What say you?

[BigJon3475]

Okay this is out of my league but I'll shoot to start a good thread.

E = mc2

Energy = mass x speed of light squared

This basically says at the speed of light time stops:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ&feature=related

When he speaks of speed of light squared I see light going in two directions from it's origin. Hence the squared.

So if time stops if you go the speed of light. If you turn 180 and aim towards the center where the big bang started do you speed up the end of the universe?

After all time is directly related to the speed of light and for that matter mass and energy.

That means everything has already happened we are just waiting for the light to get here.

Speculations..?

*for the very hairs on your head are numbered*

[BigJon3475]

If it were not for light would anything exist?

All we are waiting to see is if there is enough resistance in the universe for the big bang to be slowing down.

If it slows down there is an end. If not then we just move further and further out.

The claim at present is 37 billion years.

Light traveling at 983,571,056.4 feet per second for 37 billion years is incredible for an understanding of distance.

[BigJon3475]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_v99FSTYc&feature=related

[acmanko]

Any attempt to verify the first book of the Bible with Einsteins equation and Darwin's theory of Relativity is way above the heads of the Fundamentlists on this forum.

[The Doctor]

Any attempt to verify the first book of the Bible with Einsteins equation and Darwin's theory of Relativity is way above the heads of the Fundamentlists on this forum.

Be that as it may, the big picture includes the harmonization of both Bible and science. It's not as complicated as it looks, which Darwin seemed to have known.

The first book of the Bible goes "faith". But isn't faith the evidence of things not seen. I ask you, which is greater--that which is seen or that which is unseen?

[acmanko]

The unseen is greater. simply because most people cannot see the forest with all the trees in the way:D

[Andy Schoen]

If it were not for light would anything exist? No, but don't try explaining this to the multiverses crowd. :p


Any attempt to verify the first book of the Bible with Einsteins equation and Darwin's theory of Relativity is way above the heads of the Fundamentlists on this forum.
It was Einstein who figured out Relativity, and Darwin's theory of evolution has little to explain how our universe was created.

The Bible, however, is quite succinct on this subject: And God said, Let there be Light. The Bible allows us to rummage thru the details. ;)

[acmanko]

I stand corrected, but at least you read through the hype and understood my point. You have officially won 2 points, they are yours to do with as you wish. I would caustion in advance however, that you should bank them.

[BigJon3475]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gez1Fux4js&feature=related

[Andy Schoen]

Einstein could never get his head wrapped around Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. :(

[ECIndHVAC]

Einstein could never get his head wrapped around Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. :(

So this is the Mr. Schoen that I've heard so many things about...

Anyhow, I think ANYONE short of an academic physicist who claims to have ANY understanding of modern theoretical physics is in error. So we can't be too hard on poor Doctor Einstein. After all, his specialty was creating new physics, and not interpreting other people's theories, right?

I have the Putnam record for my school, and I can't comprehend anything beyond Newton!

F=ma, that's what I say!

[Andy Schoen]

So this is the Mr. Schoen that I've heard so many things about...
Anything good??? :o



Anyhow, I think ANYONE short of an academic physicist who claims to have ANY understanding of modern theoretical physics is in error. So we can't be too hard on poor Doctor Einstein.
Fortunately for us who are less than academic physicists, Einstein's problems with the uncertainty principle have been well documented and explained in english by those in his field. Just shows Einstein was almost, but not quite superhuman :D

[ECIndHVAC]

Anything good??? :o


Fortunately for us who are less than academic physicists, Einstein's problems with the uncertainty principle have been well documented and explained in english by those in his field. Just shows Einstein was almost, but not quite superhuman :D

Hi Mr. Schoen,

Of course, what I heard about you was all good. Recently there was a thread on Superheat in the tech forum. In this thread, you were quoted giving a very intelligent discussion about approximating superheat with a linear equation.

About Einstein, I've always taken tales of various "intellectual superhumans'" difficulties with a grain of salt. For example, do you find it likely that anything Einstein was unable to understand could be explained in plain English? I do think that it's quite possible, though, since Einstein was more of a "creative genius" than a scholar, per se (I'm roughly saying that Einstein's gift had more to do with developing new theories than with understanding other people's theories [an even rougher translation of what I'm trying to say is that Einstein was more of a "creator" than a "pedagogue", if that makes any sense]). Another famous example of a bona fide genius being unable to grasp something "well known or 'easily' explainable" is the case of mathematician Paul Erdos being "baffled" by the Monty Hall Paradox.

[side note: For those of you who have never heard of the Monty Hall Paradox, it goes something like this: You're on a game show where a prize is behind one of three doors. You pick door A. The host opens up door B, which is empty, and gives you the choice of either staying with door A or switching to door C. What should you do? Now, most people think both door A and door C have a 50/50 chance of winning, so that there is no advantage to switching. However, the truth is that door C is twice as likely to be the winner (do you see why?:) )]

The resolution to this paradox can be easily explained to any high school algebra student. Yet legend has it that this paradox stumped the great Dr. Erdos. Personally, I think that Erdos understood the explaination, but was bothered by some slight detail that mere mortals like us could likely never understand. And my hunch is that something similar was happening with Einstein and the Uncertainty Principle.

I am reminded of a quote by Bertrand Russell: (this is definitely a "paraphrasing", and you'll get why this parenthetical reference is funny after you read the quote) A stupid man's account of what an intelligent man says is always flawed, because the the stupid man translates it into something he can understand.

Regards

[Andy Schoen]

Another famous example of a bona fide genius being unable to grasp something "well known or 'easily' explainable" is the case of mathematician Paul Erdos being "baffled" by the Monty Hall Paradox.



I recall being dismayed when I didn't correctly answer the Monty Hall Paradox when I was initially presented the problem. But its solution is quite easy for anyone (or most anyone) to understand. ;)