Shortage of scientists
Antonio Huerta
Aging_Recycled_Scientist
> http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=shortage+scientists
Link to one article on why there is an apparent "shortage" for
American women scientists. Short answer: they are smart enough figure
out that the payoff of the education, money and time lost just sucks.
There generally is an overproduction of scientists, per se, who get
their living off of government handouts. Long term prospects for
future government workers is extremely poor because the government is
extremely broke and is not putting financial management of the company
in proper order.
Interestingly the link had articles of shortage of some science
related fields having shortages, particularly medical lab technicians
and technologists. At least those are funded by bill paying clients,
not government grants. (this aging recycled scientist is presently
experiementing with retraining it the MLT/MT areas).
zzbu...@netscape.net
> http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=shortage+scientists
Well, that's because the stooge US Gubment specializes in one kind
of science: Sattelites.
As the engineers with actual brains have been telling the idiots in
both the idiot
Gubment and Industry for over 50 years.
Which is why it's the engineers with actual non-zero economic brains
that work
on Microcomputers, Optical Computers, Distributed Processing, C++,
Fiber Optics,
Cell Phones, Flat Sceen HDTV debuggers, MP3, MPEG, CD, DVD, Laser
Pointers,
All-In-One Printers, USB, XML, Holograms, On-Line Banking, On-Line
Shopping,
On-Line Publishing, Pv Cell Energy, Biodiesel, Light Sticks,
Compact Flourescent Lighting,
Microwave ovens, Microwave cooling, GPS, Drones, Cruise Missiles,
Phalanx, AUVs,
Post-Ford Batteries, Self-Assembling Robots, Self-Replicating
Machines,
and Atomic Clock Wristwatches, for the uneducable idiots of US
Science.
Old Pif
wrote:
>
> Interestingly the link had articles of shortage of some science
> related fields having shortages, particularly medical lab technicians
> and technologists.
>
The fact that they mention the lab technicians as the indication of
shortage of scientists indicates that they hardly understand what
science actually is.
Stray Dog
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009, Antonio Huerta wrote:
> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Antonio Huerta <ahu...@inbox.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers, sci.physics, alt.computer.consultants
> Subject: Shortage of scientists
>
> http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=shortage+scientists
It's a big lie.
Just ask what the applicant-to-job ratio is.
Just ask if they are actually hiring or just "taking applications."
Just ask if they are taking applications, are they actually interviewing
anyone.
Then ask, is the job permanent, "regular," or temporary (meaning they can
fire you anytime).
Stray Dog
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Aging_Recycled_Scientist wrote:
> Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 06:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Aging_Recycled_Scientist <bik...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers, sci.physics, alt.computer.consultants
> Subject: Re: Shortage of scientists
>
> On Apr 26, 10:13 am, Antonio Huerta <ahue...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=shortage+scientists
>
> Link to one article on why there is an apparent "shortage" for
> American women scientists. Short answer: they are smart enough figure
> out that the payoff of the education, money and time lost just sucks.
> There generally is an overproduction of scientists, per se, who get
> their living off of government handouts. Long term prospects for
> future government workers is extremely poor because the government is
> extremely broke and is not putting financial management of the company
> in proper order.
Anyone who wants to read a book on this, go and find: "The PhD Factory" by
two guys (name on the tip of my toungue, can't think of them just now) who
did a study from Batelle Labs about ten years ago.
> Interestingly the link had articles of shortage of some science
> related fields having shortages, particularly medical lab technicians
> and technologists. At least those are funded by bill paying clients,
> not government grants. (this aging recycled scientist is presently
> experiementing with retraining it the MLT/MT areas).
>
All the propaganda is organized by the granting agencies who don't want
their congress to make budget cuts now that Obama has expanded the debt,..
And, the other organizer is the university lobbying agencies (eg. American
Association of Universities, and at least ten others) who want to snow the
general public into keep sending kids to warm up the seats.
Then, you've got all these US companies trying to outsource to India,
China, and any 3rd world country where they can get cheap help.
Even in China, the minister of education for the country came out a few
years ago saying, publically, that only half of their kids coming out of
their colleges are going to find jobs in what they studied.
And, they have this problem in Japan now, even worse than ever before.
Better prospects: trade schools and vocational schools. but do your
homework on placement rates. If they don't have a placement office, turn
around and leave.
Stray Dog
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, zzbu...@netscape.net wrote:
> Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:38:33 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "zzbu...@netscape.net" <zzbu...@netscape.net>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers, sci.physics, alt.computer.consultants
> Subject: Re: Shortage of scientists
>
The only good areas are DoD jobs and missions. And, they are not that good
because more of it is being farmed out to foreign countries.
Just look at all the items you listed above: how many at any public store
have "made in china" stamped on them?
Stray Dog
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Old Pif wrote:
> Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Old Pif <Old...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers, sci.physics, alt.computer.consultants
> Subject: Re: Shortage of scientists
>
Medical labe techs? You mean the area that is 80%+ paid from insurance
plans and Medicaid/Medicare which is already tanking because of the
layoffs and all those people go _off_ their health plans unless they use
COBRA, which is a lot more expensive since the company either does not
subsidize or subsidizes even less than for regular employee.
zzbu...@netscape.net
Probably a lot of them. But that's only because China actually
knows
how to make things other than Afghanistan trail maps.
>
> - Show quoted text -
phil scott
wrote:
a neighbor of mine did that 5 years ago... high school diploma..he is
a plebotomistisictis istist
now $35 hr/ killer benefts and perfect job security... his training
took 6 months or a year.
Phil scott
phil scott
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, Aging_Recycled_Scientist wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 06:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you add just two years of jr college chemistriy 1a, calulus, and
physics (or better, the book 'Physics for future presidents' ... on
top of the trade school, then you really get a functional person.
lack of the math and chem basics doesnt produce a lot capability where
it counts.
