Something just occurs to me. We often do stuff so that we could get some pleasure remembering it. We don’t have to do stuff that
How does the word saturnine derives ! if you care why words derive ! Saturnine might have had originated in the fact that Saturn’s Equinoxes
I wanted to write this article, separately, as I didn’t want to break the flow of Physics arguments in the article, where this point came up.
This point was originally raised by Feynman; as far as I know. If David Mermin comes, he will stick his cotton buds, and wipe this out, and claim he said it, there is no lack of such incredible people. All he does say in that article, linked here, is so typical of plagiarists that you wouldn’t believe how murkily he dismisses Feynman as the original fellow who might have said so, “he is a great mind calculator, so nobody would ask him to shut up and calculate”.
How about nobody would think “Madonna” is a slut. A beautiful lady in the corner, well nobody would be harsh to her, such harshness would only be toward me, only I would be one to whom such a treatment can be mated, and that would be David Mermin’s famous and infamous proof and evidence of Mathew Effect of which he is apparently a victim.
If, anything, even I knew of “shut up and calculate” in my grad days, as a phrase ascribed to Feynman, in my privacy of studies, in other words never discussed with anyone, but knew of it, and grew in associating this behavioral treatment towards myself, going as far idiosyncratically, even to compare the thickness of my own hair, with Feynman’s, I can’t be Feynman, or can I be? Can “shut up and calculate” be used on any grad student or similarly placed researcher? Yes, it can be and thats the whole message, not the interpretation by the name of the city of Copenhagen.
This is a true observation of my youth. It was maddeningly lengthy, it was there with me for years, or shall I say close to
बिज्ञान अक्सर परिभाषाओं के दायरे में सिमित रह जाती है क्यों कि इस से ऊपर उठना अल्बर्ट आइनस्टीन के भाषा में “बिज्ञान चमत्कार है अगर इसे कमाने कि एक पन्था से दुरी से देखा जाये तो” जैसे “पूर्ब सोम कि सत्य” जैसा प्रतीत है. यह अलग बिचारों से अलग हो जाती है, पर सत्य एक मात्र उपलब्धि न होने पर भी बहत सारे उपलब्धि भी नहीं हैं, कुछ और सीमित उपलब्धियां सत्य कि भरमाई करते हैं।
चेतन भगत के बिकने के कारण भी ढेर सारे हैं जो बिज्ञान से तालुक नहीं रखते, इसके परिभाषाओं के दायरे में, लेकिन क्या हम कह सकते हैं वो कामशास्त्र से ज्यादा महत्व रखता है? चेतन एक जातीय आशा कि कयामत से परिबंधित है, पर कामशास्त्र एक प्राचीन अतः अंतराष्ट्रीय, तथा एक कोमल भाबना कि महिमा जैसे परिकल्पनिया है. यह चेतन कि महनीयता के ऊपर प्रश्न नहीं, बल्कि सत्य कि बिबिधता के ऊपर आलोकित करने की चेष्टा है।
सत्य कि बिबिधता सिमित हैं, यद्यपि सिर्फ एक में सीमित नहीं।
सत्य अनिर्बचनिया है. यह सुन्दर भी है, शील भी है …
What we conveniently forget is what I just parenthesized as “Ethereal Relativism”. Before Einstein’s work, the ether was taken to be something that gives motion a sense of absoluteness. Ether was the absolute measure or reference of motion, therefore all motion seemed to be known as absolute. But its widely silent that Galileo and Newton worked in a frame-work of Physics or laws of nature where a frame of reference keeps motion relative, and not absolute: a concept known as Galilean Relativity.
In other words, if there is an object falling under gravity, in telling our story, we almost forgot that, there can also be a situation where, the relative motion of the falling object, can be studied; with or without the gravity acting on the object. In other words, still, the central question is to ask; did this single object fall faster or slower w.r.t. a situation when there is no gravity? Was it known or not, to Galileo, that, this object can be tested; to be falling faster in presence of the gravity causing object.
As we know today: Gravity causes objects to fall faster, it does not cause them to fall in the first place, between heavier and lighter objects it does not make any one of them to fall faster than the other and this is a force of central attraction to the proportion of; strength being as higher as the square of separation is, less.