|
Bodhi of Ankou
*alternate opinion blocks path*



Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 24,778
Loc: Soviet Canukistan
|
Re: E = MC^2 Found by Intuition? [Re: Janamil]
#14010814 - 02/22/11 11:15 PM (13 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Its quite ironic how you are capable of veiwing others theories with criticism but when it comes down to your own your insanely massive and diseased ego does not allow such thoughts as internally you veiw yourself as some kind of god of intellect when your nothing but a rambling moron incapable of seeing the simplistic fallacies that permeate every-single one of your own theories.
|
Janamil


Registered: 08/01/09
Posts: 1,699
|
Re: E = MC^2 Found by Intuition? [Re: nicechrisman]
#14010827 - 02/22/11 11:16 PM (13 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
nicechrisman said:
seriously, if this person wants to spout his crazy shit, he should go do it elsewhere...
But alas, extremes are opposites and at the same time entangled into the very existence of themselves.
Both types of people are here and both will benefit from what I say once what I say is validated.
|
Janamil


Registered: 08/01/09
Posts: 1,699
|
|
Quote:
Bodhi of Ankou said: Its quite ironic how you are capable of veiwing others theories with criticism but when it comes down to your own your insanely massive and diseased ego does not allow such thoughts as internally you veiw yourself as some kind of god of intellect when your nothing but a rambling moron incapable of seeing the simplistic fallacies that permeate every-single one of your own theories.
Simplistic fallacies are what inhibit your pattern of thinking. To many people are subjected to only see the details and never understand the big picture.
Details are not needed, they can be verified later after the reasons of the details are understood.
Simple stating in this context.
I see the opposite and therefor can understand what you cannot, but you can understand what I cannot.
You see the details, I see the big picture.
The thing is, the big picture is much more rewarding then little facts. Especially when trying to understand Etiological reasons of subjects.
|
Bodhi of Ankou
*alternate opinion blocks path*



Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 24,778
Loc: Soviet Canukistan
|
Re: E = MC^2 Found by Intuition? [Re: Janamil]
#14010861 - 02/22/11 11:19 PM (13 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
I am Janamil Janamil is always right Therefor I am always right
|
twighead
mͯó



Registered: 08/27/08
Posts: 29,835
Loc: Glenn Gould's Fuck Windmill
Last seen: 9 hours, 37 minutes
|
Re: E = MC^2 Found by Intuition? [Re: Janamil]
#14010865 - 02/22/11 11:20 PM (13 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Usually whatever you're trying to prove is so poorly worded I have no idea what you're trying to validate
|
nicechrisman
Interdimensional space wizard



Registered: 11/07/03
Posts: 33,241
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
|
Please see my poll in the pub.
-------------------- "Cosmic Love is absolutelely ruthless and highly indifferent: it teaches its lessons whether you like/dislike them or not." John C. Lily
|
Janamil


Registered: 08/01/09
Posts: 1,699
|
|
I am not always correct, no never will be. All I do is look at what is missing and why.
I look at every possible explanation that my mind can understand, and go with what makes sense over what my mind tells me is correct.
Explain to me, Why do you come to the conclusion you do? Do you listen to society, Do you listen to common sense? Why do you believe what you believe?
Quote:
twighead said: Usually whatever you're trying to prove is so poorly worded I have no idea what you're trying to validate 
Yeah, unfortunately I think in almost purely spatial reconstructions. Words do not come easy but concepts do. More people need to understand that they need to think in both ways to truly understand what is happening around them.
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: E = MC^2 Found by Intuition? [Re: Janamil]
#14011801 - 02/23/11 02:41 AM (13 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Janamil said: The only thing that I see is he understood how time and space worked based on a few seperate questioms he asked himself over and over again.
It seems like he came up with this by intuition alone, obviously his intuition was spatial and therefor physical.
His main thought experiment was just an observation of relativity and created it from that using a new Newtonian equation.
What I want to know is how he understood this on a physical,spatial level.
I fortunately see relativity in a spatial reconstruction and I dont see how he didn't come up with the ability to see quantum mechanics and tie it with his theory of relativity.
He debated it with Bohr over and over again. Why didn't he come to this conclusion?
Did he not have enough evidence at the current time?
Einstein's intuition actually led him to believe that quantum mechanics was INCORRECT; he's famously quoted as saying "God does not play dice with the Universe"; meaning that he was appalled by any theory that explained the world by means of randomness or probability.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
bigmike7104
Stranger

Registered: 07/12/10
Posts: 1,395
Loc: USA
|
Re: E = MC^2 Found by Intuition? [Re: deCypher]
#14011829 - 02/23/11 02:54 AM (13 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
yea then he did the EPR experiment to try to disprove quantum mechanics which ended up only providing more evidence for it. who knows what else he would've came up with if he wasn't trying so hard to go against it.
-------------------- Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind Withering my intuition, missing opportunities and I must Feed my will to feel my moment drawing way outside the lines
|
Janamil


Registered: 08/01/09
Posts: 1,699
|
Re: E = MC^2 Found by Intuition? [Re: bigmike7104]
#14011952 - 02/23/11 04:25 AM (13 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Janamil said: The only thing that I see is he understood how time and space worked based on a few seperate questioms he asked himself over and over again.
It seems like he came up with this by intuition alone, obviously his intuition was spatial and therefor physical.
His main thought experiment was just an observation of relativity and created it from that using a new Newtonian equation.
What I want to know is how he understood this on a physical,spatial level.
I fortunately see relativity in a spatial reconstruction and I dont see how he didn't come up with the ability to see quantum mechanics and tie it with his theory of relativity.
He debated it with Bohr over and over again. Why didn't he come to this conclusion?
Did he not have enough evidence at the current time?
Einstein's intuition actually led him to believe that quantum mechanics was INCORRECT; he's famously quoted as saying "God does not play dice with the Universe"; meaning that he was appalled by any theory that explained the world by means of randomness or probability.
I said this in my first post. "He indeed, does not roll dice". I just don't get why Einstein didn't try to prove it on a subatomic level.
Oh my god, so he was just closed minded to the aspect? Its true, god does not roll dice but the only hard part is trying to understand that on a smaller scale using limited understanding and limited technology.
Not to mention the fact that through this, our observations as a whole change the outcome. Its like, if the rock train didn't know the light was there, it would not be there but at the same time. Its actually there.
Its like we live in a past-tense of a pre-existing state that is forever changing and growing.
EDIT:
Wait that last statement is wrong in a sense it is, but everything is relative to itself but at the same time is a flux in the universe. Its so hard to explain.
Its like, time is not constant. Using this theory, time is relative. This would also mean we are slowly growing as the universe ourselves, even atoms. The universe has a whole bunch of systems that slowly correct itself and its relative to what it is around.
This would mean that time itself is relative. That makes no sense.
It seems like we have self adapting physical laws. One system slowly effecting another and in turn they both slowly grow in the way that is needed.
Like, what is truly there is not there. It is just an echo of what allegedly happened. Relativity. Why couldn't Einstein understand that the changes in observation in physics is the basis of relativity.
I cant remember why I edited this.
Edited by Janamil (02/23/11 05:17 AM)
|
TeamAmerica



Registered: 12/02/08
Posts: 2,954
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
|
Re: E = MC^2 Found by Intuition? [Re: Janamil]
#14012103 - 02/23/11 06:23 AM (13 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Intuition indeed...
Einstein would spend whole days thinking and then testing his thoughts through Equation...
The guy was entertaining some amazing thoughts...And that's next to the mathematics that he was performing... He read all kinds of alchemy books, interested in all of this knowledge...But he was a German scientists so that's not surprising...
|
Rocker232
Stranger


Registered: 10/17/08
Posts: 6,631
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
|
Re: E = MC^2 Found by Intuition? [Re: Janamil]
#14012123 - 02/23/11 06:31 AM (13 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Janamil said: Relativity explains the logic defying nature of.. it all. Of signals. He found the first limit of the universe. I was honestly just wondering if something stopped him, or if it has already happened and there is something I am missing.
I think you need to throw away your belief that Einstein was the only one capable of solving the problem. Many people have disproven Einstein. I'm not trying to knock the man he was obviously a genius but even a genius is confined to the his current era and the knowledge of that era.
I also am under the firm belief that if Einstein would not have proven relativity someone else would have.
--------------------
With Allure I Look to the Sky With Awakened Eyes
|
Janamil


Registered: 08/01/09
Posts: 1,699
|
Re: E = MC^2 Found by Intuition? [Re: Rocker232]
#14012134 - 02/23/11 06:36 AM (13 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Yeah, relativity is the easiest way to visualize this phenomenon.
Quote:
Rocker232 said:
Quote:
Janamil said: Relativity explains the logic defying nature of.. it all. Of signals. He found the first limit of the universe. I was honestly just wondering if something stopped him, or if it has already happened and there is something I am missing.
I think you need to throw away your belief that Einstein was the only one capable of solving the problem. Many people have disproven Einstein. I'm not trying to knock the man he was obviously a genius but even a genius is confined to the his current era and the knowledge of that era.
I also am under the firm belief that if Einstein would not have proven relativity someone else would have.
Its not the fact that I do not believe someone else would of eventually done it. Im wondering how he understood it before everyone else.
|
|