The real amazeing thing about Einstien.

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kalstang

Guest
The real amazeing thhing about Einstien isnt all of the theories he put out that were later deemed fact. It's not even that fact that he never even finished school but came up with all of these. The amazeing thing about him is that he did all of this with nothing but a chalk board. He had no telescopes like we do today. He had no electron microscopes like we do today. He had pretty much nothing. And yet he come up with laws of physics and other laws which are still being used today. His theories are pretty much the foundation of most types of science today. He was the amazeing thing. Not what he put out. But how he was able to come about it. <br /><br />If we had even 20 people exactly like him today with the technology that we have today, what kind of advances would we beable to make I wonder. Cheap infinate energy? Cars that dont use gas? Would we be traveling the stars? <br /><br />I said it once and i'll say it again. Einstien was the real amazeing thing, not his work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ffff00"><p><font color="#3366ff">I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer.</font> <br /><font color="#ff0000">"Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~</font> <br /><font color="#cc99ff">Guns dont kill people. People kill people</font>.</p></font><p><font color="#ff6600">Solar System</font></p> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
"If we had even 20 people exactly like him today"<br /><br />point is, would we recognize them for what they would be at all?<br /><br />everybody needs his discoverer to be recongnized, Einstein had his Pauli or was it Planck who first called attention to his work, would today's Einstein find his discoverer?<br /><br />even after Einstein became known and famous, many physicists wouldn't accept his main theories for which he became famous, if no physicist at the begining said to his coleagues 'look at this, this man has something interesting to say', Einstein might have had to wait and who knows how it would eneded, fortunately he was living in healthier times than we do today, what with the tenured positions that are guarded almost no matter what and with nobody interested in upseting the cart in a radical way the way Einstein did with his landmark special relativity therory<br /><br />99.999 of those who recognize Einstein today wouldn't recognize him if he wasn't acclaimed by the crowd today, or should we say the herd, they only say he is great because others say that, not because they can see first hand he is great, that his theories say something true about the world, that's always the true nature of public acclaim<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

alokmohan

Guest
Look at poor Hooke.He discovered law of gravity,Newton got all the credit.Withot Pauli none would recognise Einstein.
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Lots of people were thinking about gravity at the same time as Newton. What none of them did, including Hooke, was place it on the mathematical foundation that Newton did. Hooke's discoveries in astronomy, geology, microscopy, mechanics and horology were widely recognised at the time.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
Yet again I agree with steve <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />AMEN.
 
S

search

Guest
Hello Kalstang<br />Although many things regarding Einstein life are not really factual in one thing I must agree with you. <br /><br />Einstein was one special mind.<br /><br />I also agree with another comment made from another member saying today may be difficult to recognize such mind and the reason is that a few so called scientists became more concern with image than with knowledge and some spend more time trying to destroy others than to offer what they have (if anything).<br /><br />However that is still a minority and in the end those who really got it will prevail the test of time no matter how perverse and twist minded their critics may be.
 
U

uuuu

Guest
"...when he got the Nobel Prize, he sent her the money, leading many to believe her ideas were helpful to him."<br /><br />What makes you so caustic and arrogant stevehw33? Have you achieved so little that you must adopt such an ATTITUDE to feel ADEQUATE? The above quote is certainly as much "urban myth" as fact, if not more.<br /><br />Why not lay off the poster, and try guiding, not gutting, those of us who may err in our efforts here?<br /><br />
 
K

Kalstang

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"you don't know what you are talking about." <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I have never claimed to know everything have I? And you are starting to get really annoying with your very rude behavior. A simple little "Kalstang you are wrong about Einstien haveing not finished school" would have sufficed just fine. Learn some Manners and stop being such a twit.<br /><br />Did you ever consider that I got him and someone else confused? Benjamin Franklin? I had been reading about Jim Anderson a bit before I wrote that also. Either way perhaps you should have asked before going on another of your tirades? <br /><br />Once again I have never claimed to know everything. And again these boards are for everyone. If you dont like what I post then dont reply or read it. ie: if you have nothing nice to say dont say it at all. There are others just as capable as you that can and have replied to me before. And they were never rude like you have been. If your being rude to me because you may think it will get me to leave then think again. I find these boards very interesting and I do learn quite abit here. Now back off on the rudeness.<br /><br />Oh and btw. Einstien haveing attended a school is not about science. Its about HISTORY.<br /><br />To everyone else thank you for your comments and I am sorry that steve is so rude. <br /><br />Edit part: Sorry for my attitude here but sometimes you just have to state something when you've had enough of the kind of attitude that steve constantly exhibits towards most of my posts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ffff00"><p><font color="#3366ff">I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer.</font> <br /><font color="#ff0000">"Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~</font> <br /><font color="#cc99ff">Guns dont kill people. People kill people</font>.</p></font><p><font color="#ff6600">Solar System</font></p> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The amazing thing about him is that he did all of this with nothing but a chalk board. He had no telescopes like we do today. He had no electron microscopes like we do today. He had pretty much nothing. ... He was the amazing thing. Not what he put out. But how he was able to come about it.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />yes, Einstein had brain and used it (at least when he was younger) and so do we, except we don't use it much to really think, its so much easier to engage in comfortable fantasies and never reconsider the foundations of science as it was laid for us by our precursors, including Einstein<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
This is all quite true. Rarely does a new and startling theory come out of the blue, with no antecedants. Same with Special and General Relativity, or for that matter, String Theory (based on everything from the Euler Beta Function, through Kaluza-Klein and Yang-Mills).<br /><br />"Standing on the shoulders of Giants." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
S

search

Guest
What Kalstang said about you was also the "Truth" and you seem not to like it either. <br /><br />The difference is that although he might not know he does not pretend he knows but has education while you do not have education and are always pretending you know.
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
In Kalstang's defense, it is a very common urban legend. I don't think it's really nice to jump down his throat just because he's heard this repeated so many times he thought it to be true. It's much simpler and more productive to just correct him than to beat him over the head with it.<br /><br />Kalstang is quite right about one thing: Einstein had a truly remarkable mind. Instrumentation was a bit better than I think Kaltang realizes back in Einstein's day; after all, many of Einstein's predictions cannot be observationally tested even today. Gravity waves are probably the best example, although with luck and good funding, that may be remedied fairly soon. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> One of his early successes would've been testable with telescopes available a century before Einstein, believe it or not: his predictions of the orbit of Mercury. That was definitely something that made his colleagues take notice of his theories. Nobody had ever predicted Mercury's orbit correctly before.<br /><br />But how did he come up with this stuff? Mainly in his own mind. His "thought experiments" are famous. He earned his detractors for those, since of course just because you've thought of something doesn't make it real. But he was astoundingly dilligent in his thought experiments. Thi is probably why they worked. He refused to take shortcuts. And these problems were not easy for him. He wracked his brain, and sometimes did not like the results.<br /><br />He had to have been a very interesting man.<br /><br />A friend of my grandfather's once had the amazing opportunity to take a class from the good professor. (Einstein was definitely highly educated; you don't get a professorship without a strong academic background.) He apparently started his lectures by picking up the chalk, facing the blackboard, looking over his shoulder at the students with a glint in his eye, saying "Ready?" and then tearing into the subject at a frenetic pace, scribbling equations ac <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
in my reckoning Einstein would likely have done what he did even if he dropped out of high school, in fact the more education he got which means mainly in mathematics and geometry, the less he was able to do and when in prime of his life he had maximum of mathematics and what not education behind his belt he ever had, he never came up with anything for the rest of his life (IMO the bugaboo of mathematical approach so typical of establishment to doing things had done him in in his later years when he was working on GUT and pondering all those dimensions from which effort he expected would somehow fall out that grand theory of everything, he was not thinking like he was in his young years but adpted the establishment approach to doing things... that remainds me in this connection of Newton who slipped into scientific bible interpretation or what it was he did in his later parts of life) <br /><br />since general relativity got confirmed (measurement of the bending of light around sun during the eclipse) he was famous enough to have access to best in the field to discuss things with and gain education that way but it did him no good, his nemesis was quantum mechanics that he never agreed with the way it developed and he was proved plenty wrong on that score and I personally believe that's how it will remain, he won't EVER be right in his views on QMs (I capitalized it knowing that rule one should never say never, that doesn't apply in this case IMO)<br /><br />look at the army of scientists who are bristling with titles of this and that and otherwise said to be brilliant but they are sterile when it comes to coming up with new theories that would hold up or are able to make advances only in relative nitpicking within details<br /><br />point is education can never teach you new stuff or even the road to it, in fact what you learn in school you have to later on challenge and fight it if you come up with something that will eventually amount to something, genius cannot be tou <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

search

Guest
One in a billion...<br /><br />"How strange is the lot of us mortals! Each of us is here for a brief sojourn; for what purpose he knows not, though he sometimes thinks he senses it. But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people -- first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy. A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving...<br /><br />"I have never looked upon ease and happiness as ends in themselves -- this critical basis I call the ideal of a pigsty. The ideals that have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty, and Truth. Without the sense of kinship with men of like mind, without the occupation with the objective world, the eternally unattainable in the field of art and scientific endeavors, life would have seemed empty to me. The trite objects of human efforts -- possessions, outward success, luxury -- have always seemed to me contemptible.<br /><br />"My passionate sense of social justice and social responsibility has always contrasted oddly with my pronounced lack of need for direct contact with other human beings and human communities. I am truly a 'lone traveler' and have never belonged to my country, my home, my friends, or even my immediate family, with my whole heart; in the face of all these ties, I have never lost a sense of distance and a need for solitude..."<br /><br />"My political ideal is democracy. Let every man be respected as an individual and no man idolized. It is an irony of fate that I myself have been the recipient of excessive admiration and reverence from my fellow-beings, through no fault, and no merit,
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
I concede your point. Intelligence, even very high intelligence, isn't <i>genius</i>. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
S

silylene old

Guest
<font color="yellow">in fact the more education he got which means mainly in mathematics and geometry, the less he was able to do and when in prime of his life he had maximum of mathematics and what not education behind his belt he ever had, he never came up with anything for the rest of his life (IMO the bugaboo of mathematical approach so typical of establishment to doing things had done him in in his later years when he was working on GUT and pondering all those dimensions from which effort he expected would somehow fall out that grand theory of everything, he was not thinking like he was in his young years but adpted the establishment approach to doing things</font><br /><br />Wow, if that isn't a pile of horse-poo. I suggest that you learn some history. Einstein did a whole lot more than just relativity, and his career as a physicist went into a lot of depth on each of the following subjects, along with multiple refereed papers following each seminal paper to further develop the concepts he developed. Albert Einstein published exactly 300 papers and works, the last one in 1954. This is a prodigious amount of research. This takes a whole lot of effort and time. He didn't just sit on his arse and hopelessly ponder dimensions and GUT.<br /><br /><b>Einstein's major contributions, along with the years that the first seminal papers were published: </b><br />1. capillary forces description and equations (1905)<br />2. brownian motion description and equations (1905)<br />3. Einstein-Simha equation: intrinsic viscosity description and mathematics (1905, 1936, 1940 papers)<br />4. Stoke-Einstein description and equations of light scattering (1905)<br />5. special relativity (1905)<br />6. general relativity (1915)<br />7. photoelectric effect (Nobel Prize) (1905)<br />8. critical opalescence description and equations: basis of fluctuation theory (1910)<br />9. Bose-Einstein condensate description and theory (1925)<br /><br />All of these discoveries and descriptio <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
from your list, only the 1925 Bose Einstein condensation paper sticks out as coming from past his prime years, no idea why you bothered to list those other ones, I don't dispute what he did in the early part of his life and I wouldn't claim he did nothing for the rest of his life, just that his genius left him after circa 1920, I am also saying that he totally failed in doing what he set to do in his midlife and old age and those two major goals (one could say grails) were figuring QM along the lines he would have liked to see it go and second the GUT, he failed miserably on both points, it has to be said (IMO GUT as he conceived it is very mistaken idea, it had to fail no two ways about it), never mind if he did get some results - mostly in colaboration if not almost all in colaboration - and it remains to be guessed what his input was in those works, thing is that he was very famous and everybody naturally desired to colaborate with him and was willing to share his ideas for the papers published in that colaboration, reason was that Einstein's name on paper had seal of recommendation you couldn't beat to get serious attention, that said I think he had at minimum very good councel to administer to anybody and he was valuable as colaborator, it is not likely he was just riding on people but those papers weren't of the genius grade, just second flight (don't want to say 'rate') papers at best and I doubt they satisfied his ambitions<br /><br />his position in regard to QMs was not any different from the position of those who never made their peace with his relativity theories and died still holding their mistaken hopes in classical reality, similar to Einstein who died still hoping QM would turn up to have some hidden variables or something to explain it along classical lines (with proper causality, ie, with God not playing dice)<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
how macabre LOL<br /><br />I think all that is just excuse for our neglect of our own thinking that doesn't amount to much as consequence<br /><br />I mean, if it was found that his brain showed some unusual development in some ways, would the conlusion be that his thinking certain ways was the cause of that anomalous brain development or would we conclude that because he had that anomaly he was genius, by birth?<br /><br />in the first case we all would have the same chance to become Einsteins while in the second we would have nice excuse that we didn't become one <br /><br />true secret of all geniuses was revealed by Newton who said once that all his discoveries were arived at by 'thinking unto them unceasingly' (quoted from imperfect memory)<br /><br />everybody as child up to ~5 yrs age himself determines his later life, namely his capacity for thinking or non thinking, later life Newtons and Einsteins started life as so called 'thinking children' who kept it up into adulthood, there is no magic to it otherwise, and geniuses typically have strong visual thinking (Einstein's thought experiments) because that's what children per necessity have to do in their thinking if they do think<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
SEARCH I misread your signature line the other day as:<br /><br />"Einstein is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.<br /><br />Einstein"<br /><br />that made me laugh out real hard, I like it better this way and it is actually true in its own way<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
I've read that saying being used back in the early 1800's.<br /><br />Very relevant for this discussion too. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
S

search

Guest
As animals native to Europe, hedgehogs hold a rightful place in European folklore. Since the mammal didn't possess any "righteous" qualities, it never made it to the court art; however, its relationships with fairy tales has been a long and fruitful one.<br /><br />Hedgehog's dilemma?
 
V

vandivx

Guest
"The Suisse, British and Austrians have contributed far, far more on a per 1 million population level in the sciences than the US ever has. Our contribution is due to being massive about it and largely borrowing talent from other, more creative nations, simply by buying it with our HUGE economic power."<br /><br />that might be true in gaining run of the mill postdocs but top flight incl genius grade typically came for other reasons than money, mostly they looked for freedom here (and the facilites available here as well as the salaries in the end came from that freedom too - freedom relatively speaking of course)<br /><br />I think in all countries get born about equal ratio of potential outstanding thinkers/geniuses but in most countries they are wasted and never become known and are not let to develop or allowed to rise or to be noticed even when they do rise, sometimes they overcome the handicap and typically end up in America, again because of freedom<br /><br />reason being that becoming outstanding thinker or even genius is potentiality that is at birth in each of us to some measure, its just that only few ever do anything with it and loose it by the time they grow up (~5yrs old)<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY