Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #892368 > unrolled thread

Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 21:46 -0500
    Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 20:17 -0700
      Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 19:22 -0500
    Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2025-04-15 03:24 +0000
      Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 20:45 -0700
      Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 00:05 -0500
      Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-16 08:27 +0200
    Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-16 11:14 +0200
      Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 17:22 -0500
        Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-16 23:38 +0000
        Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 22:45 -0500
          Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-17 13:44 +0000
            Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-17 21:24 +0000
        Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-17 11:11 +0200
          Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 12:40 -0700
          Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 14:50 -0500
            Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 15:28 -0500
              Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 15:34 -0500
              Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-18 10:45 +0200
            Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-18 10:45 +0200
              Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-18 10:51 +0200
              Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-18 10:02 -0500
                Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-19 12:09 +0200
                  Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy. Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-19 11:20 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#892368 — Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy.

On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect and
>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). Planck
>> didn't have this.
> 
> Why should we believe anything you write
> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
> 
> Jan


What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand 
you guys in this relativity forum.

Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the 
physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.

And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well 
as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them. 
Are you people nuts?..

Leave science in the hands of cro-magnons and their tribal instinct will 
turn any physics source into a history of it instead.

One day, when science goes back to the people it belongs, you won't find 
a single human name inside any physics text.

It is disgusting how things are, thanks to you cro-magnon early humans. 
There's reason I leave it to my dick to handle you dimwits.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#892370

On 04/14/2025 07:46 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect and
>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). Planck
>>> didn't have this.
>>
>> Why should we believe anything you write
>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
>>
>> Jan
>
>
> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
> you guys in this relativity forum.
>
> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
>
> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them.
> Are you people nuts?..
>
> Leave science in the hands of cro-magnons and their tribal instinct will
> turn any physics source into a history of it instead.
>
> One day, when science goes back to the people it belongs, you won't find
> a single human name inside any physics text.
>
> It is disgusting how things are, thanks to you cro-magnon early humans.
> There's reason I leave it to my dick to handle you dimwits.
>
>
>
>

Like "the euclidean" and "the cartesian" and "the platonic"?

Even "the abelian"?

Names of elements?

It's agreeable that things have names courtesy their structure
and form and relation: the _descriptive_, and that they're sensible
names and unsurprising and not much loaded in the non-scientific
context, yet most things somebody thought them before, then,
those names are almost universally given by other people,
i.e., of course nobody gets to name their own things in physics,
then that it's usually sort of a respect bit.


Like, when you say "unit impulse function", then it's like,
"oh, the particular, often called u, function for transform
theory, the only nonstandard function often admitted into
methods, the Dirac delta and that also related to the Kronecker
delta with regards to various meanings in methods where both
and either share the same symbol and have conditions where each
and the either have their meanings then that it's sort of related
to say the one in transform theory then the other in the analysis
and a third related to the discrete, the Dirac delta".

Or, you know, like "Jordan curve: simple closed connected curve",
or, "Jordan measure: now it's called Jordan content because it's
sort of non-standard the line integral and now our terms collide
and anyone can draw a quick contradiction".


Or, like "Democritan: a usual reasonable theory of atomic atoms,
thusly what's Aristotlean is what's not that though what's reasonable,
since Aristotle went to the bother of setting up both then showing
a line out that's the usual classical, Aristotlean-Democritan".


Or it's like "Aristotle's continuum: well we already gave the
one to Archimedes that's the usual rational field, so we might
as well call Aristotle's continuum like Jordan measure, though
it would be sort of Democritan, though Archimedes then Eudoxus
are how we say the rational field, yet then of course Archimedean
is non-Archimedean is Archimedean again then these days there's
the non-Archimidean which though is sort of super-Archimedean".

Or it's like "Dedekind completeness? Oh, that's Eudoxus then
a bit of Weierstrass while though Cauchy, in set theory, though".

So, yeah, sometimes names are just their club, yet, other times,
it's our canon.

Like, Gauss versus Ostrogradsky, or Shannon versus Nyquist,
it's like "Gauss? What about Gauss?" while it's like
"Ostrogradsky? Well of course Ostrogradsky."


Then sometimes it's sort of charitable, like "Galois",
for things like algebra. "Pascal".

Mathematics they say was coined by the Pythagoreans,
also philosophy, the words. (Same words.)


What you're kind of talking about is what's called "priority",
like who gets credit, then there's a usual idea that mathematics
and physics too is discovered not invented, that it's well known
that when you start to study, you find out that lots of the larger
bodies of work are panels, and schools, besides individuals.
Then individuals with great or important works are later accoladed,
mostly because then looking up their works crosses disciplines,
or connects schools.


Then, priority about Einstein is sort of moot because
that's about the only physicist the most people has even heard of.

Like "algebra"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892385

On 4/14/25 10:17 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/14/2025 07:46 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect and
>>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). Planck
>>>> didn't have this.
>>>
>>> Why should we believe anything you write
>>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
>>>
>>> Jan
>>
>>
>> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
>> you guys in this relativity forum.
>>
>> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
>> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
>>
>> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
>> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them.
>> Are you people nuts?..
>>
>> Leave science in the hands of cro-magnons and their tribal instinct will
>> turn any physics source into a history of it instead.
>>
>> One day, when science goes back to the people it belongs, you won't find
>> a single human name inside any physics text.
>>
>> It is disgusting how things are, thanks to you cro-magnon early humans.
>> There's reason I leave it to my dick to handle you dimwits.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> Like "the euclidean" and "the cartesian" and "the platonic"?
> 
> Even "the abelian"?
> 
> Names of elements?
> 
> It's agreeable that things have names courtesy their structure
> and form and relation: the _descriptive_, and that they're sensible
> names and unsurprising and not much loaded in the non-scientific
> context, yet most things somebody thought them before, then,
> those names are almost universally given by other people,
> i.e., of course nobody gets to name their own things in physics,
> then that it's usually sort of a respect bit.
> 
> 
> Like, when you say "unit impulse function", then it's like,
> "oh, the particular, often called u, function for transform
> theory, the only nonstandard function often admitted into
> methods, the Dirac delta and that also related to the Kronecker
> delta with regards to various meanings in methods where both
> and either share the same symbol and have conditions where each
> and the either have their meanings then that it's sort of related
> to say the one in transform theory then the other in the analysis
> and a third related to the discrete, the Dirac delta".
> 
> Or, you know, like "Jordan curve: simple closed connected curve",
> or, "Jordan measure: now it's called Jordan content because it's
> sort of non-standard the line integral and now our terms collide
> and anyone can draw a quick contradiction".
> 
> 
> Or, like "Democritan: a usual reasonable theory of atomic atoms,
> thusly what's Aristotlean is what's not that though what's reasonable,
> since Aristotle went to the bother of setting up both then showing
> a line out that's the usual classical, Aristotlean-Democritan".
> 
> 
> Or it's like "Aristotle's continuum: well we already gave the
> one to Archimedes that's the usual rational field, so we might
> as well call Aristotle's continuum like Jordan measure, though
> it would be sort of Democritan, though Archimedes then Eudoxus
> are how we say the rational field, yet then of course Archimedean
> is non-Archimedean is Archimedean again then these days there's
> the non-Archimidean which though is sort of super-Archimedean".
> 
> Or it's like "Dedekind completeness? Oh, that's Eudoxus then
> a bit of Weierstrass while though Cauchy, in set theory, though".
> 
> So, yeah, sometimes names are just their club, yet, other times,
> it's our canon.
> 
> Like, Gauss versus Ostrogradsky, or Shannon versus Nyquist,
> it's like "Gauss? What about Gauss?" while it's like
> "Ostrogradsky? Well of course Ostrogradsky."
> 
> 
> Then sometimes it's sort of charitable, like "Galois",
> for things like algebra. "Pascal".
> 
> Mathematics they say was coined by the Pythagoreans,
> also philosophy, the words. (Same words.)
> 
> 
> What you're kind of talking about is what's called "priority",
> like who gets credit, then there's a usual idea that mathematics
> and physics too is discovered not invented, that it's well known
> that when you start to study, you find out that lots of the larger
> bodies of work are panels, and schools, besides individuals.
> Then individuals with great or important works are later accoladed,
> mostly because then looking up their works crosses disciplines,
> or connects schools.
> 
> 
> Then, priority about Einstein is sort of moot because
> that's about the only physicist the most people has even heard of.
> 
> Like "algebra"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


No, not like algebra. The word algebra (  الجبر  ) is a description of a 
math feature, not the name of some human or animal or Priest or mass 
murderer or other creatures that exist so abundantly among you earlier 
humans.

It comes from Modern Humans, and to a Modern Human it never occurs that 
a human name should be used for a math feature.

You people are funky. Cro-magnons don't really know what they're doing. 
They follow instincts, and that's what's "right" and feels "right" for 
them. Ask your chorus boy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892371

On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 2:46:46 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect and
>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). Planck
>>> didn't have this.
>>
>> Why should we believe anything you write
>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
>>
>> Jan
>
>
> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
> you guys in this relativity forum.
>
> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
>
> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them.
> Are you people nuts?..
>
> Leave science in the hands of cro-magnons and their tribal instinct will
> turn any physics source into a history of it instead.
>
> One day, when science goes back to the people it belongs, you won't find
> a single human name inside any physics text.
>
> It is disgusting how things are, thanks to you cro-magnon early humans.
> There's reason I leave it to my dick to handle you dimwits.



You are fucking deadly wrong, Mr. Micropenis.

Immortal creators of modern science will live forever:

- Kepler
- Galilei
- Newton
- Maxwell
- Faraday
- Ampere
- Fourier
- Ohm
- Volta
- Euler
- Gauss
- Laplace
- Lagrange
- Hamilton
- Joule
- Watt
- Kirchoff
- Kelvin
- Bohr
- Poincaré
- Schrodinger
- Heisenberg
- Fermi
- Lavoisier
- Mendeleiev
- Dalton
- Avogrado
- Pauling
- Curie
- Shockley

This list cover the most relevant scientists in the last 400 years.

Others, missing, are minor figures or just irrelevant idiots with undue
fame.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892373

On 04/14/2025 08:24 PM, rhertz wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 2:46:46 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect and
>>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). Planck
>>>> didn't have this.
>>>
>>> Why should we believe anything you write
>>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
>>>
>>> Jan
>>
>>
>> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
>> you guys in this relativity forum.
>>
>> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
>> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
>>
>> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
>> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them.
>> Are you people nuts?..
>>
>> Leave science in the hands of cro-magnons and their tribal instinct will
>> turn any physics source into a history of it instead.
>>
>> One day, when science goes back to the people it belongs, you won't find
>> a single human name inside any physics text.
>>
>> It is disgusting how things are, thanks to you cro-magnon early humans.
>> There's reason I leave it to my dick to handle you dimwits.
>
>
>
> You are fucking deadly wrong, Mr. Micropenis.
>
> Immortal creators of modern science will live forever:
>
> - Kepler
> - Galilei
> - Newton
> - Maxwell
> - Faraday
> - Ampere
> - Fourier
> - Ohm
> - Volta
> - Euler
> - Gauss
> - Laplace
> - Lagrange
> - Hamilton
> - Joule
> - Watt
> - Kirchoff
> - Kelvin
> - Bohr
> - Poincaré
> - Schrodinger
> - Heisenberg
> - Fermi
> - Lavoisier
> - Mendeleiev
> - Dalton
> - Avogrado
> - Pauling
> - Curie
> - Shockley
>
> This list cover the most relevant scientists in the last 400 years.
>
> Others, missing, are minor figures or just irrelevant idiots with undue
> fame.


No, you forgot Arago.

And lots of others.

Arago though is along with Fresnel that what you got there
is missing a lot, like Thomson, Planck, Young, if you're
just rattling off units you forget Weber, Angstrom,
and a whole slew of others.

Arago though is great, he's like, "I notice shadows have
a bright dot, I used Fresnel's formulas to make a lensing
about the occlusion instead of the focusing of the translucent,
to arrive at a way to show that there'll be a dot, and there
it is".

Or like Allais or something like that.

Where's Maupertuis, it's like, Lagrange is quite great,
yet it Boyle's down to Hooke and Clausius of course,
Lagrange, and Boltzmann have the molar gas constant,
in it.  Kelvin that.

You got Schroedinger and Heisenberg and no Bohm and
de Broglie, quit fooling yourself. For that matter
you probably don't have both Heisenberg's certainty
and uncertainty for something like Goedel's completeness
and incompleteness, for "revisit Hubble, Heisenberg, and Higgs"
(and retroplant them).


