Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.

Some Academics at the Indian Science Congress Dismiss Einstein's Theories

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday January 08 2019, @11:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the einstein-dismisses-india-scientists dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

BBC:

Some academics at the annual Indian Science Congress dismissed the findings of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

Hindu mythology and religion-based theories have increasingly become part of the Indian Science Congress agenda.

But experts said remarks at this year's summit were especially ludicrous.

[...] The head of a southern Indian university cited an old Hindu text as proof that stem cell research was discovered in India thousands of years ago.

G Nageshwar Rao, vice chancellor of Andhra University, also said a demon king from the Hindu religious epic, Ramayana, had 24 types of aircraft and a network of landing strips in modern day Sri Lanka.

Another scientist from a university in the southern state of Tamil Nadu told conference attendees that Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were both wrong and that gravitational waves should be renamed "Narendra Modi Waves" [Narendra Modi is the current Prime Minister of India].

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Some Academics at the Indian Science Congress Dismiss Einstein's Theories | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 106 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 10 2019, @01:56AM (6 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 10 2019, @01:56AM (#784406) Journal

    Tell me honestly, do you believe "too big to fail" actually meant that congress truly believed that letting them collapse, or breaking them up, would destroy the US economy, or that it would damage their campaign contribution and post-political employment options (and likely hurt they and their friends investment portfolios)

    The latter more likely. But that's not how they rationalized it.

    That's the fundamental problem - pretty much ALL politicians serve the interests of themselves and their campaign contributors rather than their constituents, as proven by their voting records. And why not? Those moneyed interests have outsized control of the pre-election process, such that they can pretty much pre-select the candidates who will be running in most prominent elections. Why is the top marginal tax rate a measly 40%, when the country was doing much better by pretty much every measure when it was 90% on income over $1M? Not because there's any rational argument to support it, but because the people with money bought a change in the laws to benefit themselves at the expense of the general populace.

    Please recall those tax loopholes that went with the high tax rate (for example, in 1960 the 0.01% was paying roughly 45% [wsj.com] on income despite having that 90% tax bracket). We have actual cases where really stupid governments pushed marginal taxes truly over 90%(here [wikipedia.org] and here [wikipedia.org] - notice in both cases the protests are by parties who favored high taxes until they had to give up hard earned wealth to greedy governments).

    And I find it telling how you whine piteously about the mean legislatures serving the wealthy and then propose to give more money to those wealthy via taxes. Who has the overseas tax shelters? Who gets the lion's share of tax revenue?

  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday January 10 2019, @03:45AM (5 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Thursday January 10 2019, @03:45AM (#784445)

    You think anybody in the 0.01% is actually paying the current 37% tax rate on actual income either? Closing tax loopholes is good - but there's still plenty of ways to doge taxes with a good enough accountant.

    Perhaps you can explain how I'm advocating giving the wealthy more money through higher taxes on *the wealthy*? Yes, they will undoubtedly get most of it back into their own pockets, but they'll also be paying for a larger share of society's infrastructure costs. Costs of which they are the greatest ultimate beneficiaries, since the smooth functioning of that society is what generates all their wealth.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 11 2019, @04:26AM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 11 2019, @04:26AM (#784889) Journal

      You think anybody in the 0.01% is actually paying the current 37% tax rate on actual income either? Closing tax loopholes is good - but there's still plenty of ways to doge taxes with a good enough accountant.

      Well, close the loopholes then. It's not rocket science. I don't see the point of advocating for 90% tax rates when you're not willing to fix what would break that ridiculous tax rate in the first place.

      My view is that we'd have a vastly better system, just keeping the current tax brackets and eliminating (and keeping eliminated!) all tax breaks and loopholes. That also means far less demand for said "good enough accountant". Meanwhile a 90% rate that isn't actually paid by the wealthy is a big waste of time.

      Perhaps you can explain how I'm advocating giving the wealthy more money through higher taxes on *the wealthy*?

      The first observation is that most of that money goes to the wealthy in the first place either directly paid by government, or through laundering by poorer people first. Then all they have to do is avoid paying taxes on that profit and there are plenty of ways to do that.

      Costs of which they are the greatest ultimate beneficiaries, since the smooth functioning of that society is what generates all their wealth.

      Sure they are. They also already pay more even at the reduced tax rates than anyone else for those benefits.

      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday January 11 2019, @04:18PM (3 children)

        by Immerman (3985) on Friday January 11 2019, @04:18PM (#785090)

        You do realize that the strong private property laws that allow them to build and maintain their fortunes are one of the major features of the smooth functioning of society, right? Ther's nothing sacred about those - just another social construct. Natural law is that you can only keep what you can personally defend.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 14 2019, @05:03AM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 14 2019, @05:03AM (#786273) Journal

          You do realize that the strong private property laws that allow them to build and maintain their fortunes are one of the major features of the smooth functioning of society, right?

          A 90% tax rate means you don't have those strong private property laws. The thieves are in charge.

          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday January 14 2019, @03:50PM (1 child)

            by Immerman (3985) on Monday January 14 2019, @03:50PM (#786459)

            Only if you pay the tax - and as I've already mentioned, the whole point of such a tax is encourage businessmen to spend money on their business, rather than pocketing excess profits.