A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 11th 06, 03:14 PM posted to alt.astronomy
46erjoe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Einstein was an atheist... and so was Isaac Asimov

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:03:54 +0100, "Starman"
wrotF:

Go back to school boy ! (not sunday bible school) REAL school and learn
something for god (he dosn't exist) sake

Man you are so ignorant that it hurts !

Religion is the main course regarding mass killing through history !



Jeez! Calm down. Switch to decaf and let's ponder this issue
like intelligent people. I am quite educated, BTW.
Your reaction leads me to believe that you think religions
which claim to preach morality, peace and hope, in fact bring
intolerance, violence and destruction. I say, that by far the biggest
examples of intolerance, violence and destruction in human history are
those wrought by militant atheism, underpinned by bogus (I'll get to
that shortly) science. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot come to mind.
Religions might not bring perfection, but Atheisms have 100 times
worse track record.
At an empirical level, these 4 regimes must represent a good
85% of the atheist regimes (weighted by number of citizens) in
recorded history (the atheist phase of the French Revolution may well
account for another 2-3% which was about as bloodthirsty). Atheist
regimes are actually quite rare, representing say 20% of the regimes
(weighted by citizens) in recorded history. The only theist regime I
can think of which practised/allowed mass murder of its citizens on a
comparable relative scale was in Rwanda (representing say 0.1% of
regimes). So at an empirical level, the association between atheist
regimes and mass murder is very strong - far worse than smoking and
cancer.
What is the mechanism? Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot all claimed to
be Marxists and Marxism "the science of history" was the essential
underpinning ideology that allowed them to perpetrate their massive
crimes. The essence of Marxism is dialectical materialism and a denial
of the existence of God - indeed Marxism was specifically developed as
an anti-Christian philosophy. Hitler's Nazi-ism was admittedly far
more confused than Marxism, a sort of anti-Marxism which was based on
the popularised Darwinism of Haekel (the Dawkins of his day) and
picked up the widely-held German view that "survival of the fittest"
was a scientific and moral principle (and that, of course, the Germans
were the fittest!).
But more fundamentally, if you don't believe in God it is very
hard to believe in a morality that will constrain you when you have an
enormous amount of power. Christian leaders, however powerful, know
that they are "under God" and that they do not have ultimate power,
but are themselves under judgement. Atheists, manifestly, do not. An
absence of constraints on the abuse of power leads, understandably, to
an abuse of power.
Incidentally, these 'darwinian' views were very common in German
intellectual an military circles in the early 1900s, and very widely
held by the German General Staff. It was this that shocked Vernon
Kellogg, a Stanford professor who was posted to the headquarters of
the German general staff during the period of American neutrality in
World War I and was shocked to find German military leaders, sometimes
with the Kaiser present, supporting the war with an "evolutionary
rationale." They did so with "a particularly crude form of natural
selection, defined as inexorable, bloody battle." His subsequent book
"Headquarters Nights" helped bring the US into the war.
I obviously don't suggest that all atheists are immoral - many
smokers do not die of cancer. But atheism and power is an
exceptionally dangerous mixture.
I wonder if you consider humans to be animals - most atheists do.
And that view does lead to the rivers of blood of the 20th C - not in
all cases, but in enough to cause massive concern, and over 100M
deaths.
Of course there are ethical atheists. I certainly respect
them. However, false ideologies do not only correspond to erroneous
beliefs. They can also lead to terrible actions. The Church has not
been free from this kind of error (crusades, inquisition), but the
twentieth century atheist regimes are truly frightful examples.
I really get tired of the bull**** criticisms of Christianity
as a carniverous beast on society. An unbiased examination of history
proves otherwise, as well as demonstrates how atheists "conveniently"
forget Stalinism et al from their diagnoses of society's ills.
Ads
  #22  
Old December 11th 06, 04:01 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,860
Default Einstein was an atheist... and so was Isaac Asimov

Tim People with complete faith in their God have to find science
complete hocus pocus. They in reality can not be compatible. This guy
"George Berkley" Tim you might agree with(kind of an act of faith) This
philosopher told us "IF not for the mind of God objects in the universe
would have a jerky kind of existence,becoming real only when we looked
at them. Tricky stuff,but Einstein even ask does the Moon exist only
when its looked upon?(objectively real) Tricky thinking. bert

  #23  
Old December 11th 06, 04:08 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,860
Default Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT

46 You sound prejudice(read your posts) To sum Einstein up in one word
Clever fits One word for you is "dumb" bert

  #24  
Old December 11th 06, 05:25 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Double-A[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,516
Default Einstein was an atheist... and so was Isaac Asimov


G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Tim People with complete faith in their God have to find science
complete hocus pocus. They in reality can not be compatible. This guy
"George Berkley" Tim you might agree with(kind of an act of faith) This
philosopher told us "IF not for the mind of God objects in the universe
would have a jerky kind of existence,becoming real only when we looked
at them.



Isn't that what they say in QM?


Tricky stuff,but Einstein even ask does the Moon exist only
when its looked upon?(objectively real) Tricky thinking. bert



With all our cloudy weather, the Moon doesn't exist very often here in
the winter.

