Great Physicists: Benjamin Franklin and Leonhard Euler
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Despite being almost contemporaraies, there were huge differences between Franklin and Euler, highlighting the respective scientific culture in the old and the new world.
Mind also my backup channel:
odysee.com/@Th...
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
This comparison is an insult to the master of all of us, Euler.
Because it is the work that matters, not the mind.
I commented above...
I think [Unzicker's] criticism of Faraday in The Higgs Fake was spot on:
what happens in the mind is the realm of psychiatry and neurology-who is the better worker matters most.
Case in point, Sigmund Fraud's next best known student after Carl Jung and Immanuel Velikovsky, Wilhelm Reich, unified ether physics with terrain biology AFTER he determined that work function and reproductive function have common biophysical origins-it was by practical experiment, not thought experiment, real work that can be BOTH observed in nature AND duplicated in controlled laboratory environment.
I totally agree. You can not compare gold with dirt
Amen. No disrespect to Franklin, but, you know, Euler. Enough said.
@@samiloom8565Franklin did more for the world than Euler ever did. Not in physics of course
@@tear728 i dont think so..apparently you dont know euler
It's a bit of an unfair comparison. For most of Franklin's life, America wasn't yet a country. By necessity, American thinkers had to be concerned with practical problems. There were only a handful of American universities during the time of Franklin. Nevertheless, they were contemporaries and they even corresponded with each other.
If you are saying modern thinking is highly subjective, I agree. Franklin et al was concerned with using science to pay the rent, Euler used that rent to give himself a leisurely life with enough free time to create some great useful stuff that would help Franklin collect even more rent.
Hello from the US! The environment of the American frontier prioritized survival and therefore practical applied thinking over the theorizing of established European institutions of that time. Both approaches are critical to the advancement of our civilization and I believe Unzicker is right in criticizing the predominance of the American approach at this juncture in history. (highly recommend the book) Have we exhausted the possibilities of the theoretical foundations we now have? Is it time to return to the drawing board?
Unfortunately, here in the US the approach is simply to "throw more money at the problem" whether it is scientific, medicine, or even social. This has led to much waste, inflation, and the gradual deterioration of US pre-eminence in the world.
Thank you Unzicker, look forward to your videos!
Paradoxically, lightning protection is almost totally not used in USA, or Canada, while it is often found in Europe.
.... Huh.... Have you ever been to the use?
Grain elevators in the Midwest.
Thank you Dr. U for this fascinating topic. As the number of "scientists" continues to explode yet the actual number of basic discoveries continue to shrivel, we need to re-evaluate the role of the rational mind in society and these comparisons are essential. We are now swimming in an ocean of meaningless nonsensical information and the worlds scientists are needed more than ever, for finding truth. So it is very instructive to compare these alternate approaches. I hope that you continue these excellent critiques. Please consider starting a discussion or action group. One relevant problem is that a. a thinker that is not with a large/rich university cannot even read taxpayer funded research papers without paying 25-50$ to download a published research paper and b. a researcher cannot get a paper published in an established journal unless he is employed by a large/rich university. By the way I did get my paper published in a new STM journal out of India but it was not even considered by the numerous physics journals, which were very concerned with knowing the pedigree of research institution before they would even read it or criticize it. And, I intend to continue my experiments (repeat single and double slit experiments with large radio waves) on a farm field in upstate NY and also in N. China. We need a rev$orution in science practice and should consider establishing alternative structures that have more objective, non-political requirements.
The issue is about MODELING. Mathematically driven Physics is pure analogy, not Principled reasoning. Only valid models like Heliocentrism explain things, while tenuous analogies to actual physical substances is the mathematical path that's led us to a "crisis in cosmology". The actual model to which physics must refer to resolve the "crisis in cosmology" has already been developed by an American theorist, but nobody cares, or more likely, the ones who feign interest in the topic really have no clue what actual solutions would look like, and prefer to keep huffing the mathematical glue instead.
good point my friend.@@xxxYYZxxx
_an ocean of meaningless nonsensical information_ quite, like YT crackpot channels and Indian predatory journals.
Franklin "discovered" electricity with a kite and a key.
