Christianity QA

Question:

Bill said: Well, actually – light has BOTH the characteristics of a wave and a particle.   So in a sense it is both – a hybrid. Actually, the most appropriate descriptor for light would probably be "wavicle" (and NO, I’m not kidding). Michaela: and that is what I saw in the text. For me it is a wonderful way to talk about duality. (To me it’s not necessary tounderstand quantum physics and the like in order to have a "sense" of what it’s about.) – Michaela

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Doug Anderson wrote: > "Tai" <tainu…@yahoo.com> writes: >> Doug Anderson wrote: >>> With light, not really; in theory it is possible to have a device >>> which cancels the light but no one has built one.  If you think of >>> light as a wave (which you really shouldn’t) then you need a device >>> that produces a cancelling wave.  I really don’t know if this could >>> even be done theoretically, but I _think_ it is supposed to be >>> possible. >> Those headset devices that cancel out sound by generating opposing sound >> waves – to get rid of background noise  - look pretty interesting. Have you >> ever tried one? I’m waiting until one of my friends decides that’s the next >> toy they desperately need to have. > They’re very cool.  They work well on low-frequency background noise. > A friend tells me that on the plane, they cancel out a lot of the > engine noise with the result that suddenly you can hear all the > conversations around you which you would normally be unaware of! >         Doug

Yeah, but you can get to a point where you can do that yourself, if you have enough mental control.  You just need to tune the (upstairs) notch filter correctly.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -"Tai" <tainu…@yahoo.com> writes: > Doug Anderson wrote: > > With light, not really; in theory it is possible to have a device > > which cancels the light but no one has built one.  If you think of > > light as a wave (which you really shouldn’t) then you need a device > > that produces a cancelling wave.  I really don’t know if this could > > even be done theoretically, but I _think_ it is supposed to be > > possible. > Those headset devices that cancel out sound by generating opposing sound > waves – to get rid of background noise  - look pretty interesting. Have you > ever tried one? I’m waiting until one of my friends decides that’s the next > toy they desperately need to have.

They’re very cool.  They work well on low-frequency background noise. A friend tells me that on the plane, they cancel out a lot of the engine noise with the result that suddenly you can hear all the conversations around you which you would normally be unaware of!         Doug

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Doug Anderson wrote: > "Bill in Co." <surly12curmudg…@earthlink.net> writes: >> Doug Anderson wrote: >>> Ellie <ellie_fi…@hotmail.com> writes: >>>> Tai wrote: >>>>> Tony Miller wrote: >>>>>> We measure heat.  We measure light.  We don’t measure cold or >>>>>> darkness. >>>>> Not really,  we measure temperature and we experience different >>>>> temperatures as heat, warmth, cold etc. Heat and cold and light and >>>>> darkness are what we call different points or values on two >>>>> different sliding scales, one of temperature and the other the >>>>> electromagnetic spectrum which encompasses far more than what is >>>>> actually visible to human eyes. >>>>> (someone else explain this better, please) >>>> You explained it pretty well, but my mind is toast tonight and can’t >>>> grasp deep concepts like sliding scales and electromagnetic spectrum >>>> and stuff! All I know is that if this room that I am sitting in was >>>> dark and I wanted it lit up I had to bring in a source of light, but >>>> if it was lit up and I wanted it dark I couldn’t bring a source of >>>> darkness in, I had to take out (or cover) the source of light. So no >>>> matter how I look at it I am dealing only with *light*. Can you tell >>>> me where I’m going wrong?! >>> With light, not really; in theory it is possible to have a device >>> which cancels the light but no one has built one.  If you think of >>> light as a wave (which you really shouldn’t) then you need a device >>> that produces a cancelling wave.  I really don’t know if this could >>> even be done theoretically, but I _think_ it is supposed to be >>> possible. >> Well, actually – light has BOTH the characteristics of a wave and a >> particle.   So in a sense it is both – a hybrid. >> Actually, the most appropriate descriptor for light would probably be >> "wavicle"  (and NO, I’m not kidding). > Most appropriate is not to think of it as a wave or a particle.  Light > is what it is, and that doesn’t happen to be either a wave or a > particle, though in some respects it has wave-like behavior, and in > other respects it has particle-like behavior. > But those are just models.

