Notices
Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: Rethinking…Is There a Next Einstein?

  1. #1 Rethinking…Is There a Next Einstein? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    13
    According to the World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 6 (E), page 103, copyright Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, 1975, U.S.A.:
    “Unified Field Theory. Einstein’s general theory of relativity did not completely satisfy him because it did not include electromagnetism. Beginning in the late 1920’s, he tried to combine electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena in a single theory, called a unified field theory. Einstein failed to establish a unified field theory, though he spent the last 25 years of his life working on it. Toward the end of his life, he remarked that it would be worthwhile to show that such a theory did not exist. He worried that if he neither produced a theory nor showed that one was impossible, perhaps no one ever would.”
    Einstein recognized his failure in the establishment of his Unified Field Theory with a remark that has not a person who will perfect this his theory.
    Do you think his remark true?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    to answer the topics name
    yes, ME!!! :wink:


    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    to answer the topics name
    yes, ME!!! :wink:
    You? No.

    And I think we don't want another creationist womanizer that obsesses the rest of his life trying to prove his own theory wrong because it disagreed with his view of reality. How about..y'know...something better?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Einstein was his own worst critic and questioned many of his findings. he would be best remembered, in my mind as an en visionary and could break things down mentally, in some cases with explanation and many with out.

    their are probably 100 or more persons alive and well today that equal what his abilities were and certainly many more to come. one problem, i think is most of these folks try to use math in explanation and lose most of those that could build on an opinion but can't configure the math as well as the originator and in short get lost. there is some question as to just how much math, Einstein used opposed to visioned and probably why many of his thoughts given substance by others. people understood him.

    google, nanotechnology, read some of what they envision and you will understand most of this, my opinion...

    the womanizer thing is probably not warranted. in fact in many ways he was simply a non-conformist and this has always attracted the ladies, whom prefer, other than the "father knows best" types.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    to answer the topics name
    yes, ME!!! :wink:
    You? No.

    And I think we don't want another creationist womanizer that obsesses the rest of his life trying to prove his own theory wrong because it disagreed with his view of reality. How about..y'know...something better?
    Einstein wasn't a creationist.

    cheers
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Guest
    I view creationist as anybody that believes god created the universe. Creationist is thus self-explanatory as sounds. He was a creationist. Cheers.

    It's also a historic fact he was a "womanizer". He had more than 15 girls at one point I believe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    I view creationist as anybody that believes god created the universe. Creationist is thus self-explanatory as sounds. He was a creationist. Cheers.

    It's also a historic fact he was a "womanizer". He had more than 15 girls at one point I believe.
    The "womanizer" attribute I don't dispute. But he wasn't a creationist - even with your definition of the word.

    Cheers
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Guest
    He could not bring himself to believe what his own maths was telling him, ie the big bang, sad really, had he accepted it, he might have been able to push things a bit further a bit quicker. As for a new Einstein, that would need a radical new theory of the begining, otherwise it's just peacmeal eating away at quantum mechanics/astrophysics. Since this seems unlikely there may never be another Albert in astrophysics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman lince!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    28
    question is:
    do your guys seriously want another einstein or a person who can perfect the theory?
    if it is former, it can be much more easily done..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Guest
    Einstein supported the belief of a creator.
    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html
    His version of a "god".

    Thus, because he believed in a "god" from which things were created, he was a creationist.

    Cheers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Einstein supported the belief of a creator.
    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html
    His version of a "god".

    Thus, because he believed in a "god" from which things were created, he was a creationist.

    Cheers.
    I hate to keep harping on this, but here is something I pulled from a religious website;

    It is thus clear that when Albert mentioned 'God', e.g. 'God does not play dice with the universe', and 'The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not',26 he was referring to something like rationality in the universe. He is recorded as saying that a 'deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God'.27 However, he certainly was not referring to anything like the God of the Bible, who is Creator, Lawgiver, Judge and Saviour.
    Taken from;
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...1/einstein.asp
    (About half way down the page. And yes... I know, "answersingenesis".... ) But the above statement is accurate.

    A synonym for Einstein's "God" might be "nature" or something of the like. That hardly makes him a creationist....

    Cheers,
    william
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    He could not bring himself to believe what his own maths was telling him, ie the big bang, sad really, had he accepted it, he might have been able to push things a bit further a bit quicker. As for a new Einstein, that would need a radical new theory of the begining, otherwise it's just peacmeal eating away at quantum mechanics/astrophysics. Since this seems unlikely there may never be another Albert in astrophysics.
    you might be saying, inadvertently, that the Einstein types, are out there and for what ever reason, cant or refuse to accept the BB, therefore cant be considered. i might suggest, he worked logic into what he felt was and with out logic, he failed to understand. todays science tends to use a reference (something some one else indicates) rather than an opinion based on logic, then looks for corroborating viewpoints or establish his/her own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Guest
    Our 'Albert was sent by his parents to be taught religion at the tender age of six. His parents were religious but not in any dogmatic way. Anything drummed into you as a kid can be very difficult to shake off when you become an adult. My personal belief is that his religious views were probably mixed up. The ingrained teachings learned as a child, the wish not to upset theists( he would have been very aware of the treatment of Mr Dawin barely more than a generation or two before him) and his own conclusions from his scientific work. He seems to have cleverly left evidence for and against a belief, not as some form of 'divine insurance' but more to ensure acceptance by both theist and atheist.

    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    He could not bring himself to believe what his own maths was telling him, ie the big bang, sad really, had he accepted it, he might have been able to push things a bit further a bit quicker. As for a new Einstein, that would need a radical new theory of the begining, otherwise it's just peacmeal eating away at quantum mechanics/astrophysics. Since this seems unlikely there may never be another Albert in astrophysics.
    you might be saying, inadvertently, that the Einstein types, are out there and for what ever reason, cant or refuse to accept the BB, therefore cant be considered. i might suggest, he worked logic into what he felt was and with out logic, he failed to understand. todays science tends to use a reference (something some one else indicates) rather than an opinion based on logic, then looks for corroborating viewpoints or establish his/her own.
    Let me clarify, I do not see that anthing short of overturning the Big Bang would give any scientist enough qudos to be elevated to the ranks of popularity that Newton and Einstein enjoy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    sorry, i do and he or she is out there now. he/she, may overturn BB but more likely it will be in something not discussed in todays forums. in fact i am watching the works of a lady from Texas, as she tries to find a subject to advance into in and has the one quality to achieve what you suggest...
    an open mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Guest
    Let me try this again.
    Creationist: One who believes a "God" created the universe.
    Einstein: God created the universe.

    Einsteins version of a god, created the universe. Not the biblical version. You act like the label "creationist" is a dirty word.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Let me try this again.
    Creationist: One who believes a "God" created the universe.
    Einstein: God created the universe.

    Einsteins version of a god, created the universe. Not the biblical version. You act like the label "creationist" is a dirty word.
    Sorry, I think you ought to make a study of Einstein's life from childhood, note very carefully what he said but more importantly to whom he said such things. Neither camp can claim to have einstein within their ranks, all of his remarks on the subject were ambiguous, he is also very often misquoted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Let me try this again.
    Creationist: One who believes a "God" created the universe.
    Einstein: God created the universe.
    Einstein: "God" = "The universe and everything in it" = "nature" = "logical reasoning" = etc.

    See how silly it is now???

    Einsteins version of a god, created the universe. Not the biblical version. You act like the label "creationist" is a dirty word.
    Not a dirty label. Just silly in the way you apply it. But to each their own.

    cheers
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    to answer the topics name
    yes, ME!!! :wink:
    You? No.

    And I think we don't want another creationist womanizer that obsesses the rest of his life trying to prove his own theory wrong because it disagreed with his view of reality. How about..y'know...something better?
    If he contributes to physics the way Einstein did, why would it matter if he sleeps with 100 women at a time and believes in the spaghetti monster?

    Also, someone who re-examines their logic, beliefs, theories, philosophy, religion is closer to perfection than someone who does not. How do you shake paradigms when you don't question anything?

    Lastly, the fate of any true genius is to be misunderstood. I know that's poetic, but it makes sense in Einstein's case. It takes quite the "critical thinker" to work so hard to prove yourself wrong. Perhaps, because you don't share his level of intelligence and intellect, you therefore don't see the sense in it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Guest
    No, see, he wanted to prove himself wrong for a reason. Guess what that reason was?

    If an intelligent person wanted to prove themself wrong, or write an entirely different theory just for the sake of it, then fine. but his heart was in the wrong place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    No, see, he wanted to prove himself wrong for a reason. Guess what that reason was?

    If an intelligent person wanted to prove themself wrong, or write an entirely different theory just for the sake of it, then fine. but his heart was in the wrong place.
    Are you suggesting he did it for more prestige? Or just to prove the quantum guys wrong?

    I understand the appeal to being contrary and non-fascinated with a mainstream icon, but I don't see any point to your particular distaste of him.

    At any rate, I'd be happy for any weirdo spaced-out drug induced sex addict eccentric genius to propel physics like Einstein did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Guest
    No. He did it because Quantum physics disagreed with his version of god and how he preceived the universe. it was on the science channel, and it's why everybody said it was "doomed from the start".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,517
    Einstein was at best a deist - and seeing that an infintite universe was invogue at the turn of the century up until the late 60's how exactly did einstein believe in a creation?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    NS Comment

    Since I consider Einstein to be wrong, I do not want to consider myself to be Einstein.

    Read my article on the 'Grand Unified Theory' which is on this Astronomy page near the bottom.
    It states that there is only ONE force and that is the 'dual' EM force that is responsible for all the energy in our universe.

    One thing I can add here is that my version of the 'strong' force is the coupling of the helium nucleus as 2 deuterons with high spin velocities to act as 'bipolar' bar magnets that automatically align themselves to bind together as two typical bar magnets do to create a powerful enhancement of the electrons coupling of 2 protons with one considered to be a neutron. Neutrons decay into an electron and a proton basically.

    So this combination of the electric and magnetic components create the 'strong' force.

    I simply ignore the 'weak' force as a natural decay of excessive neutron ratios to the protons in these heavy elements.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    No. He did it because Quantum physics disagreed with his version of god and how he preceived the universe. it was on the science channel, and it's why everybody said it was "doomed from the start".
    Well then you would have also learned that more importantly than his belief in God, which was a precarious concept for him, it was the fact that Quantum physics suggested "probability" rather than "certainty". THAT was the point - not God.

    I know he said something to the effect of god doesn't gamble or something like that - that's just a poetic way of addressing a deity of some kind while pointing out the certainty of the universe. The latter being the point, the former being poetry.

    I've always said "morality is for god". But morality plays no role in my ideas of god(s). The kind of deity, god(s), divinity that I suspect exists, doesn't care or even notice morality of man. So if I just said "Morality is for God", you might suspect I believe in a god that judges our behavior or blah blah blah - when that couldn't be further from the truth. It's just a poetic way of making a point.

    And I understand his distate for probability. He also felt that the unified field theory would be simple and elegant. Quantum physics are not simple and elegant. It goes against everything he believed.

    I think you're putting too much of god into his supposed ideology, when that was more of a secondary reasoning. And they say it was "doomed from the start" because it's hindsight now...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by ParanoiA
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    No. He did it because Quantum physics disagreed with his version of god and how he preceived the universe. it was on the science channel, and it's why everybody said it was "doomed from the start".
    Well then you would have also learned that more importantly than his belief in God, which was a precarious concept for him, it was the fact that Quantum physics suggested "probability" rather than "certainty". THAT was the point - not God.

    I know he said something to the effect of god doesn't gamble or something like that - that's just a poetic way of addressing a deity of some kind while pointing out the certainty of the universe. The latter being the point, the former being poetry.

    I've always said "morality is for god". But morality plays no role in my ideas of god(s). The kind of deity, god(s), divinity that I suspect exists, doesn't care or even notice morality of man. So if I just said "Morality is for God", you might suspect I believe in a god that judges our behavior or blah blah blah - when that couldn't be further from the truth. It's just a poetic way of making a point.

    And I understand his distate for probability. He also felt that the unified field theory would be simple and elegant. Quantum physics are not simple and elegant. It goes against everything he believed.

    I think you're putting too much of god into his supposed ideology, when that was more of a secondary reasoning. And they say it was "doomed from the start" because it's hindsight now...
    Very well put ParanoiA. And accurate.

    Jeremy, have you taken notice that almost all of your posts make some reference to religion or religious ideas. Interesting....

    Cheers
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Guest
    *sigh* nevermind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by http://skepticaly.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html
    "On 22 March 1954 a self-made man sent Einstein in Princeton a long handwritten letter-four closely packed pages in English. The correspondent despaired that there were so few people like Einstein who had the courage to speak out, and he wondered if it would not be best to return the world to the animals. Saying "I presume you would like to know who I am," he went on to tell in detail how he had come from Italy to the United States at the age of nine, arriving in bitter cold weather, as a result of which his sisters died while he barely survived; how after six months of schooling he went to work at age ten; how at age seventeen he went to Evening School; and so on, so that now he had a regular job as an experimental machinist, had a spare-time business of his own, and had some patents to his credit. He declared himself an atheist. He said that real education came from reading books. He cited an article about Einstein's religious beliefs and expressed doubts as to the article's accuracy. He was irreverent about various aspects of formal religion, speaking about the millions of people who prayed to God in many languages, and remarking that God must have an enormous clerical staff to keep track of all their sins. And he ended with a long discussion of the social and political systems of Italy and the United States that it would take too long to describe here. He also enclosed a check for Einstein to give to charity.

    On 24 March 1954 Einstein answered in English as follows:

    I get hundreds and hundreds of letters but seldom one so interesting as yours. I believe that your opinions about our society are quite reasonable.

    It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

    I have no possibility to bring the money you sent me to the appropriate receiver. I return it therefore in recognition of your good heart and intention. Your letter shows me also that wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it.

    From p. 66

    There is in the Einstein Archives a letter dated 5 August 1927 from a banker in Colorado to Einstein in Berlin. Since it begins "Several months ago I wrote you as follows," one may assume that Einstein had not yet answered. The banker remarked that most scientists and the like had given up the idea of God as a bearded, benevolent father figure surrounded by angels, although many sincere people worship and revere such a God. The question of God had arisen in the course of a discussion in a literary group, and some of the members decided to ask eminent men to send their views in a form that would be suitable for publication. He added that some twenty-four Nobel Prize winners had already responded, and he hoped that Einstein would too. On the letter, Einstein wrote the following in German. It may or may not have been sent:

    I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.

    My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God.

    From pp. 69-70

    A Chicago Rabbi, preparing a lecture on "The Religious Implications of the Theory of Relativity," wrote to Einstein in Princeton on zo December 1939 to ask some questions on the topic. Einstein replied as follows:

    I do not believe that the basic ideas of the theory of relativity can lay claim to a relationship with the religious sphere that is different from that of scientific knowledge in general. I see this connection in the fact that profound interrelationships in the objective world can Ije comprehended through simple logical concepts. To be sure, in the theory of relativity this is the case in particularly full measure.

    The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere.



    Einstein on the Soul

    Return to Top
    From p. 39

    On 17 July I953 a woman who was a licensed Baptist pastor sent Einstein in Princeton a warmly appreciative evangelical letter. Quoting several passages from the scriptures, she asked him whether he had considered the relationship of his immortal soul to its Creator, and asked whether he felt assurance of ever lasting life with God after death. It is not known whether a reply was sent, but the letter is in the Einstein Archives, and on it, in Einstein's hand writing, is the following sentence, written in English:

    I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

    From p. 40

    In Berlin in February 1921 Einstein received from a woman in Vienna a letter imploring him to tell her if he had formed an opinion as to whether the soul exists and with it personal, individual development after death. There were other questions of a similar sort. On 5 February 1921 Einstein answered at some length. Here in part is what he said:

    The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion.

    Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
    .

    Reprinted above, from the quoted source. - make you own minds up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    36
    And that sums it up nicely. I think he actually had quite a pragmatic outlook on the idea of God. He suspects something bigger than just bland existence with no soul, but doesn't endorse any preconceived notions about what God is.

    Sounds like a responsible attitude to me. I have a similar view, so I suppose I could be biased about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Guest
    If one is absolutely honest neither camp can call him a supporter, as I have previously said, he seems always to have 'tailored' his response to what he thought would be agreeable to his audience. He did not want to risk offending anyone, If in these letters he revealed his true feelings, then I think they can only really be considered agnostic. I have a sneaky feeling though like many he was unable to completely shrug off the religious education of his formative years or balance this against his scientific beliefs. No doubt he started out religious. I have so far come across no evidence that there were any religious items found in his estate.
    Nor does there seem to be any evidence of him regularly attending religious ceremonies.


    The following is a link to a documented conversation with Einstein on the subject of religion, again, note the absence of a yes/no answer to a yes/no question!

    http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/einbucky.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    NS Comment

    Since I consider Einstein to be wrong, I do not want to consider myself to be Einstein.

    Read my article on the 'Grand Unified Theory' which is on this Astronomy page near the bottom.
    It states that there is only ONE force and that is the 'dual' EM force that is responsible for all the energy in our universe.

    One thing I can add here is that my version of the 'strong' force is the coupling of the helium nucleus as 2 deuterons with high spin velocities to act as 'bipolar' bar magnets that automatically align themselves to bind together as two typical bar magnets do to create a powerful enhancement of the electrons coupling of 2 protons with one considered to be a neutron. Neutrons decay into an electron and a proton basically.

    So this combination of the electric and magnetic components create the 'strong' force.

    I simply ignore the 'weak' force as a natural decay of excessive neutron ratios to the protons in these heavy elements.

    NS
    Einstein spent almost 25 years to find out a theory can help future scientists understand the mystery of universe that no theory be and will be compare with his Unified Field Theory.
    Einstein was not successful in his theory, and we should continue to study this theory for the future of our next generation, not for Einstein.
    I mind his remark just is a challenge to us, and then we should find out some reasons that cause the failure of Einstein better than deal with his individual or just say he wrong.

    HiLe
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    to answer the topics name
    yes, ME!!! :wink:
    You? No.

    And I think we don't want another creationist womanizer that obsesses the rest of his life trying to prove his own theory wrong because it disagreed with his view of reality. How about..y'know...something better?
    Einstein wasn't a creationist.

    cheers
    Yes, Einstein wasn't a creationist.
    The “God” of Einstein just is one single secret of phenomena that all matter in the universe must follow this secret.

    HiLe
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •