This obviously does not warrant a new thread. Moderators can we please keep the Cherepanov historical physicists were idiots and there is no charge discussions in one thread please, and name it appropriately, for example "Historical physicists were idiots and there is no charge".
This obviously does not warrant a new thread. Moderators can we please keep the Cherepanov historical physicists were idiots and there is no charge discussions in one thread please, and name it appropriately, for example "Historical physicists were idiots and there is no charge".
You are wrong ... I will never stoop to calling these physicists "idiots" ... They are not idiots ... Each of them was quite smart, well-read and knowledgeable person ... But ... But they were misguided people ... Do you understand the difference?
This obviously does not warrant a new thread. Moderators can we please keep the Cherepanov historical physicists were idiots and there is no charge discussions in one thread please, and name it appropriately, for example "Historical physicists were idiots and there is no charge".
Being smart or and idiot is a relative term. Most of the people appear as smart ot at least OK before they open their mouth or start writing As they say sometimes it is 'better to chew than talk'
You are wrong ... I will never stoop to calling these physicists "idiots" ... They are not idiots ... Each of them was quite smart, well-read and knowledgeable person ... But ... But they were misguided people ... Do you understand the difference?
I am not questioning your right to say this. I am questioning your starting new threads about this personal theory that predicts nothing new. One thread per person please.
Or one thread per topic.
When the topic is only espoused by one person, then these are equivalent in my mind. Does anyone else say electric charge does not exist? That is the topic and there should be only one thread. Just like Nokidama has only one thread.
Yes that 's right at it happens yours should be back at December beginning, no ?
When the topic is only espoused by one person, then these are equivalent in my mind. Does anyone else say electric charge does not exist? That is the topic and there should be only one thread. Just like Nokidama has only one thread.
When the topic is only espoused by one person, then these are equivalent in my mind. Does anyone else say electric charge does not exist?
Louis de Broglie answers you - "The history of science shows that its most significant progress was achieved through the efforts of the most daring thinkers who discovered new and fruitful ways that others did not notice. If specialists in this field were familiar with the ideas of the brilliant scientists who laid the foundation of modern science, they, no doubt, would find them extravagant and reject them, not understanding their originality and depth. Indeed, the struggle endured, for example, by Fresnel and Pasteur, sufficiently confirms this, some of the discoverers faced a lack of understanding by prominent scientists and had to give a lot of energy to the struggle before they achieved success.At a later time, in the field of theoretical physics, about which I can speak competently, the excellent new ideas of Lorentz, Planck and especially Einstein were met with incomprehension by prominent scientists. of organizing scientific research, the danger increases that new and fruitful ideas will no longer be able to develop freely.
Let's summarize what has been said. As the forces of research and education are weighed down by cumbersome administrative, structural and financial obligations and tied to a massive regulatory and planning framework, it becomes more necessary than ever to safeguard scientific freedom and free initiative as they have always been. and will remain the most fruitful sources of the great progress of Science."
It is clear that your new paradigm of physics begins at a wrong turn where charge was mistakenly created as a temporary placeholder for a more true, but an historically incalculable pure magnetic explanation. It follows that all else who used the same incorrect (but functional) formalism will go further astray from the foundations and possibly build a complicated artifice to keep the present formalism intact. Therefore a dissection of each follower of the past formalisms wrong turns are unnecessary, because very similar effects will happen in each instance the new paradigm asserts itself. This is certain because, although flawed in places, the great predictive ability of the flawed formalism is evident everywhere in the world around us.
The general idea, that I think that PFD is trying to get across, is that your new paradigm of physics begins at a wrong turn, and that is the point from where all later wrong turns originate. Therefore the topic is essentially the same over several threads, when it looks like they could easily and more efficiently dealt with under one main heading.
Also, when one lands here at the forum, a list of not one, but several, topics about famous, effective, and great thinkers of our era being called idiots looks bad, in my opinion. The effect of the contributions of these people to science is immeasurable, despite their (often many) failings. (Half of Newton’s contemporaries had poisoned themselves so badly, so many times, with cures of the day (often featuring Hg, Bi, As, etc.) that their mental faculties and physical health were often sometimes considerably and somewhat permanently diminished, often by the time they were 30 years old.)
Science is about improving knowledge, and building upon the improvements. It is not hard to pick apart the historical work using the knowledge of today. What meager, idiotic beasts will we be, in comparison to the scientists of the not-so-distant future? You may be correct, partly correct, or terribly mistaken, as judged by the future viewpoint. Should future scientists laugh and heap scorn upon your work? Rather, should they say, “Well, back then they did not know X and Y, and didn’t have the computing power for Z, but this fellow sure gave it a go anyways and his data is good enough to use today.”? Perhaps, they might say that you genius was immense, but your quickness to insult others kept many from bothering to read your work until after it was independently (re)discovered and published, 22 years later, by a collective of philosophers using a common freeware physics simulator operating on a custom First Principles Engine.
Display More
It is clear that your new paradigm of physics begins at a wrong turn where charge was mistakenly created as a temporary placeholder for a more true, but an historically incalculable pure magnetic explanation. It follows that all else who used the same incorrect (but functional) formalism will go further astray from the foundations and possibly build a complicated artifice to keep the present formalism intact. Therefore a dissection of each follower of the past formalisms wrong turns are unnecessary, because very similar effects will happen in each instance the new paradigm asserts itself. This is certain because, although flawed in places, the great predictive ability of the flawed formalism is evident everywhere in the world around us.
The general idea, that I think that PFD is trying to get across, is that your new paradigm of physics begins at a wrong turn, and that is the point from where all later wrong turns originate. Therefore the topic is essentially the same over several threads, when it looks like they could easily and more efficiently dealt with under one main heading.
