XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.math   
   From: physfitfreak@gmail.com   
      
   On 4/17/25 2:50 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:   
   > On 4/17/25 4:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   >> Physfitfreak  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 4/16/25 4:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   >>>> 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?..   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Perhaps, but it is a very human trait.   
   >>>> Things memorise more easily when there is a name attached to it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> For example, even asteroids get names.   
   >>>> Asteroid 1001 Gaussia for example may be easier on the brain   
   >>>> than the provisional designation 1923 OA.   
   >>>> Asteroid 'Gaussia' will even be understood if the number is forgotten,   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Jan   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> No it's not that innocent a mess. Priest-minded crappy scientists,   
   >>> disguised as "scientists" have been forcing it to pack non-related   
   >>> humanities stuff in it for their own tribal interests. And they've gone   
   >>> too far. It's become disgusting in fact. Takes the attention of students   
   >>> away to stuff unrelated to physics.   
   >>>   
   >>> Did Newton ever do that? Of course not.   
   >>   
   >> Of course he did.  It was Newton who started the tradition   
   >> of nasty priority fights in physics and mathematics.   
   >> He wanted all the world to know that it was Newton's calculus,   
   >> and not Leinbiz's.   
   >>   
   >>> As far as I know he never named   
   >>> names in his physics works. The closest that he came to point to a   
   >>> "history" of it was his comment about "giants". He was too good a   
   >>> physicist to name even those giants, cause it would be trash as far as   
   >>> physics concepts were concerned.   
   >>   
   >> That was a snide comment in another priority dispute, with Hooke.   
   >> (who was a small man)   
   >> See Gleick's biography for more on it.   
   >>   
   >>> Physics history is a humanities field.   
   >>   
   >> All history is.   
   >>   
   >>> It has absolutely nothing to do with physics.   
   >>   
   >> Then why call it 'history of physics'?   
   >>   
   >> Jan   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
   > Newton did all that "nasty priority fight" _outside_ his physics books.   
   > Do I have to remind this to you? I told you to be careful when Physfit's   
   > dick is near.   
   >   
   > I don't see any human names in his physics books. If you see, list them   
   > and come back. He used sources as far back as Alhazen (Iranian Ebne   
   > Heytham - optics works and much more) without once mentioning the name.   
   > Physicist don't do trash talk when writing physics books. Alhazen's own   
   > works too, all of them, are devoid of names. Only physics concepts.   
   >   
   > I refuse to respond to your other careless remarks.   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   Here, let me throw DeepSeek at you. This is what DeepSeek knows:   
      
   Key Names in Opticks:   
      
   (beginning of the quote):   
      
        Isaac Newton – The author refers to himself in the first person   
   when describing experiments.   
      
        Robert Hooke – Newton briefly mentions Hooke’s work on diffraction   
   (though he avoids naming him directly in some contentious passages due   
   to their rivalry).   
      
        Christiaan Huygens – Cited regarding wave-based theories of light   
   (Newton disagreed with his ideas).   
      
        René Descartes – Critiqued for his theories on light and refraction.   
      
        Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz – Not directly named in Opticks, but   
   their later disputes over calculus influenced Newton’s later queries in   
   the book.   
      
        John Locke – A friend of Newton; some ideas in Opticks align with   
   Locke’s empiricism (though Locke isn’t named explicitly).   
      
   (end of the quote).   
      
   AS you see, even DeepSeek misunderstands Newton's motives. It thinks   
   Newton's avoidance of mentioning names was because of "rivalry", while I   
   am certain he was only being honest to himself and to the reader when he   
   was writing physics. Too good a physicist to piss inside his physics   
   books by throwing human names in it.   
      
   And when DeepSeeks calls it "cited", it is not clear Newton actually   
   used a name, or just the title of a book written by the human with that   
   name.   
      
   I don't know, check the above result by yourselves. I think it carries   
   much of the sense I'm trying to put inside cro-magnon creatures or   
   otherwise tribal people.   
      
   And learn from it, if you can! Physfit's dick can educate you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)