Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1964)

feynmanlectures.caltech.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–156 of 156 posts

Re: The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1964)

#151

Post by ShamLegacyTldr »

rramadass wrote: post #142
ShamLegacyTldr wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is offensive and uncalled for. If the admins see your comment, they will tell you that comments like this get you banned. I don't agree with ThrowawayR2 but they were respectful; I doubt they appreciate their views being lumped in with your insulting, inappropriate comment. You've done a disservice to both of us.

[flagged]

You just think my perspective is invalid and so you read manipulative or deceptive intent into my actions.

> The focus should be solely on the Science and nothing else.

You don't get to decide how the discussion goes. You don't get to decide that the focus should be narrow and restricted to the topics you're comfortable with.

The person who is actually attempting to steer the conversation is you. I'm just here to share my thoughts. You don't like that? You don't see the relevance in discussing Feynman in a thread about Feynman? Noted.

Re: The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1964)

#152

Post by rramadass »

ShamLegacyTldr wrote: post #151
rramadass wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You just think my perspective is invalid and so you read manipulative or deceptive intent into my actions. > The focus should be solely on the Science and nothing else. You don't get to decide how the discussion goes. You don't get to decide that the focus should be narrow and restricted to the topics you're comfortable with. The person who is actually attempting to steer the conversation is you. I'm just here to sha…

[flagged]

Re: The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1964)

#153

Post by rramadass »

ShamLegacyTldr wrote: post #151
rramadass wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You just think my perspective is invalid and so you read manipulative or deceptive intent into my actions. > The focus should be solely on the Science and nothing else. You don't get to decide how the discussion goes. You don't get to decide that the focus should be narrow and restricted to the topics you're comfortable with. The person who is actually attempting to steer the conversation is you. I'm just here to sha…

[flagged]

Re: The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1964)

#154

Post by theendisney »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #150
theendisney wrote: post #149

To a suspicious extend the internet is full of articles praising the man. With the exception of the stripclub story (which only barely makes the cut) it is as if nothing negative was ever written about him. The www echochamber just doesnt want to hear it. People get even more mad if you tell them there are many reasons to think Joseph Papp created a mixture of noble gasses, injected into sealed pistons of conventiona…

none of this matters, the probability of new physics here is essentially nil. if anyone is irresponsible its Papp who knowingly handed the plug to a productive skeptic, knowing full well the dangers of the device. if the motor had any merit, he could refuse the out-of-court settlement and demonstrate the working principles of his motor, but he didn't! he took the money, Feymann inadvertently saved him from certain hu…

>the probability of new physics here is essentially nil.

I dont function like that. I have true, false and unknown.

If i prematurely promote an unknown to true or false i would feel the need to defend my uninformed conclusion. Since i dont have what it takes to do that i would try to spoof the data. I would also blind myself to everything that contradicts the opinion.

You, feynman, the septic communty, you have sunk to a level that wouldnt even be legal if the man was alive. Claims of fraud and first degree murder?!?!

Unlike the inventor such claims require evidence and until you have it the accused is innocent.

But lets compare the two cobtradicting stories. One claims the other unplugged the device and claimed he really wanted to hold the plug in his hand and politely asked. The other claimed the one to have unplugged it himself and refused to give it back.

Which one of the two would require settling out of court?

The debunking doesnt really talk about Papp. You can copy paste it under any exotic claim.

>if the motor had any merit, he could refuse the out-of-court settlement and demonstrate the working principles of his motor.

No reason to think any demonstration would change information-free debunking.

Well over a thousand geet engines were build, hundreds of youtube demostrations but it is still not considered real.

There are now respectable publications about the pons and fleishman device with 100% successful replication but it is still not considered real.

If you personally build a working Papp engine it would simply not be considered real. People would say you are a fraud and a murderer and that would be the final word on the topic.

Re: The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1964)

#155

Post by agnishom »

codelieb wrote: post #134
agnishom wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people are (understandably) upset at the title of the video. I will summarize some of the main interesting beats in the video for those who don't want to watch this 3 hour masterpiece. (1) The stories in "Surely you are joking Mr. Feynman" portray Feynman in a mean-spirited, sometimes sexist light. (2) These books were not actually written by Mr. Feynman. They were actually written by Ralph Laden. (3) Upon furth…

Let me begin by saying that I am a friend of Ralph Leighton, whom I have known for 27 years. I am also a friend of Feynman's children, and several of Feynman's friends and colleagues. Now I will tell you this: Collier is a liar. The books "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" and "What Do You Care What Other People Think" were made the same way that The Feynman Lectures on Physics was made: Feynman was recorded, and th…

I apologize for not being respond to the entirety your comment.

I assure you that Angela does not say that the Feynman Lectures are "not worth reading" in that video.

Re: The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1961-1964)

#156

Post by dtartarotti »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #143
dtartarotti wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should watch the whole video. From memory, the video author claims that the books are not based directly on the recordings nor on material that Feynman wrote himself, but rather on lecture notes written by another professor who had to cover for Feynman (who is also listed as one of the authors in the book). She also mentions how those lecture notes from this other professor correct some small mistakes Feynman mad…

You can literally listen to audio recordings of Feynman delivering the lectures. The book follows those lectures closely. All lectures that professors deliver have mistakes in them. He produced a massive lecture series covering huge areas of physics over hundreds of hours of class time. There are bound to be typos and small math mistakes. The complaint that Feynman had an editor makes me think the person who created…

To me, claiming Feynman didn't write the lecture book is a stretch since they are fundamentally based on his lectures. But I think you are misconstruing some of her arguments and claims. I suggest you watch the whole video, because imo it does a good job at analyzing Feynman's figure.
Post reply on HN