Tumgik
#Einsteinian Physics
tmarshconnors · 4 months
Text
"There will come a time when the rich own all the media, and it will be impossible for the public to make an informed opinion."
Tumblr media
Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist who is widely held to be one of the greatest and most influential scientists of all time. 
Born: 14 March 1879, Ulm, Germany
Died: 18 April 1955, Princeton, New Jersey, United States
86 notes · View notes
santoschristos · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media
Center of the Cyclone. Central Heart of the Torus
The Centre of the Torus is a Holographic Heart, meaning that this point or moment of space and time interconnects with every other point of space and time; where all parts are unified; where all dimensions are interconnected.
This means that the old Einsteinian concept of travelling from one planet or star or dimension to another, in a linear fashion, from A to B no longer applies, (Einstein never understood what fractal meant),
because the Holographic Heart suggests that we are already there at our destination, not by physical travelling but by folding time and space in an instant, as if you are folding paper effortlessly from one corner to another; a movement via consciousness.
--Jain 108
53 notes · View notes
lesbian-jolie · 1 year
Text
not to be an absolute nerd about a book series made for 12 years olds but shannon messenger saying that einsteinian relativity isn’t real is so funny because... it’s like the most well understood physical phenomena ever. Like so many different people have proved special relativity it’s so funny.
80 notes · View notes
startswithabang · 1 month
Text
Tumblr media
The true reason why Einstein was history’s greatest physicist
Einstein had an incredible and scientifically prolific life.
But there's one advance, generally, that places him leaps and bounds above all others, even in the minds of most physicists.
19 notes · View notes
oysters-aint-for-me · 6 months
Text
quantum understanding of gender and sexuality in which one’s identity is constantly in motion at a speed so high that it actually defies all known laws of newtonian and einsteinian physics. and if you try to stop the movement at any moment to get a picture of what’s going on, you can either know a person’s gender or their sexuality but never both at the same time. the more accurately you understand their gender the less accurately you understand their sexuality and vice versa. heisenberg’s uncertainty gender.
10 notes · View notes
investmentassistant · 4 months
Text
Einsteinian harmony of the universe: unraveling the mysteries of relativity
In the realm of physics, few concepts have captured the imagination and reshaped our understanding of the cosmos as profoundly as Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Born out of Einstein's insatiable curiosity and quest for a deeper understanding of the universe, the theory has become a cornerstone of modern physics, fundamentally altering the way we perceive space, time, and gravity.
Tumblr media
Einstein's leap of insight
At the dawn of the 20th century, Einstein set out to reconcile the principles of classical mechanics with the behavior of light. This intellectual journey culminated in the formulation of the Theory of Relativity, a revolutionary framework that encompasses both Special and General Relativity.
Special relativity: a cosmic twist on time and space
Special Relativity, the first component of Einstein's theory, introduces us to a cosmic dance where time and space are intertwined. As objects accelerate and approach the speed of light, time dilates, and lengths contract. Concepts like simultaneity and the absolute nature of time give way to a more flexible and dynamic understanding.
General relativity: gravity as the curvature of spacetime
General Relativity extends the theory to include the effects of gravity. Instead of perceiving gravity as a force between masses, Einstein proposed that massive objects, like planets and stars, curve the fabric of spacetime around them. This curvature dictates the motion of objects, giving rise to the familiar force of gravity that we experience.
Everyday impacts: from black holes to GPS
While the concepts might sound esoteric, the Theory of Relativity has practical implications. Black holes, once considered speculative, find their basis in General Relativity. Even the Global Positioning System (GPS) relies on corrections from Special Relativity to provide accurate location data due to the relativistic effects of satellites in motion.
The unfinished symphony: toward a unified theory
Despite its profound success, the Theory of Relativity is not the final chapter in our quest to understand the universe fully. The search for a unified theory, one that seamlessly combines the principles of General Relativity with those of quantum mechanics, remains a frontier of scientific exploration.
Conclusion
Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity stands as a testament to the power of human intellect and curiosity. It has transformed our cosmic perspective, offering a framework to comprehend the vastness of the universe and the intricacies of its fabric. As we continue to peer into the mysteries of space and time, the Theory of Relativity remains a guiding light, illuminating the wondrous and ever-expanding cosmos that surrounds us.
13 notes · View notes
itchy-9884 · 6 months
Text
We live in a Newtonian world of Einsteinian physics ruled by Frankenstein logic.
David Russell
10 notes · View notes
zerogate · 11 months
Text
Eliade founded a certain intellectual lineage at the University of Chicago, a lineage in which I was trained in the 1980s and early ’90s under his successor, Wendy Doniger, herself more than adept at negotiating mind-boggling metaphysical terrain.
This same lineage, as diverse and as contentious as any healthy intellectual community, has occasionally displayed a quite serious engagement with the paranormal. Nowhere is this more apparent and obvious than in Eliade’s fellow Romanian and Chicago colleague Ioan Couliano. Couliano’s lifelong interest in magical and gnostic matters was reflected in a rich personal occult life.
Together at Chicago in the early ’80s, the two men studied what they were calling “cultural fashions” (their code for what I am calling the paranormal in popular culture), and particularly the mysticism of science literature that turned to quantum physics for a theoretical base for a new modern mysticism. Couliano was inspired by this bold comparative literature and by like-minded elite intellectuals, like the Yale literary critic Harold Bloom, who was a fan of Couliano’s and who has written openly about his own gnostic experiences of a transcendent Self separate from the ego and beyond the reach of the orthodox religions.
Couliano was clearly moving toward a fusion of quantum physics and the history of religions before he was murdered in a toilet stall one sad spring day in 1991. Such an attempted fusion of the sciences and the humanities is particularly apparent in Couliano’s study of gnosticism, that strange and largely ignored book, The Tree of Gnosis.
In the introduction to this text, Couliano asks the following crucial question: If we are now living in an Einsteinian space-time continuum determined by three extended dimensions and a fourth of time, the intimate participation of consciousness in the material world, and the metaphysical identity of energy and matter, themselves likely continuously created by utterly bizarre quantum processes that more or less destroy any stable notions of linear causality, time, locality, and independent existence, why are we still writing history as if we only inhabited a simple three-dimensional cosmos, lived in a neat linear time, and existed as so many disconnected billiard balls in a world of Newtonian causality, collisions, and reactions? If the world is so utterly bizarre, why do we pretend it is so simple?
And if we now know that the universe is most certainly not a three-dimensional box or two-dimensional pool table, why do we keep writing history as if it were? Why, in other words, cannot we reimagine history (and hence ourselves) “outside the box” and “off the page” of what Max Weber so powerfully called the iron cage of modern rationalism, order, and routinization?
-- Jeffrey J. Kripal, Authors of the Impossible: The Paranormal and the Sacred
7 notes · View notes
a-typical · 2 years
Photo
Tumblr media
 Let me sum up Einsteinian religion in one more quotation from Einstein himself: 'To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious.' In this sense I too am religious, with the reservation that 'cannot grasp' does not have to mean 'forever ungraspable'. But I prefer not to call myself religious because it is misleading. It is destructively misleading because, for the vast majority of people, 'religion' implies 'supernatural'. Carl Sagan put it well: '. . . if by "God" one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying ... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.'  (The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins)
2 notes · View notes
cerayanay · 2 years
Text
okay rereading that post its not as difficult to understand to non engineers as i thought i just have such a hard time trying to sus out in my brain what is like common knowledge/easy to understand science stuff and what is like inaccessible to nonsicence/lower level education science stuff. Like it's not hard anyone can do it given it's studied, which obviously not a lot of people want to/can do. But I dont want people to think i think they're dumb or talking down to them, but i also dont want to lose them or make them feel like what im saying should be common knowledge bc i dont explain it!
ugh ok sorry for spamming my followers feed but it might genuinely help me if yall could tell me if you havent pursued post highschool science, your age , and which of these u know about/dont know idk however u want to answer and even to what extent of these you know? Send a message, ask, reply, reblog i dont care it would genuinely be a help with day to day conversations. also i know people like to answer things im sorry if this sounds condescending im truly lost and im trying to avoid that!
What a kelvin is
What a joule is
what a reaction rate in chemistry is
what a mole is
Newtonian vs Einsteinian physics
distillation
laws of thermodynamics (this is the big one if anyone can go into depth about any of this part)
These are just the ones that come up often when i talk about school, id appreciate it!
1 note · View note
jonathankatwhatever · 3 months
Text
I am consumed with negative thoughts. It’s 3 Jan 2023, and I’m sitting for the first time on the couch in the living room of the furnished apartment we are now renting. What happens next? I’m in the realm of the over-dramatic, and I’m quite dizzy. Let’s try the stretching idea to recover. I’m forcing focus with my left. I’m seeing a cognitive delay because processing the words through just my left eye is a bit off from the mechanism which runs the other way through my fingers to the screen. In other words, not quite in synch. And trying to put them in synch is sort of sickening, like my eyeball is being pried open as I twist my vision around so I can suddenly see that my right index finger is flying off the keys because there’s a lack of sensation between that and the middle and out to the tip of the ring. I’m now stretching that out. Hurts.
So that was Analytic: the thread had an End, which was that I needed to stretch my right hand now that I don’t have to use it as much. I’m back to using only left eye, and am still having glitches where the image jumps or the wrong letter appears and I don’t just consider that a typo, though it is. So the form of condemnation which Attaches there is different than to the typo occurring when the right is in charge. My left eye depth perception is not very good.
I need to take a nap.
4 Jan 2024. I started reviewing matrices because I wanted to focus in on their nature when related to gs. Not even sure what that sentence means, but it seems to be what I’m doing. Along with graphs, because I’m seeing how the concepts of 1Segment and 1-0Segment enable the various graph forms. Like if you think of SBE as a single cycle, and so on, and then map those to D-structure, then you get a single cycle which is Triangular, meaning it constructs D3.
Oh, here is where the old counting notions come in: a count to D3 is also a count to D4 because the count has to start somewhere and end somewhere to register as a D3. That indeed is crucial to existence. Imagine having a count that doesn’t overlap Start and End. That’s a primitive. That’s where primitives come from.
So, the count of 0 to 1 has to exist. And it’s found in the concet of Ends and Segments, of the Sticks and Stones. Gosh, this is where I thought: Jo Rowling got it so close, because her vision of Dementers is those I know as the Sticks because they are the sticks which hold together the constructions. I mean the construction in abstracted space, the gsSpace which in D3-4 or Einsteinian terms encloses the tangible Objects of physical existence. So when the isolate a region by twisting the connection, they actually do that.
Yesterday, as I was driving and working out the vertigo, I realized that the eye switching, the mind shifting, the person shifting went back to the conception of self I ripped apart in college. But of course what spun that off was the words unification of the selves, which is what I asked to see from you back when I made an incornate identification.
Segments and Ends. Multi-dimensional Ends connected across multi-dimensional pathways. The process by which we bind ourselves runs across the 1-0Segments.
There are ideas I feel uncomfortable saying because they’re encoded in me to such a degree. As in, I though pe’ot and the family jewels.
I’m more comfortable talking about the cat. I realized he’s happy in retirement. He’s had 14 or so years of hunting, which would qualify him for some hall of fame. That’s a long career as a hunting cat. and he leaves the game without a mark on him. He had a lot of skill at the catching part of hunting, but it took him years to learn how to kill. I can’t count how many mice I rescued from the kitchen. Or the ones that got under the fridge. I would look at him and tell him that’s what happens when you play with your food: it escapes. As the chipmunks and rabbits moved in, that’s where he hit his stride. Those aren’t the most difficult prey to catch, but they’re hard to get near. Billy was good at the stalk.
And now? He hasn’t even walked down the steps to the front door. And he barely looks outside. His systems are all normal. His fur is softer than it has ever been. He doesn’t complain. He seeks interaction. He’s curled up on the ottoman which I padded with blankets so it has that soft firmness cats love.
I need some food.
0 notes
macwantspeace · 6 months
Text
And now for a few words from Australia. S Peter Davis in the Plato Was A Dick newsletter.
"However—there is no poetry or justice in this world, and Trump will never fade into obscurity. He’s tapped into a new fundamental force—the Clown Force—and it can’t be reconciled with Einsteinian physics. Trump is now the Cosmic Background Radiation of human news. When you scrape off the layer of current events there’s this omnipresent reality of at least 12 things Donald Trump did before lunch that each deserves its own Gitmo sentence.
And it just. Keeps. Coming."
0 notes
michaelgogins · 7 months
Text
Cosmology and Philosophy
This is my response to "Is There a Crisis in Cosmology?," by Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser, published in the New York Times on September 2, 2023.
TL;DR: I agree that there is a crisis in cosmology, but I do not agree that it is anything other than a normal crisis of the sort that appears in science when successful theories are applied to phenomena that they cannot explain. In other words, I don't think it's wise to take a crisis of this sort as an excuse to think that science must give way to philosophy, or even to religion, to deal with empirical facts. I rather think it means that science will end up finding explanations for the anomalous phenomena discussed in the article, such as "dark matter" and "dark gravity." But it could take a while! After all, it took 228 years after Newton published his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica for Albert Einstein to publish "Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation".
In my view, the notion that the laws of physics evolve over time is a confused argument. If the laws appear to change, what causes this change? The only explanation is that a more fundamental law of physics caused the apparent, or emergent, laws of physics to change. The entire assumption of the scientific method is that the laws of physics are truly universal and apply in all places, at all times, to all objective phenomena.
It is entirely possible that a more fundamental law of physics describes a symmetry (most laws of physics in field theories are symmetries) that for one reason or another was broken, leading to new "emergent" or apparent laws of physics, early in our universe. This would be just like a phase change, as if the whole universe before our universe was liquid, but then flashed into steam, and that steam is our universe. But far from being any change in the way physics thinks, it is a more fundamental application of the same old way of thinking pioneered by Galileo and Newton.
The difficulties that science encounters in trying to model the physical world -- all of it, the whole universe -- from within the physical world are real. These difficulties most likely have nothing at all to do with philosophy or with consciousness as such. Rather, I believe, it means that the evolution of physical phenomena from the truly fundamental physical laws is chaotic, and that means that some well-formed statements about the physical world are simply undecidable. It's not that laws to do not apply, it means that the laws cannot be used to prove that some particular physical state actually follows from the laws. For example, there is a phenomenon in physics known as the "spectral gap." The gap is the energy difference between the ground state of a system and its first excited state. It has been proved that, in a toy physical universe with only 2 dimensions that is infinite in extent, the spectral gap is not computable. This does not mean that the gap is not real. It is. This does not mean that the gap does not have an actual value. It does. But it does, however, mean that the actual value cannot be computed.
The kinds of difficulties being encountered in cosmology today are nothing new and have nothing to do with the validity, or invalidity, or limits, of the scientific method. Ptolemy explained the motions of the planets very well, but his theory kept getting more and more complex, but then Copernicus came up with a better and simpler explanation. Newtonian gravity explains the motions of heavenly bodies very well, but not the retrograde motion of Mercury, but then Einsteinian gravity does explain it. Now there is dark matter and dark energy, and I am quite willing to bet that a new theory will explain these things very well without needing to change the scientific method or the fundamental assumptions baked into it.
The question hinted at by Frank and Gleiser is whether human consciousness is somehow required to complete the laws of physics. This is a subtle issue. In my view, the reality of human consciousness, agency, and moral responsibility is at least as fundamental as the laws of physics. After all, science and the laws of physics, as human activities, are based upon human sense perceptions, reason, and actions. And if we get stuck in doing physics for another 228 years, the only way we can make progress is by continuing to apply these informal powers. Only about 121 more years to go!
To question the reality and effectiveness of informal powers, is to question the reality and effectiveness of the laws of physics produced by them. But I believe it is a category mistake to think that consciousness is required to be effective in the same sense as the symmetries underlying fundamental theories. Think, if you will, like a theist (I am a theist). This would involve miracles. God would have to stick his pinkies through the curtain and fiddle with the dolls on his little stage. And that would imply, in turn, that God is not really God. That kind of a God would, in reality, be a part of Nature, not utterly beyond and above Nature. And we, if we are made in the image of God, as I think we are, must transcend the world in the same way. Far from implying that God did not really create the world from nothing, or that we do not really have freedom or the gift and burden of moral responsibility, it gives God, and us, the absolute freedom, beyond all time and space, that we do have.
0 notes
Quote
We live in a Newtonian world of Einsteinian physics ruled by Frankenstein logic.
Wile E. Coyote 
1 note · View note
reasonandmeaning · 1 year
Text
Time, Death, and the Meaning of Life
In my last post, I reviewed Sabine Hossenfelder’s Existential Physics: A Scientists Guide To Life’s Biggest Questions. However, I failed to comment on one of its essential passages concerning time, death, and meaning. It involves the block universe or eternalism, the Einsteinian idea that “there is no basis for singling out a present time that separates the past from the future because all times…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
0 notes
ahiesfr · 1 year
Text
‘The Case Against Reality’ and The Hard Problem of Consciousness’ by Professor Donald D. Hoffman
In ‘The Case Against Reality’ and The Hard Problem of Consciousness’ the cognitive scientist Donald D. Hoffman addresses two long-standing philosophical issues: the metaphysical issues concerning the first cause or principle of reality ('What is the nature of reality?'), and the epistemological issue concerning the nature, limits, and purposes of human knowledge ('How do we know reality?').
At the beginning of the podcast, Professor Hoffman recalls two well-known scientific theses: (a) the fundamental nature of reality is space and time (naturalism), and (b) consciousness can be explained by resorting to mechanical systems – more precisely, to the neural system (physicalism). The latter thesis is one of the current scientific approaches to the ‘Hard Problem of Consciousness’, i.e., the problem of determining what grounds phenomenal consciousness (‘what it is like for me’). He then goes on to address the epistemological relation between consciousness and reality. Here Professor Hoffman rejects the main thesis of Darwin’s natural selection theory. He does so by resorting to the concept of payoff function — a function used by mathematicians to model human behaviour. In a nutshell, he says that there is no homomorphism between our perceptive systems and the world out there. Evolutionary theorists, therefore, have wrongly overestimated sensory perception by considering it as able to grasp reality in its entirety. In fact, Professor Hoffman continues, perception gives us access only to that which can best guide our adaptive skills. This is the “Fitness-Beats-Truth” (FBT) thesis: “our perceptual systems have evolved to provide a species-specific interface to guide adaptive behaviour, and not to provide a veridical representation of objective reality” (As Prakash et al. 2020).
Let me now turn to the above-mentioned scientific approach to the ‘hard problem’. According to Professor Hoffman, that approach is reductionist and should be rejected. First, in opposition to (a) naturalism, he recalls how the space-time model advocated by the classical (Einsteinian) physics can no longer be considered as the fundamental structure of reality. Second, he argues against (b) physicalism by advocating for a non-physicalist understanding of the nature of consciousness. His reasoning goes as follows: if space and time are no longer the holy grail of physics, then also neurons ought not to be thought as the building blocks of consciousness. Indeed, neurons are nothing more than little spatial elements placed in time.
Learning motivation and outcome
I chose this topic because I am interested in interdisciplinary approaches to issues concerning the perception of reality. In particular, I was keen to see how Professor Hoffman’s combination of philosophy and cognitive science contributes to a better understanding of consciousness.
What I find particularly appealing about Professor Hoffman’s research is the dialectic he creates between space-time and consciousness. With the overcoming of naturalism, the traditional understanding of space-time as containing, among other things, consciousness is, for Professor Hoffman, to be replaced by a new model: it is not consciousness that is in space and time, but rather space and time that are inside consciousness – in the form of data structure. Now, if this is the case, then consciousness itself is to be considered as the most fundamental reality, the real archē. Notwithstanding the potential solipsistic implications of such an approach, I believe that Professor Hoffman’s research can provide important scientific insights to researchers working not only in the cognitive science field, but also in non- (strictly speaking) scientific disciplines dealing with the nature of consciousness, for example, phenomenology.
Donald D. Hoffman’s Profile
Donald D. Hoffman is Full Professor of Cognitive Science at the University of California, Irvine, where he holds joint appointments in three departments: the Department of Philosophy, the Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, and the School of Computer Science. His research interests span Vision, Cognitive Science, Consciousness, and Evolution of Perception. He was awarded the Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution of the American Psychological Association, the Rustum Roy Award of the Chopra Foundation, and the Troland Research Award of the US National Academy of Sciences. Professor Hoffman has published extensively on issues concerning perception, evolution, and consciousness. Among his publications, ought to be mentioned The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes (published by W. W. Norton & Company in 2019), which was shortlisted for the Physics World’s 2019 Book of the Year.
0 notes