " do you think he knew of?
2. Do you call such attempts an "empirical basis" or mere
"hypotheses" (which just happened to spring up in his mind, only based
on his fantasy?).
--- highlights Einstein being ambiguous.
Moreover:
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and
consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on
Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. "
3. What do you think, was Maxwell's electrodynamics based on mere
"hypotheses" or did it have an empirical basis (such as the phenomena
studied by Faraday)?
4. How would you call a theory that is partly based on experimental
examples (first postulate), and partly on Maxwell's electrodynamics
(second postulate)?
--- Maxwell's theory is based on electromagnetic experiments; so what we
have is development of that by Einstein; or rather Einstein's interpretation
of Maxwell.
Apart of that, obviously the success of a theory is largely determined
not by its descriptive power, but by its predictive power. What
matters most is the power to give a common explanation to different
phenomena (even new ones) based on a small number of hypotheses.
--- thats just your personal beliefs.
A. F. Kracklauer
Without dates, AE quotations cannot be understood. His views evolved in
the context of experimental developments and arguments brought up by
others. As with the Bible, you can find a single sentence to support
anything.
Re: Lecture in Japan. It was given extemporaneously in German, short
hand notes were taken in Japanese. Sometime later, these notes were
expanded to complete Japanese sentences and then translated into
German. Later still the German version was translated into English,
which is the version you seem to be referring to. At each of the four
transformations gaps were filled based on other AE writings. All of
which is basically pointless anyway, because AE made many virtually
contemporaneous speeches elsewhere.
In each case, whatever he said, reflected his research tactic or
approach, which was a guide not a straitjacket, that in comparison with
many other successful historical writers on physics, was slanted towards
exploiting principles divined on a goulash of experience and intuitive
logic. He was on the unique side for his self conscience analysis of
his technique --- most other researchers, not philosophers or
psychoanalysts of researchers, run on autopilot.
All of which shows: AE refined his thinking and occasionally changed his
mind. Don't you?
--- Al
Roger Anderton
Al-- His [AE] views evolved in
the context of experimental developments and arguments brought up by
others. As with the Bible, you can find a single sentence to support
anything.
that's what makes the poor guy - ambiguous and vague.
With poor AE -
earlier we had the definition of infinity given as- infinity is a quantity
that is not a quantity.
maybe AE meant-the speed of light is a constant that is a variable?
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.kra...@web.de>
To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org>
A. F. Kracklauer
>
> Al-- His [AE] views evolved in
> the context of experimental developments and arguments brought up by
> others. As with the Bible, you can find a single sentence to support
> anything.
>
>
>
> that's what makes the poor guy - ambiguous and vague.
did not publish "sound bites." To get what he means, in general you
must read more than *one sentence*.
>
>
> With poor AE -
>
>
>
> earlier we had the definition of infinity given as- infinity is a
> quantity that is not a quantity.
>
>
> maybe AE meant-the speed of light is a constant that is a variable?
rendering the reductor, and not the argument, absurd. The very
definition of a constant carries with it a domain or condition
[sometimes implied --- if the speaker trusts the intelligence of the
interlocutor], outside of which the constant is
selectable/variable/arbitrary; e.g., the "cosmological constant", given
different values, yields different model universes, within each it is
fixed.
This has nothing to do with "c" however. Per AE: if you start with
"covariant under linear transformations" -> c is constant [for AE, up to
~1910]. Starting with "covariant under nonsingular, continuous
transformations (diffeomorphisms), c becomes a function of
events=position&time.
Don't blame your (manufactured) confusion on AE. Did you tell us that
all written by Poincaré, Lorentz, Eddington, etc. is clear an
unambiguous to you? One might suspect, that this topic is over your head.
Roger Anderton
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.kra...@web.de>
To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] The true nature of Einstein and Newton physics
Roger Anderton wrote:
>
> Al-- His [AE] views evolved in
> the context of experimental developments and arguments brought up by
> others. As with the Bible, you can find a single sentence to support
> anything.
>
>
>
> that's what makes the poor guy - ambiguous and vague.
This sort of response is what makes your views juvenile polemics: AE
did not publish "sound bites." To get what he means, in general you
must read more than *one sentence*.
>
>
>
> With poor AE -
>
>
>
> earlier we had the definition of infinity given as- infinity is a
> quantity that is not a quantity.
More juvenile polemics! Ever hear of Cantor? AE did.
>
>
>
> maybe AE meant-the speed of light is a constant that is a variable?
A snake biting its tail; i.e., an attempt at reductio ad absrdum
rendering the reductor, and not the argument, absurd.
--- if we go by AE's supposed argument of 1905, he says lightspeed constant
one moment, followed later by saying lightspeed variable; maybe he meant
something by this?
The very
definition of a constant carries with it a domain or condition
[sometimes implied --- if the speaker trusts the intelligence of the
interlocutor], outside of which the constant is
selectable/variable/arbitrary; e.g., the "cosmological constant", given
different values, yields different model universes, within each it is
fixed.
-- makes it sound a rather vague theory; I think there are even models which
treat it as variable; so another "variable constant"?
This has nothing to do with "c" however. Per AE: if you start with
"covariant under linear transformations" -> c is constant [for AE, up to
~1910]. Starting with "covariant under nonsingular, continuous
transformations (diffeomorphisms), c becomes a function of
events=position&time.
--- the last thoughts he seems to have had were that he was on the wrong
path
Don't blame your (manufactured) confusion on AE.
---AE says lots of different things; people have selected different bits to
believe; I blame people
Did you tell us that
all written by Poincaré, Lorentz, Eddington, etc. is clear an
unambiguous to you?
--- I think you are thinking of someone else?
A. F. Kracklauer
>
>
> --- the last thoughts he seems to have had were that he was on the
> wrong path
also clarify QM. He achieved none of this; nor has anybody else, yet.
>
>
> Don't blame your (manufactured) confusion on AE.
>
> ---AE says lots of different things; people have selected different
> bits to believe; I blame people
The issue is: which people. Those who have read and studied his papers
with comprehension, are no more confused by AE, than by Lorentz,
Poincaré, and all the rest. That's because the problem is tough, not
because AE was especially defective.
Also, as I've commented before, whenever the verb "believe" is used, the
speaker isn't doing science. Those who wish to, or need to, take it on
faith are spectators, not participants. What they do is extraneous.
>
>
> Did you tell us that
> all written by Poincaré, Lorentz, Eddington, etc. is clear an
> unambiguous to you?
>
> --- I think you are thinking of someone else?
If you don't say this, i.e., I guessed wrong, then you must admit, that
AE was just "one of the boys." The problem is the problem, not any one
personality.
Roger Anderton
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.kra...@web.de>
To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] The true nature of Einstein and Newton physics
speaker isn't doing science.
--by this -- so scientists who believe in science aren't doing science---
non seq
A. F. Kracklauer
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. F. Kracklauer"
> <af.kra...@web.de>
> To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 4:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] The true nature of Einstein and Newton physics
> Also, as I've commented before, whenever the verb "believe" is used, the
> speaker isn't doing science.
>
> --by this -- so scientists who believe in science aren't doing
> science--- non seq
belove, to hold dear, or emphasize. Sometimes that what the user wishes
to convey. In the vernacular, however, believe == hold to be true
without proof, or even in the face of disproof. Thus, to "believe in
science" is to be distinguished from to "believe stump water cures
warts." The first is a meta statement about science, the later a false
statement from (non) science.
One can believe in science by holding it dear without proof, simply on
the basis of social status or fixations with the paraphernalia of
science, and would not be "doing" science --- with no breach of logic.
Your non seq is thus shown to be self incriminating, phony
sophistication, a goofy misconstrual of the original point.
Roger Anderton
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.kra...@web.de>
To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 6:57 PM
Subject: [NPA Chat] more Rogermania!
> Roger Anderton wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. F. Kracklauer"
>> <af.kra...@web.de>
>> To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 4:46 PM
>> Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] The true nature of Einstein and Newton physics
>> Also, as I've commented before, whenever the verb "believe" is used, the
>> speaker isn't doing science.
>>
>> --by this -- so scientists who believe in science aren't doing
>> science--- non seq
> Clear example of an artificial dispute. Etymologically, believe ~
> belove, to hold dear, or emphasize. Sometimes that what the user wishes
> to convey. In the vernacular, however, believe == hold to be true
> without proof, or even in the face of disproof. Thus, to "believe in
> science" is to be distinguished from to "believe stump water cures
> warts." The first is a meta statement about science, the later a false
> statement from (non) science.
>
you did not make it clear what you meant by "believe", so its you
incriminated
Robert Fritzius
| All, In my opinion, Roger is on the right track about the word "believe." Bob F. |
--- On Fri, 4/9/10, Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com> wrote: |
Roger Anderton
A. F. Kracklauer
strong than positive knowledge.
Science is the enterprise of obtaining the latter. My original point:
the former (belief) is disruptive in what is designated a scientific
chat.
Opinions and beliefs in the end can be simply matters of raw, arbitrary
choice; they make great bar-stool blather!
Robert Fritzius wrote:
> All,
>
> In my opinion, Roger is on the right track about the word "believe."
>
> Bob F.
>
> --- On *Fri, 4/9/10, Roger Anderton /<r.j.an...@btinternet.com>/*
> wrote:
>
>
> From: Roger Anderton <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
> Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] more Rogermania!
> To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org>
> Date: Friday, April 9, 2010, 1:43 PM
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.kra...@web.de
> </mc/compose?to=af.kra...@web.de>>
> To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org
> </mc/compose?to=membe...@worldnpa.org>>
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 6:57 PM
> Subject: [NPA Chat] more Rogermania!
>
>
> > Roger Anderton wrote:
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. F. Kracklauer"
> >> <af.kra...@web.de </mc/compose?to=af.kra...@web.de>>
> >> To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org
> </mc/compose?to=membe...@worldnpa.org>>
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 4:46 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] The true nature of Einstein and Newton
> physics
> >> Also, as I've commented before, whenever the verb "believe" is
> used, the
> >> speaker isn't doing science.
> >>
> >> --by this -- so scientists who believe in science aren't doing
> >> science--- non seq
> > Clear example of an artificial dispute. Etymologically, believe ~
> > belove, to hold dear, or emphasize. Sometimes that what the
> user wishes
> > to convey. In the vernacular, however, believe == hold to be true
> > without proof, or even in the face of disproof. Thus, to
> "believe in
> > science" is to be distinguished from to "believe stump water cures
> > warts." The first is a meta statement about science, the later
> a false
> > statement from (non) science.
> >
>
> you did not make it clear what you meant by "believe", so its you
> incriminated
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MembersChat mailing list
> Membe...@worldnpa.org </mc/compose?to=Membe...@worldnpa.org>
> http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
harald
On Apr 10, 1:25 am, "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.krackla...@web.de> wrote:
> According to Webster: opinion: Belief, stronger than impression, less
> strong than positive knowledge.
>
> Science is the enterprise of obtaining the latter.
Without ever attaining it, if we believe in Popper (pun intended). :-)
As science is skeptic by nature (or by method), I would situate it
somewhere between "impression" and "belief", despite the fact that a
lot of positive knowledge is involved. For example "relativity" and
"QM" are based on positive knowledge, but some belief is involved in
their universal applicability, and a lot of belief is involved in the
(diverging) interpretations of those theories.
> My original point:
> the former (belief) is disruptive in what is designated a scientific
> chat.
>
> Opinions and beliefs in the end can be simply matters of raw, arbitrary
> choice; they make great bar-stool blather!
Scientific theories are certainly in part a matter of opinion-related
choice; only the choices are limited due to experiments.
Regards,
Harald
> Robert Fritzius wrote:
> > All,
>
> > In my opinion, Roger is on the right track about the word "believe."
>
> > Bob F.
>
> > --- On *Fri, 4/9/10, Roger Anderton /<r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>/*
> > wrote:
>
> > From: Roger Anderton <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>
> > Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] more Rogermania!
> > To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org>
> > Date: Friday, April 9, 2010, 1:43 PM
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.krackla...@web.de
> > </mc/compose?to=af.krackla...@web.de>>
> > To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org
> > </mc/compose?to=membersc...@worldnpa.org>>
> > Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 6:57 PM
> > Subject: [NPA Chat] more Rogermania!
>
> > > Roger Anderton wrote:
>
> > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. F. Kracklauer"
> > >> <af.krackla...@web.de </mc/compose?to=af.krackla...@web.de>>
> > >> To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membersc...@worldnpa.org
> > </mc/compose?to=membersc...@worldnpa.org>>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 4:46 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] The true nature of Einstein and Newton
> > physics
> > >> Also, as I've commented before, whenever the verb "believe" is
> > used, the
> > >> speaker isn't doing science.
>
> > >> --by this -- so scientists who believe in science aren't doing
> > >> science--- non seq
> > > Clear example of an artificial dispute. Etymologically, believe ~
> > > belove, to hold dear, or emphasize. Sometimes that what the
> > user wishes
> > > to convey. In the vernacular, however, believe == hold to be true
> > > without proof, or even in the face of disproof. Thus, to
> > "believe in
> > > science" is to be distinguished from to "believe stump water cures
> > > warts." The first is a meta statement about science, the later
> > a false
> > > statement from (non) science.
>
> > you did not make it clear what you meant by "believe", so its you
> > incriminated
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > MembersChat mailing list
> > MembersC...@worldnpa.org </mc/compose?to=MembersC...@worldnpa.org>
> > http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > MembersChat mailing list
> >http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> MembersChat mailing list
> MembersC...@worldnpa.orghttp://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
harald
wrote:
Application of Maxwell and Poincare; he didn't interpret much but
skilfully applied math on existing assumptions. Not revolutionary at
all, but original at that time (that modus operandi gave him a
"golden" year).
> Apart of that, obviously the success of a theory is largely determined
> not by its descriptive power, but by its predictive power. What
> matters most is the power to give a common explanation to different
> phenomena (even new ones) based on a small number of hypotheses.
>
> --- thats just your personal beliefs.
No, that is a rough description of the scientific method - which you
don't have to follow of course.
Regards,
Harald
harald
> What is all this supposed to show?
I let Roger figure out for himself that in 1905 SRT was based on
empirical science - as Einstein stressed. Of course, it is always a
topic of discussion how well that science was established, but that's
another issue.
> Without dates, AE quotations cannot be understood.
Around September 1905...
Regards,
Harald
> His views evolved in
> the context of experimental developments and arguments brought up by
> others. As with the Bible, you can find a single sentence to support
> anything.
>
> Re: Lecture in Japan. It was given extemporaneously in German, short
> hand notes were taken in Japanese. Sometime later, these notes were
> expanded to complete Japanese sentences and then translated into
> German. Later still the German version was translated into English,
> which is the version you seem to be referring to. At each of the four
> transformations gaps were filled based on other AE writings. All of
> which is basically pointless anyway, because AE made many virtually
> contemporaneous speeches elsewhere.
>
> In each case, whatever he said, reflected his research tactic or
> approach, which was a guide not a straitjacket, that in comparison with
> many other successful historical writers on physics, was slanted towards
> exploiting principles divined on a goulash of experience and intuitive
> logic. He was on the unique side for his self conscience analysis of
> his technique --- most other researchers, not philosophers or
> psychoanalysts of researchers, run on autopilot.
>
> All of which shows: AE refined his thinking and occasionally changed his
> mind. Don't you?
>
> --- Al
>
>
>
> Roger Anderton wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "harald" <h...@swissonline.ch>
> > To: <membersc...@worldnpa.org>
> >http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> MembersChat mailing list
> MembersC...@worldnpa.orghttp://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
A. F. Kracklauer
science, an attempt to exploit both its reputation for successes
(usually called technology) and its reputation for its solidity
(empiricism + logic) to underpin various "beloved" dogmas, most often
religion. [As a matter of historical fact, up to circa 150 years ago,
damn near all top gun physicists were actually mainly interested in
proving "intelligent design"! ]
In the whole panoply of science, Physics is an outlier. Being more
basic, it is sucked into this secondary business to grater extent than,
say, mechanical engineering.
This "secondary" effort, largely philosophical in nature [when not flat
out quaky nonsense], revels in mysticism and ambiguity. Thus, wherever
science is tentative or incomplete, the opening is used to gin up some
fantastic story serving as an ostensible peek through a crack in the
material world out into a heavenly beyond. This is where INTERP
thaRETATION, based on opinion and belief, runs wild. That theories
remain incomplete, is less a defect than a consequence of the natural
fate of mortals, not really the issue.
Many scientists themselves are in need of such preternatural
reassurance; when they do so, they are clearly not in scientific mode.
The "God-particle" and the like. Many too are just cynically exploiting
vulnerability and gullibility to encourage the tax paying masses to
shut-up and shovel-out so they can have their fun.
All of this, while "Gang und Gaebe" for the human race, is clearly not
science in the ideal, and perhaps should be discussed in a separate
category.
[Although no expert, I have the impression (i.e., heard 3-4 discussing
on TV) that serous theologians consider theology done this way as
suspect as the underlying physics usually is.]
Roger Anderton
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.kra...@web.de>
To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] more
> According to Webster: opinion: Belief, stronger than impression, less
> strong than positive knowledge.
>
> Science is the enterprise of obtaining the latter. My original point:
> the former (belief) is disruptive in what is designated a scientific
> chat.
>
> Opinions and beliefs in the end can be simply matters of raw, arbitrary
> choice; they make great bar-stool blather!
>
>
"to beleve" something "to know" something - much the same thing
e.g a religious person might say he "believes" his religion, or if might say
"knows" it to be true.
science, religion -- are all belief systems
physics based on doctrine of atomism and the evidence is interpreted based
on that belief
And I note your headings seem to be attempt at being abusive; apologise
please
Roger A
> Robert Fritzius wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> In my opinion, Roger is on the right track about the word "believe."
>>
>> Bob F.
Roger Anderton
--- no, not skill; he messed up
Roger A
Roger Anderton
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] science and belief
On Apr 10, 1:25 am, "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.krackla...@web.de> wrote:
> According to Webster: opinion: Belief, stronger than impression, less
> strong than positive knowledge.
>
> Science is the enterprise of obtaining the latter.
Without ever attaining it, if we believe in Popper (pun intended). :-)
As science is skeptic by nature (or by method), I would situate it
somewhere between "impression" and "belief", despite the fact that a
lot of positive knowledge is involved. For example "relativity" and
"QM" are based on positive knowledge, but some belief is involved in
their universal applicability, and a lot of belief is involved in the
(diverging) interpretations of those theories.
-- QM became in large part based on belief of HUP (SR also had "a " belief
as basis), meant that physical evidence is interpreted by that belief.
as per Einstein-- what we believe from theory determines what we observe
from experiment.
"Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use.
It is the theory which decides what can be observed." -
Einsteinhttp://blog.eugenspivak.com/wisdom/albert-einsteins-quotes
Roger Anderton
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] The true nature of Einstein and Newton physics
On Apr 7, 9:39 am, "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.krackla...@web.de> wrote:
> What is all this supposed to show?
I let Roger figure out for himself that in 1905 SRT was based on
empirical science - as Einstein stressed.
---Based on belief as Einstein stressed.
Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use.
It is the theory which decides what can be observed.
http://blog.eugenspivak.com/wisdom/albert-einsteins-quotes
are you claiming St Al contradicted himself -- in claiming that science
based on belief and not based on belief???
Roger Anderton
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.kra...@web.de>
To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] science and belief
> Seems clear to me, that there is a vast secondary, parasitic industry to
> science, an attempt to exploit both its reputation for successes
> (usually called technology) and its reputation for its solidity
> (empiricism + logic) to underpin various "beloved" dogmas, most often
> religion. [As a matter of historical fact, up to circa 150 years ago,
> damn near all top gun physicists were actually mainly interested in
> proving "intelligent design"! ]
>
> In the whole panoply of science, Physics is an outlier.
what is "outlier"??
Being more
> basic, it is sucked into this secondary business to grater extent than,
> say, mechanical engineering.
>
> This "secondary" effort, largely philosophical in nature [when not flat
> out quaky nonsense], revels in mysticism and ambiguity. Thus, wherever
> science is tentative or incomplete, the opening is used to gin up some
> fantastic story serving as an ostensible peek through a crack in the
> material world out into a heavenly beyond. This is where INTERP
> thaRETATION, based on opinion and belief, runs wild. That theories
> remain incomplete, is less a defect than a consequence of the natural
> fate of mortals, not really the issue.
theoretical physics has origins from theology; large part based on doctrine
of atomism post-Copernicus.
Pre-Copernicus - the doctrine of atomism was deemed incompatible with the
then existing medieval theological beliefs
A. F. Kracklauer
> "to beleve" something "to know" something - much the same thing
>
> e.g a religious person might say he "believes" his religion, or if
> might say "knows" it to be true.
On pure logic (devoid of specific content) one who "knows" religion, is
by overwhelming probability wrong. There are many mutually
contradictory confessions, each claims that it must exist because all
the others are fundamentally in error. Only one can be right. If it's
the largest one, I'd guess that to be Roman-Catholic, then at most 15%
of mankind could be "right." 85% are wrong! Which has nothing to do
with veritude of any dogma at all. Of course, the probability that the
largest is right, is also small! Easier to *believe* they are all wrong.
>
> science, religion -- are all belief systems
>
> physics based on doctrine of atomism and the evidence is interpreted
> based on that belief
While it is certainly possible to believe in science; the enterprise is
aimed at going as far as possible without "opinion" and "belief". No
matter, if science is "believed" one is not doing science. So,
Webster, not AFK.
>
> And I note your headings seem to be attempt at being abusive;
> apologise please
Per Webster: mania: "an infatuation or passion for, a craze". I
referred to your addiction to largely silly, argumentative, poorly
thought out pot-shots. The responsibility is not mine!
Al
harald
On Apr 10, 9:42 am, "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.krackla...@web.de> wrote:
> Seems clear to me, that there is a vast secondary, parasitic industry to
> science, an attempt to exploit both its reputation for successes
> (usually called technology) and its reputation for its solidity
> (empiricism + logic) to underpin various "beloved" dogmas, most often
> religion. [As a matter of historical fact, up to circa 150 years ago,
> damn near all top gun physicists were actually mainly interested in
> proving "intelligent design"! ]
>
> In the whole panoply of science, Physics is an outlier. Being more
> basic, it is sucked into this secondary business to grater extent than,
> say, mechanical engineering.
>
> This "secondary" effort, largely philosophical in nature [when not flat
> out quaky nonsense], revels in mysticism and ambiguity.
Are you sure that you didn't forget the meaning of "NP" in "NPA"? That
was the original name of physics. It looks to me that what you call
"secondary" was in fact primary - philosophy about nature.
What I did not realise when I studied physics, is that philosophy is
still important - despite efforts to make it completely empirical. As
most people want to make sense of things, it cannot be avoided. The
worst thing to do (but which is being done) is to indoctrinate
students with philosophy while pretending that it is just
"empirical".
Regards,
Harald
[..]
harald
experiments (incl. the part that you snipped). Claims that it is only
"belief" or only "empirical" can therefore not be right; but that is
what the debate between you and Al appears to be about. Rather useless
I think.
Regards,
Harald
On Apr 10, 10:08 am, "Roger Anderton" <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "harald" <h...@swissonline.ch>
> To: <membersc...@worldnpa.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 1:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] The true nature of Einstein and Newton physics
>
> On Apr 7, 9:39 am, "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.krackla...@web.de> wrote:
> > What is all this supposed to show?
>
> I let Roger figure out for himself that in 1905 SRT was based on
> empirical science - as Einstein stressed.
>
> ---Based on belief as Einstein stressed.
>
> Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use.
> It is the theory which decides what can be observed.http://blog.eugenspivak.com/wisdom/albert-einsteins-quotes
>
> are you claiming St Al contradicted himself -- in claiming that science
> based on belief and not based on belief???
>
> _______________________________________________
> MembersChat mailing list
> MembersC...@worldnpa.orghttp://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org
A. F. Kracklauer
Absolutely correct! Phys. is the daughter of ancient Greek NP. Another
daughter is theology. Each, seems to me, took a different development;
Phys. eventually, but not immediately, veered towards empirical
verification, while Theology, not having much of a choice I'd say, tried
abstract logic (Thomas Aquinas, etc.) before just degenerating into
mostly power politics. [Karen Armstrong blames it on monotheism, which
is as good a guess as I've ever heard.] Nevertheless, the relationship
is obvious sociologically still today.
Along with the industrial revolution, the development of mathematics and
formal logic, physics had, in parallel under the same impulses, self
consciously generated the ideal of the "scientific method." This was
facilitated strongly by engineering, with its brutal standard, obvious
to all, of "working." Theories, on the other hand have more wiggle room.
I find it very helpful to understand the historical development so as to
organize my efforts at coming up with coherent theories. Without such
an understanding, it is very easy to get waylaid on pointless, often
word-game disputes and confusions. See it everyday, by both main- and
sideline practitioners. It is particularly helpful to know what and
where the intrinsic logical limits actually are so as not to waste
effort trying to do what tautologically can't be done.
ciao, Al
Roger Anderton
belief
A. F. Kracklauer
>
>
> what is "outlier"??
Webster: That which lies, dwells, is situated or classed away from the
main body.
>
>
>
>
> Being more
>> basic, it is sucked into this secondary business to grater extent than,
>> say, mechanical engineering.
>>
>> This "secondary" effort, largely philosophical in nature [when not flat
>> out quaky nonsense], revels in mysticism and ambiguity. Thus, wherever
>> science is tentative or incomplete, the opening is used to gin up some
>> fantastic story serving as an ostensible peek through a crack in the
>> material world out into a heavenly beyond. This is where INTERP
>> thaRETATION, based on opinion and belief, runs wild. That theories
>> remain incomplete, is less a defect than a consequence of the natural
>> fate of mortals, not really the issue.
>
> theoretical physics has origins from theology; large part based on
> doctrine of atomism post-Copernicus.
Greek natural philosophy. Physics/technology always had at least a
loose connection with tinkerers, experimenters, explorers --- not
possible with theology.
>
> Pre-Copernicus - the doctrine of atomism was deemed incompatible with
> the then existing medieval theological beliefs
until after Mach that their existence was acknowledged by mainline
science. BTW, AE had a BIG role in the conversion! 1905 again;
Brownian motion.
Roger Anderton
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.kra...@web.de>
To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] more
> Roger Anderton wrote:
>> "to beleve" something "to know" something - much the same thing
> Not according to Webster, or Oxford!
I was pointing out that the terms are used much the same way. A believer
might say - he knows God, whereas an atheist might claim the believer only
"believes".
So there is a type of relativity; what one person interprets as "belief"
another interprets as "knows".
>
>>
>> e.g a religious person might say he "believes" his religion, or if
>> might say "knows" it to be true.
> On pure logic (devoid of specific content) one who "knows" religion, is
> by overwhelming probability wrong. There are many mutually
> contradictory confessions, each claims that it must exist because all
> the others are fundamentally in error. Only one can be right. If it's
> the largest one, I'd guess that to be Roman-Catholic, then at most 15%
> of mankind could be "right." 85% are wrong! Which has nothing to do
> with veritude of any dogma at all. Of course, the probability that the
> largest is right, is also small! Easier to *believe* they are all wrong.
>>
>> science, religion -- are all belief systems
>>
>> physics based on doctrine of atomism and the evidence is interpreted
>> based on that belief
> While it is certainly possible to believe in science; the enterprise is
> aimed at going as far as possible without "opinion" and "belief". No
> matter, if science is "believed" one is not doing science. So,
> Webster, not AFK.
--- what does Webster "know"?
>> And I note your headings seem to be attempt at being abusive;
>> apologise please
> Per Webster: mania: "an infatuation or passion for, a craze". I
> referred to your addiction to largely silly, argumentative, poorly
> thought out pot-shots. The responsibility is not mine!
I did not like that attempt at apology; please try again.
Roger A
Roger Anderton
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.kra...@web.de>
To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] science and belief
> Roger Anderton wrote:
>>
>>
>> what is "outlier"??
> Webster: That which lies, dwells, is situated or classed away from the
> main body.
ok, so I disagree with your claim using that term; but I pass.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Being more
>>> basic, it is sucked into this secondary business to grater extent than,
>>> say, mechanical engineering.
>>>
>>> This "secondary" effort, largely philosophical in nature [when not flat
>>> out quaky nonsense], revels in mysticism and ambiguity. Thus, wherever
>>> science is tentative or incomplete, the opening is used to gin up some
>>> fantastic story serving as an ostensible peek through a crack in the
>>> material world out into a heavenly beyond. This is where INTERP
>>> thaRETATION, based on opinion and belief, runs wild. That theories
>>> remain incomplete, is less a defect than a consequence of the natural
>>> fate of mortals, not really the issue.
>>
>> theoretical physics has origins from theology; large part based on
>> doctrine of atomism post-Copernicus.
> Phys. is the sister of theology, not the daughter; their mother was
> Greek natural philosophy. Physics/technology always had at least a
> loose connection with tinkerers, experimenters, explorers --- not
> possible with theology.
>>
>> Pre-Copernicus - the doctrine of atomism was deemed incompatible with
>> the then existing medieval theological beliefs
> Atoms are so much smaller than expected by the Greeks, that it wasn't
> until after Mach that their existence was acknowledged by mainline
> science. BTW, AE had a BIG role in the conversion! 1905 again;
> Brownian motion.
yes, but it looked like a publicity campaign *; those who were opposed to
atoms like Mach never accepted them. It just seems more like - it was a
publicity campaign to have the next generation of physicists to believe
them.
*- that incidently went wrong, because Greek atoms are smaller than what was
called atoms.
A. F. Kracklauer
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch>
> To: <membe...@worldnpa.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 1:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] The true nature of Einstein and Newton physics
>
>
> On Apr 7, 9:39 am, "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.krackla...@web.de> wrote:
>> What is all this supposed to show?
>
> I let Roger figure out for himself that in 1905 SRT was based on
> empirical science - as Einstein stressed.
>
> ---Based on belief as Einstein stressed.
setting up his theories. He made hypotheses to be tested for their
consequences. Where at all possible, he would predict effects to test
and on occasion proposed actual designs of apparatus to do so. AE did
very little religion --- allegorical pronouncements for the public
notwithstanding.
>
>
>
> Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you
> use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.
> http://blog.eugenspivak.com/wisdom/albert-einsteins-quotes
to mean: theory tells the experimentors what to look for; not what
reality is to provide to be looked for. The former is a flat out
statement of practical fact to be seen in any lab; the later is voodoo.
>
>
> are you claiming St Al contradicted himself -- in claiming that
> science based on belief and not based on belief???
as fact without lab verification, or in the face of disproof. Those
who regard Al as a St., have to belief it, but they will not be able to
prove it --- he provided no evidence. And more than once said as much.
Roger Anderton
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] The true nature of Einstein and Newton physics
> Roger Anderton wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch>
>> To: <membe...@worldnpa.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 1:07 AM
>> Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] The true nature of Einstein and Newton physics
>>
>>
>> On Apr 7, 9:39 am, "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.krackla...@web.de> wrote:
>>> What is all this supposed to show?
>>
>> I let Roger figure out for himself that in 1905 SRT was based on
>> empirical science - as Einstein stressed.
>>
>> ---Based on belief as Einstein stressed.
> AE never advocated believing anything! Period; never use the word when
> setting up his theories. He made hypotheses to be tested for their
> consequences. Where at all possible, he would predict effects to test
> and on occasion proposed actual designs of apparatus to do so. AE did
> very little religion --- allegorical pronouncements for the public
> notwithstanding.
-- that is contrary to what AE said
AE quote: I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely,
that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work
hand-in-hand. It seems to mc that whoever doesn't wonder about the truth in
religion and in science might as well be dead.
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/bucky.html
sounds like he wants to mix the two
>>
>>
>>
>> Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you
>> use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.
>> http://blog.eugenspivak.com/wisdom/albert-einsteins-quotes
> AE: "theory determines what is observable..." This can be interpreted
> to mean: theory tells the experimentors what to look for; not what
> reality is to provide to be looked for. The former is a flat out
> statement of practical fact to be seen in any lab; the later is voodoo.
>>
>>
>> are you claiming St Al contradicted himself -- in claiming that
>> science based on belief and not based on belief???
> AE never intimated that an assertion (his or any other) was to be held
> as fact without lab verification, or in the face of disproof. Those
> who regard Al as a St., have to belief it, but they will not be able to
> prove it --- he provided no evidence. And more than once said as much.
--- belivers in Einstein sing that he is divine
Divine Einstein! by Marian McKenzie & Walter Smith 3-16-05
(To the tune of "I'm Lookin' Over a Four-leaf Clover")
G G G G
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
A A A A
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
D D7 G E
He explained the photo-electric effect,
A A
D D7
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
G G
G
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
A A A
He should have been given four!
Am Am D E
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divineEinstein.htm
A. F. Kracklauer
>>
>>
>> Einstein was familiar with the physics literature of his days (which
>> often discussed MMX), he even learned electrodynamics from Lorentz's
>> papers, due to lack of good, up-to-date textbooks on that topic. And
>> he admitted in a talk in Japan that SRT is based on MMX.
>>
>> -- yes but still disputed; not everyone believes it! And what are you
>> going
>> to put your faith in that there was no mistake made in the transcribe
>> of the
>> Japanese lecture; and that you are going to ignore other sources?
>>
>> Anyway, the
>> following should already suffice:
>>
>> "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
>> discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,''
>> suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
>> possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. "
of an "aether." AE banished the aether as an absolute gas or mystical
water for E&M propagation in 1905. Already in the 20's he brought back
the word, but redefined it to pertain to fields and he considered them
then. Finally, he used the word for the G-field, the metric, which he
said is engendered by mass-energy. frankly, I don't see why he bothered
with this issue; might have been a sop for some sociological purpose.
>>
>> 1. What kind of "unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the
>> earth relatively to the `light medium' " do you think he knew of?
In his Annual of radiologists article in 1907 he cited MM. So, between
1905 and 1907 he seems to have recalled the citation. A good case can
be made that he read about MMX in Hasenohrl's E&M text circa 1897.
>> 2. Do you call such attempts an "empirical basis" or mere
>> "hypotheses" (which just happened to spring up in his mind, only based
>> on his fantasy?).
>>
>> --- highlights Einstein being ambiguous.
The record is clear; he needed, and employed no fantasy at all. He did
employ it uncritically as common wisdom, however. In hindsight, enough
fantasy to have seen that this assumption might be defective would have
been a good thing.
>>
>> Moreover:
>>
>> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
>> which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
>> These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and
>> consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on
>> Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. "
All AE statements of this sort are with respect to SR only. They
ceased, or were qualified, after ca. 1910.
>>
>> 3. What do you think, was Maxwell's electrodynamics based on mere
>> "hypotheses" or did it have an empirical basis (such as the phenomena
>> studied by Faraday)?
>> 4. How would you call a theory that is partly based on experimental
>> examples (first postulate), and partly on Maxwell's electrodynamics
>> (second postulate)?
>>
>> --- Maxwell's theory is based on electromagnetic experiments; so what we
>> have is development of that by Einstein; or rather Einstein's
>> interpretation
>> of Maxwell.
>
> Application of Maxwell and Poincare; he didn't interpret much but
> skilfully applied math on existing assumptions.
>
> --- no, not skill; he messed up
Show us a math error; exact citation please. No misprints and the like.
Roger Anderton
--something like that
frankly, I don't see why he bothered
> with this issue; might have been a sop for some sociological purpose.
--lost me - as to what you mean? are you agreeing or disagreeing with AE?
>
>
>>>
>>> 1. What kind of "unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the
>>> earth relatively to the `light medium' " do you think he knew of?
> In his Annual of radiologists article in 1907 he cited MM. So, between
> 1905 and 1907 he seems to have recalled the citation. A good case can
> be made that he read about MMX in Hasenohrl's E&M text circa 1897.
-- leaves us with the issue of whether SR was a theory based on interpreting
MMX result or not
>
>>> 2. Do you call such attempts an "empirical basis" or mere
>>> "hypotheses" (which just happened to spring up in his mind, only based
>>> on his fantasy?).
>>>
>>> --- highlights Einstein being ambiguous.
> The record is clear; he needed, and employed no fantasy at all.
--- reference?
--- working from Newtonian physics, AE made mistakes. In 1905 he says
lighspeed constant and then says its not constant.
Robert Fritzius
Somebody said: (Can't tell who, based on the perplexities of the message handling protocol. >>, >, etc.) "AE never advocated believing anything! Period; never use[d] the word when setting up his theories." For new readers AE = Albert Einstein. FYI. Here is a passage from an English translation of a Ritz-Einstein paper in 1909. Note that twice the word believes is used with respect to Einstein's outlook. [Emphasis on the word is added.] "While Einstein believes it to be possible to restrict oneself to this case [advanced potentials at work as well as retarded potentials] without essentially limiting the generality of the consideration, Ritz considers this restriction as in principle not allowed. If one takes the position that experience compels the representation with aid of the retarded potential as the only possibility to consider, and supposing one is inclined to the view that the fact of irreversibility of the radiation process is already in the basic laws, its expression has to be found. Ritz considers the restriction to the form of the retarded potential as one of the roots of the second law [of thermodynamics] while Einstein believes that irreversibility depends exclusively upon reasons of probability." Phrases [in brackets] were added to improve a sense of the context in this excerpt. To see the complete English translation, go to: The Ritz-Einstein Agreement to Disagree (Part 2) http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/rtzein2.htm Here is a copy of the German original. Während Einstein glaubt, dass man sich auf diesen Fall beschränken könne, ohne die Allgemeinheit der Betrachtung wesentlich zu beschränken, betrachtet Ritz diese Beschränkung als eine prinzipiell nicht erlaubte. Stellt man sich auf diesen Standpunkt, so nötigt die Erfahrung dazu, die Darstellung mit Hilfe der retardierten Potentiale als die einzig mögliche zu betrachten, falls man der Ansicht zuneigt, dass die Tatsache der Nichtumkehrbarkeit der Strahlungsvorgänge bereits in den Grundgetsetzen ihren Ausdruck zu finden habe. Ritz betrachtet die Einschränkung auf die Form der retardierten Potentiale als eine der Wurzeln des zweiten Hauptsatzes, während Einstein glaubt, dass die Nichtumkehrbarkeit ausschliesslich auf Wahrscheinlichkeitsgründen beruhe. W. Ritz und A. Einstein, "Zum gegenwärtigen Stand des Strahlungs-problems," Physikalische Zeitschrift, 10 Jahrgang, No 9, Seite 323-324, (1909). The use of the word believes may be evidence that the editors of Physikalische Zeitschrift wrote the paper, rather than Ritz and Einstein. Bob Fritzius See http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/rtzein0.htm Best regards. Bob F. |
|
To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org> |
|
Stan Brown
I agree. Philosophy is just as important now as it was in Aristotle's time, but its most successful child - science - has overshadowed it. Logic and verbal reasoning are potent tools of analysis that are now routinely misused because philosophy has lost its power to lead in the modern world. Aristotle and almost every philosopher in his era would have responded to the twin paradox with peals of laughter because they knew what it meant when something was both true and not true. Rather than living with the paradox, they would have more deeply examined the premises.
On the surface it appears that physics is making good progress, but it might be making more if all physicists has done a little slumming in the school of philosophy and taken a course in formal logic.
Stan
> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 02:00:14 -0700
> From: hv...@swissonline.ch
> To: membe...@worldnpa.org
> Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] science and belief
>
> was the original name of physics. It looks to me that what you call
> "secondary" was in fact primary - philosophy about nature.
>
> What I did not realise when I studied physics, is that philosophy is
> still important - despite efforts to make it completely empirical. As
> most people want to make sense of things, it cannot be avoided. The
> worst thing to do (but which is being done) is to indoctrinate
> students with philosophy while pretending that it is just
> "empirical".
>
> Regards,
> Harald
>
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Get started.
Stan Brown
You're right, the historical perspective is crucial, and failure of most scientists to have it has played an important role in the modern confusion in physics. Your efforts in translating Einstein's works have given you a perspective that is unique and valuable.
For me, the most important date in relativity was November 5, 1879, when Einstein was only 7 months old. That was the day Maxwell died. With his death, confusion began, for it was he who set in motion the Michelson-Morley experiment, but he never lived to see it carried out. No one would have been more flabbergasted by the outcome of the experiment than Maxwell, and, in my opinion, no one would have been more capable of explaining the result than Maxwell himself.
With Maxwell's death, the distilled wisdom of hundreds of experiments that led him to expect an ether, and could not be outweighed by a single contrary experiment was lost. The experiment had lost its father, so it was orphaned before it was conducted. Michelson never believed in relativity, and that is probably because he was deeply steeped in Maxwell.
But Einstein seemed to be only vaguely aware of Maxwell's voluminous reasoning, and, in fact, only vaguely aware of Michelson's experiments. I say this not to fault Einstein, but instead to focus on what I perceive to be a real problem. The historical baton was dropped. Once Maxwell died, a huge portion of his careful analysis was simply lost because he ceased to be a hands-on player in physics, and faded into history.
If Einstein and Maxwell had been contemporaries, the two together would have gotten to the bottom of the MM experiment sooner or later. Without that collaboration, physics entered a maze from which it has never escaped.
Stan
> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 15:42:54 +0200
> From: af.kra...@web.de
>
> I find it very helpful to understand the historical development so as to
> organize my efforts at coming up with coherent theories. Without such
> an understanding, it is very easy to get waylaid on pointless, often
> word-game disputes and confusions. See it everyday, by both main- and
> sideline practitioners. It is particularly helpful to know what and
> where the intrinsic logical limits actually are so as not to waste
> effort trying to do what tautologically can't be done.
>
> ciao, Al
>
>
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. Get busy.
A. F. Kracklauer
> Somebody said: (Can't tell who, based on the perplexities of the
> message handling protocol. >>, >, etc.)
>
word "believe" by AE; but it is not a use of that word in connection
with a specification of an hypothetical input for a theory. He is not
asking one to believe in anything, rather he is saying, that his
preferred choice of what to put into a theory is so and so. Implicitly,
AE expects that there will be experimentally testable consequences for
this choice so that faith is not involved. My statement quoted below,
explicitly pertains only to hypothetical inputs into theories.
Note please, that I distinguish between using the word 'believe,' as in
"I believe in God," i.e., I hold it true without proof that God exists,
vs. "I believe GM stock will go up" or my guess is that GM stock might
go up. The example cited below is similar to latter case, not the former.
%*$# details!
WRT this particular issue, AE has made a bad choice --- based on his
belief, no less, in field theories being most fundamental. Had he
examined E&M structure, as did Fritz Rohrlich 30 years later, he would
have found, as did Fritz (and probably others before him), that if one
writes out the Maxwell field equations and Lorentz force law for two
interacting charged particles (with or without advanced interaction), he
will have too many variables for the number of equations! Routinely,
then, superfluous variables are eliminated. In this case, that turns
out to be the FIELD variables. In plain text: math is telling us that
field theory is not, as mathematicians say, "well posed." However,
direct interaction is. Here Ritz was on his way to besting AE (and his
field theories); too bad he died so early.
Actually here AE made an even worse blunder by not rejecting advanced
interaction. Again, no belief (contrary to AE's in statistics) is
needed to reject them, there are very good arguments, and lots of evidence.
While AE did not walk on water, he did know enough not to ask acceptance
of his work on faith. These examples also show, that where is used the
word 'believe', he fell into error. Maybe there's a lesson there!
This all started with my suggestion that in this thread, all statements
involving the word "believe" (or opinion) that cannot be replace with
ones using the words: 'calculate,' 'demonstrate' or cite, etc., just be
dropped. Nothing said since make me want to change my mind.
--- Al
> --- On *Sat, 4/10/10, Roger Anderton /<r.j.an...@btinternet.com>/*
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. F. Kracklauer
If there is a story behind it, I'd guess that it has to do with
politics, not facts.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. What kind of "unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the
>>>> earth relatively to the `light medium' " do you think he knew of?
>> In his Annual of radiologists article in 1907 he cited MM. So, between
>> 1905 and 1907 he seems to have recalled the citation. A good case can
>> be made that he read about MMX in Hasenohrl's E&M text circa 1897.
>
> -- leaves us with the issue of whether SR was a theory based on
> interpreting MMX result or not
arises because AE was lazy in 1905 wrt citations. At that time he was a
hobbyist, maybe he can be excused.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>> 2. Do you call such attempts an "empirical basis" or mere
>>>> "hypotheses" (which just happened to spring up in his mind, only based
>>>> on his fantasy?).
>>>>
>>>> --- highlights Einstein being ambiguous.
>> The record is clear; he needed, and employed no fantasy at all.
>
> --- reference?
Many, the first is the Jahrbuch article in 1907.
Not an error, but a difference. In 1905 he was doing SR on the basis of
linear transformations, -> constant c; later on he did GR on the basis
of diffeomorphisms. Only the latter has/needs variable c. Different
theory for a different purpose (to include gravity). BTW, he never
"worked from Newtonian physics." He did show Newton is the limit as c->
0. SR starts from a different axiom set, as it were. Can't get there
from Newton alone.
A. F. Kracklauer
find any meaning, except "feel good". I think he said this kind of
thing to reduce his cross section with the brown-shirt, anti Semites
that were, or had, been, pestering him. Utterly crazy times! Do you
know the date on it?
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you
>>> use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.
>>> http://blog.eugenspivak.com/wisdom/albert-einsteins-quotes
>> AE: "theory determines what is observable..." This can be interpreted
>> to mean: theory tells the experimentors what to look for; not what
>> reality is to provide to be looked for. The former is a flat out
>> statement of practical fact to be seen in any lab; the later is voodoo.
>>>
>>>
>>> are you claiming St Al contradicted himself -- in claiming that
>>> science based on belief and not based on belief???
>> AE never intimated that an assertion (his or any other) was to be held
>> as fact without lab verification, or in the face of disproof. Those
>> who regard Al as a St., have to belief it, but they will not be able to
>> prove it --- he provided no evidence. And more than once said as much.
>
> --- belivers in Einstein sing that he is divine
There is nothing so stupid that it doesn't have fans! The "Wunderkind"
AE is even more grotesque that the demon AE! Both are fabricated fictions.
Below, a nifty little jingle! Maybe it could sell soap.
A. F. Kracklauer
then lots of properties of gases and whatnot. Whatever else, AE was not
in the "belief" mode. He predicted effects, e.g., specific heats, which
he and others then verified.
>
> *- that incidently went wrong, because Greek atoms are smaller than
> what was called atoms.
Who called? When? What you're probably talking about here is that it
turned out that element atoms can be split into elementary particles at
least down one more stage, and maybe more. Irrelevant! Misnomer.
Won't be the last one.
A. F. Kracklauer
>
>
>
>
>>> And I note your headings seem to be attempt at being abusive;
>>> apologise please
>> Per Webster: mania: "an infatuation or passion for, a craze". I
>> referred to your addiction to largely silly, argumentative, poorly
>> thought out pot-shots. The responsibility is not mine!
>
> I did not like that attempt at apology; please try again.
feelings are your problem.
Roger Anderton
-- whats that mean?
>>>> And I note your headings seem to be attempt at being abusive;
>>>> apologise please
>>> Per Webster: mania: "an infatuation or passion for, a craze". I
>>> referred to your addiction to largely silly, argumentative, poorly
>>> thought out pot-shots. The responsibility is not mine!
>>
>> I did not like that attempt at apology; please try again.
> It wasn't an "attempt." Nor apology at all. That's my view. Your
> feelings are your problem.
--- does that mean you are not apologising? are you attempting to be rude?
Roger Anderton
-- you are the one talking baloney, it did not convince Mach; the
calculation AE made was based upon a belief.
>
>>
>> *- that incidently went wrong, because Greek atoms are smaller than
>> what was called atoms.
> Who called? When? What you're probably talking about here is that it
> turned out that element atoms can be split into elementary particles at
> least down one more stage, and maybe more.
-- yes that be it
> Irrelevant!
-- not irrelevant, it meant what the Greeks meant by atom was not what
became called atom.
Roger Anderton
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.kra...@web.de>
To: "NPA Members Chat Email" <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] The true nature of Einstein and Newton physics
WRT this particular issue, AE has made a bad choice --- based on his
belief, no less, in field theories being most fundamental.
--- earlier you were telling me AE did not work from beliefs; you are
contradictory.
Roger Anderton
--- I thought the new aether was given the name spacetime??
>>>>> 1. What kind of "unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the
>>>>> earth relatively to the `light medium' " do you think he knew of?
>>> In his Annual of radiologists article in 1907 he cited MM. So, between
>>> 1905 and 1907 he seems to have recalled the citation. A good case can
>>> be made that he read about MMX in Hasenohrl's E&M text circa 1897.
>>
>> -- leaves us with the issue of whether SR was a theory based on
>> interpreting MMX result or not
> SR is explicitly based on the MMX result in the 1907 paper; any issue
> arises because AE was lazy in 1905 wrt citations. At that time he was a
> hobbyist, maybe he can be excused.
--- so at least two versions of SR; the 1905 version and the 1907
>>>>> 2. Do you call such attempts an "empirical basis" or mere
>>>>> "hypotheses" (which just happened to spring up in his mind, only based
>>>>> on his fantasy?).
>>>>>
>>>>> --- highlights Einstein being ambiguous.
>>> The record is clear; he needed, and employed no fantasy at all.
>>
>> --- reference?
> Many, the first is the Jahrbuch article in 1907.
??
--- well that if that were the case then that is his error, should have
used Newtonian physics. But really what you are stating is just your
beliefs.
Roger Anderton
>> and should work hand-in-hand. It seems to me that whoever doesn't
>> wonder about the truth in religion and in science might as well be
>> dead. http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/bucky.html
>>
>> sounds like he wants to mix the two
> This kind of talk is empty. Sounds profound. But when parsed, can't
> find any meaning, except "feel good". I think he said this kind of
> thing to reduce his cross section with the brown-shirt, anti Semites
> that were, or had, been, pestering him. Utterly crazy times!
--- you mean AE was crazy?
Do you
> know the date on it?
comes from Bucky, Peter A. with Allen G. Weakland, The Private Albert
Einstein (Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, 1992)
re: http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/bucky.html
This book contains the record of various conversations between Bucky and
Einstein over a thirty year period.
>>>> Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you
>>>> use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.
>>>> http://blog.eugenspivak.com/wisdom/albert-einsteins-quotes
>>> AE: "theory determines what is observable..." This can be interpreted
>>> to mean: theory tells the experimentors what to look for; not what
>>> reality is to provide to be looked for. The former is a flat out
>>> statement of practical fact to be seen in any lab; the later is voodoo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> are you claiming St Al contradicted himself -- in claiming that
>>>> science based on belief and not based on belief???
>>> AE never intimated that an assertion (his or any other) was to be held
>>> as fact without lab verification, or in the face of disproof. Those
>>> who regard Al as a St., have to belief it, but they will not be able to
>>> prove it --- he provided no evidence. And more than once said as much.
>>
>> --- belivers in Einstein sing that he is divine
> There is nothing so stupid that it doesn't have fans! The "Wunderkind"
> AE is even more grotesque that the demon AE! Both are fabricated
> fictions.
--- so you are anti-AE??
carl littmann
----- Original Message -----From: Stan Brown
Roger Anderton
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] science and belief
> Harald:
>
> Absolutely correct! Phys. is the daughter of ancient Greek NP. Another
> daughter is theology. Each, seems to me, took a different development;
> Phys. eventually, but not immediately, veered towards empirical
> verification,
conflict between those who wanted empirical verification and the physics
revolution where concepts entered into physics such as doctrine of atomism.
point-particle that was so small could not be seen was theoretical idea that
entered physics after the Copernican revolution; reintroduced into physics
from ancient Greeks. An idea rejected by empiricists because not
experimentally verified until about 1905 when AE supposed proved it.
Though - just a publicity campaign by pro-atomists to try to silence the
anti-atomists.
Physics -- just a battleground for different philosophical beliefs.
Physics is really just math modelling.
Conflict between those who believe it should be more than just that and
those who accept it is just that.
Conflict between those who want empirical verification and those who accept
"it" if it is the math model