Re: DeepSeek helping me to clarify Wien-Einstein-Poincaré conspiracy.

On 04/14/2025 07:46 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:

On 4/14/25 2:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> 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"?