kristalris

My concept shows why speeding up an atomic clock slows down the clock and not time. That the mathematics of relativity add up by assuming timedelation, doesn't mean that time slows down either. The alternate hypothesis remains that the clock slows down, which is the only thing we can say that we observe. In my idea a photon speeds up because it becomes unspun yet held under c by the double crystal of the Higssfield. Further more the Higgs field in this idea literately adds mass to the atom clock as it is speeded uip in such an accurate way that you can set your (atom) clock to it. Other clocks like grandfather clocks are not time effected by being speed-ed up. Further more the convention that an idea or a concept need mathematics before it becomes a scientific valid proven concept that should be tested is based on erroneous reasoning. Seeing my concept marries in concept QM to Newton to GR in an elegant testable way. If we look at science as bridging a canyon from what we know to what we want to find out, the rift is extremely small when we are talking a QM or GR related problems separately. Then one must use mathematics. When we however want to join GR to QM the divide is enormous. So you go from deterministic reasoning with an extremely small divide to empirical statistics through Bayesian statistics to Bayesian probabilistic reasoning and ultimately verbal logic when the divide becomes bigger and bigger. So when we are talking marrying GR to QM as I in fact do in my thread the correct scientific norm for doing so is verbal logic. The reason is it all becomes easily pliable which is needed because the primary problem then is not so much accurate logic but the garbage in problem. I.e. you must work it from an integral rough sketch and get it more and more accurate by testing and observing instead of extrapolating mathematics all over the place assuming that because you are extremely correct in the in fact laws of GR and QM that this is the way to go when trying to marry the two. Logic goes before the current scientific convention.

Been very busy with other things. Anyway this post in science news is right up my ally: a surface tension scenario in which particles out of the Higgs field bounce in strings in a surface tension scenario. Like a string of marbles (being the larger of the (only) two fundamental particles in spin rotation) in a tunnel that spirals through the double dynamic crystal of the Higgs Field, slowed down by it and acquiring mass when the strings form a larger particle. Gaining mass by bringing un spun larger particles in spin rotation adding it to the string. Thus speeding up the string by gaining momentum. Simply Newtonian physics marrying GR to QM and solving DE and DM at the same time. I.e. it is not bouncing in a 2D plain but in a 3D plain. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77872-when-fluid-dynamics-mimic-quantum-mechanics/#entry759033

I humbly submit that I indeed am not a native speaker, being Dutch en all. And although I thought I could just about hold my own in English I must of been wrong then. Oh dear! I'm not aware of having done anything else. Please enlighten me. Yes, so? Where did you get the impression that I stated something else? No. There was more in the OP in my opinion. But it must be due to my admitted very limited knowledge of the intricacies of the English language that stooped me. I'd say the topic is a priori even in English what the title depicts: On Unknowns making meaningful contributions. Then given this flag under which the ship sails through the thread so to speak we look at the OP if this is indeed the case. And, by golly it is! Because the central argument in the OP - pardon my English - is not the one example given that you stress yet the general point - you know that bit where Bignose states - at least if he was using proper English - in so many words, and correct me if I'm wrong: "This cannot be emphasized enough in this section. Nail down every detail." So in other words the topic is the position that Bignose takes: Yes, relative or otherwise unknowns can make meaningful contributions to science but only when they nail down every detail. That then is the argument pro that is then on topic. Also on topic is subsequently all arguments con. No, relative or otherwise unknowns can make meaningful contributions to science even when they do not nail down every detail. But seeing that my English isn't up to scratch I must be wrong. Now would it be a problem with my English or your problem with logic that is the key here? He didn't give a definition of unknown, I did. Sorry that my English is so bad that you completely missed the point on which I was making such a fuss. Or was it more what better posts in his opinion entail? Yeah, I'd say you are. But I'm probably wrong because I miss a lot of what is said and meant I guess. Strawman. I don't state that. Studiot is right, I don't here understand your native English. Are you implying that I have a hidden agenda with or without other works that should or should not be in your opinion the issue and thus on the agenda? Now if the topic is correct the way I interpret it in the reaction to what is or isn't on topic post towards Studiot, then yes I did cherry pick in a way. This because your position that an unknown must always nail down every detail is a every swan is white position. Now what only very slowly dawned on Swansont and DH who are clearly in agreement with that is that I only have to cherry pick one black swan to counter the position. I had to fight them to the hilt i.e. the point where they were forced to call Einstein a liar from which they shirked, subsequently bagging one cherry in the pocket so to speak. On the way i bagged some unopposed more cherries if you have been paying attention. So there we are not all swans are white, some are black. Now being cornered you take up via a strawman towards me a new position, that would be of topic - as I stated much earlier BTW - that it is impossible / not worth while to try and pick these cherries. The cherries then being the germs that are gems to be picked and cultivated towards greater insights of science. Then we come to the question of order in the thread. If you keep on chopping up all discussions you don't grow anything, especially in the speculations forum. Then you might say this point of order belongs in the suggestions comments and support forum, whereas it is a direct product of growing an insight worth while in this thread you started. You, thread starter have now broadened the issue to how can we spot the unknown Einsteins out there with their worthwhile germs of idea's? You state pro it isn't possible I state con it is. Back to basics old boy, that's how. You can organize it in a way that you filter out the as yet unknown Einsteins. Current science on psychology shows you how. Before that it is also good to immediately spot that there are many different sorts of Einsteins out there. (I.e. needed combinations of talents needed to solve specific scientific problems.) Further more it is not so that we only require the best of the best or nothing. You can row with the oars that are available to you as we Dutch say. I.e the best you can get. What you are looking for is like trying to get computer time on a supercomputer. But then time on a best available creative brain. Now we come to a bit of logic: if we a priori know we are extremely probably looking for a paradigm shift to solve the big issues, we logically also know that education is as much a hindrance in achieving that as it is essential for achieving that. Education inherently also leads to a education bias. I.e. tunnel-vision. Slowing down progress. Only is you organize it that you find and use that brain-time available will you most probably swiftly crack the issues. It is Yin knowledge and experience and Yang naive openness. All the open mind needs is a complete oversight of the most basic primary observations on a question. The creative brain will generate idea's. The closer that brain is to an Einstein the better the idea's. Use it and don't trash it. Please bare in mind that the current schooling system, most certainly in the Netherlands is more and more filtering out the potential Einsteins & Newton that become dropouts. These dreamers are deemed ADD and ADHD. The thinkers and the doers under the thinkers need pills to keep abreast with incorrect norms. Point in case a kid speaking fluent German due to watching German TV drops out of that class because is board stiff needing to learn ten given words knowing already fifty others. He scores only five words in the test and fails whereas the other kid that knows only the ten scores ten out of ten. Girls fare better at school and the boys become more and more dropouts. Problem the want to measure things accurately that can inherently only be guessed at via an educated guess. So you Bignose require something that can't be had. Your norm is to high. You mix up your norms. A correct norm shouldn't be to high or to low. Of course ultimately you require the highest possible norm to be attained given the question at hand. What you in fact are doing is requiring a lazy bugger of a baby to run before it can even crawl. The problem is, you only see your self and the ones like you in the crazy world as the norm. Measuring that and deeming all deviation cranks: DSM states Einstein and Newton as such. That is pseudo scientific. You may in science not claim or demand more science then there can be had. First accept the need for educated guesswork both individual and more or less collective on issues that can't be properly measured. Then I'll show you how it can be measured and organized, even quickly BTW.

I'd say that is a bad definition then. This because the idea that the world wasn't flat was deemed wrong and thus unimportant. I'd say a better definition is something that heightens the probability of quickly furthering science is a meaningful contribution to science.

Being Lauded on a paper is meaningless. A paper cranked off on just one sonnet of Shakespeare could be brilliant in its own right. Especially if written by a talented person a fresh on Shakespeare. Providing a completely new angle, and thus being meaningful. Well I don't have to state that any more because even if he only generated "a germ"at that age you should see that as meaningful. What does my hind sight bias consist of then? Who says I neglect the work of others? I didn't mention them because it wasn't and isn't the issue. Yes my point exactly. All that prior work is meaningful. Prior work / germs of good ideas are thus meaningful and not just the grand end result of a full-blown successful theory . So you contradict yourself. Sorry mate, was reading up on what you without further information posted. And have done now and agree.

Einstein said what I quoted. Providing a germ as a gem of an idea to science is a contribution to the speedy furtherance of science due to raising the probability that problems are solved. Only of course if you detect and cultivate them. I never said or implied that others weren't working on it or close to solving it. Al the more reason to get good idea's across that spawn new ways of looking at a problem. Again this is what MIT is working on. I believe that idea's crop up all around the place at or near the same time in development: be it say the bow and arrow was is my - and main stream science - contention not invented by one individual in one place. It was invented by several individuals in "one place" in several places in the course of a period of time. When the time is ripe. In later years you see less of the same such as say the development of the jet engine in the UK and Germany at roughly the same time. Due to better communication more jump on it. Indeed hadn't Einstein come up with it someone else would of. Like I said maybe not exactly SR but even already the GUT or what not. Would you still want to say that after the Higgs field? Anyway my point exactly. Is the Higgs field a vacuum? Photons must be traveling through that field mustn't they? What makes you so shore the Higgs field effects photons? So my point exactly concerning the OP. SR doesn't have to be the end all on the issue. You need new idea's. especially unknowns will provide that especially in the field of inspiring new idea's. Why? The more you know the harder it is to keep an overview and have your brain get caught up in tunnel-vision. Current psychological main stream insight. Most probably yes. Not necessarily so though. Okay The notion of contributions to science is a survivor-ship bias if you only look at the successes. So you should take Leonardo da Vinci and his aircraft and parachute etc. also in as contributions to "science". Even though nobody might have drawn from his idea to further the history of flight. (Not quite shore actually what happened in this respect historically.) Leonardo was an un known aeronautical engineer then for shore. Anyway it shows that generating ideas must be worth while and to be taken seriously and thus better catered for. Leonardo was a hair-breath away from cracking it the way Otto von Lilliantall did much later. The fact that they in casu did or didn't is immaterial. The problem is there indeed. A problem to be remedied. Not off topic at all thus. He was an un known when 16 and came up with a worthwhile germ for reaching SR in his own words that have been recorded. That only he himself drew from that is immaterial. How do you define a meaningful contribution? How do you define a meaningful contribution to the tree growing business? Only take the nearly fully grown trees in or also venture to find out how to choose the best seedlings? Good idea's are good idea's. Period. Well it works two ways. If you cultivate it you lessen the problem of dropping probability. The need stems from the rising problem of not being able to see the forest through the trees. Internet / Wikipedia etc. provides the un known a much better chance to keep an overview and provide worthwhile germs / gems heightening the probability of making meaningful progress. lack of time count as well?

Simple statistics or probabilistic reasoning if you like. If you oppose the talented from playing the game then they can't be seen to be able to score. Stop opposing them playing the game and you will see the score go up. Was it difficult for Churchill to spot the potential of the tank? Of course not. It is intuitive. The idea's with which Einstein solved the problem of SR are intuitive. That is not difficult, it simply pops into ones mind. If you have the talent for that. If not it won't. Not difficult at all. He subsequently worked on that. Moments of inspiration followed by a lot of transpiration i.e. hard and difficult work, followed by new moments of inspiration and so forth. Working together as MIT is working on now will accelerate the furthering of science. Statistically there must be a lot more minds like Einstein on the net as we speak. Where are they then? All in physics? Of course not. You contrary to DH at least spot the point that there are good idea's out there given by unknowns. The point in the OP. The subsequent question then is how do you filter these idea's out from the bad ones. In stead of doing what DH is doing simply denying that there are good idea's out there given by unknowns. Exactly. That is why it is a pity that this germ of an idea was not communicated. So prove to me who else then already had this germ of an idea when Einstein was 16. There is no reason to assume even that this was the case. Further more I of course don't mean to state that bad ideas don't cloud the issue and have stated that earlier on as well, stating the need for filtering, or do I guarantee that having the germ of the idea would certainly reach SR. I can guarantee that the probability of getting to SR would be enhanced. And that in itself should be sufficient on major issues like SR for acting upon it today. So? Do you want to state that Einstein was a liar?

.Einstein is quoted to have said in that link: "One sees in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained." I see you differ with what Einstein himself stated on the issue. I take it to be true what Einstein himself stated so the germ was a gem that in the hands of a creative open mind could of been worked out to SR or other worthwhile insights much earlier. I need no more to clench the issue do I?

