The specific time frame 'in the origin of physics' is the only time frame relevant to a discussion about the most significant contributions to physics.
Actually, the amount of time that Jews were banned from working in fields other than moneychanging IS relevant to a discussion of when Jews show up in the history of scientific research.
If we're talking about why Bill was late to the party, and I say Bill was heldover for 4 hours at the airport, that doesn't mean the party began exactly 4 hours ago. That just happens to be the time frame where he couldn't do anything that would get him ready to be there on time.
The fact that you're struggling on points like this isn't looking good for you.
In this context, fundamental was meant as informing a necessary base or core, not in the sense of quarks and leptons as the constituents of matter. Is that what you think I don't understand?
That's RIGHT. Fundamental does mean informing a necessary base. And the MOST accurate theories are the MOST fundamental, because they're the ones used as the base of physics.
So now we start to see why General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the most fundamental theories.
The methods to do what, exactly? On what kind of scale? GR certainly encompasses a far larger framework but is often 'superfluous' itself when you can just use Newtonian Mechanics to get exactly the same answers, like for the vast majority of kinematic phenomena that will ever occur in everyday life. NASA still uses Newton's physics for most space missions. The Faraday-Maxwell Equation is still the fundamental operating principle for practical electric power.
The methods to understand gravity, the motions of planets, the behavior of time and space, and make accurate predictions about them. You know, astrophysics.
After that, good job repeating something that was already addressed. Newton's theories are the equivalent of crayon as compared to a laser printer. You can do the job of the crayon with a laser printer, you CANNOT do the job of the laser printer with crayon. That is why the LASER PRINTER, in this case general relativity, is more NECESSARY (i.e. part of the necessary fundamental base), than CRAYON.
If they were obsolete, they wouldn't still be taught much less applicable to the physical world to the extent they are.
Nope, looks like you don't understand teaching either. Fortunately, we just used a convenient analogy. Why do they give young children crayon instead of laser printers to work with? Because crayon is EASIER for them. It would take way too long to try to teach them to build or even operate their own laser printer, and in many cases they won't even understand what you're saying.
But, again, you can derive the same results as Newton from Einstein's work, but you cannot do the reverse. Einstein's work is NEEDED to do proper astrophysical predictions and research. Newton's isn't. And that's the point.
It isn't worth wasting any more characters in exchange for vague, condescending dismissals and unwarranted personal insults.
Too serious, and Feynman as POTUS would be a riot partially for the reasons you mentioned.
I think you just don't understand the difference between intelligence and applicable skill. BTW, there's nothing vague about what I've been explaining to you.
Okay, so we've got Einstein for General Relativity, and Bohr and Heisenberg for Quantum Mechanics.
That's 2-out-of-3. Can you figure out whether that's a majority?
It's actually just known from old chemistry course work on energy, frequency and wavelengths. That you think it was brought up as a "pseudo-intelligent fallacy of mistaking precision for accuracy" is kind of humorous considering how simple those problems are to solve and there weren't any calculations in that post.
Oh no, the number you listed is
completely irrelevant to the discussion. Because you don't even understand that a theory that makes more accurate predictions and allows you to derive earlier models is MORE fundamental.
You wasting your time trying to copy/paste Planck's Constant in a failed attempt to look intelligent (while actually showing me your weakness) is exactly what I said. Pseudo-intelligent. FALSE intelligence. And since you missed the point entirely, it's mistaking precision for accuracy. A concept that ACTUAL smart people understand, and is where weak minds like yours trip up and get owned.
It was brought up merely in addition to the origin story of Planck arriving at quantum theory, for which he is the founder. He wasn't "guessing" about anything, although he certainly didn't immediately grasp the profound implications it would have.
Good job answering your own dumb claim with that last sentence. To do the actual calculations for quantum or astrophysics, you need Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Those are the real best formal theories currently in physics.
Yeah, I know who Niels Bohr is. There's also guys like JJ Thomson who discovered the electron, guys like Ernest Rutherford whose lab showed that the mass of atoms is concentrated in a small positively charged nucleus, guys like James Chadwick who discovered the neutron which directly led to the suggestion of the strong nuclear force.
Those are contributions, but they're not
fundamental ones. What theories do you actually NEED to make the best possible predictions? And that's when we end up back at Einstein, Bohr and Heisenberg. 2/3 of which are...guess what?
The Nobel Prize itself is pretty superficial, but what it was awarded for in those instances, not so much. Guys like Planck, Heisenberg and Schrödinger weren't Jewish. Nor were Paul Dirac, Louis de Broglie or Pascual Jordan for that matter.
So you cite the Nobel Prize as evidence of Heisenberg's contribution, then when reminded that General Relativity did NOT win one, you say nevermind?
I guess your criteria count except when they don't.
Secondly, it's not just the Nobel Prize that is "pretty superficial." The psychological processes that cause that infect EVERY award. You have no idea about that.
Once again, the problem here is that you're operating on the assumption that I'm some kind of anti-Semite when it wasn't anything more than disagreeing with what I felt was a patently false statement about the history of physics,
Yup, and you poked a tiger and are getting mauled now. Good job.
although they're certainly exceptional and overrepresented.
Yup, and actually, that in and of itself ends the argument. Given time and population, they are INCREDIBLY over-represented. Much moreso than those "European white guys" you yourself tried to crow about and label. Which indicates that the individual level of ability there is FAR, FAR higher.
And I know it hurts your feelings because you, foolishly, have subconscious associations with racial pride, which is why you so desperately tried to jump in without even asking why I cited that example in the first place.
Einstein deserved more than one Nobel Prize but that's actually a poor example because winning for explaining the photoelectric effect essentially amounts to identifying the force carrier of electromagnetism - as gluons are for the strong interaction, W&Z bosons for the weak - which as I mentioned earlier ITT would seem to be incredibly underappreciated by the general public. The amount of experimental evidence for GR at that time was weak, and a lot of it wasn't accrued until after his death.
It's fun to see you trying to walk back your own use of the Nobel Prize as criteria for a contribution.
Also fun to see you desperately trying to list irrelevant information as a way to save your ego.
Precision isn't accuracy, doofus.
No jokes. When I see your line of behavior, trying to list totally irrelevant things as a way to demonstrate specificity of knowledge, then getting embarrassed by broad things like being reminded that Einstein didn't win the Nobel Prize, I know
exactly what you are, and how easily I can bat people like you around.
No little one-liners. Just cold reality.
Oh also, I like the way you changed the thread title. You were so proud of your first little reply.
Now it's not working out so well for you, is it? I'm even being nice and letting you off the hook about some of the things you said, like the word "cool" which I know is part of psychological phenomena that you don't understand, because it would be the equivalent of kicking a puppy. Have a nice day.