On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 4:45:10 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > On 12/2/2014 7:38 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 3 December 2014 at 16:29, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:45:57 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: >> >> For some reason a lot of religious people attempt to argue that Darwin >>> was wrong, just as a lot of people seem to have always wanted to show that >>> Einstein was wrong. There appears to be something about these targets that >>> attracts a certain type of person, even though there might be better >>> pickings to be had objecting to the big bang or quantum theory from the >>> point of view of scoring points for the worldview being pushed. After all, >>> the Bible (for example) says that God made the Heavens and the Earth (and >>> the rest of the universe gets a throwaway line), so why object specifically >>> to evolution rather than, say, theories of planetary formation? >>> >>> I'd guess because... >>> >>> 1. people take it personally that their ancestors were simpler >>> creatures. >>> 2. it's a target they can sort of, more or less, understand, even if >>> they can't really. >>> >>> (I have a feeling people object to Einstein's theories because they >>> don't like the idea of being browbeaten by Jewish intellectuals...) >>> >> >> I can't disagree for the simple reason creationist nut >> over-representation on Darwin and anti-Semite over representation on >> Einstein is fait accompli pretty much the same regardess which one of us is >> right. If you are right, then ....well you say they are over-represented, >> and this is the case you are right, so...there they are! >> >> On the other hand if I'm right and these are two areas that have seen >> periods of large discouragement and disincentive to 'look there'. Well >> then, by consequence of that, all the genuine truth seekers never showed up >> at all. And the consequence of that is that the people that did show up are >> going to be religious nut and anti-Semite over-represented. >> >> So we have to go to the details Liz, and bring in other exhibits >> supporting our case. >> >> My Exhibit A is: Richard Feynman hasn't received anti-semitically >> motivated criticism at anything like the levels you imply for Einstein. Yet >> for a large number of people he's up there at the very top table of great >> scientific genius. He has also received a huge amount of dissent and >> criticism. No one says that is anti-Semitic. And by and large (I think) >> it's been dispelled. >> > > See point 2. Theories have to be more or less understandable before the > cranks start attacking them. So "we evolved from apes" and "you can't > travel faster than light" are far easier targets than summing over > histories and absorber theory and so on. > > > Right. And also it's easier to attack a theory developed by a single > person by ad hominem assertions. Einstein and Darwin developed their > theories almost singel handedly, while Feynman's contributions to QED were > mainly calculational. The same concepts of QED were shared with Schwinger > and others. > > >> Exhibit B is hugely disproportionate 25% of Nobels. A lot of big names >> there and all have received criticism yet none apparent involving >> dramatical levels of anti-Semitism. >> >> Exhibit C: >> It's not about the theories with Einstein. It's about whether he took >> other peoples ideas. You are aware Hilbert published the complete field >> equations 5 days before Einstein? >> > > That's ridiculous. Hilbert arrived at the same equations and he could > have argued for priority - although in fact he conceded to Einstein. >
It's not ridiculous - this was consensus to the 1990's. More on that below. Hilbert didn't claim priority but that doesn't change anything. The Nobel Prize official website includes this fact in its official timeline, quoted below with link at bottom. ! *1915* On November 25, nearly ten years after the foundation of special relativity, Einstein submitted his paper *The Field Equations of Gravitation* for publication, which gave the correct field equations for *the theory of general relativity* (or *general relativity* for short). Actually, the German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein. Hilbert never claimed priority for this theory. http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/physics/relativity/history-1.html But there's no way that Einstein could have stolen Hilbert's idea and > published in five days. > Yes. Einstein and Hilbert were in touch from an earlier point in the process. Einstein visited Hilbert at his home and stayed for several days in the lead up. But the primary data is that Hilbert published first. In the 90's there was a book that claimed to have examined the print negatives of Hilbert's 5 days earlier paper, and found a core piece of theory that should be at the top of the page was not in the theory. However the integrity of this book became controversial shortly after, when the negatives were recovered a second time to repeat the process. It was discovered the top half of the print negative had been ripped away, I think with evidence it was recent. The fact this has not been mentioned made the book controversial as mentioned. > You are aware every single character of the 1905 paper bar one, >> appears in papers in 1904, 1903 and further back. >> > > Not only that I notice that all the characters in you post have previously > been posted by me. STOP THIS PLAGARISM! > OK...gave me a laugh. Maybe I don't use the word 'character' properly. What I mean by 'character' are the key breakthrough insights and maths of the 1905 paper. This isn't even particularly controversial anymore. > > Einstein claimed he never read them. Late in life he tacitly conceded >> he did. And his two close friends later went on record they all been there >> and they pored over those papers for weeks. >> >> Those are legitimate reasons to doubt Einstein. >> > > Those are not the sort of reasons people wheel out when they attack > relativity (generally special) or evolution. They claim to have spotted a > flaw everyone else missed, approaching it from a very pop-sci viewpoint. > > > Right. Cranks and wackos don't write papers defending Hilbert's priority > to exactly the same theory. > I'm being very accurate to the historical record. No one has ever disputed the fact Hilbert published 5 days earlier. Even the 90's biook only argued a key piece of theory was missing. The 1905 paper issues are much less controversial. You've heard of Poincare? Laplace and the others? There's been an argument Einstein brought it all together. This does not stand up to scrutiny when the other work is viewed. It'd be good if the invective and personal attacks could come to an end. This isn't about me. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
