flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Few articles

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
kohlrak wrote:
...Perhaps i have opened the mind to something new, but perhaps it's restricted to what is handed to me. ...

Well, here I believe you may have stumbled upon the very notion which led vid to introduce this excellent web site, as a means of teaching all of us. We are, all FASM forumers, limited by the input we receive. We cannot understand more about the Intel architecture than what Intel (= AMD) provides--oops, unless of course, one knows how to snoop at the level of transitor logic!!! In the case of religions, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinudism, et al, we are not able to understand, really comprehend, what was going on in the minds of the inventors of those religions. We weren't there to witness the genesis of the religion. We had no recording device to capture and preserve the thoughts of the architects of the various dogmas. Perhaps if we had lived in those times, we would have supported one or more of them, including one or more that today, may seem unattractive, for whatever reason. Bestiality, cruelty, burning at the stake, and so on, all of the horrors which have been inflicted upon people in the name of religion, maybe if we had lived there, then, at that time, armed with the paucity of information that people had back then (and still today, regarding current events!!) , and confronted with the overwhelming ignorance and stupidity of the vast majority, we too may well have gone along with the murderers and thieves and gangsters, proclaiming ourselves loyal followers of Siddhartha or Jesus or Mohammed or Abraham or whoever, all the time acting as though we understood, that we possessed ("holy spirit") the knowledge which the ordinary populace lacked, and therefore our actions crucifying, and mutilating, and castrating, and burning alive our "enemies" were justified.....
kohlrak wrote:
... Well you're more than welcome to educate me, as long as the resources are decent. Though, considering i can't do anything to change what will be, i don't see how history lessons would do me any good. ...
Perhaps this topic is so vast one could devote a whole forum, let alone a whole thread, just addressing this point. I have learned so much on this FASM forum from so many people, that I hesitate to mention any single individual by name, for fear of bringing disrepute to that unfortunate person, but, I will, at the risk of irritating a lot of people, point you to Bogdan's excellent rejoinders, both here, on this FASM forum, and on his own forum. I believe I am accurately paraphrasing him, here, when I write that "educate me" is an oxymoron. It is you, kohlrak, if I have understood Bogdan's central theme, who must educate yourself. I think Yong would make a similar point, and I am quite sure that Shoorick too would concur on this point.
One guy, no longer on this forum, except in spirit, perhaps, is George Santayana.
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/history/quotations/lessons_of_history.html
Santayana wrote:
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

kohlrak wrote:
...
That's why i really don't take fasm forum arguments too seriously. For that reson, i still wonder why we have these debates so often. ...
Hmm. Well, I take them seriously, regardless of the topic. I would attempt to think of the discussions on this forum as frivolous, and a waste of time, but, in the past four years I have learned so much here, that I honestly feel it is one of the most important activities of my day, to read what fudder and madis and rugxulo and vid and mazegen and tomasz and hypervista have written. Heap section is meant to expand on the main thrust of the forum, by providing an opportunity to explore new avenues of thought, new approaches to consideration of old problems. Heap may not offer an opportunity to improve one's CODE, but it may well provide a transitional thought that would be of benefit in constructing an algorithm. Was it not Hegel who defined, following the ancient Greeks, thinking as the act of negating that which is before us? That's what Heap section offers: A chance to repudiate. An opportunity to think. Is there a more important avenue leading to one's education?
Smile
Post 26 Jul 2007, 11:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
Well, here I believe you may have stumbled upon the very notion which led vid to introduce this excellent web site, as a means of teaching all of us. We are, all FASM forumers, limited by the input we receive. We cannot understand more about the Intel architecture than what Intel (= AMD) provides--oops, unless of course, one knows how to snoop at the level of transitor logic!!! In the case of religions, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinudism, et al, we are not able to understand, really comprehend, what was going on in the minds of the inventors of those religions. We weren't there to witness the genesis of the religion. We had no recording device to capture and preserve the thoughts of the architects of the various dogmas. Perhaps if we had lived in those times, we would have supported one or more of them, including one or more that today, may seem unattractive, for whatever reason. Bestiality, cruelty, burning at the stake, and so on, all of the horrors which have been inflicted upon people in the name of religion, maybe if we had lived there, then, at that time, armed with the paucity of information that people had back then (and still today, regarding current events!!) , and confronted with the overwhelming ignorance and stupidity of the vast majority, we too may well have gone along with the murderers and thieves and gangsters, proclaiming ourselves loyal followers of Siddhartha or Jesus or Mohammed or Abraham or whoever, all the time acting as though we understood, that we possessed ("holy spirit") the knowledge which the ordinary populace lacked, and therefore our actions crucifying, and mutilating, and castrating, and burning alive our "enemies" were justified.....


