Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #467290 > unrolled thread

Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? - Quora

Started by	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
First post	2018-08-08 06:21 -0700
Last post	2018-08-09 02:48 +0200
Articles	20 on this page of 72 — 17 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →

#467310 — Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? - Quora

From	The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Date	2018-08-08 10:54 -0700
Subject	Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? - Quora
Message-ID	<5B6B2E49.4571@ix.netcom.com>
In reply to	#467290

kenseto wrote:
> 
> The following questions were asked in Quora:
> Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics?


who wants to work in a patent office for the next ten years...

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

#467324

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-08-08 21:04 +0200
Message-ID	<e93a5edb-c10d-5c64-22a7-c86084b39f52@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#467310

The Starmaker wrote:
> kenseto wrote:
>> The following questions were asked in Quora: Why haven't we had another
>> scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since
>> general relativity and quantum mechanics?
> 
> who wants to work in a patent office for the next ten years...

While the premise that lead to them is flawed (/argumentum ad ignorantiam/),
there is, probably unintentionally, wisdom in the words of the reply:

In order to come up with with truly revolutionary ideas, you have to have
the education *and* the time to think deeply about things.

As long as society is driven by the need to work for a living, people will
never be free to fully pursue their talents.  They rather take the jobs that
pay their bills instead of the jobs where they could contribute the most to
society, given their talents.  Modern science in particular is increasingly
driven by money (funds) as well; it has become or is about to become a
business, and it should not be.  The “publish or die” paradigm is not
healthy in science in the long term.

Einstein already had the required level of education (he held the equivalent
of a M Sc in Physics from the Zürich Polytechnic) when he got the job in the
Swiss Patent Office (that he needed to support his own family (he had a
wife, Mileva Marić, and later two small children with her at the time).
The environment there allowed him to come in contact with various new ideas
of other people.  His former classmate, and good friend, and then also
colleague there Michele Besso, agreed to do most if not all of Einstein’s
Patent Office work (also because he realized Einstein’s potential) afforded
Einstein the time to think deeply about his ideas instead and to discuss
them with Besso later.  It really is no surprise that he wrote at the end of
“On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (1905):

| In conclusion, let me note that my friend and colleague M. Besso
| steadfastly stood by me in my work on the problem here discussed,
| and that I am indebted to him for many a valuable suggestion.

(official translation)

JFTR, though: Einstein had the Patent Office job only from 1901 to at most
1908 (8 years).  IIUC, he quit that job when he was appointed lecturer at
the University of Bern (where I am studying astrophysics now :)).

    [In order to learn more about Einstein, and his life and work, I highly
     recommend the first season of the critically acclaimed National
     Geographic Channel series “Genius”, and the Stanford/Coursera online
     course “Understanding Einstein: The Special Theory of Relativity”.
     And a visit to Bern where the Bern Historical Museum features the
     excellent Einstein Exhibition :)]

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#467336

From	Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-08 13:30 -0700
Message-ID	<d6f61e27-707f-4802-be11-373b62c2a482@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467324

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 2:04:36 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> His former classmate, and good friend, and then also
> colleague there Michele Besso, agreed to do most if not all of Einstein’s
> Patent Office work

What is your source for that?

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

#467439

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-08-09 20:45 +0200
Message-ID	<f0ec9f44-73dc-a5e0-0bf1-49c315dc2cf2@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#467336

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 2:04:36 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> His former classmate, and good friend, and then also
>> colleague there Michele Besso, agreed to do most if not all of Einstein’s
>> Patent Office work
> 
> What is your source for that?

As I indicated, in part the historically very accurate first season of the
National Geographic Channel series “Genius”.  I do not know their sources,
but it is well known (among Einstein biographers) that Besso was Einstein’s
best friend and they supported each other in multiple ways.

Consider:

- Unbeknownst to both of them (at first), by business relations the Einstein
  and Besso families knew each other.

- Einstein studied for Physics and Mathematics teacher at the Zürich
  Polytechnic when Besso studied engineering there.  (This is where they
  met.)

- Besso must have met his future wife, Anna Besso née Winteler, when
  visiting Einstein who lived with the Winteler family in Aarau (by
  recommendation of Einstein’s father), where formerly he did his Matura
  (A exam) because he failed the first entrance exam to the Zurich
  Polytechnic. [Marie Winteler, one of the other daughters of the family,
  was Einstein’s first love.  He ended the relationship when he got involved
  with Mileva Marić in Zürich, who due to her scientific background was
  closer to him.  Later letters of Einstein to Marie Winteler show that he
  regretted that decision as early as 1910.  See below.]

- Einstein denounced his original Prussian citizenship in 1901 to avoid
  military service, and later became a Swiss citizen.  He was basically
  a foreigner and did not know many people in Switzerland.  Some of those
  whom he got to know and who could have helped his career otherwise, for
  example Prof. Heinrich Friedrich Weber at the Polytechnic, he annoyed by
  his direct manner and open challenging all authority.  [And I can tell you
  that is the last thing that you want to do in Switzerland, then and now.
  “Genius” depicts Weber even actively hindering Einstein’s career by
  writing dissuasion letters to potential employers after their bitter
  disagreement, which caused Einstein to switch his doctoral advisor.
  I do not know whether it is true in Einstein’s case, but unfortunately
  I know from personal experience that this practice of dissuasion exists
  in Switzerland.  Keeping good relations with people who would further your
career are most important there if you want to have
  a career at all.]

- Einstein must have thoroughly disliked, if not hated, working as a clerk
  at the wiss Patent Office in Bern as he must have found the repetitive
  work boring and he was averse to all authority (including his boss there,
  then); but he had no choice as (ISTM now for various reasons) he could not
  get a job as a physics teacher (house teacher or lecturer), but had a wife
  and a little kid to support.  And Einstein only got that job with the help
  of the father of his former fellow student, Marcel Grossmann (who became a
  Professor of Mathematics at the Polytechnic and helped Einstein with
  general relativity later, too), so he would not and could not simply quit.

  [Einstein’s first wife, Mileva Marić, studied with him at the Polytechnic
  (where they met), but she failed her final exam (“Genius” depicts this in
  part due to Einstein who would rather study extracurricular physics on his
  own than prepare for exams).  Also, those were different times: Marić was
  the only woman in that class at the Polytechnic, and with a kid and
  without a nanny she could not possibly look for/have a job (as a
  scientist) at the same time.]

- Einstein got Besso the job at the Swiss Patent Office, so that Besso could
  support his own family, and we have to assume so that Einstein could
  discuss his ideas with Besso directly (rather than via mail).  (AISB,
  personal relations in Switzerland…)

- Einstein managed to work on and publish *four* revolutionary papers
  *and* finish his doctoral thesis in 1905, *while* "working" *full time*
  at the Patent Office.  He discussed his papers with Besso before
  publication, and (AISB) thanked him for his support at the end of OEDoMB.

- Besso is not a co-author of the /annus mirabilis/ papers.

See also:

<https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6981.pdf>
<https://www.christies.com/features/Einstein-letters-to-Michele-Besso-8422-1.aspx>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Life_and_career>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Besso>

(Google “Einstein Besso” for more.)

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#467441

From	Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-09 12:28 -0700
Message-ID	<1c1e53b9-41a4-4ee0-8332-da243e4b40c3@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467439

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 1:45:02 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 2:04:36 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> His former classmate, and good friend, and then also
> >> colleague there Michele Besso, agreed to do most if not all of Einstein’s
> >> Patent Office work
> > 
> > What is your source for that?
> 
> As I indicated, in part the historically very accurate first season of the
> National Geographic Channel series “Genius”.  I do not know their sources,
> but it is well known (among Einstein biographers) that Besso was Einstein’s
> best friend and they supported each other in multiple ways.
> 
> Consider:
> 
> - Unbeknownst to both of them (at first), by business relations the Einstein
>   and Besso families knew each other.
> 
> - Einstein studied for Physics and Mathematics teacher at the Zürich
>   Polytechnic when Besso studied engineering there.  (This is where they
>   met.)
> 
> - Besso must have met his future wife, Anna Besso née Winteler, when
>   visiting Einstein who lived with the Winteler family in Aarau (by
>   recommendation of Einstein’s father), where formerly he did his Matura
>   (A exam) because he failed the first entrance exam to the Zurich
>   Polytechnic. [Marie Winteler, one of the other daughters of the family,
>   was Einstein’s first love.  He ended the relationship when he got involved
>   with Mileva Marić in Zürich, who due to her scientific background was
>   closer to him.  Later letters of Einstein to Marie Winteler show that he
>   regretted that decision as early as 1910.  See below.]
> 
> - Einstein denounced his original Prussian citizenship in 1901 to avoid
>   military service, and later became a Swiss citizen.  He was basically
>   a foreigner and did not know many people in Switzerland.  Some of those
>   whom he got to know and who could have helped his career otherwise, for
>   example Prof. Heinrich Friedrich Weber at the Polytechnic, he annoyed by
>   his direct manner and open challenging all authority.  [And I can tell you
>   that is the last thing that you want to do in Switzerland, then and now.
>   “Genius” depicts Weber even actively hindering Einstein’s career by
>   writing dissuasion letters to potential employers after their bitter
>   disagreement, which caused Einstein to switch his doctoral advisor.
>   I do not know whether it is true in Einstein’s case, but unfortunately
>   I know from personal experience that this practice of dissuasion exists
>   in Switzerland.  Keeping good relations with people who would further your
> career are most important there if you want to have
>   a career at all.]
> 
> - Einstein must have thoroughly disliked, if not hated, working as a clerk
>   at the wiss Patent Office in Bern as he must have found the repetitive
>   work boring and he was averse to all authority (including his boss there,
>   then); 

Actually, all the biographies that I have read indicate that Einstein
rather enjoyed the work, and it allowed him much spare time that he could
devote to his real interests. Certainly in later life, Einstein recalled
his time in the Patent Office with a certain amount of affection (although
this could admittedly be his looking back with rose-colored glasses), and it
trained him in certain patterns of thought that were to prove valuable to
him in his physics work. As I wrote in my Wikipedia article:

      Einstein had a highly visual understanding of physics. His 
      work in the patent office "stimulated [him] to see the physical 
      ramifications of theoretical concepts." These aspects of his 
      thinking style inspired him to fill his papers with vivid 
      practical detail making them quite different from, say, the 
      papers of Lorentz or Maxwell. This included his use of thought 
      experiments.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments

> but he had no choice as (ISTM now for various reasons) he could not
>   get a job as a physics teacher (house teacher or lecturer), but had a wife
>   and a little kid to support.  And Einstein only got that job with the help
>   of the father of his former fellow student, Marcel Grossmann (who became a
>   Professor of Mathematics at the Polytechnic and helped Einstein with
>   general relativity later, too), so he would not and could not simply quit.
> 
>   [Einstein’s first wife, Mileva Marić, studied with him at the Polytechnic
>   (where they met), but she failed her final exam (“Genius” depicts this in
>   part due to Einstein who would rather study extracurricular physics on his
>   own than prepare for exams).  Also, those were different times: Marić was
>   the only woman in that class at the Polytechnic, and with a kid and
>   without a nanny she could not possibly look for/have a job (as a
>   scientist) at the same time.]
> 
> - Einstein got Besso the job at the Swiss Patent Office, so that Besso could
>   support his own family, and we have to assume so that Einstein could
>   discuss his ideas with Besso directly (rather than via mail).  

Yes. They enjoyed the close contact that they had with each other.

> (AISB,
>   personal relations in Switzerland…)
> 
> - Einstein managed to work on and publish *four* revolutionary papers
>   *and* finish his doctoral thesis in 1905, *while* "working" *full time*
>   at the Patent Office.  He discussed his papers with Besso before
>   publication, and (AISB) thanked him for his support at the end of OEDoMB.
> 
> - Besso is not a co-author of the /annus mirabilis/ papers.
> 
> See also:
> 
> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6981.pdf>
> <https://www.christies.com/features/Einstein-letters-to-Michele-Besso-8422-1.aspx>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Life_and_career>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Besso>
> 
> (Google “Einstein Besso” for more.)

You have a lot of good material in your post above, although I was already
familiar with most of it.

However, absolutely nowhere, except in your post, have I ever seen 
it claimed that Besso did Einstein's patent office work for him.

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

#467451

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-08-09 22:38 +0200
Message-ID	<44e2fa0a-32e9-b4b6-9f62-e52c3283dd99@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#467441

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 1:45:02 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> - Einstein must have thoroughly disliked, if not hated, working as a clerk
>>   at the wiss Patent Office in Bern as he must have found the repetitive
>>   work boring and he was averse to all authority (including his boss there,
>>   then); 
> 
> Actually, all the biographies that I have read

Which would be *one*?

> indicate that Einstein rather enjoyed the work, and it allowed him much spare time that he could
> devote to his real interests.

Think about what you are saying there.  Having a full-time job with
“much spare time” is a contradiction in terms.

> […] As I wrote in my Wikipedia article:
… that apparently you created in April this year …

>       Einstein had a highly visual understanding of physics. His 
>       work in the patent office "stimulated [him] to see the physical 
>       ramifications of theoretical concepts." These aspects of his 
>       thinking style inspired him to fill his papers with vivid 
>       practical detail making them quite different from, say, the 
>       papers of Lorentz or Maxwell. This included his use of thought 
>       experiments.
>       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_thought_experiments

This quotation from Walter Isaacson’s 2007 Einstein biography (you should
have indicated the actual source here, too) does not show at all that
Einstein “rather enjoyed the *work*” at the Patent Office (emphasis mine).
It only shows that he was interested in and inspired by the inventions,
which is unsurprising.

It is true (by Einstein’s letters to Prof. Alfred Stern and to Mileva Marić)
that he was actively seeking a permanent position there in 1901 and was
looking forward to working there.  But as I indicated, it is out of
character for Einstein to enjoy *repetitive* work in an *office* job under
a *boss*, that he would *rather* do that than work on his theories.

<https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.4335.pdf>

> However, absolutely nowhere, except in your post, have I ever seen 
> it claimed that Besso did Einstein's patent office work for him.

Learn to read comprehensively.

One simply cannot actually work full-time in an office job, and work on a
doctoral thesis and four ground-breaking scientific papers at the same time.
 If you have ever written any thesis (doctoral or otherwise), you know that
this is not possible, except if the subject pertains directly to your office
job (and that was not the case with Einstein).

Now, we do not know (or do you?) whether Einstein worked there full-time –
in today’s Switzerland at least you can work on “percentages” (I am working
40 % to 60 % while studying) –; however, if he did not work there full-time,
then how could he have supported his family, which was one main reason to
look for this job in the first place?  This job was/is well-paid, but I
doubt that it was *that* well-paid that he could have worked 50 % or less
and still support a family in Switzerland (although wages are high in
Switzerland, especially when employed by the canton or the State, cost of
living is also high).

It is easy to enjoy the work, and remember the time fondly, if your best
buddy is/was doing (most of) it for you (and likes it).

Watch “Genius”.  Although they probably have taken some artistic license, I
find it convincing.

Trim your quotes.

Get a real name.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#467453

From	Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-09 14:35 -0700
Message-ID	<77e33495-0aa6-46f3-939d-829e7ebcbc7e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467451

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 3:38:49 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> > Actually, all the biographies that I have read
> 
> Which would be *one*?

Can you avoid the snide remarks, please?

General biographies that I've read cover-to-cover include Isaacson, 
Fölsing, Clark, and Hoffman.

Specialty biographies that I've read include large portions of Miller,
Pais, all of Stone, etc.

Many specialty references including Stachel, Norton, etc.

The plain fact of the matter is, YOU MADE STUFF UP, and you are unable to
back up your made-up claim with a reference to a reliable source.

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

#467463

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-08-10 00:58 +0200
Message-ID	<14acb680-1e01-45ec-d1d5-8945f78b0748@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#467453

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> General biographies that I've read cover-to-cover include Isaacson, 
> Fölsing, Clark, and Hoffman.
> 
> Specialty biographies that I've read include large portions of Miller,
> Pais, all of Stone, etc.
> 
> Many specialty references including Stachel, Norton, etc.

OK.

> The plain fact of the matter is, YOU MADE STUFF UP,

No, I did not.  I told you what I had learned from others.  It is possible
that they made it up, but I cannot see a good reason why they should have.

> and you are unable to back up your made-up claim with a reference to a reliable source. 

It depends on how one defines “reliable source”.  The “Genius” creators
appear to have done their homework well in many if not all other places,
so why should they exaggerate exactly there?

In any case, that I would not have backed it up *yet* would not mean
that I am unable to back it up, and it would not mean that it is/I am wrong.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_ignorantiam>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#467476

From	Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-09 20:17 -0700
Message-ID	<e7c1abf5-7f1c-4eaf-94fb-ef8f460edc97@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467463

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 5:58:16 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> > and you are unable to back up your made-up claim with a reference to a reliable source. 
> 
> It depends on how one defines “reliable source”.  The “Genius” creators
> appear to have done their homework well in many if not all other places,
> so why should they exaggerate exactly there?

As a Wikipedia contributor, you should be well aware that "Genius" would
_never_ qualify as a reliable source on Wikipedia.

Let's take Wikipedia's definition of "reliable source" as a guideline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples

> In any case, that I would not have backed it up *yet* would not mean
> that I am unable to back it up, and it would not mean that it is/I am wrong.

I saw part of one episode of "Genius." I was quite upset by the
liberties that it took with documented historical fact, and could not
finish watching it.

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

#467515

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-08-10 18:25 +0200
Message-ID	<79ec772d-10e7-2e61-b40d-fff88edc5630@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#467476

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 5:58:16 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>> and you are unable to back up your made-up claim with a reference to a reliable source. 
>> It depends on how one defines “reliable source”.  The “Genius” creators
>> appear to have done their homework well in many if not all other places,
>> so why should they exaggerate exactly there?
> 
> As a Wikipedia contributor, you should be well aware that "Genius" would
> _never_ qualify as a reliable source on Wikipedia.

So what?

>> In any case, that I would not have backed it up *yet* would not mean
>> that I am unable to back it up, and it would not mean that it is/I am wrong.
> 
> I saw part of one episode of "Genius." I was quite upset by the
> liberties that it took with documented historical fact,

I think that this is a discussion for another newsgroup (sci.misc,
rec.tv.something?).  But given the available evidence, you can certainly
provide a list, yes?

> and could not finish watching it.

So you do not even have the full picture, yet you claim to know.

That is, again, /argumentum ad ignorantiam/ (but this time the opposite
way).  And you of all people dare lecture about reliability?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#467522

From	Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-10 09:47 -0700
Message-ID	<1a1d18f8-68b2-4978-a9a5-e77e2fbd1e9b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467515

On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 11:26:00 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 5:58:16 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >>> and you are unable to back up your made-up claim with a reference to a reliable source. 
> >> It depends on how one defines “reliable source”.  The “Genius” creators
> >> appear to have done their homework well in many if not all other places,
> >> so why should they exaggerate exactly there?
> > 
> > As a Wikipedia contributor, you should be well aware that "Genius" would
> > _never_ qualify as a reliable source on Wikipedia.
> 
> So what?

So you should understand what constitutes a reliable source, and what
does not.

> >> In any case, that I would not have backed it up *yet* would not mean
> >> that I am unable to back it up, and it would not mean that it is/I am wrong.
> > 
> > I saw part of one episode of "Genius." I was quite upset by the
> > liberties that it took with documented historical fact,
> 
> I think that this is a discussion for another newsgroup (sci.misc,
> rec.tv.something?).  But given the available evidence, you can certainly
> provide a list, yes?
> 
> > and could not finish watching it.
> 
> So you do not even have the full picture, yet you claim to know.
> 
> That is, again, /argumentum ad ignorantiam/ (but this time the opposite
> way).  And you of all people dare lecture about reliability?

I am saying that "Genius" was a biopic, with many made-up scenes to add
drama and human interest. To rely on this television show to back up 
your claims about the relationship between Besso and Einstein in the 
patent office is unworthy of you. 

Just for the record, I am not a wanna-be physicist. 

Rather, I am a wanna-be _science historian_. I am _far_ more likely to 
be reading about Barbara McClintock and the discovery of transposons, or
about the Archimedes Palimpsest, or about the beheading of Lavoisier 
than I am to be reading about physics.

Historical accuracy means a lot to me. 

In this particular instance, your standards are shoddy. 

You have _still_ not backed up your claim.

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

#467523

From	Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com>
Date	2018-08-10 18:50 +0200
Message-ID	<pkkfnm$r9q$3@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#467522

Op 10-aug-2018 om 18:47 schreef Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:
> On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 11:26:00 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 5:58:16 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>> and you are unable to back up your made-up claim with a reference to a reliable source.
>>>> It depends on how one defines “reliable source”.  The “Genius” creators
>>>> appear to have done their homework well in many if not all other places,
>>>> so why should they exaggerate exactly there?
>>>
>>> As a Wikipedia contributor, you should be well aware that "Genius" would
>>> _never_ qualify as a reliable source on Wikipedia.
>>
>> So what?
> 
> So you should understand what constitutes a reliable source, and what
> does not.
>   
>>>> In any case, that I would not have backed it up *yet* would not mean
>>>> that I am unable to back it up, and it would not mean that it is/I am wrong.
>>>
>>> I saw part of one episode of "Genius." I was quite upset by the
>>> liberties that it took with documented historical fact,
>>
>> I think that this is a discussion for another newsgroup (sci.misc,
>> rec.tv.something?).  But given the available evidence, you can certainly
>> provide a list, yes?
>>
>>> and could not finish watching it.
>>
>> So you do not even have the full picture, yet you claim to know.
>>
>> That is, again, /argumentum ad ignorantiam/ (but this time the opposite
>> way).  And you of all people dare lecture about reliability?
> 
> I am saying that "Genius" was a biopic, with many made-up scenes to add
> drama and human interest. To rely on this television show to back up
> your claims about the relationship between Besso and Einstein in the
> patent office is unworthy of you.
> 
> Just for the record, I am not a wanna-be physicist.
> 
> Rather, I am a wanna-be _science historian_. I am _far_ more likely to
> be reading about Barbara McClintock and the discovery of transposons, or
> about the Archimedes Palimpsest, or about the beheading of Lavoisier
> than I am to be reading about physics.

LOL, Good one :-))))

> Historical accuracy means a lot to me.
> 
> In this particular instance, your standards are shoddy.
> 
> You have _still_ not backed up your claim.

He's not here to backup claims.
He's here to have arguments and lectures.

Dirk Vdm


>   
>

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

#467524

From	Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com>
Date	2018-08-10 18:51 +0200
Message-ID	<pkkfr2$r9q$4@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#467523

Op 10-aug-2018 om 18:50 schreef Dirk Van de moortel:
> Op 10-aug-2018 om 18:47 schreef Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:

[snip]

>> Just for the record, I am not a wanna-be physicist.
>>
>> Rather, I am a wanna-be _science historian_. I am _far_ more likely to
>> be reading about Barbara McClintock and the discovery of transposons, or
>> about the Archimedes Palimpsest, or about the beheading of Lavoisier
>> than I am to be reading about physics.
> 
> LOL, Good one :-))))
> 
>> Historical accuracy means a lot to me.
>>
>> In this particular instance, your standards are shoddy.
>>
>> You have _still_ not backed up your claim.
> 
> He's not here to backup claims.
> He's here to have arguments and lectures.

And to be essentially ignored :-)

Dirk


> 
> Dirk Vdm
> 
> 
>>
>

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

#467528

From	Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-10 10:11 -0700
Message-ID	<8572d7d4-ac23-45f8-9c37-9f3cd81fd570@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467523

On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 11:50:01 AM UTC-5, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 10-aug-2018 om 18:47 schreef Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:

> > Just for the record, I am not a wanna-be physicist.
> > 
> > Rather, I am a wanna-be _science historian_. I am _far_ more likely to
> > be reading about Barbara McClintock and the discovery of transposons, or
> > about the Archimedes Palimpsest, or about the beheading of Lavoisier
> > than I am to be reading about physics.
> 
> LOL, Good one :-))))

Latest book that I've read, and HIGHLY RECOMMENDED:
The Gene: An Intimate History, by Siddhartha Mukherjee 
https://www.amazon.com/Gene-Intimate-History-Siddhartha-Mukherjee/dp/147673352X/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=

The above may be the best book on the history of molecular biology since
The Eighth Day of Creation, by Horace Freeland Judson
https://www.amazon.com/Eighth-Day-Creation-Revolution-Commemorative/dp/0879694785

Being a Max Delbrück fan, I would also recommend
Phage and the Origins of Molecular Biology, by Cairns, Stent and Watson
https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Molecular-Biology-Guinther-Editors/dp/B00JCVBDIQ

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

#467535

From	Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com>
Date	2018-08-10 20:40 +0200
Message-ID	<pkkm79$16k9$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#467528

Op 10-aug-2018 om 19:11 schreef Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:
> On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 11:50:01 AM UTC-5, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 10-aug-2018 om 18:47 schreef Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:
> 
>>> Just for the record, I am not a wanna-be physicist.
>>>
>>> Rather, I am a wanna-be _science historian_. I am _far_ more likely to
>>> be reading about Barbara McClintock and the discovery of transposons, or
>>> about the Archimedes Palimpsest, or about the beheading of Lavoisier
>>> than I am to be reading about physics.
>>
>> LOL, Good one :-))))
> 
> Latest book that I've read, and HIGHLY RECOMMENDED:
> The Gene: An Intimate History, by Siddhartha Mukherjee
> https://www.amazon.com/Gene-Intimate-History-Siddhartha-Mukherjee/dp/147673352X/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=

I have an epub-version of it on my kobo.
It's on the queue.
Convince to move it up :-)


> 
> The above may be the best book on the history of molecular biology since
> The Eighth Day of Creation, by Horace Freeland Judson
> https://www.amazon.com/Eighth-Day-Creation-Revolution-Commemorative/dp/0879694785
> 
> Being a Max Delbrück fan, I would also recommend
> Phage and the Origins of Molecular Biology, by Cairns, Stent and Watson
> https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Molecular-Biology-Guinther-Editors/dp/B00JCVBDIQ
> 

Phagein = to eat, to devour, as I recall from waaaaaaay back...

I have read Dawkins' Selfish Gene --three times-- and his other
work, and then something by Dennet --that I didn't like at all--
but that's about it.

Ok, I have moved Mukherjee halfway up the queue, and if I like
it, I'll go for the phage.

Thanks for sharing this!

Dirk Vdm

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

#467539 — Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution

From	Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.ho>
Date	2018-08-10 18:53 +0000
Subject	Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution
Message-ID	<pkkmus$16ug$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#467535

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> I have read Dawkins' Selfish Gene --three times-- and his other work,
> and then something by Dennet --that I didn't like at all--
> but that's about it.

Reading dawkins three time reveals fatuity. Dennet however is okay-

> Ok, I have moved Mukherjee halfway up the queue, and if I like it, I'll
> go for the phage.

Meanwhile I'll be digesting some food.

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

#467585

From	Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-11 07:55 -0700
Message-ID	<88cf3988-d9af-4e45-9677-6bc506effa1a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467535

On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 1:40:45 PM UTC-5, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 10-aug-2018 om 19:11 schreef Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:

> > Being a Max Delbrück fan, I would also recommend
> > Phage and the Origins of Molecular Biology, by Cairns, Stent and Watson
> > https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Molecular-Biology-Guinther-Editors/dp/B00JCVBDIQ
> > 
> 
> Phagein = to eat, to devour, as I recall from waaaaaaay back...
> 
> I have read Dawkins' Selfish Gene --three times-- and his other
> work, and then something by Dennet --that I didn't like at all--
> but that's about it.
> 
> Ok, I have moved Mukherjee halfway up the queue, and if I like
> it, I'll go for the phage.
> 
> Thanks for sharing this!

The accomplishment that was cited in Delbrück's Nobel Prize award, the Luria–Delbrück 
experiment, reminds me a lot about Einstein's study of Brownian motion. In 1905,
there was still doubt about the existence of atoms. In 1942, there was still doubt
whether Darwin's rules on natural selection applied to bacteria. There were still
many who thought that bacterial evolution might follow Lamarckian principles.
Like Einstein's 1905 study of Brownian motion,  Delbrück's analysis depended on 
his highly sophisticated knowledge of statistics. Although there have been some
relatively recent questions about the interpretation of the Luria-Delbrück 
experiment, their major result is unquestioned: inheritance in bacteria follows 
Darwinian principles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria%E2%80%93Delbr%C3%BCck_experiment

Mostly, though, I remember the Delbrücks because I babysat for Max and Mary
("Manny"). Lunida was a lovely girl, quite talented on the piano. Toby wanted me 
to teach him karate moves, which I did although I was only a white belt at the time. 
I don't remember anything about the two older children, who were born in the 1940's 
and whom I never met. Their living room had a high ceiling, and they had a Tarzan 
rope suspended from the ceiling that they liked swinging from. They kidded me that 
I wouldn't do more than cowardly baby swings on that rope...

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

#467529

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-08-10 19:22 +0200
Message-ID	<92ee9b76-fcfb-92b9-f952-ff41d2d798bd@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#467522

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 11:26:00 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 5:58:16 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>> and you are unable to back up your made-up claim with a reference to a reliable source. 
>>>> It depends on how one defines “reliable source”.  The “Genius” creators
>>>> appear to have done their homework well in many if not all other places,
>>>> so why should they exaggerate exactly there?
>>> As a Wikipedia contributor, you should be well aware that "Genius" would
>>> _never_ qualify as a reliable source on Wikipedia.
>> So what?
> 
> So you should understand what constitutes a reliable source, and what
> does not.

You are mistaken.

>>>> In any case, that I would not have backed it up *yet* would not mean
>>>> that I am unable to back it up, and it would not mean that it is/I am wrong.
>>> I saw part of one episode of "Genius." I was quite upset by the
>>> liberties that it took with documented historical fact,
>>
>> I think that this is a discussion for another newsgroup (sci.misc,
>> rec.tv.something?).  But given the available evidence, you can certainly
>> provide a list, yes?

Nothing.  Zero.  Nada.

>>> and could not finish watching it.
>>
>> So you do not even have the full picture, yet you claim to know.
>>
>> That is, again, /argumentum ad ignorantiam/ (but this time the opposite
>> way).  And you of all people dare lecture about reliability?
> 
> I am saying that "Genius" was a biopic, with many made-up scenes to add
> drama and human interest.

And you have still not said why you think that.  You have been asked which
depicted events were historically inaccurate, and you stayed silent.  You
could have crossposted and set Followup-To a newsgroup where this is more
on-topic, or you could have replied via e-mail, but you did not.

So as the matter stands, you do not accept *seemingly* blanket statements
from others (I have explained why I said what I said), but you have no
problem issuing actually blanket statements yourself.  You are a hypocrite.

> To rely on this television show to back up your claims
> about the relationship between Besso and Einstein in the
> patent office

Fallacy: Straw man.  I have explicitly referred you to research about
Einstein and Besso.

>  is unworthy of you. 

Fallacy: Argumentum ad personam.

> Just for the record, I am not a wanna-be physicist. 

Me neither.  I have studied computer science at two universities, and I am
studying astrophysics at another university, and maybe through that I will
become a physicist.  So you could say that apart from a computer scientist
I am a potential future physicist :)

> Rather, I am a wanna-be _science historian_.

That’s almost as bad.

> Historical accuracy means a lot to me. 

It certainly does not appear so.

> In this particular instance, your standards are shoddy. 

No, they are not.

> You have _still_ not backed up your claim.

Yes, I have.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#467581

From	Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-11 06:08 -0700
Message-ID	<b80be7ff-7eac-4715-a594-9903804b984c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467529

On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 12:22:29 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> > I am saying that "Genius" was a biopic, with many made-up scenes to add
> > drama and human interest.
> 
> And you have still not said why you think that.  

Because that is the nature of biopics. 

> You have been asked which
> depicted events were historically inaccurate, and you stayed silent.  

It did not take me more than a half hour to become thoroughly disgusted with the
liberties that the show was taking with historical fact, and the show did not 
strike me as particularly memorable, so I confess that I do not remember precisely
what scenes and events turned me off.

Others online, however, have bad things to say about the show's inaccuracies. 
For example, see Albert Heisenberg's comments:
https://www.quora.com/How-accurate-is-Natgeos-Genius-series-in-regard-to-Einsteins-life 

> You
> could have crossposted and set Followup-To a newsgroup where this is more
> on-topic, or you could have replied via e-mail, but you did not.
> 
> So as the matter stands, you do not accept *seemingly* blanket statements
> from others (I have explained why I said what I said), but you have no
> problem issuing actually blanket statements yourself.  You are a hypocrite.
> 
> > To rely on this television show to back up your claims
> > about the relationship between Besso and Einstein in the
> > patent office
> 
> Fallacy: Straw man.  I have explicitly referred you to research about
> Einstein and Besso.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6981.pdf 
Predominantly covers their relationship through 1901
Published in Istituto Lombardo - Accademia di Scienze e Lettere - Rendiconti di
Scienze, vol. 148 (2014) 

https://www.christies.com/features/Einstein-letters-to-Michele-Besso-8422-1.aspx 
Christie's auction summary, nothing of value to this discussion.
Not a reliable source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Life_and_career 
Oh, come on! You can do better than cite an article to which I contributed!
According to Wikipedia, Wikipedia does not constitute a reliable source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Besso 
"Stub" article, useful for references and links, hardly anything else.
According to Wikipedia, Wikipedia does not constitute a reliable source.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.4335.pdf
Includes a short section on Besso, but stops narrative before the Patent Office
Although not published in a journal, I count Gali Weinstein as reliable.

There is absolutely NOTHING in the above references to justify the assertion to
which I objected.

> >  is unworthy of you. 
> 
> Fallacy: Argumentum ad personam.
> 
> > Just for the record, I am not a wanna-be physicist. 
> 
> Me neither.  I have studied computer science at two universities, and I am
> studying astrophysics at another university, and maybe through that I will
> become a physicist.  So you could say that apart from a computer scientist
> I am a potential future physicist :)
> 
> > Rather, I am a wanna-be _science historian_.
> 
> That’s almost as bad.
> 
> > Historical accuracy means a lot to me. 
> 
> It certainly does not appear so.
> 
> > In this particular instance, your standards are shoddy. 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> > You have _still_ not backed up your claim.
> 
> Yes, I have.

Only with wild speculative arguments. 

Three of the five references that you presented to me are not "reliable sources"

NONE of the references that you guided me to, reliable or not, back up your claims.

This is getting tedious.

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

#467608

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-08-12 05:56 +0200
Message-ID	<03025d85-858e-d080-640c-13d2cfa675c8@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#467581

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 12:22:29 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>> I am saying that "Genius" was a biopic, with many made-up scenes to add
>>> drama and human interest.
>> And you have still not said why you think that.  
> 
> Because that is the nature of biopics. 

Fallacy: Circular reasoning.

>> You have been asked which
>> depicted events were historically inaccurate, and you stayed silent.  
> 
> It did not take me more than a half hour to become thoroughly disgusted with the
> liberties that the show was taking with historical fact, and the show did not 
> strike me as particularly memorable, so I confess that I do not remember precisely
> what scenes and events turned me off.

In other words, you can offer ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to back up your claims.
 HYPOCRITE!

> Others online, however, have bad things to say about the show's inaccuracies. 
> For example, see Albert Heisenberg's comments:
> https://www.quora.com/How-accurate-is-Natgeos-Genius-series-in-regard-to-Einsteins-life 

This guy is COMPLETELY CLUELESS.  He cannot even SPELL the names and terms
correctly!  (He must be dyslexic, which is not a helpful predisposition in
this regard.)

| 1. Miles Maric did NOT contribute anything to any of his papers other than
|    as a friendly “sounding board.”

    [sic!]

Yeah, “MILES Maric”…  The name of Einstein’s FIRST WIFE was MILEVA MARIĆ.
Whether she contributed to Einstein’s work is STILL DEBATED (see references
in Wikipedia).  She certainly did have the scientific inclination and
training; she and Einstein studied for “Diploma for teaching of physics and
mathematics” at the Zürich Polytechnic TOGETHER, which is WHERE THEY MET.
(AISB, while Marić had the higher entrance exam marks, she failed her final
teacher’s exam, while Einstein passed – also CORRECTLY depicted in “Genius”.)

| 2. Michele Besso playing a tiny but laudable role in Special Relativity
|    but NOT any of the other 1905 papers.

COMPLETE NONSENSE.  THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE, HE was Einstein’s “sounding board”
instead.  That is, in translation, EXACTLY what Einstein called him
essentially “[the best] ‘sounding.board’ in the whole of Europe [for
scientific ideas]” (see Einstein letters and Seelig 1956 p. 71, e.g. cited
and quoted in Bracco 2014 which I cited; again, the full reference:
<https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6981>).  Einstein thanked him SPECIFICALLY FOR
THAT at the end of “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, originally
„Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper“ (_1905_), THE FIRST PAPER OF (what
Einstein called later) SPECIAL RELATIVITY, which I quoted before.

1905 WAS when they were working together at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern;
like Grossmann’s father helped Einstein to get this job in 1902, Einstein
helped Besso get that job in 1904, too, for the reasons that I have already
mentioned.  (CORRECTLY depicted in “Genius”.)

| 3. The reference to galaxies in episode 1 is historically inaccurate.
|    Hubble discovered the sepia in Andromeda in 1922 which confirmed galaxy
|    formation, far later than the timeline in the television episode.

Again, COMPLETE NONSENSE.

Hubble did NOT discover in 1922 any "sepia" (that’s the name of a
reddish-brown color instead).  And he did NOT confirm "galaxy formation".

Instead, he managed back then to RESOLVE _CEPHEIDS_ (Cepheid variables) in
the (then) “Andromeda Nebula” with the Mt. Wilson telescope, and thus USE
them to ESTIMATE THE DISTANCE to that “nebula” to find out that those stars
had to be OUTSIDE the Milky Way, IN ANOTHER GALAXY INSTEAD (IRRELEVANT how
that formed; this was DECADES before the idea of galaxy FORMATION).

See also:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy#Distinction_from_other_nebulae>

The relation between the luminosity of a Cepheid and its pulsation period,
which makes Cepheids good standard candles (for astronomical distance
estimation/measurement), was discovered earlier, in 1908, by the astronomer
Henrietta Swan Levitt.  (The first star that was found to be pulsating was
Delta Cephei, a star in the constellation Cepheus, in 1784; hence the term.)

See also:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable>

The idea that those nebulae were actually other galaxies had been floating
around for some time earlier, though, as early as 1734 (Swedenborg,
“Principia”).  That was WELL BEFORE Einstein’s time.

See also:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy#Distinction_from_other_nebulae>

    [The term “galaxy” is based on the ANCIENT Greek word for “milk” based
     on the Greek myth that the bright band in the night sky (there was no
     light pollution and little air pollution back then) is the milk spilled
     by the goddess Hera (Juno) when she wakes up and discovers in disgust
     that she is breastfeeding Heracles (Hercules), the child that her
     ever-untrue husband Zeus (Jupiter) had with the mortal Alkmene and had
     put there while Hera was sleeping.  Zeus’ idea was that the immortally-
     conceived but mortal-born Heracles would have become fully immortal by
     drinking Hera’s divine milk instead of Alkmene’s.  In the myth, it is
     one more piece of humiliation that contributes to Hera’s hate of
     Heracles; and since he was only half-immortal then, her attempts to
     kill him at every opportunity (which only made him stronger and more
     famous).  (Note the similarity between the original Greek name of the
     Latin “Hercules” and that of his stepmother, Hera.  That is not a
     coincidence.)

     See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy#Etymology>]

So we have three claims there, and three times they are COMPLETE NONSENSE.
I will skip trying to refute the rest of them; it is just not worth my time.

>> You
>> could have crossposted and set Followup-To a newsgroup where this is more
>> on-topic, or you could have replied via e-mail, but you did not.
>>
>> So as the matter stands, you do not accept *seemingly* blanket statements
>> from others (I have explained why I said what I said), but you have no
>> problem issuing actually blanket statements yourself.  You are a hypocrite.
>>
>>> To rely on this television show to back up your claims
>>> about the relationship between Besso and Einstein in the
>>> patent office
>>
>> Fallacy: Straw man.  I have explicitly referred you to research about
>> Einstein and Besso.
> 
> […]

Interesting, but just a red herring.

> https://www.christies.com/features/Einstein-letters-to-Michele-Besso-8422-1.aspx 
> Christie's auction summary, nothing of value to this discussion.
> Not a reliable source.

Nonsense.  Read the letters.  Ah, but you would have to speak German to be
able to read them.  Well, I do; Einstein’s Germany is my home country,
Einstein’s German is my native language, and I live and work in Bern,
SWitzerland – just today I passed by the Einsteinhaus in the Kramgasse again
(where Einstein and Marić lived with their first kid).  So I guess I am a
little bit more qualified to understand Einstein’s life than you are.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Life_and_career 
> Oh, come on! You can do better than cite an article to which I contributed!

READ it and FOLLOW THE REFERENCES therein.

> According to Wikipedia, Wikipedia does not constitute a reliable source.

So you are not a reliable source then either.  From all of what you posted
so far, that is true; and good to know, is it not?

> [tl;dr]

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →

csiph-web

Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? - Quora

Contents

#467310 — Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? - Quora

#467324

#467336

#467439

#467441

#467451

#467453

#467463

#467476

#467515

#467522

#467523

#467524

#467528

#467535

#467539 — Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution

#467585

#467529

#467581

#467608