Physics Is A Game Played According To Certain Simple Rules
Shubee
meaningless marks on paper. Too bad that physicists don't know how to
play the game.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Sam Wormley
> Physics is a game played according to certain simple rules with
> meaningless marks on paper. Too bad that physicists don't know how to
> play the game.
>
> Shubee
Aaaah... So now you start to reveal some of your learning problems.
:-)
Sue...
Why not put a statement in your paper similar to:
<< ... the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the
theory of relativity, in its most essential formal properties,
shows a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional
continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. 1 In order to
give due prominence to this relationship, however,
we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an
imaginary magnitude
sqrt(-1)
ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the
natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special)
theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in
which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same
role as the three space co-ordinates. >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
Then remove everything that is redundant to
or conflicting with that statement. :o)
Sue...
Eric Gisse
You are just mad that physicists can actually use the results of your
profession better than you.
Uncle Al
>
> Physics is a game played according to certain simple rules with
> meaningless marks on paper. Too bad that physicists don't know how to
> play the game.
>
> Shubee
Hey fucking stooopid - turn off your computer. Everything solid state
is now forbidden to you, especially giant magnetoresistance in your
hard drive read heads.
http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
Special Relativity for yard apes
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
Fucking imbecile.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
xxein
xxein: I can show that it requires more than that. But you obviously
wouldn't understand.
Perhaps you will tell us why gravity exists.
Sue...
That is a little like saying a pilot can't trust his
chart because the polar coordinate system is faulty
so I would rather see a demonstration of that first.
> But you obviously wouldn't understand.
>
> Perhaps you will tell us why gravity exists.
Many consider that sort of question more the domain
of religion of philosopy but I can take a swing at it.
Gravity is to keep holy books from levitating
from an altar. As in the H&K experiment, when
holy books DO levitate off the table it is considered
proof of gravity... or proof of religion or something. :-)
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Sue...
Robert J. Kolker
>
> xxein: I can show that it requires more than that. But you obviously
> wouldn't understand.
>
> Perhaps you will tell us why gravity exists.
No body knows why. Newton didn't. Einstein didn't.
Bob Kolker
PD
> Physics is a game played according to certain simple rules with
> meaningless marks on paper. Too bad that physicists don't know how to
> play the game.
Gee, and here I thought your objective was to teach physics to
students in such a way that only high-school math and elementary logic
is required. Now you seem to have discredited the whole exercise as a
pointless game.
Remind me again what your goals are, and tell me again that you aren't
internally conflicted.
PD
mike3
Mind saying WHAT the problems are with the argument? Not that I'm
saying
his argument is right, just curious,
mike3
Which maneks me wonder why he doens't go and LEARN some REAL
physics ans then he could do the same. Oh, because I guess he LIKES
his "Theory" too much and that would mean giving it up...
Shubee
> On Aug 6, 9:44 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Physics is a game played according to certain simple rules with
> > meaningless marks on paper. Too bad that physicists don't know how to
> > play the game.
>
> Gee, and here I thought your objective was to teach physics to
> students in such a way that only high-school math and elementary logic
> is required. Now you seem to have discredited the whole exercise as a
> pointless game.
Why must the game called physics be pointless? Mathematicians
interpret the phrase "a game played according to certain simple rules
with meaningless marks on paper" as a description of mathematics in
general.
http://math.furman.edu/~mwoodard/mqs/ascquoth.html
> Remind me again what your goals are, and tell me again that you aren't
> internally conflicted.
>
> PD
I have many goals. First and foremost: I enjoy using all the weapons
in my arsenal "for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments
and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of
God" (2 Corinthians 10:4-5). NKJV. Can you please tell me why it isn't
an admirable goal for a mathematician to remove from physics
everything that is confused, unnecessary and not amenable to
experimental verification?
I also wish to be on the winning side in the Battle of Armageddon.
"The Battle of Armageddon is a manifestly visible battle between light
and darkness. It will appear eventually, just before the end of the
world. Thousands will be fighting valiantly with great Light against
darkness in the war. The book explaining the theological basis of this
war is now being written. The whole earth will be illuminated by the
power of the message (Rev 18:1). Hopefully you will know of it soon
enough."
I also don't mind fighting against the insanity that says, "Common
sense is a liar and a cheat, and it clouds students' thinking."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2c3adb14bfbbd8b3
Aren't all Christians "internally conflicted"?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Benj
> > Perhaps you will tell us why gravity exists.
>
> No body knows why. Newton didn't. Einstein didn't.
>
> Bob Kolker
Obviously you don't get it. The purpose of physics is to learn
advanced mathematics which you attempt to apply to various phenomena
in the world. You then proceed to impress everyone who encounters you
with your detailed knowledge of advanced mathematical manipulations!
That stands as proof that you are "smarter then Einstein".
As to explanations as to "why" things work like gravity, those are
left to religion. Physics doesn't deal with "why" or the nature of
reality. Physics only deals with the understanding of mathematical
systems that seem to relate to the phenomena without any explanation
of it. Both Newton and Einstein scored very high in that regard, even
though they both didn't have a clue what gravity is.
Eric Gisse
[...]
> Can you please tell me why it isn't
> an admirable goal for a mathematician to remove from physics
> everything that is confused, unnecessary and not amenable to
> experimental verification?
Such as?
[snip]
Uncle Ben
.............
> Why must the game called physics be pointless? Mathematicians
> interpret the phrase "a game played according to certain simple rules
> with meaningless marks on paper" as a description of mathematics in
> general.http://math.furman.edu/~mwoodard/mqs/ascquoth.html
>
That works fine for mathematics, but physics is different.
The purpose of physics is to understand how the world works so as to
be able to predict and control natural phenomena. The criterion for
judging mathematics is consistency and beauty. The criterion for
judging physics is ability to predict the outcome of experiments.
Uncle Ben
Shubee
> On Aug 8, 11:01 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why must the game called physics be pointless? Mathematicians
> > interpret the phrase "a game played according to certain simple rules
> > with meaningless marks on paper" as a description of mathematics in
> > general. http://math.furman.edu/~mwoodard/mqs/ascquoth.html
>
Physics is just a mathematical discipline in David Hilbert's
mathematical philosophy of physics.
> The purpose of physics is to understand how the world works
> so as to be able to predict and control natural phenomena.
I agree that physicists and mathematicians have a different purpose
and that physicists are more ambitious for wanting to control natural
phenomena. Thus I do phrase their goals differently. The main
objective of physicists today is to get everyone to believe that they
can wrest from God all the secrets of the universe and that, with this
knowledge, they will be able to remove God from His throne and figure
out how to take over running the universe directly.
Physics for mathematicians is an infinitely less arrogant research
plan. Mathematicians like Hilbert are merely content with pursuing the
axiomatization of all mathematically consistent universes.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> The criterion for
> judging mathematics is consistency and beauty. The criterion for
> judging physics is ability to predict the outcome of experiments.
Until relativists can admit that they are religionists for pretending
that gravity has been verified experimentally to be curved spacetime
and that they were pretending that Lorentz invariant theories of
gravity couldn't possibly exist, they should put on dunce hats and sit
in the corner.
Shubee
Uncle Ben
> On Aug 9, 6:25 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 8, 11:01 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why must the game called physics be pointless? Mathematicians
> > > interpret the phrase "a game played according to certain simple rules
> > > with meaningless marks on paper" as a description of mathematics in
>
> > That works fine for mathematics, but physics is different.
>
> Physics is just a mathematical discipline in David Hilbert's
> mathematical philosophy of physics.
>
> > The purpose of physics is to understand how the world works
> > so as to be able to predict and control natural phenomena.
>
> I agree that physicists and mathematicians have a different purpose
> and that physicists are more ambitious for wanting to control natural
> phenomena. Thus I do phrase their goals differently. The main
> objective of physicists today is to get everyone to believe that they
> can wrest from God all the secrets of the universe and that, with this
> knowledge, they will be able to remove God from His throne and figure
> out how to take over running the universe directly.
>
> Physics for mathematicians is an infinitely less arrogant research
> plan. Mathematicians like Hilbert are merely content with pursuing the
>
> > The criterion for
> > judging mathematics is consistency and beauty. The criterion for
> > judging physics is ability to predict the outcome of experiments.
>
> Until relativists can admit that they are religionists for pretending
> that gravity has been verified experimentally to be curved spacetime
> and that they were pretending that Lorentz invariant theories of
> gravity couldn't possibly exist, they should put on dunce hats and sit
> in the corner.
>
> Shubee
I don't see how you can realistically discuss physics without
referring to the massive efforts of experimenters. Where are the
Hubble telescopes of mathematicians? Where are the Supercolliders?
Where are the X-ray tubes, the Geiger counters, and the nuclear
reactors?
Uncle Ben
PD
> On Aug 9, 6:25 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 8, 11:01 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why must the game called physics be pointless? Mathematicians
> > > interpret the phrase "a game played according to certain simple rules
> > > with meaningless marks on paper" as a description of mathematics in
>
> > That works fine for mathematics, but physics is different.
>
> Physics is just a mathematical discipline in David Hilbert's
> mathematical philosophy of physics.
>
> > The purpose of physics is to understand how the world works
> > so as to be able to predict and control natural phenomena.
>
> I agree that physicists and mathematicians have a different purpose
> and that physicists are more ambitious for wanting to control natural
> phenomena. Thus I do phrase their goals differently. The main
> objective of physicists today is to get everyone to believe that they
> can wrest from God all the secrets of the universe and that, with this
> knowledge, they will be able to remove God from His throne and figure
> out how to take over running the universe directly.
>
> Physics for mathematicians is an infinitely less arrogant research
> plan. Mathematicians like Hilbert are merely content with pursuing the
> axiomatization of all mathematically consistent universes.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Ah, at LAST we get to the nub of it. You are simply antiscience,
because science wrests from God the secrets of the universe.
Has it never occurred to you that God gave us our minds so that we
could *discover* the design of his creation, which I gather he's quite
pleased with?
And I gather that you think mathematics is spiritually "safe" because
it doesn't try to uncover anything new?
How internally conflicted are you?
PD
>
> > On Aug 8, 11:01 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why must the game called physics be pointless? Mathematicians
> > > interpret the phrase "a game played according to certain simple rules
> > > with meaningless marks on paper" as a description of mathematics in
>
> > That works fine for mathematics, but physics is different.
>
> Physics is just a mathematical discipline in David Hilbert's
> mathematical philosophy of physics.
>
> > The purpose of physics is to understand how the world works
> > so as to be able to predict and control natural phenomena.
>
> I agree that physicists and mathematicians have a different purpose
> and that physicists are more ambitious for wanting to control natural
> phenomena. Thus I do phrase their goals differently. The main
> objective of physicists today is to get everyone to believe that they
> can wrest from God all the secrets of the universe and that, with this
> knowledge, they will be able to remove God from His throne and figure
> out how to take over running the universe directly.
Moreover, why then lie about your intent when you say that it is your
goal to make relativity more accessible to students by presenting it
in a way that relies on nothing more than high-school mathematics and
elementary logic? Doesn't this abet the unveiling of God's secrets?
Aren't you aiding the cause you say you are opposed to?
Moreover, you say that YOUR explication of relativity reveals the
possibility of superluminal motion, a secret of God's universe that
you now claim to have single-handedly revealed. You are guilty of the
sin you despise.
Just how internally conflicted are you?
PD
>
> Physics for mathematicians is an infinitely less arrogant research
> plan. Mathematicians like Hilbert are merely content with pursuing the
> axiomatization of all mathematically consistent universes.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
> On Aug 9, 9:14 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 9, 6:25 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 8, 11:01 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why must the game called physics be pointless? Mathematicians
> > > > interpret the phrase "a game played according to certain simple rules
> > > > with meaningless marks on paper" as a description of mathematics in
The observation of nature is an excellent starting point to begin
Hilbert's program for the axiomatization of physics. And the
laboratory will continue to be the best place to search for new
axioms. But after it's decided what are the most fundamental
properties of nature, wouldn't it be acceptable for a professionally
trained mathematical mind to shape the facts into a mature
mathematical form?
> Where are the Hubble telescopes of mathematicians? Where
> are the Supercolliders? Where are the X-ray tubes, the Geiger
> counters, and the nuclear reactors?
>
> Uncle Ben
The machinery of choice for mathematicians doing physics is algebra,
differential geometry, the calculus of variations and real and complex
analysis.
"A great physical theory is not mature until it has been put in a
precise mathematical form, and it is often only in such a mature form
that it admits clear answers to conceptual problems." A. S. Wightman,
Hilbert's sixth problem: mathematical treatment of the axioms of
physics, in: Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. 28, AMS, 1976, pp.
147-220.
Don't you believe that coming up with "clear answers to conceptual
problems" requires professional mathematical talent?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
> On Aug 9, 8:14 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 9, 6:25 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 8, 11:01 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why must the game called physics be pointless? Mathematicians
> > > > interpret the phrase "a game played according to certain simple rules
> > > > with meaningless marks on paper" as a description of mathematics in
> > > > general.http://math.furman.edu/~mwoodard/mqs/ascquoth.html
>
> > > That works fine for mathematics, but physics is different.
>
> > Physics is just a mathematical discipline in David Hilbert's
> > mathematical philosophy of physics.
>
> > > The purpose of physics is to understand how the world works
> > > so as to be able to predict and control natural phenomena.
>
> > I agree that physicists and mathematicians have a different purpose
> > and that physicists are more ambitious for wanting to control natural
> > phenomena. Thus I do phrase their goals differently. The main
> > objective of physicists today is to get everyone to believe that they
> > can wrest from God all the secrets of the universe and that, with this
> > knowledge, they will be able to remove God from His throne and figure
> > out how to take over running the universe directly.
>
> > plan. Mathematicians like Hilbert are merely content with pursuing the
> > axiomatization of all mathematically consistent universes.http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> because science wrests from God the secrets of the universe.
I am not anti-science but you are a strong supporter of half-wit
science. You teach that "Common sense is a liar and a cheat, and it
clouds students' thinking."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2c3adb14bfbbd8b3
And you oppose removing from science everything that is confused,
unnecessary and not amenable to experimental verification.
> > > The criterion for
> > > judging mathematics is consistency and beauty. The criterion for
> > > judging physics is ability to predict the outcome of experiments.
