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

#467619

From	Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-12 01:09 -0700
Message-ID	<3370086b-08e8-4949-a3cf-1740a55e5a11@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467608

On Saturday, August 11, 2018 at 10:56:22 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

[Snipped rants]

1. Albert Heisenberg's native language is evidently not English. Not every 
   non-native speaker of English has the near-native competency that you have. 
   Instead of twisting his words to extract the worst possible interpretation, 
   why not examine what he actually was TRYING to say? For example, Hubble 
   obviously did not discover the Cepheids. However, in what year did Hubble 
   publish his work establishing the distance to the Andromeda "Nebula"? Repeat
   this exercise with each of Heisenberg's sentences.  

for (int i = 0; i < 10 ; ++i) 
{ 
    Where in ANY of the above have you provided a reliable reference to back 
    up your claim, "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"?  
}

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

#467839

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-08-14 21:36 +0200
Message-ID	<efacf82e-8a7b-83ab-3c22-69c2bb3da0f6@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#467619

</killfile>

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Saturday, August 11, 2018 at 10:56:22 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> [Snipped rants]

That’s enough.

> 1. Albert Heisenberg's native language is evidently not English. Not every 
>    non-native speaker of English has the near-native competency that you have. 
>    Instead of twisting his words to extract the worst possible interpretation, 
>    why not examine what he actually was TRYING to say?

Nonsense.  MY native language is not English EITHER.  EVEN IF one replaces
the key words with the correct terms – and if you had cared to notice,
I went to GREAT lengths in that regard –, his descriptions are FACTUALLY wrong.

> For example, Hubble 
>    obviously did not discover the Cepheids. However, in what year did Hubble 
>    publish his work establishing the distance to the Andromeda "Nebula"?

Learn to READ.  AS IS SAID BEFORE, the idea that nebulae could be other
galaxies HAD BEEN FLOATING AROUND FOR CENTURIES before the observational
confirmation by Hubble.  So Einstein COULD have shared that opinion.

In fact, while he might not have said it in a Berlin lecture hall as
depicted in “Genius”, the statement that “for […] physicists, the
distinction between the past, the present, and the future […] is but a
stubborn illusion” is straight from the translation of a condolence letter
than he wrote to Michele Besso’s widow, AISB the sister of his first love.

So I would not be surprised if “from the smallest molecule to the largest
galaxy, I intent to find the answer” is also one of his statements.

> Repeat this exercise with each of Heisenberg's sentences.  

Repeat it yourself.

> […]

I really do not need to be lectured about truth by a hypocrite; above all
a coward who is lying to their readers in name every time that they post.

<killfile>

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#467840

From	Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-14 13:03 -0700
Message-ID	<b6d0e9ad-ccf2-4ed0-84f5-c3833435e880@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467839

On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 2:36:09 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> <killfile>

***ALL*** of your mountains of verbiage has been to avoid answering 
my simple question, which I notice that you have snipped...again...

for (int i = 0; i < 10 ; ++i) 
{ 
    Where in ANY of the above have you provided a reliable reference to back 
    up your claim, "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"?   
} 

I had thought better of you.

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

#467457

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-09 21:53 +0000
Message-ID	<pkid51$1kjl$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#467451

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
> 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.

Uh, no. You’d be very surprised how many full time jobs have idle time. 

> 
>> […] 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.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#467465

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-08-10 01:11 +0200
Message-ID	<70a4568a-9d27-fc9a-fc45-39664f530204@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#467457

Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> Uh, no. You’d be very surprised how many full time jobs have idle time. 
While that is a distinct possibility, consider the nature of Einstein’s
work.  It would be strange to employ Einstein because he studied also
Maxwell’s electrodynamics (which was not yet taught at the Polytechnic)
if there were not a sufficient number of incoming inventions that required
understanding of that subject.  And in general you do not employ a person
if there is little work to be done because you have to pay that person
anyway (in such a position you are not paid by the hour).

Therefore, it is more reasonable to assume that Einstein had a normal
workload but did not do all the work himself.  Because otherwise there would
not have been enough spare time for him to work on his science as only a
full-time position would have enabled him to support his family.

Besso kept working at the Swiss Patent Office even after Einstein left.
This strongly indicates that Besso liked that kind of work.

So you can see that my assumption that Besso, out of friendship, gratitude
and interest, did most if not all of Einstein’s Patent Office work, which
originates from scenes in “Genius” season 1, is consistent with what
we know about Einstein.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#467505

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-10 14:41 +0000
Message-ID	<pkk862$eld$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#467465

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> Uh, no. You’d be very surprised how many full time jobs have idle time. 
> While that is a distinct possibility, consider the nature of Einstein’s
> work.  It would be strange to employ Einstein because he studied also
> Maxwell’s electrodynamics (which was not yet taught at the Polytechnic)
> if there were not a sufficient number of incoming inventions that required
> understanding of that subject.  And in general you do not employ a person
> if there is little work to be done because you have to pay that person
> anyway (in such a position you are not paid by the hour).

Airline pilots. 
Fire fighters. 
Congressional representatives. 
Company board members. 
Building maintenance supervisors. 
Orchestral musicians. 
Night security. 
Ranch hands. 
I could name more. 

All salaried, full-time positions in jobs that have deliberately limited
duty cycle or are by nature episodic or where readiness counts almost as
much as activity. 

I’m not saying that patent office clerking is inherently like these. I am
saying that there are plenty of such positions where diverted attention is
fully supportable. And I believe Einstein pushed on the boundaries of his
duty cycle to carve out time for physics. 

> 
> Therefore, it is more reasonable to assume that Einstein had a normal
> workload but did not do all the work himself.  Because otherwise there would
> not have been enough spare time for him to work on his science as only a
> full-time position would have enabled him to support his family.
> 
> Besso kept working at the Swiss Patent Office even after Einstein left.
> This strongly indicates that Besso liked that kind of work.
> 
> So you can see that my assumption that Besso, out of friendship, gratitude
> and interest, did most if not all of Einstein’s Patent Office work, which
> originates from scenes in “Genius” season 1, is consistent with what
> we know about Einstein.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#467514

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-08-10 18:20 +0200
Message-ID	<1265176d-34c9-86ac-0057-29c03257460e@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#467505

Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>>>> Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> Uh, no. You’d be very surprised how many full time jobs have idle
>>> time.
>> While that is a distinct possibility, consider the nature of
>> Einstein’s work.  It would be strange to employ Einstein because he
>> studied also Maxwell’s electrodynamics (which was not yet taught at the
>> Polytechnic) if there were not a sufficient number of incoming
>> inventions that required understanding of that subject.  And in general
>> you do not employ a person if there is little work to be done because
>> you have to pay that person anyway (in such a position you are not paid
>> by the hour).
> 
> Airline pilots. Fire fighters. Congressional representatives. Company
> board members. Building maintenance supervisors. Orchestral musicians. 
> Night security. Ranch hands. I could name more.
> 
> All salaried, full-time positions in jobs that have deliberately limited 
> duty cycle or are by nature episodic or where readiness counts almost as 
> much as activity.

Apples and oranges.

> I’m not saying that patent office clerking is inherently like these.

It is nothing like what you mentioned.  What you mentioned are much more
stressful jobs.

> I am saying that there are plenty of such positions where diverted
> attention is fully supportable.

You do not believe that airline pilots aso. enjoy much spare time when
they are not flying a plane, not fighting fires, not having sessions,
not having meetings, not having a maintenance emergency, not playing a
concert, not watching the club, not working on the ranch.  Do you?

> And I believe Einstein pushed on the boundaries of his duty cycle to
> carve out time for physics.

And it stands to reason that his best friend helped him there, which is why
he thanked him for that.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#467583

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-08-11 15:39 +0200
Message-ID	<ft878bFbr7rU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#467439

Am 09.08.2018 um 20:45 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> 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.  


Einstein was not a citizen of Prussia, since the name of the country he 
was born in was 'Deutsches Reich' (German Empire).

This nation was founded in 1871 from several smaller countries, among 
them Prussia.

So, when Einstein was born there was no country called 'Prussia' any more.

Second reason: the town 'Ulm' was never a part of Prussia, but belonged 
to the country called 'Kingdom of Würtemberg'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_W%C3%BCrttemberg

Third reason: apparently Einstein had both citizenships (Swiss and German).

I'm not really certain about that, but Einstein worked in Berlin as 
professor and head of the Berlin 'Kaiser Wilhelm Institut', for what 
German citizenship was mandatory.

Fourth problem:

there was no war in sight in 1901, neither in Germany nor in 
Switzerland, but military training was mandatory in both countries 
('Wehrpflicht').


TH

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

#467613

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-08-12 08:01 +0200
Message-ID	<82b214ba-baca-340a-3b6f-3451db26886b@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#467583

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 09.08.2018 um 20:45 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> - 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.  
> 
> 
> Einstein was not a citizen of Prussia,

He was; but that was later (1914–1918), when he was in Berlin (then the
capital of the Kingdom of Prussia).  Einstein’s work was then published in
the “Meeting Reports of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences”
(Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften) in
Berlin; Planck made Einstein a member of the Academy and Einstein presented
the field equations of general relativity there in 1915.

> since the name of the country he was born in was 'Deutsches Reich' (German Empire).

Ex falso quodlibet.  The German EMPIRE (1871–1918) was ruled by the German
EMPEROR (Kaiser) and consisted also of various kingdoms, including the
Kingdom of Prussia.

Einstein was born in Ulm in 1879, then in the Kingdom of Württemberg
instead, of which therefore he was a subject (not: citizen).  The family
moved to Munich, then in the Kingdom of Bavaria, in 1880, but apparently
formally he stayed a subject of Württemberg until 1896 (when he became
stateless).

    [This might actually be a historical error in “Genius” when Einstein,
     still at school in Munich (BAVARIA) in 1894, says to his teacher:
     “Speaking truthfully, sir, your mere presence spoils my respect for
     the future of PRUSSIAN mathematics.“.  On the other hand, the teacher
     may have been from Prussia and Einstein knew that.

     <https://youtu.be/ZyYqyYAKGC0?t=146>]

> This nation was founded in 1871 from several smaller countries, among 
> them Prussia.

Not countries, but constituent STATES: kingdoms, grand duchies, duchies,
principalities, free Hanseatic cities, and the Imperial Territory of
Alsace-Lorraine (Elsaß-Lothringen).  With the exception of the imperial
territory, the Emperor delegated administrative power to the local
rulers/governments.

> So, when Einstein was born there was no country called 'Prussia' any more.

NONSENSE.  The Kingdom of Prussia (Königreich Preußen) existed until 1918,
when the German Emperor who was also King of Prussia was forced to abdicate;
following that, the Free State of Prussia (Freistaat Preußen) existed
(formally) until 1947.

> Second reason: the town 'Ulm' was never a part of Prussia, but belonged 
> to the country called 'Kingdom of Würtemberg'

Almost correct (it was a STATE, not a country; the country was the German
Empire).

> Third reason: apparently Einstein had both citizenships (Swiss and German).

Wrong.  Due to his renouncing of his (Württemberg) "citizenship" in order to
escape military service (in Württemberg/Germany), Einstein was STATELESS
from 1896, until 1901 when he became a citizen of Switzerland.

> I'm not really certain about that, but Einstein worked in Berlin as 
> professor and head of the Berlin 'Kaiser Wilhelm Institut', for what 
> German citizenship was mandatory.

A subject (perhaps citizen) of the Kingdom of Prussia, not German
citizenship.  There was no German citizenship before the Weimar Republic
(when Emperor Wilhelm Ⅱ was forced to abdicate in 1918 after World War Ⅰ
that he started and lost).

> there was no war in sight in 1901, neither in Germany nor in 
> Switzerland, 

Incorrect.

Since 1871, in Germany there was always the danger that France would
retaliate for having lost the Franco–Prussian War (1870–1871), which led to
Chancellor Otto von Bismarck forming the alliance League of Three Emperors
(Dreikaiserbund) with Russia and Austria-Hungary (1873–1887).  [This
alliance eventually failed in 1887 as Russia and Austria-Hungary could not
agree on Balkan policy; an alliance between Germany, Austra-Hungary and
Italy was formed in 1882 instead, and as the Austrian-Hungary
heir-presumptive was assassinated in Sarajevo [then Austria-Hungary] in 1914
by Serbian separatists, which were backed by Russia, that became the reason
for World War Ⅰ (1914–1918).]

Also, tensions in Europe were rising after Wilhelm Ⅱ, who supported a policy
of relentless German imperialism (e.g. „Am deutschen Wesen mag/soll die Welt
genesen“, 1907-08-01), ascended to the imperial throne in 1888.

By contrast, Switzerland was and is a neutral country; it had declared
itself so during the Reformation (ca. 1531) which was formally recognized
by European countries in the Peace of Westphalia (Westfälischer Frieden)
in 1648.

> but military training was mandatory in both countries ('Wehrpflicht').

That danger of a war is why it was in Germany, and that is what “military
service” means.

In Switzerland the reason for military service was/is different than in
Germany, and the way in which military training is administered was/is
different, too.  Due to Switzerland’s neutrality, as a Swiss citizen, while
still being required to have regular military training, Einstein was not in
danger of fighting in any wars.  Also, Switzerland was closer to Pavia,
Italy, where the rest of his family moved in 1894 for business reasons.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#467650

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-08-12 20:52 +0200
Message-ID	<ftbe03F3fntU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#467613

Am 12.08.2018 um 08:01 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

>>> - 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.
>>
>>
>> Einstein was not a citizen of Prussia,
> 
> He was; but that was later (1914–1918), when he was in Berlin (then the
> capital of the Kingdom of Prussia).  Einstein’s work was then published in
> the “Meeting Reports of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences”
> (Sitzungsberichte der Königlich-Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften) in
> Berlin; Planck made Einstein a member of the Academy and Einstein presented
> the field equations of general relativity there in 1915.
> 
>> since the name of the country he was born in was 'Deutsches Reich' (German Empire).
> 
> Ex falso quodlibet.  The German EMPIRE (1871–1918) was ruled by the German
> EMPEROR (Kaiser) and consisted also of various kingdoms, including the
> Kingdom of Prussia.

No.

Germany was a nation state from 1871 on. The founding duchies and 
kingdoms were then part of the large state called 'German Empire'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Empire

So you had only one German citizenship, not citizenship in Prussia.

But Ulm was not a part of Prussia anyhow, but a part of the Kingdom of 
Würtemberg.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

Quote
"Albert Einstein was born in Ulm, in the Kingdom of Württemberg in the 
German Empire, on 14 March 1879."


> Einstein was born in Ulm in 1879, then in the Kingdom of Württemberg
> instead, of which therefore he was a subject (not: citizen).  The family
> moved to Munich, then in the Kingdom of Bavaria, in 1880, but apparently
> formally he stayed a subject of Württemberg until 1896 (when he became
> stateless).
> 
>      [This might actually be a historical error in “Genius” when Einstein,
>       still at school in Munich (BAVARIA) in 1894, says to his teacher:
>       “Speaking truthfully, sir, your mere presence spoils my respect for
>       the future of PRUSSIAN mathematics.“.  On the other hand, the teacher
>       may have been from Prussia and Einstein knew that.
> 
>       <https://youtu.be/ZyYqyYAKGC0?t=146>]
> 
>> This nation was founded in 1871 from several smaller countries, among
>> them Prussia.
> 
> Not countries, but constituent STATES: kingdoms, grand duchies, duchies,
> principalities, free Hanseatic cities, and the Imperial Territory of
> Alsace-Lorraine (Elsaß-Lothringen).  With the exception of the imperial
> territory, the Emperor delegated administrative power to the local
> rulers/governments.


The understanding of the terms 'state', 'country' and 'nation' is 
different in German than in e.g. the USA.

'Country' means 'Land' in German and actually means territory (surface 
of planet Earth). So a state (=nation) has a certain part of the surface 
of the Earth as its territory, which is called 'Land' (country) in German.

'State' is more or less meant as the functionality of how the country is 
managed (by some kind of government and administration).

'Nation' is used in a different way than in the Anglo-Saxons world.

E.g. the US have this racisistic view, to call the so called 'Indians' 
'first nations', while in the German view the USA is a nation and all 
people there are citizens of this one single nation.

Subdivisions of the country are called 'states', which meant like 
'departement' in French. Those had no separate citizenship.

So Einstein was citizens of the German Empire, but acquired the Swiss 
citizenship later.

With this he lost his German citizenship, since dual citizenships were 
not allowed at that time in Germany.

>> So, when Einstein was born there was no country called 'Prussia' any more.
> 
> NONSENSE.  The Kingdom of Prussia (Königreich Preußen) existed until 1918,
> when the German Emperor who was also King of Prussia was forced to abdicate;
> following that, the Free State of Prussia (Freistaat Preußen) existed
> (formally) until 1947.


Well, that is actually true. The parts of the German Empire had certain 
rights, very similar to the states in the USA. The former independent 
country Prussia existed in some form until after WW II.

But Prussia was part of Germany since 1871 and not independent. Only 
Bavaria had a separate army until after WW I, but not Prussia.

They also had no separate citizenship.

>> Second reason: the town 'Ulm' was never a part of Prussia, but belonged
>> to the country called 'Kingdom of Würtemberg'
> 
> Almost correct (it was a STATE, not a country; the country was the German
> Empire).

No. Würtemberg was a separate independent kingdom and its relation to 
Prussia were like those between France and Denmark. And Germany did not 
exist at all until 1871.

> 
>> Third reason: apparently Einstein had both citizenships (Swiss and German).
> 
> Wrong.  Due to his renouncing of his (Württemberg) "citizenship" in order to
> escape military service (in Württemberg/Germany), Einstein was STATELESS
> from 1896, until 1901 when he became a citizen of Switzerland.

You mean: he escaped conscription?

Well, then he certainly had reason not to return to Germany.

>> I'm not really certain about that, but Einstein worked in Berlin as
>> professor and head of the Berlin 'Kaiser Wilhelm Institut', for what
>> German citizenship was mandatory.
> 
> A subject (perhaps citizen) of the Kingdom of Prussia, not German
> citizenship.  There was no German citizenship before the Weimar Republic
> (when Emperor Wilhelm Ⅱ was forced to abdicate in 1918 after World War Ⅰ
> that he started and lost).


Tricky question..

But actually there existed something similar:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenat

" Nun bestand nach Art. 3 der Reichsverfassung von 1871 für das gesamte 
Deutsche Reich ein gemeinsames Indigenat. "

The citizens of the entire Empire had something in common called 
'indiginat'. That roughly is 'birthright to settle in the country'.

(I'm actually insecure, whether or not they had all the same German 
passport or passports from their little kingdom.)

>> there was no war in sight in 1901, neither in Germany nor in
>> Switzerland,
> 
> Incorrect.
> 

Well, maybe..


TH

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

#467657

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-08-12 23:33 +0200
Message-ID	<9b51b8a5-2a32-772c-85a5-926b1af32b64@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#467650

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 12.08.2018 um 08:01 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>> Einstein was not a citizen of Prussia,
>> He was; but that was later (1914–1918), when he was in Berlin […]
>>> since the name of the country he was born in was 'Deutsches Reich'
>>> (German Empire).
>>
>> Ex falso quodlibet.  The German EMPIRE (1871–1918) was ruled by the
>> German EMPEROR (Kaiser) and consisted also of various kingdoms,
>> including the Kingdom of Prussia.
>
> No.

Most definitely yes, wannabe.

> Germany was a nation state from 1871 on.

Non sequitur.

> The founding duchies and kingdoms were then part of the large state
> called 'German Empire'.

Non sequitur.  The duchies and kingdoms aso. were still states of their own,
with their local administration, including kings and dukes.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Empire
>
> So you had only one German citizenship, not citizenship in Prussia.

Wrong, AISB.

> But Ulm was not a part of Prussia anyhow, but a part of the Kingdom of
> Würtemberg.

Which is why Einstein was a subject (Untertan) of the King of Württemberg
until he renounced that.  He then was stateless until he became a citizen
of Switzerland.

He renounced his Württemberg "citizenship" because in the event that Emperor
Wilhelm Ⅱ, who was also King of Prussia, would declare war against another
country on behalf of the German Empire, the Kingdom of Württemberg as one of
its states would have to supply troops to the Emperor, and Einstein would be
drafted and potentially sent abroad.

By contrast, military service in neutral Switzerland, if at all (it may be
that Einstein was already too old then) would only include regular training
and defense against unlikely intruders.

There is absolutely no doubt about that, and given the historical evidence
of World War Ⅰ it actually is not even open for debate anymore.

> Quote
> "Albert Einstein was born in Ulm, in the Kingdom of Württemberg in the
> German Empire, on 14 March 1879."

Exactly.  Learn to read.  Not only Wikipedia, including the infoboxes, but
also my postings.

> The understanding of the terms 'state', 'country' and 'nation' is
> different in German than in e.g. the USA.

Vollidiot!  I am a speaker of German as native language, born in Germany.
I know what I am talking about.  There was no German citizenship before
the (FEDERAL) Weimar REPUBLIC.

And German is a language; the USA are a country.  Apples and oranges.

> [more nonsense; tl;dr]

Hopeless.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#467322

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-08 11:44 -0700
Message-ID	<784724c0-0f8c-4bd8-a3fb-a9807cd73ae5@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467290

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 6:21:28 AM UTC-7, 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? 
> 
> My Answer:
> Model Mechanics could be the next scientific revolution in physics and cosmology.

Surely you jest.

--
Jan

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

#467329 — Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution

From	Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn>
Date	2018-08-08 19:25 +0000
Subject	Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution
Message-ID	<pkfg3i$h0q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#467322

JanPB wrote:

> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 6:21:28 AM UTC-7, 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?
>> 
>> My Answer:
>> Model Mechanics could be the next scientific revolution in physics and
>> cosmology.
> 
> Surely you jest.

The only trouble with The Model Mechanics is that being a subset.

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

#467345

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2018-08-08 15:19 -0700
Message-ID	<afbc46f1-7d41-444e-8f0d-be3e78663c42@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467322

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 2:44:08 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 6:21:28 AM UTC-7, 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? 
> > 
> > My Answer:
> > Model Mechanics could be the next scientific revolution in physics and cosmology.
> 
> Surely you jest.

Not jest.

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

#467348

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-08 22:28 +0000
Message-ID	<pkfqqn$1269$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#467345

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 2:44:08 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 6:21:28 AM UTC-7, 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? 
>>> 
>>> My Answer:
>>> Model Mechanics could be the next scientific revolution in physics and cosmology.
>> 
>> Surely you jest.
> 
> Not jest.
> 

Then just a sad delusion. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#467323

From	"David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date	2018-08-08 11:53 -0700
Message-ID	<7253fe88-5aa0-4c2d-a8a3-d84647033ed4@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467290

kenseto escrito 

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? 

Because the Mainstream is clinging to “Their Aether-less Model” like a Baby on its Momma’s Teat. 

There is No where to go while hanging on to that anchor.

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

#467327

From	"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-08 12:11 -0700
Message-ID	<520bcf93-bb0b-4ef6-8069-efaba0459fe0@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467323

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 11:53:28 AM UTC-7, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> kenseto escrito 
> 
> 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? 
> 
> Because the Mainstream is clinging to “Their Aether-less Model” like a Baby on its Momma’s Teat. 
> 
> There is No where to go while hanging on to that anchor.

Space is frame, but, immobile celestial spheres.

Is unification to make gravity 
force and field?

(Re:  "gradient".)

Gravity as LeSage'ian 
(somehow correctly) then 
for gravity and nuclear 
unified and then charge 
as mediating, with the 
atom as real and virtual, 
has at least that's "one" 
theory and becoming somewhat 
irreducible in parts (instead 
of exploded into bits).

This is where at least these 
days SR is local where light 
can be flux, and there's quite 
a bit more understanding of the 
establishment of "running constants", 
building them in, than running them out.

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

#467454

From	"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-09 14:41 -0700
Message-ID	<05f4909b-06fe-451b-b494-150ca3ae5666@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467327

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 12:11:02 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 11:53:28 AM UTC-7, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > kenseto escrito 
> > 
> > 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? 
> > 
> > Because the Mainstream is clinging to “Their Aether-less Model” like a Baby on its Momma’s Teat. 
> > 
> > There is No where to go while hanging on to that anchor.
> 
> Space is frame, but, immobile celestial spheres.
> 
> Is unification to make gravity 
> force and field?
> 
> (Re:  "gradient".)
> 
> Gravity as LeSage'ian 
> (somehow correctly) then 
> for gravity and nuclear 
> unified and then charge 
> as mediating, with the 
> atom as real and virtual, 
> has at least that's "one" 
> theory and becoming somewhat 
> irreducible in parts (instead 
> of exploded into bits).
> 
> This is where at least these 
> days SR is local where light 
> can be flux, and there's quite 
> a bit more understanding of the 
> establishment of "running constants", 
> building them in, than running them out.

When's "the ultimate" revolution in physics?

It seems rather irreducible that it involves 
a complete mathematical theory.

This may come across as about revisiting 
Hubble, Heisenberg, Higgs and then also 
about Bayes and re-invigorating the kinetic 
from the thermodynamic so that there can 
be figured out parastatistics for QM then 
also effects in the global and total for 
the state of things and their change, 
physics is needing more and better 
mathematics of infinity and infinitesimals 
to revolutionize physics and not just 
turn it over to another equi-interpretable 
computational notational setting.

That would be so, right.

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

#467346

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2018-08-08 15:22 -0700
Message-ID	<646e6840-a0f9-4fd3-ab51-72d60609963e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467323

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 2:53:28 PM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> kenseto escrito 
> 
> 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? 
> 
> Because the Mainstream is clinging to “Their Aether-less Model” like a Baby on its Momma’s Teat. 
> 
> There is No where to go while hanging on to that anchor.

I agree. That’s why I formulated Model Mechanics with is based on a structured aether called Model Mechanics.

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

#467349

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-08 22:28 +0000
Message-ID	<pkfqqo$1269$3@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#467346

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 2:53:28 PM UTC-4, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
>> kenseto escrito 
>> 
>> 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? 
>> 
>> Because the Mainstream is clinging to “Their Aether-less Model” like a
>> Baby on its Momma’s Teat. 
>> 
>> There is No where to go while hanging on to that anchor.
> 
> I agree. That’s why I formulated Model Mechanics with is based on a
> structured aether called Model Mechanics.
> 

It would help your theory perhaps if you could write coherent sentences. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

Page 3 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

#467619

#467839

#467840

#467457

#467465

#467505

#467514

#467583

#467613

#467650

#467657

#467322

#467329 — Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution

#467345

#467348

#467323

#467327

#467454

#467346

#467349