Do You Guys Believe Einstein's Theories?

[timwakefield 68]

This could have gone in the evolution thread, but I felt like it needed a new one.Alright - here's what I can remember about Einstein's theories. This is off the top of my head, not Wikipedia or anything. Ok so he had the theory of relativity and the theory of special relativity, and I think the latter had the major breakthrough but I might be wrong. Anyways, he figured out that space and time are interconnected, and that an object with mass will 'bend' space-time (I think?) and that if an object is moving with a different relative speed than another object it will have a different timeline, and that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared, oh and also that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. So all of these ideas had huge implications, and have since been verified and also altered as we learn more and are able to run new experiments. I think the first verifications came through observing a specific eclipse decades after he published his theories. Anyways my point is this: Einstein is totally accepted, right? YECs aren't trying to get special relativity erased from textbooks, are they? BG, Lois, Hollywood, etc etc - do you guys believe in Einstein's theories? If yes, how come? I consider myself well-educated, and that I have a reasonable understanding of basic scientific ideas. But as you can see, I really don't understand how or WHY Einstein's ideas are true, or really what they all are. Example number 2: Through what verifications have you decided that the sun is the center of our solar system? I mean, really it's impossible to argue against at this point in history, you would be laughed at if you seriously tried to prove the sun revolves around the earth. But how do we know? Again I'm not looking it up, the point is that here is my personal knowledge on it: Shit I dunno, they figured it out by looking at the sky and keeping good records. Copernicus certainly wasn't the first to suggest it, but it became widely acknowledged and proved by and after him. What is my point here?? That there are so many complex scientific processes that we take for granted as being understood and being true, and if we take the time to learn more about we can understand why we know they are true, so wtf is your problem with evolution??

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Honestly.... I would have to Wiki Einstein and that would be cheating. If you list a specific theory... I'll answer it.As for the sun being the center of the universe..... yes I accept that theory. I "believe" that it is and the Earth revolves around it.Why? I don't know why. Haven't given it that much thought.Do I believe matter can not be created nor destroyed? Ummm... sounds good.If you are trying to interweave acceptance of physics and theorems with religious beliefs... I don't want to play. (joke)I'm not one of those Christians that feels the charge to convince a non-believer that he/she is wrong. I have chosen Christianity as my religion and I "believe" that Jesus is the messiah. If you don't .... that's cool with me.I have no problem with evolution. It's the "which came first...the chicken or the egg" thing. Even if everything came from something... there had to be a "Day One" and how did that happen?

[brvheart 1,752]

Honestly.... I would have to Wiki Einstein and that would be cheating. If you list a specific theory... I'll answer it.

Honestly.... I guarantee Tim doesn't care about your opinion at all. but ever since you changed your avatar I'm on your side... so FUCK YOU TIM!

[David_Nicoson 1]

As for the sun being the center of the universe..... yes I accept that theory.

[pedantic goof]The sun is the center of our solar system but not of the universe.[/pedantic goof]

[jday561 0]

Einstein is bologneeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[HollywoodAFD 0]

[pedantic goof]The sun is the center of our solar system but not of the universe.[/pedantic goof]

That's what you think.*evil laugh*

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I do. But then again I can derive most of Einstein's principles from his Axioms (obvious brag post).

[timwakefield 68]

If you list a specific theory... I'll answer it.

Light travels at a constant speed (called C) regardless of the motion of the observer.But my question was more directed at people who don't agree with the theory of evolution, and I guess you aren't one of those people?

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Hasn't quantum theory poked major holes in relativity, or did I just misremember some light weight physics for dummies book I read one time?

[BuffDan 0]

Hasn't quantum theory poked major holes in relativity, or did I just misremember some light weight physics for dummies book I read one time?

As far as I know (as a person who minored in physics and reads the "popular" books on the subject but has no exact knowledge of it) both general relativity and quantum mechanics have been shown to agree with experiment to an insane amount of precision. So both work very well in the domains we use them; relativity in the case when things are very massive and quantum mechanics in the case where things are very small.The problem happens when things are very massive and very small (like black holes or the early universe); then the two theories are contradictory. But again, both work very well in domains where the other has a small effect (either large and massive, where quantum effects can be ignored or small and light, where gravity, and thus general relativity, can be ignored).

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

As far as I know (as a person who minored in physics and reads the "popular" books on the subject but has no exact knowledge of it) both general relativity and quantum mechanics have been shown to agree with experiment to an insane amount of precision. So both work very well in the domains we use them; relativity in the case when things are very massive and quantum mechanics in the case where things are very small.The problem happens when things are very massive and very small (like black holes or the early universe); then the two theories are contradictory. But again, both work very well in domains where the other has a small effect (either large and massive, where quantum effects can be ignored or small and light, where gravity, and thus general relativity, can be ignored).

Which is why the grand unification theory is all the rage, and the hopes of Elves and men rest on a vibrating string.

[jday561 0]

whoa this thread is confusing already

[BuffDan 0]

Also, the two theories of relativity are special relativity and general relativity. Special relativity deals with objects moving at constant velocity; it says, in particular, that since the speed of light remains constant independent of one's speed, it must be the case that time runs more slowly for those moving at higher speeds. Also, the length of things measured will be different depending on people's relative speeds.General relativity deals with objects which are accelerating or decelerating, and says that the effects of gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable from each other; in simple terms, the feeling that you feel when your car is accelerating and the feeling that you feel when you are standing on the earth are the same. This is the theory that deals with matter warping space and time, and things like that.It is true that scientists were able to combine special relativity and quantum mechanics; it is just general relativity that has been shown to be inconsistent with QM. Basically, as I understand it, gravity requires space to have a certain degree of "smoothness" and QM says that, on very small scales at least, space is more and more turbulent and thus is the opposite of smooth.

[timwakefield 68]

Through what verifications have you decided that the sun is the center of our solar system? I mean, really it's impossible to argue against at this point in history,

I guess I was wrong.http://www.geocentricity.com/(yes, really)

This site is devoted to the historical relationship between the Bible and astronomy. It assumes that whenever the two are at variance, it is always astronomy—that is, our "reading" of the "Book of Nature," not our reading of the Holy Bible—that is wrong. History bears consistent witness to the truth of that stance.

[davezz5 0]

What propels light forward? Is its range limited by any factors.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

What propels light forward? Is its range limited by any factors.

The love of the baby jesus?

[davezz5 0]

The love of the baby jesus?

That seems quite feasible. Also does light in motion travel faster than static light? E.g: at point A you have a light source that's static, at point B you have a moving light source, such as a light on a bicycle. If you two light sources were created at the same time, would the light source attached to the bike traveling at 25 miles an hour reach its destination first?

[BuffDan 0]

I guess I was wrong.http://www.geocentricity.com/(yes, really)

Wow. Just, wow.Back to the topic of your thread, I do think that relativity is easier to believe than evolution for a couple of reasons. One is that the principles it follows from (that one cannot distinguish between constant velocity and rest, that one cannot distinguish between acceleration and gravity, the speed of light is constant for all observers) are fairly simple to grasp, and each of them can be tested, in principle, today, whereas evolution requires us to look through the fossil record, and its proof is more of a statistical variety. But the fact that we cannot test it "now" (or at least the more radical aspects of it, since they take place over millions of years) I think psychologically is harder to deal with. To expand upon this, the fact that we can say this fossil is 50 thousand years old while this one is 2.3 million years old I think bugs people; after all, who was around at that time to verify this. Now, what they don't realize is that we have several independent ways of checking these dates, and that the science that we use to check these dates is just as reliable as the science we use to check the speed of light or the science we use to go to the moon. But intuitively, I can see how this is hard to deal with.The other main reason, in my opinion, is that the consequences of relativity are of a mathematical and seeming esoteric variety. Whether or not time speeds up or space bends doesn't seem to have any direct effect on people's lives. However, with evolution, we have the idea that we come from the same lineage as apes (or even further back as amoebas and what not), which is deeply disturbing to people who view humans on a unique pedestal.Now, the second reason of course is not a rational reason to accept relativity and not evolution, and its certainly not a rational reason to selectively attack the scientific method, but it is what it. For that matter, the first reason isn't really rational either, since as long there exists evidence that can confirm or falsify a theory, it shouldn't matter if the evidence comes from newly discovered fossils (to which we can date with a high degree of certainty) or an experiment done in a lab.

[crowTrobot 2]

the difference is pretty simple - relativity doesn't challenge the christian egocentric view of humanity like evolution does. it's not responsible for demoting humans to the status of just another animal.

[crowTrobot 2]

As far as I know (as a person who minored in physics and reads the "popular" books on the subject but has no exact knowledge of it) both general relativity and quantum mechanics have been shown to agree with experiment to an insane amount of precision. So both work very well in the domains we use them; relativity in the case when things are very massive and quantum mechanics in the case where things are very small.The problem happens when things are very massive and very small (like black holes or the early universe); then the two theories are contradictory. But again, both work very well in domains where the other has a small effect (either large and massive, where quantum effects can be ignored or small and light, where gravity, and thus general relativity, can be ignored).

that's true, but even for massless particles quantum effects appear to violate relativity, so in terms of physical reality the two theories are intrinsically incompatable regardless of scale. one or the other (or both) pretty much has to be just an approximation of something deeper.

[crowTrobot 2]

It is true that scientists were able to combine special relativity and quantum mechanics; it is just general relativity that has been shown to be inconsistent with QM. Basically, as I understand it, gravity requires space to have a certain degree of "smoothness" and QM says that, on very small scales at least, space is more and more turbulent and thus is the opposite of smooth.

the main problem with GR is that QM effects appear to be intrinsically non-local. that is an "effect" can seem to happen instantly even at a space-like distance, violating the speed of light speed limit.

[BuffDan 0]

that's true, but even for massless particles quantum effects appear to violate relativity, so in terms of physical reality the two theories are intrinsically incompatable regardless of scale. one or the other (or both) pretty much has to be just an approximation of something deeper.

Oh I agree that there must be serious problems with at least one, and probably both of QM and GR; what I should have said was that in most situations, we can effectively ignore either one or the other, much like how in most cases we can use Newtonian gravity as a very good approximation, even though it is fundamentally flawed.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Is it possible to be both a Christian and believe in Evolution...or at least parts of the theory of Evolution?I think it's possible that perhaps the bible just skipped over or jumped ahead to the day man was human. Just believing that one day God made homo sapiens is harder to grasp than if God made a life form who then evolved into a free thinking life form and then perhaps questioned how this life form came to be. Just the theory of evolution alone, for me, is harder to grasp than what I just explained... there had to be day one.OR... it could be possible that our brains just aren't capable of understanding how life began. Much like if you put a DVD in your VCR of try to load a MAC program on your PC... it just can't understand it. That's how I explain it to my children at least. Did I get off topic?Oh well.... Light travels at a constant speed ... yes. Relatively so. I'll accept that.2 objects can not occupy the same place at the same time... I'll accept that one too.To believe all Christians thinks alike is as shallow as a Christians saying all non-believers are going to hell.I actually am more of a scientific thinker in day to day happenings...I just stray a bit off the scientific path when it comes to religion because I actually do believe there is something more. And I do believe that Jesus is the messiah. Are all parts of the bible accurate. Not a chance.Was Jesus crucified? 100% so.Did he rise from the dead? Absolutlely*gasp*I strayed.... sorry.I'll take this to another thread later. You know how people love when I started a thread.

[Loismustdie 0]

I don't really care enough to think about it. I challenge evolution based on the fact that it's a back door way to usurp God in the minds of children. Oh, of course it doesn't actually state that there is no God, but it certainly makes him less likely, blah blah something Crow would say blah.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

I challenge evolution based on the fact that it's a back door way to usurp God in the minds of children.

that's both funny and sad.