Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
in [Physics]
|
Prev: How you can not study at all and get a Credit or above at University | SELENA GOMEZ CENTRAL
Next: Coasties Dropped the Ball Not Demanding A Flow Rate
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 4 Jun 2010 09:52 On 04/06/2010 12:49, Martin Brown wrote: > On 03/06/2010 13:26, Me, ...again! wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Martin Brown wrote: >> >>> I think you really need to learn to recognise Usenet kooks. >> >> Oh, I've had two decades of experience. But, I was happy to see serious >> discussion following my posts of the book list. >> >>> By any reasonable definition Einstein was a *genius*. His >>> contributions to quantum mechaincs and relativity were both very >>> important to modern physics. It is telling that even today so many >>> people cannot cope with the mathematical insights he provided. As I >>> pointed out before the derivation of the Einstein-Lorentz equations >>> for special relativity can be done with nothing more than >>> consideration of two metre rules passing each other and cataloguing >>> the mutual events. >> >> I will defer the arguments to people who know the material much better >> than I know it, and I have not studied this stuff since college days >> (many decades ago, and my career went into biology and out of physics, >> anyway). One way I judge any area of study is by finding the "experts" >> and trying to learn what controversies and interpretations are currently >> being entertained, what claims are being made and refuted, and what is >> being said in the newspapers compared to what is being said in the >> scholarly monographs and review papers and by people who do this stuff >> for a living and have been doing it for decades, too. > > For that to work you have to know enough about the subject be able to > distinguish who are the experts and the ever present netkooks. What you > have posted so far and your "methodology" suggests that you cannot. > > There may be others like Hilbert and Ricci who should get more public > credit for their contributions (particularly on the mathematics) but > Einstein brought it all together and provided the inspired physical > interpretation. Nothing that any of these deranged nutters says can > alter the fact that every experiment to date has confirmed the theory. > > Regards, > Martin Brown Einstein actually deserved 3 Nobel Prizes, or possibly 4 if you count his study on Brownian Motion. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Peter Webb on 4 Jun 2010 22:15 > > I know. But, I read another book (cover to cover): "The End of Physics: > The myth of a unified theory" by David Lindley (a physics professor), in > which it came up often that today's physicists were more concerned with > "beautiful theories" than theories that explained reality. And, I thought > that was a good point. > Yes. It is hardly relevant to Einstein; he is not one of "today's physicists" (he died over 50 years ago), and his theories explain reality beautifully. That is probably why everybody has heard of Einstein, but very few non-physicists could name a single string theorist.
From: Peter Webb on 4 Jun 2010 23:17 "Me, ...again!" <arthures(a)mv.com> wrote in message news:Pine.BSF.4.61.1006042254540.55840(a)osmium.mv.net... > > > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote: > >>> >>> I know. But, I read another book (cover to cover): "The End of Physics: >>> The myth of a unified theory" by David Lindley (a physics professor), in >>> which it came up often that today's physicists were more concerned with >>> "beautiful theories" than theories that explained reality. And, I >>> thought that was a good point. >>> >> >> Yes. >> >> It is hardly relevant to Einstein; he is not one of "today's physicists" >> (he died over 50 years ago), and his theories explain reality >> beautifully. >> >> That is probably why everybody has heard of Einstein, but very few >> non-physicists could name a single string theorist. > > I'll name Lindley's book (which I read cover to cover) as one that > discusses string theory/theorists, and I'll name Thom (?) Horgan's book > "The End of Science" (also cover-to-cover) as an interesting overview of > where physics is or maybe is not going in terms of major areas of > "beautiful > theory" physics. And, it sure looks like big particle accellerator > progress stoped with the LHC in, where, Switzerland? Anything else, newer > or bigger, on the drawing board? I haven't heard of it. > I'm still wondering why you think that string theory has anything to do with Einstein. He was dead for a couple of decades before it was invented. Deficiencies in string theory do *not* provide evidence that Einstein got too much credit. Funny how cranks change subject when cornered.
From: Androcles on 6 Jun 2010 12:33 "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:TPOOn.139774$0M5.58866(a)newsfe07.iad... | On 04/06/2010 20:59, Me, ...again! wrote: | > | > | > On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Martin Brown wrote: | > | >> On 04/06/2010 03:24, Me, ...again! wrote: | >>> | >>> | | >> There is a real beauty in saying that the laws of physics are the same | >> for all observers in an inertial reference frame. | > | > I know. But, I read another book (cover to cover): "The End of Physics: | > The myth of a unified theory" by David Lindley (a physics professor), in | > which it came up often that today's physicists were more concerned with | > "beautiful theories" than theories that explained reality. And, I | > thought that was a good point. | | OTOH beautiful theories that fit all the observations and have survived | all the experimental tests so far are now on very solid foundations. Yep, Newtonian Mechanics works perfectly, it has survived all the experimental tests so far are and is now on very solid foundations. Pity that relativity failed the MMX test, the Sagnac test, the nova test, the cepheid test, the rocket test, all of which NM passed with flying colours. Pity you didn't pass the bigotry test, Brown.
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 6 Jun 2010 18:35
On 04/06/2010 18:51, Androcles wrote: > > "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:86seonFktbU2(a)mid.individual.net... > | On 04/06/2010 12:49, Martin Brown wrote: > |> On 03/06/2010 13:26, Me, ...again! wrote: > |>> > |>> > |>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Martin Brown wrote: > |>> > |>>> I think you really need to learn to recognise Usenet kooks. > |>> > |>> Oh, I've had two decades of experience. But, I was happy to see serious > |>> discussion following my posts of the book list. > |>> > |>>> By any reasonable definition Einstein was a *genius*. His > |>>> contributions to quantum mechaincs and relativity were both very > |>>> important to modern physics. It is telling that even today so many > |>>> people cannot cope with the mathematical insights he provided. As I > |>>> pointed out before the derivation of the Einstein-Lorentz equations > |>>> for special relativity can be done with nothing more than > |>>> consideration of two metre rules passing each other and cataloguing > |>>> the mutual events. > |>> > |>> I will defer the arguments to people who know the material much better > |>> than I know it, and I have not studied this stuff since college days > |>> (many decades ago, and my career went into biology and out of physics, > |>> anyway). One way I judge any area of study is by finding the "experts" > |>> and trying to learn what controversies and interpretations are > currently > |>> being entertained, what claims are being made and refuted, and what is > |>> being said in the newspapers compared to what is being said in the > |>> scholarly monographs and review papers and by people who do this stuff > |>> for a living and have been doing it for decades, too. > |> > |> For that to work you have to know enough about the subject be able to > |> distinguish who are the experts and the ever present netkooks. What you > |> have posted so far and your "methodology" suggests that you cannot. > |> > |> There may be others like Hilbert and Ricci who should get more public > |> credit for their contributions (particularly on the mathematics) but > |> Einstein brought it all together and provided the inspired physical > |> interpretation. Nothing that any of these deranged nutters says can > |> alter the fact that every experiment to date has confirmed the theory. > |> > |> Regards, > |> Martin Brown > | > | Einstein actually deserved 3 Nobel Prizes, or possibly 4 if you count > | his study on Brownian Motion. > > Nah, Brown deserves a prize for his study of Einsteinian motion, > you fuckin' ignorant STOOOPID bigot. Your eloquent argument far outshines Einstein. I just can't understand why so many people thing you're a nut! LOL! -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show |