Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Albert Einstein Was Not A God, Okay?  
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1157 times:

This topic actually spun off my response to Galiliee's post about UFO's, I think this is just about the stupidist thing ever when people believe scientists so much that they act like they speak the worldly truth.

All Einstein did was prove that light can go up to the speed of light, not that we could not. As of 2002, we currnetly are moving too darn slow to make any accurate assumption about going near the speed of light, and moreover we will not be able to do anything to prove that we can or cannot until we are able to get with 80% of light.

How do I figure? For decades before the X-1, there were mathematical proofs designed around the idea that we could not pass the speed of sound. Engineers and scientists at the time based it around the drag/compression data they were getting in both early wind tunnels and actual flight tests. (Bare in mind, when we first started flying no one thought we would even approach the idea of problems near the speed of sound)

Currently the only way to prove Einstein's ideas is by the apparent time distortion as we accelerate faster and faster. Last generation's dilema was the sound barrier, this generation's dilema is time distortion, do you get the idea? We are no where near a percent of a percent of lightspeed; we cannot discuss actually flying at or beyond light, and since we should learn from our mistakes, we cannot dismiss the idea of passing it either.

So all of ya'll who act like another great scientist will never come along and Einstein is a God, excuse the pun, go to hell. What he says should not be taken without questioning.

Don't treat science like it is a religion!


The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 3047 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1113 times:

Was too!!!!!!


Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
User currently offline764er From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1105 times:

Dude, you're not a god either... so why should I listen to everything you say?

Of course I'm not a god, so I guess you won't take this seriously...


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1105 times:

How about this one for you...

Don't treat religion like a science.


User currently offlineKilljoy From Finland, joined Dec 1999, 646 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1087 times:

In case anyone's interested in how time dilation has been demonstrated:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae433.cfm

(or just google for it)

Oh, and who cares if we can't achieve the speed of light in normal space. As soon as we discover subspace we'll be able to do it anyway Big grin .

Now hold on while I go fire up the quantum slipstream drive in my basement...


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1082 times:

I didn't expect this from you Lephron. Look, maths is great. It might just be me but I think that every element of maths is amazing.

How simple Newton's second law is in hindsight. Resultant force = mass x acceleration (not F=ma!!> And how simple it is to prove. Come to think of it, something as blindly obvious as Newton's first law helps us with so much in maths and mechanics.

I agree, some of the higher physical and mathematical models are dubious, but remember, once something is PROVED it is true. A lot of higher physical and mathetmatical models make a lot of assumptions, and aren't proved. They're thought to be true, that doesn't mean they are.

Simple things like Newton's Laws are the most important and revolutionary things that mechanics has ever seen, and can be proved without a shadow of a doubt.


User currently offlineRalgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1075 times:

So what you're saying is...........it is GUARENTEED that there is NO place in ALL of EXISTANCE where Newton's Laws are violated? I tend to disagree, Newtons laws are a construct that we proved using our own math based on our own observations of our infintesimally small corner of existance. Just because we say it is doesn't mean it is. Big thumbs up


09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
User currently offlinePANYNJ From Bahamas, joined Sep 2001, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1078 times:

yeah Lehpron, you better hope this thread gets deleted quick, it makes you out to sound like a complete idiot, but I'm sure your not, just a little confused maybe.

User currently offlineKilljoy From Finland, joined Dec 1999, 646 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1066 times:

"Don't treat science like it is a religion!"

Just thought I'd comment on that line. I'm unsure what you meant by it, as you may either imply that science is inferior to religion, or that treating it like a religion will degrade it. This is however what I think:

Treating science like religion is one thing I will never do, for science is something much better than religion.

All religions are based on superstitions and fear, most of the time even denouncing anything different. Science is based on fact and intelligent extrapolation, while at the same time admitting that not all is known.

While religious people will fall back on arbitrary pseudo-axioms, scientific minds will choose the most probable solution. The scientist is not always right, but at least he has chosen the best possible alternative, and will thus presumably succeed more often than someone who relies on religion.

Most importantly of all, he is not ignorant.


"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide."


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1050 times:

I have to agree with Lephron on this, except the "go to hell" comment.

Science has always been meant to go leaps and bounds and go to places where man has never even thought possible. Do we know what the future holds? Do we truly know exactly how the universe "works"? And what if in the future, somebody with a mind greater than Albert Einstein's proves that moving at the speed of light or faster is even possible?