I took that set up (a bit more than 2 yrs jr college though, not a
lot)... to the temp engrs market, where I developed a reputation as
the guy to call if
all else failed and yer PhD's from afar and all yer licensed PE staff
had the job beyond salvage.
What I discovered in dozens of cases were PhD's. and licensed ME's
that didnt have even high school level understanding of the math/
chemistry and physics involved. (my grades in those were mediocre
btw... but apparently the core level principles stuck).
Without such basic understandings project engineering is hopeless...
it turns into a total snake pit, as failure looms likely from the
start and becomes more
evident with each and every entirely bogus meeting.
My rates by the hour at the time 1980-1998 by the hour exceeded what
they paid their MSME's and equalled or exceeded what most PhD's got...
at one place, Texas Instruments..(mid 90's) I was getting 37 dollars..
some PhD types 20. Others Im sure a lot more.
We are into a new economy where only actual competence pays. I am
staging my marketing for that, since the market will
be thin as hell, Im advertizing nationally to do turn key project for
other contractors.. projects that are an extensionn of thier usual
capabilities. I come in, do it for a fat rate. Thats a slick semi
large HVAC variable air volume building control package, remote
to the web etc...I can come in 30% low.. and do very well on the
particular strategy I developed for one my current clients.
we will see perhaps the *traveling journeyman again...and in the
engineering business as well.
Not to worry about the used car salesman type body shops for temp
engineers... those get marketed to engineering firms (with no clue
at all)... go direct to the front lines... and make the owners an
offer they simply cant refuse.... that is selling your product or
package into a retail
market.... not *below wholesale as with a wage job.
Phil scott
Phil scott
Uncle Al
>
> http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=shortage+scientists
Chemistry employment is no greater than 70%, physics no greater than
60% in discipline - full time with benefits short of discharge for
cause. If only we could replace 30% of each with genetic,
developmental, and behavioral trash; drug addicts and women; the
stupid, the pathetic, and the Officially Sad. That would leave about
40% of each still to be discarded.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Antonio Huerta
> I come in, do it for a fat rate. Thats a slick semi
> large HVAC variable air volume building control package,
You did a good choice of the area of specialisation. After all, crisis
or no crisis, people do not cease to shit or breath. And they
preferably need heating, too (alternatively, cooling).
Theoretical physicists and numerical modellers can go and shove it up
their bums.
phil scott
High end science when mixed with feet on the ground product
development insures a nations future...
I see both low end management (contracting trade) ignoring the need
for brains... and large US corporations
ignoring the need, at least in the US...because they can get PhD's in
china for 39 cents an hour.. use and abuse them
and then move on.
These sign their own death warrants by such idiocy... they remain in
the dark themselves, their brains as we have seen
turning certifiably to mush..along with their ethics and integrity...
these self destruct.
Better to be a hard working man with brains and integrity...that has
legs.
Phil scott
Old Pif
>
> Better to be a hard working man with brains and integrity...that has
> legs.
>
> Phil scott
Haired legs?
visual...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
there ain't no shortage of anything.
the shortage of programmers was a tactic used by microsoft and others
to flood the IT market with loads of programmers and depress wages.
Many bright, young minds were suckered into earning a degree in this
field only to find out their jobs were being sent overseas.
Nobody is falling for that bait anymore.
gregorylo...@gmail.com
> http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=shortage+scientists
"Dentistry and the Priesthood Better Career Bets Than Science", APS
News 13 (9), October 2004, p 4.
"Supply Without Demand", Science 303, February 20, 2004
(www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5661/1105).
"NSF Falls Short On Shortage", Nature 356, April 16, 1992, p 553.
"Lost numbers game", Nature 356, April 16, 1992 p 548.
"Fewer Academic Jobs Spur Potdocs To Organize Against Disadvantages",
The Scientist 12 (1), January 5, 1998, (www.the-scientist.com/yr1998/
jan/bunk_p1_980105.html).
"Don't Become a Scientist!", wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html
There never was a shortage of scientists. That mythology might be
traced to an NSF study that, according to Mervis in the "NSF falls
short on shortage article", was "so flawed as to be nearly worthless".
Sustained by those who wanted to create a surplus of postdocs for
possible future need ("Dentistry and the Priesthood" article). And, of
course, encouraged by those employers who want a larger population of
job applicants so they can pick the best at bargain-basement prices
(more on that phenomenon in "Q&A: Information Builders CEO blasts
Gates' H-1B stand", ComputerWorld, www.computerworld.com/printthis/2005/0,4814,101493,00.html).
But you'd never get that from reading Physics Today or talking with
the professor. We must reverse the declining enrollment in science and
engineering! They talk about overpacked curricula, unapproachable
faculty, inadequate academic counseling, and more, presumably none of
which has changed much since the 1960's. But not a thing about job
prospects. ("Guest comment: Why undergraduates leave the sciences",
Am. J. Phys 63 (3), March 1995, p 199).
(If anyone has other articles on the subject, I'd like to add them to
my collection.)
Sue...
> http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=shortage+scientists
On Apr 25, 11:13 pm, Antonio Huerta <ahue...@inbox.com> wrote:
> http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=shortage+scientists
There can't be a shortage for what there is no demand.
Bribing a politician to cover gambling losses with public
money yields a much greater return than investing in
ventures that serve the public, profitably.
Those writers must have earned their MBAs on another
planet. Scientists and dairy farmers became obsolete
years ago on this planet.
Sue...
Old Pif
>
> There can't be a shortage for what there is no demand.
>
Right. Science is the result of non-market forces although at some
point in history it has been a substantial factor in the market game.
In XVIII and XIX century it had been funded exclusively by private
means to satisfy personal curiosity. The only relatively short period
of time - several decades after WWII - it had been massively funded by
commercial world. This source has mostly dried out today and science
relies heavily on the government funding.
