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

On 04/17/2025 02:11 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> 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.

>
Of course he did.  It was Newton who started the tradition
of nasty priority fights in physics and mathematics.
He wanted all the world to know that it was Newton's calculus,
and not Leinbiz's.
>

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.

>
That was a snide comment in another priority dispute, with Hooke.
(who was a small man)
See Gleick's biography for more on it.
>

Physics history is a humanities field.

>
All history is.
>

It has absolutely nothing to do with physics.

>
Then why call it 'history of physics'?
>
Jan
>

If Hooke was a small man, it's still so that
Hooke's law, a numerical approximation or
numerical method or linearisation, in springs,
is what results for Arrhenius and Clausius
then to Kelvin for 2nd thermo law helping explain
why deep under the classical derivation stack,
is an example of a numerical method and thusly
an approximation with a nominally non-zero error term,
showing that statistical mechanics is partial/incomplete.
There's "System of the World" and Newton had some
remarkable hierarchical primary spectra about the
prismatic and chromatic, yet there was Kepler's
"System of the World" and Galileo and Mertonians
hundreds of years before with the latitude of forms,
and Maclaurin for analysis, and Coates and Gregory
for numerical methods, Hooke for quantization,
that over time Newton gets dwarfed, then as besides
that deconstructive accounts of the severe abstraction
of the mechanical reduction or after Lagrange after Maupertuis,
make for zero-eth laws under classical mechanics,
and more replete foundations of continuum analysis,
that even Einstein's "GR: classical in the limit",
doesn't have that much so great, then of course about
Fatio and LeSage with regards to theories _with gravity_,
if the gravific, that modern day theories can't even
have because it would be a constant violation of energy
of themselves.
So, Hooke's methods actually advise quite the treatment
of the statistical mechanics, or as with regards to
what formalisms that Hooke's law makes, that _are_
linearisations or numerical methods thus _not_ perfect,
other examples including small-angle approximation
which also is used everywhere for triangle inequality,
have that it's deep enough in the stacks that most
have no idea it's there, and if they do, little idea
that it's not exact.
So, about things like Hooke's law, and, de Moivre,
and, Clausius, and, statistical mechanics: most forget
they have error terms, which is sad, because they don't
even know the difference between right and wrong.