scientists as superstars

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Jun 2020 07:52:04 -0700) it happened snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in :

First to get murdered?

I sort of reduced my view of MIT after they came with that new wireless charging system was discussed here long ago, sold to Bo[e]ing I think it violated all EMI rules.

Oh but those keep being born here..

True, like Von Braun,

I think as climate change happens it is quite possible there is a shift in the US population to let's say a lesser IQ.

Living in warm climates with enough food does not inspire the brain to search for technology to survive.

It is just a theory, but in cooler climates you see accelerated development.

When you get run over and overthrown by an ever increasing black population with a lower IQ and education, yes call me racist, but it is a fact. That whole racist thing is abused by same group for about everything. So when the US system collapses and you go back to a bunch of warlords ruling a jungle..

Genetics.. forbidden to speak about it. and government structure. That is why I think China may outperform US. ruled by the people.

And the religious fanatics that deny life has been found by the Viking lander on mars, and from THAT MOMENT on sabotaged space travel and force endless looping around the earth. It did not fit their illusions.

What a place.

Religious fanatics are everywhere though and their void of understanding of reality is filled by dogma, and then taken as the only truth, end of science. Try getting free of that Republican bunch, but their folly projects make customers, Now where you are?

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 Jun 2020 07:57:56 -0700) it happened snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in :

For me Ohm's law without electrons would have kept me away from 'tronics. OneStone's graffiti without a carrier is meaningless. Photon is just a mathematical construct abused no end. E=m.c^2 was not only his:

was 'proven' over and over again, to the point where if your thing conflic ted with it you simply did not get published.

at describes reality, but has been shown to break down, and you cannot PROV E a theory but can sure disprove it.

Ohm didn't know about electrons when he formulated it.

Georg Simon Ohm, (born March 16, 1789, Erlangen, Bavaria [Germany], died Ju ly 6, 1854, Munich) before there were any cathode-ray tubes around - they d o not seem to have been invented until 1890.

It doesn't mean anything to Jan Panteltje, but the fault is in Jan, rather than the theory.

All physics is a mathematical construct. It does happen to be a useful cons truct to people who can think more competently than Jan, but he does seem t o resist learning enough to realise this.

ent-e-mc2/

Einstein does seem to have been the first to articulate the right answer in a reasonably compact and convincing way.

It's bit nostalgic to see Jan explaining that Einstein is over-rated. The p hysics user-groups used to be full of nut-cases explaining how Einstein was wrong. Of course most of them had their own theory, which they imagined to be better, and Jan hasn't bothered to tell us about his own superior insig hts.

Say a little thinker who invents nothing but imaginary people that he can spew contempt at.

Be careful with those eyerolls; you might damage your vision.

Einstein was a hero long before WWII.

and OneStone's theory was 'proven'

Equations that work, that are predictive of measurable quantities, aren't abuse. They tell us about reality. They help us design things.

I read that book it was called "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand died of lung cancer she thought anti-smoking propaganda was a Communist plot.

I have to appreciate your brevity as compared to Howard Roark though he blew up a building and then droned on for like 30 pages about it. What a snooze-fest.

If you thought a while before posting, you could reduce your multiple posts and self-followups. Save the world bandwidth.

How much does a job like that pay? I'll never even make an off-topic post here again for $X (negotiable.) All things are negotiable

It grossly distorts music too.

It's none of that; blaming it on various central authorities 'defects' illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding.

It's simple: America is freer. It's easier for regular people to invent, produce, and benefit from their creations here. So we have more of that, which produces a higher standard of living (both material, and political).

It's really that simple.

Big Government doesn't invent. It mostly squashes invention, creativity, and of course, freedom. To govern is to constrain; restrict.

Any nation waiting on a Boris, or a Tony--or any external shepherd-- expecting them to excite innovation with expanded bureaucratic requirements and redistributing society's resources, will be waiting a very long time indeed.

Cheers, James Arthur

Close to a case of the pot calling the kettle black, except that Bitrex can and does think, while John Larkin subcontracts that work to people like Donald Trump (who aren't all that good at it).

Within a year or two Einstein rewrote large swaths of physics. QM, Thermo, space-time.... It's amazing in many ways. (1905-6)

George H.

I thought they were invented by slaves because that was the best part of the animal they could get.

The propellor they hand-carved was 80% efficient, and a modern prop is

But the guy who got the government contract failed. So having scientific talent is a benefit but having official backing is not.

On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Jun 2020 07:27:21 -0700) it happened snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in :

Equations do not 'work', are a the best an estimate of reality. How freaking log have we now been seeing scientic papers ending with 'and this may being quantum computers much closer' It is the experimenter that counts. Hanging on to obvious flawed concepts and brainwashing kids with it goes nowhere.

OneStone never did any experiment in his life. His ideas is likely what keeps us from going to the stars. Left a brainwashed generation (playing balls in CERN for example..) I can hardly believe there is nobody who does not see the faults, if it is with DOD then they did a good job keeping it secret.

In the chain of events there is this funny shuttle like spacecraft doing secret experiments in space.. lauched again recently. In what I want to do for experiment would be nice to do in space too.

He made three mistakes.

He gave us E=MC2 but thought it couldn't be a practical source of power.

He predicted stimulated emission but thought that thermodynamics forbade a laser.

He included the "cosmological constant" in general relativitity, then called it his greatest blunder, which it probably wasn't.

Four, if you count going into the refrigerator business.

A few people are just off-the-charts smart.

Bill Sloman, Sydney who disagrees with common wisdom.

Scientists include experimentalists who mainly perform experiments to test hypotheses, and theoreticians who mainly develop models to explain existing data and predict new results.

If the outcome benefits their employer towards and end-goal of the organiza tion, there is no need to publish or patent it.

I think the number of publications are just for bragging rights that promot e external funding, salary and university profit even if many have no usefu l external value. I respect those who publish great volumes with productive outcomes are good scientists and those PhD's who are just proving they lea rned what others already know are just scientists-in-training. It's a learn ing exercise for beginner PhD. Making it work in practical volumes with lo w defect rates is a much bigger challenge that requires experienced scienti sts.

In the 70's all engineers did was produce paper to instruct others to build and test it. But then when it failed they had to fix the designs. Every success is built on many failures unless you are brilliant. I worked with m any brilliant Engineers, one who was studying to become a Rabbi. In 3 days he wrote all the code to test his motherboard with all the analog modem and digital inputs and outputs in loopback and it worked 1st time for fault de tection and isolation functional testing. I'd call him a great engineer an d scientist. (no publishing needed)

That's not the whole story, though. The number of experimenters that worked on perpetual motion was large, but the laws of thermodynamics defeated them all.

There's no beating those equations. Work with 'em, if you can, there's no glory in futile defiance.