Having this in mind, all these debates about shortage of scientists
look absolutely pointless because the amount of scientists needed is
very easy to estimate exactly based on the amount of funds available.
Phantom
There were quite a few articles in "The Scientist" back roughly early
1990s. I had a website once dealing with science career problems, with
references to many books, articles, and other websites but the problem was
that most kids just starting out did not want to hear about the fake
shortage, and also did not want to organize an advocacy group that would
try to deal with the overproduction of PhDs. (this is unlike the situation
in medicine where the medical schools do have various deans who do
cooperate in limiting the production of MD degrees in such a manner as to
make sure supply of MDs is not far over what society can absorb.
One book of interest is "The PhD Factory" by Massy (or Massey?) and
Goldman, circa 1995+, where it is clear that the purpose of a PhD student
is to provide cheap help to the faculty (each of which actually runs a
fiefdom as if he were a barron in a middle age kingdom, headed by a king
(the department chair),
If you send me your email address, I can send you a zip file that contains
the whole website that I once had running. There were a lot of websites
back then dealing with career problems. Today most of the "career"
websites have "canned" information that is unhelpful in situations where
you basically have ten fishermen sitting around a fishing pond with five
fish in it and most people can't seem to figure out that five of those
fishermen are going to go home and go to sleep hungry that night.
It's a very serious situation added on to the fact that most companies in
the USA are trying their hardest to exploit the (cheap) exchange rates in
3rd world countries where a warm body can be hired for 1/10 (or less) to
1/5 of what it costs to hire the same person in the USA. And, even in
India and China, those societies can't generate jobs for more than a small
fraction of their own college graduates.
/////////////////////////////
On Sun, 10 May 2009, gregorylo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 03:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
> From: gregorylo...@gmail.com
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers, sci.physics, alt.computer.consultants
> Subject: Re: Shortage of scientists
>
phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
My career has been accidental to some degree. the algorithm that
seems most workble though is:
1. do not work for others unless its for a brief time to gain
experience, or you think you can end up as CEO.
2.. gain the highest rate skill sets that you also find interesting...
(the high end trades, nurse practitioner (private), ultra high end
artisan work, furnature, avanced glass blowing. or things that require
tools or a facility most cant afford of have enough use for. for
example). my solution as I age is getting good at very high end CAD
work 3D modeling to leverage my background into
the guru for hire range... most dont get good enough at high end cad
for that or have the background and licensing to leverage
that combination. (still not easty, but it does fly). If you can do
a vertically integrated combination of things you are better off
than if you specialise in tough times... in plush times it seems the
specialist can do better.
3. Get any licenses required. Join the relevant trade assns etc.
and get the trade journals....do cold call promotion. show up
with a killer brocher, say hello and leave... skip the sales pitch.
that has about a 5% hit rate in some markets, not so hot, but each hit
can be worth 50,000 dollars worth of work over a few years. the
handyman level hit rate is $400 per day of work for every 6 hours cold
calling.. with another 400 +++ spinning off from that later. Cold
callnng 2 days a month will keep a person busy after a while. thats
calif and NYC prices.. florida would be half that. (I dont recommend
living in low rent areas for that reason... find a way to live cheap
in a high rent area).
4. promote to those who need but do not have those skills. (general
contractors or direct to other businesses).. make sure your total
gross,thats mark up on parts and your labor add up to 3x the wage rate
for such work. at the high end its 10x. thats rare though.
5..working on homes is not such bad back up work..but has a high
heartburn to rewards ratio unless you are personalbe as hell with a
thick skin. and can *look like you walk on water at all times
regardless the convoluted messes you face..
***
the problem with corporate work in many cases is the narrow skill set
is not translatable to main street, and corporations go
broke like clock work, meantime its a snake pit inside for all but the
most laid back folks (who also work cheap)... th snake pit
envioronment and a requirement that you cater to baloney ruins a
person from the inside out...unless he has union protection..that
seems to work. Obama is in favor.. that might be a ray of hope
unless the unions go into overkill mode.
hiring a helper or two, and using yer buds in the high end work pays
off very well too. (I got burned out with the govt red tape
and need to meet payroll on that approach though (27 men at one
time)...if the economy slows and you have overhead you get
eaten alive before you can react.
free lance associations though... not such a bad deal.\
Phil scott
gregorylo...@gmail.com
widespread appeal of a physics degree. If you actually talk to
employers you'll get a different picture. For one thing, when they
want an engineer they'll hire an engineer. Whether justified or not, a
hiring manager at an aerospace company said that physics was a niche
and they don't need many physicists, a hiring manager at a defense
contractor said that normally they look at EEs and it doesn't occur to
them to look at physicists. A manufacturer said that when they hire
someone with a two year degree in electronics they know what they're
getting, they don't know what a physics degree teaches you. One EE
said he doesn't even consider physics to be a technical degree.
Another engineer turned technical writer said that a lot of engineers
harbor a lasting resentment against physics because of the freshman
courses they'd almost failed (I didn't mention that it never gets
easier for the physics student).
They'll talk about other fields, like finance and computer
programming. That's true to a certain extent-- some companies hiring
for some positions will hire people with any quantitative degree, and
train them. But it's a very selective process-- "stellar grades", day-
long interviews, logic tests, presentations, etc. They're skimming the
cream, which means it's not exactly a reasonable career strategy for
The Rest Of Us. Beyond that, programming has become a mature
profession that requires a large body of knowledge that's just not
taught in the typical physics curriculum (how many graduate with a
knowledge of UML and event-driven programming?). Maybe it was true 20
years ago that any technical degree could get you in, but not today.
In the world of finance it seems like they need additional
qualifications besides that physics degree, like five years of
experience modeling derivatives. (And how does the physics student get
that experience? If you know, tell me.)
Take a lesson from me. Among all the reasons I'm not currently using
my degree, I think an important one is that I didn't dig a niche for
myself. I didn't have the grades or publication record to be
attractive in academia, and my experience with neutron physics is not
highly attractive in industry.
If you want a job in physics, decide at an early stage what you want
to do. If you want to go into academia you need grades, and you need
to wow them with your public speaking skills (e.g. the colloquium you
will give during your day-long interview). And the primary product of
academia is the research paper, and your other most important duty
will be to bring in grant money, so you should have a publication list
as long as your arm and a proven record of receiving grants or
fellowships.
And if you want to get a job in industry, you should focus on
marketable skills like solid state, magnetic media, or optics. And
bear in mind that engineers do a lot of that sort of thing, too. You
might get there with an EE after only four years. Or you might
consider an engineering major as an undergrad, with physics electives,
followed by a physics PhD. And if you're applying for a post-doc,
don't tell them that you ultimately want to work in industry, because
they usually don't care as much about publishing in industry, and your
interviewer will assume that you don't, either. I've been assured that
there's also a paternalistic feeling that you'll be "lost" or "wasted"
if you don't plan to follow in your advisor's footsteps, so why put
all that effort into training you.
These are a few things your adviser won't teach you.
Phantom
On Tue, 12 May 2009, gregorylo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
> From: gregorylo...@gmail.com
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers, sci.physics, alt.computer.consultants
> Subject: Re: Shortage of scientists
>
> One thing you'll read in the industry rags like Physics Today is the
> widespread appeal of a physics degree.
Most of the writers are just hired to spend 99% of their time writing some
article that reads smoothly, and 1% of their time doing any research
before doing the writing.
If you actually talk to
> employers you'll get a different picture.
See below...
For one thing, when they
> want an engineer they'll hire an engineer. Whether justified or not, a
> hiring manager at an aerospace company said that physics was a niche
> and they don't need many physicists, a hiring manager at a defense
> contractor said that normally they look at EEs and it doesn't occur to
> them to look at physicists. A manufacturer said that when they hire
> someone with a two year degree in electronics they know what they're
> getting, they don't know what a physics degree teaches you. One EE
> said he doesn't even consider physics to be a technical degree.
> Another engineer turned technical writer said that a lot of engineers
> harbor a lasting resentment against physics because of the freshman
> courses they'd almost failed (I didn't mention that it never gets
> easier for the physics student).
Its more important to ask questions like: how many applications did they
get, how many interviews did they schedule, how did the CVs/resumes look
to them, did they make any job offers, how many guys did they call back
for second and third or more re-interviews and over what period of time,
and then (if they will tell you) you need to ask how much background
investigation they will do on you (which might take place after they do
the interviews) and what it will involve (credit rating, nations most
wanted criminals, prior arrest/charge records, political gossip from net
snoops who make their money digging up dirt on your name, medical physical
exam results, drug tests). And, if you think that is not happening, I've
even seen it stated on job applications sitting in plain view in dumb
convenience stores for casheir jobs.
I have a Wall Street Journal article that looked at an example (I've heard
this from others) where it took 6-9 months from interview to job offer.
> They'll talk about other fields, like finance and computer
> programming. That's true to a certain extent-- some companies hiring
> for some positions will hire people with any quantitative degree, and
> train them. But it's a very selective process-- "stellar grades", day-
> long interviews, logic tests, presentations, etc. They're skimming the
> cream, which means it's not exactly a reasonable career strategy for
> The Rest Of Us. Beyond that, programming has become a mature
> profession that requires a large body of knowledge that's just not
> taught in the typical physics curriculum (how many graduate with a
> knowledge of UML and event-driven programming?).
You need to be thinking also about how many of those jobs are reserved for
H1-B non-immigrants from India. You will never get a job offer for those
jobs. And, this is a very very hot topic that will rarely get into
mainstream newspapers.
Maybe it was true 20
> years ago that any technical degree could get you in,
Yes. I got my first real, full-time, permanent job in the 1960s, with a BS
in physics, as a "project engineer" (job title), and it wasn't too bad.
But, I got this idea years later to get my PhD (in a different field).
but not today.
> In the world of finance it seems like they need additional
> qualifications besides that physics degree, like five years of
> experience modeling derivatives. (And how does the physics student get
> that experience? If you know, tell me.)
You would do well to spend about one whole day (I am serious) using google
to see if you can find autobiographical material that goes over this. I
have the idea that the guys with the physics degrees have already spent
time on their own to learn the arcane sice of finance/derivatives and come
up with some selling points and literally sell themselves to existing
companies or even start their own.
I know there are books on "quants" so that is one keyword you can start
with.
> Take a lesson from me. Among all the reasons I'm not currently using
> my degree, I think an important one is that I didn't dig a niche for
> myself. I didn't have the grades or publication record to be
> attractive in academia, and my experience with neutron physics is not
> highly attractive in industry.
Academia is in another dimension in reality, the commercial world lives,
works, pisses, shits, bleeds, sweats, and grovels on the surface of planet
Earth.
> If you want a job in physics, decide at an early stage what you want
> to do. If you want to go into academia you need grades,
You also need brains and very good math abilities.
and you need
> to wow them with your public speaking skills (e.g. the colloquium you
> will give during your day-long interview). And the primary product of
> academia is the research paper,
Unless you end up teaching as a adjunct (crap job) faculty, most
institutions will pressure you into getting grants/contracts and most
grant proposal authors will tell you that they have to write 3-10
proposals to get just one funded. Its a very very rough racket unless you
are a Jesus Christ who can walk on water, a King Midas who can touch
anything and it turns into gold, and a Merlin-the-Magician (or Harry
Potter) that can wave a finger and solve any problem.
and your other most important duty
> will be to bring in grant money, so you should have a publication list
> as long as your arm and a proven record of receiving grants or
> fellowships.
And, be careful that once you are on soft money, you may stay on soft
money for the rest of your career.
> And if you want to get a job in industry, you should focus on
> marketable skills like solid state, magnetic media, or optics. And
> bear in mind that engineers do a lot of that sort of thing, too.
I would advise differently: you need to find out where the jobs really are
and how easy it is to get them. Then, pick the least undesireable job type
and start looking for a program that leads to that credential.
Before you get started, you need to talk to their placement office ans see
what the success rates are for job applicants.
Two of the best stories I ever heard were from truck driving teachers at
local community colleges who told me that in their 1-2 month long programs
virtually even student gets a job offer before they finish. Its usually
shit work, cross country driving, but after a year of that you can pick
better jobs. Bad news: Mexicans are competing with you now for those jobs.
You
> might get there with an EE after only four years. Or you might
> consider an engineering major as an undergrad, with physics electives,
> followed by a physics PhD. And if you're applying for a post-doc,
> don't tell them that you ultimately want to work in industry, because
> they usually don't care as much about publishing in industry, and your
> interviewer will assume that you don't, either. I've been assured that
> there's also a paternalistic feeling that you'll be "lost" or "wasted"
> if you don't plan to follow in your advisor's footsteps, so why put
> all that effort into training you.
The whole lie about the non-existent "shortage" is that schools, deans,
chairs, and professors depend on the existence of students to justify
their existence and jobs. They are not going to tell you the truth that
the job markets today are flooded with applicants.
> These are a few things your adviser won't teach you.
Another article I read recently said that actually the trade schools and
the vocational schools (all two year programs or less) have been getting
increasing numbers of kids who are applying who already have BS degrees
and they are going to these two year programs because they _can't_ find
jobs in the majors they studied.
And, all the hype in the magazines don't tell people where the applicant
to job ratios are. They might tell you that some BS in X got ave salary
$50,000 but they won't tell you that 50-75% of those BSes never got job
offers and what do they do?
And, look at the student debt loads that are out there. Another
nightmare.
Phantom
To Greg....
I have set the website up again and emailed you the URL to both email
addresses.
rabbits77
Post it to usenet!
Strich-Reply-To-Idiots
> On Tue, 12 May 2009, gregorylorenhan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
I think you all are confused. Physicists are not scientists. They
are modern day priests who hold the relativity bible close to their
chest and preach from there. Physicists of today will not recognize
the scientific method or statistical analysis even if it hit them in
the head.
Take for example the Gravity Probe B experiment. This is an exercise
in both scientific method and statistical analysis. The result of the
experiment was negative.
But physicists, not knowing what scientific method or statistical
analysis means, mistakenly try to reinterpret the results in clear
violation of both the principles of a proper scientific method and
statistical analysis. Modern day physicist-priests get lost when the
experimental results go against their bible.
gregorylo...@gmail.com
On May 13, 8:16 am, Phantom <qcwa...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009, gregorylorenhan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: gregorylorenhan...@gmail.com
> > Newsgroups: sci.research.careers, sci.physics, alt.computer.consultants
> > Subject: Re:Shortageof scientists
> Its more important to ask questions like: how many applications did they
> get, how many interviews did they schedule, how did the CVs/resumes look
> to them, did they make any job offers, how many guys did they call back
> for second and third or more re-interviews and over what period of time,
> and then (if they will tell you) you need to ask how much background
> investigation they will do on you (which might take place after they do
> the interviews) and what it will involve (credit rating, nations most
> wanted criminals, prior arrest/charge records, political gossip from net
> snoops who make their money digging up dirt on your name, medical physical
> exam results, drug tests). And, if you think that is not happening, I've
> even seen it stated on job applications sitting in plain view in dumb
> convenience stores for casheir jobs.
I'd love to know that stuff. But most hiring managers don't have much
time for one of those guys they didn't even call in for an interview.
Maybe it would be different for someone who could flash a "respected
columnist" credential.
But I have been toying with the idea of trying to get alumni lists and
asking graduates for their job history since graduating. It would be
interesting to see statistics, but mostly I've just seen anecdotes.
> > In the world of finance it seems like they need additional
> > qualifications besides that physics degree, like five years of
> > experience modeling derivatives. (And how does the physics student get
> > that experience? If you know, tell me.)
>
> You would do well to spend about one whole day (I am serious) using google
> to see if you can find autobiographical material that goes over this. I
> have the idea that the guys with the physics degrees have already spent
> time on their own to learn the arcane sice of finance/derivatives and come
> up with some selling points and literally sell themselves to existing
> companies or even start their own.
That's another that I was toying with. I know there are people who
start in physics and go on to other things. But how? Gil Amelio, for
one, got a PhD in physics, and then was CEO of National Semiconductor
and then Apple Computer. In between, I suppose he learned corporate by
working at Bell, Fairchild, and Rockwell. That sort of career path
depends on first getting a sufficiently high level job that you can
involve yourself with project management, finances, and so on. But if
you have the physics degree and you're flipping burgers, well, what's
the career path?
> > And if you want to get a job in industry, you should focus on
> > marketable skills like solid state, magnetic media, or optics. And
> > bear in mind that engineers do a lot of that sort of thing, too.
>
> I would advise differently: you need to find out where the jobs really are
> and how easy it is to get them. Then, pick the least undesireable job type
> and start looking for a program that leads to that credential.
Sort of the same thing, except I rattled off some specific examples.
The problem, of course, is that by the time you get that degree with
that specialty, will the jobs still be there? I don't think solid
state or magnetic media are going away any time soon, but I don't know
what the competition is for them. MEMS was hot for a while, I don't
know if it still is. "Nanotechnology" is hot, but you don't specialize
in nanotechnology. You specialize in coatings, or semiconductors, or
something specific at that scale.
> Another article I read recently said that actually the trade schools and
> the vocational schools (all two year programs or less) have been getting
> increasing numbers of kids who are applying who already have BS degrees
> and they are going to these two year programs because they _can't_ find
> jobs in the majors they studied.
Doesn't surprise me. Suppose you're the physics graduate flipping
burgers. What *is* the career path? How long can you have not worked
in your field before nobody will ever hire you to work in your field?
You could work up the restaurant chain and go to Hamburger University,
starting a decade later than the kid from high school. Or you could
try something else that requires some training, like accounting. And
by now you have a different understanding of education; you want to
get in as quickly as you can and you can always pursue more advanced
degrees on a part-time basis later on.
Old Pif
>
> That's another that I was toying with. I know there are people who
> start in physics and go on to other things. But how?
>
It is a combination of historical development and general attributes
of physics as a profession.
Historically, physicists started to use computers may be only second
to mechanics. Most of the best computational codes have been written
by physicist without (thank God!) any involvement of professional
programmers. And when programming started to expand as a massive
profession the physicist already possessed the required skills while
colleges as always were slow in opening of new curriculum. So, many of
them switched profession with substantial personal financial gain.
Now, when computer science department are baking the legions of
programmers it is better not to mention your physics degree.
One more event that I have witnessed and participated was when so
called financial industry took interest in mathematics. Again the
financial schools had not been prepared and the physicists turns out
to be the natural choice. At the time they had it all - the required
mathematical training, problem solving skills and what is very
important a capability to connect the mathematics to reality which
traditionally is a weak point of professional mathematicians. So, many
took advantage of that and switched careers and earned very good
money. Now it is over. There are dozens of departments that trains
financial mathematicians and physicists lost their advantage.
By the nature of their training physicists could be easily retrained
in anything but perhaps opera singers. However, at the moment nobody
gives a damn. Until the next unexpected niche will open up. If any.
Androcles
"Old Pif" <Old...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:db19ab23-e304-47d3...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
============================================
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Your prejudice is showing.
You can't retrain a physicist, they are failed mathematicians.
Just look at this drooling idiot:
Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
Old Pif
> BWAHAHAHAHA!
> Your prejudice is showing.
> You can't retrain a physicist, they are failed mathematicians.
> Just look at this drooling idiot:
>
Only idiots can't be retrained. All the other can.
Androcles
==================================
Only babbling untrainable morons have to snip to hide the truth.
Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
Your answer goes here:
________________________________________________________
Other answers have been:
According to the illiterate crank "Peter Webb"
<webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
Its two equations.
________________________________________________________
According to the novice mitch sper...@gmail.com (or mitchs perkins)
because +v / -v cancel out?
________________________________________________________
According to the Pillock Shawn Pollock (aka mathkills):
Mikelzon Morrly, whatever.
What Einstein does is basically modify Galilean relativity as follows
X'=A(X-vt)
yes you [Androcles] are an ass (presumably because I asked the question)
________________________________________________________
According to glird the tord:
Both x and x' are in the domain of the function x |-> x' such that x' =
x-vt
________________________________________________________
According to Idiot Ian Parker:
We are not talking about the speed of light here we are talking
classical stability theory.
________________________________________________________
According to Cretin harald.vanlin...@epfl.ch
Easy: he did NOT say that.
According to cretin van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to xxein (not a true dingleberry):
It is an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of sorts.
________________________________________________________
According to Lamenting Shubert:
Why do you want to know?
________________________________________________________
According to Imbecile Jimmy Black:
" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."
According to Imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Cretin Dork Bruere
I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Lying Little Shit Matthew Johnson
And even the question is wrong! For he never said any such thing.
This should be painfully obvious from what he _did_ say,
namely, that the vacuum speed of light is a constant of nature,
invariant under all admissable [sic] transformations between
inertial reference frames.
Apparently LLS Matthew Johnson has rewritten Einstein's paper.
A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the
University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say
"inertial".
According to LLS Matthew Johnson, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Chief Wanker Uncle Stooopid Schwartz:
"c+v appears nowhere in the paper, nor could it. [sic]
According to Chief Wanker Uncle Stooopid, Einstein did not write the
equation he wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Dolt "Spirit of Truth"
that math is correct but WRONG
________________________________________________________
Scene:
River.
Current, 4 m/s. Swimmers, 3 /ms and -3 m/s.
River bank.
3+4 = 7 is "not the speed of anything w.r.t. anything",
"it's a closing speed." -- Ben Green Jr. Ph.D. physics 1956
________________________________________________________
Note: some names may be the aliases of a crank or cranks unknown.
Phantom
On Thu, 14 May 2009, gregorylo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
> From: gregorylo...@gmail.com
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers, sci.physics
> Subject: Re: Shortage of scientists
>
Here is another juicy bit of gossip for you. True story. Wife and I were
at a mid scale seafood restaurant. Fairly large. She could overhear two of
the waitresses talking to each other barely around the corner (her ears
are better than mine for this). One was telling the other "Oh, all of us
here have BS degrees, and two of us have masters degrees, too."
gregorylo...@gmail.com
> On May 14, 5:45 pm, gregorylorenhan...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > That's another that I was toying with. I know there are people who
> > start in physics and go on to other things. But how?
>
> It is a combination of historical development and general attributes
> of physics as a profession.
>
> Historically, physicists started to use computers may be only second
> to mechanics. Most of the best computational codes have been written
> by physicist without (thank God!) any involvement of professional
> programmers. And when programming started to expand as a massive
> profession the physicist already possessed the required skills while
> colleges as always were slow in opening of new curriculum. So, many of
> them switched profession with substantial personal financial gain.
> Now, when computer science department are baking the legions of
> programmers it is better not to mention your physics degree.
Something that has to be included in your history is that physicists
are very good at creating algorithms for doing numerical math. Fitting
curves piece-wise to do an integral, changing the time step when
solving differential equations, that sort of thing. They're quite good
at it. But to talk to a user, get and refine requirements, design (not
sit at the keyboard and start typing, but design) and document a piece
of software from beginning to end where that adaptive Runge-Kutta
alogorithm is summed up in one little box out of a thousand... There's
a whole art that's taught in computer science courses but not physics
courses.
