Scientists and Virtue

No, Einstein was never a pseudo-scientist. Pseudoscience isn't just science that isn't accepted yet, it is a false and misleading use of seemingly scientific, but flawed methodology or logic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Einstein's theory of relativity caused a paradigm shift. It was completely outside the realm of possibilities for many leading scientists of that day. If Einstein just told some prominent scientist that everything is relative and didn't show any equations or numbers - he'd be written off as a quack... but he still would have been right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Einstein was NEVER considered to be a pseudo-scientist! See? That's just your own distorted usage of the term.

Sure, many were skeptical of his findings and conclusions at the time - but he had his numbers and they all set about the process of checking and verifying them - and did! THAT'S the way real science always works, and not by your version of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You dont think people were calling him a crackpot and delusional and woo-woo BEFORE his theory was verified? Are you that ignorant? For gods sake use some judgement.

 

Nope - it's finally time for YOU to use some judgment - and do a little research! Or are YOU too ignorant to do that? (Touché.)

 

But before his theory was verified it was an un-established science, correct? Surely even you can see this.

If it was an un-established science being pursued by a single individual you might call that person a psuedo scientist. Just because it was accepted later does not change this fact.

Simple as that. Quit convoluting the situation with your unwarranted anger.

 

who could ever call einstein, psuedo..........? He cared too much for reality.


but the monkeys afterwards............ well they forget to tell people that einstein himself was completely unhappy with QM as well HE knew the both, relative frames were INCOMPLETE and INCORRECT...........

but if you said that HERE............... most call it blasphyme

Yet, the big E himself died still working everyday.......

But look around, folks are such rants on the perfection, have stopped in the motion towards the progression.

All anyone has to do is compare QM with chemistry and find the whole of both is a mess.

That is fact............... not psuedo

 

There's no anger here - unless it on your part.:shrug:

And tell me just HOW much research did you do before responding again???? None???

 

No one wished to believe that Einstein was right because that would override Newtons theory. That was based on Newtons social status compared to that of Einstein. Most times these are the kind of prejudice what keeps scientists away from exploring further.

Einstein himself debated with Bohr that Uncertainty principle was nonsense and it cannot be like that. Only to conduct the EPR experiments later with someone else to find that Bohr was right. Now if he never did any of those experiments, the great Einstein would have made a fool out of himself. That's the step most scientists doesn't care to take before declaring any claims as pseudo science. Instead they choose to believe and live in ignorance.

 

Pure bull !!

Scientists are CONSTANTLY testing their own theories and those of others. In fact, it's a never ending job - and that (rather than venturing into crack-pottery pseudoscience) is exactly how science progresses.

 

so i ask......... if life evolved from a single celled critter way way back when, and we had all them extinctions in between, then and now..........

did life abuse the pants out of entropy or what?

let's read about the crack-pottery pseudoscience; when you answer

 

a bunch 'overrides' newtons work.....

what is space bending?

what is that 'force' that is called gravity?

it is nonsense

i can put water and dirt together and prove mud comes from that too

doesn't mean Bohring opinions are true..............

heck an electron is not even a separate unit of mass, but now every thinks it is

such as no electron exists as a separate unit of mass, unless taken from an existing atom............. "Instead they choose to believe and live in ignorance"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debates

 

Are you going to address my post? Or conveniently brush it off? I remember this game from you.

Lets try again.

Before his theory was verified by the scientific community it was an un-established science. No?

This theory had no basis in established science, thus the individual pursuing it would be considered a pseudo scientist. No?

According to the definitions at least.

Heres what I think.
What determines whether something is a pseudoscience are the methods used for research on a subject; the subject itself does not automatically classify make it a pseudoscience.
This is where social bias comes in and I think this is where your getting mixed up.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Am also curious. Most likely he will brush it off and pop up under another post at another time and do his silly arguments all over again.

 

Again, showing your sheer ignorance! He had the MATH to show what he was talking about and it spoke for him. Nothing else was required at that point and the mathematicians and physicists of the day set about checking out his proposals. The results of that checking and all that followed is history.

You are doing nothing here but making rash assumptions about something that you know absolutely nothing about. I've already suggested that you should research it but you are obviously too lazy to do so and would just rather run off at the mouth about it. You continue to destroy your credibility even more with every post you make.

 

You have no part in this. You've already proven to us that you know nothing about the subject. So just go back into you corner and play with your little toys like good child. Come back only AFTER you've grown up and acquired an education. You've nothing of value to add until then.

 

Really??? Even after having all these MATH, why is that few parties found his theory wrong after conducting experiments before Eddington finally proved it?

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8165.html
http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v4/n3/full/embor779.html

I remember you doing the same rash assumptions about fields that are considered as pseudo science. You knew nothing about it either. I also wish to suggest that you also do some research about everything you argue against and dont be so lazy.

Coming up with a rebuttal is easy. Any kid can do that if he carry the basic knowledge. Examining a claim is bit of a work. And it takes time. So whoever responds to a new theory as pure bs is only displaying his ignorance and prejudice.

 

I can see that the English language is a major challenge for you to use. Because your sentence above is stating the exact *opposite* of what you wanted it to say. So, perhaps you might want to put some work into that before going much farther. And incidentally, you seem to have completely failed to recognize that it was ASTRONOMERS that argued against his work and NOT mathematicians. (But you probably don't understand that distinction, either.)

It's obvious that I know MUCH more science than you can even claim to understand. You've made more silly scientific blunders here than I care to try and count.

Oh, really?????? Please show one single instance of where I have called ANY new theory (as opposed to some garbage idle speculation - the type you indulge in) pure bs. You cannot because I have not!!!

 

Yea English is a challenge for me. Excuse my grammar. Yea astronomers made the error. Was it a mathematician who finally proved it?

How do you distinguish a new theory or hypothesis or even a logical possibility from garbage? Do you follow certain procedure? Or anything with a limited explanation is classified as garbage without critical examination? I saw your same standard in the thread "Einstein can be wrong?" or whatever it was in the pseudoscience section. You displayed extreme prejudice against a logical possibility.