Was Einstein indeed "Very Great"? [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: Robert Higgins on 12 Mar 2010 07:03

On Mar 11, 10:54 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:52:23 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:51:37 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> >> > he was NEVER an obstacle to quantum mechanics. he just had some
> >> > interesting points that where deeply filosofic. most of the times he
> >> > was not so interested in details but in the deep mysteries of the
> >> > universe.
>
> >> He injected personal bias about how HE thought the universe ought to be
> >> into his "science". He just didn't LIKE the idea of QM and he had no
> >> scientific basis for doing so.
>
> > and what more powerful way to prove that his thoughts where correct than
> > with an new theory of gravity.
>
> GR has nothing to do with QM. And his theory of gravity is more of a
> description of gravity, and not a theory.
>
> > he was one of the founders of QM so what could he posibly care about it,
> > right!
>
> His contributions were using Dirac's quantum theory to explain the photo-
> electric effect,

Einstein explained the photoelectric effect in 1905, when Dirac was
three (!) years old. What version of QM had Dirac developed by age
three? Dirac was born in 1902 - maybe you can do the math, but maybe
not.

> and making really bad arguments based on his personal
> beliefs and biases against QM.

"really bad arguments" that continually tied Bohr in knots.
Eventually, Bohr found the holes in Einstein's arguments, but it
always took him a while to do so. I found the hole in your "Dirac"
argument in about three seconds, so I guess YOU are the one guilty of
REALLY BAD ARGUMENTS. I wonder if Dirac or Einstein at age three could
have found the hole in your argument, too - probably.

[snipped the rest of ignorant rant]

From: Androcles on 12 Mar 2010 07:19

"Robert Higgins" <robert_higgins_61(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0235a979-203f-44e6-a33b-4575fe6c67dc(a)o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 11, 10:54 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:52:23 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:51:37 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> >> > he was NEVER an obstacle to quantum mechanics. he just had some
> >> > interesting points that where deeply filosofic. most of the times he
> >> > was not so interested in details but in the deep mysteries of the
> >> > universe.
>
> >> He injected personal bias about how HE thought the universe ought to be
> >> into his "science". He just didn't LIKE the idea of QM and he had no
> >> scientific basis for doing so.
>
> > and what more powerful way to prove that his thoughts where correct than
> > with an new theory of gravity.
>
> GR has nothing to do with QM. And his theory of gravity is more of a
> description of gravity, and not a theory.
>
> > he was one of the founders of QM so what could he posibly care about it,
> > right!
>
> His contributions were using Dirac's quantum theory to explain the photo-
> electric effect,

Einstein explained the photoelectric effect in 1905, when Dirac was
three (!) years old. What version of QM had Dirac developed by age
three? Dirac was born in 1902 - maybe you can do the math, but maybe
not.

> and making really bad arguments based on his personal
> beliefs and biases against QM.

"really bad arguments" that continually tied Bohr in knots.
Eventually, Bohr found the holes in Einstein's arguments,

============================================
So you agree Einstein's arguments were full of holes.

[snipped the rest of ignorant rant]

From: Robert Higgins on 12 Mar 2010 07:32

On Mar 12, 7:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote:
> "Robert Higgins" <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0235a979-203f-44e6-a33b-4575fe6c67dc(a)o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 11, 10:54 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:52:23 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > > On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:51:37 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > >> > he was NEVER an obstacle to quantum mechanics. he just had some
> > >> > interesting points that where deeply filosofic. most of the times he
> > >> > was not so interested in details but in the deep mysteries of the
> > >> > universe.
>
> > >> He injected personal bias about how HE thought the universe ought to be
> > >> into his "science". He just didn't LIKE the idea of QM and he had no
> > >> scientific basis for doing so.
>
> > > and what more powerful way to prove that his thoughts where correct than
> > > with an new theory of gravity.
>
> > GR has nothing to do with QM. And his theory of gravity is more of a
> > description of gravity, and not a theory.
>
> > > he was one of the founders of QM so what could he posibly care about it,
> > > right!
>
> > His contributions were using Dirac's quantum theory to explain the photo-
> > electric effect,
>
> Einstein explained the photoelectric effect in 1905, when Dirac was
> three (!) years old. What version of QM had Dirac developed by age
> three? Dirac was born in 1902 - maybe you can do the math, but maybe
> not.
>
> > and making really bad arguments based on his personal
> > beliefs and biases against QM.
>
> "really bad arguments" that continually tied Bohr in knots.
> Eventually, Bohr found the holes in Einstein's arguments,
>
> ============================================
> So you agree Einstein's arguments were full of holes.

About QM, certainly, in many cases.
The martian's comments about Dirac, though, undermine his argument
(even more than his inability to do arithmetic). One of Dirac's
important contributions to QM was to incorporate the special theory of
relativity to wave mechanics. One (of many) important results was the
prediction of anti-matter, which turned out to be quite correct.
Dirac's version of QM is essential for the accurate calculation of
properties for heavy atoms, where relativistic effects become
important.

>
> [snipped the rest of ignorant rant]

From: Androcles on 12 Mar 2010 08:01

"Robert Higgins" <robert_higgins_61(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8c3d0a49-5636-40ca-8c5a-faaa65049f97(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 12, 7:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote:
> "Robert Higgins" <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0235a979-203f-44e6-a33b-4575fe6c67dc(a)o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 11, 10:54 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:52:23 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > > On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:51:37 -0800, Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > >> > he was NEVER an obstacle to quantum mechanics. he just had some
> > >> > interesting points that where deeply filosofic. most of the times
> > >> > he
> > >> > was not so interested in details but in the deep mysteries of the
> > >> > universe.
>
> > >> He injected personal bias about how HE thought the universe ought to
> > >> be
> > >> into his "science". He just didn't LIKE the idea of QM and he had no
> > >> scientific basis for doing so.
>
> > > and what more powerful way to prove that his thoughts where correct
> > > than
> > > with an new theory of gravity.
>
> > GR has nothing to do with QM. And his theory of gravity is more of a
> > description of gravity, and not a theory.
>
> > > he was one of the founders of QM so what could he posibly care about
> > > it,
> > > right!
>
> > His contributions were using Dirac's quantum theory to explain the
> > photo-
> > electric effect,
>
> Einstein explained the photoelectric effect in 1905, when Dirac was
> three (!) years old. What version of QM had Dirac developed by age
> three? Dirac was born in 1902 - maybe you can do the math, but maybe
> not.
>
> > and making really bad arguments based on his personal
> > beliefs and biases against QM.
>
> "really bad arguments" that continually tied Bohr in knots.
> Eventually, Bohr found the holes in Einstein's arguments,
>
> ============================================
> So you agree Einstein's arguments were full of holes.

About QM, certainly, in many cases.
The martian's comments about Dirac, though, undermine his argument
(even more than his inability to do arithmetic). One of Dirac's
important contributions to QM was to incorporate the special theory of
relativity to wave mechanics.
=============================================
Dirac was autistic and the stupid theory of relativity has more holes than
a colander.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113435529
You've just produced a really bad argument. Hmm... I correct myself.
You haven't produced an argument at all, just a statement that if it were
an argument would be really bad.

From: Raymond Yohros on 12 Mar 2010 11:40

On Mar 12, 4:03 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > His contributions were using Dirac's quantum theory to explain the photo-
> > electric effect,
>
> Einstein explained the photoelectric effect in 1905, when Dirac was
> three (!) years old. What version of QM had Dirac developed by age
> three? Dirac was born in 1902 - maybe you can do the math, but maybe
> not.
>
i dont understand why so many in this physics group
talk as if einstein was a fake when the true scientific comunity
have always recognise his great achivements
QM was build by many great scientist over experimental
observation for almost a century and eintein was right
there at the begining.

and i know for sure that eintein had nothing but the deepest
respect for lemaitre who took alot of his time to check
up all his work and who was totally inspired by it.

its like they try to change a moment of victory and
turn it into chame?

r.y