Will not load for me.
Neither did my favorites the plasma cosmologists and the electric universe wooists.Didn't make the cut. I need to up my game.
Neither did my favorites the plasma cosmologists and the electric universe wooists.
Sorry to be the wet blanket, but I don't understand why cosmology (even QM to some extent) always get the front page. Maybe the title is better stated as the "10 most dramatic predictions". IMHO the 10 greatest are those that helped feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick.
The ultraviolet catastrophe, also called the Rayleigh–Jeans catastrophe, was the prediction of late 19th century/early 20th century classical physics that an ideal black body at thermal equilibrium will emit radiation in all frequency ranges, emitting more energy as the frequency increases. By calculating the total amount of radiated energy (i.e., the sum of emissions in all frequency ranges), it can be shown that a black body is likely to release an arbitrarily high amount of energy. This would cause all matter to instantaneously radiate all of its energy until it is near absolute zero – indicating that a new model for the behaviour of black bodies was needed.
First, none of those things (feeding clothing medicating) is *physics*.
And your view is so unlimited that it becomes valueless. I doubt anyone is denying the importance of social concerns, but this thread is not about social concerns. It is about scientific predictions. You've brought a burrito to a tennis tournament.That's a very limited view of physics, which studies the motion of matter through space and time. It has had an impact on all the things I mentioned, first and foremost via machines.
And your view is so unlimited that it becomes valueless. I doubt anyone is denying the importance of social concerns, but this thread is not about social concerns. It is about scientific predictions. You've brought a burrito to a tennis tournament.
.. and what's more, I think you explicitly presented it as being in your 'humble opinion'(?):All I've said to this point is that my criteria for selecting great physics predictions would be different. I didn't present what my list would actually be.
..... IMHO the 10 greatest are those that helped feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick.
Now I personally find that as being a good laugh!J_B_ said:Or were you just trolling for a laugh?
Any link between fundamental physics - what this thread is about - has only the most tneuous of links to predictions "that helped feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick."All I've said to this point is that my criteria for selecting great physics predictions would be different. I didn't present what my list would actually be.
Your definition is too general to be of value. But that is not my objection. Again, this is about predictions; you appear to be talking about discoveries and developments. Those are irrelevant in this thread.Or is it my definition of physics that you object to? What is your definition?
So stop talking about your criteria and your list and actually present them. Then I can either apologise or systematically deconstruct your offering.Or is this thread not open to considering other criteria for "great" predictions? Are we only supposed to cheer for those on the given list? Are you telling me there is a completely objective method for determining the "greatest" physics predictions, and, therefore, my criteria is irrelevant? If so, please present this criteria and we can discuss.
If there is any trolling here it is your fatuous objection that these predictions did nothing "to help feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick".Or were you just trolling for a laugh?
If there is any trolling here it is your fatuous objection that these predictions did nothing "to help feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick".
Any link between fundamental physics - what this thread is about - has only the most tneuous of links to predictions "that helped feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick."
What is this?... So stop talking about your criteria and your list and actually present them. Then I can either apologise or systematically deconstruct your offering.
If there is any trolling here it is your fatuous objection that these predictions did nothing "to help feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick".
It is called an opinion. In this instance an informed opinion. You are free to disagree with it. It won't make you right, but it may make you feel more comfortable.I simply stated my preference for a criteria. Calling it a "fatuous objection" is a gross misrepresentation.
It is implicit. Ask 100 people to identify physics topics and a large majority will relate to items such as those on the list. Few, if any, will talk about things "that helped feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick."The article says nothing about "fundamental" physics that I saw. You're moving the goal posts.
I've made it very clear that I cannot see how predictions can "help feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick". I've acknowledged that I may be mistaken and invited you to give examples to demonstrate that I am mistaken. You have run away from that option. It's almost as if you don't have any examples.IOW, he is inviting the very thing I did. I haven't the vaguest notion why you stubbed your toe on my post, or how you got the impression I was speaking of discoveries instead of predictions.
I call you on what seems to me a "fatuous objection" and you pick up your toys and leave. Not a convincing choice.But the moment is lost, so I'm going to decline your ever so kind invitation.
So what would the greatest physics predictions be that helped feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick?... Maybe the title is better stated as the "10 most dramatic predictions". IMHO the 10 greatest are those that helped feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick.