Einstein or Newton

[Toehammer]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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?

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

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

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

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 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I guess they don't teach those things in synagogue, eh? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Toehammer]

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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]

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

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?

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

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! ^^