All I can think of is..."How cool is that?" Of course, I read a lot of science fiction novels, so I got lots of that stuff in my head. But I think that accepting some limits on scientific discovery is a bad thing. Its like saying "Since Albert Einstein said that we cant go faster than the speed of light, we cant! Period!" Why not try to find some way to do it? Its kind of like scientists still trying to find a way to get matter at absolute zero, even if its been proven impossible to do so.

Science and scientific discovery is an amazing thing, and I hope I'm alive long enough to see all the amazing things that will happen in the next century.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1042 times:

Amazing to me is that Einstein was one of the smartest persons around, not just in the scientific mind, but in the logical mind. Here are just some quotes of his. Not to mention that he had some great beliefs on religion.

"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure."

"Gravity cannot be held responsible for people falling in love."

"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it seems like two hours that's relativity."

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

"God doesn't play dice with the universe."

"God may be subtle, but He isn't plain mean."

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

For more, check this website out.

http://www.humboldt1.com/~gralsto/einstein/quotes.html



NO URLS in signature
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1039 times:

A lot of those are misquotes. Especially the dice one. He never said that.

User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1036 times:

Erm....how would you know?


NO URLS in signature
User currently offline764er From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1035 times:

Well even if he did say the dice one, it's not 'brilliant,' it's wrong.

User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1025 times:

Geez, its just a quote, there's no "right" or "wrong" about it, its just an opinion.

And there's no "right" or "wrong" especially when talking about a sticky thing like religion.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineGalilee From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1018 times:

764er, He did say it. Mind explaining why you think God plays dice with the universe.

User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1008 times:

Let's not turn this thread into an argument about God and religion, start another thread about that.

Let's stay on topic please. Thanks



NO URLS in signature
User currently offline764er From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1007 times:

Ok, now you're wrong. Let's say he really did say it... A statement like that is not an opinion. That quote is not about religion anyway - even if he does mention god. It's about certainty, uncertainty and randomness in physics and the universe. It's an easy to understand phrase that conveys what his research found. "God" is there for lack of a better term. I guess he could have used "whatever created the universe does not play dice," but that would not have had nearly the impact and it might well offend some people. Of course saying "God" may offend some people, but oh well... After Einstein, it has been shown that 'god does play dice with the universe,' meaning there is uncertainty and randomness in the universe especially at the quantum level. Tell me there's no uncertainty the next time you can measure the exact velocity AND position of a particle at the same time. Or when you can "know" the position of an electron in an atom rather than just knowing what the probability is that it will be in a certain place... won't happen.

User currently offlineNormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1006 times:

Don't treat religion like a science.
Don't treat science like it is a religion

I've gotta throw my 2 cents in here.

My personal opinion is that there is really no distinction between science and religion. I believe in God, and I love science. To me, science is a method of explaining how God has done what he has done. Take, for example, the classic "evolution vs. creation" debate. Some people say that it was evolution. Some people say that it was creation, and to suggest otherwise is evil. I disagree. I say it could be both. I believe that God did create the Earth, and evolution may have been the method he used. (I know it says 6 days in the Bible, but we don't know if these were actual days, or just symbolic of other designated spaces of time. The Bible is not a chronology of the earth, nor is it a "how to" manual for creating earth-like planets.) I also believe that God created plants and animals. We have an idea on how He did it through the science of biology. I believe that scientists are inpired. After all, it says in the scriptures "The glory of God is intelligence."

I guess my point is that the science vs. religion debate is a false dilema. So, Einstien was not a God, but he was definitely inspired by One.

'Speed


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1004 times:

Einstein never said "God doesn't play dice" despite the fact that that was what the work of his final years tried to show. He was upset that quantum theory predicted randomness at the quantum level, which he felt spoilt the universe (as he vied it). He spent his final years trying to disprove this, and failed.

764er, although there is uncertainty and randomness in the universe in general (well, there isn't, but I'm not gonna explain universal models, probability etc), it's not that Einstein was upset about. It was quantum randomness, which can't be pridicted at all.


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 996 times:

777236ER, I still don't understand how you are so sure that Einstein didn't quote that. Mind showing me?


