Who is your favorite Physicist?

Virtually every claim you make about SR is completely misguided and, in a word, just "wrong," Fresky. But that will never stop you from trying to sneeringly say that OTHERS don't understand SR.

You and Max are two peas in a pod. And, just like him, you NEVER respond to a challenge or question. You dispense will all discussion/debate, and just repeat your hollow claims of "superior understanding."

Give it up, chump. You're embarrassing yourself, you just don't know it.

One good thing about good old Rennie, though: Despite being a Frog, he wasn't a damn cheese-eater. I was talking to him at a bar the other night and a waitress came around with a tray filled with cheese. She asked Rennie if he wanted some.

He said, quite forcefully: "I think not!"

Then, all of a sudden, he just up and disappeared, ya know?

You really are a twat.

Well, Centrox, ya know, I was on a plane flight last year when a HOT stewardess asked me if I wanted some TWA coffee or TWA milk.

I said: No, thanks, Darlin, but I would sho nuff love some of your TWA tea!

Ya know, I would like to say that, despite being a damn Limey, you have a sense of humor. But I aint gunna lie about ya.

In my experience, the lower a person's IQ is, the more inclined he is to think he's a lot smarter than he is.

Likewise, the more ignorant he is, the more he thinks he knows.

And they're always so cocksure about it.

Strange phenomenon, actually.

Descartes lived in Holland most of his adult life. I think he ate more than his fair share of cheese.

Education is different than intelligence. You can be intelligent without being educated, being educated without having a certain level of intelligence is difficult but you don't need to be super-intelligent to get an education.

We are arguing about high school physics. It doesn't matter how intelligent you are, if you haven't taken the time to understand high school physics... you aren't going to understand any more advanced.

It isn't all about intelligence. You still have to take the time to actually learn how science works. If you don't understand what is taught in most high school physics classes, your opinions about Special Relativity are really just your own ideas about what makes sense to you.

Physics is based on centuries of human knowledge, to understand it you have to take the time to study, work through problems, do experiments and have your intuition challenged. People who do real physics spend years studying, and they are evaluated... without mastering Galilean relativity, you won't get past your first year in a Physics program. There is a good reason people spend so much time mastering these ideas, these concepts are at the core of modern Physics.

You can't just make stuff up based on what makes sense to you.

Maybe somebody other than me would like to explain to layman (a) the significance of 'twins' as a universally desirable 'control' in higher research and (b) the psychological impact of 'twins differentially aging' as a focus of paradigm revolution. The fact that Lorentz himself credited Einstein with a significant breakthrough relative to his own simplistic concept of 'local time' seems to be conveniently brushed under the carpet.
I think I have done enough in multiple 'draggings of the horse to water'!

Heh, Max, your own statements here disprove this. You claim to have a degree in physics, yet you repeatedly demonstrate that you don't understand the implications of Galilean relativity.

Are you ever gunna respond to one of my questions? One was "get it?" which you simply ignore.

It would have to be somebody other than you, Fresky, because you have "explained" nothing.

As the poseur that you are, you just assert empty claims and are obviously misinformed.

But nobody else except you could possibly explain your half-baked ramblings, because they are incoherent and unintelligible to any rational person.

Of course that's it's own problem, because your "understanding," whatever it may be, is inexplicable.

You never told us...was it 'drop out' or 'thrown out' ?

'Never went'.

Puzzle me this, eh, Centrox?

Seein as how I can pick up a college textbook on any subject imaginable at a thrift store for four bits or less, and seein as how I can read, why in the world would I wanna pay $100,00 per year to some pompous-ass college professors to read them to me?

I think it was Pascal (or maybe John Stuart Mill, or someone else, I forget) who reputedly fluently spoke latin, greek, and several other language at the age of 3; who had written a serious philosophical book by age 4, and who, by playing around on his bedroom floor, drawing diagrams, etc., had independently "discovered" virtually all the postulates and axioms of Euclidean geometry by the age of 5.

I sho nuff aint claimin to be no Pascal, but the common notion that everybody else must be as idiotic as you are seems kinda strange.

Hmm...this ' reliance on selective reading' claim for some reason brings to mind the news item that they had to change the warning signs for level crossings in Yoskshire, UK. because they read: 'Do not cross while red light is flashing'. They forget that 'while' means 'until' in Yorskshire dialect !

And on the subject of university physics, I remember my first practical in the lab where we were given a number of minor observation tasks to complete. We didn't know that the apparatus had been rigged such that what appeared to be right angles were not quite, or the meters had not been zeroed. This was of course to shock us into taking nothing for granted as regards experimentation...a lesson unobtainable from books!

Ain't perceptual set fun!

So here we have layman, who perhaps is to physics what Jethro Bodine was to 'cyphering', bearing in mind that Jethro at least 'dun graduted third grade' !

Well hush-my-mouth ! I never knew Abe was a physicist ! (... only a car manufacturer)

The problem with most college students, and even some college professors, is that they don't read to "understand." They read to pass the course. They don't ask questions, they simply try to memorize what they're told so that they can parrot it back come exam time.

Many of them turn out to be "educated idiots" who have no creativity, no imagination, no ability to critically analyze, and who never had an original thought in their lives. They're essentially just programmed robots.

The only "support" they can offer for their claims is that they "learned it in college." But they never really "learned" (in terms of truly understanding) anything in college. They didn't even try to. Yet they still like to imagine that they "know" **** which they only have a vague, superficial acquaintance with.

These are the ones who turn out to be what Feynman called "cargo cult scientists," i.e. people who think they are "doing science" if they can mimic the outer trappings of it, but who have no grasp whatsoever of the principles that produced the process they are trying to mimic

I think that was a story made up in Lancashire. English regional dialect speakers know both their own dialect and standard English, and that spoken dialect is not likely to appear in official written material.

From layman:
"It was only because of inertia, Galileo concluded, that when a cannonball was dropped from the mast of a moving ship, it would appear (to those on the ship) to fall "straight" down to the foot of the mast (although it would appear to follow a curved path to a stationary observer on the shore)."
____________________________

Dear Layman, as there have been experiments I am sure conducted on a say steel ball falling in a straight line from the mast top of s sailing boat, it will land at the foot of the mast, but to observers on shore the ball is falling in a curve line.

Dear readers here, I am as I see into myself, good at thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man’s conscious intelligence, I must submit that I need help from you guys here, who are into “Who is your favorite Physicist?

So, if I may, can you guys just talk with attention to experiments if any at all having been performed even several times already, as to substantiate your talking?

Dear readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath to read of experiments already done by enterprising scientists, into the matters at issue with the debating posters here in this thread on: “Who is your favorite physicist?

For I hope to read something here that is not into endless name-dropping and technical terms dropping, but grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man’s conscious intelligence, AND also now on experiments already successfully conducted by scientists.