Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 640:
Line 640: + + + + +
→Robert Dicke: @Andrew Schlafly
:::About Robert Dicke, Wilson and Penzias and the Nobel prizes. One thing is that you can only get a Nobel Prize for an experiment with an explanation. Never for just a theory (Stephen Hawking never got a Nobel for his radiation). Dicke predicted CMB radiation but he wasn't the first to observe it. Wilson and Penzias observed it first completely by accident, and luckily Penzias talked to Dicke and found out what the thing he observed was. It was Dicke's theory but they observed it. So they got the Nobel. That's how it works. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation]
:::About Robert Dicke, Wilson and Penzias and the Nobel prizes. One thing is that you can only get a Nobel Prize for an experiment with an explanation. Never for just a theory (Stephen Hawking never got a Nobel for his radiation). Dicke predicted CMB radiation but he wasn't the first to observe it. Wilson and Penzias observed it first completely by accident, and luckily Penzias talked to Dicke and found out what the thing he observed was. It was Dicke's theory but they observed it. So they got the Nobel. That's how it works. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation]
:::And I don't understand why there's so much emphasis on Nobel prizes in this article. Obviously the Nobel prize committee isn't a neutral party. Does that matter? Are people really not going to question an equation because they're afraid that they'll never get a Nobel? Only about 500 people got a Nobel so far, out of millions of scientists. Clearly that isn't a motivating factor. [[User:PhysicsPerson|PhysicsPerson]] 19:04, 15 February 2013 (EST)
:::And I don't understand why there's so much emphasis on Nobel prizes in this article. Obviously the Nobel prize committee isn't a neutral party. Does that matter? Are people really not going to question an equation because they're afraid that they'll never get a Nobel? Only about 500 people got a Nobel so far, out of millions of scientists. Clearly that isn't a motivating factor. [[User:PhysicsPerson|PhysicsPerson]] 19:04, 15 February 2013 (EST)
*''There is no other plausible explanation.'' Of course there are other explanations: the oversight could be rooted in anti-Americanism (not that far fetched a thought in Sweden of the 1970s), personal animosity or envy for his patents and wealth. It could be a combination of all of these - or neither. Furthermore, '''Robert Dicke didn't have any problems with the Special Theory of Relativity''', he used it all the times, and taught his students about it.
*''Surely you don't expect a physics journal or any academic to admit such bias.'' So, the absence of any proof is the proof for you point? That is a direct violation of the first of Conservapedia's Commandments: '''''Everything you post must be true and verifiable.'''''
For short: ''[[Robert Dicke]], perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, was denied a [[Nobel Prize]] because he doubted the [[Theory of Relativity]]'' is not true and not verifiable.
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:46, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
== Reasons to restore the version of Feb 10, 2010 ==
== Reasons to restore the version of Feb 10, 2010 ==