Also, when one lands here at the forum, a list of not one, but several, topics about famous, effective, and great thinkers of our era being called idiots looks bad, in my opinion. The effect of the contributions of these people to science is immeasurable, despite their (often many) failings. (Half of Newton’s contemporaries had poisoned themselves so badly, so many times, with cures of the day (often featuring Hg, Bi, As, etc.) that their mental faculties and physical health were often sometimes considerably and somewhat permanently diminished, often by the time they were 30 years old.)
Science is about improving knowledge, and building upon the improvements. It is not hard to pick apart the historical work using the knowledge of today. What meager, idiotic beasts will we be, in comparison to the scientists of the not-so-distant future? You may be correct, partly correct, or terribly mistaken, as judged by the future viewpoint. Should future scientists laugh and heap scorn upon your work? Rather, should they say, “Well, back then they did not know X and Y, and didn’t have the computing power for Z, but this fellow sure gave it a go anyways and his data is good enough to use today.”? Perhaps, they might say that you genius was immense, but your quickness to insult others kept many from bothering to read your work until after it was independently (re)discovered and published, 22 years later, by a collective of philosophers using a common freeware physics simulator operating on a custom First Principles Engine.
You should read my materials more carefully ... Your reproaches against me are unfair ... You are trying to defraud the public by pointing out that I call physicists "idiots" ... Give at least one quote in which I use the word "idiot" ... This is not ... As for my person ... Once again I write on this site that I am not the first physicist who exposed Maxwell ... In 1899, long before me, this was done by the outstanding German physicist Karl Schreber .. Modern German physicists should be ashamed that his name is not mentioned in modern textbooks ... From my point of view, he was worthy of receiving the Nobel Prize ...
Dimensions of Electrical Quantities, Karl Schreber, 1899 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/rZpb/fzFv6ttNv
Dimensions of Electrical Quantities, Karl Schreber, 1899 - https://docs.google.com/docume…ueQn-mTE/edit?usp=sharing
Display More[user = '3491'] Cherepanov2020 [/ user]
Ясно, что ваша новая парадигма физики начинается не на том повороте, когда заряд был ошибочно создан как временный заполнитель для более верного, но исторически неизмеримого чисто магнетического объяснения. Отсюда следует, что все остальные, кто использовал тот же неправильный (но функциональный) формализм, еще дальше отклонятся от основ и, возможно, создадут сложную уловку, чтобы сохранить существующий формализм нетронутым. Следовательно, анализ каждого последователя прошлых формализмов неправильных поворотов не нужен, потому что очень похожие эффекты будут происходить в каждом случае, когда новая парадигма заявляет о себе. В этом нет сомнений, потому что, хотя этот формализм и имеет недостатки, его большая предсказательная способность очевидна повсюду в окружающем нас мире.
Общая идея, которую, как мне кажется, пытается донести PFD, заключается в том, что ваша новая парадигма физики начинается не с того поворота, и именно отсюда берут начало все последующие неправильные повороты. Следовательно, тема по существу одинакова для нескольких потоков, когда кажется, что они могут быть легко и более эффективно рассмотрены в рамках одного основного заголовка.
Кроме того, когда кто-то попадает сюда, на форум, список не из одной, а из нескольких тем о известных, эффективных и великих мыслителях нашей эпохи, называемых идиотами, на мой взгляд, выглядит плохо. Эффект вклада этих людей в науку неизмерим, несмотря на их (часто многие) неудачи. (Половина современников Ньютона так сильно, так много раз отравляли себя повседневными лекарствами (часто включающими Hg, Bi, As и т. Д.), Что их умственные способности и физическое здоровье часто иногда значительно и несколько навсегда ухудшались, часто из-за когда им было 30 лет.)
Наука - это улучшение знаний и развитие улучшений. Разобрать исторический труд, используя сегодняшние знания, несложно. Какие скудные, идиотские звери мы будембыть, по сравнению с учеными недалекого будущего? Вы можете быть правы, частично правы или ужасно ошибаться, если судить по будущей точке зрения. Должны ли будущие ученые смеяться и презирать вашу работу? Скорее, если они скажут: «Ну, тогда они не знали X и Y, и у них не было вычислительной мощности для Z, но этот парень все равно попробовал, и его данные достаточно хороши для использования сегодня». ? Возможно, они могут сказать, что вы гений безмерно, но ваша быстрота оскорбления других удерживала многих от чтения вашей работы до тех пор, пока она не была (пере) обнаружена и опубликована 22 года спустя коллективом философов, использующих общую бесплатную программу. симулятор физики, работающий на специальном движке First Principles Engine.
В этой ветке представлено много материала - История кулоновской силы. -
Let me put it succinctly.
You may have the answer, but you are currently not reaching the appropriate audience very well.
I mean no disrespect, but I think this will help.
(This is not specific to this topic. This goes for everyone with complex stuff).
I think a simpler, basic, explanation that branches into more detail when necessary will help.
Start at the beginning of where you think your changes fit. The discussion will naturally go to more in-depth concepts as the more primary parts are absorbed by the readers.
Although everyone may be wrong, in order to convince them of this, they must be in a receptive state. Stewing the founders of modern physics in own their mistakes doesn’t help. We want to know how you think are right, we want to see the logic, and not how poorly someone else could have grokked it a hundred years ago. In the latter case, if there is a strong reason someone would make such a serious error historically, why they came to their conclusion and not some other one, is generally more important (and interesting) than the resulting wrong road thus travelled.
Avoid videos without a quick summary, for each, of what they are. I just about never open a video in any post that doesn’t have the reason I might want to watch it in the post. Note that many people do not have videos enabled by default, and they only see an URL instead of an image. Some people only watch the videos and don’t read anything. Probably you are not trying to reach those ones so don’t tempt them.
