 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / June 2006The atheist movement came into existence by accident.
The atheist movement came into existence by accident. After it appeared that the universe was infinite in size in Isaac Newtons time. Mathematicians had a difficult time in expressing Infinity in Geometric terms. Ii became necessary to use the abstract to get around the obvious, that the universe was infinite. For a couple of hundred yrs different deceptions or abstract explanations were used. finally in the 1850s Riemann projected the universe into the abstract by drawing straight lines as curved lines, and he made parallel lines cross. The public loved it and were fed a steady diet of abstract geometry, Just before Darwin published his famous book on ''Evolution of the Species.'' These two abstract ideas were the basis for Einstein's Religion, Positivism developed by August Comte. In Comte's religion all scientific phenomena was projected into the abstract. Most of the abstract math, as well as the scientific data was not Einstein's works , but he was given credit because of the great complexity. <all snipped due to sh.t stuff> f.ck off, despicable piece of sh.t. > The atheist movement came into existence by accident. After it appeared > that the universe was infinite in size in Isaac Newtons time. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Einstein's works , but he was given credit because of the great > complexity. And this screed is relevant to physics precisely...why? Math is indeed useful to theoretical physicists who must [*] spend quite a bit of time setting up (and occasionally tearing down!) models of subatomic particles to try to predict the results of their next experiment. Geometry might figure in these models, if only because of the 3D aspects of the problem space. However, why atheism, Infinity, and evolution are even relevant in this space is about as clear as the proverbial mud. Any discussion of God is by necessity outside of physics, and into metaphysics (shut up, Hammond); God is more or less by definition unknowable, although most religious have their notions on how to properly worship the deity/ies. As for Einstein founding a religion -- not even wrong. Of course a few here might claim such, if only because they don't understand the problem. [*] I am not a theoretical physicist, so who knows what they do? :-) But I doubt they are part of a vast physics conspiracy of any sort; they're most likely too busy delving into the physics.  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. | Math is indeed useful to theoretical physicists who must [*] spend quite a | bit of time setting up (and occasionally tearing down!) models of | subatomic particles to try to predict the results of their next | experiment. Geometry might figure in these models, if only | because of the 3D aspects of the problem space. | [*] I am not a theoretical physicist, so who knows what they do? :-) In other words you are theoretical moron faking to be a physicist. Androcles. > | Math is indeed useful to theoretical physicists who must [*] spend quite a > | bit of time setting up (and occasionally tearing down!) models of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Androcles. Whereas you are a full-fledged physicist, right? Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. | > | Math is indeed useful to theoretical physicists who must [*] spend quite a | > | bit of time setting up (and occasionally tearing down!) models of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] | | Whereas you are a full-fledged physicist, right? Correct, I am indeed. This is a teaching model I've set up, the real thing is fitted to aircraft the world over.. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm This is a teardown model: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF Physicists must waste quite a bit of time tearing down shithead ideas (and occasional setting up models) as Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler and Michelson have shown. When successful, they send people to the moon and back. Theoretical morons with their heads up their arse (like you) can't do that. Math is indeed useful to physicists, but theoretical arseholes (like you) don't know how to use it, wildly imagining a constant velocity reverses direction. You do know how to sarcastically babble theories, I'll grant you that. Pity they don't stand up to engineering. Which little domino are you? Androcles Dumbledore, B.A., M.Sc, Ph.D. > | > | Math is indeed useful to theoretical physicists who must [*] spend > quite a [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Androcles Dumbledore, B.A., M.Sc, Ph.D. OK. Dirk, take note; he's a physicist. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.