Anti-time

[Ed Lake]

I don't know if there are any science-fiction fans on this forum,
but there's a new science-fiction novel about anti-time available
in Kindle and paperback formats on Amazon.com.

Here's the link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08X16MCSR/

Time travel may not let you change the past, but it can be a handy tool if you want to change the future.

[Wilburn Neubecker]

Ed Lake wrote:

> I don't know if there are any science-fiction fans on this forum, but
> there's a new science-fiction novel about anti-time available in Kindle
> and paperback formats on Amazon.com.

You don't even mention its title and the name of the author. Which
strongly indicates zero-math infinity physics. I wonder what kind of
stupid would spend money and time reading such zero-math physics, slow-
time and opposite appearance when you move around.

[Wilburn Neubecker]

Let me know if anybody.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

You have to stop time before you can make it go backward.

[Ed Lake]

The book is titled "Time Work." The author is that well-known
visitor to this forum: Ed Lake.

It is science-FICTION, which means that it has a scientific basis,
but what the characters do might not be totally scientific.

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 1:33:27 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 6:51:27 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > I don't know if there are any science-fiction fans on this forum,
> > but there's a new science-fiction novel about anti-time available
> > in Kindle and paperback formats on Amazon.com.
> >
> > Here's the link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08X16MCSR/
> >

> > Time travel may not let you change the past, but it can be a handy tool if you want to change the future.I

> You have to stop time before you can make it go backward.

Not the way it is explained in the book. It's a different dimension.
If you have the right "gizmo," you can flip a switch and transfer from
normal time into anti-time.

[Ed Lake]

If you go to this link https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08X16MCSR/ you can
access Amazon's "Look Inside" feature. That will show you the first three
chapters and part of the fourth. If that doesn't make you want to read the
rest of the book, then it has cost you nothing.

[Wilburn Neubecker]

Not really, and what function blocks (FB) are smart embedded into that
"gizmo". Show me the diagram, in order to reproduce. Zero-math science is
all about repeatability.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 2/23/2021 12:58 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 1:33:27 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 6:51:27 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>>> I don't know if there are any science-fiction fans on this forum,
>>> but there's a new science-fiction novel about anti-time available
>>> in Kindle and paperback formats on Amazon.com.
>>>
>>> Here's the link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08X16MCSR/
>>>
>>> Time travel may not let you change the past, but it can be a handy tool if you want to change the future.I
>> You have to stop time before you can make it go backward.

You can alter the future right now, without time travel? Think of
stepping on a bug. The future does not have that bug in it.

[Eber Sandrelli]

Ed Lake wrote:

>> Here's the link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08X16MCSR/
>>
>> Time travel may not let you change the past, but it can be a handy tool
>> if you want to change the future.
>
> The book is titled "Time Work." The author is that well-known visitor
> to this forum: Ed Lake.
> It is science-FICTION, which means that it has a scientific basis,
> but what the characters do might not be totally scientific.

Somebody you know, that author? Also "not totally scientific" means a
theory which is wrong. Why should anybody read a theory which is wrong?

[The Starmaker]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 06:51:24 -0800 (PST), Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

Okay, you wrote the book...but you could have at least paid some kid
artist on fiver.com or craigslist to design the cover for you.

Haven't you heard, 'You can tell a book by it's cover' ?


and...what does the word Time have to do with the word Work????



Work sounds too much like Work.









--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 06:51:24 -0800 (PST), Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't know if there are any science-fiction fans on this forum,
> >but there's a new science-fiction novel about anti-time available
> >in Kindle and paperback formats on Amazon.com.
> >
> >Here's the link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08X16MCSR/
> >
> >Time travel may not let you change the past, but it can be a handy tool if you want to change the future.
>
> Okay, you wrote the book...but you could have at least paid some kid
> artist on fiver.com or craigslist to design the cover for you.
>
> Haven't you heard, 'You can tell a book by it's cover' ?
>
> and...what does the word Time have to do with the word Work????
>
> Work sounds too much like Work.
>

just get a kid on fiverr.com to do a book cover design for you along these lines...

https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/NEWS/2019/IMG/iqoqi_zeitreise_1440_c_pixabay.jpg

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VRaYR9GNanHLE9HmBWgiB5.jpg

https://cdn100.picsart.com/206575683001202.jpg

https://pixabay.com/illustrations/search/time%20travel/


but dat cover gotta go..

[Ed Lake]

It's science-FICTION. That means you take an idea that is not impossible and
have fictional characters explore the idea as they work to solve a problem.

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 6:03:34 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 2/23/2021 12:58 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 1:33:27 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 6:51:27 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> >>> I don't know if there are any science-fiction fans on this forum,
> >>> but there's a new science-fiction novel about anti-time available
> >>> in Kindle and paperback formats on Amazon.com.
> >>>
> >>> Here's the link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08X16MCSR/
> >>>
> >>> Time travel may not let you change the past, but it can be a handy tool if you want to change the future.I
> >> You have to stop time before you can make it go backward.
> You can alter the future right now, without time travel? Think of
> stepping on a bug. The future does not have that bug in it.

That's the basic idea, but in the book they use the time travel device
to prevent a crime. The crime hasn't yet happened, but the time
travelers see somebody do something that they know will eventually
become a major crime.

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 10:44:42 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 06:51:24 -0800 (PST), Ed Lake > wrote:
> >I don't know if there are any science-fiction fans on this forum,
> >but there's a new science-fiction novel about anti-time available
> >in Kindle and paperback formats on Amazon.com.
> >
> >Here's the link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08X16MCSR/
> >
> >Time travel may not let you change the past, but it can be a handy tool if you want to change the future.
> Okay, you wrote the book...but you could have at least paid some kid
> artist on fiver.com or craigslist to design the cover for you.
>
> Haven't you heard, 'You can tell a book by it's cover' ?
>
>
> and...what does the word Time have to do with the word Work????
>
>
>
> Work sounds too much like Work.

It's investigative "work." They learn that there is some kind of
crime being planned, and they use time travel to figure out
what the crime is so that they can stop it before it happens.

[Ed Lake]

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 11:30:05 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 06:51:24 -0800 (PST), Ed Lake >

> > wrote:
> >
> > >I don't know if there are any science-fiction fans on this forum,
> > >but there's a new science-fiction novel about anti-time available
> > >in Kindle and paperback formats on Amazon.com.
> > >
> > >Here's the link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08X16MCSR/
> > >
> > >Time travel may not let you change the past, but it can be a handy tool if you want to change the future.
> >
> > Okay, you wrote the book...but you could have at least paid some kid
> > artist on fiver.com or craigslist to design the cover for you.
> >
> > Haven't you heard, 'You can tell a book by it's cover' ?
> >
> > and...what does the word Time have to do with the word Work????
> >
> > Work sounds too much like Work.
> >
> just get a kid on fiverr.com to do a book cover design for you along these lines...
>
> https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/NEWS/2019/IMG/iqoqi_zeitreise_1440_c_pixabay.jpg
>
> https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VRaYR9GNanHLE9HmBWgiB5.jpg
>
> https://cdn100.picsart.com/206575683001202.jpg
>
> https://pixabay.com/illustrations/search/time%20travel/
>
>
> but dat cover gotta go..
> --

Yeah. I'm not pleased with the cover, either. I worked for weeks trying
to create a snazzy cover with designs like those at your links, but
if I used those images I'd run into copyright problems. And I just couldn't
come up with a design I liked. So, I settled on plain black and white
cover. It should stand out from all the others.

[Ed Lake]

You can read the first three chapters and part of the fourth chapter
by going to this link https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08X16MCSR/ and
using Amazon's "Look inside" feature.

The main character in the book is Kyle Rawlins, the older brother of the
current President of the United States. Kyle is having dinner with a friend
in Chicago when the President calls him on his cellphone and asks Kyle to look
into a strange new device that Professor Wycott at Northwestern University
has invented. Kyle and Professor Wycott once worked together on a new kind of
cell-phone antenna, and they shared the patent.

Professor Wycott's daughter then arrives at the restaurant, and she and
Kyle go out to an alley next door where a semi-truck containing the device
is parked. Professor Wycott is inside. And they give Kyle a demonstration
of how the device works. They show Kyle a video of a meeting between
Kyle and the President that took place in the Oval Office a couple days ago.

The meeting was just between Kyle and his brother, but the Wycotts have
a video of the entire thing - shot from different angles, with the camera
moving around them. It seems totally impossible. The Wycotts say they
will explain how it was done if Kyle agrees to work on the project. He agrees.

And when he returns to his table in the restaurant after being gone for almost
an hour, his date says he was gone only 10 minutes. And their watches confirm
that.

That's the end of chapter three.

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 06:51:24 -0800 (PST), Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I don't know if there are any science-fiction fans on this forum,
> > >but there's a new science-fiction novel about anti-time available
> > >in Kindle and paperback formats on Amazon.com.
> > >
> > >Here's the link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08X16MCSR/
> > >
> > >Time travel may not let you change the past, but it can be a handy tool if you want to change the future.
> >
> > Okay, you wrote the book...but you could have at least paid some kid
> > artist on fiver.com or craigslist to design the cover for you.
> >
> > Haven't you heard, 'You can tell a book by it's cover' ?
> >
> > and...what does the word Time have to do with the word Work????
> >
> > Work sounds too much like Work.
> >
>
> just get a kid on fiverr.com to do a book cover design for you along these lines...
>
> https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/NEWS/2019/IMG/iqoqi_zeitreise_1440_c_pixabay.jpg
>
> https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VRaYR9GNanHLE9HmBWgiB5.jpg
>
> https://cdn100.picsart.com/206575683001202.jpg
>
> https://pixabay.com/illustrations/search/time%20travel/
>
> but dat cover gotta go..
>

You wrote:
but in the book they use the time travel device
to prevent a crime. The crime hasn't yet happened, but the time
travelers see somebody do something that they know will eventually
become a major crime.

---


Have you seen the movie "The Minority Report"? do you know wats it about?

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 12:24:47 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 06:51:24 -0800 (PST), Ed Lake

> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I don't know if there are any science-fiction fans on this forum,
> > > >but there's a new science-fiction novel about anti-time available
> > > >in Kindle and paperback formats on Amazon.com.
> > > >
> > > >Here's the link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08X16MCSR/
> > > >
> > > >Time travel may not let you change the past, but it can be a handy tool if you want to change the future.
> > >
> > > Okay, you wrote the book...but you could have at least paid some kid
> > > artist on fiver.com or craigslist to design the cover for you.
> > >
> > > Haven't you heard, 'You can tell a book by it's cover' ?
> > >
> > > and...what does the word Time have to do with the word Work????
> > >
> > > Work sounds too much like Work.
> > >
> >
> > just get a kid on fiverr.com to do a book cover design for you along these lines...
> >
> > https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/NEWS/2019/IMG/iqoqi_zeitreise_1440_c_pixabay.jpg
> >
> > https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/VRaYR9GNanHLE9HmBWgiB5.jpg
> >
> > https://cdn100.picsart.com/206575683001202.jpg
> >
> > https://pixabay.com/illustrations/search/time%20travel/
> >
> > but dat cover gotta go..
> >
> You wrote:
> but in the book they use the time travel device
> to prevent a crime. The crime hasn't yet happened, but the time
> travelers see somebody do something that they know will eventually
> become a major crime.
> ---
>
>
> Have you seen the movie "The Minority Report"? do you know wats it about?

Yes, I have "Minority Report" on DVD, and I've watched it at least once, since
I rated it as "below average." My log says the last time I watched it was in May
of 2013. I don't remember very much about it, but the IMDB says, "They use
three gifted humans (called "Pre-Cogs") with special powers to see into the
future and predict crimes beforehand."

That's using MYSTICISM, not the SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT of anti-time.
To compare "Minority Report" to "Time Work" is like comparing a
witchcraft broom to space travel because they both get you from place
to place.

[Odd Bodkin]

Just as a reminder, science fiction is more fiction than science.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Eber Sandrelli]

Ed Lake wrote:

>> > Not the way it is explained in the book. It's a different dimension.
>> > If you have the right "gizmo," you can flip a switch and transfer
>> > from normal time into anti-time.
>> Not really, and what function blocks (FB) are smart embedded into that
>> "gizmo". Show me the diagram, in order to reproduce. Zero-math science
>> is all about repeatability.
>
> It's science-FICTION. That means you take an idea that is not
> impossible and have fictional characters explore the idea as they work
> to solve a problem.

Where's the "science" there, in two lines?

[Ed Lake]

Science is defined as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing
the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and
natural world through observation and experiment."

Einstein began doing science with "gedanken," which are THOUGHT experiments.

In science fiction you do thought experiments. If X is possible, that means
that Y would be possible, too. If anti-time is real, what would happen if you
could step into anti-time?

In most time travel stories they travel not only in time but from place to place.
They travel back to ancient Egypt, or to some city in the future. That's BAD
science, because you are not only traveling through time, you are also traveling
to another LOCATION - a totally DIFFERENT science problem.

In H.G. Wells' book "The Time Machine," the time traveler could only travel
though time. His time machine never moved from it's location in his lab. He
could sit in his machine and watch the seasons go by outside.

In my book "Time Work," when you go back in time you travel one second per
second into anti-time. And you can't change anything, because that would
change the past. You can't even bend a blade of grass, which means that
walking on the grass in anti-time is like walking on ice-picks.

That's the fun of science fiction. If you could go backward in time but
couldn't change anything, and you can only go back in time one second per
second, how would you go back to Dallas in 1963 to see if Lee Harvey Oswald
really killed JFK? Do you take 65 years worth of supplies with you? No.
You would send a movie camera back that operates on a timer. That's what
they do in "Time Work."

It's good gedanken science. If this is true, then this must also be true, so
it would be possible to do this, but not that.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 3:26:10 AM UTC-6, Eber Sandrelli wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>>>> Not the way it is explained in the book. It's a different dimension.
>>>>> If you have the right "gizmo," you can flip a switch and transfer
>>>>> from normal time into anti-time.
>>>> Not really, and what function blocks (FB) are smart embedded into that
>>>> "gizmo". Show me the diagram, in order to reproduce. Zero-math science
>>>> is all about repeatability.
>>>
>>> It's science-FICTION. That means you take an idea that is not
>>> impossible and have fictional characters explore the idea as they work
>>> to solve a problem.
>> Where's the "science" there, in two lines?
>
> Science is defined as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing
> the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and
> natural world through observation and experiment."
>
> Einstein began doing science with "gedanken," which are THOUGHT experiments.

No, that is inaccurate. He did his work through observation and experiment.
He tried to explain the implications of his work to laypeople with
gedankens. That is NOT how he did his work.

>
> In science fiction you do thought experiments.

Science fiction is much more fiction than science. Don’t muddle the two.

> If X is possible, that means
> that Y would be possible, too. If anti-time is real, what would happen if you
> could step into anti-time?
>
> In most time travel stories they travel not only in time but from place to place.
> They travel back to ancient Egypt, or to some city in the future. That's BAD
> science, because you are not only traveling through time, you are also traveling
> to another LOCATION - a totally DIFFERENT science problem.
>
> In H.G. Wells' book "The Time Machine," the time traveler could only travel
> though time. His time machine never moved from it's location in his lab. He
> could sit in his machine and watch the seasons go by outside.
>
> In my book "Time Work," when you go back in time you travel one second per
> second into anti-time. And you can't change anything, because that would
> change the past. You can't even bend a blade of grass, which means that
> walking on the grass in anti-time is like walking on ice-picks.
>
> That's the fun of science fiction. If you could go backward in time but
> couldn't change anything, and you can only go back in time one second per
> second, how would you go back to Dallas in 1963 to see if Lee Harvey Oswald
> really killed JFK? Do you take 65 years worth of supplies with you? No.
> You would send a movie camera back that operates on a timer. That's what
> they do in "Time Work."
>
> It's good gedanken science. If this is true, then this must also be true, so
> it would be possible to do this, but not that.
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Eber Sandrelli]

Il giorno giovedì 25 febbraio 2021 Odd Bodkin ha scritto:

>> Einstein began doing science with "gedanken," which are THOUGHT
>> experiments.
>
> No, that is inaccurate. He did his work through observation and
> experiment.
> He tried to explain the implications of his work to laypeople with
> gedankens. That is NOT how he did his work.
>
>> In science fiction you do thought experiments.
>
> Science fiction is much more fiction than science. Don’t muddle the two.

Yes, actually there is no science in science-fiction at all. It stays in
its name *science_fiction*, aka entirely fiction.

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 9:45:35 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 3:26:10 AM UTC-6, Eber Sandrelli wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Not the way it is explained in the book. It's a different dimension.
> >>>>> If you have the right "gizmo," you can flip a switch and transfer
> >>>>> from normal time into anti-time.
> >>>> Not really, and what function blocks (FB) are smart embedded into that
> >>>> "gizmo". Show me the diagram, in order to reproduce. Zero-math science
> >>>> is all about repeatability.
> >>>
> >>> It's science-FICTION. That means you take an idea that is not
> >>> impossible and have fictional characters explore the idea as they work
> >>> to solve a problem.
> >> Where's the "science" there, in two lines?
> >
> > Science is defined as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing
> > the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and
> > natural world through observation and experiment."
> >
> > Einstein began doing science with "gedanken," which are THOUGHT experiments.
> No, that is inaccurate. He did his work through observation and experiment.
> He tried to explain the implications of his work to laypeople with
> gedankens. That is NOT how he did his work.

You couldn't be more wrong! Einstein was a PATENT CLERK when he wrote
his 1905 paper on Special Relativity. He had NO ABILITY to do experiments,
much less TIME DILATION experiments.

He worked everything out in his head using THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS, and
he got his friend Marcel Grossman to help him with the math. If the math
worked, then an experiment should also work.

All he did was explain things in an understandable way. He didn't do ANY
EXPERIMENTS EXCEPT THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS. And his explanations
were published in SCIENCE JOURNALS, not for "laypeople."

Ed

[Ed Lake]

Actually, there can be a LOT of science in science fiction. They just
PROJECT what CAN happen if certain science is performed. There were
lots of science-fiction stories about traveling to the moon before we
actually had rockets to do it.

"The Martian" by Andy Weir is an excellent example. It is all about how
a scientist survives alone on Mars after he is given up for dead and is
accidentally left behind when the rest of his team returns to Earth. The
guy uses SCIENCE to help him survive until a rescue can be arranged.

[Michael Moroney]

On 2/25/2021 11:25 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 10:09:10 AM UTC-6, Eber Sandrelli wrote:
>> Il giorno giovedì 25 febbraio 2021 Odd Bodkin ha scritto:
>>
>>>> Einstein began doing science with "gedanken," which are THOUGHT
>>>> experiments.
>>>
>>> No, that is inaccurate. He did his work through observation and
>>> experiment.
>>> He tried to explain the implications of his work to laypeople with
>>> gedankens. That is NOT how he did his work.
>>>
>>>> In science fiction you do thought experiments.
>>>
>>> Science fiction is much more fiction than science. Don’t muddle the two.
>> Yes, actually there is no science in science-fiction at all. It stays in
>> its name *science_fiction*, aka entirely fiction.
>
> Actually, there can be a LOT of science in science fiction. They just
> PROJECT what CAN happen if certain science is performed. There were
> lots of science-fiction stories about traveling to the moon before we
> actually had rockets to do it.

Nearly all science fiction has some sort of suspension of disbelief
necessary, often some law of physics is ignored or stated as disproven
or modified. Often it has things which are theoretically possible but
completely impractical, such as disassembling a planet. Theoretically
possible but imagine the energy necessary!

Or extremely long odds. Like in so much SF like Star Trek where aliens
just happen to have human form and speak perfect English.

Much of it has played out. Much of SF was written in the 1950s or so
when much technology (such as moon rockets) was obviously on the horizon
but hadn't happened yet.

[Eber Sandrelli]

Il giorno giovedì 25 febbraio 2021 Ed Lake ha scritto:

>> > Science fiction is much more fiction than science. Don’t muddle the
>> > two.
>> Yes, actually there is no science in science-fiction at all. It stays
>> in its name *science_fiction*, aka entirely fiction.
>
> Actually, there can be a LOT of science in science fiction. They just
> PROJECT what CAN happen if certain science is performed. There were
> lots of science-fiction stories about traveling to the moon before we
> actually had rockets to do it.

You must be kidding. Just what we need, another moon landing believer.

> "The Martian" by Andy Weir is an excellent example. It is all about
> how a scientist survives alone on Mars after he is given up for dead and
> is accidentally left behind when the rest of his team returns to Earth.
> The guy uses SCIENCE to help him survive until a rescue can be arranged.

NOO! It' used *fiction*.

[Odd Bodkin]

He didn’t need to do his own experiments. He used the published results of
experiments by other physicists. This is what physicists do.

It is inaccurate, though, to say that Einstein did his work on the basis of
just “exploring possibilities” with gedankens, like what a science fiction
writer does.

You have been bamboozled apparently with an inaccurate representation of
how Einstein arrived at his ideas.

>
> He worked everything out in his head using THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS, and
> he got his friend Marcel Grossman to help him with the math. If the math
> worked, then an experiment should also work.
>
> All he did was explain things in an understandable way. He didn't do ANY
> EXPERIMENTS EXCEPT THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS. And his explanations
> were published in SCIENCE JOURNALS, not for "laypeople."

The gedankens were only put in publications for laypeople. The train and
embankment one, for example, was conceived for his book on the subject for
laypeople. You’ll see that if you look.

>
> Ed
>



--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Ed Lake]

What's your point? That they use humans in costumes to act like aliens in
movies and on TV? Of course! It costs too much to hire real extraterrestrials.

But there are also movies like "Arrival" where extraterrestrials arrive on earth
and speak in visual patterns. The main character is a LINGUIST who has to
to figure how how to communicate with them using THEIR language, since
they have no capability to communicate by any regular Earth method.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2543164/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

[Ed Lake]

The published results of experiments by other physicists PRESENTED A PROBLEM
that Einstein solved with gedanken experiments. That is what physicists do when
they aren't just doing trial and error experiments. Then they turn the gedanken
experiment into an ACTUAL experiment to see if it works the way they imagined.

>
> It is inaccurate, though, to say that Einstein did his work on the basis of
> just “exploring possibilities” with gedankens, like what a science fiction
> writer does.

I didn't say that. The gedanken was a thought experiment on a REAL problem.
He visualized himself flying at the speed of light and trying to catch up with
something else traveling at the speed of light.

>
> You have been bamboozled apparently with an inaccurate representation of
> how Einstein arrived at his ideas.

I've read MANY books BY Einstein. He DESCRIBES how he got his ideas. Are
you claiming that Einsteins was LYING? Why would he do that?

> >
> > He worked everything out in his head using THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS, and
> > he got his friend Marcel Grossman to help him with the math. If the math
> > worked, then an experiment should also work.
> >
> > All he did was explain things in an understandable way. He didn't do ANY
> > EXPERIMENTS EXCEPT THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS. And his explanations
> > were published in SCIENCE JOURNALS, not for "laypeople."
> The gedankens were only put in publications for laypeople. The train and
> embankment one, for example, was conceived for his book on the subject for
> laypeople. You’ll see that if you look.

You're confusing gedanken thought experiments with imaginary situations
used to EXPLAIN issues to readers. A gedanken is something you put together
to help YOURSELF to figure out something. The Train and Embankment
experiments were created to help readers of his books understand how two
different people can see the same events as happening in different ways.

Ed

[Eber Sandrelli]

Il giorno giovedì 25 febbraio 2021 Ed Lake ha scritto:

>> > Science fiction is much more fiction than science. Don’t muddle the
>> > two.
>> Yes, actually there is no science in science-fiction at all. It stays
>> in its name *science_fiction*, aka entirely fiction.
>
> Actually, there can be a LOT of science in science fiction. They just
> PROJECT what CAN happen if certain science is performed. There were
> lots of science-fiction stories about traveling to the moon before we
> actually had rockets to do it.

Just what we need, another tv moon landing believer.

> "The Martian" by Andy Weir is an excellent example. It is all about
> how a scientist survives alone on Mars after he is given up for dead and
> is accidentally left behind when the rest of his team returns to Earth.
> The guy uses SCIENCE to help him survive until a rescue can be arranged.

No, he uses fiction, not science. Movies and scifi books are fiction.

[Ed Lake]

Yes, but if I use heat to boil water am I not using science to boil water?

If someone in a novel uses heat to boil water, does that make it fiction?
A fictional character used a fictional stove to heat fictional water, BUT
THE SCIENCE IS REAL.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 25 February 2021 at 16:45:35 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 3:26:10 AM UTC-6, Eber Sandrelli wrote:
> >> Ed Lake wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Not the way it is explained in the book. It's a different dimension.
> >>>>> If you have the right "gizmo," you can flip a switch and transfer
> >>>>> from normal time into anti-time.
> >>>> Not really, and what function blocks (FB) are smart embedded into that
> >>>> "gizmo". Show me the diagram, in order to reproduce. Zero-math science
> >>>> is all about repeatability.
> >>>
> >>> It's science-FICTION. That means you take an idea that is not
> >>> impossible and have fictional characters explore the idea as they work
> >>> to solve a problem.
> >> Where's the "science" there, in two lines?
> >
> > Science is defined as "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing
> > the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and
> > natural world through observation and experiment."
> >
> > Einstein began doing science with "gedanken," which are THOUGHT experiments.
> No, that is inaccurate. He did his work through observation and experiment.

When an idiot says - simply must be true.

> He tried to explain the implications of his work to laypeople with
> gedankens. That is NOT how he did his work.

He used those gedankens to create your moronic newspeak
making his idiocies simple tautologies. It's just too complicated
for your tiny, fanatic halfbrain.

[Odd Bodkin]

No, that is not correct. He did not present any gedankens in any of the
papers in which he solved the problem posed by experimental results. You
can look at those papers.

> That is what physicists do when
> they aren't just doing trial and error experiments. Then they turn the gedanken
> experiment into an ACTUAL experiment to see if it works the way they imagined.

That is also not true. There is no train and embankment experiment. There
is no barn and pole experiment. Nor anything that resembles them.

>
>>
>> It is inaccurate, though, to say that Einstein did his work on the basis of
>> just “exploring possibilities” with gedankens, like what a science fiction
>> writer does.
>
> I didn't say that. The gedanken was a thought experiment on a REAL problem.
> He visualized himself flying at the speed of light and trying to catch up with
> something else traveling at the speed of light.

None of that is in any of his professional papers. There was mention of
this idea in one of his books for laypeople.

>
>>
>> You have been bamboozled apparently with an inaccurate representation of
>> how Einstein arrived at his ideas.
>
> I've read MANY books BY Einstein. He DESCRIBES how he got his ideas. Are
> you claiming that Einsteins was LYING? Why would he do that?

I’m saying that making thinking processes accessible to laypeople in books
for laypeople, he does not capture the work that he actually did. The work
he actually did is captured in his professional papers, but is a bit
difficult for laypeople to follow because they don’t have the skills and
interior language he actually used to solve the problem. For example, in
his 1905 paper he talks about how he knew the transformation needed to be
linear. That is a physicist actually doing work, using physics concepts
that a layperson like yourself is not going to have a clue about. But it
was central to the way he actually thought about it.

>
>>>
>>> He worked everything out in his head using THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS, and
>>> he got his friend Marcel Grossman to help him with the math. If the math
>>> worked, then an experiment should also work.
>>>
>>> All he did was explain things in an understandable way. He didn't do ANY
>>> EXPERIMENTS EXCEPT THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS. And his explanations
>>> were published in SCIENCE JOURNALS, not for "laypeople."
>> The gedankens were only put in publications for laypeople. The train and
>> embankment one, for example, was conceived for his book on the subject for
>> laypeople. You’ll see that if you look.
>
> You're confusing gedanken thought experiments with imaginary situations
> used to EXPLAIN issues to readers. A gedanken is something you put together
> to help YOURSELF to figure out something.

That is not how he actually did his work. That’s how you’d LIKE it to be
but not how it’s actually done by physicists.

> The Train and Embankment
> experiments were created to help readers of his books understand how two
> different people can see the same events as happening in different ways.

Laypeople readers, note. He did not need that artifice to think it through
himself.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Gravity and motion slow time but they cannot end it.
You would need to end time first before you could make
it go backwards. Both do not exist. There is no
gravitational singularity or atom reaching the speed
limit of light... You have a neutron star limited gravity
and propulsion staying below light speed...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Eber Sandrelli]

boiling water and the moon's trajectory over sky, for instance, are not
science. My friend.

[Michael Moroney]

No, he worked out those problems using standard math and physics.
Gedankens were used by Einstein to explain relativity to laypeople using
(semi-)realistic scenarios, trains struck by lightning and poles and
barns. There are none of these gedankens in his actual papers.

> That is what physicists do when
> they aren't just doing trial and error experiments. Then they turn the gedanken
> experiment into an ACTUAL experiment to see if it works the way they imagined.

No, gedankens as Einstein used it were for the general public.

>
>>
>> It is inaccurate, though, to say that Einstein did his work on the basis of
>> just “exploring possibilities” with gedankens, like what a science fiction
>> writer does.
>
> I didn't say that. The gedanken was a thought experiment on a REAL problem.
> He visualized himself flying at the speed of light and trying to catch up with
> something else traveling at the speed of light.

That wasn't in a paper, he was a teenager at the time. He later included
that in one of his books.

>
>>
>> You have been bamboozled apparently with an inaccurate representation of
>> how Einstein arrived at his ideas.
>
> I've read MANY books BY Einstein. He DESCRIBES how he got his ideas. Are
> you claiming that Einsteins was LYING? Why would he do that?

Considering some of your wacky ideas, I'm agreeing with the "bamboozled"
comment.

>
>>>
>>> He worked everything out in his head using THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS, and
>>> he got his friend Marcel Grossman to help him with the math. If the math
>>> worked, then an experiment should also work.
>>>
>>> All he did was explain things in an understandable way. He didn't do ANY
>>> EXPERIMENTS EXCEPT THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS. And his explanations
>>> were published in SCIENCE JOURNALS, not for "laypeople."
>> The gedankens were only put in publications for laypeople. The train and
>> embankment one, for example, was conceived for his book on the subject for
>> laypeople. You’ll see that if you look.
>
> You're confusing gedanken thought experiments with imaginary situations
> used to EXPLAIN issues to readers.

No, his gedankens WERE the imaginary situations he used to explain
things to his readers.

> A gedanken is something you put together
> to help YOURSELF to figure out something. The Train and Embankment
> experiments

It wasn't an experiment, it was a gedanken. There are no relativistic
trains available for experiments.

> were created to help readers of his books understand how two
> different people can see the same events as happening in different ways.

I know "gedanken" just means "thought" in German, but English frequently
borrows words from other languages and gives them a related but
different meaning.

[Ed Lake]

I think you misunderstand. You should read my book. They do not stop
time. They transfer to another dimension, the anti-time dimension. In
that dimension, time moves backward. They do their work in anti-time
and then they return to normal time. When they return to normal time
they DO return to the point in time when they went into anti-time. So,
you can argue that they "stopped time," but I would argue that they didn't
stop time, they left normal time for awhile in order to go backwards in
time, and then they returned to the point in normal time where they left it.

While they are in anti-time, they continue to age normally. They
do not get younger. They have to do things to prevent "jet lag," because
if they spend 12 hours in anti-time, their body clocks will be 12 hours
out of sinc with normal time when they return to normal time.

Anti-time is explained this way in Chapter 5:

""We're on Time's outer edge of the expanding universe. We're moving
into the void. Behind us is the past, ahead of us is nothing. We live
in the present. It's like we're stuck to the outside of an expanding
balloon that is expanding as the universe expands."

When you go into anti-time, you step from the outside of the balloon
to the inside and the balloon deflates instead of expanding, things
that were done get undone.

[Ed Lake]

From Encyclopedia Britannica:

Gedankenexperiment, (German: “thought experiment”) term used by German-born
physicist Albert Einstein to describe his unique approach of using conceptual rather
than actual experiments in creating the theory of relativity.

Link: https://www.britannica.com/science/Gedankenexperiment

It is how Einstein GOT his ideas.

The train-embankment ideas were more like scientific hypotheses. If you
have this situation, one person will see things this way and another person
will see things another way. It's not an experiment or gedanken, it's just a
way of explaining what should scientifically happen in a given situation.

It is how Einstein EXPLAINED his ideas.

[Odd Bodkin]

I had the feeling you’d try to find some encyclopedia blurb that supported
your position.
I think you’re missing the work he did with the “Olympian Academy” where
they did the hard work together of analyzing the ideas of physicists and
mathematicians of the day. This is how he really got his ideas past the
germ stage.

>
> The train-embankment ideas were more like scientific hypotheses. If you
> have this situation, one person will see things this way and another person
> will see things another way. It's not an experiment or gedanken, it's just a
> way of explaining what should scientifically happen in a given situation.

No, I think you’re missing the point of that whole gedanken. I’m frankly
not surprised.

>
> It is how Einstein EXPLAINED his ideas.
>

To laypeople.

[Cliff Hallston]

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 12:11:07 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I know "gedanken" just means "thought" in German, but English frequently
> borrows words from other languages and gives them a related but
> different meaning.

The word "gedanken" by itself is not used to refer to a thought experiment in any reputable source in the literature. Any scientist or scholar would be embarrassed, like a pretentious diner ordering the "soup du jour of the day". As far as I know, the use of "gedanken" by itself is unique to a certain set of individuals in this newsgroup. The misuse has been pointed out many times, but this doesn't seem to have any effect on them. I suppose it's just a private shorthand/slang, but it comes across as embarrassing, because anyone who actually knows German would not use the word that way, so it's strictly the misuse of a German word by people who don't know German... or at least that's how it comes across.

[Paparios]

How about Britannica?

https://www.britannica.com/science/Gedankenexperiment

"Gedankenexperiment, (German: “thought experiment”) term used by German-born physicist Albert Einstein to describe his unique approach of using conceptual rather than actual experiments in creating the theory of relativity."

Or the following paper (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s000160050007):

"Einstein's First Steps Toward General Relativity: Gedanken Experiments and Axiomatics".

[Cliff Hallston]

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 3:11:26 PM UTC-8, Paparios wrote:
> > The word "gedanken" by itself is not used to refer to a thought experiment in any reputable source in the literature. Any scientist or scholar would be embarrassed, like a pretentious diner ordering the "soup du jour of the day". As far as I know, the use of "gedanken" by itself is unique to a certain set of individuals in this newsgroup. The misuse has been pointed out many times, but this doesn't seem to have any effect on them. I suppose it's just a private shorthand/slang, but it comes across as embarrassing, because anyone who actually knows German would not use the word that way, so it's strictly the misuse of a German word by people who don't know German... or at least that's how it comes across.
>
> How about Britannica?
> https://www.britannica.com/science/Gedankenexperiment

> "Gedankenexperiment, (German: “thought experiment”) term used by German-born physicist Albert Einstein...

> "Einstein's First Steps Toward General Relativity: Gedanken Experiments and Axiomatics".

That just confirms what I said: The German word for thought experiment is Gedankenexperiment, it is not gedanken. Somehow, a clique on this newsgroup got the idea that the word "gedanken" by itself is used for thought experiment, which is just silly.

[Paparios]

So, you are saying that "gedanken" (thought) is not a German word and that the real word is "gedankenexperiment" (thought experiment) which is the usual German way of joining words?

Actually the Merriam Webster dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gedankenexperiment) has the same definition physicists use:

"Definition of gedankenexperiment
: an experiment carried out in thought only"

But why did you not put in your response to Michael, the accepted way of describing a thought experiment?

[Cliff Hallston]

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 5:13:12 PM UTC-8, Paparios wrote:
> > > > The word "gedanken" by itself is not used to refer to a thought experiment in any reputable source in the literature. Any scientist or scholar would be embarrassed, like a pretentious diner ordering the "soup du jour of the day". As far as I know, the use of "gedanken" by itself is unique to a certain set of individuals in this newsgroup. The misuse has been pointed out many times, but this doesn't seem to have any effect on them. I suppose it's just a private shorthand/slang, but it comes across as embarrassing, because anyone who actually knows German would not use the word that way, so it's strictly the misuse of a German word by people who don't know German... or at least that's how it comes across.
> > >
> > > How about Britannica? https://www.britannica.com/science/Gedankenexperiment
> > > "Gedankenexperiment, (German: “thought experiment”) term used by German-born physicist Albert Einstein...
> > > "Einstein's First Steps Toward General Relativity: Gedanken Experiments and Axiomatics".
> >
> > That just confirms what I said: The German word for thought experiment is Gedankenexperiment, it is not gedanken. Somehow, a clique on this newsgroup got the idea that the word "gedanken" by itself is used for thought experiment, which is just silly.
>

> So, you are saying that "gedanken" (thought) is not a German word...

No, I'm saying "gedanken" is not the German word for "thought experiment", it is the German word for "thought". This has been explained here many times before.

> and that the real word is "gedankenexperiment" (thought experiment) which is the usual German way of joining words?

Right! The German word for "thought experiment" is Gedankenexperiment. So, if you are going to use the German expression for referring to a thought experiment, you would refer to it as a Gedankenexperiment, not as a gedanken. There a clique on this newsgroup that, for unknown reasons, habitually refers to thought experiments as "gedankens", which is pretty silly.

> Actually the Merriam Webster dictionary has the same definition physicists use...

Yes, you will find that, no matter how many dictionaries you familiarize yourself with, you will continue to discover that what I've told you is exactly correct: The word gedanken does not mean "thought experiment", it just means "thought". So, if you are going to use the German expression for referring to a thought experiment, you would refer to it as a Gedankenexperiment, not as a gedanken.

> But why did you not put in your response to Michael, the accepted way of describing a thought experiment?

Huh? This has been explained on this newsgroup many times before, and Michael even acknowledged in his message that he has realized the word gedanken just means thought. Here's what he said:

> I know "gedanken" just means "thought" in German, but English frequently
> borrows words from other languages and gives them a related but
> different meaning.

You see, he was arguing in favor of perpetuating the silly misuse of that word, by claiming that in English the single word gedanken, by itself, has been given the meaning of "thought experiment". I pointed out that he is mistaken, because, as I said (and please note the repeated words "by itself"):

[rotchm]

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 8:36:34 PM UTC-5, Cliff Hallston wrote:
> On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 5:13:12 PM UTC-8, Paparios wrote:

There are official English relativity books that use the word "gedanken".
The ones I saw, "...a gedanken experiment ...".

But there is no harm in replacing "gedanken experiment" by the expression "gedanken". Its shorter, uses less ink (when printed) and less typing.

[Odd Bodkin]

It is a convenient shorthand that is usually contextually clear without the
need for pedantry.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Cliff Hallston]

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 6:10:19 PM UTC-8, rotchm wrote:
> There are official English relativity books that use the word "gedanken".
> The ones I saw, "...a gedanken experiment ...".

That is truly bizarre. The point being made is that it is dumb to refer to a thought experiment as a "gedanken", because that just means "thought", and that if you feel the need to invoke the German it would be called a gedanken experiment. In response, you say "Oh, to the contrary! I have found a book that uses the word gedanken.... in the phrase gedanken experiment!" Wow.

> But there is no harm in replacing "gedanken experiment" by the expression "gedanken".
> Its shorter, uses less ink (when printed) and less typing.

Again... Wow. As I said in reply to the earlier claim that the word "gedanken" by itself had acquired a meaning in English usage that this is simply note true... as you yourself just discovered when you went searching for an example. I repeat: The word "gedanken" by itself is not used to refer to a thought experiment in any reputable source in the literature. Any scientist or scholar would be embarrassed, like a pretentious diner ordering the "soup du jour of the day". As far as I know, the use of "gedanken" by itself is unique to a certain set of individuals in this newsgroup. The misuse has been pointed out before, but this doesn't seem to have any effect on these individuals.

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 6:42:16 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is a convenient shorthand that is usually contextually clear...

As I said in the original reply to the claim that this has some kind of standard currency, it does not. It is used only by a small clique of individuals in this newsgroup, who all presumably picked it up from the same misguided source. It's just their private shorthand/slang, based originally on lack of understanding of German, and it's embarrassing, because anyone who actually knows German would not use the word that way, so it's strictly the misuse of a German word by people who don't know German... or at least that's how it comes across. But by all means, continue to use it. Does the determination to continuing misusing a word, even after the misuse is pointed out, make someone a stubborn supercilious nitwit? Perish the gedanken!

[Maciej Wozniak]

What an impudet lie; your idiot guru has rejected both
standard math and standard physics, as they didn't want
to fit his moronic postulate.

> Gedankens were used by Einstein to explain relativity to laypeople using

Gedankens were used by your Giant Guru to convince
idiots like you that observers observed, i.e. his idiocies
are the result of observations. That observers were
gedanken,i.e. fabricated - doesn't matter, what matters
is putting his delusions together with the words
"observer", "observe", "observation", "measure" and
so on. It worked on you, like it worked on some
millions of fools before.

[Odd Bodkin]

Cliff Hallston <hallst...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 6:42:16 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> It is a convenient shorthand that is usually contextually clear...
>
> As I said in the original reply to the claim that this has some kind of
> standard currency, it does not. It is used only by a small clique of
> individuals in this newsgroup, who all presumably picked it up from the
> same misguided source. It's just their private shorthand/slang, based
> originally on lack of understanding of German, and it's embarrassing,
> because anyone who actually knows German would not use the word that way,
> so it's strictly the misuse of a German word by people who don't know
> German... or at least that's how it comes across. But by all means,
> continue to use it. Does the determination to continuing misusing a
> word, even after the misuse is pointed out, make someone a stubborn
> supercilious nitwit? Perish the gedanken!
>

I’ve seen it outside this group too, thanks, and as I said, it’s usually
contextually clear, though it does draw the attention of persistent,
verbose pedants. If you find that embarrassing, I assume that is a feeling
you will have to manage.

[Ed Lake]

Okay, I've been saving a copy of this discussion, and looking through it I see
that I used "gedanken" by itself to mean a gedankenexperiment. It just saved
a lot of typing. I simply assumed that everyone would know what is meant when
talking about Einstein and his "gedanken."

Instead, what happened is that the ENTIRE DISCUSSION became about the
proper use of the word "gedanken." And since it is all just opinion versus opinion,
it looks like the argument can go on forever.

I apologize for not typing the complete word. I forgot that most discussions on
this SCIENCE & PHYSICS forum seem to turn into arguments over the meaning of words.

Ed

[Cliff Hallston]

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 4:32:29 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> I’ve seen it outside this group too...

Have you? In any actual book or reputable publication? Citation?

> If you find that embarrassing...

I meant it was an embarrassment for the people making that mistake, like someone ordering "the soup du jour of the day". If you feel no embarrassment, then by all means continue.

[Michael Moroney]

I have seen it outside this group as well but I don't remember where. It
was the reason for my comment in the first place.

[Odd Bodkin]

Cliff Hallston <hallst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 4:32:29 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I’ve seen it outside this group too...
>
> Have you? In any actual book or reputable publication? Citation?

Well, nice goalpost shift to make the complement of “only this newsgroup”
to be “actual boom or reputable publication”. But sure: Russell Stannard’s
book, The Time and Space of Uncle Albert is one example.

>
>> If you find that embarrassing...
>
> I meant it was an embarrassment for the people making that mistake, like
> someone ordering "the soup du jour of the day". If you feel no
> embarrassment, then by all means continue.
>

Well, good of you to not only be persistently pedantic but also letting
people know what they should be embarrassed about. Here’s a question for
you: does a Big Ass have a big ass?

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Cliff Hallston]

> > On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 4:32:29 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> I’ve seen it outside this group too...
> >
> > Have you? In any actual book or reputable publication? Citation?
>
> Well, nice goalpost shift to make the complement of “only this newsgroup”
> to be “actual boom or reputable publication”.

The first sentence of mine in this thread was: "The word "gedanken" by itself is not used to refer to a thought experiment in any reputable source in the literature." Now I ask if you can cite any reputable publication, and you accuse me of moving the goal post. What is wrong with you?

> But sure: Russell Stannard’s book, The Time and Space of Uncle Albert is one example.

Oh my goodness. Here's the blurb: "Famous scientist Uncle Albert and his niece Gedanken enter the dangerous and unknown world of a thought bubble. Their mission: to unlock the deep mysteries of Time and Space . . . In this action-packed adventure story, discover why you can't break the ultimate speed barrier and find out how to become older than your mother, how to put on weight without getting fat, and how to live forever without even knowing it."

It's classified as a "fantasy" book on google books, where it has the blurb: "Uncle Albert, the famous scientist, has got stuck. To unlock the deep mysteries of space and time someone must agree to be beamed up into the unknown world of the thought bubble. His brave niece, Gedanken, decides to risk it. So begin her exciting and astonishing adventures."

Really? This is your reputable source in the literature? The fictional character's *niece* is named Gedanken? Wow.

> > I meant it was an embarrassment for the people making that mistake, like
> > someone ordering "the soup du jour of the day". If you feel no
> > embarrassment, then by all means continue.
> >

> Well, good of you to let people know what they should be embarrassed about.

You're welcome.

[Odd Bodkin]

And you take it from the BLURB that the only reference to it is the
character’s name?

But you asked for an actual book and I gave you one. If this does not meet
your standard for an “actual book”, well then.

Note that the line *I* responded to was your claim that it is ONLY used in
sci.physics.relativity to refer to gedanken experiments. I was not
responding to a challenge to find instances of gedanken alone in something
that you might personally consider a “reputable source in the literature”,
whatever those words mean to you.

>
>>> I meant it was an embarrassment for the people making that mistake, like
>>> someone ordering "the soup du jour of the day". If you feel no
>>> embarrassment, then by all means continue.
>>>
>> Well, good of you to let people know what they should be embarrassed about.
>
> You're welcome.

As you wish.

[Cliff Hallston]

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 10:54:32 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> But sure: Russell Stannard’s book, The Time and Space of Uncle Albert is one example.
> >
> > Oh my goodness. Here's the blurb: "Famous scientist Uncle Albert and
> > his niece Gedanken enter the dangerous and unknown world of a thought
> > bubble. Their mission: to unlock the deep mysteries of Time and Space . .
> > . In this action-packed adventure story, discover why you can't break
> > the ultimate speed barrier and find out how to become older than your
> > mother, how to put on weight without getting fat, and how to live forever
> > without even knowing it."
> >
> > It's classified as a "fantasy" book on google books, where it has the
> > blurb: "Uncle Albert, the famous scientist, has got stuck. To unlock the
> > deep mysteries of space and time someone must agree to be beamed up into
> > the unknown world of the thought bubble. His brave niece, Gedanken,
> > decides to risk it. So begin her exciting and astonishing adventures."
> >
> > Really? This is your reputable source in the literature? The fictional
> > character's *niece* is named Gedanken? Wow.
>
> And you take it from the BLURB that the only reference to it is the
> character’s name?

I make no such assumption. Neither Amazon nor google books provided any "look inside", so the only knowledge I have of the contents of the book is the blurbs, which are sufficient to show that this is a very silly children's book that names ones of the characters Uncle Albert and his niece is named Gedanken, and they are beamed into thought bubbles, etc. (One of the categories in which this book is listed on Amazon is "Children's Fantasy and Magic".) If you have a quote from inside the book to give as an example of how Uncle Albert uses the word gedanken, it would be amusing to see it, but I predict that you will not post it.

> But you asked for an actual book and I gave you one. If this does not meet
> your standard for an “actual book”, well then.

Yes, a Children's Fantasy and Magic book does not meet my standards for a reference on the use of "gedanken" in the scientific literature. Also, aside from the niece being named Gedanken, you haven't actually provided the usage from that book.

> Note that the line *I* responded to was your claim that it is ONLY used in
> sci.physics.relativity to refer to gedanken experiments. I was not
> responding to a challenge to find instances of gedanken alone in something
> that you might personally consider a “reputable source in the literature”,
> whatever those words mean to you.

Wait... "something that I might personally consider a reputable source in the literature"? Are you saying that *you* consider it to be a reputable source in the literature? Sheesh.

This raises an interesting question: Do you actually have a copy of that children's fantasy book? Or have you found a place online where it can be viewed? I suppose you must have a copy, since otherwise how would you know how the word is used in the text? We do know one place it is *not* used, namely, in the phrase "thought bubble". He could have called that a gedanken bubble, or perhaps just a gedanken (in the silly spirit of the local usage), but he didn't.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 2/24/2021 7:11 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 6:03:34 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 2/23/2021 12:58 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 1:33:27 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 6:51:27 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>>>>> I don't know if there are any science-fiction fans on this forum,
>>>>> but there's a new science-fiction novel about anti-time available
>>>>> in Kindle and paperback formats on Amazon.com.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08X16MCSR/
>>>>>
>>>>> Time travel may not let you change the past, but it can be a handy tool if you want to change the future.I
>>>> You have to stop time before you can make it go backward.
>> You can alter the future right now, without time travel? Think of
>> stepping on a bug. The future does not have that bug in it.
>
> That's the basic idea, but in the book they use the time travel device
> to prevent a crime. The crime hasn't yet happened, but the time
> travelers see somebody do something that they know will eventually
> become a major crime.
>

That kind of boils down to a time traveler murdering baby hitler. I
always thought that going into the past means there basically has to be
a storage medium that records all things in the universe.

[Odd Bodkin]

No. Read what I said. I said: Note that the line *I* responded to was your

claim that it is ONLY used in

sci.physics.relativity to refer to gedanken experiments. I was NOT
RESPONDING to your challenge to find gedanken to represent gedanken
experiments in scientific literature. There is a wide gap between those two
domains. In particular, you asked for - and I quote - “an actual book” that
made such a usage. I gave you one. Whether it’s “reputable scientific
literature” is irrelevant to what I responded to SPECIFICALLY.

>
> This raises an interesting question: Do you actually have a copy of that
> children's fantasy book? Or have you found a place online where it can
> be viewed? I suppose you must have a copy, since otherwise how would you
> know how the word is used in the text? We do know one place it is *not*
> used, namely, in the phrase "thought bubble". He could have called that
> a gedanken bubble, or perhaps just a gedanken (in the silly spirit of the
> local usage), but he didn't.
>

I actually have a copy of that book.

[Cliff Hallston]

On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 2:15:44 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > (One of the categories in which this book is listed on Amazon is
> > "Children's Fantasy and Magic".) If you have a quote from inside the
> > book to give as an example of how Uncle Albert uses the word gedanken, it
> > would be amusing to see it, but I predict that you will not post it.
> >

> I actually have a copy of that book.

Great! Since no one else here has access, please post a quote from that book in which it refers to a thought experiment as a gedanken.

> The line I responded to was your claim that it is ONLY used in

> sci.physics.relativity to refer to gedanken experiments.

As soon as you post a quote from the children's fantasy (which Amazon says is intended for ages 4 to 12) that refers to a thought experiment as a gedanken, I will happily amend my statement to say "The only two places where the word gedanken by itself is used to refer to gedanken experiments is a small clique of people in this newsgroup and a silly children's fantasy for ages 4-12".

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 27-feb.-2021 om 00:07 schreef Cliff Hallston:

Here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=TZ5FLwnCTMAC&q=gedanken
e.g.
https://books.google.com/books?id=TZ5FLwnCTMAC&pg=PA59
https://books.google.com/books?id=TZ5FLwnCTMAC&pg=PA64
https://books.google.com/books?id=TZ5FLwnCTMAC&pg=PA163

Here's another:
https://books.google.com/books?id=2UpUAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA142
It's about an experiment. Look at the bottom.


Dirk Vdm

[Ed Lake]

No, in "Time Work" they cannot change ANYTHING in the past. They cannot
even bend a blade of grass. So, if they walk on grass while in anti-time, it is
like walking on a bed of nails. But, they can WATCH what happened.

That means that if there was a murder, they can go back in time to see
who actually committed the murder. They can watch the murder as it
happens. Because they are in anti-time, they watch it happen in reverse,
which means they may arrive when the body is on the ground, and they
wait around until the killer returns and pulls the knife out of the body and
the body stands up and argues with the killer.

To make things easier, they can send back a movie camera and record it all.
Then they can play the recording backwards, which means they'll see
everything happen in the order that it happened.

In "Time Work" the first crime happens when they take the "gizmo"
device out of the laboratory for a demonstration. While they are in a
shopping center parking lot about a mile away preparing to watch
a holdup, a helicopter drops a bomb onto their lab and blows it to
smithereens. So, they have to find out who dropped the bomb and why.
That leads to them gathering clues to a major crime that is in the works.
The book is about them working to gather information about what that
crime is, so that they can hopefully prevent it from happening.

[Odd Bodkin]

Cliff Hallston <hallst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 2:15:44 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> (One of the categories in which this book is listed on Amazon is
>>> "Children's Fantasy and Magic".) If you have a quote from inside the
>>> book to give as an example of how Uncle Albert uses the word gedanken, it
>>> would be amusing to see it, but I predict that you will not post it.
>>>
>> I actually have a copy of that book.
>
> Great! Since no one else here has access,

Of course you do. You have the same access I have had. All you have to do
is do what I did: exercise it.

I tell you the same thing I tell Seto and Wozniak: don’t expect me to be a
surrogate for doing your own reading.

> please post a quote from that book in which it refers to a thought
> experiment as a gedanken.
>
>> The line I responded to was your claim that it is ONLY used in
>> sci.physics.relativity to refer to gedanken experiments.
>
> As soon as you post a quote from the children's fantasy (which Amazon
> says is intended for ages 4 to 12) that refers to a thought experiment as
> a gedanken, I will happily amend my statement to say "The only two places
> where the word gedanken by itself is used to refer to gedanken
> experiments is a small clique of people in this newsgroup and a silly
> children's fantasy for ages 4-12".

And with that, you’re setting yourself up for exposure as a pedantic
blowhard all too eager to stand on a limb he should have tested first.

>
>



--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>
> I apologize for not typing the complete word. I forgot that most discussions on
> this SCIENCE & PHYSICS forum seem to turn into arguments over the meaning of words.
>
> Ed
>

But Ed, that is not a small point. Whenever you choose to engage in a
discussion about a specialized area like physics or law or music or
aerospace engineering, you’re going to find the terrain littered with
specialized language called jargon. That jargon is there for a reason. It
is neither unfair nor unnecessary. If you wish to discuss the topic, it is
required of you to learn the meaning of words as they are used in the
context of that topic. Colloquial meanings of the same words will not
suffice.

The MAIN problem with hacks and amateurs coming here to talk about
relativity is very simple. They don’t know what the words mean in that
context. They THINK they do, but they don’t.

[Odd Bodkin]

Thereby violating laws of physics. Science fiction is more fiction than
science.

> But, they can WATCH what happened.
>
> That means that if there was a murder, they can go back in time to see
> who actually committed the murder. They can watch the murder as it
> happens. Because they are in anti-time, they watch it happen in reverse,
> which means they may arrive when the body is on the ground, and they
> wait around until the killer returns and pulls the knife out of the body and
> the body stands up and argues with the killer.
>
> To make things easier, they can send back a movie camera and record it all.
> Then they can play the recording backwards, which means they'll see
> everything happen in the order that it happened.
>
> In "Time Work" the first crime happens when they take the "gizmo"
> device out of the laboratory for a demonstration. While they are in a
> shopping center parking lot about a mile away preparing to watch
> a holdup, a helicopter drops a bomb onto their lab and blows it to
> smithereens. So, they have to find out who dropped the bomb and why.
> That leads to them gathering clues to a major crime that is in the works.
> The book is about them working to gather information about what that
> crime is, so that they can hopefully prevent it from happening.
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 9:27:25 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

On the other hand, when INTELLIGENT people talk with other INTELLIGENT
people from another field or environment, they TRY TO COMMUNICATE.
That means they see that the other person is using "gedanken" when he
means "gedankenexperiment," but instead of just arguing that the guy
is using the wrong word (and calling him names because he used the
wrong word), they respond as if he used the correct word, and they
may tell the guy that using the longer word is more accurate, BUT they
understand him anyway.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 9:27:25 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I apologize for not typing the complete word. I forgot that most discussions on
>>> this SCIENCE & PHYSICS forum seem to turn into arguments over the meaning of words.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>> But Ed, that is not a small point. Whenever you choose to engage in a
>> discussion about a specialized area like physics or law or music or
>> aerospace engineering, you’re going to find the terrain littered with
>> specialized language called jargon. That jargon is there for a reason. It
>> is neither unfair nor unnecessary. If you wish to discuss the topic, it is
>> required of you to learn the meaning of words as they are used in the
>> context of that topic. Colloquial meanings of the same words will not
>> suffice.
>>
>> The MAIN problem with hacks and amateurs coming here to talk about
>> relativity is very simple. They don’t know what the words mean in that
>> context. They THINK they do, but they don’t.
>
> On the other hand, when INTELLIGENT people talk with other INTELLIGENT
> people from another field or environment, they TRY TO COMMUNICATE.

Yes, and as I said, that means LEARNING the meanings of the words as used
in that context.

Somebody who comes into a specialized area without that knowledge and
expects OTHERS to communicate at his colloquial level, and who makes no
effort himself to learn the specialized meanings, obviously has either no
desire to communicate or is not intelligent enough to learn them.

The jumbling of “gedanken” and “gedanken experiment” is a minor
transgression because those familiar with physics can use either. Someone
who does not understand what “science” means other than what’s in the
dictionary of colloquial usage, however, is asking for trouble.

> That means they see that the other person is using "gedanken" when he
> means "gedankenexperiment," but instead of just arguing that the guy
> is using the wrong word (and calling him names because he used the
> wrong word), they respond as if he used the correct word, and they
> may tell the guy that using the longer word is more accurate, BUT they
> understand him anyway.
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 27 February 2021 at 18:19:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> > On the other hand, when INTELLIGENT people talk with other INTELLIGENT
> > people from another field or environment, they TRY TO COMMUNICATE.
> Yes, and as I said, that means LEARNING the meanings of the words as used
> in that context.

Inteligent people learn the meanings of the words as used; fanatic
morons are creating new, violating common sense meanings and
insist on others to learn them.

[Ed Lake]

On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 9:53:42 AM UTC-6, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

Yes, "science fiction is more fiction than science." It usually involves fictional
characters, which means that everything they do is fiction, because it never
happened.

But the science can be real or theoretically possible. If a character fires a
gun and the gun works the same way as it does in reality, then that part of
the story agrees with what happens in reality - even if it never happened.

If the character fires a gun and the bullet bounces off the chest of another
person, then you are not talking science fiction, you are talking fantasy
fiction or "science fantasy." They are often grouped together and called
"Science Fiction and Fantasy."

I enjoy reading science fiction. I have little interest in science fantasy or
pure fantasy.

My novel "Time Work" is science fiction. But, if you can conclusively prove
there is no such thing as "anti-time," then it is science fantasy. Either way,
I think it should be an enjoyable read.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08X16MCSR/

[Odd Bodkin]

And you’re an example of someone not willing to learn those meanings
because you’re not intelligent enough. Though you do seem to have
deflecting excuses.

[Cliff Hallston]

On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 7:27:24 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> (One of the categories in which this book is listed on Amazon is
> >>> "Children's Fantasy and Magic".) If you have a quote from inside the
> >>> book to give as an example of how Uncle Albert uses the word gedanken, it
> >>> would be amusing to see it, but I predict that you will not post it.
> >>>
> >> I actually have a copy of that book.
> >
> > Great! Since no one else here has access,
>
> Of course you do. You have the same access I have had.

That's disappointing, because the example you claimed -- a very silly children's fantasy book written for 4-12 year olds -- would have nicely illustrated my point, showing "gedanken" used in the way you advocate by a very silly source. It would have furthered the case against that goofy usage, so I was really hoping to see the (alleged) quote so that I could expand my indictment. But since (as I predicted) you refuse to post the alleged quote, I can't add your children's fantasy book to the verified list.

Op 27-feb.-2021 om 00:07 schreef Dirk :

Here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=TZ5FLwnCTMAC&q=gedanken
e.g.
https://books.google.com/books?id=TZ5FLwnCTMAC&pg=PA59
https://books.google.com/books?id=TZ5FLwnCTMAC&pg=PA64
https://books.google.com/books?id=TZ5FLwnCTMAC&pg=PA163
Here's another:
https://books.google.com/books?id=2UpUAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA142

Five examples! Great! But wait... they are all pointing to just one book, "Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy", written by Nick Bostrom, Founder and Director of the Future of Humanity. It's a non-fantasy book, written for adults, so we're making progress! Bostrom is a "philosopher and polymath", with a degree from the London School of Economics, "known for his work on existential risk, the anthropic principle, human enhancement ethics, superintelligence risks, and the reversal test". The book actually routinely refers to thought experiments as "thought experiments", but it gives names to some specific thought experiments, such as "The Dungeon Gedanken" and "the Incubator Gedanken", etc., and in a few places in the text it does indeed use the word "gedanken" by itself to refer to these named constructs. This makes the semantics a bit cloudy, but I would count this as a legitimate case of someone outside this newsgroup using the word "gedanken" by itself... albeit not in the physics literature, and noting that the book also heavily uses "thought experiment" for the generic term.

My original post in this thread said "The word "gedanken" by itself is not used to refer to a thought experiment in any reputable source in the literature", and I later added that "as far as I know the only such usage is by a clique of individuals in this newsgroup". I would now add a footnote to those statements, saying that, in a book on the Anthropic Bias, the philosopher and polymath Nick Bostrom sometimes (but not always) used the word "gedanken" by itself to refer to a named thought experiment, and there has also been a claim (so far unconfirmed) that a children's fantasy book, The Time and Space of Uncle Albert (in which one of the fictional character's is named Gedanken) also uses the word gedanken in that way.

[Odd Bodkin]

By “footnote”, I assume you meant “whoops”.

Maybe it helps to bury it under a few hundred words.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 27-feb.-2021 om 18:57 schreef Odd Bodkin:

Pettywetty ;-)

Dirk Vdm

[Cliff Hallston]

You seem confused. Again, the example you claimed (and then backed away from) would only have helped further illustrate my point about the cluelessness of those using "gedanken" in the way you advocate. Also, the usage in Bostrom's book on anthropic bias is inconsistent and ambiguous, because he uses "thought experiment" generically, but then uses the word gedanken in coined names, which he then refers to collectively as gedankens. In a literature that extends to thousands of published works, I would expect to find perhaps a dozen counter-examples, i.e., people misusing the word "gedanken", so the fact that we've been able (so far) to find just *one* ambiguous example in a peripherally relevant book is fairly strong confirmation of the fact that the word "gedanken" by itself is not used in the way you advocate.

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Saturday, 27 February 2021 at 18:39:56 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, 27 February 2021 at 18:19:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>> On the other hand, when INTELLIGENT people talk with other INTELLIGENT
> >>> people from another field or environment, they TRY TO COMMUNICATE.
> >> Yes, and as I said, that means LEARNING the meanings of the words as used
> >> in that context.
> >
> > Inteligent people learn the meanings of the words as used; fanatic
> > morons are creating new, violating common sense meanings and
> > insist on others to learn them.
> >
> And you’re an example of someone not willing to learn those meanings
> because you’re not intelligent enough.

Sorry, poor idiot, but it's exactly opposite.
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/common%20sense

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Ahhh.

>
> That means that if there was a murder, they can go back in time to see
> who actually committed the murder. They can watch the murder as it
> happens. Because they are in anti-time, they watch it happen in reverse,
> which means they may arrive when the body is on the ground, and they
> wait around until the killer returns and pulls the knife out of the body and
> the body stands up and argues with the killer.

I see what you are getting at here. So, in your anti-time, can all
unsolved murders be solved?

[Odd Bodkin]

As an example, when it is raised that there is a context in which a common
sense idea held by a rational person is nevertheless dead wrong, someone
like you says, “no no no, that’s not possible, the thesaurus allows nothing
of the kind,” proving that you don’t have the intelligence to grasp these
meanings.

[Ed Lake]

In theory. In practice there are probably too many unsolved murders to make
that feasible. Besides, the book says there can only be one such anti-time
device operating at any given time in the universe.

In the book, the inventor visits the President to ask his advice on what to
do with the device (the President calls it a "gizmo"). The President asks his
brother to look into it, since it could not only solve all murders, it could expose
almost all secrets involving more than one person. Is the human race ready
for that? That's where the book begins. The brother tells the story as he
learns how the gizmo works. He is also an inventor, and was a student of the
anti-time gizmo inventor. While he and the gizmo are out on a demonstration,
someone drops a bomb on the lab where the gizmo is normally stored.
It appears that someone outside the group knows what the device can do.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

The best case scenario. All murders can be solved... WOW! It makes me
think of the following song:

https://youtu.be/TnZrWWUFl8I

> In practice there are probably too many unsolved murders to make
> that feasible.

Agreed.

> Besides, the book says there can only be one such anti-time
> device operating at any given time in the universe.

Why? I did not read the book, but does it explain why this is the case?
Is it one trip for one person/case? Or can the time traveler show there
are more than one murderer in a single trip to the past?

> In the book, the inventor visits the President to ask his advice on what to
> do with the device (the President calls it a "gizmo"). The President asks his
> brother to look into it, since it could not only solve all murders, it could expose
> almost all secrets involving more than one person. Is the human race ready
> for that? That's where the book begins. The brother tells the story as he
> learns how the gizmo works. He is also an inventor, and was a student of the
> anti-time gizmo inventor. While he and the gizmo are out on a demonstration,
> someone drops a bomb on the lab where the gizmo is normally stored.
> It appears that someone outside the group knows what the device can do.
>

Sabotage! Did the gizmos "recipe" persist after the attack? Or, was it
all gone/destroyed in a single kabooom!

[Ed Lake]

The book explains that the device marks a point in time and a location
on earth where they enter anti-time. When they exit, they exit at that same time
and location. While they are in anti-time, it would take more energy than
there is in the universe to move the device.

They travel into the past at a rate of one second per second. So, if they
wanted to see if Lee Harvey Oswald really shot JFK, they either have
to spend 65 years inside the device, or they can send a camera back
to do the viewing. Most of the time they send a camera back. But,
they also use the device to avoid spending real time. If they are too
exhausted to do any more work that day, they can go into anti-time
and get some sleep. Then, when they return to real time they are
refreshed and ready keep tracking the bad guys, and the bad guys
haven't gotten any farther away.

> > In the book, the inventor visits the President to ask his advice on what to
> > do with the device (the President calls it a "gizmo"). The President asks his
> > brother to look into it, since it could not only solve all murders, it could expose
> > almost all secrets involving more than one person. Is the human race ready
> > for that? That's where the book begins. The brother tells the story as he
> > learns how the gizmo works. He is also an inventor, and was a student of the
> > anti-time gizmo inventor. While he and the gizmo are out on a demonstration,
> > someone drops a bomb on the lab where the gizmo is normally stored.
> > It appears that someone outside the group knows what the device can do.
> >

> Sabotage! Did the gizmos "recipe" persist after the attack? Or, was it
> all gone/destroyed in a single kabooom!

The gizmo is carried around in a 16-wheel semi-truck. It wasn't in the lab
garage when the bomb hit. So, all that was lost was the lab and garage.
The lab is mostly the garage, since it is where the gizmo was assembled.