Einstein or Newton

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Your fav?

Mine would have to be Newton.

[Nihilist_santa]

+1 Newton.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Listing some accomplishments for both these fellas:


Einstein :
1) provided empirical evidence for the atomic theory
2) He enabled the determination of Avogadro’s number and therefore the size of molecules
3) Einstein solved the riddle of the photoelectric effect
4) He proposed the special theory of relativity
5) Einstein came up with the concept of rest energy through his famous equation E=MC squared
6) He proposed the general theory of relativity
7) He collaborated with Bose to predict the existence of Bose–Einstein condensate
8) His debates with Niels Bohr brought quantum mechanics in focus
9) Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921
10) He fucked his cousin and was a shagster

[Nibblewitz]

Einstein was a warmonger. +1 Newton.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Newton:

1) Newton’s three laws of motion laid the foundation of classical mechanics
2) He was the first to formulate the notion of gravity as a universal force
3) Newton’s Principia is one of the most important works in the history of science
4) He discovered the generalised binomial theorem in 1665
5) Isaac Newton invented calculus (Also Leibniz , who Newton accused of stealing)
6) He invented the first reflecting telescope
7) Determined that white light was a mix of colors which can be separated into its component parts with a prism.
8) He identified light as the source of color sensation
9) He inferred correctly the oblateness of Earth’s spheroidal figure
10) Without Newton , there would be no Einstein> Case Point

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Einstein might win if you give him credit for Lorentz's work, i mean relativity is monster enough that if you hold it up as one man's achievement it might trump Newton, but Newton wins for pure renaissance man divine inspiration.

Perhaps , but if we were doing that. One might consider Maxwell superior.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

didnt know this one, elaborate?

During his explanation of Brownian motion, Einstein determined the size of atoms, and how many atoms there are in a mole. He enabled the experimental determination of Avogadro’s number and therefore the size of molecules. Einstein’s statistical discussion of atomic behavior gave experimentalists a way to count atoms by looking through an ordinary microscope.

[bdastomper58]

Yeezy

[AzzarTheGod]

Yeezy

[Chaboo_Cleric]

No one for Einstein...? Interesting....

[Lune]

(((Einstein))) because I'm a huge fan of determinism and I think when they finally reconcile that aspect of quantum mechanics with relativism he'll be vindicated. God does not play dice.

[Aesop]

God

[Aesop]

God wins

[AzzarTheGod]

the irony of the yeezy reply is that that's going to be a legitimate answer in about...20 more years as milennials come into power and the boomers begin to fade

[Beckoning]

Gotta go with Newton - he is the guy responsible for Fig Newtons, right?

[Ahldagor]

Gotta go with Newton for mathematically attempting to predict Armageddon.

[Lune]

I don't say this word lightly but Newton was a cuck.

This actual lifelong virgin nerd spent the majority of his time in seclusion masturbating and doing calculus, and when he did finally leave his basement and interface with the scientific community, it was so stressful to him he had a nervous breakdown.

Einstein did science like a rockstar and surrounded himself with a harem of busty 23 year old grad students who he fucked on the reg. His dick was so ravenous it even found its way into his own cousin. The filthy beast. He also wrote in support of glorious socialism.

[Lojik]

archimedes

[fash]

http://i.imgur.com/lHpPtwu.jpg
My man, Isaac Newton (https://youtu.be/danYFxGnFxQ?t=12s)

[AzzarTheGod]

http://i.imgur.com/lHpPtwu.jpg
My man, Isaac Newton (https://youtu.be/danYFxGnFxQ?t=12s)

This. Newton possessed that sacred knowledge that you read about in some of the parallel literature written around the time that the Torah was thought to be conceptualized. (The pre-edited Torah so to speak, referenced sacred knowledge sharing and associated god directly with knowledge and science).

There was a very early sect of Judaism that believed god needed men as their partners on Earth, and that is why he gave us these "woke" individuals to bless us with dramatic advancements in our understanding.

Egypt had electricity and batteries (as did Iraq/Baghdad, they found a battery there as well).

Anyway little tangent. Newton was on another level of analysis.

I will not overcredit (((Einstein))) most of his history has been smudged in his favor. As tends to happen when shekels control the education system, publishing (book publishes need bankroll you know?) etc. ITT morons don't know how the monetary system works. Businesses (books, TV, universities) needs shekels + Jews created shekels + Jews provide shekels = Lune's post about Einstein.

^ Theory of Relativity adapted to 2016.

*edited to size 4, as I felt the woke-factor called for it.

[Baler]

Einstein

http://i.imgur.com/aEGRdie.gif

[AzzarTheGod]

Einstein

http://i.imgur.com/aEGRdie.gif

(((ZOG)))

[Sidelle]

No one for Einstein...? Interesting....
I choose Einstein. Earlier this year his Theory of Relativity was proven; gravitational waves were discovered. Scientists everywhere so excited in various YouTube videos... Many nerdgasms were had.

MAJOR Discovery: Scientists announce finding Gravitational Waves confirming Einstein's theory (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5Ycv2yYNG8)

[maskedmelon]

I don't know enough about ether to choose one or the other ;/ I like derivatives though ^^

[myriverse]

Einstein, because he came later.

[entruil]

Were they both preterists? if not then i choose newton...

[Chaboo_Cleric]

looks like someone is in a Survey of Science course at his local community college

Pretty accurate. Physics, but close. One more year till I transfer to UCSD. Tuition cost estimate 23,000 a year. Thank god I sold my home ��

[mgellan]

I choose Einstein. Earlier this year his Theory of Relativity was proven; gravitational waves were discovered.

Relativity was proven by Eddington in 1919 by demonstrating the precession of Mercury's orbit during a solar eclipse... numerous proofs have followed since then. The prediction of gravity waves is the latest of these proofs.

But Newton for me. He was a freak, a religious nut (not unusual for a time when you could be burnt at the stake) anda total asshole but man, calculus > all never mind reflecting telescopes and F=G m1m2 / R^2.

Regards,
Mg

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Relativity was proven by Eddington in 1919 by demonstrating the precession of Mercury's orbit during a solar eclipse... numerous proofs have followed since then. The prediction of gravity waves is the latest of these proofs.

But Newton for me. He was a freak, a religious nut (not unusual for a time when you could be burnt at the stake) anda total asshole but man, calculus > all never mind reflecting telescopes and F=G m1m2 / R^2.

Regards,
Mg

Yes Eddington proved Einstein correct<

[Sidelle]

Einstein, because he came later.
http://i.imgur.com/zG0fbJd.jpg

[Sidelle]

Relativity was proven by Eddington in 1919 by demonstrating the precession of Mercury's orbit during a solar eclipse... numerous proofs have followed since then. The prediction of gravity waves is the latest of these proofs.
Well goddamn... I suppose that's what I get for attending Freeport Community College. :cool:

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Newton is basically Jesus

[Borak]

Newton was the last famous person who still believed in alchemy. Eh, why support a quack.

Einstein didn't have time for fantasies. Quote: 'It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.'

Einstein is the man.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Don't forget Einstein was a player and had many female fans.

[Nibblewitz]

Einstein is the man.

He also convinced the U.S Government to build the atomic bomb by telling them the Nazis were working on one.

What a guy!

[Chaboo_Cleric]

He also convinced the U.S Government to build the atomic bomb by telling them the Nazis were working on one.

What a guy!

Yeah. It's kind of a good thing he did though , just sayin.

[entruil]

10) He fucked his cousin and was a shagster

he married her ...

first cousins...

[bdastomper58]

i agree newton was a christian einstein was a atheist now u tell me whose smarter

valid point

Einstein is burning in hell while Newton has a seat at the lamb's feast

makes u think

[AzzarTheGod]

i agree newton was a christian einstein was a atheist now u tell me whose smarter

idk u that well to derive the meaning behind this post tbh.

spelling it out kinda pointless cuz doesn't matter.

Newton was the boss of bosses, you may not like some of his beliefs but he was a fucking animal.

also he had no choice but to be Christian, high-society often frowns on no religious affiliation (even to this day). My friends all networked on wall-street through religion mostly, Jesuits. Tons of Jesuits on wallstreet and working under (((Banks))) in the finance sector. Jews like to have Jesuits working underneath them so they can remind themselves whos boss.

I'd never publicly admit to possibly being agnostic or atheist. It tends to do more for you in the world than not. Even with women, chicks dig a guy who pretends he's just like 1% religious, only takes a small percent of religious influence in your life to woo her.

I believe modern religions (Christianity et al) were created for women, both specifically and indirectly, but that's a whole nother meta-discussion. I bring the woke views when its time u kno.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

idk u that well to derive the meaning behind this post tbh.

spelling it out kinda pointless cuz doesn't matter.

Newton was the boss of bosses, you may not like some of his beliefs but he was a fucking animal.

also he had no choice but to be Christian, high-society often frowns on no religious affiliation (even to this day). My friends all networked on wall-street through religion mostly, Jesuits. Tons of Jesuits on wallstreet and working under (((Banks))) in the finance sector. Jews like to have Jesuits working underneath them so they can remind themselves whos boss.

I'd never publicly admit to possibly being agnostic or atheist. It tends to do more for you in the world than not. Even with women, chicks dig a guy who pretends he's just like 1% religious, only takes a small percent of religious influence in your life to woo her.

I believe modern religions (Christianity et al) were created for women, both specifically and indirectly, but that's a whole nother meta-discussion. I bring the woke views when its time u kno.

Of course Newton believed in god. He is Jesus for his time.

[mgellan]

i agree newton was a christian einstein was a atheist now u tell me whose smarter

Religious people aren't dumber than non-religious people as a rule, they're just damaged by indoctrination. Einstein had the benefit of a society that had gone through the Enlightenment and moved to secular values and norms. Newton was a complete whack job religious nut but that was more a symptom of the time he lived versus any inherent failing in his character - Christians in those days were more like ISIL than not.



Regards,
Mg

[mgellan]

I believe modern religions (Christianity et al) were created for women, both specifically and indirectly, but that's a whole nother meta-discussion. I bring the woke views when its time u kno.

Uhhhhh yeah thats why they treat them so well LOL -- Mg

[Loke]

Newton was the last famous person who still believed in alchemy. Eh, why support a quack.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation

For those of you who won't actually read this, nuclear transmutation could be considered modern day alchemy. In 1980 a professor at UC Berkeley actually turned atoms of bismuth into gold, which was one of the original aims of alchemy (albeit at a loss). I don't know if I'd consider a guy a quack for believing something was possible just because the technology to actually do it wouldn't exist for a couple hundred years.

[Baler]

This is insane, you fool. I'm a fool because I have more faith in the saints that wrote the Bible? Yeah, because you just read the words of a bunch of guys that you never met, and you just take it on faith that everything they wrote was true. Hm. And what makes you think what your scientists are writing is any more truer than my saints? Because there are volumes of proven data. Numbers. You know, figures. Th-There are fossil records. Oh, fossil records. Ah! I didn't even think about the fossil records. I guess I'll concede. Oh, wait, uh, one more thing before I do, Mr. Reynolds. Have you seen these fossil records? (bell tolls) Have I... huh? Have you pored through the data yourself? The numbers? The figures? Well, no. I'm-- no. Oh. Interesting. So let me get this straight, Mr. Reynolds. You get your information from a book written by men you've never met. And you take their words as truth, based on a willingness to believe, a desire to accept, a leap of... of, dare I say it? (laughs) Faith? (bell tolls) Come on, come on. Look, I mean-- I don't even know how I'm supposed to respond to that. (bell tolls) Like... oh, come on. That is a... that's a false equivalency. (bell tolls) Just answer the question, Mr. Reynolds. Sure. Yeah, okay. I rest my case.

Science is a religion. (I'm not talking about Scientology)

[maskedmelon]

Difference is, with science one can determine the veracity of claims if they like :/

[Baler]

Difference is, with science one can determine the veracity of claims if they like :/

Except most people don't prove it themselves. They go on about their life and accept what they're told based on beliefs they never determined to be true or false. They're raised by other people who tell them it's true. Till the day that they die.

Sounds like a faith and belief system to me. One that kinders up to a higher power which they don't understand themselves.

Einstein said his religion was science.

[Angushjalmur]

Tesla

[bdastomper58]

This is insane, you fool. I'm a fool because I have more faith in the saints that wrote the Bible? Yeah, because you just read the words of a bunch of guys that you never met, and you just take it on faith that everything they wrote was true. Hm. And what makes you think what your scientists are writing is any more truer than my saints? Because there are volumes of proven data. Numbers. You know, figures. Th-There are fossil records. Oh, fossil records. Ah! I didn't even think about the fossil records. I guess I'll concede. Oh, wait, uh, one more thing before I do, Mr. Reynolds. Have you seen these fossil records? (bell tolls) Have I... huh? Have you pored through the data yourself? The numbers? The figures? Well, no. I'm-- no. Oh. Interesting. So let me get this straight, Mr. Reynolds. You get your information from a book written by men you've never met. And you take their words as truth, based on a willingness to believe, a desire to accept, a leap of... of, dare I say it? (laughs) Faith? (bell tolls) Come on, come on. Look, I mean-- I don't even know how I'm supposed to respond to that. (bell tolls) Like... oh, come on. That is a... that's a false equivalency. (bell tolls) Just answer the question, Mr. Reynolds. Sure. Yeah, okay. I rest my case.

Science is a religion. (I'm not talking about Scientology)

you get your opinions from a television comedy

moron

[maskedmelon]

Except most people don't prove it themselves. They go on about their life and accept what they're told based on beliefs they never determined to be true or false. They're raised by other people who tell them it's true. Till the day that they die.

Sounds like a faith and belief system to me. One that kinders up to a higher power which they don't understand themselves.

If you are arguing that in general people are incapable of original thought irrespective of dogmatic allegiances, I would agree. Most adopt an ideology to expedite menial decision making that their faculties might be better spent on deciding what's for dinner or which Netflix series will earn their attention for the evening.

However the nature of the average person alters neither the nature of science nor of faith.

But to your question, no, I do not think faith makes one any less intelligent. You are right that many people treat science as others treat religion. That is not what science is though.

[Baler]

you get your opinions from a television comedy

moron

I'm a moron because I have more faith in the people that wrote the TV Show?

Have you poured through the numbers yourself?

I rest my case.

[Angushjalmur]

if the govt and big battery (duracell etc) hadnt suppressed tesla we would had shape shifting liquid metal sex bots by 1980

Gotta keep the energy racket going though. There's too much money to be made there

[maskedmelon]

Einstein said his religion was science.

Yeah, and mine is skepticism.

Neither has anything to do with faith ^^

[Baler]

Yeah, and mine is skepticism.

Neither has anything to do with faith ^^

You've taken the time to prove it's true. You don't just take the words of people you've never met and believe it on faith.

My whole point was that most people believe what they're told. They don't go out and try to prove it themselves. That's all.

Faith -complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

[maskedmelon]

if the govt and big battery (duracell etc) hadnt suppressed tesla we would had shape shifting liquid metal sex bots by 1980

So instead of steel tentacle monsters we got shake weights?

[Angushjalmur]

You've taken the time to prove it's true. You don't just take the words of people you've never met and believe it on faith.

My whole point was that most people believe what they're told. They don't go out and try to prove it themselves. That's all.

I'm busy building a large hadron collider in my back yard because dinosaur bones were put here by the devil to trick us

[mgellan]

This is insane, you fool. I'm a fool because I have more faith in the saints that wrote the Bible?

Look at the front page of your Bible. It will probably say that the authors are not known. The "saints" didn't write the Bible, no one knows who wrote it. The version you're reading is likely the result of many many people who freely changed things to match their own needs. Read some Bart Ehrman for more info.

Science is a religion.

Science is a tool by which we learn more about the universe. It's a method. It's been proven to be effective. What we create with it are increasingly accurate models of the Universe, that enables us to create technologies based on what we learn. People accept that science works, and can accept the accuracy of what the scientific consensus is because it's a consensus that arises from many people being able to replicate the results. You can have a high level of confidence in science because you have TVs, and computers, and cell phones that are all results of the scientific process. People who are educated understand that you need to apply critical thinking to science just like everything else - one study is not a reason to accept the conclusions. But centuries of tests all confirming that a single hypothesis is accurate means not at least provisionally accepting it is foolish.

Religion is based on faith, which means "the reasons we believe stuff that we can't prove is true." Religion is a mindvirus that propagates through indoctrination, colonialism, and intimidation. It has some benefits to adherents as far as community but they can readily be realized without the dogma. It allows no proof or even refutation, produces no technologies, has no predictive power, and emphasizes anti-intellectualism, frowning on inquiry and questioning.

Science is nothing like a religion.

Regards,
Mg

[Baler]

Why are you all so convince that I'm talking about 'god(s)'?
I never once said that.

Stop putting words in my posts.

Newton and Einstein took time to prove what they believed. like I said before, that's all im saying jeez.

[Angushjalmur]

saints dont worship dolphins it was kind of implied

[maskedmelon]

You've taken the time to prove it's true. You don't just take the words of people you've never met and believe it on faith.

My whole point was that most people believe what they're told. They don't go out and try to prove it themselves. That's all.

Yeah and I think we in agreement on that part ^^

Faith -complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Yep^^ and aside from a basic acceptance of reality allowing us to operate within it, that is always a dangerous thing.

[mgellan]

we already determined the ferocity of science claims when hitler used it to justify exterminating 6 million innocent people to make a "master race". not sure what is left to determine.

Hitler was a Catholic who believed the Jews killed Christ and deserved to be destroyed because of it. At best he was a Deist:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"His [the Jewish person's] life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties—and this against their own nation."

Calling what the Nazis did as the result of Science is ridiculous.

Regards,
Mg

[Baler]

faith, which means "the reasons we believe stuff that we can't prove is true."

This is false. I already posted the widely accepted definition of faith amongst people from all walks of life, on any side(s).
But if you've proven it yourself then what I or anyone says shouldn't matter.

[bdastomper58]

I'm a moron because I have more faith in the people that wrote the TV Show?

Have you poured through the numbers yourself?

I rest my case.

can shared knowledge exist?

lil babbys first flirtation with solipsism

[mgellan]

This is false. I already posted the widely accepted definition of faith amongst people from all walks of life, on any side(s).
But if you've proven it yourself then what I or anyone says shouldn't matter.

Faith -complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

Our definitions of faith are not mutually incompatible because when you say "complete" you infer "even in the face of no evidence or even disconfirming evidence."

The difference is science means accepting things that have evidence, and abandoning positions based on no evidence, or contrary evidence.