Try Heilbron, he's a pretty great historian,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._Heilbron

helped write "A Dictionary of the History of Science".

https://www.google.com/search?q=Dictionary+of+the+History+of+Science

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892376

On 4/14/25 10:24 PM, rhertz wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 2:46:46 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
> 
>> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect and
>>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). Planck
>>>> didn't have this.
>>>
>>> Why should we believe anything you write
>>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
>>>
>>> Jan
>>
>>
>> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
>> you guys in this relativity forum.
>>
>> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
>> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
>>
>> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
>> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them.
>> Are you people nuts?..
>>
>> Leave science in the hands of cro-magnons and their tribal instinct will
>> turn any physics source into a history of it instead.
>>
>> One day, when science goes back to the people it belongs, you won't find
>> a single human name inside any physics text.
>>
>> It is disgusting how things are, thanks to you cro-magnon early humans.
>> There's reason I leave it to my dick to handle you dimwits.
> 
> 
> 
> You are fucking deadly wrong, Mr. Micropenis.
> 
> Immortal creators of modern science will live forever:
> 
> - Kepler
> - Galilei
> - Newton
> - Maxwell
> - Faraday
> - Ampere
> - Fourier
> - Ohm
> - Volta
> - Euler
> - Gauss
> - Laplace
> - Lagrange
> - Hamilton
> - Joule
> - Watt
> - Kirchoff
> - Kelvin
> - Bohr
> - Poincaré
> - Schrodinger
> - Heisenberg
> - Fermi
> - Lavoisier
> - Mendeleiev
> - Dalton
> - Avogrado
> - Pauling
> - Curie
> - Shockley
> 
> This list cover the most relevant scientists in the last 400 years.
> 
> Others, missing, are minor figures or just irrelevant idiots with undue
> fame.


Hehe :) My dick is beginning to understand you :)

But, looks like you didn't notice, this isn't physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892390

Am Dienstag000015, 15.04.2025 um 05:24 schrieb rhertz:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 2:46:46 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
> 
>> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect and
>>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). Planck
>>>> didn't have this.
>>>
>>> Why should we believe anything you write
>>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
>>>
>>> Jan
>>
>>
>> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
>> you guys in this relativity forum.
>>
>> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
>> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
>>
>> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
>> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them.
>> Are you people nuts?..
>>
>> Leave science in the hands of cro-magnons and their tribal instinct will
>> turn any physics source into a history of it instead.
>>
>> One day, when science goes back to the people it belongs, you won't find
>> a single human name inside any physics text.
>>
>> It is disgusting how things are, thanks to you cro-magnon early humans.
>> There's reason I leave it to my dick to handle you dimwits.
> 
> 
> 
> You are fucking deadly wrong, Mr. Micropenis.
> 
> Immortal creators of modern science will live forever:
> 
> - Kepler
> - Galilei
> - Newton
> - Maxwell
> - Faraday
> - Ampere
> - Fourier
> - Ohm
> - Volta
> - Euler
> - Gauss
> - Laplace
> - Lagrange
> - Hamilton
> - Joule
> - Watt
> - Kirchoff
> - Kelvin
> - Bohr
> - Poincaré
> - Schrodinger
> - Heisenberg
> - Fermi
> - Lavoisier
> - Mendeleiev
> - Dalton
> - Avogrado
> - Pauling
> - Curie
> - Shockley
> 
> This list cover the most relevant scientists in the last 400 years.
> 
> Others, missing, are minor figures or just irrelevant idiots with undue
> fame.


I would miss Heinrich Hertz here and also Nicola Tesla.

Hertz found radio waves and Tesla invented ton of important things like 
radio, alternating currents and remote control.

Otto Hahn and Roentgen were also certainly worth mentioning.

On the other hand  a number of the people on the list above were 
mathematicians, like e.g. Euler, and some chemicists (Curie, Mendelejev..).

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892393

Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect and
> >> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). Planck
> >> didn't have this.
> > 
> > Why should we believe anything you write
> > when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
> > 
> > Jan
> 
> 
> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
> you guys in this relativity forum.
> 
> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
> 
> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them.
> Are you people nuts?..

Perhaps, but it is a very human trait.
Things memorise more easily when there is a name attached to it.

For example, even asteroids get names.
Asteroid 1001 Gaussia for example may be easier on the brain
than the provisional designation 1923 OA.
Asteroid 'Gaussia' will even be understood if the number is forgotten,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892400

On 4/16/25 4:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect and
>>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). Planck
>>>> didn't have this.
>>>
>>> Why should we believe anything you write
>>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
>>>
>>> Jan
>>
>>
>> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
>> you guys in this relativity forum.
>>
>> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
>> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
>>
>> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
>> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them.
>> Are you people nuts?..
> 
> Perhaps, but it is a very human trait.
> Things memorise more easily when there is a name attached to it.
> 
> For example, even asteroids get names.
> Asteroid 1001 Gaussia for example may be easier on the brain
> than the provisional designation 1923 OA.
> Asteroid 'Gaussia' will even be understood if the number is forgotten,
> 
> Jan
> 



No it's not that innocent a mess. Priest-minded crappy scientists, 
disguised as "scientists" have been forcing it to pack non-related 
humanities stuff in it for their own tribal interests. And they've gone 
too far. It's become disgusting in fact. Takes the attention of students 
away to stuff unrelated to physics.

Did Newton ever do that? Of course not. As far as I know he never named 
names in his physics works. The closest that he came to point to a 
"history" of it was his comment about "giants". He was too good a 
physicist to name even those giants, cause it would be trash as far as 
physics concepts were concerned.

Physics history is a humanities field. It has absolutely nothing to do 
with physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892401

On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 22:22:41 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 4/16/25 4:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect and
>>>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). Planck
>>>>> didn't have this.
>>>>
>>>> Why should we believe anything you write
>>>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>
>>>
>>> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
>>> you guys in this relativity forum.
>>>
>>> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
>>> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
>>>
>>> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
>>> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them.
>>> Are you people nuts?..
>>
>> Perhaps, but it is a very human trait.
>> Things memorise more easily when there is a name attached to it.
>>
>> For example, even asteroids get names.
>> Asteroid 1001 Gaussia for example may be easier on the brain
>> than the provisional designation 1923 OA.
>> Asteroid 'Gaussia' will even be understood if the number is forgotten,
>>
>> Jan
>>
>
>
>
> No it's not that innocent a mess. Priest-minded crappy scientists,
> disguised as "scientists" have been forcing it to pack non-related
> humanities stuff in it for their own tribal interests. And they've gone
> too far. It's become disgusting in fact. Takes the attention of students
> away to stuff unrelated to physics.

What physics? Modern physics is crap. Arindam's future physics is what
matters. It is based upon pre Helmholtz physics.
>
> Did Newton ever do that?

How could he? Who could he name? He was the first and also the greatest
physicist. He had enough trouble from the Aristotlean elites. Even more
than Arindam from Einsteinian elites. Who will Arindam refer for his
future physics? Only those who preceded him and are known for their
original contributions. Newton was following Copernicus and Galileo. In
his time that was a revolutionary thing to do so best avoided.



 Of course not. As far as I know he never named
> names in his physics works. The closest that he came to point to a
> "history" of it was his comment about "giants". He was too good a
> physicist to name even those giants, cause it would be trash as far as
> physics concepts were concerned.

Ah Roachie there is such a thing called individuality which all mediocre
parasitic peoples seek to crush on the supposed equalising basis. Cut
down tall poppies. Rob their intellectual property by loud proclamation
of social justice.
>
> Physics history is a humanities field. It has absolutely nothing to do
> with physics.

It jolly well has, to see the development of the field on a forensic
basis.

Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892404

On 4/16/25 5:22 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 4/16/25 4:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect 
>>>>> and
>>>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). 
>>>>> Planck
>>>>> didn't have this.
>>>>
>>>> Why should we believe anything you write
>>>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>
>>>
>>> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
>>> you guys in this relativity forum.
>>>
>>> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
>>> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
>>>
>>> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
>>> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them.
>>> Are you people nuts?..
>>
>> Perhaps, but it is a very human trait.
>> Things memorise more easily when there is a name attached to it.
>>
>> For example, even asteroids get names.
>> Asteroid 1001 Gaussia for example may be easier on the brain
>> than the provisional designation 1923 OA.
>> Asteroid 'Gaussia' will even be understood if the number is forgotten,
>>
>> Jan
>>
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not that innocent a mess. Priest-minded crappy scientists, 
> disguised as "scientists" have been forcing it to pack non-related 
> humanities stuff in it for their own tribal interests. And they've gone 
> too far. It's become disgusting in fact. Takes the attention of students 
> away to stuff unrelated to physics.
> 
> Did Newton ever do that? Of course not. As far as I know he never named 
> names in his physics works. The closest that he came to point to a 
> "history" of it was his comment about "giants". He was too good a 
> physicist to name even those giants, cause it would be trash as far as 
> physics concepts were concerned.
> 
> Physics history is a humanities field. It has absolutely nothing to do 
> with physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 


Wouldn't it be better if for a paper that's been published, the writers 
of it would appear as only codes, and not their names or affiliations, 
codes which themselves would change with each new paper they write. This 
will secure the danger of bias in reading such papers. There'd only be 
the material to concentrate on, and nothing else that could give the 
readers any cues about in whose presence they are when they're reading 
the work. Physics requires such degree of objectivity.

The references section of the paper should likewise avoid giving such 
cues. Only the titles of the papers, and dates, together with the 
corresponding codes tied to each one and unique to it, would be given.

This will fight tribalism.

All that bias that's packed today in the form of who's who will get 
eliminated, and what's left is physics itself to research and understand 
and develop.

Under such system, Arindams of the world will subsist, but only at the 
subsistence level. All that bullshit keeps coming and are quickly read 
and tossed away by researchers. I don't think the loss of time and 
effort involved would be even mentionable. If I read 20 different works 
of Arindam not knowing they've all been from him, it would still take me 
really seconds for each to find the bogus there and toss them. I mean 
the waste of time for 20 of them added together would be less than 10 
minutes.

And with continuation of this norm, researchers will get super sharp in 
detecting bogus not from knowing the author, but from the  presented 
material itself because they would have no other ways to prevent such 
material coming to them. They won't have an "Arindam" or "Archimedes 
Plutonium" name attached to help them toss'em faster. I think the 
additional bogus detecting skills it creates is/8 worth the little price 
paid.

And physics will remain a physics-based, not an author-based science.

The way it is now, when I open a physics book I get nausiated by it. It 
feels like a Bible, written by the Fremasonry. Fuck you of course for 
it. Fuck you cro-magnons.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892410

On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 3:45:31 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 4/16/25 5:22 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>> On 4/16/25 4:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad).
>>>>>> Planck
>>>>>> didn't have this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should we believe anything you write
>>>>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
>>>> you guys in this relativity forum.
>>>>
>>>> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
>>>> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
>>>>
>>>> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
>>>> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them.
>>>> Are you people nuts?..
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but it is a very human trait.
>>> Things memorise more easily when there is a name attached to it.
>>>
>>> For example, even asteroids get names.
>>> Asteroid 1001 Gaussia for example may be easier on the brain
>>> than the provisional designation 1923 OA.
>>> Asteroid 'Gaussia' will even be understood if the number is forgotten,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No it's not that innocent a mess. Priest-minded crappy scientists,
>> disguised as "scientists" have been forcing it to pack non-related
>> humanities stuff in it for their own tribal interests. And they've gone
>> too far. It's become disgusting in fact. Takes the attention of students
>> away to stuff unrelated to physics.
>>
>> Did Newton ever do that? Of course not. As far as I know he never named
>> names in his physics works. The closest that he came to point to a
>> "history" of it was his comment about "giants". He was too good a
>> physicist to name even those giants, cause it would be trash as far as
>> physics concepts were concerned.
>>
>> Physics history is a humanities field. It has absolutely nothing to do
>> with physics.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Wouldn't it be better if for a paper that's been published, the writers
> of it would appear as only codes, and not their names or affiliations,
> codes which themselves would change with each new paper they write. This
> will secure the danger of bias in reading such papers. There'd only be
> the material to concentrate on, and nothing else that could give the
> readers any cues about in whose presence they are when they're reading
> the work. Physics requires such degree of objectivity.

Any new advance is subjective, Roachie. In time it becomes objective
when many approve. With mysterious codes instead of names it becomes
merely robotic. And full. No fun. Yes tribalism is an issue. It will not
go away.
>
> The references section of the paper should likewise avoid giving such
> cues. Only the titles of the papers, and dates, together with the
> corresponding codes tied to each one and unique to it, would be given.

People write papers for their careers. Their own careers. One does not
work for the elevation of mysterious codes.
>
> This will fight tribalism.

Nothing beats tribalism. The most fundamental quality of apes,
tribalism.
>
> All that bias that's packed today in the form of who's who will get
> eliminated, and what's left is physics itself to research and understand
> and develop.

Careerists do not do any worthwhile research as hobbyists like Newton
and Arindam. Their speciality is politics, not research. What to write
where to get published and receive grants.


>
> Under such system, Arindams of the world will subsist, but only at the
> subsistence level.

Roachie, Arindam has been persona non grata to the physics journals. He
does not have a single publication in any physics journal.

So Arindam posts his work in Usenet, Facebook and YouTube. The control
the physicists have is to ignore him and ridicule him. They cannot
challenge him online or media for they know that they he have no chance
against Arindam's immensely superior and clear future physics.

All that bullshit keeps coming and are quickly read
> and tossed away by researchers. I don't think the loss of time and
> effort involved would be even mentionable. If I read 20 different works
> of Arindam not knowing they've all been from him, it would still take me
> really seconds for each to find the bogus there and toss them. I mean
> the waste of time for 20 of them added together would be less than 10
> minutes.

Okay you are such a confirmed dickhead, that is well known. Nothing
special. All anti-Arindam physicists are dickheads with their dicks
buried in their personal black holes. Snakes!
>
> And with continuation of this norm, researchers will get super sharp in
> detecting bogus not from knowing the author, but from the  presented
> material itself because they would have no other ways to prevent such
> material coming to them. They won't have an "Arindam" or "Archimedes
> Plutonium" name attached to help them toss'em faster. I think the
> additional bogus detecting skills it creates is/8 worth the little price
> paid.

Stupid Roachie, Arindam does not publish in journals so your coding
stuff is irrelevant.
>
> And physics will remain a physics-based, not an author-based science.

Tch tch, the future of physics will be the physics of Arindam. Out with
inertia. Thermodynamics. Relativity nonsenses. Quantum Bunkum.
>
> The way it is now, when I open a physics book I get nausiated by it. It
> feels like a Bible, written by the Fremasonry. Fuck you of course for
> it. Fuck you cro-magnons.

Who cares for the feelings of roaches, Roachie! Eat beans and fart.

Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892416

On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:44:53 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 3:45:31 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/25 5:22 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>> On 4/16/25 4:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad).
>>>>>>> Planck
>>>>>>> didn't have this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should we believe anything you write
>>>>>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
>>>>> you guys in this relativity forum.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
>>>>> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
>>>>>
>>>>> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
>>>>> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them.
>>>>> Are you people nuts?..
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps, but it is a very human trait.
>>>> Things memorise more easily when there is a name attached to it.
>>>>
>>>> For example, even asteroids get names.
>>>> Asteroid 1001 Gaussia for example may be easier on the brain
>>>> than the provisional designation 1923 OA.
>>>> Asteroid 'Gaussia' will even be understood if the number is forgotten,
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No it's not that innocent a mess. Priest-minded crappy scientists,
>>> disguised as "scientists" have been forcing it to pack non-related
>>> humanities stuff in it for their own tribal interests. And they've gone
>>> too far. It's become disgusting in fact. Takes the attention of students
>>> away to stuff unrelated to physics.
>>>
>>> Did Newton ever do that? Of course not. As far as I know he never named
>>> names in his physics works. The closest that he came to point to a
>>> "history" of it was his comment about "giants". He was too good a
>>> physicist to name even those giants, cause it would be trash as far as
>>> physics concepts were concerned.
>>>
>>> Physics history is a humanities field. It has absolutely nothing to do
>>> with physics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better if for a paper that's been published, the writers
>> of it would appear as only codes, and not their names or affiliations,
>> codes which themselves would change with each new paper they write. This
>> will secure the danger of bias in reading such papers. There'd only be
>> the material to concentrate on, and nothing else that could give the
>> readers any cues about in whose presence they are when they're reading
>> the work. Physics requires such degree of objectivity.
>
> Any new advance is subjective, Roachie. In time it becomes objective
> when many approve. With mysterious codes instead of names it becomes
> merely robotic. And full.

Dull, not full, above.
Autocorrect can be a pain.



No fun. Yes tribalism is an issue. It will not
> go away.
>>
>> The references section of the paper should likewise avoid giving such
>> cues. Only the titles of the papers, and dates, together with the
>> corresponding codes tied to each one and unique to it, would be given.
>
> People write papers for their careers. Their own careers. One does not
> work for the elevation of mysterious codes.
>>
>> This will fight tribalism.
>
> Nothing beats tribalism. The most fundamental quality of apes,
> tribalism.
>>
>> All that bias that's packed today in the form of who's who will get
>> eliminated, and what's left is physics itself to research and understand
>> and develop.
>
> Careerists do not do any worthwhile research as hobbyists like Newton
> and Arindam. Their speciality is politics, not research. What to write
> where to get published and receive grants.
>
>
>>
>> Under such system, Arindams of the world will subsist, but only at the
>> subsistence level.
>
> Roachie, Arindam has been persona non grata to the physics journals. He
> does not have a single publication in any physics journal.
>
> So Arindam posts his work in Usenet, Facebook and YouTube. The control
> the physicists have is to ignore him and ridicule him. They cannot
> challenge him online or media for they know that they he have no chance
> against Arindam's immensely superior and clear future physics.
>
> All that bullshit keeps coming and are quickly read
>> and tossed away by researchers. I don't think the loss of time and
>> effort involved would be even mentionable. If I read 20 different works
>> of Arindam not knowing they've all been from him, it would still take me
>> really seconds for each to find the bogus there and toss them. I mean
>> the waste of time for 20 of them added together would be less than 10
>> minutes.
>
> Okay you are such a confirmed dickhead, that is well known. Nothing
> special. All anti-Arindam physicists are dickheads with their dicks
> buried in their personal black holes. Snakes!
>>
>> And with continuation of this norm, researchers will get super sharp in
>> detecting bogus not from knowing the author, but from the  presented
>> material itself because they would have no other ways to prevent such
>> material coming to them. They won't have an "Arindam" or "Archimedes
>> Plutonium" name attached to help them toss'em faster. I think the
>> additional bogus detecting skills it creates is/8 worth the little price
>> paid.
>
> Stupid Roachie, Arindam does not publish in journals so your coding
> stuff is irrelevant.
>>
>> And physics will remain a physics-based, not an author-based science.
>
> Tch tch, the future of physics will be the physics of Arindam. Out with
> inertia. Thermodynamics. Relativity nonsenses. Quantum Bunkum.
>>
>> The way it is now, when I open a physics book I get nausiated by it. It
>> feels like a Bible, written by the Fremasonry. Fuck you of course for
>> it. Fuck you cro-magnons.
>
> Who cares for the feelings of roaches, Roachie! Eat beans and fart.
>
> Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof
>
> Bertietaylor
>
> --

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892409

Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/16/25 4:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect and
> >>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). Planck
> >>>> didn't have this.
> >>>
> >>> Why should we believe anything you write
> >>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >>
> >>
> >> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
> >> you guys in this relativity forum.
> >>
> >> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
> >> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
> >>
> >> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
> >> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them.
> >> Are you people nuts?..
> > 
> > Perhaps, but it is a very human trait.
> > Things memorise more easily when there is a name attached to it.
> > 
> > For example, even asteroids get names.
> > Asteroid 1001 Gaussia for example may be easier on the brain
> > than the provisional designation 1923 OA.
> > Asteroid 'Gaussia' will even be understood if the number is forgotten,
> > 
> > Jan
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not that innocent a mess. Priest-minded crappy scientists, 
> disguised as "scientists" have been forcing it to pack non-related 
> humanities stuff in it for their own tribal interests. And they've gone
> too far. It's become disgusting in fact. Takes the attention of students
> away to stuff unrelated to physics.
> 
> Did Newton ever do that? Of course not.

Of course he did.  It was Newton who started the tradition
of nasty priority fights in physics and mathematics.
He wanted all the world to know that it was Newton's calculus,
and not Leinbiz's.

> As far as I know he never named 
> names in his physics works. The closest that he came to point to a 
> "history" of it was his comment about "giants". He was too good a 
> physicist to name even those giants, cause it would be trash as far as
> physics concepts were concerned.

That was a snide comment in another priority dispute, with Hooke.
(who was a small man)
See Gleick's biography for more on it.

> Physics history is a humanities field.

All history is.

> It has absolutely nothing to do with physics.

Then why call it 'history of physics'?

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892412

On 04/17/2025 02:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/25 4:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect and
>>>>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). Planck
>>>>>> didn't have this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should we believe anything you write
>>>>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
>>>> you guys in this relativity forum.
>>>>
>>>> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
>>>> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
>>>>
>>>> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
>>>> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them.
>>>> Are you people nuts?..
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but it is a very human trait.
>>> Things memorise more easily when there is a name attached to it.
>>>
>>> For example, even asteroids get names.
>>> Asteroid 1001 Gaussia for example may be easier on the brain
>>> than the provisional designation 1923 OA.
>>> Asteroid 'Gaussia' will even be understood if the number is forgotten,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No it's not that innocent a mess. Priest-minded crappy scientists,
>> disguised as "scientists" have been forcing it to pack non-related
>> humanities stuff in it for their own tribal interests. And they've gone
>> too far. It's become disgusting in fact. Takes the attention of students
>> away to stuff unrelated to physics.
>>
>> Did Newton ever do that? Of course not.
>
> Of course he did.  It was Newton who started the tradition
> of nasty priority fights in physics and mathematics.
> He wanted all the world to know that it was Newton's calculus,
> and not Leinbiz's.
>
>> As far as I know he never named
>> names in his physics works. The closest that he came to point to a
>> "history" of it was his comment about "giants". He was too good a
>> physicist to name even those giants, cause it would be trash as far as
>> physics concepts were concerned.
>
> That was a snide comment in another priority dispute, with Hooke.
> (who was a small man)
> See Gleick's biography for more on it.
>
>> Physics history is a humanities field.
>
> All history is.
>
>> It has absolutely nothing to do with physics.
>
> Then why call it 'history of physics'?
>
> Jan
>


If Hooke was a small man, it's still so that
Hooke's law, a numerical approximation or
numerical method or linearisation, in springs,
is what results for Arrhenius and Clausius
then to Kelvin for 2nd thermo law helping explain
why deep under the classical derivation stack,
is an example of a numerical method and thusly
an approximation with a nominally non-zero error term,
showing that statistical mechanics is partial/incomplete.


There's "System of the World" and Newton had some
remarkable hierarchical primary spectra about the
prismatic and chromatic, yet there was Kepler's
"System of the World" and Galileo and Mertonians
hundreds of years before with the latitude of forms,
and Maclaurin for analysis, and Coates and Gregory
for numerical methods, Hooke for quantization,
that over time Newton gets dwarfed, then as besides
that deconstructive accounts of the severe abstraction
of the mechanical reduction or after Lagrange after Maupertuis,
make for zero-eth laws under classical mechanics,
and more replete foundations of continuum analysis,
that even Einstein's "GR: classical in the limit",
doesn't have that much so great, then of course about
Fatio and LeSage with regards to theories _with gravity_,
if the gravific, that modern day theories can't even
have because it would be a constant violation of energy
of themselves.


So, Hooke's methods actually advise quite the treatment
of the statistical mechanics, or as with regards to
what formalisms that Hooke's law makes, that _are_
linearisations or numerical methods thus _not_ perfect,
other examples including small-angle approximation
which also is used everywhere for triangle inequality,
have that it's deep enough in the stacks that most
have no idea it's there, and if they do, little idea
that it's not exact.

So, about things like Hooke's law, and, de Moivre,
and, Clausius, and, statistical mechanics: most forget
they have error terms, which is sad, because they don't
even know the difference between right and wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892413

On 4/17/25 4:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/16/25 4:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect and
>>>>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). Planck
>>>>>> didn't have this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should we believe anything you write
>>>>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
>>>> you guys in this relativity forum.
>>>>
>>>> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
>>>> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
>>>>
>>>> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
>>>> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them.
>>>> Are you people nuts?..
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but it is a very human trait.
>>> Things memorise more easily when there is a name attached to it.
>>>
>>> For example, even asteroids get names.
>>> Asteroid 1001 Gaussia for example may be easier on the brain
>>> than the provisional designation 1923 OA.
>>> Asteroid 'Gaussia' will even be understood if the number is forgotten,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No it's not that innocent a mess. Priest-minded crappy scientists,
>> disguised as "scientists" have been forcing it to pack non-related
>> humanities stuff in it for their own tribal interests. And they've gone
>> too far. It's become disgusting in fact. Takes the attention of students
>> away to stuff unrelated to physics.
>>
>> Did Newton ever do that? Of course not.
> 
> Of course he did.  It was Newton who started the tradition
> of nasty priority fights in physics and mathematics.
> He wanted all the world to know that it was Newton's calculus,
> and not Leinbiz's.
> 
>> As far as I know he never named
>> names in his physics works. The closest that he came to point to a
>> "history" of it was his comment about "giants". He was too good a
>> physicist to name even those giants, cause it would be trash as far as
>> physics concepts were concerned.
> 
> That was a snide comment in another priority dispute, with Hooke.
> (who was a small man)
> See Gleick's biography for more on it.
> 
>> Physics history is a humanities field.
> 
> All history is.
> 
>> It has absolutely nothing to do with physics.
> 
> Then why call it 'history of physics'?
> 
> Jan
> 


Newton did all that "nasty priority fight" _outside_ his physics books. 
Do I have to remind this to you? I told you to be careful when Physfit's 
dick is near.

I don't see any human names in his physics books. If you see, list them 
and come back. He used sources as far back as Alhazen (Iranian Ebne 
Heytham - optics works and much more) without once mentioning the name. 
Physicist don't do trash talk when writing physics books. Alhazen's own 
works too, all of them, are devoid of names. Only physics concepts.