>
> > Until relativists can admit that they are religionists for pretending
> > that gravity has been verified experimentally to be curved spacetime
> > and that they were pretending that Lorentz invariant theories of
> > gravity couldn't possibly exist, they should put on dunce hats and sit
> > in the corner.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
Shubee
> On Aug 9, 8:14 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 9, 6:25 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 8, 11:01 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why must the game called physics be pointless? Mathematicians
> > > > interpret the phrase "a game played according to certain simple rules
> > > > with meaningless marks on paper" as a description of mathematics in
> > > > general.http://math.furman.edu/~mwoodard/mqs/ascquoth.html
>
> > > That works fine for mathematics, but physics is different.
>
> > Physics is just a mathematical discipline in David Hilbert's
> > mathematical philosophy of physics.
>
> > > The purpose of physics is to understand how the world works
> > > so as to be able to predict and control natural phenomena.
>
> > I agree that physicists and mathematicians have a different purpose
> > and that physicists are more ambitious for wanting to control natural
> > phenomena. Thus I do phrase their goals differently. The main
> > objective of physicists today is to get everyone to believe that they
> > can wrest from God all the secrets of the universe and that, with this
> > knowledge, they will be able to remove God from His throne and figure
> > out how to take over running the universe directly.
>
> Moreover, why then lie about your intent when you say that it is your
> goal to make relativity more accessible to students by presenting it
> in a way that relies on nothing more than high-school mathematics and
> elementary logic?
I am not lying. You just have an inclination for misunderstanding
truth and misrepresenting me.
> Doesn't this abet the unveiling of God's secrets?
I am not opposed to research. "It is the glory of God to conceal a
matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." Proverbs 25:2.
> Aren't you aiding the cause you say you are opposed to?
While I do admit that Step 1 to the axiomatization of physics is
powerful, I am not under the overpowering delusion that has captivated
the minds of so many physicists. I simply don't believe that a
scientific discovery might lead to seizing control of the universe.
> Moreover, you say that YOUR explication of relativity reveals the
> possibility of superluminal motion, a secret of God's universe that
> you now claim to have single-handedly revealed. You are guilty of the
> sin you despise.
How am I going to be able to seize control of the universe and attain
immortality by merely understanding superluminality?
> Just how internally conflicted are you?
When is the last time you had your sanity checked?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
PD
Really?
Gee, when you say things like the following, the opposite conclusion
would be drawn:
" I agree that physicists and mathematicians have a different purpose
and that physicists are more ambitious for wanting to control
natural
phenomena. Thus I do phrase their goals differently. The main
objective of physicists today is to get everyone to believe that
they
can wrest from God all the secrets of the universe and that, with
this
knowledge, they will be able to remove God from His throne and
figure
out how to take over running the universe directly.
Physics for mathematicians is an infinitely less arrogant research
plan. Mathematicians like Hilbert are merely content with pursuing
the
axiomatization of all mathematically consistent universes."
> but you are a strong supporter of half-wit
> science. You teach that "Common sense is a liar and a cheat, and it
> clouds students' thinking."http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2c3adb14bfb...
PD
Exactly. And yet you say:
"The main objective of physicists today is to get everyone to believe
that they can wrest from God all the secrets of the universe and that,
with this knowledge, they will be able to remove God from His throne
and figure out how to take over running the universe directly."
>
> > Aren't you aiding the cause you say you are opposed to?
>
> While I do admit that Step 1 to the axiomatization of physics is
> powerful, I am not under the overpowering delusion that has captivated
> the minds of so many physicists. I simply don't believe that a
> scientific discovery might lead to seizing control of the universe.
Neither do I. Good heavens! What on earth gives you the impression
that uncovering the secrets of God's design is tantamount to seizing
control? Proverbs 25:2 says it beautifully -- it is God's DESIRE that
we uncover the secrets of his creation.
>
> > Moreover, you say that YOUR explication of relativity reveals the
> > possibility of superluminal motion, a secret of God's universe that
> > you now claim to have single-handedly revealed. You are guilty of the
> > sin you despise.
>
> How am I going to be able to seize control of the universe and attain
> immortality by merely understanding superluminality?
Exactly! And how are scientists going to seize control of the universe
and attain immortality by merely understanding the laws of nature?
Choose! Either scientific progress is blessed by God and you have the
right to pursue it *in exactly the same fashion* that other scientists
have the right to pursue it. Or it is a condemnable pursuit, and you
have no business doing it yourself, lest you be guilty of a sin you do
not repent of yourself.
>
> > Just how internally conflicted are you?
>
> When is the last time you had your sanity checked?
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
[ http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/9b3767b500ef7248 ]
Physicists readily admit that they are on a religious quest. Google
for "The Holy Grail of Physics" and note the fantastic number of hits.
And don't tell me that physicists today aren't following Einstein in
wanting to know God's thoughts while stubbornly refusing to submit to
God's authority.
Shubee
Physicists are in hot pursuit of the Theory of Everything, the Holy
Grail of physics. Yet when their religious fanaticism is challenged,
they deny that Everything means Everything. Just how internally
conflicted are they?
> and that,
> with this knowledge, they will be able to remove God from His throne
> and figure out how to take over running the universe directly."
>
> > > Aren't you aiding the cause you say you are opposed to?
>
> > While I do admit that Step 1 to the axiomatization of physics is
> > powerful, I am not under the overpowering delusion that has captivated
> > the minds of so many physicists. I simply don't believe that a
> > scientific discovery might lead to seizing control of the universe.
>
> Neither do I. Good heavens! What on earth gives you the impression
> that uncovering the secrets of God's design is tantamount to seizing
> control?
"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which
are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do
all the words of this law." Deuteronomy 29:29.
As I said elsewhere, physicists aren't content with the systematic
unfolding of knowledge. They know that careful reasoning requires a
considerable amount of time and they also know that they only have a
little time to try to attain divinity. That's why they want to jump
immediately to the Theory of Everything and that's why they loathe the
axiomatization of physics.
> Proverbs 25:2 says it beautifully -- it is God's DESIRE that
> we uncover the secrets of his creation.
I'm amused by the way that you debunk the lie that I've already
refuted.
> > > Moreover, you say that YOUR explication of relativity reveals the
> > > possibility of superluminal motion, a secret of God's universe that
> > > you now claim to have single-handedly revealed. You are guilty of the
> > > sin you despise.
>
> > How am I going to be able to seize control of the universe and attain
> > immortality by merely understanding superluminality?
>
> Exactly! And how are scientists going to seize control of the universe
> and attain immortality by merely understanding the laws of nature?
They can't. So they need to cease boasting that they wrest from God
all the secrets of the universe.
> Choose! Either scientific progress is blessed by God
Why don't you choose to stop misrepresenting me?
> you have the right to pursue it *in exactly the same fashion*
> that other scientists have the right to pursue it.
No thank you. I prefer science.
> > > Just how internally conflicted are you?
>
> > When is the last time you had your sanity checked?
>
> > Shubee http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
PD
What makes you say that?
> Google
> for "The Holy Grail of Physics" and note the fantastic number of hits.
So? It's an idiom. It means "the ultimate prize of this endeavor".
It's a colloquial expression, like "for Pete's sake". When someone
says, "for Pete's sake," do you imagine they are really claiming it is
for the sake of St. Peter and is a religious statement?
> And don't tell me that physicists today aren't following Einstein in
> wanting to know God's thoughts
Yes, and we agreed that this is laudable. We want to understand God's
design.
> while stubbornly refusing to submit to
> God's authority.
Now, wait just a second. Where do you get that?
There is nothing that is inherent in scientific pursuit that
represents refusal to submit to God's authority.
PD
Yes, in accordance with Proverbs 25:2. And there's not a thing wrong
with that, is there?
Oh, and by the way, the "Theory of Everything" is a cute name for
marketing, but physicists know, for example, that a unified field
theory (what you have heard called The Theory of Everything) doesn't
tell you anything about psychosis, or the purpose of junk DNA, or
economic stability, or how optical illusions are generated in the
brain, or what causes Earth's magnetic poles to flip, or a whole bunch
of other things?
> Yet when their religious fanaticism is challenged,
WHAT religious fanaticism? Physicists are not trying to do anything
more than what you are trying to do: understand how nature works and
what the design is.
> they deny that Everything means Everything. Just how internally
> conflicted are they?
You mean you are led astray by *marketing* terms? Tell me, Shubee,
when someone tells you quarks have color and that they are labeled
blue, green and red, did you think that really means they have optical
color?
>
> > and that,
> > with this knowledge, they will be able to remove God from His throne
> > and figure out how to take over running the universe directly."
>
> > > > Aren't you aiding the cause you say you are opposed to?
>
> > > While I do admit that Step 1 to the axiomatization of physics is
> > > powerful, I am not under the overpowering delusion that has captivated
> > > the minds of so many physicists. I simply don't believe that a
> > > scientific discovery might lead to seizing control of the universe.
>
> > Neither do I. Good heavens! What on earth gives you the impression
> > that uncovering the secrets of God's design is tantamount to seizing
> > control?
>
> "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which
> are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do
> all the words of this law." Deuteronomy 29:29.
>
> As I said elsewhere, physicists aren't content with the systematic
> unfolding of knowledge.
How on earth do you draw that conclusion? Because they aren't
following your game plan?
> They know that careful reasoning requires a
> considerable amount of time and they also know that they only have a
> little time to try to attain divinity. That's why they want to jump
> immediately to the Theory of Everything
Oh, come on. You're upset because they aren't doing their pursuit of
God's plan the way YOU want it to be done? Isn't that just a TAD
prideful and arrogant? Isn't pride the worst sin of all?
> and that's why they loathe the
> axiomatization of physics.
>
> > Proverbs 25:2 says it beautifully -- it is God's DESIRE that
> > we uncover the secrets of his creation.
>
> I'm amused by the way that you debunk the lie that I've already
> refuted.
Sorry? You don't think it's God's desire that we uncover the secrets
of his creation?
>
> > > > Moreover, you say that YOUR explication of relativity reveals the
> > > > possibility of superluminal motion, a secret of God's universe that
> > > > you now claim to have single-handedly revealed. You are guilty of the
> > > > sin you despise.
>
> > > How am I going to be able to seize control of the universe and attain
> > > immortality by merely understanding superluminality?
>
> > Exactly! And how are scientists going to seize control of the universe
> > and attain immortality by merely understanding the laws of nature?
>
> They can't. So they need to cease boasting that they wrest from God
> all the secrets of the universe.
We can't wrest anything from God. We are only uncovering what he has
laid out for us to discover -- by his decision and blessing.
>
> > Choose! Either scientific progress is blessed by God
>
> Why don't you choose to stop misrepresenting me?
>
> > you have the right to pursue it *in exactly the same fashion*
> > that other scientists have the right to pursue it.
>
> No thank you. I prefer science.
Don't you prefer mathematics to science? And in fact, don't you want
to relabel mathematics as science, with the intent of *replacing* the
more commonly understood meaning of "science"? Don't you find the
commonly understood meaning of science to be distasteful?
>
> > > > Just how internally conflicted are you?
>
> > > When is the last time you had your sanity checked?
>
> > > Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
zzbu...@netscape.net
Most physicits are on an idiot quest for three idiot things, which
is why
nodody but idiots like string theory cranks even listen to the
idiots anymore.
1) The ultimate theory of Groups.
2) The ultimate theory of Categories.
3) The answer to the question:
Why do the syncopated wanks keep recursively chanting:
Comprehension of the Double Slit Experiment is the answer to
EVERYTHING.
>
>
>
> > > but you are a strong supporter of half-wit
> > > science. You teach that "Common sense is a liar and a cheat, and it
> > > clouds students' thinking."http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2c3adb14bfb...
> > > And you oppose removing from science everything that is confused,
> > > unnecessary and not amenable to experimental verification.
>
> > > > > > The criterion for
> > > > > > judging mathematics is consistency and beauty. The criterion for
> > > > > > judging physics is ability to predict the outcome of experiments.
>
> > > > > Until relativists can admit that they are religionists for pretending
> > > > > that gravity has been verified experimentally to be curved spacetime
> > > > > and that they were pretending that Lorentz invariant theories of
> > > > > gravity couldn't possibly exist, they should put on dunce hats and sit
> > > > > in the corner.
>
> > > Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Shubee
> On Aug 11, 10:04 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 11, 8:01 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 10, 6:19 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 9, 9:21 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 9, 8:14 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 9, 6:25 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 8, 11:01 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Why must the game called physics be pointless? Mathematicians
> > > > > > > > interpret the phrase "a game played according to certain simple rules
> > > > > > > > with meaningless marks on paper" as a description of mathematics in
> > > > > > > > general.http://math.furman.edu/~mwoodard/mqs/ascquoth.html
>
> > > > > > > That works fine for mathematics, but physics is different.
>
> > > > > > Physics is just a mathematical discipline in David Hilbert's
> > > > > > mathematical philosophy of physics.
>
> > > > > > > The purpose of physics is to understand how the world works
> > > > > > > so as to be able to predict and control natural phenomena.
>
> > > > > > I agree that physicists and mathematicians have a different purpose
> > > > > > and that physicists are more ambitious for wanting to control natural
> > > > > > phenomena. Thus I do phrase their goals differently. The main
> > > > > > objective of physicists today is to get everyone to believe that they
> > > > > > can wrest from God all the secrets of the universe and that, with this
> > > > > > knowledge, they will be able to remove God from His throne and figure
> > > > > > out how to take over running the universe directly.
>
> > > > > > plan. Mathematicians like Hilbert are merely content with pursuing the
> > > > > > axiomatization of all mathematically consistent universes.
> > > > > >http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> > > > > because science wrests from God the secrets of the universe.
>
> > > > I am not anti-science
>
> > > Really?
> > > Gee, when you say things like the following, the opposite conclusion
> > > would be drawn:
>
> > [http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/9b3767b500ef7248]
>
> > Physicists readily admit that they are on a religious quest.
>
http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/einstein.htm
http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm
> > Google
> > for "The Holy Grail of Physics" and note the fantastic number of hits.
>
> So? It's an idiom. It means "the ultimate prize of this endeavor".
> It's a colloquial expression, like "for Pete's sake". When someone
> says, "for Pete's sake," do you imagine they are really claiming it is
> for the sake of St. Peter and is a religious statement?
My Christian faith is no idiom yet I've witnessed a truly disgusting
display of worshipful devotion for Einstein from a prominent physicist
than far exceeded the greatest praise for Jesus Christ I've ever seen
in my whole life from any Christian minister. And Jesus Christ is the
Second Person of the Godhead. So you can stop pretending now. Your
lies only condemn you. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth
speaks. If you want evidence, watch PBS. Physicists are often
referring to Einstein's pursuit of a unified field theory as an
especially sacred quest.
> > And don't tell me that physicists today aren't following Einstein in
> > wanting to know God's thoughts
>
> Yes, and we agreed that this is laudable. We want to understand God's
> design.
But that's hilarious. Physicists have problems just interpreting the
Lorentz transformation.
> > while stubbornly refusing to submit to
> > God's authority.
>
> Now, wait just a second. Where do you get that?
Physicists teach that "Common sense is a liar and a cheat, and it
clouds students' thinking." In other words, they demote God to their
own pitiful level of stupidity and at the same time boast in their own
imagined intellect.
> There is nothing that is inherent in scientific pursuit that
> represents refusal to submit to God's authority.
That is correct. And when physicists exalt Einstein above the true God
and promote fantasy after fantasy and call it science, that isn't
science either, just a major preoccupation.
> > > > but you are a strong supporter of half-wit
> > > > science. You teach that "Common sense is a liar and a cheat, and it
> > > > clouds students' thinking."
> > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2c3adb14bfbbd8b3
> > > > And you oppose removing from science everything that is confused,
> > > > unnecessary and not amenable to experimental verification.
>
> > > > > > > The criterion for
> > > > > > > judging mathematics is consistency and beauty. The criterion for
> > > > > > > judging physics is ability to predict the outcome of experiments.
>
> > > > > > Until relativists can admit that they are religionists for pretending
> > > > > > that gravity has been verified experimentally to be curved spacetime
> > > > > > and that they were pretending that Lorentz invariant theories of
> > > > > > gravity couldn't possibly exist, they should put on dunce hats and sit
> > > > > > in the corner.
>
> > > > Shubee http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
On Aug 11, 12:11 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, and by the way, the "Theory of Everything" is a cute name for
> marketing,
Yes, for the promotion of a moneymaking religion and a sacred
priesthood, like the degenerate shysters on TV.
> but physicists know, for example, that a unified field
> theory (what you have heard called The Theory of Everything) doesn't
> tell you anything about psychosis,
If no equation can describe consciousness, then why do physicists
believe that an ultimate mathematical theory of the universe exists?
> > Yet when their religious fanaticism is challenged,
>
> WHAT religious fanaticism?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2c3adb14bfbbd8b3
> > they deny that Everything means Everything. Just how internally
> > conflicted are they?
>
> You mean you are led astray by *marketing* terms?
No. I understand clearly that it's just a disingenuous sham.
> > > and that,
> > > with this knowledge, they will be able to remove God from His throne
> > > and figure out how to take over running the universe directly."
>
> > > > > Aren't you aiding the cause you say you are opposed to?
>
> > > > While I do admit that Step 1 to the axiomatization of physics is
> > > > powerful, I am not under the overpowering delusion that has captivated
> > > > the minds of so many physicists. I simply don't believe that a
> > > > scientific discovery might lead to seizing control of the universe.
>
> > > Neither do I. Good heavens! What on earth gives you the impression
> > > that uncovering the secrets of God's design is tantamount to seizing
> > > control?
>
> > "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which
> > are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do
> > all the words of this law." Deuteronomy 29:29.
>
> > As I said elsewhere, physicists aren't content with the systematic
> > unfolding of knowledge.
>
> How on earth do you draw that conclusion?
Isn't it clear to you that physicists despise axiomatization?
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Han de Bruijn
Because, without gravity, _you_ would cease to exist.
Han de Bruijn
PD
>
> > > for "The Holy Grail of Physics" and note the fantastic number of hits.
>
> > So? It's an idiom. It means "the ultimate prize of this endeavor".
> > It's a colloquial expression, like "for Pete's sake". When someone
> > says, "for Pete's sake," do you imagine they are really claiming it is
> > for the sake of St. Peter and is a religious statement?
>
> My Christian faith is no idiom yet I've witnessed a truly disgusting
> display of worshipful devotion for Einstein from a prominent physicist
> than far exceeded the greatest praise for Jesus Christ I've ever seen
> in my whole life from any Christian minister.
Well, I'd say that speaks both to the zeal of the physicist you
mention and the tepidness of the ministers you've dealt with.
However, I would be hesitant to project the zeal of the physicist you
mention to all physicists. Most physicists do not foam at the mouth
about Einstein, your experience notwithstanding.
Moreover, the zeal for Einstein you encountered has nothing to do with
the marketing term "Theory of Everything", a term that I believe
Einstein never used.
> And Jesus Christ is the
> Second Person of the Godhead. So you can stop pretending now. Your
> lies only condemn you. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth
> speaks. If you want evidence, watch PBS. Physicists are often
> referring to Einstein's pursuit of a unified field theory as an
> especially sacred quest.
>
> > > And don't tell me that physicists today aren't following Einstein in
> > > wanting to know God's thoughts
>
> > Yes, and we agreed that this is laudable. We want to understand God's
> > design.
>
> But that's hilarious.
Sorry, we were talking about MOTIVES, not the execution as your ego
wants it done. How do your MOTIVES differ from physicists', and what
evidence do you have for that?
> Physicists have problems just interpreting the
> Lorentz transformation.
>
> > > while stubbornly refusing to submit to
> > > God's authority.
>
> > Now, wait just a second. Where do you get that?
>
> Physicists teach that "Common sense is a liar and a cheat, and it
> clouds students' thinking." In other words, they demote God to their
> own pitiful level of stupidity and at the same time boast in their own
> imagined intellect.
Now you are babbling. You think that the devaluation of common sense
is a demotion of God? Remember the scripture that reminds humans to
"trust not your own understanding?"
>
> > There is nothing that is inherent in scientific pursuit that
> > represents refusal to submit to God's authority.
>
> That is correct.
I'm glad we agree on this.
> And when physicists exalt Einstein above the true God
Woah, who says they do that? Praise for Einstein's work, or Picasso's,
or Mandela's, or Frank Lloyd Wright's, is not tantamount to putting
them *above* God.
> and promote fantasy after fantasy
What fantasy? Science uses experimental verification as part of its
methodology. What do you consider fantasy?
> and call it science, that isn't
> science either, just a major preoccupation.
>
>
>
> > > > > but you are a strong supporter of half-wit
> > > > > science. You teach that "Common sense is a liar and a cheat, and it
> > > > > clouds students' thinking."
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2c3adb14bfb...
> > > > > And you oppose removing from science everything that is confused,
> > > > > unnecessary and not amenable to experimental verification.
>
> > > > > > > > The criterion for
> > > > > > > > judging mathematics is consistency and beauty. The criterion for
> > > > > > > > judging physics is ability to predict the outcome of experiments.
