Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Comparison Between Economic's And Physic's Theories


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 rhertz

rhertz

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 07 May 2019 - 06:42 PM

This post can be considered a joke, but it isn't.

I could easily include any other field to compare, in order to show how the BS knowledge accumulates and,

as more knowledge it accumulates, more fragile and unstable the entire field becomes.

 

As per the topic:

 

1) Both theories are in custody of "privileged elites", which take huge advantages of their positions.

2) Both theories were created, long time ago, on relatively very simple foundations, until an increasing

    population, awareness and complexities forced to "invent" new concepts to support their structure of

    knowledge, which were added, layer after layer, to the main body.

3) The increase in complexity, due to the assumption of false dogmas and paradigms, put permanently

    every theory on the verge of collapse.

4) It's then primordial to supress dissident voices, which might cause general public awareness and a

    domino's chain fall of their structures (and the "civilized world order" built around).

5) Unless a radical change on their foundational premises is done, both fields of knowledge are destined

    to desintegrate, causing extreme damage.

 

I stop here, letting others to add more key points, if wanted.

 

Examples of weakness in economic theories:

 

  • The abundance of fiat money and the abuse of QE (Quantitative Easing) to solve macroeconomic side effelike depression and inflation.
  • The disparity of "equivalent purchasing power" around the globe, which triggers waves of currency parity change (major financial perturbation).
  • Major falsification of financial data at every entity (gov, corps), ruling out any change of a real audit, which could cause a chain collapse of the civilized order around the globe.
  • More.......

Example of collapse of the fragile equilibrium: That a country like China dump every US Treasure Bond in one day or week.

 

 

Examples of weakness in physics theories:

 

  • Generalized adoption of Restricted theory of relativity, either at the picometer range of at the billion light-years range, which has caused ridiculous, deranged concepts to prevail by "consensus".
  • Generalized adoption of General theory of relativity at the entire universe, causing ridiculous, deranged concepts to prevail by "consensus".
  • As a by-product of the above point, the theories around black-holes, which are becoming more complex and full of paradoxes as time passes by.
  • Generalized adoption of the "Big Bang theory", causing ridiculous, deranged concepts to prevail by "consensus".
  • The adoption of Earthly "constants of nature" as being universal (h, G, c speed, etc.).
  • The lack of consensus about what mass, energy and time are.
  • More..........

Example of collapse of the fragile equilibrium: That be proved beyond doubt that the speed of light depends on the motion of the source or the receptor. This means, that c+v  and c-v are realities and not CONJECTURES.

 

Feel free to contribute with these ideas or to throw things at me.

 

P.S.: Anyone can use any other field to compare with physics, like archeology, geology, medical sciences, etc.

The background concept is that we live in a world of lies, and 99.99999% of us accept it either knowing or not

knowing this truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



#2 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2476 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 01:33 AM

This post can be considered a joke, but it isn't.

I could easily include any other field to compare, in order to show how the BS knowledge accumulates and,

as more knowledge it accumulates, more fragile and unstable the entire field becomes.

 

As per the topic:

 

1) Both theories are in custody of "privileged elites", which take huge advantages of their positions.

2) Both theories were created, long time ago, on relatively very simple foundations, until an increasing

    population, awareness and complexities forced to "invent" new concepts to support their structure of

    knowledge, which were added, layer after layer, to the main body.

3) The increase in complexity, due to the assumption of false dogmas and paradigms, put permanently

    every theory on the verge of collapse.

4) It's then primordial to supress dissident voices, which might cause general public awareness and a

    domino's chain fall of their structures (and the "civilized world order" built around).

5) Unless a radical change on their foundational premises is done, both fields of knowledge are destined

    to desintegrate, causing extreme damage.

 

I stop here, letting others to add more key points, if wanted.

 

Examples of weakness in economic theories:

 

  • The abundance of fiat money and the abuse of QE (Quantitative Easing) to solve macroeconomic side effelike depression and inflation.
  • The disparity of "equivalent purchasing power" around the globe, which triggers waves of currency parity change (major financial perturbation).
  • Major falsification of financial data at every entity (gov, corps), ruling out any change of a real audit, which could cause a chain collapse of the civilized order around the globe.
  • More.......

Example of collapse of the fragile equilibrium: That a country like China dump every US Treasure Bond in one day or week.

 

 

Examples of weakness in physics theories:

 

  • Generalized adoption of Restricted theory of relativity, either at the picometer range of at the billion light-years range, which has caused ridiculous, deranged concepts to prevail by "consensus".
  • Generalized adoption of General theory of relativity at the entire universe, causing ridiculous, deranged concepts to prevail by "consensus".
  • As a by-product of the above point, the theories around black-holes, which are becoming more complex and full of paradoxes as time passes by.
  • Generalized adoption of the "Big Bang theory", causing ridiculous, deranged concepts to prevail by "consensus".
  • The adoption of Earthly "constants of nature" as being universal (h, G, c speed, etc.).
  • The lack of consensus about what mass, energy and time are.
  • More..........

Example of collapse of the fragile equilibrium: That be proved beyond doubt that the speed of light depends on the motion of the source or the receptor. This means, that c+v  and c-v are realities and not CONJECTURES.

 

Feel free to contribute with these ideas or to throw things at me.

 

P.S.: Anyone can use any other field to compare with physics, like archeology, geology, medical sciences, etc.

The background concept is that we live in a world of lies, and 99.99999% of us accept it either knowing or not

knowing this truth.

What is this evidence that "proves beyond doubt" that the speed of light does, after all, depend on the motion of source and receiver?

 

There seems to be a lot of evidence that this is not so, from the fact that the predictions of relativity - which is built on the invariance of the speed of light - have repeatedly been tested and found to be correct. 


  • OceanBreeze likes this

#3 rhertz

rhertz

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 08:08 AM

What is this evidence that "proves beyond doubt" that the speed of light does, after all, depend on the motion of source and receiver?

 

There seems to be a lot of evidence that this is not so, from the fact that the predictions of relativity - which is built on the invariance of the speed of light - have repeatedly been tested and found to be correct. 

 

The most exact "clock" that we have at our disposal, since Kepler's and Tycho's times (500+ years ago) is the timing of planetary motion and their path.

 

A "prove beyond doubt" for me would be:

 

1) To form three international groups (committees) of believers and dissidents to analyze and certify radar ranging data over Venus and Mars.

     This group should be constituted using statistical means to select persons from the whole world, familiarized with the use of

     statistics in their work (scientists and engineers from different fields, including medical sciences, climate sciences, mathematicians, etc.)

 

2) To conduct measurements at three different countries, each one supported by China+USA, Russia+France, Japan+Italy and Germany+UK.

     The countries could be: Chile (ESA observatory place), Russia (Pushchino observatory place)  and Egyp (Kottamia observatory place).

 

3) The technology would be generational advanced technology like that used by USA and USSR in the '60s, to infere the real center of the Sun

    by radar ranging over Venus orbit. This would include "wideband digital time-stamped radar pulses", large area "virtual radiotelescopes" and

    a terrestrial FO based network linking the three sites, in order to synchronize 3x2 atomics clocks with 10-16 gaussian stability, which generates

    a convoluted 32 bits word to codify radar pulses. This technique (CDMA) allow to separate receptions from each pulse and time-stamp the

    incoming pulse for later measurements (two timestamps, outgoing and incoming times).

    https://en.wikipedia...ki/Atomic_clock

 

4) To conduct measurements for one year, accumulating no less than 365x1,000 measurements per place.

 

5) To make inmediately available the data (as received) over the Internet, for any other person or group interested in duplicate the calculations.

    Also, make available every technical data that could be needed to check the validity (TX & RX power, any technical delay, schematics of the

    employed technology, real time displaying of atomic clocks data & discrepances, etc.)

 

Something like that and, particularly, to not include Israel into any formal committee, as they are deeply compromized into sustaining the figure of Einstein.

They can use the publicly available data, if they want.

 

Once the three committees reach a final conclusion, the rule "two out of three" would be used to settle the truth, at least for the inner solar system.

 

If you think that this is complicated, is not too different that what technical commitees at the UN do (and did). Only that, this time, a proper filtering

of participants would eliminate biased postures (as it happened many times with international standards that we use now).



#4 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2476 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 08:47 AM

The most exact "clock" that we have at our disposal, since Kepler's and Tycho's times (500+ years ago) is the timing of planetary motion and their path.

 

A "prove beyond doubt" for me would be:

 

1) To form three international groups (committees) of believers and dissidents to analyze and certify radar ranging data over Venus and Mars.

     This group should be constituted using statistical means to select persons from the whole world, familiarized with the use of

     statistics in their work (scientists and engineers from different fields, including medical sciences, climate sciences, mathematicians, etc.)

 

2) To conduct measurements at three different countries, each one supported by China+USA, Russia+France, Japan+Italy and Germany+UK.