Guess you missed the last post then seeing it took you only two minutes after the post to post this low quality because unfounded remark.

I gave the citation just before you posted. If correct then he gave the gem not only to the problem but the answer as well. You only started disputing this BTW when you came aware you both were in a fix. And are you going to stoop so low as to call Einstein a liar in his autobiography? On what do you base any qualms in that respect? See above given citation that states differently. I see him as a normal sane intelligent open minded human being. science sees him as a ADD PDD Nos crack pot according to DSM V. How do you see him? Now you are off topic. When he was sixteen he was an unknown in the sense of the OP. That is where the counter to the OP is based on.

You simply don't grasp it do you? That you or most people are not capable of distinguishing good idea's from bad ones doesn't mean everybody is bad at that. Open minded people being good guessers especially if they are trained knowledgeable and experienced can spot inspirational ideas. Take Churchill and his backing of the development of the tank. That is exactly what MIT is working on at the moment. Like in music someone who has talent can come up with say the famous few tunes that mark Beethoven's fifth. As a thought experiment say Beethoven came up with his Ta da da daah before he knew how to write it down in notes or work it out into a full symphony. That then doesn't mean that others with talent to spot that but with the knowledge and experience could't have worked that out. That others with the talent for hard arduous work yet no talent for creativity require the full symphony to be nailed down note for note before seeing it as an inspirational gem doesn't prove that others can do it. Contrary to music science should be in a hurry. Wonder children who can play virtuously are in puberty split in those that are also creative and can vary on the theme and compose and those that can only produce what others nail down for them like if they where a CD player. You are making the latter the norm. In research the first is the norm, as in music. Now you state that I have another hindsight bias than earlier on. Anyway you're wrong here as well. I'm not ignoring that there are bad idea's as well, as you see. You are ignoring the fact that there are people who are capable of distinguishing that, and you are ignoring the fact that there are objective criteria that can and should be used as well. You and DH are evidently crawling back on points not disputed by you both earlier, because it's slowly dawning on you you are in a fix. Anyway do either of you dispute the correctness of this link? http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/origins_pathway/ If you don't the OP position is busted. The thought experiment Einstein had then not only held the problem, but also the inspirational gem of the answer. If so an unknown had an idea that could then have much more quickly furthered science than was the case now. If spotted and worked on by those with the talent as we know from the Big Five in psychology that are the people who score highest on the personality trait openness, especially when trained and experienced in the specific field. We should try to prevent this missing of gems of great idea's from happening again.

Like I stated giving the two links it doesn't completely deal with the issue. Anyway it will become off topic. But you're wrong. They do - of course - interlink if you think about it. You have a bit of a problem spotting the difference between in general and in a specific case. Science in general has to deal with this and scientists in general whether they work for the TV or what not are morally bound to support let alone not oppose proper science. Like MD are morally obliged to further good healthcare in staid of opposing that etc..(And yes that has to do with the social contract and division of labor.) See above. You still don't get it the difference between hind sight and hind sight bias do you? It is very very simple. Given that we know that Einstein was right in his idea on SR (that then wasn't a full blown SR yet) something went wrong then, that we had to wait until Einstein got around to getting a full blown SR in so doing nailing it and becoming a known bestowed by his peers with the honours of being mentioned in footnotes and the like. Let me try and explain it to you in a different way then: many years ago a Fokker F28 crashed near Moerdijk after the wings snapped off by a wind gust in a cloud. This was investigated and deemed "an act of God: i.e. bad luck. This ultimately led to developing better weather radar that could spot these weather cells. With hindsight we can conclude that something went wrong: plane crash people dead. Like we can conclude that something went wrong with Einstein having the right idea but not getting it across for ten years and thus not saving many people due to the benefits of SR GR and QM that then would we - must - assume been around earlier. It would with the plane as with science then with Einstein committing hind sight bias in blaming anyone that the mistake was made of flying in a cloud or not spotting the great idea. See the difference? Now you must think that having inspiring idea's such as Einstein had on the yet to be developed SR can't be spotted I guess seeing your position. Well then, what is brainstorming about then and the new ways of going about that that I'm told have been developed at MIT? I'd say generating inspiring idea's and acting upon them. Unless you state that this is useless what MIT is doing you are proven wrong. Proven wrong by the simple fact of Einstein with hindsight being right as an unknown in having not only an inspiring idea but being right as well. Science failed to spot that: science then crashed. Don't crash again then, get it organised to spot the idea's of unknown Einsteins. Who probably would of been banned on this site because you et all are incapable of learning from mistakes. Or are you capable of learning from mistakes? Given that the math's on SR is straightforward as I'm told it doesn't / didn't require a genius to work it out. And even if it did, then still you're wrong because bringing good inspiring idea's to the attention of other geniuses should be SOP. Something MIT is working on. Just also include unknowns as Einstein proved necessary. No need to shout old boy next thing you'l be throwing the chess board of reason over the floor, like a kid ounce did against whom I played chess as a kid after he was check mated. He subsequently asked his father to moderate because he thought I had teased him. Einstein had not only given the basic idea but also the thought experiment fundamental to SR to his friends when he was sixteen. I.e. lentgh contraction I'd have to look up whether he was then already aware of M&M or derived this from a light meter, I can't remember. Yes I knew about this even before Swansont posted it. I guess you both should study it then. See my reaction to Swansont for further details why I'm right and you both wrong. On the chess board of reason, i.e. science check and check mate.

Q That too is nonsense. Einstein did not have the theory of special relativity when he was 16. He had perhaps the germ of the idea, but nothing specific EQ .He had the idea and thought experiment baring the mathematics. Had someone spotted it then who was able to do the mathematics we would have had SR sooner. The correct moment of inspiration was indisputably - and undisputed by you - there. Q He had this idea in part because the school he was attending at this time encouraged creative thinking. His educators did exactly the right thing by fostering that creativity and by teaching him what they knew at the time. EQ Excellent schooling indeed then. Q More nonsense. Hindsight is so wonderful. EQ Yes indeed especially if you don't know what hindsight bias is. I'll explain it to you in the reaction to Swansont, who doesn't understand this either. Q Finally, something that isn't nonsense. This is spot on. EQ Cherry picking are we? & a strawman BTW. Use the full quote when you quote. Although I can't find a concise wiki for you, first study this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract If you don't grasp that you should do your job as a moral obligation to others then it simply is beyond you to understand. You already know what I do, so don't act a if you don't. Though not a scientist I am involved in science at the moment. As a scientist your job is to further science at the cheapest and fasted way possible. Clearly you are not doing that if you don't cultivate good idea's and only follow up on idea's that have been sweated out by other unknown non scientists. No dear Swansont. It would be a hind sight bias if Einstein had been wrong in his idea on SR. But he was right with hindsight. That then excludes the claim for it being hind sight made for science then because they then couldn't know. This because they could of known had they listened to the idea put forward by Einstein. If you want a nice description for this I advise you read Barbara Tuchman: The march of Folly. Good to read on other counts as well BTW. She uses the norm that something is a folly when the people in that time had pointed out the folly. Well if Einstein pointed out a good idea, that later indeed proves correct you made a mistake. For which you can take blame because someone pointed out a good idea. Had you made the mistake without someone pointing out the mistake then you made an honest unavoidable mistake. Of which it would be hind sight bias to lay blame. Because Einstein pointed out the idea science (potentially) could of spotted it and thus should of spotted it. No hindsight bias thus. Now you lot even top that. If scientists then might not be blamed because they just mist it, you lot not only nearly miss it you agree it was a mistake but subsequently state that there is no reason to learn from this mistake in trying to prevent it happening again. You even think it a good idea to repeat this obvious mistake as correct matter of course. Because if you know little math and only that is needed to work SR idea out to a fully nailed theory any scientist with the training - that Einstein then lacked - could and thus should of provided that. If SR is based on straight forward mathematics that Einstein at first was incapable of then he certainly could and thus should of got help. Apart from that then is not as important as the now. Any new Einstein with a good idea should be spotted and helped. The further question how do you spot a good idea s off topic in this thread. But you don't even acknowledge that a mistake hindsight or no hindsight was made in not spotting the idea as being a good worthwhile idea sooner. That is incomprehensible given the goal of furthering science asap. Wrong, it is self evident that if you spot good idea's and help working them out will more quickly further science. The question how to spot good idea's is of topic.

Circular argument on your part: it is a - undisputed by you (!) given - that Einstein struck the right idea on SR before being able to nail it. I.e.in your opinion the unknown Einstein was then a crackpot in putting his idea forward to his friends. And should not have got one iota of time of trained scientists before he had done the effort of being trained. Because only then it is worth the effort. Even if it is also then a given that had he got that effort we would have had SR much sooner then ten years. It could of been spotted as a good idea so it should of been spotted as a good idea. Uneducated with idea = crackpot. Crackpot =/= worth effort. So SR idea prior educated Einstein =/= crackpot. SR idea post trained Einstein = good idea =/= not crackpot. Yet idea SR prior = idea SR post; The yes or no nailing down of the idea doesn't make any difference. Logic. Wrong. Trained scientists, engineers and mathematicians owe due to the social contract of division of labor, society as a whole and the tax payers thus as well to do their job in solving all scientific problems. Society as a whole has spent a lot of time money and effort to train scientists. So then do your job. So if they could of they should of helped Einstein develop SR because we now undisputed know that we would then have had SR much sooner. You haven't and can't deny that. It is not only in training others that you owe society it is also in quickly and effectively furthering of science. Science failed to do that and that is wrong. Learn from your mistakes and correct them instead of repeating something that has been proven wrong. What is important is if the idea is good or not. Al the rest is BS not worth dung. Utterly irrelevant to the issue of the OP. Only important in the sales department working for the production department of science. A great many people are beguiled by the fallacies that the fact of being educated to a certain degree has anything to do with the fact whether or not an idea is good or not. The case of Einstein and SR proves that flat out. Now this argument has more clout then the earlier ones. Indeed. Only if Einstein was the genius who after being trained in all relevant knowledge and got the relevant experience to nail SR up to the ultimately required level would your point be true. Now why would that be the case? As I understand it the mathematics involved are relatively straight forward. The key is thus how do you spot the good idea's from the bad? Indeed. That would deserve a different thread but does not clench the issue unless you can prove here and now that it would not be possible. It is not as hard as you think. (BTW with hindsight it would probably of been better that the others would have been taken away from their projects, unless these where of a higher order than SR. I hardly think so. I don't think you do either. Exactly. They where - and are still via DSM V - seen as crackpots. Point is they weren't crackpots. There is no evidence to state that these hero's of science were mentally deficient. The deficiency lies in the incurable deficiency of intelligence of those who think otherwise. These where all fast thinking open minded people. However that they wouldn't of accepted help has no basis. They were to a extreme degree of independent mind. I.e. open minded.

Quote of OP: This comes up every so often here in the Speculations forum: the question being can a relative unknown make a meaningful contribution. ....... Now, that said, note one of the comments by one of the reviewers of the paper: He nailed down every detail so no one will doubt him. Theres no waffling. This cannot be emphasized enough in this section. Nail down every detail. So, so, so very often speculators come in an leave details very 'unnailed'. And when this is pointed out, they usually get huffy and the perpetual favorite accusing the rest of the forum of being dogmatic and religious in the name of science. End quote. ​The discussion on Einstein as an unknown coming up with an "unnailed SR" ten years sooner as a stated position to falsify the position in the OP is thus on topic. ? I stated as a matter of fact that Einstein only finished his SR paper ten years after coming up with the notion of it . He who states a BS position should prove that BS position. We know with hindsight that Einstein had an idea worth quickly working out. He missed at that point the knowledge to do so. Others with that knowledge should of been able to spot the good idea that it was for what it was and work it out to the extent that Einstein needed ten years for in a fraction of that time. Pure unadulterated logic: so BS worth dung. (And like I stated on topic and not a hypothesis of mine.)

Fact is he had the notion of SR before he had the mathematics for it. Mathematics that some else could - and thus should - of been able to provide. That he got his insight from others makes it no different from someone nowadays taking an insight on physics via Wikipedia and the like, without the capability to provide the mathematics to nail it down as poised in the OP. I.e. Einstein had a notion on how this apple would fall down out of the tree in stead of up with his notion on SR. I.e. you get length contraction or you don't. He at first didn't have for ten years to nail it down precisely how fast the apple would hit the ground. Exactly proving my point, and disproving yours. Had this correct insight of him been spotted sooner we would have had SR GR and QM sooner. I guess you don't dispute the importance of getting there sooner instead of later. So? Like I said nowadays taking it in via Wikipedia. You still don't get the simple point: the idea of SR was there TEN YEARS before science caught up. Proving the OP position and science then as now wrong. Strawman. I don't state anything to the contrary. Time wasted in graduating is not the issue. Time wasting in reaching SR is. It could and should of been done ten years sooner, that is the point.

Before I can answer this I'd like to hear from Mike whether he thinks me answering this is helpful to his OP?

It is always good to take care. I gave the link where I got this from earlier on, would have to re find it. Anyway as I understand it Einstein dreamt up SR ten years before graduation and publication with the mathematics. I.e. he dreamt it up long before becoming an insider on the mathematics and physics of his day. Otherwise why didn't he graduate sooner? Given that you always should take care why then should you be more careful in making comparisons with exceptional individuals? I.e. what happened to all the other Einsteins with great idea's like SR but not the stamina to stay at it? Further more is that relevant to anything? In fact it's a hidden argument of authority. Relevant in the sales and production department yet irrelevant in the research department where this topic is at. A good idea is a good idea period. It doesn't become better or worse due to it being worked out or not. This isn't a hypothesis but current applied everyday science. Take a brilliant idea of an artist to build a building like Gaudi. That is brought before a mathematics /building expert to see if it can at all be built given current science. Some buildings we know just needed new materials to be developed before the idea could be materialized. By working together i.e. division of labour it works quicker and safer than having Gaudi first learn mathematics and the science on construction. BTW a hilarious example of this going wrong has been with the Dutch architecture institute in Rotterdam. A beautiful bridge at the entrance failed under the load of a queue. Murphy's law eh.. The examples of lesser gods making aver-edge to greater works of architecture are countless. Thanks to good help of mathematics it is proven to work safe and fast, even when artists build buildings. Even architects who know their mathematics have to see the better trained mathematicians to have it checked (in Rotterdam that clearly failed). Thus no hypothesis but current science! When Einstein came up with SR he was in fact an artist. All it needed was some straightforward mathematics to be put to it and testing. Science then as now should have been organised to spot the good idea and put it to the test of logic, subsequently the test of mathematics and subsequently the test of observation of the predictions. Then as now science failed to do so. Because this isn't done asap it costs not only to much money but also lives. So the position in the OP is busted. Falsified. Combining current scientific insights in a purely logical way based on indisputable facts.

Well given that Einstein as an unknown came up with the thought experiment of SR 10 years before he got the mathematics. So it took science using a thus incorrect norm because a too high a norm, too long to see it for what it already then at it's conception was worth. Then the question is would it have mattered if we as humankind had got there ten years or so earlier? Of course it would, because then one can expect GR and QM to have come along faster as well or even having SR sooner it its own right. So the answer is yes. The other point is that the indeed nailing down comes after the a priori necessity of getting the integral picture on an issue in order. Like Einstein did on the issue concerning SR even before the mathematics via a thought experiment. That that picture is then inherently vague is just what is true at that stage. The correct mathematical norm in science for working issues with inherently to few data is verbal logic (and pictures). The main problem is the garbage or non garbage in and not the logic. It is pseudo scientific to address issues with a higher degree of accuracy then your available data at that point allow. It is also un-scientific not to address issues that can be addressed in a testable way, like Einstein as a then unknown proved. What you seem to miss is that logic takes precedent over the main stream convention i.e. the norm of having to nail something down before taking any action. The reason for this is because science is about logic and not about a democratic convention of what is to be the correct norm given the stated goal of getting more knowledge asap. The apples don't fly upwards because the majority in science is convinced of that. The convention on the norm of nailing it before action is falsified if you take the ten years of Einstein as a fact. No hypothesis on my part: pure - even mathematically provable - logic!

All verbal logic can be expressed via probabilistic reasoning based on Bayes. The need to do such is not required when the bottleneck is not the logic but the garbage or non garbage and the extreme broad scope of a problem to be tackled with to few data. A dictate of logic (i.e. thus mathematics as well) is that verbal logic providing testable hypothesis providing observations is the quickest and surest way forward. You can't keep on wanting to measure predictions on the nano-meter with a deviation in meters. Look at all the data and answer all questions and guess and test that guess and keep on doing that. It doesn't exclude other methods. The problem is that this method is excluded by current science without any rational bases whatsoever. Close is close enough to warrant testing. I.e. get on with it. I.e. state a goal such as getting to a TOE within the decade and put a bag of money on it and get it organised, and accept a host of failed crazy idea's being tested.

A lingual theory of everything should be called an idea or concept of everything. But okay using current scientific lingo a TOE. The bottleneck is however not the logic but the garbage or non garbage you put into that theory. The reason for that is the want for more essential data in order to clench the issue. This you get via testing and thus dreaming up testable idea's and subsequently concepts that providing thus the testable idea's. Given thus that it calls for educated creative guesswork. To require therefor a mathematical basis requiring measurements on the nano-meter given an inherent deviation in meters dictates that a lingual logical approach is at first the primer way to go about this. That is BTW a dictate of mathematics applied properly!

The thing is of course that although it is deterministic at every point in time that doesn't mean that it can actually be determined because of inherent measurement problems. That again doesn't mean to say that you can't hit on the correct formula's that then will prove to keep on predicting future events correctly at an extreme degree of accuracy albeit a widening probabilistic / statistical prediction the further you go in time from your pre- determined begin state. I.e. you measure as best you can at the beginning and at the end. I.e. you only think a particle can be in two or more places at the same time due to incorrect prior assumptions and insurmountable measurement problems. Simple error in reasoning. This would only be logically correct assuming it is pure probability. What if it is deterministic as well? Again assuming a certain scenario is not absolutely impossible. On what do you base that assumption? If you only assume the extremely improbable then in an infinite multiverse every extremely improbable scenario will be played out at all time frames all the time an infinite amount of times. (Albeit not at the deepest level, because then there would have to be a scenario in which no life will ever return. That hasn't happened as you can observe. So you may logically deduce that such a scenario is absolutely impossible.) It has nothing IMO to do with whatever convention you use in order to measure time. Even if it is cyclic it must be unique for the reason I just gave. So just like the hands of the clock turn in a cyclic way doesn't mean time is in a loop. Nor if you slow the hand down that time then has slowed down. The clock has. The notion of time is needed to describe what we observe and the conventions are needed to communicate that. The question then is what is the simplest way to do that. Well that can be dependent on the question, and thus differ. (12 hours three minutes and two hundreds of a second ago I was in a different time zone).

Ah, sorry thought that you where talking about a metaphorical dog and dito duck. Got you wrong then.

If I understand the positions posed in this thread correctly it is a pure probability (i.e. God playing dice) vs predictability (Rutherford's deterministic) discussion. I miss the intermediate position in which it could also be (and even most probably is) a combination of both. In a multiverse all - possible - scenario's are played out all the time in the past as in the future as a cyclic event. You can thus look on it as a ship you observe at given moment in time sailing past New York at t0. This pre-determined state predicts where the ship can probably be in time t 2, but also where it can impossibly be. Even given the most improbable event happening of it carrying an atomic bomb that explodes and being hit by a meteor at the same time at t 1 still will not lead to the possibility of even parts of the atoms of the ship being in Tokyo at t2 when the time to reach that point is absolutely to short when it is observed in New York at t0. This also doesn't mean that the cyclic event means that all possible scenario's at a deepest level (SM and beyond) can't be absolutely unique but the same at a higher (say molecule) level, like two industrial glasses are the same yet absolutely different. So you can get an absolutely stable multiverse, in which an infinite amount of possible scenarios are played out. I'd even state that this is most probable, and testable given the assumption of the existence of an absolute truth that can be approximated via correct testing. This also logically implies hidden variables with speeds > c in order for it not to be magic. It then becomes intuitive and thus most simple and thus most probable on Occams razor.

Well you can take that route or assume the dog is running > c to meet the duck and thus create an illusion of being everywhere at the same time in observations assuming c = max. Either way you assume something. In the one you believe in magic and in the other in hidden variables. I.e. as long as you stay within the confines of where QM is known to work relative to GR you can state that QM isn't magic but observed science. If you broaden the question, such as: how to marry QM to GR? then QM becomes belief in magic, unless you accept speeds > c outside the areas where the workings of QM & GR can be observed. Logical evidence based dictate on what is probable, need of the latter is inherent because of inherent missing data to clench the issue.