NO URLS in signature
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 992 times:

Erm, I'm not gonna find the source right now, but quite a few scientific journals have run articles about it over the past few years. You can believe that he said it if you want, I'm sure he didn't though.

User currently offlineGalilee From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 980 times:

Alright, I will set the record straight. This is the exact quote from Einstein, "I, at any rate, am convinced that He is not playing at dice..." This quote was taken from Not A Chance by RC Sproul. Check it out!
Now, does it matter if he said it or not? In my opinion, no, it does not. But logically speaking, it makes sense. To say that religion is not based off of logic is, well, ignorant. Logic can and does explain God, however, a universe without God cannot and will not be explained by logic, which by the way has been discussed to death in this forum.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 978 times:

Futher logic explains things like quantum theories, which tend to disprove the (also logical, in your view) theory of a god.

Confusing, no?


User currently offlineJkelley480 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 965 times:

Einstein's General Ralativity theory is actually very bizarre and counter-intuitive in many respects. The (seemingly) logical consequences of his theory are enough to make anyone a skeptic, IMHO.

25 PHX-LJU : Galilee wrote: >>Logic can and does explain God, however, a universe without God cannot and will not be explained by logic, which by the way has been
26 5280AGL : Has anyone ever noticed that the most intelligent people in our society and history have all been athiests or at least denounced religion and the "sky
27 Post contains images Galilee : You completely missed my point. Let me try to explain it this way. Whether or not you believe in God, the fact is that logic exists. Without God there
28 Heavymetal : He may not have been a God. But I'm glad he was in New Jersey in the early 1940s and not in Berlin. Science aside, Einstien's immigration away from ha
29 IMissPiedmont : OK by me.
30 Toadpipe : "I , at any rate, am convinced that he is not playing at dice." I see galilee already posted that and it was said verbally in response to Neihls Bohr.
31 Toadpipe : Excuse my mistake: str and gtr switched in my ramblings. I must not be God.
32 Toadpipe : Infinites: I forgot another seperate impossibility, the formation of an actual infinite. So you have two disctinct but related impossibilities that po
33 Post contains images L-188 : The only thing that Einstein proved was that there is no such thing as a bad haircut!
34 Post contains images Tbar220 : Infinites: I forgot another seperate impossibility, the formation of an actual infinite. So you have two disctinct but related impossibilities that po
35 Post contains images Toadpipe : Tbar220, Something exist now right? you can deny it, but the denial infact assumes you exist in order to make the denial right? So while non-existence
36 Post contains images Lehpron : Pardon my laughter; I just got an email full of emotion that I will keep for a while. Pardon the "go to hell" comment, I guess I was a little emotiona
37 Post contains images 764er : Well, no one said Einstein was a god... I get it, we can't listen to anything anyone says, because they're not gods, either. Makes sense... Anyway, if
38 Post contains images Lehpron : (Lehpron sighs) No, you did not have to respond, no one held a gun to your head! 764er, you specifically didn't have much in terms of a response other
39 Post contains images 764er : I didn't have to respond... but I did. Nobody was holding a gun to your head to respond to the last post... but you did. If my posts are full of atti
40 Lufthansausa : Lehpron- I think you're a quack. You don't know what you're talking about.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
"This Message Was Not Written" posted Sun Aug 6 2006 07:08:15 by AerospaceFan
New Orleans, Gulf Coast Was Not Ready. posted Wed Aug 31 2005 02:37:01 by FlyMIA
Grenade Thrown At Bush Was Not A Dummy posted Wed May 18 2005 16:59:47 by Falcon84
John Paul II Was Not Embalmed posted Tue Apr 5 2005 21:35:22 by Dtwclipper
Why India's N Tests In 1998 Was Not Forseen posted Thu Feb 10 2005 13:14:11 by HAWK21M
WW2...In Case Russia Was Not Invaded. posted Thu Feb 12 2004 12:42:43 by HAWK21M
What If The U.S. Was Not A Superpower? posted Fri Oct 3 2003 09:32:54 by Cfalk
Albert Einstein Trivia Quiz posted Mon Dec 23 2002 06:17:45 by FlagshipAZ
Gravity Does Not Exist: God, Is Pushing Them Down posted Sat Oct 8 2005 21:20:36 by Airbuzz
Has God Punished The US For Not Supporting Israel? posted Wed Aug 31 2005 21:27:33 by Clickhappy