Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
sci-nerd

Dimensions

104 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

pallidin

Einstein's wife did NOT write her husband's equations. Period.

Look at my link presented above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Just now, pallidin said:

Einstein's wife did NOT write her husband's equations. Period.

Look at my link presented above.

Nobody is saying she did. 

Well I'm not anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, danydandan said:

He was the brain, she was calculator. Simple as that. Sad as it is, that's how it was.

Right.  If that was all it was, you could it.  Do you think you could take einstein's theories and express them mathematically?

P.S.  What bothers you so much about this?  Is it that she is a woman or that you don't understand math?

Edited by Desertrat56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem

"

Gajin and Zarko Marić also reported hearing from Mileva’s father that during the Einstein’s visit to Novi Sad in 1905, Mileva confided to him: “Before our departure, we finished an important scientific work which will make my husband known around the world.” Krstić got this same information in 1961 from Mileva’s cousin, Sofija Galić Golubović, who was present when Mileva said it to her father.

Desanka Trbuhović-Gjurić published Mileva’s first biography in Serbian in 1969(3). It later appeared in German and French. She described how Mileva’s brother often hosted gatherings of young intellectuals at his place. During one of these evenings, Albert would have declared: “I need my wife. She solves for me all my mathematical problems”, something Mileva is said to have confirmed."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-forgotten-life-of-einsteins-first-wife/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan

Can I just point out something.

Science is characterised by methodological empiricism, this means that knowledge is derived from our experience of the natural world. How we do this takes many different forms theories, models or as many ways of thinking as we possibly can. So Science should not be considered simply as identifying with reason, logical thought or rationality, it doesn't have to include mathematics or logic. It also doesn't address issues of judgement. It's goal is simple, to figure out what is actually going on. Now us who work in the world of physics rely heavily on mathematics but it isn't everything. We rely on observation or being empirical. 

Some people have this opinion that science is all about logical mathematically driven ideas. This is obviously not true and dismisses science's like medical, geology etcetera.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
2 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

"

Gajin and Zarko Marić also reported hearing from Mileva’s father that during the Einstein’s visit to Novi Sad in 1905, Mileva confided to him: “Before our departure, we finished an important scientific work which will make my husband known around the world.” Krstić got this same information in 1961 from Mileva’s cousin, Sofija Galić Golubović, who was present when Mileva said it to her father.

Desanka Trbuhović-Gjurić published Mileva’s first biography in Serbian in 1969(3). It later appeared in German and French. She described how Mileva’s brother often hosted gatherings of young intellectuals at his place. During one of these evenings, Albert would have declared: “I need my wife. She solves for me all my mathematical problems”, something Mileva is said to have confirmed."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-forgotten-life-of-einsteins-first-wife/

Don't forget the M.I.T. re-visit study on this issue which suggests a "downplay" of his wifes mathematical contributions....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/s/427621/did-einsteins-first-wife-secretly-coauthor-his-1905-relativity-paper/amp/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Right.  If that was all it was, you could it.  Do you think you could take einstein's theories and express them mathematically?

P.S.  What bothers you so much about this?  Is it that she is a woman or that you don't understand math?

What does her sex have anything to do with anything?

It's sad because her work wasn't recognised at the time and her contribution has gone effectively unnoticed since. As can be seen in @pallidins posts.

 

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
5 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Can I just point out something.

Science is characterised by methodological empiricism, this means that knowledge is derived from our experience of the natural world. How we do this takes many different forms theories, models or as many ways of thinking as we possibly can. So Science should not be considered simply as identifying with reason, logical thought or rationality, it doesn't have to include mathematics or logic. It also doesn't address issues of judgement. It's goal is simple, to figure out what is actually going on. Now us who work in the world of physics rely heavily on mathematics but it isn't everything. We rely on observation or being empirical. 

Some people have this opinion that science is all about logical mathematically driven ideas. This is obviously not true and dismisses science's like medical, geology etcetera.

Indeed. Reality may well be far richer in substantive under-current than one readily perceives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
Just now, danydandan said:

What does her sex have anything to do with anything?

It's sad because her wasn't recognised at the time and her contribution has gone effectively unnoticed since. As can be seen in @pallidins posts.

 

I agree, it was an observation I made earlier.  But those were the times, if she had been a man her name would have been on everything.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

I agree, it was an observation I made earlier.  But those were the times, if she had been a man her name would have been on everything.

