Neo-Platonism: The beginning of Comparative Religion?

Do you have a conversation topic that doesn't seem to fit any of the other conversations? Here is where we discuss ANYTHING about Joseph Campbell, comparative mythology, and more!

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Cindy B. wrote:I'm certainly no scientist, guys, by why not both/and when it comes to Einstein and Newton? Just trying to learn here...


And Neoplato, your thread seems to have gone off track. Okay with you?


Cindy
Newton is good enough for billiard balls, as is Einstein. Newton does not work for our GPS system whereas Einstein is good enough.

My simple understanding of the situation is that Einstein took Newton's physics and corrected by the Lorentz transformation. The other thing Einstein did, was he postulated that the speed of light was constant regardless of the speed of the observer. Something that Newton and most of us who dwell in a Newtonian world would find nonintuitive.

From my perspective:
Einstein's model is more accurate (a better description) than Newton's. In the laboratory I live in a Newtonian world, it is accurate enough for what I do and a whole lot simpler than reality.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

And Neoplato, your thread seems to have gone off track. Okay with you?


Cindy
Fine with me. IMHO, both Newton and Einstein were Neo-Platonists. :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

I should have been clearer, romansh, sorry.


When I said this...
I'm certainly no scientist, guys, [but] why not both/and when it comes to Einstein and Newton? Just trying to learn here...
...I was actually responding to your saying this:
Newton's laws may have been validated, but they are definitely wrong (disproved)...

:)
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Cindy B. wrote:I should have been clearer, romansh, sorry.

When I said this...
I'm certainly no scientist, guys, [but] why not both/and when it comes to Einstein and Newton? Just trying to learn here...
...I was actually responding to your saying this:
Newton's laws may have been validated, but they are definitely wrong (disproved)...
:)
In certain circumstances Newton's Laws don't work.

I am not sure what else I can say?
What exactly do you require? :)
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

I'm just trying to understand, romansh, how Newton's laws can be deemed "wrong" if in fact they are valid and useful at the macro-level. :)
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

Cindy,

Neither Newton's nor Einstein's laws are right or wrong.

These laws are nothing but mathematical models formulated to explain the behaviour of the universe. Newton's laws work at the macro level. Einstein's work at the relativistic level. That's all.

Rom is trying to tease you by making it all sound complicated, methinks. :wink:

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

nandu wrote:Rom is trying to tease you by making it all sound complicated, methinks. :wink:
:(


:lol:
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Cindy B. wrote:I'm just trying to understand, romansh, how Newton's laws can be deemed "wrong" if in fact they are valid and useful at the macro-level. :)
They are wrong in the sense that:

10.1 + 10.1 = 20.0
is wrong.
While a useful approximation and is valid as an approximation in certain circumstances. It is wrong.

All teasing aside ;)
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

ALOberhoulser
Associate
Posts: 2952
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 6:00 am
Location: Delphi
Contact:

Post by ALOberhoulser »

there's that problem of the Image

Fibonacci Sequence
:roll:

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Not a bad approximation for some observations, once we get past the hype.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Nermin
Associate
Posts: 520
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 2:31 pm
Location: London, Britain

Post by Nermin »

romansh wrote: 10.1 + 10.1 = 20.0
is wrong.
While a useful approximation and is valid as an approximation in certain circumstances.
Rom,
Therefore, maybe it won’t be entirely inaccurate to say that
Newtonian laws can provide us optimum results in our order of magnitude?
True friendship is based on trust, honesty and sincere generosity of our hearts

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Nermin wrote:
romansh wrote: 10.1 + 10.1 = 20.0
is wrong.
While a useful approximation and is valid as an approximation in certain circumstances.
Rom,
Therefore, maybe it won’t be entirely inaccurate to say that
Newtonian laws can provide us optimum results in our order of magnitude?
One could I suppose. But we should not include all astronomers and GPS engineers in our.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

ALOberhoulser
Associate
Posts: 2952
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 6:00 am
Location: Delphi
Contact:

Post by ALOberhoulser »

romansh wrote:Not a bad approximation for some observations, once we get past the hype.
http://zinn-x.com/fibonacci_nature.php

Your sentiments, rom?

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

ALOberhoulser wrote:
romansh wrote:Not a bad approximation for some observations, once we get past the hype.
http://zinn-x.com/fibonacci_nature.php

Your sentiments, rom?
George EP Box
All models are wrong, but some models are useful.

More like my sentiment
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

Al,

Thanks for the link that shows the power of the scientific method to debunk theories. I am convinced by the author of the article. Perhaps I shouldn't be.

Rom

Isn't mathematics wonderful? The transcendent reality unsoiled by nature. I dare say nothing we do has infinite precision, which by your definition implies that every measurement we make is wrong.

I love mathematics. I find it fascinating that the definition 1 + 1 = 2 is unaffected by space and time, and is true whether this universe exists or not. At any time in any universe someone may discover this truth and unleash mathematics on her world.

Ron

Locked