Talk:Albert Einstein
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Albert Einstein
And our next colonisation is:
For those who don't know who he is: Wikipedia:Albert Einstein
And the first step in any successful colonisation is to create a concept. So concept ideas go below. Nominally Humane! 03:40 01 Dec 03:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Concept proposals[edit source]
- In German "Ein Stein" means "one stone".... because he didn't have rocks in his head? (ie he only had one?) - Or maybe he was a rock star of some kind...... ? - Strainj 1 . . . . TALK 06:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think we have two choices, one of which is to incredibly defame him, while the other is to write an article where the author has completely fallen in love with him. IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 08:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- The infatuated angle could work quite well. There's SO much to love about him..... I mean, his hair..... and his tongue..... and his quick-witted dry humour, and charm........ oh and all that sciencey stuff too, that was good..... - Strainj 1 . . . . TALK 08:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Einstein was more a theoretical physicist than a practical inventor, and started his professional career in a patent office. These two facts lead me to an idea that makes fun with the use of opposites. Assume for a second that Einstein wasn't a genius. If that is the case where does his research come from?
- Prior to working at t patent office he applied for teaching roles but was constantly rejected. At the patent office, where many of the patents he was assessing related to “…questions about transmission of electric signals and electrical-mechanical synchronization of time…”. So as a conniving individual he stole many of the concepts that were presented to him in the works of others, and started publishing them as his own.
- Much of his later work was done as part of a team (such as the Manhattan project). If he had coasted through by pretending the work of others wa his own why not keep with that trend. He could be the member of the team (and every team has one) who does none of the actual work but takes all of the credit.
- This trend could be extended backwards and forwards through his life. He could have been a lazy student who passed by copying the exam papers of others. The theory of relativity could have been the work done by someone else that he later published as his own, but managed to get it to press before the “real” author could do so, and thereby Einstein got the credit (again) for someone else's work.
- This to me would work better than the “stupid” Rinstein concept, as there is enough fact that could be twisted into to this to make it seem plausible, and this extend the suspension of disbelief which is at the core of good parody. And this avoids the problems with either fan boy rants or roasting articles, as it can be presented with the voice of an impartial third party.
- I have nothing for his personal life or political leanings that could be worked into this, but have a feeling that his leaving Germany just as Hitler came to power has the makings of an angle that could work here. Nominally Humane! 09:46 01 Dec
- I agree mostly with Puppy but also have other angles that could work. As an aside, Einstein is one of those few supposed revolutionaries who has tales told about his pilfering of other scientists' material, whose stories are often not true. Although I won't get into that. Puppy's idea of the talentless hack stealing other people's ideas is a great parody of the science world in general. For example, the guy who came up with the Big Bang Theory was hardly ever credited with it, because his co-conspirator (who was mainly brought on as a more-respected consultant) thought it would be funny to add another guy to their paper (who was also very well respected) who added to a linguistic pun. That sort of thing happens all the time in science, maybe not so willy-nilly, but certainly mistakes happen and people take credit for shit that, who knows, maybe they didn't even want credit for (Such as the story of Edison and Tesla, or Alfred Russel Wallace discovering evolution around the time of Charles Darwin). The other idea I have, is unoriginal I suppose in the lexicon of my involvement in comedy, but it's the idea of a scientist who gains notoriety and respect who somehow doesn't even know what the fuck he's talking about. Explaining things in a way that incite the feeling of confidence in the narrator, through confident language, but with facts that are either obviously not true, or at the very least dubious, but sound presented in a way that would convince the average Joe and at least entertain the average science enthusiast (the population of which are growing by the way). There's also the bit about whatsisname defaming Einstein in Germany because of his purist physics roots and Einstein's theoretical ideas about relativity, by emphasizing that he was a Jew. Not sure exactly the angle we could take on that but I'm sure it could turn into something. -RAHB 11:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is great.... and with his talking in analogies all the time it further clouds the fact that he has no idea what he is actually talking about, or that he has stolen all his ideas from others. It sounds good. I guess the trick will be to NOT make it sound like we actually are defaming him, but presenting the defamation in such a way that it sounds like a legit history of a man with questionable talent..... - Strainj 1 . . . . TALK
09:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I really like this idea... IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 14:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is great.... and with his talking in analogies all the time it further clouds the fact that he has no idea what he is actually talking about, or that he has stolen all his ideas from others. It sounds good. I guess the trick will be to NOT make it sound like we actually are defaming him, but presenting the defamation in such a way that it sounds like a legit history of a man with questionable talent..... - Strainj 1 . . . . TALK
- I agree mostly with Puppy but also have other angles that could work. As an aside, Einstein is one of those few supposed revolutionaries who has tales told about his pilfering of other scientists' material, whose stories are often not true. Although I won't get into that. Puppy's idea of the talentless hack stealing other people's ideas is a great parody of the science world in general. For example, the guy who came up with the Big Bang Theory was hardly ever credited with it, because his co-conspirator (who was mainly brought on as a more-respected consultant) thought it would be funny to add another guy to their paper (who was also very well respected) who added to a linguistic pun. That sort of thing happens all the time in science, maybe not so willy-nilly, but certainly mistakes happen and people take credit for shit that, who knows, maybe they didn't even want credit for (Such as the story of Edison and Tesla, or Alfred Russel Wallace discovering evolution around the time of Charles Darwin). The other idea I have, is unoriginal I suppose in the lexicon of my involvement in comedy, but it's the idea of a scientist who gains notoriety and respect who somehow doesn't even know what the fuck he's talking about. Explaining things in a way that incite the feeling of confidence in the narrator, through confident language, but with facts that are either obviously not true, or at the very least dubious, but sound presented in a way that would convince the average Joe and at least entertain the average science enthusiast (the population of which are growing by the way). There's also the bit about whatsisname defaming Einstein in Germany because of his purist physics roots and Einstein's theoretical ideas about relativity, by emphasizing that he was a Jew. Not sure exactly the angle we could take on that but I'm sure it could turn into something. -RAHB 11:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Ye seek to bash Einstein? The bit about how he argued with the quantum mechanics proponents (Schrödinger et al.) about God playing dice with particles, spooky action at a distance, etc. ｡◕‿◕｡ 03:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- God WAS a gambler afterall..... - Strainj 1 . . . . TALK 09:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I haven't got any ideas, I'm afraid, but you might use this for something. Or you might not. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
So...[edit source]
...How do we start this? -- IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 07:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Probably best to start it after the turkey day ball. And after that....does anybody know how Imperial Colonization works? -RAHB 09:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Based upon previous experience somebody nominated themselves as head, starts saying how exciting it's going to be, realises it involves trying to create organisation from chaos, and buggers off. This happens repeatedly while one person writes something, somebody else thinks it's crap, and a revert war starts. How we manage to create an article is beyond me. Nominally Humane! 10:20 10 Dec
- We've got a concept and I'm sure we can do something half-decent... -- IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 16:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- I like Puppy's idea. Should we vote on who nominates themself to be the head? -RAHB 16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh wait, I forgot to be serious. So I'm thinking that while TDB is happening we get a subpage (or just use this one, I dunno) to be devoted to project collaborators dropping down lines, paragraphs, images/captions, what have you, that would fit into this particular idea. We do this until we've got a good amount of stuff to choose from, then try to incorporate as much of it as we can into a coherent narrative, tweaking and tweezing, as we decide on a proper skeleton for the thing. Or is that way more complicated than it needs to be? -RAHB 16:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well it sounds better than "somebody nominated themselves as head, starts saying how exciting it's going to be, realises it involves trying to create organisation from chaos, and buggers off. This happens repeatedly while one person writes something, somebody else thinks it's crap, and a revert war starts." I'm up for it at least. -- IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 19:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- What RAHB said, although we often just use Uncyclopedia:Imperial Colonization/project for the workspace while we've been working on it. Nominally Humane! 09:31 10 Dec
- Whoops. I saw Puppy starting the page, and went in to write on it like a kid using crayons on a wall, and didn't realize this page existed until I saw it low on recent changes. Color me paisley. Aleister 3:20 11-12-13
- What RAHB said, although we often just use Uncyclopedia:Imperial Colonization/project for the workspace while we've been working on it. Nominally Humane! 09:31 10 Dec
- Well it sounds better than "somebody nominated themselves as head, starts saying how exciting it's going to be, realises it involves trying to create organisation from chaos, and buggers off. This happens repeatedly while one person writes something, somebody else thinks it's crap, and a revert war starts." I'm up for it at least. -- IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 19:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oh wait, I forgot to be serious. So I'm thinking that while TDB is happening we get a subpage (or just use this one, I dunno) to be devoted to project collaborators dropping down lines, paragraphs, images/captions, what have you, that would fit into this particular idea. We do this until we've got a good amount of stuff to choose from, then try to incorporate as much of it as we can into a coherent narrative, tweaking and tweezing, as we decide on a proper skeleton for the thing. Or is that way more complicated than it needs to be? -RAHB 16:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- I like Puppy's idea. Should we vote on who nominates themself to be the head? -RAHB 16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- We've got a concept and I'm sure we can do something half-decent... -- IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 16:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Based upon previous experience somebody nominated themselves as head, starts saying how exciting it's going to be, realises it involves trying to create organisation from chaos, and buggers off. This happens repeatedly while one person writes something, somebody else thinks it's crap, and a revert war starts. How we manage to create an article is beyond me. Nominally Humane! 10:20 10 Dec
I'm confused, has MadMax written all this on his own or copied it from the previous Einstein article? -- IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 16:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- I skimmed through the history and salvaged some of the funnier edits. The bulk of the article is mostly from MrN9000's version written in March 2012 as well as parts by PantsMacKenzie, Chronarion, Savethemooses, RabbiTechno, and Gerrycheevers between 2005-2009. MadMax (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- The problem with these edits is that they lead into a concept that is very different from the one discussed above. And IMHO the concept was part of the reason for deletion. As I'm only an individual and this is a collaborative effort though, I'm not removing the “rapper Einstein” stuff as that may be the concept people prefer. Is a vote for concept needed? Nominally Humane! 07:40 11 Dec
- You spoke my thoughts Puppy, I think its a bit senseless putting in stuff from a deleted article when we want create a new one with a new concept... -- IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 20:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- The problem with these edits is that they lead into a concept that is very different from the one discussed above. And IMHO the concept was part of the reason for deletion. As I'm only an individual and this is a collaborative effort though, I'm not removing the “rapper Einstein” stuff as that may be the concept people prefer. Is a vote for concept needed? Nominally Humane! 07:40 11 Dec
- That's fine. MadMax (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can you guys summarize in a few sentences what the article concept is, for MadMax and me and others who haven't participated in the outline. Then maybe Max can pick out some of the pieces that fit the concept, there were a couple really good photos and captions in there for example. Thanks. And please summarize in words I can understand because...(wait for it)....I'm no Einstein. Aleister 00:57 12-12-13
- MadMax and I wait silently, playing cards and counting crows. Aleister 11:47 12-12-13
- Einstein was a talentless hack who stole other peoples ideas. Neutral voice with pseudo-sciencey bollocks. Something about Jews. Nominally Humane! 11:59 12 Dec
- Thanks. Lots of room to put real stuff in there, he did rely on his wife for some of his stuff. Aleister 12:14 12=12-13
- Also I like if Einstein was somewhat unaware of his lack of talent. He soldiered on doing what he was doing and the continual lack of anybody trying to get him to stop just left him completely oblivious to his own inadequacy. -RAHB 18:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea. I changed some of the earlier stuff I'd put in there to reflect that, and it flows better. Aleister I seriously have no idea what time it is, my screen won't show me the top and bottom of the screen, where the time is - it's lucky I was logged in here before that happened. Anybody know which of these things to push to get the top and bottom back again? thanks. 20:04 12-12-13 I can see the top when I'm not editing.
- Also I like if Einstein was somewhat unaware of his lack of talent. He soldiered on doing what he was doing and the continual lack of anybody trying to get him to stop just left him completely oblivious to his own inadequacy. -RAHB 18:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Lots of room to put real stuff in there, he did rely on his wife for some of his stuff. Aleister 12:14 12=12-13
- Einstein was a talentless hack who stole other peoples ideas. Neutral voice with pseudo-sciencey bollocks. Something about Jews. Nominally Humane! 11:59 12 Dec
- MadMax and I wait silently, playing cards and counting crows. Aleister 11:47 12-12-13
- Can you guys summarize in a few sentences what the article concept is, for MadMax and me and others who haven't participated in the outline. Then maybe Max can pick out some of the pieces that fit the concept, there were a couple really good photos and captions in there for example. Thanks. And please summarize in words I can understand because...(wait for it)....I'm no Einstein. Aleister 00:57 12-12-13
- This is the pre-MrN9000 version. I believe most of these edits were lost long before it was deleted. I thought it was pretty funny but I'll leave it for the group to decide. As a side note, Einstein's love of music might be amusing to explore. MadMax (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Related article: Einstein's Theory of Relativity[edit source]
Can we scrub it up a little and merge parts of it into this article? ｡◕‿◕｡ 01:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, that sounds like a good idea. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Where did everyone go?[edit source]
There haven't been any edits to this page for so long... what's going on? ｡◕‿◕｡ 00:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Everybody gave up and left. They seem to do that a lot. Probably because we only have a few users who actually write stuff ever. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 01:17, 17 Apr 2014
- I guess IC is dead again. ｡◕‿◕｡ 01:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- I guess so too. I'm sorry I haven't contributed anything - not sure what I'd put in. Should do some reading up, maybe. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 01:48, 17 Apr 2014
- I'm trying to wrap my head around special relativity and general relativity right now – and I mean that in the serious sense. In any case, I think we should start by merging the new article with Einstein's Theory of Relativity. ｡◕‿◕｡ 02:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, that might be good. Wait, I said that already up there. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 03:27, 17 Apr 2014
- I'm trying to wrap my head around special relativity and general relativity right now – and I mean that in the serious sense. In any case, I think we should start by merging the new article with Einstein's Theory of Relativity. ｡◕‿◕｡ 02:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- I guess so too. I'm sorry I haven't contributed anything - not sure what I'd put in. Should do some reading up, maybe. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 01:48, 17 Apr 2014
- I guess IC is dead again. ｡◕‿◕｡ 01:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)