Regards,
Mg

[maskedmelon]

Calling what the Nazis did as the result of Science is ridiculous.


And to add, calling it the product of religion is equally ridiculous. It was the product of great cunning and ambition.

ALL ideology is open to exploitation by the exceptional.

[Baler]

not mutually incompatible

I'm glad you agree with me. (double negative makes a positive).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
"strong belief or trust in someone or something"
This time it says Strong not complete. There is that better?

blame google for defining faith as being complete.

[Nihilist_santa]

Hitler was a Catholic who believed the Jews killed Christ and deserved to be destroyed because of it. At best he was a Deist:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"His [the Jewish person's] life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties—and this against their own nation."

Calling what the Nazis did as the result of Science is ridiculous.

Regards,
Mg

So you are saying (((they))) didnt kill Christ? How can you say he was a deist and then in the next few paragraphs give quotes clearly outlining his christian faith? His antisemitism while having historical backing from religion was not brought about because of religious doctrine nor was he on a crusade to genocide Jews.

The above is exactly what Baler was talking about. Love how you come in here all "SCIENCE" and then go into a bunch of hyperbole based on repeated information.

[mgellan]

I'm glad you agree with me. (double negative makes a positive).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
This time it says Strong not complete. There is that better?

blame google for defining faith as being complete.

I don't disagree with you. You demonstrate my point with your definition that faith is believing stuff without evidence.

Regards,
Mg

[mgellan]

His antisemitism while having historical backing from religion was not brought about because of religious doctrine nor was he on a crusade to genocide Jews.

The point being refuted was Hitler genocided Jews because of science, which is clearly not true given his religiously motivated statements.

Regards,
Mg

[Ravager]

Difference is, with science one can determine the veracity of claims if they like :/
This isn't exactly the difference of Science and Religion, but it's close. The strength of a theory is not in what it can explain, it is in what it can accurately predict. This is where every single religious theory falls flat on its face. While "God did it" serves as an explanation, it tells you nothing new about a phenomenon, nor can you use that theory to make any kind of accurate prediction of what you expect to find about the phenomenon.

For example, with the Theory of Evolution there have been thousands of predictions made about the kinds of fossils we'd expect find in the ground without explicitly knowing about them first that proved to be true. Intelligent Design could not have made those predictions, nor can anyone make any predictions about what they can expect to find given Intelligent Design as a premise. It's a useless theory.

With Science, you're not doing anything more than making a guess about what you are observing. Then, using that guess you make predictions about what you can and cannot expect to observe if your guess is true. For instance, if you guess that hail is caused by ice makers in the sky, you would predict that if you were to go up to the sky in a hail storm you'd see some ice makers plugged into a cloud. If you go up there and see no ice makers, you would predict that there is no hail. If you do go up in the sky during a hail storm to test your theory, and you find no ice-makers, but it's still hailing, you know your theory is wrong and it's time to make another guess.

Religion makes guesses (guesses that quite frequently contradict each other), but it doesn't test guesses and the guesses it makes predict nothing. That is the difference between Science and Religion.

[maskedmelon]

This isn't exactly the difference of Science and Religion, but it's close. The strength of a theory is not in what it can explain, it is in what it can accurately predict. This is where every single religious theory falls flat on its face. While "God did it" serves as an explanation, it tells you nothing new about a phenomenon, nor can you use that theory to make any kind of accurate prediction of what you expect to find about the phenomenon.

.....

Religion makes guesses (guesses that quite frequently contradict each other), but it doesn't test guesses and the guesses it makes predict nothing. That is the difference between Science and Religion.

Intelligence is the ability to reliably predict outcomes ^^Science is a method of learning. The fundamental distinction between faith based claims and scientific claims is that is that scientific claims can be tested while their supernatural counterparts cannot be tested. Both can make predictions, but neither matters if you are unable to test the predictive capacity.

For example, Christianity teaches Christ will return, people who accept Christ will go to heaven and those who do not will go to hell.

Those are all predictions. You cannot test any of them though. That was my point ^^

[mgellan]

Those are all predictions. You cannot test any of them though. That was my point ^^

Absolutely, good point, if there's no way to prove something wrong it's outside the realms of science into faith (hence my definition of faith) -- Mg

[JurisDictum]

Newton seemed like a true genius. I think if he was alive today he would still be the smartest guy in the sciences. Not so sure about Einstien, even if he was brilliant.

Newton also sounds like a total aspergers case if I've ever seen one. It's funny how easy it was for this aristocrat named Hook to essentially troll Newton into a rage by suggesting he already knew what Newton discovered.

History makes its own heros. Someone was going to discover what both those men did eventually. What makes them special is they discovered a lot very quickly. Sometimes, I think this is more luck than we want to admit. But I think Newton was definitely the real deal.

[Ravager]

Intelligence is the ability to reliably predict outcomes ^^Science is a method of learning. The fundamental distinction between faith based claims and scientific claims is that is that scientific claims can be tested while their supernatural counterparts cannot be tested. Both can make predictions, but neither matters if you are unable to test the predictive capacity.

For example, Christianity teaches Christ will return, people who accept Christ will go to heaven and those who do not will go to hell.

Those are all predictions. You cannot test any of them though. That was my point ^^
When I said religion predicts nothing, I meant it predicts nothing about the phenomenon that it purports to explain.

They guess that when you die that you go to an afterlife (this is the theory), but there are no predictions about that guess that they can make. That is, they cannot make a distinction between what the world would look like if there is an afterlife vs what the world would look like if there isn't an afterlife, so the theory makes no predictions about what you can expect to see if the theory is either true or false [unless you die of course, but without your brain, you're not going to have any expectations, unless you modify the theory to say that when you die, an exact neuron for neuron copy of your brain is sent to wherever this afterlife might be, (and yes I assume that our brains are the seat of our person-hood because every observation mankind has ever made of the human brain supports this idea, as well as watching my grandmother lose her mind over the course of a decade to LBD), but if your theory keeps getting more and more complicated by details, the probability of its accuracy goes down so much that it may as well be impossible. (and when I mean complicated by details, the theory expects me to take as a premise that there is both a mechanism that copies a person's brain in a metaphysical fashion AND that it sends it to somewhere else to be with other metaphysically copied brains AND that these brains can communicate and interact with each other AND that there's not one place, but two places AND that one of the places makes metaphysically copied brains suffer AND that one of the places gives the metaphysically copied brains eternal bliss AND that this is all determined solely on whatever neurological configuration the brains happened to have at the time they were deprived of oxygen. This is a lot to accept even on faith)].

Contrast that to guesses you can make about death with scientific observation: Deprive a brain of oxygen and it stops functioning. Restore oxygen to a brain that has stopped functioning, and if the cells didn't get damaged or degrade for too long, the brain will start functioning again. The brain is where we think and get personality. Cut away one part of a persons brain and you can change their personality. Prod one part of their brain and you can make them smell pickles. From this kind of information we can reasonably guess that the entirety of a person as a sentient being is in their brain, when the brain is gone, they are gone.

I suspect that if technology ever got to the point of recreating a person's brain, neuron for neuron, for all practical purposes, they could be resurrected. As far as what this means in terms of self and person-hood is all just philosophy until we can figure out a way to observe those concepts in an empirical way.

I think fundamentally though, we both agree that Science is not faith.

[Baler]

Why are people so hung up on the word faith being attached to religion.

Example: a trust circle. a person stands in the middle and has to trust the people around them that they will catch them when they lean over to fall.
The person in the middle has faith that the people around them will catch them when they lean over to fall.

Trust in something. You trust that science is true so you can explain things. You have faith in science. Science is a faith for people.

edit: another example: I have faith that my jalopy will make it over this next hill.

[maskedmelon]

I think the problem Baler is that the word has multiple definitions including belief without evidence/proof and a strong belief in God. Those latter definitions are why faith is so often correlated with religion. The way in which you are using the term is not the same as it is used with regard to religion which is how most people associate it.

It's like telling two acrophobes to make sure they are high enough to reach the top shelf before stopping, while one of them is climbing a ladder and the other is puffing a hash pipe. ^^

[Ahldagor]

Faith is based in a trust. Blind faith or based in ecidence, it's still a trust regardless of any religious conotations attached to the word which stem from subjective valuations.

Still say Newton for predicting Aramageddon.

[AzzarTheGod]

Uhhhhh yeah thats why they treat them so well LOL -- Mg

You missed the point entirely...if you think harder it will come to you.

[AzzarTheGod]

if the govt and big battery (duracell etc) hadnt suppressed tesla we would had shape shifting liquid metal sex bots by 1980

Woke

[Chaboo_Cleric]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation

For those of you who won't actually read this, nuclear transmutation could be considered modern day alchemy. In 1980 a professor at UC Berkeley actually turned atoms of bismuth into gold, which was one of the original aims of alchemy (albeit at a loss). I don't know if I'd consider a guy a quack for believing something was possible just because the technology to actually do it wouldn't exist for a couple hundred years.

Thanks for sharing. Link some more stuff if you got any.

[AzzarTheGod]

Thanks for sharing. Link some more stuff if you got any.

So Rosicrucians aren't a joke afterall?

[Chaboo_Cleric]

I don't disagree with you. You demonstrate my point with your definition that faith is believing stuff without evidence.

Regards,
Mg

There are plenty of scientific theories with a vestigial amount of evidence. There are even some with none. Therefore, I guess that is faith yes?

[Chaboo_Cleric]

So Rosicrucians aren't a joke afterall?

Oh yea... Those are the freaks that believe in out of body experiences... LOL One of the larger churches for Rosicrucians is here in Southern California. It's shaped like a big testicle...

[skarlorn]

Why not Tesla my Najena

[Nibblewitz]

Nurga, please.

Newton independently developed differential calculus and laid the foundations for physics.

[AzzarTheGod]

Oh yea... Those are the freaks that believe in out of body experiences... LOL One of the larger churches for Rosicrucians is here in Southern California. It's shaped like a big testicle...

They claim to be the only secret society with the ability to transmutate.

They have demonstrated transmutation publicly, but only once.

[Nihilist_santa]

Oh yea... Those are the freaks that believe in out of body experiences... LOL One of the larger churches for Rosicrucians is here in Southern California. It's shaped like a big testicle...

That place is pretty cool actually. Lots of recreations of Egyptian stuff. I know there are two AMORC sites in Cali. Not sure which one you are near but the Egyptian one is cool.

[bdastomper58]

There are plenty of scientific theories with a vestigial amount of evidence. There are even some with none. Therefore, I guess that is faith yes?

please learn what a scientific theory is

[AzzarTheGod]

That place is pretty cool actually. Lots of recreations of Egyptian stuff. I know there are two AMORC sites in Cali. Not sure which one you are near but the Egyptian one is cool.

Rosicrucians respect the founding fathers of modern civilization (and arguably, the beginning of science), as well as the conception of the first major city-state.

No (((influence))) steering them away from the study of ancient Egypt.

[gummab]

John Harington > All.

Unless you like swimming in shit,then it's Newton.

[Nibblewitz]

Chomsky > all.

But this is a discussion about Einstein and Newton.

[Ravager]

Why are people so hung up on the word faith being attached to religion.

Example: a trust circle. a person stands in the middle and has to trust the people around them that they will catch them when they lean over to fall.
The person in the middle has faith that the people around them will catch them when they lean over to fall.

Trust in something. You trust that science is true so you can explain things. You have faith in science. Science is a faith for people.

edit: another example: I have faith that my jalopy will make it over this next hill.
Now we're getting into the realm of arguing by definition, which is entirely pointless and fruitless.

[bdastomper58]

Now we're getting into the realm of arguing by definition, which is entirely pointless and fruitless.

no. Einstein here still doesnt understand the idea of a scientific theory.

why are you being so polite to a complete dumbass

[AzzarTheGod]

Why couldn't Newton have been agnostic and saved us precious minutes of our lives reading this neat meta discussion.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

please learn what a scientific theory is

I know what that is, thanks. What I wrote was based on a different definition and meaning. Not a literal. For instance, Einstein's theory of relativity, as oppose to the Big Bang theory. You'll find those two examples fit both definitions in what I said despite, one being an actual "scientific theory", and the other not.

Please learn what a "Rhetorical aim", and "angel of vision" is.

[maskedmelon]

What if we add George Washington Carver and Leonardo DaVinci to the discussion?

I am a fan of peanuts butter.

Nothing cries genius like defiling graves beneath the moon. How many peasants might we suppose were drowned, burned or otherwise slain for DV's closet full of cadavers?

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Kinda disgusting to add either one of those people to this discussion. da Vinci wasn't at all impressive. First, he was a pedophile. Second, he never could finish any of his work. You can either accredit the fact he was a perfectionist or just a loon. Third, da Vinci was a hateful man and jealous of others , particularly Michaelangelo. I don't dismiss Da Vinci as a genius , but of the caliber of Newton and Einstein, is just gross.

[entruil]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver

'He was as concerned with his students' character development as he was with their intellectual development. He compiled a list of eight cardinal virtues for his students to strive toward:
A monument to Carver at the Missouri Botanical Garden in St. Louis

Be clean both inside and out.
Neither look up to the rich nor down on the poor.
Lose, if need be, without squealing.
Win without bragging.
Always be considerate of women, children, and older people.
Be too brave to lie.
Be too generous to cheat.
Take your share of the world and let others take theirs.
'

didn't know very much about this guy pretty cool.

[Toehammer]

confirmed young doctor here, PhD in physics, tenure-track assistant prof (endangered species nowadays)... some of my thoughts:

Newton > Einstein... and pretty much any sane physicist would agree. If you want an actual semi-respected ranking of great physicists, by a great physicist, check out Landau's List (or Landau's genius scale).

Newton however on the humanity side of things was quite a wanker. One of the funniest misunderstandings in the history of science was that Newton's letter to Hooke about "standing on the shoulders of giants" is that Newton was paying homage to Hooke's contributions. Truth be told, Newton was mocking Hooke's physical appearance as Hooke was bent over/crooked, supposedly due to too much time spent on a lathe... who really knows. Newton was saying he stood on the shoulders of Descartes/Galileo/Kepler, can't remember the others. He was essentially calling Hooke a mental midget and making fun of his appearance at the same time. Newton and Hooke had an odd relationship, especially because Newton was nipping at Hooke's heels. Hooke had postulated about gravity following an inverse square law but was focused on proving it experimentally, whereas Newton use Kepler's/Brahe's data/analysis that was already done to confirm the inverse square law. Newton was an analytical powerhouse. Hooke acknowledged Newton's greatness, and Newton was probably hesitant to acknowledge/respect Hooke's because he was more competitive. Lots is also up for debate, as is always in history. To be honest, Hooke's Micrographia >> Newton's Principia in terms of reading value and excitement, despite their total work where Newton > Hooke obviously. I think Hooke is one of the most tragic figures in science... so much is not credited to him. Newton's rings were actually discovered and conceptually explained by Hooke, for example... check out Micrographia. Newton was just badass at beating a topic to analytical death.

The founders of science cannot be given too little credit. I would actually rank Galileo and Kepler right next to Einstein. Galileo's scientific method/detail was groundbreaking and ushered in modern science, and Kepler's insight/reasoning was mindblowing... do some reading on Kepler's thoughts on snowflakes and sphere packing. Totally rad stuff.

Einstein's 1905 might have been the most productive (short period) year in the history of science though. Very impressive.

I always thought it should go like this:
1) Newton
2) Maxwell
3) Faraday
4) Einstein

I don't really know where to put Galileo/Kepler in there. Faraday never gets enough credit... I think he might have been the most creative/intuitive/genius scientist in history. However, nobody can match the impact of Newton.

I was sad to see this thread devolve into religion/science garbage. It is always bizarre to me to see two things that can have such a beautiful effect on people's lives be pit against each other, when to be honest, they are by definition mutually exclusive. Two of the greatest achievements of man, science and religion, have both helped immensely to move humanity away from troglodytic warring nomadic tribes into organized, principled nations. I don't subscribe to a religion, but there is nothing more obnoxious than an evangelical atheist.

If you want a really good read on science, read "Science: a History" by John Gribbin. It is the only history book I couldn't put down.

[maskedmelon]

I was sad to see this thread devolve into religion/science garbage. It is always bizarre to me to see two things that can have such a beautiful effect on people's lives be pit against each other, when to be honest, they are by definition mutually exclusive. Two of the greatest achievements of man, science and religion, have both helped immensely to move humanity away from troglodytic warring nomadic tribes into organized, principled nations. I don't subscribe to a religion, but there is nothing more obnoxious than an evangelical atheist.


Good post, inclined to agree on Faraday needs more credit if for no other reason than the great boon that electrolysis is to humanity ^^

[Toehammer]

Good post, inclined to agree on Faraday needs more credit if for no other reason than the great boon that electrolysis is to humanity ^^

Every time I come up with a new idea in my own research (nanoparticle self-assembly/electrical charging/synthesis) I have to make sure Faraday didn't do it first. Faraday's conceptualization of "lines of force" (fields) essentially postulated non-infinite propagation velocities, i.e. no "action at a distance". This might be the true foundation of all modern physics. It is no coincidence that Einstein had pictures of 3 physicists on his wall to draw inspiration from: Newton, Maxwell, and Faraday.

Maxwell was so impressive. Read Freeman Dyson's article "Why is Maxwell's Theory so hard to Understand?" http://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.org/DysonFreemanArticle.pdf Maxwell held Faraday in the highest regard as well. Dyson's article points out something very important: that scientists should blow their own trumpets, and as he says: "If Maxwell had had an ego like Galileo or Newton, he would have made sure that his work was not ignored. Maxwell was as great a scientist as Newton and a far more agreeable character..." Read the article; it explains eloquently how fields and the quantum mechanical wave function are just as difficult to understand because we can't actually measure them directly. I honestly believe if Faraday was around during the development of quantum mechanics he would have come up with a better formulation for the wave function than we have now, just like he did with fields, which is what made Maxwell's work possible. yeah... not to mention that Faraday had unquantifiable influence on modern industry...

post too long, abort!

[AzzarTheGod]

Good posts past 2 pages.

Faraday was the dogs dog.

[AzzarTheGod]

Religion w/o science is blind. Science w/o religion is gay.

damn this radio edit is woke

[Daywolf]

Religion is based on faith, which means "the reasons we believe stuff that we can't prove is true." Religion is a mindvirus that propagates through indoctrination, colonialism, and intimidation.
Faith is just something that can't be seen, or isn't seen, but may be seen. It's like trust. But anyway, show me a quantum particle. Show me the big bang. Show me macro-evolution. Fact is, modern "science" takes lots of faith.

