Posts Tagged ‘Albert Einstein’
Einstein Warns Of Zionist Facism In Israel: Open letter to NYT in 1948
Einstein was a staunched Zionist since 1920 and contributed hugely to the establishment of the State of Israel.
However, before and after the establishment of Israel, Einstein realized the ideological nature of Zionism and refused to serve in any official status.
Einstein lambasted the terrorist Zionist organizations against the British mandated power and against the civilian Palestinians. Those terrorist leaders became later Israel Prime Ministers like Menachem Begin, Shamir, Sharon….
Israel refuses to release the documents written by Einstein after the establishment of Israel.
Einstein Letter Warning Of
Zionist Facism In Israel
Letter That Albert Einstein Sent to the New York Times
1948, Protesting the Visit of Menachem Begin
11-1-4
Note: All the massacres against the Palestinians in villages and towns immediately after the declaration if Israel as an independent state were agreed upon and with the blessings of Ben Gurion, first PM and leader of Hagana. Actually the genocide rampages were planned since 1937 in its minute details, the specific villages, the zones and the timing.. |
Hot posts this week (Feb. 20/2014)
- Slavery: Not only in the Middle East
- The World: As seen by Albert Einstein
- Handicapped journalist: Roula Helou Not allowed to board a plane
- Did Instagram Made It? Can’t save video for yourself? How about Glance Video?
- Most powerful woman. Angela Merkel: Good for the world, bad for the Middle-East
- Photographs of Palestinians: Israel Doesn’t Want You To See
- “I am naked”: Lebanon campaign. The government too is totally naked…
- Burning Man Festival? I saw a documentary. What are its secrets again?
- Beirut Rare Green square in Verdun: Cleared for Concrete? High, medium or no Towers?
- Snowden Bombshell: Downloaded All the roster of US public employees…
Universe, Physics, Quantification of Earth: From “A short history of nearly everything” by Bill Bryson
Posted May 24, 2011
on:“A short history of nearly everything” by Bill Bryson
Physics, the quantification of Earth, and the Universe
The physicist Michio Kaku said: “In some sense, gravity does not exist; what moves the planets and stars is the distortion of space and time.”
Gravity is not a force but a byproduct of the warping of space-time, the “ultimate sagging mattress”.
This new understanding of the universe that time is an intrinsic dimension as space was offered by Albert Einstein through his Special Theory of Relativity.
Among other principles, Einstein realized that matter is energy that can be released under specific conditions so that energy is defined as the product of mass and the square of the speed of light c = 300,000 km/s.
In his attempt to unify classical and relativity laws, Einstein offered his General Theory of Relativity and introduced a constant in the formula to account for a stable Universe. Einstein declared that this constant was “the blunder of his life”, but scientists are now trying to calculate this constant because the universe is not only expanding but the galaxies are accelerating their flight away from the Milky Way.
In 1684, Edmond Halley, a superb scientist in his own right and in many disciplines, and the inventor of the deep-sea diving bell, visited Isaac Newton at Cambridge and asked him what is the shape of the planetary paths and the cause of these specific courses. Newton replied that it would be an ellipse and that he did the calculation, but could not retrieve his papers. The world had to wait another two years before Newton produced his masterwork: “Mathematical Principles of natural Philosophy” or better known as the “Principia”.
Newton set the three laws of motion and that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. His formula stated that force is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of their corresponding distances. The constant of gravity was introduced, but would wait for Henri Cavendish to calculate it.
It is to be noted that most of his life, Newton was more serious in alchemy and religion than in anything else.
Henry Cavendish was born from a dukes families and was the most gifted English scientist of his age; he was shy to a degree bordering on disease since he would not meet with anyone and, when he visited the weekly scientific soirees of the naturalist Sir Joseph Banks, guests were advised not to look him straight in the face or address him directly.
Cavendish turned his palace into a large laboratory and experimented with electricity, heat, gravity, gases, and anything related to matter. He was the first to isolate hydrogen, combine it with oxygen to form water. Since he barely published his works many of his discoveries had to wait a century for someone else to re-discover the wheel.
For example, Cavendish anticipated the law of the conservation of energy, Ohm’s law, Dalton’s law of partial pressures, Richter’s law of reciprocal proportions, Charles’ law of gases, and the principles of electric conductivity. He also foreshadowed the work of Kelvin on the effect of tidal friction on slowing the rotation of the earth, and the effect of local atmospheric cooling, and on and on. He used to experiment on himself as many scientists of his century did, such as Benjamin Franklin, Pilate de Rozier, and Lavoisier.
In 1797, at the age of 67, Cavendish assembled John Michell’s apparatus that contained two 350-pound lead balls, which were suspended beside two smaller spheres. The idea was to measure the gravitational deflection of the smaller spheres by the larger ones to calculate the gravitational constant of Newton.
Cavendish took up position in an adjoining room and made his observations with a telescope aimed through a peephole. He evaluated Earth weight to around 13 billion pounds, a difference of 1% of today’s estimate and an estimate that Newton made 110 years ago without experimentation.
John Michell was a country parson who also perceived the wavelike nature of earthquakes, envisioned the possibility of black holes, and conducted experiments in magnetism and making telescopes. Michell died before he could use his apparatus which was delivered to Cavendish.
The 18^{th} century was feverish in measuring Eart: its shape, dimensions, volumes, mass, latitude and longitude, distance from the sun and planets and they came close to the present measurement except its longivity, and had to wait till 1953 for Clair Patterson (a male geologist) to estimate it to 4,550 million years using lead isotopes in rocks that were created through heating.
Nature is worth a set of equations; (Nov. 17, 2009)
I have been reading speeches and comments of Albert Einstein, a great theoretical physicist in the 20^{th} century.
Einstein is persuaded that mathematics, exclusively, can describe and represent nature’s phenomena; that all nature’s complexities can be comprehend and imagined as the simplest system in concepts and principles.
The fundamental creative principle resides in mathematics. And formulas have to be the simplest and most beautifully general. Mathematical concepts can be suggested by experience, the unique criteria of utilization of a mathematical construct.
I got into thinking.
I read this dictum when I was graduating in physics and I have been appreciating this recurring philosophy ever since. The basic goal in theoretical physics for over a century was to discover the all encompassing field of energy that can unite the varieties of fields that experiments have been popping up to describing particular phenomena in nature, such as electrical and magnetic fields as well as all these “weak” and “stronger” fields of energy emanating from atoms, protons, and all the varieties of smaller elements.
I got into thinking.
Up until the first quarter of the 20^{th} century most experiments in natural sciences were done by varying one factor at a time; experiments never used more than one independent variable and more than one dependent variable (objective measuring variable or the data). Even today, most engineers perform these kinds of totally inefficient and worthless experiments: no interactions among variables can be analyzed, the most important and fundamental intelligences in all kinds of sciences. These engineers have simply not been exposed to experimental designs in their required curriculum!
Although the theory of probability was very advanced, the field of practical statistical analysis of data was not yet developed; it was real pain and very time consuming doing all the computations by hand for slightly complex experimental designs.
Sophisticated and specialized statistical packages constructs for different fields of research evolved after the mass number crunchers of computers were invented.
Consequently, early theoretical scientists refrained from complicating their constructs simply because they had to solve their exercises and compute them by hand in order to verify their contentious theories.
Thus, theoretical scientists knew that the experimental scientists could not practically deal with complex mathematical constructs and would refrain from undertaking complex experiments in order to confirm or refute any complex construct.
The trend, paradigm, or philosophy for the theoretical scientists was to promoting the concept that theories should be the simplest with the least numbers of axioms (fundamental principles); they did their best to imagining one general causative factor that affected the behavior of natural phenomena or would be applicable to most natural phenomena.
When Einstein mentioned that equations should be beautiful in their simplicity he had not in mind graphic design; he meant they should be simple for computations.
This is no longer the case.
Nature is complex; no matter how you control and restrict the scope of an experiment in order to reducing the numbers of manipulated variables to a minimum there are always more than one causative factor that are interrelated and interacting to producing effects.
Currently, physicist and natural scientists can observe many independent variables and several dependent variables and analyze huge number of data points.
Still, nature variables are countable and pretty steady over the experiment. Unlike experiments involving” human subjects” that are in the hundreds and hard and sensitive to control.
Man is far more complex than nature to study his behavior.
Psychologists and sociologists have been using complex experimental designs for decades in order to study man’s behavior and his hundreds of physical and mental characteristics and variability.
All kinds of mathematical constructs were developed to aid “human scientists” perform experiments commensurate in complexity with the subject matter.
The dependent variables had no longer to be objectively measurable and many subjective criteria were adopted.
Certainly, “human scientists” did not have to know the mathematical constructs that the statistical packages were using, just the premises that justified their appropriate use for their particular field.
Anyway, these mathematical models were pretty straightforward and no sophisticated mathematical concepts were used: the human scientists should be able to understand the construct if they desired to go deeper into the program without continuing higher mathematical education.
Nature is complex, though far less complex than human variability.
Theoretical natural scientists should acknowledge that complexity. And studying nature is worth a set of equations!
Simple and beautiful general equations are out the window. There are no excuses for engineers and natural scientists for not expanding their imagination and focusing their intuition on complex constructs that may account for many causative factors and analyzing simultaneously many variables for their interactions.
There are no excuses that experimental designs are not set up to handle three independent variables (factors) and two dependent variables; the human brain is capable of visualizing the interactions of 9 combinations of variables two at a time.
Certainly, scientists can throw in as many variables as they need and the powerful computers will crunch the numbers as easily and as quickly as simple designs; the problem is the interpretation part of the reams and reams of results.
Worst, how your audience is to comprehend your study?
A set of coherent series of relatively complex experiments can be designed to answer most complex phenomena and yet be intelligibly interpreted.
It is time to account for all the possible causatives factors, especially those that are rare in probability of occurrence (at the very end tail of probability graphs) or for their imagined little contributing effects: it is those rare events that have surprised man with catastrophic consequences.
If complex human was studied with simple sets of equations THEN nature is also worth sets of equations.
Be bold and make these equations as complex as you want; the computer would not care as long as you understand them for communication sake.