The "holy spirit" is supposed to be impregnated into all of us since birth, actually. Therefor, the knowledge is available to normal people. And abuse of the religion isn't the fault of the religious creator, but the one who manipulated the religion. I find that whenever religion is taken advantage of, it's because some one emphasized a particular part to the point that another part was forgotten. "Spread the word" over taught while forgetting that forcing a religion on some one is also a sin results in those black suited men standing at your door. Yes, even being a christian, the christians comming to my door asking if i've been saved annoys me just as much as it annoys an atheist.

Quote:
One guy, no longer on this forum, except in spirit, perhaps, is George Santayana.


Well, i've put it on the todo list.

Quote:
Hmm. Well, I take them seriously, regardless of the topic. I would attempt to think of the discussions on this forum as frivolous, and a waste of time, but, in the past four years I have learned so much here, that I honestly feel it is one of the most important activities of my day, to read what fudder and madis and rugxulo and vid and mazegen and tomasz and hypervista have written.


But to what point? Who are you or anyone else going to change? Other fasm members? What can we do as fasm people? We're not government. We have no power.

Quote:
Heap section is meant to expand on the main thrust of the forum, by providing an opportunity to explore new avenues of thought, new approaches to consideration of old problems.


But rather than forming our own material, i've noticed that here all we ever do is throw links at each other. See why we don't have time to program anymore, yet? Instead of starting with a basis and using both supposition and logic in a good combination (not too much supposition), you could find other avenues to the same problems, rather than shooting links back and forth of information which could be innaccuret. Being simple fasm programmers without history degrees, i find it hard to believe that we're qualified to do a thorough cross-examination of any sources, yet that's what we end up doing with some of these sources cause we have no one better to do it. Lately we've been picking apart things like religion, and that's not exactly an entirely new avenue to the issue of religion.

Quote:
Heap may not offer an opportunity to improve one's CODE, but it may well provide a transitional thought that would be of benefit in constructing an algorithm. Was it not Hegel who defined, following the ancient Greeks, thinking as the act of negating that which is before us? That's what Heap section offers: A chance to repudiate. An opportunity to think. Is there a more important avenue leading to one's education?


If you ask me, throwing alot of links at each other and reading the material dosn't make you think. Before i've noticed some decent thought-producing debates, but now it's more or less a free for all on who can continue providing links which they feel is accepted. If you want better algorithems, why don't we sit and make programs together which uses the same part of the mind rather than reading material which has nothing to do with the mathematics required to program.
Post 26 Jul 2007, 15:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
tom tobias wrote:
rugxulo wrote:
...not all Biblical translations are created equal. And not every so-called "gospel" is truly in accord with the others. Therefore, much care and concern must be taken before translating and spreading a translated Bible willy-nilly with no concern over correctness or absurdity, mistranslation, sacrilege, blasphemy, etc. (I am just saying, in theory, it would be bad. I haven't read Tyndale's Bible personally and don't need to.)

yes, I too have not read Tyndale's Bible, but, if I never read it, I still will not need that excuse to justify his EXECUTION, for committing the crime of translating the Bible into English.
Please try, rugxulo, to use a little logic. You write that not every version of the Bible is correct, implying that Tyndale's INCORRECT VERSION justified his execution. Nonsense, I suspect that Tyndale's version HAD LOTS OF ERRORS. So what? Which version DOES NOT have any errors???? Doesn't EVERY "holy book" have beaucoup errors?


No. If God talks to man in man's own tongue and man listens and understands, there is no dispute. That is very worthy of being written down and translated correctly in all languages. Jesus instructed them to preach the Gospel to the entire world. You can either accept it or deny it. God has corrected many major errors (and still does). Just because some people lie and spread evil does not mean that truth does not exist. (It's actually a greater sin if your sin causes others to sin too, aka "scandal".)

tom tobias wrote:

The FACT (I will grant you your wish to have Tyndale's version FILLED with mistakes) that Tyndale goofed, and wrote MANY INCORRECT STATEMENTS, does not, to my way of thinking, JUSTIFY HIS EXECUTION.
So, even if his version was UTTERLY FALSE, COMPLETELY WRONG on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE OF ANY SUBSTANCE, still, I can not understand how anyone would kill him for this, even if he had DELIBERATELY FALSIFIED THE TEXT, and I think even the Catholic Church does not make that ridiculous claim about Tyndale. No. In my opinion, Sir Thomas More ordered the execution of honest Christian Englishmen for possesion of Bibles written in English, because these honest English Christians were DEFIANT of the Roman PAPAL AUTHORITY to issue TRUTH about the Bible. Rugxulo, EVEN IN MY OWN LIFE, half a century ago, when I was just a boy, going to Church every Sunday, as an eleven year old kid, I wondered why the Catholics NEVER referred to the Bible. I asked my father about it, and he told me, as a devout Catholic, that Catholics believe that it is NOT POSSIBLE for ordinary people to understand the Bible.


Nobody is born with knowledge and understanding. It takes instruction. You can't teach yourself what you don't know. The priests are successors of the Apostles, called to help bring about God's will for us. We all go to school, we all listen to our parents, it's the same idea here.

tom tobias wrote:

The Church, according to my father, required its "flock" to look to the Priesthood, (i.e. the pedophiles) for instruction about the meaning of the Bible. Now, in that context, five hundred years ago, I can understand Thomas More. He was not ashamed to murder innocent Christians, because he believed that they threatened Catholicism, by making the Bible available to anyone, at any time, to read at their leisure, RATHER THAN REQUIRE those ordinary people TO COME TO CHURCH, and listen to the Pedophiles tell them what to believe, and make sure the ordinary citizens pay their ten percent tax.


It costs money to run a church, and yet they are obviously not in it for material gain (vow of poverty).

tom tobias wrote:

If ordinary people could read the Bible, without instruction from the Pope, then, why would they need to pay the additional tax? There is absolutely nothing in the Bible to justify either the papacy or the 10% tax to the pedophiles.


You cannot baptise or confirm yourself. You cannot perform a marriage ceremony on yourself. You cannot wash away your own sins. You cannot bring yourself back from the dead, only God can.

God is the "Father of Life", the creator of Earth and the universe and everything. He knows how to fix things. He is always helping us (!!!). He always listens. He does not ignore His people.

tom tobias wrote:

rugxulo wrote:
...I assume Thomas More is innocent of murder and refuse to call him names...
Well, I do not require you to call him names, I do require you to acknowledge AGREEMENT with More's assault on and MURDER of innocent Christians, if you do agree with him. I am not asking you to base this opinion on OTHER'S WRITINGS, but on MORE's OWN WORDS:

Sir Thomas More, Chancellor of England, wrote:
"and for heretics, as they be, the clergy doth denounce them; and, as they be well worthy, the temporality doth burn them; and after the fire of Smithfield hell doth receive them, where the wretches burn forever."

Were they "worthy" rugxulo? Was More correct to burn at the stake these Christian Englishmen with their English bibles?


You don't believe the Bible, but you believe someone else's words instead. Why? You're just being arbitrary, picking and choosing at whim. But I've seen enough to steer me FAR, FAR away from denying God and His goodness. No way. Sin is evil, and evil sucks. Death only exists because of the Devil. It is not God's fault. The Devil is the one who was a "murderer from the beginning". God is the one who gives life, restores life, and extends eternal life ("Father of Life", remember?).

If God wants us to love Him and our neighbor, why would He want us to die and be separated from each other? Murder is a sin, but there are greater sins too (and things worse than physical death). And no sin justifies another. You can't do evil in the name of good. (And I dispute that claim about Thomas More: truthfully, we will never be able to "see" what really happened. Ironic that two "Tom"s can't get along, heh, and that I, a twin, am defending one to another.)

Jesus never killed anyone. He says don't kill. He raised Lazarus (four days gone, still wrapped up!) from the dead. He was crucified but rose again. He is God and the Father of Life. He fed the poor, healed the sick, instructed many, and did much else. Can you truly hate Him? He never did anything besides good (whether you believe it or not).

I can tell you right now He is real, but you don't believe (and I don't know why). All in good time, I guess. The only thing you "lose" with Him is sin, evil, pain, unhappiness, etc. It's basically a win-win situation. Very Happy

You are NOT expected to be perfect to please God. He does NOT expect you to run around like a chicken with his head cut off doing tons of chores. Busyness does not please Him. External sacrifices he desires not, only a contrite and humble heart full of love (like Him). He is the "Prince of Peace". He desires mercy, not sacrifice.

tom tobias wrote:

vid wrote:

Older ones tend to call christ "chosen of god", not "son of god",

Yes, exactly right, vid, and let us not forget the Koran, at least the part not eaten by the goat, which similarly refers to Jesus as a prophet, not a god. A lot can happen in a couple thousand years, to history, to documents, to books, and to translations.


Why do you believe those and not the Bible? Does not the Bible have more at stake? Is not their claim more powerful that they MUST back it up with something? And yet it is very very very VERY easy to deny, to lie, to say "no" to anything, especially something so important.

"Blue is green."
"No, blue is blue."

Well, they don't agree, so I guess neither is right (errorneous logic).

Just because someone is uninformed or lies doesn't mean God is flawed or somebody did this or this isn't necessary, etc. The Church was founded by God, nurtured by the Apostles, and still led by their successors with Christ still in charge! You don't want to help the Church financially? You don't want to follow God's helpers? Who will you follow, yourself? But you can't save yourself. You can't teach yourself. Man is very limited in what he can do.

Without God you can do nothing. It's a very VERY empty, lonely, painful world without knowing God. I thank God you all haven't had your world crash around you like Job (who was harassed by the Devil). That's no fun. Please understand that there is no agenda. It is only truth, however obscured by lies and sin and evil on Earth due in part to man's blindness and selfishness. Is it really THAT foolish to believe in God? Will you really be that easily embarrassed? You have nothing to worry about.
Post 07 Aug 2007, 20:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
rugxulo wrote:
...You have nothing to worry about.
I am certain you are correct, here. It is VERY reassuring to have FAITH in some supernatural power.
rugxulo wrote:
...Can you truly hate Him? [Jesus]...
No, I don't "hate" Jesus, or ANY OTHER JEWISH RABBI.
I profoundly, INTENSELY dislike Judaism, and all of its pretenders--i.e. the various flavors of both Christianity and Islam. I am not angry with individual Jews. I am VERY angry about Israeli occupation of Palestine, and USA support for that occupation. I condemn as irrational ALL aspects of Judaism, and dismiss as grossly dishonest most of the "ethical" principles expressed in the Torah, particularly those notions of what one should eat, and with whom, and how one should live one's life, etc.....
rugxulo, you need to realize that PRIOR to the creation of the "Bible", the EARLIEST Christians argued, immediately following Jesus' death, FOR YEARS, not days, not hours, not weeks, but for DECADES, on whether or not a person could ONLY become a Christian, AFTER converting to Judaism....The Jews believed in a "messiah", and Jesus, like so many others, before him, and after him, claimed to be that unique person, with god-like qualities--someone who would transcend life's brutish character, and lead everyone to paradise. The Jewish notion of a "messiah" is a fairy tale, nothing more. Suitable for children, not thinking adults.
rugxulo wrote:
...You don't believe the Bible, but you believe someone else's words instead. Why?

Here the answer is simple. "the Bible" is a myth. Even in our own lifetimes, we have seen MANY different versions proposed. I know that you, rugxulo, know of the "book of Tobias" in the Catholic version, but you will find NO SUCH BOOK in the Protestant Bible. Indeed, how do we know which books to include in "the Bible" and which ones to exclude?????
Was it not Emperor Constantine, the pagan ruler of the Roman Empire, who created the Council of Nicea, to address the many different versions of "the Bible"? Did not that council REJECT many of the existing "epistles", and "gospels" as too contradictory, or too contentious????
Can you remember, as if yesterday, the words of someone you may have studied with, from FOUR DECADES AGO? The earliest "authentic" gospel, the one of Mark, was written AT LEAST forty years after the death of Jesus. Why??? If this guy really existed, and really did all these amazing things, why didn't it get recorded MUCH EARLIER, within weeks or months of the events?? Why didn't the Romans document it? Why didn't the Jews??? Why didn't the Greeks???? All of them had noteworthy historians in that era.
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm
The conflict against the innocent people of VietNam occurred less than half a century ago, BUT NO ONE TODAY in USA, knows anything about the genesis of the conflict, and no one I have met, CARES to know anything about the conflict. What Gulf of Tonkin resolution??? No one knows, and no one cares to learn about that fictitious event--though it lead to deaths of tens of thousands of young men from USA. I write here about an exacerbating factor in an armed struggle, a war which took place a mere forty years ago, and a conflict representing an important event impacting MILLIONS of people, unlike the death of Jesus, which affected him and his family only. People are uninformed about an event in our own lifetimes, an event of huge importance, an event that was filmed, photographed, and documented in REAL TIME. How different is that situation from the
scenario 2000 years ago, half a century after Jesus' death????
Jesus who? What, another "messiah", oh, get in line....If anything, the ordinary Aharamaic speaking citizens of Palestine, in those days, were far more concerned about the Roman Occupation, not the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. So, some guys rachet up the propaganda, in order to get "the church" going in full force. They write some "gospels", HALF A CENTURY later, and we are supposed to imagine that these are not fairy tales??? I cannot find a citizen of USA, walking down the street, with whom I can chat about USA's conflict against the innocent people of VietNam, and obtain even a semi-intelligent response. Their ignorance isn't just appalling, it is a clue to teach us how incredibly frail human memory is. If you wish to believe the fairy tales in "the Bible" (but which version??), be my guest. You may also believe the government propaganda about Viet Nam, if you wish.
rugxulo wrote:
...And I dispute that claim about Thomas More: truthfully, we will never be able to "see" what really happened....
Now, here, you are in muddy water, friend. You introduced us, on this thread, page 1, very early, to Thomas More's famous aphorism about serving the king, but jesus first, and NOW, you repudiate More's OWN writing, claiming that since we were not alive then, we can't know exactly what went on.....
That is ridiculous. Yes, of course we do not know all the political intrigue, but we do know that Henry VIII was a brute, a dictator, a cruel man, who murdered, stole, raped, and lied. It was Thomas More, Henry's former tutor, who KNOWINGLY, intentionally, HONESTLY, murdered those innocent Englishmen. He didn't wiggle or waggle. He was straight as an arrow. He KNEW that those Englishmen, possessing the ENGLISH bible, were demons. They were devils. They were Satan's warriers, disguised as mere mortals. Well, of course, Rome flip-flopped, and so, today, we have Bibles in languages other than Arabic, ooops, that's Islam, sorry. got confused, because FOR A LONG TIME, BOTH Christianity, AND Islam believed that GOD wrote the holy books, in Latin and Arabic respectively, so naturally, one shouldn't go AGAINST the word of "GOD", by translating these stories, at least the ones not eaten by the goat, or thrown out by Constantine, into English.
rugxulo wrote:

