Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <6RWg9.101$Fc5.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Alan Blumlein site
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-Inktomi-Trace: public1-pete2-5-cust19.pete.broadband.ntl.com 1032120172 27627 184.108.40.206 (15 Sep 2002 20:02:52 GMT)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 21:02:51 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 21:02:53 BST
"Steve Taylor" wrote in message
> Kevin Aylward wrote:
> > For me, a genius has to do something that is *truly* *difficult*
> > *most* will *miss* *given* the opportunity, although this something
> > might be comprehended in more simple terms. "Genius", imo, is
> > that differentiates above all others. Merely doing something simple
> > others have missed, don't really cut it. I don't take the view that
> > here are millions of geniuses out there. This would make the notion
> > meaningless. If inherent difficulty is not a factor, the notion is
> > again, meaningless.
> I suggest you look at the body of Blumlein's work, and then comment,
You might want to look at my posts in more detail. I have made no claim
on whether or not Blumlein is a genius or not. I have merely been
pointing out the fallacy of the arguments that were presented in support
of this view.
> after reviewing say British patent 323,037. To me that is a work of
> genius, not something waiting to be discovered. You do a grave
> dis-service to the whole idea of creativity.
> > Merely doing something simple that others have missed, don't really
> > cut it.
> That is like the person who sees a magic trick explained and then
> declares that its so simple and obvious anyone can see how it was
> But only afterwards.
I'm way ahead of you on this. Do you really think that I'm that daft.
You can use hindsight to evaluate what is reasonable for most or
reasonable only for a few. What you suggesting is that *everything* that
is initially unknown has merit.
> Your touting of Einstein as a genius for example ignores the serious
> contribution of Maxwell, Lorenz and even Faraday to his work,
Don't be silly. An issue here is who makes the most out of the least.
Maxwell might be said to be a genius. He worked in *great* detail over a
*wide* range of subjects.
> as well
> as his first wife,
Ahmmm... You have falled for that one have you. Shucks...
a skilled mathematician in her own right, whom
> history has seen fit to ignore until recently.
>I doubt very much that
> "genius" as such exists in isolation.
> Besides, relativity is obvious
You think so...Ahmmmm.
> - anyone can imagine the consequences of
> sitting on a beam of light and making observations. I can see exactly
> what Einstein saw. Now.
I doubt it. If I measure the velocity of light coming from the sun and
keep running into it faster and faster, why should its light always be
coming in at the same speed? If you think that this is to be expected,
you dont understand basic mechanics at all. Even today, there is *no*
explanation. It just is. It the way the universe works, but to pretend
that one understands why, is quite nonsense.
Your doing exactly what your accusing me of falling for. Special
Relativity is quite subtle, so subtle that I think you have missed it. I
have already pointed out that he equations of SR were already there.
Thats why they are called the Lorenz Equations. However, the
interprtation of those equations are radically different.
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.