XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.math
From: physfitfreak@gmail.com
On 4/14/25 10:17 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/14/2025 07:46 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>> On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> rhertz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wien was already a Nobel Prize by 1905. He had a tremendous respect and
>>>> influence from the European physics community (and also abroad). Planck
>>>> didn't have this.
>>>
>>> Why should we believe anything you write
>>> when you can't even get simple facts like this right?
>>>
>>> Jan
>>
>>
>> What difference does it make what happened anyway. I don't understand
>> you guys in this relativity forum.
>>
>> Some physics were developed and that's it. The important thing is the
>> physics not the history of physics. Doesn't matter who did what.
>>
>> And all these human names Priests have packed into it. Concepts as well
>> as units and rules and even some formulas! All with human names on them.
>> Are you people nuts?..
>>
>> Leave science in the hands of cro-magnons and their tribal instinct will
>> turn any physics source into a history of it instead.
>>
>> One day, when science goes back to the people it belongs, you won't find
>> a single human name inside any physics text.
>>
>> It is disgusting how things are, thanks to you cro-magnon early humans.
>> There's reason I leave it to my dick to handle you dimwits.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Like "the euclidean" and "the cartesian" and "the platonic"?
>
> Even "the abelian"?
>
> Names of elements?
>
> It's agreeable that things have names courtesy their structure
> and form and relation: the _descriptive_, and that they're sensible
> names and unsurprising and not much loaded in the non-scientific
> context, yet most things somebody thought them before, then,
> those names are almost universally given by other people,
> i.e., of course nobody gets to name their own things in physics,
> then that it's usually sort of a respect bit.
>
>
> Like, when you say "unit impulse function", then it's like,
> "oh, the particular, often called u, function for transform
> theory, the only nonstandard function often admitted into
> methods, the Dirac delta and that also related to the Kronecker
> delta with regards to various meanings in methods where both
> and either share the same symbol and have conditions where each
> and the either have their meanings then that it's sort of related
> to say the one in transform theory then the other in the analysis
> and a third related to the discrete, the Dirac delta".
>
> Or, you know, like "Jordan curve: simple closed connected curve",
> or, "Jordan measure: now it's called Jordan content because it's
> sort of non-standard the line integral and now our terms collide
> and anyone can draw a quick contradiction".
>
>
> Or, like "Democritan: a usual reasonable theory of atomic atoms,
> thusly what's Aristotlean is what's not that though what's reasonable,
> since Aristotle went to the bother of setting up both then showing
> a line out that's the usual classical, Aristotlean-Democritan".
>
>
> Or it's like "Aristotle's continuum: well we already gave the
> one to Archimedes that's the usual rational field, so we might
> as well call Aristotle's continuum like Jordan measure, though
> it would be sort of Democritan, though Archimedes then Eudoxus
> are how we say the rational field, yet then of course Archimedean
> is non-Archimedean is Archimedean again then these days there's
> the non-Archimidean which though is sort of super-Archimedean".
>
> Or it's like "Dedekind completeness? Oh, that's Eudoxus then
> a bit of Weierstrass while though Cauchy, in set theory, though".
>
> So, yeah, sometimes names are just their club, yet, other times,
> it's our canon.
>
> Like, Gauss versus Ostrogradsky, or Shannon versus Nyquist,
> it's like "Gauss? What about Gauss?" while it's like
> "Ostrogradsky? Well of course Ostrogradsky."
>
>
> Then sometimes it's sort of charitable, like "Galois",
> for things like algebra. "Pascal".
>
> Mathematics they say was coined by the Pythagoreans,
> also philosophy, the words. (Same words.)
>
>
> What you're kind of talking about is what's called "priority",
> like who gets credit, then there's a usual idea that mathematics
> and physics too is discovered not invented, that it's well known
> that when you start to study, you find out that lots of the larger
> bodies of work are panels, and schools, besides individuals.
> Then individuals with great or important works are later accoladed,
> mostly because then looking up their works crosses disciplines,
> or connects schools.
>
>
> Then, priority about Einstein is sort of moot because
> that's about the only physicist the most people has even heard of.
>
> Like "algebra"?
>
>
>
>
>
No, not like algebra. The word algebra ( الجبر ) is a description of a
math feature, not the name of some human or animal or Priest or mass
murderer or other creatures that exist so abundantly among you earlier
humans.
It comes from Modern Humans, and to a Modern Human it never occurs that
a human name should be used for a math feature.
You people are funky. Cro-magnons don't really know what they're doing.
They follow instincts, and that's what's "right" and feels "right" for
them. Ask your chorus boy.
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
