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

Groups > sci.physics > #512888 > unrolled thread

How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 20:05 -0500
    Re: How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-11 22:13 -0500
      Re: How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-12 05:10 +0000
        Re: How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:45 +0200
          Re: How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-12 21:11 +0000
            Re: How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 00:04 +0200
              Re: How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-12 23:19 +0000
                Re: How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 01:37 +0200
                Re: How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-12 23:47 +0000
                  Re: How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-13 01:11 +0000
                    Re: How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-13 02:30 +0000
            Re: How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 01:10 +0200
        Re: How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-12 12:07 -0500
      Re: How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-08-12 18:46 -0700
        Re: How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-13 02:32 +0000
          Re: How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-08-13 13:59 -0700
            Re: How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-13 22:58 +0000
              Re: How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-14 01:13 +0000
                Re: How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-14 01:56 +0000

#512888 — How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli

How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli
> http://phys.org/news/2015-08-science-lost-greatest-minds-trenches.html

> August 10, 1915. The Gallipoli sun beats down on the back of a
> Turkish sharpshooter. He is patient and used to the discomfort. He
> wipes the sweat from his eyes and peers back down the sight of his
> rifle, sweeping back and forth across the enemy lines. He's hoping to
> spot a target worth taking a shot at as each muzzle flash risks
> giving his position away.

> His sight settles on the shoulder pip of a second lieutenant. The
> target bends down out of sight, then reappears, now with a phone at
> his ear. He stands still as he sends his dispatch. It's an easy shot
> for the sniper. He squeezes the trigger and yet another young man
> dies.

> The Turkish soldier settles down in his hole, pleased with his
> marksmanship. He wonders if he's made a significant difference to the
> war effort (probably not).

> However, he may well have caused the single most costly death of the
> entire war. His victim, now lying in a trench on a peninsula in
> Turkey, is 27-year-old Henry Moseley. The loss to science is
> incalculable.

> Hidden patterns

> Despite his young age, Moseley had already made a stunning
> contribution to chemistry and physics. It is thanks to him that that
> the periodic table looks the way it does today.

> He had graduated from Oxford just five years before his death.
> Immediately after graduating he was employed as a teaching assistant
> by the great physicist Ernest Rutherford in Manchester. Moseley hated
> it, describing his duties as "teaching elements to idiots" and his
> students as "mostly stupid". His real passion was research, so in his
> spare time he used his energies to set up his experiments.

> Moseley was working in an era of physics that was concerned with the
> power of X-rays. The Braggs, a father-son team working in Leeds, were
> developing X-ray crystallography. This allowed science to probe the
> atomic structure of molecules.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#512909

On 8/11/2015 8:05 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli
>> http://phys.org/news/2015-08-science-lost-greatest-minds-trenches.html
>


<snip made up fiction crap by FAT ASS INA CUBE @ phys.org>

it is the fault of the British for not protecting him, keeping him home, 
and the fault of the British for stupidity in getting most of their army 
killed at Gallipoli.


>
>> Moseley was working in an era of physics that was concerned with the
>> power of X-rays. The Braggs, a father-son team working in Leeds, were
>> developing X-ray crystallography. This allowed science to probe the
>> atomic structure of molecules.
>
>

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

#512916

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 22:13:25 -0500, gilber34 wrote:

> 
> it is the fault of the British for not protecting him, keeping him home,
>

Your assumption is that scientists are "better" than ordinary people
or soldiers and that they deserve special treatment.  This in an aristocratic
sentiment and has no place in a democratic society.

The article mentions that in the next war scientists were used differently.
By that time, however, the nature of warfare changed in that it had become
dependent on engineering and technology.  Scientists could be valuable to the
war effort outside of the trenches.  But that was not so true during WWI.

If scientists should be spared then what about poets, writers, musicians, or
philosophers?  These people could not contribute to the technology of war but
they could benefit society greatly through their non-scientific works.  Maybe
we should also protect these non-scientists who have good minds.

In a democracy no one merits special status or protection.  In times of national
crisis all are expected to serve regardless of their position or potential

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

#512922

Dne 12/08/2015 v 07:10 Fabian Russell napsal(a):
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 22:13:25 -0500, gilber34 wrote:
> 
>>
>> it is the fault of the British for not protecting him, keeping him home,
>>
> 
> Your assumption is that scientists are "better" than ordinary people
> or soldiers and that they deserve special treatment.  This in an aristocratic
> sentiment and has no place in a democratic society.

They deserve special treatment,
but not because they are better.

It is because of their skills, similar as technicians,
as these skills are for the army limited resources.
The army cannot afford to waste these resources at posts
that can be accomplished by anybody.

It was implemented in a communist army of Warsaw pact,
and lead to disaster, often placing soldiers
to posts they did not fit to.

Typically,
someone not cooking was made a military cook,
while a cook was made an infantryman or a tankist.
> 
> The article mentions that in the next war scientists were used differently.
> By that time, however, the nature of warfare changed in that it had become
> dependent on engineering and technology.  Scientists could be valuable to the
> war effort outside of the trenches.  But that was not so true during WWI.

This I can agree. WW I was merely a flash mill.
> 
> If scientists should be spared then what about poets, writers, musicians, or
> philosophers?  These people could not contribute to the technology of war but
> they could benefit society greatly through their non-scientific works.  Maybe
> we should also protect these non-scientists who have good minds.

War is loss for everybody but those who profit on it.
Unfortunately,  engineer or mathematician is easier to be involved in
important but safe military activities than writer or painter.
> 
> In a democracy no one merits special status or protection.  In times of national
> crisis all are expected to serve regardless of their position or potential
> 

Yes, but the question is, where they should serve ?

Millions of men can by an infantryman,
but just hundreds can be war airplane designers.

Feynman, before Manhattan project,
helped to design some advanced aiming device for artillery.
Putting him into a sherman tank, killing him,
would serve less even for military.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

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

#513070

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:45:56 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

> 
> They deserve special treatment,
> but not because they are better.
> 
> It is because of their skills,
>

No way.  Everybody must serve on the front lines, as infantry, regardless
of their skills or anything else.

An engineer or scientist could serve half of his obligation in the trenches,
facing hostile fire and risking death, and the other half in the laboratory.
The same would apply for everyone else.

It's the only fair method.  All should have an equal chance of life or death.

>
> Unfortunately,  engineer or mathematician is easier to be involved in
> important but safe military activities than writer or painter.
>

Have you ever heard of "PsyOps", or psychological operations/warfare?

Propaganda has always been used during war alongside advanced technology.
Writers and painters can be essential for producing effective propaganda.

In fact, during WWII, many Hollywood film directors were put to work
producing propaganda films, e.g. Frank capra's "Why We Fight."

But talent should not confer a protected status.  As I mentioned, they
can serve half in the lab/studio and half on the battlefield.


> 
> Millions of men can by an infantryman,
> but just hundreds can be war airplane designers.
>

Among those millions are college students who *could* one day become
productive scientists or artists.  Those millions could produce children
that will have special talents.  Yet the sacrifice of those millions
will sacrifice that potential as well.

The point is who can say what will be.  All should serve.

> 
> Feynman, before Manhattan project,
> helped to design some advanced aiming device for artillery.
>

Feynman, like all his peers, should have been made to serve on
the battlefield in addition to his scientific work.

He is not Prince Feynman, Lord Feynman, or His Majesty Feynman.
He's just another average "Joe."

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

#513098

Dne 12/08/2015 v 23:11 Fabian Russell napsal(a):
> 
> No way.  Everybody must serve on the front lines, as infantry, regardless
> of their skills or anything else.
> 
> An engineer or scientist could serve half of his obligation in the trenches,
> facing hostile fire and risking death, and the other half in the laboratory.
> The same would apply for everyone else.
> 
> It's the only fair method.  All should have an equal chance of life or death.


You cannot mean that seriously.
The armies have different troops since ancient times.

> 
> Have you ever heard of "PsyOps", or psychological operations/warfare?

Of course I did.
But, "Everybody must serve on the front lines, as infantry" .
> 
>>
>> Millions of men can by an infantryman,
>> but just hundreds can be war airplane designers.
>>
> 
> Among those millions are college students who *could* one day become
> productive scientists or artists.  Those millions could produce children
> that will have special talents.  Yet the sacrifice of those millions
> will sacrifice that potential as well.
> 
> The point is who can say what will be.  All should serve.

It is not about future potentials,
but how they can be used in war time.
> 
>>
>> Feynman, before Manhattan project,
>> helped to design some advanced aiming device for artillery.
>>
> 
> Feynman, like all his peers, should have been made to serve on
> the battlefield in addition to his scientific work.

Funny idea. Aside of role conflict, somebody would have to do his work,
while he is in trenches.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

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

#513123

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:04:27 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

> 
> You cannot mean that seriously.
> The armies have different troops since ancient times.
> 
> But, "Everybody must serve on the front lines, as infantry" .
>

I am very serious.

Society has changed considerably since ancient times except for
the fact that people still assume the role of pawns.

If all were required to serve, then maybe, finally, people would
rise up and refuse to bow to the whims of the small cliques that
rule nations.

In communist countries it is quite true that only a small elite
determines the destiny of hundreds of millions.  It is essentially
the same, although cloaked by a thin veil of egalitarian principles,
within democratic societies.

If my government comes to me and demands my service, I will tell
them to kiss my ass.  If everyone did the same, then all war would
come to an end.

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

#513124

Dne 13/08/2015 v 01:19 Fabian Russell napsal(a):

> 
> If my government comes to me and demands my service, I will tell
> them to kiss my ass.  If everyone did the same, then all war would
> come to an end.
> 

This is rather naive,
as less and less wars start by government call.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

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

#513134

Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:04:27 +0200, Poutnik wrote:
> 
>> 
>> You cannot mean that seriously.
>> The armies have different troops since ancient times.
>> 
>> But, "Everybody must serve on the front lines, as infantry" .
>>
> 
> I am very serious.

No clue of modern warfare.

> Society has changed considerably since ancient times except for
> the fact that people still assume the role of pawns.

Right, there are no revolutions anywhere by the "pawns".

> If all were required to serve, then maybe, finally, people would
> rise up and refuse to bow to the whims of the small cliques that
> rule nations.

No modern military needs all to serve.

Less than a third of a modern military are combat troops.

> In communist countries it is quite true that only a small elite
> determines the destiny of hundreds of millions.  It is essentially
> the same, although cloaked by a thin veil of egalitarian principles,
> within democratic societies.
> 
> If my government comes to me and demands my service, I will tell
> them to kiss my ass.  If everyone did the same, then all war would
> come to an end.

A very childish dream.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#513147

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:47:39 +0000, jimp wrote:


> 
> Right, there are no revolutions anywhere by the "pawns".
> 

Are you denying the fact that, due to the whims of a very
small number of communist paranoiacs, for at least fifty years
the world was locked in a stalemate called the Cold War that
easily could have led to a nuclear confrontation resulting
in tens of millions of casualties?

I hope not.

The same scenario, fueled by the widespread delusion known
as "nationalism," was responsible for all past major conflicts.


> 
> Less than a third of a modern military are combat troops.
> 

Not any more.  Non-combat troops are being eliminated in favor
of civilian contractors.  The army is now, or at least very soon
will be, 100% "killers."

But this is not really the main point.

>> 
>> If my government comes to me and demands my service, I will tell
>> them to kiss my ass.  If everyone did the same, then all war would
>> come to an end.
> 
> A very childish dream.
>

No, it certainly is not.  The government exists to serve me, and not
vice versa.  As soon as everybody begins to strongly assert this
ideal then we will have a stable world.

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

#513164

Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:47:39 +0000, jimp wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> Right, there are no revolutions anywhere by the "pawns".
>> 
> 
> Are you denying the fact that, due to the whims of a very
> small number of communist paranoiacs, for at least fifty years
> the world was locked in a stalemate called the Cold War that
> easily could have led to a nuclear confrontation resulting
> in tens of millions of casualties?
> 
> I hope not.

And what was it that ended those communist regimes?

> The same scenario, fueled by the widespread delusion known
> as "nationalism," was responsible for all past major conflicts.

Sure by a narrow definition of "nationalism" and ignoring religon.

>> Less than a third of a modern military are combat troops.
>> 
> 
> Not any more.  Non-combat troops are being eliminated in favor
> of civilian contractors.  The army is now, or at least very soon
> will be, 100% "killers."

Utter nonsense; the percentage of support troops is constantly growing
as warfare becomes more technological.

> But this is not really the main point.
> 
>>> 
>>> If my government comes to me and demands my service, I will tell
>>> them to kiss my ass.  If everyone did the same, then all war would
>>> come to an end.
>> 
>> A very childish dream.
>>
> 
> No, it certainly is not.  The government exists to serve me, and not
> vice versa.  As soon as everybody begins to strongly assert this
> ideal then we will have a stable world.

Yes, it certainly is for a great number of reasons.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#513120

Dne 12/08/2015 v 23:11 Fabian Russell napsal(a):
> 
> No way.  Everybody must serve on the front lines, as infantry, regardless
> of their skills or anything else.
> 
> An engineer or scientist could serve half of his obligation in the trenches,
> facing hostile fire and risking death, and the other half in the laboratory.
> The same would apply for everyone else.
> 
> It's the only fair method.  All should have an equal chance of life or death.
> 
Technically impossible, even if all army was nothing but infantry.
And generally, it would increase risk of death for everybody.

Army could never efficiently work like that.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

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

#513028

On 8/12/2015 12:10 AM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 22:13:25 -0500, gilber34 wrote:
>
>>
>> it is the fault of the British for not protecting him, keeping him home,
>>
>
> Your assumption is that scientists are "better" than ordinary people
> or soldiers and that they deserve special treatment.  This in an aristocratic
> sentiment and has no place in a democratic society.

you mean socialist society

>
> The article mentions that in the next war scientists were used differently.
> By that time, however, the nature of warfare changed in that it had become
> dependent on engineering and technology.  Scientists could be valuable to the
> war effort outside of the trenches.  But that was not so true during WWI.
>
> If scientists should be spared then what about poets, writers, musicians, or
> philosophers?

  they only take up space and resources providing nothing
 >
>These people could not contribute to the technology of war but
> they could benefit society greatly through their non-scientific works.  Maybe
> we should also protect these non-scientists who have good minds.

fodder for cannons


>
> In a democracy no one merits special status or protection.  In times of national
> crisis all are expected to serve regardless of their position or potential
>

you mean socialism not democracy

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

#513149

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:13:34 PM UTC-7, gilber34 wrote:
> On 8/11/2015 8:05 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli
> >> http://phys.org/news/2015-08-science-lost-greatest-minds-trenches.html
> >
> 
> 
> <snip made up fiction crap by FAT ASS INA CUBE @ phys.org>
> 
> it is the fault of the British for not protecting him, keeping him home, 
> and the fault of the British for stupidity in getting most of their army 
> killed at Gallipoli.


It is true that the British were not inelligent enough to protect their best minds from exposure to battle.  It is not that scientists are better than anyone else, it is only that putting them to better use in the war effort is the smartest thing to do.

Double-A

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

#513175

Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:13:34 PM UTC-7, gilber34 wrote:
>> On 8/11/2015 8:05 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> > How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli
>> >> http://phys.org/news/2015-08-science-lost-greatest-minds-trenches.html
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> <snip made up fiction crap by FAT ASS INA CUBE @ phys.org>
>> 
>> it is the fault of the British for not protecting him, keeping him home, 
>> and the fault of the British for stupidity in getting most of their army 
>> killed at Gallipoli.
> 
> 
> It is true that the British were not inelligent enough to protect their best minds from exposure to battle.  It is not that scientists are better than anyone else, it is only that putting them to better use in the war effort is the smartest thing to do.
> 
> Double-A

At the time of WWI, the military had little use for physicists.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#513360

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 8:01:06 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:13:34 PM UTC-7, gilber34 wrote:
> >> On 8/11/2015 8:05 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> > How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli
> >> >> http://phys.org/news/2015-08-science-lost-greatest-minds-trenches.html
> >> >
> >> 
> >> 
> >> <snip made up fiction crap by FAT ASS INA CUBE @ phys.org>
> >> 
> >> it is the fault of the British for not protecting him, keeping him home, 
> >> and the fault of the British for stupidity in getting most of their army 
> >> killed at Gallipoli.
> > 
> > 
> > It is true that the British were not inelligent enough to protect their best minds from exposure to battle.  It is not that scientists are better than anyone else, it is only that putting them to better use in the war effort is the smartest thing to do.
> > 
> > Double-A
> 
> At the time of WWI, the military had little use for physicists.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino


The Germans in WWI made good use of their chemist Fritz Haber who both invented the fixing of nitrogen from the atmosphere to make explosive, and invented poison gas warefare!

Double-A

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

#513408

Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 8:01:06 PM UTC-7, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 8:13:34 PM UTC-7, gilber34 wrote:
>> >> On 8/11/2015 8:05 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> >> > How science lost one of its greatest minds in the trenches of Gallipoli
>> >> >> http://phys.org/news/2015-08-science-lost-greatest-minds-trenches.html
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> <snip made up fiction crap by FAT ASS INA CUBE @ phys.org>
>> >> 
>> >> it is the fault of the British for not protecting him, keeping him home, 
>> >> and the fault of the British for stupidity in getting most of their army 
>> >> killed at Gallipoli.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > It is true that the British were not inelligent enough to protect their best minds from exposure to battle.  It is not that scientists are better than anyone else, it is only that putting them to better use in the war effort is the smartest thing to do.
>> > 
>> > Double-A
>> 
>> At the time of WWI, the military had little use for physicists.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jim Pennino
> 
> 
> The Germans in WWI made good use of their chemist Fritz Haber who both invented the fixing of nitrogen from the atmosphere to make explosive, and invented poison gas warefare!
> 
> Double-A

Notice it was a chemist and not a physicist who came up with something
usefull to the Germans.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#513431

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:58:26 +0000, jimp wrote:

> 
> Notice it was a chemist and not a physicist who came up with something
> usefull to the Germans.
>

There's a good reason for that.  The chemical industry in Europe and
especially in Germany was very well developed during the latter 19th
century due to the need for synthetic dyes and other stuff derived
from coal tar.  The industries that would support physics, such as
the aeronautical and electronic, were not yet in existence when WWI
happened.

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

#513440

Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:58:26 +0000, jimp wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Notice it was a chemist and not a physicist who came up with something
>> usefull to the Germans.
>>
> 
> There's a good reason for that.  The chemical industry in Europe and
> especially in Germany was very well developed during the latter 19th
> century due to the need for synthetic dyes and other stuff derived
> from coal tar.  The industries that would support physics, such as
> the aeronautical and electronic, were not yet in existence when WWI
> happened.

Neither the aeronautical nor the electronic industries have ever had
much use for physicists and most physicists not in academia don't
work as physicists.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web