If you actually believe that, you'll literally believe whatever people will tell you to.
I think Carl Friedrich Gauss is the greatest physicist. Well, regarding Gauss, I have a question: If Coulomb's law were inversely proportional to 1/r^3
, would Gauss's law still be valid?"
Pragmatism is all very useful, but is it what really makes you feel alive - in awe or wonder!?
In America everyone is attributed the words "great" and "genius" (even sports stars), similarly everything is "awesome", furthermore everyone gets the title "professor" (even middle school teachers if I'm not mistaken.)
I believe this is also another, perhaps related, reflection of the differences between America and Europe.
Nobody ridiculed Euler more than his European contemporaries, and for good reason. Yes he was a math genius, but no, he couldn't build an irrigation system, something (ie, a practical problem) Franklin would have excelled at. All the mathematicians in Europe couldn't manage to build an airplane, but Physics fanboys will tell me the Wright Bros. were just lowly bicycle shopkeepers, eh?
@@xxxYYZxxx aww, how adorable!
@@xxxYYZxxx you're bringing up points unrelated to the topic of differences in philosophy. Who built the airplane isn't relevant. In fact your entire response is a perfect example of the main point! Americans being utilitarians. Is it practical? Can we use it? Can we exploit it? Etc.
Perfect, thank you!
So unless something is entirely useless then it's not relevant to so-called European physics? Does this explain why Physics is such a joke now? BTW, "curved space" is reasoning by analogy, not an explanatory model. It's literally make-believe. I happen to know the actual Model resolving physics, but you likely don't care if you can even comprehend it.@@kashnigahbaruda
@@xxxYYZxxx you clearly don't understand what is being compared.
It's a good thing you make this book and video because it could have gotten you a Phd, but it wouldn't have reached the public.
Sound waves pass the ear faster at sea level from a source in motion. Most people believe that the audible tone shift is because of "compression" of the sound wave do to the movement of the source against the speed of sound, but below 100mph, it's more due to the speed of the sound waves passing your ear, not the compression of the wave itself. It's just a sad fact that this very testable feature of the Doppler effect gets missed (incorrectly taught) in grade school.
Dr. Unzicker, I have been giving this great thought for some time now. I have been thinking of the quantization of "spacetime". I don't believe spacetime is an accurate representation of reality. Alfred Lock Parson had a Magneton Theory of the structure of the atom. I was thinking that the electron shells of the atom could actually be quasi-particles in which the electrons are confined within a cavity resonance of the quanta of Aether. The true quantization of space "Aether" could be what these quasi-particles are made of. It is possible that quaternions could represent the quanta of space it this scenario. It could be that the Michaelson Morley experiment could not detect the aether, because it is quantum in nature. I thought I would throw this one at you because, grounded in contemporary natural philosophy, this might be the direction in which quantum effects might show the relative nature of space itself. Einstein believe space had qualities, and this is overlooked. Alfred Lock Parson's work was dismissed because of electron interactions at the Compton scale, but if electrons are confined within quasi-particles, then chemistry falls right out of my hypothesis. Your thoughts, sir?
Euler was a plenum theorist , Franklin was action at distance polarity attraction theorist
Euler >>>>>>>>> ... > Franklin
euler is probably the greatest mathematician of all time, there is no comparison between them.
With my little understanding I found Euler has poses a big problem for fundamental mind.
Franklin is 1st kite man who realise sky is a laboratory.
Today's Physicist is now making it sofisticated
Namaste to these grate.
Better ,we need more data for greats of all time.
No comparison.
The problem with science in general and physics in particular isn't related to "practical vs theoretical," approaches at all. The problem is the amount of science funded and directed by tax-payer dollars aka politics. The US federal government is the single largest employer of, "scientists," in the world. Throw in state, county and local governments along with universities (also funded by governments) and the total scientific output generated for political ends is enormous. That's just America. What about Europe? Does Europe chase scientific pursuits with no political agenda whatsoever? Nope. Whatever leftist "soup du jour" is in vogue is the scientific pursuit of the day. What has the Hadron collider produced? Once, it was acid rain, ozone holes, over population and man-made global warming. Today it is, "climate change." One crisis is exchanged for the next. It keeps the (leftist) politicians in power and the, "scientists," employed. Write a book about that.