I refuse to respond to your other careless remarks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892414

On 4/17/25 2:50 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 4/17/25 4:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/16/25 4:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous 
>>>>>>> respect and
>>>>>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). 
>>>>>>> Planck
>>>>>>> didn't have this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should we believe anything you write
>>>>>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
>>>>> you guys in this relativity forum.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
>>>>> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
>>>>>
>>>>> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as 
>>>>> well
>>>>> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on 
>>>>> them.
>>>>> Are you people nuts?..
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps, but it is a very human trait.
>>>> Things memorise more easily when there is a name attached to it.
>>>>
>>>> For example, even asteroids get names.
>>>> Asteroid 1001 Gaussia for example may be easier on the brain
>>>> than the provisional designation 1923 OA.
>>>> Asteroid 'Gaussia' will even be understood if the number is forgotten,
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No it's not that innocent a mess. Priest-minded crappy scientists,
>>> disguised as "scientists" have been forcing it to pack non-related
>>> humanities stuff in it for their own tribal interests. And they've gone
>>> too far. It's become disgusting in fact. Takes the attention of students
>>> away to stuff unrelated to physics.
>>>
>>> Did Newton ever do that? Of course not.
>>
>> Of course he did.  It was Newton who started the tradition
>> of nasty priority fights in physics and mathematics.
>> He wanted all the world to know that it was Newton's calculus,
>> and not Leinbiz's.
>>
>>> As far as I know he never named
>>> names in his physics works. The closest that he came to point to a
>>> "history" of it was his comment about "giants". He was too good a
>>> physicist to name even those giants, cause it would be trash as far as
>>> physics concepts were concerned.
>>
>> That was a snide comment in another priority dispute, with Hooke.
>> (who was a small man)
>> See Gleick's biography for more on it.
>>
>>> Physics history is a humanities field.
>>
>> All history is.
>>
>>> It has absolutely nothing to do with physics.
>>
>> Then why call it 'history of physics'?
>>
>> Jan
>>
> 
> 
> Newton did all that "nasty priority fight" _outside_ his physics books. 
> Do I have to remind this to you? I told you to be careful when Physfit's 
> dick is near.
> 
> I don't see any human names in his physics books. If you see, list them 
> and come back. He used sources as far back as Alhazen (Iranian Ebne 
> Heytham - optics works and much more) without once mentioning the name. 
> Physicist don't do trash talk when writing physics books. Alhazen's own 
> works too, all of them, are devoid of names. Only physics concepts.
> 
> I refuse to respond to your other careless remarks.
> 
> 


Here, let me throw DeepSeek at you. This is what DeepSeek knows:

Key Names in Opticks:

(beginning of the quote):

     Isaac Newton – The author refers to himself in the first person 
when describing experiments.

     Robert Hooke – Newton briefly mentions Hooke’s work on diffraction 
(though he avoids naming him directly in some contentious passages due 
to their rivalry).

     Christiaan Huygens – Cited regarding wave-based theories of light 
(Newton disagreed with his ideas).

     René Descartes – Critiqued for his theories on light and refraction.

     Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz – Not directly named in Opticks, but 
their later disputes over calculus influenced Newton’s later queries in 
the book.

     John Locke – A friend of Newton; some ideas in Opticks align with 
Locke’s empiricism (though Locke isn’t named explicitly).

(end of the quote).

AS you see, even DeepSeek misunderstands Newton's motives. It thinks 
Newton's avoidance of mentioning names was because of "rivalry", while I 
am certain he was only being honest to himself and to the reader when he 
was writing physics. Too good a physicist to piss inside his physics 
books by throwing human names in it.

And when DeepSeeks calls it "cited", it is not clear Newton actually 
used a name, or just the title of a book written by the human with that 
name.

I don't know, check the above result by yourselves. I think it carries 
much of the sense I'm trying to put inside cro-magnon creatures or 
otherwise tribal people.

And learn from it, if you can! Physfit's dick can educate you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892415

On 4/17/25 3:28 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 4/17/25 2:50 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>> On 4/17/25 4:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/16/25 4:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous 
>>>>>>>> respect and
>>>>>>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). 
>>>>>>>> Planck
>>>>>>>> didn't have this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why should we believe anything you write
>>>>>>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
>>>>>> you guys in this relativity forum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
>>>>>> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as 
>>>>>> well
>>>>>> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on 
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>> Are you people nuts?..
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps, but it is a very human trait.
>>>>> Things memorise more easily when there is a name attached to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, even asteroids get names.
>>>>> Asteroid 1001 Gaussia for example may be easier on the brain
>>>>> than the provisional designation 1923 OA.
>>>>> Asteroid 'Gaussia' will even be understood if the number is forgotten,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No it's not that innocent a mess. Priest-minded crappy scientists,
>>>> disguised as "scientists" have been forcing it to pack non-related
>>>> humanities stuff in it for their own tribal interests. And they've gone
>>>> too far. It's become disgusting in fact. Takes the attention of 
>>>> students
>>>> away to stuff unrelated to physics.
>>>>
>>>> Did Newton ever do that? Of course not.
>>>
>>> Of course he did.  It was Newton who started the tradition
>>> of nasty priority fights in physics and mathematics.
>>> He wanted all the world to know that it was Newton's calculus,
>>> and not Leinbiz's.
>>>
>>>> As far as I know he never named
>>>> names in his physics works. The closest that he came to point to a
>>>> "history" of it was his comment about "giants". He was too good a
>>>> physicist to name even those giants, cause it would be trash as far as
>>>> physics concepts were concerned.
>>>
>>> That was a snide comment in another priority dispute, with Hooke.
>>> (who was a small man)
>>> See Gleick's biography for more on it.
>>>
>>>> Physics history is a humanities field.
>>>
>>> All history is.
>>>
>>>> It has absolutely nothing to do with physics.
>>>
>>> Then why call it 'history of physics'?
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>
>>
>> Newton did all that "nasty priority fight" _outside_ his physics 
>> books. Do I have to remind this to you? I told you to be careful when 
>> Physfit's dick is near.
>>
>> I don't see any human names in his physics books. If you see, list 
>> them and come back. He used sources as far back as Alhazen (Iranian 
>> Ebne Heytham - optics works and much more) without once mentioning the 
>> name. Physicist don't do trash talk when writing physics books. 
>> Alhazen's own works too, all of them, are devoid of names. Only 
>> physics concepts.
>>
>> I refuse to respond to your other careless remarks.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Here, let me throw DeepSeek at you. This is what DeepSeek knows:
> 
> Key Names in Opticks:
> 
> (beginning of the quote):
> 
>      Isaac Newton – The author refers to himself in the first person 
> when describing experiments.
> 
>      Robert Hooke – Newton briefly mentions Hooke’s work on diffraction 
> (though he avoids naming him directly in some contentious passages due 
> to their rivalry).
> 
>      Christiaan Huygens – Cited regarding wave-based theories of light 
> (Newton disagreed with his ideas).
> 
>      René Descartes – Critiqued for his theories on light and refraction.
> 
>      Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz – Not directly named in Opticks, but 
> their later disputes over calculus influenced Newton’s later queries in 
> the book.
> 
>      John Locke – A friend of Newton; some ideas in Opticks align with 
> Locke’s empiricism (though Locke isn’t named explicitly).
> 
> (end of the quote).
> 
> AS you see, even DeepSeek misunderstands Newton's motives. It thinks 
> Newton's avoidance of mentioning names was because of "rivalry", while I 
> am certain he was only being honest to himself and to the reader when he 
> was writing physics. Too good a physicist to piss inside his physics 
> books by throwing human names in it.
> 
> And when DeepSeeks calls it "cited", it is not clear Newton actually 
> used a name, or just the title of a book written by the human with that 
> name.
> 
> I don't know, check the above result by yourselves. I think it carries 
> much of the sense I'm trying to put inside cro-magnon creatures or 
> otherwise tribal people.
> 
> And learn from it, if you can! Physfit's dick can educate you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



A sort of footnote: DeepSeek says: "In the 1717 edition, Newton added 
"Queries" (theoretical speculations), where he indirectly references 
other thinkers, but still focuses on ideas rather than names."

