Einstein @ MindSay 
physics
I was reading a clip of literature from a piece written by einstein called "The World as I see it.", and it came to the part of Free Will, and his thoughts on it:
"I don't not at all believe in human freedom in the philosophical sense. Everybody acts not only under exrernal compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity. Schopenhauer's saying, "A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants," has been a very real inspiration to me since my youth; it has been a continual consolation in the face of life's hardships, my own and others', and an unfailing well-spring of tolerance. This realization mercifully mitigates the easily paralyzing sense of responsibility and prevents us from taking ourselves and other people all too seriously; it is conducive to a view of life which, in particular gives humor its due."
and I have to say, that I agree with the words that says. Man is bound by the laws of nature of choice. We are not free to make our own choices by any means at all. We are stuck making chioces based upon the rules of a society, or values and mores of a culture. If we do not make those choices correctly, then said undesired behavior is considered wrong by all member of a society, thus we must pay the consquence. We would want to be able to make choices, with out the decision having an effect, but unfortunately that is not the case. So connecting this to Schopenhauer then what we do is make choices, but in making choices we can not want to have the choices not have effects, we will just have to live with the correct ways, or the mistakes that come with the decision of the choice.
"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible" Albert Einstein
One of the best known scientist and a great thinker. He wrote on many topics and had a great insight into how the universe works in reality. I have read some of his papers where he wrote on many topics and he was indeed quite the thinker.
Date Line July 15, 2008
Einstein’s most famous theorem, E=MC2, relates the speed of light to energy and matter. The assumption is – Light’s speed is a constant. Therefore it would follow that the square of a constant – multiplying two quantities which are indisputably fix and equal – would yield a constant. The square of light speed is a fixed constant.
Energy divided by Mass is, according to Einstein’s theorem, equal to the square of light’s speed. The ratio of energy and mass is therefore fixed for all things – thus keeping the ratio constant. Universally, the energy and mass must be constantly in a fixed ration.
OK. We know this and it is the basis for atomic reactions and the source of energy for atomic bombs. We lower the mass and the energy must lower, the surplus being released into the environment. But that means – in terms of the environment – that released energy must be balanced by a new “released” mass. If not, the universal balance between matter, energy and the square of light speed is destabilized.
Destroy one matter and free its energy – a new matter of equal amount must appear which has an energy associate equal to the amount needed to maintain the light speed squared ratio. Otherwise the universal balance would destabilize.
When an atomic bomb goes off, where does the new matter appear?
If light is not a constant this is not a problem – every matter-energy ration could, and would, be different. But, even so, whatever is broken must come back together – either in the same ratio, or in a series of new elements whose combined ratios is equal the source ratio value.
Curiously. If we slow the velocity. That is. If we consider the formula as being velocity squared rather than light speed squared , the energy and mass of increase with speed. Which is what Newton said in his formulas – the explanation of kinetic energy or force.
... is the same formula as ...
Energy equals Mass times light speed squared.
It’s all the same, they just changed the names.
All Einstein did was push the Newtonian equation to its limit and then assert the force would be maximized. In the explosion the mass remains, it only changes form or shape. Basically, it is reduced in size and spread over a broader area.
Not sure where this was taking me ... and the phone just rang – bulldozer man heading by to price new driveway ... so I’ll see later if this has context.
_____________________________________________________
Date Line July 18, 2008
Can an object, a mass, move faster than the speed of light? Can it move the speed of light times faster than the speed of light?
That is what the Einstein theorem states relative to the Newtonian theorem. That is, Einstein say that the Energy of a mass is its force moving at the speed of light; in a substituted quantity expression, or formula, this is expressed as E=C(MV).or E=C(MC).
Let’s try that in terms of distance and time:
E=M(d/t)(d/t)=M(d2/t2)
Solve for time
t2=md2/E
time is the square root of the product of Mass times distance times distance divided by the Energy involved.
OK, so what is Mass? Is it weight?
1. “In particle physics, the invariant mass is a mathematical combination of a particle's energy E and its momentum p which is equal to the mass in the rest frame.”
2. “Relativistic mass is just another name for the energy.”
3. “Momentum is the product of the mass and velocity of an object (p = mv).”
So Momentum times Energy is Mass; with momentum defined as Mass times Velocity; so Energy times velocity is Momentum. And the feeling is we are running in circles without any variables which can be seen as tangible or quantifiable.
We could continue this insanity – the process of trying to define matter time or distance in some realistic framework – but there is no realistic framework into which to place anything. Basically, all is illusion and there is no reality; at least not in a world where everything, ultimately, is defined as simply itself ... that is mass is mass, time is time, distance is distance and energy is the three manipulated against themselves ... All is illusionary
This reduces things to the point where all is consciousness and there is no reality beyond thought and the constrains we impose on our own thoughts. This raises the problem of “we.”
There cannot be a collective “we”, without the ability to agree on rules – which we know is beyond the scope of human behavior. It is therefore likely that there is only one source for the rules. A single source because all rules governing what we think of as a physical universe are consistently perceived.
Yeeks and gad zuks ... does that mean logical and math forces the existence of a single deity and that we are all a thought or illusion or delusion within the consciousness of that entity? All collective consciousness is only a single consciousness playing mental gymnastics with possibilities as constrained by a predetermined construct of its own making? Or is the construct of the making of a different entity? One being manipulated as a thought exercise assigned to the entity in control of what we consider reality?
Miracles would be rule breaking – exceptions without any relevancy to the physical construct assigned. Therefore they cannot be widely repeated; and if occurring cannot have any actual rational effect, or influence on the outcome. Basically, if the consciousness cheats they either are cheating themselves, or their teacher. The teacher will know from the process that the cheating occurred and therefore would either permit it – as a short cut – or punish it. Punishment would be the termination of the exercise – failing the student. Or, if only one consciousness, the thought exercise and “miracle” is, in the long run, irrelevant because it is the game being played by the rule maker for their own purpose.
Imagine reality as a single celled amoeba – who is unaware of other amoeba, who are engaged in a similar exercise – performing mental gymnastics for the exclusive purpose of maintaining its (their) own sanity. Now imagine these amoeba exist in the consciousness of another; existing in the consciousness of another; existing in the consciousness of another – and continue that that thought until you reach the origin consciousness.
Fun thing – the chain is infinite. It is also finite. Finite in the sense that there need be only the source consciousness – a consciousness believing it is within a sequence; but ultimately recognizing that it is the beginning and the end of that sequence.
You have to get out of your seat and walk away from your computer. People may think you're crazy. But it's well worth it. :)
When you look at this picture close up, you see Albert Einstein, but if you stand about fifteen feet away, the picture will become Marilyn Monroe.
I was sent the following by my manager. I managed to solve it on paper, see if you can solve it.....
------------------------------------------------------------
Einstein's Puzzle
Variations of this riddle appear on the net from time to time. It is sometimes attributed to Albert Einstein and it is claimed that 98% of the people are incapable of solving it. Some commentators suggest that Einstein created such puzzles not to test out intelligence but to get rid of all the students who wanted him as an advisor. It is not likely that there is any truth to these stories. Whereever this comes from, it is a nice riddle.
Let us assume that there are five houses of different colors next to each other on the same road. In each house lives a man of a different nationality. Every man has his favorite drink, his favorite brand of cigarettes, and keeps pets of a particular kind.
- The Englishman lives in the red house.
- The Swede keeps dogs.
- The Dane drinks tea.
- The green house is just to the left of the white one.
- The owner of the green house drinks coffee.
- The Pall Mall smoker keeps birds.
- The owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhills.
- The man in the center house drinks milk.
- The Norwegian lives in the first house.
- The Blend smoker has a neighbor who keeps cats.
- The man who smokes Blue Masters drinks bier.
- The man who keeps horses lives next to the Dunhill smoker.
- The German smokes Prince.
- The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.
- The Blend smoker has a neighbor who drinks water.
The question to be answered is: Who keeps fish?
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