Dr. Unzicker, I enjoy your analysis of science and the ways it has gone "off the rails" since the great scientists of the earlier 20th Century. However, your attempt to compare Franklin and Euler is somewhat disappointing, especially coming from you. Franklin was a Renaissance man, as you mention in passing. No doubt, his mastery of mathematics was not equal to Euler's, but his many achievements in such diverse areas as science (understanding lightening), technology (invention of bifocals and the Franklin stove), journalism, publishing, statesmanship, politics, coauthor of the Declaration of Independence, and a framer of the U.S. Constitution, cannot meaningfully be compared, as you have done, with the work of a great physicist. It strikes me you are comparing apples with oranges. I have read several of your books and agree that physics has, in many respects, lost its way, but going back to the 18th C looking for the origins of that trend in America vs. Europe is itself going "off the rails" of your otherwise excellent theses regarding what makes good science.
As far as blaming it on America, in Einstein's Lost Key, you point out that Robert Dicke revisited Einstein's conjecture that the speed of light is not a constant, and Dicke's published contributions were largely ignored by physicists everywhere, not just in America. The Europeans are building high energy particle colliders and contributing to the "Standard Model" of QM, which you and I both find questionable. It seems to me that the problem is not limited to America.
After getting an undergraduate degree in physics, and spending a year doing graduate work, I became disillusioned with the direction that physics was taking, and I changed fields. Your RUclips videos have helped me understand better, in retrospect, my decision in the mid-1970's. I agree that huge projects invite group-think, and with many of your points about the directions of physics research. I just do not agree with your idea that American physics is the root of the problem, or that the problem started in the 1700's.
Franklin the dabbler
This video of Mr Unzicker is an embarrassing nonsense
par for the course, then
such a longwinded start that had nothing to do with physics that i tuned out. waste of time.
Euler made significant contributions to math, but what good is "curved space" if it doesn't actually mean anything? Mathematically driven science is just analogy. Euler was a genius, but Franklin was and remains far more respected, and for good reason.
Cope
Low effort post@@carlosespinoza4693
Euler was true genius
Lol, how could you even compare Franklin with Euler. Franklin just flew a kite😭. Its like comparing an ant with a dinosaur and asking who is the heavier
Franklin helped found the greatest country on Earth, Euler got ran out of town. Do you think if Franklin and Euler were both giving lectures across the street from each other in Paris that anyone would have showed up to hear Euler?
@@xxxYYZxxxFame doesn’t mean intelligence.
@@xxxYYZxxxcoping american lol
Ok, even I laughed. Truth is tho, a Franklin appearance was THE ticket to have, much like a Mark Twain appearance would be over a century later.@@timewalker6654
Euler is a way high in sky than ever franklin dreamt of.
Frederic the Great II was also very practical person not care about abstract mathematics and gave to Euler Cyclops nickname after he lost one eye in creating cartographer's maps for Prussia King. Math using for practical not for intellectual insight, that is reason why he left Prussia for Petersburg.
There's no "intellectual insight" from Euler's math or from mathematically based physics of any sort. Insight ONLY comes with proper modeling, such as Heliocentric modeling or Faraday's models of magnetism. "Curved space" is just reasoning by analogy, not by principles, and certainly not reasoning by any extant property of reality.
@@xxxYYZxxx "Curved space" is just reasoning by analogy, not by principles. Yes General relativity based on Hyperbolic space analogy is erroneous, it is not based on principle or fundamental laws of math (energy conservation condition or II and III Newtons law of motion). Nature speaks in language of math is "intellectual insight" but we forget that. Math is not just bookkeeping tool of arithmetic operations, but symbolic representation of Nature itself (laws that governs Nature).
oh dear...@@xxxYYZxxx
what makes one think that (energy conservation condition or II and III Newtons law of motion) are "more" fundamental than the geodesic law?@@phyarth8082
Language is more generic than math, or math never would have made it to the symbolic stage nor would there be words equivalent to mathematical symbols, so a model of reality must be of the Linguistic form. Heliocentrism is more important and more descriptive (of solar systems) than any theory of gravity, even if the latter defines more exactly the nature of orbits. Imagine if Newton had believed in Geocentrism. Given his intellectual prowess, he could have created a real monster, the likes of which could have ruined science.@@phyarth8082
Intriguing comparison
Thanks for the video
Many bodies were found buried in Ben Franklin's basement. The excuses for it were absurd.
