The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: General Relativity: In Acknowledgement Of Professor Gerardus t Hooft  (Read 3847 times)

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
http://vixra.org/abs/1409.0072

In this vixra.org paper, Mr. Stephen Crothers acknowledges Mr. Gerardus 't Hooft's claims of black holes and the like.


 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3822
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Once I see words like god, creator, blasphemy etc I feel the paper is in the wrong place despite 60 pages of elegant mathematical reasoning.
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Once I see words like god, creator, blasphemy etc I feel the paper is in the wrong place despite 60 pages of elegant mathematical reasoning.

Newton was a devout Christian and included a lot of that kind of talk in his work. Your point?
 

Offline jeffreyw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Once I see words like god, creator, blasphemy etc I feel the paper is in the wrong place despite 60 pages of elegant mathematical reasoning.

While we have been diverted for a short time with the argument that mentioning "god, creator, blasphemy" is in the wrong place, let it be known that Newton also had his own ideas on the Bible, he tried to "decode" divine prophecies in the Bible, and even practiced alchemy.

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/newton-papers-q-and-a/

So yea, he invented calculus, but to say that is who he was is neglecting history. Fact is, the most brilliant of minds also produce the most garbage.

So instead of placing people of history on pedestals, we need to bring them down to Earth again, they weren't these "god-like" figures who are deserving of reverence and worship, they were regular people who worked hard and got lucky. If people on this forum have a hard time accepting that, then that is unfortunate, because you are neglected the very essence of what it means to be human.
« Last Edit: 18/12/2014 15:34:58 by jeffreyw »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Once I see words like god, creator, blasphemy etc I feel the paper is in the wrong place despite 60 pages of elegant mathematical reasoning.
Nowhere in that paper do the words creator or blasphemy appear in that paper. The only place the term god appears is in the name of the website "http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net". It's quite well-known on physics circles that Einstein was a devout atheist. It's also well known that when he used the term god he used it in the sense that Spinoza did, i.e. "nature". See
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1301/1301.1656.pdf
Quote
The first is that his use of the word God implies that he was a religious person who believed in the existence of God. Nothing could be further from the truth; indeed, Einstein can be described more accurately as an outright atheist.
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Einstein wasn't an atheist. He was something of a pantheist, but not quite that either. See this:

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."

(The following is from Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer, Princeton University Press)
"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist...."


I've spoken to Steven Crothers, he is not the easiest person to deal with. He's anti-Einstein, and anti-relativity, and when you try to show him something it's like he's got his fingers in his ears singing la-la-la. And he isn't really acknowledging 't Hooft here, he's having a go. See this by 't Hooft where he has a go at people like Crothers. The trouble is this: 't Hooft doesn't understand gravity either. I'm not a fan myself, to be honest I think his stock in trade is speculation and hypothesis. I mean, have you ever looked into the holographic principle
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4126
  • Thanked: 247 times
    • View Profile
I think that people who believe in God can contribute to scientific understanding.
I think that people who have a scientific understanding can contribute to religion.

There are some extreme atheists who would disagree with me on both points.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Sorry. I was incorrect to say that he was an atheist. I meant to say that Einstein was a strong agnostic. He didn't believe in a personal god. He did explicitly state that he wasn't an atheist though. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

I read that book by Max Jammer back in 2000 but forgot a lot of it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
I like him John, although I remember finding the holographic principle hard to digest, as a reality. Then again, the more I've wondered about it, the more I wonder about it as a projection, which probably just is my way to avoid Holography as a word, as it gives us all a similar gut reaction I think, "I'm real". But reality is a very weird thing, and keeps getting weirder. I usually tend to reread the 'hitchhikers guide' just to reassure me in that I wasn't the only one with that feeling :)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums