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

On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 22:22:41 +0000, 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.

What physics? Modern physics is crap. Arindam's future physics is what
matters. It is based upon pre Helmholtz physics.

>
Did Newton ever do that?

How could he? Who could he name? He was the first and also the greatest
physicist. He had enough trouble from the Aristotlean elites. Even more
than Arindam from Einsteinian elites. Who will Arindam refer for his
future physics? Only those who preceded him and are known for their
original contributions. Newton was following Copernicus and Galileo. In
his time that was a revolutionary thing to do so best avoided.
 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.

Ah Roachie there is such a thing called individuality which all mediocre
parasitic peoples seek to crush on the supposed equalising basis. Cut
down tall poppies. Rob their intellectual property by loud proclamation
of social justice.

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

It jolly well has, to see the development of the field on a forensic
basis.
Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
Bertietaylor
--