How's that for an AI that's not cro-magnon?...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892424

Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/17/25 2:50 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> > On 4/17/25 4:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 4/16/25 4:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous 
> >>>>>>> respect and
> >>>>>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad).
> >>>>>>> Planck
> >>>>>>> didn't have this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why should we believe anything you write
> >>>>>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jan
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
> >>>>> you guys in this relativity forum.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
> >>>>> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as
> >>>>> well
> >>>>> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on
> >>>>> them.
> >>>>> Are you people nuts?..
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps, but it is a very human trait.
> >>>> Things memorise more easily when there is a name attached to it.
> >>>>
> >>>> For example, even asteroids get names.
> >>>> Asteroid 1001 Gaussia for example may be easier on the brain
> >>>> than the provisional designation 1923 OA.
> >>>> Asteroid 'Gaussia' will even be understood if the number is forgotten,
> >>>>
> >>>> Jan
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No it's not that innocent a mess. Priest-minded crappy scientists,
> >>> disguised as "scientists" have been forcing it to pack non-related
> >>> humanities stuff in it for their own tribal interests. And they've gone
> >>> too far. It's become disgusting in fact. Takes the attention of students
> >>> away to stuff unrelated to physics.
> >>>
> >>> Did Newton ever do that? Of course not.
> >>
> >> Of course he did.  It was Newton who started the tradition
> >> of nasty priority fights in physics and mathematics.
> >> He wanted all the world to know that it was Newton's calculus,
> >> and not Leinbiz's.
> >>
> >>> As far as I know he never named
> >>> names in his physics works. The closest that he came to point to a
> >>> "history" of it was his comment about "giants". He was too good a
> >>> physicist to name even those giants, cause it would be trash as far as
> >>> physics concepts were concerned.
> >>
> >> That was a snide comment in another priority dispute, with Hooke.
> >> (who was a small man)
> >> See Gleick's biography for more on it.
> >>
> >>> Physics history is a humanities field.
> >>
> >> All history is.
> >>
> >>> It has absolutely nothing to do with physics.
> >>
> >> Then why call it 'history of physics'?
> >>
> >> Jan
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > Newton did all that "nasty priority fight" _outside_ his physics books.
> > Do I have to remind this to you? I told you to be careful when Physfit's
> > dick is near.
> > 
> > I don't see any human names in his physics books. If you see, list them
> > and come back. He used sources as far back as Alhazen (Iranian Ebne
> > Heytham - optics works and much more) without once mentioning the name.
> > Physicist don't do trash talk when writing physics books. Alhazen's own
> > works too, all of them, are devoid of names. Only physics concepts.
> > 
> > I refuse to respond to your other careless remarks.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> Here, let me throw DeepSeek at you. This is what DeepSeek knows:
> 
> Key Names in Opticks:
> 
> (beginning of the quote):
> 
>      Isaac Newton – The author refers to himself in the first person 
> when describing experiments.
> 
>      Robert Hooke – Newton briefly mentions Hooke's work on diffraction
> (though he avoids naming him directly in some contentious passages due
> to their rivalry).
> 
>      Christiaan Huygens – Cited regarding wave-based theories of light
> (Newton disagreed with his ideas).
> 
>      René Descartes – Critiqued for his theories on light and refraction.
> 
>      Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz – Not directly named in Opticks, but 
> their later disputes over calculus influenced Newton's later queries in
> the book.
> 
>      John Locke – A friend of Newton; some ideas in Opticks align with
> Locke's empiricism (though Locke isn't named explicitly).

Right. Newton was a member of a scientific community,
not a lone genius working in isolation.

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892423

Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/17/25 4:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 4/16/25 4:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>> rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect and
> >>>>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). Planck
> >>>>>> didn't have this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why should we believe anything you write
> >>>>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
> >>>> you guys in this relativity forum.
> >>>>
> >>>> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
> >>>> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
> >>>>
> >>>> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
> >>>> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them.
> >>>> Are you people nuts?..
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps, but it is a very human trait.
> >>> Things memorise more easily when there is a name attached to it.
> >>>
> >>> For example, even asteroids get names.
> >>> Asteroid 1001 Gaussia for example may be easier on the brain
> >>> than the provisional designation 1923 OA.
> >>> Asteroid 'Gaussia' will even be understood if the number is forgotten,
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> No it's not that innocent a mess. Priest-minded crappy scientists,
> >> disguised as "scientists" have been forcing it to pack non-related
> >> humanities stuff in it for their own tribal interests. And they've gone
> >> too far. It's become disgusting in fact. Takes the attention of students
> >> away to stuff unrelated to physics.
> >>
> >> Did Newton ever do that? Of course not.
> > 
> > Of course he did.  It was Newton who started the tradition
> > of nasty priority fights in physics and mathematics.
> > He wanted all the world to know that it was Newton's calculus,
> > and not Leinbiz's.
> > 
> >> As far as I know he never named
> >> names in his physics works. The closest that he came to point to a
> >> "history" of it was his comment about "giants". He was too good a
> >> physicist to name even those giants, cause it would be trash as far as
> >> physics concepts were concerned.
> > 
> > That was a snide comment in another priority dispute, with Hooke.
> > (who was a small man)
> > See Gleick's biography for more on it.
> > 
> >> Physics history is a humanities field.
> > 
> > All history is.
> > 
> >> It has absolutely nothing to do with physics.
> > 
> > Then why call it 'history of physics'?
> > 
> > Jan
> > 
> 
> 
> Newton did all that "nasty priority fight" _outside_ his physics books.
> Do I have to remind this to you?

Come on, thePrincipia is in the first place a self-erected pedestal,
created for posing on top of it as an absolute genius
by being as difficult and as obscure as possible.
The same things can be said if much simpler ways.

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web