Einstein or Newton

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Originally Posted by Chaboo_Cleric [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

Originally Posted by Toehammer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

Originally Posted by Toehammer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]. 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/s...&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]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

oh... =(...