BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Mr Red
Date: 12 Aug 20 - 04:26 AM

Yer head'll catch up.

One day. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 20 - 08:36 PM

Jesus. No wonder I don't know me arse from me elbow...

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Jack Campin
Date: 11 Aug 20 - 07:33 PM

I completely forgot about this one.

Gravitational time dilation

I hadn't realized, until reading that, how small a scale people can now detect the effect at. An atomic clock can show how much faster your head ages relative to your feet.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: robomatic
Date: 11 Aug 20 - 07:05 PM

good on ya, jack. keep up with the small talk!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Jack Campin
Date: 11 Aug 20 - 04:26 PM

Special relativity is relevant to all electromagnetic theory since electrons travel at relativistic speeds - I gave a link to one phenomenon earlier. That was what Einstein invented it for.

I don't think anyone's found a terrestrial effect that shows general relativity at work.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: leeneia
Date: 11 Aug 20 - 01:53 PM

Is there any aspect of human life where relativity is relevant besides GPS?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Aug 20 - 08:51 AM

Our best guess as to the origen of the elements
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/2008/Nucleosynthesis2_WikipediaCmglee_2000.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Aug 20 - 08:29 AM

Still interested in your comments re: Servetus and burning folks at the stake for their ideas. The OP didn't mention this either, Jack. Your silence is deafening.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Jack Campin
Date: 08 Aug 20 - 08:36 PM

You are talking about special relativity.

I think the OP had the implications of general relativity in mind. Very different mathematics.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: leeneia
Date: 08 Aug 20 - 06:09 PM

I think my simple arithmetic was wrong, but it's still right about the added term with c, the speed of light in the denominator.

Let me think. If a train is going 50 and is overtaken by a train going 70, then the people in the first train think the faster train is going 20. That sounds right.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: leeneia
Date: 07 Aug 20 - 01:32 PM

Hi, Mr. Red. About your first post: when I was a college freshman, I read a book about relativity by Einstein and Infeld. Most of us couldn't follow it, but that was all right because most of the teachers couldn't either. After some years, I decided to lick this thing, and I read more books on relativity. I still haven't licked it.

But one thing I do know is that when we want to calculate the speed of two systems passing each other, we think we should just add or subtract. Like this (I think)

Train A is heading east at 70 mph.
Train B is heading west at 50 miles per hour.
How fast do they seem to be going past if one is a passenger? answer 120 mph, 70+50.

But Einstein and others figured out that there is another term added to the equation, and it's a fraction with some element of the system (I forget which element) divided either by the speed of light or the speed of light squared. Obviously this fraction with a huge denominator will have a tiny, tiny value. Detecting the difference it made was definitely beyond Newton and other early scientists.

In fact, earthlings ignore it entirely, unless they are working with GPS's.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 07 Aug 20 - 08:38 AM

That's the thing about maths - on the simplest level is it all that is needed for 99.9% of how it impacts on our lives, but the other 0.1% is 99.9% of the maths!

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Aug 20 - 12:56 PM

The Mongols? Were they mad at Michael Servetus, too?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Jack Campin
Date: 05 Aug 20 - 02:11 AM

The point is the process set in motion by the Mongols. A society militarized for external defence and losing the values of intellectual tolerance that made it a creative force.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Aug 20 - 01:46 AM

I have a photo on my website where I'm playing an electronic bagpipe sitting in the ruins of the university of Harran, which is still as the Mongols left it. It took Oxford a couple of hundred years before it was in the same league. And that was second division compared with Baghdad and Bukhara.

I've got a photo of students at the ruins of the school of Ulug Bek, sultan, astronomer, and mathematician. It's kind of like the poem:

"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings, look upon my works ye mighty, and despair!"

Nothing beside remains.

There were a bunch of kids from Siberia cheerfully picking up remnants of the stone work and giving them to the visiting Americans.

So I'm not sure what you're saying other than repeating my point.

Meanwhile I'm still pondering your attack on Michael Servetus, the inoffensive founder of Unitarianism, as somehow being obstreporous enough to deserve being burned at the stake at the instigation of John Calvin. Let me remind you; "After being condemned by Catholic authorities in France, he fled to Calvinist Geneva where he was burnt at the stake for heresy by order of the city's governing council."

Servetus' 'heresy' was apparently disagreeing with John Calvin. His scientific contributions were not a factor in his flaming finish, but this was an era where you could die for your words.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Mr Red
Date: 04 Aug 20 - 05:27 PM

He noted that the Sun's rays fell vertically at noon in Syene (now Aswan), Egypt,

It was down a well that he noticed. I have seen a picture of the well, 50 metres in diameter maybe.

And he was a percent or so out on the polar I think. More on equitorial obviously. But that all depends on your definition of a Greek mile. They knew the moon was spherical, so why not the Earth?

Amazing given the technology available. But I would submit not amazing that there were clever people alive then. In fact looking at who rules our countries today .........................

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Jack Campin
Date: 04 Aug 20 - 05:54 AM

Islamic scholarship excelled in the middle ages and preserved a lot of Greek science. The Islamic world in the modern era is quite schismatic and apparently subject to a lot of atrophy or disillusionment, or both.

The Islamic Middle Ages was pretty much finished off by Hulagu. If you put yourself in the position of a Christian scholar of Galileo's time: the world is full of intellectual products created or transmitted by the Islamic world - mathematics, astronomy, chemical technology, civil engineering, musical instruments, classical philosophy - but in the previous 300 years, what had the Muslims done for the Christian world except stomp around in threatening hordes? Somebody ought to have thought, what happened to them?

I have a photo on my website where I'm playing an electronic bagpipe sitting in the ruins of the university of Harran, which is still as the Mongols left it. It took Oxford a couple of hundred years before it was in the same league. And that was second division compared with Baghdad and Bukhara.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: robomatic
Date: 04 Aug 20 - 12:12 AM

I don't mind so much a thread title about Newton being wrong. Everybody is wrong, Einstein was wrong, we just currently don't know the precise remifications of that wrongness. All the great physicists except for Sheldon Cooper are great physicists because they are slightly wrong while the rest of mankind is trying to mix earth air fire and water and avoid getting vaccinated.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Aug 20 - 03:34 PM

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1412/Milky-Way-over-Moon-Valley-900px-by-Rafael-Defavari.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Aug 20 - 03:25 PM

“A Higgs boson goes into a church and the priest says, ‘We don’t allow Higgs bosons here.’ And the Higgs boson says, ‘But without me there is no mass.'”

“A photon walks into a bar and orders a drink. The bartender says, ‘Do you want a double?’ And the photon says, ‘No I’m traveling light.'”

Two atoms bump into each other. One says “I’ve lost an electron.” “Are you sure?” “Yes, I’m positive.”

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 20 - 06:19 PM

I haven't said anything about consciousness, but I did say something about intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jul 20 - 05:52 PM

Mr' Red's emergent theory of gravity by adding one more dimension.
then taking it away

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Jul 20 - 05:18 PM

Steve Shaw has mentioned the most cosmic thing I have ever heard him say about consciousness and the universe.

There is a connection but not the way you think.
This will guide you through he great minds who have considered this idea. PBS
May we share a happy wave collapse :^]

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Jul 20 - 08:05 PM

Servetus' 'crime' was disputations in correspondence with John Calvin. I fail to see how that was offensive or asking to get burned at the stake, which was somewhat due to Calvin. Servetus' contributions to science were pretty much unappreciated in his time.

Maybe you'd better describe what you mean about how Islam went through a disputatious time and survived. It seems to me that if that happened it has been long forgotten. Christianity went through major infighting (or between-fighting depending on how you want to address the Thirty Years' War) not even relating to the Enlightenment, which happened barely yesterday in historic terms. Islamic scholarship excelled in the middle ages and preserved a lot of Greek science. The Islamic world in the modern era is quite schismatic and apparently subject to a lot of atrophy or disillusionment, or both.

And it is not science getting politicized in Trump's America so much as certain politicized idealogues denying science altogether.

Religious leaders of all stripes seem to take a dim view of those who challenge their proximity to God or their ability to speak 'for' God. For the most part science has escaped that kind of social dominance.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Penny S.
Date: 29 Jul 20 - 11:40 AM

I have now made inquiries about Bruno and exo-planets. He delivered a lecture at Oxford on the subject, and in the Q&As afterwards, someone asked if it would be possible to observe eclipses from these planets passing in front of the stars. Bruno used maths to show that it would not happen.

Ha ha.