Anyway, Einstein be my answer, he layed the foundation for quantum mechanics. Lets hope "science" doesn't lead us into another dark age, still loooooots to discover. We're still so small.

[Toehammer]

Faith is just something that can't be seen, or isn't seen, but may be seen. It's like trust. But anyway, show me a quantum particle. Show me the big bang. Show me macro-evolution. Fact is, modern "science" takes lots of faith.

Anyway, Einstein be my answer, he layed the foundation for quantum mechanics. Lets hope "science" doesn't lead us into another dark age, still loooooots to discover. We're still so small.

If you are interested in the ability to see a quantum particle, then you might just be in luck. Our "evolved" human eyes are actually very well "created". The threshold of human vision is on the order of 1-10 photons. So actually, you might have in fact seen a single photon. Problem is your neural networking fortunately doesn't register it (again something that evolved so that we don't freak out and go caveman on every single photon flash of light, or retinal rhodopsin speckling randomly). Check this out... intriguing I guarantee: http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=894 it is about the quantum limits of human senses. Ever wonder why frogs are so jumpy? Could it be because they can detect single photons (better than humans)? Perhaps it's because they are cold blooded and their eye cools down to low temperatures and that eliminates most of the rhodopsin noise? I just made a theory about vision/single photons/and cold-blooded creatures! Am I a prophet? No just a disciple with faith in science, who proselytises from time to time. Interestingly, many of the histories humans have faith in come from warm-blooded animals in hot climates, where rhodopsin false alarms will trigger much more than in cold climates. Perhaps this is why the main religions and their prophets come from the mid-east/Asia? Sweet, I just made a theory about the history of faith, based on science.If your definition of faith is strictly about vision (btw a quantum of light, generated between quantum energy levels, refracting through the assembly of quantum molecules in your vitreous fluid), then you are ignoring the increased sensitivity to our senses that science (including quantum mechanics!) has offered us. I've never seen a radio wave. Also, you then eliminate any history before motion pictures and photographs. Although those are really just collections of quantum particles reflecting quanta of light, again, to your quantum mechanical eye/brain atoms.

I have seen atoms (quantum particles) in a high res transmission electron microscope; this could be described as a religious experience ;). What though is your definition of a quantum particle? Atoms are quantum particles, insofar as they obey the laws of quantum mechanics. I hope this doesn't turn into a definition debate, as my last victim is still MIA, RIP alarti (kill shot: https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=863730&postcount=220)

Science humbly admits to doing the best job it can with available technology and data. Faith in science is gained through experience, repetition, sweat, and precision measurments. I earned my faith. Religion's faith is completely different. We shouldn't even define it next to science. Religion's faith is based explicitly on not seeing, experiencing, measuring, or verifying.

Now if you want to argue that we can't see things like quantum mechanical wave functions or electric fields, you are correct. Those are linear operators that we add/substract. We have to square them (quadratic/bilinear combination of the wave function/field) to get physically observable measurements. Scientists are so clever, and exercise such a minimal blind faith, that they even define the electric field energy density units as a square root of a joule per cubic meter and the wave function's units as a square root of an inverse cubic meter. They are such abstract concepts and don't exist in nature that we define them as irrational units. Nobody can measure the square root of a cubic meter... this is all explained in the Freeman Dyson article I linked above. It really is a good read.

Faith is a cool thing if it is constantly tested. That is science's strongest leg to stand on and religion's shakiest. It is cool to see a good, honest, caring human have faith in either science or religion.

You mentioned you hoped science doesn't lead us into another dark age... that is impossible. Religion didn't lead us into a dark age, and science never will. That mantle solely rests on the shoulders of good/bad, wise/foolish, and humble/vain humans. Science and religion, though created by humans, cannot impose anything on us unless we allow it.

Why do you say also we are so small. Do you realize you are made of dead stars? Also, when you look at us as dead stars (essentially evolved hydrogen) you understand hydrogen in the universe (since possibly the big bang?) has evolved to the point where it can make accurate theories/predicitions about itself to ~12 decimal points. Pretty big stuff to me. We are huge...

[Ravager]

Faith is just something that can't be seen, or isn't seen, but may be seen. It's like trust. But anyway, show me a quantum particle. Show me the big bang. Show me macro-evolution. Fact is, modern "science" takes lots of faith.
Try arguing this same point without using the words "faith", "belief", "trust" and any of their synonyms. Replace those words with what you really mean by those words, for instance if by "faith" you mean accepting something as true without verifying it yourself by testing it, then you're right about the layman taking things on "faith" in their scientific beliefs, but not the scientists who do the work and research. If you mean something else by "faith" say specifically what you mean. If you do this, you'll find that there really is no argument that you're making, because one side says they're using "faith" to mean one thing, the other side another thing and it's just a bunch of noise.

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? One guy says yes, because it makes sound waves, the other says no because nobody can experience the sound where if both just said what they meant, there'd be no argument at all: If a tree falls in the woods it makes acoustic waves but not auditory experiences, there's no conflicting ideas here.

I lifted this example from lesswrong.com, but if you want to learn more about how the words you use to argue really matter, read the essays on that site, it'll save you a lot of pointless arguing.

[Ahldagor]

To put it in guppy terms about the past two posts, they're third eye woke.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Every time I come up with a new idea in my own research (nanoparticle self-assembly/electrical charging/synthesis) I have to make sure Faraday didn't do it first. Faraday's conceptualization of "lines of force" (fields) essentially postulated non-infinite propagation velocities, i.e. no "action at a distance". This might be the true foundation of all modern physics. It is no coincidence that Einstein had pictures of 3 physicists on his wall to draw inspiration from: Newton, Maxwell, and Faraday.

Maxwell was so impressive. Read Freeman Dyson's article "Why is Maxwell's Theory so hard to Understand?" http://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.org/DysonFreemanArticle.pdf Maxwell held Faraday in the highest regard as well. Dyson's article points out something very important: that scientists should blow their own trumpets, and as he says: "If Maxwell had had an ego like Galileo or Newton, he would have made sure that his work was not ignored. Maxwell was as great a scientist as Newton and a far more agreeable character..." Read the article; it explains eloquently how fields and the quantum mechanical wave function are just as difficult to understand because we can't actually measure them directly. I honestly believe if Faraday was around during the development of quantum mechanics he would have come up with a better formulation for the wave function than we have now, just like he did with fields, which is what made Maxwell's work possible. yeah... not to mention that Faraday had unquantifiable influence on modern industry...

post too long, abort!

That was a pretty entertaining post , lol. I'll send a retort when I get home, on your knighting for Faraday

[Chaboo_Cleric]

If you are interested in the ability to see a quantum particle, then you might just be in luck. Our "evolved" human eyes are actually very well "created". The threshold of human vision is on the order of 1-10 photons. So actually, you might have in fact seen a single photon. Problem is your neural networking fortunately doesn't register it (again something that evolved so that we don't freak out and go caveman on every single photon flash of light, or retinal rhodopsin speckling randomly). Check this out... intriguing I guarantee: http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=894 it is about the quantum limits of human senses. Ever wonder why frogs are so jumpy? Could it be because they can detect single photons (better than humans)? Perhaps it's because they are cold blooded and their eye cools down to low temperatures and that eliminates most of the rhodopsin noise? I just made a theory about vision/single photons/and cold-blooded creatures! Am I a prophet? No just a disciple with faith in science, who proselytises from time to time. Interestingly, many of the histories humans have faith in come from warm-blooded animals in hot climates, where rhodopsin false alarms will trigger much more than in cold climates. Perhaps this is why the main religions and their prophets come from the mid-east/Asia? Sweet, I just made a theory about the history of faith, based on science.If your definition of faith is strictly about vision (btw a quantum of light, generated between quantum energy levels, refracting through the assembly of quantum molecules in your vitreous fluid), then you are ignoring the increased sensitivity to our senses that science (including quantum mechanics!) has offered us. I've never seen a radio wave. Also, you then eliminate any history before motion pictures and photographs. Although those are really just collections of quantum particles reflecting quanta of light, again, to your quantum mechanical eye/brain atoms.

I have seen atoms (quantum particles) in a high res transmission electron microscope; this could be described as a religious experience ;). What though is your definition of a quantum particle? Atoms are quantum particles, insofar as they obey the laws of quantum mechanics. I hope this doesn't turn into a definition debate, as my last victim is still MIA, RIP alarti (kill shot: https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=863730&postcount=220)

Science humbly admits to doing the best job it can with available technology and data. Faith in science is gained through experience, repetition, sweat, and precision measurments. I earned my faith. Religion's faith is completely different. We shouldn't even define it next to science. Religion's faith is based explicitly on not seeing, experiencing, measuring, or verifying.

Now if you want to argue that we can't see things like quantum mechanical wave functions or electric fields, you are correct. Those are linear operators that we add/substract. We have to square them (quadratic/bilinear combination of the wave function/field) to get physically observable measurements. Scientists are so clever, and exercise such a minimal blind faith, that they even define the electric field energy density units as a square root of a joule per cubic meter and the wave function's units as a square root of an inverse cubic meter. They are such abstract concepts and don't exist in nature that we define them as irrational units. Nobody can measure the square root of a cubic meter... this is all explained in the Freeman Dyson article I linked above. It really is a good read.

Faith is a cool thing if it is constantly tested. That is science's strongest leg to stand on and religion's shakiest. It is cool to see a good, honest, caring human have faith in either science or religion.

You mentioned you hoped science doesn't lead us into another dark age... that is impossible. Religion didn't lead us into a dark age, and science never will. That mantle solely rests on the shoulders of good/bad, wise/foolish, and humble/vain humans. Science and religion, though created by humans, cannot impose anything on us unless we allow it.

Why do you say also we are so small. Do you realize you are made of dead stars? Also, when you look at us as dead stars (essentially evolved hydrogen) you understand hydrogen in the universe (since possibly the big bang?) has evolved to the point where it can make accurate theories/predicitions about itself to ~12 decimal points. Pretty big stuff to me. We are huge...

That's why they call me Star lord bro

[AzzarTheGod]

If you are interested in the ability to see a quantum particle, then you might just be in luck. Our "evolved" human eyes are actually very well "created". The threshold of human vision is on the order of 1-10 photons. So actually, you might have in fact seen a single photon. Problem is your neural networking fortunately doesn't register it (again something that evolved so that we don't freak out and go caveman on every single photon flash of light, or retinal rhodopsin speckling randomly). Check this out... intriguing I guarantee: http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=894 it is about the quantum limits of human senses. Ever wonder why frogs are so jumpy? Could it be because they can detect single photons (better than humans)? Perhaps it's because they are cold blooded and their eye cools down to low temperatures and that eliminates most of the rhodopsin noise? I just made a theory about vision/single photons/and cold-blooded creatures! Am I a prophet? No just a disciple with faith in science, who proselytises from time to time. Interestingly, many of the histories humans have faith in come from warm-blooded animals in hot climates, where rhodopsin false alarms will trigger much more than in cold climates. Perhaps this is why the main religions and their prophets come from the mid-east/Asia? Sweet, I just made a theory about the history of faith, based on science.If your definition of faith is strictly about vision (btw a quantum of light, generated between quantum energy levels, refracting through the assembly of quantum molecules in your vitreous fluid), then you are ignoring the increased sensitivity to our senses that science (including quantum mechanics!) has offered us. I've never seen a radio wave. Also, you then eliminate any history before motion pictures and photographs. Although those are really just collections of quantum particles reflecting quanta of light, again, to your quantum mechanical eye/brain atoms.

I have seen atoms (quantum particles) in a high res transmission electron microscope; this could be described as a religious experience ;). What though is your definition of a quantum particle? Atoms are quantum particles, insofar as they obey the laws of quantum mechanics. I hope this doesn't turn into a definition debate, as my last victim is still MIA, RIP alarti (kill shot: https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=863730&postcount=220)

Science humbly admits to doing the best job it can with available technology and data. Faith in science is gained through experience, repetition, sweat, and precision measurments. I earned my faith. Religion's faith is completely different. We shouldn't even define it next to science. Religion's faith is based explicitly on not seeing, experiencing, measuring, or verifying.

Now if you want to argue that we can't see things like quantum mechanical wave functions or electric fields, you are correct. Those are linear operators that we add/substract. We have to square them (quadratic/bilinear combination of the wave function/field) to get physically observable measurements. Scientists are so clever, and exercise such a minimal blind faith, that they even define the electric field energy density units as a square root of a joule per cubic meter and the wave function's units as a square root of an inverse cubic meter. They are such abstract concepts and don't exist in nature that we define them as irrational units. Nobody can measure the square root of a cubic meter... this is all explained in the Freeman Dyson article I linked above. It really is a good read.

Faith is a cool thing if it is constantly tested. That is science's strongest leg to stand on and religion's shakiest. It is cool to see a good, honest, caring human have faith in either science or religion.

You mentioned you hoped science doesn't lead us into another dark age... that is impossible. Religion didn't lead us into a dark age, and science never will. That mantle solely rests on the shoulders of good/bad, wise/foolish, and humble/vain humans. Science and religion, though created by humans, cannot impose anything on us unless we allow it.

Why do you say also we are so small. Do you realize you are made of dead stars? Also, when you look at us as dead stars (essentially evolved hydrogen) you understand hydrogen in the universe (since possibly the big bang?) has evolved to the point where it can make accurate theories/predicitions about itself to ~12 decimal points. Pretty big stuff to me. We are huge...

Another woke post. This guy is a monster. The forums aren't ready for him.

[AzzarTheGod]

Dyson's article points out something very important: that scientists should blow their own trumpets, and as he says: "If Maxwell had had an ego like Galileo or Newton, he would have made sure that his work was not ignored. Maxwell was as great a scientist as Newton and a far more agreeable character..."

Indicating sperglords are good (i.e. Galileo/Newton).

I feel like there is less respect for sperglords than ever in 2016 because it is an inherently disrespectful society. Academia exists but it is no longer as respected as it was by the $$$ and the magnates/oligarchy who place more emphasis on vice and ability to buy vice. Society has become one big advertisement for business/finance/law and respect for academics has fallen to the wayside.

This seems like a step backwards culturally from the time of Newton, as it takes strong egos away from science (strong egos solve problems, strong egos invent cures) and puts them in other areas where they can attain what society has advertised.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

That was a pretty entertaining post , lol. I'll send a retort when I get home, on your knighting for Faraday

Going back to the mentions of Faraday and Maxwell:


First Maxwell was a renown mathematician. Whereas, Faraday was was virtually uneducated. He had an ace up his sleeve. Thomas West, who writes on dyslexia, points out that Faraday showed a full set of typical symptoms. He had terrible trouble with spelling and punctuation. His memory played tricks on him. He couldn't handle mathematics.

He had one more typical dyslexic trait: a powerful visual sense. He forged a finished image in his mind's eye, then he broke that image down into parts that people could understand. Maxwell tells us that Faraday built a mental picture of lines of force, filling space, shaping themselves into lovely arrays.

Nothing about Michael Faraday's life matched our aggressive images of Victorian science. He belonged to an obscure and very gentle religious sect. Science was a pleasure and it was worship. He was plain-spoken, but he electrified audiences with a simple passion for what he was doing.

Faraday drives his biographers crazy with the seeming irrationality of his thought processes. How can you start with the finished skyscraper, then build the foundation below it?

Now I run my eye over Maxwell's book on field theory. He converted Faraday's vision of force fields into mathematical language. Then he plotted the equations. They form wild graceful spider webs. And we see at last what Faraday had seen first.

Just remember Maxwell was needed to translate Faraday's second sight. Only when he did could it display its lovely surrealistic graphical form so the rest of us could see it, as well.

So overall, we can look at Faraday as a savant ( with creative genius) ,but totally lost in his own mind. Maxwell, however, did far more , despite basing a lot of his science of Faraday's distorted Savant way of thinking. Thank god for his translation....

This being just one of the examples in contrast between the two scientists. More so on their character, as oppose to their works. I prefer Maxwell a bit more to Faraday , plus Maxwells reasoning behind using preferred Newton displacement in his theories, gives Newton more swag , for being on top of the list.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

http://i.imgur.com/0qhWhUX.gif

Maxwell's graph of a magnetic field surrounding two cylindrical magnets

[Daywolf]

For your jumbled wall of text, it strikes me as odd, I'll go back over it this evening when I have time to address some of it and capsulate a readable reply.
Why do you say also we are so small.
But for this, it strikes me as really odd. We're not even a type 1 civilization. Not even close to a type 1 civilization yet. It's really really odd that you try to counter even this if truly being into science, then speak of star dust as some counter argument. Are we just arguing for arguing sake now? This is mainstream stuff, and it's seriously odd it seemed to go over your head as well.

To put it in guppy terms about the past two posts, they're third eye woke.The irony in that is you are using an ancient religious term. This is from Saturn worship, the third eye. Often represented as a circle with a dot in the center. But it's not just of the ancient religion/s, it's still observed to this day by various groups and sects. One example of this symbol, examine the image on the back of your one dollar bill. Symbolism is very prevalent in our modern culture, as it was in ancient cultures, there are all sorts of symbols of the ancient religions if you understand what to look for.

[entruil]

my flouradized pineal gland would like me to say...

Religion is Unionized and bill mahr has a point about it... however if you can know/learn the Truth then it changes the whole schematic and science becomes the quest to learn the Truth and faith is a misnomer...

disclaimer: Satan knows of God's existence more than anyone else.

[Ahldagor]

The irony in that is you are using an ancient religious term. This is from Saturn worship, the third eye. Often represented as a circle with a dot in the center. But it's not just of the ancient religion/s, it's still observed to this day by various groups and sects. One example of this symbol, examine the image on the back of your one dollar bill. Symbolism is very prevalent in our modern culture, as it was in ancient cultures, there are all sorts of symbols of the ancient religions if you understand what to look for.

That's not irony, and Vedics predate the Roman empire. I'm curious how you're going to interpret very defined history to frame your argument. Read Pythagoras?

[entruil]

That's not irony, and Vedics predate the Roman empire. I'm curious how you're going to interpret very defined history to frame your argument. Read Pythagoras?

failed... more time is given...

[entruil]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

[entruil]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po3k6sPHeX0

[Daywolf]

That's not irony, and Vedics predate the Roman empire. I'm curious how you're going to interpret very defined history to frame your argument. Read Pythagoras?You are not looking far enough back. I really mean ancient history. The Roman empire, the Greek empire, much of their belief is just repackaged. Maybe go back to the Babylonian empire, but then most of it I think predates even that. Like when I said in that other thread, the AJ thread, when I jokingly said JewFO (a Jew in a UFO). I'm eluding to the big picture, in that much of the world belief is not based on mans invention but out of something that predates our human history, and these beings of influence zip around in those contraptions, i.e. those aren't jews flying around in those UFO thingys. The new boss is the old boss.

If you are interested in the ability to see a quantum particle, then you might just be in luck. Our "evolved" human eyes are actually very well "created". The threshold of human vision is on the order of 1-10 photons. So actually, you might have in fact seen a single photon. Problem is your neural networking fortunately doesn't register it (again something that evolved so that we don't freak out and go caveman on every single photon flash of light, or retinal rhodopsin speckling randomly). Check this out... intriguing I guarantee: http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=894 it is about the quantum limits of human senses. Ever wonder why frogs are so jumpy? Could it be because they can detect single photons (better than humans)? Perhaps it's because they are cold blooded and their eye cools down to low temperatures and that eliminates most of the rhodopsin noise? I just made a theory about vision/single photons/and cold-blooded creatures! Am I a prophet? No just a disciple with faith in science, who proselytises from time to time. Interestingly, many of the histories humans have faith in come from warm-blooded animals in hot climates, where rhodopsin false alarms will trigger much more than in cold climates. Perhaps this is why the main religions and their prophets come from the mid-east/Asia? Sweet, I just made a theory about the history of faith, based on science.If your definition of faith is strictly about vision (btw a quantum of light, generated between quantum energy levels, refracting through the assembly of quantum molecules in your vitreous fluid), then you are ignoring the increased sensitivity to our senses that science (including quantum mechanics!) has offered us. I've never seen a radio wave. Also, you then eliminate any history before motion pictures and photographs. Although those are really just collections of quantum particles reflecting quanta of light, again, to your quantum mechanical eye/brain atoms.

I have seen atoms (quantum particles) in a high res transmission electron microscope; this could be described as a religious experience ;). What though is your definition of a quantum particle? Atoms are quantum particles, insofar as they obey the laws of quantum mechanics. I hope this doesn't turn into a definition debate, as my last victim is still MIA, RIP alarti (kill shot: https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=863730&postcount=220)

Science humbly admits to doing the best job it can with available technology and data. Faith in science is gained through experience, repetition, sweat, and precision measurments. I earned my faith. Religion's faith is completely different. We shouldn't even define it next to science. Religion's faith is based explicitly on not seeing, experiencing, measuring, or verifying.

Now if you want to argue that we can't see things like quantum mechanical wave functions or electric fields, you are correct. Those are linear operators that we add/substract. We have to square them (quadratic/bilinear combination of the wave function/field) to get physically observable measurements. Scientists are so clever, and exercise such a minimal blind faith, that they even define the electric field energy density units as a square root of a joule per cubic meter and the wave function's units as a square root of an inverse cubic meter. They are such abstract concepts and don't exist in nature that we define them as irrational units. Nobody can measure the square root of a cubic meter... this is all explained in the Freeman Dyson article I linked above. It really is a good read.

Faith is a cool thing if it is constantly tested. That is science's strongest leg to stand on and religion's shakiest. It is cool to see a good, honest, caring human have faith in either science or religion.

You mentioned you hoped science doesn't lead us into another dark age... that is impossible. Religion didn't lead us into a dark age, and science never will. That mantle solely rests on the shoulders of good/bad, wise/foolish, and humble/vain humans. Science and religion, though created by humans, cannot impose anything on us unless we allow it.

Why do you say also we are so small. Do you realize you are made of dead stars? Also, when you look at us as dead stars (essentially evolved hydrogen) you understand hydrogen in the universe (since possibly the big bang?) has evolved to the point where it can make accurate theories/predicitions about itself to ~12 decimal points. Pretty big stuff to me. We are huge...
I still don't know what to make of this ... Wat??
When I say quantum, I'm clearly not speaking of the atomic level, not the atom. Have you ever heard of the subatomic? Even in my second paragraph, I mentioned it again with quantum physics. You're trying to convince me that an atom is on the quantum level??? Bro, are you like a time traveler from the 1950's? Einstein only laid the foundation for quantum physics, but his study was on the atomic level.

You say we are made up of star dust, but can you even explain the atom?? Though we know the atom exists, and daaaang the amount of energy contained in just one, but explain to me how the atom is almost all empty space yet matter can be solid? And really, when you start to look into quantum theory, your looking into a whole universe of things within an atom, maybe even around it. You can see that with your human vision??? What do we need CERN for then? hehe. And even CERN is like a plastic toy hand shovel in a sandbox. Shoot I think it was a type two civilization can build a sphere around a star and capture it's energy (Dyson sphere), and there are 5 theorized levels of civilization. We're not even at 1.

And you kinda throw around the word evolution, maybe you didn't understand my meaning of macro-evolution? We've never witnessed macro-evolution, only micro-evolution. They are not the same thing, nor both contained in the word evolution as some generic term. It's all just neo-darwinism, as much as a matter of faith to science as it is to the jehovah witnesses faith (which is facepalm too). But don't say the wrong thing in science circles, you might get excommunicated. Wow, science operates like a modern religion too, or more like a cult.

Oh and yes, dark ages. Most certainly. Geez, how can you not recognize that potential. No time in known history were we able to do soooo much damage than we are today. And not just from releasing the energy from atoms, but as well releasing genetic mutations never seen on Earth to this day, all emerging from a lab. Dark Age is an understatement, really. Humanity has lost it's mind.

=======================

what else?...
Oh @ entruil. No, Newton wasn't full preterist. At most he was a partial preterist. He definitely had some futurist beliefs. There have been a lot of partial preterists. Not so many full preterists, especially not today.

And someone said Einstein was atheist, that's incorrect, he was ~gnostic (his awakening was of science). He believed in a god, but an impersonal one which has no concern for humanity. However you want to tag him, he was a theist, not an atheist. He was raised jewish, and I guess lived his life at the equivalence of a jewish sadducee (agnostic).

[entruil]

Oh @ entruil. No,(his awakening was of science). (agnostic).

oh... =(...

[Toehammer]

Going back to the mentions of Faraday and Maxwell:


First Maxwell was a renown mathematician. Whereas, Faraday was was virtually uneducated. He had an ace up his sleeve. Thomas West, who writes on dyslexia, points out that Faraday showed a full set of typical symptoms. He had terrible trouble with spelling and punctuation. His memory played tricks on him. He couldn't handle mathematics.

He had one more typical dyslexic trait: a powerful visual sense. He forged a finished image in his mind's eye, then he broke that image down into parts that people could understand. Maxwell tells us that Faraday built a mental picture of lines of force, filling space, shaping themselves into lovely arrays.

Nothing about Michael Faraday's life matched our aggressive images of Victorian science. He belonged to an obscure and very gentle religious sect. Science was a pleasure and it was worship. He was plain-spoken, but he electrified audiences with a simple passion for what he was doing.

Faraday drives his biographers crazy with the seeming irrationality of his thought processes. How can you start with the finished skyscraper, then build the foundation below it?

Now I run my eye over Maxwell's book on field theory. He converted Faraday's vision of force fields into mathematical language. Then he plotted the equations. They form wild graceful spider webs. And we see at last what Faraday had seen first.

Just remember Maxwell was needed to translate Faraday's second sight. Only when he did could it display its lovely surrealistic graphical form so the rest of us could see it, as well.

So overall, we can look at Faraday as a savant ( with creative genius) ,but totally lost in his own mind. Maxwell, however, did far more , despite basing a lot of his science of Faraday's distorted Savant way of thinking. Thank god for his translation....

This being just one of the examples in contrast between the two scientists. More so on their character, as oppose to their works. I prefer Maxwell a bit more to Faraday , plus Maxwells reasoning behind using preferred Newton displacement in his theories, gives Newton more swag , for being on top of the list.

I didn't say Faraday > Maxwell. My original ranking (opinion) was Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, then Einstein. Maxwell was a beast, and I do believe right next to Newton. Maxwell was much more of a mathematical powerhouse than Faraday, as you mention. However even his original mathematical formulation of electrodynamics, just like Faraday's lines of force, were a bit ahead of their time, and that is why it was difficult to present them to the common scientist (even physicist). Faraday had brilliant ideas that people were sorting out after he died. Maxwell's very confusing original equations were clarified by work of Hertz, Heaviside, Lorentz, and Einstein to an extent (by using them as a basis/assumption for relativity). The way we learn the 4 vector equations today (or 1 if you know differential geometry) today don't really resemble Maxwell's originals. So just like you argue that Maxwell illuminated Faraday's confusing skull-trapped ideas, following generations sorted out Maxwell's mess as well.

It is always difficult to deconstruct the work of true geniuses, and usually requires another genius. Faraday -> Maxwell -> Hertz/Heaviside/Lorentz/Einstein. Also, the perception that prophetic scientists sometimes seem to have irrational thought processes, does not make it a fact. To call him a savant and saying he was totally lost in his own mind is a matter of opinion. According to many accounts, he was an excellent and simple orator, and demonstrated his ideas and experiments with profound clarity. I wasn't alive, so I don't know... but Maxwell even gave most of the credit to Faraday for electromagnetic theory, just as Newton acknowledged Kepler/Galileo/Descartes for his success, and despite Faraday's poorly developed mathematics, Maxwell claimed Faraday was truly a remarkable mathematician that would influence the future. Anyone who has grown up with this concept of fields, which Faraday seemed to conjure out of thin air, knows Faraday's impact on mathematics/physics. Maxwell's formulation of electrodynamics is the most important moment in the history of mankind since Newton, but it all depended on Faraday's concept of fields.

[Daywolf]

oh... =(...
Yeah gnostic or agnostic, somewhere in there. A lot of jews have been that way, actually. "synagogues of satan" wasn't just said flippantly. Some of the Sadducee were gnostic (of sorts), agnostic, atheists (why they were "sad, you see?"). You could even say much of the same for the pharisees since they really loved money and power through the law. Wasn't all jews, but the sects were rampant with it. This hasn't really ever changed the past 2k years. Albert was just a product of it through his upbringing, never really converted to something else.

Now Newton on the other hand, as far as his futurist belief, he believed in a restoration (to the land) and future conversion of the jews. So he believed in some literal interpretations of Christianity and futurism, but didn't hold a purely preterist view in that it had already been fulfilled during the first century at the destruction of the temple. Most of Christendom if including the RCC consists of partial preterism as most reject the millennial kingdom. This is where a lot of the conversion by the sword came out of, to establish a converted world and then an end being expected, final judgement etc. That while futurists typically believe Christ himself will establish the millennial kingdom and reign in the physical with no forced conversion leading to it.


But to add, whatever they believed, they both contributed much to our understanding regarding science and nature. It's hard to pick one over the other, almost impossible, as well as not mentioning others which is almost deplorable hehe. Like what of Alan Turing? Just think if he had invented the Turing Machine during the renaissance, we'd be like Steam Punk and all now hehe.

[Ahldagor]

You are not looking far enough back. I really mean ancient history. The Roman empire, the Greek empire, much of their belief is just repackaged. Maybe go back to the Babylonian empire, but then most of it I think predates even that. Like when I said in that other thread, the AJ thread, when I jokingly said JewFO (a Jew in a UFO). I'm eluding to the big picture, in that much of the world belief is not based on mans invention but out of something that predates our human history, and these beings of influence zip around in those contraptions, i.e. those aren't jews flying around in those UFO thingys. The new boss is the old boss.


I still don't know what to make of this ... Wat??
When I say quantum, I'm clearly not speaking of the atomic level, not the atom. Have you ever heard of the subatomic? Even in my second paragraph, I mentioned it again with quantum physics. You're trying to convince me that an atom is on the quantum level??? Bro, are you like a time traveler from the 1950's? Einstein only laid the foundation for quantum physics, but his study was on the atomic level.

You say we are made up of star dust, but can you even explain the atom?? Though we know the atom exists, and daaaang the amount of energy contained in just one, but explain to me how the atom is almost all empty space yet matter can be solid? And really, when you start to look into quantum theory, your looking into a whole universe of things within an atom, maybe even around it. You can see that with your human vision??? What do we need CERN for then? hehe. And even CERN is like a plastic toy hand shovel in a sandbox. Shoot I think it was a type two civilization can build a sphere around a star and capture it's energy (Dyson sphere), and there are 5 theorized levels of civilization. We're not even at 1.

And you kinda throw around the word evolution, maybe you didn't understand my meaning of macro-evolution? We've never witnessed macro-evolution, only micro-evolution. They are not the same thing, nor both contained in the word evolution as some generic term. It's all just neo-darwinism, as much as a matter of faith to science as it is to the jehovah witnesses faith (which is facepalm too). But don't say the wrong thing in science circles, you might get excommunicated. Wow, science operates like a modern religion too, or more like a cult.

Oh and yes, dark ages. Most certainly. Geez, how can you not recognize that potential. No time in known history were we able to do soooo much damage than we are today. And not just from releasing the energy from atoms, but as well releasing genetic mutations never seen on Earth to this day, all emerging from a lab. Dark Age is an understatement, really. Humanity has lost it's mind.

=======================

what else?...
Oh @ entruil. No, Newton wasn't full preterist. At most he was a partial preterist. He definitely had some futurist beliefs. There have been a lot of partial preterists. Not so many full preterists, especially not today.

And someone said Einstein was atheist, that's incorrect, he was ~gnostic (his awakening was of science). He believed in a god, but an impersonal one which has no concern for humanity. However you want to tag him, he was a theist, not an atheist. He was raised jewish, and I guess lived his life at the equivalence of a jewish sadducee (agnostic).

Why do you make an ass of your self in assuming people are ignorant?

[Daywolf]

Why do you make an ass of your self in assuming people are ignorant?why do you make an ass of yourself making an ass of myself?

Like what of Alan Turing? Just think if he had invented the Turing Machine during the renaissance, we'd be like Steampunk and all now hehe.
in after the edit
http://i.imgur.com/VcPmNMy.jpg
Rock on!

[Ahldagor]

Just glad you admit yourself to being an ass. Entruil is light years ahead of you, all of us. I'm curious if you like the final say in order to justify your positions regardless of their validity.

[Daywolf]

Just glad you admit yourself to being an ass. Entruil is light years ahead of you, all of us. I'm curious if you like the final say in order to justify your positions regardless of their validity.Hey I was kinda expecting you to have a grasp on the whole Saturn and third eye thing, was guessing you were just playing games with your reply to the guy. Boy, was I disappointed :o
I guess they don't teach those things in synagogue, eh? ;)

[Toehammer]

There is a lot of anger/incredulity in your post, so I have to do a point-by-point response.

For your jumbled wall of text, it strikes me as odd, I'll go back over it this evening when I have time to address some of it and capsulate a readable reply.



But for this, it strikes me as really odd. We're not even a type 1 civilization. Not even close to a type 1 civilization yet. It's really really odd that you try to counter even this if truly being into science, then speak of star dust as some counter argument. Are we just arguing for arguing sake now? This is mainstream stuff, and it's seriously odd it seemed to go over your head as well.

Not jumbled at all. Who gives a sh*t if we are Type 1, Type 2, Type qr94et? We have never detected any life outside of Earth. That makes us the biggest kid on the block. You probably should say, "we may be small.” The bottom line is we have no friggin idea what the next 100 years will be like, all this oracle-like crystal ball reading about the Type X future is just (science) fiction. It is such an egotistical human belief that we can even comprehend what the world will look like down the road. Hey we could reach Type QRT future even faster than you realize… nobody knows. Show Einstein a modern computer and his brain would shoot out his nose.

I still don't know what to make of this ... Wat??

When I say quantum, I'm clearly not speaking of the atomic level, not the atom. Have you ever heard of the subatomic? Even in my second paragraph, I mentioned it again with quantum physics. You're trying to convince me that an atom is on the quantum level??? Bro, are you like a time traveler from the 1950's? Einstein only laid the foundation for quantum physics, but his study was on the atomic level.

No, I don’t need to convince you that an atom is at the quantum level. Scientific experiments can speak for me. In fact, molecules are “on the quantum level”. Educate yourself on “macroscopic cat states”. They have done double-slit experiments with bucky-balls: 60 atoms of carbon. Since I don’t do research on quantum optics anymore, I haven’t followed the PhysRevLett/Nature/Science literature on macroscopic cat states closely in the last 10 years or so, but people are constantly breaking the limit. So yes, atoms are quantum. Subatomic, yes, also quantum. Also, Einstein laid the first floor for quantum physics, but Botlzmann/Planck/Faraday/Thomson laid the foundation.

You say we are made up of star dust, but can you even explain the atom?? Though we know the atom exists, and daaaang the amount of energy contained in just one, but explain to me how the atom is almost all empty space yet matter can be solid? And really, when you start to look into quantum theory, your looking into a whole universe of things within an atom, maybe even around it. You can see that with your human vision??? What do we need CERN for then? hehe. And even CERN is like a plastic toy hand shovel in a sandbox. Shoot I think it was a type two civilization can build a sphere around a star and capture it's energy (Dyson sphere), and there are 5 theorized levels of civilization. We're not even at 1.

Yes, I can explain the atom, in fact very well. Atoms are in fact not hard. They are soft. The hard-sphere approximation, though highly useful, is a crude mathematical tool. You are confusing the words hard and solid. Solid usually refers to a phase of matter where atoms are fixed in 3d space (not necessarily crystalline) such that they can be modeled with a moment of inertia (i.e. the solid can be translated/rotated without deforming the solid, or, rather shifting the spatial arrangement of atoms) . Hard refers essentially to stiffness, or in more layman 1D terms, a spring constant. Even monoatomic gases have non-zero compressibility. This was one of the problems quantum (statistical mechanics) solved.

To make it as simple as possible for you, look at the radial position expectation value of the only electron in a ground state of hydrogen. Now look at hydrogen gas, H2, which has a compressibility. The fact H2 is compressible shows that it is not hard. Even monatomic gases are compressible. There is no such thing as perfectly hard. The empty space and the finite speed of light mediating the electrodynamic interactions between nucleus (positive) and boundary (electron orbitals) cause the atom to be soft.

I don’t know what you mean by whole universe in the atom. But no, I cannot see atoms with my eyes. If again you restrict yourself to only being able to see things with your eyes, well I am lost for words. Science has broadened our senses dramatically. Go use an infrared scope/binoculars.

CERN is a friggin goliath. Yes, compared to a hypothetical Dyson Sphere, it is small scale. Why are we back to this Type XYZ sci-fi stuff again? In hindsight even Dyson wishes his name wasn’t attached to the concept. He took the idea from a 1930s sci-fi novel. If you are having trouble grasping the atom, then you can completely abandon the idea of a Type 1/2/3 civilisation that depends on the trust in quantum mechanics to build these futuristic sci-fi wet dreams.

And you kinda throw around the word evolution, maybe you didn't understand my meaning of macro-evolution? We've never witnessed macro-evolution, only micro-evolution. They are not the same thing, nor both contained in the word evolution as some generic term. It's all just neo-darwinism, as much as a matter of faith to science as it is to the jehovah witnesses faith (which is facepalm too). But don't say the wrong thing in science circles, you might get excommunicated. Wow, science operates like a modern religion too, or more like a cult.

I don’t know anything really about the direct observations of macro-evolution. As you mention micro-evolution has been observed. I agree with you 100% that a lot of belief in science is faith-based, but that is because humans perform science, and the emphasis/duty placed on scientists to replicate experiments has been disappearing at a scarily rapid pace; this is mostly due to the time that tenure and funding in academia saps away from critical lab time spent working to verify/invalidate other people’s ideas/experiments. I place the blame on the skewing of academia towards a business model, the funding agencies, and the lack of scientific knowledge displayed by the public, and hence their general misunderstanding of high-risk high-reward research.

Yes, you are 100% right that it is dangerous in science to go against the grain and that a cult-like mentality can form. It is not dangerous to say the wrong thing though, as long as you are young in your career. Make as many mistakes as possible as soon as possible. However, every single noble-prize winning physicist I have talked with is most interested in wild ideas, sort of on the fringe. Science is always firmly anchored to experimental fact, so the theory/experience must match up. To push the boundaries of knowledge, science must constantly excommunicate “crazies", only to pull them back in once their mad scientist ways are vindicated by experiment. This is why I believe great scientists are the most creative people, much more so than artists/musicians. The world is so wacky it is much more intriguing than painting or prose.

Oh and yes, dark ages. Most certainly. Geez, how can you not recognize that potential. No time in known history were we able to do soooo much damage than we are today. And not just from releasing the energy from atoms, but as well releasing genetic mutations never seen on Earth to this day, all emerging from a lab. Dark Age is an understatement, really. Humanity has lost it's mind.

I think my point about science -> dark ages was misunderstood. All I am trying to say is that neither science nor religion leads to dark ages. People abusing the power of science or religion leads to dark ages. I don’t want to start a gun control argument, but guns have potential to lead to bad things, but only in the wrong human hands. Same thing with science/religion. Humanity may pull the nuclear trigger, and might have poor foresight with what their inventions could inspire in the hands of bad people. But it is better for good people to develop the technology and lead the way than stick their head in the sand, ignore the burgeoning science, and then plead with the crazy evil scientists once the doomsday technology has been fully developed. Yes, sometimes science gets out of control, but it is foolish to think we have lost our mind any more than previous generations. Of course their is potential… there is always potential. As I stated above: "Religion didn't lead us into a dark age, and science never will. That mantle solely rests on the shoulders of good/bad, wise/foolish, and humble/vain humans. Science and religion, though created by humans, cannot impose anything on us unless we allow it.” Cart before the horse man.

[Daywolf]

There is a lot of anger/incredulity in your post, so I have to do a point-by-point response. What? Naaah, you're reading shit into it. Why the hell would I be angry? I just gave it to you straight, and in about same measure as you have been posting. You make a lot of assumptions and generalizations, welcome to elf sim forums. You mad, bro?
Not jumbled at all. Who gives a sh*t if we are Type 1, Type 2, Type qr94et? We have never detected any life outside of Earth.
er scientists? I'm quite fond of astronomy and cosmology, so it matters to me. You wanted to know why we are so small, well same reason many of the astronomers and cosmologists say, because we are. We really don't know much, but some think we know better. Know better so we unleash genetically modified organisms into our ecosystem. The Earth is headed for a severe famine due to it, as crops fail, as they are failing. For science!

We've never detected life outside of Earth? Would you say the Earth is under a mass shared hallucination then? Or is half the planet just liars in your opinion? That's some deep denial, dude. Never seen one? Or never had friends that have seen them? I mean there are even ancient pictographs of them. This is of historical record. I can't just ignore my fellow human beings and belittle their experiences with such closed-minded nonsense. I feel quite liberated in fact.

[Ahldagor]

Daywolf, stop bearing false witness. Relax and let the Sephiroth consume you for you are powerless against them.

[maskedmelon]

I lack the knowledge to contribute meaningfully to this thread. Just thought I'd share that. Carry on! ^^

[Daywolf]

Daywolf, stop bearing false witness. Relax and let the Sephiroth consume you for you are powerless against them.
I don't know anything about FF, never played. I know a bit about interdimensional beings though. Did you know that some theorize that there could be a whole other dimensional world virtually inches from ours? Not multi-verse, but actual dinensional plane running paralel right next to ours. Sort of like subspace, in a sense. There may even be paralels where the mechanics of our dimension is contained, such as for that which governs the force of gravity. Maybe we can figure out how to rip open a portal to it and send in a nuke.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

I didn't say Faraday > Maxwell. My original ranking (opinion) was Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, then Einstein. Maxwell was a beast, and I do believe right next to Newton. Maxwell was much more of a mathematical powerhouse than Faraday, as you mention. However even his original mathematical formulation of electrodynamics, just like Faraday's lines of force, were a bit ahead of their time, and that is why it was difficult to present them to the common scientist (even physicist). Faraday had brilliant ideas that people were sorting out after he died. Maxwell's very confusing original equations were clarified by work of Hertz, Heaviside, Lorentz, and Einstein to an extent (by using them as a basis/assumption for relativity). The way we learn the 4 vector equations today (or 1 if you know differential geometry) today don't really resemble Maxwell's originals. So just like you argue that Maxwell illuminated Faraday's confusing skull-trapped ideas, following generations sorted out Maxwell's mess as well.

It is always difficult to deconstruct the work of true geniuses, and usually requires another genius. Faraday -> Maxwell -> Hertz/Heaviside/Lorentz/Einstein. Also, the perception that prophetic scientists sometimes seem to have irrational thought processes, does not make it a fact. To call him a savant and saying he was totally lost in his own mind is a matter of opinion. According to many accounts, he was an excellent and simple orator, and demonstrated his ideas and experiments with profound clarity. I wasn't alive, so I don't know... but Maxwell even gave most of the credit to Faraday for electromagnetic theory, just as Newton acknowledged Kepler/Galileo/Descartes for his success, and despite Faraday's poorly developed mathematics, Maxwell claimed Faraday was truly a remarkable mathematician that would influence the future. Anyone who has grown up with this concept of fields, which Faraday seemed to conjure out of thin air, knows Faraday's impact on mathematics/physics. Maxwell's formulation of electrodynamics is the most important moment in the history of mankind since Newton, but it all depended on Faraday's concept of fields.

Cool response. It's nice to see someone contribute their own thoughts and feelings into this thread with some knowledge. Now let's move forward to your quantum mechanics feelings

[Chaboo_Cleric]

What? Naaah, you're reading shit into it. Why the hell would I be angry? I just gave it to you straight, and in about same measure as you have been posting. You make a lot of assumptions and generalizations, welcome to elf sim forums. You mad, bro?

er scientists? I'm quite fond of astronomy and cosmology, so it matters to me. You wanted to know why we are so small, well same reason many of the astronomers and cosmologists say, because we are. We really don't know much, but some think we know better. Know better so we unleash genetically modified organisms into our ecosystem. The Earth is headed for a severe famine due to it, as crops fail, as they are failing. For science!

We've never detected life outside of Earth? Would you say the Earth is under a mass shared hallucination then? Or is half the planet just liars in your opinion? That's some deep denial, dude. Never seen one? Or never had friends that have seen them? I mean there are even ancient pictographs of them. This is of historical record. I can't just ignore my fellow human beings and belittle their experiences with such closed-minded nonsense. I feel quite liberated in fact.

When it comes to earth being under a mass shared hallucination. I'd say yes definitely. For instance, going back to Toehammer's thoughts on atoms at quantum level etc. In Quantum Mechanics , the idea of matter being an illusion would base most people under a hallucination of what reality actually is.

The problem? Quantum mechanics is considered by many scientists as pseudoscience. It literally changes the entire scope of Newton physics. It more so stems from a holistic entanglement of immaterial energy waves , which stem from the work of Einstein, Planck, and Werner Heisenberg, among others.

Despite the findings of quantum physics many scientists, today still cling onto the prevailing matter-oriented worldview, for no good reason at all. As mentioned earlier, these scientists restrict quantum theory’s validity to the subatomic world. If we know that matter isn’t physical, how can we further our scientific discovery by treating it as physical?

One of these potential revelations is that “the observer creates the reality.”
We can no longer ignore the fact that our beliefs, perceptions and attitudes (consciousness) create the world.

Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual

If you don't believe that , then perhaps you should look at the example called the double slit experiment.Also, many of the experiments that use the role of human consciousness and how it affects our physical material world have been done so under the Department of Defense and military agencies, thus remaining classified -hidden science kept from the eyes of the mainstream public world

For instance.... the 24-year government-sponsored program to investigate ESP and its potential use within the Intelligence Community. This operation was called STAR GATE , and most of its research and findings remain classified to this day. Another example is the research conducted by the CIA and NSA in conjunction with Stanford University.
Link : http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/media/air_mayresponse.html
link : http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/1979-precognitive-remote-viewing-stanford.pdf

Point being made : We are atoms, made up of subatomic particles, that are actually a bunch of energy vibrating at a certain frequency. Us, these vibrational beings of energy exhibit consciousness, which has been shown to manifest, create and correlate to our physical material world.

With that being said : Different states of emotion, perception, and feelings result in different electromagnetic frequencies

And yes this has been proven : see link below.

Link : https://www.heartmath.org/research/research-library/energetics/energetic-heart-bioelectromagnetic-communication-within-and-between-people/

So in regards to the sci-fi shit. It plays a major role in science today. Now to contradict everything I just said : I want to make it known if we start separating the Scifi shit from Quantum science. I think you will find sci-fi goes hand in hand with science.

The real quantum mechanics in science is about the physical detector measuring the behaviour of subatomic particles (electrons and light (photons) by bouncing particles off of it from the side. It has nothing to do with intention orchestrating space-time events (consciousness over matter), observation/watching or consciousness.

Electrons and light (photons) can act LIKE either a wave (interference pattern) or a particle (sum pattern) depending on how you set up the experiment, the detection technique. It has to do with the detector that is part of the experimental apparatus and how it interfere with particles by detecting them.

Now going back to the double slit experiment I referred to above : Look at the position of the detector (measuring device) next to the slit in the experiment. It’s not directly on the path of the particles. If the detectors are turned off, the particles act LIKE a wave. The real quantum mechanics is all about the physical interference.

The detector interacts with the particle from the side as it travels along. When the detectors bounce photons off the electrons as it travels along, it changes their energy, momentum and position and collapse their superposition states. As an analogy, imagine trying to find the position of a marble A in a dark room, by hitting it with marble B from the side as it travels along.

The method was refined in 2012, researchers using more advanced technology and tools finally succeeded in correctly identifying which slit the particles went through without its superposition collapses.

Consciousness/Intention over matter is real but it has nothing to do with quantum mechanics as it is in science.

Electrons and light (photons) can act LIKE either a wave (interference pattern) or a particle (sum pattern) doesn’t say anything about Matter and Brahman/ Universal consciousness are but the two poles of the same thing, like cold and hot.

[Ahldagor]

The cat is?

[maskedmelon]

Hmmm. Would like to hear more about doubles slit follow-ups. I'm not entirely sold on the explanation of observer interference since, as I understood it, all potential particle paths are mathematically valid: right slit, left slit, both slit, no slit. Seems to me that reality is coded to generate certain information only when queried. That is a truly fantastic proposition ^^ Of course I opine comfortably from a place of profound ignorance ^^ Please expound oh ye men of knowing ^^

[Nihilist_santa]

When it comes to earth being under a mass shared hallucination. I'd say yes definitely. For instance, going back to Toehammer's thoughts on atoms at quantum......ETC ETC

Have you ever looked into Bohm and Pribram's Holographic theory? Have any idea of its relation to simulation theory? Just curious. I find their holonomic view of the brain fascinating although a bunch of mystical bullshit has sprung up around these ideas(like people falling for Sai Baba's BS). I have seen different religious takes on the holographic theory and not just from your typical Buddhist/Hindu/Gnostic views but have read some really interesting breakdowns on this idea of the word and image in Christianity that are too in depth for here.

[mgellan]

There are plenty of scientific theories with a vestigial amount of evidence. There are even some with none. Therefore, I guess that is faith yes?

There are plenty of hypothesis without evidence, in Science theories are confirmed with multiple lines of evidence such that at least provisional acceptance is warranted. You're using a colloquial definition of "theory" that is equated to "guess" which more correctly maps to "hypothesis" in Science.

So I accept Theories that are backed by substantial, converging lines of evidence which is completely different from "faith" which is by definition accepting something without evidence or despite evidence to the contrary.

Regards,
Mg

[mgellan]

Faith is just something that can't be seen, or isn't seen, but may be seen. It's like trust. But anyway, show me a quantum particle. Show me the big bang. Show me macro-evolution. Fact is, modern "science" takes lots of faith.

It's not like trust. I trust the sun will rise every day because all previous tests of that hypothesis has resulted in positive results. Faith would mean that I trust something will happen despite never having seen any evidence it has happened before. Big difference.

Regards,
Mg

[Chaboo_Cleric]

There are plenty of hypothesis without evidence, in Science theories are confirmed with multiple lines of evidence such that at least provisional acceptance is warranted. You're using a colloquial definition of "theory" that is equated to "guess" which more correctly maps to "hypothesis" in Science.

So I accept Theories that are backed by substantial, converging lines of evidence which is completely different from "faith" which is by definition accepting something without evidence or despite evidence to the contrary.

Regards,
Mg

This was already established with my retort back to bdastomper, so yes and no
please learn what a scientific theory is

I know what that is, thanks. What I wrote was based on a different definition and meaning. Not a literal. For instance, Einstein's theory of relativity, as oppose to the Big Bang theory. You'll find those two examples fit both definitions in what I said despite, one being an actual "scientific theory", and the other not.

Please learn what a "Rhetorical aim", and "angel of vision" is.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Have you ever looked into Bohm and Pribram's Holographic theory? Have any idea of its relation to simulation theory? Just curious. I find their holonomic view of the brain fascinating although a bunch of mystical bullshit has sprung up around these ideas(like people falling for Sai Baba's BS). I have seen different religious takes on the holographic theory and not just from your typical Buddhist/Hindu/Gnostic views but have read some really interesting breakdowns on this idea of the word and image in Christianity that are too in depth for here.

Yes , let me get back to you on this. I am at work now.

[Daywolf]

If you don't believe that , then perhaps you should look at the example called the double slit experiment.Also, many of the experiments that use the role of human consciousness and how it affects our physical material world have been done so under the Department of Defense and military agencies, thus remaining classified -hidden science kept from the eyes of the mainstream public worldYou talking ta me? Hmm I had a link around here somewhere...
ah here ya go:
https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2186920&postcount=104
See you are just recycling stuff I've already posted on here now ;)
I've also written up about the digital universe and holographic projection etc here, but this is still a game forum, and not even a sci-fi one, so I haven't gotten deep into the talk here with dreadnought posts. Yours is readable though, decent post. Yeah you're preaching to the quire on that one, but still timely and informative.

But just to note, I'm not into the nonexistent type of universe that exists out of our thoughts or awareness. I know much about it, yes, and many more theories. I don't have a certain absolute model I believe in, just clues as with everyone else looking. I believe it all exists, but just our perception of it is manipulated in a way that it makes sense to us so we and all living creatures can function. Such as when you play on p99, you are looking at a representation on the monitor of something real. But if you were to look at the hard drive platters or inside the RAM, you couldn't make sense of it, I mean no human could.

But you are right, it is spiritual in a way. I mean the complexity is almost so limitless it would seem not to be a product of just chaos. The more we learn, the more we realize that it's just impossible.

[Daywolf]

Have you ever looked into Bohm and Pribram's Holographic theory? Have any idea of its relation to simulation theory? Just curious. I find their holonomic view of the brain fascinating although a bunch of mystical bullshit has sprung up around these ideas(like people falling for Sai Baba's BS). I have seen different religious takes on the holographic theory and not just from your typical Buddhist/Hindu/Gnostic views but have read some really interesting breakdowns on this idea of the word and image in Christianity that are too in depth for here.
Yeah that's more my take on things, my leading theory. This all originating out of blackhole physics/theory, into quantum theory, and beyond. We very well may be in a type of digital simulator, a computer. Not like ours, a lot more complex, different tech. The whole universe may be just data of sorts on a flat plane or sphere. To our perception it would be without form, it would be void. But introduce light to this plane, to project it like a hologram into an open space, you get an understandable representation. Like what you are looking at around you, it may not really be there, but somewhere else, as is yourself.

And outside of that plane or sphere or *circle, is what is originally real, before our universe came about. That there is far more than just what we see of our universe, while our universe may just be like a facsimile of those things out there, beyond, a simulation model of.

And I think there are even clues through our history. I've brought up the *circle dot, third eye, the other day in this forum (AJ thread I think). You know, with Saturn worshipers and all that, permeating through history to today. That circle with a dot in the center may very well represent the realm we live in quite literally. The circle (or sphere) being the plane while the dot being the hologram projection space. All very rudimentary way to put it, I'm sure it would be more complex than we could describe. But may be in the ballpark.

[Ahldagor]

Daywolf, how does one preach to four pieces of parchment or paper folded into eight leaves, and kudos to Microsoft for knowing what a quire is. Figure out Sephiroth yet?

[Daywolf]

Daywolf, how does one preach to four pieces of parchment or paper folded into eight leaves, and kudos to Microsoft for knowing what a quire is. Figure out Sephiroth yet?
Spelling police officer, in the churches I've attended, there are no choirs, so the spelling of the word is more alien to me. However I see that this would be readily known by someone that enjoys the music of the New York Synagogue Choir. So you got me beat there :D

Also, as I mentioned, I never was into FF, so don't know the lore.
"Sephiroth is a fictional character in the role-playing video game Final Fantasy VII developed by Square, where he is the main villain."

[Pokesan]

(((sephiroth)))

[Pokesan]

(((sephiroth)))

What I want, Cloud, is to sail the darkness of the cosmos with this Planet as my vessel

[entruil]

'Kabbalah teaches the benefit of focusing on the aspect of each Sephirah related to the particular day of the Omer. A person would examine each of their spiritual qualities, as a rectification process of Teshuva (Return to God), in preparation to reliving the acceptance of the Torah.'

hmmm...

may the flouride be with me...

[Ahldagor]

Spelling police officer, in the churches I've attended, there are no choirs, so the spelling of the word is more alien to me. However I see that this would be readily known by someone that enjoys the music of the New York Synagogue Choir. So you got me beat there :D

Also, as I mentioned, I never was into FF, so don't know the lore.
"Sephiroth is a fictional character in the role-playing video game Final Fantasy VII developed by Square, where he is the main villain."

They're two different words. Glad you know that now. Why do you think I'm Jewish? My mother is a witch, so I'm goyim. Church without music sounds terrible. What denomination got to your neurons first?

[Daywolf]

They're two different words. Glad you know that now. Why do you think I'm Jewish? My mother is a witch, so I'm goyim. Church without music sounds terrible. What denomination got to your neurons first?Well Kabbalah, same thing, eh? Most jews don't believe their judaism anyway. They have their own traditions that have little to nothing to do with anything of the Abrahamic religions. Well of the two anyway, I don't consider Islam one of them as that really is from the pagan moon god worship. It's just what it is, honest assessment.

Nah, a choir does all the singing, like entertainment. w/o one doesn't mean there is no music, just means everyone participates. Usually a band to lead or whatnot, I've done that a lot in the past with my acoustic guitars, fun stuff.

So you want to know what denom I'm in? Hmm, well quite frankly none. I haven't gone to a denominational church since I was a teen. By late teens had a grasp (from 1st Presbyterian), then went to community type churches from then on. I'm not really "religious" in the sense, more the free gift stuff, while religions do the works for salvation/acceptance stuff most of them. It's just a done deal. I don't even consider myself a "protestant", which is out of the reformation, out of Western Catholicism. More rooted to Eastern Orthodoxy, from anyway. Went to a college for religious studies, learned stuff, did stuff, then went to another college later for computer science, still did more stuff. Always studying something, even stuff I don't agree with.

As far as science and technology, formally electronics and computer science; applied sciences. Informally, astronomy and cosmology. Considerable time into it, books, mags, telescopes etc. since I was young. Also life-long interests in sociology, literature, political science, archeology, ancient history, music theory, video gaming eheeh. My first real science obsession were black holes, and we really didn't know much about them in the 70's.

[Saludeen]

Tesla. He proved Einstein wrong with simple logic. Space can't be curved because its space and you can't curve nothingness.

[Daywolf]

Space isn't empty, it's full of stuff, every inch is full. If it were nothingness, then nothing could be in space. But no matter where you go in known space, there is something. It's like if I scribble with a pincel in the air, then scribble the pincel on a sheet of paper, which will show a mark? Space is like that paper, it's marked with particles. Even more than that, but the very fabric of time.

[maskedmelon]

Tesla. He proved Einstein wrong with simple logic. Space can't be curved because its space and you can't curve nothingness.

It's not just space though, it is space-time. Einstein described the relationship. However, space were nothing it wouldn't be space ^^

Two-thirds of the universe is composed of dark energy, which we really do not understand and string theory suggests the universe has 11 or more dimensions. We have thorough understanding of three of those and a shakier understanding of the fourth. Given that there could well be (and likely are) many other dimensions, which we are thus far unable to perceive, it would be irresponsible to assume space is empty ^^

[Daywolf]

Yeah, nothingness could be 3 inches from your face and you'd never know it. You can't put anything into it and you cant take anything out. There is just nothing there at all. You pass right through it, while at the same time you don't pass through it because it's just not there.

Time and space just can't go on forever, never enough time for it to get there. No matter the model, there must be a boundry. Even if it loops around end to end. Outside time and space has gotta be the freakiest thing, a place not bound by time and space as we know it.

[maskedmelon]

Let's assume that everything that can be was and is and will be. Each of these possibilities then are points in space time, (Nothing new up to that point) which we can be best understood as a three-dimensional sphere, or I suppose could be unlimited 3d space, though that would be redundant, unnecessary. Or perception of time is simply our movement from point to point throughout this sphere of space time.

The interesting part is that given infinite possibilities, our movements through space-time must necessarily decrease infinitely as we move 'forward' in time (through space-time). Would have to adapt this for three-dimensional space, but I think a 2-d approximation of this idea would just be something like P = (1/t), where p is position in space-time and t is elapsed time since... whatever.

[Daywolf]

"Calmly We Walk Through This April's Day"
The great globe reels in the solar fire,
Spinning the trivial and unique away.
(How all things flash! How all things flare!)
What am I now that I was then?
May memory restore again and again
The smallest color of the smallest day:
Time is the school in which we learn,
Time is the fire in which we burn.
--Delmore Schwartz

[Jimjam]

We had a Newton at our school, looked rather like her famous relative too! She was in my class for Physics (and maybe mathematics too).

[maskedmelon]

We had a Newton at our school, looked rather like her famous relative too! She was in my class for Physics (and maybe mathematics too).

How were her boobs?

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Have you ever looked into Bohm and Pribram's Holographic theory? Have any idea of its relation to simulation theory? Just curious. I find their holonomic view of the brain fascinating although a bunch of mystical bullshit has sprung up around these ideas(like people falling for Sai Baba's BS). I have seen different religious takes on the holographic theory and not just from your typical Buddhist/Hindu/Gnostic views but have read some really interesting breakdowns on this idea of the word and image in Christianity that are too in depth for here.

I have read a few things on the Holographic theory in regards to the human brain. I know originally the science behind it was based on the hologram itself and it's storing information through a beam of light. Though, I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to neurology(brain) based physics I can say the findings are very interesting. First off, the math checks out in numerous accounts, but there's plenty of room for possibilities. For me, I believe Math is the one true way to understanding most things.

I do, however, remember vaguely when I did read about the holographic theory that images were successfully transferred to the interference patterns of laser beams, which were then used as a metaphor to describe the human brain. I found that to be interesting , considering a lot of the math checked out when they started splitting cortexes and cells ( I believe?)

As far as the relationship to simulation theory. There is definitely a relationship in my opinion. Then, again I think everything has a relationship if you can find the similarities and likeness in the math that's used to describe it. Am I believer of the universe essentially being one big giant simulation? Well, I will say this. I think the universe is one giant math problem stemmed amongst billions more. Therefore, could you relate a math problem with a simulation? My answer is yes, but the question remains, how? So until, we can successfully answer that question or can fully plot the equations to prove such theories, I'll always be a skeptic.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of string theory, and I'm not very interested in Steven Hawkins (MR PR Of science) back hole theories. I think a lot the ideas are very creative , but in a matter of concrete science, it has such giant holes. We need some new theories....

[Chaboo_Cleric]

It's not just space though, it is space-time. Einstein described the relationship. However, space were nothing it wouldn't be space ^^

Two-thirds of the universe is composed of dark energy, which we really do not understand and string theory suggests the universe has 11 or more dimensions. We have thorough understanding of three of those and a shakier understanding of the fourth. Given that there could well be (and likely are) many other dimensions, which we are thus far unable to perceive, it would be irresponsible to assume space is empty ^^

Gosh.... Please don't get me started on string theory. It should of been abandoned years ago><

[Saludeen]

I'll quote his words instead so you can interpret it how you want:

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."

[Chaboo_Cleric]

I'll quote his words instead so you can interpret it how you want:

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."


Okay I'll bite.


In the nineteenth century, there was only one known geometry of space, which Euclid had described two millennia before. Synthetic geometers were picking at the Euclid's parallel postulate, looking for ways to deduce it from his other postulates, when they realized that perfectly reasonable non-Euclidean geometries do actually exist. These are the elliptic and hyperbolic geometries of Gauss, Lobachevsky, Bolyai and so forth. Each is characterized by a single length scale, the curvature radius. Analytic geometers, including Gauss again and especially Riemann, then realized that actually there were infinitely many different geometries whose curvatures vary from one point to another. Curvature, and spatial geometry in general, is like a physical field: it can vary from place to place.

Riemann was the first to point out the immediate implication of his realization of the infinite variety of geometries space might have. Namely, the geometry of the physical space we live in is a question _for_experiment_. We may no longer blithely assume it to be Euclidean for simplicity, as Newton did. Einstein forty years later or so identified the physical effect of spatial curvature with the gravitational field.

I would argue that Tesla's assertion that space has no properties is itself hopelessly metaphysical. If one fixes spatial geometry out of aesthetics and denies from the beginning that it can be dynamical, how can one possibly probe the question scientifically? Plus, general relativity works so very well to describe things we actually observe. Curved spacetime, to the best of our current scientific knowledge, is simply a fact.

I mean I can start listing various experiment showcasing general relativity; such as when scientists measured starlight coming from behind the sun during a full eclipse...if space did not curve the light would not have curved around the sun and we would not have seen it).

What Tesla was mainly opposed to Einstein about was "Special relativity", and theirs plenty of articles and documentation explaining why.


The list goes on. Did you just want to try to troll with Tesla's infamous quotes? Let's be real here , Tesla was a great inventor , but Einstein has the best sound system to use to understand what we do in that field. Soon as someone can prove Tesla's Rays , maybe I'll open up a little bit more.

[maskedmelon]

I'll quote his words instead so you can interpret it how you want:

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."

I was disputing the premise that space is nothing. Between dark energy and dark matter, less than 1/20th of the observable universe is comprised of ordinary matter, so what we perceive as empty space isn't ^^ While not readily observable the effects of dark matter/energy are.

I like my follow up thought on time though, which resolves the issue entirely ^^ And thinking about it, would suggest space is curved along the function 1/t at any given Point.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Also...


Tesla was generating over 4,000,000 volts, whereas only about 1,000,000 volts is required for separating electrons from the nucleus of an atom. Thus, Tesla was able to disintegrate atoms, but in an entirely different way than that postulated by Einstein or the quantum physicists (for Tesla did not destroy the nucleus). No atomic explosion could ever occur with his type of apparatus.

Overall, Tesla completely misunderstood the ramifications of Einstein’s equation E = mc2, and the corresponding suppositions of the equivalence of mass and energy.

Unfortunately, he would never live to see the proof that tremendous amounts of power were locked inside the tiny space occupied by the nuclei of atoms.

Tesla was an amazing man. No doubt, but when it comes to the thing you are quoting, it shows ignorance, because you yet laid out your convictions and reasoning behind linking the quote , unless of course you just want to troll like I suggested above.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

It's not just space though, it is space-time. Einstein described the relationship. However, space were nothing it wouldn't be space ^^

Two-thirds of the universe is composed of dark energy, which we really do not understand and string theory suggests the universe has 11 or more dimensions. We have thorough understanding of three of those and a shakier understanding of the fourth. Given that there could well be (and likely are) many other dimensions, which we are thus far unable to perceive, it would be irresponsible to assume space is empty ^^

Absent a connection of this kind, one is doomed to become just another cog in an endless fruitless ideological argument about whose quantum theory of gravity is better (or at least, whose sucks less)

Most string theorists are interested in string theory not as a theory of quantum gravity, but because of applications of ideas that have emerged from string theory to other fields (e.g. AdS/CFT).

While connecting string theory to experiment is hopeless, it deserves investigation purely as an idea about quantum gravity. NOTHING MORE

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Ps....

Stay away from String Theory and read up on significant things in science. You'll do better.

~Love Chaboo

[entruil]

i wonder if toehammer notices all the ants that scurry about his feet...

[Saludeen]

Space should be understood as the word it is, and thus, has no structure and can't be curved, except for the matter that fills it. The only way space could be curved is if you're not actually referring to space or applying additional properties and ambiguous concepts that don't relate to the base definition. So if you think space is structured or curved then what substance are you actually talking about? And if "space" is a "substance" then why not call it matter?

So I think Telsa used that word with the simplest most practical definition, and also why I agree with it, among other reasons like who he was and what he accomplished.

[entruil]

isn't that the whole mystery?... "What is Dark Matter?"


Bang... Light chases dark away...

[Ahldagor]

Space should be understood as the word it is, and thus, has no structure and can't be curved, except for the matter that fills it. The only way space could be curved is if you're not actually referring to space or applying additional properties and ambiguous concepts that don't relate to the base definition. So if you think space is structured or curved then what substance are you actually talking about? And if "space" is a "substance" then why not call it matter?

So I think Telsa used that word with the simplest most practical definition, and also why I agree with it, among other reasons like who he was and what he accomplished.

There's a Simpsons Tree House of Horror episode that will explain everything. Episode 134 and Homer (cubed) is the section of it.

[Saludeen]

I watched some of that episode but couldn't find what you're referring to. Explain?

And I just read more about the "fabric of space-time" and I see how utterly retarded it actually is. He actually believed, among others, that earth is moving on a 2D plane through space?? There's some many logical problems with that its more sad than funny.

What's holding this 2D plane in place? Geometry below it?

Whats it actually made of besides imaginary lines that artists draw?

What's causing the earth to be pulled downward to begin with if the fabric has no inherent force?

Why would the earth move instead of resting in the dimple?

Why wouldn't the bodies collide if the "fabric" is malleable and the dimples would merge into one like a real 2D fabric?

What's making the objects move at all?

If the fabric is twisting then it would go the opposite direction once it quickly reached a threshold of resistance, like twisting a rubber band.

If there is "slippage" and the fabric remains twisted while the bodies continue to rotate then what makes them continue despite resistance?

Why are there no planes "on top" pulling them upward or in any other direction?

etc. Now i'm not claiming to be smarter than Einstein but I see why Telsa rejected such a stupid theory. And I hope you guys will think about these things before being brainwashed by literal propaganda. There's a reason why real knowledge is kept secret and theories like this are promoted as fact. And why Einstein was just a theorist while Tesla was a practical inventor.

So what is gravity then? I don't know for sure yet, but electromagnetic fields of pressure and vortices seem more rational.

[entruil]

I watched some of that episode but couldn't find what you're referring to. Explain?

And I just read more about the "fabric of space-time" and I see how utterly retarded it actually is. He actually believed, among others, that earth is moving on a 2D plane through space?? There's some many logical problems with that its more sad than funny.

What's holding this 2D plane in place? Geometry below it?

Whats it actually made of besides imaginary lines that artists draw?

What's causing the earth to be pulled downward to begin with?

Why would the earth move instead of resting in the dimple?

Why wouldn't the bodies collide if the "fabric" is malleable and the dimples would merge into one like a real 2D fabric?

What's making the objects move at all?

If the fabric is twisting then it would go the opposite direction once it quickly reached a threshold of resistance, like twisting a rubber band.

If there is "slippage" and the fabric remains twisted while the bodies continue to rotate then what makes them continue despite resistance?

Why are there no planes "on top" pulling them upward or in any other direction?

etc. Now i'm not claiming to be smarter than Einstein but I see why Telsa rejected such a stupid theory. And I hope you guys will think about these things before being brainwashed by literal propaganda. There's a reason why real knowledge is kept secret and theories like this are promoted as fact. And why Einstein was just a theorist while Tesla was a practical inventor.

So what is gravity then? I don't know for sure yet, but but electromagnetic fields of pressure and vortices seem more rational.

man i feel bad about responding ... but... in a fine tuned universe with consideration... why not?... why can't science struggle through hell to find the Truth... not here to go against you... but to my way of thinking... maybe we just both have our own thing and so do they.... the world creates its own image... what we doin...

*Did not read whole thing...*

[Daywolf]

Oy vey, eh? hehehe

1 in 4 Americans Apparently Unaware the Earth Orbits the Sun (http://time.com/7809/1-in-4-americans-thinks-sun-orbits-earth/)

http://i.imgur.com/QNm1YZa.gif
http://i.imgur.com/QEB37og.gif

[maskedmelon]

^ this gif must be what was causing all the lag tonight ^^

[Chaboo_Cleric]

I watched some of that episode but couldn't find what you're referring to. Explain?

And I just read more about the "fabric of space-time" and I see how utterly retarded it actually is. He actually believed, among others, that earth is moving on a 2D plane through space?? There's some many logical problems with that its more sad than funny.

What's holding this 2D plane in place? Geometry below it?

Whats it actually made of besides imaginary lines that artists draw?

What's causing the earth to be pulled downward to begin with if the fabric has no inherent force?

Why would the earth move instead of resting in the dimple?

Why wouldn't the bodies collide if the "fabric" is malleable and the dimples would merge into one like a real 2D fabric?

What's making the objects move at all?

If the fabric is twisting then it would go the opposite direction once it quickly reached a threshold of resistance, like twisting a rubber band.

If there is "slippage" and the fabric remains twisted while the bodies continue to rotate then what makes them continue despite resistance?

Why are there no planes "on top" pulling them upward or in any other direction?

etc. Now i'm not claiming to be smarter than Einstein but I see why Telsa rejected such a stupid theory. And I hope you guys will think about these things before being brainwashed by literal propaganda. There's a reason why real knowledge is kept secret and theories like this are promoted as fact. And why Einstein was just a theorist while Tesla was a practical inventor.

So what is gravity then? I don't know for sure yet, but electromagnetic fields of pressure and vortices seem more rational.

I was going to take the time to answer your questions, but then I realized by doing so, id be equally as smart (or in this case stupid)

Hope that helps

[Saludeen]

I was going to take the time to answer your questions, but then I realized by doing so, id be equally as smart (or in this case stupid)

Hope that helps

If you want to believe that space is a 2D fabric (lmao) then go for it.

[Daywolf]

^ this gif must be what was causing all the lag tonight ^^
yeah srry 'bout that, it was a one off post, prolly larger than I realized. I don't usually pop off big gifs in regular threads, but like that mario akbar/isis gif I repost now and then which was large but I modified it down and re-uploaded it to be more posting friendly here. This will just be buried and forgotten, and the 1/4 of Americans can keep going on imagining the geocentric model ... and done in nothingness ^^

[Saludeen]

yeah srry 'bout that, it was a one off post, prolly larger than I realized. I don't usually pop off big gifs in regular threads, but like that mario akbar/isis gif I repost now and then which was large but I modified it down and re-uploaded it to be more posting friendly here. This will just be buried and forgotten, and the 1/4 of Americans can keep going on imagining the geocentric model ... and done in nothingness ^^

Can you demonstrate with simple logic and proof as to why the sun orbits the earth in your own words? Not implying that you can't, just asking. Because if you can't then that's called blind belief and nullifies any base for criticizing or mocking anyone who thinks otherwise.

That's also why articles like the one you linked should be scrutinized. There was a time when "scientific institutions" like ones we have today would have wrote an article just like that saying, "1 in 4 people don't know that the earth is flat."

And why would the sun be moving in a straight line in the second gif while all other bodies are orbiting? That's an irrational assumption. Did you believe it anyway?

[AzzarTheGod]

If you want to believe that space is a 2D fabric (lmao) then go for it.

Haven't read much lately in this thread.

But the world is indeed 2 dimensional. Plenty of support for this.

3D is merely a perception.

[Daywolf]

Can you demonstrate with simple logic and proof as to why the sun orbits the earth in your own words? Not implying that you can't, just asking. Because if you can't then that's called blind belief and nullifies any base for criticizing or mocking anyone who thinks otherwise.

That's also why articles like the one you linked should be scrutinized. There was a time when "scientific institutions" like ones we have today would have wrote an article just like that saying, "1 in 4 people don't know that the earth is flat."

And why would the sun be moving in a straight line in the second gif while all other bodies are orbiting? That's an irrational assumption. Did you believe it anyway?There is so much wrong with that second gif and all you can point out is you don't see a noticeable orbital declination over a tiny tiny period out of a ~250 million year circuit around the milky way galaxy?
M'kay

Why would I try to prove the geocentric model? It's completely false. Or did you mean to ask me to prove the heliocentric model? Geocentrism and the Qur'an: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Geocentrism_and_the_Quran
http://www.gotquestions.org/geocentrism-Bible.html
Observational proof of the heliocentric model (http://science.jrank.org/pages/3276/Heliocentric-Theory-triumph-heliocentric-theory.html)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_in_heliocentric_orbit
https://youtu.be/-j9JfMj1rkk

[AzzarTheGod]

I was going to take the time to answer your questions, but then I realized by doing so, id be equally as smart (or in this case stupid)

Hope that helps

I got your back pal. Its pretty much been established that the universe is 2D. It is the only plausible explanation for a lot of things.

I wouldn't answer any of his questions either. We have already covered this content a few months ago in another thread with links (although no one can prove any theory).

2D is still a very plausible theory at the moment, and it could be finally proven in the next 100 years easily as we start experimenting with god particles and dark matter (The Large Hadron Collider was a step in this direction, but we need to move these experiments off-world for safety purposes incase its possible to tear the fabric more easily in areas under the influence of gravity).

Each discovery will further reinforce the fact that dimensions all lie stacked on each other, distance is merely a perception of mass, and wormholes and blackhole physics will be the final smoking gun evidence that the universe is absolutely 2D beyond a reasonable doubt.

Distance is merely a perception of mass within the framework of the fabric.

[Ahldagor]

We're in 4 dimensions for sure and possibly 6.

http://discovermagazine.com/1997/nov/quantumhoneybees1263

Yes, that article is almost 20 years old and y'all's dimension debate is stuck around the 1900's. Saludeen is a moron or a terrible troll, so ignore them on this topic.

[Saludeen]

There is so much wrong with that second gif and all you can point out is you don't see a noticeable orbital declination over a tiny tiny period out of a ~250 million year circuit around the milky way galaxy?
M'kay

Why would I try to prove the geocentric model? It's completely false. Or did you mean to ask me to prove the heliocentric model? Geocentrism and the Qur'an: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Geocentrism_and_the_Quran
http://www.gotquestions.org/geocentrism-Bible.html
Observational proof of the heliocentric model (http://science.jrank.org/pages/3276/Heliocentric-Theory-triumph-heliocentric-theory.html)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_in_heliocentric_orbit
https://youtu.be/-j9JfMj1rkk

So you can't actually explain what you believe. I havn't formed a conclusion on the correct model because I don't conjecture or believe blindly like you, but it looks like heliocentric theory is nonsense. And if you'd rather just spam links then we can just do that and call it a day:
http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/
https://aplanetruth.info/2015/04/11/heliocentrism-is-dead/

[Saludeen]

We're in 4 dimensions for sure and possibly 6.

http://discovermagazine.com/1997/nov/quantumhoneybees1263

Yes, that article is almost 20 years old and y'all's dimension debate is stuck around the 1900's. Saludeen is a moron or a terrible troll, so ignore them on this topic.

Ironically, people who insult others without using any logic or arguments are the morons. Not to mention petty.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

There is so much wrong with that second gif and all you can point out is you don't see a noticeable orbital declination over a tiny tiny period out of a ~250 million year circuit around the milky way galaxy?
M'kay

Why would I try to prove the geocentric model? It's completely false. Or did you mean to ask me to prove the heliocentric model? Geocentrism and the Qur'an: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Geocentrism_and_the_Quran
http://www.gotquestions.org/geocentrism-Bible.html
Observational proof of the heliocentric model (http://science.jrank.org/pages/3276/Heliocentric-Theory-triumph-heliocentric-theory.html)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_in_heliocentric_orbit
https://youtu.be/-j9JfMj1rkk

Perhaps you too can find a infamous quote and base your entire naive perception on it , while backing juvenile claims that could be explained in a basic textbook. Followed by claiming your a rebel and against the grain.

I mean shit, who needs relativity when we got Newtons laws lol

[Ahldagor]

Ironically, people who insult others without using any logic or arguments are the morons. Not to mention petty.

I set up a dichotomy, so don't get holier than thou; and that's not irony. Not to mention I limited the scope of your knowledge specifically relating to this topic and not others. So basiy I said that you don't know what you're talking about or you're a terrible troll. Empiricism is a wonderful thing.

[Daywolf]

Ironically, people who insult others without using any logic or arguments are the morons. Not to mention petty.Well maybe you're drunk? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here... o.0

[Chaboo_Cleric]

This thread delivers lol

[Saludeen]

I set up a dichotomy, so don't get holier than thou; and that's not irony. Not to mention I limited the scope of your knowledge specifically relating to this topic and not others. So basiy I said that you don't know what you're talking about or you're a terrible troll. Empiricism is a wonderful thing.

It doesn't take extensive knowledge to understand how silly it is to believe that the planets are governed by a magical 2D fabric in space that uses circular logic to explain how they're "falling" into it. And its circular logic because the 2D plane is supposed to be the cause of gravity yet it doesn't explain why the planets are causing the dimple to begin with unless they have "inherent gravity" and the plane is pointless.

You also conjecture about my level of knowledge. And if you supported empiricism then you would believe that the sun revolves around the earth since that's what we observe, without implying that's what's actually happening.

[maskedmelon]

Well, as always I operate from a position of profound ignorance, but it seems to me that if the sun rotates around the earth (as we see it), that would imply the earth is motionless, or at least not spinning as we otherwise suspect. If that is the case, why is there measurable differences in east-west bound flight durations after having account for wind, etc.?

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Source : Albert Heisenberg Masters in Physics from Brown Univ. Specializing in photonics. Science Historian
Updated Jun 21

Genius and Geniuses: Who was smarter, Albert Einstein or Nikola Tesla?

There is so much wrong information on here. The question is, with all due respect, quite inane. How do you define "smarter"? Tesla was a brilliant inventor cum electrical engineer not a physicist, apples and oranges. One is better off asking who was smarter, Michelangelo or Darwin? The only reason people have jumped on the Tesla bandwagon is because his work is much easier to understand than Einstein's. Einstein's theory of General Relativity alone (and Einstein did a LOT of revolutionary work outside relativity), exceeds anything Tesla ever did. It is a work of rarest genius: it is much harder to understand 10 coupled, nonlinear, hyperbolic-elliptic partial differential equations than it is to understand A/C electricity (which owes more to the work of Faraday and Maxwell than it does to Tesla, but I digress).

I find it ironic that Tesla ridiculed Relativity because he couldn't understand it. At any rate, your GPS wouldn't work without it.

I love Tesla and he was an absolute genius inventor in his own right, but he was a very different kind of thinker. Einstein's intellectual achievements answer far deeper questions about nature (e.g. Matter, Energy, Time, Space, Motion, Gravity, Photons, etc) than anything Tesla was able to achieve during his otherwordly brilliant career.

Einstein’s career was worthy of 7 Nobel Prizes (maybe even 8): Fantasy Physics: Should Einstein Have Won 7 Nobel Prizes?

Tesla was a brilliant inventor, but modern technology (and science in general) owes more to Einstein than it does to Tesla (many of the inventions for which he is credited would eventually have been created).

[Chaboo_Cleric]

More food for thought from Albert Heisenberg

How significant were Albert Einstein's contributions to science?
Albert Heisenberg
Albert Heisenberg, M.S. Physics from Brown University
Written Dec 28, 2015

Ginormous. Albert Einstein is the father of the two major pillars of modern physics: General Relativity and Quantum Mecahnics. There are only two other thinkers whose intellectual revolutions are on par with Einstein: Aristotle and Isaac Newton. In terms of brain power, incredible geniuses like Archimedes, Descartes, Leibniz (arguably the most underrated genius of all-time), Euler, Maxwell, Gauss, Plato, Shakespear, Goethe, and a few others have stirred the bucket, but only the aforementioned three (Einstein, Aristotle, and Newton) have completely shattered paradigms.

Starting at the age of 22, Einstein began re-deriving all of statistical mechanics from the laws of thermodynamics (something J.W. Gibbs did as the pinnacle of his life’s work at 70, Einstein did at 22). Had Gibbs not done it 1 year prior, Einstein would have probably been a physics rock star even before 1905. Historians have pointed out that Einstein, and most German speaking physicists, were not aware of Gibbs work until a few years later.

Cite1 : http://faculty.poly.edu/~jbain/h...

Then there’s the so-called “Annus Mirabilis” of 1905:

Brownian Motion and Calculating Avogrado's Number. Einstein solved the near 100 year old problem of Brownian Motion in which flower pellets jiggle randomly in a solution. Einstein then solved the mystery of Avogrado’s number, and calculated the size of molecules and atoms by using statistical mechanical methods he developed by himself from 1902 -1904 as well as the novel, but obscure, entropy-probability mechanisms Boltzmann created a few decades earlier. Jean Perrin later won the Nobel Prize for experimentally proving Brownian Motion a few years later: http://www.projects.science.uu.n...

Special Relativity. Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity revolutionized science and, once proven observationally, brought the physicist international fame. Though some observers dismiss much of the science that came before him, Einstein relied upon older work to formulate his landmark theory, experts say.

"The standard account of relativity tends to say that before Einstein, there was darkness … and then Einstein brought light," Dan Siegel, of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told reporters.. Yes, the “groundwork” had already been laid there by Lorentz – some of whose work was already done by Fitzgerald – Maxwell, and Poincare, but all three could never let go of two things that make Einstein’s achievement of particular elegance: absolute time, absolute space, and the lumineferous aether. ) The strange thing about internet trolls is they never realize one profound fact: Einstein was in his twenties when all these men had came up with different pieces of the puzzle and no one was really “close” to really tying them together. We say that as post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy after the fact. From historian of science and physicist Harvey Brown: “Brown denies the idea of other authors and historians, that the major difference between Einstein and his predecessors is Einstein's rejection of the aether, because, it is always possible to add for whatever reason the notion of a privileged frame to special relativity, as long as one accepts that it will remain unobservable, and also Poincaré argued that "some day, no doubt, the aether will thrown aside as useless". However, Brown gave some examples, what in his opinion were the new features in Einstein's work:

p. 66: "The full meaning of relativistic kinematics was simply not properly understood before Einstein. Nor was the 'theory of relativity' as Einstein articulated it in 1905 anticipated even in its programmatic form." p. 69. "How did Albert Einstein...arrive at his special theory of relativity?...I want only to stress that it is impossible to understand Einstein's discovery (if that is the right word) of special relativity without taking on board the impacts of the quantum in physics." p. 81. "In this respect [Brown refers to the conventional nature of distant simultaneity] Einstein was doing little more than expanding on a theme that Poincaré had already introduced. Where Einstein goes well beyond the great mathematician is in his treatment of the coordinate transformations... In particular, the extraction of the phenomena of length contraction and time dilation directly from the Lorentz transformations in section 4 of the 1905 paper is completely original."

After that, Brown develops his own dynamical interpretation of special relativity as opposed to the kinematical approach of Einstein's 1905 paper (although he says that this dynamical view is already contained in Einstein's 1905-paper, "masqueraded in the language of kinematics", p. 82), and the modern understanding of space-time.

http://www.aip.org/history/einst...

E=MC2 (Absolutely genius as he derived it from the postulates of SR): http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/...

The Photo-electric effect (which should REALLY be called, the “Quantization of energy”). As both respected science historians T.S. Kuhn and I. Cohen have repeated ad naseum, it was really Einstein that started the Quantum revolution not Planck. Don’t believe me? Read it from the top laser physicist in America: http://blog.press.princeton.edu/...

General Relativity, well, what more can I say? Gravity is the curvature of space-time due to the dynamical imposition of a mass on the fabric of space-time itself. He needed a little bit of help from friend Marcel Grossman to familiarize himself with the foundations of the then-obscure branch of math known as Riemannian geometry. He had, ironically, skipped all of those classes in university thinking it was silly abstract math – like number theory today – that he would never need to use. But after the first year, as the letters between Grossman and Einstein show, Einstein taught himself much of the hard lifting (levi-civita tensor, metric tensor, Riemannian manifolds, etc). It was all Einstein. Oddly enough, he mastered Riemannian geometry so well it may have led to his downfall as he started to build his unified field theory from a Riemannian geometrization of the electromagnetic field. A quick aside, Riemannian geometry might be named after him (as he invented it, probably from ideas Gauss had given him), but many of the concepts were develop by others like Levi-Civita, Minchowski, etc. It doesn’t diminish Riemann’s immense genius (and that goes for all great scientists, nobody, including Newton, worked in a vacuum): Nobel laureates Paul Dirac called General Relativity “probably the greatest scientific discovery ever made”; Max Born called it “the greatest feat of human thinking about nature.”: http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jaa/5...

And for those think Hilbert was on his heels, quick historical fact: the only reason Hilbert was even aware or cognizant of GR was because he invited Einstein to give a series of 6, 2-3 hr long lectures on GR at the University of Gottingen. Hilbert was not only in attendance, but according to historian Albrecht Folsing, he was taking copious notes. The lectures were given after he had published the provisional but ultimately flawed Entwurf version of GR that had already contained the metric tensor and much of the core that would become the final version of GR. Hilbert, for all intents and purposes took Einstein’s own working paper and, as one of the greatest pure mathematicians of all time, was unable to beat him to the goal-line despite his superior pure mathematical training. Turns out Hilbert’s field equations were not generally covariant: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/1...

I didn’t even mentioned his other contributions to science in the form of his work on quantum chaos theory, Bose-Einstein condensates, the LASER (yes, without him we wouldn’t be able to invent the laser, i.e. AB Coefficients), gravitational lensing, critical opalescence, probability waves (preceding Born), and even quantum entanglement (which he admittedly meant as a disproof, but he was the first to invent the idea and it’s harmonic operators), and other aspects of solid state physics, etc. http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/pap...

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

In reference to Quantum Mechanics, his contributions are nothing less than startling.

Douglas Stone. T.S. Kuhn, John Stachel and others, have convincingly argued that Einstein should be called the Father of Quantum Mechanics.

*Albert Einstein was the first to prove the existence of atoms in his seminal paper on the ~100 year problem of Brownian motion (this, incidentally, also proved the existence of molecules and is one of the 10 most cited papers of the 20th century).

*Albert Einstein was one of the first scientists to invent a new way to calculate Avogrado's Number (incidentally his dissertation).

*He is probably the most influential figure in the history of Quantum Mechanics thanks to his 1905 paper on the quantization of the radiation field, incorrectly referred to as the "Photoelectric Effect Paper" (it does much more than simply explain the photoelectric effect). This seminal work revolutionized physics by postulating that light was a particle and that the energy exchanges in the radiation field come in discrete chunks of indivisible particles. In essence, he proposed that the field itself was quantized (very revolutionary indeed). He, more than Max Planck, introduced the concept of the quantization of energy in atomic mechanics.

*Einstein, in his paper on the Specific Heat of Solids (1906), was the first physicist - using his own work on the quantization of the radiation field - to accurately explain the conditions for thermal equilibrium between matter and radiation.

*Einstein proposed the photon, the first force-carrying particle discovered for a fundamental interaction, and put forward the notion of wave-particle duality, based on sound statistical arguments 14 years before De Broglie's work.

*Einstein, in his paper on Spontaneous and Stimulated Emission, was the first to recognize the intrinsic randomness in atomic processes, and introduced the notion of transition probabilities, embodied in the A and B coefficients for atomic emission and absorption. Einstein was also the first to introduce a notion central to quantum mechanics known as complimentarity. In this paper we see Einstein invent a completely original (and elegant) derivation of Planck's radiation law as well a completley original (and elegant) derivation of Bohr's frequency rule. His trilogy of papers between 1916 and 1917 form the foundation of the LASER and is a work of prescient genius. Read Daniel Kleppner's (MIT) paper on the work:

http://cua.mit.edu/8.421/Papers/...

*Einstein also preceded Max Born in suggesting the interpretation of wave fields as probability densities for particles, photons, in the case of the electromagnetic field. Born would later win a Nobel Prize in 1954 by taking Einstein's idea and simply applying it to electrons - and was gracious enough to given Einstein the credit for the idea.

*Einstein, stimulated by Bose, was the very first to introduce the notion of indistinguishable particles in the quantum sense and derived the condensed phase of bosons, which is one of the fundamental states of matter at low temperatures. For this Manuel Cardona and others have called Einstein "the father of condensed matter physics":

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/pap...

*His work on quantum statistics in turn directly stimulated Schrodinger towards his discovery of the wave equation of quantum mechanics. Schrodinger always acknowledged this (see: Abraham Pais "Subtle is the Lord," 1982).

*Einstein was the first scientist to predict Quantum Entanglement in his controversial EPR Paradox paper that was later validated by John Bell (i.e. Bell's Theorem). Einstein theorized of entanglement as a disproof, but nonetheless he was the first scientist to see where others could not see. His ideas of hidden variables and non-locality are still being debated today, 80 years after the fact.

It was only due to his rejection of the final theory due to philosophical incongruities that he is not generally recognized as the most central figure in this historic achievement of human civilization.

Was he wrong about Quantum mechanics? He said it was a powerful theory that predicted a lot but explained little. He described it "incomplete." Most physicists today would probably agree that it is indeed "incomplete" seeing as it doesn't explain why the Standard Model possesses the specific properties it does. Lastly, Einstein was very bothered by the implication that the observer "collapses" the wave function, thereby implying that QM had a subjective component to it. So, no, Einstein was not wrong about quantum mechanics - were he alive today he would probably be working on quantum problems.

Sources:

Professor Douglas Stone (Head of Applied Physics at Yale University): "Einstein and the Quantum: The Quest for the Valiant Swabian" (2014)

Abraham Pais (Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton): "Subtle is the Lord" (1982)

Daniel Kleppner (Professor of Physics at MIT): "Rereading Einstein on Radiation" (2005)

I’ve written far too much but as somebody who studies the history of science, there’s a profound reason legendary science historians (who are physicists in their own right) such as T.S. Kuhn and Gerald Holten revere Einstein and call him the greatest scientist at least since Newton. And it has nothing to do with him being a “pop icon” or them being fanboys. Real scientists recognize real genius.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

In Essence, you're something else for calling "Einstein's theory stupid"

Cheers~

[Malk]

Your fav?


Feynmann, by far.

[Daywolf]

Well, as always I operate from a position of profound ignorance, but it seems to me that if the sun rotates around the earth (as we see it), that would imply the earth is motionless, or at least not spinning as we otherwise suspect. If that is the case, why is there measurable differences in east-west bound flight durations after having account for wind, etc.?
I think the absolute best source for observational evidence is by using Stellarium (http://www.stellarium.org/). The PC version is free, android costs a little but well worth it if you find the app indispensable and don't have a laptop to carry with you outside (one main reason I have a lappy). It can also operate with a GPS motorized equatorial mount for a telescope, though not necessary for observational evidence as naked-eye observation will completely suffice in this case.

So this simulates a huge library of celestial bodies very accurately. It's been my go-to simulator for over 10yrs. You can explore the model from any angle, even from your exact GPS coordinates. No tricks, no gags, if the model is a lie you simply could not locate the object you'd be looking for. And when you find your target, you can speed up the simulator and watch it zip through space proving an accurate model.

[Saludeen]

I prefer water over koolaid.

Look at this quote, "Gravity is the curvature of space-time due to the dynamical imposition of a mass on the fabric of space-time itself."

a mass on the fabric

If there is a mass in space then it wouldn't be "resting on" some magical 2D fabric we can't observe or measure. They would both just float in space since gravity would be required to push the mass into the fabric to begin with (as explained previously yet not understood by you, ironically.) Not to mention other problems like no boundaries or anchors to hold the position of this "fabric" or having more than one plane contradicting each other on any other side of the mass.

And just because someone is a mathematician like Einstein doesn't mean they're immune to imagining crazy theories that have no basis in reality, especially with motivation like losing credibility or funding by abandoning their original claims. Instead, they desperately to find a solution in a dead end. And when one isn't found, they make something up and call it a theory as a safety net.

His theory is not hard to understand, especially for someone as brilliant, practical, and clear minded as Tesla.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

I prefer water over koolaid.

Look at this quote, "Gravity is the curvature of space-time due to the dynamical imposition of a mass on the fabric of space-time itself."

a mass on the fabric

If there is a mass in space then it wouldn't be "resting on" some magical 2D fabric we can't observe or measure. They would both just float in space since gravity would be required to push the mass into the fabric to begin with (as explained previously yet not understood by you, ironically.) Not to mention other problems like no boundaries or anchors to hold the position of this "fabric" or having more than one plane contradicting each other on any other side of the mass.

And just because someone is a mathematician like Einstein doesn't mean they're immune to imagining crazy theories that have no basis in reality, especially with motivation like losing credibility or funding by abandoning their original claims. Instead, they desperately to find a solution in a dead end. And when one isn't found, they make something up and call it a theory as a safety net.

His theory is not hard to understand, especially for someone as brilliant, practical, and clear minded as Tesla.

Again, I consider the source on whose talking. See the information I linked above.

Where does your source of information stem from.? Yeah, I'm going to take your word over Albert Heinsburg.


What a joke. Please do your due diligence next time. Thanks

[Chaboo_Cleric]

I prefer water over koolaid.

Look at this quote, "Gravity is the curvature of space-time due to the dynamical imposition of a mass on the fabric of space-time itself."



The answer depends on which system you are working in, and what you understand by gravity.

In the Newtonian framework, gravitational effects can be treated as the results of an applied (natural) force. In the relativistic framework, gravity can be treated as the natural bending of spacetime due to the presence of a massive object.

At the end, I must mention that at the fundamental level, all our currently existing scientific theories are all models which are designed to give predictions which match observed phenomenon. In "reality" gravity, if something like it actually exists at all, may not be anything like what we now believe. We put our faith in our established theories because they make reasonably accurate predictions which match with observations. That does not imply that gravity really works in the way we think it does. The results, obtained logically, are equivalent so the theories are held to be 'true'.

Also, gravity is whatever it happens to be that makes things fall to the earth, and things still fall to the earth, so we'll never say that there's no gravity. It's just that it's no longer considered to be a force that applies via Newton's Second Law, but a curvature of spacetime that acts via the geodesic principle, which is the relativistic equivalent of Newton's First Law.

Spacetime tells matter how to move
Matter tells spacetime how to curve


With that being said. Please drink some more water

[Saludeen]

Again, I consider the source on whose talking. See the information I linked above.

Where does your source of information stem from.? Yeah, I'm going to take your word over Albert Heinsburg.


What a joke. Please do your due diligence next time. Thanks

Notoriety doesn't nullify logic that you still havn't addressed like the numerous problems I mentioned.

And the only thing you actually said in all that grandiloquent writing is, "there's a force that causes gravity. Massive objects bend space-time. And we have faith because of reasons." That's an expression of muddied thinking. Try to actually think about the words your using and what they mean, then imagine the scenarios for your own sake.

What pushes the masses into the fabric?

And why would that make objects go to the apex of the dimple instead of any other direction?

Can you answer those in your own words? Or don't you understand the theory enough to explain it?

[entruil]

i can imagine creating a program and watching the entities inside it fumble around trying to figure out who the lead dev is or what kind of hardware they are running on....

this idea makes me smile...

time to write an incoherent book about nothing and sell it to myself...

[maskedmelon]

Sal, space-time is 4-dimensional. The two dimensional "fabric" is something of a metaphor for understanding the effect mass in space-time. And the objects don't have to be "sitting" "on" space-time. They can be below or beside it, it doesn't matter. What matters for the purpose of understanding h concept is that they are essentially points on a plane and the greater the mass, the greater they distort the plane. The balls on a blanket is just a way of isolating and understanding the effect without breaking your brain trying to apply it to 3 or 4 (or more) dimensions.

[maskedmelon]

And more directly to your last question, nothing is pushing the object into the fabric. The fabric responds to the object's mass. It is repelled, like two magnets

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Nobody knows.
You can use the Einstein Field Equations to determine the spacetime that results from some distribution of energy/momentum, but this does nothing to inform us of why this happens.

[Saludeen]

Sal, space-time is 4-dimensional. The two dimensional "fabric" is something of a metaphor for understanding the effect mass in space-time. And the objects don't have to be "sitting" "on" space-time. They can be below or beside it, it doesn't matter. What matters for the purpose of understanding h concept is that they are essentially points on a plane and the greater the mass, the greater they distort the plane. The balls on a blanket is just a way of isolating and understanding the effect without breaking your brain trying to apply it to 3 or 4 (or more) dimensions.

The 3rd dimension is just a combination of length, width, and height, and the fourth dimension is a measurement of change or movement of three dimensional objects relative to each other, like the cycle of the sun relative to the earth divided into units. Starting from a beginning and end defined by visual marks like location or night. So its easy to understand up to the 4th dimension, but beyond that is foreign to me.

So is substance that's interacting with the bodies of mass 2D or 3D? If its 2D like the models represent then I think that's irrational to believe as a cause or explanation of gravity for multiple logical reasons.

If its 3D then that's closer to Tesla's explanations because those "imaginary points in space" that define the "fabric" would be better defined or understood as electromagnetic vortices, not just "space or imaginary points of reference".

[Chaboo_Cleric]

The 3rd dimension is just a combination of length, width, and height, and the fourth dimension is a measurement of change or movement of three dimensional objects relative to each other, like the cycle of the sun relative to the earth divided into units. Starting from a beginning and end defined by visual marks like location or night. So its easy to understand up to the 4th dimension, but beyond that is foreign to me.

So is substance that's interacting with the bodies of mass 2D or 3D? If its 2D like the models represent then I think that's irrational to believe as a cause or explanation of gravity for multiple logical reasons.

If its 3D then that's closer to Tesla's explanations because those "imaginary points in space" that define the "fabric" would be better defined or understood as electromagnetic vortices, not just "space or imaginary points of reference".

Your analysis goes hand to hand with your pro-Muslim debates

It's all shit, go light a trashcan on fire,.

[Saludeen]

Blahblahblah I don't understand the theory I believe in because its irrational to begin with, so I make up some grandiloquent nonsense as if I know what it means, then reply with useless insults because I lack the ability to think for myself.

[Toehammer]

i wonder if toehammer notices all the ants that scurry about his feet...

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of (Gi)ants

[Toehammer]

I was going to post a response to Daywolf and Saludeen, addressing points one by one, but I just don't have time. I am getting a new postdoc in the lab next week, just got a new PhD student, and am trying to hire a research assistant. Instead, enjoy this fun video of a 2D representation of space(time) as a tool to understand orbits. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg I used to wonder some time ago why planets orbited primarily in one direction... this video actually shows it... fun stuff, you can learn a lot from playing with physics analogies.

However, there are lots of questions and comments in this thread that are very difficult to answer/respond to unless people know a bit about quantum and general relativity already. It is tough to visualize 3D spacetime warping, so 2D does a good visual job. 3D vector spaces are challenging to visualize... took me until the middle of grad school to be able to see them in my head. The weirdest thing that comes out of general relativity is that the mass-energy is the source of the field, and the field is the source of the mass-energy... no analog I can think of anywhere else in science. Also, when you mathematically traverse the event horizon of a black hole, the time and position coordinates exchange places in all physics equations. I have no flipping idea what this means.

The other coolest thing I have been reading about recently is Erik Verlinde's theory of entropic gravity, basically that gravity is not a fundamental force, but just an entropic force.

I can't make long posts any more, sorry.

[AzzarTheGod]

Sal, space-time is 4-dimensional. The two dimensional "fabric" is something of a metaphor for understanding the effect mass in space-time. And the objects don't have to be "sitting" "on" space-time. They can be below or beside it, it doesn't matter. What matters for the purpose of understanding h concept is that they are essentially points on a plane and the greater the mass, the greater they distort the plane. The balls on a blanket is just a way of isolating and understanding the effect without breaking your brain trying to apply it to 3 or 4 (or more) dimensions.

cant wait for proof that 3D is just perception so the Saludeen's of the world melt into a puddle.

we're all stuck on a wall together, theres a force across from the wall called gravity. this could be what a dimension is, if a dimension requires, or acquires gravity as a side effect of its creation, to be birthed. each dimension would be a wall layer with a gravity hole across from it.

[maskedmelon]

cant wait for proof that 3D is just perception so the Saludeen's of the world melt into a puddle.

we're all stuck on a wall together, theres a force across from the wall called gravity. this could be what a dimension is, if a dimension requires, or acquires gravity as a side effect of its creation, to be birthed. each dimension would be a wall layer with a gravity hole across from it.

Woke.

[AzzarTheGod]

somewhere in the universe trans-dimensional beings are entertained by studying the human nervous system and its limitations and explanations of time and space.

Saludeen is a big hit on Saturday nights at Xenu's crib.

[Ahldagor]

cant wait for proof that 3D is just perception so the Saludeen's of the world melt into a puddle.

we're all stuck on a wall together, theres a force across from the wall called gravity. this could be what a dimension is, if a dimension requires, or acquires gravity as a side effect of its creation, to be birthed. each dimension would be a wall layer with a gravity hole across from it.

This will help you with Sal.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/einsteins-right-again-scientists-detect-ripples-in-gravity/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/us/gravitational-waves-feat/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W6OTyN5LMbA

[Daywolf]

So you can't actually explain what you believe. I havn't formed a conclusion on the correct model because I don't conjecture or believe blindly like you, but it looks like heliocentric theory is nonsense. And if you'd rather just spam links then we can just do that and call it a day:
http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/
https://aplanetruth.info/2015/04/11/heliocentrism-is-dead/
Ah I was right then, you presented your question to me backwards as if I were the one to defend the geocentric model. But really you meant you believe the geocentric model and wanted me to defend the heliocentric model, as yes I do recognize the heliocentric model as the accurate model (to our solar system).

My links were solid links btw, not spam. The first one goes through the error's of the Quran regarding that authors incorrect assumptions by using his believed geocentric model.

The second link shows that they were his own assumptions and not rooted in any known biblical texts. The model actually comes from Greek philosophy, which only the Quran seems to teach, which was also a belief of the pagan moon god religion that islam is actually modeled upon.

The rest of the links are observational evidences that the heliocentric model is not only correct, but actually the model we've used for navigating our solar system and successfully.

Additionally, as I commented for melons, you too can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt by observing the night sky while using simulation software. That software I linked is open source, so if you think it is just part of your conspiracy theory, you can download the source, inspect it yourself, then compile and run it.

As for your links, you do realize that the stars take a very long time to ~move and is not noticeable over a short time, right? Actually Polaris wasn't always in the polar position (north star) relative to our observational view. This is because the path around our galaxy takes roughly 250 million years. However, Polaris was not always the observed North Star in our sky, but in our history that was once Alpha Draconis, about 3000 B.C. Between then and now, the North Star has moved from Draconis to Polaris (re-designated to), and 5000 years is a considerable small time in the vast distances of space.

But as I said, the correct model is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The model is so relevant to us, and in that it is correct, space travel would be impossible w/o knowing that exact model. We could have never put a lander on mars without this knowledge, among the many other achievements regarding putting probes to where we want them to go.

Perhaps you too can find a infamous quote and base your entire naive perception on it , while backing juvenile claims that could be explained in a basic textbook. Followed by claiming your a rebel and against the grain.

I mean shit, who needs relativity when we got Newtons laws lol
Me too? I don't have issues with Einstein's theories. I even listed him over Newton on my first post here. I just know better than to get into a long debate with Sal over it, I mean unless I just wanted to as any have a right to do. I mean really, you can trim the tree all you like, but it's still going to be effected by the root of the problem.

I was going to post a response to Daywolf and Saludeen, addressing points one by one, but I just don't have time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg
Nice vid (I've done this experiment myself at the science museum near UCLA), but there really is no issue of mine to be addressed here. Unless you just meant generally regarding Sal's and my exchange. I just dropped that Time article link and two gifs to see where it goes - back a number of pages. I'm still amazed no one addressed the problems with that second gif, it's actually not the heliocentric nor the geocentric models, but a third model which imo is deeply flawed. They call it the helical model. Within it, the orbits and speeds are insanely wrong, which is even not the most bazaar thing of it though isn't represented within that 2nd gif. It only really shows "don't believe everything you read on the internet" even though the model has gone viral and some people actually believe it. I think the 1/4th of Americans believing in the geocentric model may be accurate, or close to it.

ps and yeah, if someone is intent on rejecting the basic proven model of our solar system, good luck trying to reach them with anything Einstein has discovered ;)

[Saludeen]

http://i.imgur.com/Vtq2x7J.jpg


Allahu Akbar

God is the Greatest






ﾟ

[Lune]

^ Yikes

[Chaboo_Cleric]

http://i.imgur.com/Vtq2x7J.jpg


Allahu Akbar

God is the Greatest



ﾟ

I remember touching on this earlier. Please just go lite a trashcan on fire, and call it a day.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Ah I was right then, you presented your question to me backwards as if I were the one to defend the geocentric model. But really you meant you believe the geocentric model and wanted me to defend the heliocentric model, as yes I do recognize the heliocentric model as the accurate model (to our solar system).

My links were solid links btw, not spam. The first one goes through the error's of the Quran regarding that authors incorrect assumptions by using his believed geocentric model.

The second link shows that they were his own assumptions and not rooted in any known biblical texts. The model actually comes from Greek philosophy, which only the Quran seems to teach, which was also a belief of the pagan moon god religion that islam is actually modeled upon.

The rest of the links are observational evidences that the heliocentric model is not only correct, but actually the model we've used for navigating our solar system and successfully.

Additionally, as I commented for melons, you too can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt by observing the night sky while using simulation software. That software I linked is open source, so if you think it is just part of your conspiracy theory, you can download the source, inspect it yourself, then compile and run it.

As for your links, you do realize that the stars take a very long time to ~move and is not noticeable over a short time, right? Actually Polaris wasn't always in the polar position (north star) relative to our observational view. This is because the path around our galaxy takes roughly 250 million years. However, Polaris was not always the observed North Star in our sky, but in our history that was once Alpha Draconis, about 3000 B.C. Between then and now, the North Star has moved from Draconis to Polaris (re-designated to), and 5000 years is a considerable small time in the vast distances of space.

But as I said, the correct model is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The model is so relevant to us, and in that it is correct, space travel would be impossible w/o knowing that exact model. We could have never put a lander on mars without this knowledge, among the many other achievements regarding putting probes to where we want them to go.


Me too? I don't have issues with Einstein's theories. I even listed him over Newton on my first post here. I just know better than to get into a long debate with Sal over it, I mean unless I just wanted to as any have a right to do. I mean really, you can trim the tree all you like, but it's still going to be effected by the root of the problem.


Nice vid (I've done this experiment myself at the science museum near UCLA), but there really is no issue of mine to be addressed here. Unless you just meant generally regarding Sal's and my exchange. I just dropped that Time article link and two gifs to see where it goes - back a number of pages. I'm still amazed no one addressed the problems with that second gif, it's actually not the heliocentric nor the geocentric models, but a third model which imo is deeply flawed. They call it the helical model. Within it, the orbits and speeds are insanely wrong, which is even not the most bazaar thing of it though isn't represented within that 2nd gif. It only really shows "don't believe everything you read on the internet" even though the model has gone viral and some people actually believe it. I think the 1/4th of Americans believing in the geocentric model may be accurate, or close to it.

ps and yeah, if someone is intent on rejecting the basic proven model of our solar system, good luck trying to reach them with anything Einstein has discovered ;)

It was a joke on the infamous quote, more so pointed toward Sal. Good post though , would read again.

[maskedmelon]

الثدي كبيرة
Alththidi Kabira

[entruil]

الثدي كبيرة

[Saludeen]

الثدي كبيرة
Alththidi Kabira



Lol

[maskedmelon]

~ 。^