- #1
julian
Gold Member
- 812
- 316
There was a recent post about "parroting Einstein".
There are these people I know who have got themselves a new idea about rectangles. They think that you can take a 2 by 1 rectangle and make it half the size, not by putting it into the distance but by angling it!
This seems like utter nonsense...if you try taking a 2 by 1 rectangle and try to halve the length and width by angling it you end up with a severely distorted diamond shape where one diagonal is much much bigger than the other. They want to claim otherwise and that it can be angled so that it is half the size in every regard (almost) with one diagonal being about 49% and the other 51%.
I've told them to take a pair of identical 2 by 1 rectangles, keeping one as the reference rectangle and angle the other, and try to do this idea of theirs...Months later and they still couldn't do it, and when I pointed it this out to them (and get this) to compensate for not being able to do it they told me that they are like Einstein discovering relativity! That it is a revolution.
They couldn't do it so they called themselves Einstein! Aside from this being bonkers, I had issues with this like rectangles having been around for millennia and are kind of of low-tech and anybody can get hold of them and that somebody might have noticed by now. Comparing it to relativity which is far more experimentally high-tech, inaccessible to most people and profound and even that was discovered over a hundred years ago. Since then we've had quite a few revolutions in science - that rectangles are going to `post-date' them? Just sounds like delusions of grandeur.
Here is their latest argument...O.K. so they couldn't do it with a pair of identical rectangles, so they have taken a situation of a pair of slightly non-identical rectangles with one being very very slightly bigger than the other. The bigger rectangle is at an angle - it looks no where near half the size of the `reference' rectangle and the diamond shape is already far too distorted...BUT they are THEN saying if only we had used identical rectangles this time then it would have magically worked! They mention the word "sensitive" as if it were an actual explanation but it is jut a word. They don't even seem to care what angle this rectangle is at.
I try telling them that you can ALWAYS get hold of a pair of slightly non-identical rectangles and as such you can't deduce anything from this let alone some bizarre `Einstein revolution' but they still think they are doing science. I tell them you could generalize this `argument' to anything...
There are these people I know who have got themselves a new idea about rectangles. They think that you can take a 2 by 1 rectangle and make it half the size, not by putting it into the distance but by angling it!
This seems like utter nonsense...if you try taking a 2 by 1 rectangle and try to halve the length and width by angling it you end up with a severely distorted diamond shape where one diagonal is much much bigger than the other. They want to claim otherwise and that it can be angled so that it is half the size in every regard (almost) with one diagonal being about 49% and the other 51%.
I've told them to take a pair of identical 2 by 1 rectangles, keeping one as the reference rectangle and angle the other, and try to do this idea of theirs...Months later and they still couldn't do it, and when I pointed it this out to them (and get this) to compensate for not being able to do it they told me that they are like Einstein discovering relativity! That it is a revolution.
They couldn't do it so they called themselves Einstein! Aside from this being bonkers, I had issues with this like rectangles having been around for millennia and are kind of of low-tech and anybody can get hold of them and that somebody might have noticed by now. Comparing it to relativity which is far more experimentally high-tech, inaccessible to most people and profound and even that was discovered over a hundred years ago. Since then we've had quite a few revolutions in science - that rectangles are going to `post-date' them? Just sounds like delusions of grandeur.
Here is their latest argument...O.K. so they couldn't do it with a pair of identical rectangles, so they have taken a situation of a pair of slightly non-identical rectangles with one being very very slightly bigger than the other. The bigger rectangle is at an angle - it looks no where near half the size of the `reference' rectangle and the diamond shape is already far too distorted...BUT they are THEN saying if only we had used identical rectangles this time then it would have magically worked! They mention the word "sensitive" as if it were an actual explanation but it is jut a word. They don't even seem to care what angle this rectangle is at.
I try telling them that you can ALWAYS get hold of a pair of slightly non-identical rectangles and as such you can't deduce anything from this let alone some bizarre `Einstein revolution' but they still think they are doing science. I tell them you could generalize this `argument' to anything...
Last edited: