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

[Methuselah]

Yeah, this stuff all over again. What plenty of you don't seem to realize is that we are not living in the late middle ages anymore and the education is widespread. There won't be any huge individual breakthroughs - any scientific field is completely decentralized for some time by now. Open a random article on researchgate or arxiv and I guarantee you most of the stuff was done by random postdocs from all over the world. So no - the notion of NW Europeans building the modern world some seem to have is just crap. They may have laid the basics, but the real progress was done once this decentralization was already going on. And by that time, people were still using horses to travel.

The thread is not about whether there will or will not be any big scientific breakthroughs (and there will be) but about who has contributed more to science. And how NW Europeans did not build the modern world (together with Italians and Greeks)? Just how? Look at all the scientific achievements they have made and compare them to any other place.

[Methuselah]

*bunch of sneaky frog talk*

With mostly Russian i meant that most of his roots are from Russia and not other countries and that he is ethnically speaking mostly Russian (his roots can be traced to Pskov oblast'). He does not fit Finland very well mentally wise in my opinion, not like he is a dumb person. But he is a calm dude unlike many Russians i have met.

[Methuselah]

Rethel my frog, in the very beginning you said that i have clearly some issues with Jews which was disrespectful towards me. I told you to "Remember his name you jealous loser" in response. You said that Albert was "a pirate, and didn't invent anything usefull" (so i was right about you disrespecting German Jews and me which was obvious as well). I told you that if Einstein didn't invent anything useful in your opinion then this thread is not for you and made a joke about your logic. You started bullshit talk about orphans and stuff. Rethel my frog, stop being such a bitch and pretending to be a victim.

[Aldaris]

The thread is not about whether there will or will not be any big scientific breakthroughs (and there will be) but about who has contributed more to science.

Read that particular thing in context. I see a lot of the usual references to old individual scientist in the thread as though it was any relevant - that's what I'm reacting to. It used to work like that - academics in the past were almost nonexistent and they had very limited connection to one another. Now, education is not a fringe and when I want something, I can just write an e-mail. The guys from the past didn't have those luxuries. Anyhow, who contributed more to science? That's not really a thing you can answer casually on a forum like this. Do some stats which is going to include all the little contributions since when modern academia was emerging, if you wanna be thorough and correct. It's gonna take some time and effort, can tell you that, bro.

[Rethel]

No matter how you twist your logic you can not change the words i wrote.

You wrote "roots", and you didn't even clarify which one are correct, jewish or greek, what I was asking about.

You can write any type of bullshit you want,

Do you want to convinst me and yourself, and anybody else, that if a tree has a deep oak roots, then regardless of that at the crown it could be a... pine? Really?

Or it is again my fault, that you use terms not knowing their meaning?
Or you just can't deal with the fact, that someone can understand it differently than you?

I allready explain you, what I did understand under the term "roots", still asking for claryfication, and the only what you can provide is: "I said rooots you *** *** ***" - and so on and on and on... can't you use more developed forms of expression?

Why? Why? Why? Why are you shaking like a frog. Why? I clearly wrote distant you shit.

Can you understand that "roots"="who I am"= identity, and distant ancestor = better, the relevant ancestor. The more times you repeat "I said distant" and "I said roots" - the more you are convincing me, that it is relevant direction. But still you didn't clarify, which roots are the correct ones: greek or jewish? Or maybe finnish or russian? I really don't still know what you meant. It is really so hard to explain properly in one sentence? Look how much did you write, how big drama did you make, like oversensitive jewish members of TA - and still didn't give a simple answer for such simple question.

Ok, so maybe from different, more simple side. Say, why you think, that you have greek root? Jewish root? finnish? russian?

You surely can't be four things at one time, and you can't have so many contradictoring roots.
Either you have oak roots and you are an oak, either pine roots and you are a pine,
either beech roots and you are a beech, either ash roots and you are an ash.

I just can't guide you more clearly to the correct kind of answer.

I already said that i came from Finnish Russian family and i don't have to clarify anything to a piece of shit slave.

But I allready said, that I do not understand what does it mean.
Are you a Finn from Russia or Russian from Finland? And what has it to do with these greekness and jewishness?

You are the first person here, who has so BIG issues about describing own identity, seriously.

I'm offending you because you stepped on my feet you frog slave. Get the fuck out from shitting on the floor.

If you are a sociopath who can't interact with others people and can't handle a simple talk, you should live on the wilderness without Internet.

My mom is mostly Finnish and dad is mostly Russian.

How mostly? So they arent even Finn and Russian?
At least I understood, that you aren't a Finn. So one option is finally resovled.

Now left three: kind of Russian, something jewish and something greek. But still ambiguous...

I don't represent any other country than this.

This means which? You was talking about two nationalities, and now you are talking about one country.
But country is totaly different thing - you can represent even USA, but still your roots will be from the Old World, and you should be able to say something clearly identyfiable you.

But i feel connected to both cultures.

We didn't talk about cutures either, did we?
So, maybe you confused some cultural things which were done by your ancestor with ethnicity?

Now I am confused, because maybe this is a reseaon of missunderstanding?

You are writing so ambiguously, that I can't be sure, if this was not the thing.

I do know my father very well.

So why can't you tell us this, what everybody on this forum can do in one second: who he and you are, and on what ground? Who your's both ancestors were and how long ago?

I just don't know what kind of DNA test results both of my parents would have and how much of Mediterranean they would get.

Oh, man... have you really make it all so complicate...

What it has to do with who you are? Why do you want to know, how many medditerenian (I guess: au) they have? Wannabe or real jewish after all?

How can you talk about IQ when you didn't even know about how influential Einstein was and what he has invented?

You also don't know, eitherway, you would allready said.
But sorry, I know what he did, and WHY. I know, from whom he plagiatized and how "slow" lerner at school he was. You don't. You belive in a myth about a woderfull Jew... and you are butthurted like a Jew. So, when we now know, that you are not a Finn, and that you are "mostly Russian" - does it mean, that you are just a russian Jew? This is why are you ashamed of your identity, so has you play with words: "roots", "mostly", "finnish", "greek" aso? Don't be. We have here many Jews on the forum, and they are not ashamed of being jewish. You do not have to be also, if you are one of them.

You are such a pathetic slave shit.

So probably russkij Jew... there is no other reason to be so mad about yourself, and about Onestone the Plagiatizer.

[Methuselah]

Read that particular thing in context. I see a lot of the usual references to old individual scientist in the thread as though it was any relevant - that's what I'm reacting to. It used to work like that - academics in the past were almost nonexistent and they had very limited connection to one another. Now, education is not a fringe and when I want something, I can just write an e-mail. The guys from the past didn't have those luxuries. Anyhow, who contributed more to science? That's not really a thing you can answer casually on a forum like this. Do some stats which is going to include all the little contributions since when modern academia was emerging, if you wanna be thorough and correct. It's gonna take some time and effort, can tell you that, bro.

There are already reviews considering this topic. But they usually compare all contributions of different countries and not only scientific work. But yeah, this is a nonsense talk mostly.

[Rethel]

Yeah, this stuff all over again. What plenty of you don't seem to realize is that we are not living in the late middle ages anymore and the education is widespread. There won't be any huge individual breakthroughs - every scientific field is completely decentralized for some time by now. Open a random article on researchgate or arxiv and I guarantee you most of the stuff was done by random postdocs from all over the world. So no - the notion of NW Europeans building the modern world some seem to have is just crap. They may have laid the basics, but the real progress was done once this decentralization was already going on. And by that time, people were still using horses to travel.

The highest pick of new descoveries was done around 1870. For the next +/- 50 years the creativity was still very high. In that time many discoveries were done by any European, but mostly of the most by British. Germans would be probably at second position. After IIWW most german scientists was takien to USA and USSR, and many british emigrated to US. So now, US is most inventive country, but certainly, as the whole world - not on the level of inventivity from XIXth century. Today most things are just upgrated. Not invented. And average IQ fall of 16 points. This is also the reason, why such much stupidity rules on the West.

[Rethel]

With mostly Russian i meant that most of his roots are from Russia and not other countries and that he is ethnically speaking mostly Russian (his roots can be traced to Pskov oblast'). He does not fit Finland very well mentally wise in my opinion, not like he is a dumb person. But he is a calm dude unlike many Russians i have met.

I am tired... what is hard here? So are you and your father and grandfather aso Russian or somebody else living in Russia?

Tell me, what is so hard to answer here? Whaaaaaaaaaaatt????

Say it:
I am a Greek from Russia...
I am a Jew from Russia...
I am just a Russian...
..as my all forefathers were also.

Which one is true?
I can't understand, how can you have such enormous problem of saying who you are... I just can't.

[Satem]

Bla bla bla

You simply make a noise just to make a noise in this thread
Take a nap, give it a moment, maybe you will be enlightened and your IQ during the sleep will rise to maximum or your AR1an potential

[Aldaris]

There are already reviews considering this topic. But they usually compare all contributions of different countries and not only scientific work. But yeah, this is a nonsense talk mostly.

Pal, most of that is done either by postdocs or doctoral students. Professors aren't going to do the data collection, they will at most analyze it - or more likely they just hand even that task to a postdoc aswell. And it's gonna get published anyway. Take all of this stuff with a grain of salt, even when it comes to natural sciences. Funny how people often consider academia as an authority, but it's really just a mess like everything else.