Why do we celebrate

>>8711511
1/10

>>8711518
*-1/12

>>8711511
Try Sir Henry Cavendish.

My personal science hero.

"A man so painfully shy the only known picture of him was sketched by a college without his knowing."

Absolutely dwarfs Tezla.

>>8711511
>Feynman
fuck your mother you degerenate nigger. He's the most real scientist and you dare to put him on equal footing as Grease Tyson? Fuck you, you probably have an arts degree

File: not_a_fine_man.png (75KB, 621x379px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 621x379px

Feynman was a self-aware con-man who used his mathematical sleight-of-hand skills to bamboozle physicists and win himself prizes and acclaim.

>>8711746
You don't even understand what he's saying in what you just posted do you? You just saw some words you recognized and seized on them.

>>8711511
Who do you mean by "we?" It is pretty obvious that the populace is going to know more about the popularizers than the guys they are popularizing -- otherwise, we'd not need popularizers.

But in the end, I don't give a rat's ass WHO gets celebrated, that does not matter as much as hopefully more people getting some grasp of where science is now and what we have learned using it as a tool.

>>8711543
How would he not notice a whole college sketching him?

>>8711934
I understand what Feynman is saying and I also understand the specific theoretical errors which underlie the need for renormalization.

The various kinds of renormalization techniques and mathematical treatments are only necessary in interpretations of quantum mechanics which are grounded in false assumptions. The primary false assumption in this case is that a particle can exist which has no spatial extension.

Renormalization is an ad hoc mathematical heuristic invention intended to keep bad theory alive.

>>8711511

Why is Feynman on your list? Yes he popularised science but he was also a Nobel prizewinning physicist, hardly an "unreal" scientist.

NDT is literally black science man. How many years has it been since he's authored a scientific peer reviewed paper?

File: why_not_both.gif (976KB, 350x263px) Image search: [Google]

976KB, 350x263px

>>8711511
>but we should be celebrating real scientists

>>8712055
And you realize in that quote he's arguing against it? Where do you get this

>Feynman was a self-aware con-man who used his mathematical sleight-of-hand skills to bamboozle physicists and win himself prizes and acclaim.

From that quote?

real scientists are super autistic tho OP, if we have them so much as a tiny platform to speak it would go to their heads and eventually they would reveal their contempt for 99% of humanity and how we should be shooting criminals into space to study radiation effects and why babies are the best to experiment on for finding a new source for anti-aging and disease prevention and so on.

>>8712389
I do not think people truly understand how utterly accurate this post is.

>>8712236

Feynman made a career for himself by inventing techniques which were very clever but not mechanically or mathematically legitimate. His sum-over 'solution' to the double-slit experiment and his loop corrections are also examples of this.

He knew what he was doing was not legitimate but when physicists began to hail him as a genius and give him prizes he went right along with it. He was content to allow the physicists to treat his illegitimate techniques as bedrock.

>>8712397
>His sum-over 'solution' to the double-slit experiment and his loop corrections are also examples of this.
Could you explain in more detail why these are not legitimate? I'm also kind of confused as to why renormalization is not mathematically consistent. Isn't it just multiplying the probabilities by coefficients (n and j)? Sure, it's adding in new coefficients to the model, but these things have physical interpretations, do they not? It's just an extra fundamental constant to measure like the speed of light and the gravitational constant. It doesn't mean the whole theory is wrong.

File: renormalization.png (130KB, 1432x1154px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1432x1154px

>>8712438
You should ask yourself why is renormalization necessary in the first place? Wikipedia tells us renormalization is used to 'treat infinities arising in calculated quantities'.

The first thing to recognize is that we're not measuring an infinite mass or an infinite charge. We're not measuring an infinite velocity or an infinite length. The values measured by experiment are all finite.

The infinities arise as an outcome of the math and the interpretation, not from the measured data. Infinities can occur in the equations in a number of ways but I'll just go through one example here which I'll take from the Wikipedia page on renormalization:

>"The problem of infinities first arose in the classical electrodynamics of point particles."
>"Assume that the particle is a spherical shell with radius r."
>"The mass-energy in the field becomes infinite as the radius of the particle approaches zero."

If it's the case that a shrinking sphere will remain a sphere as it shrinks then it's a logical error to assume that the radius can go to zero. To suppose here that the radius of a shrinking sphere will go to zero is to suppose that an object with no spatial extension can exist and that such an object can be represented in my mathematics and also that I can assign mass or charge to it. This is a logical error. The outcome of this logical error is an infinity entering my equations at exactly that point (no pun intended).

If I instead assume that the sphere will remain a sphere as it shrinks then no matter how small the sphere becomes I will always be dealing with finite lengths, i.e. the sphere will always have a non-zero radius. The radius will never be equal to zero. Infinity will not enter my equations in that case.

Many physicists have intuitively found these infinities troublesome but very few of them even to this day recognize the logical errors which underlie them.

>>8712389
No kidding. Look at Hawking's general feelings towards humanity, it's not particularly happy.

>>8712055
>The various kinds of renormalization techniques and mathematical treatments are only necessary in interpretations of quantum mechanics

Nope.

>>8712394
>>8712690
they're not wrong though, which is why i find all these conspiracy theories about the NWO so amusing.

Do you want nice things? Because this is how you get nice things.

>>8712724
Yes they are wrong. Humanity does not want limitless progress from scientists if the price is zero consideration of the rest if humanities ethical considerations. That's the problem with men who have machines for brains. People are ones and zeros in the cosmic soup, but they don't want to be treated like soup.

>>8712754
True.

However they will willingly accept any progress that was done in the name of horror if they can measure its benefits. So ethically so long as people don't KNOW that things come from horribly tortured souls of the damned screaming from Hades itself, normies don't care.

Scientists will gaze into the void/abyss/hell to pull out heaven, but I agree one cannot be that completely or do that forever.

So there needs to be a scientist/normie ratio. However the 'normie' ratio of this planet at this point is tipping WAAAAAY too much to one side, (See: Trump) which is why that whole technological renaissance is going to happen.

If you kick enough intellectuals too hard for too long they are gonna eventually do something.

>>8711511
>Feynman is not a real scientist

(-1/12)/10 shitpost

>>8712771
Hah, normies don't even care about the mass amount of suffering that goes into the production of all of the little things they consume every day. Why anyone on here would think they actually think about what scientists have to sometimes do to get progress is laughable. Any such thing is virtue signaling because they feel as though they must went confronted with proof of the ugliness. Ugliness that is usually kept away from their eyes.

I think that technological renaissance idea is happening in China right now. While the US politicks over shit that doesn't matter, China has been actually progressing into robotics and gene editing.

>>8711511
The reason they are celebrated is that they make an actual attempt to be resonate with the masses. You can celebrate real scientists all you want, but in order to get the general public behind it they must be able to relate to the person they celebrate.