So 1950s film of glowing nuclear clouds is fake? And taken with tons of witnesses? One of my old professors was THERE and he helped create the bomb. I'll believe him over any claim of fraud.
That is bullshit. Feynman understood physics very very well and he taught us, his students, that deep understanding.
The Unzicker YouTube videos are total bullshit too - they attack Gell-Mann, Feynman, Hawking, Dirac, forchrissake. They read like some ego-wounded ballless soy drinker's fantasies. He cites Consa, who is kind of a crackpot.
Your citation is completely wrong in what it claims. I learned physics from Feynman in his two years of lectures to me and my fellow classmates at 201 E. Bridge at Caltech. He gave us good understandings, many based on clear analogies.
As for what he said about quantum mechanics, it was somewhat true at the time for all physicists but it was not an admission of failure. ALL physics is based on observations and has deep bases below which we have no understanding in the sense of complete and perfect models. Our present knowledge indicates that quantum mechanics relates to how space and energy interact over time; electron orbitals arrange themselves to have the right shape for the energy volume they contain. Right now, quantum entanglement is mysterious but probably takes place due to interactions in the 4th dimension. At Feynman's time they didn't have a theory for why that is, but it doesn't mean they didn't have some models with understanding.
We still don't fully understand radioactive decay to the point where an event is 100% predictable, but statistical physics covers understanding of such cases.
Anyway, you don't know physics and are not qualified to call good physicists frauds.
As far as people who can't take criticism, it looks you have no visible comments or posts. If you have to delete your comments what does that say about your own ego.
So 1950s film of glowing nuclear clouds is fake? And taken with tons of witnesses? One of my old professors was THERE and he helped create the bomb. I'll believe him over any claim of fraud.
Wow, a retard with another new account. How many do you have?
So any evidence gets dismissed as argument from authority, LOL. Hey, that means your rabbi sucks shit too.
Are you boasting or felching?
So Dick Feynman was a fraud? LOLOL. The Manhattan Project was a fraud? Hahahaha. You really are really a retard.
That is bullshit. Feynman understood physics very very well and he taught us, his students, that deep understanding.
The Unzicker YouTube videos are total bullshit too - they attack Gell-Mann, Feynman, Hawking, Dirac, forchrissake. They read like some ego-wounded ballless soy drinker's fantasies. He cites Consa, who is kind of a crackpot.
Your citation is completely wrong in what it claims. I learned physics from Feynman in his two years of lectures to me and my fellow classmates at 201 E. Bridge at Caltech. He gave us good understandings, many based on clear analogies.
As for what he said about quantum mechanics, it was somewhat true at the time for all physicists but it was not an admission of failure. ALL physics is based on observations and has deep bases below which we have no understanding in the sense of complete and perfect models. Our present knowledge indicates that quantum mechanics relates to how space and energy interact over time; electron orbitals arrange themselves to have the right shape for the energy volume they contain. Right now, quantum entanglement is mysterious but probably takes place due to interactions in the 4th dimension. At Feynman's time they didn't have a theory for why that is, but it doesn't mean they didn't have some models with understanding.
We still don't fully understand radioactive decay to the point where an event is 100% predictable, but statistical physics covers understanding of such cases.
Anyway, you don't know physics and are not qualified to call good physicists frauds.
As far as people who can't take criticism, it looks you have no visible comments or posts. If you have to delete your comments what does that say about your own ego.