Sherlock Holmes' Impacted Physics?

"thebobgy
01:44?...And you asked what I was doing at 2:05"

I am in Hobart, Tasmania, S of the SE corner of Australia. Lots of wind and fresh air and ~10 hours earlier than MetaResearch time.

I've learned a lot from our exchange, greatly improved my 5.7, so again, I am thankful to you, thebobgy, and to MetaResearch. My entries on Holmes, Einstein, Popper and Kuhn now include:

HOLMES' LOGIC
. . . Of Steps 1-5 page 3 below, some would say that only Steps 1-2 are Holmesian, in which case Steps 3-5 would be Popperian. I propose that research would reveal examples showing that Steps 1-4 are Holmesian, only Step 5 Popperian.

EINSTEIN'S LOGIC
. . . Einstein's Relativity thinking had thus evidently been Holmesian, Steps 1-4 below, and Popperian also, Step 5 below.

POPPER, KUHN
. . . Like Einstein, Holmes was very ideological and very broadminded, so it could be argued that Kuhn was anticipated by Holmes also. But was Popper, my Step 5, anticipated by Holmes?
I predict that this is true, but examples proving this may be hard to find. Such a habit would have been understated by Doyle, not given much attention because it would have conflicted with Holmes' superman style . . .

In reply to <i>Originally posted by Peter Nielsen</i> 17 Jul 2006 : 20:19

Peter, I said I would not challenge you any further and I won’t but I do have one nagging question. If, as you say, you have not read SR, and have no intention of doing so, (which is OK with me; it is a mentally painful experience); how is it that you can infer, with any degree of certainty, what methodology Einstein used in preparing SR and/or GR? Sherlock Holmes notwithstanding.
thebobgy

SR and GR were presented to me in what was the easiest way in 1965, and none of it was by Einstein. Creators are often poor teachers. Creators are often very confused people whom most followers find very confusing. Particular followers usually become much better presenters than original creators. I forget who it was for SR and GR.

For Quantum Mechanics it was Dirac who first made it digestible. Similar things happen with inventors and their inventions and companies they found. Company success often depends on the founder being sacked. And so on. But you do make a good point. It is important to go back to original sources. I usually do this, but I've never done it for SR or GR.

My personal style is to stay in the clouds as long as I can. Too long so far as all of my supervisors were concerned. Hence the end of my science careers. But the end result has been my ebook discovery, which I know to be very truthful, big and important . . . Time will tell!

"HOLMES' STYLE
Sherlock Holmes was much more than the world's first detective. He was the world's first cosmopolitan problem-solving adventurer, and was very widely read, not least by Einstein's generation."

Added to 5.7, thanks to that last exchange with thebobgy!

The reason why I have been giving the structure of Physics so much thought is because the world of Geology my Meta-Geology has gotten me into, is nothing like it, unfortuneately. While it should be . . .

Geology is stuck, very much where it was when it became prestigious in Victorian Britain, with Lyell. During the last 50 years, Continental Drift (CD) has been proceeding with very much the same non-scientific (non-Step 1-5) flavour as Lyellian Uniformitarianism.

I know this from following CD for 50 years. My proto-thesis was a CD antithesis, and one of CD's greatest founders was"one of us". Sam Carey is still regarded, in memory, by most Tasmanians as our most prestigious scientist.