Some Einstein Anecdotes
Chris Hillman
Some time back I read the recently translated diaries (two volumes) of
Victor Klemperer (a relative of the conductor Otto Klemperer) a baptized
Protestant of Jewish heritage who managed to survive the entire Nazi
period and the whole of WWII in, of all places, Dresden. (Both he and his
wife survived the firebombing, which saved their lives because it
destroyed the SS headquarters and the records of which Jews had been
annihilated and the tiny handful still left alive, which included Victor
Klemperer. VK and his wife took advantage of the confusion to flee into
the countryside, and managed to keep out of the way of the Nazis during an
epic journey on foot during which they tried to slip past the front lines,
and eventually knew they had survived the war when an American jeep driven
by an unruffled PFC casually appeared like a fantastic vision of
salvation). I'd recommend these to anyone interested in history.
For contrast, I just read the recently translated diaries of Count
Kessler, a leftist/pacifist who lived in Berlin, during the prewar Nazi
period (Kessler was fortunate enough to die of old age in 1937). Again
I'd recommend these to anyone interested in history.
Now, the reason I mention this here is that Count Kessler, who seemingly
knew -everyone- in artistic circles, and not a few scientists as well, met
Albert Einstein on Friday, 10 October, 1919, to help a Germanophile
Russian named Rubakin organize a book drive for "peoples libraries" which
would each have 1000 books in Russian, run by cooperatives, and Klemperers
diaries afford a fascinating glimpse into Einstein's life during the
period 1919-1926.
(Germanophile Russian: cf. the historic tension between Germanophiles and
Germanophobes which is evident in for example, Turgenev's novel Fathers
and Sons, and also in some of Chekhov's stories and well as many other
19th century Russian works less likely to be familiar to most Americans.)
The German representatives of the committee were to be Einstein, one Prof.
Nicolai, and Kessler; the French representative was to be the novelist and
playwright Romain Rolland. Rubakin had obtained financing for the project
from an American, De Kay. Rubakin helped "sell" the project during his
visits to Berlin by stressing that he hoped to promote a Germanophile
attitude in Russia (where of course the civil war was still raging).
Incidentally, Einstein had already met Romaine Rolland during a visit to
neutral Switzerland during the war. Rolland's own diary records his
impressions:
"Einstein is still a very young man, not very tall, with a wide and long
face, and a great mane of crispy, frizzled and very black hair, sprinkled
with gray and rising high from a lofty brow. His nose is fleshy and
prominent, his lips small, his chin rounded. He wears a small cropped
mustache."
In 1918, Einstein with characteristic optimism assumed that the
militaristic spirit he so hated in his native land was forever
extinguished, a hope soon abolished by the vicious events of 1919, during
which Einstein was publically vilified for his so-called "Bolshevistic
physics", and the right-wing backlash against weird political
"interpretations" of his theories of relativity persuaded Einstein to join
the Zionist movement, to which he had previously been quite indifferent,
being preoccupied with physics.
Einstein had been raised in a nonobservant family, and his notion of God
was abstract in the extreme (he joked that his notion of God was like that
of the gloomy Spinoza, although I find this claim to not in keeping with
his optimistic character). He told people who asked him about his
religion that "just as a snail can shed his shell and still be a snail, so
a Jew can shed his faith and still be a Jew", a metaphor which vividly
expresses how vulnerable he felt as international celebrity who happened
to be characterized as "Hebraic" on his passport during this period of
random violence and open anti-Semitism.
Indeed, the first mention of AE in the diaries occurs on 16 March 1919,
when Count Kessler records being told that Einstein and other
intellectuals were finding it necessary to move from safe house to safe
house to escape the White Terror (the suppression by the Army of the
revolution then raging in postwar Berlin). This is the context of summary
executions in the street by rival factions--- it was a frightening time to
be living in Berlin, especially for prominent citizens whose left-wing or
pacifist views would have made them potential targets of more or less
random assassination by some angry soldier.
The Einsteins had originally moved from Zurich to Berlin in April 1914 to
that AE could accept a full professorship at the University of Berlin,
with a special arrangement which let him out of teaching duties and
permitted him to refuse to take on graduate students--- Einstein had a
lifelong abhorance of authority figures, and seems to have been so acutely
uncomfortable with himself acquiring personal power over anyone--- and the
power of a German professor over his underlings in those days amounted to
a not always benign dictatorship--- that he put off accepting this most
prestigious professorship for many years, until the University finally
gave in to his non-negotiable condition that he not be required to do
anything but research. By which time the salary offered had risen to
astronomical heights, but of course the war soon put paid to the promised
luxury, and during the period 1916-1919 the Einsteins, like other Berlin
residents, were virtually starving to death.
On Thursday, 10 February 1921, Kessler records that he was asked to go
with Einstein to Amsterdam on behalf of a pacifist group. Other members
of the delegation included one Gerlach (presumably the famous physicist),
and Walter Rathenau, the philosopher-industrialist (heir to the mighty AEG
conglomerate) who organized the economic aspects of the war effort during
WWI, and from May 1921 served as minister of reconstruction and from
January 1931, foreign minister. Rathenau helped found a moderate postwar
party, the German Democratic Party, and advocated forming a coalition with
the Social Democrats. Rathenau, despite his rather evil role during WWI,
after the war advocated an internationalist stance, and negotiated the
treaty of Rapallo which restored diplomatic relations between Germany and
the new Soviet Union. He was later much vilified in Germany for his role
in acceding to the Versailles treaty reparations, and was hated by
nationalists for allegedly promoting "Bolshevism", although Rathenau and
Kessler were certainly no Bolshevists. (Rathenau was assassinated on June
24, 1922, with tragic consequences related to the rise of fascism.)
On Monday, 14 February 1921, the delegation arrived by train in Amsterdam.
"Einstein, apparently using a sleeping car for the first time, seemed
fascinated by everything", apparently including the customs formalities
which bored the very experienced traveler Count Kessler.
"During the [train] journey, I asked him whether the inferences of his
theory of relativity can be applied equally to the more or less
astronomically constructed atom. [A possible reference to a now obscure
Frenchman's claim that the universe was what we would now call "self
similar", with atoms and solar systems being two stages in the
construction.] Einstein said no: size (the minuteness of the atom) comes
into it here. So size, measurement, greatness and smallness, must be an
absolute that remains, I said. Einstein confirmed that size is the
ultimate factor, the absolute that cannot be gotten away from."
[Irony indeed--- see my forthcoming posts on Cartan geometries, where one
example will be Weyl's geometry in which parallel transporting a vector in
a small loop brings it back not only rotated but rescaled--- Weyl
introduced this in 1922, and his idea was one of the first inklings of
what we now call gauge theories in physics.] He was surprised that I
should have hit on this idea, for it is the deepest mystery of physics,
this inexplicability and absoluteness of size. Eery atom of iron has
precisely the same magnitude as any other atom of iron, no matter where in
the universe it may be. Nature knows only atoms, where of iron or of
hydrogen, of equal size, though human intelligence can imagine atoms of
varying magnitude [as Weyl was indeed to propose months later]."
"In that case, I said jokingly, man is more intelligent than God, God is
stupid, and in fact stupidity, the lack of huan intelligence, is the one
thing we can say about God with certainty. Man with his inexhaustible
complexity of imagination reposes in God like a pearl in an oyster. God
is so old that He has no further use for intelligence. On the contrary,
replied Einstein, the farther one penetrates into Nature, the greater
becomes one's respect for God. [Many great mathematicians, incidentally,
have expressed similar sentiments, even in our Age of Atheism.] (Which,
after all, does not contravene my joke, for what would be the good of
intelligence to `God'?)."
On 20 March, 1922, Count Kessler attended a dinner party given by the
Einstein's in their "quiet, attractive" Berlin apartment. Kessler's
account of the party is particularly startling for its mysterious
reference to Paul Painleve, the mathematician who in 1921 (as I have
frequently pointed out) was the first to realize clearly the true nature
of the event horizon in the Schwarzschild solution, and in a paper
published in that year in the Comptes Rendu gave the simple coordinate
chart
ds^2 = -dT^2 + (dr + sqrt(2m/r) dT)^2 + r^2 (du^2 + sin(u)^2 dv^2)
-infty < T < infty, 0 < r < infty, 0 < u < pi, -pi < v < pi
Painleve no doubt would have mailed a preprint to Einstein, but as late as
1937, AE published a completely incorrect paper in which he once again
showed that he still had not understood the true nature of the
Schwarzschild vacuum. The English physicist Oliver Lodge understood very
quickly the importance of Painleve's insight, and later Robertson seems to
have understood the point. In 1932 the Belgian prelate Father Lemaitre
independently rediscovered the nature of the event horizon when he
introduced the Lemaitre chart (see the archived post on my relativity
pages). Kessler refers to a "message" intended for Einstein which
Painleve had given Kessler during Kessler's recent visit to Paris.
However, Painleve was not only a mathematician but also a leading French
politician (here one must recall that Henri Poincare's uncle was President
of France during WWI and at Versailles insisted upon ruinous reparations
to be paid by Germany, with tragic consequences for Wilson's ill-fated
League of Nations and the rise of Fascism), and in 1922 was very busy
working on behalf of the Cartel des Gauches ("Leftist Cartel"), a party he
helped found and which defeated the right wing Bloc National in the 1924
general elections. Thus, it seems likely that any message Painleve passed
to Einstein via Kessler must have concerned left-wing politics in France
and/or Germany.
Incidentally, Painleve was the copilot with Wilbur Wright at Auvours in
1908, the historic flight which overnight convinced the sceptical world
that the obscure American bicycle makers really had defeated the best
scientific minds of Europe (including Painleve himself) in the race to be
the first to design viable powered heavier than air flying machines
supported by airfoils. This flight made the Wright brothers overnight
celebrities; the French, far from being incensed at being beaten by the
upstart Americans, were enthralled by heroic determination and ingenuity
of these two tinkerers who had succeeded so brilliantly where all others
had failed. (At the field in Auvours, Wright and Painleve not only flew
but circled the field three times at a height of fifty to one hundred
feet, thus demonstrating the crucially important point--- that the
Wright's flying machines not only -flew- but flew in sustained and
-controlled- flight.)
Painleve served as Minister of War in 1917, and replaced Gen. Niville with
Gen. Petain, and later chose Marshall Foch as Supreme Allied commander.
Painleve served again as Minister of War under Raymond Poincare in 1930-31
and as Air Minister in 1931-32. In mathematics, his contributions to the
theory of differential equations, asymptotic expansions, remain of great
importance today.
Back to the dinner party:
"Rather too much food in a grand style to which this lovable, almost
childlike couple lent an air of naivety. Guests include the immensely
rich Koppel, the Mendelsohns, Warburg, Bernhard Darburg (as shabbily
dressed as ever, and so."
[CH's note: Erich Mendelsohn was an important German architect whose
sculpted design for the Einstein Tower in Potsdam (completed in 1921)
caused an international sensation, which helped initiate the so-called
"German Expressionistic style"--- EM was also a painter associated with
Der Blaue Reiter ("The Blue Rider") expressionist painters in Munich whose
members included the greatest Russian painter, Wassily Kandinsky; Paul
Klee, Georges Braque, Natalya Goncharova, and Pablo Picasso were also
associated with this group. The name of the group is derived from the
title of one of Kandinsky's most famous early paintings. One of
Goncharova's most famous paintings, incidentally, is titled "The Clock";
she later designed the backdrops for some of the famous productions of the
Ballets Russes, including "Coq d'Or", set to music by Rimsky-Korsakov.)
The Einstein tower was an observatory, and was supposedly based upon the
"anthrosophy" of Rudolf Steiner, a strange movement which also plays an
important role in the work of Andrei Bely, the Russian novelist whose most
famous work is St. Petersburg, completed in 1914, an amazing and
frightening "symphony in prose". The novel concerns a befuddled
anarchistic terrorist who literally wanders about in the mists of
Petersburg as he prepares to throw a bomb at a minister, a character who
is--- rather disturbingly--- based upon the novelist's father. A
recurrent theme in the novel is the historic struggle in the Russian soul
between the Western rationalism espoused by Peter the Great and the
Eastern tyranny of Ivan the Terrible and of course, Stalin. The novel has
often been cited as an astonishing prognostication of Stalin's Red Terror.
Andrei Bely was a pseudonym of Boris Bugaev, son of the leading
mathematician. Bely's semiautobiographical novel Kotik Letaev (1922),
written in exile in Switzerland, is often cited as prefiguring many
features of the later work of Joyce. Both novels are available in English
translation and I would highly recommend both of them. Physicists will be
amused to note the frequent references in Kotik Letaev to "entropiu" and
to various mathematical chicaneries. Bely was very influential on the
work of the poet Blok, who was one of the first intellectuals to fall
victim to the Russian revolution. V. V. Nabokov considered Bely to be one
of the four most important novelists of all time, the others being
Tolstoy, Proust, and Joyce, a claim which I feel is well founded.]
"An emanation of simplicity and goodness on the part of the host and
hostess saved even such a typical Berlin dinner-party from being
conventional and transfigured it with an almost patriarchal and fairy-tale
quality."
"I had not seen Einstein and his wife since their major excursion abroad."
[CH's note: Einstein had visited London and the East and West Coasts of
the U.S.A., to meet with such giants of mathematics and physics as
Eddington, Rabi, Lawrence, and others. He had already by this met the
continental giants at the 1912 Solovay conference, including Elie Cartan
and the Curies. During his tour of England and the U.S., Einstein gave
numerous public lectures and granted many interviews to fascinated but
befuddled reporters, charming everyone with his ironic, self-deprecating
sense of humor. The United States leg of the tour was made at the request
of Chaim Weizmann, and Einstein's numerous public speaking engagements
were explicitly intended to raise money for the Palestine Foundation
Fund.]
"They admitted quite unaffectedly that their reception in Britain and the
United States were veritable triumphs."
[CH's note: an understatement--- this tour created the Einstein mythology
which we in this newsgroup are still trying to debunk. On his part,
Einstein was very positively impressed with the quality of physics he
found in the U.S.]
"Einstein gave a slightly ironic, sceptical twist to their description by
claiming that he cannot make out why people [CH: nonphysicists] are so
interested in his theories. His wife told me how he kept on saying to her
that he felt like a cheat, a confidence trickster who was failing to give
them what they hoped for."
"He wanted to know precisely, and made me repeat several times, what
message Painleve gave for him and what he said about his Paris trip. He
is starting on this in the next few days and will stay there a week. He
expects university circles here [in Berlin] to take it amiss, but they are
a terrible lot and he feels quite sick when he thinks of them.
[CH's note: this sickening lot no doubt included associates of the
physicist Johannes Starck, Prof. of Physics at Wurzburg, later an ardent
Nazi and prominent anti-Semite, who publically and viciously vilified
Einstein's "Jewish Physics". Stark won the Nobel prize in 1919 for this
discovery of the eponymous Stark effect.]
"In Paris he hopes to be able to do something towards resumption of
relations between German and French scholars.
[CH's note: Einstein's trip to London had done much to patch things up
between English and German physicists, but of course the French
nonmilitary population had suffered invasion and much greater hardship.]
"He brushed aside his differences with Painleve as a detail, appearing to
attach no importance to them."
[CH's note: maddening indeed, since it would be very interesting if this
"difference" was not political but physical, concerning the nature of the
Schwarzschild vacuum.]
"In autumn he intends to visit China and Japan, giving lectures at Peking
and Tokyo. He must see the Far East, he has confided to his wife, while
the big drum is still being banged on his account; that much he insists on
obtaining from the hullabaloo."
[CH's note: during the years 1921 to 1924, perhaps seeking as much to
escape from the unpleasant and even deadly climate in Berlin as to enjoy
the exotic sights of the Far East, the Einsteins did indeed travel
continually, frequently by train (people meeting the savant were
invariably surprised to find him stepping off the third class carriage
with his violin tucked under one arm). Besides Peking and Tokyo, they
visited Palestein, South America, Ceylon, and Shanghai (where a cable
reached them informing Einstein that he had been awarded the 1921 Nobel
Prize, not for either theory of relativity, but for his explanation of the
photoelectric effect by inventing the quantum of light).]
"He and his wife kept me back when the other guests left. We sat in a
corner and chatted. When I confessed to sensing the importance of his
theories more than I can properly grasp them, Einstein smiled. They are
really quite easy, he retorted, and he would explain them to me in a few
words which would immediately render them intelligible. I must imagine a
glass ball with a light at its summit resting on a table. Flat
(two-dimensional) rings or "beetles" move about the surface of the ball.
So far a perfectly straightforward notion. The surface of the ball,
regarded two-dimensionally, is a -limitless- but -finite- surface.
Consequently, the beetles must move (two-dimensionally) over a limitless
but finite surface. Now I must consider the -shadow- thrown by the
beetles on the table, due to the light in [this should be: shining down
from above on] the ball. The surface covered by these shadows on the
table and its extension in all directions is also, like the surface of the
ball, limitless but finite. That is, the number of conic shadows or conic
sections [shadows cast by the rings] never exceeds the number of beetles
on the ball; and, since this number is finite, so the number of shadows is
necessarily finite. Here we have the concept of limitless but finite
surface."
[CH's note: this metaphor shows Einstein's extraordinary gift for mixing
-counting arguments- as in statistical mechanics with metrical
measurements, in this case the finite area of the sphere. The fact that
he chose to explain the notion of the "Einstein static cosmological model"
in this way seems to indicate the great importance he attached to this
notion at this time, but as we shall see in a moment, in fact, Einstein
was probably trying to give Kessler some sense of the local versus global
distinction in Riemannian geometry.]
"Now I must substitute three-dimensional concentric glass balls for the
two dimensional beetle shadows. [Either this is a misunderstanding by
Count Kessler, or else Einstein had changed the metaphor to make the rings
into latitude circles on the original glass sphere.] By going through the
same imaginative process as before, I shall attain the image of limitless
yet finite space [to wit: S^3, the three dimensional sphere] (a three
dimensional quality). But, he added, the significance of his theory by no
means lies in these through processes and concepts. That is derived from
the connection between matter, space, and time, proving that none of these
exists by itself, but that each is always conditioned by the other two."
[CH's note: here, we see Einstein still clinging to his conviction that
gtr validated the ideas of Ernst Mach, according to which the definition
of a state of inertial motion -here- is determined by a weighted average
of the total matter (or rather, mass-energy) in the universe, with each
element of matter weighted inversely by its distance to the point in
question. Of course, as we know, this idea doesn't even make sense in the
context of gtr, but Einstein did not completely realize how wrong he had
been in this conviction until Kurt Goedel showed him his famous dust
solution many years later, in Princeton.]
"It is the inextricable connection between matter, space, and time that is
new in the theory of relativity. What he does not understand is why
people have become so excited about it. When Copernicus dethroned the
Earth from its position as the focal point of all creation, the excitement
was understandable because a revolution in all man's ideas really did
occur. But what change does his own theory produce in humanity's view of
things? It is a theory which harmonizes with every reasonable outlook or
philosophy and does not interfere with anybody being an idealist or
materialist, pragmatist or whatever he likes".
[CH's note: here we clearly see Einstein referring to the reading group of
his youth, the ironically titled "Olympia Academy", consisting of himself,
Michele Besso, and the mathematician Marcel Grossman, whose members read
widely in philosophy and semipopular physics books, including the
difficult tracts of Mach. Perhaps it is my own imagination, but I sense
that Einstein is saying not merely that gtr is of little relevance to
philosophy--- an edict which philosophers have certainly not paid much
heed!--- but perhaps even that it is a phenomenological theory which
merely organizes other parts of physics in a geometric setting in which
space, time, and matter are inextricably bound up, although as we now
know, not nearly as inextricably as Einstein believed in 1921. But on the
other hand, gtr turns out to place far more stringent limits on physical
phenomena than Einstein could have appreciated in 1922--- the fact that
gtr belongs to a large class of theories and that experiments and
observations pin Nature to within an incredibly tiny neighborhood of
general relativity in this multidimensional space of classical
relativistic gravitation theories, only became clear with the development
of PPN formalism by Will and Nordvedt in the fifties, systematically
developing a brilliant innovation of Eddington.]
[Harking back to the Russian book drive in 1919--- another member of the
committee was the publisher Syntin, who turns up in V. V. Nabokov's memoir,
Speak, Memory. Another relative, the composer N. Nabokov, was a good
friend of Count Kessler, the novelists son Dmitri is a classically trained
singer. And just a few days after the dinner party at the Einsteins, on
28 March 1922, Count Kesser records attending a "reactionary Russian
Cabaret", with many White Russians in the audience, when suddenly a rumor
swept the hall that Nabokov and Mihzalov had been assassinated elsewhere
in Berlin, whereupon the Russians rushed from the hall. The rumor was,
of course, false. But V. V. Nabokov's father, V. D. Nabokov, a minor
aristocrat, was a leading member of the liberal Kadets (Constitutional
Democrats) party in pre-revolutionary Russia. V. D. Nabokov was murdered
in 1922 while attempting to shield the assassin's actual target, shortly
after V. V. Nabokov and his wife had settled in Berlin. This tragicomic
event is no doubt responsible for the theme of bungled assassination and
murder in Nabokov's work, most notably in Pale Fire and Lolita, his best
known novels written in English, after he had moved on to Cornell, my alma
mater. (The hapless would-be assassin in Pale Fire, a novel contained in
the hilarious spoof of "scholarly footnotes" to a hilariously awful poem,
desperately pursues his quarry through a library which is obviously
modeled after the notoriously mazelike undergraduate library at Cornell,
while suffering intestinal tortures from the unfortunate aftereffects of
American food on his central European digestive tract.)]
On Monday, 30 March 1925, Count Kessler records a conversation with a
mutual friend of the fabled writer Anatole France. It seems Einstein had
made a point of calling upon the urbane and ironical skeptic (awarded the
Nobel Prize for literature in 1921) in the company of the same Professor
Nicolai who served with Einstein and Kessler on the book drive Committee.
It is interesting wrt to a later comment by Count Kessler that this visit
would have been after France wrote Le Petite Pierre; cf. the character of
"Gilles" or "Pierrot-Lunaire", the sad clown of art and literature and of
course the hero of Schoenberg's 1912 opera. Of course, Schoenberg's
Pierrot and France's Pierrot are rather more bleak than the Gilles or
Pierrot of pre World War art.
"France clearly found nothing much to say to Einstein and at once engaged
in a very lively conversation with Nicolai. Einstein, on the other hand,
was very much impressed by their encounter. What baffled Crucy [the
mutual friend of the famous writer] was the reason for France's strange
lack of contact with Einstein. The occasion, I suggested, may very well
have been as if Jehovah had suddenly met with Voltaire."
[CH's note: I cannot resist once again pointing out that Voltaire became
an overnight sensation with his popular account of Newtonian physics, in
which he lampooned the "mechanistic models" of Descartes, which today we
would not even consider physics at all, but at the time Voltaire wrote,
was still enshrined in the French universities as the State of the Art in
Natural Philosophy.]
"Einstein is a deeply religious man, convinced of the existence of God,
whereas France was a skeptic. Jehovah's appeal to Voltaire would be
small, but Voltaire and his scepticism might strike Jehovah as yet another
manifestation of His own divinity, a fresh facet of the Godhead, and a
such a source of gratification. Crucy laughed and said I was probably
right."
On Saturday, 13 February 1926, Count Kessler attended an early morning
party at which Josephine Baker danced in the nude. It is ironic that just
two days later we read the following:
"Monday, 15 February 1926.
"Dinner party at {Kessler's] home for the Einsteins [and other guests]."
"Einstein supremely dignified, despite his excessive modesty and wearing
laced [hiking] boots with a dinner jacket. He has become a little
stouter, but his eyes still sparkle with almost childlike radiance and
twinkling mischief."
"His wife told me that recently, after numerous admonitions, he at last
went to the Foreign Ministry and fetched the two gold medals awarded to
him by the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society [of London, I
think, following the famous eclipse expeditions of 1919, so Einstein would
have been about seven years late in fetching his gold pieces]. She met
him afterwards to go to the cinema. When she asked what the medals looked
like, he did not know because he had not yet undone the packages. He has
no interest in such trifles. She gave me one or two other examples.
This year the American Barnard Medal, awarded every four years to
outstanding scientists, has gone to Niels Bohr. The newspapers recalled
that last time Einstein was the recipient. He showed her the paper and
asked, `Is that true?'. He had completely forgotten. [Elsa Einstein
managed not only the Einstein household but also their money. After her
death, this function was taken on by Einstein's secretary, Helen Dukas.]
He cannot be induced to wear his Pour le Merite [the highest award to a
civilian which can be bestowed in France, other than induction into the
Academy of Immortals]. At an Academy session not long ago [the famous
physicist, another Nobel Laureate] Nernst drew his attention to the fact
that it was missing [proper German professors were supposed to wear their
decorations at university functions]: `I suppose your wife forgot to lay
it out for you. Improperly dressed'. To which Einstein retored `She
didn't forget. No, she didn't forget, I didn't want to put it on.'"
"A discussion ensued at table about the Sirius moon."
[CH's note: actually, the star Sirius B, the companion of Sirius A, the
star known to the ancient Egyptians as Sothis. Wilhelm Bessel, the
astronomer and mathematician, discovered in 1844 that Sirius A is a binary
star with an then unseen companion, a fact which he deduced by plotting
the proper motion of Sirius. The companion was first photographed in 1862
by Alvan Clark, and was the first white dwarf star to be discovered. At
the time of the dinner party, careful spectroscopic observations had just
confirmed Einstein's prediction of gravitational redshift, which is
pronounced at the surface of such a compact object. At this time, the
discovery by Chandrasekhar of the upper bound on the possible mass of a
white dwarf was still four years in the future.]
"Einstein explained the sensational discovery of its gravity and the
significance of this for the deflection of the red in the solar spectrum."
[CH's note: that is, the red shift of the light emitted at the surface of
Sirius B.]
"Turning to Hertz (a nephew of the great physicist), he said `Your uncle
wrote a great book. Everything in it is wrong, but nonetheless a great
book.'"
[CH's note: I am not sure which book Einstein was referring too.
Perhaps he was merely teasing the nephew by saying that everything in the
book was wrong--- because quantum physics, was of course, for Einstein,
nonsensical and therefore wrong, however great its successes at explaining
nonsensical observations. Hertz was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1925 for
his work with James Franck confirming the quantum hypothesis. Franck,
like Einstein, later had to flee the Nazis, and unlike Einstein, did
essential work in the Manhattan Project. Hertz remained behind in Germany
during the war and ended his career in postwar East Germany. Einstein in
later years frequently semicomically bemoaned the fact that he had ever
thought up "that dreadful notion", the quantum of energy, ironically
noting that he had been awarded the Nobel Prize for a "terribly mistaken
idea".]
"My Maillol figure once again attracted general admiration, on the part of
Einstein too."
[CH's note: Aristide Maillol was an important French sculptor and yet
another friend of Count Kessler, who had recently purchased his sculpture
titled "Crouching Woman", as well as a large Seurat, "Les Poseuses". A
week later, Count Kessler records that Josephine Baker, visiting his home,
was fascinated by the sculpture and began to dance around it. "Maillol's
creation was obviously much more interesting to her than we humans
standing about her. Genius addressing genius."]
However, Einstein was evidently not the only one who could be a bit of a
tease. On Friday, 14 June 1927, Count Kessler attended a party at which
the Einsteins were among the guests. Also present was Gerhart Hauptmann
and Alfred Kerr and their wives.
Hauptmann was an important German poet and playwright who was then
completing an epic poem titled "Till Eulenspiegel", after the same
prankster who inspired Richard Strauss's symphonic poem. (Strauss,
incidentally, was yet another friend of Count Kessler.) Hauptmann was a
writer of extraordinary versatility; among other things he wrote
passionate social indictments, demonstrated a perfect ear for regional
German dialects, which he used to great comic effect in his less serious
works. A few days earlier, Hauptmann had read the nearly completed poem
to Count Kessler, who suggested that Till should die of laughter.
Hauptmann replied that had been his original intention and dug out his
rough first draft of the ending, saying that he would consider restoring
the original ending of the poem.
Kerr was a well known Berlin critic who wrote editorials for Der Berliner
Tagerblatt.
"I do not recall how the conversation veered to astrology, but Hauptmann
assumed the role of its defender against Einstein, or, more accurately,
asked Einstein what he thought of it, obviously anticipating that Einstein
would allow it some significance or other. Einstein however rejected it
utterly and in as gruff a manner as, given his conciliatory character, he
is capable of. The Copernican system, he declared, conclusively made a
clean sweep of the anthropocentric view which thought of the entire
firmament as revolving around Earth and humanity. That was probably the
severest shock man's interpretation of the cosmos ever received. It
reduced the world to a mere province, so to speak, instead of being its
capital and center. And it put the Passion in a totally fresh light."
"Hauptmann held out stoutly on astrology's behalf. Einstein would very
shortly see a book by Johannes Schlaf which proves the whole of the
Copernican system to be wrong."
[Schlaf was an important poet, an associate of the French author Emile
Zola, and later a member of the Symbolist movement noted above.
Einstein's mention of the Passion is probably in reference to Hauptmann's
1910 play Der Narr in Christo ("The Fool in Christ").
"(Hauptmann himself smiled slightly at this.)"
[CH's note: I don't know if this book by Schlaf ever appeared, but it
seems that Hauptmann was probably teasing Einstein and having some
difficulty keeping a straight face.]
"Well, even though objectively that may be nonsense, it must be granted
that imagination does play a part in the formation of our philosophy of
life and that this subjective factor cannot be altogether eliminated.
[CH's note: here Hauptmann appears to be somewhat anticipating the works
of Carl Jung.] The same applies to speech, for the formulation of any
ideology in words lends backbone to it."
"That is evident, parried Einstein, from Levy-Bruhl's book about primitive
ideas which he [AE] is just reading and where he meets demons on every
page."
[The book was probably Le Mentalite Primitive ("Primitive Mentality"),
published in 1922. Levy-Bruhl was a professor of philosophy at the
Sorbonne, in the famous left bank region of Paris, who was influenced by
the sociologist Emile Durkheim.]
"Faith in the influence of demons is probably at the root of our notion of
causality. (Clearly what he [AE] meant was that man's notions have
evolved from faith in demons to faith in astrology, to the causal doctrine
of a purely mechanistic interpretation of nature.)"
[CH's note: I feel sure that Count Kessler was right: Einstein was saying
that belief in the "truth" of a "law of physics" is merely a higher stage
in the evolution of human world views, and that all laws of physics are
eventually doomed to be found inadequate in some way.]
"Kerr, who sat listening with his vulgar little wife, constantly
interrupted with facetious remarks which he thought witty but which were
not even funny. The subject of God was a special butt for his derision.
I tried [CH: evidently, -sotto voce-] to silence him and said that, since
Einstein is very religious, he should not needlessly hurt his feelings.
`What?!' exclaimed Kerr. `It isn't possible! I must ask him right away.
Professor! I hear that you are supposed to be deeply religious?' Calmly
and with great dignity, Einstein replied, `Yes, you can call it that. Try
and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of Nature and you will
find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains
something intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond
anything we can explain is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact,
religious'".
[CH's note: I think Einstein was saying that he recognized that all really
good physical theories can at best set the stage for the next
revolutionary advance, and that in particular, physicists must be content
with predicting what will happen in a given physical scenario, without
really being able to explain how it all -works-. That Newton's greatest
conceptual leap was in not just creating the first genuine physical
theory, but in realizing that subsequent and better theories would follow
the same model of not feigning hypotheses. But that by recognizing that
we cannot feign hypotheses, we are admitting that there is something quite
essential which is completely beyond our grasp as scientists. The
explicit recognition of this unknown and scientifically unknowable yet
fundamental aspect of Nature was the object of Einstein's veneration, and
the basis of his fundamental philosophical stance or religious
convictions.]
"Before that he brushed aside categorically, indeed slightly irritably, my
suggestion that his discoveries have had as revolutionary an effect on our
view of the world as those of Tycho Brahe and Copernicus. `There is
-nothing- so revolutionary about my observations.'
[CH: IOW, Einstein had merely put Maxwell's theory of EM on a clear
conceptual footing, and had managed to find a phenomenological way of
incorporating all nongravitational physics into a structure which
explicitly recognized what we call the Einstein Equivalence Principle, for
Einstein and Eotvos the most striking aspect of gravitational physics, as
a central tenet or axiom. OTH, Einstein must have been overlooking his
introduction of the quantum, which was truly revolutionary, however much
he regretted his 1905 paper introducing this notion by the year of 1925.]
Remember Maillol, the French sculptor?
"Tuesday, 15 July 1930.
A big lunch in honor of Maillol at the Hugo Simons'. The guests included
Einstein, Max Liebermann [an important painter and etcher], Renee Sintenis
[another sculptor], and the Meier-Graefes. When Einstein entered, I
pointed him out to Maillol. `Oui, une belle tete; c'est une poete"' [Yes,
a beautiful head; is he a poet?] I had to explain to him who Einstein was;
he had evidently never heard of him. After the meal they were
photographed together".
Chris Hillman
Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/personal.html
Aladar
Chris Hillman <hil...@math.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.21.000914...@goedel3.math.washington.edu...
>
<...>
> `What?!' exclaimed Kerr. `It isn't possible! I must ask him right away.
> Professor! I hear that you are supposed to be deeply religious?' Calmly
> and with great dignity, Einstein replied, `Yes, you can call it that. Try
> and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of Nature and you will
> find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains
> something intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond
> anything we can explain is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact,
> religious'".
>
> [CH's note: I think Einstein was saying that he recognized that all really
> good physical theories can at best set the stage for the next
> revolutionary advance, and that in particular, physicists must be content
> with predicting what will happen in a given physical scenario, without
> really being able to explain how it all -works-.
No Chris, he is saying "there remains something intangible and inexplicable".
Believe it, he means it! He means it as Newton did when he was talking about:
"In bodies, we see only their figures and colors, we hear only the sounds, we
touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the
savors; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or
by any reflex act of our minds..."
> That Newton's greatest
> conceptual leap was in not just creating the first genuine physical
> theory, but in realizing that subsequent and better theories would follow
> the same model of not feigning hypotheses. But that by recognizing that
> we cannot feign hypotheses, we are admitting that there is something quite
> essential which is completely beyond our grasp as scientists. The
> explicit recognition of this unknown and scientifically unknowable yet
> fundamental aspect of Nature was the object of Einstein's veneration, and
> the basis of his fundamental philosophical stance or religious
> convictions.]
<...>
> Chris Hillman
>
> Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/personal.html
>
Isaac Newton writes in Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy Book Three
System of the World General Scholium:
'.... He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is his
duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to
infinity; he governs all things and knows all things that are or can be done. He
is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or
space but he endures and present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present;
and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. ...
He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot
subsist without substance. In him are all things contained and moved; yet
neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies
find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. ... he exists always and
everywhere. Whence also he is similar, ...; but in a manner not at all human, in
a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. ... He is
utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen,
nor heard, nor touched; ...We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real
substance of anything is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and
colors, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell
only the smells, and taste the savors; but their inward substances are not to be
known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds ... ; for all our
notions of God are taken from the ways of mankind by certain similitude, which,
though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to
discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to
natural philosophy.
... hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of
gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced
from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether
metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no
place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are
inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction...'
If one reads the above, understanding that God is a human concept and tries to
catch the meaning of this concept - following the above explanation -, he has to
conclude that it is the existence. Newton also made the determination that it is
the real substance of anything, what he is talking about. Now this only existing
substance is always and everywhere and is similar, suffers nothing from the
motion of bodies, eternal and infinite, endures and present, constitutes
duration and space.
Is there a possibility to incorporate such a substance into our reflection of
reality? What if the separated from any form, pure existence is represented by
something (rather no-thing) in the nature, could we describe it? Practically
Newton gave the answer to it: eternal and infinite. Ever existing elements with
infinitely high speed can penetrate any place for an infinitely small duration
and if these elements collide with an other similar element they constitute an
event and a location. This event is followed by nothing, which followed by an
other event (constituting duration) and if these chains of events (and
separators between them) are preserved (constituting space), we may even know
about them, these could construct the things. The only assumption one has to
make that the colliding elements suffer a direction change in the collision, and
we get a possibility of self-organization, so the chains of events could
preserve themselves.
Both Einstein and Newton realised that all makes sense only with the recognition
of "a real substance of anything". Would not it be time to accept that?
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/
Gerry Quinn
Einstein gets the Poincare treatment.
- Gerry Quinn
Jim Means
Chris Hillman wrote:
>
> Some time back I read the recently translated diaries (two volumes) of
> Victor Klemperer (a relative of the conductor Otto Klemperer)
...and therefore also of Werner Klemperer, son of Otto, who portrayed
Colonel Klink on Hogan's Heroes.
Jim Means
jme...@home.com
http://pegmatite.com
George Hammond
> "Einstein gave a slightly ironic, sceptical twist to their description by
> claiming that he cannot make out why people are so
> interested in his theories.
GH: You're one of the few writers I know who can put 118 words
in a single sentence and still have it read like crisp
scintillating telegraphic prose.
This essay is a gemstone of pedagogy for the pedants. I'm glad
someone has mastered the fine art of remedial education for the
avante guard and neo intelligentsia. No one I know has ever found
a long enough pencil to tell them whereof they speak.
--
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Email: gham...@mediaone.net
Website: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond
>
> Both Einstein and Newton realised that all makes sense only with the recognition
> of "a real substance of anything". Would not it be time to accept that?
> --
> Aladar
> http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/
[Hammond]
It's interesting to note from Newton's description of God above, that his
concept really reaches no further than the Sunday School precept that
"God is an old man living in the sky who rules the world".
Apparently Newton actually believed that.. and this is mute testimony to
his underlying hypocrisy and ignorance. Apparently he was a bit of
a crackpot and a hypocrite... something I've always suspected from
description data of his life. (i.e. his legendary lone wolf, self satisfied,
lifestyle.. apparently putting great focus on comfortable living and
an abiding attachment for the trappings of bureaucratic power.)
He did say once that "In lieu of all other evidence he would take the
human thumb as sufficient evidence of God". However, in view of the
above childish dissertation, there is some doubt as to whether he knew
the symbolism of the thumb as even as extensively as the modern hippie.
His neo-classic vision of God echoes his view of absolute space and time
which were a central icon of the age.. and of course were to fall mightily
before the deft hand of Einstein two centuries later.
It is doubtful that Newton's understanding of God ever reached the
practical savvy of even Renes DeCarte a generation before him.
DesCarte having a more familiar style and a greater personal grace
probably actually knew what God was... while it is doubtful that Newton
in his laconic fascination with the occult could ever really fathom it..
he simply wasn't warm blooded enough.. and two sympathetic to the
pitiless. While DeCarte was actually a mercenary soldier at one time
and probably oversaw the deaths of many in battle... Newton actually
personally oversaw the prosecution a counterfeiter to execution from
his post as Master of the Royal Mint despite the unwitting fool's
heartbreaking pleas for mercy.
No, Newton is the epitome of a heartless anglophile theist gone
horribly wrong in his search for God. In the end, it is the warmer
pathos of the Latin DeCartes and Einstein to whom we must turn for
the discovery of God. A final lesson to the anglophile for sure.
As I have discovered, contrary to Newton, and confirmed by Einstein,
God is entirely Anthropomorphic. He is, as Jesus described him 2,000
years ago, simply God the Father. The practical (and stunning) discovery
of how that is, is presented on my website (URL below).
It turns out that "God" is merely a perfect man.. and the stunning mystery
of history, as attested to by the recently discovered Secular Trend, is
that no fully grown man has ever existed on Earth. This merely means
that the fully grown man exists latently within us, by virtue of the
genetic design.. and this percentage of excess, ungrown, is what
produces God.
It is ironic, that modern science would finally hand the occult and
pietistic anglophiles the final denouement of the "intergalactic God"
at the hands of the simple and less sophisticated minds of DesCarte
and Einstein, and Jesus of Nazareth.
Alas for poor Newton.. he never even had a girlfriend.
Aladar
George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:39C5D568...@mediaone.net...
> > Both Einstein and Newton realized that all makes sense only with the
recognition
> > of "a real substance of anything". Would not it be time to accept that?
> > --
> > Aladar
> > http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/
>
> [Hammond]
> It's interesting to note from Newton's description of God above, that his
> concept really reaches no further than the Sunday School precept that
> "God is an old man living in the sky who rules the world".
<...>
> George Hammond, M.S. Physics
<...>
"In bodies, we see only their figures and colors, we hear only the sounds, we
touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the
savors; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or
by any reflex act of our minds" - is the key to his explanation. When Newton
talks about God he talks about the "inward substance" of all the bodies - as St
Thomas Aquinas did. It is the "something intangible and inexplicable" - as
Einstein formulated it and it is the colliding "first-beginnings which are the
solid singleness" of Lucretius! Incidentally, the similar infinite speed
colliding elementary units of my representation give a good basis for
description of the fields and bodies, constructed by the collision events and
their regular systems.
George, it is not about your or anyone else's idea about God. It is about the
description of our reflection of nature and the necessity of the indescribable
underlying substance to do that. Newton uses the name God for that substance
because it is the official Aquinas determination of God in Catholic Church, it
is the underlying substance. You may not know that...
George Hammond
>
> George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:39C5D568...@mediaone.net...
> > Aladar wrote:
> > >
> >[Hammond]
> > It's interesting to note from Newton's description of God above, that his
> >concept really reaches no further than the Sunday School precept that
> >"God is an old man living in the sky who rules the world".
> George, it is not about your or anyone else's idea about God. It is about the
> description of our reflection of nature and the necessity of the indescribable
> underlying substance to do that. Newton uses the name God for that substance
> because it is the official Aquinas determination of God in Catholic Church, it
> is the underlying substance. You may not know that...
>
> --
> Aladar
[Hammond]
Wrong. Newton did NOT know what God was. It is certainly doubtful that
Aquinas (the supreme pietistic pedant) knew what God was either. Nor is
Aquinas the "official definer of God in the Catholic Church".
Jesus of Nazareth is the official definer of God in the Catholic
church, and every other Christian church... you may not know THAT
apparently. Jesus referred to God as "my Father who sent me", and
referred to "Our Father" in the first two words of the Lords
Prayer:
"Our Father who art in Heaven
Hallowed be thy name...."
Jesus of Nazareth, Founder of Christianity, 30 BC
It was merely supercilious pedant schoolmen like Aquinas who
didn't know what he was talking about, and had no personal understanding
of what god is, that took it upon themselves to "redefine God" and create
the myth of the "intergalactic God"... a superforce permeating all substance
which cannot be seen etc. etc. This is a lot of supercilious pietistic
horseshit, and Newton was the epitome of the supercilious pietistic
pedant who would subscribe to it.
There is nothing about God that is "indescribable", nor does his
description involve the invoking of "indescribable underlying
substance" either.
The ancients, Moses, even Plato and Socrates knew what God was,
as did the ancient Kings. god can be seen with the naked eye (to
men of tremendous social experience like those just mentioned).
Average men see it too, but they simply don't KNOW that it's God.
Jesus is world famous for being the first man in history to be
sure of what it was, and to step forward and try to tell the world
what it was. he was NOT the only man in the world who knew it.
God can be seen with the naked eye. "God" is simply the difference
between a poorly grown man and a well grown man... "God" being the
100% grown man (which has never existed according to the Secular Trend).
Astute observers can see this when they look at people. you can
immediately see the mental impact of poor growth, that is poor
brain growth which accompanies poor physical growth, on the person's
perception of the world.. on his perception of reality. The poorly
grown person, because as much as 20% of his brain may be missing,
inherently thinks there is a "higher power" and that "someone is
watching him"... and he's right... it's the latent ungrown 20% of
his brain. this condition is so common (universal indeed) in the
human race, that it has obtained the name "God" many thousands of
year ago.
Jesus was the first one to see the global impact of this, and set
out to tell the world about it... and founded Christianity as the
vehicle to disseminate the "doctrine of God".
Now, he could not PROVE that this was true... but believe it or not,
modern science has finally PROVED it to two decimal point accuracy
(see my website, URL listed below).
In the meantime, all of the idiots like Aquinas could not understand
what Jesus was talking about, nor can most of the world today, and
they INTERPRET it as being some kind of a "mystical invisible force"
that "permeates space" etc. etc. This is NONSENSE, and modern science
is about to deliver the simple scientific explanation of God, now
that it can be PROVED to two decimal point accuracy, AND axiomatically
explained by Einstein's theory by the way.
Anyway, this idiotic heresy, which has been going on since the time
of the Medieval Schoolmen, and is more a product of the Dark Ages
than anything else, is just that, a despicable heresy, made up by people
trying to obfuscate the simplicity and understandability of God in
order to diminish it's influence as a doctrine and political force...
so that they can continue on in their crimes and exploitations.
Modern science has now proven that Jesus's original description of
God is CORRECT... and all the savant pietistic drivelling pedants are
about to get put back in their place.. and we won't have to listen
to pietistic drivel and tripe from people like you about "reflections
on underlying indescribable substance" and tripe like "chaos theory",
"fuzzy logic", blah, blah, blah...
Aladar
> Aladar wrote:
<..>
> > George, it is not about your or anyone else's idea about God. It is about
the
> > description of our reflection of nature and the necessity of the
indescribable
> > underlying substance to do that. Newton uses the name God for that substance
> > because it is the official Aquinas determination of God in Catholic Church,
it
> > is the underlying substance. You may not know that...
> >
> > --
> > Aladar
Now I'm really puzzled. What are you talking about?
The Einstein anecdote and my response were dealing with the fact that we are
trying to reflect the nature and for that we need "something intangible and
inexplicable" "inward substance". As I see, you don't need that, but how your
subject is connected to our subject?
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/
George Hammond
> > Aladar wrote:
> <..>
> > > George, it is not about your or anyone else's idea about God. It is about
> the
> > > description of our reflection of nature and the necessity of the
> indescribable
> > > underlying substance to do that. Newton uses the name God for that substance
> > > because it is the official Aquinas determination of God in Catholic Church,
> it
> > > is the underlying substance. You may not know that...
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aladar
>
>
> The Einstein anecdote and my response were dealing with the fact that we are
> trying to reflect the nature and for that we need "something intangible and
> inexplicable" "inward substance". As I see, you don't need that, but how your
> subject is connected to our subject?
[Hammond]
Oh please, don't go cutsey on me.
I mean, I can well appreciate your attempting to play dumb when
caught red handed.
You are here pointing out that Newton subscribed to a belief in
something, and I quote:
"something intangible and inexplicable"
"indescribable underlying substance"
and then you say:
"Newton uses the name God for that substance
because it is the official Aquinas determination
of God in Catholic Church,.."
All I'm pointing out is that BOTH Aquinas and Newton and you
apparently, are demonstrably
ignorant of what God is, and moreover, not a little hypocritical
in this doctrine... if not outright hypocritical.
This is because, there IS NO SUCH THING as an "intangible and
inexplicable" substance. This doctrine of theirs, which they are
calling "God", in fact does not EXIST. On the other hand, God does
exist.
In the first place, the only things that EXIST are de facto, and
by definition, things that can be detected by the human senses..
i.e. the brain. NOTHING ELSE EXISTS. There is no such thing as a
real substance that cannot be detected by the human mind... i.e.
is "intangible and indescribable". To insist on such a thing is
simple to try and promote the heresy that "the nonexistent exists".
In short, they are attempting to prove that
God can neither be discovered, or proved, and in fact doesn't exist.
The purpose of that exercise, IS IN FACT an attempt to prove that
God doesn't exist... which is why these people are hypocrites if not
heretics. Both Newton and Aquinas believed in an "independent reality"
that existed independent of man; like "absolute space" and
"absolute time"... which Einstein has proved.. does not exist.
Fact is, THERE IS NO independent reality (independent of the human
mind).. in fact.. if all men died tomorrow, the Universe itself,
space, time, mass, present past and future WOULD CEASE TO EXIST,
Big Bang and all.
Reality is only defined by the human mind... THEREFORE.. there
IS NO facet of reality which is "unknowable" or "indescribable"
or "intangible"...... including GOD.
Fact is, God is completely detectable (otherwise how would we
know about him), and is completely explainable, and is completely
measurable.
You can beg off by claiming stupidity if you like... but clearly
you insisted that there were such (intangible) things, and pointed out that
Newton and Aquinas believed there were such things... and I'm simply
pointing out that YOU, AQUINAS, and NEWTON don't know what you're
talking about.. and are most likely hypocrites to boot.
Now, that should be a perfectly clear statement which shouldn't
leave you "PUZZLED" as to my understanding of what you are talking
about. I mean... please don't go cutsey on me.
Aladar
> > > Aladar wrote:
> > <..>
> > > > George, it is not about your or anyone else's idea about God. It is
about
> > the
> > > > description of our reflection of nature and the necessity of the
> > indescribable
> > > > underlying substance to do that. Newton uses the name God for that
substance
> > > > because it is the official Aquinas determination of God in Catholic
Church,
> > it
> > > > is the underlying substance. You may not know that...
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Aladar
> >
> >
> > The Einstein anecdote and my response were dealing with the fact that we are
> > trying to reflect the nature and for that we need "something intangible and
> > inexplicable" "inward substance". As I see, you don't need that, but how
your
> > subject is connected to our subject?
>
> [Hammond]
> Oh please, don't go cutsey on me.
> I mean, I can well appreciate your attempting to play dumb when
> caught red handed.
> You are here pointing out that Newton subscribed to a belief in
> something, and I quote:
>
> "something intangible and inexplicable"
>
> "indescribable underlying substance"
>
> and then you say:
>
> because it is the official Aquinas determination
>
> All I'm pointing out is that BOTH Aquinas and Newton and you
> apparently, are demonstrably
> ignorant of what God is, and moreover, not a little hypocritical
> in this doctrine... if not outright hypocritical.
So, you do understand that non of us was really talking about God. We are
dealing with the reflection of nature, God is not in that subject. However there
is a need for an underlying something intangible and inexplicable substance. I
found a way how to include it in our regular reflection as infinite speed
no-things the collision of which is the smallest element of the reflectable
reality.
> This is because, there IS NO SUCH THING as an "intangible and
> inexplicable" substance.
I'm sure you came to this conclusion as a result of a thorough reasoning. Would
you care to share it with us?
> This doctrine of theirs, which they are
> calling "God", in fact does not EXIST. On the other hand, God does
> exist.
Another conclusion, also it is not our subject, so just drop it.
> In the first place, the only things that EXIST are de facto, and
> by definition, things that can be detected by the human senses..
> i.e. the brain. NOTHING ELSE EXISTS. There is no such thing as a
> real substance that cannot be detected by the human mind... i.e.
> is "intangible and indescribable". To insist on such a thing is
> simple to try and promote the heresy that "the nonexistent exists".
You should take-up some philosophy: the meaning is defined by the opposite.
Anything exist because the void is reality, the existence with properties
requires the existence without properties. That was Einstein's remark, too.
> In short, they are attempting to prove that
> God can neither be discovered, or proved, and in fact doesn't exist.
> The purpose of that exercise, IS IN FACT an attempt to prove that
> God doesn't exist... which is why these people are hypocrites if not
> heretics. Both Newton and Aquinas believed in an "independent reality"
> that existed independent of man; like "absolute space" and
> "absolute time"... which Einstein has proved.. does not exist.
> Fact is, THERE IS NO independent reality (independent of the human
> mind).. in fact.. if all men died tomorrow, the Universe itself,
> space, time, mass, present past and future WOULD CEASE TO EXIST,
> Big Bang and all.
It's funny...
> Reality is only defined by the human mind... THEREFORE.. there
> IS NO facet of reality which is "unknowable" or "indescribable"
> or "intangible"...... including GOD.
> Fact is, God is completely detectable (otherwise how would we
> know about him), and is completely explainable, and is completely
> measurable.
Excellent reasoning! Would you please provide the length of His arm.
> You can beg off by claiming stupidity if you like... but clearly
> you insisted that there were such (intangible) things, and pointed out that
> Newton and Aquinas believed there were such things... and I'm simply
> pointing out that YOU, AQUINAS, and NEWTON don't know what you're
> talking about.. and are most likely hypocrites to boot.
Don't forget Einstein, too.
> Now, that should be a perfectly clear statement which shouldn't
> leave you "PUZZLED" as to my understanding of what you are talking
> about. I mean... please don't go cutsey on me.
>
> --
> BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> George Hammond, M.S. Physics
George Hammond
<snip>
> > [Hammond]
> > Oh please, don't go cutsey on me.
> > I mean, I can well appreciate your attempting to play dumb when
> > caught red handed.
> > You are here pointing out that Newton subscribed to a belief in
> > something, and I quote:
> >
> > "something intangible and inexplicable"
> >
> > "indescribable underlying substance"
> >
> > and then you say:
> >
> > "Newton uses the name God for that substance
> > because it is the official Aquinas determination
> > of God in Catholic Church,.."
> >
> > All I'm pointing out is that BOTH Aquinas and Newton and you
> > apparently, are demonstrably
> > ignorant of what God is, and moreover, not a little hypocritical
> > in this doctrine... if not outright hypocritical.
>
> So, you do understand that non of us was really talking about God.
[Hammond]
Your post contained an extract of a conversation including a statement
by Einstein himself as to whether he was "religious" or not. Then it
branched into a lengthy quote by YOU from Isaac Newton containing Newton's
summary description of what GOD is. Then it continued an analysis by
YOU of Newton's "God" vis a vis "ultimate physical reality", etc. etc.
etc.
Now i appreciate your not liking the fact that someone has pointed
out that you are a jerk, that Newton didn't have a clue as to what
God was, and possibly Einstein too. And, you are certainly free
to beg off and bow out if you like by saying that you "weren't talking
about God", but that is obviously a FALSE STATEMENT on your part...
you certainly WERE talking about God, and Einstein's belief's about
God and newton's belief's about God and your OWN intuitions about
God.
> We are
> dealing with the reflection of nature, God is not in that subject.
[Hammond]
YOU brought god into it by quoting Einstein on God, and then a
LENGTHY quote of Newton on God.
Moreover, Newton's description of "physical reality" is ERRONEOUS
as i have pointed out, since he assumes an "independent reality"
that exists without man. Obviously THERE IS NOT SUCH THING, and
newton's assumption that there is an "unknowable, intangible"
reality is mysticism and occult science.
> However there
> is a need for an underlying something intangible and inexplicable substance. I
> found a way how to include it in our regular reflection as infinite speed
> no-things the collision of which is the smallest element of the reflectable
> reality.
>
> > This is because, there IS NO SUCH THING as an "intangible and
> > inexplicable" substance.
>
> I'm sure you came to this conclusion as a result of a thorough reasoning. Would
> you care to share it with us?
>
[Hammond]
I just explained it to you for the second time in a row. obviously
you can't understand the obvious. BTW, should you like to seriously
challenge the obvious, a PROOF of the statement is contained in the
proof of God on my website.
> > This doctrine of theirs, which they are
> > calling "God", in fact does not EXIST. On the other hand, God does
> > exist.
>
> Another conclusion, also it is not our subject, so just drop it.
>
[Hammond]
You say it is not your subject. NOT SO. You are trying to
promote the idea that there is an "invisible, unknowable,
intangible" element of reality, and brought forward the
lengthy quote by Newton as the classic example of that belief.
Then in reference to the ORIGINAL topic... which was a quote
from Einstein about his religious beliefs.... advanced the
thesis that BOTH newton and Einstein believed the same thing
(about an ineffable reality), and that both of them implicitly
and explicitly referred to it as "God".
> > In the first place, the only things that EXIST are de facto, and
> > by definition, things that can be detected by the human senses..
> > i.e. the brain. NOTHING ELSE EXISTS. There is no such thing as a
> > real substance that cannot be detected by the human mind... i.e.
> > is "intangible and indescribable". To insist on such a thing is
> > simple to try and promote the heresy that "the nonexistent exists".
>
> You should take-up some philosophy: the meaning is defined by the opposite.
[Hammond]
Reality, HAS NO "opposite", neither does a Pear or a Snowman.
> Anything exist because the void is reality, the existence with properties
> requires the existence without properties. That was Einstein's remark, too.
>
> > In short, they are attempting to prove that
> > God can neither be discovered, or proved, and in fact doesn't exist.
> > The purpose of that exercise, IS IN FACT an attempt to prove that
> > God doesn't exist... which is why these people are hypocrites if not
> > heretics. Both Newton and Aquinas believed in an "independent reality"
> > that existed independent of man; like "absolute space" and
> > "absolute time"... which Einstein has proved.. does not exist.
> > Fact is, THERE IS NO independent reality (independent of the human
> > mind).. in fact.. if all men died tomorrow, the Universe itself,
> > space, time, mass, present past and future WOULD CEASE TO EXIST,
> > Big Bang and all.
>
> It's funny...
[Hammond]
i knew you'd eventually go cutsie on me, when I exposed
your attempted grandstanding about your cherished
(and newton's cherished) "intergalactic theory of God"
which you are obviously so eager to disseminate.
>
> > Reality is only defined by the human mind... THEREFORE.. there
> > IS NO facet of reality which is "unknowable" or "indescribable"
> > or "intangible"...... including GOD.
> > Fact is, God is completely detectable (otherwise how would we
> > know about him), and is completely explainable, and is completely
> > measurable.
>
> Excellent reasoning! Would you please provide the length of His arm.
>
[Hammond]
Sure, you idiot. That number is easily extracted from the
Secular Trend. God's arm is exactly 35 inches long.
Is there anything else I can help you with, or is that
too overwhelming for you.
> > You can beg off by claiming stupidity if you like... but clearly
> > you insisted that there were such (intangible) things, and pointed out that
> > Newton and Aquinas believed there were such things... and I'm simply
> > pointing out that YOU, AQUINAS, and NEWTON don't know what you're
> > talking about.. and are most likely hypocrites to boot.
>
> Don't forget Einstein, too.
[Hammond]
Famous last words if I ever heard them.
>
> > Now, that should be a perfectly clear statement which shouldn't
> > leave you "PUZZLED" as to my understanding of what you are talking
> > about. I mean... please don't go cutsey on me.
> >
--
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
George Hammond
>
> Aladar wrote:
> > Excellent reasoning! Would you please provide the length of His arm.
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> Sure, you idiot. That number is easily extracted from the
> Secular Trend. God's arm is exactly 35 inches long.
> Is there anything else I can help you with, or is that
> too overwhelming for you.
>
[Hammond]
PS: The length of God's FOOT is far more commonly known. It
is exactly 12 inches long. This was discovered in England centuries
ago, and is called the common English 'foot', and even
more commonly a 'ruler'
Lay people, not knowing what or who God is, are told that it is
the length of the Kings foot, however, the more educated classes
are aware that it is actually the length of GOD'S FOOT.
Aladar
I don't recall that "ultimate physical reality", what we were talking about
it is a real substance of anything, an inward substance. You misunderstood the
Newton quote.
> Now i appreciate your not liking the fact that someone has pointed
> out that you are a jerk, that Newton didn't have a clue as to what
> God was, and possibly Einstein too. And, you are certainly free
> to beg off and bow out if you like by saying that you "weren't talking
> about God", but that is obviously a FALSE STATEMENT on your part...
> you certainly WERE talking about God, and Einstein's belief's about
> God and Newton's belief's about God and your OWN intuitions about
> God.
No, you are mistaken. We were talking about an underlying substance,
which is out of our reach, we can't sense or even understand it.
>
> > We are
> > dealing with the reflection of nature, God is not in that subject.
>
> [Hammond]
> YOU brought god into it by quoting Einstein on God, and then a
> LENGTHY quote of Newton on God.
Because Newton used the word God to describe the underlying substance.
Because Einstein referred to the fact that the underlying substance is
"intangible" as some kind of religion. In fact, we were dealing with
the underlying substance only. Repeat: non of us was revealing -
not even Newton - our understanding of God, but only the substance!
> Moreover, Newton's description of "physical reality" is ERRONEOUS
> as i have pointed out, since he assumes an "independent reality"
> that exists without man. Obviously THERE IS NOT SUCH THING,
Could you please provide some reasoning to support that. Capitalization does not
replace reasoning.
> and
> Newton's assumption that there is an "unknowable, intangible"
> reality is mysticism and occult science.
That was Einstein.
> > However there
> > is a need for an underlying something intangible and inexplicable substance.
I
> > found a way how to include it in our regular reflection as infinite speed
> > no-things the collision of which is the smallest element of the reflectable
> > reality.
> >
> > > This is because, there IS NO SUCH THING as an "intangible and
> > > inexplicable" substance.
> >
> > I'm sure you came to this conclusion as a result of a thorough reasoning.
Would
> > you care to share it with us?
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> I just explained it to you for the second time in a row. obviously
> you can't understand the obvious. BTW, should you like to seriously
> challenge the obvious, a PROOF of the statement is contained in the
> proof of God on my website.
>
Obvious is not a reasoning. I'm trying to take you seriously, please,
help me! Present some - any - reasoning in support of your statements.
Lucretius dealt with your subject in some depth, you can quote some, or
Thomas Aquinas. Do it!
>
> > > This doctrine of theirs, which they are
> > > calling "God", in fact does not EXIST. On the other hand, God does
> > > exist.
> >
> > Another conclusion, also it is not our subject, so just drop it.
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> You say it is not your subject. NOT SO. You are trying to
> promote the idea that there is an "invisible, unknowable,
> intangible" element of reality, and brought forward the
> lengthy quote by Newton as the classic example of that belief.
> Then in reference to the ORIGINAL topic... which was a quote
> from Einstein about his religious beliefs.... advanced the
> thesis that BOTH Newton and Einstein believed the same thing
> (about an ineffable reality), and that both of them implicitly
> and explicitly referred to it as "God".
The fact is that all of us were dealing with the underlying substance,
not with God! Yes, I promote that "intangible" element of reality because
it makes it possible to describe the reality as one causal unity, with
everything in it. So?!
> > > In the first place, the only things that EXIST are de facto, and
> > > by definition, things that can be detected by the human senses..
> > > i.e. the brain. NOTHING ELSE EXISTS. There is no such thing as a
> > > real substance that cannot be detected by the human mind... i.e.
> > > is "intangible and indescribable". To insist on such a thing is
> > > simple to try and promote the heresy that "the nonexistent exists".
> >
> > You should take-up some philosophy: the meaning is defined by the opposite.
>
> [Hammond]
> Reality, HAS NO "opposite", neither does a Pear or a Snowman.
The advice stands. Learn some philosophy.
>
>
> > Anything exist because the void is reality, the existence with properties
> > requires the existence without properties. That was Einstein's remark, too.
> >
> > > In short, they are attempting to prove that
> > > God can neither be discovered, or proved, and in fact doesn't exist.
> > > The purpose of that exercise, IS IN FACT an attempt to prove that
> > > God doesn't exist... which is why these people are hypocrites if not
> > > heretics. Both Newton and Aquinas believed in an "independent reality"
> > > that existed independent of man; like "absolute space" and
> > > "absolute time"... which Einstein has proved.. does not exist.
> > > Fact is, THERE IS NO independent reality (independent of the human
> > > mind).. in fact.. if all men died tomorrow, the Universe itself,
> > > space, time, mass, present past and future WOULD CEASE TO EXIST,
> > > Big Bang and all.
> >
> > It's funny...
>
> [Hammond]
> i knew you'd eventually go cutsie on me, when I exposed
> your attempted grandstanding about your cherished
> (and Newton's cherished) "intergalactic theory of God"
> which you are obviously so eager to disseminate.
>
I have no intention of doing that. I'm not dealing with any
theory or theories of God. My attempt is limited to reflection of
reality. A cognizant and coherent reflection of reality, with the
consideration of all prior reflections and all prior misconceptions.
>
> >
> > > Reality is only defined by the human mind... THEREFORE.. there
> > > IS NO facet of reality which is "unknowable" or "indescribable"
> > > or "intangible"...... including GOD.
> > > Fact is, God is completely detectable (otherwise how would we
> > > know about him), and is completely explainable, and is completely
> > > measurable.
> >
> > Excellent reasoning! Would you please provide the length of His arm.
> >
>
>
> [Hammond]
> Sure, you idiot. That number is easily extracted from the
> Secular Trend. God's arm is exactly 35 inches long.
> Is there anything else I can help you with, or is that
> too overwhelming for you.
>
So you know that you have not presented any valid reasoning.
A few questions I would ask - if you would refrain from personal
attacks. It does not show a real strength of your position. It makes
you sound like you yourself don't believe what you are saying.
>
>
> > > You can beg off by claiming stupidity if you like... but clearly
> > > you insisted that there were such (intangible) things, and pointed out
that
> > > Newton and Aquinas believed there were such things... and I'm simply
> > > pointing out that YOU, AQUINAS, and NEWTON don't know what you're
> > > talking about.. and are most likely hypocrites to boot.
> >
> > Don't forget Einstein, too.
>
> [Hammond]
> Famous last words if I ever heard them.
>
Intangible is Einstein, so you have to include him.
>
>
> >
> > > Now, that should be a perfectly clear statement which shouldn't
> > > leave you "PUZZLED" as to my understanding of what you are talking
> > > about. I mean... please don't go cutsey on me.
> > >
>
> --
> BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> George Hammond, M.S. Physics
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
Aladar
> George Hammond wrote:
> >
> > Aladar wrote:
>
> > > Excellent reasoning! Would you please provide the length of His arm.
> > >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Sure, you idiot. That number is easily extracted from the
> > Secular Trend. God's arm is exactly 35 inches long.
> > Is there anything else I can help you with, or is that
> > too overwhelming for you.
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> PS: The length of God's FOOT is far more commonly known. It
> is exactly 12 inches long. This was discovered in England centuries
> ago, and is called the common English 'foot', and even
> more commonly a 'ruler'
> Lay people, not knowing what or who God is, are told that it is
> the length of the Kings foot, however, the more educated classes
> are aware that it is actually the length of GOD'S FOOT.
> --
> BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Thank you George, you made my day!
Would you please give the corresponding number of wavelengths of
86Kr 2p10 and 5d5 transitions in the vacuum, far from the solar system?
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
George Hammond
> > George Hammond wrote:
> > >
> > > Aladar wrote:
> >
> > > > Excellent reasoning! Would you please provide the length of His arm.
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Sure, you idiot. That number is easily extracted from the
> > > Secular Trend. God's arm is exactly 35 inches long.
> > > Is there anything else I can help you with, or is that
> > > too overwhelming for you.
> > >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > PS: The length of God's FOOT is far more commonly known. It
> > is exactly 12 inches long. This was discovered in England centuries
> > ago, and is called the common English 'foot', and even
> > more commonly a 'ruler'
> > Lay people, not knowing what or who God is, are told that it is
> > the length of the Kings foot, however, the more educated classes
> > are aware that it is actually the length of GOD'S FOOT.
> > --
> > BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > George Hammond, M.S. Physics
>
> Would you please give the corresponding number of wavelengths of
> 86Kr 2p10 and 5d5 transitions in the vacuum, far from the solar system?
GH: Naw... elementary quantum mechanics doesn't interest me.
I'm more interested in whether the Lemniscate of Bernoulli
which is the "true distance" formula for the Lorentz Metric
actually predicts the voting pattern in the Bicameral/2-Party
system. I'll leave elementary electronics to the novices who
can remember the Rydberg constant to 6 decimal places; people
like you.
George Hammond
> > [Hammond]
> > Your post contained an extract of a conversation including a statement
> > by Einstein himself as to whether he was "religious" or not. Then it
> > branched into a lengthy quote by YOU from Isaac Newton containing Newton's
> > summary description of what GOD is. Then it continued an analysis by
> > YOU of Newton's "God" vis a vis "ultimate physical reality", etc. etc.
> > etc.
>
> I don't recall that "ultimate physical reality", what we were talking about
> it is a real substance of anything, an inward substance. You misunderstood the
> Newton quote.
[Hammond]
I don't misunderstand Newton. Newton believed in the "invisible
God". You refer to it as "inward substance" whatever that means.
You, newton and Aquinas all believe that there EXISTS something
that cannot be physically detected, an "independent physical
substrate". Here is the exact quote of what you said about
Einstein and the Newton extract, to Chris Hillman:
[Aladan quote:]
No Chris, he is saying "there remains something intangible and
inexplicable".
Believe it, he means it! He means it as Newton did when he was talking
about:
"In bodies, we see only their figures and colors, we hear only the sounds,
we
touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the
savors; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our
senses, or
by any reflex act of our minds..."
[Hammond]
Here Newton says:
"..but their inward substances are not to be known
either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds..."
CLEARLY, newton is saying that a "real substance" exists that CANNOT
INHERENTLY be detected by a human observer. In other words, NEWTON
(and according to you, Einstein also) BELIEVED that there existed an
"independent reality", not accessible to human knowledge, and furthermore,
that this was the realm of God, and furthermore by direct implication,
that "GOD" could therefore never be scientifically explained.
All I am saying is that such a belief is pure unadulterated horseshit,
was intuitively and observationally untrue in NEWTON'S day, and
can now (and has been now) PROVEN to be incorrect. I call this
belief the "intergalactic God" theory... and it is, and was then,
and continues to be, a "little white heresy".
>
> > Now i appreciate your not liking the fact that someone has pointed
> > out that you are a jerk, that Newton didn't have a clue as to what
> > God was, and possibly Einstein too. And, you are certainly free
> > to beg off and bow out if you like by saying that you "weren't talking
> > about God", but that is obviously a FALSE STATEMENT on your part...
> > you certainly WERE talking about God, and Einstein's belief's about
> > God and Newton's belief's about God and your OWN intuitions about
> > God.
>
> No, you are mistaken. We were talking about an underlying substance,
> which is out of our reach, we can't sense or even understand it.
>
[Hammond]
Absolute pedantic nonsense and incipient heresy. OBVIOUSLY, everything
that EXISTS is a product of the human brain/mind/senses. And, since
anything that is a product of the human mind can obviously be detected
by the human mind, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SOMETHING THAT CANNOT
BE "SENSED". No such thing exists. And all people who promote
this obvious lie, are only doing it for one thing... so that they
can prove that "God doesn't exist".
Unfortunately, modern science has now PROVED the untruth of this
assertion to 2 decimal point accuracy (see my website URL below etc.).
In short... the "galactic God" hypothesis has been COUNTERINTUITIVE
from the beginning, and NOW modern science has actually proved it
to be a LIE.
> >
> > > We are
> > > dealing with the reflection of nature, God is not in that subject.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > YOU brought god into it by quoting Einstein on God, and then a
> > LENGTHY quote of Newton on God.
>
> Because Newton used the word God to describe the underlying substance.
> Because Einstein referred to the fact that the underlying substance is
> "intangible" as some kind of religion. In fact, we were dealing with
> the underlying substance only. Repeat: non of us was revealing -
> not even Newton - our understanding of God, but only the substance!
[Hammond]
There is no such substance. That's what I'm saying. You want to
prove that Newton's "can't even be sensed or understood" substance
exists. However it doesn't exist. implicit in this attempt, obviously,
is to prove that this nonexisting substance is God.. and therefore,
appearing to be completely innocent... you can demonstrate that
god doesn't exist. UNFORTUNATELY, the basic premise about
a substance that "..we can't sense or even understand" (Newton),
is demonstrably and provably FALSE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING.
>
> > Moreover, Newton's description of "physical reality" is ERRONEOUS
> > as i have pointed out, since he assumes an "independent reality"
> > that exists without man. Obviously THERE IS NOT SUCH THING,
>
> Could you please provide some reasoning to support that. Capitalization does not
> replace reasoning.
[Hammond]
the reasoning, and citation of the proof is given above.
PS: I use capitalization wherever and whenever I feel
like it... just like the king james Bible does.
Perhaps you're not up to reading canonical literature.
>
> > and
> > Newton's assumption that there is an "unknowable, intangible"
> > reality is mysticism and occult science.
>
> That was Einstein.
>
> > > However there
> > > is a need for an underlying something intangible and inexplicable substance.
> I
> > > found a way how to include it in our regular reflection as infinite speed
> > > no-things the collision of which is the smallest element of the reflectable
> > > reality.
> > >
> > > > This is because, there IS NO SUCH THING as an "intangible and
> > > > inexplicable" substance.
> > >
> > > I'm sure you came to this conclusion as a result of a thorough reasoning.
> Would
> > > you care to share it with us?
> > >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > I just explained it to you for the second time in a row. obviously
> > you can't understand the obvious. BTW, should you like to seriously
> > challenge the obvious, a PROOF of the statement is contained in the
> > proof of God on my website.
> >
>
> Obvious is not a reasoning. I'm trying to take you seriously, please,
> help me! Present some - any - reasoning in support of your statements.
> Lucretius dealt with your subject in some depth, you can quote some, or
> Thomas Aquinas. Do it!
[Hammond]
Yes, sure. The axiomatic, hard science PROOF of the statement is
presented on my website. sorry it's too long to be quoted
here. URL posted below.
>
> >
> > > > This doctrine of theirs, which they are
> > > > calling "God", in fact does not EXIST. On the other hand, God does
> > > > exist.
> > >
> > > Another conclusion, also it is not our subject, so just drop it.
> > >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > You say it is not your subject. NOT SO. You are trying to
> > promote the idea that there is an "invisible, unknowable,
> > intangible" element of reality, and brought forward the
> > lengthy quote by Newton as the classic example of that belief.
> > Then in reference to the ORIGINAL topic... which was a quote
> > from Einstein about his religious beliefs.... advanced the
> > thesis that BOTH Newton and Einstein believed the same thing
> > (about an ineffable reality), and that both of them implicitly
> > and explicitly referred to it as "God".
>
> The fact is that all of us were dealing with the underlying substance,
> not with God! Yes, I promote that "intangible" element of reality because
> it makes it possible to describe the reality as one causal unity, with
> everything in it. So?!
>
[Hammond]
So, I'm telling you that the concept of a substance that
"we can't sense or even understand" (Newton) has been
DUBIOUS AND DOUBTFUL AND SUSPECT ever since the concept
first appeared. And, lo and behold, has now been
PROVEN TO BE FALSE.
That's all i'm saying dude.
> > > > In the first place, the only things that EXIST are de facto, and
> > > > by definition, things that can be detected by the human senses..
> > > > i.e. the brain. NOTHING ELSE EXISTS. There is no such thing as a
> > > > real substance that cannot be detected by the human mind... i.e.
> > > > is "intangible and indescribable". To insist on such a thing is
> > > > simple to try and promote the heresy that "the nonexistent exists".
> > >
> > > You should take-up some philosophy: the meaning is defined by the opposite.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Reality, HAS NO "opposite", neither does a Pear or a Snowman.
>
> The advice stands. Learn some philosophy.
>
[Hammond]
Learn some science. I was born knowing all pedantry, since
I'm not a pedant. Philosophy is for pedants. We're supposed
to be talking hard science here, not Philosophy. And that's exactly
what I'm doing... talking hard science, that can be axiomatically
explained and experimentally confirmed. Newton's substance that
"we can't sense or even understand", can be, and has been, subject
to such HARD SCIENCE DISPROOF. QED.
> >
> >
> > > Anything exist because the void is reality, the existence with properties
> > > requires the existence without properties. That was Einstein's remark, too.
> > >
> > > > In short, they are attempting to prove that
> > > > God can neither be discovered, or proved, and in fact doesn't exist.
> > > > The purpose of that exercise, IS IN FACT an attempt to prove that
> > > > God doesn't exist... which is why these people are hypocrites if not
> > > > heretics. Both Newton and Aquinas believed in an "independent reality"
> > > > that existed independent of man; like "absolute space" and
> > > > "absolute time"... which Einstein has proved.. does not exist.
> > > > Fact is, THERE IS NO independent reality (independent of the human
> > > > mind).. in fact.. if all men died tomorrow, the Universe itself,
> > > > space, time, mass, present past and future WOULD CEASE TO EXIST,
> > > > Big Bang and all.
> > >
> > > It's funny...
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > i knew you'd eventually go cutsie on me, when I exposed
> > your attempted grandstanding about your cherished
> > (and Newton's cherished) "intergalactic theory of God"
> > which you are obviously so eager to disseminate.
> >
>
> I have no intention of doing that. I'm not dealing with any
> theory or theories of God. My attempt is limited to reflection of
> reality. A cognizant and coherent reflection of reality, with the
> consideration of all prior reflections and all prior misconceptions.
[hammond]
NO PROBLEM. I'm just pointing out that the belief that there
is a substance that "we can't sense or even understand" is
NONSENSICAL RUBBISH AND PROVABLY FALSE BY CONTEMPORARY HARD SCIENCE
METHODS. We don't even have to "mention God", as you so
poignantly feign to desire.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Reality is only defined by the human mind... THEREFORE.. there
> > > > IS NO facet of reality which is "unknowable" or "indescribable"
> > > > or "intangible"...... including GOD.
> > > > Fact is, God is completely detectable (otherwise how would we
> > > > know about him), and is completely explainable, and is completely
> > > > measurable.
> > >
> > > Excellent reasoning! Would you please provide the length of His arm.
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Sure, you idiot. That number is easily extracted from the
> > Secular Trend. God's arm is exactly 35 inches long.
> > Is there anything else I can help you with, or is that
> > too overwhelming for you.
> >
>
> So you know that you have not presented any valid reasoning.
> A few questions I would ask - if you would refrain from personal
> attacks. It does not show a real strength of your position. It makes
> you sound like you yourself don't believe what you are saying.
[Hammond]
I'm not concerned what it sound like to you. I'm simply
saying that your insistence or belief in a substance
that "we can't sense or even understand", is FRAUDULENT
by virtue of available hard science proof. (proof
posted on my website). Now, you can DENY THE PROOF,
or ARGUE THE PROOF, or IGNORE THE PROOF, or whatever
you feel like doing.. makes no difference to me.
My intent is simply to PUBLISH the fact here and now
that such PROOF that your cherished philosophy is
PROVABLY WRONG, exists.
>
> >
> >
> > > > You can beg off by claiming stupidity if you like... but clearly
> > > > you insisted that there were such (intangible) things, and pointed out
> that
> > > > Newton and Aquinas believed there were such things... and I'm simply
> > > > pointing out that YOU, AQUINAS, and NEWTON don't know what you're
> > > > talking about.. and are most likely hypocrites to boot.
> > >
> > > Don't forget Einstein, too.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Famous last words if I ever heard them.
> >
>
> Intangible is Einstein, so you have to include him.
>
[Hammond]
I repeat my answer of a moment ago:
I'm simply
saying that your insistence or belief in a substance
that "we can't sense or even understand", is FRAUDULENT
by virtue of available hard science proof. (proof
posted on my website). Now, you can DENY THE PROOF,
or ARGUE THE PROOF, or IGNORE THE PROOF, or whatever
you feel like doing.. makes no difference to me.
My intent is simply to PUBLISH the fact here and now
that such PROOF that your cherished philosophy is
PROVABLY WRONG, exists.
> > >
> > > > Now, that should be a perfectly clear statement which shouldn't
> > > > leave you "PUZZLED" as to my understanding of what you are talking
> > > > about. I mean... please don't go cutsey on me.
> > > >
--
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Aladar
> Aladar wrote:
>
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Your post contained an extract of a conversation including a statement
> > > by Einstein himself as to whether he was "religious" or not. Then it
> > > branched into a lengthy quote by YOU from Isaac Newton containing Newton's
> > > summary description of what GOD is. Then it continued an analysis by
> > > YOU of Newton's "God" vis a vis "ultimate physical reality", etc. etc.
> > > etc.
> >
> > I don't recall that "ultimate physical reality", what we were talking about
> > it is a real substance of anything, an inward substance. You misunderstood
the
> > Newton quote.
>
> [Hammond]
> I don't misunderstand Newton. Newton believed in the "invisible
> God". You refer to it as "inward substance" whatever that means.
> You, newton and Aquinas all believe that there EXISTS something
> that cannot be physically detected, an "independent physical
> substrate".
Again, where did you get that it is "independent"? And where do you
concluded from what Newton believed in?
The inward substance is what's inside. And Newton called it that way.
> Here is the exact quote of what you said about
> Einstein and the Newton extract, to Chris Hillman:
>
> [Aladan quote:]
> No Chris, he is saying "there remains something intangible and
> inexplicable".
> Believe it, he means it! He means it as Newton did when he was talking
> about:
> "In bodies, we see only their figures and colors, we hear only the sounds,
> we
> touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the
> savors; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our
> senses, or
> by any reflex act of our minds..."
>
> [Hammond]
> Here Newton says:
>
> "..but their inward substances are not to be known
> either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds..."
>
> CLEARLY, newton is saying that a "real substance" exists that CANNOT
> INHERENTLY be detected by a human observer.
He reffers to reflex act. No "inherently" there, check it.
> In other words, NEWTON
> (and according to you, Einstein also) BELIEVED that there existed an
> "independent reality",
Why would that be an "independent reality"? On the contrary!
> not accessible to human knowledge, and furthermore,
> that this was the realm of God, and furthermore by direct implication,
> that "GOD" could therefore never be scientifically explained.
You are saying that. You and only you. Non of us was talking about God,
but we were talking about the inward substance - constructing the bodies!
> All I am saying is that such a belief is pure unadulterated horseshit,
> was intuitively and observationally untrue in NEWTON'S day, and
> can now (and has been now) PROVEN to be incorrect. I call this
> belief the "intergalactic God" theory... and it is, and was then,
> and continues to be, a "little white heresy".
And all is in your mind only, as have been shown.
> > > Now i appreciate your not liking the fact that someone has pointed
> > > out that you are a jerk, that Newton didn't have a clue as to what
> > > God was, and possibly Einstein too. And, you are certainly free
> > > to beg off and bow out if you like by saying that you "weren't talking
> > > about God", but that is obviously a FALSE STATEMENT on your part...
> > > you certainly WERE talking about God, and Einstein's belief's about
> > > God and Newton's belief's about God and your OWN intuitions about
> > > God.
> >
> > No, you are mistaken. We were talking about an underlying substance,
> > which is out of our reach, we can't sense or even understand it.
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> Absolute pedantic nonsense and incipient heresy. OBVIOUSLY, everything
> that EXISTS is a product of the human brain/mind/senses. And, since
> anything that is a product of the human mind can obviously be detected
> by the human mind, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SOMETHING THAT CANNOT
> BE "SENSED". No such thing exists. And all people who promote
> this obvious lie, are only doing it for one thing... so that they
> can prove that "God doesn't exist".
What is the connection from an undetectable inward substance to God's
existence? Moreover obtaining proof threreof?! BTW, you denied the
existence of the concept of "infinity" above. I don't think so that you can do
that... Also, there alway been and always will be "SOMETHING THAT CANNOT
BE "SENSED"" - at least temporarily, until we invent the scope... You are saying
that the planets started their being after Galileo invented the telescope.
> Unfortunately, modern science has now PROVED the untruth of this
> assertion to 2 decimal point accuracy (see my website URL below etc.).
> In short... the "galactic God" hypothesis has been COUNTERINTUITIVE
> from the beginning, and NOW modern science has actually proved it
> to be a LIE.
If the proofs are as strong reason based as your comments here, I'm not
interested.
> > > > We are
> > > > dealing with the reflection of nature, God is not in that subject.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > YOU brought god into it by quoting Einstein on God, and then a
> > > LENGTHY quote of Newton on God.
> >
> > Because Newton used the word God to describe the underlying substance.
> > Because Einstein referred to the fact that the underlying substance is
> > "intangible" as some kind of religion. In fact, we were dealing with
> > the underlying substance only. Repeat: non of us was revealing -
> > not even Newton - our understanding of God, but only the substance!
>
> [Hammond]
> There is no such substance. That's what I'm saying. You want to
> prove that Newton's "can't even be sensed or understood" substance
> exists. However it doesn't exist. implicit in this attempt, obviously,
> is to prove that this nonexisting substance is God.. and therefore,
> appearing to be completely innocent... you can demonstrate that
> god doesn't exist. UNFORTUNATELY, the basic premise about
> a substance that "..we can't sense or even understand" (Newton),
> is demonstrably and provably FALSE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING.
Indeed, there is and always been such a substance with colliding elements. Some
2500 years ago Democritus already knew about it, Lucretius described it. Newton
knew about it, Einstein knew about it - I'm using it to represent a good
reflection of nature. A coherent causal reflection of everything.
> >
> > > Moreover, Newton's description of "physical reality" is ERRONEOUS
> > > as i have pointed out, since he assumes an "independent reality"
> > > that exists without man. Obviously THERE IS NOT SUCH THING,
> >
> > Could you please provide some reasoning to support that. Capitalization does
not
> > replace reasoning.
>
> [Hammond]
> the reasoning, and citation of the proof is given above.
> PS: I use capitalization wherever and whenever I feel
> like it... just like the king james Bible does.
> Perhaps you're not up to reading canonical literature.
I just objected the use for reasoning, replacing the accepted argumentative
reasons with baseless statements with capitalization.
I read the jesuit father's response. I agree with him.
You are free to say that, but it does not grant you the correctness of this
statement. I would say: you are wrong.
> > > > > In the first place, the only things that EXIST are de facto, and
> > > > > by definition, things that can be detected by the human senses..
> > > > > i.e. the brain. NOTHING ELSE EXISTS. There is no such thing as a
> > > > > real substance that cannot be detected by the human mind... i.e.
> > > > > is "intangible and indescribable". To insist on such a thing is
> > > > > simple to try and promote the heresy that "the nonexistent exists".
> > > >
> > > > You should take-up some philosophy: the meaning is defined by the
opposite.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Reality, HAS NO "opposite", neither does a Pear or a Snowman.
> >
> > The advice stands. Learn some philosophy.
> >
> [Hammond]
> Learn some science. I was born knowing all pedantry, since
> I'm not a pedant. Philosophy is for pedants. We're supposed
> to be talking hard science here, not Philosophy. And that's exactly
> what I'm doing... talking hard science, that can be axiomatically
> explained and experimentally confirmed. Newton's substance that
> "we can't sense or even understand", can be, and has been, subject
> to such HARD SCIENCE DISPROOF. QED.
Present it.
So, take a look at my shell theory and tell me, what's wrong with that.
If you would pay attention: I did include the "intangible inward substance"
into my description of reality. I know that you have a problem understanding the
opposites, but it works. Now you can learn it or be left behind.
You see George, this is why I asked you to present some reasoning.
To show that it is wanting, erratic, useless speculation.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
xxein
George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Aladar wrote:
>
xxein writes:
What a leap! From unmeasurability to ultimate explanation.
If you understand the reality of God, then your understanding and
teachings of the workings of this and other universes should be more
fully appreciated. I only understand that {R<:[R<:(R><:& etc.)]}.
Truly mx$@(c)|?/...3rd has erred. I bow to your knowledge of such
things and will never question your veracity again.
Else: "Who was that guy?"
Btw. Chris?...hello??? You are no Phillip Morrison or James Burke.
Otoh, where else would we get your self-annotated account of the
annotated account?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
George Hammond
>
> George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:39C7780B...@mediaone.net...
> > Aladar wrote:
> >
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > Your post contained an extract of a conversation including a statement
> > > > by Einstein himself as to whether he was "religious" or not. Then it
> > > > branched into a lengthy quote by YOU from Isaac Newton containing Newton's
> > > > summary description of what GOD is. Then it continued an analysis by
> > > > YOU of Newton's "God" vis a vis "ultimate physical reality", etc. etc.
> > > > etc.
> > >
> > > I don't recall that "ultimate physical reality", what we were talking about
> > > it is a real substance of anything, an inward substance. You misunderstood
> the
> > > Newton quote.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > I don't misunderstand Newton. Newton believed in the "invisible
> > God". You refer to it as "inward substance" whatever that means.
> > You, newton and Aquinas all believe that there EXISTS something
> > that cannot be physically detected, an "independent physical
> > substrate".
>
> Again, where did you get that it is "independent"? And where do you
> concluded from what Newton believed in?
>
[Hammond]
Are you simply trying to be obtuse, or do you have problems
with reading? The quote fro Newton says:
"..but their inward substances are not to be
known either by our senses, or by any reflex
act of our minds..."
(Isaac Newton)
Here he clearly says that this "inward substance" "ARE NOT TO BE
KNOWN" by us or our minds. That is... that it is IMPOSSIBLE for
a human being to ever know about this inward substance.
Therefore, it constitutes something "real" that is "independent"
of man's reality. he is saying that there is an "independent reality"
independent of man, that can never be known by man. That is where the word
"independent" comes from... any other questions?
Moreover, this belief is PROVABLY FALSE as i have said repeatedly.
> The inward substance is what's inside. And Newton called it that way.
>
> > Here is the exact quote of what you said about
> > Einstein and the Newton extract, to Chris Hillman:
> >
> > [Aladan quote:]
> > No Chris, he is saying "there remains something intangible and
> > inexplicable".
> > Believe it, he means it! He means it as Newton did when he was talking
> > about:
> > "In bodies, we see only their figures and colors, we hear only the sounds,
> > we
> > touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the
> > savors; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our
> > senses, or
> > by any reflex act of our minds..."
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Here Newton says:
> >
> > "..but their inward substances are not to be known
> > either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds..."
> >
> > CLEARLY, newton is saying that a "real substance" exists that CANNOT
> > INHERENTLY be detected by a human observer.
>
> He reffers to reflex act. No "inherently" there, check it.
>
[Hammond]
Reflex acts clearly refers to "reflection" or in modern
terms "thinking". I don't need to check anything. If
the substance cannot be "detected by the human brain",
i.e. by human mental operation (which means "reflex acts")
then DE FACTO it is INHERENT in the substance that it is
undetectable to the human mind.
I simply contend that a belief in such a substance is
FALSE because all of reality is DEFINED by the "reflex acts"
of the mind plus it's "direct senses", and therefore
THERE IS NO SUCH SUBSTANCE ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE, and
is merely a fictitious creation of Isaac Newton. CLEARLY,
his intent is to invent an explanation for his "invisible God".
> > In other words, NEWTON
> > (and according to you, Einstein also) BELIEVED that there existed an
> > "independent reality",
>
> Why would that be an "independent reality"? On the contrary!
>
GH: Just explained that above, ad nauseum.
> > not accessible to human knowledge, and furthermore,
> > that this was the realm of God, and furthermore by direct implication,
> > that "GOD" could therefore never be scientifically explained.
>
> You are saying that. You and only you. Non of us was talking about God,
> but we were talking about the inward substance - constructing the bodies!
>
GH Au contraire.... YOU said that newton called it God, NOT ME.
> > All I am saying is that such a belief is pure unadulterated horseshit,
> > was intuitively and observationally untrue in NEWTON'S day, and
> > can now (and has been now) PROVEN to be incorrect. I call this
> > belief the "intergalactic God" theory... and it is, and was then,
> > and continues to be, a "little white heresy".
>
> And all is in your mind only, as have been shown.
>
gh: Au contraire... it has clearly been shown to be in YOUR MIND.
> > > > Now i appreciate your not liking the fact that someone has pointed
> > > > out that you are a jerk, that Newton didn't have a clue as to what
> > > > God was, and possibly Einstein too. And, you are certainly free
> > > > to beg off and bow out if you like by saying that you "weren't talking
> > > > about God", but that is obviously a FALSE STATEMENT on your part...
> > > > you certainly WERE talking about God, and Einstein's belief's about
> > > > God and Newton's belief's about God and your OWN intuitions about
> > > > God.
> > >
> > > No, you are mistaken. We were talking about an underlying substance,
> > > which is out of our reach, we can't sense or even understand it.
> > >
> >
gh: Yes you were, and i have pointed out THAT NO SUCH THING EXISTS.
> > [Hammond]
> > Absolute pedantic nonsense and incipient heresy. OBVIOUSLY, everything
> > that EXISTS is a product of the human brain/mind/senses. And, since
> > anything that is a product of the human mind can obviously be detected
> > by the human mind, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SOMETHING THAT CANNOT
> > BE "SENSED". No such thing exists. And all people who promote
> > this obvious lie, are only doing it for one thing... so that they
> > can prove that "God doesn't exist".
>
> What is the connection from an undetectable inward substance to God's
> existence? Moreover obtaining proof threreof?! BTW, you denied the
> existence of the concept of "infinity" above. I don't think so that you can do
> that... Also, there alway been and always will be "SOMETHING THAT CANNOT
> BE "SENSED"" - at least temporarily, until we invent the scope... You are saying
> that the planets started their being after Galileo invented the telescope.
>
> > Unfortunately, modern science has now PROVED the untruth of this
> > assertion to 2 decimal point accuracy (see my website URL below etc.).
> > In short... the "galactic God" hypothesis has been COUNTERINTUITIVE
> > from the beginning, and NOW modern science has actually proved it
> > to be a LIE.
>
> If the proofs are as strong reason based as your comments here, I'm not
> interested.
>
gh: nobody said you were interested. WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU
ARE INTERESTED IN. We are simply here to REFUTE YOU PEDANTIC
ARGUMENTS that there exists a material substance which is
beyond human knowability. THERe IS NO SUCH THING.
WE COULD CARE LESS ABOUT YOUR "INTERESTS"
>
> I read the jesuit father's response. I agree with him.
gh: He is not the embodiment of scientific law, and you
sure aren't. We don't care who you agree with or
who you don't agree with.
> > [Hammond]
> > So, I'm telling you that the concept of a substance that
> > "we can't sense or even understand" (Newton) has been
> > DUBIOUS AND DOUBTFUL AND SUSPECT ever since the concept
> > first appeared. And, lo and behold, has now been
> > PROVEN TO BE FALSE.
> > That's all i'm saying dude.
>
> You are free to say that, but it does not grant you the correctness of this
> statement. I would say: you are wrong.
GH: And I am here to say that you are wrong.. tit for tat.
> > [Hammond]
> > Learn some science. I was born knowing all pedantry, since
> > I'm not a pedant. Philosophy is for pedants. We're supposed
> > to be talking hard science here, not Philosophy. And that's exactly
> > what I'm doing... talking hard science, that can be axiomatically
> > explained and experimentally confirmed. Newton's substance that
> > "we can't sense or even understand", can be, and has been, subject
> > to such HARD SCIENCE DISPROOF. QED.
>
> Present it.
GH: it's all "PRESENTED" at:
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
just "click n' read" as they say.
> > [hammond]
> > NO PROBLEM. I'm just pointing out that the belief that there
> > is a substance that "we can't sense or even understand" is
> > NONSENSICAL RUBBISH AND PROVABLY FALSE BY CONTEMPORARY HARD SCIENCE
> > METHODS. We don't even have to "mention God", as you so
> > poignantly feign to desire.
>
> So, take a look at my shell theory and tell me, what's wrong with that.
GH: I'm too busy with more important things.
>
> If you would pay attention: I did include the "intangible inward substance"
> into my description of reality. I know that you have a problem understanding the
> opposites, but it works. Now you can learn it or be left behind.
GH: Huh? Is this supposed to be a comprehensible statement of
some kind?
--
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
George Hammond
--
Aladar
So you demonstrated that you equal the clear statement of "..but
their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses,
or by any reflex act of our minds..." with a statement that the inward
substance is independent from our mind. Than you say = independent
substance - generalized, independent from everything. Don't you see
that you contradict to the meaning of "inward substance" - which is not
independent but inside of - with that generalization?
Not to mention that the Newton's statement could be understood much
easier as the inward substance has nothing to reflect, it just exists!
Which - in turn - could be reflected as having assummed reflectable
properties, but all and any combination of those properties result in
undefined by measure values of those properties. (That's a workable
solution, resulting in a good reflection of reality.)
DE FACTO - you added something.
> I simply contend that a belief in such a substance is
> FALSE because all of reality is DEFINED by the "reflex acts"
> of the mind plus it's "direct senses", and therefore
> THERE IS NO SUCH SUBSTANCE ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE, and
> is merely a fictitious creation of Isaac Newton. CLEARLY,
> his intent is to invent an explanation for his "invisible God".
First of all the reflection of such underlying substance with no
properties whatsoever is from Democritus, Lucretius describes
it and St. Thomas Aquinas equals it to the God as the inward
substance of everything. Newton talks about it and Einstein
mentions it in the anecdote, starting this thread.
All agree that it is there and that is something different, "intangible,
inexplicable" and still necessary for the description of reality.
I succeeded to incorporate it into our reflect act. It results in
a coherent global reflection of everything, with total causality.
> > > In other words, NEWTON
> > > (and according to you, Einstein also) BELIEVED that there existed an
> > > "independent reality",
> >
> > Why would that be an "independent reality"? On the contrary!
> >
>
> GH: Just explained that above, ad nauseum.
You see, saying that it is independent just incorrect. It is the very
basis of everything, so anything we observe carries with it the
"inward substance" - which by itself is intangible but the cause
of properties! For illustration: Our senses are constructed of
regular systems of collision events and can sense only changes
in these systems. The colliding elements are the elements of
"inward substance" and they cause the collisions, they themselves
collide to constitute the space and time and energy, represented by
photons and massive bodies. This way we can describe the whole
Universe with everything in it as we see it.
> > > not accessible to human knowledge, and furthermore,
> > > that this was the realm of God, and furthermore by direct implication,
> > > that "GOD" could therefore never be scientifically explained.
> >
> > You are saying that. You and only you. Non of us was talking about God,
> > but we were talking about the inward substance - constructing the bodies!
> >
>
>
> GH Au contraire.... YOU said that newton called it God, NOT ME.
The subject never was the "explanation of God". Einstein was talking
about the reflection of nature, Newton was talking about the bodies and
their reflection and I'm talking about it. It is only you George, who
wants to talk about God.
>
> > > All I am saying is that such a belief is pure unadulterated horseshit,
> > > was intuitively and observationally untrue in NEWTON'S day, and
> > > can now (and has been now) PROVEN to be incorrect. I call this
> > > belief the "intergalactic God" theory... and it is, and was then,
> > > and continues to be, a "little white heresy".
> >
> > And all is in your mind only, as have been shown.
> >
>
> gh: Au contraire... it has clearly been shown to be in YOUR MIND.
>
>
>
> > > > > Now i appreciate your not liking the fact that someone has pointed
> > > > > out that you are a jerk, that Newton didn't have a clue as to what
> > > > > God was, and possibly Einstein too. And, you are certainly free
> > > > > to beg off and bow out if you like by saying that you "weren't talking
> > > > > about God", but that is obviously a FALSE STATEMENT on your part...
> > > > > you certainly WERE talking about God, and Einstein's belief's about
> > > > > God and Newton's belief's about God and your OWN intuitions about
> > > > > God.
> > > >
> > > > No, you are mistaken. We were talking about an underlying substance,
> > > > which is out of our reach, we can't sense or even understand it.
> > > >
> > >
>
> gh: Yes you were, and i have pointed out THAT NO SUCH THING EXISTS.
When a kid closes his eyes the outside world ceases to exist.
Name one who agrees with your "evaluation".
>
> > > [Hammond]
> > > So, I'm telling you that the concept of a substance that
> > > "we can't sense or even understand" (Newton) has been
> > > DUBIOUS AND DOUBTFUL AND SUSPECT ever since the concept
> > > first appeared. And, lo and behold, has now been
> > > PROVEN TO BE FALSE.
> > > That's all i'm saying dude.
> >
> > You are free to say that, but it does not grant you the correctness of this
> > statement. I would say: you are wrong.
>
> GH: And I am here to say that you are wrong.. tit for tat.
>
>
>
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Learn some science. I was born knowing all pedantry, since
> > > I'm not a pedant. Philosophy is for pedants. We're supposed
> > > to be talking hard science here, not Philosophy. And that's exactly
> > > what I'm doing... talking hard science, that can be axiomatically
> > > explained and experimentally confirmed. Newton's substance that
> > > "we can't sense or even understand", can be, and has been, subject
> > > to such HARD SCIENCE DISPROOF. QED.
> >
> > Present it.
>
> GH: it's all "PRESENTED" at:
>
> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
>
> just "click n' read" as they say.
>
"even a few scientists such as Newton, who advanced that "The human thumb was
sufficient proof of God"; great writers, artists and many other historical
authorities have known what God actually is" - you posted it there.
Now "> All I'm pointing out is that BOTH Aquinas and Newton and you
> apparently, are demonstrably
> ignorant of what God is, and moreover, not a little hypocritical
> in this doctrine... if not outright hypocritical."
Here are two positions of yours. Which one is it?
>
>
> > > [hammond]
> > > NO PROBLEM. I'm just pointing out that the belief that there
> > > is a substance that "we can't sense or even understand" is
> > > NONSENSICAL RUBBISH AND PROVABLY FALSE BY CONTEMPORARY HARD SCIENCE
> > > METHODS. We don't even have to "mention God", as you so
> > > poignantly feign to desire.
> >
> > So, take a look at my shell theory and tell me, what's wrong with that.
>
> GH: I'm too busy with more important things.
>
>
>
> >
> > If you would pay attention: I did include the "intangible inward substance"
> > into my description of reality. I know that you have a problem understanding
the
> > opposites, but it works. Now you can learn it or be left behind.
>
> GH: Huh? Is this supposed to be a comprehensible statement of
> some kind?
>
> --
> BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> George Hammond, M.S. Physics
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
George Hammond
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Are you simply trying to be obtuse, or do you have problems
> > with reading? The quote fro Newton says:
> >
> > "..but their inward substances are not to be
> > known either by our senses, or by any reflex
> > act of our minds..."
> >
> > (Isaac Newton)
> >
> > Here he clearly says that this "inward substance" "ARE NOT TO BE
> > KNOWN" by us or our minds. That is... that it is IMPOSSIBLE for
> > a human being to ever know about this inward substance.
> > Therefore, it constitutes something "real" that is "independent"
> > of man's reality. he is saying that there is an "independent reality"
> > independent of man, that can never be known by man. That is where the word
> > "independent" comes from... any other questions?
> > Moreover, this belief is PROVABLY FALSE as i have said repeatedly.
>
> So you demonstrated that you equal the clear statement of "..but
> their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses,
> or by any reflex act of our minds..." with a statement that the inward
> substance is independent from our mind. Than you say = independent
> substance - generalized, independent from everything. Don't you see
> that you contradict to the meaning of "inward substance" - which is not
> independent but inside of - with that generalization?
[Hammond]
I don't have any problem seeing, you do. You seem to have
a problem seeing that you have been caught in a falsehood,
and are a liar.
Newton said:
"...inward substances
are not to be known"
Newton
That means "inward substances are UNKNOWABLE", which is a
FALSE STATEMENT, which was known to be intuitively false
the day newton said it, and has been PROVEN TO BE FALSE
by modern science... and you wish to promote the falsehood.
>
> Not to mention that the Newton's statement could be understood much
> easier as the inward substance has nothing to reflect, it just exists!
[Hammond]
Again, the promotion of an "undetectable reality" which
is a falsehood and a deliberate foundation for a heresy.
> Which - in turn - could be reflected as having assummed reflectable
> properties, but all and any combination of those properties result in
> undefined by measure values of those properties. (That's a workable
> solution, resulting in a good reflection of reality.)
[Hammond]
Gibberish is no defense before the laws of logic.
[Hammond]
Nope. De facto, means 'prima facie' here.
>
> > I simply contend that a belief in such a substance is
> > FALSE because all of reality is DEFINED by the "reflex acts"
> > of the mind plus it's "direct senses", and therefore
> > THERE IS NO SUCH SUBSTANCE ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE, and
> > is merely a fictitious creation of Isaac Newton. CLEARLY,
> > his intent is to invent an explanation for his "invisible God".
>
> First of all the reflection of such underlying substance with no
> properties whatsoever is from Democritus, Lucretius describes
> it and St. Thomas Aquinas equals it to the God as the inward
> substance of everything. Newton talks about it and Einstein
> mentions it in the anecdote, starting this thread.
[Hammond]
Yes, and all of them were promoting a false doctrine, which
they knew to be false, and they knew eventually they would
be caught, And the HAVE BEEN CAUGHT by modern science.
THE DOCTRINE IS FALSE.
>
> All agree that it is there and that is something different, "intangible,
> inexplicable" and still necessary for the description of reality.
> I succeeded to incorporate it into our reflect act. It results in
> a coherent global reflection of everything, with total causality.
>
> > > > In other words, NEWTON
> > > > (and according to you, Einstein also) BELIEVED that there existed an
> > > > "independent reality",
> > >
> > > Why would that be an "independent reality"? On the contrary!
> > >
> >
> > GH: Just explained that above, ad nauseum.
>
> You see, saying that it is independent just incorrect. It is the very
> basis of everything, so anything we observe carries with it the
> "inward substance" - which by itself is intangible but the cause
> of properties! For illustration: Our senses are constructed of
> regular systems of collision events and can sense only changes
> in these systems. The colliding elements are the elements of
> "inward substance" and they cause the collisions, they themselves
> collide to constitute the space and time and energy, represented by
> photons and massive bodies. This way we can describe the whole
> Universe with everything in it as we see it.
>
[Hammond]
more gibberish. There IS NO SUCH THING as an "unknowable, or
undetectable, reality". QED
> > > > not accessible to human knowledge, and furthermore,
> > > > that this was the realm of God, and furthermore by direct implication,
> > > > that "GOD" could therefore never be scientifically explained.
> > >
> > > You are saying that. You and only you. Non of us was talking about God,
> > > but we were talking about the inward substance - constructing the bodies!
> > >
> >
> >
> > GH Au contraire.... YOU said that newton called it God, NOT ME.
>
> The subject never was the "explanation of God". Einstein was talking
> about the reflection of nature, Newton was talking about the bodies and
> their reflection and I'm talking about it. It is only you George, who
> wants to talk about God.
>
[Hammond]
Don't try to change the subject. There is no "reflection of an
unknowable reality". You, newton and Einstein said there was.
You all three are INCORRECT. There is no such thing.
if that irritates you because it happens to have OBVIOUS
THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS, that's your problem, not mine.
You're the one that brought up the subject of God in the
first place.
The subject here is OBVIOUSLY your, newton's and Einstein's
argument that there is an "unknowable, undetectable reality
which impacts knowable reality". WRONG, there IS NO SUCH THING.
And i'm simply here to mention that modern science has proven
YOU, NEWTON AND EINSTEIN WRONG.
If you have a problem with that, or you want to go running
screaming to God or something... fine. I simply proved you wrong.
> When a kid closes his eyes the outside world ceases to exist.
>
[Hammond]
Obviously wrong. Blindness is not death.
>
> Name one who agrees with your "evaluation".
[Hammond]
i never said anyone agrees with me. Makes no difference
whether the whole world is wrong. i'm simply here to publish
and announce the fact that you are wrong when you say there
is an "unknowable reality". THERE IS NO SUCH THING.
Now if it bothers you that I'm here on an open forum
stating that the proposition has been proved false and pointing
to the published evidence (my website and published papers),
then that's YOUR PROBLEM.
> >
> > GH: it's all "PRESENTED" at:
> >
> > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
> >
> > just "click n' read" as they say.
> >
>
> "even a few scientists such as Newton, who advanced that "The human thumb was
> sufficient proof of God"; great writers, artists and many other historical
> authorities have known what God actually is" - you posted it there.
> Now "> All I'm pointing out is that BOTH Aquinas and Newton and you
> > apparently, are demonstrably
> > ignorant of what God is, and moreover, not a little hypocritical
> > in this doctrine... if not outright hypocritical."
> Here are two positions of yours. Which one is it?
[Hammond]
Anyone who KNOWS what God is, but cannot prove it, CANNOT
publicly say that he "knows what God is". NEWTON, and EINSTEIN
KNEW THERE WAS A GOD, but COULD NOT PROVE THERE WAS A GOD.
So therefore, what they SAY and what they KNOW are two different
things.
I am in a DIFFERENT POSITION. I KNOW there is a God, and I
CAN PROVE IT.
There is no dichotomy here from which you can say "which is it".
You have simply lost the argument, your cherished dream of
proving a nonsensical and false statement has been defeated, and
your cherished heretical ambition has wound up on the ash heap
of history. Sayonara sucker.
--
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Aladar
> Aladar wrote:
>
> > So you demonstrated that you equal the clear statement of "..but
> > their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses,
> > or by any reflex act of our minds..." with a statement that the inward
> > substance is independent from our mind. Than you say = independent
> > substance - generalized, independent from everything. Don't you see
> > that you contradict to the meaning of "inward substance" - which is not
> > independent but inside of - with that generalization?
>
> [Hammond]
> I don't have any problem seeing, you do. You seem to have
> a problem seeing that you have been caught in a falsehood,
> and are a liar.
How you arrive to this conclusion?
> Newton said:
>
> "...inward substances
> are not to be known"
>
> Newton
>
> That means "inward substances are UNKNOWABLE", which is a
> FALSE STATEMENT,
Why?
> which was known to be intuitively false
> the day Newton said it,
Who "knew" it?
>and has been PROVEN TO BE FALSE
> by modern science...
How?
> and you wish to promote the falsehood.
How did you get to this conclusion?
> > Not to mention that the Newton's statement could be understood much
> > easier as the inward substance has nothing to reflect, it just exists!
>
> [Hammond]
> Again, the promotion of an "undetectable reality" which
> is a falsehood
Why?
> and a deliberate foundation for a heresy.
What is your basis for this?
> > Which - in turn - could be reflected as having assumed reflectable
> > properties, but all and any combination of those properties result in
> > undefined by measure values of those properties. (That's a workable
> > solution, resulting in a good reflection of reality.)
>
> [Hammond]
> Gibberish is no defense before the laws of logic.
What represents the laws of logic?
<...>
> > First of all the reflection of such underlying substance with no
> > properties whatsoever is from Democritus, Lucretius describes
> > it and St. Thomas Aquinas equals it to the God as the inward
> > substance of everything. Newton talks about it and Einstein
> > mentions it in the anecdote, starting this thread.
>
> [Hammond]
> Yes, and all of them were promoting a false doctrine, which
> they knew to be false,
Now you even know what they knew!?
> and they knew eventually they would
> be caught, And the HAVE BEEN CAUGHT by modern science.
> THE DOCTRINE IS FALSE.
Why?
>
> >
> > All agree that it is there and that is something different, "intangible,
> > inexplicable" and still necessary for the description of reality.
> > I succeeded to incorporate it into our reflect act. It results in
> > a coherent global reflection of everything, with total causality.
> >
<...>
> > You see, saying that it is independent just incorrect. It is the very
> > basis of everything, so anything we observe carries with it the
> > "inward substance" - which by itself is intangible but the cause
> > of properties! For illustration: Our senses are constructed of
> > regular systems of collision events and can sense only changes
> > in these systems. The colliding elements are the elements of
> > "inward substance" and they cause the collisions, they themselves
> > collide to constitute the space and time and energy, represented by
> > photons and massive bodies. This way we can describe the whole
> > Universe with everything in it as we see it.
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> more gibberish. There IS NO SUCH THING as an "unknowable, or
> undetectable, reality". QED
Why?
<...>
> > The subject never was the "explanation of God". Einstein was talking
> > about the reflection of nature, Newton was talking about the bodies and
> > their reflection and I'm talking about it. It is only you George, who
> > wants to talk about God.
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> Don't try to change the subject. There is no "reflection of an
> unknowable reality". You, Newton and Einstein said there was.
> You all three are INCORRECT. There is no such thing.
Why?
> if that irritates you because it happens to have OBVIOUS
> THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS, that's your problem, not mine.
> You're the one that brought up the subject of God in the
> first place.
I clearly made a distinction in my interpretation of Newton's statements that he
is talking about the "inward substance" - and from that only you brought-up God.
> The subject here is OBVIOUSLY your, Newton's and Einstein's
> argument that there is an "unknowable, undetectable reality
> which impacts knowable reality".
Finally!
> WRONG, there IS NO SUCH THING.
Why?
> And i'm simply here to mention that modern science has proven
> YOU, NEWTON AND EINSTEIN WRONG.
How?
> If you have a problem with that, or you want to go running
> screaming to God or something... fine. I simply proved you wrong.
How?
>
>
> > When a kid closes his eyes the outside world ceases to exist.
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> Obviously wrong. Blindness is not death.
>
>
> >
> > Name one who agrees with your "evaluation".
>
> [Hammond]
> i never said anyone agrees with me. Makes no difference
> whether the whole world is wrong. i'm simply here to publish
> and announce the fact that you are wrong when you say there
> is an "unknowable reality". THERE IS NO SUCH THING.
Why?
> Now if it bothers you that I'm here on an open forum
> stating that the proposition has been proved false
How? When?
> and pointing
> to the published evidence (my website and published papers),
> then that's YOUR PROBLEM.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > GH: it's all "PRESENTED" at:
> > >
> > > http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/index.html
> > >
> > > just "click n' read" as they say.
> > >
> >
> > "even a few scientists such as Newton, who advanced that "The human thumb
was
> > sufficient proof of God"; great writers, artists and many other historical
> > authorities have known what God actually is" - you posted it there.
> > Now "> All I'm pointing out is that BOTH Aquinas and Newton and you
> > > apparently, are demonstrably
> > > ignorant of what God is, and moreover, not a little hypocritical
> > > in this doctrine... if not outright hypocritical."
> > Here are two positions of yours. Which one is it?
>
> [Hammond]
> Anyone who KNOWS what God is, but cannot prove it, CANNOT
> publicly say that he "knows what God is". NEWTON, and EINSTEIN
> KNEW THERE WAS A GOD, but COULD NOT PROVE THERE WAS A GOD.
> So therefore, what they SAY and what they KNOW are two different
> things.
What is your answer to my question: Which one of your two statements is your
current position? Do you have a brain? Can you make-up your mind?
> I am in a DIFFERENT POSITION.
I have noticed...
> I KNOW there is a God, and I
> CAN PROVE IT.
Happy you!
> There is no dichotomy here from which you can say "which is it".
> You have simply lost the argument, your cherished dream of
> proving a nonsensical and false statement has been defeated,
When? How?
> and
> your cherished heretical ambition has wound up on the ash heap
> of history. Sayonara sucker.
>
>
> --
> BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> George Hammond, M.S. Physics
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/CMBR.htm
George Hammond
>
> George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:39C90EBE...@mediaone.net...
> > Aladar wrote:
> >
>
> > > So you demonstrated that you equal the clear statement of "..but
> > > their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses,
> > > or by any reflex act of our minds..." with a statement that the inward
> > > substance is independent from our mind. Than you say = independent
> > > substance - generalized, independent from everything. Don't you see
> > > that you contradict to the meaning of "inward substance" - which is not
> > > independent but inside of - with that generalization?
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > I don't have any problem seeing, you do. You seem to have
> > a problem seeing that you have been caught in a falsehood,
> > and are a liar.
>
> How you arrive to this conclusion?
I've already answered that question 6 times
>
> > Newton said:
> >
> > "...inward substances
> > are not to be known"
> >
> > Newton
> >
> > That means "inward substances are UNKNOWABLE", which is a
> > FALSE STATEMENT,
>
> Why?
>
> > which was known to be intuitively false
> > the day Newton said it,
>
> Who "knew" it?
GH: who cares. The point is it is false
>
> >and has been PROVEN TO BE FALSE
> > by modern science...
>
> How?
GH: see my website if you happen to be interested
>
> > and you wish to promote the falsehood.
>
> How did you get to this conclusion?
>
GH: obvious deduction (gee this one liner game is fun)
> > > Not to mention that the Newton's statement could be understood much
> > > easier as the inward substance has nothing to reflect, it just exists!
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Again, the promotion of an "undetectable reality" which
> > is a falsehood
>
> Why?
GH: already been answered 10 times
>
> > and a deliberate foundation for a heresy.
>
> What is your basis for this?
>
GH: the fact that you cited newton's conclusion that it
was the basis of God.
> > > Which - in turn - could be reflected as having assumed reflectable
> > > properties, but all and any combination of those properties result in
> > > undefined by measure values of those properties. (That's a workable
> > > solution, resulting in a good reflection of reality.)
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Gibberish is no defense before the laws of logic.
>
> What represents the laws of logic?
>
GH: look it up in a book.
> <...>
> > > First of all the reflection of such underlying substance with no
> > > properties whatsoever is from Democritus, Lucretius describes
> > > it and St. Thomas Aquinas equals it to the God as the inward
> > > substance of everything. Newton talks about it and Einstein
> > > mentions it in the anecdote, starting this thread.
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Yes, and all of them were promoting a false doctrine, which
> > they knew to be false,
>
> Now you even know what they knew!?
>
GH: It was contrary to majority belief at the time
that they said it, which makes it obvious that they knew.
> > and they knew eventually they would
> > be caught, And the HAVE BEEN CAUGHT by modern science.
> > THE DOCTRINE IS FALSE.
>
> Why?
GH: evidence on my website has been cited 10 times
>
> >
> > >
> > > All agree that it is there and that is something different, "intangible,
> > > inexplicable" and still necessary for the description of reality.
> > > I succeeded to incorporate it into our reflect act. It results in
> > > a coherent global reflection of everything, with total causality.
> > >
> <...>
> > > You see, saying that it is independent just incorrect. It is the very
> > > basis of everything, so anything we observe carries with it the
> > > "inward substance" - which by itself is intangible but the cause
> > > of properties! For illustration: Our senses are constructed of
> > > regular systems of collision events and can sense only changes
> > > in these systems. The colliding elements are the elements of
> > > "inward substance" and they cause the collisions, they themselves
> > > collide to constitute the space and time and energy, represented by
> > > photons and massive bodies. This way we can describe the whole
> > > Universe with everything in it as we see it.
> > >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > more gibberish. There IS NO SUCH THING as an "unknowable, or
> > undetectable, reality". QED
>
> Why?
GH: answer to that already cited 5 times
>
> <...>
> > > The subject never was the "explanation of God". Einstein was talking
> > > about the reflection of nature, Newton was talking about the bodies and
> > > their reflection and I'm talking about it. It is only you George, who
> > > wants to talk about God.
> > >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Don't try to change the subject. There is no "reflection of an
> > unknowable reality". You, Newton and Einstein said there was.
> > You all three are INCORRECT. There is no such thing.
>
> Why?
GH: answer has been posted 5 times
>
> > if that irritates you because it happens to have OBVIOUS
> > THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS, that's your problem, not mine.
> > You're the one that brought up the subject of God in the
> > first place.
>
> I clearly made a distinction in my interpretation of Newton's statements that he
> is talking about the "inward substance" - and from that only you brought-up God.
>
> > The subject here is OBVIOUSLY your, Newton's and Einstein's
> > argument that there is an "unknowable, undetectable reality
> > which impacts knowable reality".
>
> Finally!
GH: always was, is now, and was never anything else.
>
> > WRONG, there IS NO SUCH THING.
>
> Why?
GH: has been answered here 5 times
>
> > And i'm simply here to mention that modern science has proven
> > YOU, NEWTON AND EINSTEIN WRONG.
>
> How?
GH: proof posted on my website
>
> > If you have a problem with that, or you want to go running
> > screaming to God or something... fine. I simply proved you wrong.
>
> How?
GH: answered 5 times, proof cited on my website
>
> >
> >
> > > When a kid closes his eyes the outside world ceases to exist.
> > >
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Obviously wrong. Blindness is not death.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Name one who agrees with your "evaluation".
> >
> > [Hammond]
> > i never said anyone agrees with me. Makes no difference
> > whether the whole world is wrong. i'm simply here to publish
> > and announce the fact that you are wrong when you say there
> > is an "unknowable reality". THERE IS NO SUCH THING.
>
> Why?
GH: has already been answered 5 times.
>
> > Now if it bothers you that I'm here on an open forum
> > stating that the proposition has been proved false
>
> How? When?
GH: answered and demonstrated 5 times in my previous
5 posts.
GH: Oh, you sounded comatose to me goofinicus.
> > I KNOW there is a God, and I
> > CAN PROVE IT.
>
> Happy you!
>
GH: You got that one right.
> > There is no dichotomy here from which you can say "which is it".
> > You have simply lost the argument, your cherished dream of
> > proving a nonsensical and false statement has been defeated,
>
> When? How?
>
GH; obvious from my posted remarks.
> > and
> > your cherished heretical ambition has wound up on the ash heap
> > of history. Sayonara sucker.
GH: Like I said, Sayonara pedant.
--
BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
-----------------------------------------------------------
George Hammond, M.S. Physics
Aladar
> Aladar wrote:
> >
> > <...>
> > > > First of all the reflection of such underlying substance with no
> > > > properties whatsoever is from Democritus, Lucretius describes
> > > > it and St. Thomas Aquinas equals it to the God as the inward
> > > > substance of everything. Newton talks about it and Einstein
> > > > mentions it in the anecdote, starting this thread.
> > >
> > > [Hammond]
> > > Yes, and all of them were promoting a false doctrine, which
> > > they knew to be false,
> >
> > Now you even know what they knew!?
> >
>
> GH: It was contrary to majority belief at the time
> that they said it, which makes it obvious that they knew.
>
Are you saying that promoting a contrary to majority belief idea
makes it obvious that they knew to be false???
<..>
> > > The subject here is OBVIOUSLY your, Newton's and Einstein's
> > > argument that there is an "unknowable, undetectable reality
> > > which impacts knowable reality".
> >
> > Finally!
>
> GH: always was, is now, and was never anything else.
>
<...>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> George Hammond, M.S. Physics
I can conclude than that even you understood my point: my, Newton's and
Einstein's argument that there is an "unknowable, undetectable reality which
impacts knowable reality".
The next step would be to understand how it does it.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/
George Hammond
> > Aladar wrote:
> > >
> > > <...>
> > > > > First of all the reflection of such underlying substance with no
> > > > > properties whatsoever is from Democritus, Lucretius describes
> > > > > it and St. Thomas Aquinas equals it to the God as the inward
> > > > > substance of everything. Newton talks about it and Einstein
> > > > > mentions it in the anecdote, starting this thread.
> > > >
> > > > [Hammond]
> > > > Yes, and all of them were promoting a false doctrine, which
> > > > they knew to be false,
> > >
> > > Now you even know what they knew!?
> > >
> >
> > GH: It was contrary to majority belief at the time
> > that they said it, which makes it obvious that they knew.
> >
>
GH:
Irregardless, I'm saying that TODAY it can be PROVEN to
be false. Whether or not they knew it TO BE false,
is a SECONDARY ISSUE, the fact that it is now proven
to be false, is the PRIMARY ISSUE.
You are obviously wont to take up the secondary issue
in order to divert attention from the primary issue. I
have no intention of doing so. I am simply adding as an
observation that their doctrine concerning the nature of
an "unknowable" reality provides the foundation for an
"unprovable God", and therefore smacks of a suspiciously
contrived strategy based upon heretical predisposition.
>
> <..>
> > > > The subject here is OBVIOUSLY your, Newton's and Einstein's
> > > > argument that there is an "unknowable, undetectable reality
> > > > which impacts knowable reality".
> > >
> > > Finally!
> >
> > GH: always was, is now, and was never anything else.
> >
>
> I can conclude than that even you understood my point: my, Newton's and
> Einstein's argument that there is an "unknowable, undetectable reality which
> impacts knowable reality".
> The next step would be to understand how it does it.
GH: There is no such thing. The belief is provably false.
Moreover, the impetus for such a belief is highly suspicious.
Aladar
> > > Aladar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <...>
> > > > > > First of all the reflection of such underlying substance with no
> > > > > > properties whatsoever is from Democritus, Lucretius describes
> > > > > > it and St. Thomas Aquinas equals it to the God as the inward
> > > > > > substance of everything. Newton talks about it and Einstein
> > > > > > mentions it in the anecdote, starting this thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > Yes, and all of them were promoting a false doctrine, which
> > > > > they knew to be false,
> > > >
> > > > Now you even know what they knew!?
> > > >
> > >
> > > GH: It was contrary to majority belief at the time
> > > that they said it, which makes it obvious that they knew.
> > >
> >
> > makes it obvious that they knew to be false???
>
>
> GH:
> Irregardless, I'm saying that TODAY it can be PROVEN to
> be false. Whether or not they knew it TO BE false,
> is a SECONDARY ISSUE, the fact that it is now proven
> to be false, is the PRIMARY ISSUE.
That is only yours, only you are interested in that PRIMARY ISSUE -
whatever it could be. At the mean time you stated that they knew, which
is obviously a clear sign of stupidity. Of your stupidity.
> You are obviously wont to take up the secondary issue
> in order to divert attention from the primary issue. I
> have no intention of doing so. I am simply adding as an
> observation that their doctrine concerning the nature of
> an "unknowable" reality provides the foundation for an
> "unprovable God",
The expression of a firm belief that an "unknowable" reality must be?!
Are you really so stupid?
> and therefore smacks of a suspiciously
> contrived strategy based upon heretical predisposition.
I love when you call St. Thomas Aquinas a heretic!
> > > > > The subject here is OBVIOUSLY your, Newton's and Einstein's
> > > > > argument that there is an "unknowable, undetectable reality
> > > > > which impacts knowable reality".
> > > >
> > > > Finally!
> > >
> > > GH: always was, is now, and was never anything else.
> > >
> >
> > I can conclude than that even you understood my point: my, Newton's and
> > Einstein's argument that there is an "unknowable, undetectable reality which
> > impacts knowable reality".
> > The next step would be to understand how it does it.
>
> GH: There is no such thing. The belief is provably false.
> Moreover, the impetus for such a belief is highly suspicious.
You have realized by now that the statement that there is an
"unknowable, undetectable reality which impacts knowable reality"
is correct and proven to be correct. The impetus for such an
understanding is to further our understanding of reality, the nature
surrounding us. You can see from this thread that I'm continuing
Democritus, Lucretius and St. Thomas Aquinas work from where
Newton elevated it to physics and Einstein also based his work on it!
Where is your opposition to this ideas is coming from?
>
> --
> BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> George Hammond, M.S. Physics
George Hammond
If you want to discuss this issue further, I suggest we
move this discussion to "Hammond debates Vatican Relativist"
another thread which you will find posted also on this newsgroup.
I think the discussion is getting rather removed from Hillman's
original post which was about Einstein.
Repost this on the other thread and i'll be glad to respond.
Aladar wrote:
>
> George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:39CA0600...@mediaone.net...
> > Aladar wrote:
> > >
> > > George Hammond <gham...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > > news:39C93F92...@mediaone.net...
> > > > Aladar wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <...>
> > > > > > > First of all the reflection of such underlying substance with no
> > > > > > > properties whatsoever is from Democritus, Lucretius describes
> > > > > > > it and St. Thomas Aquinas equals it to the God as the inward
> > > > > > > substance of everything. Newton talks about it and Einstein
> > > > > > > mentions it in the anecdote, starting this thread.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > > Yes, and all of them were promoting a false doctrine, which
> > > > > > they knew to be false,
> > > > >
> > > > > Now you even know what they knew!?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > GH: It was contrary to majority belief at the time
> > > > that they said it, which makes it obvious that they knew.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Are you saying that promoting a contrary to majority belief idea
> > > makes it obvious that they knew to be false???
> >
> >
> > GH:
> > Irregardless, I'm saying that TODAY it can be PROVEN to
> > be false. Whether or not they knew it TO BE false,
> > is a SECONDARY ISSUE, the fact that it is now proven
> > to be false, is the PRIMARY ISSUE.
>
> That is only yours, only you are interested in that PRIMARY ISSUE -
> whatever it could be. At the mean time you stated that they knew, which
> is obviously a clear sign of stupidity. Of your stupidity.
>
> > You are obviously wont to take up the secondary issue
> > in order to divert attention from the primary issue. I
> > have no intention of doing so. I am simply adding as an
> > observation that their doctrine concerning the nature of
> > an "unknowable" reality provides the foundation for an
> > "unprovable God",
>
> The expression of a firm belief that an "unknowable" reality must be?!
> Are you really so stupid?
>
> > and therefore smacks of a suspiciously
> > contrived strategy based upon heretical predisposition.
>
> I love when you call St. Thomas Aquinas a heretic!
>
> > > > > > The subject here is OBVIOUSLY your, Newton's and Einstein's
> > > > > > argument that there is an "unknowable, undetectable reality
> > > > > > which impacts knowable reality".
> > > > >
> > > > > Finally!
> > > >
> > > > GH: always was, is now, and was never anything else.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I can conclude than that even you understood my point: my, Newton's and
> > > Einstein's argument that there is an "unknowable, undetectable reality which
> > > impacts knowable reality".
> > > The next step would be to understand how it does it.
> >
> > GH: There is no such thing. The belief is provably false.
> > Moreover, the impetus for such a belief is highly suspicious.
>
> You have realized by now that the statement that there is an
> "unknowable, undetectable reality which impacts knowable reality"
> is correct and proven to be correct. The impetus for such an
> understanding is to further our understanding of reality, the nature
> surrounding us. You can see from this thread that I'm continuing
> Democritus, Lucretius and St. Thomas Aquinas work from where
> Newton elevated it to physics and Einstein also based his work on it!
>
> Where is your opposition to this ideas is coming from?
>
Aladar
> [Hammond]
> If you want to discuss this issue further, I suggest we
> move this discussion to "Hammond debates Vatican Relativist"
> another thread which you will find posted also on this newsgroup.
> I think the discussion is getting rather removed from Hillman's
> original post which was about Einstein.
> Repost this on the other thread and i'll be glad to respond.
>
> > > > > Aladar wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <...>
> > > > > > > > First of all the reflection of such underlying substance with no
> > > > > > > > properties whatsoever is from Democritus, Lucretius describes
> > > > > > > > it and St. Thomas Aquinas equals it to the God as the inward
> > > > > > > > substance of everything. Newton talks about it and Einstein
> > > > > > > > mentions it in the anecdote, starting this thread.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [Hammond]
> > > > > > > Yes, and all of them were promoting a false doctrine, which
> > > > > > > they knew to be false,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now you even know what they knew!?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > GH: It was contrary to majority belief at the time
> > > > > that they said it, which makes it obvious that they knew.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > makes it obvious that they knew to be false???
> > >
> > >
> > > GH:
> > > Irregardless, I'm saying that TODAY it can be PROVEN to
> > > be false. Whether or not they knew it TO BE false,
> > > is a SECONDARY ISSUE, the fact that it is now proven
> > > to be false, is the PRIMARY ISSUE.
> >
> > That is only yours, only you are interested in that PRIMARY ISSUE -
> > whatever it could be. At the mean time you stated that they knew, which
> > is obviously a clear sign of stupidity. Of your stupidity.
> >
> > > You are obviously wont to take up the secondary issue
> > > in order to divert attention from the primary issue. I
> > > have no intention of doing so. I am simply adding as an
> > > observation that their doctrine concerning the nature of
> > > an "unknowable" reality provides the foundation for an
> > > "unprovable God",
> >
> > The expression of a firm belief that an "unknowable" reality must be?!
> > Are you really so stupid?
> >
> > > and therefore smacks of a suspiciously
> > > contrived strategy based upon heretical predisposition.
> >
> > I love when you call St. Thomas Aquinas a heretic!
> >
> > > > > > > argument that there is an "unknowable, undetectable reality
> > > > > > > which impacts knowable reality".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Finally!
> > > > >
> > > > > GH: always was, is now, and was never anything else.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Einstein's argument that there is an "unknowable, undetectable reality
which
> > > > impacts knowable reality".
> > >
> > > GH: There is no such thing. The belief is provably false.
> > > Moreover, the impetus for such a belief is highly suspicious.
> >
> > "unknowable, undetectable reality which impacts knowable reality"
> > understanding is to further our understanding of reality, the nature
> > surrounding us. You can see from this thread that I'm continuing
> > Democritus, Lucretius and St. Thomas Aquinas work from where
> > Newton elevated it to physics and Einstein also based his work on it!
> >
> > Where is your opposition to this ideas is coming from?
> >
> BE SURE TO VISIT MY WEBSITE, BELOW:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> George Hammond, M.S. Physics
My position is clear. You made an attempt to argue, and you could not.
Is there anything left to discuss?
In the anecdotes the issue of the intangible underlying substance was the only
real issue. Nothing is removed from the original subject.
--
Aladar
http://www2.3dresearch.com/~alistolmar/
George Hammond
> Is there anything left to discuss?
GH: Not between me and you apparently. Care for some poetry?
ron
>> >
> > [Hammond]
> > Sure, you idiot. That number is easily extracted from the
> > Secular Trend. God's arm is exactly 35 inches long.
> > Is there anything else I can help you with, or is that
> > too overwhelming for you.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
> >
>
> [Hammond]
> PS: The length of God's FOOT is far more commonly known. It
> is exactly 12 inches long. This was discovered in England centuries
> ago, and is called the common English 'foot', and even
> more commonly a 'ruler'
> Lay people, not knowing what or who God is, are told that it is
> the length of the Kings foot, however, the more educated classes
> are aware that it is actually the length of GOD'S FOOT.
definitely ROTFLMAO
ron
George Hammond
>
> How wide is God's foot?
> What hat size does he take?
> For that matter, what is his collar size?
> And you know what they say about men with big feet...
>
> Paul
GH: Psychologically, God is apparently about
the size of the statue of Liberty.
>
> "George Hammond" wrote