Crime CERN Scientist: "Physics Built By Men - Not By Invitation" [He's Gone and Einstein's Right...Again.]

[esdoornblad]

Well people think that it's a study of genes. In reality, it's a study of environment. If people are forced into certain activities for long periods of time, then the frequency of what traits they have will adapt to do that job. If it's number-intensive, people who are good at that will be more successful, have more children etc. If it's running at high elevation in Kenya, those people will eventually have very strong cardiovascular systems.

It's not because they are white or black or ethnically Jewish. Those are just found alongside it at times, and racism tries to chalk it up to those. And people like NoDak ignorantly buy into that and think they're defending the intellect of their own race, which is why he's so desperately trying to argue.

I don't quite follow your reasoning. It is "genes" in a trivial and unavoidable sense because you could construct a predictive theory of (say) performance in physics based purely on genetic analysis. Of course environmental pressure ultimately influences genetic composition, so in that sense environment and genes are coupled.

 

[EGarrett]

I don't quite follow your reasoning. It is "genes" in a trivial and unavoidable sense because you could construct a predictive theory of (say) performance in physics based purely on genetic analysis. Of course environmental pressure ultimately influences genetic composition, so in that sense environment and genes are coupled.

Those traits are dictated by gene frequencies, but gene frequencies are dictated entirely by environment.

Think of it this way. All the supposed "racial differences" that we see in the United States could be reversed in one generation. If all the black people in Mensa had all the children, and all the white people in professional sports did. The "black skin" would then be associated with high intelligence, while the "white skin" would then produce the best athletes. So a theory that certain "races" are the smart or athletic ones would fall apart immediately, while a theory that environment produces those frequencies would hold as always. Since we changed the environment in regards to who mated with who.

Black skin and white skin (or Asian traits, Hispanic traits, whatever) just happen to be found alongside certain sets of capabilities that came from something else completely, and which could just as easily end up alongside the opposite skin if the environment changes. So we should talk about environment in regards to who has what trait, and not races.

 

[esdoornblad]

Those traits are dictated by gene frequencies, but gene frequencies are dictated entirely by environment.

Think of it this way. All the supposed "racial differences" that we see in the United States could be reversed in one generation. If all the black people in Mensa had all the children, and all the white people in professional sports did. The "black skin" would then be associated with high intelligence, while the "white skin" would then produce the best athletes. So a theory that certain "races" are the smart or athletic ones would fall apart immediately, while a theory that environment produces those frequencies would hold as always. Since we changed the environment in regards to who mated with who.

Black skin and white skin (or Asian traits, Hispanic traits, whatever) just happen to be found alongside certain sets of capabilities that came from something else completely, and which could just as easily end up alongside the opposite skin if the environment changes. So we should talk about environment in regards to who has what trait, and not races.

I do in fact follow your reasoning, but the 1-generation hypothesis above is speculation and problematic. Obviously, the number of generations required to alter IQ in a genetic subpopulation by "Mensa filtering" or "athlete filtering" is related to the heritability of IQ. A sort of counter-argument can be formed by considering the claim that we could engineer humans with IQs of 300 in 3 or 4 generations by allowing only the top 0.1% to mate. It's probably not true, because of some tendency to regress toward the mean, biological limitations, etc. For example, Freeman Dyson's son George has an IQ way below Freeman's. And the same is true in all cases of I can think of for kids of super-physicists. So the dynamics of IQ filtering experiments like the one you propose are non-trivial. Nevertheless, I agree heritability of IQ is real.

But the measurable fact of the matter is that IQs of genetic subpopulations do differ, enough so that the number of high-IQ individuals (the tail frequencies) is vastly different. The same goes for height. One does not normally speak of height as being influenced by environment (beyond the effects of malnutrition). Tall people have tall kids for genetic, not environmental, reasons. Smart people have smart kids for genetic, not environmental, reasons.

 

[EGarrett]

I do in fact follow your reasoning, but the 1-generation hypothesis above is speculation and problematic. Obviously, the number of generations required to alter IQ in a genetic subpopulation by "Mensa filtering" or "athlete filtering" is related to the heritability of IQ. A sort of counter-argument can be formed by considering the claim that we could engineer humans with IQs of 300 in 3 or 4 generations by allowing only the top 0.1% to mate. It's probably not true, because of some tendency to regress toward the mean, biological limitations, etc.

I'm not talking about an IQ of 300. I'm talking about an IQ average that is simply above the average for the population as a whole. If Albert Einstein and Marie Curie had 100 children, do you think they would tend to be smarter than average?

For example, Freeman Dyson's son George has an IQ way below Freeman's. And the same is true in all cases of I can think of for kids of super-physicists. So the dynamics of IQ filtering experiments like the one you propose are non-trivial. Nevertheless, I agree heritability of IQ is real.

Heritability is all that's necessary. The heightened tendency of children of people with certain traits to have those traits. This is of course a real phenomenon, because if it wasn't there would be no difference in various human geographic populations in the first place. Actually, there wouldn't even have been human evolution.

But the measurable fact of the matter is that IQs of genetic subpopulations do differ, enough so that the number of high-IQ individuals (the tail frequencies) is vastly different. The same goes for height. One does not normally speak of height as being influenced by environment (beyond the effects of malnutrition).

Actually, there are tribes in Africa that tend to be far higher in height than average, and of course Pygmy's are far below average height.

This is pretty trivial. When size is important for survival, due to hunting, fighting etc being a requirement, larger people will have more children. If it becomes a problem, due to temperature, smaller living space, lack of food etc., those populations (or animals or anything else) will tend to be shorter.

Tall people have tall kids for genetic, not environmental, reasons. Smart people have smart kids for genetic, not environmental, reasons.

I'm not saying to you that the environment reaches into the womb. The environment (and randomness) influences who mates with who, and that in turn dictates gene frequencies which then create traits.

 

[esdoornblad]

I'm not talking about an IQ of 300. I'm talking about an IQ average that is simply above the average for the population as a whole. If Albert Einstein and Marie Curie had 100 children, do you think they would tend to be smarter than average?


Heritability is all that's necessary. The heightened tendency of children of people with certain traits to have those traits. This is of course a real phenomenon, because if it wasn't there would be no difference in various human geographic populations in the first place. Actually, there wouldn't even have been human evolution.


Actually, there are tribes in Africa that tend to be far higher in height than average, and of course Pygmy's are far below average height.

This is pretty trivial. When size is important for survival, due to hunting, fighting etc being a requirement, larger people will have more children. If it becomes a problem, due to temperature, smaller living space, lack of food etc., those populations (or animals or anything else) will tend to be shorter.


I'm not saying to you that the environment reaches into the womb. The environment (and randomness) influences who mates with who, and that in turn dictates gene frequencies which then create traits.

Every educated person agrees that environment qua evolutionary pressure leads to evolution. Geographical isolation (also environment) has given rise to subpopulations with different IQs (and of course genders with different IQ variance). We agree on this. What I don't agree with is the curious attempt to trivialize the time and complexity of the evolutionary process. The gene-IQ link is immediate, clear and unequivocal. The environment-IQ link is obvious, but is a highly complex, long-time interaction.

Regarding the Einstein-Curie pairing, that is an interesting question. If a husband-wife pair with mean IQ 120 had 10 kids, and a second pair with mean IQ 130 had 10 kids, I would expect the IQ difference in the subpopulations to be less than 10 points even when averaged over many ensembles. The probability that a single IQ=130 pairing gives rise to smarter average kids than an IQ=120 pairing is probably very close to 50%. Maybe 55%. All pointless wild guessing.

 

[EGarrett]

What I don't agree with is the curious attempt to trivialize the time and complexity of the evolutionary process. The gene-IQ link is immediate, clear and unequivocal. The environment-IQ link is obvious, but is a highly complex, long-time interaction.

I'm talking about an environment-gene link. Environment controls gene frequencies which in turn dictate traits.

It seems like you're saying that gene frequencies can change in another way. What is it? I did some reviewing, and don't see any method by which allele (just using the word "gene" here for simplicity) frequencies change that isn't either ultimately through environment or random (mutation, genetic drift).

Regarding the Einstein-Curie pairing, that is an interesting question. If a husband-wife pair with mean IQ 120 had 10 kids, and a second pair with mean IQ 130 had 10 kids, I would expect the IQ difference in the subpopulations to be less than 10 points even when averaged over many ensembles. The probability that a single IQ=130 pairing gives rise to smarter average kids than an IQ=120 pairing is probably very close to 50%. Maybe 55%. All pointless wild guessing.

Just to address one more thing, you said that the point about changing the frequencies in one generation is curious and trivializing. I'm not sure how. If you had a population of 10 people, four of whom were 7-feet tall , and 6 of whom were average height with blonde hair, and you had the four people who were 7-feet tall have 10 children, and the other 6 who were normal have 3 children, the next generation would very likely be taller on average than the previous one.

Same thing, just on a larger scale.

 

[esdoornblad]

I'm talking about an environment-gene link. Environment controls gene frequencies which in turn dictate traits.

It seems like you're saying that gene frequencies can change in another way. What is it? I did some reviewing, and don't see any method by which allele (just using the word "gene" here for simplicity) frequencies change that isn't either ultimately through environment or random (mutation, genetic drift).


Just to address one more thing, you said that the point about changing the frequencies in one generation is curious and trivializing. I'm not sure how. If you had a population of 10 people, four of whom were 7-feet tall , and 6 of whom were average height with blonde hair, and you had the four people who were 7-feet tall have 10 children, and the other 6 who were normal have 3 children, the next generation would very likely be taller on average than the previous one.

Same thing, just on a larger scale.

This iteration is no longer converging. Rather than repeat myself, I'm done.

 

[EGarrett]

This iteration is no longer converging. Rather than repeat myself, I'm done.

I think my point was pretty clear. All the best to you.

 

[NoDak]

I listed 800 years because that was the time period in which the people in question were barred from participating in non-bank and money-changing work, not because it was a specific time frame in the origin of physics, doofus.

And the most fundamental aspects of two of them were discovered by Jewish people, Einstein and Gell-Mann. The third was an application of a theory by Wolfgang Pauli, Jewish.

That's 75%. I could also credit Special Relativity for fixing electromagnetism and make it 4 for 4.

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. 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?

But those conclusions only matter to what we do if they're the methods we still use. Anything that is replaced, improved, or rendered superfluous by Einstein's theories doesn't matter to the question. Since Einstein's work is the basis of astro physics today.

And Newton's theories were incomplete and improved by Einstein's work (Precession of Mercury, Bending of light etc). We only use Newton's laws when the forces in question aren't powerful enough to require the most exact tool, but you can derive Newton's work from Einstein's. You cannot do the reverse.

Einstein's work = More fundamental.

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.

...and we addressed that in the very beginning.

BTW, trying to list obsolete theories isn't going to establish anything. I knew you wouldn't understand the statement to begin with.

If they were obsolete, they wouldn't still be taught much less applicable to the physical world to the extent they are. 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.

Nope. Planck was just guessing. Einstein actually gave it a basis. And of course, Neils Bohr was Jewish, and even the actual term "quantum mechanics" was coined by more of those darn JEWS. They sure show up a lot.

Heisenberg as well.

Firstly, quoting numbers that you read elsewhere doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look not smart. Because you're just repeating without demonstrating understanding of the issue.

Secondly, in line with your lack of understanding, you're demonstrating a great example of the pseudo-intelligent fallacy of mistaking precision for accuracy.

You think that by listing some very specific numbers in scientific notation, you're demonstrating an exact understanding of the situation, but you're actually not even shooting at the right target.

A person who calculates the odds of a result at 47.828375% is going to lose long term to someone who just says 50/50, if the actual odds are 49.611315%. In fact, the other person can just flip a coin and will beat you long term if you're betting on the result.

And in this case, the target you missed is in what theories are actually more fundamental to physics. Not Planck's constant, dimwit.

Spoiler Alert: I deal with pseudo-intelligent people all the time. They think that using jargon, long unoriginal citations, or pages of calculations will impress people. It doesn't and when I see that type of signaling-heavy, understanding-light, inefficient response, I actually smell blood. Iknow that the person is actually weak and I like to call them out. Guess where you fit in?

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. 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.

Awards and trophies are handed out based on psychological processes that are majority unrelated to the actual merit of the thing in question or how it relates to the category.

You know nothing about that whatsoever. But to give you an easy example, General Relativity, for example, DID NOT RECEIVE a Nobel Prize. But yet there's nothing more fundamental to astrophysics than that. Likewise, Einstein himself played a huge role in the creation of quantum mechanics, including guys like Bohr who you can put right alongside Heisenberg.

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. 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.

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, although they're certainly exceptional and overrepresented.

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.

I actually smell blood.

Change your Kotex?

 

[EGarrett]

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.

Heisenberg as well.

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.

Change your Kotex?

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.

 

[NoDak]

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.

That's quite a different thing from Jewish men being responsible for the majority of advancements in physics though, isn't it? Of course, that's wrong but it's what you claimed when you came flying into the thread talking about race and ethnicity when nobody was even on that angle through six pages worth of discussion that had plenty of female scientists most people have probably never heard getting their due on this karate forum.

That's RIGHT.

Yeeeeeah, I get it!

So we were almost talking about different things.

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 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.

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.

Why are you SHOUTING?

Yeah, we know Newtonian Mechanics it isn't sufficient on astrophysical or cosmological scales but it is good enough for the majority of what we encounter in everyday life and has myriad uses, like just about every calculation which involves using force to create movement. It's perfectly valid within approximation and why it stood up to experiment for centuries. General Relativity is also incorrect and an approximation itself, that's how science works.

You sidestepped the point about Faraday, Maxwell and electromagnetic induction too. You previously quoted material on this in particular as obsolete. The same as above holds for Maxwell's Equations, the only thing "obsolete" is the conceptual basis of an ether. They're perfectly good at describing how electric and magnetic fields propagate, interact, and are influenced by objects. That's why they still have numerous uses in electrical engineering, communications technology and optics.

Not only are classical mechanics and electrodynamics the most fundamental (core, base) in terms of contribution - considering they, you know, established the science of physics - they're virtually the basis for the development of the modern world itself. It would be pretty shitty without practical electricity and stuff, don't you think?

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.

Nobody is denying this, least of all me. Ever since you've been telling me repeatedly that GR is the basis of astrophysics for some reason. On a sort of unrelated note, astrophysical research (including if not especially of an observational variety) is definitive luxury science and we're privileged to have the capital to conduct it on the level the US does. That could almost go for basic research on the whole though compared to many other countries.

Of course, that isn't to dismiss the significance or brilliance of it because the implications and solutions of the EFE basically opened up the whole of modern theoretical astrophysics and cosmology which entail not only how mass/energy warp spacetime, but how mass, energy, momentum and pressure are distributed throughout the Universe.

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?

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?

We actually end up at Einstein, Heisenberg and Schrödinger. There were two different mathematically equivalent iterations of quantum mechanics when it was established: matrix mechanics and wave mechanics. Which equation is it that describes how the change of a particle’s wavefunction can be calculated from its movement and the interactions on it? How do you think it is that QM is able to convey nature if not through the wavefunction used in Schrödinger's equation to describe fundamental forces and subatomic particles? Through "guys like Bohr"?

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.

So how are we arriving at quantum mechanics without Planck's work on black body radiation - a problem that persisted for decades - and the quantum hypothesis to begin with? We don't. How is it not obvious why being able to calculate the energy of photons - and where Planck's constant plays a central role in doing so - is also quite relevant to the development of the theory on the whole?

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.

I cited matrix mechanics (for which he did win) although he's probably even better known for the Uncertainty Principle today, not only because it's a fundamental cornerstone of QM but for reasons already addressed. The better point here would've been that Max Born damn well deserved to share that with him. What makes you think I didn't know Einstein didn't win specifically for GR? There were legitimate reasons he wouldn't of, although IIRC it was also for "contributions to theoretical physics" - the understatement of the century.

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

You're the one who came into the thread talking about white guys and I reckon quite intentionally at that even if the motivation was apparently about allele frequencies and the environment. In any case, an intellectual giant such as yourself should've been able to immediately recognize @ultramanhyata was being facetious and I don't care why you brought it up, I took issue with one statement in particular. Me? I'm unapologetically content but "pride" is nonsensical and dangerous.

Yup, and you poked a tiger and are getting mauled now. Good job.

Maybe I'm masochistic? Only managed a semi so far though. :-/

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.

Can you be my psychologist, daddy?

Have a nice day.

Aye, likewise.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Well this got weird.

 

[NoDak]

Well this got weird.

I don't understand people who think they can enter a thread about a science and smear shit all over the walls disparaging Sir Isaac Newton. You guys love some Neil Tyson, right? He was on point here:

"Using freshly conceived methods and tools of inquiry in his 1687 publication of Principia Mathematica, Isaac Newton showed that the universe is knowable. But more importantly, he showed that the universe is predictable. We owe modern civilization to this towering genius of science."

Now, what's really weird is the claim that the discovery and identification of the first subatomic particle isn't fundamental to quantum mechanics. As an aside, chemistry just got sent back to 1896. The discovery of the atomic nucleus wasn't fundamental? So what exactly does that leave guys like Bohr doing? Holding their dick, that's what. What the fuck.

Do you know what "cool" is, brah? You can measure it, right?

 

[MadSquabbles500]

 

[MadSquabbles500]

But you took it very seriously very quickly. That's why people shouldn't throw out "jokes" like that.


Jews were banned from working at anything but moneychanging for over 800 years, pretty much all of medieval times and the mid-2nd millennium.

Once that ended and they made up that lag they (specifically Ashkenazi Jewish people) took over quickly and have dominated physics ever since. Einstein, Feynman, Von Neumann, Bohr, Oppenheimer etc.

(NOTE: This is not "BECAUSE they are Jewish," or because they have some "inherently superior racial genes," which is the whole point, you have to study history to see what actually causes gene frequencies, and it ain't race or skin color)


Again, Jews were banned from doing anything but banking for 800 years, including the development of almost that entire field. But this thread is about physics.

The most important aspect that allows anyone, or any race, or any country to delve into and be successful in things esoteric back in those days, and theoretical as physics is Money.

When you have money, you dont have to worry about how to get next meal, and that gives you the time to focus on things like nuclear physics or something that aint going to make you money unless you come out something spectacular.

When you have money, you pay people to teach you all the knowledge humans know collectively, and start from there, instead of starting at the bottom. Its easier to discover new things that way.

When you have money you can pay to do all the trial and error experiments you need to actually find anything. That is very expensive.

If Jews were doing banking, they ought to have plenty of money. They can have their own independent science division. Or were the Jews banned from doing science by themselves altogether and not just from working with gentiles scientists ? Were they even allowed to read publications by gentile scientists, or learn from them? Were they even allowed to imagine things like Atoms, and Nuclei?

 

[7437]

 

[NoDak]

I'd rob you at fist point.

Fritz Haber did this.

The early 20th century chemist who discovered the process for synthesizing ammonia from nitrogen in the air, the basis of synthetic fertilizer which forever revolutionized agriculture production throughout the world and feeds almost 50% of the global population today. That's a lot of billions of people who'd be starving to death, or rather: wouldn't otherwise exist at all.

This is the most significant 'event' of the 20th century IMO, and among the most significant in human history for that matter so it's kind of interesting because he often doesn't appear on such lists of historical figures. A bad motherfucker, he was.

Haber's also the father of modern chemical warfare and was the head of Germany's department for it during World War I, with his work directly leading to over a million deaths. He never expressed any guilt nor shame in the aftermath but was actually proud of his service stating, "During peace time a scientist belongs to the world, but during war time he belongs to his country."

He died in self imposed exile after falling ill only a year after the Nazis came to power in Germany. It's probable that given his eminence and earlier service to the country he could've held his numerous high ranking posts within the scientific institutions he was part of (Otto Heinrich Warburg did), but he opted not to.

I used to think it was always men too especially back during the early years of nuclear physics. But then you mention that Otto Hahn fella in the other thread.

A young Otto Hahn was actually part of Haber's chemical weapons unit, though he had very strong personal objects to what was going on, so it's not surprising...

He served as the last President of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (KWG) in 1946 and as the founding President of the Max Planck Society (MPG) from 1948 to 1960. Considered by many to be a model for scholarly excellence and personal integrity,[4] he became one of the most influential and respected citizens of the new postwar country West Germany.

Hahn was an opponent of national socialism and Jewish persecution by the Nazi Party. Albert Einstein (who was born six days after him) wrote that Hahn was "one of the very few who stood upright and did the best he could in these years of evil".[5] After World War II,[4] Hahn became a passionate campaigner against the use of nuclear energy as a weapon.

 

[MicroBrew]

Isaac Newton was Jewish ???

 

[NoDak]

Isaac Newton was Jewish ???

Start here:

http://forums.sherdog.com/posts/145417681/

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Well this got weird.

All I got was something about Isaac Newton being a crap scientist, Einstein fucking Marie Curie and blacks being bred into jews.