XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.math   
   From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl   
      
   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).   
      
   Right. Newton was a member of a scientific community,   
   not a lone genius working in isolation.   
      
   Jan   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)