El lunes, 15 de noviembre de 2021 a las 20:00:12 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:45:32 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > No, no, no. Physicists are to be revered as Geniuses, engineers are apparently told.
> <snip>
>
> No, no, no. Engineers, and particularly EE, know by first hand that physicists are arrogant assholes that got
> the job by "connections", and learned by the hard way to don't give a shit about what they say (or think). And
> their bosses agree, and the bosses of their bosses also agree. Only the chairman disagree.
>

What a load of crap that is!!! In my university, all engineers have a very good relationship with all physicists. We have a strong astrophysics group which collaborates with electrical engineers in the Astro-engineering Center (http://www.aiuc.puc.cl/).

Remember that over 70% of all astrophysics research is done by using telescopes located in Chile. One of my colleagues, does research in adaptative optics, which will improve the image quality of all telescopes.

Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
> El lunes, 15 de noviembre de 2021 a las 20:00:12 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
>> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:45:32 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> No, no, no. Physicists are to be revered as Geniuses, engineers are apparently told.
>> <snip>
>>
>> No, no, no. Engineers, and particularly EE, know by first hand that
>> physicists are arrogant assholes that got
>> the job by "connections", and learned by the hard way to don't give a
>> shit about what they say (or think). And
>> their bosses agree, and the bosses of their bosses also agree. Only the
>> chairman disagree.
>>
>
> What a load of crap that is!!! In my university, all engineers have a
> very good relationship with all physicists. We have a strong astrophysics
> group which collaborates with electrical engineers in the
> Astro-engineering Center (http://www.aiuc.puc.cl/).

Notice you are talking about a university. Richard’s history is in private
enterprise, which apparently tolerates or even foments a hostile
relationship between employees hired for good cause. It says something
about a company when workers with one job description look at other workers
with a different job description and mutter, “I don’t know why THEY’RE
here.” Sounds like a sick working environment to me. And now he’s retired
and still lives that disease. What a shame.

>
> Remember that over 70% of all astrophysics research is done by using
> telescopes located in Chile. One of my colleagues, does research in
> adaptative optics, which will improve the image quality of all telescopes.
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 16:19:43 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 14:39:54 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:45:32 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>> No, no, no. Physicists are to be revered as Geniuses, engineers are apparently told.
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> No, no, no. Engineers, and particularly EE, know by first hand that
> >>> physicists are arrogant assholes that got
> >>> the job by "connections",
> >> Ah, first hand exposure. So that would be physicists in private enterprise.
> >> Not those in academia or in fundamental research labs.
> >>
> >> This is the familiar territory of physicists getting some special role in
> >> the commercial sector, and engineers bitching about why they aren’t offered
> >> the position. “There’s nothing that guy can do that I can’t do. Why does he
> >> get the job?”
> >
> > Poor idiot Odd knows how things are in the commercial sector. Poor idiot
> > Odd is an incredibly wise woodworker, he knows about just everything.
> >
> I worked in the commercial sector as a mathematician. I am familiar with
> this kind of “who the hell are you and why do you get that position”

Sure, poor trash. You're familiar with practically everything.
Except Pythagorean theorem and propositional calculus,
of course.

On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 17:44:02 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 15 de noviembre de 2021 a las 20:00:12 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:45:32 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > No, no, no. Physicists are to be revered as Geniuses, engineers are apparently told.
> > <snip>
> >
> > No, no, no. Engineers, and particularly EE, know by first hand that physicists are arrogant assholes that got
> > the job by "connections", and learned by the hard way to don't give a shit about what they say (or think). And
> > their bosses agree, and the bosses of their bosses also agree. Only the chairman disagree.
> >
> What a load of crap that is!!! In my university, all engineers have a very good relationship with all physicists. We have a strong astrophysics group which collaborates with electrical engineers in the Astro-engineering Center (http://www.aiuc.puc.cl/).

Of course, they don't give their engineers the coffee break, as it takes too
much to retrain them.

On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 1:44:02 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 15 de noviembre de 2021 a las 20:00:12 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> > On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:45:32 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > No, no, no. Physicists are to be revered as Geniuses, engineers are apparently told.
> > <snip>
> >
> > No, no, no. Engineers, and particularly EE, know by first hand that physicists are arrogant assholes that got
> > the job by "connections", and learned by the hard way to don't give a shit about what they say (or think). And
> > their bosses agree, and the bosses of their bosses also agree. Only the chairman disagree.
> >
> What a load of crap that is!!! In my university, all engineers have a very good relationship with all physicists. We have a strong astrophysics group which collaborates with electrical engineers in the Astro-engineering Center (http://www.aiuc.puc.cl/).
>
> Remember that over 70% of all astrophysics research is done by using telescopes located in Chile. One of my colleagues, does research in adaptative optics, which will improve the image quality of all telescopes.

Actually, I was talking about the cocky physicists at the northern hemisphere (western countries).

In South America (except Brazil), physicists are OK (humble and of good nature). Engineers and physicists come along over here,
because nobody is working on crazy boundaries of earthly reality. Both are committed to solve REAL PROBLEMS, and nobody cares
about relativity and related shit.

We know what to do and how to do it. LA!

El martes, 16 de noviembre de 2021 a las 18:00:27 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 1:44:02 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:

> > What a load of crap that is!!! In my university, all engineers have a very good relationship with all physicists. We have a strong astrophysics group which collaborates with electrical engineers in the Astro-engineering Center (http://www.aiuc.puc.cl/).
> >
> > Remember that over 70% of all astrophysics research is done by using telescopes located in Chile. One of my colleagues, does research in adaptative optics, which will improve the image quality of all telescopes.

> Actually, I was talking about the cocky physicists at the northern hemisphere (western countries).
>

That is also wrong. Here is a paper "Higgs physics at the CLIC electron–positron linear collider", where one of my colleagues (professor Abusleme, an electrical engineer and PhD of Stanford in microcircuits design) is part of a large international team of physicists and engineers.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4968-5.pdf

Am 15.11.2021 um 15:12 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
....
>>>>
>>>> Civil use was also mainly created by engineers in companies, who build
>>>> planes.
>>>
>>> From science created by scientists.
>>
>>
>> Most, if not all, was done by engineers, who actually built devices. In
>> this case that were things, which enabled to fly.
>>
>> Science is the study of nature. There are many flying things in nature,
>> like clouds, insects and birds.
>>
>> But it required engineers to build planes.
>>
>>
>>>>>> - ANALOG AND DIGITAL COMPUTERS WERE CONCEIVED, DEVELOPED AND
>>>>>> INTERNERWORKED BY ENGINEERS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who learned about electricity and logic and how it works from scientists
>>>>> and mathematicians.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The first computers were mechanical devices and developed by people
>>>> like Konrad Zuse, who also invented a certain programming paradigma,
>>>> falsely called 'von Neumann architecture'.
>>>>
>>>> Zuse was an engineer.
>>>
>>> But he needed the mathematics behind it all. (yes I know mathematicians
>>> aren't scientists but are closer to being scientists than being
>>> engineers) And all the physics to actually implement such devices.
>>
>> Zuse invented a certain concept for programming, which is now called
>> 'von Neumann architecture'.
>>
>> So, in a way, he engineered a mathematical problem.
>>
>>>> The first smartphone was developed by
>>>>
>>>> quote:
>>>>
>>>> " IBM engineer Frank Canova realised that chip-and-wireless technology
>>>> was becoming small enough to use in handheld devices."
>>>
>>> Several layers removed from the science, but how could anyone make that
>>> chip technology at all without the semiconductor science from chemists
>>> and physicists?
>>
>> Just look at how engineers work.
>>
>> Most inventions were not based on science, but on tinkering around with
>> tools and strange substances.
>
> No, sorry, that’s silly. Engineers do not do the bulk of their work with
> trial and error tinkering. That would be MASSIVELY inefficient. What they
> use are design principles, which come from established science.

Practically all inventions are not based on science, but on the method I
have described.

It is not really 'tinkering around', but close.

Usually you have an idea, which may eventually be influenced by science.
But other sources are also possible:
dayly problems, tv-dramas, observations of nature or divine inspiration,
for instance.

Then you try this and that and eventually something looks promising.

Then you need to enhance, what you have found. To do so, you need to
built a prototype and study its behaviour.

This has much more to do with how children 'design' new buildings from
Lego bricks than with theoretical physics.

Once something works, you need to enhance it in a new iterative step.

This could be done a hundred times, before something like a product is
created.

If you want to create something new from theoretical physics, you run
into the problem, that you cannot create innovations from knowledge,
which is already old.

TH

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 15.11.2021 um 15:12 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Civil use was also mainly created by engineers in companies, who build
>>>>> planes.
>>>>
>>>> From science created by scientists.
>>>
>>>
>>> Most, if not all, was done by engineers, who actually built devices. In
>>> this case that were things, which enabled to fly.
>>>
>>> Science is the study of nature. There are many flying things in nature,
>>> like clouds, insects and birds.
>>>
>>> But it required engineers to build planes.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> - ANALOG AND DIGITAL COMPUTERS WERE CONCEIVED, DEVELOPED AND
>>>>>>> INTERNERWORKED BY ENGINEERS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who learned about electricity and logic and how it works from scientists
>>>>>> and mathematicians.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The first computers were mechanical devices and developed by people
>>>>> like Konrad Zuse, who also invented a certain programming paradigma,
>>>>> falsely called 'von Neumann architecture'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Zuse was an engineer.
>>>>
>>>> But he needed the mathematics behind it all. (yes I know mathematicians
>>>> aren't scientists but are closer to being scientists than being
>>>> engineers) And all the physics to actually implement such devices.
>>>
>>> Zuse invented a certain concept for programming, which is now called
>>> 'von Neumann architecture'.
>>>
>>> So, in a way, he engineered a mathematical problem.
>>>
>>>>> The first smartphone was developed by
>>>>>
>>>>> quote:
>>>>>
>>>>> " IBM engineer Frank Canova realised that chip-and-wireless technology
>>>>> was becoming small enough to use in handheld devices."
>>>>
>>>> Several layers removed from the science, but how could anyone make that
>>>> chip technology at all without the semiconductor science from chemists
>>>> and physicists?
>>>
>>> Just look at how engineers work.
>>>
>>> Most inventions were not based on science, but on tinkering around with
>>> tools and strange substances.
>>
>> No, sorry, that’s silly. Engineers do not do the bulk of their work with
>> trial and error tinkering. That would be MASSIVELY inefficient. What they
>> use are design principles, which come from established science.
>
>
> Practically all inventions are not based on science, but on the method I
> have described.
>
> It is not really 'tinkering around', but close.
>
> Usually you have an idea, which may eventually be influenced by science.
> But other sources are also possible:
> dayly problems, tv-dramas, observations of nature or divine inspiration,
> for instance.
>
> Then you try this and that and eventually something looks promising.
>
> Then you need to enhance, what you have found. To do so, you need to
> built a prototype and study its behaviour.
>
> This has much more to do with how children 'design' new buildings from
> Lego bricks than with theoretical physics.
>
> Once something works, you need to enhance it in a new iterative step.
>
> This could be done a hundred times, before something like a product is
> created.
>
> If you want to create something new from theoretical physics, you run
> into the problem, that you cannot create innovations from knowledge,
> which is already old.
>
> TH
>
>
>

You, Thomas, have practically no idea what you are talking about.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Am 17.11.2021 um 12:11 schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>>>> Just look at how engineers work.
>>>>
>>>> Most inventions were not based on science, but on tinkering around with
>>>> tools and strange substances.
>>>
>>> No, sorry, that’s silly. Engineers do not do the bulk of their work with
>>> trial and error tinkering. That would be MASSIVELY inefficient. What they
>>> use are design principles, which come from established science.
>>
>>
>> Practically all inventions are not based on science, but on the method I
>> have described.
>>
>> It is not really 'tinkering around', but close.
>>
>> Usually you have an idea, which may eventually be influenced by science.
>> But other sources are also possible:
>> dayly problems, tv-dramas, observations of nature or divine inspiration,
>> for instance.
>>
>> Then you try this and that and eventually something looks promising.
>>
>> Then you need to enhance, what you have found. To do so, you need to
>> built a prototype and study its behaviour.
>>
>> This has much more to do with how children 'design' new buildings from
>> Lego bricks than with theoretical physics.
>>
>> Once something works, you need to enhance it in a new iterative step.
>>
>> This could be done a hundred times, before something like a product is
>> created.
>>
>> If you want to create something new from theoretical physics, you run
>> into the problem, that you cannot create innovations from knowledge,
>> which is already old.
>>
>> TH
>>
>>
>>
>
> You, Thomas, have practically no idea what you are talking about.
>

Well, lets take Otto Lillienthal, for instance.

He's was possibly the first person, who flew.

Would you really think, that he had a degree in aerodynamics?

TH