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 14:05

On Mar 12, 12:15 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:03:24 -0800, Robert Higgins wrote:
> > 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.
>
> My bad. Planck's hypothesis about the quantum, not Dirac.
>
> >> 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]
>
> I made an mistake.

Obviously.

> In your case, your momma made a mistake and didn't
> drown you immediately after birth.

If my parents were to drown everyone who could easily expose you as a
fool, there would be no one left on earth.

>
> The simple fact is, Einstein used someone else's theory to explain the
> photoelectric effect, which was also discovered by someone else. That was
> the point, which you totally missed.

Hate to tell you, MOST scientists use "someone else's" theory to
explain anything. Too bad Planck didn't use his own theory to solve
the probelme, but he didn't, and Einstein did. Bet you didn't know
(just like you didn't know that "Planck" was spelled P-L-A-N-C-K and
not D-I-R-A-C) that Planck was responsible for the then-unknown
Einstein getting his papers published in Annalen der Physik. But
thanks for playing.

From: Robert Higgins on 12 Mar 2010 14:17

On Mar 12, 12:20 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:32:48 -0800, Robert Higgins wrote:
> > About QM, certainly, in many cases.
> > The martian's comments about Dirac, though, undermine his argument (even
> > more than his inability to do arithmetic).
>
> No, it shows you have a pea brain and are easily distracted by irrelevant
> errors. Planck, not Dirac. The point remains the same. Einstein took
> someone else's discovery about the photo electric effect and used someone
> else's theory to explain it. It was a plug and chug.

If it were merely "plugand chug", why didn't anybody else
(particularly one of the established academics) PLUG and CHUG first?

>
> > One of Dirac's important
> > contributions to QM was to incorporate the special theory of relativity
> > to wave mechanics.
>
> You do love the red herring sandwich, don't you? :-)

Not really. But I know a lot more about physics than you do, so it is
easy to bash your brains in with your own juvenile mistakes.

>
> > 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.

Here you don't say anything, because it proves you wrong (again)

>
> Well, thank god for Lorentz's discovery of the Lorentz transformation
> which was based on Maxwell's equations,

To what extent was the Lorentz transformation based on Maxwell's
equations? (Other than that "the constancy of the speed of light is
implicit in Maxwell's equations" as noted by EInstein)

> and Planck, Dirac, Schrödinger,

Your understanding of Planck's contributions is very weak.

> Heisenberg and the other great scientist who founded Quantum mechanics.

"Founded" quantum mechanics? LIke they founded a college?

>
> Too bad your hero had nothing to do with it besides objecting to it.

Einstein couldn't have been as great as Dirac, since Dirac developed
quantum theory when he was three! Or so says Marvin.

From: Robert Higgins on 12 Mar 2010 14:21

On Mar 12, 1:25 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote:
> "Robert Higgins" <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:be6de9cf-d1b3-4043-ad14-f87e621a6949(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 12, 8:01 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_v> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Robert Higgins" <robert_higgins...(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
>
> very speculative - it is pretty clear that the author has never seen
> anyone with autism, and pulled the word out of the air based on
> reading a paragraph in the encyclopedia.
>
> > and the stupid theory of relativity has more holes than
> > a colander.
>
> It is amazing how the "stupid" theory of relativity applied to
> Schroedinger's wave mechanics yielded the accurate prediction of the
> positron... hmmm.
>
> ===============================================
> Bwhahahahahaha!
>
> So Schroedinger's wave mechanics + time dilation = electron * -1.
>
> Very speculative - it is pretty clear that it is amazing how the gullible
> like to spread bullshit as though it were jam on bread. hmmm...
>
> >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.
>
> I thought that you would like Dirac - him being an (electrrical)
> engineer and all.
> ===============================================
> I thought his greatest achievement was he managed to write a plus sign

"thought" is an overstatement.

> on an electron, and Asimov developed a brain for his robots with it.
> Given the present state of development of Japanese robots I'd say
> positronic brains were a really bad argument.
> http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/03/16/robot.html

Maybe you should go in for a PET scan...

> Compared to some Japanese engineers, your hero Dirac was an idiot.
> What that makes you I'll not speculate.

I have many heroes - and most can do calculus. Maybe some day when
you're 80 you'll be able to achieve what most scientists can do at 19.

From: Marvin the Martian on 12 Mar 2010 20:29

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:05:43 -0800, Robert Higgins wrote:

> On Mar 12, 12:15 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:03:24 -0800, Robert Higgins wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> My bad. Planck's hypothesis about the quantum, not Dirac.
>>
>> >> 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]
>>
>> I made an mistake.
>
> Obviously.
>
>> In your case, your momma made a mistake and didn't drown you
>> immediately after birth.
>
> If my parents were to drown everyone who could easily expose you as a
> fool, there would be no one left on earth.
>
>
>> The simple fact is, Einstein used someone else's theory to explain the
>> photoelectric effect, which was also discovered by someone else. That
>> was the point, which you totally missed.
>
> Hate to tell you, MOST scientists use "someone else's" theory to explain
> anything.

Hate to tell you, most scientist are not "great". I didn't say it was
wrong, I said Einstein was not great. See the subject line? That's what
the grown up were discussing before you entered the conversation.

> Too bad Planck didn't use his own theory to solve the
> probelme, but he didn't, and Einstein did.

And Schrödinger didn't solve every problem in QM, either. He just
provided the means to do so. Schrödinger is great, Einstein isn't.

> Bet you didn't know (just
> like you didn't know that "Planck" was spelled P-L-A-N-C-K and not
> D-I-R-A-C) that Planck was responsible for the then-unknown Einstein
> getting his papers published in Annalen der Physik. But thanks for
> playing.

Totally irrelevant, you gibbering monkey. The subject is "was Einstein
Great".

BTW, Problem is spelled PROBLEM, not P-R-O-B-E-L-M-E.

From: Raymond Yohros on 12 Mar 2010 21:03

On Mar 12, 11:05 am, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 12, 12:15 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote:
> > The simple fact is, Einstein used someone else's theory to explain the
> > photoelectric effect, which was also discovered by someone else. That was
> > the point, which you totally missed.
>
> Hate to tell you, MOST scientists use "someone else's" theory to
> explain anything. Too bad Planck didn't use his own theory to solve
> the probelme, but he didn't, and Einstein did. Bet you didn't know
> (just like you didn't know that "Planck" was spelled P-L-A-N-C-K and
> not D-I-R-A-C) that Planck was responsible for the then-unknown
> Einstein getting his papers published in Annalen der Physik. But
> thanks for playing.- Hide quoted text -
>

he seems to forget that max planck became einsteins
greatest supporter and sponsor and that the word quanta
came from einstein himself.
the miracle years where the foundation of QM
along with plancks work that was in contrast
with einsteins.

r.y

r.y