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

On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 3:45:31 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:

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.

Any new advance is subjective, Roachie. In time it becomes objective
when many approve. With mysterious codes instead of names it becomes
merely robotic. And full. No fun. Yes tribalism is an issue. It will not
go away.

>
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.

People write papers for their careers. Their own careers. One does not
work for the elevation of mysterious codes.

>
This will fight tribalism.

Nothing beats tribalism. The most fundamental quality of apes,
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.

Careerists do not do any worthwhile research as hobbyists like Newton
and Arindam. Their speciality is politics, not research. What to write
where to get published and receive grants.

>
Under such system, Arindams of the world will subsist, but only at the
subsistence level.

Roachie, Arindam has been persona non grata to the physics journals. He
does not have a single publication in any physics journal.
So Arindam posts his work in Usenet, Facebook and YouTube. The control
the physicists have is to ignore him and ridicule him. They cannot
challenge him online or media for they know that they he have no chance
against Arindam's immensely superior and clear future physics.
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.

Okay you are such a confirmed dickhead, that is well known. Nothing
special. All anti-Arindam physicists are dickheads with their dicks
buried in their personal black holes. Snakes!

>
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.

Stupid Roachie, Arindam does not publish in journals so your coding
stuff is irrelevant.

>
And physics will remain a physics-based, not an author-based science.

Tch tch, the future of physics will be the physics of Arindam. Out with
inertia. Thermodynamics. Relativity nonsenses. Quantum Bunkum.

>
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.

Who cares for the feelings of roaches, Roachie! Eat beans and fart.
Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor
--