Saturday, March 26, 2011
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Albert Einstein's School Grades
The education council of the Canton Aargau certifies Albert Einstein final secondary-school examinations at 3rd of Oct., 1896 as follows:
German language and literature - 5
French - 3
Italian - 5
History - 6
Geography - 4
Algebra - 6
Geometry - 6
Descriptive geometry - 6
Physics - 6
Chemistry - 5
Natural history - 5
Artistic drawing - 4
Technical drawing - 4
(6 - best grade, 1 - poorest)
[Via scienceblogs.de]
German language and literature - 5
French - 3
Italian - 5
History - 6
Geography - 4
Algebra - 6
Geometry - 6
Descriptive geometry - 6
Physics - 6
Chemistry - 5
Natural history - 5
Artistic drawing - 4
Technical drawing - 4
(6 - best grade, 1 - poorest)
[Via scienceblogs.de]
Monday, March 7, 2011
50% of US Workers Don't Turn off PCs at Night, Burning up $2.8 Bln per Year
Nearly half of US employees who use a PC at work don’t shut down their computers at the end of the day, wasting $2.8 billion every year powering 108 million unused PCs.
By shutting down computers each night, for example, a company with 10,000 PCs can save more than $165,000 a year in energy costs.
By shutting down computers each night, for example, a company with 10,000 PCs can save more than $165,000 a year in energy costs.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
6 Money Habits That Are Illegal
1. Signing someone else's name on a check
Signing someone else's name on a check is generally considered forgery and would be illegal in most states. But suppose an adult child signs an elderly parent's name because the parent is incapacitated, or a parent signs a child's name because the child is away at college. Guess what? Those signatures are still forgeries, unless a power of attorney is in effect.
2. Using someone else's identity to obtain credit
The use of someone else's name and identity to obtain credit is an obvious no-no. But suppose a parent whose credit has been ruined uses a child's name and identity to open new credit accounts. Illegal? You bet.
3. Lying on a home loan application
Homebuyers and homeowners who want to refinance may be tempted to inflate their income or hide some of their debts to better their chances of receiving a "yes" from the lender. But lying on a loan application is fraud, and lenders do check up on applicants' information.
4. Writing 'bad' checks
Many banks offer overdraft protection that kicks in if you write a check for more than the balance of your account. But writing a check that you know is no good is illegal. The risk isn't negligible: some people do get prosecuted for writing bad checks.
5. Copying U.S. currency
Color printers, scanners and copiers make it surprisingly easy for just about anyone to replicate U.S. or foreign currency. But it is, in fact, illegal to print your own money and try to spend it to buy goods or services.
6. Defacing U.S. currency
U.S. currency isn't designed to be run through the clothes washer, written on or masticated by pets. Yet while accidental damage to currency normally isn't illegal, deliberate defacement is. Federal law prohibits any action that mutilates, cuts, defaces, perforates or glues together U.S. currency or otherwise renders bills unusable.
Signing someone else's name on a check is generally considered forgery and would be illegal in most states. But suppose an adult child signs an elderly parent's name because the parent is incapacitated, or a parent signs a child's name because the child is away at college. Guess what? Those signatures are still forgeries, unless a power of attorney is in effect.
2. Using someone else's identity to obtain credit
The use of someone else's name and identity to obtain credit is an obvious no-no. But suppose a parent whose credit has been ruined uses a child's name and identity to open new credit accounts. Illegal? You bet.
3. Lying on a home loan application
Homebuyers and homeowners who want to refinance may be tempted to inflate their income or hide some of their debts to better their chances of receiving a "yes" from the lender. But lying on a loan application is fraud, and lenders do check up on applicants' information.
4. Writing 'bad' checks
Many banks offer overdraft protection that kicks in if you write a check for more than the balance of your account. But writing a check that you know is no good is illegal. The risk isn't negligible: some people do get prosecuted for writing bad checks.
5. Copying U.S. currency
Color printers, scanners and copiers make it surprisingly easy for just about anyone to replicate U.S. or foreign currency. But it is, in fact, illegal to print your own money and try to spend it to buy goods or services.
6. Defacing U.S. currency
U.S. currency isn't designed to be run through the clothes washer, written on or masticated by pets. Yet while accidental damage to currency normally isn't illegal, deliberate defacement is. Federal law prohibits any action that mutilates, cuts, defaces, perforates or glues together U.S. currency or otherwise renders bills unusable.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Popular Opposition to the Theory of Relativity in the 1920s
Shortly after the confirmation of his theory of general relativity in 1919, Albert Einstein was transformed into a media star of Weimar Germany. The overwhelming public response to the theory of relativity was not always positive; numerous accounts published during the 1920s claimed to refute his new theory. Einstein’s opponents were not limited to physicists and philosophers. Engineers, doctors, businessmen, and writers also raised strong objections to one of the most important scientific theories of the twentieth century. What were the motives of Einstein’s opponents? On what basis was his theory of relativity attacked so vociferously?
Although they had previously played no role in German academic life, during the 1920s scores of self-proclaimed researchers alleged to have proved the theory of relativity to be scientifically incorrect. Because the arguments set out in hundreds of ensuing publications frequently rested on fundamental misunderstandings of Einstein’s new theory, their accounts have largely been ignored by traditional history of science. Instead, attention has focused on the criticisms of Einstein’s work put forward by physicists who clung to classical physics, and philosophers who saw central elements of their ways of understanding the world threatened by Einstein’s fundamental restructuring of the basic principles of physics. Moreover, “scientific” arguments leveled against the theory of relativity were separated from “unscientific” accounts, many of which were political attacks on the person of Albert Einstein, a German Jew and outspoken defender of Germany’s post-WWI democracy.
A fresh perspective emerges when popular criticism of the theory of relativity is investigated beyond the frame of physical or philosophical plausibility. By exploring criticisms of Einstein’s work from the perspective of a history of knowledge broadly conceived to investigate bodies of knowledge beyond scientific disciplines, we are in a better position not only to understand the various arguments advanced by Einstein’s opponents, but also the bodies of knowledge that provided the basis for these arguments and the social contexts in which their various objections arose.
This new scholarly approach to Einstein’s opponents reveals that criticism of the theory of relativity outside of academic circles began much earlier than the 1920s. The roots of this opposition can be traced back to the nineteenth century, when popularization of the natural sciences led many citizens to devote their leisure to the pursuit of scientific understanding. This leisure-time study of science led some individuals to create universal theories of their own; in some cases these simple, often mechanical explanations of the world enabled them to assemble a cadre of adherents drawn from a shared popular-scientific milieu.
One such self-proclaimed researcher and Einstein opponent is Arthur Patschke (1865–1934). Employed by Siemens Schuckert, a German electrical engineering company, Patschke saw himself as more than a design engineer of steam engines. Patschke was convinced that all phenomena – from the movement of the heavens to human thought itself – could be traced to the collisions of tiny ether particles. On this mechanical basis, Patschke went on to develop a scientific worldview in which ether attained a quasi-religious status as the key to the mysteries of the world.
It was by and large scholars outside academia such as Patschke who claimed, in numerous pamphlets published during the 1920s, to have refuted Einstein’s theory of relativity. Their accounts were situated in the context of worldviews such as monism, the naturalist-inspired Lebensreform movement, and occultism. Encompassing not only social forms of organization, these worldviews also covered specific bodies of knowledge. Against this background it becomes clear why popular criticism of the theory of relativity was often put forward by individuals with little or no understanding of Einstein’s theory, individuals who nonetheless approached the work of refutation with a particular vengeance. Shaped as they were by their worldviews, these individuals regarded Einstein’s theory of relativity as unwelcome competition to their own attempts to interpret the universe.
A non-academic researcher such as Patschke could not help but react defensively to the replacement of classical physics with one that has more abstract foundations. Patschke, for his part, sought to determine which elements of the theory of relativity could be reconciled with his ether theory. He also attempted to show which parts of the theory of relativity were demonstrably false by reference to his own abstractions.
The controversy surrounding the theory of relativity was exceptionally heated. In many pamphlets one finds what might be described as a martial rhetoric of damnation; his opponents also staged acts of protest that sought to inflame public opinion against Einstein’s work. A complex process of marginalization and protest helps to account for the heated responses to Einstein’s theory.
Non-academic researchers like Patschke announced public lectures, submitted essays, and tried to establish contact with Einstein and other leading scholars in order to warn them – as well-intentioned colleagues – of the falsehood of the theory of relativity and to convince them of the veracity of their own scientific worldviews. Patschke and others like him were often simply ignored; in other instances, it was patiently explained how their criticisms of the theory of relativity had completely missed the mark. But because their observations were anchored in specific worldviews, Patschke and his associates were immune to this type of criticism. Einstein’s opponents were simply not prepared to question their own worldviews and instead sought alternative explanations for why their objections were disregarded by the academics. With time, many turned to conspiracy to account for their marginal status: plots favoring Einstein, so they imagined, explained his success and their marginalization. Having reached this point, any sort of resolution of the controversy had become impossible.
Although they had previously played no role in German academic life, during the 1920s scores of self-proclaimed researchers alleged to have proved the theory of relativity to be scientifically incorrect. Because the arguments set out in hundreds of ensuing publications frequently rested on fundamental misunderstandings of Einstein’s new theory, their accounts have largely been ignored by traditional history of science. Instead, attention has focused on the criticisms of Einstein’s work put forward by physicists who clung to classical physics, and philosophers who saw central elements of their ways of understanding the world threatened by Einstein’s fundamental restructuring of the basic principles of physics. Moreover, “scientific” arguments leveled against the theory of relativity were separated from “unscientific” accounts, many of which were political attacks on the person of Albert Einstein, a German Jew and outspoken defender of Germany’s post-WWI democracy.
A fresh perspective emerges when popular criticism of the theory of relativity is investigated beyond the frame of physical or philosophical plausibility. By exploring criticisms of Einstein’s work from the perspective of a history of knowledge broadly conceived to investigate bodies of knowledge beyond scientific disciplines, we are in a better position not only to understand the various arguments advanced by Einstein’s opponents, but also the bodies of knowledge that provided the basis for these arguments and the social contexts in which their various objections arose.
This new scholarly approach to Einstein’s opponents reveals that criticism of the theory of relativity outside of academic circles began much earlier than the 1920s. The roots of this opposition can be traced back to the nineteenth century, when popularization of the natural sciences led many citizens to devote their leisure to the pursuit of scientific understanding. This leisure-time study of science led some individuals to create universal theories of their own; in some cases these simple, often mechanical explanations of the world enabled them to assemble a cadre of adherents drawn from a shared popular-scientific milieu.
One such self-proclaimed researcher and Einstein opponent is Arthur Patschke (1865–1934). Employed by Siemens Schuckert, a German electrical engineering company, Patschke saw himself as more than a design engineer of steam engines. Patschke was convinced that all phenomena – from the movement of the heavens to human thought itself – could be traced to the collisions of tiny ether particles. On this mechanical basis, Patschke went on to develop a scientific worldview in which ether attained a quasi-religious status as the key to the mysteries of the world.
It was by and large scholars outside academia such as Patschke who claimed, in numerous pamphlets published during the 1920s, to have refuted Einstein’s theory of relativity. Their accounts were situated in the context of worldviews such as monism, the naturalist-inspired Lebensreform movement, and occultism. Encompassing not only social forms of organization, these worldviews also covered specific bodies of knowledge. Against this background it becomes clear why popular criticism of the theory of relativity was often put forward by individuals with little or no understanding of Einstein’s theory, individuals who nonetheless approached the work of refutation with a particular vengeance. Shaped as they were by their worldviews, these individuals regarded Einstein’s theory of relativity as unwelcome competition to their own attempts to interpret the universe.
A non-academic researcher such as Patschke could not help but react defensively to the replacement of classical physics with one that has more abstract foundations. Patschke, for his part, sought to determine which elements of the theory of relativity could be reconciled with his ether theory. He also attempted to show which parts of the theory of relativity were demonstrably false by reference to his own abstractions.
The controversy surrounding the theory of relativity was exceptionally heated. In many pamphlets one finds what might be described as a martial rhetoric of damnation; his opponents also staged acts of protest that sought to inflame public opinion against Einstein’s work. A complex process of marginalization and protest helps to account for the heated responses to Einstein’s theory.
Non-academic researchers like Patschke announced public lectures, submitted essays, and tried to establish contact with Einstein and other leading scholars in order to warn them – as well-intentioned colleagues – of the falsehood of the theory of relativity and to convince them of the veracity of their own scientific worldviews. Patschke and others like him were often simply ignored; in other instances, it was patiently explained how their criticisms of the theory of relativity had completely missed the mark. But because their observations were anchored in specific worldviews, Patschke and his associates were immune to this type of criticism. Einstein’s opponents were simply not prepared to question their own worldviews and instead sought alternative explanations for why their objections were disregarded by the academics. With time, many turned to conspiracy to account for their marginal status: plots favoring Einstein, so they imagined, explained his success and their marginalization. Having reached this point, any sort of resolution of the controversy had become impossible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)