info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: How smart was Albert Einstein ?
35 views
Skip to first unread message
John Locke
Mar 17, 2016, 9:57:37 PM3/17/16
to
I ran across this old article on how smart Einstein was.
A pretty good summary of his remarkable achievements.
To say this man was a genius would be a gross understatement:
http://www.innovation-america.org/q-how-smart-was-einstein-really-smart
There is a parlor game physics students play: Who was the greater
genius? Galileo or Kepler? (Galileo) Maxwell or Bohr? (Maxwell, but
it's closer than you might think). Hawking or Heisenberg? (A
no-brainer, whatever the best-seller lists might say. It's
Heisenberg). But there are two figures who are simply off the charts.
Isaac Newton is one. The other is Albert Einstein. If pressed,
physicists give Newton pride of place, but it is a photo finish—€”and
no one else is in the race.
Newton's claim is obvious. He created modern physics. His system
described the behavior of the entire cosmos—€”and while others before
him had invented grand schemes, Newton's was different. His theories
were mathematical, making specific predictions to be confirmed by
experiments in the real world. Little wonder that those after Newton
called him lucky—€”"for there is only one universe to discover, and he
discovered it."
But what of Einstein? Well, Einstein felt compelled to apologize to
Newton. "Newton, forgive me;" Einstein wrote in his Autobiographical
Notes. "You found the only way which, in your age, was just about
possible for a man of highest thought and creative power." Forgive
him? For what? For replacing Newton's system with his own—€”and, like
Newton, for putting his mark on virtually every branch of physics.
That's the difference. Young physicists who play the "who's smarter"
game are really asking, "how will I measure up?" Is there a shot to
match—€”if not Maxwell, then perhaps Lorentz? But Einstein? Don't go
there.
A pretty good summary of his remarkable achievements.
To say this man was a genius would be a gross understatement:
http://www.innovation-america.org/q-how-smart-was-einstein-really-smart
There is a parlor game physics students play: Who was the greater
genius? Galileo or Kepler? (Galileo) Maxwell or Bohr? (Maxwell, but
it's closer than you might think). Hawking or Heisenberg? (A
no-brainer, whatever the best-seller lists might say. It's
Heisenberg). But there are two figures who are simply off the charts.
Isaac Newton is one. The other is Albert Einstein. If pressed,
physicists give Newton pride of place, but it is a photo finish—€”and
no one else is in the race.
Newton's claim is obvious. He created modern physics. His system
described the behavior of the entire cosmos—€”and while others before
him had invented grand schemes, Newton's was different. His theories
were mathematical, making specific predictions to be confirmed by
experiments in the real world. Little wonder that those after Newton
called him lucky—€”"for there is only one universe to discover, and he
discovered it."
But what of Einstein? Well, Einstein felt compelled to apologize to
Newton. "Newton, forgive me;" Einstein wrote in his Autobiographical
Notes. "You found the only way which, in your age, was just about
possible for a man of highest thought and creative power." Forgive
him? For what? For replacing Newton's system with his own—€”and, like
Newton, for putting his mark on virtually every branch of physics.
That's the difference. Young physicists who play the "who's smarter"
game are really asking, "how will I measure up?" Is there a shot to
match—€”if not Maxwell, then perhaps Lorentz? But Einstein? Don't go
there.
Astero...@yahoo.com
Mar 17, 2016, 10:32:58 PM3/17/16
to
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 6:57:37 PM UTC-7, John Locke wrote:
> I ran across this old article on how smart Einstein was.
> A pretty good summary of his remarkable achievements.
> To say this man was a genius would be a gross understatement:
>
> http://www.innovation-america.org/q-how-smart-was-einstein-really-smart
>
> There is a parlor game physics students play: Who was the greater
> genius? Galileo or Kepler? (Galileo) Maxwell or Bohr? (Maxwell, but
> it's closer than you might think). Hawking or Heisenberg? (A
> no-brainer, whatever the best-seller lists might say. It's
> Heisenberg). But there are two figures who are simply off the charts.
> Isaac Newton is one. The other is Albert Einstein. If pressed,
> physicists give Newton pride of place, but it is a photo finish--EURO "and
> I ran across this old article on how smart Einstein was.
> A pretty good summary of his remarkable achievements.
> To say this man was a genius would be a gross understatement:
>
> http://www.innovation-america.org/q-how-smart-was-einstein-really-smart
>
> There is a parlor game physics students play: Who was the greater
> genius? Galileo or Kepler? (Galileo) Maxwell or Bohr? (Maxwell, but
> it's closer than you might think). Hawking or Heisenberg? (A
> no-brainer, whatever the best-seller lists might say. It's
> Heisenberg). But there are two figures who are simply off the charts.
> Isaac Newton is one. The other is Albert Einstein. If pressed,
> no one else is in the race.
>
> Newton's claim is obvious. He created modern physics. His system
> described the behavior of the entire cosmos--EURO "and while others before
>
> Newton's claim is obvious. He created modern physics. His system
> him had invented grand schemes, Newton's was different. His theories
> were mathematical, making specific predictions to be confirmed by
> experiments in the real world. Little wonder that those after Newton
> called him lucky--EURO ""for there is only one universe to discover, and he
> were mathematical, making specific predictions to be confirmed by
> experiments in the real world. Little wonder that those after Newton
> discovered it."
>
> But what of Einstein? Well, Einstein felt compelled to apologize to
> Newton. "Newton, forgive me;" Einstein wrote in his Autobiographical
> Notes. "You found the only way which, in your age, was just about
> possible for a man of highest thought and creative power." Forgive
> him? For what? For replacing Newton's system with his own--EURO "and, like
>
> But what of Einstein? Well, Einstein felt compelled to apologize to
> Newton. "Newton, forgive me;" Einstein wrote in his Autobiographical
> Notes. "You found the only way which, in your age, was just about
> possible for a man of highest thought and creative power." Forgive
> Newton, for putting his mark on virtually every branch of physics.
