XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.math
From: physfitfreak@gmail.com
On 4/17/25 3:28 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
A sort of footnote: DeepSeek says: "In the 1717 edition, Newton added
"Queries" (theoretical speculations), where he indirectly references
other thinkers, but still focuses on ideas rather than names."
How's that for an AI that's not cro-magnon?...
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
