Thread: Newton + Einstein were wrong!

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    63
    Interesting kinda thing I learned from my religion teacher (Many would say he is wise)
    [I'm in a catholic school system and religion is a required course]

    "What holds the world up?" The Greeks answered this question by saying it was a Giant Turtle, and it carried the earth around the sun.
    Then somebody came along and said "what holds the turtle up?"
    The response was "don't ask silly questions, its turtles all the way down!"

    As scientists try to uncover the mysteries of the world, they keep slamming their heads against a brick wall. Somebody comes out with a new equation that is true in some sense, but eventually simply breaks down.
    Its true for all scientific equations. Newton, Einstein, the Greeks, the big bang, the new String Theory. He somehow said that it all led to God, but I can't remember how he tied it in I do remember though that in E=mc^2 for the big bang, he says that E is god's thought (In the beginning there was thought, and it was His thought...or something like that from one of the gospels)

    Another interesting thing that just comes up with all this crazy stuff....world was supposed to end in the year 2000. For those who don't know, the calendar is actually off by about 60 years because the guy who fixed things up wasn't much of a historian and got the year 0, the birth of Jesus Christ wrong...by about 60 years or something like that.

    I dunno where I'm going with this...but it kinda makes you think

  2. #2
    carry on JaWiB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,972
    Mach's programme for physics was to base the subject on what we actually observe, not on things and events that we merely imagine - or are told - there are underlying those observations. Moreover, for Mach, there was also the criterion of conceptual efficiency and economy. You can count horses by counting their legs and tails and dividing by five. But Mach would say that it is far simpler and safer to count the horses direct.
    Yes, but what if all you can see are the horses' tails and legs?

    That's exactly what science is based on! Make as detailed observations as possible, and then come up with a model that fits the data. Then, as you develop more ways of observing things, you can correct any errors that you've made previously. Or am I completely wrong here?
    "Think not but that I know these things; or think
    I know them not: not therefore am I short
    Of knowing what I ought."
    -John Milton, Paradise Regained (1671)

    "Work hard and it might happen."
    -XSquared

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-15-2004, 03:30 PM
  2. Debugging-Looking in the wrong places
    By JaWiB in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-03-2003, 10:50 PM
  3. Confused: What is wrong with void??
    By Machewy in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-15-2003, 12:40 PM
  4. God
    By datainjector in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 746
    Last Post: 12-22-2002, 12:01 PM
  5. Whats wrong?
    By Unregistered in forum C Programming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-14-2002, 01:04 PM