>
> That's the difference. Young physicists who play the "who's smarter"
> game are really asking, "how will I measure up?" Is there a shot to
> match--EURO "if not Maxwell, then perhaps Lorentz? But Einstein? Don't go
>
> That's the difference. Young physicists who play the "who's smarter"
> game are really asking, "how will I measure up?" Is there a shot to
> there.
the problem is Newton's stuff works and works pragmatically, and Einstein's stuff only churns the brain.
John Locke
Mar 17, 2016, 11:20:00 PM3/17/16
to
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:32:54 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
wrote:
...wrong, GPS navigation wouldn't work unless the effects of gravity
on time are not taken into account. If adjustments to GPS satellites
are not made, your ground navigation devices would be off by 6 miles
on a daily basis. In this case, "Newton's stuff' does not work. Learn
your science before you post !
wrote:
on time are not taken into account. If adjustments to GPS satellites
are not made, your ground navigation devices would be off by 6 miles
on a daily basis. In this case, "Newton's stuff' does not work. Learn
your science before you post !
Tim
Mar 18, 2016, 3:59:30 AM3/18/16
to
nature bats last
Mar 18, 2016, 11:47:03 AM3/18/16
to
> >
.> ...wrong, GPS navigation wouldn't work unless the effects of gravity
.> on time are not taken into account. If adjustments to GPS satellites
.> are not made, your ground navigation devices would be off by 6 miles
.> on a daily basis. In this case, "Newton's stuff' does not work. Learn
.> your science before you post !
Both gravity and velocity too. GPS uses corrections to the effects
on its clocks due to relative velocity, Special Relativity, as well as
corrections due to the difference in gravitational potential,
from General Relativity.
Seth
WeHang FagZ
Mar 18, 2016, 1:31:24 PM3/18/16
to
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 3:59:30 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
> > the problem is Newton's stuff works and works pragmatically, and Einstein's stuff only churns the brain.
>
> It churns your brain because your an idiot. Observation has confirmed Einstein's theories again and again, stupid.
Talking about those big names doesn't make you one of them, you stupid jerk.
> > the problem is Newton's stuff works and works pragmatically, and Einstein's stuff only churns the brain.
>
> It churns your brain because your an idiot. Observation has confirmed Einstein's theories again and again, stupid.
WeHang FagZ
Mar 18, 2016, 1:32:53 PM3/18/16
to
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 9:57:37 PM UTC-4, John Locke wrote:
> I ran across this old article on how smart Einstein was.
> A pretty good summary of his remarkable achievements.
> To say this man was a genius would be a gross understatement:
YOU'RE A CROOK NOT A SCIENTIST, SO WHY SHOULD WE CARE????
> I ran across this old article on how smart Einstein was.
> A pretty good summary of his remarkable achievements.
> To say this man was a genius would be a gross understatement:
nature bats last
Mar 18, 2016, 1:54:00 PM3/18/16
to
macro level as well as the quantum level.
Seth
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 18, 2016, 7:49:42 PM3/18/16
to
In article <b62e8fa6-885a-468a...@googlegroups.com>,
Where did he say it did?
--
JD
"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14
--
JD
"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14
Astero...@yahoo.com
Mar 18, 2016, 11:41:17 PM3/18/16
to
Olrik
Mar 19, 2016, 12:37:03 AM3/19/16
to
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Olrik
Mar 19, 2016, 12:37:55 AM3/19/16
to
> Seth
nature bats last
Mar 19, 2016, 4:13:44 AM3/19/16
to
You don't build a particle accelerator which boosts protons to 0.999999990 c
using Newtonian physics.
And so they didn't:
http://journal.batard.info/post/2008/09/12/lhc-how-fast-do-these-protons-go
Seth
nature bats last
Mar 19, 2016, 4:15:15 AM3/19/16
to
>
.> not necessarily. there are other explanations for phenomenon.
OK, I'll bite: what are other explanations for gravitational lensing?
Seth
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 19, 2016, 8:55:39 AM3/19/16
to
In article <ncikrf$icp$2...@dont-email.me>, Olrik <olri...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Le 2016-03-18 13:31, WeHang FagZ a écrit :
> > On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 3:59:30 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
> >
> >>> the problem is Newton's stuff works and works pragmatically, and
> >>> Einstein's stuff only churns the brain.
> >>
> >> It churns your brain because your an idiot. Observation has confirmed
> >> Einstein's theories again and again, stupid.
> >
> >
> > Talking about those big names doesn't make you one of them, you stupid
> > jerk.
>
>
> He's not pretending to, fuckface.
The straw men they invent are even more moronic than they are.
wrote:
> Le 2016-03-18 13:31, WeHang FagZ a écrit :
> > On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 3:59:30 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
> >
> >>> the problem is Newton's stuff works and works pragmatically, and
> >>> Einstein's stuff only churns the brain.
> >>
> >> It churns your brain because your an idiot. Observation has confirmed
> >> Einstein's theories again and again, stupid.
> >
> >
> > Talking about those big names doesn't make you one of them, you stupid
> > jerk.
>
>
> He's not pretending to, fuckface.
Christopher A. Lee
Mar 19, 2016, 1:35:08 PM3/19/16
to
predicted.
Kurt Kurt
Mar 19, 2016, 8:55:00 PM3/19/16
to
Almost as smart as Kurt Godel.
0 new messages