Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sri-unix!mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley From: mcgeer%ucbkim%Berkeley@sri-unix.ARPA Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Re: Re: meta-physics Message-ID: <499@sri-arpa.ARPA> Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 12:32:14 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.499 Posted: Fri Aug 16 12:32:14 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 19-Aug-85 21:29:38 EDT Lines: 39 From: mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley (Rick McGeer) >> I saw some references to Einstein saying though >> he was "adventurous" in his thoughts, others could verify his >> arguments. Not so. His ideas were rejected by the "scientific community" >> for years before they accepted them. None the less, he continued. > >This is historically inaccurate. Einstein's theories, published in >1905, attracted attention quite early. Poincare, who died in 1912, >was an early champion. Einstein received his Ph.D. in 1905, and >by 1910 was already a FULL Professor. In 1912 he accepted the >prestigious chair of theoretical physics at the Federal Institute >of Technology, Zurich, and in 1914 became titular Professor of >Physics and Director of Theoretical Physics at the Kaiser Wilhelm >Institute (Berlin). He was 35 at the time, barely nine years away >from his Ph.D. This just isn't what happens to you when the >"establishment" is rejecting your ideas! True, but it should also be noted that Einstein's champions told the authorities at Zurich when Einstein was under consideration for the post there that they should ignore Einstein's strange ideas about light particles, he was a very bright fellow otherwise... Historical curiosity only! Einstein's ideas clearly were thought interesting enough -- innovative, testable, mathematically rigorous -- even in 1905 to be published in Naturschwiffen.... >Even if the original statement had been accurate, I would question >the logic of the original posting. It is the same old "they all >laughed at (fill in name of famous person), therefore my pet >idea must be correct" non sequitor that we see justifying many a >crackpot idea. Do we have to have this in net.physics? Let's >keep this kind of reasoning in net.origins, where it belongs! Indeed. If anyone reads Einstein's original articles (well, translations...) and compares them to the dreck that shows up in net.physics....well, you get the idea. Rick