Skip to comments.
The inner Einstein
U.S. News & World Report ^
| 12/9/02
| THOMAS HAYDEN
Posted on 12/03/2002 9:47:16 PM PST by Kaiwen
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-114 next last
1
posted on
12/03/2002 9:47:16 PM PST
by
Kaiwen
To: Kaiwen
It's too bad that many people view Einstein from that one picture of him at age 75 with the wild hair. He was anything but a scrawny little guy. He was a very solid 5'10", with big shoulders and large muscular legs. He had the build of an American football fullback.
2
posted on
12/03/2002 11:03:25 PM PST
by
DmBarch
To: DmBarch
For a non-physicist, a most interesting reading of Albert is to follow his thought experiments. The shear genius lay in his ability to not be bound by preconceived ideas or limited by heretofore unimpeachable realities. How can a man ride a photon? How could the human eye perceive that which passes at near the speed of light. Einstein ignored the absurd to venture the implications.
3
posted on
12/03/2002 11:27:30 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
To: boris
Ping-a-ling-a-ling .. thought you might enjoy this one.
4
posted on
12/03/2002 11:53:02 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
To: Kaiwen
Sharp guy, that Einstein. Kinda funny looking, what with the big hair and all, but real smart. Relativity, that was his thing. Great writing! In what pub on the state border, at what time of the night did they found this moron?
5
posted on
12/04/2002 6:16:14 AM PST
by
TopQuark
To: Kaiwen
Light comes in discrete bits or "quanta" called photons; their speed is exactly the same for any person who cares to measure it, no matter how fast that person is moving. Quantization was not at all a part of that paper. This "writer" can't even collect properly the answers he got from others. THe following is more preposterous:
Mass and energy are interchangeable, as expressed by the famous equation E=mc2. A tiny amount of matter can be converted into an enormous amount of energy. Totally wrong. Interchangable where? And conversion is false, too.
This should not be surprising: he cannot even speak in his native tongue (see the opening rant of his article).
6
posted on
12/04/2002 6:22:34 AM PST
by
TopQuark
To: TopQuark
Ahem... I believe the writer was mocking the popular conception of Einstein, not identifying with it.
By the way, I hadn't known about Einstein's involvement with civil rights causes, but am pleased to hear it.
7
posted on
12/04/2002 6:33:00 AM PST
by
tictoc
To: Kaiwen
For some strange reason, scientists have turned the "Speed of Light" into a religion and a false delimiter. If light has speed, it is of no more importance than the speed of anything else. Maybe.
8
posted on
12/04/2002 6:35:05 AM PST
by
Consort
To: TopQuark
Great writing! In what pub on the state border, at what time of the night did they found this moron?It is very poorly written, but don't do a search on his name. His other articles are worse.
9
posted on
12/04/2002 6:40:13 AM PST
by
xJones
To: Kaiwen
The Ultimate Unified Theory of Everything: photons, croutons, futons, grivitons, and morons.
10
posted on
12/04/2002 6:43:42 AM PST
by
Consort
To: Jimer
11
posted on
12/04/2002 6:44:12 AM PST
by
tictoc
To: tictoc
Eh?I once read that "light doesn't travel at all, but its presence causes units of aerogen matter to move, producing the phenomena which appears as waves and the speed of light." Aerogen is supposedly one of the pre-chemistry forms of matter that underlie the chemical elements. Who knows?
12
posted on
12/04/2002 7:02:28 AM PST
by
Consort
To: TopQuark
To: Jimer
For some strange reason, scientists have turned the "Speed of Light" into a religion
I have not heard a single soul preying to this entity.
and a false delimiter. Delimiter between what?
Wow, you not only can smear a great number of people without support, but even claim that something is false without a word of support.
Are you sure you can ever read scientific papers?
If light has speed, One more pearl.
it is of no more importance than the speed of anything else.
Now, that's a truly religious sermon!
14
posted on
12/04/2002 8:02:25 AM PST
by
TopQuark
To: xJones
Thanks, I am forewarned now.
15
posted on
12/04/2002 8:03:09 AM PST
by
TopQuark
To: TopQuark
You know, there really is no Top Quark. Quarks live in an Autonomous Collective with each quark contributing (up to 1/3 of it's charge card limit) an equal amount. The bottom line may be strange but you will be beautifully charmed to hear the truth.
To: TopQuark
I have not heard a single soul preying to this entity.
The SoL has been put on a pedestal for generations, as you know. It gets more attention than most deities get.
...and a false delimiter. Delimiter between what?
It is said to be the ultimate speed that can be attained when there is no proof at all of that.
Wow, you not only can smear a great number of people without support, but even claim that something is false without a word of support.
Get real. There is no "wow" and there is no "smear". Don't over-react.
Are you sure you can ever read scientific papers?
Grow up.
If light has speed, One more pearl.
A closed mind is a real pain to respond to.
...it is of no more importance than the speed of anything else. Now, that's a truly religious sermon!
That statement is exactly right. Just who appointed you as the "Defender of the Speed of Light"?
17
posted on
12/04/2002 12:32:54 PM PST
by
Consort
To: Jimer
Just who appointed you as the "Defender of the Speed of Light"? That's exactly where the problem lies: you make enormous (il)logical leaps and come to wrong conclusions as a result.
I have not defended "speed of light" but merely insisted on consistency of your own statements.
It is said to be the ultimate speed that can be attained when there is no proof at all of that.
I am asking you again: can you read scientific papers? (and don't tell me to grow up: I have; and I can read)
When people say that the speed of light is the highest attainable, you've got to understand what they mean by that.
And if you did, you would know that no "proof" for that statement is necessary.
It's OK if you are not in theoretical physics: not everyone should or has a desire to do so. Just speak a little less categorically about things you do not understand, whether they are related to physics or not.
18
posted on
12/04/2002 12:58:01 PM PST
by
TopQuark
To: Jimer
It is said to be the ultimate speed that can be attained when there is no proof at all of that. Sure there is.
Particles when they're moving undergo a mass increase, because of the equivalence of mass and energy. The mass m of a moving particle is related to the rest mass m0 by:
m = m0(1-v2/c2)-1/2
Now let v = c and see what happens.
To: TopQuark
It's OK if you are not in theoretical physics...
Geeze....get off of your condescending pedantic high horse your not good at it.
...Just speak a little less categorically...
It was my post, not yours, that contained a qualifier the little word "maybe" at the end of my post. That little word represents a world of difference between your attitude and mine, between what I think may be possible and what you insist is fact, between what I accespt with a grain of salt and what you accept as absolute.
I posted some food for thought and you went into the attack mode. Book learning by itself is shallow; it needs to be augmented with common sense and an open mind.
20
posted on
12/04/2002 3:54:51 PM PST
by
Consort
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-114 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson