Re: Wikipedia crackpottey

On 11/14/2024 09:53 AM, rhertz wrote:

ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

>

I find it interesting that the majority of crackpots are crackpots in
only a limited range of topics. They can be quite competent in other
areas. Examples abound, even among Nobelists: Montagnier, Mullis,
Shockley, Pauling etc. come quickly to mind.

>
>
Maybe you should reconsider what GENIUSES mean for you.
>
Shockley, to whom we owe the invention of planar transistors in 1952
(opposite to the junction transistor crap, 1947), created
single-handedly
the modern solid state electronics. Also, as an entrepreneur, he FOUNDED
Silicon Valley, and his offsprings created Fairchild, Intel, etc. His
contributions to US Defense Dept. during WWII are still invaluable. His
studies about race and intelligence offended the most, but were
undisputed.
>
Linus Pauling applied quantum mechanics to develop new molecular
theories. He also was an advocate of peace, twice Nobel Award winner. He
was obsessed with the benefits of C vitamin, and was against Big Pharma
establishment, which only pursued profits.
>
And so on and on.
>
Maybe, the REAL CRACKPOTS are people like you and the imbecile Athel,
who are fanatically mind-closed about relativity, and dismiss with
contempt other possibilities (i.e., that relativity is a fucking
pseudo-science, merely sustained by charlatans and deceivers).

Zeeman got a 1903 Nobel for not reproducing Faraday's 1840
"magnetizing the medium the polarizing the light", bit.
It wasn't the same experiment, yet it really lined up
with the ultraviolet catastrophe and spectroscopy,
not so much the spectrum or second-spectrum, though.
What might be more interesting is to find Nobel prizes
what by now have turned over, over-turned, other ones.