Physicists were getting programming jobs before all of that stuff
really existed. These days programmers might sit around talking about
implementing a listener, and the physicist will say "A what?" because
he hasn't studied the design patterns.
>
> One more event that I have witnessed and participated was when so
> called financial industry took interest in mathematics. Again the
> financial schools had not been prepared and the physicists turns out
> to be the natural choice. At the time they had it all - the required
> mathematical training, problem solving skills and what is very
> important a capability to connect the mathematics to reality which
> traditionally is a weak point of professional mathematicians. So, many
> took advantage of that and switched careers and earned very good
> money. Now it is over. There are dozens of departments that trains
> financial mathematicians and physicists lost their advantage.
Unless the physicist has already had a successful career in something
abstract and mathematical, and he's thinking of changing focus. But
that doesn't help the ones that are still trying to get started. There
are more things open to the ones that have already had a successful
career thus far.
>
> By the nature of their training physicists could be easily retrained
> in anything but perhaps opera singers. However, at the moment nobody
> gives a damn. Until the next unexpected niche will open up. If any.
Oh, sure. I once spent days studying my ass off to learn about Kalman
filters before an interview. I had a pretty good handle on them, I'd
coded some examples of them, I could talk about the merits of
different kinds. And I'd worked with some digital filters for a
controller in my dissertation research. So I thought that if I were
hired I could get productive pretty quickly. At the interview,
although the position title was Kalman Filter Analyst, none of that
actually came up, and they hired someone else. I like to think it
wasn't because I was a bad fit, but because they only needed to like
one other person a little bit more. And maybe he had a degree in
computer science.
Stray Dog
On Fri, 15 May 2009, gregorylo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
> From: gregorylo...@gmail.com
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers, sci.physics
> Subject: Re: Shortage of scientists
>
I'm going to offer that it might have been plain "chemistry". People
sometimes just "click" when they meet and then all the "objective"
criteria just don't matter anymore.
Old Pif
>
> Physicists were getting programming jobs before all of that stuff
> really existed. These days programmers might sit around talking about
> implementing a listener, and the physicist will say "A what?" because
> he hasn't studied the design patterns.
>
For physicist it is really too simple and instead of talking he just
do it. Many things that other people make a big deal of like design
patterns e.g. are really very simple and easy. That is another thing a
physicist must learn - to descend to the level of programmers without
offending them. Very important.
I recall being interviewed for a position that on the job description
looked like demand for the software genius. What those people were up
to was writing a software that maps the same document from one format
to another. In physics nobody would even bother to talk about it. You
need mapping of one data format to another? Grab your ass sit and do
it. They, on the other hand, have created the whole philosophy about
it and you have to turn all you antennas to feel that psychology of
making small things big to navigate away from potential conflicts.
Old Pif
Terribly pleased to see you old name again. With age people become
conservative ...
gregorylo...@gmail.com
wrote:
It must seem that way to you.
> Take for example the Gravity Probe B experiment. This is an exercise
> in both scientific method and statistical analysis. The result of the
> experiment was negative.
The result of the experiment was inconclusive, not negative. The
uncertainty was larger than the result. Since I assume you understand
statistical analysis, you should know that.
>
> But physicists, not knowing what scientific method or statistical
> analysis means, mistakenly try to reinterpret the results in clear
> violation of both the principles of a proper scientific method and
> statistical analysis. Modern day physicist-priests get lost when the
> experimental results go against their bible.
You have evidently never tried to conduct a complex experiment. Shit
happens. But then you learn, you measure, and with an improved
understanding of the system you can reduce your error bar. At the
simplest, you might discover that a voltage was set wrong. Or you
might discover static charges on your balls.
But if Gravity Probe B bashes Einstein, that's all right. His gravity
theory has had a good run. And it's been a fecund theory, motivating
measurements like radar time delay, frequency shifting, and
gravitational lensing. It's had around 90 years of success. No matter
what the results of Gravity Probe B are, Newton has been toppled long
ago, and the data won't let us go back. You won't like the next great
theory of gravity any more than you like this one.
Stray Dog
On Sat, 16 May 2009, gregorylo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 03:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
> From: gregorylo...@gmail.com
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers, sci.physics
> Subject: Re: Shortage of scientists
>
I hate to burst your bubbles, guys.
But, I'll say that all you guys need to be spending more time thinking
about:
1. how you are going to be employed until you get to retirement age.
2. how you are going to have enough resources so that you can have a
comfortable standard of living when you do retire (that means
food, house,and paying bills).
3. how you are going to have enough resources for medical problems when
you retire.
4. understanding the implications of studies that show people have average
of three different careers in an average of 15 jobs in their
lifetime.
5, the future implications for the USA of geo-economic-political
shifts (and continually increasing debt, deficits) from a
declining USA and rising Asia.
And for the heady-intellectual appetite, here are two books I read in
recent years that I found interesting:
"The End of Physics"
"The End of Science"
My own favorite scientific "event" in recent times was the prediction of
the cometary impacts on planet Jupiter back in 1990s sometime and the
spectacular telescopic photos of the event (two books, at least, were
written on that event; maybe someday I'll try to get them and read them
just for interest).
Old Pif
>
> No matter
> what the results of Gravity Probe B are, Newton has been toppled long
> ago, and the data won't let us go back. You won't like the next great
> theory of gravity any more than you like this one.
>
For everything that has relevance to the life on this planet Newton is
just right. General relativity is not used and will never be used for
anything practical. Its only application is cosmology and for that one
it is still incomplete. May be more experimental data help but it
looks like we are at the saturation point as far as experimental
capabilities are concerned. The progress if any is gonna be very slow.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> For everything that has relevance to the life on this planet Newton is
> just right.
You mean like doppler radar, nuclear power and GPS?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Old Pif
> In sci.physics Old Pif <Old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For everything that has relevance to the life on this planet Newton is
> > just right.
>
> You mean like doppler radar, nuclear power and GPS?
>
That and all the rest.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> On May 16, 12:45 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Old Pif <Old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > For everything that has relevance to the life on this planet Newton is
>> > just right.
>>
>> You mean like doppler radar, nuclear power and GPS?
>>
>
>
> That and all the rest.
Newtonion based reactors and GPS; what a concept...
Old Pif
> In sci.physics Old Pif <Old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 16, 12:45 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> In sci.physics Old Pif <Old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > For everything that has relevance to the life on this planet Newton is
> >> > just right.
>
> >> You mean like doppler radar, nuclear power and GPS?
>
> > That and all the rest.
>
> Newtonion based reactors and GPS; what a concept...
>
The concept is that the General relativity is not used for any of that.
Stray Dog
On Sat, 16 May 2009, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 16:45:01 GMT
> From: ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers, sci.physics
> Subject: Re: Shortage of scientists
>
> In sci.physics Old Pif <Old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For everything that has relevance to the life on this planet Newton is
>> just right.
>
> You mean like doppler radar, nuclear power and GPS?
If you want to hold up these three inventions as requiring more than
Newtonian concepts, then you need to explain why.
Doppler radar should be dependent on reflected echos that have slightly
different frequencies that would be detected electronically. Where does
Einstein fit into that?
Nuclear power might be connected to E-mc**2, but how to Einsteinian
relativity?
GPS might have some nearly infinitesimal corrections needed after quite
long periods of a moving clock, but I still think its on YOU to explain
your challenge.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Obviously you haven't a clue what the word "relativity" means.
For starters, relativity is in the design spec's for GPS, and Google
for it yourself.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Then why not say that instead of saying "...Newton is just right.", which
is ignorant nonsense.
Old Pif
> In sci.physics Old Pif <Old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 1:30 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> In sci.physics Old Pif <Old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On May 16, 12:45 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >> In sci.physics Old Pif <Old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > For everything that has relevance to the life on this planet Newton is
> >> >> > just right.
>
> >> >> You mean like doppler radar, nuclear power and GPS?
>
> >> > That and all the rest.
>
> >> Newtonion based reactors and GPS; what a concept...
>
> > The concept is that the General relativity is not used for any of that.
>
> Then why not say that instead of saying "...Newton is just right.", which
> is ignorant nonsense.
>
It was inaccurate statement. I apologize.
Androcles
====================================
The concept is that the General relativity is not used for anything.
That's an accurate statement.
the General relativity is piffle.
That's an accurate statement.
Stray Dog
On Sat, 16 May 2009, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 18:45:01 GMT
> From: ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers, sci.physics
> Subject: Re: Shortage of scientists
>
> In sci.physics Stray Dog <qcw...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 16 May 2009, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 16:45:01 GMT
>>> From: ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>> Newsgroups: sci.research.careers, sci.physics
>>> Subject: Re: Shortage of scientists
>>>
>>> In sci.physics Old Pif <Old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For everything that has relevance to the life on this planet Newton is
>>>> just right.
>>>
>>> You mean like doppler radar, nuclear power and GPS?
>>
>> If you want to hold up these three inventions as requiring more than
>> Newtonian concepts, then you need to explain why.
>>
>> Doppler radar should be dependent on reflected echos that have slightly
>> different frequencies that would be detected electronically. Where does
>> Einstein fit into that?
>>
>> Nuclear power might be connected to E-mc**2, but how to Einsteinian
>> relativity?
>>
>> GPS might have some nearly infinitesimal corrections needed after quite
>> long periods of a moving clock, but I still think its on YOU to explain
>> your challenge.
>
> Obviously
Its obvious that you did not "explain your challenge" and I think "in the
design specs" is not an answer. Furthermore, I gave in my sentence a
reference to a moving clock which is my "clue" that "relativity" might be
a factor that needs correction for.
> you haven't a clue what the word "relativity" means.
>
> For starters, relativity is in the design spec's for GPS, and Google
> for it yourself.
I think if you want to show some knowledge (and politeness) you're going
to have to do better than a "blow-off" response.
I don't have time for guys with ego problems.
And, that's my "Newton is just fine" answer.
Lastly, you did not show how nuclear reactor engineering was related to
relativity, or doppler radar.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
You can't even spell "sucks" either.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
>
> On Sat, 16 May 2009, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> For starters, relativity is in the design spec's for GPS, and Google
>> for it yourself.
>
> I think if you want to show some knowledge (and politeness) you're going
> to have to do better than a "blow-off" response.
I have no interest is wasting a lot of time with yet another crank
that doesn't know, understand, or accept the simple fact that relativity
is part of the GPS design specification.
http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/
gregorylo...@gmail.com
> In sci.physics Old Pif <Old...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For everything that has relevance to the life on this planet Newton is
> > just right.
>
> You mean like doppler radar, nuclear power and GPS?
In Maxwell's equations you get relativity automatically, so you don't
need explicit reference to a mechanical theory to get the correct
doppler shift. One of Einstein's contributions was to extend those
transformations to all of physics.
In designing nuclear power plants, you use measured cross-sections and
measured energies. Those can be understood best in terms of a
relativistic theory, and demonstrate the validity of it. But I don't
see where it comes in to design.
GPS, well, yeah, Einstein did help out there.
Old Pif
>
> One of Einstein's contributions was to extend those
> transformations to all of physics.
>
Lorentz and Poincare knew it all along. The problem was that the only
known at that time relativistic object was electromagnetic field which
is massless. So, what Einstein did are couple of Gedankenexperiments
of totally unrealistic situations to see how it works out. Those turn
out to be very useful when experiments with accelerators, reactors and
cosmology start to accumulate.