I already told ya what it was.    It’s a wavicle!    What’s so hard to understand about that?

Response:

Doug Anderson wrote: > With light, not really; in theory it is possible to have a device > which cancels the light but no one has built one.  If you think of > light as a wave (which you really shouldn’t) then you need a device > that produces a cancelling wave.  I really don’t know if this could > even be done theoretically, but I _think_ it is supposed to be > possible.

Those headset devices that cancel out sound by generating opposing sound waves – to get rid of background noise  - look pretty interesting. Have you ever tried one? I’m waiting until one of my friends decides that’s the next toy they desperately need to have. Tai

Response:

"Bill in Co." <surly12curmudg…@earthlink.net> writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Doug Anderson wrote: > > Ellie <ellie_fi…@hotmail.com> writes: > >> Tai wrote: > >>> Tony Miller wrote: > >>>> We measure heat.  We measure light.  We don’t measure cold or > >>>> darkness. > >>> Not really,  we measure temperature and we experience different > >>> temperatures as heat, warmth, cold etc. Heat and cold and light and > >>> darkness are what we call different points or values on two > >>> different sliding scales, one of temperature and the other the > >>> electromagnetic spectrum which encompasses far more than what is > >>> actually visible to human eyes. > >>> (someone else explain this better, please) > >> You explained it pretty well, but my mind is toast tonight and can’t > >> grasp deep concepts like sliding scales and electromagnetic spectrum > >> and stuff! All I know is that if this room that I am sitting in was > >> dark and I wanted it lit up I had to bring in a source of light, but > >> if it was lit up and I wanted it dark I couldn’t bring a source of > >> darkness in, I had to take out (or cover) the source of light. So no > >> matter how I look at it I am dealing only with *light*. Can you tell > >> me where I’m going wrong?! > > With light, not really; in theory it is possible to have a device > > which cancels the light but no one has built one.  If you think of > > light as a wave (which you really shouldn’t) then you need a device > > that produces a cancelling wave.  I really don’t know if this could > > even be done theoretically, but I _think_ it is supposed to be > > possible. > Well, actually – light has BOTH the characteristics of a wave and a > particle.   So in a sense it is both – a hybrid. > Actually, the most appropriate descriptor for light would probably be > "wavicle"  (and NO, I’m not kidding).

Most appropriate is not to think of it as a wave or a particle.  Light is what it is, and that doesn’t happen to be either a wave or a particle, though in some respects it has wave-like behavior, and in other respects it has particle-like behavior. But those are just models.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Ellie wrote: > Tai wrote: >> Tony Miller wrote: >>> We measure heat.  We measure light.  We don’t measure cold or >>> darkness. >> Not really,  we measure temperature and we experience different >> temperatures as heat, warmth, cold etc. Heat and cold and light and >> darkness are what we call different points or values on two >> different sliding scales, one of temperature and the other the >> electromagnetic spectrum which encompasses far more than what is >> actually visible to human eyes. >> (someone else explain this better, please) > You explained it pretty well, but my mind is toast tonight and can’t > grasp deep concepts like sliding scales and electromagnetic spectrum > and stuff! All I know is that if this room that I am sitting in was > dark and I wanted it lit up I had to bring in a source of light, but > if it was lit up and I wanted it dark I couldn’t bring a source of > darkness in, I had to take out (or cover) the source of light. So no > matter how I look at it I am dealing only with *light*. Can you tell > me where I’m going wrong?!

LOL You just need to invent anti-light particles, Ellie, and sprinkle them around the room…. Tai

Response:

On 09 Dec 2004 09:50:40 -0800, Doug Anderson – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote: > emma_a…@mac.com (Emma Anne) writes: >> Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > michaelamackenzie05072…@yahoo.com writes: >> > (snip) >> > > The young man’s name — Albert Einstein >> > I assume you all realize that OT or not, this story is a fabrication. >> I checked to see if you had answered before I bothered to go to Snopes. >> > OK,  now I’m going to get even more off-topic. > So I find urban legends really interesting.  I think they are stories > that we tell ourselves because we find these stories comforting, or at > least that there is something about them that makes us feel good about > ourselves. > The Einstein urban legend that I’m most aware of is the on which says > that "Einstein flunked math."  (Nothing could be further from the > truth.)  I understand why we like that.  It says that one of the > world’s most brilliant people still had trouble with math (or at least > had trouble with how it was taught in school). > This legend is a bit more mysterious to me.  It pits some poor > anonymous ethics or philosphy professor against someone who is > generally considered to be one of history’s smarter individuals. > Maybe it appeals to our desire to laugh at foolish people, but to be > sure "Einstein’s" argument is pretty weak too, so this university > professor has to be very foolish to not see it coming and to not be > able to rebut it.

So how DO you rebut it?  I have always found the argument compelling.  And having Einstein say it gives it a bit more secular weight than if… say… Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Oral Roberts or the Pope said it? -Tony — "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it’s time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage?  Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Doug Anderson wrote: > Ellie <ellie_fi…@hotmail.com> writes: >> Tai wrote: >>> Tony Miller wrote: >>>> We measure heat.  We measure light.  We don’t measure cold or >>>> darkness. >>> Not really,  we measure temperature and we experience different >>> temperatures as heat, warmth, cold etc. Heat and cold and light and >>> darkness are what we call different points or values on two >>> different sliding scales, one of temperature and the other the >>> electromagnetic spectrum which encompasses far more than what is >>> actually visible to human eyes. >>> (someone else explain this better, please) >> You explained it pretty well, but my mind is toast tonight and can’t >> grasp deep concepts like sliding scales and electromagnetic spectrum >> and stuff! All I know is that if this room that I am sitting in was >> dark and I wanted it lit up I had to bring in a source of light, but >> if it was lit up and I wanted it dark I couldn’t bring a source of >> darkness in, I had to take out (or cover) the source of light. So no >> matter how I look at it I am dealing only with *light*. Can you tell >> me where I’m going wrong?! > With light, not really; in theory it is possible to have a device > which cancels the light but no one has built one.  If you think of > light as a wave (which you really shouldn’t) then you need a device > that produces a cancelling wave.  I really don’t know if this could > even be done theoretically, but I _think_ it is supposed to be > possible.

Well, actually – light has BOTH the characteristics of a wave and a particle.   So in a sense it is both – a hybrid. Actually, the most appropriate descriptor for light would probably be "wavicle"  (and NO, I’m not kidding). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> With heat though, it is pretty clear that the situation is symmetric > although it requires more technology (e.g. air conditioning) to make > "cold" than it does to make "hot." >         Doug

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Ellie <ellie_fi…@hotmail.com> writes: > Tai wrote: > > Tony Miller wrote: > >>We measure heat.  We measure light.  We don’t measure cold or > >>darkness. > > Not really,  we measure temperature and we experience different > > temperatures as heat, warmth, cold etc. Heat and cold and light and > > darkness are what we call different points or values on two > > different sliding scales, one of temperature and the other the > > electromagnetic spectrum which encompasses far more than what is > > actually visible to human eyes. > > (someone else explain this better, please) > You explained it pretty well, but my mind is toast tonight and can’t > grasp deep concepts like sliding scales and electromagnetic spectrum > and stuff! All I know is that if this room that I am sitting in was > dark and I wanted it lit up I had to bring in a source of light, but > if it was lit up and I wanted it dark I couldn’t bring a source of > darkness in, I had to take out (or cover) the source of light. So no > matter how I look at it I am dealing only with *light*. Can you tell > me where I’m going wrong?!

With light, not really; in theory it is possible to have a device which cancels the light but no one has built one.  If you think of light as a wave (which you really shouldn’t) then you need a device that produces a cancelling wave.  I really don’t know if this could even be done theoretically, but I _think_ it is supposed to be possible. With heat though, it is pretty clear that the situation is symmetric although it requires more technology (e.g. air conditioning) to make "cold" than it does to make "hot."         Doug

Response:

Tony Miller wrote: > We measure heat.  We measure light.  We don’t measure cold or > darkness.

Not really,  we measure temperature and we experience different temperatures as heat, warmth, cold etc. Heat and cold and light and darkness are what we call different points or values on two different sliding scales, one of temperature and the other the electromagnetic spectrum which encompasses far more than what is actually visible to human eyes. Tai (someone else explain this better, please)

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Tony Miller <t…@cigardiary.com> writes: > On 09 Dec 2004 16:31:36 -0800, Doug Anderson > <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Tony Miller <t…@cigardiary.com> writes: > >> On 09 Dec 2004 09:50:40 -0800, Doug Anderson > >> <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > emma_a…@mac.com (Emma Anne) writes: > >> >> Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > michaelamackenzie05072…@yahoo.com writes: > >> >> > (snip) > >> >> > > The young man’s name — Albert Einstein > >> >> > I assume you all realize that OT or not, this story is a fabrication. > >> >> I checked to see if you had answered before I bothered to go to Snopes. > >> >> > >> > OK,  now I’m going to get even more off-topic. > >> > So I find urban legends really interesting.  I think they are stories > >> > that we tell ourselves because we find these stories comforting, or at > >> > least that there is something about them that makes us feel good about > >> > ourselves. > >> > The Einstein urban legend that I’m most aware of is the on which says > >> > that "Einstein flunked math."  (Nothing could be further from the > >> > truth.)  I understand why we like that.  It says that one of the > >> > world’s most brilliant people still had trouble with math (or at least > >> > had trouble with how it was taught in school). > >> > This legend is a bit more mysterious to me.  It pits some poor > >> > anonymous ethics or philosphy professor against someone who is > >> > generally considered to be one of history’s smarter individuals. > >> > Maybe it appeals to our desire to laugh at foolish people, but to be > >> > sure "Einstein’s" argument is pretty weak too, so this university > >> > professor has to be very foolish to not see it coming and to not be > >> > able to rebut it. > >> So how DO you rebut it?  I have always found the argument compelling.  And > >> having Einstein say it gives it a bit more secular weight than if… > >> say… Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Oral Roberts or the Pope said > >> it? > > Well, firstly,  Einstein _didn’t_ say it.  the story is a > > fabrication.  So you can forget about whatever extra weight it might > > have had if he did say it. > > As far as rebutting it, there are two obvious problems: > > 1) if you believe that people, god, or anyone can create evil, then > >    you _don’t_ believe that evil is simply the absence of good. > >    Conversely,  if you really believe that evil is simply the absence > >    of good, then no one is capable of doing evil, merely of failing to > >    do good.  And _that_ seems to fly in the face off our experiences. > Why is that?  "*Merely* of failing to do good"?  LOL!!!

Do you really believe that evil is simply the absence of doing good? If you murder someone you haven’t done something bad, you just didn’t do the good thing of letting them live? Can you seriously answer the previous question "yes?" > > 2) The physics is being told in a screwed up way.  If you are going to > >    say that "cold doesn’t exist,  it is just the absence of heat," > >    then you should _really_ say "neither cold not heat exist. > >    Temperature is just the state of excitation of the molecules." > We measure heat.  We measure light.  We don’t measure cold or darkness. > On what planet did you learn science?

A planet where I learned how measuring instruments work. How can you tell from a thermometer that you are measuring heat, and not cold?  (You are really measuring temperature.) More to the point, the email fable does an injustice to both religion and to atheism. There is a genuine and serious question (and assuming your children are at least of normal intelligence, you must have dealt with this question):   "If God is both good and omnipotent, why does he permit evil to   exist?" That question deserves a serious answer, and there are several reasonable, interesting answers.  The fable under discussion provides none of them, and just makes fun of the question. Even though I’m agnostic,  I’ll provide two reasonable answers:   Answer 1: God wants man to have the choice between good and evil,   and there can’t be a real choice unless God allows evil to exist.   Answer 2: We are just ants compared to God, and his reasons are   beyond our comprehension. Logically speaking, both answers are pretty tight.  I prefer the first one, but you really can’t argue much with either answer.         Doug

Response:

On 09 Dec 2004 16:31:36 -0800, Doug Anderson – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote: > Tony Miller <t…@cigardiary.com> writes: >> On 09 Dec 2004 09:50:40 -0800, Doug Anderson >> <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > emma_a…@mac.com (Emma Anne) writes: >> >> Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > michaelamackenzie05072…@yahoo.com writes: >> >> > (snip) >> >> > > The young man’s name — Albert Einstein >> >> > I assume you all realize that OT or not, this story is a fabrication. >> >> I checked to see if you had answered before I bothered to go to Snopes. >> >> >> > OK,  now I’m going to get even more off-topic. >> > So I find urban legends really interesting.  I think they are stories >> > that we tell ourselves because we find these stories comforting, or at >> > least that there is something about them that makes us feel good about >> > ourselves. >> > The Einstein urban legend that I’m most aware of is the on which says >> > that "Einstein flunked math."  (Nothing could be further from the >> > truth.)  I understand why we like that.  It says that one of the >> > world’s most brilliant people still had trouble with math (or at least >> > had trouble with how it was taught in school). >> > This legend is a bit more mysterious to me.  It pits some poor >> > anonymous ethics or philosphy professor against someone who is >> > generally considered to be one of history’s smarter individuals. >> > Maybe it appeals to our desire to laugh at foolish people, but to be >> > sure "Einstein’s" argument is pretty weak too, so this university >> > professor has to be very foolish to not see it coming and to not be >> > able to rebut it. >> So how DO you rebut it?  I have always found the argument compelling.  And >> having Einstein say it gives it a bit more secular weight than if… >> say… Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Oral Roberts or the Pope said >> it? > Well, firstly,  Einstein _didn’t_ say it.  the story is a > fabrication.  So you can forget about whatever extra weight it might > have had if he did say it. > As far as rebutting it, there are two obvious problems: > 1) if you believe that people, god, or anyone can create evil, then >    you _don’t_ believe that evil is simply the absence of good. >    Conversely,  if you really believe that evil is simply the absence >    of good, then no one is capable of doing evil, merely of failing to >    do good.  And _that_ seems to fly in the face off our experiences.

Why is that?  "*Merely* of failing to do good"?  LOL!!! > 2) The physics is being told in a screwed up way.  If you are going to >    say that "cold doesn’t exist,  it is just the absence of heat," >    then you should _really_ say "neither cold not heat exist. >    Temperature is just the state of excitation of the molecules."

We measure heat.  We measure light.  We don’t measure cold or darkness. On what planet did you learn science? -Tony PS: If you read the missive, instead of focusing on the problem with Einstein saying it, you’d have seen that "evil is the absence of God". — "If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it’s time to fertilize your lawn!" Want to jump start your marriage?  Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend. Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Tony Miller <t…@cigardiary.com> writes: > On 09 Dec 2004 09:50:40 -0800, Doug Anderson > <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote: > > emma_a…@mac.com (Emma Anne) writes: > >> Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > michaelamackenzie05072…@yahoo.com writes: > >> > (snip) > >> > > The young man’s name — Albert Einstein > >> > I assume you all realize that OT or not, this story is a fabrication. > >> I checked to see if you had answered before I bothered to go to Snopes. > >> > > OK,  now I’m going to get even more off-topic. > > So I find urban legends really interesting.  I think they are stories > > that we tell ourselves because we find these stories comforting, or at > > least that there is something about them that makes us feel good about > > ourselves. > > The Einstein urban legend that I’m most aware of is the on which says > > that "Einstein flunked math."  (Nothing could be further from the > > truth.)  I understand why we like that.  It says that one of the > > world’s most brilliant people still had trouble with math (or at least > > had trouble with how it was taught in school). > > This legend is a bit more mysterious to me.  It pits some poor > > anonymous ethics or philosphy professor against someone who is > > generally considered to be one of history’s smarter individuals. > > Maybe it appeals to our desire to laugh at foolish people, but to be > > sure "Einstein’s" argument is pretty weak too, so this university > > professor has to be very foolish to not see it coming and to not be > > able to rebut it. > So how DO you rebut it?  I have always found the argument compelling.  And > having Einstein say it gives it a bit more secular weight than if… > say… Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, Oral Roberts or the Pope said > it?

Well, firstly,  Einstein _didn’t_ say it.  the story is a fabrication.  So you can forget about whatever extra weight it might have had if he did say it. As far as rebutting it, there are two obvious problems: 1) if you believe that people, god, or anyone can create evil, then    you _don’t_ believe that evil is simply the absence of good.    Conversely,  if you really believe that evil is simply the absence    of good, then no one is capable of doing evil, merely of failing to    do good.  And _that_ seems to fly in the face off our experiences. 2) The physics is being told in a screwed up way.  If you are going to    say that "cold doesn’t exist,  it is just the absence of heat,"    then you should _really_ say "neither cold not heat exist.    Temperature is just the state of excitation of the molecules."         Doug

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -urf wrote: > "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:v2u0qvnyxb.fsf@ethel.the.log… >> emma_a…@mac.com (Emma Anne) writes: >>> Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> michaelamackenzie05072…@yahoo.com writes: >>>> (snip) >>>>> The young man’s name — Albert Einstein >>>> I assume you all realize that OT or not, this story is a >>>> fabrication. >>> I checked to see if you had answered before I bothered to go to >>> Snopes. >> OK,  now I’m going to get even more off-topic. >> So I find urban legends really interesting.  I think they are stories >> that we tell ourselves because we find these stories comforting, or >> at least that there is something about them that makes us feel good >> about ourselves. >> The Einstein urban legend that I’m most aware of is the on which says >> that "Einstein flunked math."  (Nothing could be further from the >> truth.)  I understand why we like that.  It says that one of the >> world’s most brilliant people still had trouble with math (or at >> least had trouble with how it was taught in school). >> This legend is a bit more mysterious to me.  It pits some poor >> anonymous ethics or philosphy professor against someone who is >> generally considered to be one of history’s smarter individuals. >> Maybe it appeals to our desire to laugh at foolish people, but to be >> sure "Einstein’s" argument is pretty weak too, so this university >> professor has to be very foolish to not see it coming and to not be >> able to rebut it. > I presume that original conversation was in German. Perhaps something > was lost in the translation.

*snerk* It’s one of the kinds of pieces that *still* regularly pop up in my inbox with a "this is so cool, you must read it!" instruction and which makes me embarrassed for the author. > The subject of Einstein’s time theories is beautifully explored in a > book by an M.I.T. professor who’s name escapes me at the moment. The > title "Einstein’s Dreams" is well worth the time to read. I cried > when it was over.

Excellent, on to the list it goes. I’m reading Robert Grumbine’s recommendation at the moment – Petroski’s "To Engineer is Human" and enjoying it very much. Tai

Response:

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:v2u0qvnyxb.fsf@ethel.the.log… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> emma_a…@mac.com (Emma Anne) writes: >> Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > michaelamackenzie05072…@yahoo.com writes: >> > (snip) >> > > The young man’s name — Albert Einstein >> > I assume you all realize that OT or not, this story is a fabrication. >> I checked to see if you had answered before I bothered to go to Snopes. >> > OK,  now I’m going to get even more off-topic. > So I find urban legends really interesting.  I think they are stories > that we tell ourselves because we find these stories comforting, or at > least that there is something about them that makes us feel good about > ourselves. > The Einstein urban legend that I’m most aware of is the on which says > that "Einstein flunked math."  (Nothing could be further from the > truth.)  I understand why we like that.  It says that one of the > world’s most brilliant people still had trouble with math (or at least > had trouble with how it was taught in school). > This legend is a bit more mysterious to me.  It pits some poor > anonymous ethics or philosphy professor against someone who is > generally considered to be one of history’s smarter individuals. > Maybe it appeals to our desire to laugh at foolish people, but to be > sure "Einstein’s" argument is pretty weak too, so this university > professor has to be very foolish to not see it coming and to not be > able to rebut it.

I presume that original conversation was in German. Perhaps something was lost in the translation. The subject of Einstein’s time theories is beautifully explored in a book by an M.I.T. professor who’s name escapes me at the moment. The title "Einstein’s Dreams" is well worth the time to read. I cried when it was over.

Response:

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote: > So I find urban legends really interesting.  I think they are stories > that we tell ourselves because we find these stories comforting, or at > least that there is something about them that makes us feel good about > ourselves.

(Snip) > This legend is a bit more mysterious to me.  

Oh I think it fits perfectly into your theory.  It is comforting that snotty intellectuals are wrong when they claim there is no God, and The Smartest Person in the World not only believed in God, he could decimate the snotty intellectual arguments that there isn’t.

Response:

emma_a…@mac.com (Emma Anne) writes: > Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote: > > michaelamackenzie05072…@yahoo.com writes: > > (snip) > > > The young man’s name — Albert Einstein > > I assume you all realize that OT or not, this story is a fabrication. > I checked to see if you had answered before I bothered to go to Snopes. >

OK,  now I’m going to get even more off-topic. So I find urban legends really interesting.  I think they are stories that we tell ourselves because we find these stories comforting, or at least that there is something about them that makes us feel good about ourselves. The Einstein urban legend that I’m most aware of is the on which says that "Einstein flunked math."  (Nothing could be further from the truth.)  I understand why we like that.  It says that one of the world’s most brilliant people still had trouble with math (or at least had trouble with how it was taught in school). This legend is a bit more mysterious to me.  It pits some poor anonymous ethics or philosphy professor against someone who is generally considered to be one of history’s smarter individuals. Maybe it appeals to our desire to laugh at foolish people, but to be sure "Einstein’s" argument is pretty weak too, so this university professor has to be very foolish to not see it coming and to not be able to rebut it.

Response:

michaelamackenzie05072…@yahoo.com writes:

(snip) > The young man’s name — Albert Einstein

I assume you all realize that OT or not, this story is a fabrication.

Response:

<michaelamackenzie05072…@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1102583923.145421.189890@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com… > This isn’t really OT, but some may think it is, so…

this screams "urban legend".

Response:

Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet…@yahoo.com> wrote: > michaelamackenzie05072…@yahoo.com writes: > (snip) > > The young man’s name — Albert Einstein > I assume you all realize that OT or not, this story is a fabrication.

I checked to see if you had answered before I bothered to go to Snopes.

Response:

Is this the speach that earned him the dunce cap? Anyway, I liked it.

Response:

michaelamackenzie05072…@yahoo.com wrote: > The young man’s name — Albert Einstein

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

Response:

This isn’t really OT, but some may think it is, so… ~  ~  ~ The university professor challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!" "God created everything?" The professor asked. "Yes sir", the student replied. The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are, then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth. Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?" "Of course", replied the professor. The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?" "What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man’s question. The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460

Related Posts