Flying a wet kite is questionable too.
Can you provide a source?
Didn't his landlady teach anatomy?
In his house in England. Many sources on the internet corraborate this. He was a member of the hellfire club. Their motto was 'do what ever you like'.
Like, not even close, every time I turn, there is Euler. Benjamin is known with his mistakes.
Well personally I prefer Euler but that doesn't mean I do not respect Franklin .
;-)
Kontext. Ausschnitte von Kontext. Keine "eigene" "Qualität" oder "Form" oder "Mind" definierbar, abgrenzbar;-)
Franklin does not belong in the top 100 let alone anywhere near Euler
Well, I'm no physicist and not much of a mathematician, but I am aware of the huge contribution to maths made by Euler and that Franklin did an experiment with a kite in a lightning storm! The conclusion seems pretty obvious!
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ it is obvious that you know nothing about Franklin
Not really for you to decide...
There is no comparison
Both were great minds in different realms.
Also hier wird eine Birne mit einem Apfel verglichen. Euler war einer der größten Mathematiker, bis heute. Ein Genie. Gegen ihn ist sogar Terence Tao ein Waisenknabe. Vielleicht hätte man besser je biografisches Video zu je einer Person machen sollen. Mir erschließt sich hier nicht der Sinn.
Yikes mainstream physics is just idol worship. It's really really sick actually.
The reason for the comparison is that it's an embarrassment to the Americans. LOL.
A similar problem exists in chemistry. Chemistry in the US has what I would call a 'Roman' flavor (in the worst possible sense, meaning it is coldly practical and oblivious of a 'Greek' contemplative approach to the subject). Whether chemistry in Europe avoids this problem I don't know. Perhaps chemistry in Europe has been infected by the US approach? (Anyway, Yes, though using Ben to help make your point seems like an odd approach to the topic.)
One contributing factor to the decline of real advancements in physics is the comoditization of research degree programs. Faculties are obliged by universities to dumb down courses to increase enrolments, thereby making more money. This leads to an ever rising volume of P.hDs of little consequence while choking the system, for, and at the expense of truly innovative researchers.
The classical American minds etymology is practicing private individualism putting it in work
While Europe skips this moves into a more chaldean mind publicly studying the individualism documenting it into abstraction .
1990s American structuralism then moves into that same chaldean mind despite it going against the majority American epistemological beliefs they compromise and cooperate for greater good.
These are very difficult prescriptions to the same notions of the answers written in the stars above.
I truly believe archetypical minds see the world around them and learn differently in this very 2 methods.
We have now mapped the 4% chaldean mind in the universe its been successful but clearly the simplest approach.
To map the universe from the American classical minds world around us will be hard and it works in non locality and probabilities.
Great video - Unzicker is great
Franklin like Priestley, with whom he had intensive correspondence, played an important role in the immediate prehistory of the theoretical explanation of electrostatics by Cavendish (and shortly later (!) by Coulomb
Even asking this question is kind of offensive. It's not even close.
I think his point is to give further example of the difference between American and European philosophy on approaching science.
A dubious comparison at best. The Europeans who made the greatest contribution to science (eg, Bruno, Galileo, Faraday) were either killed, exiled or ridiculed by their own people.@@TheMap1997
Why not compare Schrondenger to Dirac? Comparing Franklin to Euler is comparing some workaday American shop keeper to a genius and world renowned mathematician and calling it representative.
No, it's comparing one of the greatest statesman of his time and one of the most popular persons on the planet to a great mathematician who couldn't build an irrigation system and was the butt of Voltaire's jokes. Franklin was never the butt of anyone's jokes. Great man vs. great geek. @@joeboxter3635
@@joeboxter3635don't get aggressive with me. I'm not writing the script. He articulated his points and that's enough for me.
Interesting comparison!
Thank you for another good one Professor.