Why?

What exactly was the contribution?

I want facts, not opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I agree, it was an observation I made earlier.  But those were the times, if she had been a man her name would have been on everything.

Einstein was a great scientist, doesn't mean he was a good human. By all accounts he was a scumbag, and treated his family like dirt. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
5 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Indeed. Reality may well be far richer in substantive under-current than one readily perceives.

Actually my point is the exact opposite of what what your initial assertion was that Science and Math are effectively the same thing. And is not what you are agreeing with I am saying science is only about finding out about our reality (natural world) empirically ( through observations). Mostly using Bayesian logic. 

Effectively what I'm saying is, as a physicist, all that interests me is what I can observe. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Einstein was a great scientist, doesn't mean he was a good human. By all accounts he was a scumbag, and treated his family like dirt. 

 

Yeah, like abandoning them for one thing.  And he was known not to be good with numbers, much less complex math.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
8 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I agree, it was an observation I made earlier.  But those were the times, if she had been a man her name would have been on everything.

"When it comes to the topic of women in science, Marie Curie usually dominates the conversation. After all, she discovered two elements, was the first women to win a Nobel Prize, in 1903, and was the first person to win a second Nobel, in 1911. But Curie was not the first female scientist. Many other brilliant, dedicated and determined women have pursued science over the years."


Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ten-historic-female-scientists-you-should-know-84028788/#9qqSIWB4VxpJxxX8.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
1 minute ago, danydandan said:

Actually my point is the exact opposite of what what your initial assertion was that Science and Math are effectively the same thing. And is not what you are agreeing with I am saying science is only about finding out about our reality (natural world) empirically ( through observations). Mostly using Bayesian logic. 

Effectively what I'm saying is, as a physicist, all that interests me is what I can observe. 

But don't you have to use math to document what you observe in order to share your information?  I am not agreeing with pallidin, just curious about how you communicate with other physicists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
1 minute ago, danydandan said:

Actually my point is the exact opposite of what what your initial assertion was that Science and Math are effectively the same thing...

I said that math and science are mutually inclusive.

Remember? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
2 minutes ago, pallidin said:

"When it comes to the topic of women in science, Marie Curie usually dominates the conversation. After all, she discovered two elements, was the first women to win a Nobel Prize, in 1903, and was the first person to win a second Nobel, in 1911. But Curie was not the first female scientist. Many other brilliant, dedicated and determined women have pursued science over the years."


Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ten-historic-female-scientists-you-should-know-84028788/#9qqSIWB4VxpJxxX8.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

RIght, so name some more.  And why are they not well known like Madame Curie? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 minute ago, pallidin said:

I said that math and science are mutually inclusive.

Remember? 

Mathematics and physics are mutually inclusive is what you should say. In my opinion.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
1 hour ago, danydandan said:

The simple fact that the size of the universe is infinite.

How would that even begin to suggest that the energy required to uncover the signature(s) of extra-dimensions requires the energy of our universe?

You're not making any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
4 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

But don't you have to use math to document what you observe in order to share your information?  I am not agreeing with pallidin, just curious about how you communicate with other physicists.

Actually us physicists do use mathematics to communicate, mostly. In all honesty I'm horrible at expressing myself on here, I think I can explain stuff like relatively simply enough for anyone to understand. But I'd much rather be able to communicate scientific ideas like @Emma_Acid.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Mathematics and physics are mutually inclusive is what you should say. In my opinion.

And...

Are there ANY issues of Science excluded from mathematical characterization? 

No. So, I said absolutely nothing wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 minute ago, pallidin said:

How would that even begin to suggest that the energy required to uncover the signature(s) of extra-dimensions requires the energy of our universe?

You're not making any sense.

I was following on from a comment that @sci-nerd made regarding the size of the particle accelerator required for the experiment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 minute ago, pallidin said:

And...

Are there ANY issues of Science excluded from mathematical characterization? 

No. So, I said absolutely nothing wrong.

Not quite sure what you are saying here, but I assume you are suggesting that there are no sciences not using mathematics?

Some sciences that require careful observation of animals or human behavior don't use mathematics, they have no need to. So some biological sciences don't need mathematics. I assume I actually don't know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

...So some biological sciences don't need mathematics...

That would not be correct at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
7 minutes ago, pallidin said:

That would not be correct at all.

So you are saying David Attenborough needs to use mathematics to look at tigers in the jungle and document their habits?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.