1 of 8
1
Physics by socratus (Merged)
Posted: 31 December 2010 08:03 AM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2010-12-31

God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.
==.
Can God be explained by Physical formulas and laws?
I think ‘ Yes’ , we can understand God’s Nature by Physical
formulas and laws. I think God has given to us everything
that necessary to understand Him and His Genesis using
  Physical Laws and Formulas.
===.
Scheme. 
Ten Scientific Commandments: Fundamental Theory of Existence.

1 The infinite vacuum T=0K. ( background energy space: E ).
2 The particle:
C/D = pi, R/N= k , E = Mc^2 = kc^2 , h = 0 , i^2= -1
3 The spins: h =E/t , h =kb, h* = h/2pi
4 The photon, the inertia
5 The electron: e^2 = h*ca, E = h*f , electromagnetic field
6 The gravitation, the star, the time and space
7 The Proton
8 The Evolution of interaction between Electron and Proton
a) electromagnetic
b) nuclear
c) biological
9 The Laws
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
10
The test.
Every theory must be tested logically ( theoretical ) and practically
a) Theory : Dualism of Consciousness: (consciousness / unconsciousness)
b) Practice : Parapsychology. Meditation.
========.
Best wishes
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
============.
# The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theory ’.
==========..
# I want to know how God created this world
I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that element
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details
/Einstein/
==========.
...
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372

Image Attachments
450px-Socrates_Louvre.jpg
 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2010 10:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  80
Joined  2009-01-24

1. You’re spitting out the names of scientific things (that you probably don’t understand at all) as a “new 10 commandments”, but you never make any lucid connections between their reality and the god fantasy.
2. Your “theory” is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. Your practice is pseudoscience (at best) and meditation is hardly a valid test of anything.
3. Trying to mix science and religion has been done to death, and it never works. You’re trying to mix oil and water.

I’m getting tired of these weird, copy-pasted, strangely punctuated diatribes people always join up to post, and then the people always disappear.

 Signature 

“From the faith that you release comes an atheist peace.”
“I’m materialist, I ain’t no deist! It’s there for all to see, so don’t talk of hidden mystery with me.”
“Credulous at best, your desire to believe in angels in the hearts of men.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2010 10:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-12-25

am I the only one who didn’t understand this thread ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2010 11:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5167
Joined  2010-06-16

You’re in good company, Phi-.  I tried for a bit, then realized it was incoherent babble designed to confuse those who have little education and no scientific background.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2010 08:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2010-12-31
Occam. - 31 December 2010 11:01 AM

You’re in good company, Phi-. 
I tried for a bit, then realized it was incoherent babble designed to confuse those
who have little education and no scientific background.
Occam

Why cannot Mr. Phi-  and Mr. Occam understand?
Because these mathematical formulas . . . . .
#
Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell’s equations:
“One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae
have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own,
that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers,
that we get more out of them than was originally put into them.”
===========

 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2010 08:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2010-12-31
Occam. - 31 December 2010 11:01 AM

You’re in good company, Phi-. 
I tried for a bit, then realized it was incoherent babble designed to confuse those
who have little education and no scientific background.
Occam

  -  Hallelujah !!  String Theory !!  ( 1 )
==.
Science has always been a source of heresy.
====.
Lee Smolin wrote:
I have written this book in the hope that it will contribute
to an honest and useful discussion among experts and
lay readers alike.
/ ‘ The trouble with Physics’. Page XVIII. /
I will take Smolin’s proposition and try to explain my
amateur’s thoughts about that was called ‘String theory’.
=============.
# Three years ago I posted an article ‘ The Special Theory
of Relativity’ I wrote:
‘ String theory acts in 11- D space.
But if we don’t know what 1+1 = 2 is
how can we know what 5+4 = 9 is?
And if we don’t know what 4-D negative Mincowski space
is how can we understand 11-D space ( String theory) ?’
I wrote: . . . .
‘If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every physicist who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal
“To the winner over common sense”.
Why?
Because they have won us using the
absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza. ‘
This was a reason that I refused to read any information
about ‘String theory’.
And later on different forums I posted emails, trying
to explain, that the point is only a shadow of real particle,
that it is impossible to understand Physics and Nature
thinking of particle as a point.
I wrote:  In 1915 Einstein connected Mass with Geometry.
Maybe now, in 2010, somebody will try to understand the
interaction between an elementary particle and geometry.
I wrote:
If physicists think about a particle as a ” mathematical point”
the result can be only paradoxical. And I am sure if somebody
takes into consideration the geometrical form of particle
the paradoxes in Physics will disappear.
# Travelling in Scotland, by chance, in a secondhand shop
I bought a book: ‘ The trouble with Physics’ by Lee Smolin.
This book changed my opinion about ‘String theory’.
Now I say:  Hallelujah !  Hallelujah !  Why? Because
‘… particles could not be seen as points, which is how
they always been seen before. Instead, they were ‘stringlike’,
existing only in a single dimension, and could be stretched, . .
And . . . they vibrated.’  / Page 103. /  ‘ . . the idea of particles
as vibrations of strings was the missing link that could work
powerfully to resolve many open problems.’ / Page 124./
It is nice. It is pleasant to read this idea.
So, the string particle is a dynamic particle. And the string can
have different geometric forms: ‘String can be both closed and
open. A closed string is a loop. An open string is a line;
it has ends’. /  Page 106./ And now few physicists try to connect
forces, movement and geometry of the quantum particle together.
Hallelujah !  It is a progress.  It is a step to truth.
Now I say: the truth is hidden in the ‘ String theory ’.
# But there are many string theories. And the growing catalogue
of string theories evokes trouble. Because one theory is better
than the other one, but at the same time each new theory brings
new problems. Maybe therefore Lee Smolin wrote:
‘ . . .  at least one big idea is missing.
How do we find that missing idea?’ / Page 308. /
Interesting: What was missed by ‘ the brightest and
best- educated scientists’ who worked very hard doing
many complicated calculations ?
New particle?  New D ?  New force?  New idea?
Where did they have an error?
I will try to understand this situation.
=============

 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2010 09:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2010-12-31
Occam. - 31 December 2010 11:01 AM

You’re in good company, Phi-.
I tried for a bit, then realized it was incoherent babble designed to confuse
those who have little education and no scientific background.
Occam

  -  Hallelujah !!  String Theory !!  ( 2 )

If I were professor I would great super – super 55D for
explaining everything. But I am a peasant and the best way
for me is to take the simplest reference frame – the Euclidean
space ( 2D) . And maybe (who knows ?) Newton was right
saying: ‘  Truth is ever to be found in simplicity,
and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.’
Now I will put a virtual- ideal particle in this 2D.
The 2D is a thin and flat homogeneous space, so my particle
also must be thin and flat and very symmetrical.
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited line- string?
No. In my opinion even this very thin and tiny line
under good microscope will be looked as a rectangle.
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited loop?
No. The geometrical form of a loop is too complex,
needs supplementary forces to create it. 
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited circle?
Yes.
From all geometrical forms the circle is the most symmetrical.
The surface of a circle takes up the minimal area it can and
I will write it by formula:  C/D= pi= 3.14.  (!)
But I can put many particles there, for example,
Avogadro’s number of particles:  N(a).  (!)
# What is my next step?
If I were a mathematician I would say nothing.
But if I were a physicist I would say that 2D must have
some physical parameters like: volume (V), temperature (T)
and density (P). Yes, it seems the idea is right.
Then, volume (V) is zero,
temperature (T) is zero
but . . but density (P) cannot be zero if 2D is a real space
then its density can approximately be zero.
# What can I do with these three parameters?
I have only one possibility, to write the simplest   formula:
  VP/T=R (Clapeyron formula !)
What is R?  R is some kind of physical state of my 2D.
And if I divide the whole space R by Avogadro’s
numbers of particles then I have a formula R/ N(a) = k,
then k ( as a Boltzmann constant) is some kind of
physical state of one single virtual- ideal particle. (!)
# But all creators of Quantum theory said that this space,
as a whole, must have some kind of background energy (E).
And its value must be enormous.
But the background mass of every Avogadro’s particles
in 2D has approximately zero mass, it is approximately
massless (M).
So, if I divide enormous energy (E) by approximately
massless (M) then the potential energy/ mass of every single
virtual- ideal particle ( according Einstein and Dirac) is
  E/M=c^2 (potential energy/mass E/M=c^2   ! )
( I don’t know why physicists call E/M= c^2 ‘rest mass’
and never say potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 .)
In potential state my particle doesn’t move,
so its impulse is h = 0. 
# My conclusion.
I have virtual- ideal- massless particle which has
geometrical and physical parameters:
C/D= pi= 3.14 . . . . ,  R/ N(a) = k,  E/M=c^2,  h=0. 
All my virtual- ideal- massless particles are possible to call
‘ bosons’ or ‘antiparticles’ . These bosons are approximately
massless but have huge potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 .
But I have no fermions, no electric charge, no tachyons,
no time, no mass, no movement at this picture.
# Smolin wrote: ‘  – the missing element – must have been
one of the earliest triumphs of abstract thinking.’/page 102/
Where was ‘the earliest triumphs of abstract thinking.’?
In the hope to understand Smolin’s thought I will draw
historical scheme: Quantum Theory——>
——> Thermodynamics——>  Theory of gases——> Ideal Gas.
So, ‘the earliest triumphs of abstract thinking.’ was connected
with idea of an ‘Ideal Gas’. From Ideal Gas our trouble with
physics begins. I think the ‘Ideal Gas’ cannot be an abstract
hypothesis. In my opinion the ‘Ideal Gas’ must be a real model
of vacuum: T=0K .  We can use all laws of ‘Ideal Gas’ for
explaining the situation in Vacuum: T=0K. The ‘ Ideal Gas’ as
abstract as ‘ Vacuum ‘ and vice versa.
===================..

 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2010 09:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2010-12-31
Occam. - 31 December 2010 11:01 AM

You’re in good company, Phi-.
I tried for a bit, then realized it was incoherent babble designed to confuse those
who have little education and no scientific background.
Occam

  -  Hallelujah !!  String Theory !!  (3 )
# Now, thinking logically, I must explain all the effects of
motions.  And. . . and I cannot say it better than Newton:
‘For the basic problem of philosophy seems to be to discover
the forces of nature from the phenomena of motions
and then to demonstrate the other phenomena from these forces.’
# How can one single virtual- ideal particle start its movement?
At first, it will be right to think about some simple kind of
movement, for example: my particle will move in straight line
along 2D surface from some point A to the point B.
What is possible to say now? 
According to the Michelson-Morley experiment my particle
must move with constant speed: c=1 and its speed is independent.
Its speed doesn’t depend on any other object or subject, it means
the reason of its speed is hidden in itself, it is its inner impulse.
This impulse doesn’t come from any formulas or equations.
And when Planck introduced this inner impulse(h) to physicists,
he took it from heaven, from ceiling. Sorry. Sorry.
I must write: Planck introduced this inner impulse (h) intuitively.
I must write: Planck introduced his unit (h) phenomenologically.
At any way, having Planck’s inner impulse (unit h=1) my
particle flies with speed c=1. We call it photon now.
Photon’s movement from some point A to the point B
doesn’t change the flat and homogeneous 2D surface.
Of course, my photon must be careful, because in some local
place some sun’s gravitation can catch and change its trajectory
I hope it will be lucky to escape from the sun’s gravity love.
# My photon can have other possibility to move. This second
possibility was discover by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck
in 1925. They said the elementary particle can rotate
around its diameter using its own angular inner impulse:
h * = h /2pi. So, when photon rotates around its diameter
it looks like a string ( open string) and this string vibrates.
My god, that is a strange technical terminology the physicists
use: ‘ vibrate, vibration’.
If I were a physicist I would say no ‘ vibrate, vibration’ but
‘ frequency’, ‘the particle rotates with high frequency’.
The frequency is a key to every particle, by frequency we know
the radiation spectrum of various kinds of waves.
Now I can say: then my photon starts to curl its rotation
goes with enormous frequency, faster than constant speed
of photon. Now its speed is c>1. We call it ‘tachyon’.
The tachyon’s spinning creates electric charge and
electrical waves and now we call it ‘electron’ or ‘fermions’.
So, in my opinion, virtual- ideal particle, photon, tachyon
and electron are only different names of one and the same
particle – quantum of light.
The frequency of every string particle can change.
( The various states of vibration . . . Page 103.)
The geometrical form of string can change.
( When they gained energy, they stretched; when they
gave up energy, they contracted -  Page 103.)
Thanks to rotating movement the ‘massless’ of particles
increased and it became real observed particle. 
Stop ! !!
I have missed here something important.
What have I missed?
# ( When they gained energy, they stretched; when they
gave up energy, they contracted -  Page 103.)
What does it mean? What did Smolin want to say?
How can I understand this process ?
. . . . . . . . . . .
My particle is a circle. When this circle started to curl around
itself its form changed. Now it has volume and looks like a sphere.
What is the law between particle’s volume and energy?
I think: big volume – low energy, small volume – high energy.
The more speed / impulse——> the more particle (as a volume)
compress——> the more energy .
And when the speed decrease – -  the energy decrease too –
but the volume of particle will increase.
My particle behaves like ‘ a springy circle’ (!)
This springy circle can curl into small sphere which must
have volume and therefore can be describe as a
‘stringlike particle with vibrations’ only approximately .
Springy particle - it means the particle is able to spring back
into its former position. In my opinion this is the meaning of
‘ The Law of mass/energy conservation and transformation’
========

 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2010 09:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2010-12-31
Occam. - 31 December 2010 11:01 AM

You’re in good company, Phi-.
I tried for a bit, then realized it was incoherent babble designed to confuse those
who have little education and no scientific background.
Occam

  -  Hallelujah !!  String Theory !!    ( 4 )
# Once more.
Quantum of light has potential energy (- E=Mc^2 ).
When it starts to curl around its diameter the potential energy
(- E=Mc^2 ) is hidden and we can observe its electronic
energy ( E=h*f).
But there is situation when this hidden potential energy goes
out and we can see its great active power ( + E=Mc^2 )
looking the destroyed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 
In my opinion the particle’s transformation from one state into
the other was legalized as ‘ The Law of mass/energy
conservation and transformation’.
# Different geometrical forms of string particle
( open - closed ), different frequencies of string particle are
reason of different radiation (from ultraviolet to infrared ),
are also reason of new situation in 2D.
Now the surface of my 2D in local area is changed.
On one hand it is electromagnetic field now,
on the other hand the spinning electron
changed the temperature of the surface in local area.
Now this local area has Debye temperature: Q(d)= h*f(max) / k.
Maybe in this space a grain of gravity theory is hidden.
Who knows?
==================..
  My conclusion.
It is no bad idea to ask question:
what are physical parameters of every new super D?
It is possible to understand many things using 2D.
The missing ‘big idea’ in ‘String theory’ is hidden in the
simple question: ‘ What was the form of particle before
it started to curl?’
The time appears as a period of electron’s action.
I ‘mix bosons with fermions’ (page 105) without using
any supersymmetries. 
And I have:
a) In potential state the impulse of particle is h = 0. ( boson)
b) Having Planck’s inner impulse (unit h=1) my
particle moves straight with constant speed c=1. ( photon)
c) Having Goudsmit / Uhlenbeck inner angular impulse
h * = h /2pi. the particle rotates around its diameter.
( electron/ tachyon/ fermion).
Maybe the different conditions of (h) is the key to all
other phenomena.
Maybe this process can explain ‘the dualism of particle.’
Maybe this interpretation can explain where the energy comes from.
Maybe, if the space of my circle curls and changes then we need to
use Riemann geometry .
Maybe, if the speed of the particle is independent and self-contained
then we need to use nonlinear equations.
Maybe . . . . .
Maybe it is time to end now.
I reread my article. It is not bad, not bad for amateur,
who thinks about philosophy of physics for 28 years.
Of course, my interpretation is only scheme. And if
I were a physicist I would make from this scheme a theory:
‘ Elementary particle as a springy circle’.
But as a peasant I can only hope that maybe somebody
from Smolin’s ‘few . . . most talented and accomplished
physicists’ will do it. Who knows? Why do I doubt?
Because I read Smolin’s opinion: ‘ Not that every scientist
is a seeker, most are not.’ (!)  Ce la vie !
#
Now I must go to my farm, to my garden.
I want to plant some trees and flowers today.
=.
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
====================.
P.S.
History.
Einstein spent his life trying to construct a ‘unified field theory‘.
He tried to explain electromagnetism using geometry just as he
had done with gravity.
De Broglie and Heisenberg tried to unite different forces
using constants ( h) and ( h*).
The year 2010: particle as a springy circle + ( h) and ( h*) +
+ Riemann geometry + nonlinear equations . . . .  ?!?!
P.S.
...the more a subject is understood,
the more briefly it may be explained.
/ Thomas Jefferson,
letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816 /
# You do not really understand something unless
you can explain it to your grandmother.
      / Albert Einstein /
# And Rutherford said, if you understand something
you can explain it to barmen woman.
#
And somebody wrote : Of course , if I understand
something I can explain it to my son.
====================================.
P.S.
What cannot Mr. Phi-  and Mr. Occam understand?
===================.

 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2010 09:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11

I tried to read through it, I’m glad it was just as incomprehensible to those of you with degrees in the Maths as it was to me! Since then, it looks (to me) like he has turned into a troll.. long face

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2011 02:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
socratus - 31 December 2010 08:03 AM

I want to know how God created this world
I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that element
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details
/Einstein/

The only bit which grabbed my attention was this. Is it really an Einstein quote? I did a quick check and found a site with others, this amongst them “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Is that really an Einstein quote?

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2011 02:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11

Yes, that is a real Einstein quote. I could not find a date for it though. Einstein died in 1955. I did find THIS quote from 1954, which makes his views on religion quite clear:

Einstein wrote the letter on January 3, 1954. It was addressed to the Jewish philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. An uncorrected translation of part of the letter appeared in the Guardian [2]. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory, but it is all that we have of this unique document. It is reproduced below:

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e. in our evalutations [sic]of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual ‘props’ and ‘rationalisation’ in Freud’s language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.

With friendly thanks and best wishes

Yours, A. Einstein.

Even in this unpolished form the content of the letter is clear. The author of these words dismisses the “word of God” as the “product of human weaknesses,”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/ein1-j23.shtml

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2011 06:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
asanta - 01 January 2011 02:56 AM

Yes, that is a real Einstein quote. I could not find a date for it though. Einstein died in 1955. I did find THIS quote from 1954, which makes his views on religion quite clear:

Einstein wrote the letter on January 3, 1954. It was addressed to the Jewish philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. An uncorrected translation of part of the letter appeared in the Guardian [2]. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory, but it is all that we have of this unique document. It is reproduced below:

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e. in our evalutations [sic]of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual ‘props’ and ‘rationalisation’ in Freud’s language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.

With friendly thanks and best wishes

Yours, A. Einstein.

Even in this unpolished form the content of the letter is clear. The author of these words dismisses the “word of God” as the “product of human weaknesses,”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/ein1-j23.shtml

Thanks for posting this Asanta.

Of course what was of most interest to me was this bit:

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2011 07:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2010-12-31

The book: Albert Einstein and the Cosmic World Order
/ Six lectures delivered at the University
of Michigan in the Spring of 1962 /
by Cornelius Lanczos

Lanczos served as assistant to Einstein during the period 1928–29.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Lanczos

My brief comment on ‘ The lecture № 3.’
=============.
Cornelius Lanczos wrote:
SRT was created on two postulates.
First postulate – there isn’t absolute speed of movement.
Every movement is relative.
Second postulate – the speed of light ( quantum of light)
is constant.
Lanczos wrote: from the first point of view it seems that
to unite these two different postulates is impossible,
trying to do this is absolute nonsense. (!)
But . . . .  It was be done. (!)
Einstein made it. (!)
. .  It was needed the Einstein’s courage to do this unity. (!)
How did Einstein connected them ?  (!)
1 He solved this problem saying that Newton’s absolute space
and time are relative.
2
And these two postulates can be unite in spacetime- 4D.
3 As the result we can see different occurrences :
( for example: not only the physical parameters of particles
can change but space and time too )

And Lanczos wrote: now we are accustomed to this conception
and never, not for the world give up from such manner of thinking.
==================.
Very well ! !
There is only small problem in this conception:
What is the -4D?
Nobody knows.
! !
===============================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==============.

Image Attachments
450px-Socrates_Louvre.jpg
 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2011 07:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2010-12-31

-  Why we don’t have Philosophy of Physics ?
==========
There is Classic Mechanic and Quantum Mechanic,
but there isn’t Philosophy of Physics. Why ?
=======.
1.
In thermodynamics particles are “mathematical points”,
2.
In QT particles are “mathematical points”,
3.
In SRT particles are points.
4.
In QED particles are points.
5.
The energy, impulse, linear and angular momentum in physics
is also a ” mathematical point”.
6.
Then one “mathematical point” ( particle) interacts with another
“mathematical point” (energy, impulse ..etc ) the physicists say:
” The Quantum theory and micro-world are paradoxical.”
==========
Therefore I wrote :
Physics - Particle and its shadow Math Point.
Our Earth moves straight and rotates around itself.
Let us take an infinite small point and suggested
it also has these two kinds of movement.
What will be happen ?
1 An infinite small point moves straight and its trajectory
shows us a straight line ( SRT)
2 An infinite small point changes its straight direction
( for example near Sun) and its trajectory curves ( GRT)
3 An infinite small point can rotate around itself.(?!)
Here is hidden a puzzle.(!)
Stupid question:
Does anybody ever draw point in his life?
!!!
Take pen and make point.
What do you see ?
Point,- you say.
And I see point, which has geometrical form of circle ( c/d=pi=3,14).
And even the smallest point will have geometrical form of circle
And even an Infinite Smallest Point will have geometrical form of circle
4 The SRT talks about an infinite small point which moves
in the Emptiness.(!) Which geometrical form can have this point ?
The Third law of Thermodynamics says in the Emptiness (!)
( in the Cold Emptiness ) an infinite small point cannot have volume.
It means an infinite small point must have geometrical form of circle
5 According to SRT this circle – particle cannot be firm,
it must be elastic.(!)
6.
In 1915 Einstein connected Mass with Geometry.
Maybe now, in 2010, somebody will try to understand the interaction
between an Infinite Small Particle and Geometry.
==========
P.S.
In an Italian railway station.
It was more then two hours ‘till the departure of the train.
I went to the café and ordered a cup of coffee. Soon two men
and a very beautiful, slim woman took a place opposite me.
They ordered something to drink and one of the man opened
a case of violin and took out a bow. He began to explain
something about the bow, carefully and gently touching it.
Then another man took this bow and also enthusiastically
continued this conversation. For half an hour the bow was passed
from one hands to another followed with enthusiastic discussion.
And the beautiful woman looked at bow, at both these men without
saying a word. For half an hour I watched this group with admiration
and excitement. What a class! What a cultural level!
What a beauty!
And now let’s imagine the bow pressed into a “mathematical point”
and the musicians speak seriously about a “mathematical point”
which must produce a sound from a violin.
Everybody will say I describe an idiotic situation.
Well, I agree.
But why doesn’t anybody say it to physicists when they observe
an elementary particle as a “mathematical point” , without paying
attention to its geometrical form.
# If physicists think about a particle as a ” mathematical point”
the result can be only paradoxical. And I am sure if somebody
takes into consideration the geometrical form of particle the
paradoxes in Physics will disappear.
We will have Philosophy of Physics.
# When Feynman said “I think I can safely say that nobody
understands quantum mechanics.” it was only because nobody took
into consideration the geometrical form of a particle.
=====================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus

Image Attachments
Diogenes_looking_for_a_man_-_attributed_to_JHW_Tischbein.jpg
 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2011 10:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2010-12-31

Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell’s equations:
“One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae
have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own,
that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers,
that we get more out of them than was originally put into them.”
===========.
# “that we get more out of them than was originally put into them.”
Put into them?
What can be ‘ Put into them? ‘ / put into formulas./
In my opinion it means that in every formula is hidden some idea.
If we cannot understand this idea - formula then it is wiser than we are.
And if we want be wiser than formula we must understand the idea
which is hidden in formula.
S.

Image Attachments
eipi.jpg
 Signature 

The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theories ’.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 8
1