Niels Bohr, who was an atheist: "Einstein, stop telling God what to do."

https://bigthink.com/videos/david-bodanis-on-einsteins-rejection-of-a-random-universe

Do you ever read books?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you ever read books?
I'm reading two books right now.
"How Fascism Works, The Politics of US vs Them" by Jason Stanley and "The Testaments" By Magaret Atwood, I want to see if it is as prophetic as Handmaid's Tale.

Do you?

Do you read books about the topics you keep bringing to the table? Because it seems like all you have are random quotations and links to popular media and youtube videos.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you read books about the topics you keep
> bringing to the table? Because it seems like all
> you have are random quotations and links to
> popular media and youtube videos.

I have to report my reading list to comment on anything on this forum? What are you the reading list monitor?

Yes I've read books on Einstein.
"Einstein: His Life and Universe" by Walter Isaacson.
"E=Mc2 : A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation" and "Einstein's Greatest Mistake: A Biography" both by David Bodanis

He was obviously a genius and one of my intellectual heroes.

What books have you read on the subject of Einstein that make you such a GD expert on him?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2020 12:24AM by schrodingerscat.

> I have to report my reading list to comment on
> anything on this forum?

No, of course not. I do note, however, that after I insinuated you get most of your information from youtube and you responded with the book by Jason Stanley, an initial google search for that work leads directly to two youtube videos by the same name with the book itself following. Perhaps that's just coincidence. . .


---------------------
> Yes I've read books on Einstein.
> "Einstein: His Life and Universe" by Walter
> Isaacson.
> "E=Mc2 : A Biography of the World's Most Famous
> Equation" and "Einstein's Greatest Mistake: A
> Biography" both by David Bodanis

It's plausible that you read those books. Assuming for the moment that is true, the question remains why you don't understand what Einstein said. Despite your claims above, for example, he never described either rocks or nature as "animate" and he never said the universe is benevolent. All of that is just your erroneous gloss.


--------------------
> He was obviously a genius and one of my
> intellectual heroes.

A worthy hero indeed. Even more worthy for those who exhibit fidelity to what he actually said and wrote.


----------------------
> What books have you read on the subject of
> Einstein that make you such a GD expert on him?

I've read several of his books, including a gem called Relativity but also some where he lost his footing in the worlds of philosophy and politics, as well as several volumes written about him. But that's neither here nor there. As usual when discussing things with you, all one has to do is see whether the quotations you cite have anything to do with the positions you advance.

The answer is almost always "no." You throw names and quotations around without even ensuring they substantiate your points. No volume of bluster can hide that uncomfortable reality.

You're more dense than a rock.
There's no reasoning with you.

Gladys Lott, denser than an animated rock, and destined to roll! Forever!

SCat, happily shooting Einstein's loaded dice, cuz ghawd don't roll that way.

Jesus needs a new pair of shoes. Or at least a hedge fund.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're more dense than a rock.
> There's no reasoning with you.

Nice projecting, sc. Maybe you could work in a movie theater.

ookami Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You're more dense than a rock.
> > There's no reasoning with you.
>
> Nice projecting, sc. Maybe you could work in a
> movie theater.

I never said Einstein said rocks were animated objects.
I said everything is animated, from every galaxy and supercluster and and Great Attractor down to every atom and sub atomic particle,
100yrs ago Einstein's math was so accurate it predicted a universe nobody could see for 100yearz.
But he foresaw it with logic.
100yrs ago astronomists assured Einstein the universe was static. So Einstein made his "greatest blunder" inserting Lamda into his theory of GR to make it balance. Then Hubble came along and blew that theory out of the water. As it turned out Einstein had been right all along. The universe WAS expanding at an increasing rate of speed.
So Einstein was forced to erase his greatest blunder, Lamda
Now, as it turns out after launching the Hubble space telescope, Hubble wasn't entirely right either. Quite the contrary. Our galaxy is moving at 1.4million mph towards a region of space called the Great Attractor.
We are on a collision course with our closest neighbor, Andromeda Galaxy which is also being pushed down by the curvature of space time, at the exact same rate of speed, converging one one tiny point in space at the same exact time we have calculated out exactly.
Thats what I mean by animated.
I am a Stoic Epicurean. I believe the part of Stoicism that has as its main tennant that Logos (Logic) permeates and animates the cosmos. Logos is synonymous with God.
The universe was only as big as our galaxy they believed because that is all the further their telescopes could see. Technology hadn't caught uo to Einstein's genius.

Einstein's only mistake was listening to people who couldnt see what he saw 100 years before anybody saw it, but him.

Guy, have you tried responding to what people actually say instead of trying to beat them to death with appeals to authority for the sake of continuing an argument?

Your interpretation of Einstein has nothing to do with my reply; the fact that you've been acting like a self-important tosser does, though.

Also, put some refences to actual sources in your posts about your claims. It's very easy to mistake for a Gish Gallop if you don't.

"The 'Gish gallop' is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without the slightest regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments."


Regarding Le SCat, if there was a 'Gish walk' that went into a 'Gish trot' and then on to a 'Gish gallop', there needs to be a 'Gish turbo gallop' in order to properly honor Le SCat.

Of course, that's just the opinion of one very juvenile male.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're more dense than a rock.
> There's no reasoning with you.

You know, Scat, when you really let your intellect go there's nothing left to say.

You're a genius!

Just how dense a rock are you, Mrs. Lott?

(that could be the first line of a nursery rhyme!)

Or a Bee Gees song.

Do you like the Bee Gees, EOD?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2020 04:23PM by Lot's Wife.

I am a rock. I am an island.

EB,

How dense is your love?

Would his love be animatedly dense, or densely animated?

I prefer the former. The latter was days ago.

But what does the density of your love have to do with Scat? That's ultimately the only question that matters, isn't it?

Just f'ning roll the dice, okay?

Instead of making like a tree with Scat he's my density.

I greatly resemble that remaark!!

Was Einstein speaking as a man ?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was Einstein speaking as a man ?
He was speaking as a genius, but one who got confused and frustrated by people who couldn't see what he could see clearly using logic and genius.
But I don't agree with Einstein 100%.
Only 99.9%.
The .1% where I disagree with him is that I believe now, with the benefit of 100yrs of scientific discovery and advances in technology, that god (nature) does play dice with the universe on a subatomic scale. But in this dimension the dice are loaded, in favor of matter in lieu of anti matter. The dice are loaded heavily in favor of a super symetrical cosmos in lieu of chaos. In favor of gravity attracting and radiation radiating, in favor of energy slowing down long enough to matter. In favor of DNA in lieu of randomness. In favor of information in lieu of destruction.
In favor of life in lieu of death.
Otherwise we would have never existed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2020 03:31PM by schrodingerscat.

Perhaps you can explain how Einstein relied on Gauss's math in relativity?

I mean, since you understand him so well.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps you can explain how Einstein relied on
> Gauss's math in relativity?
>
> I mean, since you understand him so well.
Not only do I have to submit a bibliography for my posts now I gotta pass your random test?
Want a stool sample too?
Feel free to Google that shit if you are curious.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2020 04:43PM by schrodingerscat.

Nope, you don't have to submit that which you do not have.

Don't worry, though. It wasn't a serious question. Like the others, I'm just laughing at you.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nope, you don't have to submit that which you do
> not have.
>
> Don't worry, though. It wasn't a serious
> question. Like the others, I'm just laughing at
> you.
Yeah Einstein's cosmology vs Modern cosmology is hilarious.

Whoosh

Scat googles shit. And the hits keep on coming.

This entire thread feels like mashed potatoes. I'm just closing my eyes, and digging into the pot with my nose plugged. Is it yams? Red potatoes? Maybe it's homemade apple sauce. Now, you take your turn and plug your nose, cover your eyes and dig in. What do you think?

For the layman, there's Michio Kaku, and that other guy with the moustache and inflated ego to watch on Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI50HN0Kshg

Lectures are out there by Leonard Susskind, Kip Thorne, and Juan Maldacena, just to name a few. Who needs books? We can all be experts in a few short hours. 125.7 GeV, that's all I have to say. To understand field theory just leads to the belief that God doesn't play dice. I just burned my hand on whatever is in this pot. Ouch. I'll take off my blindfold and tell you what it is. Nope, I've decided to let you find out for yourselves.

Well, at least SCat brought up a brand new, exciting, never before mentioned topic!

So refreshing!

Every day. Every. Day.

Does God play naked Twister with the Universe?

No. God hides himself because he is naked.

Yes, he was right. But that was based on Einstein's world view, culled from years of deep thinking.

But he might be wrong, based on other people's deep thinking.

I DON'T shoot dice, and some of you have lost your marbles.

This thread has gone off the deep end, Can't we all just get along? Where has the civility gone?

This from the buffoon who just said women should shut up and obey menfolk.

What if a manfolk told women they were free, and to act the part?

As Saucie has no doubt told you, strong women wouldn't even notice.

If there was a creator or divine engineer organizing matter as the mormons say then the entity, known as God has moved on to other things. It's a big Universe and to think a God could be bothered by such limited beings on Earth vs the trillions of planets and stars and tasks involved with such complex systems is absurd to think humans and Earth is ever a focus for the divine.

Earth is smaller than a spec of anything important when compared with the majestic universe.

I want to know why other planets get to have dinosaurs and we don't. We have to put up with hand-me-downs. I think God likes his other planets better than us.

Heavenly Mother always liked them best.

Isn't it impossible for an Omniscient God to gamble? What's the point when you know what numbers are going to come up?

No surprises. The down side of being God.

God split himself into 3 personages each containing 1/3 of his omniscience.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't it impossible for an Omniscient God to
> gamble? What's the point when you know what
> numbers are going to come up?

Oh my dear if naive friend, when you know the answers is the BEST tie to gamble.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh my dear if naive friend, when you know the
> answers is the BEST tie to gamble.

This one or this one?

https://cdn8.bigcommerce.com/s-p6270ymd/products/7124/images/83643/DSC_0284__07445.1544822368.500.659.JPG?c=2

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ff/46/1d/ff461df50e0027efbb21473218a36630.jpg

For you, EB, I'd recommend the second one. For D&D, something far classier!

Craps. I need to find some Irish in me.