Was Einstein indeed "Very Great"?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: CERN, LHC, strangelet = droplet of death. Copy this letter and send it to another forum; to physicists, politicians, prosecutors, terrorists; to citizens of Geneva and so on.
Next: NATURE: A CoGeNT result in the hunt for dark matter [?]
From: Raymond Yohros on 26 Mar 2010 19:37 On Mar 26, 2:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Marvin is right. You are just like a bunch of parrrots...incapable of thinking > > for youself. > > What's remarkable, Henri, is that you believe that, even if the > thinking for yourself results in blindingly stupid conclusions, it is > nevertheless a virtue. > fun is no longer here usenet is becoming useless. only very few scientist and teachers hang in here because there are not too many productive intelectual conversation anymore. it was not like that a long time ago. where have all the good scientist go??? regards r.y
From: Sam Wormley on 26 Mar 2010 21:19 On 3/26/10 6:37 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote: > On Mar 26, 2:08 pm, PD<thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Marvin is right. You are just like a bunch of parrrots...incapable of thinking >>> for youself. >> >> What's remarkable, Henri, is that you believe that, even if the >> thinking for yourself results in blindingly stupid conclusions, it is >> nevertheless a virtue. >> > > fun is no longer here > usenet is becoming useless. > only very few scientist and teachers hang in here because > there are not too many productive intelectual conversation anymore. > it was not like that a long time ago. > > where have all the good scientist go??? > regards > r.y > > You still have a number of contribtors: Carlip, Baez, Draper, Roberts, Neill and Gisse to name a few.
From: Marvin the Martian on 26 Mar 2010 22:01 On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:50:46 -0700, PD wrote: > On Mar 26, 12:37 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:44:56 -0700, PD wrote: >> > All this is a rather tired and tiring exercise in debating the >> > qualifications of a nebulous term like "great". The same exercise is >> > applied to hockey players, presidents, and CEOs, with similar >> > futility. >> >> > There is no lack of people who are willing to try to depose a dead >> > physicist from the ranks of greatness. >> >> Lots of dead physicists are in the ranks of greatness. Newton, Maxwell, >> Schrödinger, Lorentz... >> >> Not Einstein. He's a poser who is known for other people's work. I >> pointed that out a NUMBER OF TIMES already, and all you worshipper can >> do is say "I don't think so". No, you don't "think" so. Someone else >> programmed you to respond that way. There is no thinking on your part >> or you would point out the original work that Einstein actually DID. > > Again, I will point out that your estimation is based on YOUR metrics > and YOUR estimation of how these people met those metrics. Your response > to disagreement about that is, "Then you're brainwashed." That you're programmed to think Einstein was great for no good reason is your problem. What did Newton do? Starting with the existing theory of limits, he invented the calculus. Wow. Then, using the calculus, he derived modern mechanics. Again, wow. Up until Newton, it was all qualitative as Galileo derived it. Newton was indisputably great for what he DID, even ignoring his contributions to optics, thermodynamics and other fields of physics. Lorentz took Maxwell's equations, which were a combination of Gausse's, Ampere's, and Faraday's work, and showed how they are invariant under a velocity transformation that is quite different than the Galilean transformation; a transformation called "the Lorentz Transformation". This transformation produced the "Lorentz Fitzgerald Contraction" that explained the supposedly null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Lorentz was no Newton, but he did significant original work. What Einstein did was: 1) Presented the Lorentz transformation pretty much as his own. 2) Repeated the work of Lucretius (who said Brownian motion proved the existence of atoms in 60 BC), of Thiele's method of least squares. 3) Used the existing equal partisan theory and applied it to explain Hertz's photoelectric effect. The last one is a plug and chug. In short, there isn't anything that Einstein contributed that was critical to physics. Not like Newton. What are the "Rebuttals"? 1) There isn't any exact yardstick for "greatness", ergo there is no greatness and thus Einstein is great. 2) IT is your baseless opinion, and your baseless opinion is just as good as facts. 3) Anyone who disagrees that Einstein is great is a Nazi, because some of those who disagree with Einstein are Nazis, they ALL must be. And you like the argumentum ad Nazium fallacy. 4) Someone TOLD you that Einstein was great, and though you cannot say why these folks thought Einstein was great, you BELIEVE them without question, and other folks must believe it too. 5) Einstein won a Nobel Prize (not for SR, as many people wrongly believe) so he must be great. Mind you, frauds like Obama and Gore have also won Nobel prizes. 6) You lie about what my argument against Einstein's greatness is, like PD just did. This is called a straw man fallacy: he intentionally MISSTATED my argument as a weaker argument that was baseless, then attacked his strawman. None of these "rebuttals" is rational or reasoned. They're fallacies, monkey gibberish. These "rebuttals" support my assertion that people let themselves be programmed for this mindless response, which has nothing to do with the fact that Einstein is a fraud. You should be ashamed and embarrassed to be making these irrational arguments. Sadly, you're no where nearly educated enough to be embarrassed, sort of how a little child would pee his pants in public. Instead, you're quite proud to offer this drivel. You should also be ashamed you were so easily fooled and caught being uncritical, but if you cannot think rationally, what hope do you have to not be someone's fool?
From: Marvin the Martian on 26 Mar 2010 23:42 On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:37:20 -0700, Raymond Yohros wrote: > On Mar 26, 2:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Marvin is right. You are just like a bunch of parrrots...incapable of >> > thinking for youself. >> >> What's remarkable, Henri, is that you believe that, even if the >> thinking for yourself results in blindingly stupid conclusions, it is >> nevertheless a virtue. >> >> > fun is no longer here > usenet is becoming useless. > only very few scientist and teachers hang in here because there are not > too many productive intelectual conversation anymore. it was not like > that a long time ago. > > where have all the good scientist go??? regards > r.y IF you cannot explain why you understand your claims to be true, then the gift of speech is wasted upon you.
From: Marvin the Martian on 27 Mar 2010 06:32
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:59:09 +0800, Tom Potter wrote: > "Marvin the Martian" <marvin(a)ontomars.org> wrote in message > news:GZCdnSnEveiN-jDWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:50:46 -0700, PD wrote: >> >>> On Mar 26, 12:37 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:44:56 -0700, PD wrote: >>>> > All this is a rather tired and tiring exercise in debating the >>>> > qualifications of a nebulous term like "great". The same exercise >>>> > is applied to hockey players, presidents, and CEOs, with similar >>>> > futility. >>>> >>>> > There is no lack of people who are willing to try to depose a dead >>>> > physicist from the ranks of greatness. >>>> >>>> Lots of dead physicists are in the ranks of greatness. Newton, >>>> Maxwell, Schrödinger, Lorentz... >>>> >>>> Not Einstein. He's a poser who is known for other people's work. I >>>> pointed that out a NUMBER OF TIMES already, and all you worshipper >>>> can do is say "I don't think so". No, you don't "think" so. Someone >>>> else programmed you to respond that way. There is no thinking on your >>>> part or you would point out the original work that Einstein actually >>>> DID. >>> >>> Again, I will point out that your estimation is based on YOUR metrics >>> and YOUR estimation of how these people met those metrics. Your >>> response to disagreement about that is, "Then you're brainwashed." >> >> That you're programmed to think Einstein was great for no good reason >> is your problem. >> >> What did Newton do? Starting with the existing theory of limits, he >> invented the calculus. Wow. Then, using the calculus, he derived modern >> mechanics. Again, wow. Up until Newton, it was all qualitative as >> Galileo derived it. >> >> Newton was indisputably great for what he DID, even ignoring his >> contributions to optics, thermodynamics and other fields of physics. >> >> Lorentz took Maxwell's equations, which were a combination of Gausse's, >> Ampere's, and Faraday's work, and showed how they are invariant under a >> velocity transformation that is quite different than the Galilean >> transformation; a transformation called "the Lorentz Transformation". >> This transformation produced the "Lorentz Fitzgerald Contraction" that >> explained the supposedly null result of the Michelson-Morley >> experiment. >> >> Lorentz was no Newton, but he did significant original work. >> >> What Einstein did was: >> 1) Presented the Lorentz transformation pretty much as his own. 2) >> Repeated the work of Lucretius (who said Brownian motion proved the >> existence of atoms in 60 BC), of Thiele's method of least squares. 3) >> Used the existing equal partisan theory and applied it to explain >> Hertz's photoelectric effect. >> >> The last one is a plug and chug. In short, there isn't anything that >> Einstein contributed that was critical to physics. Not like Newton. >> >> What are the "Rebuttals"? >> >> 1) There isn't any exact yardstick for "greatness", ergo there is no >> greatness and thus Einstein is great. >> >> 2) IT is your baseless opinion, and your baseless opinion is just as >> good as facts. >> >> 3) Anyone who disagrees that Einstein is great is a Nazi, because some >> of those who disagree with Einstein are Nazis, they ALL must be. And >> you like the argumentum ad Nazium fallacy. >> >> 4) Someone TOLD you that Einstein was great, and though you cannot say >> why these folks thought Einstein was great, you BELIEVE them without >> question, and other folks must believe it too. >> >> 5) Einstein won a Nobel Prize (not for SR, as many people wrongly >> believe) so he must be great. Mind you, frauds like Obama and Gore have >> also won Nobel prizes. >> >> 6) You lie about what my argument against Einstein's greatness is, like >> PD just did. This is called a straw man fallacy: he intentionally >> MISSTATED my argument as a weaker argument that was baseless, then >> attacked his strawman. >> >> None of these "rebuttals" is rational or reasoned. They're fallacies, >> monkey gibberish. These "rebuttals" support my assertion that people >> let themselves be programmed for this mindless response, which has >> nothing to do with the fact that Einstein is a fraud. You should be >> ashamed and embarrassed to be making these irrational arguments. Sadly, >> you're no where nearly educated enough to be embarrassed, sort of how a >> little child would pee his pants in public. Instead, you're quite proud >> to offer this drivel. You should also be ashamed you were so easily >> fooled and caught being uncritical, but if you cannot think rationally, >> what hope do you have to not be someone's fool? > > I give you ***** Five Stars ***** for this post. > > Unfortunately, as PD uses a batch of sock puppets to give himself ***** > Five Stars ***** on his posts you'll never be able to catch up with him. > > Click on the urls below to see what I mean. > http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2007-08/msg01428.html > http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/physics/15557/Google-usenet- post-rating-system I don't use Google for usenet access. Google censors, and tells people what the limits are that they can think. I'm sure the sycophant crowd (like PD) LOVES to use stars to show that other folks are in agreement with their incredibly bad arguments. And as you say, they may even use their sock puppet accounts to do so. Since the really GOOD thinkers are two to three standard deviation away from the norm, and that is where all the progress is made, who would care about the "herd"? The same folks who are found of argumentum ad Nazium are equally fond of the "bandwagon fallacy". As long as everyone else makes the same mistake, they feel no shame at all in making the same mistake, if that is what their argument is. They go with the crowd. If the crowd is wrong, they are no worse than the other members of the crowd. |