Slashdot Mirror
Even Einstein Doubted His Gravitational Waves (astronomy.com)
Flash Modin writes: In 1936, twenty years after Albert Einstein introduced the concept, the great physicist took another look at his math and came to a surprising conclusion. 'Together with a young collaborator, I arrived at the interesting result that gravitational waves do not exist, though they had been assumed a certainty to the first approximation,' he wrote in a letter to friend Max Born. Interestingly, his research denouncing gravitational waves was rejected by Physical Review Letters, the journal that just published proof of their existence. The story shows that even when Einstein's wrong, it's because he was already right the first time.
You are aware that mass energy equivalence is by *far* not his only outstanding work, right? Brownian movement? Photoelectric effect (Nobel prize, by the way)? Special relativity? General relativity? If every researcher had the impact of only one of his papers, we would be travelling through wormholes and be in a post-physical society by now.
Seriously, I fail to see the story here. Scientist ponders problem. Scientist comes to conclusion. Scientist publishes conclusion. Peer review gives it the go. Scientists rethinks problem. Scientist thinks he made a mistake. Peer review looks at new conclusion and thinks first solution was correct. And, lo and behold, it was.
So the scientific method works, is that what the article should tell us?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
E=mc^2 was derived from special relativity, not the basis of special relativity. Einstein becase famous because of his theories of relativity, not because of E=mc^2. If you paid more attention to physics and less attention to pop-science, perhaps you'd begin to understand.
Speculating on the ground-breaking physical laws of the universe has to be fraught with doubt and self-reversal.
Ignorance is the primary reservoir of complete confidence in nature.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
and Beetlejuice
...except, of course, about quantum interactions ("God does not play at dice" and "spooky action at a distance"). Or the unified field theory that he spent the last decades of his life chasing unsuccessfully.
You don't have to be right every time to be a scientific giant.
Einstein was just jealous of de Pretto's magnificent facial hair.
http://www.gazzettinodisalerno...
You are welcome on my lawn.
This is why I rarely read the comments on /.
slashdot is dead. People used to read *only* the comments, and with good reason too. Ah, the good old days. I wonder if such a haven of intelligent discussion will ever come to be again.
Cspan. The epitome of intelligent discussion
Define great. In personal life he was not a great example of father and husband.
I somewhat agree with you.
Einstein copied from/built off of many others, prompting some physicists to give the credit for relativity to Lorentz and others? Yes
Einstein was weak enough, mathematically, that he needed Hilbert (and even some interns) to help him with the math? Yes
Einstein did little after SR/GR? Yes
Even worse, in my books, is that SR discarding the ether was the single most damaging thing to happen in physics in the last 110 years.
GR saying the ether can be there, but is not needed, did not fully reverse the gaff of SR.
Einstein then vacillated about the ether for the rest of his life, coming out both for and against numerous versions of the ether, before finally settling on a name-changed ether.
Bottom line? Einstein played both sides of the ether fence, and played games with words, rather than advancing physics and further than SR/GR.
On a non-physics level, I like Einstein. He was a thinker, philosophical and a pacifist. And he didn't wear socks...something I haven't been able to give up.
I come here for the love
I'm not sure unified field theory was wrong so much as a failed search. Researchers are still looking for it today - we know Relativity and Quantum Mechanics can't both be right, suggesting that one or both will eventually be replaced by something that can be unified.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
"The story shows that even when Einstein's wrong, it's because he was already right the first time."
The story shows that if you publish both proofs and disproofs of something, you're likely to be right half the time.
Why aren't you rich?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Science is much more interesting to a scientist when you're proven wrong. And no scientists minds that. Not really.
And doubting your own science is exactly how you reject those millions of private hypotheses that couldn't have led to anything as they were wrong, and drove you to work out why the maths still pointed that way, and didn't lead you down the garden path of easy assumptions.
For scientists "being wrong" is merely a pathway to "being right". But sometimes they overshoot and it takes 100 years to prove them right. If it took me 100 years to prove you right, that's 99 years of everyone else thinking you could still be wrong.
Strange. You pick a very selective issue as the core of your thesis, and as someone who has been visiting slashdot regularly for a long, long time, I would say that that issue was not particularly significant, and was symptomatic of slashdot's problems, rather than causal. You're trying to make out that battles between supported of specific technology are what drove changes in the slashdot user base; I don't think that's the case at all. Technologies come and go, and so do their users and proponents; that's the nature of the beast, and it's going to be reflected on any tech site.
But the underlying point that the popularity of slashdot at its peak led to an influx of users who didn't probably respect the way slashdot worked, and thus changed the nature of the site, is probably sound. The slashdot moderation system can only work if people moderate with care, and don't just spaff their mod points on the first karma-whore post they come across, or just mod up posts that agree with their point of view. That clearly doesn't happen much, I see so many highly scored posts where it's obvious that neither the posted nor the people that modded the post up have read the article or know much about the subject.
Meta-moderating is probably even more broken, because it's more effort when meta-moderating to see the context of the post, read the referenced articles, etc. So there are a certain proportion of posts that you can look at in isolation and say they're worth voting up or down, but for the rest, I suspect that even the few people who bother to meta-moderate either skip them or meta-mod them badly without taking the time to look at the context.
I can't suggest practical solutions at this point, unfortunately, but if the quality of the articles, editing, and management of the site improves under the new management, maybe the userbase will as well.
Most great science begins with the words:
"No, that can't be right. Or can it?"
Einstein was no different.
Even worse, in my books, is that SR discarding the ether was the single most damaging thing to happen in physics in the last 110 years.
As best as I understand, Michelson-Morley was responsible for this, with the ether being discarded right away.
Einstein didn't copy: Science is almost always a collaborative process with people building on top of each other. This is why we often have independent co-discovery. Had Einstein not been there someone else would have obtained SR/GR within 5-10 years, just like Mt. Everest summit would have been reached within a few years of Hillary-Norgay, had they not made it to the top.
Einstein did little after SR/GR? Yes
False, he had four major papers after SR/GR:
- In 1917, Einstein-Brillouin-Keller method for finding the quantum mechanical version of a classical system.
- In 1918, Einstein developed a general theory of the process by which atoms emit and absorb electromagnetic radiation (his A and B coefficients), which is the basis of lasers (stimulated emission)
- In 1924, the theory of Bose-Einstein statistics and Bose-Einstein condensates, which form the basis for superfluidity, superconductivity, and other phenomena.
- In 1935, Einstein put forward what is now known as the EPR paradox
Lucky people reach the pinnacle once, because they happen to be around at the time of the final assault. Truly bright people summit many times... Einstein had between 3 and 6 discoveries each alone worthy of a Nobel prize.
The previous AC was using hyperbolic descriptiveness to emphasize the impact that Einstein's work has had on modern society, not claiming that we really would be living in that sci-fi universe if only other researchers had gotten off the drugs... which you might want to do, actually.
When you don't give credit, as Einstein was famous for not doing, then it is copying. Had Einstein given the proper amount of credit, he wouldn't have the unreasonable levels of adulation he has today. Which was the OP's point.
As to the papers you list: Einstein was always a contributor, and a big factor in general. But the papers you cite are invisibly small compared to SR/GR. For anyone else, those papers would be worth framing. But Einstein basically fizzled in his later years. The big stuff he was working on -- trying to define space/fields/ether, and trying to unify the e/m & gravity -- produced zilch.
I come here for the love
why he doubted gravitational waves ?
It's much worse than that. Mere doubt doesn't even come close.
Don't forget that the term "Laws of Physics" is just a pop-sci term to simplify the topic for the layman. In fact there are no such laws or if they exist then they are unknowable to us. The things which we loosely call "Laws of Physics" are actually "Laws of Physicists", in other words merely mental abstractions conjured up by human minds. Reality may not even understand or obey mathematics for all we know, and it certainly doesn't take the slightest bit of notice of any "laws" which we conjure up. All we're doing is expressing (roughly) how reality is seen to behave, and we're happy when we find a good mental proxy for that behaviour within a limited range of conditions. We make only very narrow claims, and they're infinitely distant from being actual "Laws of Physics".
The role of the scientist is to dream up mathematical theories which accurately model the observed behaviour of reality, without having any idea of what's really behind the behavioral facade. And that's really mind blowing, because it's turtles invented by humans all the way down, yet it approximates to what we observe fairly well in most areas.
To make matters worse, remember that the physicist doesn't have "root access to reality", to use a Unix metaphor. When we run experiments, we are using one behavioral abstraction of reality (a "user-mode API") to probe another behavioral abstraction of reality, as we totally lack any ability to see inside that "kernel". All we can see and touch and use is reality's behaviour and we can't see how that behaviour is actually implemented. For all we know it's all implemented by incredibly fast gerbils scurrying around behind the behavioral veil. We will never know --- we don't have root. All we can do is theorize what causes certain behaviours, and these theories are created entirely out of human-invented abstractions.
And so, when we oh-so-confidently talk about (say) an electron, we know very well that what we are talking about is our model of a particular behaviour, without having any idea whatsoever what actually exists at that spot. All we know (with incredible precision) is how the thing at that spot behaves, and we can rely totally on that behaviour despite "electron" being only a human abstraction.
It really is a major accomplishment, a triumph of the mind.
People are too hasty to jump to conclusions. This is just one bit of evidence. It will take much more time and additional evidence to definitively conclude gravitational waves are the real deal.
:T:R:A:N:S:
Hey ease up, After you've changed the way we understand the whole universe 3 times (Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity and Special Relativity) it's pretty hard to come up with some new shit. Hell even he knew he had hit the wall, that's why he was working on TOE, The Theory of Everything, because he knew a young buck would blow his wad, where he could coast along on his reputation even while chasing unicorn farts. Only old codgers can serve science by finding what doesn't work, without destroying their careers.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Why is it that R and QR can't both be right? I keep hearing this idea, but I haven't heard a concise description of why this is thought to be so. Appropriate linkage, or argument, would be helpful.
And I bet Einstein's shit stank, too.
Even very good humans have human failings, usually the standard ones.
Good luck not fucking up your own children, especially if the extraordinarily important work you are doing is massively changing the world as we know it.
I say this as the (now adult) child of a quite famous and truly excellent medical professional from the northeastern United States who spent most of the last decade of his 90-year life apologizing to and developing human relationships with the 7 children he pretty much destroyed along the way. Ooops. Love ya, Dad! Always did! An interesting side note: it was the first time he met a grandchild that started his journey to his own humanity. He MELTED. Amazing.
I'm not so sure about that. Recent (very) evidence indicates that gravitational waves exist. Gravitons are still hypothetical.
Have gnu, will travel.
For anyone else, those papers would be worth framing. But Einstein basically fizzled in his later years.
So he was still hitting home runs, just not game-winning grand slams, and you're calling that 'fizzled'?
Tough crowd.
Einstein was loser. If he was so smart, why wasn't he rich?
Because we didn't have the technology to take proper advantage to what he discover until about a century after he discovered it, imagine if he had gotten a royalty for every solar cell or led ever made.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Even Einstein Doubted His Gravitational Waves
Einstein's own gravitational waves were probably really, really small/weak.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Michelson-Morley, a negative (i.e. non) result, did nothing whatsoever.
Right, which is why we are talking about it 130 years after it happened: because it "did nothing whatsoever". From Wikipedia:
The result was negative, in that the expected difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles, was found not to exist; this result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then-prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether. The experiment has been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution". (emphasis added)
That's some nothingness right there.