Nobody is born with knowledge and understanding. It takes instruction. You can't teach yourself what you don't know.
I am sure you don't mean to suggest that no one can think, that no one can create, that no one can compose music, or celebrate the beauty of life in art (some Christian sects repudiate BOTH music AND art as degenerate!!!). What about physics? What about computer programs? Can no one invent a different cpu architecture, unless someone else has already taught them? Then, who taught Turing? Who taught Boole? Who taught Russell and Whitehead? Who taught Maxwell? Who taught Einstein? Who taught Niels Bohr? Who taught the inventor of the abacus? People ARE able to think, to act, to believe with some emotion other than rote repetition of that which has been instilled over decades of "brain washing".
Still, I am disappointed to read your words in the quote above, responding to my query about Tyndale. I acknowledged your claim that Tyndale's version could be COMPLETELY erroneous, nevertheless, I do not know ANY justification for murdering him, as More did. I seek your acknowledgement that Tyndale's death, and the deaths of the half dozen other Englishmen whose only crime was to be literate, at the hands of Thomas More, by burning them alive, represents a crime against humanity, not an act of a "saint". I reject your response, because it is IRRELEVANT to the argument, whether or not we were personally witnesses to the intrigue and political manoeuvering, WE DO NOT DEPEND here on a third party, someone like Mark, writing not from his own observations, but from his supposed conversations with Peter or Paul or whomever. In this situation we are dealing with More's OWN writings. What, are you claiming that his writings are fake???? More was not ashamed of his action. He was proud of murdering those poor people. He murdered them believing that their deaths by burning at the stake WERE ESSENTIAL for the continued prosperity of the catholic church, More's catholic church, and yours, rugxulo.
Crying or Very sad
Post 08 Aug 2007, 14:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
shoorick



Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1605
Location: Ukraine
shoorick
tom tobias
+1

Quote:
Who taught Einstein?

btw, it's quiet interesting what we do know about this genius man from general sources and what we will know with learning historical details Smile
to be short, this genius made his discovery while work in patent burau and while his wife was clever scientist - nothing before, nothing after - how many knows this? Wink
Post 08 Aug 2007, 14:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
to be short, this genius made his discovery while work in patent burau and while his wife was clever scientist - nothing before, nothing after - how many knows this?

which "discovery"? explaination of photoelectric effect, or forming theory of relativity (general/special)?
Post 08 Aug 2007, 15:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
shoorick wrote:
btw, it's quiet interesting what we do know about this genius man from general sources and what we will know with learning historical details...to be short, this genius made his discovery while work in patent burau and while his wife was clever scientist - nothing before, nothing after - how many knows this? ...

The second of Einstein's principles is based on an important consequence of Maxwell's laws of electricity, magnetism, and optics, as interpreted by H. A. Lorentz near the end of the nineteenth century. Maxwell had unified optics with electricity and magnetism in a single theory, in which light is just one type of electromagnetic wave.
....
No other theory came remotely close to Lorentz's in accounting for so many electromagnetic and especially optical phenomena. ...
A direct consequence of Lorentz's conception of the stationary ether is that the velocity of light with respect to the ether is a constant, independent of the motion of the source of light (or its frequency, amplitude, or direction of propagation in the ether, etc.).
...
The light principle hence seems to be incompatible with the relativity principle. For, according to the relativity principle, all the laws of physics must be the same in any inertial frame. So, if the speed of light is constant in one inertial frame, and that frame is not physically singled out by being the rest frame of some medium (the ether), then the speed of light must be the same (universal) constant in every other inertial frame (otherwise the democracy of inertial frames is violated). As Einstein put it in 1905, his two principles are "apparently incompatible."
...
Einstein showed that they are not only logically compatible, but compatible with the results of all optical and other experiments performed up to 1905 (and since, we may add). He was able to show their logical compatibility by an analysis of the concepts of time, simultaneity, and length, which demonstrated that the speed of light really could have the privileged status, implied by his two principles, of being a universal speed, the same in every inertial frame of reference.
...
However, while still at the Poly (i.e., before 1901) he appears to have studied Maxwell's theory (not covered in his school lectures) on his own, perhaps from the new textbook of August Föppl ...
...We know from a letter to another friend, Michele Besso, dating from early 1903, that he had decided to "carry out comprehensive studies in electron theory." No later than that, and quite possibly earlier, he read Lorentz's 1895 book, "Attempt at a Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Bodies."
.....
Not only was Einstein working on problems of the optics of moving bodies, he was also working on problems related to the emission and absorption of light by matter and of the equilibrium behavior of electromagnetic radiation confined in a cavity-the so-called black body radiation problem. He was using Maxwell's and Boltzmann's statistical methods, which he had redeveloped and refined in several earlier papers, to analyze this problem. This was itself a daring step, since these methods had been developed to help understand the behavior of ordinary matter while Einstein was applying them to the apparently quite different field of electromagnetic radiation. The "revolutionary" conclusion to which he came was that, in certain respects, electromagnetic radiation behaved more like a collection of particles than like a wave. ... The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of particles had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity into the middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission theory" of light,.....
...
Maxwell's explanation of light as a type of electromagnetic wave seemed to end the controversy with a definitive victory of the wave theory. However, if Einstein was right (as events slowly proved he was) the story must be much more complicated. Einstein was aware of the difficulties with Maxwell's theory-and of the need for what we now call a quantum theory of electromagnetic radiation-well before publishing his SRT paper. He regarded Maxwell's equations as some sort of statistical average-of what he did not know, of course-which worked very well to explain many optical phenomena, but could not be used to explain all the interactions of light and matter.
...
Einstein seems to have wrestled with the problems of an emission theory of light for some time, looking for a set of differential equations describing such a theory that could replace the Maxwell-Lorentz equations;
....
Finally, after a day spent wrestling once more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. In all of his struggles with the emission theory as well as with Lorentz's theory, he had been assuming that the ordinary Newtonian law of addition of velocities was unproblematic. It is this law of addition of velocities that allows one to "prove" that, if the velocity of light is constant with respect to one inertial frame, it cannot be constant with respect to any other inertial frame moving with respect to the first. It suddenly dawned on Einstein that this "obvious" law was based on certain assumptions about the nature of time always tacitly made. In particular, the concept of the velocity of an object with respect to an inertial frame depends on time readings made at two different places in that inertial frame.
....
How do we know that time readings at two such distant places are properly correlated? Ultimately this boils down to the question: how do we decide when events at two different places in the same frame of reference occur at the same time, i.e., simultaneously? Isn't universal simultaneity an intuitively obvious property of time? Here, I believe, Einstein was really helped by his philosophical readings. He undoubtedly got some help from his readings of Mach and Poincaré, but we know that he was engaged in a careful reading of Hume at about this time; and his later reminiscences attribute great significance to his reading of Hume's Treatise on Human Nature. What could he have gotten from Hume? I think it was a relational-as opposed to an absolute-concept of time and space. This is the view that time and space are not to be regarded as self-subsistent entities; rather one should speak of the temporal and spatial aspects of physical processes; "The doctrine," as Hume puts it, "that time is nothing but the manner, in which some real object exists." .....

a bit long, sorry. Hope that helps explain WHY we need Heap. Einstein, as shoorick explained, worked as a clerk, not as a theoretical physicist.
The crucial insight came to him, NOT from reading Galileo, Newton, Fourier, Gauss, Maxwell, or any mathematician, but from reading a philosopher, who posed the question of a relational, rather than an absolute character for time itself. Do not underestimate HEAP!!!
Post 08 Aug 2007, 20:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
shoorick



Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1605
Location: Ukraine
shoorick
vid wrote:
Quote:
to be short, this genius made his discovery while work in patent burau and while his wife was clever scientist - nothing before, nothing after - how many knows this?

which "discovery"? explaination of photoelectric effect, or forming theory of relativity (general/special)?

both Very Happy

_________________
UNICODE forever!
Post 09 Aug 2007, 04:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.