Astrology is the blind belief that stars change our fate — pun; like the blind belief wives change our personality. This is where Physics becomes a paraphernalia of whim, cultivated over the ages, to bring solace in seeking ignorance as a means of existential glory.
I just checked some scientific terms, in regards to how they have been made to work like paraphernalia to produce different astrological system. I was not shocked that Indians have kept advanced strides in one branch of knowledge — or the lack-thereof; Astrology.
Guess what? Hindu Astrology is a Sidereal Astrology, hence much advance than Western Astrology, which is a tropical astrology. This we have often taken boastfully, to mean that Indian science is advanced and far-reaching, even from the times of Vedas, but the simple facts — of my conviction, are; we have been manipulative from a very early time in our civilization’s evolution.
We just took science to produce religion. We also took religion to produce myth, and myth to produce social customs and took social customs to downplay science. Why else is “western” science advanced and we are merely a laggard participant in its various glorification.
— Of-course I don’t have words of solace to those who disagree, if like kids we assign ourselves the fancy of winning every sports, that we do not even take part in, because our parents will succumb to that whimsical demand of ours, it wouldn’t work towards science, here we have to work nonetheless, take part in each and every detail and each and every aspect, its not sufficient or even necessary to just downplay the impact of criticism. More…
The quality of a scientific paper are not ZERO if citation is zero. Perhaps we need to define two parameters, quality and significance of scientific communication. Quality; a well done research in the best traditions and methods available. Significance; the outreach of the paper to bring effect into others work and others understanding toward the subject matter.
While there will always be a downside to both parameters, citation reflects the significance (and quality as much as it correlated to significance) of a paper. More…
A very few particles (out of 1000s) are named after scientists, eg the so called mu meson was called a Yukawa Meson, although it turned out to be a misnomer. Mu-meson was found to be a lepton, rather than a meson, as was thought by Yukawa and others.
Now called Muon it belongs in the same class that an electron belongs to, leptons, which are both Fermions. Hence initially thought to be a Boson (because all mesons would be bosons) the muon is actually a Fermion (all leptons are Fermions).
Should we say; initially muon was named after Bose, then correctly; after Fermi? That would be HOKUM. Right thing would be to say; it was named after Hideki Yukawa (wrongly as a meson or boson) then it has been named as muon which is now a Fermion. But its still named after Yukawa; given to a misnomer-correction. It can be called Yukawa-Lepton MUON (instead of Yukawa Meson Mu).
Nowhere Bose or Fermi have been the scientists after whom this particle has been named. Bose and Fermi are scientists after whom a principle of physics or nature has been named but not a particle. That would clear any mischievous air. More…
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. More…
“Pakistan is advanced than India, in how it accepts English, as a non-primary language. ~50% of people in Pakistan ( — total ~ 90 million) are speakers of English, compared to 12% of India (125 million out of > ~ 1.20 billion). In percentage terms, all non-native English speaking countries, like Nigeria, Pakistan or Philippines are higher, than India’s population, speaking English. The norm is 50% or more (for all others) while for India its 12%. In absolute numbers only, India surpasses them. The acceptance in India, for English, is really low. On an average, major regional language do not cause such a response, because; we are anyway counting English as a 2nd or 3rd language. ” More…
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 … More…