The physicist Leo Szilard once announced to his friend Hans Bethe that he was thinking of keeping a diary: “I don’t intend to publish. I am merely going to record the facts for the information of God.” “Don’t you think God knows the facts?” Bethe asked. “Yes,” said Szilard. “He knows the facts, but He does not know this version of the facts.” -Hans Christian von Baeyer, Taming the Atom
This was taken from a Friendster post.
I will give some tips the of E=MC2
Back to physics... If gravity is thought of as Affinity, attraction of one thing to another, as a planet to its Sun, or a son to it's father...
...And we replace the speed of light(which is not constant because different wavelengths of electromagnetic energy[Light] travel at different speeds,) with affinity or Love...
We can have E=Mass(x)Affinity, or Theta, or Love. If E=ML, then speed, or rate, is an uneccessary factor. And the speed of light is too slow, even for physics.
Intergalactic transport will only be possible when we increase the 'speed of', by orders of magnitude greater than "C2". So space travel outside our galaxy is "impossible"?
C2's not good enough.
In E=ML, we get a flow, in place of a blast. Harmony for chaos. Instead of a big bang, maybe it was more of a feminine sigh. Maybe it was, is, her song without end. "Like a sweet breeze on a field."
The earliest account of the word "God", I have ever been able to find is -'good'.Nice tip we have here...but I’m afraid it has nothing to do with E=mc2.
First of all we can’t compare gravity to the affection of a son to a father...This is another of those Christian’s false analogy claptraps. Gravity is not about feelings. Simply put it, gravity is the force of attraction between all masses in the universe; especially the attraction of the earth's mass for bodies near its surface.
Oh and if we use the word “attraction” we are not talking about a quality that aroused interest. Hmmmmm...Metaphorical language has its limits.
Back to science... E =mc2 relates the mass m of a body to an equivalent rest energy; “e” where c is a universal constant, the speed of light in a vacuum. That is, a body at rest still contains energy. The one who wrote that “Christian twaddle” forgot that the speed of light that Einstein was talking about is in a vacuum which is constant. That’s what the “C2” is is all about.
We can have E=Mass(x)Affinity, or Theta, or Love. If E=ML, then speed, or rate, is an uneccessary factor. And the speed of light is too slow, even for physics.If Energy is equal to Mass(x) Affinity, or Theta, or Love what happened? Well, then modern physics falls apart. Love is a process of thought...and the speed of impulses through the neurons of our brains is as the same speed of a donkey cart. So that means the energy/matter will not be converted fast enough.
E =mc2 explained how radiation worked: how a lump of uranium could throw out constant streams of high-level energy without melting away like an ice cube. (It could do it by converting mass to energy extremely efficiently à la E =mc2.) It explained how stars could burn for billions of years without racing through their fuel. Most of all, it showed that the speed of light was constant (Unlike the Christian/believer’s claim) and supreme. Nothing could overtake it. Replacing the equation with love will not explain anything.
Now E =mc2 has nothing to do with love, emotions and so forth. E =mc2 is really simple. What the equation says is that mass and energy have equivalence. They are two forms of the same thing: energy is liberated matter; matter is energy waiting to happen. Since c2 (the speed of light times itself) is a truly enormous number, what the equation is saying is that there is a huge amount—a really huge amount—of energy bound up in every material thing. Relativity means in viewing the Universe, every place is as good as every other place. The Law of Nature must be identical no matter who is describing them.
In E=ML, we get a flow, in place of a blast. Harmony for chaos. Instead of a big bang, maybe it was more of a feminine sigh. Maybe it was, is, her song without end. "Like a sweet breeze on a field."A universe without an end? Ah! You’re suggesting an open universe. A Universe that will expand forever. Hmmmm...If that so then what happened to your “gravity” este loving son and father cant? An open universe betrays your issue of “Affinity, attraction of one thing to another”. A positive cosmological constant acts like a repulsion. Since the cosmological constant is large and positive, it will counteract the tendency of gravity to pull the universe together. If you will insist of an attraction, then gravity will pull the universe together and will collapse.
If the Big Bang is more of a feminine sigh or a sweet breeze on a field, then there is less energy to produce inflation. The best analogy to use with the Big Bang is neither an explosion nor a feminine sigh. The Big Bang is more like an inflating bubble with a dent then, a vast, sudden expansion on a whopping scale. It inflated—in effect ran away with itself, doubling in size every 10-34seconds. The whole episode may have lasted no more than 10-30 seconds—that’s one million million million million millionths of a second—but it changed the universe from something you could hold in your hand to something at least 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger. Inflation theory explains the ripples and eddies that make our universe possible. Without it, there would be no clumps of matter and thus no stars, just drifting gas and everlasting darkness.
Physicists have no way of recognizng emotion as a force that affects the universe, even though here on earth it can topple kingdoms and make humans achieve super-natural performances.
I believe the invisible force scientists are looking for is indeed Love.Sorry to say, “love” is not a force (as physics defines it). It’s a sort of a chemical reaction from the brain. Love is an emotion and it cannot become a force that can affect the universe. Love can’t even change the forces of weather. I think this tripe is quite fit ...for a “Christian” point of view. But this is a pitiable worth to become a good verse for a limerick.
Love has to be an essential metaphsyical attribute radiating in the heart of every atom. If not, from whence did love spring in the first place and what is its purpose for being?
That’s the good news...now for the bad news...
For your information, your atoms don’t actually care about you— indeed, don’t even know that you are there. They don’t even know that they are there. They are mindless particles, after all, and not even themselves alive. Non sentient object doesn’t feel love.
What is the purpose of being? The universe doesn’t care about meaning and purpose. We as sentient beings create our illusions of purpose.
If the Univese is indeed composed of loving atoms, every galaxy must yearn to be reunited
To produce “love” you have to be conscious first. Human thoughts and emotions emerge from exceedingly complex interconnections of physical entities within the brain.
Hope this relate to the E=(MC2) = Love?
Nope...E=mc2 means energy and matter both have mass. We call this “modern physics”.
But then again, physicists have no machine for detecting halos - or the means to measure our out-of-body experiences when we fly towards God when our bodies die.
Supernatural events or objects such as OBE and “halos” are considered to be unknown or beyond human understanding. Yet the same justification makes them totally devoid of content. Physicists are not into studying “empty” claims masqueraded as “knowledge”.
The Bible is a EXACT SCIENCE
A book that says the Earth is flat, that a bat is a bird, that a four-legged insect exist and a circle is 10 cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference is not an exact science my Christian friend.
Albert Einstein Love to read it repeatedly and secretly thats why He said the quote of 99%1% Attitude. He Loves His family and friends and the Next Generation People thats Why he contributed that Formula Whenever there is
Love around there is always Evil as long we are living in this World .
Professor Einstein’ love is not base on biblical nonsense and the reliance to the “supernatural”. For Professor Einstein own quotation, “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'.” Oh and I forgot to mention...according to Prof. Einstien, morality is a human affair.
Remember My face and think all the bad things that you will think in me and you are free to curse me and insult me but I/We MCGI know our TRUE GOD the GOD FATHER ALMIGHTY and Our Lord Jesus Christ the Savior
A face that promotes falsehood and propaganda is easily forgotten. Cursing and insulting such a face is not worth the time and effort.
So does “I/We MCGI know the true God as his claim? Not really...The Father God El, doesn’t have a son that was sacrificed to all mankind. To think of it...the God of the Jewish TANACK never send any of his sons to become a man and to be offered as an offering to the sins of the world. Jews don’t believe that. The Jews also say that Jesus is not the Moshiah (or the anointed one). For the Muslim, the true God is Allah and Jesus is not a savior Hmmmmmm....so that means this “thing” you (I/We MCGI) is not a ‘true” religion after all. Ay! So many religions...so many claims.
Until next time,
John the Atheist
// posted by John the Atheist @
8:27 AM 
