View Poll Results: Who contributed more to science and technology: the Brits or the Germans?

Voters
8. You may not vote on this poll
  • The Brits

    5 62.50%
  • The Germans

    3 37.50%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112
Results 111 to 118 of 118

Thread: Who contributed more to science and technology: the Brits or the Germans?

  1. #111
    Veteran Member Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    JamesBond007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:48 PM
    Location
    New York (New Amsterdam)
    Ethnicity
    international marxist hominid
    Ancestry
    ancient primordial soup
    Country
    United States
    Region
    New York
    Y-DNA
    R-Z253
    mtDNA
    H5
    Politics
    Marxist
    Religion
    godless communism
    Relationship Status
    Single
    Age
    41
    Gender
    Posts
    5,016
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 3,481/94
    Given: 613/1

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Methuselah View Post
    You have to understand that it's not about daring but rather ranking influential scientists. I have met people who dare to put Newton over Einstein, and they still put Einstein in top 3 simply because of his influence. It's not about Jewish ethnicity. What do you think about Bohr who was a Dane with Jewish roots? Would you say that his work is ranked so high just because he had Jewish roots? It would be like saying that Maxwell and Newton are appreciated so much only because the media tends to be British and American.

    Einstein was not a perfect human by any means, neither was he always right. He criticized the Big Bang cosmology which he later had to accept. But that doesn't change anything. It does not take anything away from Albert. You need to understand how influential his work of special relativity is. And yes, it was influenced by other people too. I would personally rank Isaac Newton as the greatest scientist of all time. And put Maxwell or Einstein on the second place. Albert is still top 3. No need for conspiracy theories because this needs only physics.
    Newton and Einstein lived in very different times if Newton was a contemporary of Einstein he could have surpassed him like he surpassed Leibniz. Einstein was Jewish and so was Leibniz so they technically were not Germans.

    Einstein plagiarized E=MC^2 from an Italian Olinto De Pretto.

    Einstein's Theory of Relativity is not proven :

    I have some objections to Relativity Theory (hereinafter RT), but let me begin by stating that I really don't know a great deal about the subject. It is true that I diligently studied a layman's explanation in my youth -- a book entitled The Universe and Doctor Einstein -- and that I have worked thru the derivation of E=mc2 in a college physics course, and also that I have done a fair amount of thinking about the subject in an attempt to understand it. But that is about the limit of my qualifications, if you can call them that.

    My objections, then, are not so much technical as they are holistic, logical, and philosophical. So without further ado or do-do, here they are:

    * The very first 'experiment' done in order to verify relativity was done by Sir Arthur Eddington during observation of an eclipse of the sun in 1919 in Africa, and Eddington traveled to Africa specifically to test RT. He announced that the experiment was a success, but in fact the sky was overcast and his measurements did NOT verify RT, tho they did not refute it either. Yet Eddington's 'experiment' gave RT a boost that effectively sent it to the top of the mountain as far as the academic world is concerned. And Eddington's behavior is perhaps not surprising in view of the fact that Eddington had some of the most cockeyed notions about cosmology ever to come from the pen of a physicist -- ideas which were lambasted by philosopher and logician L Susan Stebbing in a book entitled Philosophy and the Physicists, where she also took to task Sir James Jeans. Eddington's experiment, however, is no isolated example of incompetent scientific work. A number of other highly questionable experiments are described in the book Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science (William Broad and Nicholas Wade, 1982), including one of the most famous of all modern experiments, the oil drop experiment of Milliken which won him the Nobel Prize. Even in the relatively narrow area of evolution, two books of English lay investigator Richard Milton have described scientific fraud and incompetence of literally unbelievable proportions. My point in all this is that to say RT has been 'proved by science' is to raise grave doubts, if not eyebrows or laughter.

    * Any pendulum set in motion will have a plane of motion which remains constant relative to the fixed stars (the so-called Foucault pendulum), altho the earth will move beneath the pendulum, as can be shown by allowing the pendulum bob to sweep out lines in a sandbox as it swings. This indicates that there is a framework of 'absolute space', contrary to relativity. (The properties of the FP are best illustrated with a large heavy pendulum hung from a hight of 30 feet or so. Any 3 FPs can determine the coordinates of an 'absolute' 3-dimensional space -- at least after the Coriolis effects are accouned for.)

    * RT claims indifference to the coordinate system selected; but this violates the relativistic principle that the speed of light is constant. In particular, if we choose the Earth as the coordinate system, then the 'fixed stars' rotate around the Earth every 24 hours. But since the fixed stars are very distant from the earth, this would mean that they would have to exceed the speed of light in order to cover the huge distances of their daily rotation. An interesting question which the above raises is, if the coordinate system is not a matter of indifference, then what is the best one? The obvious choice is the fixed stars, and yet we cannot say for sure that the fixed stars are fixed in relation to one another. Yes, we can say that it SEEMS that way; but when stars are billions of light years apart, apparent motion among them may not show up for thousands of years, if ever.

    * RT holds that the speed of light is invariant no matter what the reference frame. This notion is bound up with the theory that objects 'contract' when approaching the speed of light (the 'Lorentz transformation') -- a necessity if the speed of light is to remain invariant to all observers. My objection to this is that it is just plain silly. It has the sound of an ad hoc explanation whose purpose is to cover up for other inadequacies -- much like the little boy's explanation that he was nowhere near the cookie jar, and that all the crumbs on his mouth were placed there by fairies who were trying to get him in trouble.

    * RT holds that time slows down for objects accelerated to near the speed of light. But this again smacks of gross silliness -- does anyone seriously think that my twin brother, if packed off in a space ship accelerated to near the speed of light which goes to some distant star and then returns to earth after a few years, is going to be physically younger than me? It sounds like just another ad hoc explanation intended to cover for theoretical error.

    * While the wave-particle nature of light has so far defied explanation, it seems that the waveular nature of light requires a medium -- the 'ether' -- to be transported thru. (If something makes waves, it has to have a medium -- like water or air -- to make them in, since waves are simply the vibrations of the medium). The existence of the ether has apparently been proved by the experiments of Dayton Miller (also posted on the James DeMeo site), and this disproves the major basis for RT, namely, the (erroneous) results of the Michelson-Morley experiments. But if the ether exists, then this is proof of the universe's absolute spatial framework (as opposed to the relativistic one): If the universe is immersed in a 'jelly-bowl' of ether, then the ether provides a physical framework for 'absolute' position and movement.

    * Einstein's explanation of the precession of the perihelion of mercury is considered by some to be in error. Here is a quote from an author who believes this, in spite of the fact that he does not question RT in general:

    "This mistake was just one in a long series. In this paper I will show that the entire historical analysis of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury has been riddled with basic logical and mathematical errors. I find this not only shocking to consider but also painful to report since the central character here is once again Einstein, a scientist I admire and like in many ways. I admire his stance against the Copenhagen interpretation. I like his humility in regard to 20th century science (about which he said, "If I have learned anything from a long life’s ponderings it is that we are much further from a deeper insight into the elementary processes than most of our contemporaries believe, so that noisy celebrations are not much in line [for] the real state of affairs."—compared to the horn tooting we get now from all quarters, this is highly refreshing). And I admire the brash synthesizing he did in his early years, collecting data from all over and forcing it into a semi-viable theory. Without his self-confidence, both Relativity and Quantum physics might never have gotten off the block. "In many other papers I have also defended the basic postulates of [Special Relativity] and [General Relativity]. so this paper cannot be seem as a fundamental attack on Relativity. Everyone who has read my papers knows that I am not an anti-Relativist of any sort. I have spent a great deal of time correcting Einstein's math, but these corrections only make Relativity stronger. Time dilation, mass increase, gravity-acceleration equivalence, the constancy of the speed of light from all systems: these all must stand. There is no return to Newton. Which makes it all the more difficult for me to say that Einstein failed to follow the simplest procedural rules for problem-solving regarding Mercury’s perihelion. The only mitigating fact in his favor is that no one else followed these rules either. None of his contemporaries or precursors followed any basic rules of logic in trying to solve the problem, none of them seriously questioned his findings (based on these flaws), and no one since has launched a serious critique against [General Relativity] based on the way it was applied to this problem. The entire set of logical and mathematical anomalies I will relate has passed unremarked for almost a century." --Mathis "The general Science Journal" which was subsquently taken offline


    Einstein has been accused of plagiarism, and he was certainly guilty of it in at least the case of having stolen E=mc2 from another researcher without acknowledgement. Whether other elements of relativity were plagiarized or not I do not know; but my concern here is not whether Einstein was dishonest, but only whether he was wrong. I do know that a small number of qualified investigators have been convinced that RT is full of serious error, and that some impressive works have been published on this subject. But I also know that questions about RT, like questions about many other Establishment 'givens', have been suppressed, hushed up, poo-pooed, and generally relegated to the cold back burner of a stove that has been left in a junkyard to rust.

    In short, RT is just one more instanace of an intellectual Establishment whose corruption is so insufferably fetid as to induce one to barf at both ends.

  2. #112
    Alma portuguesa Damio de Gis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 02:06 AM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Romance
    Ethnicity
    Portuguese
    Country
    Portugal
    Y-DNA
    R1b-DF27
    mtDNA
    J1c1
    Gender
    Posts
    20,403
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 11,831/141
    Given: 2,836/0

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by renaissance12 View Post
    I don't understand why Watt is on the top of the list.. He invented nothing.... nothing... nothing.. He had only used old technology without any improvement..
    Because it's an american book. In the same way Shakespeare is top of the list.

  3. #113
    Veteran Member renaissance12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Last Online
    Today @ 11:59 AM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Italian-Romance
    Ethnicity
    Italian
    Country
    Italy
    Hero
    I don't need any hero..but Jesus
    Religion
    Christian-Catholic
    Gender
    Posts
    5,774
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 2,081/465
    Given: 1,294/190

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damio de Gis View Post
    Because it's an american book. In the same way Shakespeare is top of the list.
    Shakespeare could deserve first place ...but Watt no.

  4. #114
    Alma portuguesa Damio de Gis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 02:06 AM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Romance
    Ethnicity
    Portuguese
    Country
    Portugal
    Y-DNA
    R1b-DF27
    mtDNA
    J1c1
    Gender
    Posts
    20,403
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 11,831/141
    Given: 2,836/0

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by renaissance12 View Post
    Shakespeare could deserve first place ...but Watt no.
    Shakespeare first place... maybe for english speakers.

  5. #115
    Veteran Member Methuselah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 09:06 PM
    Ethnicity
    European
    Country
    Finland
    Region
    Gibraltar
    Hero
    Jesus
    Religion
    Christian
    Gender
    Posts
    2,712
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 1,115/25
    Given: 1,171/6

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesBond007 View Post
    Newton and Einstein lived in very different times if Newton was a contemporary of Einstein he could have surpassed him like he surpassed Leibniz. Einstein was Jewish and so was Leibniz so they technically were not Germans.
    I still don't think it's about surpassing someone, rather living in the right place at the right time and being creative and hardworking. Newton and Einstein are both top 3 scientists of all time. An not arguably, but obviously. About special relativity and quantum physics i don't wanna talk here.

    Why do you think Leibniz was Jewish, at least there is no mention about that? There are bunch of famous people in Europe with some Middle Eastern vibes in them but it can be Caucasus and not Jewish. We don't know, but Jewish is a good guess. Same thing with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann...ang_von_Goethe. With Cantor it's closer since there were already rumours about some Jewish roots from Spain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor But about Leibniz we don't know.



    Quote Originally Posted by renaissance12 View Post
    Shakespeare could deserve first place ...but Watt no.
    Why does Shakespeare deserve the first place over Tolstoy or Charles Dickens? It's all debatable. Same with Watt. He did upgrade already existing creation and influence the world by doing this, like i said it's about adding something or changing something, that's how progress is often done. Look at how popular music is composed, they take similar chord progressions but add their own sounds and words. Stealing is not a right word here, unless it's stealing something which is patented.

    Who should be on that top list of "applied technology" if now Watt? Bardeen and Julius Edgar Lilienfeld, since transistors are one the most important creations (if not the most important) in modern times? Or maybe fathers of Internet? Or Johannes Gutenberg? Faraday? Alexander Fleming? There are many options, but things what happened in Britain at that time led to industrial revolution and that's why Watt was ranked first.

  6. #116
    Veteran Member Methuselah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 09:06 PM
    Ethnicity
    European
    Country
    Finland
    Region
    Gibraltar
    Hero
    Jesus
    Religion
    Christian
    Gender
    Posts
    2,712
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 1,115/25
    Given: 1,171/6

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Creoda View Post
    If I had to categorise:

    Science overall: British
    Technology: Germans, with British close
    Mathematics: French, and Jews admittedly excelled here
    Visual Art & Architecture: Italians, with Dutch and French behind them in Art
    Music: Germans
    Literature: British
    Philosophy: Germans (modern), Greeks (ancient)
    A good list! But Germans produced a heckload of mathematicians as well and the French did well in philosophy. And let's not forget about French composers and British popular musicians, they created art as well. How can you not compare the Clash to Beethoven?
    Quote Originally Posted by renaissance12 View Post
    Einstein without absolute tensor calculus, invented/discovered in the late 1800) by Ricci and Levi-Civita , could not have developed his theories....
    There are many things without which Einstein could have not developed anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by RyoHazuki View Post
    A lot of big numbers, because of classifying each and every small improvement and industrial technology as a new breakthrough to give Northern Europeans the appearance of greatly overshadowing their less corporate, agricultural Southern neighbors. The truth is the bedrock of "western" philosophy, mathematics, architecture, government, and commerce didn't start in the forests of Germania. It was Mesopotamia and the East Med, to which Germanics owe their advancements of said fields to. I find it equivalent to saying the Mongol Empire was the greatest because it was amongst the biggest in history, even if most of it was domination of empty steppes and tribes without proper states.

    Nassim Taleb has debunked a lot of these very deceiving Northern "Eurocentric" claims made by fraud Charles Murray. Islamists make similar claims about the Islamic Golden Age and the myth of the Andalusian paradise.
    Could you open up a bit more about Mesopotamia?


    Quote Originally Posted by RyoHazuki View Post
    It's a very materialist view of progress. Which is why I consider each "breakthrough" (IE a streamlining/reintegration of previous discoveries like electricity) to not warrant an overshadowing of previous millenia and historical regions. They look like branches rather than a trunk.

    Northern Europe, and to a smaller extent West/Southwest Europe, are the victors and have written history as such. We know each and every minor detail of our people compared to others who hadn't scene glory in those few centuries we rose to global prominence.
    Yeah, the fact is that these ideas Northern European had, came from somewhere, not like Northerners themselves came from nothing. Everything is connected and before Europe had anything, Indians and Persian were doing a lot of important things. But the greatest things were eventually born in Europe. Now it's different of course, Asians are developing very fast. This world is for everyone to live in and to contribute to. Europeans should be proud and humble, that's European way of doing it anyways. Being proud and selfish is stupid. Things are not only achieved by hard work but are given as well. But again, all nations think they are super smart and super great.
    Last edited by Methuselah; 11-22-2020 at 04:05 PM.

  7. #117
    Veteran Member Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Creoda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Australian
    Ancestry
    English & Irish Midlands. Gaels, Anglo-Saxons & Britons.
    Country
    Australia
    Region
    Victoria
    Y-DNA
    R1b-DF109
    mtDNA
    K1a10
    Taxonomy
    KN + CM
    Gender
    Posts
    6,150
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 7,054/74
    Given: 2,979/109

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Methuselah View Post
    A good list! But Germans produced a heckload of mathematicians as well and the French did well in philosophy. And let's not forget about French composers and British popular musicians, they created art as well. How can you not compare the Clash to Beethoven?
    I don't rate most modern music as highly, but Britain's output since the 60s has raised them from musical also-rans to the top echelon. Russian composers are my second favourite after Germans.

  8. #118
    Veteran Member Methuselah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 09:06 PM
    Ethnicity
    European
    Country
    Finland
    Region
    Gibraltar
    Hero
    Jesus
    Religion
    Christian
    Gender
    Posts
    2,712
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 1,115/25
    Given: 1,171/6

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Creoda View Post
    I don't rate most modern music as highly, but Britain's output since the 60s has raised them from musical also-rans to the top echelon. Russian composers are my second favourite after Germans.
    I can't say that i listen classical music that often but i enjoy Bach, Tchaikovsky and Chopin a lot. And Arvo Prt. Those are my favourite composers. I like Schumann too.

    Music is a wonderful thing.


    Last edited by Methuselah; 11-22-2020 at 04:55 PM.

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1092
    Last Post: 04-25-2020, 02:56 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-15-2020, 07:18 PM
  3. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-10-2019, 11:30 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-26-2017, 09:39 PM
  5. Germans prefer Bulgarian technology solutions
    By poiuytrewq0987 in forum България
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-08-2013, 11:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •