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

[NoDak]

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

Image of Isaac Newton:

Reality of Isaac Newton:

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Non-jews responsible for quantum mechanics:
Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Planck, Millikan, Aspect.
Aspect also discredited the reductio ad absurdum exposed by (((Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen))) who didn't believe in quantum entanglement.
Not to mention the more moderns ones like Higgs, postulated the Higgs-Boson.
Yes, jews are overrepresented, but due to the sheer size of gentile whites (1 billion vs less than 20 million jews) they are not the majority of ground breaking scientists. I'm considering only from the 20th century on.

 

[TheGreatA]

Isaac Newton probably would've been strung up as a heretic in a Catholic country.

He is known as a scientist, but he was also an occultist and an alchemist whose views on religion greatly differed from the norms. Luckily for him, at that time, the nobility were becoming more open to such ideas.

It is unknown whether he was a part of any secret societies, such as the Rosicrucians, but he was most certainly influenced by their ideas.

 

[MikeMcMann]

its just an unsubstantiated claim.

youre basing it off of observation of outcomes, but have you considered that women were discouraged/prevented from taking risks of this kind throughout most of their history? its always been much easier for men to take risks like these.

Women and men are generally wired differently when it comes to risk. Millions of years of evolution required it be so. I don't think you are insulting women by acknowledging that.

The cost of losing a fertile woman of child bearing years to emerging human societies was just too high so the ones who avoided risk were the most successful in passing on their genes and that trait. Men on the other hand were far more disposable. Particularly young single men. Those why they have been fodder for wars and exploration. You could risk them to try and conquer or find new lands to grow the tribe upon, and if you lost a lot of men in the process, no worries, as the ones left can still impregnate every fertile woman.

 

[EGarrett]

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.

Ooh, I see, so we're forgetting about the whole idea of "fundamental," eh? I guess that's that's another concept that came up, you got schooled on, and then tried to just drop, huh?

It won't work. Physics as it is practiced now relies IN MAJORITY on things produced by those "damned" Jews.

That's how advancements in science work. More fundamental theories obsolete older ones. I knew you wouldn't understand this despite how smart you tried to sound.

BTW, did you got warned about putting my name in the title of your thread? Nice try, idiot. Against the forum rules.

Yeeeeeah, I get it!

So we were almost talking about different things.

No. I'm talking about the right thing and you're talking about the wrong thing.

Why are you SHOUTING?

Because emphasis helps simple-minded people understand what's important. Like how advancements in science work. You tried to go off listing random numbers like Planck's Constant like a trained seal, when you didn't have me to help your weak little brain grasp the key points of the discussion.

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.

And here we see, doofus, why I emphasize things to try to help you understand. You can USE Newtonian Mechanics. But it's not NEEDED. General Relativity made it superfluous. Which is why General Relativity is more important to physics.

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.

You're still struggling with the same concept. You acknowledge that they were obsoleted then try to mention that they still could be used. That's great. I could rub two sticks together and make fire also. That doesn't mean that a lighter isn't overall a better invention. Or that a theory that explains how fuel creates fire and allows you to use gas or vapor instead of hot wood is not a more fundamental theory.

That's why they still have numerous uses in electrical engineering, communications technology and optics.

Cool, and the belt has numerous uses in holding up your pants. But we're talking about physics. Just like you tried to bring up pure mathematics before and needed help recognizing the topic.

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?

If they get obsoleted, explained better, can be derived from later theories, or make inferior predictions, they are NOT the most fundamental. Ether-based theories are NOT as fundamental as Einstein's. Einstein's theories advanced physics to a greater level than anything that came before. The same is true of Quantum Mechanics. 2/3's Jewish contributors.

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.

The "some reason" is that it is. As I said, General Relativity provides the most accurate and fundamental means ever proposed to understand gravity, the motions of planets, the behavior of time and space, and make useful predictions about them. How do you do astrophysics without that?

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.

...which has nothing to do with the fundamental nature of General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics and that fact that two out of the three men who are credited with creating them are Jewish. Let alone the severe overrepresentation of that group in the field.

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"?

So I guess then we're entirely abandoning your own criteria of who simply gets credit for it, as you did when assigning Heisenberg credit for creating Quantum Mechanics? Because Bohr got one for quantum theory in 1922, and of course his and Heisenberg's interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is the one we use today.

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?

You can spend all the time you want rubbing sticks together and listing people who found different types of sticks or tried to find new ways to make fire. The people who invented the most fundamental and accurate theory are the ones who made the biggest contribution. The more you try to distract from that, the more you'll hear it.

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.

I was just trying to apply your own criteria. You said Heisenberg received the Nobel Prize for creating Quantum Mechanics, which he did, but Einstein didn't get one for General Relativity. By your own measure, as I said, Bohr also received a Nobel for his contributions to Quantum Theory, and of course he shares credit for the Copenhagen Interpretation with Heisenberg. Which makes 2/3 Jewish people.

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.

No, actually, I replied to someone else who made a comment crediting "white guys" for their intellectual prowess (I could click back and copy/paste the exact words but not much point). And I actually listed people of many different ethnicities who by concrete measures did more. YOU'RE the one who showed up for some reason wanting to take issue with the contribution of Jewish people.

Got an axe to grind?

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.

Am I an "intellectual giant," or are you just not as tall as you thought you were?

Secondly, I've actually done a lot of research into how jokes work, and there always must be some measure of validity. It can be validity in the belief that someone would actually make the error in question, or it could be validity in believing that the statement is true and there's an error elsewhere, such as believing that groups other than "white men" are useless.

I replied to address anyone who might make the second interpretation.

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

If only I still drew joy from cutting down people who thought they were clever. Especially ones who based their belief in their intellect on their ability to repeat random physics information that they were told in university. Copy/paste is not an intellectual feat. Even doing so without a keyboard.

Can you be my psychologist, daddy?

Just don't try to actually broach the topic, you'll get hammered even worse than you are now.

 

[superpunch]

yea. we have differences, men and women.

when you get into behavior though, there is too much within-group variability to make claims like "women are not risk takers so they havent been good physicists."

Male genetics are XY. Women are XX. Women have more genetic material. More genetic materials means more likelihood of a dominant gene stopping the expression of a recessive gene. Non-average traits are recessive for obvious reasons.

And so, you find that men and women have about the same average IQ.

But you also find that there are more mentally disabled men than women. So how can that be true while it's also true that men and women have the same average IQ?

Go back to the basic logic on genetics. Women will more often center closer to the mean while men will have the same mean (on non-hormone influenced traits) but have more variability on the distribution. Just basic common sense and you find it on nearly all traits, whether they be mental or physical.

Once you get to a disabled enough IQ, men outnumber women like 10:1 and the lower you go, the higher the discrepancy gets. The same thing happens on the other side.

The best or the worst at anything will obviously not have traits centered on the mean. They will be at the right or the left of the distribution, whether that's for reflexes, intelligence, or whatever.

 

[EGarrett]

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?

During that time period, religion and educational opportunities were deeply linked. You couldn't become a fellow of Oxford and Cambridge, for example, unless you became an ordained Christian Priest.

Remember, this wasn't the 21st Century. There was no internet to do your own research. If you couldn't access libraries, lectures, classes etc., you could do essentially nothing.

 

[Gunny]

Male genetics are XY. Women are XX. Women have more genetic material. More genetic materials means more likelihood of a dominant gene stopping the expression of a recessive gene. Non-average traits are recessive for obvious reasons.

And so, you find that men and women have about the same average IQ.

But you also find that there are more mentally disabled men than women. So how can that be true while it's also true that men and women have the same average IQ?

Go back to the basic logic on genetics. Women will more often center closer to the mean while men will have the same mean (on non-hormone influenced traits) but have more variability on the distribution. Just basic common sense and you find it on nearly all traits, whether they be mental or physical.

Once you get to a disabled enough IQ, men outnumber women like 10:1 and the lower you go, the higher the discrepancy gets. The same thing happens on the other side.

The best or the worst at anything will obviously not have traits centered on the mean. They will be at the right or the left of the distribution, whether that's for reflexes, intelligence, or whatever.

That first paragraph is a great explanation for the relatively extreme variability in men. Makes perfect sense though I’d better independently confirm before repeating

 

[NoDak]

Isaac Newton probably would've been strung up as a heretic in a Catholic country.

He is known as a scientist, but he was also an occultist and an alchemist whose views on religion greatly differed from the norms. Luckily for him, at that time, the nobility were becoming more open to such ideas.

It is unknown whether he was a part of any secret societies, such as the Rosicrucians, but he was most certainly influenced by their ideas.

His more eccentric activities and behavior didn't really become well known until after his death.

Non-jews responsible for quantum mechanics: Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Planck, Millikan, Aspect. Aspect also discredited the reductio ad absurdum exposed by (((Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen))) who didn't believe in quantum entanglement. Not to mention the more moderns ones like Higgs, postulated the Higgs-Boson.

Paul Dirac, Louis De Broglie, Pascual Jordan are definitely among them. It's fairly obvious why the latter has almost been kind of minimized out of the history, but he had at least as big of a contribution to helping develop the formalism of Heisenberg's matrix mechanics as Max Born did.

 

[NoDak]

Those are contributions, but they're not fundamental ones

This was your actual response to the discovery of the electron, atomic nucleus and neutron in a thread discussing the history of physics and its most significant advancements (not merely the most recent), the "contributions" of which were succinctly summed up by Cuauhtemoc as "Isaac Newton being a crap scientist, Einstein fucking Marie Curie and blacks being bred into jews". It's time for you to leave.

BTW, did you got warned about putting my name in the title of your thread? Nice try, idiot. Against the forum rules.

No, I did it myself out of pity. It's over.

So I guess then we're entirely abandoning your own criteria of who simply gets credit for it, as you did when assigning Heisenberg credit for creating Quantum Mechanics? Because Bohr got one for quantum theory in 1922, and of course his and Heisenberg's interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is the one we use today.

I was just trying to apply your own criteria. You said Heisenberg received the Nobel Prize for creating Quantum Mechanics, which he did, but Einstein didn't get one for General Relativity. By your own measure, as I said, Bohr also received a Nobel for his contributions to Quantum Theory, and of course he shares credit for the Copenhagen Interpretation with Heisenberg. Which makes 2/3 Jewish people.

There were two different iterations of quantum mechanics when it was established: matrix mechanics (Heisenberg) and wave mechanics (Schrödinger). The QM used today predominantly utilizes the wavefunction in the latter's equation to describe fundamental forces and subatomic particles. No Nobel prizes necessary. Bohr got one for his services in the investigation of the structure of atoms, chiefly for a model of how electrons orbit around a small positively charged atomic nucleus. Do'h!

It's through Bohr notation that MM and WM were shown to be equivalent though. No wait, that's Paul Dirac although he's better known for reconciling quantum mechanics with special relativity which predicted the existence of antimatter, was the first step towards the advent of Quantum Field Theory and thus, ultimately the Standard Model.

That's all definitely more 'fundamental' in terms of the description for how physical reality operates but it doesn't necessarily make his contributions to the advancement of physics greater than those of an Isaac Newton or James Clerk Maxwell but I'm not going to bother explaining it again. There's also nothing tangible about the "Copenhagen Interpretation".

You tried to go off listing random numbers like Planck's Constant like a trained seal, when you didn't have me to help your weak little brain grasp the key points of the discussion.

If only I still drew joy from cutting down people who thought they were clever. Especially ones who based their belief in their intellect on their ability to repeat random physics information that they were told in university. Copy/paste is not an intellectual feat. Even doing so without a keyboard.

How is the quantum of action "random information"? It's a universal physical constant at the center of quantum mechanics and was conceived as direct result of the work in which quantum theory itself originates, as already explained to your weak little brain but you still don't get it. Max Planck was clever, I appreciate him and you're a spastic.

YOU'RE the one who showed up for some reason wanting to take issue with the contribution of Jewish people.

Got an axe to grind?

Do I have an "issue" with the contributions of Jewish people or just dopey cunts blathering brainless, inaccurate shit in science history threads? Spoiler Alert: It's the latter, fuckwit. Your grasp on the contributions of Jewish people is laughable.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

His more eccentric activities and behavior didn't really become well known until after his death.



Paul Dirac, Louis De Broglie, Pascual Jordan are definitely among them. It's fairly obvious why the latter has almost been kind of minimized out of the history, but he had at least as big of a contribution to helping develop the formalism of Heisenberg's matrix mechanics as Max Born did.

We can also add Hendrik Lorentz who laid the mathematical foundations of Einstein's theory. The Lorentz transformation.

 

[NoDak]

We can also add Hendrik Lorentz who laid the mathematical foundations of Einstein's theory. The Lorentz transformation.

I had mentioned Bernhard Riemann's differential geometry laying the mathematical foundations for General Relativity earlier too, but this is perhaps an even better example in context considering Lorentz was not only a physicist himself but of the time period and era.

But what about guys like (half-Jewish) Bohr and his theoretical model of how electrons (discovered by JJ Thomson) orbit a positively charged nucleus (discovered by Ernest Rutherford) based on the quantum theory of radiation (discovered by Max Planck). None of the aforementioned are fundamental, of course.

Fucking hell.

 

[ChillBroBaggins]

@EGarrett

Every earlier scientific breakthrough is just as consequential despite only providing a partial solution. Negating the triumph of Newtonian mechanics just because of general and special relativity is flat-out intellectually dishonest. The whole basis of your argument is that the runner who reaches the finish line deserves all the accolades, you're disregarding the other runners who handed off the baton, and in this case you've disregarded the very progression of knowledge.

Not guesswork. I'll take the position of literal, and I'll spot you the whole 800 years previous to the 20th century, and argue solely for what they actually did in the time they had and that it's more important, more fundamental, renders large swaths of previous work superfluous, and they did the most of it. You listed historical, I commented that they dominated once they were able to, and now yes, they are majority responsible for the most fundamental contributions. Literally. Just because I feel like it and I bet you'll lose.

This is the false premise of your argument. Calling these previous works "superfluous" is impressively wrong, they crucially transformed the very direction of Western Civilization. Their impact on industrialization, scientific inquiry, philosophy, exploration, military, health and governance cannot be understated. The fact you're even shameless enough to make such an argument when you are clearly intelligent enough to understand this distinction really says a lot about you. You aren't in the business of argument to ascertain the truth, you are in the business of argument for the sake of argument.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I'd rob you at fist point

Sig worthy imo

 

[NoDak]

@EGarrett

Every earlier scientific breakthrough is just as consequential despite only providing a partial solution. Negating the triumph of Newtonian mechanics just because of general and special relativity is flat-out intellectually dishonest. The whole basis of your argument is that the runner who reaches the finish line deserves all the accolades, you're disregarding the other runners who handed off the baton, and in this case you've disregarded the very progression of knowledge.

This is the false premise of your argument. Calling these previous works "superfluous" is impressively wrong, they crucially transformed the very direction of Western Civilization. Their impact on industrialization, scientific inquiry, philosophy, exploration, military, health and governance cannot be understated. The fact you're even shameless enough to make such an argument when you are clearly intelligent enough to understand this distinction really says a lot about you. You aren't in the business of argument to ascertain the truth, you are in the business of argument for the sake of argument.

Yea, and when you're talking about contributions on the level of Newton's Principia Mathematica or Maxwell's Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, these are not just 'ordinary' individual discoveries of scientific progress that were made along the way, they are cornerstones of modern civilization itself nevermind physics.

S/G Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are indeed on that kind of historical tier. However, calling the former "superfluous" is wildly intellectually dishonest, particularly given the extent they're able to describe the physical world and applications they've had - and still do - on technological advancement.

In regards to the 'argument', it's with Max Planck that the quantum hypothesis originates, Werner Heinsenberg that formulated matrix mechanics, Erwin Schrödinger that developed wave mechanics and Paul Dirac who was responsible for transformation theory to unify both interpretations, as well as reconciling quantum mechanics with special relativity which was the first step towards Quantum Field Theory.

Not to mention it was JJ Thomson that discovered the first subatomic particle, Ernest Rutherford that discovered the atomic nucleus, Louis De Broglie who postulated that all matter has wave properties. Do we see how this is all laughably short of any kind of "majority Jewish men" scenario and how that statement is patently false (with no malice involved)? Bizarre claim. Niels Bohr's father also wasn't Jewish if we're getting specific.

 

[NoDak]

Fun Fact: It was Louis de Broglie who put forward the first official proposal for the creation of a multinational laboratory, which played a direct role in the resolution shortly thereafter concerning the establishment of the European Council for Nuclear Research (CERN).

I also just realized he was both the oldest and last of the early 20th century theoretical founders and experimental contributors to have passed away, in 1987 aged 94.

1937: Ernest Rutherford (66)
1940: JJ Thomson (83)
1947: Max Planck (89)
1953: Robert Millikan (85)
1955: Albert Einstein (76)
1958: Wolfgang Pauli (58)
1961: Erwin Schrödinger (73)
1962: Niels Bohr (77)
1962: Arthur Compton (69)
1970: Max Born (87)
1974: James Chadwick (82)
1976: Werner Heisenberg (74)
1980: Pascual Jordan (77)
1984: Paul Dirac (82)
1987: Louis de Broglie (94)

 

[NoDak]

"diversity quota"

Thousands of years of civilization and perhaps millions of years of evolution have made men and women better and more naturally inclined to certain vocations.

Do we want neu-thought to accept this, or are we trying to alter human nature to be what modern politics requires it to be?

Seems the world is more interested in peoples' fantasies than exploring the current realities.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...sicist-alessandro-strumia-open-discrimination

More than 1,600 scientists have backed a campaign condemning the Italian researcher who claimed physics was “invented and built by men”.

They have signed a petition in response to comments made by Professor Alessandro Strumia, of Pisa University, who said male scientists were being discriminated against because of ideology.

The signatories at particlesforjustice.org wanted to “state, in the strongest possible terms, that the humanity of any person, regardless of ascribed identities such as race, ethnicity, gender identity, religion, disability, gender presentation, or sexual identity is not up for debate. The thin veneer of scientific rigour with which Strumia’s talk began was followed by open discrimination and personal attacks, which we condemn unconditionally."

Strumia told BBC News, which first reported the controversy, that the high-energy physics community was about 100 times larger than the number of researchers who had put their names to the statement.

The signatories “mostly come from those countries more affected by political correctness”, he said. He also denied that his use of data in his CERN presentation about women being favoured for jobs in the sector reflected bias.

“The data about citations and hirings show that women are not discriminated [against] in fundamental physics. We reward merit, irrespective of gender,” he said.

 

[InternetHero]

https://www.theguardian.com/science...sicist-alessandro-strumia-open-discrimination

More than 1,600 scientists have backed a campaign condemning the Italian researcher who claimed physics was “invented and built by men”.

They have signed a petition in response to comments made by Professor Alessandro Strumia, of Pisa University, who said male scientists were being discriminated against because of ideology.

The signatories at particlesforjustice.org wanted to “state, in the strongest possible terms, that the humanity of any person, regardless of ascribed identities such as race, ethnicity, gender identity, religion, disability, gender presentation, or sexual identity is not up for debate. The thin veneer of scientific rigour with which Strumia’s talk began was followed by open discrimination and personal attacks, which we condemn unconditionally."

Strumia told BBC News, which first reported the controversy, that the high-energy physics community was about 100 times larger than the number of researchers who had put their names to the statement.

The signatories “mostly come from those countries more affected by political correctness”, he said. He also denied that his use of data in his CERN presentation about women being favoured for jobs in the sector reflected bias.

“The data about citations and hirings show that women are not discriminated [against] in fundamental physics. We reward merit, irrespective of gender,” he said.

I'm not sure their rush to enforce an appeal to the majority will change the history of what physics is or who is better predisposed to understanding the deeper scientific implications.

To be honest, the voracity of the group-think slap down is rather alarming.

 

[EGarrett]

This was your actual response to the discovery of the electron, atomic nucleus and neutron in a thread discussing the history of physics and its most significant advancements (not merely the most recent), the "contributions" of which were succinctly summed up by Cuauhtemoc as "Isaac Newton being a crap scientist, Einstein fucking Marie Curie and blacks being bred into jews". It's time for you to leave.

You mean you can't actually argue that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics aren't the most fundamental aspects of physics, I batted away your attempts to distract from the point, and now you wish I'd leave. Too bad.

No, I did it myself out of pity. It's over.

