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

On 4/16/25 5:22 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:

On 4/16/25 4:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> 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?..

>
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. 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.
 Physics history is a humanities field. It has absolutely nothing to do with physics.
   

Wouldn't it be better if for a paper that's been published, the writers of it would appear as only codes, and not their names or affiliations, codes which themselves would change with each new paper they write. This will secure the danger of bias in reading such papers. There'd only be the material to concentrate on, and nothing else that could give the readers any cues about in whose presence they are when they're reading the work. Physics requires such degree of objectivity.
The references section of the paper should likewise avoid giving such cues. Only the titles of the papers, and dates, together with the corresponding codes tied to each one and unique to it, would be given.
This will fight tribalism.
All that bias that's packed today in the form of who's who will get eliminated, and what's left is physics itself to research and understand and develop.
Under such system, Arindams of the world will subsist, but only at the subsistence level. All that bullshit keeps coming and are quickly read and tossed away by researchers. I don't think the loss of time and effort involved would be even mentionable. If I read 20 different works of Arindam not knowing they've all been from him, it would still take me really seconds for each to find the bogus there and toss them. I mean the waste of time for 20 of them added together would be less than 10 minutes.
And with continuation of this norm, researchers will get super sharp in detecting bogus not from knowing the author, but from the  presented material itself because they would have no other ways to prevent such material coming to them. They won't have an "Arindam" or "Archimedes Plutonium" name attached to help them toss'em faster. I think the additional bogus detecting skills it creates is/8 worth the little price paid.
And physics will remain a physics-based, not an author-based science.
The way it is now, when I open a physics book I get nausiated by it. It feels like a Bible, written by the Fremasonry. Fuck you of course for it. Fuck you cro-magnons.