Most of the general public would not know that even Einstein's publications went through peer review and there were reviewers who checked and rejected Einstein's math. Think about it.
Do we know the reviewers who rejected the flawed paper by Einstein? Or, are their names lost to history, without even a Tomb of the Unknown Reviewer?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Also let us state it correctly. Einstein did not say E= m c^2. He proved it.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Even worse, in my books, is that SR discarding the ether was the single most damaging thing to happen in physics in the last 110 years.
Why on earth is discarding the ether "damaging"?
There is no evidence for its existence. There is bucketloads of evidence against its existence. It almost certainly doesn't exist, based on everything we've learned so far.
Furthermore, the evidence against the ether really starting mounting in 1887 with the Michelson-Morley experiment, long before special relativity was formulated. The non-existence of the ether led to SR, not the other way around.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Michelson-Morley, a negative (i.e. non) result, did nothing whatsoever.
It proved that there was no such thing as the luminiferous ether.
I don't think you get how science works.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
The problem is a large propaganda movement has emerged, discarding the difference between "ether" - a poorly defined antiquated concepts with some interpretations still conceivably valid - and the "luminiferous ether" - a specific hypothesis that was shown false.
I can't speculate on who is involved, but there are a number of new-age type cult websites and forum trolls that go on about these subjects, and Nikola Tesla, getting very hostile toward anyone interested in logical discussion.
I forget exactly, I think a big one is that they demand different levels for the vacuum energy... as I dimly recall Relativity demands it be low (zero?), which QM demands it be high, potentially infinite.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
SR rests on two postulates: first, that the speed of light is invariant, and secondly that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. Which do you take issue with?
Light does not need a medium to propagate through. Calling empty space "ether" just means you don't understand the issue. If we have a catastrophic vacuum decay light will still be transmitted. Einstein described the geometry of the universe; it's not that light travels at c, it's that everything is traveling at c and massless effects have zero velocity in the time dimension.
If you think otherwise, please explain how these results match the theory exactly. If your pet theory can explain that, provide an additional test which shows that your theory has greater predictive power. Until you can do the first, you're a simple crank, and until you can do the latter, you're on the wrong side of Occam's Razor.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
slashdot is more about never edited, your comments and posts are yours, slashdot just provides a platform for you to make a fool out of yourself. I think some of the problem is the Freind/Foe system; makes it too easy to moderate based on the person rather than the comments made or mod-stalking.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Also let us state it correctly. Einstein did not say E= m c^2. He proved it.
Yes lets state it correctly: it is E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4. Only when you are stationary, and so have zero momentum, does E=mc^2. Also Einstein did not prove it. He was doing physics, not maths. What he showed was that given his postulates for special relativity it followed that E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4. He was then proven to be correct by experiments not by the maths alone because until those experiments were done his theory might have been nothing more than an exercise in abstract maths.
If he freaked about God playing Dice, can you imagine his reaction to Feigenbaum's constants; it was kind of like knowing how many sides the die had.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
He seemed to not like a lot of his own work:
Photoelectric Effect -> early evidence for quantum mechanics, the consequences of which he really didn't like
Cosmological Constant -> he started out with it, decided it was a bad thing and took it out, and now it's back with evidence
Gravity waves
So he was for gravity waves before he was against them. Thank you, Senator Einstein. If you were still alive, it would be fun to watch you debate Bernie Sanders, who has no particular affection for the laws of thermodynamics and other pesky reality-check-type stuff. But the debate would be very colorful, a lot like sitting near a table at an early bird buffet in Florida and listening in. No, wait, I'm thinking of that most recent PBS-hosted debate.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's not that they can't both be right (in fact, both are correct, insofar as calling a theory "correct" makes sense in physics), it's that they break down in certain regimes. This is the absolute last thing from surprising: every single physical theory we know of so far breaks down at some point. Newtonian mechanics breaks down at high speeds (relative to c). Classical mechanics breaks down in the quantum limit, and is replaced by quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics breaks down in the relativistic limit (and is replaced by quantum field theory). Most QFT breaks down at high energies, as we can only solve it in the pertubative low-energy limit.
In the case of GR and quantum mechanics, that's exactly what happens. At low energies, the two work together fine. It's at high energies and short length-scales where the two fall apart (no surprise, as again, both theories were formulated from the low-energy behavior, which is the regime we can perform experiments/observations in quite easily). This is why people are looking for some unified theory that would include both theories in the low-energy regime, and at the same time would work at high energies (this has already been done with electrodynamics and the weak force: at high energies, they become unified through the electroweak interaction). String theory, loop quantum gravity, etc. are all such attempts. So far, we've not been able to perform experiments that would be required to confirm any of them.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Don't you have an election to win, Donald?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That doesn't even make sense.
I don't get why Einstein gets some people upset. Was it because he was Jewish? Because he didn't declare God Is Real? Did he run over their grandfather's dog?
Einstein built on other peoples work, just as all scientists do, but the idea that Galileo had the vaguest idea, for instance, what an intertial frame of reference was is ludicrous.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Oh for fuck's sakes. The "ether" pseudo-scientists are as bad as the electric universe types.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
He's just another net kook, or more likely some crank follower of some previous net kook from the grand old days of Usenet. There was this small cabal of anti-Einstein nutters who used to crank out pseudo-scientific babble, including math salads, to proclaim Einstein was totally wrong. I imagine there are still a few around, though the most famous ones like Archimedes Plutonium are dead now.
I first got on Usenet in the last days of that ancient epoch, when Plutonium was popping up and making his grand declarations, and Ed Conrad was declaring he'd dug up a fossilized human penis in his backyard that disproved the geological column. Ah, sometimes I miss those heady days!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Thank you for being the only one to get my reference.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Einstein was loser. If he was so smart, why wasn't he rich?
boy, there are more great people than rich people.
Even before I read who wrote why wasn't he rich? my sarcasm detector translated it to an indictment of the system, not of Einstein. Then I read who wrote it and I know you missed Ratzo's sarcasm.
our very thought is what makes gravity
Well, you certainly sound dense enough to have your own gravitational field.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
That's one of the reasons that I use to justify my not-moderating. I get points. I don't use them. I just delete the notice and continue on. I'd rather comment. I'm not always as objective as I could be and so it would be inappropriate for me to moderate - especially on subjects where I'm uninitiated. I'd rather comment than judge. I don't think my judgment should be used to promote or demote. I get plenty of points, I just don't use them.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Wait, what? I was happily shaking my head until I got to this.
Let me see if I understand you well enough, gravity exists because I think it exists? is that what you're saying?
So, if I stop believing in gravity then gravity will no longer go away? And, if it doesn't go away, I suppose that's because I'm not believing hard enough? If I just will it, it will happen? The power of positive thought, something like that?
I don't even... Do you even science?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Here, watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/playli...
It's a bit long but pretty good. It's The Fabric of the Cosmos, from NOVA, featuring Brian Greene. It's well worth the time investment.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
This is off topic, and not a defence of anything that Einstein said, but...
"God does not play at dice"
Contrary to what most lay-people believe, quantum mechanics (QM) in no way requires that there be any random element to physics, or the universe in general.
What leads people to claim QM is "random", is the fact that QM cannot be consistent with all of the following popular beliefs simultaneously:
1) All physical laws are fully deterministic (non-random).
2) All macro phenomena (with the possible exception of man's free will) are merely emergent consequences of basic physical law; the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
3) The future cannot be known by any means, other than predicting it by extrapolating from the present state of the physical universe.
4) If man has free will (in the strongest sense of that term), then any aspect of the future which depends upon his choices cannot be predicted with certainty before hand.
5) If there is a God, His approach to running the universe is basically hands-off: He established physical law, started things in motion, and then stood back to watch and see what would happen.
Most physicists have chosen to reconcile QM with their belief system by dropping #1. This is philosophically galling to people like Einstein, because it implies that science will never be able to completely describe or predict the behaviour of the universe. (Of course, there are many non-QM reasons that humanity's knowledge must remain incomplete, as well; for example, Gödel's incompleteness theorems.)
Ultimately QM is really just a statistical description of how sub-atomic particles behave; it does not answer the question of why they behave that way. Unless it leads to a prediction which can be tested experimentally, interpreting the significance of these statistics is the domain of philosophy, not science. Even among secular scientists, many different interpretations have been proposed; the "randomness" type (in all its many variations) is just the most popular at the moment.
The pretence (when communicating with the general public) that QM requires randomness is because the science community is predominantly deistic or atheistic, and thus uncomfortable with the grander cosmic order that is implied by any deterministic interpretation. Go too far down that road, and you might begin to suspect that there is a grand Organizer...
In contrast, the Bible plainly denies #2, #3, #4, and #5. Physical laws are not self-enforcing, but are, rather, enforced by God who is all-knowing, eternal (outside of time), and enjoys a perfect attention to detail - including the hearts of men and women.
"For all things were created by Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist." Colossians 1:16-17
"He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Great is our LORD, and of great power: his understanding is infinite." Psalms 147:4-5
"For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight, but all things are naked and opened to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." Hebrews 4:12-13
Mathematically, QM is fully consistent with either randomness, or with a hands-on God who knows the future because he controls it. Most modern scientists simply pretend that randomness is the only possible ex
On Slashdot, it's just because he's smarter than they are.
Play Command HQ online
You're leaving out many worlds interpretation which is consistent with all points.
Play Command HQ online
No, that is covered in the link I offered: " many different interpretations have been proposed ".
I am not attempting to suggest that QM, alone, proves that there is a God. I do believe that it can be proven - to any reasonable standard - that there is a God, but doing so requires discussing a much wider range of even-more-off-topic issues.
As to the many worlds hypothesis - I agree that it is mathematically consistent with QM, but claiming that it is actually true is not reasonable. Justifying this claim on my part calls for the same long, off-topic discussion as proving that there is a God (and we all know it).
My points above were simply that:
1) QM does not require randomness.
2) The reason that scientists often make it sound like it does, is because this best suits their deistic/atheistic world view, as it is furthest from the truth.
I expect anyone who does a modicum of research into QM to agree with me about #1.
I offer #2 as an explanation for the confusion over #1, but don't expect anyone to agree with me without first having a long discussion about the larger moral, philosophical, and scientific context for these issues.
Unicorns don't exist. Hang on, maybe they do.
Look everyone, I'm as smart as Einstein!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And no scientists minds that. Not really.
We must be hanging around different kinds of scientist. From my point of view I've seen people with massive egos. Those egos dislike even entertaining the possibility of being wrong, and usually they get where they are because they're a) good at bullying their fellow scientists and b) good at bullying people into giving the grant money to them instead of other scientists. A lot of them are even prepared to falsify results to support their continuing grant money and research. While I agree that they are the minority, quite by definition they are a very very vocal minority. But you are correct. A REAL scientist looks forward to being proven wrong - it's almost as good as when no one can prove you wrong.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Mate, most people moved to hacker news and like most communities online, people migrate. As for systemd, this place is definitely anti. Not sure what you've been seeing but it's definitely not support. Understanding? Maybe. Support? Not in the slightest.
GPS is a result of two theories, Quantum Theory, and General Relativity. Same with spaceflight relying on GR. Seems pretty impactful to me.
Even if you tried really hard to pretend you didn't believe there'd be a bit at the back of your mind that did believe - it's what causes you to not forget that you're trying not to believe. Or something.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
â€oeEnergy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.†--Einstein.
Einstein could have replaced Energy with Mass;
Casteism
The irony of course is that Einstein did get pretty rich. He owned a few patents plus he was world famous and used his fame to tour the world giving lectures and talking in public. He also had a professorship and won various scientific awards.. He probably had a total wealth of a few million. ($10 to 20 million now)
There's a guy called Mark Zuckerberg, you would probably never guess he was rich if you just met him.. of course compared to Zuckerberg Einstein was poor..
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
The E= m . c , was formulated by French Mathematician H.Poincaré at 1900!! He Publish the Theory "Sur la dynamique de l’électron", in "Circolo Matematico di Palermo, t. 21, p. 129-176, 1906" In the Book " A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity (2nd edition), Vol. 1: The Classical Theories" from Sir Edmund Taylor Whittaker, there's plenty of history information about research work of mass and energy. Of course, Einstein give some contribution, but Relativity are most part plagiary, which can be checked by references above.. .
Most modern scientists simply pretend that randomness is the only possible explanation, because they aren't interested in a God whom they cannot manipulate - or vivisect - a God who demands that they follow His moral laws, as the atoms obey His physical laws
No, they accept randomness because it is the simplest explanation that is consistent with experimental evidence.
There is no evidence, nor could there be, for the existence of great magician in the sky
that is not bound by the physics we observe.
Randomness is an elegant explanation for the properties of QM, taken in isolation, but the sum of human knowledge, as a whole, points in a very different direction.
We know that the physical is not all that there is, because there are many things which have no physical substance to them, and yet exist and play a major role in our day-to-day lives.
How is it that our words have meaning, and that we can perceive it? How is it that you are experiencing this conversation?
A mere sack of chemicals might indeed respond to the stimulation of the ears by stimulating the muscles of the mouth to produce complex sounds with complex mathematical correlations between the two. But, I'm not just a Chinese room; I am a living, thinking, feeling being who experiences life in a way that physics knows nothing about.
I cannot prove (to myself) that you are not just a sophisticated simulation of a human being, but I know that I am the real thing and have an immaterial soul:
"I think, therefore I am."
This is proof positive that physical law (as it is understood today) is an incomplete description of reality: we know that there is something more; the question is, what?
The mystery deepens when we take a step back and ask the question, "How can I know, or prove, anything?"
In order to reason, we must first assume that the fundamental laws of logic are valid, and that we have the faculties required to apply them with some accuracy. But, this appears to be an unfounded assumption: where did it come from? Why do we trust logic so much that it makes us angry when others are illogical?
People will often respond to this, "They've always worked for me in the past." This is circular reasoning, though - how did you conclude that they worked for you in the past? How do you know that the future will resemble the past? By the laws of logic.
Mankind's innate grasp and love of logic are a precious gift from our creator:
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another..." Romans 2:14-15
God has written His law upon the hearts of all men and women, and a prominent feature of that law is this: "You shall not bear false witness." (To understand and obey this law necessitates some grasp of logic; otherwise "false" becomes meaningless.)
It is because of this universal law written upon our hearts, that you expect your opponent in a debate to be affected by your use (or abuse) of logic. You expect others to be ashamed when they are illogical or lie; if this were not so debate and rational argument would be a pointless exercise in all contexts.
We cannot ultimately know anything by ourselves, because no finite logical system can ever be proven to be correct, consistent, and complete by itself. An infinite regress is required, according to the likes of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
And yet, mankind does know things: you know that it is wrong to lie. (Otherwise, why are you arguing with me?) This seed of innate knowledge - upon which all other human knowledge must rest - is itself given to us by the eternal, infinite, transcendent God of the Christian Bible who is all-wise, all-knowing, and unchanging.
But we are naturally inclined to deny this, because the same innate knowledge exposes our corrupt and sinful condition:
We know that it is wrong to lie, but we do it anyway.
We know that it is wrong to be quick to anger or hatred and seek revenge, but sometimes we do it anyway.
We know that it is wrong to commit adultery or other acts of sexu