Too late, you already showed how frustrated you are by your own failed arguments. Why don't you put it back in the title so the mods can handle you?

There were two different iterations of quantum mechanics when it was established: matrix mechanics (Heisenberg) and wave mechanics (Schrödinger). The QM used today predominantly utilizes the wavefunction in the latter's equation to describe fundamental forces and subatomic particles. No Nobel prizes necessary. Bohr got one for his services in the investigation of the structure of atoms, chiefly for a model of how electrons orbit around a small positively charged atomic nucleus. Do'h!

So then we've established that your own criteria are inconsistent and post hoc? Because the reasoning you provided for why Heisenberg should be chiefly credited failed miserably, and you're just now trying to make-up another goal post.

It's through Bohr notation that MM and WM were shown to be equivalent though. No wait, that's Paul Dirac although he's better known for reconciling quantum mechanics with special relativity which predicted the existence of antimatter, was the first step towards the advent of Quantum Field Theory and thus, ultimately the Standard Model.

See above. I don't let people waste my time with "that failed, let me try this!" because then it will never end. You tried criteria, including listing people with less fundamental contributions, which failed, then claiming the Nobel, which failed. And you failed. It's not a spaghetti-to-the-wall game.

That's all definitely more 'fundamental' in terms of the description for how physical reality operates but it doesn't necessarily make his contributions to the advancement of physics greater than those of an Isaac Newton or James Clerk Maxwell but I'm not going to bother explaining it again. There's also nothing tangible about the "Copenhagen Interpretation".

Except that it's currently the accepted understanding of one of the two most fundamental aspects of physics.

How is the quantum of action "random information"? It's a universal physical constant at the center of quantum mechanics and was conceived as direct result of the work in which quantum theory itself originates, as already explained to your weak little brain but you still don't get it. Max Planck was clever, I appreciate him and you're a spastic.

It's cute that you try to posture yourself as intelligent when you actually got introduced to very basic aspects of thinking, including what "fundamental" actually means and the difference between precision and accuracy, and all you actually contributed was to try parrot other information that was off-topic and then apologizing for your own stupid attempts at direct argument (Nobel Prize).

This is why I like to dare people like you, who make threats of knowledge, to actually try to argue. Your failure mode is fun to observe.

Do I have an "issue" with the contributions of Jewish people or just dopey cunts blathering brainless, inaccurate shit in science history threads? Spoiler Alert: It's the latter, fuckwit. Your grasp on the contributions of Jewish people is laughable.

There we go, lose that composure. Just like an enraged caged monkey.

 

[EGarrett]

@EGarrett

Every earlier scientific breakthrough is just as consequential despite only providing a partial solution. Negating the triumph of Newtonian mechanics just because of general and special relativity is flat-out intellectually dishonest.

It certainly was consequential, but it's not more fundamental, which are the agreed-upon terms. NoDak even provided the definition of fundamental as the point to discuss.

The whole basis of your argument is that the runner who reaches the finish line deserves all the accolades, you're disregarding the other runners who handed off the baton, and in this case you've disregarded the very progression of knowledge.

The difference is that you can't get to the finish line in a relay unless everyone's part is taken into account. Each person does an equal amount and they MUST be added together to reach the final point. But here, current work can be used to derive previous work. So they replace it.

In other words, if the last runner runs the same distance that all the previous runners did, faster, AND crosses the finish line, he's the one who counts the most.

This is the false premise of your argument. Calling these previous works "superfluous" is impressively wrong, they crucially transformed the very direction of Western Civilization.

Not superfluous to the path, superfluous to the end.

Their impact on industrialization, scientific inquiry, philosophy, exploration, military, health and governance cannot be understated. The fact you're even shameless enough to make such an argument when you are clearly intelligent enough to understand this distinction really says a lot about you. You aren't in the business of argument to ascertain the truth, you are in the business of argument for the sake of argument.

No, I'm arguing because NoDak thought he was clever and could list some random unoriginal information about physics and "win an argument." He's wrong and didn't understand why I said what I said, and I hate pseudo-intelligent people (oh, and he also has some racial biases or hang-ups as well, which I really don't tolerate), so I'm dissecting him to teach him what he missed and put him in his place.