Double-A

  #25  
Old December 11th 06, 07:36 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Bill Hudson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Einstein was an atheist... and so was Isaac Asimov


Double-A wrote:
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Tim People with complete faith in their God have to find science
complete hocus pocus. They in reality can not be compatible. This guy
"George Berkley" Tim you might agree with(kind of an act of faith) This
philosopher told us "IF not for the mind of God objects in the universe
would have a jerky kind of existence,becoming real only when we looked
at them.



Isn't that what they say in QM?


Is it? Are you thinking of Schrodinger's Cat? If so, then what it
says in that instance is that you can only speak of probabilities, so
the cat in the box is "half dead" and "half alive" according to the
probability function. Or are you thinking of something else?


Tricky stuff,but Einstein even ask does the Moon exist only
when its looked upon?(objectively real) Tricky thinking. bert



With all our cloudy weather, the Moon doesn't exist very often here in
the winter.

Double-A


  #27  
Old December 11th 06, 08:50 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,860
Default Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT

You sound like a preacher to me. Bert

  #29  
Old December 13th 06, 04:26 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Painius[_2_] Painius[_2_] is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
Default Speed of Flowing Space (was - Einstein was an...)

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...
From Painius:

...what if actual energy of flowing space
is equal to "m" times the speed of
gravity? (or more accurately, the speed
of space itself)...
E = m(c x 2 x 10^20)
or...
E = mVg
...where Vg is the so-called "speed of
gravity" (actually the speed of flowing
space)?


As was just stated in another thread, what this is describing is _speed
of gravitational charge_ which is functionally instantaneous
irrespective of distance. This is distinct from velocity of spatial flow
itself. Space flow into Earth's surface, for instance, is equivalent to
escape velocity, or 11.2 km/s (about 7 mps). Same with any celestial
body; speed of inflow at surface datum is equal to that body's escape
velocity.


The speed of gravitational charge, hmm..., or
do you mean "change"?

At any rate, this would make out the speed of
functional gravity to be...

3 x 10^8 x 2 x 10^20 m/s, or

6 x 10^28 m/s, or

60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 m/s

That's 60 OCTILLION meters per second!

That's 200 quintillion TIMES the speed of light!

From our frame of reference, we can almost lose the
word "functionally" in "functionally instantaneous"!

Using the Sun and Earth, we know it takes 8.31
minutes (498.6 seconds) for light from the Sun to
reach us. If we divide this by Vg, we get a figure of...

2.5 x 10^-18 second

....as the time it would take for the Sun's change in
gravitational information to reach the Earth.

Now here's where it gets interesting... suppose there
is an object out there about one light year away. We
can't see it because it's, say, a brown dwarf and does
not emit/reflect light. How long would it take for a
change in its position to be gravitationally noted by
our Sun?

Using round figures, this comes out to be...

9.5 quadrillion meters / 60 octillion meters per second, or

0.16 picoseconds!

And isn't it another tickle to realize that any such
influence on our Sun by the nearest stars of the
Centauri group would only take about four times
as long to reach us!

I wanna do one more just for the hell of it, sorry...

The center of our galaxy is roughly 30,000 light
years away. How long does it take the influence
from this tremendous gravity well to be felt by our
Solar System? At the speed of gravity set forth by
Van Flandern...

4.75 nanoseconds!

I'm tired... who wants to figure how many ergs in

E = mVg ? g

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
The best things in life are here and now!

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net


  #30  
Old December 13th 06, 04:39 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Painius[_2_] Painius[_2_] is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 209
Default Speed of Flowing Space into Mass (was - Einstein was an...)

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...
From Painius:

...what if actual energy of flowing space
is equal to "m" times the speed of
gravity? (or more accurately, the speed
of space itself)...
E = m(c x 2 x 10^20)
or...
E = mVg
...where Vg is the so-called "speed of
gravity" (actually the speed of flowing
space)?


As was just stated in another thread, what this is describing is _speed
of gravitational charge_ which is functionally instantaneous
irrespective of distance. This is distinct from velocity of spatial flow
itself. Space flow into Earth's surface, for instance, is equivalent to
escape velocity, or 11.2 km/s (about 7 mps). Same with any celestial
body; speed of inflow at surface datum is equal to that body's escape
velocity.


I wanted to discuss that last part separately.

How does space know to decelerate to any given
speed as it enters the gravity well of any given
mass? It slows down to 7 miles/sec at Earth's
surface, and this figure is greater for, say, the
planet Jupiter, and it's a smaller figure for, say,
the planet Mars.

So how does flowing space "know" to slow down
to a certain speed for any given amount of mass?

And how slow is it going as it enters an atom?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Give the Devil an inch, and he'll take your Smile!

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EINSTEIN DIDN'T KNOW WHY ACE Astronomy Misc 0 November 28th 05 07:07 PM
Calling Einstein bluff .. OK AGAIN with CApItaLS CALLING EINSTEIN BLUFF, MEASURING OWLS ftl_freak Astronomy Misc 0 October 6th 05 04:48 PM
Calling Einstein bluff .. OK AGAIN with CApItaLS CALLING EINSTEIN BLUFF, MEASURING OWLS ftl_freak Astronomy Misc 0 October 6th 05 04:09 PM
Einstein Tom Kirke Astronomy Misc 10 June 1st 05 10:13 PM
Einstein Tom Kirke Amateur Astronomy 11 June 1st 05 10:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.