Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1007 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.
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 932 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.
Ralgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 925 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.
Killjoy From Finland, joined Dec 1999, 646 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 916 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."
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 27 Reply 9, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 900 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.
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 27 Reply 10, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 892 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."
764er From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 857 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.
NormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 856 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.
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 854 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.
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 842 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.
Galilee From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (11 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 830 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.