>
> > > > > > > Until relativists can admit that they are religionists for pretending
> > > > > > > that gravity has been verified experimentally to be curved spacetime
> > > > > > > and that they were pretending that Lorentz invariant theories of
> > > > > > > gravity couldn't possibly exist, they should put on dunce hats and sit
> > > > > > > in the corner.
>
> > > > > Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/directory.htm
>
> On Aug 11, 12:11 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh, and by the way, the "Theory of Everything" is a cute name for
> > marketing,
>
> Yes, for the promotion of a moneymaking
Moneymaking? Who do you think makes money from the Theory of
Everything?
> religion and a sacred
> priesthood,
WHAT religion? WHAT priesthood? You just told me the pursuit of
science is a blessed act, one that you join in as well!
> like the degenerate shysters on TV.
>
> > but physicists know, for example, that a unified field
> > theory (what you have heard called The Theory of Everything) doesn't
> > tell you anything about psychosis,
>
> If no equation can describe consciousness, then why do physicists
> believe that an ultimate mathematical theory of the universe exists?
They DON'T. That is a *marketing term*.
>
> > > Yet when their religious fanaticism is challenged,
>
> > WHAT religious fanaticism?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2c3adb14bfb...
>
> > > they deny that Everything means Everything. Just how internally
> > > conflicted are they?
>
> > You mean you are led astray by *marketing* terms?
>
> No. I understand clearly that it's just a disingenuous sham.
You mean, like "for Pete's sake"? Or "the tree of life" -- a common
marketing term used in biology? Or "the code of life" -- a common
marketing term for DNA?
>
>
>
> > > > and that,
> > > > with this knowledge, they will be able to remove God from His throne
> > > > and figure out how to take over running the universe directly."
>
> > > > > > Aren't you aiding the cause you say you are opposed to?
>
> > > > > While I do admit that Step 1 to the axiomatization of physics is
> > > > > powerful, I am not under the overpowering delusion that has captivated
> > > > > the minds of so many physicists. I simply don't believe that a
> > > > > scientific discovery might lead to seizing control of the universe.
>
> > > > Neither do I. Good heavens! What on earth gives you the impression
> > > > that uncovering the secrets of God's design is tantamount to seizing
> > > > control?
>
> > > "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which
> > > are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do
> > > all the words of this law." Deuteronomy 29:29.
>
> > > As I said elsewhere, physicists aren't content with the systematic
> > > unfolding of knowledge.
>
> > How on earth do you draw that conclusion?
>
> Isn't it clear to you that physicists despise axiomatization?
No, it isn't. Moreover, it is a TAD vain on your part to insist that
axiomization, which is YOUR preferred method of scientific pursuit, is
the only viable candidate for systematic unfolding of knowledge. And
vanity is the most egregious sin, as you know.
PD
Shubee
> On Aug 11, 11:20 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My Christian faith is no idiom yet I've witnessed a truly disgusting
> > display of worshipful devotion for Einstein from a prominent physicist
> > than far exceeded the greatest praise for Jesus Christ I've ever seen
> > in my whole life from any Christian minister.
>
> Well, I'd say that speaks both to the zeal of the physicist you
> mention and the tepidness of the ministers you've dealt with.
> However, I would be hesitant to project the zeal of the physicist you
> mention to all physicists. Most physicists do not foam at the mouth
> about Einstein, your experience notwithstanding.
I think that most physicists do foam at the mouth about Einstein.
They're the ones that prostitute themselves and science to defend the
myths that the physics community has created.
> > Physicists teach that "Common sense is a liar and a cheat, and it
> > clouds students' thinking." In other words, they demote God to their
> > own pitiful level of stupidity and at the same time boast in their own
> > imagined intellect.
>
> Now you are babbling. You think that the devaluation of common sense
> is a demotion of God? Remember the scripture that reminds humans to
> "trust not your own understanding?"
If given the choice between teaching relativity in a way that confuses
students and makes them doubt the consistency of elementary physics
and an explanation that reduces spacetime to a natural and obviously
logical mathematical structure, most physicists would prefer the
seemingly irrational approach.
> > > There is nothing that is inherent in scientific pursuit that
> > > represents refusal to submit to God's authority.
>
> > That is correct.
>
> I'm glad we agree on this.
>
> > And when physicists exalt Einstein above the true God
>
> Woah, who says they do that?
I do.
> > and promote fantasy after fantasy
>
> What fantasy? Science uses experimental verification as part of its
> methodology. What do you consider fantasy?
Everything that is confused, unnecessary and not amenable to
experimental verification is a fantasy in physics.
> > Yes, for the promotion of a moneymaking
>
> Moneymaking? Who do you think makes money from the Theory of
> Everything?
The temple prostitutes, of course.
> > religion and a sacred priesthood,
>
> WHAT religion?
Pantheism.
http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/einstein.htm
http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm
> WHAT priesthood?
The most successful temple prostitutes.
For example:
"LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, an incredible man, an amazing intellect.
It's been said that he can sell physics better than Madonna can sell
sex. We're honored to have Professor Stephen Hawking with us for the
full hour. It's all next on LARRY KING LIVE.
"Welcome. ...
"KING: Do you believe in God?
"HAWKING: Yes, I do, if by God you mean the embodiment of the laws
that govern the universe."
http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/resources/cnn.html
> > If no equation can describe consciousness, then why do physicists
> > believe that an ultimate mathematical theory of the universe exists?
>
> They DON'T. That is a *marketing term*.
Got it. It's just the advertising of a seductive temple prostitute
that sells pantheism.
> > > You mean you are led astray by *marketing* terms?
>
> > No. I understand clearly that it's just a disingenuous sham.
>
> > > > As I said elsewhere, physicists aren't content with the systematic
> > > > unfolding of knowledge.
>
> > > How on earth do you draw that conclusion?
>
> > Isn't it clear to you that physicists despise axiomatization?
>
> No, it isn't. Moreover, it is a TAD vain on your part to insist that
> axiomization, which is YOUR preferred method of scientific pursuit, is
> the only viable candidate for systematic unfolding of knowledge. And
> vanity is the most egregious sin, as you know.
>
> PD
Your persistent opposition to axiomatization is proof that you despise
axiomatization.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
PD
> On Aug 12, 5:41 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 11, 11:20 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > My Christian faith is no idiom yet I've witnessed a truly disgusting
> > > display of worshipful devotion for Einstein from a prominent physicist
> > > than far exceeded the greatest praise for Jesus Christ I've ever seen
> > > in my whole life from any Christian minister.
>
> > Well, I'd say that speaks both to the zeal of the physicist you
> > mention and the tepidness of the ministers you've dealt with.
> > However, I would be hesitant to project the zeal of the physicist you
> > mention to all physicists. Most physicists do not foam at the mouth
> > about Einstein, your experience notwithstanding.
>
> I think that most physicists do foam at the mouth about Einstein.
I disagree, and I'm surrounded by them and talk with them on a daily
basis.
> They're the ones that prostitute themselves and science to defend the
> myths that the physics community has created.
What myths?
>
> > > Physicists teach that "Common sense is a liar and a cheat, and it
> > > clouds students' thinking." In other words, they demote God to their
> > > own pitiful level of stupidity and at the same time boast in their own
> > > imagined intellect.
>
> > Now you are babbling. You think that the devaluation of common sense
> > is a demotion of God? Remember the scripture that reminds humans to
> > "trust not your own understanding?"
>
> If given the choice between teaching relativity in a way that confuses
> students and makes them doubt the consistency of elementary physics
> and an explanation that reduces spacetime to a natural and obviously
> logical mathematical structure, most physicists would prefer the
> seemingly irrational approach.
Three comments:
1. There is LOTS about basic physics that students have misconceptions
about, based on their common sense, and this has nothing to do with
relativity. If you'd like some research on this, you could look up the
Force Concept Inventory -- it's full of illuminating tidbits about
what common sense tells the student. The same is true for chemistry
and biology as well.
2. If you have a method for teaching relativity that reduces spacetime
to a natural and obviously logical mathematical structure, then you
need to get that into the classroom by any means necessary, to test
whether it works as you hope. So far you seem to have a lot of excuses
for avoiding this step.
3. Whether students have difficulty with a subject has NOTHING to do
with whether the teachers are trying to demote God, as you claimed
they were. If you make an allegation like that, it's your onus to back
it up.
>
> > > > There is nothing that is inherent in scientific pursuit that
> > > > represents refusal to submit to God's authority.
>
> > > That is correct.
>
> > I'm glad we agree on this.
>
> > > And when physicists exalt Einstein above the true God
>
> > Woah, who says they do that?
>
> I do.
Based on WHAT?
>
> > > and promote fantasy after fantasy
>
> > What fantasy? Science uses experimental verification as part of its
> > methodology. What do you consider fantasy?
>
> Everything that is confused, unnecessary and not amenable to
> experimental verification is a fantasy in physics.
Such as? I asked you what you considered to be fantasy. Do you have an
answer or not?
>
> > > Yes, for the promotion of a moneymaking
>
> > Moneymaking? Who do you think makes money from the Theory of
> > Everything?
>
> The temple prostitutes, of course.
Such as? Who do you think makes money from the Theory of Everything?
>
> > > religion and a sacred priesthood,
>
> > WHAT religion?
>
>
Pantheism.http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/einstein.htmhttp://
www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm
WHAAAAT?? You use the websites of a couple of pantheists who *mention*
the name of Einstein as being evidence that all physicists are
pantheists? WHAAAT?
http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm
Here's a website that mentions the Christian statements by Hitler.
Should one conclude that Christians are Nazis?
>
> > WHAT priesthood?
>
> The most successful temple prostitutes.
And whom do you think is successful, and by what measure?
>
> For example:
>
> "LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, an incredible man, an amazing intellect.
> It's been said that he can sell physics better than Madonna can sell
> sex. We're honored to have Professor Stephen Hawking with us for the
> full hour. It's all next on LARRY KING LIVE.
>
> "Welcome. ...
>
> "KING: Do you believe in God?
>
> "HAWKING: Yes, I do, if by God you mean the embodiment of the laws
> that govern the universe."http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/resources/cnn.html
Ah, very good. So let's do a survey of all the biologist who do not
believe a Christian God, and then use that to conclude that biology is
a religion that attempts to demote God. Waddya say?
And while we're at it, let's do a quick survey of left-handed people
who are pantheists, and use that to conclude that left-handedness is a
religion that attempts to subvert God's authority.
>
> > > If no equation can describe consciousness, then why do physicists
> > > believe that an ultimate mathematical theory of the universe exists?
>
> > They DON'T. That is a *marketing term*.
>
> Got it. It's just the advertising of a seductive temple prostitute
> that sells pantheism.
Interesting, and this is the VERY SAME scientific pursuit that you
want to make more accessible to students by using only high school
math and rigorous logic, and probably with a dose of common sense.
So you want to sell pantheism, but you want to sell it more palatably?
>
> > > > You mean you are led astray by *marketing* terms?
>
> > > No. I understand clearly that it's just a disingenuous sham.
>
> > > > > As I said elsewhere, physicists aren't content with the systematic
> > > > > unfolding of knowledge.
>
> > > > How on earth do you draw that conclusion?
>
> > > Isn't it clear to you that physicists despise axiomatization?
>
> > No, it isn't. Moreover, it is a TAD vain on your part to insist that
> > axiomization, which is YOUR preferred method of scientific pursuit, is
> > the only viable candidate for systematic unfolding of knowledge. And
> > vanity is the most egregious sin, as you know.
>
> > PD
>
> Your persistent opposition to axiomatization is proof that you despise
> axiomatization.
I'm not opposed to it. There are other, equally valid approaches. I
choose the one that works best for me, as do other physicists. You, on
the other hand, have this "with me or against me" mentality that
insists that if people don't do things your way, then this is evidence
they despise your way. I hold my fork in my left hand when I cut my
meat. This does not mean that I despise right-handed-fork-holders.
Shubee, in the last several posts you have let your guard down and
shown the dark underside of your horribly conflicted agenda.
You have a deep hatred and animosity toward how science is being done,
and in particular because it is not pursuing the axiomatic approach
you want to take. You exhibit your pridefulness and ego while accusing
physicists of inflating themselves above God.
You say science is a noble pursuit commanded in the Bible, but you say
that in so doing, it is attempting to wrest secrets from God.
You say that lauding a physicist's accomplishments is detestable, but
you laud and hold higher than the rest of humanity a mathematician.
You say that physicists attempt to confuse students, and yet you
withhold from students a method of teaching relativity from those same
students, for mysterious reasons.
You apparently don't have any qualms about teaching students about
relativity, even though you call some of its strongest contributors
"temple whores" and proponents of pantheism.
PD
Shubee
> On Aug 12, 8:44 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If given the choice between teaching relativity in a way that confuses
> > students and makes them doubt the consistency of elementary physics
> > and an explanation that reduces spacetime to a natural and obviously
> > logical mathematical structure, most physicists would prefer the
> > seemingly irrational approach.
>
> to a natural and obviously logical mathematical structure, then you
> need to get that into the classroom by any means necessary, to test
> whether it works as you hope.
But I would never get an endorsement from you because your job is
based on how well you please the temple prostitutes.
> So far you seem to have a lot of excuses for avoiding this step.
I would prefer to first get a physicist to see that my paper is worthy
of an endorsement but that would require reading, thinking and perhaps
debating the physics. You're the one terrified of going there.
> > > > and promote fantasy after fantasy
>
> > > What fantasy? Science uses experimental verification as part of its
> > > methodology. What do you consider fantasy?
>
> > Everything that is confused, unnecessary and not amenable to
> > experimental verification is a fantasy in physics.
>
> Such as? I asked you what you considered to be fantasy. Do you have an
> answer or not?
Yes, but since you've already declared yourself unwilling to debate
physics, there is no reason to jump through hoops for you.
> > > WHAT priesthood?
>
> > The most successful temple prostitutes.
>
> And whom do you think is successful, and by what measure?
You claim to be a physicist and have no idea how to measure
celebrity?
> > For example:
>
> > "LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, an incredible man, an amazing intellect.
> > It's been said that he can sell physics better than Madonna can sell
> > sex. We're honored to have Professor Stephen Hawking with us for the
> > full hour. It's all next on LARRY KING LIVE.
>
> > "Welcome. ...
>
> > "KING: Do you believe in God?
>
> > "HAWKING: Yes, I do, if by God you mean the embodiment of the laws
> > that govern the universe."
> > http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/resources/cnn.html
>
> Ah, very good. So let's do a survey of all the biologist who do not
> believe a Christian God, and then use that to conclude that biology is
> a religion that attempts to demote God. Waddya say?
The survey has already been taken and the data is statistically
relevant. Of all scientific professions, physicists are the least
likely to believe in God. Why do you think that they rank even lower
than evolutionary biologists? I suspect that the answer involves
physicists being the most satisfied with superficial reasoning.
Mathematicians rank the highest in having a belief in God, which is no
surprise to me because mathematicians know that it takes hard work to
prove a theorem.
> > > > If no equation can describe consciousness, then why do physicists
> > > > believe that an ultimate mathematical theory of the universe exists?
>
> > > They DON'T. That is a *marketing term*.
>
> > Got it. It's just the advertising of a seductive temple prostitute
> > that sells pantheism.
>
> Interesting, and this is the VERY SAME scientific pursuit that you
> want to make more accessible to students by using only high school
> math and rigorous logic, and probably with a dose of common sense.
>
> So you want to sell pantheism, but you want to sell it more palatably?
Just as I've asserted. Physicists are very satisfied with superficial
reasoning.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
PD
> On Aug 12, 9:36 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 12, 8:44 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If given the choice between teaching relativity in a way that confuses
> > > students and makes them doubt the consistency of elementary physics
> > > and an explanation that reduces spacetime to a natural and obviously
> > > logical mathematical structure, most physicists would prefer the
> > > seemingly irrational approach.
>
> > If you have a method for teaching relativity that reduces spacetime
> > to a natural and obviously logical mathematical structure, then you
> > need to get that into the classroom by any means necessary, to test
> > whether it works as you hope.
>
> But I would never get an endorsement from you because your job is
> based on how well you please the temple prostitutes.
You have no idea how I am judged. I'll give you a hint: Holding the
status quo does NOT earn one tenure, nor a reputation. You have a
completely naive grip on how the work of scientists is judged. You may
note, upon a casual perusal of the list of Nobel Prizes in physics,
that almost all of them were awarded for work that was directly
counter to the status quo at the time. Of course, being against the
status quo is not sufficient. Being against the status quo AND being
right, however, does earn prizes. Now, do you know how being right is
established?
>
> > So far you seem to have a lot of excuses for avoiding this step.
>
> I would prefer to first get a physicist to see that my paper is worthy
> of an endorsement but that would require reading, thinking and perhaps
> debating the physics. You're the one terrified of going there.
Debating the physics gets ZERO insight as to the efficacy with
students. Stop hiding behind screens to avoid doing what you say you
want to do. Or stop pretending that's what you want to do. If you want
to piddle away your days on a newsgroup discussing the physics of your
paper until you get a newsgroup poster's endorsement, then say so.
>
> > > > > and promote fantasy after fantasy
>
> > > > What fantasy? Science uses experimental verification as part of its
> > > > methodology. What do you consider fantasy?
>
> > > Everything that is confused, unnecessary and not amenable to
> > > experimental verification is a fantasy in physics.
>
> > Such as? I asked you what you considered to be fantasy. Do you have an
> > answer or not?
>
> Yes, but since you've already declared yourself unwilling to debate
> physics, there is no reason to jump through hoops for you.
Ah, suddenly you get cold feet, and you blame your cold feet on
someone else.
>
> > > > WHAT priesthood?
>
> > > The most successful temple prostitutes.
>
> > And whom do you think is successful, and by what measure?
>
> You claim to be a physicist and have no idea how to measure
> celebrity?
We have different measures. I'm asking you about YOUR measures.
>
> > > For example:
>
> > > "LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, an incredible man, an amazing intellect.
> > > It's been said that he can sell physics better than Madonna can sell
> > > sex. We're honored to have Professor Stephen Hawking with us for the
> > > full hour. It's all next on LARRY KING LIVE.
>
> > > "Welcome. ...
>
> > > "KING: Do you believe in God?
>
> > > "HAWKING: Yes, I do, if by God you mean the embodiment of the laws
> > > that govern the universe."
> > >http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/resources/cnn.html
>
> > Ah, very good. So let's do a survey of all the biologist who do not
> > believe a Christian God, and then use that to conclude that biology is
> > a religion that attempts to demote God. Waddya say?
>
> The survey has already been taken and the data is statistically
> relevant. Of all scientific professions, physicists are the least
> likely to believe in God. Why do you think that they rank even lower
> than evolutionary biologists? I suspect that the answer involves
> physicists being the most satisfied with superficial reasoning.
Interesting how you construe your suspicions to be truth. Smacks of
faith.
> Mathematicians rank the highest in having a belief in God, which is no
> surprise to me because mathematicians know that it takes hard work to
> prove a theorem.
So you like mathematics better because it's slower to progress and
less rapid in uncovering the secrets of God?
>
> > > > > If no equation can describe consciousness, then why do physicists
> > > > > believe that an ultimate mathematical theory of the universe exists?
>
> > > > They DON'T. That is a *marketing term*.
>
> > > Got it. It's just the advertising of a seductive temple prostitute
> > > that sells pantheism.
>
> > Interesting, and this is the VERY SAME scientific pursuit that you
> > want to make more accessible to students by using only high school
> > math and rigorous logic, and probably with a dose of common sense.
>
> > So you want to sell pantheism, but you want to sell it more palatably?
>
> Just as I've asserted. Physicists are very satisfied with superficial
> reasoning.
Just taking what you've said, Shubee. If you want to explicate clearly
what you want to accomplish, why you want to accomplish it, and how
you plan to accomplish that, then maybe it will begin to make more
sense than the horribly conflicted mess you have described so far.
PD
Shubee
> On Aug 12, 11:37 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 12, 9:36 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 12, 8:44 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If given the choice between teaching relativity in a way that confuses
> > > > students and makes them doubt the consistency of elementary physics
> > > > and an explanation that reduces spacetime to a natural and obviously
> > > > logical mathematical structure, most physicists would prefer the
> > > > seemingly irrational approach.
>
> > > If you have a method for teaching relativity that reduces spacetime
> > > to a natural and obviously logical mathematical structure, then you
> > > need to get that into the classroom by any means necessary, to test
> > > whether it works as you hope.
>
> > But I would never get an endorsement from you because your job is
> > based on how well you please the temple prostitutes.
>
> You have no idea how I am judged.
I know exactly how the world judges troublemakers and non-conformists.
If you belong to spiritual Babylon, you get benefits. If you're
announcing the fall of spiritual Babylon, you get punished.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
PD
Since you are now hiding behind your feelings of persecution and
abdicating personal responsibility for the acceptance of your own
work, I think it's best to let you stew in your pity pot for a while.
PD
Shubee
That's a good idea. You should go off and learn the meaning of
spiritual Babylon (Revelation 18). And I shall do physics.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
xxein
xxein: You hit it pretty close.
Eric Gisse
[...]
> That's a good idea. You should go off and learn the meaning of
> spiritual Babylon (Revelation 18). And I shall do physics.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
How are you doing physics when you cannot make any connection between
your work and experiment?