     The countries could be: Chile (ESA observatory place), Russia (Pushchino observatory place)  and Egyp (Kottamia observatory place).

 

3) The technology would be generational advanced technology like that used by USA and USSR in the '60s, to infere the real center of the Sun

    by radar ranging over Venus orbit. This would include "wideband digital time-stamped radar pulses", large area "virtual radiotelescopes" and

    a terrestrial FO based network linking the three sites, in order to synchronize 3x2 atomics clocks with 10-16 gaussian stability, which generates

    a convoluted 32 bits word to codify radar pulses. This technique (CDMA) allow to separate receptions from each pulse and time-stamp the

    incoming pulse for later measurements (two timestamps, outgoing and incoming times).

    https://en.wikipedia...ki/Atomic_clock

 

4) To conduct measurements for one year, accumulating no less than 365x1,000 measurements per place.

 

5) To make inmediately available the data (as received) over the Internet, for any other person or group interested in duplicate the calculations.

    Also, make available every technical data that could be needed to check the validity (TX & RX power, any technical delay, schematics of the

    employed technology, real time displaying of atomic clocks data & discrepances, etc.)

 

Something like that and, particularly, to not include Israel into any formal committee, as they are deeply compromized into sustaining the figure of Einstein.

They can use the publicly available data, if they want.

 

Once the three committees reach a final conclusion, the rule "two out of three" would be used to settle the truth, at least for the inner solar system.

 

If you think that this is complicated, is not too different that what technical commitees at the UN do (and did). Only that, this time, a proper filtering

of participants would eliminate biased postures (as it happened many times with international standards that we use now).

The first statement is sheer nonsense. The most accurate clock we have is an atomic clock. Orbital motions are well-known not to be entirely regular, due to tidal effects and influences from the passage of 3rd bodies.

 

But then you go on say, not that a proof of the dependence of the speed of light on source and receiver exists, but what for you would constitute such a proof.

 

So let me understand: are you claiming that there is proof the speed of light does depend on source and receiver, or not?    



#5 rhertz

rhertz

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 09:13 AM

The first statement is sheer nonsense. The most accurate clock we have is an atomic clock. Orbital motions are well-known not to be entirely regular, due to tidal effects and influences from the passage of 3rd bodies.

 

But then you go on say, not that a proof of the dependence of the speed of light on source and receiver exists, but what for you would constitute such a proof.

 

So let me understand: are you claiming that there is proof the speed of light does depend on source and receiver, or not?    

 

I was talking about solar system scales, not small scales like a lab.



#6 rhertz

rhertz

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 09:16 AM

The first statement is sheer nonsense. The most accurate clock we have is an atomic clock. Orbital motions are well-known not to be entirely regular, due to tidal effects and influences from the passage of 3rd bodies.

 

But then you go on say, not that a proof of the dependence of the speed of light on source and receiver exists, but what for you would constitute such a proof.

 

So let me understand: are you claiming that there is proof the speed of light does depend on source and receiver, or not?    

 Yes, I claim that. And also claim that this information has been supressed for 60+ years, since classified info from

planetary level radar ranging performed by the militaries at US and USSR.



#7 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1032 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 10:27 AM

 Yes, I claim that. And also claim that this information has been supressed for 60+ years, since classified info from

planetary level radar ranging performed by the militaries at US and USSR.

 

:shocked:  :1drink:  :rofl:

 

Why is it always retired "electronics engineers" that are physics conspiracy advocates?


  • exchemist likes this

#8 rhertz

rhertz

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 10:40 AM

:shocked:  :1drink:  :rofl:

 

Why is it always retired "electronics engineers" that are physics conspiracy advocates?

 

1) Why do you use "electronics engineers"? I find it offensive, and I would appreciate an explanation from yours.

 

2) Not "physics conspiracy" but "collusion at physics". Entirely different thing.



#9 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1032 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 10:43 AM

1) Why do you use "electronics engineers"? I find it offensive, and I would appreciate an explanation from yours.

 

2) Not "physics conspiracy" but "collusion at physics". Entirely different thing.

 

Why do you find it offensive? Isn't that how you self-identified in a previous post?



#10 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1032 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 10:46 AM

What is the difference between a conspiracy and a collusion? As you see it


Edited by OceanBreeze, 08 May 2019 - 10:47 AM.


#11 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1032 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 10:56 AM

According to Wiki

 

"As nouns the difference between conspiracy and collusion is that conspiracy is the act of two or more persons, called conspirators, working secretly to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations while collusion is a secret agreement for an illegal purpose; conspiracy"

 

I read it a couple of times and I still don't see any significant difference, legality maybe? :pardon:



#12 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 653 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 12:59 PM

Popeye, the standard definition implies control or hierarchy. Sometimes conspiracy is like minded individuals performing tasks in a like minded way. This results in something that looks like there was communication when there was none. You get them to believe in the same thing, they are pre-programmed to try to achieve the same goals. I don't think people are smart enough to orchestrate the massive conspiracy behind relativity but if you teach each person the same pack of lies, the pack mentality takes over. Alternate explanations are I could be wrong, crazy, stupid, wilfully ignorant  or a liar. Sure these seem more likely but it doesn't mean they are definitely true. What is true is that I am an electrical engineer.


Edited by ralfcis, 08 May 2019 - 01:01 PM.

  • OceanBreeze likes this

#13 rhertz

rhertz

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 01:11 PM

Why do you find it offensive? Isn't that how you self-identified in a previous post?

 

The use of double apostrophes to enclose common nouns is also used to downplay or plant a doubt about the certainty of what is enclosed. In this

case my first degree, which is Electronic Engineer. I also have a Master Degree in Telecommunications.

 

Examples: "scientists" poses a doubt about the value it represents as if they weren't real scientists; "law" poses a doubt about the validity of such a property;

"discovered" poses a doubt about if it was really discovered or plagiarized or else, etc.

 

What is the difference between a conspiracy and a collusion? As you see it

The differences are huge.

 

 

 

According to Wiki

 

"As nouns the difference between conspiracy and collusion is that conspiracy is the act of two or more persons, called conspirators, working secretly to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations while collusion is a secret agreement for an illegal purpose; conspiracy"

 

I read it a couple of times and I still don't see any significant difference, legality maybe? :pardon:

 

Conspiracy: 1) a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. 2) the action of plotting or conspiring.

Examples: you conspire with others to assasinate a person, to steal something of high value, to plant false incriminatory evidence in a crime scene, etc.

 

 

Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation in order to deceive others.

Examples: you collude with others to fix some stock's or good's prices, to commit fraud at large, to modify written history, etc.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At any case, my position is about theoretical physics (born at the end of XIX century) as the only activity performed by a physicist.

 

I have the highest respect for physicists which are experimental and theoretical physicists, which follows the scientific method (I quote):

 

a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

 

Example of true physicists: James Clerk Maxwell, Ernst Rutherford, Enrico Fermi, etc.

Example of a theoretical physicists: Max Planck, Erdwin Schrodinger, Max Born, Hawkings, etc.

 

The struggle between the scientific method based on induction or deduction began with discussions around 1925, when quantum mechanics was gaining momentum.

 

Today, the replacement of laboratories and experiments by "mathematics only" has deformed the building of physics at different branches, which has been

negative for the current state of knowledge. It includes: particle physics, astronomy, cosmology, quantum physics and every branch were hypothesis are

beyond any capability of applied physics to prove it (branes, 11 dimensions, black holes, big bang, elementary particles and the SM, etc.

 

I could keep going on, but I think I presented the main idea.



#14 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2476 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 03:38 PM

 Yes, I claim that. And also claim that this information has been supressed for 60+ years, since classified info from

planetary level radar ranging performed by the militaries at US and USSR.

OK, so what is this" proof"? Can you provide a link or further details so that we can read about it? If it has been "suppressed", how is it you know about it? And if you know about it, you can share it with us, so that it is no longer "suppressed". 

 

Also, how do you account for the fact that relativity is so successful, if its fundamental premise is actually wrong? Some examples:

- our GPS systems work, and they depend on relativity to do so.

- the precession of the perihelion of Mercury is exactly what relativity predicts.

- the mass defect in atomic nuclei fits the formula for mass-energy derived from relativity.

- the lifetime of muons from cosmic rays is increased in line with the predictions of relativity

...and so on.  

 

Or are all these phenomena fakes, dreamt up by some sort of world Jewish conspiracy, or something?


Edited by exchemist, 08 May 2019 - 03:39 PM.


#15 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2476 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 04:03 PM

:shocked:  :1drink:  :rofl:

 

Why is it always retired "electronics engineers" that are physics conspiracy advocates?

I think it may be because often engineers have little experience of research into nature and have little grounding in the scientific method. But you are right. Creationism is another example: I have how often it is that creationists with a "scientific" qualification are engineers too, or else medical doctors.  



#16 rhertz

rhertz

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 06:34 PM

I think it may be because often engineers have little experience of research into nature and have little grounding in the scientific method. But you are right. Creationism is another example: I have how often it is that creationists with a "scientific" qualification are engineers too, or else medical doctors.  

 Some engineers that won the Nobel Prize:

 

  1. Isamu Akasaki: Electronic engineer,2014 Nobel Prize in Physics.
  2. Hiroshi Amano: Electrical engineer,2014 Nobel Prize in Physics.
  3. Shuji Nakamura: Electronic engineer,2014 Nobel Prize in Physics.
  4. Charles K Kao: Electrical engineer, 2009 Nobel Prize in Physics.    
  5. John Fenn: Chemical engineer, 2002 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
  6. Koichi Tanaka: Electrical engineer, 2002 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
  7. Jack Kilby: Electrical engineer,2000 Nobel Prize in Physics.
  8. Hideki Shirakawa: Chemical engineer, 2000 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
  9. Mario J Molina: Chemical engineer, 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
  10. Paul J Crutzen: Civil engineer, 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
  11. Martin L Perl: Chemical engineer, 1995 Nobel Prize in Physics.    
  12. Georges Charpak: Civil engineer, 1992 Nobel Prize in Physics.    
  13. Charles J Pedersen: Chemical engineer, 1987 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
  14. Karl A Muller: Electrical engineer, 1987 Nobel Prize in Physics.
  15. Simon van der Meer: Electrical engineer, 1984 Nobel Prize in Physics.  
  16. Ivar Giaever: Mechanical engineer, 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics.  
  17. John Bardeen: Electrical engineer, 1956 and 1972 Nobel Prize in Physics.
  18. Dennis Gabor: Electrical engineer, 1971 Nobel Prize in Physics.
  19. Hannes Olof Gosta Alfven: Electrical engineer, 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics.
  20. Lars Onsager: Chemical engineer, 1968 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
  21. Giulio Natta: Chemical engineer, 1963 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.  
  22. Linus Pauling: Chemical engineer, 1954 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.  
  23. Edward Mills Purcell: Electrical engineer, 1952 Nobel Prize in Physics.
  24. Petrus Josephus Wilhemus Debye: Electrical engineer, 1936 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.  
  25. Paul Dirac: Electrical engineer, 1933 Nobel Prize in Physics.
  26. Irving Langmuir: Metallurgicalengineer, 1932 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.   
  27. Nils Gustaf Dalen: Electrical engineer, 1912 Nobel Prize in Physics.     
  28. Henri Becqurel: Electrical engineer, 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics.   
  29. Jacobus H van t'Hoff: Chemical engineer, 1901 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.    
  30. Wilhelm C Roentgen: Mechanical engineer, 1901 Nobel Prize in Physics.   

Edited by rhertz, 08 May 2019 - 06:56 PM.


#17 rhertz

rhertz

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 153 posts

Posted 08 May 2019 - 06:45 PM

From the site: http://phys.kent.edu...physicists.html

with 306 famous physicists in the history.

 

These 89 famous physicists didn't won a single Nobel prize:

 

 

  1. George Francis FitzGerald  (was 50 years old by 1901)
  2. John Henry Poynting  (was 50 years old by 1902)
  3. Henri Poincaré  (was 50 years old by 1904)
  4. Janne Rydberg  (was 50 years old by 1904)
  5. Edwin H. Hall  (was 50 years old by 1905)
  6. Wallace Clement Sabine  (was 50 years old by 1918)
  7. Arnold Sommerfeld  (was 50 years old by 1918)
  8. Lise Meitner  (was 50 years old by 1928)
  9. Paul Ehrenfest  (was 50 years old by 1930)
  10. Theodor von Kármán  (was 50 years old by 1931)
  11. Walther Meissner  (was 50 years old by 1932)
  12. Emmy Noether  (was 50 years old by 1932)
  13. Hans Geiger  (was 50 years old by 1933)
  14. Hermann Weyl  (was 50 years old by 1935)
  15. Arthur Jeffrey Dempster  (was 50 years old by 1936)
  16. Henry Moseley  (was 50 years old by 1937)
  17. Sir Robert Watson-Watt  (was 50 years old by 1942)
  18. Satyendra Bose  (was 50 years old by 1944)
  19. Oskar Klein  (was 50 years old by 1944)
  20. Leo Szilard  (was 50 years old by 1948)
  21. Vladimir A. Fock  (was 50 years old by 1948)
  22. Pierre Auger  (was 50 years old by 1949)
  23. Charles Francis Richter  (was 50 years old by 1950)
  24. George E. Uhlenbeck  (was 50 years old by 1950)
  25. Ernst Ising  (was 50 years old by 1950)
  26. Fritz London  (was 50 years old by 1950)
  27. Robert J. Van de Graaf  (was 50 years old by 1951)
  28. Samuel Abraham Goudsmit  (was 50 years old by 1952)
  29. John von Neumann  (was 50 years old by 1953)
  30. Igor Vasilievich Kurchatov  (was 50 years old by 1953)
  31. J. Robert Oppenheimer  (was 50 years old by 1954)
  32. George Gamow  (was 50 years old by 1954)
  33. Sir Rudolf Peierls  (was 50 years old by 1957)
  34. Victor F. Weisskopf  (was 50 years old by 1958)
  35. Edward Teller  (was 50 years old by 1958)
  36. Homi Jehangir Bhabha  (was 50 years old by 1959)
  37. Nikolai N. Bogolubov  (was 50 years old by 1959)
  38. Maurice Goldhaber  (was 50 years old by 1961)
  39. Chien-Shiung Wu  (was 50 years old by 1962)
  40. Robert Rathbun Wilson  (was 50 years old by 1964)
  41. Henry Primakoff  (was 50 years old by 1964)
  42. Robert E. Marshak  (was 50 years old by 1966)
  43. Vitaly L. Ginzburg  (was 50 years old by 1966)
  44. Robert V. Pound  (was 50 years old by 1969)
  45. Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky  (was 50 years old by 1969)
  46. Vernon W. Hughes  (was 50 years old by 1971)
  47. Calvin F. Quate  (was 50 years old by 1973)
  48. Lincoln Wolfenstein  (was 50 years old by 1973)
  49. James E. Zimmerman  (was 50 years old by 1973)
  50. Freeman J. Dyson  (was 50 years old by 1973)
  51. Benoit Mandelbrot  (was 50 years old by 1974)
  52. Ernest M. Henley  (was 50 years old by 1974)
  53. Felix Hans Boehm  (was 50 years old by 1974)
  54. Sidney D. Drell  (was 50 years old by 1976)
  55. D. Allan Bromley  (was 50 years old by 1976)
  56. Albert V. Crewe  (was 50 years old by 1977)
  57. John Stewart Bell  (was 50 years old by 1978)
  58. Stanley Mandelstam  (was 50 years old by 1978)
  59. Peter Higgs  (was 50 years old by 1979)
  60. Mildred S. Dresselhaus  (was 50 years old by 1980)
  61. Joel Lebowitz  (was 50 years old by 1980)
  62. John P. Schiffer  (was 50 years old by 1980)
  63. Akito Arima  (was 50 years old by 1980)
  64. T. Kenneth Fowler  (was 50 years old by 1981)
  65. Tullio Regge  (was 50 years old by 1981)
  66. Oscar Wallace Greenberg  (was 50 years old by 1982)
  67. John Dirk Walecka  (was 50 years old by 1982)
  68. Daniel Kleppner  (was 50 years old by 1982)
  69. Jeffrey Goldstone  (was 50 years old by 1983)
  70. John N. Bahcall  (was 50 years old by 1984)
  71. James D. Bjorken  (was 50 years old by 1984)
  72. Ludvig Faddeev  (was 50 years old by 1984)
  73. David J. Thouless  (was 50 years old by 1984)
  74. Peter A. Carruthers  (was 50 years old by 1985)
  75. Gordon A. Baym  (was 50 years old by 1985)
  76. Stanley J. Brodsky  (was 50 years old by 1990)
  77. Kip S. Thorne  (was 50 years old by 1990)
  78. Haim Harari  (was 50 years old by 1990)
  79. Gabriele Veneziano  (was 50 years old by 1992)
  80. Francesco Iachello  (was 50 years old by 1992)
  81. Chris Quigg  (was 50 years old by 1994)
  82. Thomas A. Witten  (was 50 years old by 1994)
  83. Howard Georgi  (was 50 years old by 1997)
  84. Nathan Isgur  (was 50 years old by 1997)
  85. Edward Witten  (was 50 years old by 2001)
  86. Ralph Charles Merkle  (was 50 years old by 2002)
  87. Kim Eric Drexler  (was 50 years old by 2005)
  88. Nathan Seiberg  (was 50 years old by 2006)
  89. Stephen Wolfram  (was 50 years old by 2009)

Edited by rhertz, 08 May 2019 - 08:22 PM.