Couldn't have been observed with a Harriott telescope.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jul 20 - 08:24 AM

Thousands of years ago Eratosthenes measured Earth's circumference mathematically using two surface points to make the calculation. He noted that the Sun's rays fell vertically at noon in Syene (now Aswan), Egypt, at the summer solstice. Its amazing how simple some problems can be solved.
If its not simple I'm out of my element. :^-

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Jack Campin
Date: 29 Jul 20 - 06:30 AM

Aczel's book agrees that Galileo wasn't really setting out to be heretical as Bruno was - he just got hit by one of the swinging doors of history, when science got politicized as it hadn't been before. Servetus was the other celebrated example of someone who set out to be as offensive as possible.

As Aczel describes it, the consequences were sad. Italy went from being the pioneer mathematical nation in Europe to a scientifically irrelevant backwater. But no individual could have done anything to stop the historical process. It was a bit like the way science is getting politicized in Trump's America, except that the Jesuits were honest men committed to a fundamental mistake rather than a sleazy crime syndicate.

Islam had already been through the same disastrous process centuries before. The Christian world had no way of understanding the precedent.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Penny S.
Date: 29 Jul 20 - 05:17 AM

My sister took me on a birthday trip to Rome, and we found ourselves in the Campo di Fiori, where there is a statue of Bruno. I became quite excited when I worked out who he was and why he was there. And the market traders seemed quite pleased that I appreciated him. So close to the Vatican - it seemed...interesting.
As I have a friend concerned with exo-planets, his hypotheses in that direction have been discussed often. I'm not sure if he got as far as plantes transiting their stars. The concept of other worlds would have been quite challenging for contemporary religious belief. Still is, of course.
As is the identified great age of the female figurines I was shown yesterday, which are contempory with Homo Erectus. Datable by the eruption of Mt Toba, between 71,000 and 74,000 years ago.
We didn't get much done because we were few, and everyone had to do everything. You need surplus people and surplus food to make progress. And no pandemics. It's amazing we managed to do what we did.
Well, I say we, but I know how useful I would have been in an ice age after a volcanic catastrophe. And that goes for most of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Jul 20 - 03:53 AM

Maybe, robo, but maybe not. Bruno is another of the cases where our modern understanding of it can easily omit the context. Quoting from the Wiki link you gave:

After his death, he gained considerable fame, being particularly celebrated by 19th- and early 20th-century commentators who regarded him as a martyr for science, although historians agree that his heresy trial was not a response to his astronomical views but rather a response to his philosophical and religious views

Now if Galileo though that the reasons Bruno was executed were because of his views on transubstantiation, migration of the soul, denial of the Trinity and the rest, and not the astronomical views, he might not have thought he was at particularly great risk, since he was not making those sorts of comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Mr Red
Date: 29 Jul 20 - 01:25 AM

Therefore it's irrelevant as to whether anyone out there will hear my brilliant ideas.

or care?

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: robomatic
Date: 28 Jul 20 - 08:59 PM

I believe that Galileo was in trouble and received severe discipline from the church not technically for asserting the heliocentric theory but for asserting it after being told he should not, therefore he was in trouble for disobedience, not physics as such.

Meanwhile, Giordano Bruno was toasted, quite literally, for a range of beliefs and has become associated with science because he got killed in the culture wars of the times. Galileo ran into his trouble about ten years after Bruno's burning and would have been well aware of how far things could go. He managed to be a martyr and stay alive at the same time, which was a sort of achievement.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 28 Jul 20 - 06:39 PM

Isn’t it strange that humans are supposed to be so far back , and yet we don’t seem to have done much for most of that .....

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Penny S.
Date: 28 Jul 20 - 10:15 AM

Published John Murray, a proper publishing house.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Jul 20 - 10:00 AM

Wow, Penny - I haven't seen you here for a while so I dropped in to see how you've been. And now I see I have to read this entire thread from the beginning to catch up with you. :)

"Why"? Why would anyone in the past have gone to the described lengths to pass on the "secret" knowledge? Why would it have been seen to be important? And why would anyone now want to spend the time investigating this. And why would any publisher publish it?

The simple answer to something like this is "vanity press." Did the authors write it, not go through a review process, and pay to publish it themselves?

I'll be back once I've caught up.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Penny S.
Date: 28 Jul 20 - 07:22 AM

Watched a programme on Stonehenge the other night, with archaeologists in good standing on it. It turns out that at about midwinter, there were huge gatherings in Durrington Walls, at which people feasted on pigs which were about nine months old. Strontium testing of the pigs' teeth showed that they had been brought to Stonehenge from all across Britain, some from as far north as Sutherland. (I thought you couldn't drive pigs, but the evidence is convincing.) Not from Orkney, though, despite recent connections being found.
There is a route from there to the Avon, on the line of the midwinter sunrise, and it was suggested that the people travelled on the river to the avenue to Stonehenge on the line of the sunset.
The bones from the Aubrey holes, now believed to be the first location of the bluestones, come, like the stones, from the Prescelli area. An extraordinary journey to go to bury people.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Penny S.
Date: 28 Jul 20 - 07:12 AM

The volcanic eruption is at the end of book 12, pivotal to the whole thing, and the event heralded in the invocation of the muse at the beginning, when all the men are killed. It is much more than a Stromboli eruption. I spotted the similarity to Mt St Helens - which didn't, of course, have the sea affected. I was able to convince the Earth Science department of the OU, which included several vulcanologists, and didn't need to try very hard. They got me into the Bodleian to research.
I could not convince any classicists. They are determined to avoid any such interpretation of any texts. Hesiod described the fight between Zeus and Typhon melting rock so it flowed down the mountainside like iron smelted in Hephaestos' smithy.
Footnote in book: This is not a description of a volcanic eruption as there is no detail of lava issuing from a crater. The Chalybes were smelting iron at this period.
(My comment. Hesiod was not a vulcanologist. Faced with flowing lava, he would have gone the other way. If the Chalybes were smelting iron, they would have had a semisolid bloom needing hammering, not something flowing. Hesiod lived just around the corner from Methana, on which early lava flows still looked fresh when 19th century geologists looked.)
Tim Severin, in his book on the route of the Odyssey declares "Nowhere in Homer is there any description of a volcano" when trying to disprove the identity of Aeolos' island with Stromboli.
And actual classicists approached on the subject are dismissive. Homer includes sulphur in his description of the shipwreck because of the structure of the poem which includes sulphur when Odysseus cleans his hall. In both cases, the sulphur cleanses the sin against xenia. It provides symmetry in the poem. But it doesn't mean it wasn't a convenient eruption. It can do both things.
Probably Etna, judging from the sailing directions and the proximity of Scylla and Charybdis.
Apollonius of Rhodes certainly thought it was a volcanic region when he plagiarised and extended Homer for the Argonauts.
Incidentally, there is a body which does three retrograde motions during a year - Mercury. And Odysseus was reputed to be the greatgrandson of Hermes. I spotted that when doing a sort of diagram on the classroom wall for mounting children's work on the Odyssey, which was on a schools broadcast, and realised I was looking at something I had seen in a book called "Time Stands Still" by Keith Critchlow, which looks at megalithic acience. One of the things he does is to show how the planets appear from a geocentric view - Venus produces a pentagram, for example. And Mercury a triple looped pattern, which does not quite fit the year exactly.
The Woods did not notice that.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Jack Campin
Date: 28 Jul 20 - 06:15 AM

Stromboli was presumably going boom regularly back in Homeric times, and you can see why you'd put it in a story. I found a video on YouTube a few days ago of the explosion of Whakaari/White Island in New Zealand, taken from the tour boat that had left it a few minutes before. We just need someone to do it again in Ancient Greek while rowing like hell in loincloths.

One of the more convincing suggestions about what Stonehenge was for suggests that the astronomical/religious stuff was secondary and pretty much decorative. Its primary function was as a central high court. Neolithic Britain was an organized enough society to need one. Major sessions might have been seasonally timed.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Penny S.
Date: 28 Jul 20 - 03:17 AM

I've read Hamlet's Mill, having been given it out of the blue by a nice guy who worked in a second hand bookshop in Cirencester. I found it very interesting, but it didn't trigger my doubts.
The eclipse on Ithaca paper was much more recent, and seeking to find an actual date for Odysseus' return, and I was prepared to consider it until they started to use Mercury. The idea that you could prove the existence of Odysseus as a real person who did things on a real date seems a bit wild.
Other things I have read which tried to use astronomy for odd purposes were a pair called "Homer's Secret Iliad" and "Homer's Secret Odyssey" by F & K Wood.
The Iliad, apparently, is entirely set up to transmit the knowledge that Orion becomes invisible for a period of time, Orion being represented by Achilles. I went along with this, given the annual cycle of the heavens, until they revealed that what they were on about was that for a period during the precession of the axis, Orion would not be visible in Greece at all. That Homer would know this, and then decide to bury it in something which to all intents and purposes is about human behaviour is stretching things beyond what they will support.
The Odyssey is worse. This, apparently, is describing the movement of the Sun throughout a year. Since, at three occasions during the hero's journey, he engages in retrograde motion, which, unless you are living on Mercury, the Sun never does, this is daft. I actually went to the lengths of printing out star maps and tracking what the Woods said the Sun did in visiting various constellations - not only retrograde, but also way off the ecliptic, and full of zigzags north and south.
I am left with the question "Why"? Why would anyone in the past have gone to the described lengths to pass on the "secret" knowledge? Why would it have been seen to be important? And why would anyone now want to spend the time investigating this. And why would any publisher publish it?
I actually think that people composing a work of fiction have an idea of where they want it to go and then add into it picked up unconsidered trifles (reference to character with the name of Odysseus' thieving ancestor) which add interest to the narrative, and perhaps to the character they are dealing with. They don't have to be actual experiences from an actual time. Ah, an eclipse, that will add drama to the return. A volcanic eruption, that will make a different sort of storm to destroy the ship.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Jack Campin
Date: 28 Jul 20 - 01:54 AM

I just had look for that Milne paper and couldn't find it. It must date to around 1930, before Milne took off into developing his own cosmology. I may have a xerox of H.G. Forder's copy.

Milne was a Christian and I'd guess he inspired some later investigations into the relationship between theology and cosmology (e.g. Thomas Torrance). If you have no concept of global simultaneity you don't get to say "when" the Incarnation happened for the whole universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 09:55 PM

I do not have a personal overarching cosmology in front of me but finding a niche here or there is fun. Good luck with your overlord of the universe thing although you probably have it backwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 09:14 PM

In front of you, maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 09:04 PM

The easiest of my wild ideas to see in your mind's eye is that the early universe in its initial transformation STOPPED Space time.
The earliest event for what we call Inflation after the big bang did not happen in a plank instant but instead the early production of Mass stopped space time while inflation continued. Remember mass slows time.
An entire universe of mass in a localized area stopped time until enough space had grown to allow less dense mass slowly allowed a restart of Time. Space can go faster than light so nothing is violated while mass thinned out and cooled enough to form stars, be they made of regular matter or dark matter - all this happened after the great annihilation of anti matter.

Millions of dollars have been spent to discover the nature of the mysterious impossible nature of inflation while I think the answer was in front of us for a 100 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 08:40 PM

It works only if we're the only intelligent life. Therefore it's irrelevant as to whether anyone out there will hear my brilliant ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 08:30 PM

At least this is relevant to Newton being slightly 'right'.
Newton's curvature of space

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Jack Campin
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 08:14 PM

Doesn't really work. There are event horizons. Anywhere far enough away is never going to hear about your brilliant ideas.

And the Big Rip puts the kibosh on it even more thoroughly. Eventually no two neurons in your brain can ever make contact again.

For a little-known mindboggler, look for E.A. Milne's article on the age of the universe. I think it was published around 1920 and it puts the boot into lazy common sense with elegant thoroughness. It doesn't even need general relativity to do it, special gets quite weird enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 07:52 PM

I tend not to bother to get back to chaps who talk total obscurantist bollocks. But I admire the way you use obscurantism to hide the fact that you know very little. Cle-ver...

An interesting thing I contemplated a while back was the idea that we could be the only "intelligent" beings in the universe. That being the case, the universe itself is intelligent but completely dependent on the intelligence of humans on Earth. If we are truly alone in the cosmos, then we alone are responsible for the increasing intelligence of the universe, and we have achieved that in just a few thousand years out of fourteen billion (or at least since 4004 BC).

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 07:12 PM

One of my wildest ideas is that the universe is older than itself.
The reason for that is what we call Inflation after the big bang did not happen in a plank instant but the early Mass production stopped time while inflation continued. Remember mass slows time.
An entire universe of mass in a localized area stopped time until enough mass became thin enough to slowly restart Time.
Thought experiments still thrill me.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 06:55 PM

Like Alexander Friedmann I want Einstien's Universe to make human sense. Although I am part of the universe, the Universe doesn't seem to care about my wants or even Einstien.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 06:35 PM

Steve study up on Charge, Parity and Time and get back to me.
"Things don't disappear they just come back as another form."
This does not have to be a religious or spiritual statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Why Newton was wrong - slightly
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jul 20 - 06:25 PM

Experimental questions = beliefs in my dictionary.
And don't pick on 7 stars of the eastern sky.
He proslytizes only in self defense.

Oh I know what you need, "YOU WIN!"

What if there was a movie where the villain's name was EGO?
You wouldn't like the ending.