Newton + Einstein were wrong!

This is a discussion on Newton + Einstein were wrong! within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; What do you guys think of this? http://www.poams.org/ I find it compelling....

  1. #1
    Jez
    Jez is offline
    The C-er
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    192

    Newton + Einstein were wrong!

    What do you guys think of this?

    http://www.poams.org/

    I find it compelling.

  2. #2
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    Interesting, but i don't like their philosophy, and i find myself resisting many of their ideas. Still since some of these people are in Bristol i might look them up.

    Oh wait its UWE not Bristol, hrrmm.
    Last edited by Clyde; 12-07-2004 at 02:10 PM.
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

  3. #3
    Registered User major_small's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    2,787
    I think I can't be bothered to think for people anymore for today... but in relation to this:

    don't know exactly what you were pointing to, but judging from a quick read of this specific page, they're not saying einstein was wrong, they're just proposing another theory that expands upon his and may fill in some of the blanks that need to be filled in...
    Last edited by major_small; 12-07-2004 at 02:21 PM.
    Join is in our Unofficial Cprog IRC channel
    Server: irc.phoenixradio.org
    Channel: #Tech


    Team Cprog Folding@Home: Team #43476
    Download it Here
    Detailed Stats Here
    More Detailed Stats
    52 Members so far, are YOU a member?
    Current team score: 1223226 (ranked 374 of 45152)

    The CBoard team is doing better than 99.16% of the other teams
    Top 5 Members: Xterria(518175), pianorain(118517), Bennet(64957), JaWiB(55610), alphaoide(44374)

    Last Updated on: Wed, 30 Aug, 2006 @ 2:30 PM EDT

  4. #4
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Of course Newton and Einstein were wrong.
    Newton was proved wrong by Einstein and Einstein was proved wrong by his own equation when they were applied to black holes.

    Both theories (especially Newton's) remain very useful, though. Newton's theory of gravitation can be derived as an approximation of Einsteins curved space-time when the gravity field isn't extremely strong.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  5. #5
    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

  6. #6
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    > but eventually simply breaks down.

    That's the nice thing about science. It adapts when things are shown to be wrong, and showing that things are wrong is very much promoted. When something in religion is shown to be wrong, it's either ignored or they reinterpret the scripture.

  7. #7
    Jez
    Jez is offline
    The C-er
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by major_small
    don't know exactly what you were pointing to, but judging from a quick read of this specific page, they're not saying einstein was wrong, they're just proposing another theory that expands upon his and may fill in some of the blanks that need to be filled in...
    I only said Einstein + Newton were wrong to make people look. In fact POAMS contends that they were wrong about some things though. (aren't we all?).

    To me the POAMS approach seems so much more natural and complete that I have trouble taking the standard view seriously any more.


    Interesting, but i don't like their philosophy, and i find myself resisting many of their ideas. Still since some of these people are in Bristol i might look them up.

    Oh wait its UWE not Bristol, hrrmm.
    I know what you mean. If it was Cambridge more people would take notice I suppose. BTW, I live in Bristol too, although I first came across this when living in Swansea.

  8. #8
    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

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    63
    When something in religion is shown to be wrong, it's either ignored or they reinterpret the scripture.
    Although I'd hardly classify myself as a religous person....how about you back that statement up with some examples?

    Science is based purely on empirical knowledge. What you can see, taste, smell and feel with your senses. Therefore you can not know something solely by science. (ohh the joys of Theory of Knowledge...)
    Edit: I had to write an essay on it
    Last edited by Philandrew; 12-07-2004 at 09:03 PM.

  10. #10
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    near a computer
    Posts
    3,859
    >>how about you back that statement up with some examples?

    God created the universe in seven days. How long was a day before God created the sun and the earth?

    God created Adam, then Eve from Adam's rib. They had two sons, Cain and Able (no other females). Cain killed Able.
    So we are all descended from a Cain the murderer and whom?

    God created man in his image. There no fossils of modern man. So which of the prehistoric men did God look like? (But then we have to accept evolution......)
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

  11. #11
    monotonously living Dissata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by novacain
    >>how about you back that statement up with some examples?

    God created the universe in seven days. How long was a day before God created the sun and the earth?

    God created Adam, then Eve from Adam's rib. They had two sons, Cain and Able (no other females). Cain killed Able.
    So we are all descended from a Cain the murderer and whom?

    God created man in his image. There no fossils of modern man. So which of the prehistoric men did God look like? (But then we have to accept evolution......)
    unfortunately all only show is a lack of comprehension of the bible (no offense to you)

    The when looking at the Hebrew translation of Genesis the word used for day can mean a given point in time.
    http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html


    Cain and Able were possibly not Adam and Eve's only children, there may have been various others. (I understand that this leaves open only incestrial breeding but that is beside the point of erradiating possible extinction based on the inability to breed)
    (assuming your pending arguements on genetic deteriation of inbreeds and the idea that incest is a sin... will deal with later)

    First, the idea of "in his image" does not have to be a physical sense. Second, the idea of prehistoric men is still speculative. Although this is not an area of scientific knowledge that I am particularly coherent in, from what I understand the fossils are inconclusive at best.

    Most scientist's problem is this: They see science as something that can answer more than the question "what is?" They preordain a certain idea of reality, completly uncontingent of science (ontological questions are not completed by what is observed). They then base the other non scientific questions, how and why, off their scientific findings in a way that solely supports thier worldview. In effect they say: We know this is, I think god does not exist, therefore a plausible explanation of why it is based on my worldview is this.

    i am in no way saying that anyone is right or wrong, but merely that science cannot answer why, nor should it, as its job is of observation of what is.

    Why the human race exists cannot be explained by science. It can give possible reasons how it exists but that is not the quesion. The idea of god as a reality cannot even begin to be refuted by science nor can the idea of ethics or purpose without first identifying a biased worldview to base the scientific facts on.


    I know this seems like a pointless rant...sorry, I got carried away a little. I am just annoyed by the consistant ignorance of people (of idiotic anti-religion atheists and their ignorant counterparts as the majority of professing christians, both of whom are equally unintelligent)

    perhaps I'll spend some more time writing this out tomorrow after I have been flamed to death!
    if a contradiction was contradicted would that contradition contradict the origional crontradiction?

  12. #12
    monotonously living Dissata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    341
    oh... sorry... and the link that started the random rant...

    http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/chri...damandeve.html
    if a contradiction was contradicted would that contradition contradict the origional crontradiction?

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    63
    Again, not religious, but going to a Catholic school I have picked some things up Hell, I'm not even Catholic. But I do believe there is a power greater than I.

    God created the universe in seven days. How long was a day before God created the sun and the earth?
    The story of Genesis is an archtypical story. The key focus of Genesis is the idea of original sin. Adam betrayed God. For Catholics the story of Genesis does not have to match perfectly.
    An interesting note though. My physics teacher was telling me that science has proven - the faster you go, the slower time moves. They have tested it with Mach speed jets as well. Even at Mach speed (which pales in comparison to the speed of light), atomic clocks will find a difference of either seconds or milleseconds/nanoseconds (can't remember). Either way, the point stands that science is proving that time slows down as you travel faster. The same teacher elaborated. He told my class that he had just finished reading a book, a scientist's studies. The scientist was able to prove that time changes according to perspective. If you are travelling at the speed of light, 7 days of our time is equivalent to what is it, 3 billion? 6 billion? Whatever that scientific time it took to create the world through evolution....thats what it was.
    In addition, we all know that the Bible can not necessarily be taken literally. You have to read parts as poetry, symbology, parables, etc.

    Who says science at religion collide with each other? Big bang created earth. Ok, thats great. What caused the big bang? E=mc^2 E=God's thought. Einstein said "I want to know God's thoughts"
    The Word was in the beginning; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    Words require thought.

    God created Adam, then Eve from Adam's rib. They had two sons, Cain and Able (no other females). Cain killed Able.
    When Cain killed Abel he was marked. So that when he travelled in the world others would recognize him.
    Hold the phone....others?

    God created man in his image. There no fossils of modern man. So which of the prehistoric men did God look like? (But then we have to accept evolution......)
    I know many Catholics that accept evolution but still have faith. Why does science have to contradict God?
    I believe the idea of being made in God's image is that we were made loving.

    Also, the point Dissata made about translation is very important. The Bible was originally in Hebrew, then translated to Latin (the language of the people), and eventually to all languages such as English. Read any translation, the translator always puts in his/her own feelings.

    This isn't meant in anyway to criticize or anything. I just don't see how science and religion are somehow polar opposites.

    -Webmaster-
    http://www.koaworld.com
    Pr0gr4m|\/|1Ng n00b

  14. #14
    Cheesy Poofs! PJYelton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    1,728
    I was going to respond to some of this but I'm just too tired to make any coherent arguments. Besides, Clyde is so much better at this than I am and I sense a big post from him by the time I wake up

    >>If you are travelling at the speed of light, 7 days of our time is equivalent to what is it, 3 billion? 6 billion? Whatever that scientific time it took to create the world through evolution....thats what it was.<<

    I do have to respond to this though. This doesn't make any sense, if you go the speed of light time stops entirely. Of course there does exist a fraction of the speed of light you could travel that would make 7 days be equivalent to 3 billion years but what does this have to do with the bible and the creation of the earth? Was god traveling at .9999999999 times the speed of light?
    Last edited by PJYelton; 12-08-2004 at 01:22 AM.

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    63
    I do have to respond to this though. This doesn't make any sense, if you go the speed of light time stops entirely. Of course there does exist a fraction of the speed of light you could travel that would make 7 days be equivalent to 3 billion years but what does this have to do with the bible and the creation of the earth? Was god traveling at .9999999999 times the speed of light?
    I can't remember the exact details of it (it was pretty abstract), but here is another example that might make more sense.

    I am an identical twin. If I get in a space shuttle at travel at the speed of light for a very long long time, I will come back looking maybe a year older. My brother will either be long dead, or very very old.

    I'm gunna try googling and seeing if I can find the whole thing...because it was pretty interesting.

    The idea is basically perspective. A day is a human idea, measured by the rotation of our earth. If I go to mars, a day is different, if I go to pluto, a day is different. A day is a human creation.

    Edit: Google isnt turning up much. Could be this is right. Could be it is wrong. Could be I misheard, Could be the teacher was wrong.
    Either way, I do remember that some wacky crazy scientist (wacky crazy...that was repetitive...everybody is wacky and crazy! ) did some crazy calculations to justify a 7 day creation in billions of years (I myself find it hard to get my head around it...7 days...billions of years....7 days...billions of years....but I know I don't understand everything anyways )
    Last edited by Philandrew; 12-08-2004 at 01:44 AM.
    -Webmaster-
    http://www.koaworld.com
    Pr0gr4m|\/|1Ng n00b

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
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, 09:50 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, 11:01 AM
  5. Whats wrong?
    By Unregistered in forum C Programming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-14-2002, 01:04 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21